Most researchers and observers agree that the current war in Gaza is entirely different from previous confrontations between Palestinian resistance and occupation, leading to potential regional and international implications. Some have even gone as far as to suggest that it may trigger a third world war.
Impact
In any world map, Palestine is barely noticeable alongside larger geographical nations, with Gaza Strip representing just 2% of Palestine’s land area (360 km2). Despite its geographical insignificance, the current war on Gaza has imposed itself on the international agenda due to the exceptional nature of the event in terms of planning, execution, and implications for the occupation and the Palestinian cause.
This war also symbolizes the Palestinian cause and the stances of different parties towards it. It is also influenced by regional and international context, including significant and impactful developments such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the global Russian-Ukrainian war, and the regional Arab normalization process with the occupying state.
As a result, many have considered the regional and international repercussions of the war on Gaza. Regionally, there are possibilities of its escalation towards a comprehensive regional confrontation, which are gradually increasing despite the parties’ reluctance. Furthermore, the level of Arab normalization with the occupation seems temporarily frozen at the very least, as well as the evaluation of different parties’ positions and therefore their roles and future dealings. Additionally, the war’s repercussions may affect the stability of some regimes and provoke internal reactions within them.
On an international level, attention is primarily focused on the stance of some Western countries, their governments, institutions, and media towards the war and their levels of involvement in it (the United States being a prime example). Consequently, this is anticipated to affect future relationships with these countries and their perception of Western civilization and its model. The extent of the impact of boycotts against companies supporting the occupation is only a simple indicator of the deepening rift in trust between the Arab and Islamic world and most Western countries.
Many argue that the current reality does not indicate any possibility of a third world war on the margins of the aggression on Gaza, considering the “calm” attitudes of China and Russia, and to a lesser extent, Iran, which has repeatedly expressed its unwillingness to engage in it, a highly credible proposal.
World War
One of the most important discussions related to the war on Gaza and its international implications is the possibility of its contribution to the outbreak of a third world war. Some view this as exaggeration, while others sharply underline this possibility, reinforcing the need for discussion.
Many define a world war as an armed confrontation involving several nations from multiple continents, while others simplify it as a war between superpowers.
In the cases of the first and second world wars, a long period with numerous developments and wars passed before someone termed the situation as a “world war.” Initially, what occurred was a series of armed conflicts and wars that, through their evolution and consequences, led to additional confrontations, ultimately resulting in the expansion of the conflict area and the continuous entry of new parties, reaching a point of no return.
Regardless of the direct causes described as “unreal,” there are real factors contributing to the outbreak of a world war, primarily economic crises, intense competition among countries, especially superpowers, the rise of right-wing movements and their increasing influence, existing conflict zones or potential flashpoints, such as the South China Sea, the Eastern Mediterranean, and the Balkans, and the weakness of international institutions that are supposed to be authoritative.
Today, there is a striking similarity between the current international circumstances and those prevailing before the second world war. The recurring global economic crises, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, intense competition between the United States on one side and China and Russia on the other, along with active conflict zones like Ukraine, Palestine, Syria, and the South Caucasus, as well as potential disputes such as the South China Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean, and the increasing presence of far-right movements in Western countries. All contribute to a tense and largely similar international environment to the pre-1939 conditions, especially if we add the weakness of the United Nations and its Security Council.
The protests against the unjust international system and the ineffectiveness of the Security Council in global issues have been ongoing for some time, and calls for its reform have been recurrent. Nevertheless, the UN has maintained its presence despite the flaws and mistakes. However, the war on Gaza has emphasized its failure and the indifference of the superpowers towards it.
The United Nations Security Council has failed more than once to issue a ceasefire resolution in Gaza, mostly due to the United States’ (and other countries’) use of the veto, while resolutions related to humanitarian ceasefires and aid delivery were issued after Washington’s abstention from voting. This occurred after negotiations, bargaining, and pressure from Washington to alter the proposed resolution text, threatening to use the veto.
Despite 120 out of 193 countries in the General Assembly voting in favor of an immediate ceasefire resolution on 27/10/2023, and 153 countries voting for a similar resolution on 12/12/2023, Washington vetoed every resolution calling for a ceasefire, including the one issued on 8/12 of the preceding year. However, it passed the resolution issued on 22/12 calling for aid delivery, after abstaining from voting following the rejection of the ceasefire resolution’s text.
The voting trends in both the General Assembly and the Security Council demonstrate how one country possessing the right of veto can prevent the international institution from making a decision favored by the overwhelming majority of the world’s countries, and the prevention of genocide, turning the Security Council into an incapable institution in any issue related to the five permanent member states.
Conversely, many argue that the current situation does not indicate any possibility of the outbreak of a third world war on the margins of the aggression on Gaza, considering the “calm” attitudes of China and Russia, and to a lesser extent Iran, which has repeatedly expressed its unwillingness to engage in it, a highly credible proposal.
However, it should be noted that possibilities of escalation persist and increase as the aggression on Gaza continues, as does the involvement of various parties, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Ansar Allah/Houthis in Yemen, as the levels of tension and mutual strikes in different fronts continue to rise without waning.
It is crucial not to disregard the fact that many wars break out and/or expand without direct intentions from the involved parties, but as a result of unintended errors, miscalculations, or uncontrolled and unintentional events.
On the other hand, the United States’ attempts to contain the war and confine it to Gaza have led to counterproductive results, as it expands and deepens, especially in the southern front lines of Lebanon and the southern Red Sea.
As the war continues and exacerbates, it always carries the risk of its expansion and deepening. Every expansion of the war’s scope bears the risk of new expansion, deeper involvement, and additional parties’ engagement, as every tangible change produces new risks and places additional interests at stake, adding considerations that were not present before.
The continuation of the war on Gaza led to the involvement of Hezbollah and the Houthis, and the sustained nature of this holds potential risks for Iran’s engagement. If this were to happen for any reason, it raises the possibilities of Russia and/or China’s interference to varying degrees.
If some believe that the US presidential elections prevent the war’s expansion due to Washington’s reluctance to engage in it, this factor specifically may encourage other parties to test the prospects of the US stance and its patience within this framework.
Ultimately, there is no doubt that the war on Gaza is not a direct cause, let alone sufficient, for the outbreak of a world war or at least the involvement of major powers in it. However, adding the international and regional context and the aforementioned factors clearly state that this war weakens the existing international system and shakes it, weakening authoritative international institutions, consequently increasing the likelihood of a clash between superpowers.
The war on Gaza, from this perspective, adds an additional link to the current prevailing international context and accelerates its steps towards a multi-polar world and/or chaos and confrontation. Ultimately, the best judgment of the outcomes of the war lies in both regional and international dimensions.
