Nearly a decade ago – on 22 June 2016, to be precise – I published an article in this space entitled “Has ‘Godot’ Finally Arrived?” It argued that the Arabs must prepare to resolve the major dilemmas in this region, because it was pointless to wait for Godot. I was referring, of course, to the iconic work of world literature – Samuel Beckett’s play Waiting for Godot, first performed in 1953—which has since been subjected to diverse interpretations and analyses by various intellectual and philosophical schools. The play revolves around two characters waiting someone named Godot, who never arrives.
Human beings forever seem to wait for something missing. That something’s persistent absence turns the search inward to the self – an entity that is no less mysterious. There is always something missing that humans await, but the persistent absence shifts the search inward to the self – an entity as mysterious, impenetrable and complex as the external world.
Yet, even knowing who is coming will not make things easier. The Swiss playwright Friedrich Dürrenmatt opens his 1956 play, The Visit, not with an awaited visitor, but with her arrival: a wealthy old woman returns to the now destitute town of Güllen (in a previous article, I noted how some critics saw the visitor as a metaphor for the US). Thus, the dilemma is no closer to a solution nor is it less complicated with the presence of the visitor than with their absence. This should compel us to reexamine the aphorism of the tenth century Sufi scholar: “A presence is only fully realisable after its absence.”
The continuing confusion in our region over which is more disastrous – the US’s presence or absence here – underscores how reliance on external actors, whether they arrive or are being awaited, comes at a high price.
The Middle East and, above all, the Arab region at its core has sustained a considerable political and economic toll while struggling to find solutions to the ongoing tragedy, which has currently reached the point where Israel has openly declared its intent to expand its direct occupation of Gaza. Israel has tossed the once familiar formulas of “land for peace” and even “peace for peace” out of the window. Now it embraces the formula, directed against the Palestinian people: “No starvation in exchange for survival anywhere but on your own land.” It is a formula that signals nothing but continued confrontation with the very real possibility of drawing in Iran, Turkey, and the region’s strategic waterways.
Nevertheless, for various reasons, President Donald Trump on his visit to Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar is bringing about another equation: peace in exchange for investment in the US. Trump first hinted at this after the announcement of his forthcoming trip when, true to form, he issued a bold and sweeping statement about a “great” and “very positive” initiative. Such hyperbole is good for drawing the attention of the media, where speculation thrives. But for the purpose of political analysis, more solid and credible information is needed. This emerged when Oman announced that the US and the Houthis in Yemen had reached a ceasefire agreement. Israel was conspicuously absent from that announcement.
Meanwhile, the fact that Oman took on the role of announcing the agreement seemed intended to let each party present the news in its own way. Trump, during a meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, claimed the Houthis had “surrendered” and would no longer attack US or international commercial ships. The Houthis confirmed this, while continuing to target Israeli vessels.
That was the first in a series of announcements paving the way for Trump’s “positive initiative.” Iran then welcomed the ceasefire, after which Tehran and Washington jointly announced that their negotiations were also progressing positively, with Washington adding that an agreement preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons would pave the way to integrating Iran into the global economy – i.e., lifting economic sanctions. The fact is that Trump had always exaggerated the issue of Iran’s nuclear weapons programme, despite Iran’s repeated claims that it seeks only peaceful nuclear energy, not weapons. It appears, therefore, that calm is returning to the Iranian front, with Israel again noticeable for its absence.
A third Israeli absence occurred in connection with reports of a possible truce in Gaza involving the exchange of hostages and detainees. Another American initiative was floated featuring an American governor for Gaza and a Palestinian government of technocrats. Neither Hamas nor the Palestinian Authority would take part, but some other countries might be involved in managing the enclave. Israel, as might be expected, had a fit, insisting it would remain in the parts of reoccupied Gaza it currently controls, while continuing to “encourage” the Palestinians to leave their land. The picture seems to be coming together.
It looks like this time Godot has arrived with something that might make a difference.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 15 May, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: