[SS from essay by Marc Lynch, Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at George Washington University and the author of America’s Middle East: The Ruination of a Region.]
Die regionale Ordnung im Nahen Osten entwickelt sich rasch weiter, aber nicht in der Weise, wie viele israelische und US-Beamte annehmen. Der Vorstoß von US-Präsident Donald Trump, den Krieg in Gaza zu beenden, führte zur Freilassung aller überlebenden israelischen Geiseln und zu einer Atempause von der unerbittlichen Tötung und Zerstörung, die das Gebiet so stark gezeichnet hat. Dieser Durchbruch weckte Hoffnungen auf einen umfassenderen regionalen Wandel, auch wenn die Zukunft nach dem ersten Waffenstillstand weiterhin äußerst ungewiss ist. Trump selbst spricht vom Beginn des Friedens im Nahen Osten. Wenn sein Abkommen die Vertreibung der Palästinenser aus Gaza und die Annexion des Westjordanlandes verhindert, könnten viele arabische Regierungen erneut daran interessiert sein, eine Normalisierung der Beziehungen zu Israel zu prüfen. Tatsächlich sahen die Israelis, wie arabische Führer die Hamas unter Druck setzten, Trumps Deal als Beweis dafür zu akzeptieren, dass die Normalisierung wieder auf dem Tisch liegen könnte.
Aber selbst wenn der Gaza-Deal gilt, ist dieser Moment US-israelisch Konvergenz wird nicht von Dauer sein. Der irrige Glaube Israels, das Land habe eine dauerhafte strategische Überlegenheit gegenüber seinen Gegnern erlangt, wird mit ziemlicher Sicherheit dazu führen, dass es zunehmend provokative Maßnahmen ergreift, die die Ziele des Weißen Hauses direkt in Frage stellen. Der Golf erklärt, dass Israel davon träumt, Zweifel an seiner Bereitschaft oder Fähigkeit, seine Kerninteressen zu schützen, in seinen Bann zu ziehen. Sie sind jetzt weniger besorgt über die Konfrontation mit dem Iran – und weniger davon überzeugt, dass der Weg nach Washington über Tel Aviv führt. Und Israel scheint das Ausmaß von Trumps Affinitäten zu den Golfstaaten nicht zu begreifen.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/middle-east/fantasy-new-middle-east
5 Kommentare
The Israeli government knows that this period of less worse relations with the Gulf states won’t last. It’s why they’re acting like they are – when a country is shown that every avenue for long-term solutions will fail, they’ll go for a short term regardless of the consequences approach because it’s the only one left.
If outside powers can’t pressure Hamas to negotiate and disarm – or at least stop attacking Israel, then Israel will do the only thing it can do. Keep on attacking and wearing down Hamas in the short term because not doing so – not fighting back in the vain hope that peace is possible will just create more problems.
Option 1, Israel doesn’t fight back, and Hamas gets stronger as no-one else is willing to put their money where their mouth is and stop Hamas with force.
Option 2, Israel does fight back and Hamas gets stronger due to its international propaganda machine and the media outlets and other groups unwilling to apply the same stands to Hamas that they do to Israel. At least in this version Hamas‘ military capabilities are worn down.
So if another country wants peace, they need to make option 1 more viable by doing enough to limit Hamas to the point that military conflict is the less effective option.
And isolating Israel just makes option 2 more likely – every one sided UN vote, every country giving legitimacy to Hamas by recognising Palestine without a formal and lasting peace agreement – showing that Hamas‘ tactics brings results just makes option 2 more likely. Strip a country of every option other than war that has been fighting for its existence since the day it’s born, and it isn’t a surprise said country uses conflict to solve its problems.
The UN had decades to try and limit Hezbollah. And it took Israeli air strikes and ground attacks to do what they couldn’t.
The IDF has done more to weaken Hamas than every country sanctioning them combined.
If you want Israel to not used armed force, it’s up to you to make diplomacy more worthwhile. Make it more rewarding than destroying Hamas‘ military capabilities in the short term.
A one sided critique, perhaps as usual from a US professor who cannot appear to see a win as a win as long as the US or Israel makes gains?
The reason it is one sided is that it takes the position that only Israel and the US must change and act in accordance to the other nations in the region. The baseline position from this professor is that Arab demands are immutable and cannot be criticized and their actions and motives are unassailable. (Well, if he had some, he sure didn’t make it clear in this essay)
The professor thinks that ‚Hamas survival‘ is a win for Hamas, which is the typical ivory tower thinking – not considering the plight of the Palestinians. At what point does the professor think that Saudi Arabia and Qatar etc must change their stance to accommodate the US and Israel position? Never?
Yes, there is every reason not to think that military strength alone will accomplish all. But it does accomplish some and it is up to ALL parties to come to a new reality – not only Israel and the US.
„Israel Cannot Destroy Its Way to Peace“
Really? Right now the world have several countries who are (or intend to) destroying its way to peace (on their terms). Who is going to prove Israel wrong? Who is going to prove any of them wrong? Are we ready to risk escalation, economic hardship, embargo, war and nuclear war?
>The Middle Eastern regional order has been remarkably stable over the last 35 years.
I stopped reading after here. Guy lost all credibility in my eyes.
Gulf War, 1991 Iraqi Uprising, Iraqi Kurdish Civil War, Second Intifada, Iraq War, Sunni-Shia sectarian war in Iraq, Arab Spring, Syrian Civil War, Revolution and military coup in Egypt, toppling of Gaddafi followed by two Libyan civil wars, ISIS years long rampage across Iraq and Syria, 2014 Gaza War, Yemeni Civil War, Iranian proxies running all over the region, Turkey invading Syria, October 7th attacks, Israel-Hamas War, Israel’s campaign against Hezbollah, Red Sea Crisis… like is dude under a rock?
You gonna tell me thats collectively better than the previous 35 years (1955-1990) in which we got the Algerian War, the Suez Crisis, First Kurdish-Iraqi War, North Yemen Civil War, Six Day War, War of Attrition, Black September, Yom Kippur War, Second Iraqi-Kurdish War, Lebanese Civil War, Islamic Revolution in Iran, Iran-Iraq War, Israeli invasion of Lebanon, PLO’s terror campaign in Israel, and the First Intifada?
Maybe in terms of it’s a better more stable situation for Israel… but that’s because, despite the essay’s main thesis, Israel successfully blew up its enemies badly enough that a lot of them stopped trying to fight. But for the rest of the region… these last 35 years are hardly an improvement over the previous 35 years.
If anything, these last 35 years have seen a worsening of economic and social freedoms, a rapid rise in religious conservatism and less social tolerance. Reeks of ignorance to pretend otherwise in my opinion.
>It prefers a region where might makes right, where no self-interested state would sacrifice its interests for the Palestinians, where international law has no binding force, and where military power reigns supreme.
I’m sorry, but this is literally true lmao. He’s saying these things as if this isn’t exactly how things operate in the Middle East.
The Arabs states learned through the 70s, 80s, and 90s that just because you condemned Israel 200 times in the UNGA doesn’t actually change the fact of things on the ground, and doesnt make up for the reality of Israel’s increasingly strong position and the Palestinians’ increasingly weakened position.
I’m convinced Rory Stewart wrote this under a pen name, because a lot of what is in here is just falsehoods, and regurgitations of the platitudes that rang true 30 years ago but ring so incredibly hollow today.
I agree Israel can’t destroy its way to peace.
For there to be peace, both sides need to want it on terms where everyone on both sides has safety and security.
That isn’t the case here, as Hamas has both told us and shown us through action.
So Israel has decided if there isn’t going to be a happy ending, they’d prefer not to be the least unhappy.
Or put another way: Hamas wants war, and Israel has decided if there’s going to be a war, they’re going to win it.