Introduction
Immediately after the end of the Cold War, the approach of uncertainty in the international system began to be brought to the agenda by all parties. The main reason for this was the unexpected internal dissolution of one of the two existing poles. The United States, being the only one left, has not reached a level where it can address all the problems of the world. After more than 30 years, a new power centre has emerged in opposition to the United States, and although there is competition between Russia and China for the core of this pole, we are still very close to talking about a new pole. In addition to the regions where the harsh polarization of the Cold War era was experienced, there were regions where both sides were influential simultaneously. The Middle East, which was considered very important due to its hydrocarbon resources, was one of the most significant regions. Considering the conditions of the period, rapid changes of power, coups, new alliances, wars and peace negotiations were prominent in this region. To give examples, the overthrow of the Shah regime in Iran, the 1960s and 1980s coups in Türkiye, the unification of Egypt and Syria, the establishment of CENTO-style structures, the Arab-Israeli wars and peace negotiations can be shown. Although not every example of this kind can be found in today’s Middle East, many of them are still encountered. The following headings will address the formations of war, peace, and alliance. The unilateral attempts to change the Middle East under the Trump administration and the subsequent chain of events have led to the activation of Chinese-style peaceful methods, which has given rise to the idea of new alliances, highlighting its significance. While all of this is happening, the statehood of Palestine is accelerating, making events more complex.
Trump-style one-way peace and its harm to the Middle East
Republican candidate Donald Trump, who won power in the US in 2017, used the slogan ‘America First’ for a long time and began to impose economic sanctions on China, considering it as the main enemy. With his own rule ending shortly, he took some unilateral initiatives to keep the promises he made to the Zionists, from whom he received intense support when he came to power. The most important of these was undoubtedly the decision made on December 6, 2017, to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and to move the American Embassy there. With this decision, it disrupted the longstanding US policy and sabotaged the peace negotiations. After nearly two years of this situation, another unilateral decision was made. With this new decision taken on March 25, 2019, the Golan Heights, which were taken from Syria by Israel, are now considered Israeli territory. While making the decision, the legitimate ground was prepared by placing special emphasis on the threats from Iran and Hezbollah. Effectively legitimizing Israel’s control over these territories, the president should have made it de facto permanent to further solidify it. For Israel, surrounded by Arab states, unilateral geopolitical changes carried great risks as well as benefits. At this time, the Trump team began to take action to implement a new peace formula in the Middle East. This process was first called normalization and then the Abraham Accords. Bilateral agreements were reached with Israel and the UAE on August 13, 2020, with Bahrain on September 11, 2020, with Morocco on December 22, 2020, and with Sudan on January 6, 2021, respectively, and Israel’s sovereignty was recognized. When you look at the location of these states on the map, you can see how important they are in their regions. Although this process provided Israel with relief from external enemies, there was also a version of this with Palestine and its close neighbours. This was called ‘Peace for Prosperity’. This process was a plan that included Egypt, Israel, Jordan and Lebanon and would increase economic incentives for Palestine. It would regulate relations by increasing regional economic dependency. Other agreement members received support for their internal problems in exchange for recognizing Israel. However, it cannot be said that the border neighbours, who are the last agreement members, have such benefits. The concept of ‘Peace for Prosperity’ was inspired by the phrase ‘Land for Peace’ after the 1967 war. Again, if at that time there was peace against territorial domination, now there was talk of peace only for prosperity. But despite all this, Trump caught a wave of peace in the Middle East with his unilateral, harsh stance. For example, there were views that Mauritania and Indonesia would normalize their relations with Israel if the plan went ahead. However, both Trump’s departure from power and the mess he left behind, along with the rise of the other pole, caused the bubble created by this process to suddenly disappear and the process to quickly escalate into conflict.
The outbreak of the October 7 attacks
The Hamas group, deeply disturbed by the one-sided shifts in favour of Israel in the Middle East, seized the opportunity presented by the Biden administration and the rise of the Global South, and initiated the October 7 attacks. This attack put pressure on Israel’s domestic intelligence agency, Shin-Bet, and its foreign intelligence agency, Mossad, by highlighting their weaknesses. The Netanyahu government, which is also in alliance with right-wing extremists in power, hastily viewed this as a war to avoid domestic judicial reform and declared war constitutionally after a long time. Although the war began in northern Gaza and continued for a long time and in an uncertain manner, Israel eventually launched an operation in the south and tried to control it as well. However, the small area of the region, the large population, and the presence of a partisan group instead of a regular army caused harm to civilians.
Despite predictions that the October 7 attacks would be resolved within a few months or by the new year, the war is still ongoing. One reason for this is Netanyahu’s fear of prosecution, while another is the continued presence of hostages held by Hamas. But in addition to these, the changing balances in the international system have lit the fuse of a war that will not be easily extinguished in certain regions. Gaza is one of the most important regions due to the formation of natural gas reserves on the continental shelf. These natural gas reserves were discovered 30 km from the Gaza Strip by the British Gas Group in 1999. The reserves, named Gaza Marine One and Gaza Marine Two, are estimated to be approximately 38 billion cubic meters. However, after the discovery of natural gas in this area, Israel announced that they had found their own Leviathan field, and Egypt announced that they had found their Zohr field, and they reached an agreement to limit Gaza’s exclusive economic zone. As seen in the map below, the triangular area left for Palestine should have been larger and rectangular in shape. This is shown in more detail on the second map. As can be seen from this map, while many natural gas fields in the region should be used jointly, their unilateral exploitation further exacerbates the problem. The presence of these reserves and the potential for Palestinian reorganization have exacerbated the conflict of interest between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. Finally, it came to the events of October 7th. One reason for October 7 was Hamas’s goal of de facto unification with the West Bank. We can understand this view from the direction of the attacks on the first day. Having advanced as far as Ofakim, Hamas had almost made it halfway.
The acceleration of the statehood process in Palestine
There is no doubt that the October 7 events had a higher diplomatic success rate than their military failure. Although this war process is not yet over, it cannot be ignored that it has brought support to Palestine in the international arena. To understand this, we need to examine the international recognition of Palestine prior to October 7. First, the State of Palestine used its right to self-determination with UN resolution 3236 in 1974. But until October 7, the number of UN members that recognized Palestine as a state was 136. After the war began, Barbados recognized it on April 19, Jamaica on April 22, Trinidad and Tobago on May 2, The Bahamas on May 7, Ireland, Norway and Spain on May 28, Slovenia on June 4, and Armenia on June 21, 2024. With this, Palestine’s recognition rose to 145. The situation is not solely influenced by Hamas’s actions. Another important factor here is the US vetoing the UN vote on the recognition of Palestine. Palestine’s full UN membership vote, which was to take place on April 18, 2024, was blocked by a US veto. The next day, states began recognizing Palestine’s independence in opposition to the US veto. Following this, Palestine’s UN observer membership was further expanded by the UN General Assembly decision on 10 May 2024. Although they were given the right to sit in the General Assembly, they still did not gain the right to vote in critical votes. However, following the confidence gained from this event, European countries also decided to recognize Palestine. Therefore, we can essentially categorize the recognition after October 7 into two types: (1) Small states that recognized Palestine after April 18, likely influenced by the rise of the Global South. (2) European countries that recognized Palestine after May 10, having made this decision while considering the international community, which is why nearly all of them announced their recognition before the end of May. Only Armenia made this decision in parallel with its declining relations with Israel. Yet another event is also connected with this recognition. This decision-making process may have been accelerated by news that the ICC Chief Prosecutor planned to issue an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu on May 20. This process, which has managed to open Pandora’s box, is progressing without slowing down. For example, Malta also announced that it would recognize Palestine as a state. But increasing US pressure prevented this. It is envisaged that, in the continuation of this situation, states such as Belgium and Luxembourg will also recognize Palestine.
China’s prescription for peace in the Middle East
The Soviets were more active in the Middle East outside the Gulf region during the Cold War. But this situation is changing today. China’s growing influence in the Gulf has likely prompted increased U.S. activity in the Levant. In fact, China, the other successor of Communism, always existed but was not visible enough to form a pole. The current competition over creating this core also dates back to the Cold War era. With the confidence gained from its economic rise, China made a significant and rapid foray into the Middle East from the east. As a pioneering step, it signed a 25-year, $400 billion investment agreement with Iran in Beijing on June 24, 2020, and in Tehran on March 27, 2021. Entering the region from the East, China assumed the role of mediator to improve traditionally competitive Iran-Saudi Arabia relations. With the impact of this process, the normalization process in relations between Iran and Egypt has gained momentum. In 2023, Iran and Egypt met in Oman to improve bilateral relations. China’s influence here can be explained by the importance of both regional powers for BRICS and the Belt and Road Initiative. As the Chinese wind, which reached as far as Egypt, grew stronger, it put forward its own (China) prescription to solve more deep-rooted problems in the region.
After the October 7 attacks, China, which had always acted with restraint, emerged as a new actor capable of taking on the role of mediator against the unilateral actions of the United States. China’s peace formula is essentially simple and repetitive. This formula is based on the UN’s decision to establish the state of Palestine and to have East Jerusalem as its capital within the 1967 borders. This stance, which involves the displacement of Israeli settlers and changes to the internal political balance of Israel, suggests that China’s peaceful approaches are viewed as threats by the Israeli state. Despite all this, China has increasingly intensified its support for Palestine. In each of the examples given above, China supported Palestine in each of the UN resolutions.
On June 14, 2023, Mahmoud Abbas made a high-level visit to China. During this visit, the Chinese side promised to support Palestine’s full UN membership, continue humanitarian aid and share its experience in forming a government. It should not be forgotten that China was the first to recognize Palestine as a state. For all these reasons, a strategic partnership agreement was also signed at this meeting, which was the 35th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations.
Since this view was made before October 7, China’s stance on Palestine has not changed and is therefore considered reliable. The only thing that has changed is the idea of who has the right to represent Palestine more. If until the war this was only the PLO, now this idea is in the process of changing.
A look at the latest negotiations and visions of Palestine with China and Israel with the USA through discourse analysis
The US, disturbed by China’s influence in a region traditionally under its control, has further toughened its stance. The first move in this race for peace was again made by China. From July 21 to 23, China invited and hosted representatives from 14 Palestinian factions in Beijing. During this meeting, a reconciliation was achieved between Hamas, which governs Gaza, and the PLO, which governs the West Bank. According to the Beijing Declaration, after the war, Palestine will be governed as a whole, and Gaza will be reconstructed. In this agreement, reference was made to the agreements signed in Cairo in 2011 and in Algeria in 2022. These also reflect the prevention of the division of Palestine. Against the Jewish refugees mentioned above, this agreement recognized the Palestinians’ right to return to their homes, the right to fight, unity against Zionism, and the protection of places important to Islam and Christianity. With this agreement, China has equated the PLO, which it fully supports, with Hamas. The main reason for this is that Hamas is the fighting party and Abbas is the one reaping the fruits of this.
Immediately after this, the US Congress invited Netanyahu to the country as a speaker on July 24. During Netanyahu’s nearly hour-long speech, US congressmen gave him a standing ovation more than 50 times. Netanyahu’s speech should be evaluated under three main headings: (1) strengthening his position in domestic politics; (2) preventing isolation in foreign policy; and (3) declaring his visions. To suppress the dire situation in domestic politics, he brought individuals from various groups that reflect the entire social fabric of Israel. For example, praising a soldier of Ethiopian origin is an example of this. He consolidated his position by portraying everyone who was against him as pro-Hamas. In foreign policy, Netanyahu, who managed to travel abroad to undermine the court ruling, also criticized this ruling from the podium. He criticized international universities for their lack of support during the Holocaust. He frequently compared the U.S. and Israel, along with their Arab allies, as civil and democracy-supporting, while labelling those on the opposing side as barbaric, to gain support. He did not hesitate to use political references to gain support from US evangelical Christians. Not only that, but he also blamed Hamas for civilian deaths and hunger crises. However, the most important aspect of his rhetoric was related to his vision. He declared that a new alliance could be formed in the Middle East, and the initial signs of this alliance were seen on April 4 among the states that helped against Iran and the members of the Abraham Accords. He named this the Abraham Alliance. Following this, he stated his intention to rebuild Gaza and to demilitarize and deradicalize Hamas, citing the improvement in the standard of living in Germany and Japan as a result.
Conclusion
In these years when the international system is not fully determined, each power that rises tries to displace the previous superpower or at least balance it. The Eastern and Western blocs of the Cold War era are gradually being replaced by the Global North and the Global South. The USA and China come to the fore as the leading actors in these poles. This, in its way, starts a race in the Middle East, sometimes through war, sometimes through peace, sometimes through alliances, and sometimes through coups. With the current signs, the ongoing competition over war and peace will gradually lead to a race in the formation of alliances as well. The first step of this is the efforts of structures such as BRICS+ and the Abraham Alliance to enter the region and shape it. The only difference between the new wave of polarization and the old one is that the dominant actor defining the system, the United States, does not conform to it, while China, which is striving to maintain the system’s sustainability, competes with this. In this context, it is possible to say that in the coming period, there will be louder demands for rights outlined by International Law but not implemented, especially regarding the Palestine-Israel issue in the Middle East. Conversely, if inaction continues, the process of Palestinian statehood may accelerate further. At the end of the year, the anticipated power shift in the US could push it back to a unilateral support policy regarding Israel. This would significantly increase anti-US and anti-Israel rhetoric worldwide. However, in the long run, independent of the power shifts in the US, if the threats surrounding Israel cease to be threats, diplomatic negotiations led by the US might once again take precedence over war. During this period, the US is likely to continue traditional shuttle diplomacy in the background, not entirely abandoning diplomacy as it seeks to counter China. To prevent losing its peace rhetoric to China and maintain its hegemonic power, the US must first suppress dissent within the system. This can be achieved in the short term through a show of military force. However, superpowers’ use of military power is limited, as seen during the Iraq war. Therefore, achieving this through allies like Israel and other regional partnerships may be a more practical approach.