Does the Gaza war contribute to the outbreak of a world war?

The Israeli army is immersed in the quagmire of the Gaza war - photo by the Israeli army spokesman, for free use by the media

Most researchers and observers agree that the current war on Gaza is completely different from previous confrontations between the Palestinian resistance and the occupation, making it have many potential regional and international repercussions. Some even went on to say; It may lead to the outbreak of a third world war.

Effects

On any map of the world's countries, Palestine hardly appears alongside the geographically larger countries, and the Gaza Strip represents only approximately 2% of the area of ​​Palestine (360 km2). Despite this geographical insignificance, the current war on Gaza has imposed itself on the global agenda. Because of the exceptional planning, implementation and implications of the event, and the potential consequences on the occupation and the Palestinian issue.

This also includes the symbolism of the Palestinian issue and the positions of the various parties towards it. It also includes the regional and international context in which it took place and its important and influential developments, such as: the new Corona epidemic, the Russian-Ukrainian war globally, and the path of Arab normalization with the occupying state regionally.

Therefore, many have looked into the regional and international repercussions of the war on Gaza. Regionally in terms of the possibilities of its expansion towards a comprehensive regional confrontation, the chances of which are gradually increasing, despite the parties’ unwillingness to do so, and in terms of the path of Arab normalization with the occupying state, which appears to have been temporarily frozen at the very least, and in terms of evaluating the positions of the various parties towards it, and thus evaluating the parties themselves and their roles. And the future dealing with it, in terms of the repercussions of the war on the stability of some regimes and their internal reactions.

As for the repercussions with an international dimension, they focus mainly on the position of some Western countries: their governments, institutions, and media, regarding the war and their level of involvement in it (the United States, for example), and thus the reflection of all of this on future relations with these countries and the outlook on Western civilization and model. The extent of the spread of the movement to boycott companies that support the occupation is only a simple indicator of the depth of the rift in trust that has occurred recently between the Arab and Islamic world and most Western countries.

Many argue that the current reality does not indicate any possibility of the outbreak of a Third World War on the sidelines of the aggression on Gaza, given the “quiet” positions of China, Russia, and to a lesser extent Iran, which has repeatedly expressed its unwillingness to get involved in it, which is a proposition with great validity.

World War

One of the most important discussions regarding the war on Gaza and its international repercussions remains the extent of the possibility of it contributing to a third world war, between those who see this as exaggeration and exaggeration, and those who see the merit of this possibility, which reinforces the need for discussion.

Many define world war as an armed confrontation involving several countries from several continents, while others simplify it as a war between great powers.

In the case of the first and second world wars, a long period of time passed, interspersed with many developments and wars, before someone called what was happening the term: “world war” or “the great war.” Essentially, what is happening is a series of armed confrontations and wars that, as they develop and cause additional confrontations, lead to the expansion of the conflict and the continuous entry of new parties into the war until it reaches the point of no return.

Aside from the direct causes that are described as “unreal,” there are what are considered real causes for the outbreak of world war, foremost of which are economic crises, the intensity of competition between countries, especially the great powers, the spread of right-wing movements and the increase in their influence, the presence of burning or flammable conflict zones, and leaderships. Impulsive, and finally the weakness of the international institutions that are supposed to be a reference.

Thus, the Great Depression (1929), the growth of Nazi and fascist movements, the presence of leaders such as: Hitler and Mussolini, the arms race, the alliances formed, the inability of the League of Nations to prevent and then deal with Japan’s invasion of Manchuria (1931), and Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia (1935), then Germany's invasion of Poland (1939) was the direct cause of the outbreak of World War II.

Gaza war

Today, the great similarity between current international conditions and those that prevailed prior to World War II cannot be ignored. The recurring global economic crises, which have been deepened by the Corona pandemic, the state of intense competition between the United States on the one hand, and both China and Russia on the other hand, and the burning regions, such as: Ukraine, Palestine, Syria, and the South Caucasus, and potential conflicts, such as: the South China Sea, The Eastern Mediterranean, the Balkans, and the increasing presence of the extreme right in Western countries are all factors that create a tense international environment that is very similar to the conditions before 1939, especially if the weakness of the United Nations and its Security Council is added.

This is because the objections to the unfair international system and the weak performance of the Security Council in international issues are old, and the calls to reform the international system are frequent. However, the United Nations has remained present despite the gaps and errors, but the war on Gaza has increased its state of impotence and the indifference of the great powers to it.

The UN Security Council failed more than once to issue a ceasefire resolution in Gaza, mostly because the United States (and other countries) used its veto power, while it issued decisions related to humanitarian truces and the introduction of aid after Washington abstained from voting, which is what happened. After negotiations, bargaining, and pressure from Washington to change the text of the proposed resolutions by threatening the veto.

Thus, although 120 countries out of 193 in the General Assembly voted in favor of a resolution for an immediate ceasefire (10/27/2023), and 153 countries voted on a similar resolution on 12/12/2023, Washington used its veto in the face of every resolution that called for a ceasefire. The ceasefire, including the resolution issued on 12/8 of last year, while the resolution issued on 12/22 of that year calling for the introduction of aid passed by abstaining from voting after rejecting the resolution. The resolution stipulated a ceasefire.

Voting trends in both the General Assembly and the Security Council show how one country with veto power can prevent the international institution from making a decision that the overwhelming majority of countries in the world want, and prevent the extermination of a people, and how the Security Council turns into an institution powerless regarding any issue related to one of the five permanent countries. Membership.

On the other hand, many argue that the current reality does not indicate any possibility of the outbreak of a Third World War on the sidelines of the aggression on Gaza, given the “quiet” positions of China and Russia, and to a lesser extent Iran, which has repeatedly expressed its unwillingness to engage in it, which is a valid proposition. big.

However, it should be noted that the possibilities for expansion exist and increase as the aggression against Gaza continues and the involvement of some parties continues, such as: Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Ansar Allah/Houthis in Yemen, as the levels of tension and mutual strikes on various fronts are increasing and not decreasing.

We should not ignore the fact that many wars break out and/or expand without the direct will of their parties, but rather as a result of unintended errors, inaccurate calculations, or the uncontrolled and unintentional course of events.

On the other hand, the United States’ efforts to contain the war and confine it to Gaza led to adverse results, as it expanded and deepened, especially on the southern Lebanon and southern Red Sea fronts.

Just as the continuation and aggravation of war always carries the risks of its expansion and deepening, every expansion of the scope of the war carries the risks of new expansion, greater depth, and the involvement of additional parties. Because every tangible change means producing new risks, putting additional interests at stake, and adding accounts that did not previously exist.

The continuation of the war on Gaza led to the involvement of Hezbollah and the Houthis, and the continuation of this carries the risk of Iran’s involvement in it, and if this happens for any reason, this increases the possibilities of Russia and/or China intervening to one degree or another.

If there are those who believe that the US presidential elections are a strong impediment to the expansion of the war due to Washington’s unwillingness to do so, then this fact - in particular - may push other parties to try to test the prospects of the American position and the limits of its patience in this context.

Perhaps the killing of three American soldiers at the base in Jordan is a good example of the “security dilemma” represented by the escalation of deterrence efforts, corresponding deterrence, and testing of ceilings on both sides, warning of the possibility of things going wrong at some point.

Therefore, in conclusion, there is no doubt that the war on Gaza is not a direct cause, much less a sufficient cause for the outbreak of a global war, or at least the involvement of one great power versus another in it. However, adding the international and regional context and the aforementioned factors clearly indicates that this war increases the weakness of the international system. The existing state and its disruption, and the weakness of the international institutions of reference, thus increasing the possibility of a great power collision.

The war on Gaza, according to this perspective, 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 remain the best arbiter of its outcome at both the regional and international levels.