The judgment of the Washington Court of Appeal does not consider immunity valid for Trump, for having tried to change the election result, after the outcome that led Biden to be the new US president. The ruling of the court, composed of three judges, arrived unanimously, refuting Trump’s defense, which aimed at total immunity from the law, even for acts carried out in cases where his power has been extinguished. This defense, the court refuted, presupposes that the office of US president is equivalent to an absolute sovereign, that is, not subject to any earthly law; furthermore, the defense thesis calls into question the natural recognition of the electoral response and of the separation of powers itself, because it would place the presidential office above the regulations. An aspect to underline is that one of the three judges has a conservative background and was appointed by Trump himself. A fundamental aspect of the ruling is that the US president can be accused of crimes committed during his period in office: this is a very relevant resolution from a legal point of view, because it is the first time it has been adopted in US law and that establishes that immunity belongs to the presidential office and not to the person, so once they have expired, immunity is no longer enjoyed. There are two options for Trump’s defense to appeal the ruling of the Washington Court of Appeals: the first would consist in filing the appeal with all the judges of the Washington Circuit, technically defined as “appeal en banc”, however this solution appears unlikely , because according to jurists a change in the sentence would be unlikely, or, and this is the second option, the appeal can take place at the Supreme Court, made up of six Republican and three Democratic members. This choice would also have a tactical political value, given that the Supreme Court, for this session, which will end in July, should no longer accept cases, leaving the question pending, a solution preferred by Trump himself; however, it could also be probable that, given the seriousness of the issue, the President of the Court will include the probable appeal in the current session. In any case, both the sentence and the appeal generate doubts about the legal future of Trump, who remains the most likely candidate for the Republican Party in the elections on November 5th, also because there are already two appeals from the former at the Supreme Court president relating to the decisions of the states of Maine and Colorado, which banned Trump’s candidacy, again due to the events following his 2020 electoral defeat. A possibility recognized by some jurists is the possible rejection of the decisions of Maine and Colorado, by part of the Supreme Court, but the confirmation of the ruling of the Court of Appeals of Washington, which contains legally relevant arguments against Trump and which could bring him to trial, precisely because his attitude interfered in the process of counting and verifying the votes, a matter completely outside presidential competence: this would represent an attack on the structure of the state; a charge that is difficult to refute. In the meantime, however, Trump’s presidential campaign is proceeding triumphantly and the only candidate still present, Nikky Halley, has very little chance of bringing the Republican Party back to its traditional political path and therefore of seriously competing for Trump’s presidential candidacy . The legal question arises in a context of profound division and radicalization between the two electorates, where the contending parties have further distanced themselves on all matters, both domestic, economic and international politics. Furthermore, the precedent of the Capitol insurrection identifies Trump supporters, certainly not all, as capable of violent gestures in open conflict with federal laws. On the other hand, postponing the decision on the decisions of the states of Maine and Colorado and on the ruling of the Washington Court of Appeals could raise serious doubts about the real impartiality of the Supreme Court, generating an institutional short circuit capable of paralyzing the country, in a moment where the international situation requires quick decisions. If the result with Trump as candidate is in the balance, perhaps with another Republican candidate a situation could arise that would impose a renewal even among the Democrats, but time is running out, putting the entire Western balance at risk.
The failure of Kiev’s counter-advance caused justified alarms about an attack by Moscow on European countries and those belonging to the Atlantic Alliance; according to the Germans, a success in Ukraine could lead the Russians to decide to advance towards a country neighboring Russia: the main suspects are the Baltic countries, but tension is also increasing in Poland. These analyzes are nothing new: the German Ministry of Defense has long developed a forecast of a possible attack on the eastern flank of the Atlantic Alliance, which could take place by 2025. The necessary condition for this forecast to come true is a Russian victory in Ukraine, a strong mobilization is expected in February 2024, capable of bringing 200,000 soldiers to the front, and then launching a spring offensive that will be decisive for the outcome of the conflict in Moscow’s favor. If this scenario were to come true, Putin could decide to advance towards adjacent objectives, even if some doubts remain about the real ability to quickly replenish Russian arsenals. Even the possibility of only a partial advance would benefit the Kremlin, because it could convince Kiev to decide to concede something to Russia to avoid the complete loss of the disputed territories, while the European Union could soften its attitude to avoid the arrival of a large number of refugees, capable of destabilizing the fragile internal balance. The use of forms of hybrid warfare such as cyber attacks, towards Brussels and the search for pretexts with the Baltic countries, would complete the Russian action; in particular, Moscow could repeat the tactics operated before the war in Ukraine, when the Russian population in the border areas was incited, which could happen again with the Russians residing in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and also Finland and Poland; this would represent the excuse to carry out joint maneuvers on the borders of these states, also involving the Belarusian army. These dangers are well present in the vision of the Atlantic Alliance, a further factor of concern, with respect to Ukraine, is that, in a potential Russian attack, there is an important geographical variable constituted by the Kaliningrad region, a Russian territory between Poland and Lithuania, without territorial continuity with the motherland. For Moscow, from a strategic point of view the conquest of the so-called Suwalki corridor, which directly connects the Baltic countries to the NATO allies, would be a priority. Deploying troops and short- and medium-range missiles in the Kaliningrad region would allow the Kremlin to launch an offensive, capable of uniting the isolated region with its Belarusian ally. The coincidence of the American presidential elections is considered another factor in Putin’s favour: Russia could attack at the time of the election or transfer of power, compromising the reaction times of the major military force of the Atlantic Alliance; even a possible election of Trump is seen as an facilitation for the Russians, which could lead to an American disengagement even within NATO, without the European Union yet being able to support Moscow’s attack. On this issue, Brussels’ delay is disheartening, the lack of a common army, combined with the lack of common action in foreign policy, leaves the EU disorganized in the face of global emergencies and, furthermore, the continuous division between member states creates a lack of cohesion that is highly detrimental to a common defense project not dependent on the US presence. Speaking of numbers, the forecast is for a deployment of around 70,000 Russian soldiers on Belarusian territory, on the border with the Baltic states by March 2025. The Atlantic Alliance has already foreseen a substantial response to this contingent of around 300,000 men to protect the corridor Lithuanian, to defend the integrity of the Baltic countries, but these are huge numbers, which could reopen the way to compulsory military service, which many states plan to reinstate, precisely to counterbalance the Russian numbers. The phenomenon of war centered on the models of the First and Second World Wars, which seemed overcome by the deployment of super-technological armaments, seems to be able to forcefully return, subverting all predictions. To avoid this scenario it is important to support Ukraine in every way to contain Putin’s ambitions and prevent the Third World War.
Iraq, despite the underestimation of the press, is destined to become a very important front in the Middle Eastern conflict and, specifically, in the confrontation between the USA and Iran. The situation, which the Iraqi authorities defined as a violation of their sovereignty, saw mutual attacks between Washington and Tehran, conducted right on Iraqi soil. Iran cannot tolerate the American military presence on its borders, on Iraqi soil the Ajatollah regime is present with pro-Iranian militias, financed by Tehran, whose presence is considered strategically important, in the context of actions against the West and Israel . Among the tasks of these militias are acts of disturbance against American forces and those of the coalition against the jihadists present on Iraqi soil. Recently these military operations, in reality already underway since October, have hit American bases with drones and rockets, causing injuries to US personnel and damage to the infrastructure of the bases. Even without the Iranian signature, the attacks were easily traced back to Tehran and this aggravated a conflict situation capable of degenerating into a dangerous manner. The USA responded by striking the Hezbollah Brigades, present on Iraqi territory in a region on the border with Syria, causing two victims among the militiamen; however, other victims would have been recorded in Scythian militias, which have become part of the regular Iraqi army. These American retaliations have sparked protests from the Baghdad government, which was elected thanks to the votes of Iraqi Shiites and which fears the reaction of its supporters. The accusation of violation of national sovereignty, if it appears justified against Washington’s actions, should also apply against Tehran, as the instigator of the attacks against American installations and, broadening the discussion, also against the Turks, who have carried out actions several times against the Kurds, something also imitated by the Iranians. The reality is that the current situation in Iraq, but also in Syria and Lebanon, by the Israelis, sees a continuous violation of the rules of international law in a series of unofficially declared wars, which escape the practice established by international law . This situation presents the greatest risk of an extension of the Middle Eastern conflict, capable of provoking the explosion of a declared war, as a subsequent factor to these, unfortunately increasingly frequent, episodes of low intensity conflicts. Leaving Iraq out of a conflict appears crucial to avoiding a world conflict; the geographical position of the country, between the two major opposing Islamic powers, would lead to a direct confrontation, which would have as its first consequence the direct involvement of the United States and the possibility , for Tehran, to bring its missile bases closer to Israel. One of the major protagonists to avoid this dangerous drift is the Iraqi Prime Minister Mohamed Chia al-Soudani, who, despite enjoying the support of the Shiite electorate, needs to preserve ties between Baghdad and Washington. In reality, these ties, in the intentions of the Iraqi prime minister, should only be of a diplomatic nature, since regarding the presence of the international military coalition, the head of the executive has repeatedly underlined its withdrawal to favor the conditions of stability and security in Iraq. However, the issue is difficult to resolve: with the presence of financed and trained militias in the country, Iraq risks losing its independence, guaranteed precisely by the presence of Western forces; if the Iraqi country fell into the hands of Tehran it would be a major problem of a geopolitical nature for Washington, which must necessarily maintain its presence on Iraqi soil, a fact strengthened by the issue of Gaza, which provoked the actions of the Houthis and the self-proclamation by part of Tehran as defender of the Palestinians, despite the religious difference. Baghdad thus became an indirect victim of the situation that was created in Gaza, after having gone through the entire phase of the presence of the Islamic State, which is still present in certain areas. To defuse this risk, a diplomatic effort would be needed from the most responsible party of those involved: the USA; this diplomatic effort should be directed, not so much towards Iran, but towards Israel to stop the carnage in Gaza, encourage aid to the population, also with the use of UN peacekeepers and accelerate the solution, even unilaterally of the two states, the only one capable of stopping international escalation and eliminating any excuse for creating the conditions for regional instability.
Trump’s most accredited opponent, Republican Ron DeSantis, governor of the state of Florida, has officially withdrawn from the nomination race to participate in the US presidential election. After the Republican elections in Iowa, where he received little support, the polls for the vote in New Hampshire gave him only a percentage of 5.2 and this led to his withdrawal; DeSantis has announced that his support will therefore go to Trump. DeSantis, who some saw as capable of countering Trump in the race to be nominated as Biden’s challenger, comes from similar political positions to Trump and identifies with the new course that is dominating in the Republican Party, influenced by the ideas of the Tea Party and, for this reason , assures his support for the former president, in open contrast with the candidacy of Nikky Halley, which he considers too moderate and representative of the old approach of the Republicans. DeSantis had earned a certain credit, thanks to his election as governor of Florida, against the candidates indicated by Trump, however the defeat, distanced by about 30 percentage points in Iowa, demonstrated that Republican voters perceived him as a copy of Trump, precisely for very similar positions on issues such as immigration and abortion. The loss of support, after the polls distanced him by only 10 points from Trump, began with the defense of the former president from criminal charges, thus causing him to lose the support of more moderate voters. Although formally DeSantis had already given up on the New Hampshire primaries, to concentrate on those of South Carolina, the distance of around 55 percentage points recorded in the polls led to the decision to withdraw, also to take up his position as governor of the United States full time. Florida. DeSantis is the third candidate to withdraw from the Republican contest, thus determining a two-way contest between Trump, increasingly favored, and Nikky Halley, former governor of South Carolina and US ambassador to the United Nations. Nikky Halley’s electoral strategy is to collect the votes of the more moderate Republicans, who do not recognize themselves in Trump’s histrionic way of governing and are against his extremist positions marked by little respect for federal laws. The chaos created by Trump’s judicial affairs does not find favor with the more traditional Republican voters, who would prefer a more measured and more reliable character, however the audience conquered by Trump appears broader because it cuts across the classic Republican electorate, capable of gaining consensus in the more diverse classes and also by the poorest voters. Despite these analyses, Nikky Halley tries to present herself as a sort of generational change, thanks to her age, 51 years and a substantial political experience. However, a clear victory by Trump in New Hampshire could take away any ambition from his challenger, significantly reducing his chances of reaching the nomination. This story demonstrates how what was once the dominant political class of the Republican Party has not yet recovered its positions and, on the contrary, is almost passively assisting the transformation of the party, which began with the Tea Party, up to a personalistic political formation of Trump himself and, essentially, his hostage. If this sociopolitical analysis is valid Nikky Halley has little chance of winning, precisely because he is too close to the demands of a part of the party that appears to be a minority. For the USA and the world, this is not good news because it highlights the continuation of the trend of radicalization of the Republican Party, despite Trump’s defeat in the last elections and his judicial troubles. After four years, the lack of political and generational change, excluding the figure of Halley, demonstrates how the party is hostage to Trump and this causes concern at an international level. From the point of view of the Democratic Party, perhaps a Trump candidacy may be worthwhile, because it will lead to the mobilization of the electorate not accustomed to going to the polls, who would vote for any candidate to avoid Trump’s repeat in the White House; from this perspective, a success, even if difficult, for Halley could favor her in the run for the office of president, precisely because she is a more moderate element than her. Both solutions, Biden or Halley, would certainly be appreciated by the majority of the international scene, which fears with Trump an upheaval of Western balances.
The statement by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, who said he was against the formation of a Palestinian state after the end of the war, expressed so explicitly, further clarifies the Israeli government’s strategy on the real intention of expansion on the territories left to the Palestinians . Evidently the reassurances that its inhabitants will remain in Gaza, even if decimated, have only been formal; the real risk is that these intentions also concern the West Bank. Netanyahu continues to affirm that the war will still be very long, but it is evidently a wait-and-see tactic, awaiting the outcome of the next American consultations: in fact, a victory for Trump would favor the executive in power in Tel Aviv and would keep the troubles at bay judicial of the Israeli prime minister. The prospect, however, includes a permanent state of war, with the risk of spreading more seriously on multiple fronts and involving more actors, as already happens, but in a more massive manner. This attitude has attracted deep criticism from the USA, according to Biden the Israeli situation can only be normalized with the creation of a Palestinian state, an argument also supported by the Arab states, with Saudi Arabia having placed this condition for the recognition of the state of Israel ; but even just the proposal for a ceasefire was rejected by the Tel Aviv executive, on the grounds that it would represent a demonstration of weakness towards terrorists. Within the rejection of the creation of a Palestinian state, there is also the refusal to give control of Gaza to the Palestinian National Authority. With these premises, however, some questions are legitimate. The first is that the presidential elections in the USA will be held next November: until then, with Biden in office, the distance between Tel Aviv and Washington risks becoming increasingly accentuated and the risk for Netanyahu is to see American support reduce, an eventuality that has never happened in the history of relations between the two countries, which could weaken the leadership in the country and also the military capacity; certainly Biden must carefully calculate how far he can go, so as not to make decisions that have repercussions on his electoral consensus, but the prospect of Israel’s weakening on the international level appears very real. The war in Gaza has caused an expansion of the concrete conflict, which has been able to involve other actors, so much so that the regional conflict situation is now an established fact. The question concerns Israel’s responsibility for the reaction to the events of October 7, in relation to the international sphere. The situation that was created with the Houthi attacks in the Red Sea, which caused serious economic damage to international trade, the blatant intervention of Iran, with mutual threats with Israel and the Hezbollah issue, which caused the involvement of Lebanon and Syria, clearly outlined a situation that was serious, but still at a contained level. The worsening has led and will lead to the involvement of actors not yet directly present on the Middle Eastern scene, with an increase in the presence of armaments and military actions, such as to make the situation highly unstable. An accident is not only possible but also highly probable and this could trigger a conflict, no longer through a third party, but with the direct involvement, for example of Israel against Iran; this eventuality appears closer than ever and explicit threats do not help to favor a diplomatic solution. The central question is whether the West and even the whole world can allow a nation to exist with a person of Netanyahu’s type in power, certainly Israel is sovereign within itself, but it has not been able to resolve the judicial situation of a man who remains in power with unscrupulous tactics, which indifferently use the ultra-nationalist far right, wait-and-see tactics, false promises and violent conduct, closer to the terrorist association it wants to fight, rather than that of a democratic state. Israeli public opinion seems to be dominated by this character and the few voices of dissent are not enough to stop this trend. Even though it is legitimate to fight Hamas, the ways are not the right ones, over twenty thousand victims are too high a toll, which hides the intention of an annexation of Gaza, as a new land for the settlers; this scenario would have catastrophic effects, which only international pressure, even with the use of sanctions, and diplomatic activity can avoid. Also because once Gaza has been taken, the passage to the West Bank would only be a consequence, just as total war would be a logical consequence.
With a negotiation, which could be defined as alternative, Orban’s Hungary, opting for constructive abstention, as it has been imaginatively defined, allowed the European Council to proceed with the opening of negotiations for accession to the Union of Moldova and Ukraine. After repeated threats, the Hungarian president absented himself from the vote, with an unprecedented procedural innovation, which made it possible to achieve the result approved by twenty-six European countries, which also includes the start of Georgia’s candidacy and the postponement of the evaluation to March of the accession process of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Orban, the only European leader to meet Putin since the beginning of the Ukrainian conflict, has always said he is against the start of Kiev’s accession process, arguing that it does not meet the conditions for joining the EU, however, apart from the affinities with the regime of Russian and therefore political, Budapest could fear sharing European resources, which, in fact, financially support the Hungarian country, with the new members, with a consequent decrease in revenue from Brussels. Naturally, Orban’s abstention was not free: beyond the threat of a request for funding of 50 billion for the functioning of the Hungarian administration for 2024, President Orban was “satisfied” with the release of 10 billion in funding, which they had been blocked due to the violation of fundamental rights by the Budapest government; rights that will certainly not be restored and this fact will also constitute a further dangerous precedent for the functioning of European politics, which can be overcome, as always, with the end of unanimity voting, a mechanism that needs to be corrected more and more urgently. The approach of the summit was entirely aimed at the result, where, in fact, it was preferred to create dangerous precedents to achieve the set goal, with a political vision, which necessarily had to sacrifice something, but which brought a result that was rightly celebrated. If the process is successful, the political value will certainly be successful, not only for the enlargement of the common European home, but also for the geostrategic containment of Russian ambitions. Nor should the fact of having accepted the ambitions of Georgia be underestimated, which could become a European member without geographical continuity with the other member countries and which could constitute an outpost of the Union capable of attracting other countries in the region. The decision strengthens European credibility and prestige, allowing us to interrupt the diplomatic obfuscation, which Brussels has demonstrated with decisions that are not always too congruent with its principles. President Zelensky averted an indirect victory for Putin, which would have raised Moscow’s morale in the event of refusal towards Ukraine. The opening to Kiev means an unequivocal political result on a global level, which compensates, at least in part, for the refusal of the US Congress to release the 60 billion dollars for military aid; moreover, the Ukrainian situation in the conflict with Russia is at a standstill, the front is immobile and the progress that the Kiev government had promised to the West has not been recorded, while the Russian armies seem to be holding on to their positions. The European decision, combined with the consistent promise by some individual European states to provide military aid, can boost Ukrainian morale; Kiev and Moscow’s commitment in the coming winter months should be to maintain their positions and prepare for decisive operations when weather conditions improve. In this period, European commitment may also be more incisive in the diplomatic field, despite Putin having declared that Western isolation has not produced major repercussions on the Russian economy and there is no further need to mobilize new military personnel; these declarations must be interpreted partly as justified by the upcoming Russian elections and partly by Moscow’s ability to have been able to carve out a dialogue with powers both adverse to the USA, such as Iran, and close to Washington, such as Arabia. Europe, therefore, must know how to play an increasingly autonomous role from the USA, also in preparation for an unfortunate re-election of Trump, of which the admission of Ukraine, Moldova and also Georgia must be read as a process that is part of a plan superior capable of uniting European countries in an increasingly federal and political sense with autonomy in foreign policy and equipped with its own army, capable, that is, of overcoming the financial logic to be able to truly interpret the role of an international subject of primary importance.
The tragic events of October 7, which occurred on Israeli territory on the border with the Gaza Strip, were a preordained plan by Hamas and there is no doubt about this. What we must ask ourselves is the attitude of the Israeli border forces, alerted by its own members and by probable intelligence news, evidently underestimated, with the borders undefended thanks to the decrease in numbers present. Have these warnings really been underestimated or are they part of a plan by the government in office to encourage the creation of a legitimate reason to unleash repression on Gaza and its eventual conquest and the further facilitation of the expansion of settlements in the West Bank? We need to go back in time and remember that Benjamin Netanyahu’s management of the Palestinian problem has always been characterized by an ambiguous attitude, made up of broken promises and a behavior that has favored the growth of the most radical movements, those that have always denied the legitimacy of the existence of Israel and of the two-state hypothesis, to the detriment of the moderate ones, which could favor dialogue, but to the detriment of the policy of expanding the colonies; in fact, the effective search for an agreement that could favor the achievement of the purpose of the two states would have penalized the politics of the far right which makes illegitimate colonial expansion, illegitimate because it is outside of international law and common sense, its own political program . Netanyahu’s political position and sensitivity has increasingly shifted to the right, bringing together increasingly radical movements and parties in the various governments that have followed, which with their actions have favored the growth of similar sentiments in Palestinian areas, with a growth of radical movements, among which the leadership of Hamas emerged. At the same time, however, Netanyahu’s personal situation has worsened due to various problems with the justice system in his country and the increasingly rightward shift of his political positions, which has put the anti-Palestinian action at the center, both in domestic and international sphere, a very strong reason for distraction from his judicial indictments. Currently, in the phase of the war in Gaza, the country’s sensitivity towards Netanyahu is strongly negative. For the attack on the kibbutzim, public opinion sees Netanyahu as the person most responsible, but the emergency situation prevents his replacement, even if he is It has been repeatedly underlined that after the end of the war in Gaza there should be no political future for the current prime minister. In the meantime, however, an increasingly aggressive attitude of the settlers in the West Bank is permitted and several questions are legitimate about the future of Gaza. At the beginning of the invasion by Israeli troops, the declared desire was to annihilate Hamas and leave the situation in the Strip unchanged, but as the conflict progresses, an unexplicitly declared desire to exercise effective control over the territory seems to emerge. This would imply the denial of the political and administrative autonomy of the Palestinians who will be lucky enough to remain alive in the face of the brutal repression that Israel is carrying out on the civilian population. An extreme solution could be the movement of the inhabitants of Gaza towards the Sinai, a solution to which Egypt has always said it is against, thus freeing a significant portion of territory to be allocated to new settlers. This is not an impossible eventuality, precisely because the survivors of Gaza are at the complete mercy of the Israeli armed forces, not defended by any state or international organization, capable of opposing, even politically, Tel Aviv. The fact that these are the civilian population, who have already paid the price of over 18,000 deaths, the entire destruction of their belongings, hunger and disease, produces nothing more than verbal solidarity, where the Arab countries lead interested in having international relations with Israel. In the end, the legitimate doubt is this: if Netanyahu were to expand Israeli dominion over Gaza and increase the territorial space of the colonies, something carried out with impunity, he would have definitively decreed the two-state perspective, an argument particularly appreciated by part of Israeli public opinion. , and he would therefore have created an insurance capable of preserving his political future which would also allow him to overcome his legal problems, in short he would have a leadership structure that is practically unassailable even by those parties and movements which hope for his political end. Will all this be possible? The solution will also depend on how the main international players want to behave, adopting new forms of approach to the Palestinian issue.
One of the consequences of the Gaza war is the suspension of the Abraham Accords, however, Saudi Arabia has only suspended its approach to Israel, waiting for a more favorable moment. Of the other Arab states that have already signed relations with Israel, there has not been any that has merely threatened to interrupt them, only criticism has arrived in Tel Aviv for the exaggerated response to the Hamas action of last October 7th, together with the request of a ceasefire, especially for humanitarian reasons. This is a situation clearly favorable to Tel Aviv, which cannot but highlight the substantial silence of the Sunni world. This scenario, which has actually been underway for some time, may only be favorable to Israel in the short term, but in the medium and long term it favors the radicalization of the Palestinians and the protagonism of the Shiites, with Iran as the leader, followed by Yemen and Hezbollah . In particular, Tehran becomes the defender of the Palestinians as the sole representative of Muslims. Netanyahu has in fact achieved what he wanted: a radicalisation, with the marginalization of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, a secular and more moderate organisation, of the Palestinians can avoid the discussion on the two states and Tehran’s protagonism forces the Americans into a new collaboration with the Israeli nationalist government; in fact, the American withdrawal from the Middle Eastern region has been rethought, forcing Washington to deploy a large quantity of armed vehicles, especially at sea, to protect the advance of the Israeli army and also to protect the American bases in the Persian Gulf from possible Iranian attacks. The evident desire to deter potential dangers from Tehran, but not only, has led to the deployment of several missiles capable of reaching Iranian territory; this implies that no progress will be made in the negotiations with the Ayatollah regime, on the nuclear issue or even on the easing of sanctions. Iran, despite having publicly stated that it has no interest in engaging in a conflict with the USA and Israel, will only be able to continue pursuing its strategy of destabilizing the area, to assert its objectives of control over Syria, together with Russia and part of Lebanon, territories essential to continue to put pressure on Tel Aviv. Washington will, however, have to consider Israel’s responsibilities for having had to give up a progressive reduction of its diplomatic activity in the Middle Eastern region in favor of a greater concentration on the Ukrainian question. It should be specified that various administrations of the White House are, at the very least, guilty of complicity with Tel Aviv, for not having committed themselves to the definition of the two-state project and not having fought the action of the governments of the Israeli nationalist right, which operated towards the Palestinians a policy of occupation and abuse in contempt of all civil and international rights. Only Washington could put adequate pressure on Israel, but this was not the case and the two-state solution, which could have avoided the current situation, was not achieved, also thanks to Netanyahu’s false availability and his unscrupulous policies. But once again the strategy proved to be short-sighted and at an international level it provoked an anti-Zionist and even anti-Semitic wave, which put Jews in difficulty in various countries around the world. At this moment the question of the two states does not appear viable due to Israeli hostility, yet it would still be the most valid antidote to the constant danger the Israeli-Palestinian issue causes in world balances. Envisioning the possibility of control of the Gaza Strip by the Tel Aviv army implies highly dangerous developments, which, once underway, could become unstoppable and drag the world into total conflict. We have already seen that actors such as Russia are taking advantage of the change in international relevance to divert attention from the Ukrainian issue and, similarly, China could decide to change its attitude with Taiwan and take action, as could terrorist groups who are operating in Africa could raise the level of conflict. Without the Gaza issue these phenomena would be more manageable and even the relationship with Tehran would be better. This is why the need to achieve peace in the shortest possible time implies a responsibility that Tel Aviv cannot refuse, under penalty of a bad fate, especially in the medium term.
The position of the Kremlin, since the times of the USSR, has been pro-Palestinian and in this context we must place the visit of Hamas representatives to Moscow, not received by Putin, but by the Russian Foreign Minister and, in any case, welcomed in a unequivocally symbolic, in the Kremlin headquarters, thus conferring the maximum degree of officiality and relevance of the meeting. This is a clear political signal aimed both at the USA and the West, and at Israel itself. Moscow is directly involved in the hostage situation, because there are six people of Russian nationality kidnapped, three of whom have dual nationality; while the number of Russian citizens who died in the bombing of the Gaza Strip reaches 23 people. In addition to Hamas, the Russian foreign minister also confirmed an upcoming meeting with the leader of the Palestinian Authority. Despite the difference in views with Hamas, which is against the two-state solution, Russia must exploit the moment to reposition itself as a relevant player in the Middle Eastern area and has every interest in maintaining relations with all the subjects involved in the current issue. If we want to have a broader vision of Moscow’s interests in the Near East, we need to consider the particular relations it has with Iran, Syria and Israel itself. Putin’s desire would be to play a role as mediator in the conflict, which could allow Russia to emerge from the current diplomatic isolation caused by the aggression against Ukraine. Moscow’s action aims to avoid the American monopoly on the management of the crisis, also through accusations against Washington of not supporting Palestinian aspirations for their own state nor the various UN resolutions, which have repeatedly condemned Israel. The Russian proposal in the Security Council was not accepted, because it did not include the condemnation of Hamas, but violence against all civilians on both sides, implying Tel Aviv’s violence towards Gaza; this has resulted in a deterioration of relations between Russia and Israel, which, however, cannot be compromised for common reasons. It should be remembered that Israel did not condemn Russia for the Ukrainian invasion and did not even join the international sanctions. It also did not provide Kiev, whose president Zelensky is Jewish, with the anti-missile system normally used to protect itself from rockets launched by Hamas. At the same time, Russia does not hinder Israel in its defense actions against Hezbollah, coming from Syria, despite the protection that Moscow continues to provide to the Damascus regime. Tel Aviv also needs Moscow’s help to contain Iranian politics in the region, which is a common interest as Tehran has long proclaimed the need to eliminate the Jewish state and implements this strategy through its ever-increasing influence on fundamentalist Shiite militias, Hezbollah and Hamas itself, because, in some ways, the only possible ally is Iran, which has remained to materially support the Palestinian liberation struggle, compared to the increasingly evident withdrawal of the Sunni Arab states in supporting the Palestinians. Tehran implements a policy of material aid in the countries of Lebanon and Syria, which, especially with regard to Damascus, can compromise Russian interests, as well as delicate regional stability. Regarding the conflict with Kiev, Moscow has every interest in international attention shifting to the Middle East and for this reason the Ukrainian president went so far as to state that the Russian country was behind the Hamas attacks. Supporting this hypothesis is very difficult, Hamas’ action was prepared over a long period of time and with substantial supplies, which seem to come from other countries. However, a tangible fact remains that this crisis between Israelis and Palestinians works in Moscow’s favor, even if the attention of the Atlantic Alliance has certainly not waned, but the greater commitment of the US military, especially with naval means, to protect Israel from ‘Iran implies a more diversified commitment and even diplomatic action is no longer focused only on the European objective.
Israel was very annoyed by the words of the Secretary of the United Nations, who, explicitly condemning the cowardly attack by Hamas several times, however, contextualized it in a context of violent abuse by the country of Israel perpetrated over more than fifty years against the Palestinians, especially civilians. This statement is true throughout history, but even more extreme over the years, which are many, of Netanyahu’s various governments, which have increasingly moved closer to the nationalist and Orthodox right, a political party with the sole objective of subtracting, through illegal settlements, land not only for Palestinians but even for Bedouin tribes. The Israeli president has implemented a policy of dividing the Palestinians, favoring the extremists of Hamas, who have gathered the consensus of the Palestinians, accrediting violence as the only possible solution. It must be said that this was favored by Netanyahu’s ambiguous attitude, who first allowed a glimpse of the two-state solution, and then moved increasingly towards a decisive denial of this solution, thus disadvantaging the moderate parts of Palestinian politics, several times accused of inability to achieve the goal of establishing a Palestinian state through diplomatic means. It must also be said that American interests, increasingly directed towards Southeast Asia, have led to an absence, which has favored Netanyahu’s action, which has led us to today. But the USA is not the only one responsible for this situation: the list is not short, Europe has maintained a condescending attitude towards Tel Aviv, condemning the Israeli action ineffectively and no less guilty are the Arab states which have remained declarations of convenience, without ever acting with a united policy to put pressure on the USA and the Israelis themselves, without even taking advantage of the recent rapprochement. All this contributed to determining an increase in tension, which occurred without fanfare, with Iran becoming the sole official defender of the Palestinian cause with its increasingly decisive support for the radical forces. Tehran was able to fill the void left by various subjects, who could favor a peaceful solution, to exploit the Palestinian case for its own geopolitical and strategic needs. Iran, through Palestine, can operate on two fronts: the first is the fight against Saudi Arabia, which is political and religious, the second, broader, is against the USA and the West in general, a factor that it can allow him a greater rapprochement with Russia and China. As can be seen from the Israeli responsibilities for not having pursued the two-state policy, but, indeed, for having contradicted it, we have reached a state of heavy global destabilization. It was not difficult to predict these developments, but the USA and Europe literally relied on chance, leaving too much freedom for Netanyahu’s action. It is necessary that the Israeli-Palestinian situation is not in a state of tension like the current one, so as not to alter the already fragile world balance, and this is why Israel must be convinced not to use such intense violent repression, which disqualifies it as a democratic state, placing it on the same level as a terrorist organization; the number of civilian deaths recorded in the Gaza Strip is already much higher than those caused by Hamas and the same ground operation feared in the Gaza Strip risks being enormous carnage for the two sides. Furthermore, there is the possible opening of a northern front, with Hezbollah ready to intervene, an increasingly overheated situation in the West Bank and explicit Iranian threats to strike Haifa. The presence of military ships in the Persian Gulf risks triggering a confrontation with Tehran, with the consequence of activating the dormant and unpredictable cells present throughout the world. Never before has peace been in the unfortunate hands of Netanyahu, who, honestly, cannot be relied on. Biden’s action, marked by moderation, however late, seems to be the only one capable of having some possibility of averting the principle of degeneration, which truly risks leading to the outbreak of a world conflict. Only by silencing the noise of weapons and unconditional bombings on Gaza can we hope to start again from a sort of negotiation, which will restore strength to the two-state solution and make opposing extremisms retreat. Time is running out but the possibilities are there, only with adequate reflection on everyone’s part, beyond that there is only the abyss.