Reawakening Europe

 "Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts." — Winston Churchill.

This quote from Winston Churchill encapsulates the resilience and resolve that Britain has historically brought to Europe’s turbulent periods. Without Britain’s steadfast leadership, Europe often appears rudderless, lacking the decisive direction needed to navigate crises. History bears witness to this: Britain’s resolve during European Wars, from the Napoleonic Wars to the World Wars, whether through warfare, diplomacy, or economic pressure, has played a pivotal role in stabilising Europe at its most critical moments.  In the absence of this anchor, Europe will remain an archipelago of disparate interests and indecision. American unpredictability is a wake-up call from a prolonged heavy slumber and a time to resuscitate an ebbing influence that Europe once enjoyed. The recently signed Kensington agreement may yet be the Trojan Horse for renewed ties to revitalise a moribund relationship with the EU, which would prove vitally beneficial for both Europe and the United Kingdom.

In the eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries, Britain, at the height of its imperial power, had a foreign policy that was essentially predicated on preventing any single continental power from achieving hegemony over Europe. A strategy for achieving balanced military tranquillity involves forming alliances and, if necessary, resorting to military intervention to maintain equilibrium.  A somewhat paranoid Britain feared that any single power in Europe could impose a direct threat to its security and trade interests.  In 1815, following the Napoleonic wars, at the Congress of Vienna, Britain, with Palmerston at the helm, actively shaped the European order while opting for what it termed ‘splendid isolation’, allowing it to observe and intervene when and where it mattered. Indeed, today’s weakened Britain, across the wild waters of the English Channel, particularly post-Brexit, significantly still has the capacity to alter this dynamic. “Never give in” was the conviction that Winston Churchill carried with him throughout his life, a significant factor in his determination and resilience in overcoming the overwhelming odds Britain faced in saving Europe from Nazi Germany. 

A throwback to seventeenth-century Europe, when France, Spain, and the Dutch Republic were at loggerheads, and Britain had to make sense of their religiously inspired wars and colonial dispositions. History is at a crossroads, and Britain's role is needed once more if this awful following experience is anything to go by:  In the glaring lights of world media, in focus, Ursula Gertrud von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, appearing weak and hapless, in her reactive impulse allowed the United States to bulldoze through a one-sided trade agreement that would be impossible to fund through public taxation, and neither what is hoped for private enterprise.  A reactive surrender that further exposes Europe’s inability to assert itself on the global stage. This, coupled with internal fragilities within Europe itself, raises profound questions about the continent's ability to maintain its international standing. In light of this show of weakness, French PM François Bayrou wrote on X that it was a “dark day when an alliance of free peoples, united to assert their values and defend their interests, resigns itself to submission.” Indeed, a capitulation at the first sign of resistance. 

Pax Britannica, meaning "British Peace" in Latin,
refers to the period of relative peace and stability in Europe and the world, particularly between 1815 and 1914

I claim that Europe shaped Britain, and Britain, in turn, shaped Europe.  But today, both stand alone.  Europe without Britain at the wheel is a failed Europe. Against this backdrop, though, and with Brexit now at a distant, there is a tendency for Britain to come into the fold and perhaps regain the reins. If I am not mistaken, a Grand Alliance is gradually being put together between Britain, France, and Germany. A pull away from and increasingly unreliable and unpredictable US administration gave reason to a recent signing of the Kensington agreements between President Macron of France, Chancellor Friedrich Merz of Germany, and our Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, focusing on economic and Military cooperation aimed at strengthening their defence programs, AI technology developments, and other areas.

Unfortunately, Britain's political and economic stature is not what it was; Brexit has seen to that.  Britain’s ability to mediate between the US and European countries has diminished, and its influence on EU foreign policy has weakened considerably, leaving the continent with a new geopolitical landscape.  Many would not argue with the presumption that Britain has transitioned from a significant power to one of many middle powers globally.  Possible coming back into the fold makes a lot of sense. Britain has considerable hard and soft power.  Its defence capabilities are formidable, with an immense nuclear arsenal, and in conjunction with the US, feintly still there, it redefines its old global role. Now, through the political fog, we can just about see the outline of Britain’s influence extending beyond Europe. 

Without Britain's balancing influence within the European framework, its infrastructure would be rendered fragile.  Europe’s union struggles to remain a cohesive unit, which negatively impacts its global standing. It does not help that these weaknesses are starkly exhibited during trade negotiations with China and the United States. Especially, when we need to recognise that there is a trend of fissures arising within member states, stemming from their independent opinions. This is reflected mainly in a lack of cooperation with the commission, which contributes to the fraying of the union’s collective resolve. The absence of Britain’s pragmatic leadership has created a void, allowing internal divisions to deepen and external powers to exploit Europe’s disarray, further undermining its global standing.

There is also an increasing saliency of Populism and Right-Wing attitude by some EU members, which runs against the Liberal grain of majority members.  We end up with an archipelagic disintegration of membership where national interests and ideological divides threaten to widen the fragmentation of the bloc.  This grossly undermines the EU's ability to present a united front on global issues and can lead to slower or less decisive action on the world stage. And with Brexit out of the bag, an arguably unilateral action, the remaining 27 member states are pursuing a strategic autonomy on defence, economics, and immigration.  An ambition that encourages a constitutional polycrisis of internal divisions. 

Backed by the American administration and the press's loud cheers and glee, the recent trade agreement between the US, which was recently signed in Scotland, as I earlier referred to, was viewed by many in Europe as a capitulation rather than a balanced agreement. The agreement imposes a 15% tariff ceiling on most EU goods exported to the US, including cars, pharmaceuticals, and semiconductors. While this was a reduction from the 30% tariff threatened by the US, it represents a significant increase from the average 4.8% tariffs faced by European goods before the Trump administration. In contrast, the US will not face higher tariffs for exporting to the EU, and the EU has committed to eliminating existing low-level duties on US industrial goods. The EU has agreed to purchase an additional $750 billion in US energy products by 2028 (approximately $250 billion annually) and to invest $600 billion in various sectors in the US by 2029. Furthermore, the EU has pledged to purchase "hundreds of billions of dollars" in US military equipment. These are significant financial outflows with little direct, reciprocal economic concessions from the US side.  In a nutshell, a classic asymmetrical tariff imposition where the winner takes all, a surrender driven by fear.  A particular concern arises where strategic autonomy has been replaced with strategic vulnerability. 

Such vulnerability sets the stage for independent resolves. The Kensington Treaty is one such resolution; the emergence of the Grand Alliance is also a pull away from US unreliability and unpredictability, a catalyst for absolute European strategic autonomy. For example, we are not yet finished with Tariffs; anything could still happen from our fair weather friend across the pond.  To counter this, where it matters, there is indeed an uncompromising, gradual, yet significant buildup of cooperation among Britain, France, and Germany. This "E3" format (UK, France, Germany) is re-emerging as a crucial pillar of European security and economic diplomacy as well as a broader shift in transatlantic relations.  The “never give in” factor kicks in; the show must go on, driven by courage and resiliency.

The Grand Alliance, Architects of the Kensington Treaty
France, Germany and The United Kingdom.

The primary motive for the Grand Alliance is to revive the old innate spirit of greater European self-reliance. A need for a stable Europe in the face of a turbulent and agitated world, and the need to step out of the shadow of America, Russia, and China. For the first time since World War II, this agreement includes mutual assistance in the event of an attack, thereby reinforcing NATO and facilitating broad cooperation across diplomatic, defence, internal security (including migration), economic, scientific, research, energy, and climate policy. It also explicitly aims to intensify trilateral cooperation with France.  An agreement that promises to coordinate their independent nuclear deterrents and joint efforts in nuclear research. It also focuses on enhancing cruise missile capabilities and developing new air-to-air missiles.  Notwithstanding this, they agree to continue making efforts to scale computing power, share AI best practices, and collaborate on frontier research related to national security. Germany's new treaty also includes cooperation in science and research. These initiatives aim to boost European technological sovereignty and competitiveness, reducing reliance on external powers in critical sectors. The UK and Germany are now co-leading the Ramstein base ( US Air Force installation and a NATO hub) format for coordinating weapons delivery to Ukraine, taking over from the US, while the UK and France lead a "coalition of the willing" for potential ceasefire reassurance in Ukraine.

Like most diplomatic terms, the innocuous-sounding name, The Kensington Treaty, often belies the depth of its underlying intentions and potential long-term impacts, despite its diplomatic title. The agreement bears the hallmark of more than just a symbolic gesture; it lays out a comprehensive framework that, by design or evolution, could pave the way for significantly deeper economic cooperation, catching us and the media looking the other way, the road map is gradually set on mutual defence and security cooperation. This isn't merely a vague aspiration; it commits both nations to "strengthening bilateral trade within the framework of existing EU-UK agreements." This phrasing is crucial. It acknowledges the existing post-Brexit realities but signals a clear intent to maximise economic engagement within those parameters.  Reversing Brexit is unlikely, but a reset is certainly on the cards.  The Kensington Treaty explicitly includes "economic ties, science and research cooperation" as one of its six core pillars. It provides a backdoor for the UK to re-anchor itself economically with the major European powerhouses outside the direct EU single market and Customs union. A clever perception which can lead to a gradual, sector-by-sector alignment of standards and regulations. A "managed divergence" or "dynamic alignment" could facilitate smoother trade and investment without the need for formal institutional ties.   

Chancellor Scholz, in 2024, welcomes Starmer's desire for a reset in relations. 
Starmer says 'ambitious' reset with Europe will not mean reversing Brexit.

The E3 as an Economic Catalyst is a definite perception. The Kensington agreement and the deepening UK-France ties reinforce the E3 (UK, France, Germany) as a significant economic bloc within the European Union. These three nations collectively represent a substantial portion of Europe's economic output and innovation capacity. They could act as a powerful magnet for other European states if they could effectively coordinate their economic policies, investment strategies, and technological development. This isn't about replacing the EU single market but creating a dynamic core that can drive economic growth and competitiveness across the wider continent. Other states might be drawn to align with E3 initiatives to participate in these economic benefits and technological advancements. 

A Proactive Europe is indeed on the horizon. I am convinced the economic dimension of the E3, driven by agreements such as the one in Kensington, will directly contribute to the idea of a more proactive Europe. Instead of merely reacting to global economic shifts or the actions of other powers, the E3 can collectively set agendas, invest in strategic industries, and advocate for common European interests on the global stage. This economic strength underpins their geopolitical ambitions, allowing Europe to "speak the language of power" militarily and economically.

The E3 will provide the economic catalyst for a de facto closer alignment in several ways. By covert regulatory alignment on science and research, reducing non-tariff barriers, and strategic sector collaboration.  Placing greater emphasis on AI tech developments, energy, and climate policies.  Such collaboration will undoubtedly foster deeper economic ties, shared supply chains, and joint ventures that could easily weave the E3 economies closer together, leaving intact the existing trade relationship, but an eventual removal of the broader obstacles to business transactions under such a scenario is a given. It is imperative that the E3 eliminates fault-lines along which the EU alliance threaten to fracture.

In essence, despite its seemingly modest name, the Kensington Treaty represents a significant step in the post-Brexit recalibration of European power dynamics. Such a trilateral agreement also signals a pragmatic recognition that while formal EU membership for the UK remains off the table, deep bilateral and trilateral cooperation, particularly in the economic and technological spheres, is not only desirable but essential for the future prosperity and influence of all involved European nations. Whether this leads to a "full economic cooperation" akin to EU membership is unlikely, but it certainly points towards a much more integrated and interdependent economic relationship than might have been anticipated immediately after Brexit. 

The government’s “secretive” approach to negotiations with the EU.
Public support for closer relations with Europe meant the government had space to be “bold in its offer to the EU”

The success of this "grand alliance" will largely depend on its capacity to integrate with, rather than alienate, the broader European project. Indeed, this Kensington agreement and the broader E3 dynamic may draw in other states for a better, more active Europe, rather than the reactive Europe of today. There is fear that the deepening of E3 ties could also inadvertently exacerbate the "archipelagic disintegration" within the EU if it is perceived as an exclusive club or if its actions do not align with the broader interests of all 27 member states. Notwithstanding language differences, there is a need to recognise that the porosity in border agreements allows space for the entire archipelago to act collectively, hopefully with less self-conscious nationalist thinking. The challenge will be for the E3 to ensure its efforts complement and strengthen the EU's overall strategic autonomy, rather than creating new divisions or undermining the EU's own institutions and initiatives. 

It is conceivable that neither time nor political or economic coercion would cause the power of Europe to erode.  Innovation, entrepreneurial daredevil, and the pioneering spirit of the ideological drive intrinsic to the European avant-garde are never far away.  The reawakening of Europe is long overdue; it's time to revive its potential strength from a prolonged slumber, and the E3 is likely to be the spur to dispel that aforementioned fear.  The Marshall Plan is long dead, and it's time to realise the transatlantic bridge was an artificial symbol. Living on US Welfare has come to an end, as has the transatlantic friendship.  Time to provide the framework of unity, embracing the UK, to add strength to the European landscape and build a strong, competitive, and proactive Europe. Time to rejuvenate the tired cliche, “standing on the shoulders of giants,” giants of its own making, a Europe standing firm to challenge hurdles put out by the new global order mapped by China and the United States.  

Sometimes, mining the past, we can look to the future. A vantage point from which an unwavering conviction for success is formed.

Suppressing the Hydra of War

 

So, what is the real world of today?  

This piece is not about apportioning blame, who did what to whom, etc. Those in the know, the negotiators who think they are in the know, can't yet agree on a solution to the present quagmire, so I am not pretending I  know any better. The negotiating team may still be able to devise some compromise, but don't hold your breath.   I write this short article centred on mighty Israel, glancing at some historical background, and coming forward to show its geographical and strategic importance today. I do not apportion blame on Israel for the current situation in the Middle East, but attempt to show the sorry state the region has degraded itself, squabbling and recrimination of one side against another.  

The Arab Middle East has carved a painful, long chapter in world history. Though richly endowed in resources, the twists and turns, deaths and destruction it has undergone for more than a century have far exceeded its geographical and strategic importance.

 Since the breakup of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I, the region has experienced many wars. Wars of independence, sectarian wars, mutual destructive civil wars and Wars with Israel on behalf of the displaced Palestinian people and more. Along the way, such multiple crises have given rise to hatred, embitterment and vengeance, all feeding on themselves to create more of the same over the past hundred years. 

 As is commonly known, since its inception in 1948, Israel has been a thorn in the Arab side. Ever since it gained its recognition at the UN for creating the State of Israel, the world has more or less lent support in its struggle for nation-building. The burgeoning state, engaging in several wars, has gained military and technological strength and territory, ending up today with four times the size it started with at the expense of its Arab foes. Though surrounded by those hostile neighbours, it has, concomitantly, emerged through political turmoil and has conceived superior technological know-how to match anything Europe or Silicon Valley can offer. Along the way, it has overcome formidable odds, gaining alliances and respect from the world.  

From a political standoff, Israel's beginning was by routing the people of Palestine from their ancestral homes, and the exodus that followed sowed the seeds of hatred. That event meant that most Palestinians had to live as refugees, the lucky ones as guests in other people's countries. Ever since that fateful event in 1948, there have been cries of return, and the ramifications of this exodus have seen several wars aimed at their restitution. It spawned many articles written by Israeli and Palestinian scholars, journalists, and intellectuals articulating this sorrowful plight. Journalistic efforts meant millions of words, mostly expressing anger and frustration towards an increasingly belligerent and uncompromising Israel. Eighty years later, despite endless protracted negotiation, the beleaguered Palestinian people remain prisoners in their own homeland with no solution in sight.

 In the aftermath of WWII, with the help of Western nations, the Jewish people of European descent, after 2500 years of diasporic life, clawed their way to a foreign land as their final refuge, a predestination, the promised land of Israel. That sliver of land, part of the Middle East, was mandated to the British Authority in anticipation of the breakup of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I. The Balfour Declaration of 1917  promised Zionists they would establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. In a way, exonerating a liability of having so many Jewish immigrants escaping to Britain from the cruel pogroms, which were institutionally and officially accepted by the tsar's Imperial Russia.   The prosecution and deprivation of rights and privileges later saw their climax in Nazist genocidal efforts of the Holocaust.  

 Housing immigrants is as problematic today as it has ever been.

Ever since gaining recognition of the State of Israel in 1947, there have been calls to accommodate the displaced Palestinians and pressure for the neighbouring Arab States to recognise the evolving State of Israel.   Unfortunately, wars, deaths, write-ups, political scientific analysis and a plethora of television documentaries have gone the same way—fodder to the Media. In the meantime, Israel has gone from strength to strength, eventually gaining supremacy over all it can survey and beyond.

Israel today is a law unto itself. America, Europe, Asia and above all the Arab world, one way or another, have given it that power. It is now riding roughshod over all who dare to criticise its actions, in what it deems justified in controlling the politics of the Arab world. The IDF is defined as Israel Defence Forces, but has morphed its definition by its latest actions to Offensive forces. Having blunted the thorns around it, it applies a strategy of policing the region according to its own, if not selfish and warped, political ethics.

 Neither accusation of Genocide nor crimes against humanity, such as weaponising hunger and other atrocities, nor the International Criminal Court count as significant in its current onslaught on the people of Gaza. Moreover, weaponising anti-Semitism, a shield in the armoury against any condemnation of possible genocidal intentions or criminal disregard for human life, is used to justify the continued bombardment of civilians of Gaza. None, it seems, held any weight in swaying Israel to relax the siege. And most reporting that goes on in Western media is heavily censored in its favour. 

With such grandstanding, Israel is doing itself great injustice. It is in danger of undoing the goodwill it has garnered over the years, over its policy on Gaza. Having herded the Gazean population into an area less than a quarter the size of the original size, it has laid a blockade allowing food in on a drip feed basis. Its denial of any food shortage has created a human crisis of outsized proportions. Hunger is taking hold, and people are starving, and some people are dying of starvation and malnutrition. And reports say doctors treating the injured are fainting from hunger and exhaustion.   Staffers of the International Committee of the Red Cross reported on the lack of food and clean water caused by the aid crisis. 

Endemic wars have taken hold in the region, as well as the extermination of a nation through starvation. Attempts at achieving peace between the antagonists remained the most sublime and most challenging business to deal with. However, the innocent Gaza civilians were not guilty of any part of that uncompromising stance that has now turned their Gaza into an ocean of blood, famine, death and destruction. Indeed, the hunger game has taken a new dimension. In Gaza, the game consists of asking young people to fetch humanitarian aid, with the risk of being killed if they go too far to the right or to the left, in a space whose limits only the occupier knows. How on earth could such a policy expect Hamas to release the remaining poor hostages, after almost two years of captivity, and who must also be starving along with the rest of the population. Dejection, gloom and tensions dig in with no solution in sight.  

Still, most people have become emotionally immunised and even empathetically tired from the daily exposure to suffering, killing and maiming of the Palestinian people. World governments, if not the general public, sit in almost silence, have jettisoned their moral principles and ethical values, preferring indivisibility and condemning anonymously if they do at all. 

Today, Israel has power well beyond its size. In my history studies, apart from seventeenth-century Holland, I have never encountered a small country that can yield so much power and exert its influence far and wide without borders. Navigating world politics today is as surgical as navigating the Oceans with Mercator Projection. It has created a new order in the Middle East and marshalled all neighbouring countries to its disposition. It ignores all International condemnation of the de facto settlements of further land confiscation, such as the settlements on the West Bank. This illegal action dismisses all ideas for a two-state solution.  

 No doubt the United States has privileged Israel to that end and strengthened, fortified and sustained its power base since its inception under all incoming and outgoing presidential umbrellas. Power for Israel, not so much as might is right,  but might as justified by the United States to be right, and its current existentialist agenda resorted to aggression as a means to that end. In this case, we don't live in a lawless world but in a  United States unipolar world, helped by a Zionist world, a prerogative of Zionism.

I can only surmise that aside from whatever conspiracy theories there may be, Israel's right to inflict its venemous firepower is an exaction as of Rights by Zionists on the Christian and Muslim world. History bears testimony; there is no love lost among the three beliefs under the Abrahamic faith. It is a payback for all the suffering the Jewish people had to endure. The hatred, discrimination, and atrocities meted out against their race in Europe and elsewhere over many centuries. To that end, the pacifism shown by the Europeans in response to the indiscriminate killing of innocent Palestinian civilians is a redeeming action. The Palestinians, Muslim and Christian alike, and their sanctified lands, happily today, are at a distance from the lesser religionists Europeans, so though the Gazeans bear no guilt, they conveniently serve as the ideal scapegoats. Despite carrying out a programme of starvation with impunity, Europe and the world look on. 

 Which means, Israel today is the self-appointed vigilantes with a long reach. It shapes the peace by redrawing the political octogram. It sets rules and its borders per geographical whim and biblical myths. Settles how it wants, where it wants and when it wants, and the submissive Arab governments, having turned turtle, are its modern-day vassals. Rich, politically hollow, militarily weak, perfidious and culturally as shifty as the sands of Arabia, they have no choice but to surrender to Israel and abide by its rules.

 In conclusion, I find the region all around is combusting and aflame with multiple conflicts, civil wars, sectarianism and tribal warfare, with Syria leading that dance of death. Millions have died defending a cause, grievance or vengeance. Killing and death are cyclical, and both breed bitterness, fuelling the cycle of killing. Leaving children fatherless and motherless, and wives husbandless, maimed and poor.

 The only language of the region is war, strife, killing, death, and famine, but it now finds itself the chief antagonist, gaining a top-tier position to police the area. What then and for how long? Politics is a chameleon concept; it knows no remorse, moral visions, or ethical routes. Hatred and vengeance are the emotional blood that runs through the veins; little can be done to suppress the hydra of war. 

Finally, I leave you with an extract from the London Review of Books, a piece written by Selma Debbagh.

"If you track the numbers, there are bad days and worse days, but the daily killings at one of the only permitted food sources in Gaza are proceeding like this: 8, 13, 17, 25, 24, 80, 11, 44, 37, 31, 25, 26, 27. For each murdered son, brother, daughter or mother who volunteered to approach this mechanism of carnage in the hope of returning alive with supplies for those waiting hungry and dependent in a shelled building, in a makeshift tent or under rubble, there are many more who return injured."

That's the real world.

The images are shared with the world by Ahmed al-Arini

The top photo depicts infant Muhammad Zakariya Ayyoub al-Matouq in his mother's arms in the bare tent they now share in Gaza City.  Aged 18 months, the stark reality of the war is all he has ever known. He is said to have dropped from nine kilograms to just six--half the weight of a healthy child his age - as the civilian population of Gaza wrestles with the threat of starvation.

Mr al-Arini said that Muhammad and his mother had been displaced by the conflict from their home in northern Gaza, and that he found them in a tent entirely bare, 'bar a little oven'.  'It resembles a tomb.'

Muhammad is dressed only in a nappy improvised from a bin bag - a result, the photographer says, of the lack of aid flowing into Gaza. His mother, sallow and gaunt, supports his head with her frail hand.

The Far Right

 The Far Right

---------------------

What's Right is what protects us while diversity dilutes us.

What is The Far Right? What is its meaning and ideology, and what does it stand for? What is it anti, and what is it for? What is the one word that can encompass all that? What is the one term, a noun, that rounds up their core beliefs? The Wikipedia page on "Far-right politics" defines it as including "extreme nationalist, xenophobic, homophobic, racist, religious fundamentalist, or other reactionary views," often associated with fascism, neo-Nazism, and the alt-right. The noun must also capture economic, cultural, and political dimensions. 

It means no single word is airtight. Such a debate focuses on Extremism as the most appropriate noun. However, whatever it is, it is on the rise, mainly in Europe and the United States. On both sides of the Atlantic, its engine is primarily powered by Race and Immigration. They are the two main factors that target passion. Both are constantly in the shadows of all their policies, even though their demagoguery and rhetoric do not admit it. This article will focus on its multi-dimensional approaches, causes, popularity, excesses, effectiveness, and, arguably, its perceived eventual failures.

Italy, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Holland, and the United States, besides other European countries, the young and old are embracing its offerings. Traditionalists and the young who feel let down are attracted to the Far Right for different reasons. A trend has grown from a mix of social factors that have ignited the passions and discontent with those who govern and the overall liberal policies. Special aim at the Elite in government and the private sector, blamed for the economic divide that increasingly widened between the haves and the have-nots. 

The aftermath of the financial crisis of 2008 left many in Europe with economic insecurities, and the austerity measures governments had to put in place, many felt abandoned by traditional parties, such as the establishment. Stagnant wages and rising living costs, often blamed for globalisation, created fertile grounds for the Far Right movements. The movements promised protection from trade competition, mainly from China and with it national prioritisation. Grievances arose from deindustrialisation, and the decline of manufacturing jobs meant many families went without, economically feeling sidelined. The free market globalised system, neoliberalism heralded, I argue, should not be the only factor contributing to deindustrialisation. Many other factors contribute to the decline in manufacturing jobs: tech innovation, such as AI automation, declining demands, social change, lack of skill training, lack of productivity, and the glaring absence of innovation. However, the target was the $1 'T' shirt, which never materialised. The Far Right capitalised on this by offering simple solutions, blaming immigrants or foreign powers rather than concentrating on complex structural shifts. Many young voters are in despair, faced with bleak economic prospects, and disolusioned with progressive promises that have swung to the Right. Blaming the downsides is an easy option.

Indeed, Immigration is also a major driver for the rise of the Far Right. Conflicts in Syria, Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq saw millions fleeing from their countries and coming to Europe in the hope of a better life. Mexicans fleeing North to the US for the same reason – economic migrants. Countries like Germany, France, Italy, and the United Kingdom saw the Far Right parties like the Alternative fur Deutschland (AFD), Brothers of Italy, National Rally in France and Ukip in Britain gained grounds by framing Immigration as a threat to national sovereignty and social cohesion and as we constantly reminded of "America First", policies from across the Atlantic. The perception across all regions was that immigrants take jobs or erode traditional values, even when figures show unemployment is low or migrants mostly fill labour gaps.

Distrust in the establishment and the political elites in Europe and the US, meant the EU is seen as a bureaucratic machine no longer in tune with the public it is supposed to serve. Again, the Far Right has tapped into the trend of Euroskepticism, advocating border controls and introducing laws to curb the open borders policies and migration quotas. The Far Right has promised to dismantle the establishment and voiced their beliefs that parties of the left and right have failed to address ordinary people's concerns.

Another facet the Far Right has taken on board is cultural anxieties and the rapid social changes around gender norms, multiculturalism and secularism. The movement emphasises that people's traditional way of life is under siege. The Duch party for Freedom and Spain's Vox push back against "woke" ideology or the Islamisation of Christian societies, striking a note with voters who feel the loss of a cherished past. In America, the Far Right sees itself as a defender of traditional values against progressive issues like race, religion or sexuality, and social media has turbocharged these narratives.

But of course, there is snake oil in all of this, nothing is quite what it seems. Curtailing Liberalism can often be seen as controlling and authoritarian. The Far Right come in with a heavy dose of control that can often feel at odds with the freedom they claim to champion. Take, for instance, Immigration. It is not only closing borders. Deportation means family separations and in America, it also means ending birthrights. Their cultural agendas could also include banning books in schools, dictating what teachers can say about history or gender, and pushing Christian nationalism into law. They punish platforms for being too liberal, dismantling their hands-off approach to hands-on control and redirecting it toward their vision. They control and restrict ideas on diversity and cosmopolitanism, seeing both as eroding national identity and seeing both actions as necessary correction. They cry for a firm hand to reform society to correct these downsides. Little do they realise they are swapping one dogma for another and meddling with people's personal lives, from abortion bans to policing speech. Replacing one set of shackles for another is not the remedy most people envision as a remedy for the pain and grievances they suffer.

In the US, however, there is a special case of the historical concept of Manifest Destiny embedded in ideas of racial discrimination and white supremacy. It is not a side effect, but it is baked into the framework for the Far Right since it has given the movement a sharp edge and complicates any defence of it as just an economic or anti-neoliberal push. America is a white Christian nation, and anyone else is an interloper: "build the Wall" isn't just about jobs and "you will not replace us" chants do not go amiss tying racial purity to national identity. White domination is the default. The war is on for fighting the possibilities of a "majority-minority" American nation projected in the recent US census, which suggests for the year 2045. Incidentally, Birmingham and Leicester are among the cities in the UK that are in this category. Manifest Destiny whispers that cosmopolitans are rootless and US greatness hinges on a unique racial core. In effect, the Far Right economic nationalism doubles as a cultural fortress. Looking back on when an immigrant knows his place is not idle thinking. Race is a dominant factor in the minds of supporters of the Far Right in America and in Europe.

Moreover, the obsession with Immigration is not about numbers or laws but about who is coming. The panic over replacement or invasion doesn't hit the same note when Spanish or Italians cross the UK border or Canadian or British cross into US borders, but it's laser is focused on non-whites, Muslims or Africans. Waving the English or the Confederate flags is not random but aimed at racial hierarchy. Race is not the upfront sales pitch; it's lens keeps their coalition cohesive. The Right thrives on ideas of us versus them. Immigrants are the perfect spark, and it's easy to spin into a threat. Whether "they are taking our jobs" or "they're changing our culture". You can shout out "tax cuts" or trade deals until you are blue in the face; they don't have the same appeal as "they are coming for us". Pivot is too far from such thinking, and the Far Right would be no more than any other party.

But, it is not just about race, as I mentioned earlier, the rage is also about jobs, insecurities and bureaucracies. The corporate Elite had not got stuck with shuttered factories because of globalisation or sensed that the elites rig the system. They raked in billions while tweeting about "freedom". In America, it was about draining the swamp, the Right latched on. It is a headscratcher when you have the inner circle billionaires cleaning the swamp when they are the swamp. They are sweeping one set of Elite for another. It is a contradiction that should collapse under its weight. But with Far Right supporters, passion will still trump logic even if the billionaires are holding the megaphone screaming, "Globalisation has betrayed you". Who is protecting whom, I ask or are the billionaires protecting themselves? Many of Trump supporters, however, still believe the system is screwing them, and those clique billionaires casing themselves against bureaucracy are their saviours. Little do they realise the billionaires are not dismantling the system but redirecting the profits. Europe's right-wing surge isn't a millionaire's club, it is more about populist politicians seizing the microphone, especially with their loud anti-immigration drum beat. Though Immigration is the loudest, the disease they diagnose in all cases is a loss of national identity and sovereignty.

The erosion of reason and moderation, and a lack of education is widespread, allowing few puppeteers to hold the strings. The Far Right passion-driven soundbites "build the wall" and "take back control" thrive. Critical thinking is slipping in favour of TikTok brain rot. The Far Right turn the economic frustration into emotional crusades with the help of the instant gratification culture and the tribal following on X, formerly known as Twitter. Thinking is proving too challenging, reason is out, and rage is in everywhere with populists surging ahead.

And, the war on diversity is not different; for many, it flows naturally from fairness, inclusion and human dignity, but ramming it is proving to be the cornerstone of the Far Right world view. The Far Right don't see diversity as a moral right but as a threat. Their thinking hinges on the idea that societies should be cohesive, which means sameness. They see racial, cultural or religious differences as cracks in the foundation, not strengths. If everyone is included, the white Christian loses its grip. Their moral code is for loyalty and tradition over universal equality. What's Right is What protects us, while diversity dilutes us. Morality is about defending heritage; it is about preservation, not pluralism. The Far Right reject diversity, fearing it as the Trojan Horse that betrays it. Many of the Far Right supporters would not agree, so they cherry-pick at any narrative where they find uniformity equals strength. In America, they dress up in holy jargon, thumping the Bible and "God save America" is their saving grace, more of a crusade for their tribe to lap up.

What strikes me the most is the Far Right, led mainly by a one Man show aimed at destroying Liberal Democracy, "My Way". Trump in America, Farage in the UK, Marine Le Pen in France, and Giorgia Meloni of Italy are very clever in turning rage into reign; they have a knack for turning chaos into control. Farage in the UK is a one-person hype machine—Reform's current 26% polling (February 2025) rides his vibe. Trump's "build the wall" or "drain the swamp" or Farage's "stop the boats aren't debates; they're slogans that stuck. They are more like tribal chiefs than politicians, less about dogma and more about what wins now. This one-man-show style—charisma, defiance, simplicity, tribalism, opportunism—thrives because it's personal, not procedural. When they fade, the show wobbles. It is not just about "I am right", but "you are wrong".

Resistance can be positive in many ways, but it needs to be progressive. I struggled to find positive or innovative ideas for racial and social harmony or solutions that could lead to the pacification of multiculturalism and integration or quelling the rage. Finding scapegoats for a fragmented society is easy to find, but changing the model of society can be more challenging. Economic protectionism, such as imposing tariffs on imports, can have short-term benefits. However, a study found that the US economy is approximately $200 billion negatively impacted by tariff imposition during Trump's first term. The IMF found that a 10% increase in tariffs can lead to a 1.2% decrease in global GDP. It also disrupts supply chains and likely triggers retaliatory actions. While strict immigration aiming to protect jobs and housing and preserve cultural identities might reduce competition for wages, it increases wages and lowers tax revenues, labour supply and innovation. While it is plausible to implement protectionism, the evidence leans toward protectionism as being unsustainable in the long term, as it can stifle innovation and economic growth, contradicting the Far Right's goal of financial security for the working class. Whereas cultural nationalism and exclusion in preserving the dominant cultural identity can foster a sense of community and belonging, the latest study finds that cultural diversity promotes innovation and economic growth. At the same time, homogeneity can lead to groupthink and reduced adaptability.

In conclusion, as I see it, we live in a world of ideas. A look at Silicon Valley in California indicates a revolution of innovation as significant as the nineteenth-century Industrial Revolution. The Far Right is spearheading its cause with twentieth-century tools to remedy the malady of the twenty-first century. It needs to revolutionise itself with new ideas for growth and innovation incorporating universal values. When does the demolition end and the construction start? Setting out success criteria in public services, productivity, equity, and innovation, and setting policies to better model people's world. But for now, its familiar anti-slogans are winning. Taking pointers from what is currently happening in America leads to a frightening scenario. Warping laws, courts, and anti-democratic values that filter down to local councils are the flashing red lights, a picture of the brutal past many of us have seen before or heard or read about. What is happening is that there is a blueprint of what is possible, not what is probable. The frightening bit is how much of this snowballs. As with AI development, we need an army of chips to improve the institutional barriers. There needs to be a before and after. Rage, anger and passion are not the drivers for ideas or engines of transformation.  

Easter 2023

 

American Nationalism and the Trumpist Phenomenon

 

Tea finally broke the Camel's back, or in this case, lit the fuse for American independence. The stubborn King George III, one of the four imported Hanoverian Georges of Great Britain, helped spark the American Nationalist dream of the thirteen colonies. The American War of Independence or The American Revolutionary War (April 19, 1775 – September 3, 1783), when the Patriots, headed by George Washington, defeated the British Army, the American dream became a reality and Nationalism in the form of Anglo-Saxon identity in America took hold and ever since, was to become central for American political strategies. The American Constitution, with all its contradictions, was born. Freedom of the individual is enshrined in Civic and Republican Nationalism that emphasises inclusivity, taking in a shared heritage. Language and Traditions tied to Ethnic and Cultural Nationalism as additions were carefully balanced. This was the historical underpinning of American Nationalism.

The Civil War (1861–1865) Nationalism with different ideologies was at war with itself. Tested the nation's identity, pitting Confederate Nationalism, based on states' rights and slavery, against the Union's commitment to preserving the nation. The war revealed deep fractures within the American national identity and highlighted the tension between competing visions of what the United States should stand for. The belief that grounded the United States and its commitment to democratic governance, equality, and liberty for all citizens shattered. Ideas for Slavery and Human rights were in opposition. On the Federal side, they firmly believed, among other things, that Racial hierarchy and the cultural identity of white supremacy firmly exposed the profound hypocrisy in the American national identity.

 Manifest Destiny gained pre-eminence in the Nineteenth Century, witnessing the rise of expansionist Nationalism and the belief that Americans were destined to expand beyond the Appalachians. Such ideas of Manifest Destiny often justify the displacement of Indigenous peoples and the annexation of territories. Manifest Destiny is a term first coined in the 19th century to give credence to what American people perceive as the United States was divinely ordained to expand its territory and spread its values across the North American continent. Such ideology left a lasting impact on the nation's identity and development. Expansion was seen not only as a right but a moral obligation, a divine proclamation to bring progress, Christianity and prosperity to new territories. The Trail of Tears was justified as a necessary steps for American expansion. Americans believed, and still do, that the U.S. is an exception. Since then, such beliefs have become deeply rooted in their history, culture, and ideology. The idea of Manifest Destiny came to play a key role in justifying the drive for continental expansion into a broader sense of global mission.

                                   

The rhetoric of various American political leaders, such as John F. Kennedy's call to "pay any price, bear any burden" to defend freedom, further exemplified modern Manifest Destiny and exceptionalism. Ronald Reagan described the U.S. as a "shining city upon a hill", and Barack Obama asserted that the U.S. is "the indispensable nation." Repeated speeches further added to the belief that the U.S. is not just another country but holds a unique position in the world and a force for good in the world. Manifest Destiny and exceptionalism were the drivers of spreading democracy and capitalism, promoting human rights and international law, and framing all actions as morally justified and beneficial to the world.

As if that was not enough of exceptionalism, fast forward to Globalisation and bring forward ideas of Manifest Destiny into the twentieth century. The relationship that ensued between Globalisation and American Nationalism, though complex and often contradictory, had shaken the foundation of American Nationalism. Although globalisation, to a great extent, successfully reinforced American economic and cultural influence worldwide, amplifying the ideas of American exceptionalism. On the other hand, it has also galvanised a nationalist backlash, as many Americans feel that Globalisation undermines national sovereignty, economic security, and cultural identity. The original intention was good, as America was the major driver of Globalisation. It helped set up many global institutions and the economic order through the IMF (International Monetary Fund), the WTO (World Trade Organisation), and the World Bank. American companies like Google, Apple, Amazon and Microsoft dominated global markets. Aside from Technological leadership and innovation, American culture and Hollywood movies reinforced the perception of American exceptionalism as a superpower.

                               

However, soon enough, many Americans realised the political, economic, and cultural exchange with the world was not as good as it was cut out to be. The American people realised that Globalisation requires countries to give up some degree of sovereignty to international organisations. This did not sit well among American nationalists about the loss of control over domestic policies, particularly in areas like trade, environmental regulation, and immigration. The negative impact of Globalisation on their jobs and communities' voter anger with Globalisation was one profound reason for electing Donald Trump for President. While Globalisation has benefited many Americans, it has also led to job losses in industries like manufacturing as companies move production overseas to take advantage of cheaper labour.   This would soon contradict the emerging technological know-how, which will soon allow virtual migration, thanks to telerobotics and telepresence. This disruption within American society fueled resentment and a sense of betrayal among many working-class Americans, not at all what Globalisation was meant to be. The distrust contributed to the rise of nationalist movements portrayed in Trump's "America First" agenda. Open borders and the consequent influx of immigrants meant the erosion of American National Identity, with incoming different cultures threatening their values framed in nationalist terms. For others, Globalisation challenged the idea of American exceptionalism, as the rise of China and other emerging powers has called into question the U.S.'s unchallenged dominance. Defending American values and identity was a defensive form of Nationalism and part of that dissolusion and disappointment, many Americans aligned with Trump. He positioned himself as the champion for those who felt they were being left behind or marginalised. He joined in with their resentment, echoing many of their grievances.

This pivot was primarily a reaction to the downsides of economic interdependence. The benefits of Globalisation proved unevenly distributed. In many parts of the United States, international trade brought a decline in domestic industry and the loss of well-paid manufacturing jobs. Entire regions, mainly rural areas like the Rust Belt and predominantly industrial ones, were left behind. Trump's populist message tapped into this frustration, framing himself as a defender of the "forgotten" American worker. He promised an about-turn to renegotiate trade deals and return jobs to the U.S. He offered straightforward, often controversial solutions to complex problems that aroused nationalist fever. In the modern context, his attacks on immigration, Islam, woke culture and "America first" foreign policies can be seen as a reinterpretation of Manifest Destiny. He aroused fear that American values were being eroded and diluted. His policies, such as renegotiating trade deals (e.g., NAFTA to USMCA) and imposing tariffs on China, Europe, Canada and Mexico, aimed to restore American economic dominance and protect U.S. industries, always attempting to prove the American model is best.  

To some critics, Trump appears to use tariffs as a negotiating tactic, while others view this as a protection racket. During his election campaign, he told voters that the taxes were "not going to be a cost to you, it’s a cost to another country". That was almost universally regarded by economists as misleading. Economic studies of the impact of the new tariffs Trump imposed in his first term of office between 2017 and 2020 suggest most of the economic burden was ultimately borne by US consumers.  The non-partisan Peterson Institute for International Economics has estimated that Trump’s new proposed tariffs would lower the incomes of Americans, with the impact ranging from around 4% for the poorest fifth to around 2% for the wealthiest fifth. 

This man wonder, anti-elitist, anti-establishment loved quick fixes. Building a border wall, imposing tariffs, and renegotiating trade deals. These quick fixes appealed to those who felt that traditional politicians had failed to address their concerns. His often abrasive, combative approach showed a willingness to challenge the establishment, political traditions and norms. This created a strong emotional, if not intellectual, connection with his supporters. One example is the recent declassification of key documents related to historical figures such as John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King. This could expose the workings of the "deep state" in the United States, marking a milestone in government transparency. His rhetoric of anti-diversity stance, following the Washington air accident on January 30 without evidence, gains the approval of many Republicans. They saw him as authentic, firm in his anti-woke culture and unafraid to speak his mind, in contrast to traditional politicians' polished, insincere rhetoric. The first term of Trump's presidency proved complex and highly controversial. His off-the-cuff remarks, unpredictability, and unsubstantiated and extraordinary claims caused resentment in many circles. However, while he does not explicitly reference Manifest Destiny, the underlying themes of national superiority, sovereignty, and a sense of mission resonate strongly with his rhetoric and policies. His followers remain unshaken by the controversies he leaves behind.

"An infatuated people driven to expansion and genocide by the delusional belief that they were God's chosen. With freedom on their lips, scripture in their hands, and a sense of racial superiority in their blood, Americans mowed down everybody in their way." - 'Manifest Destiny: American Expansion and the Empire of Right' a book by Anders Stephanson 

He has no hesitation in advocating for territorial acquisition and the displacement of indigenous peoples. His focus on national sovereignty and unilateralism reflects a similar desire to assert American independence and control not far short of the Monroe Doctrine, a watchword of U.S. policy in the Western Hemisphere. His withdrawal from international agreements (e.g., the Paris Climate Agreement, the Iran nuclear deal) and criticism of global institutions (e.g., the World Health Organization, NATO) can be seen as a modern manifestation of the belief that external forces or alliances should not constrain the United States. This has led to a more inward-looking nationalism that prioritises border security and military strength rather than what many see as isolationist policies.

The ideology often justified using military force to achieve territorial expansion and assert American dominance. The willingness to use force (e.g., drone strikes, the killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani) reflects a belief in American military exceptionalism. His creation of the Space Force and his focus on modernising the military can be seen as efforts to maintain and expand American dominance in new frontiers, echoing the expansionist spirit of Manifest Destiny. Trump's rhetoric on Islam often framed it as incompatible with American values, particularly during his calls for a "Muslim ban" and his criticism of Islamic extremism. It is not so much an anti-religious action but rather reflects broader cultural exceptionalism since the US Constitution is viewed as a beacon of freedom and modernity. An engagement in the struggle against perceived threats from the Islamic world. The principal aim is to preserve traditional American values such as Christianity and patriotism, which reflect a belief in the superiority of American culture that must be defended. This aligns with the "clash of civilisations" narrative, which can be seen as a modern extension of the civilisational mission inherent in Manifest Destiny.

The Trumpist phenomenon encouraged rallies featuring slogans like "Make America Great Again" and "Keep America Great," which tapped into a nostalgic vision of the U.S. as a dominant and exceptional nation. The fixation on building the Border Wall is a powerful symbol of Trump's nationalist agenda, representing a physical and ideological barrier.  It falls in line with a modern Manifest Destiny to protect American Sovereignty and identity, both expansionist and exclusionary combined.  

The Trumpist phenomenon is highly contradictory, but they work. Despite his elite status, Trump, a billionaire businessman, has long been part of the upper echelons of American society and positioned himself as an outsider fighting against the establishment. His rhetoric targeted political, media, and corporate elites, whom he accused of being out of touch with ordinary Americans. Phrases like "drain the swamp" and "forgotten men and women" were music to the ears of his supporters left behind by Globalisation and technological change. Trump's brash, often aggressive style challenged political norms and presented him as anti-establishment. Renegotiating trade deals, imposing tariffs, and prioritising American jobs were framed as efforts to protect working-class Americans from the excesses of corporate and global elites. He targets the political elites, the media elites, and the academic, scientific and intellectual elites in preference to common sense and reasoning by gut feeling. Dismissing the ideas from the eminent scientist Anthony Fauci at times of the Covid crisis, and when asked by a reporter how he could blame diversity programmes for the Washington crash when the investigation had only just begun, he responded, "because I have common sense." His blunt, abrasive and confrontational style made him seem more relatable to those who felt alienated by the political establishment.  The 'anti-elite' elite rather sums up his phenomena, and he succeeds in blurring the line between the two by pretending to be an outsider.

                                 

However, all that have their limits, such as rhetoric, attitudes, and oppositional views, have tendencies to divide society. While Donald Trump successfully positioned himself as an anti-elitist figure for many of his supporters, a significant portion of the population—including critics, political opponents, and even some within his own base—viewed him as a hypocrite and a conman. The idea that he is anti-elitist is delusional, and there are apparent contradictions between his elite status, his policies, and his populist rhetoric. Someone who lives in a brash gold-plated penthouse and frequents elite social circles cannot genuinely claim to represent the "forgotten" working class or the forty million people living below the poverty line. The billionaires that lined up his inaugural platform and the corporations that donate to his cause belies such claims. 

Critics argue that these policies contradict his populist promises to fight for ordinary Americans. To"drain the swamp" of corruption in Washington is a fallacy since his administration's hiring of lobbyists, corporate executives, and wealthy donors for key positions is nothing short of evidence that he was part of the very system he claimed to oppose. Trump's use of hyperbole, false claims, and divisive rhetoric led many to view him as a manipulative figure who exploited the grievances of his supporters for personal and political gain.

The presidency of Donald Trump, on his first attempt, profoundly influenced the division and polarisation of American society.  It left a legacy that has continued to shape the political landscape.  This second term is envisaged to create even more divisions. His emphasis on cultural and identity issues resonated deeply with his base but alienated many others, particularly minorities and progressives.  His fixation on building the border wall and imposing restrictive measures on Muslim immigration was seen as xenophobic but celebrated by supporters as protecting American values. Trump frequently framed politics as a battle between "real Americans" and elites, immigrants, or liberals. A culture of "us vs them" mentality deepened divisions and fostered a sense of tribalism. Delighting many of his fans, he swipes at the media ("fake news"), the judiciary, and even the electoral process.  

Altogether, it has eroded trust in institutions and created a climate of suspicion and hostility. His presidency challenged many long-standing traditions and what is politically normal, such as the peaceful transfer of power at the end of his term in office and the independence of the justice system shaking the foundation of American Democracy. Such attacks gave rise to distrust and suspicion of politics and partisan. Moreover, the Trump trajectory has sparked a nationalist backlash among those who feel left behind or threatened by its consequences. As the U.S. navigates the challenges of the 21st century, America is generously endowed with natural resources and sufficiently created geopolitical means and resources, attempting to lock its pivotal power in the world. However, the relationship between Globalisation and Nationalism within will continue to be a central issue in American politics and society but, unfortunately, under a cloud of mistrust, suspicion and unpredictability.  One of the likelihoods is that Donald Trump's presidency will leave behind multiple layers of an antagonistic society where assertiveness stands before reason. 

The Middle East According to Trump

 

And Trump said let there be Peace, and behold there was Peace, and Trump said let the hostages go and behold the hostages were released, and Trump said let the Palestinians return to their homes, and behold the Palestinians returned to their rubble. So it was said, so it shall be done.

Well, to be fair, he didn't exactly say it like that; the President-Elect of the United States of America, Donald Trump, is quoted as saying, 'all hell will break out in the Middle East' if Gaza doesn't release hostages. Divinity hasn't quite reached him yet, so bluntness will do for now rather than trying to emulate the words of Isaiah. He probably knows what the Hell is and probably wouldn't know who the hell was or is Isaiah. But that is another story.

Diplomacy is not a strong point when it comes to his foreign policies, so instead, he huffs and puffs until he blows the house down in presenting American Power on the world stage. Power to Peace would be the iconic language for the next four years. He is full of himself. His projection of American political status is upfront. Indeed, he takes on the mantle of God-given rights of kings, unabashedly rejecting traditional diplomacy on the world’s stage. The majority of US voters appointed him the driver of the most powerful military and economic machines on the planet, giving him his license to cross all the red lights.

But enough about this ​Legally defined sexual predator who boasted on Access Hollywood that women let him "grab 'em by the pussy’ President-elect of the United States; obviously, lechery goes a long way in American politics. But for this piece, let's come down to earth, specifically to the Middle East.

The focus is Gaza and Israel for now and ending the fifteen-month damaging War that has killed over 50,000 innocent civilian Palestinians and more than 2000 Israeli soldiers aside from unknown numbers of hostages who may have died while incarcerated. The War resulted from Hammas attacking a Kibbutz where young people were partying in southern Israel on 7th October 2023, killing about 1,200 people and taking 251 back to Gaza as hostages, which triggered a massive Israeli offensive on Gaza. The United States, Egypt, Turkey and Qatar have been key players in these peace negotiations. It is widely reported that the two adversaries have finally reached a hostage release agreement, and a ceasefire will follow. 

The deal is made up of three stages, the first of which is expected on Sunday, 19th January 2025, one day before Donald Trump's inauguration also, marking the beginning of a six-week truce. It stipulates the release of 33 hostages over a six-week period, including women, children, older adults and wounded civilians, in exchange for potentially hundreds of Palestinian women and children imprisoned by Israel. In the meantime, as I am writing this, three days before the appointed date, the War and the killing go on. The Peace process could break down between now and Sunday since the element of mistrust on both sides underlines the long road to arrive at this stage.  

One of Israel's continued key war aims has been to destroy Hamas's military and governing capabilities. Israel has severely damaged it after 15 months of IDF operations backed by daily deadly airstrikes. However, as evidenced by the fact that it can still negotiate, Hamas still has some capacity to operate and regroup.

The Peacedeal heralded, maybe prematurely, as the deal of the century was first proposed in May 2023 by President Biden, who takes the credit for the present agreement that it is based on the framework he set out back then. At the time, Iran, the main sponsor of Hamas, as well as Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen, were riding high, deluded in their inviolability. Well, since then, the severe erosion of Iran's firepower capacity and its dependence for now on conventional deterrence has weakened its proxies, and all three have seen their firepower disintegrate; their first casualty was the fall of the Assad regime in Syria. That followed a severe air bombardment of the Houthis and the consequent crushing of Hezbollah forces in Southern Lebanon. The "Axis of Resistance", a key part of Iran's grand strategy, is dislocated. Besides, Israel's IDF is tired of War, having almost non-stop fighting on three fronts for the last twelve months with nothing more to show for it except further killing. The negotiating table should be where it's at. Peace from weariness instead of through Power.  

Naturally, Trump, never one to miss the limelight, also claims the pivotal role in ending the War and bringing about the hitherto elusive ceasefire. But what he added, so far as I can tell, are two headliners. One is Pressure, which includes economic and military sanctions and diplomatic isolation, and the other is Guarantee, which promises military support and security assurances. Both are aimed at Israel. Many of the news media are reporting this without saying what type of Pressure or what sort of guarantees Trump has laid out, but what seems to happen is that Israel's about-turn in crushing Hammas forever but now accepts the inevitable. The main objective of Trump's representative in the peace talks was to end the War before inauguration day.

I am not a political scientist, but I will stick my neck out and attempt to unpack the 'inevitable' in layman's language. The Guarantees remain unanswered, and the leverages in securing the deal concern Iran in the first place, the Saudis and, most importantly, the West Bank and, although a long way off, the idea of a two-state solution could once more gain substance.

L'État, c'est moi

Iran's weakening of its conventional military deterrence left it with no alternative but to resume its nuclear ambition despite the piles of sanctions the previous Trump administration imposed on it. This time around, there would undoubtedly be more of the same in an effort to cripple such trajectories finally. Europe, whatever political clout left for itself, would follow suit, a cumulative effort in the hope of bringing down Iran's oppressive and authoritarian theocratic regime. It is not far-fetched if oil-rich Iraq, an adherent supporter of Iran, may find itself in a similar circumstance. Iraq's economy, which is heavily dependent on imports, can easily buckle under the strain of economic sanctions.

The losers in the deal, I envisage, are, yet again, the Palestinian people and, maybe ideologically, Jordan. There is a remote chance that America will compensate the Palestinians by offering an independent Gaza as a way out of a two-state enterprise. A loss of the West Bank would, at a stroke, legalise the Jewish settlement already there to further encourage Jewish immigration to their promised land, Judaea and Samaria. This may indeed result in social unrest among the Palestinians, but American Power, or MAGA for short, is always ready to see to it. Trump is no friend of the Palestinians, nor has he had the American Evangelicals to think about.  This time around, he has more of a free reign.

The Israeli premier told lawmakers recently that Israel's War in Gaza had offered opportunities to sign new peace accords with Arab nations and 'dramatically change the face of' the Middle East. The Abraham Accord started under Trump's first administration to expand, taking in the oil-rich Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have, for the last couple of years, held steadfast that it would not recognise Israel unless the latter accepts and implements the framework of a two-state solution for the Palestinian people. There you have it. Gaza independence can seal that deal, so says Trump.

The Middle East remains one of the world's most geopolitically complex and dynamic regions. A mix of historical grievances, ethnic and sectarian divides, external interventions, and resource competition often drives border changes and geopolitical shifts. While predicting the future is inherently uncertain, several trends, variables and factors could influence the region's borders and geopolitics.    Sectarianism, fragmentations along ideological and ethnic lines, and the solidification of semi-autonomous regions would have to be considered. Potential annexation of the West Bank, a central to the Palestinian cause and Turkish interest in Iraq and Syria to secure its borders from Turkish agitation appears increasingly likely, with counterterrorism they will continue to shape regional dynamics and fuel instability.

The Abraham Accords and subsequent normalisation deals between Israel and Arab countries like the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan have reshaped regional dynamics. The potential inclusion of Saudi Arabia in such agreements would be a significant milestone. However, a broader peace will likely depend on some resolution to the Palestinian issue, whether through renewed negotiations or alternative frameworks. Rather than US power subduing Palestinian resistance, economic initiatives, such as increased investments in Palestinian territories or shared infrastructure projects, act as confidence and trust-building measures.

The likelihood of the West Bank being formally annexed by Israel, similar to the annexation of the Golan Heights, depends on a complex interplay of domestic, regional, and international factors. The West Bank, which was captured in 1967, remains a highly contested area. It is home to a large Palestinian population and numerous Israeli settlements. Unlike the Golan Heights, the West Bank is central to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and has been envisioned as part of a future Palestinian state in most peace frameworks.

The current Israeli government, particularly under leaders like Benjamin Netanyahu, includes factions that support annexation. They argue that the West Bank (or Judea and Samaria) is historically and religiously part of Israel. There is every reason to believe that is what Trump has guaranteed Israel as the next episode of the Abraham Accords, which proved that normalisation does not necessarily depend on resolving the Palestinian issue despite the chorus of condemnation from European countries.

The main problem for Israel is Demography. Annexing the entire West Bank would mean absorbing a large Palestinian population. This could challenge Israel's identity as both a Jewish and democratic state, as granting Palestinians full citizenship would alter its demographic balance while denying them rights would attract accusations of apartheid. Annexation could destabilise neighbouring Jordan, which has a peace treaty with Israel and a large Palestinian population. It might also reignite tensions with other Arab states, even those that have normalised relations with Israel.

Trump has a lot of work to do.

The Sun King has more than his head in the Clouds.