Neutrality as a Discursive Strategy: Divergent Arab Policies During the Gaza War

Neutrality as a Discursive Strategy: Divergent Arab Policies During the Gaza War

By: Aya Rashwan
Researcher in International Relations and Middle East Affairs

Since the outbreak of the war on Gaza in October 2023, an apparent paradox has emerged within the Arab political landscape: a sharp divergence in policies coupled with a convergence in rhetoric. Arab government statements have consistently featured terms such as "restraint," "balance," "mediation," and "positive neutrality," despite these terms describing policies that are, at times, contradictory. How have governments, with positions ranging from normalization to mediation and diplomatic condemnation, managed to utilize the same language? And what does this rhetorical usage reveal about decision making mechanisms in the region?
This paper posits that the concept of "neutrality" has undergone a process of redefinition within Arab political discourse, shifting from a technical legal term to a discursive strategy that serves multiple political -function-s. By analyzing the positions of five pivotal Arab states: Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Algeria. This paper examines the interplay between the rhetoric of neutrality and actual practice, and its implications for regime legitimacy and the future of the Palestinian issue.

From Legal Neutrality to Political Discourse

In traditional international law, neutrality is a legal regime imposing specific obligations on a state: refraining from providing military assistance to any party, treating all belligerents equally, and prohibiting the use of its territory for military purposes. This concept shifted following the post World War II development of international law. The UN Charter imposed a duty to distinguish between aggressor and victim, and the Geneva Conventions obliged states to "ensure respect" for international humanitarian law, thereby narrowing the margin for "equidistance" from all parties.
In political discourse, however, the term "neutrality" has been utilized differently during the Gaza war. Rather than denoting a specific legal status, it has become a linguistic umbrella covering disparate policies and performing multiple -function-s: providing a veneer of legality, placating domestic public opinion, and reassuring international allies. This paper analyzes this transformation, focusing on these five states.

Five States, Five Discursive Strategies
Egypt: Neutrality as Risk Management

Egypt presents a complex case, balancing a peace treaty with Israel, a -dir-ect border with the Gaza Strip, and a role as a primary mediator in ceasefire negotiations. Cairo’s rhetoric has relied on "realism," "wisdom," and "protecting national interests," justifying its policies, particularly the management of the Rafah crossing, through three arguments: rejecting the displacement of Palestinians into Sinai, holding Israel responsible for aid delays, and warning against the permanent detachment of Gaza from the West Bank.
However, analysis reveals a gap between rhetoric and practice. The 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty does not obligate Egypt to remain neutral in Israel s conflicts with third parties, nor does it prohibit the provision of humanitarian´-or-political support to Palestinians. Nevertheless, Egyptian authorities have adopted an expansive interpretation of their treaty obligations, reflected in stringent restrictions on the movement of people and aid. International reports, including those by Human Rights Watch, have noted that these restrictions exacerbated the humanitarian crisis, while acknowledging that primary responsibility rests with Israel as the occupying power. Furthermore, Arab Barometer polls indicate that 95 percent of Egyptians oppose normalization with Israel, a gap that underscores the tension between the "performance legitimacy" provided by official policy and the "rhetorical legitimacy" state media attempts to construct.
Jordan: Public Condemnation Amidst Security Cooperation
Jordan offers a different model. It recalled its ambassador from Tel Aviv, participated in airdrops of aid, and adopted relatively sharp diplomatic rhetoric. Simultaneously, it has maintained the 1994 peace treaty and continued security coordination with Israel.

This duality is explained by the composition of Jordanian society, where citizens of Palestinian descent constitute a significant portion of the population, intensifying pressure for a more resolute stance. Concurrently, reliance on U.S. aid, shared borders, and security ties impose constraints on the margin of maneuver. Official Jordanian discourse has navigated this equation by emphasizing "wisdom" and "balance," avoiding explicit use of the word "neutrality," while performing its discursive -function-: managing the contradiction between domestic and external pressures.

Qatar: Mediation as Active Neutrality
Qatar represents a distinctive case of "active neutrality." Despite the absence of formal diplomatic relations with Israel, Doha has played a pivotal role in ceasefire and hostage release negotiations, leveraging its hosting of a Hamas political office, with U.S. consent, and its close ties with Washington.
Doha has described its role as "humanitarian mediation" and "balanced diplomatic efforts," a narrative that allowed it to maintain its position as a mediator without bearing the cost of complete alignment. Yet, this position has raised questions regarding its consistency with legal neutrality, given that Qatar has been, in practice, deeply involved in managing the conflict. This reveals that "neutrality" in Qatari discourse is a tool to justify a political role that bridges relations with the West and its engagement with Hamas.د
Saudi Arabia: Strategic Balancing and Delayed Resolution
Saudi Arabia has not explicitly used the rhetoric of "neutrality," yet its policy has exhibited many of its features. Riyadh halted the U.S. brokered normalization negotiations with Israel, participated in the joint Arab Islamic summit, and issued statements condemning civilian casualties. It has refrained from escalatory steps, focusing on calling for a ceasefire and the resumption of a two-state solution path.
The Saudi position can be understood as a broader strategic repositioning: preserving the relationship with the United States and avoiding jeopardizing future normalization, while responding to regional pressure. Thus, while the word "neutrality" is absent, the actual policy bears hallmarks of the "political cost management" that characterized other cases.

Algeria: Principled Stance and the Absence of Neutrality Rhetoric
Algeria constitutes an exception, having eschewed the rhetoric of "neutrality." Since the start of the war, Algeria has adopted a clear position based on explicit condemnation of Israeli aggression, demanding an immediate ceasefire, and providing political and legal support to the Palestinians. Practically, Algeria introduced a draft resolution for a ceasefire in the UN Security Council in October 2023, vetoed by the United States. Furthermore, Algeria expressed support for South Africa’s case before the ICJ and called for the activation of international accountability mechanisms.
Yet, this principled clarity faced structural constraints. Algeria has no diplomatic relations with Israel, meaning there are no -dir-ect channels of communication that could be leveraged for mediation. Its diplomatic weight in the Security Council is-limit-ed by its non permanent status. Additionally, its geographic distance from the theater of operations-limit-s the -dir-ect influence available to neighboring states.
The Algerian case presents a counter model: while other Arab states used the rhetoric of "neutrality" to manage the costs of their policies, this rhetoric was absent from the Algerian position. Nevetheless, this clarity has not necessarily translated into greater actual influence, raising questions about the effectiveness of principled stances in the absence of practical leverage.

Neutrality as a Discursive Strategy: Three Political -function-s
Across these five cases, three primary -function-s of this rhetoric can be observed:
• Legitimizing Political Decisions: Describing a policy as "positive neutrality" grants it an appearance of consistency with international law, even if it does not meet legal criteria.
• Placating Domestic Public Opinion: In societies where polling shows sympathy for Palestinians, this rhetoric -function-s as "expectation management," tempering popular criticism.
• Reassuring International Allies: Emphasizing "balance" and "restraint" signals to Western capitals that the state will not take escalatory steps that threaten regional stability´-or-Western interests.

Structural Constraints: Were the Options Narrower than They Appear?
These policies cannot be understood in isolation from structural constraints. The states share challenges: dependence on U.S. aid, internal security concerns, and the lack of a unified Arab strategy. For Egypt and Jordan specifically, there are added fears regarding displacement and peace treaty obligations.
However, while these constraints explain the policies, they do not justify them from the perspective of international law. The ICJ has affirmed that security concerns do not justify violating fundamental obligations under international humanitarian law. There were less restrictive measures that could have achieved a greater balance between sovereign considerations and humanitarian obligations, such as Less restrictive measures could have achieved a better balance between considerations of sovereignty and humanitarian obligations. These included opening border crossings for humanitarian cases under international supervision without waiting for Israeli approval, engaging more actively with international legal mechanisms,´-or-activating economic boycott measures consistent with international legal obligations.
The central question therefore remains: did these governments genuinely exhaust all available options before arriving at their current policies?´-or-did the discourse of neutrality provide political cover for declining to pursue alternatives that would have been more consistent with international law?
.Implications for Legitimacy and Regional Policy
Public opinion polls indicate a wide chasm between official and popular positions in the Arab world, reflecting a crisis of trust between governments and the governed. In non democratic regimes, this may contribute to the long-term erosion of regime legitimacy.
Regarding the Palestinian issue, the lack of a unified Arab strategy weakens the Palestinian negotiating position and deepens internal division. Simultaneously, the changing international legal environment, notably the ICJ’s January 2024 order, imposes obligations on states to "prevent" genocide, rendering "passive neutrality" a stance fraught with future legal consequences.

Policy Recommendations
In light of this analysis, the following recommendations are proposed:
• Align Rhetoric with Practice: Governments should avoid using the term "neutrality" in contexts that do not meet its legal criteria, opting instead for precise language such as "restricted mediation"´-or-"humanitarian diplomacy."
• Explore Proportionate Humanitarian Measures: States can act within their sovereignty to facilitate aid under international supervision and leverage their diplomatic weight to strengthen international legal avenues.
• Engage more actively with international legal mechanisms: Rather than hesitation, Arab states could join international litigation related to genocide´-or-provide legal memoranda, taking a proactive role in shaping the international legal environment.
• Bridge the Legitimacy Gap through Domestic Reform: Regimes experiencing a deficit in "performance legitimacy" can compensate by expanding "procedural legitimacy" through domestic reforms that provide genuine channels for public expression.
• Build a More Cohesive Regional Framework: The Gaza war has highlighted the failure of individualistic policies. A regional framework should be based on adherence to international humanitarian law and human rights, rather than passive "neutrality."

Conclusion
The question today is not whether Arab governments were neutral, but rather how "neutrality" became a discursive strategy for managing political contradictions in wartime. Redefining legal concepts within political discourse is not merely a linguistic matter-;- it is an integral part of the policymaking process. As international legal obligations continue to evolve, Arab governments may find that the practice of invoking "neutrality" is increasingly incompatible with international legal expectations. Ultimately, the future credibility of Arab diplomacy may depend less on claims of neutrality than on the consistency between legal commitments, political practice, and public expectations.

Rate the article
Bad	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Very good
Result : 100%							Participated in the vote : 1