Most researchers and observers agree that the current war on Gaza is completely different from previous confrontations between the Palestinian resistance and the occupation, giving it many potential regional and international implications. Some even said; This could lead to a third world war.
On any map of the world's countries, Palestine hardly appears along with other geographically larger countries, and the Gaza Strip represents only about 2% (360 km2) of Palestine's territory. Despite this geographical insignificance, the current war over Gaza has imposed itself on the global agenda. Due to the event's extraordinary planning, implementation and implications, and potential consequences on the occupation and the Palestinian issue.
It also includes the symbolism of the Palestinian issue and the stances of various parties towards it. It also includes the regional and international context in which it occurred and its important and influential developments, such as: the new Corona pandemic, the Russian-Ukrainian war on a global scale, and the path to Arab normalization with a regionally occupying state.
Therefore, many have paid attention to the regional and international impacts of the war on Gaza. Regionally in the context of the prospects for its expansion towards a wider regional confrontation, the probability of which is gradually increasing, despite the reluctance of the parties, and in the context of the path to Arab normalization with the occupying state, which appears has been at least temporarily stabilised, and in the context of evaluating the positions of the various parties towards it, and thus the parties themselves and their roles. And to deal with it in the future, some regimes and their internal reactions in terms of the consequences of war on stability.
As far as the impact on the international dimension is concerned, they mainly focus on the situation of some Western countries: their governments, institutions and media, the war and their level of involvement in it (for example the United States). In relation, and thus. All this reflects on future relations with these countries and outlook on Western civilization and model. The extent of the spread of the movement to boycott companies that support the occupation is a simple indicator of the depth of the rift in trust that has recently occurred between the Arab and Islamic worlds and most Western countries.
Many argue that given the “cool” position of China, Russia, and to a lesser extent Iran, the current reality does not indicate any possibility of the outbreak of a Third World War bordering on aggression on Gaza, as has been repeatedly What has been expressed is its reluctance to engage in what is a proposal with immense legality.
One of the most important discussions about the war on Gaza and its international repercussions remains the extent of the possibility of its contribution to a Third World War, between those who see it as an exaggeration and exaggeration, and those who are skeptical of this possibility. Let's look at the merits, which reinforces the need for discussion.
Many define a world war as an armed confrontation involving multiple countries on multiple continents, while others simplify it as a war between great powers.
In the case of the First and Second World Wars, a long time passed between many developments and wars before anyone called what was happening a “world war” or a “great war”. Essentially, what is happening is a series of armed confrontations and wars, which evolve and lead to additional conflicts, as well as the expansion of the conflict and the continued entry of new parties into the war until it returns. Does not reach the point of.
In addition to the direct causes that have been described as “unrealistic”, there are considered real reasons for the outbreak of the world war, the most prominent of which are the economic crisis, the intensity of competition between countries, especially the great powers, the power Spreading. -wing movements and the increase in their influence, the presence of burning or inflammable conflict zones, and leadership. impulsiveness, and ultimately the weakness of the international institutions that are supposed to be the reference.
Thus, the Great Depression (1929), the growth of Nazi and fascist movements, the appearance of leaders like Hitler and Mussolini, the arms race, alliances formed, the inability of the League of Nations to stop Japan and then deal with the invasion of Manchuria (1931), and Italy's invasion of Ethiopia (1935), then Germany's invasion of Poland (1939) were the direct causes of the outbreak of World War II.
Today, the great similarity between current international conditions and the conditions before World War II cannot be ignored. The recurring global economic crisis, which has been deepened by the Corona pandemic, a situation of intense competition between both the United States on the one hand and China and Russia on the other, and burning regions, such as: Ukraine, Palestine, Syria and the South Caucasus, and potentially Conflicts, such as: the South China Sea, the Eastern Mediterranean, the Balkans, and the growing presence of the extreme right in Western countries, are all factors that create a tense international environment that is very dangerous. Similar to conditions before 1939, especially if one adds the weakness of the United Nations and its Security Council.
This is because objections to the unfair international system and the weak performance of the Security Council on international issues are longstanding, and calls for reform of the international system are frequent. Although the UN has existed despite gaps and errors, the war on Gaza has increased its impotence and the indifference of the great powers towards it.
The UN Security Council failed more than once to issue a ceasefire resolution in Gaza, mainly because the United States (and other countries) used its veto power while Washington abstained from voting on humanitarian ceasefires and Issued decisions related to the initiation of assistance. This is what happened. This followed pressure from Washington to change the text of the proposed resolutions through negotiation, bargaining and the threat of a veto.
Thus, although 120 out of 193 countries in the General Assembly voted in favor of the resolution for an immediate ceasefire (10/27/2023), and 153 countries voted on a similar resolution on 12/12/2023, Washington maintained its Used to veto every resolution calling for an armistice. ceasefire, including a resolution issued on 12/8 the previous year, while a resolution issued on 12/22 that year called for the start of aid, which was rejected and passed by abstention . Resolution. The resolution stipulated a ceasefire.
Voting trends in both the General Assembly and the Security Council show how a country with veto power can prevent an international body from making decisions that most countries in the world want, and how it can prevent the destruction of people, and how The Security Council is transformed into a powerless body over any issue concerning any one of the five permanent countries. Membership.
On the other hand, many argue that given the “quiet” position of China and Russia, and to a lesser extent Iran, the current reality does not indicate any possibility of the outbreak of a Third World War bordering on aggression on Gaza. , which has repeatedly expressed its reluctance to get involved, which is a legitimate proposal. Big.
However, it should be noted that possibilities for expansion exist and are increasing as the aggression against Gaza continues and the involvement of some parties, such as: Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Ansar Allah/Houthis in Yemen, tensions and internecine relations. Strikes on various fronts are increasing, not decreasing.
We should not ignore the fact that many wars begin and/or escalate without the direct will of their parties, but rather as a result of unintended errors, miscalculations, or uncontrolled and unintended course of events.
On the other hand, United States efforts to contain the war and confine it to Gaza led to adverse results, as it expanded and deepened, particularly on the southern Lebanon and southern Red Sea fronts.
Just as the continuation and escalation of war always carries the risk of its expansion and deepening, so every expansion of the scope of war carries the risk of new expansion, greater depth, and the involvement of additional parties. Because each concrete change means creating new risks, putting additional interests at stake and connecting accounts that did not exist before.
As the war on Gaza continues, Hezbollah and the Houthis have become involved, and if it continues, there is a risk that Iran will also become involved, and if that happens for any reason, it would increase the possibility of intervention by Russia and/or China. Is. To some degree or the other.
If there are those who believe that the US presidential elections are a strong obstacle to the expansion of the war because of Washington's reluctance, this fact – in particular – may inspire other parties to test the prospects of the US position. And the limits of its patience in this context.
Perhaps the killing of three US soldiers at a base in Jordan is a good example of the “security dilemma”, demonstrated by increased deterrence efforts, corresponding detentions and border testing on both sides, warning of the potential for things to go wrong. Gives. Your words have some point.
So, in conclusion, there is no doubt that the war on Gaza is not a direct cause, much less a sufficient cause, of the outbreak of a world war, or at least the involvement of one great power versus another. The international and regional context and the above factors clearly indicate that this war aggravates the weakness of the international system. The existing state and its disintegration, and the weakness of the international institutions of reference, thus increase the likelihood of a great power confrontation.
According to this perspective, the war on Gaza adds an additional link to the currently prevailing international context and accelerates its steps towards a multipolar world and/or chaos and conflict, and history and the development of events are the best arbiters of its outcome. It is made. At both regional and international levels.