The ongoing conflict in Gaza has been a source of immense suffering for the people living in the region, as well as a cause for concern on the international stage. The lack of a lasting ceasefire can be attributed to a complex web of geopolitical, historical, and strategic interests that have, unfortunately, taken precedence over the immediate need for peace. In fact, despite publicly supporting a ceasefire, many parties involved have not pulled their weight to achieve it.
A “humanitarian pause” has been called for by Arab and European states alike, Russia, China and Iran all support a ceasefire and even Iran’s proxies stated it would halt their destabilising attacks. Nonetheless, the recent negotiations for a temporary halt of military actions have failed yet again. Netanyahu has turned down the terms of a ceasefire proposed by Hamas. The plan envisioned a 135-day ceasefire divided in three phases during which hostages would be released; it did not, however, lay any foundations for a long-term peace. Netanyahu insisted that surrendering to Hamas’s conditions would lead to another massacre. This highlights the first real obstacle to peace: the two parties do not trust each other and consider each other the greatest threat to their own security. Thus, the historical wounds and a lack of genuine reconciliation efforts contribute to the cycle of violence, making it challenging to broker a sustainable ceasefire, let alone a plan for the future.
Furthermore, the personal interests of Netanyahu and Hamas’s leaders seem to not align with a ceasefire. Netanyahu’s consensus at home has plummeted and he is aware of that. The continuation of the war may very well be his only way to stay in power. Most importantly he will not be held accountable for his actions as long as the war is ongoing. His failure to prevent the attacks of the 7th of October 2023 and the commission of war crimes in Gaza would most definitely prompt some reaction in Israel where he would have to face consequences.
Similarly, Hamas’s leaders have not shown great concern for the destruction and human losses in Gaza, or at least, not enough for them to take more practical actions to put an end to it. Their main goal remains the destruction of the “Zionist entity” and they have sought to gain maximum political advantage from the situation whilst ensuring their own safety. The situation is further aggravated by the interests of third parties involved.
In fact, another relevant factor is the seemingly irreconcilable short and long-term agendas of the other international players. The US’s support is linked to Biden’s ambition to forge a wider Middle East settlement, in an attempt, ahead of elections, to bring home a foreign policy win. In doing so, it seems to be more focused on Israel ultimately accepting a “political horizon” for Palestinians seeking an independent state and on normalising Israel-Saudi Arabia relations. However, it is not either laying the necessary foundations for a two-state solution nor it is demanding what would actually be needed to start with that is a “general ceasefire”.
Similarly, China and Russia stand to gain something from a distracted and resource-drained US. Russia has in fact managed to undermine US’s funding of Ukraine and to diverge public attention away from the war it is carrying out. The interests of China and Russia are now also aligning with Iran’s, with which they have forged closer ties. Through its proxies, including Hamas, Iran is destabilising the region to its own advantage and tilting the power dynamics to its favour.
Finally, the EU seems to be quietly following the US without taking a strong stance of its own. There have been numerous calls for a ceasefire that were, however, always watered down by a re-statement of Israel’s right to self-defence, the threat that Hamas poses and a complete lack of practical actions that could lead to a ceasefire. Ultimately, the interests of the EU align more with those of the US and Israel for it to diverge enough from them and to fully use its leverage to achieve a ceasefire.
To conclude, the situation in the Middle East has evolved in such a way that too many parties’ interests are tangled up in it. This means that the matter goes far beyond Israeli and Palestinians, whose wishes are now unaccounted for. De facto, the selfish interests of political leaders mean that a ceasefire is actually not the top priority of those involved, as showed by their failure to channel all their resources into achieving it.
By The European Institute for International Law and International Relations
