تسعى السردية الإسرائيلية جاهدةً إلى تفكيك مفهوم «الدولة العربية» بوصفه كيانًا سياسيًا يتمتّع بالسيادة والشرعية، مستندةً في ذلك إلى رؤية استشراقية تختزل التاريخ العربي والإسلامي في سلسلة من الصراعات والانقسامات. فالصهيونية، كأيديولوجيا استعمارية استيطانية، لا تتعامل مع الدول العربية ككيانات مستقلة بقدر ما تُصوِّرها كعقبة أمام «المشروع الحضاري اليهودي» في المنطقة. هذا التصوُّر ليس وليد اللحظة، بل هو نتاج تراكمي لسياسات استعمارية غربية وأكاديميات مُؤدلَجة عملت على تشكيل الوعي الغربي -والعالمي- حول الشرق الأوسط.
عملت الدراسات الاستشراقية على ترسيخ سياسة تفكيك الدولة العربية، ولم تكن كتابات برنارد لويس ومدرسته الفكرية سوى حلقة في سلسلة طويلة من الخطاب الاستشراقي الذي حوَّل «الدولة العربية» إلى نموذج هشّ، غير قادر على التوافق -حسب زعمهم- مع مفاهيم الحداثة والديمقراطية. فلويس، الذي وصفه المؤرخ الأمريكي جول بنين بأنه «أكثر المناصرين للصهيونية بلاغةً في الأوساط الأكاديمية»، لم يكتفِ بنقد تشكُّل الدول العربية، بل ساهم في تقديم إطار نظري يُبرر التدخل الغربي ويدعم الرواية الإسرائيلية التي تصوِّر المنطقة على أنها «فوضى عرقية ودينية» تحتاج إلى وصاية خارجية.
هذا الخطاب لم يقتصر على الأكاديميا، بل امتد إلى مراكز صنع القرار. فكما أشاد نائب الرئيس الأمريكي ديك تشيني بـ«حكمة لويس»، كانت توصياته حول «إعادة تشكيل الشرق الأوسط» تُترجم إلى سياسات فعلية، بدءًا من دعم الأنظمة التابعة وصولًا إلى تبرير الاحتلالات. وهنا تكمن المفارقة: فبينما تُصوَّر الدولة العربية على أنها كيان مصطنع، تُقدَّم إسرائيل -على الرغم من طابعها الاستيطاني- كدولة «طبيعية» و«شرعية» في المنطقة!
صراع الوجود وليس الحدود
إننا أمام صراع أبعد بكثير من صراع الحدود والتهجير؛ فالعالم العربي يواجه صراعًا على الوجود وليس على الجغرافيا فقط. إن الصراع بين إسرائيل والدول العربية ليس مجرد نزاع على الأرض، بل هو صراع بين سرديتين: واحدة تسعى إلى تثبيت شرعية كيان استعماري، وأخرى تحاول الدفاع عن وجودها وهويتها. والسؤال الذي يفرض نفسه اليوم هو: هل يمكن للعالم العربي أن ينتج سرديته الخاصة، بعيدًا عن التأطير الاستشراقي، أم أن الغرب -بآلياته الثقافية والسياسية- سيظلّ الطرف الأقوى في حرب الروايات هذه؟
الجواب قد يكمن في مدى قدرة النخب العربية والإعلام والمؤسسات الحكومية والجامعات على توحيد الخطاب السياسي والثقافي، واستعادة المبادرة في تعريف الذات قبل أن يفرض الآخر تعريفاته عليها. فالدولة العربية، بكل تعقيداتها، ليست مجرد «فكرة استعمارية» كما يُروَّج، بل هي إرث تاريخي واجتماعي يستحق الدفاع عنه، ليس بالخطاب الشعبوي، بل بالمشاريع الواقعية التي تعيد الاعتبار لسيادة الدولة ومفهومها، بعيدًا عن السردية الصهيونية.
تابع قناة عكاظ على الواتساب
The Israeli narrative strives hard to dismantle the concept of the "Arab state" as a political entity that enjoys sovereignty and legitimacy, relying on an Orientalist vision that reduces Arab and Islamic history to a series of conflicts and divisions. Zionism, as a colonial settler ideology, does not treat Arab states as independent entities but rather depicts them as obstacles to the "Jewish civilizational project" in the region. This perception is not a recent development; it is the cumulative result of Western colonial policies and ideologically driven academies that have shaped Western—and global—awareness of the Middle East.
Orientalist studies have worked to entrench the policy of dismantling the Arab state, and the writings of Bernard Lewis and his intellectual school were merely a link in a long chain of Orientalist discourse that transformed the "Arab state" into a fragile model, allegedly incapable of reconciling with the concepts of modernity and democracy. Lewis, whom American historian Jules Benjamin described as "the most eloquent advocate of Zionism in academic circles," did not limit himself to critiquing the formation of Arab states; he also contributed to providing a theoretical framework that justifies Western intervention and supports the Israeli narrative that portrays the region as "an ethnic and religious chaos" in need of external guardianship.
This discourse was not confined to academia but extended to decision-making centers. Just as U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney praised "Lewis's wisdom," his recommendations on "restructuring the Middle East" were translated into actual policies, ranging from supporting client regimes to justifying occupations. Here lies the paradox: while the Arab state is depicted as an artificial entity, Israel—despite its settler nature—is presented as a "natural" and "legitimate" state in the region!
The struggle for existence, not borders
We are facing a struggle that goes far beyond the conflict over borders and displacement; the Arab world is confronting a struggle for existence, not just geography. The conflict between Israel and Arab states is not merely a dispute over land, but a struggle between two narratives: one seeks to establish the legitimacy of a colonial entity, while the other attempts to defend its existence and identity. The question that arises today is: can the Arab world produce its own narrative, free from Orientalist framing, or will the West—with its cultural and political mechanisms—remain the stronger party in this war of narratives?
The answer may lie in the ability of Arab elites, media, government institutions, and universities to unify the political and cultural discourse, and to regain the initiative in defining themselves before the other imposes its definitions upon them. The Arab state, with all its complexities, is not merely a "colonial idea" as is often promoted; it is a historical and social legacy that deserves defense, not through populist rhetoric, but through realistic projects that restore the dignity of state sovereignty and its concept, away from the Zionist narrative.
Orientalist studies have worked to entrench the policy of dismantling the Arab state, and the writings of Bernard Lewis and his intellectual school were merely a link in a long chain of Orientalist discourse that transformed the "Arab state" into a fragile model, allegedly incapable of reconciling with the concepts of modernity and democracy. Lewis, whom American historian Jules Benjamin described as "the most eloquent advocate of Zionism in academic circles," did not limit himself to critiquing the formation of Arab states; he also contributed to providing a theoretical framework that justifies Western intervention and supports the Israeli narrative that portrays the region as "an ethnic and religious chaos" in need of external guardianship.
This discourse was not confined to academia but extended to decision-making centers. Just as U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney praised "Lewis's wisdom," his recommendations on "restructuring the Middle East" were translated into actual policies, ranging from supporting client regimes to justifying occupations. Here lies the paradox: while the Arab state is depicted as an artificial entity, Israel—despite its settler nature—is presented as a "natural" and "legitimate" state in the region!
The struggle for existence, not borders
We are facing a struggle that goes far beyond the conflict over borders and displacement; the Arab world is confronting a struggle for existence, not just geography. The conflict between Israel and Arab states is not merely a dispute over land, but a struggle between two narratives: one seeks to establish the legitimacy of a colonial entity, while the other attempts to defend its existence and identity. The question that arises today is: can the Arab world produce its own narrative, free from Orientalist framing, or will the West—with its cultural and political mechanisms—remain the stronger party in this war of narratives?
The answer may lie in the ability of Arab elites, media, government institutions, and universities to unify the political and cultural discourse, and to regain the initiative in defining themselves before the other imposes its definitions upon them. The Arab state, with all its complexities, is not merely a "colonial idea" as is often promoted; it is a historical and social legacy that deserves defense, not through populist rhetoric, but through realistic projects that restore the dignity of state sovereignty and its concept, away from the Zionist narrative.
