Who Signed The Peace Agreement With Israel
WASHINGTON – Israel and two Arab nations signed agreements at the White House on Tuesday to normalize relations, a step toward a reorientation of the Middle East, but one that does not address the future of the Palestinians. With the agreement of the United Arab Emirates, Israel opens a new provisional chapter with the Gulf Arabs Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei accused the United Arab Emirates on 1 September of betraying the Islamic world, Arab countries and Palestine. Khamenei said normalization will only be temporary, but the UAE will have to endure forever the shame of the agreement. He accused her of working with Israel and Kushner against the interests of the Muslim world, in the hope that the country would soon return for what he did.  The News International reported that Pakistan, after consultation and consideration of the pros and cons of the evolution of Pakistan`s national interests, would take a position on the agreement on Israel and the United Arab Emirates. Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi avoided speaking on the sensitive issue.  Kuwait`s long-standing position on this issue was taken into account after the announcement.  On the day of the announcement of seven movements in the Assembly, composed of liberals, Shiites, Islamists and Arabs, among other blocs that condemned the treaty, a joint statement was made.  41 deputies (out of 50) signed a letter against standardization on the day of the reintroduction of Parliament, and a stand was held in front of the Palestinian Embassy in Kuwait.
 Several ong have also made similar statements.  Joe Biden, Trump`s opponent in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, praised the agreement, building on “the efforts of several governments to promote greater Arab-Israeli openness, including the Obama-Biden administration`s efforts to build on the Arab peace initiative.”  Bahrain`s achievements in its treaty are noticeable, as the Shah`s regime considered Bahrain to be part of Iranian territory until 1969. Despite bahrain`s Sunni king, a large part of the population – the anti-monarchist Shiites – preferred to support Iran instead. So this is clearly a matter of national security. The opposition of the Palestinian leadership to the measures of the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, as well as the indiscriminate hatred they have provoked in the Persian Gulf, simply shows how the traditional Palestinian attitude – all or nothing – still blocks any progress. That is why, in 2000, 2001 and 2008, the Palestinians rejected Israel`s offer to create a state that would have met almost all of their demands. In addition, the Palestinians are concerned that Bahrain has signed the treaty with Israel, which is a clear sign of The Agreement of Saudi Arabia, while the Saudis have so far supported the Palestinians.
They feel betrayed by everyone. It is common knowledge that even if a peace agreement with Israel is not concluded under the current Saudi king, one does not take into account under the next, if he is [the current crown prince] Mohammed bin Salman. A spokeswoman for the European Commission said the agreement was important to both Israel and the United Arab Emirates, as well as ensuring their stability. Meanwhile, Italy hoped that peace and stability would take place in the Middle East. He also said that Israel`s suspension of the annexation of part of the West Bank was positive and hoped that Israel would resume talks with the Palestinians for a two-state solution.  Spain expressed itself in the same way and welcomed the agreement.  The government of the Libyan national agreement condemned the agreement as an “unsurprising betrayal of the United Arab Emirates”.  Sudanese Foreign Ministry spokesman Haidar Sadig was fired for making comments of himself calling the agreement a “courageous and courageous gesture,” while claiming that there were secret contacts between Sudan and Israel.  Sudanese Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok told Pompeo on 25 August that his transitional government had “no mandate” to establish relations with Israel and that this could not be decided until after the election of a democratic government.