Though ordinary Arabs may be pro-Palestine, this sentiment is not necessarily shared by the media or government.

An Italian friend and media consultant returned recently from a pan-Arab news broadcaster’s conference in Tunis with some sobering insights. The conference included news reporters and talk show hosts from Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, two Arab Emirates, and of course Tunisia. The scope of the meeting and its seminars was to help guide Arab television networks in their quest for objective reporting as well as studying means to offset the incredible inroads made by alternative news outlets in the ever-expanding world of social media.

My friend fully expected the conference would be in one way or another dominated by the war in Gaza and the plight of displaced Palestinians.

That was not the case.

On the contrary, he said, many of the participants he talked to expressed dismay that the media risked misrepresenting long-term Arab goals, which included amicable relations with Israel and its allies, the United States and most, if not all, European states.

Many of the participants he talked to expressed dismay that the media risked misrepresenting long-term Arab goals, which included amicable relations with Israel and its allies.

Though most were openly sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians, few had any defense to offer for the provocative actions of Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. You reap what you sow, one Moroccan broadcaster told my friend, unashamed of his simplistic appr0ach.

Trying to get to the core of this unusually strong sentiment, which ran counterclockwise to the recent Western dismay regarding Israel’s indifference to Palestinian life, my friend came gradually to “get” what those gathered in Tunis had in mind. For my friend, the obviousness of it had more in common with Wall Street than Gaza City.

In a word, the reason for the “enough, already” attitude was much about commerce, and its lynchpin, money.

Since the angry days of last century loathing for Israel, in which Libya, Syria, Egypt, Jordan and other states had as part of their foreign policy the ostracizing of Israel, not only had Israel’s military potency grown but so had its role as a vast Middle Eastern switching station. Israel was not only trading more avidly with its former Arab foes but also sharing technology, becoming a sort of Silicon Valley East. Companies based in Arab nations now had Israeli branches, and vice versa, fostering commerce and the flow of capital. Israeli businessmen and women had become very active in the Emirates. Religious divisions had been set aside to foster the growth of shared companies and small corporations.

Egypt, facing severe economic hardships, and eager for Israeli capital, had no interest in lighting the Gaza fuse – even though the Strip had once been its property.

In a nutshell, almost no one my friend met at the conference had any desire that Hamas be spared or spoke out in defense of the group. Hamas was no more and no less than a terrorist organization that had forced Israel’s hand, with dire consequences for residents of Gaza.

The views startled but ultimately did not surprise my friend, since Italy has long been a cradle of commerce and cash. Still, it was, he admitted, odd at the very least to hear this sort of detachment from the woes of Palestine coming from an Arab audience, all the more so because most hoped Israel would soon be done with its military objectives so the region could return to its incipient cash-and-carry culture.

In a word, the reason for the “enough, already” attitude was much about commerce, and its lynchpin, money.

It was American President Calvin Coolidge who in the flush 1920s averred that big business was America’s business. That view appeared to be shared by the Tunis majority, eager to keep doors with Israel as wide open as possible.

Perhaps, in fact, an all-out victory by Israel in Gaza would in part settle the Palestinian question since cries for statehood would be muted, at least for a time, if Israel had full control of Gaza, humbling any returning refugees and making the rebuilding of Hamas or anything similar a deeply difficult project.

The problem with all this, my friend told me, was that while most beaten down Palestinians might be compliant, some would not hew to this new reality – ever. What then?

But this was not an issue for the Arabs in Tunis. Hamas might be back in some form but the newer Greater Israel would be in far better shape to keep the peace and secure its new borders.

Any qualms Arabs in the region had about this newer Israel would be offset by the region’s dependence on and wish to deepen commercial ties.

How the world changes! exclaimed my friend. The legacy of wars of 1948, 1973, and 1982, when Israel had invaded Lebanon, had lost all their significance in a capitalist century in which the prospect of thriving stock markets held sway above all else.

And, concluded my friend, if there was one global state that understood the ways and means of money, it was the one whose people were most persecuted for that understanding.

Goodbye to all that, said Tunis. Now it was Israel’s turn.

 – Editor’s note: The pan-Arab media conference described above took place weeks before intensified global pressure on Israel to declare a ceasefire. Interestingly, however, American, European, and United Nations pressure on Israel in that regard has been more pointed than that of many Arab states.