A State of Fundamentalist Deadlocks
When every method of cooling fails to halt the spread of flames raging through a forest, and before they extend to other highly flammable areas, the only option left is to ignite controlled fires to contain them—fighting fire with fire. This is the principle of firefighting science. By the same logic, one hundred and fifty-nine "firefighters" from all nationalities were mobilized, the result of French-Saudi efforts and many partners, who lit smaller fires around a massive blaze that has been burning for two years and threatens to expand. That blaze endangers regions and interests painstakingly built over decades, thought once to be untouchable.
Who would have imagined that a capital hosting the Al-Udeid base would face two attacks within three months, from two sworn enemies and for different reasons? Who would have thought the Egyptian army would mass on its northern border, facing Israeli troop buildups on the other side, awaiting a spark at any moment? Who would have thought the Wadi Araba Treaty—and with it, the Abraham Accords—would teeter on collapse at any moment? Who would have believed Cairo would host an Iranian agreement with Rafael Grossi, or take part in naval maneuvers with Erdoğan, champion of the global Muslim Brotherhood project? Who foresaw Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, both U.S. allies, concluding swift joint defense agreements to counter another U.S. ally with its full favor?
Some may attribute this chain of events to Yahya Sinwar and his October 7th “flood.” Others to Ben Gvir and Smotrich months earlier, with their provocations in Sheikh Jarrah, al-Aqsa, and Huwwara. Others still will trace it to Donald Trump, evangelical Christianity, their alliance with Netanyahu, and the brazen “Deal of the Century” that sought to liquidate the Palestinian cause in broad daylight. But what is certain is that its roots stretch back thirty years, shaped by three fundamentalist entrenchments—Jewish, Islamic, and Christian—that objectively converged and reinforced one another to produce today’s tragedies.
Netanyahu played maestro: inciting Rabin’s assassination and destroying Oslo, nurturing the Iranian axis narrative, allying with U.S. evangelicals, and ensuring no White House occupant could pursue meaningful peace. The natural result of this accumulation was October 7th—a culmination of two years of escalation. Instead of containing it, Netanyahu expanded it to seven “fronts,” as he calls them, yet failed to decisively win any of them, despite all the death and destruction wrought by Israel’s military machine.
The bitterest harvest has been unprecedented international isolation and the loss of Israel’s strongest backers—Spain, France, Britain, Canada, Australia, and more “on the way,” as the saying goes. Its economy groans under exhaustion, stumbling toward collapse. The sight of delegates streaming out of the UN General Assembly hall during Netanyahu’s speech will be long remembered. Meanwhile, UN Secretary-General António Guterres, with a few words—“Do not fear Israeli threats to prevent your recognition of the Palestinian state”—summed up the only real means of extinguishing the flames: fire with fire.
For an entire day, with the U.S. and Israel’s seats empty, world leaders debated recognition of a Palestinian state: 80% in favor, 20% opposed—whether rejecting the principle outright, objecting to the timing as a “reward for terrorism,” or insisting negotiations must precede such a decision. The following day, the “Caesar of the White House” sought to shrink the issue to 20 hostages still in Gaza, a few dozen more killed, and the claim that recognition was a gift to Hamas—as if everything prior had been acceptable. To break his isolation alongside Netanyahu, he met seven Arab and Islamic states. All we learned was that it was a “great meeting.”
Meanwhile, Israel remains bogged down in unwinnable wars and faces torrents of global outrage unprecedented in scale, spilling into American politics itself. In Gaza—the main front—it confronts two million civilians driven southward, hunting a few thousand fighters among them, razing urban infrastructure while building new settlements in the West Bank. Yet the overall equation remains zero. Emigration from “Sparta” vastly outpaces arrivals. And in Trump’s peace-making workshop, Smotrich let slip the essence: a “real estate deal” to divide spoils of this “legendary war.”
The UN report on two years of genocidal devastation? Ignored. Instead, October 7th became the sole justification. But as many states now admit, October 7th should not be reason to perpetuate conflict but the very catalyst to end it.
Before October 7th, around 140 countries had recognized Palestine. Now, that number has risen to 159, including major EU and Commonwealth states—political, economic, and symbolic heavyweights. It is a correction of a historical wrong, delayed for more than thirty years. And yet, recognition alone will not suffice. The road ahead is full of deadlocks that require coordinated global pressure to break. Chief among them:
-
Jewish religious fundamentalism in Israel: once fringe, now central to politics since Rabin’s assassination. Its rhetoric has expanded, capturing even centrists and segments of the left, leaving almost no space to discuss a Palestinian state. Breaking this deadlock requires striking Israel’s economic comfort—its prosperity has fueled political bribery and sustained extremist coalitions.
-
Christian fundamentalism in the West, especially the U.S.: the backbone of Trump’s rise, denying Palestine’s very existence, merged with Jewish lobbying into an indistinguishable bloc. Figures like Pastor Mike Huckabee, now U.S. ambassador to Israel, openly espouse theology indistinguishable from Israel’s religious Zionists. Smotrich and Ben Gvir echo the same worldview, albeit in cruder form. This deadlock demands the 159 states confront Trump in his own language—interests—or risk remaining hostage to an ideology that recognizes no “Other.”
-
Islamic fundamentalism, embodied by political Islam: Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Tehran, and smaller groups. Built on the rhetoric of “erasing Israel,” it objectively reinforced Jewish and Christian fundamentalist narratives for three decades. October 7th shattered the credibility of the “existential threat” claim, yet this current will not surrender easily, having lost everything. Even as Hamas theoretically accepts a state, in practice it resists, seeking to remain in the game. Hezbollah refuses to disarm, citing daily Israeli attacks; Israel, in turn, cites Hezbollah’s weapons to justify occupation. The same vicious cycle persists. Iran, mired in nuclear brinkmanship, perpetuates the deadlock.
Thus, when Arab and Islamic states meet Trump on the UN sidelines, they must not merely say, “This is our position.” They must say, “This is our position—and if rejected, everything in the language of interests and influence will change.” Only then will the world see Arabs take a bold stance, once and for all—followed by supportive steps. Otherwise, we will remain trapped in the deadlock, motionless, as always.
تعليقات
إرسال تعليق