It’s simply not true that authoritarian rule in the Arab world is necessary to maintain peace with Israel.
Iran’s large drone and missile attack on Israel on 15 April was as shocking as it was unprecedented. But almost as noteworthy a development was a certain neighbor of Israel rushing to the latter’s defense: the Kingdom of Jordan, an Arab state with millions of Palestinian-origin citizens, helped shoot down Iranian drones and missiles over its airspace. Could Israel celebrate that its Arab neighbor was an ally against Iran?
Not quite. Though Jordan has had diplomatic relations with Israel since 1994, officials in Amman were adamant that they had shot down the Iranian projectiles to protect themselves, not to help Israel. The government there knew that the optics of helping Israel after months of its brutal war on Gaza wouldn’t go down so well with Jordanians.
This episode underscores a deeper contradiction in the so-called “democracy dilemma” often invoked in the Arab world, particularly in discussions about Israel. The argument suggests that authoritarian rule is necessary to ensure peace with Israel, that stable, non-democratic regimes are the key to keeping relations between Arab states and Israel cordial. This view, however, fails to account for the complexity of regional politics and the ability of Arab governments to act in their own national interests, independent of whether they are authoritarian or democratic.
Jordan’s actions highlight that cooperation between Arab states and Israel does not always follow the logic of authoritarian rule. Despite being an autocratic state, Jordan’s leadership recognized the need to act pragmatically to protect its own sovereignty, even when this entailed engaging with Israel on a limited basis. Similarly, other Arab countries, including those with authoritarian regimes, have acted in ways that prioritize national security concerns, rather than blindly following a peace agreement with Israel based solely on political ideology.
The idea that authoritarian regimes are necessary to ensure peace with Israel is also misguided because it assumes that democracy in the Arab world would lead to unrelenting hostility towards Israel. Yet, the dynamics between governments and their people are not so straightforward. There is a nuanced relationship between the Arab public’s views on Israel and their governments’ foreign policies. While popular sentiment may be critical of Israel, this does not necessarily translate into a desire for war or destabilization. Many Arab citizens recognize the importance of pragmatic diplomacy and regional stability.
Moreover, as Arab countries evolve and open up politically, such as in the case of the UAE and Bahrain, who signed the Abraham Accords, it becomes clearer that the path to peace with Israel is not inherently tied to the type of political system in place. Diplomatic normalization can, in fact, occur in countries that are not strictly authoritarian, and this offers an important shift away from the outdated “democracy dilemma” narrative.
The argument that authoritarianism is required to secure peace with Israel oversimplifies the intricate geopolitics of the Middle East. The truth is, peace between Israel and Arab states is more likely driven by shared interests, security concerns, and regional dynamics, rather than the form of government. The evolving relationships between Arab states and Israel indicate that dialogue and cooperation can happen in diverse political systems, rendering the so-called “democracy dilemma” a fallacy.