A ray of hope in the Middle East

It has been said that diplomacy is the art of writing tragedies with smiles. This week, after two years marked by pain and devastation — beginning with the attacks of 7 October 2023 and prolonged by Israel’s relentless bombardment and occupation of Gaza — images of hope are finally arriving from the Middle East. The acceptance by the terrorist group Hamas (in control of the Gaza Strip) of a peace plan promoted by the United States implies a capitulation by the Netanyahu government in response to international pressure, permitting a sliver of optimism in a region too accustomed to tragedy.
 
As a professional who has dedicated his life to international relations, and as a firm believer in multilateralism as the best tool to preserve peace in any corner of the world, I have visited both Gaza and the State of Israel on several occasions and met many times with public representatives from the Middle East, geopolitical experts, and Western policymakers with a deep understanding of what has transpired and what is still happening in the region.
 
Nonetheless, this is the first time I’ve written about the terrible events witnessed across the past two years. Don’t get me wrong: I greatly value the efforts of those who, in the midst of such drama, have sought to explain the conflict as objectively as possible, as well as of those who have expressed their opinions with passion and conviction. And yet petty attempts to turn the suffering of Palestinians and Israelis into a weapon of polarization — as if this were just another culture war within Spain’s borders, and not actual suffering in a real war thousands of miles away — I find simply disgusting, whether they come from one side or the other.

Therefore, now that pressure from the international community seems to have finally achieved a cessation of bombings, the reopening of the Strip to reconstruction, the entry of humanitarian aid, the return of the hostages to their homes, as well as a resurgence of the hope of someday achieving a just and lasting peace based on the coexistence of two states, I consider it appropriate to put certain reflections into writing. This I do with serenity, without wanting to spark confrontation, but trusting that these thoughts may prove useful to anyone seeking to form an opinion on a matter that must be understood it in all its complexity, if we are ever to put it behind us.
 

"The attacks of 7 October sought to destroy the diplomatic instrument that has brought the greatest hope to the Middle East over the past decade: the Abraham Accords"

First, it remains imperative to condemn and mourn the terrorist attacks of 7 October, not merely for their inhumane violence against the Israeli people, but because their intent and execution sought to destroy the diplomatic instrument that has brought the greatest hope to the Middle East over the past decade: the Abraham Accords. Make no mistake, that horrific attack was clearly meant to explode the peace that Abraham brought.

These treaties signed by Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco achieved something that had seemed impossible: a normalization of diplomatic, economic, and cultural relations between Israel and several Arab countries, ending decades of political isolation. The success of the accords piqued the interest of other regional actors, including Oman, Mauritania, Comoros, Somalia, Djibouti, Indonesia, Pakistan, and even Saudi Arabia, ‘the elephant in the room’.

The main losers in this story were Iran, which needs regional instability to strengthen its hand vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia and to scapegoat the West, and Qatar, which benefits from maintaining an ambiguous position. The interest of these two actors seems the only rational explanation for how Hamas, with recognized ties to Tehran and Qatar, achieved in a single day what it hadn’t in years: to circumvent the defenses of one of the world’s most prepared armies and attack Israel with such virulence. The attack was planned not as an ultimate reaction to years of Israeli occupation but as a military operation seeking a specific outcome.

The right to self-defense and international law

Second, Israel clearly has the right to defend itself, and to fight terrorism, but no State can place itself above international law. Israel is a Western democracy (although recent months have revealed signs of a major democratic crisis), and precisely for that reason, we must condemn without hesitation its disproportionate bombing campaigns, its blockades to prevent the arrival of humanitarian aid, the failure to comply with UN resolutions that ban illegal settlements in the West Bank, and the dehumanizing rhetoric of certain Israeli ministers, recognizing all of the above as repeated and systematic violations of international law.
 

"Israel’s historical rationale, its weariness with terrorism, and its role as a sentinel against enemy powers such as Iran are all understandable; but its illegal actions cannot be justified"

Israel’s historical rationale, its weariness with terrorism, and its role as a sentinel against enemy powers such as Iran are all understandable; but its illegal actions cannot be justified or dismissed when limits are exceeded. Anyone with common sense — including many in Israel and Palestine, and everywhere else — will be equally distressed by the deaths of civilians on both sides. For that reason, all who observe this horror from a distance have the moral obligation to express our sorrow for all victims with the same degree of sympathy. There can be no ‘sides’ in offering condolences for barbarism.

The role of Trump and the United States

Third, it is important to try to decipher the impact of these two years on the new international order. Trump ran for reelection promising U.S. withdrawal from the rest of the world, announcing that America can’t be expected to solve problems not exclusive to Americans. He even went so far as to claim (in the most frivolous and horrendous way possible) that his position on Gaza was to convert it to a vacation resort – a statement unjustifiable not only for a U.S. president but for anyone decent.
 

"Trump is sufficiently unpredictable for Europe to take its own security seriously; at the same time, the U.S. appears unwilling to abandon its role as a hegemonic power"

In the end, however, the United States has lived up to certain responsibilities, as when intervening to prevent regional escalation when Israel bombed Iranian targets and Iran retaliated against Tel Aviv, obliging Netanyahu to rein in his excesses. Netanyahu was even compelled to apologize to Qatar from the Oval Office; then, together with the neighboring Arab countries, the U.S. facilitated negotiation of the historic peace agreement that opens a door to hope. The fact that President Trump may have done this in order to win a famous international award need not detract from the merits of the signed agreement. For that reason, I find abominable any criticism of the agreement from persons who, after its signing and acceptance by Hamas, now lament the loss of a ‘political toy’ that helped them reap electoral gains in recent months. To these I offer sincere revulsion.

And while the impact of these events on international politics remains uncertain, two seemingly contradictory lessons seem to have emerged: Trump is sufficiently unpredictable for Europe to take its own security seriously; and at the same time, the U.S. appears unwilling to so easily abandon its role as a hegemonic power and leader of the West. We live in confusing times, which limits my comprehension of the forcefulness with which some express themselves.

Pedro Sánchez's tactic

Finally, the treatment of this matter by the Government of Spain — my country — deserves specific mention. Although I deeply dislike and would never justify such tactics, I can understand Pedro Sánchez’s need to convert any event into a weapon of polarization, employed to divert attention from the accusations of corruption that surround him. However, it’s my impression is that his attitude has finally reached unsustainable levels.

The cosmetic dispatch of a Navy vessel to ‘protect’ the performance of the flotilla, only to turn around in the end; the call to boycott La Vuelta while directing police to contain demonstrators; the legal sleight-of-hand by those who less than a year ago asserted that certain definitions should be left to the courts — all will go down in history as embarrassing examples of the degradation that this faltering government has infused into Spanish politics.

In conclusion, the complexity of a matter so grave and so important to the lives of countless people, with profound implications on the future of the world, requires a much greater degree of analysis than many have shown over these last two years. Nevertheless, on a note of optimism — even if we can’t confirm how long the peace in Gaza will last — some celebration is in order. After so much pain and tragedy, this peace agreement finally offers a reason to smile.