Amid the flare-up of battles in Gaza and Lebanon, a debate is intensifying in Western capitals. In London, this interesting debate is unfolding on two fronts: judicial and political. A recent British court ruling clarified that criticism of Israel’s actions remains permissible, distinguishing it from anti-Semitism. The ruling affirms that such criticism falls within the realm of political discourse rather than criminalisation.
On the political front, the UK’s House of Commons and the British government are considering imposing sanctions on two extremist members of the Israeli government for their extremist rhetoric. Also, the US has set a one-month deadline for Israel to facilitate the entry of relief and humanitarian supplies into northern Gaza, warning it of potential actions if it fails to comply.
Meanwhile, several European capitals have criticised Israel’s policy in Gaza, which operates under the slogan “surrender or die of starvation.” These developments reflect a shift in European sentiment, indicating growing unease with Israel’s actions, even as the familiar rhetoric of Israel’s right to “defend itself” persists.
The widespread outcry in the West over the recent attacks on UN observers and peacekeepers stationed along the Blue Line, which separates southern Lebanon and northern Israel, underscores a clear message: the world does not want war. While the phenomenon of violence appears to be diminishing globally, two regions remain exceptions — Ukraine and the Middle East.
Moreover, Europe’s proximity to these conflict zones fuels concerns about a potential influx of migrants arriving by sea, a situation that has already stirred public opinion and heightened concerns across European societies.
These stances offer an opportunity to engage in a meaningful debate that could pave the way toward a clearer goal: a two-state solution. The current reality is that the parties engaged in the conflict are not state actors but militias, which are universally classified as “terrorist organisations” in Western countries.
As a result, these groups are unable to capitalise on the evolving political climate in the West, which could otherwise present a more favourable environment for constructive dialogue and resolution.
These militias have not accepted that it is the state that should engage in negotiations. They have made significant sacrifices, and this is undeniable. Gazan society has endured immense suffering, and continues to do so, as witnessed daily.
Now, Lebanese society is also bearing a heavy toll from this conflict. Yet, these militias remain unconvinced that it is the state that must lead negotiations. Ultimately, every war, no matter how prolonged, concludes with dialogue and negotiation.
Zero-sum equation
The militias put the broader Arab body, which is deeply sympathetic to their cause, before two choices: to either support the resistance or be seen as opposing it, often facing criticism for the latter.
However, there is a third, and more crucial, option: the universally recognised Palestinian authority, the PLO, and the Lebanese state, both acknowledged on the global stage. Only these two entities have the legitimacy and capacity, considering international dynamics, to achieve satisfactory outcomes through negotiations.
In Lebanon, the absence of a functioning state means that discussions about a ceasefire will be futile unless the state can restore its institutions, which have been weakened by Hezbollah’s pervasive influence.
Similarly, in Gaza, the violence will continue unabated until the Hamas leadership acknowledges that collaboration with the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) is essential for effective political action. If this acknowledgement does not occur, the situation may deteriorate further, leading to complete devastation in Gaza, a reality unfolding before the eyes of the world.
On the other side, there is noticeable reluctance in various capitals — not only in the West but also in those with the capacity to influence Israeli decisions. Despite the pressure exerted, Israel continues to violate red lines, from the siege and extermination to the targeting of UN forces and the use of prohibited munitions.
This is compounded by an internal public opinion that is increasingly fearful, perceiving the situation as a new “Holocaust” even as the Arab losses on the Palestinian and Lebanese sides remain staggering.
This zero-sum equation can only be resolved through the militias’ conviction that they have fulfilled their role, even if that role is debated. Their strategy of expanding the war against their enemy by involving a regional state has shown that when the interests of this state are threatened, principles often fall by the wayside.
Thus, there is no recourse but to their own people. The pressing question arises: is there anyone who puts the interests of the majority over those of the minority? This question demands a courageous response, akin to the bravery required to take up arms.
Courage is not measured by the pull of a trigger; true courage lies in making the right decision at the right time.
Mohammad Alrumaihi is an author and Professor of Political Sociology at Kuwait University
