Why Egypt and Saudi Arabia Withdrew from the UN General Assembly: A Turning Point in Middle Eastern Politics
The unexpected decision by Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to cancel their attendance at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York has raised pressing questions about shifting dynamics in the Middle East. At a time when global attention is focused on the Gaza war, Palestinian statehood, and Israel’s West Bank policies, their absence signals more than diplomatic inconvenience—it may reflect deep political calculations with far-reaching consequences.
The Significance of the UN General Assembly
The UN General Assembly serves as a critical stage for international diplomacy, particularly for debates surrounding Palestine, Israel, and regional security. This year’s session was spearheaded by Saudi Arabia and France, which lobbied for global recognition of Palestinian statehood. Riyadh, in particular, played a central role in pushing European and international powers to consider a new framework for Palestinian sovereignty.
For this reason, the withdrawal of both Egypt and Saudi Arabia—two of the region’s most influential states—from an event they helped to initiate raises questions about hidden pressures and behind-the-scenes negotiations.
Egypt’s Strategic Calculation
El-Sisi’s Avoidance of Direct Confrontation
For Egypt, the decision to skip the UNGA appears tied to President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi’s longstanding policy of avoiding direct confrontation with Donald Trump. While Trump has openly supported Israel’s military actions and remains close to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, El-Sisi has calculated that any engagement with Trump risks more political losses than gains.
Egypt’s Position on Gaza
Cairo continues to act as a mediator in the Gaza conflict, balancing relations with both Washington and regional powers such as Qatar and Turkey. However, Egypt is reluctant to be seen as endorsing controversial American proposals, particularly those linked to forced displacement of Palestinians—a scenario Egyptian officials categorically reject.
Saudi Arabia’s Surprising Withdrawal
Why Mohammed bin Salman’s Absence Matters
While Egypt’s absence could be anticipated, Saudi Arabia’s withdrawal was shocking. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) has met Trump several times in the past and was expected to use the UNGA to showcase Saudi Arabia’s diplomatic influence, especially after its active role in promoting recognition of Palestine.
Intelligence Reports Reveal Hidden Motives
According to intelligence sources cited by Axios and Tactical Report, the real reason behind MBS’s absence lies in the potential Trump-led initiative to discuss controversial solutions to end the Gaza war—including mass displacement of Palestinians and tacit approval for West Bank annexation. Attending such a meeting could have trapped Saudi Arabia in a politically toxic agreement.
Trump’s High-Stakes Invitation
The Select Arab Leaders
Reports confirm that Trump invited a select group of Arab leaders—including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, the UAE, and Turkey—for a private meeting on the sidelines of the UNGA. The agenda: crafting a framework for ending the Gaza war before Netanyahu’s White House visit on September 29.
The Risks of Participation
While the meeting was framed as a peace initiative, Arab leaders feared that Trump would push for Palestinian resettlement outside Gaza and the West Bank. Such proposals not only violate international law but also contradict the stated policies of both Cairo and Riyadh.
By refusing to attend, Egypt and Saudi Arabia effectively denied Trump the political legitimacy he sought.
Netanyahu’s Strategy: Annexation of the West Bank
Israeli Cabinet Discussions
According to Israeli outlets like The Jerusalem Post and Times of Israel, Netanyahu’s cabinet has openly discussed steps toward annexing parts of the West Bank. This move, presented as a response to European recognition of a Palestinian state, would dramatically escalate tensions.
Saudi Arabia’s Red Line
Saudi Arabia has already conveyed a strong warning: any annexation of the West Bank would be a “red line.” Unlike the UAE, which previously threatened only to downgrade relations, Riyadh is reportedly prepared to adopt harsher measures—including closing Saudi airspace to Israeli flights, halting normalization talks, and freezing the Abraham Accords momentum.
The Role of Europe: Recognition of Palestinian Statehood
Breaking a Western Red Line
European countries including France, the UK, Canada, Australia, and Portugal have recently moved toward recognizing Palestinian statehood. This represents a major rupture in Western unity, as these states are traditionally among Washington’s closest allies.
Potential Sanctions on Israel
European officials have hinted that if Israel proceeds with annexation, the next step could be economic sanctions—a scenario that would isolate Israel internationally while putting additional pressure on Washington to intervene.
Saudi Arabia’s Energy Strategy: Bypassing Israel
A Strategic Pivot
Parallel to its political stance, Saudi Arabia is reshaping its energy export strategy to reduce reliance on Israel or U.S.-backed corridors. According to Tactical Report, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has instructed Saudi Aramco and the Public Investment Fund (PIF) to develop four alternative routes for oil, gas, and hydrogen exports.
The Four Proposed Corridors
-
The Red Sea Corridor – A “Energy Bridge” pipeline connecting Saudi Arabia’s eastern oil fields to the Red Sea and onward through the Suez Canal to Turkey and Europe.
-
The Jordan-Egypt Corridor – A line passing through Aqaba and Sinai, linking to Egyptian ports such as Damietta before reaching Europe.
-
The Iraq Corridor – Extending pipelines from Basra through Jordan to the Red Sea, offering a regional energy hub.
-
The Oman Corridor – Linking Saudi exports to Omani ports for shipments to India and East Africa.
Strategic Implications
By investing in these routes, Saudi Arabia effectively removes Israel from its future energy map, denying it potential economic leverage. The decision also strengthens Saudi partnerships with Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, and Oman—while reducing the likelihood of Saudi-Israeli normalization.
Arab Reactions and the Prospect of Escalation
Toward an Arab-European Convergence
With Europe breaking ranks to recognize Palestine, Arab states now see an opportunity to align their diplomacy with European pressure on Israel. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other Arab governments may use this momentum to coordinate political and economic measures against annexation.
Saudi Arabia’s Position on Normalization
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has already suspended all talks on normalization with Israel. Reports indicate that King Salman himself intervened to halt discussions on a proposed Israel-Saudi energy corridor. Instead, Riyadh is prioritizing alternative partnerships, viewing the economic cost as a worthwhile trade-off for strategic independence.
A Defining Moment in Middle Eastern Diplomacy
The decision by Egypt and Saudi Arabia to withdraw from the UN General Assembly was not a matter of scheduling—it was a calculated political signal. By refusing to participate in Trump’s private talks and distancing themselves from risky proposals, Cairo and Riyadh reaffirmed their commitment to Palestinian statehood and regional stability.
At the same time, Saudi Arabia’s energy pivot underscores a long-term strategy: building corridors that strengthen Arab alliances while bypassing Israel entirely. Combined with European recognition of Palestine and the threat of sanctions, the region may be entering a new phase where Arab and European policies converge to challenge Israeli expansionism.
The coming weeks—particularly Netanyahu’s September 29 visit to the White House—will determine whether this moment marks the beginning of a new Arab-European coalition on the Palestinian issue, or whether it will escalate into a deeper confrontation with Israel and the United States.
Comments
Post a Comment