"The Golden Age of the Middle East or a Temporary Respite from the War Thunder"
"The Golden Age of the Middle East or a Temporary Respite from the War Thunder"
What is the weight of resilience that characterizes the American President's peace project?
By Dimitris Papadogiannis, student of Political Science & Public Administration, NKUA
A few days ago, the eyes of the international community turned to the Middle East, plagued by the two-year war, as for the first time, at least seemingly, attempts were made for a peaceful resolution of the equation, with duration. This war was the longest-running conflict between the Israeli state and the Palestinian organization Hamas, leading to an unimaginable humanitarian crisis and infrastructure destruction on the Palestinian side and to partial social fatigue on the Israeli side, in connection with the anxiety over the fate of the hostages, whom Hamas used as a negotiating lever.
Historically, we know that the Middle East has been a bone of contention between superpowers and local actors, who were sometimes used as warring proxies for powerful players and, under other circumstances, clashed with each other. Even if we exclude current events from our comments, we understand that stable peace attempts in this region can very easily and quickly become fruitless. The parameters for the above-mentioned vary and we will present them in detail below. US President Donald Trump may have announced from the podium of the Knesset (Israeli parliament) that the guns have fallen silent, that a new dawn is dawning for this deeply wounded geographical region, but because international relations in reality do not consist exclusively of communicative theatrics, but at their core hide a cold and emotionless shell, we are forced to ask realistic questions about the course of events.
First, a crucial parameter is the ethnic hatred that has always flourished between Arabs and Jews in the region of Palestine, which intensified after the events of 7th October and the subsequent leveling of Gaza. The liberal view of international science prevailing in the post-Cold War era sees as negligible or easily dismissed the emotional rivalries between two ethnicities. However, under a strictly realistic reading of the present circumstances, the factor of “emotion” cannot be left untouched by the object of our study, while we maintain evaluative neutrality.
Moving forward with our analysis, we must carefully examine some of the tall letters, which sometimes go unnoticed behind the grandiose promises of the signatures and the inflated optimistic messages from the world news agencies. One of the first indicative elements of the fragility of the peace plan can be considered the choice of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair as caretaker and head of a transitional authority. He himself is a well-known supporter of the neo-interventionist strategy and the indications of exercising domestic policy on foreign soil. The person in question is largely responsible for the destabilization of the Middle East, mainly with the stance he adopted in the war against Iraq in 2003. The Palestinians are unlikely to lightly accept the technocratic government being prepared by the US and Israel in post-war Gaza, should Blair figure at its top.
We then identify other thorns in the peace agreement texts. A necessary condition for achieving this has been defined as the disarmament of the armed Palestinian factions, with the consequent demilitarization of Gaza, with the latter, however, refusing, for the time being, to hand over their weapons, despite the release of the hostages.
In addition, there are reports of civil strife within the territories controlled by Palestinian communities and of acts of violence. The above incidents could immediately give Israel the pretext to intervene, as it has clearly warned in the event of violations of the points of the ceasefire agreement. Trump is also moving along the same wavelength, having explicitly stated that if Hamas persists in its refusal, he will proceed with its forcible disarmament and automatically initiate a new cycle of conflict escalation.
Furthermore, the internal contradiction observed in the profile of the guarantor powers is dramatically remarkable. Specifically, the role of guarantor has been assumed by the USA, Qatar, Egypt and Turkey, which countries also signed the ceasefire agreement. The contradictory point here, however, is that some of the protagonists of the peace mediation maintain a rivalry among themselves, as well as a strongly denunciatory stance towards Israel. Additionally, their rhetoric regarding the resolution of the issue is also characterized by a gap in positions. Consequently, the risk of provoking a crisis between one of the guarantors and the state of Israel is building, as well as a strong disagreement between them, resulting in the beginning of a new round of diplomatic, if not military, tension in the already delicate balance that currently prevails. A striking example of such an outcome is Cyprus during the Cold War, where there was a conflict between the guarantors of its national integrity.
Last but not least, the fact that the Israelis have been bombing Lebanese territory for several days now, an action that does not particularly help to maintain peace, especially if the situation derails and gives its enemies a communication reason to accuse it of a new escalation. Also, in the wake of these significant developments, the refusal of the Nobel Peace Prize to be awarded to Donald Trump by the organization that awards the prizes should not go unnoticed. The fact that it was not awarded to him but to the leader of the Venezuelan opposition, evaluating her work as more important, demonstrates that the international establishment still suffers from a form of prejudice against the person of the American President, as well as the new political agenda that he is trying to introduce for domestic and international issues.
In conclusion, the predictions for the outcome of events in the Middle East are pessimistic and the horizon is uncertain and unstable, based on our analysis and other assessments alike. It would still be premature to attempt a certain prediction about the shape of the Middle East of tomorrow.
Sources: