If the Gaza ceasefire holds, it will be a vindication of Trump’s ignorant-man diplomacy
No one but a sadistic zealot would greet the prospect of an end to the war in Gaza with anything other than relief. The past two years have been the most bloodstained of a conflict that has been going on now for almost 80 years. Though Donald Trump has hailed himself as the deliverer of a new dawn, overwhelming historical precedent would suggest that a permanent end to the fighting is not likely to materialise. Perhaps the most stubborn barrier to such a breakthrough is the unwillingness of the warring sides to move beyond that precedent.
As ever, their leaders greeted yesterday’s cessation with exhortation rather than lament. Hamas’s communique announcing its consent to the ceasefire deal read as the pronouncement of a victorious army; Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to the Knesset, meanwhile, featured a list of military triumphs and a clenched fist. The Israel-Palestine conflict has been a constant in most people’s lives. To solve such an intractable problem requires leaders who refuse to indulge in the paradigm of conflict and see the past not as a tool with which to attack their opponents but as a burden that must be overcome.
This is where Trump comes in. The US president can hardly be called conflict averse but his success in securing this ceasefire can at least partly be attributed to his refusal to become bogged down in history. This is not because of the mad-man theory of diplomacy that is often associated with him but rather the ignorant-man one. Since Trump doesn’t know (or seem particularly interested in learning about) the deep-seated causes of the present conflict, he can approach negotiations from a more objective viewpoint. Sometimes this blank slate doesn’t pay off: Trump’s proposals for a “Riviera of the Middle East” development earlier this year arguably emboldened the Israeli far-right to continue the conflict to help realise its long-held aim to expel the Palestinians from Gaza. But during the recent negotiations, it meant that he could push the respective parties – especially Netanyahu – into accepting what for them would have looked like an imperfect deal.
Trump was helped by the Gulf Arab states, whose support for the current deal, along with that of other regional powers such as Turkey and Egypt, was integral to getting it over the line. While it would be churlish to deny that these countries had other reasons for wanting to end the war, what finally moved them to effectively mobilise for peace was Israel’s rash attack on Qatar last month. That strike led directly to the Gulf countries closing ranks and moving to contain what they saw as overreaching and destabilising Israeli aggression.
The war in Gaza has also destabilised the more rancorous and democratic societies of Egypt and Turkey, as it has many European countries and the US too. Though it might seem cynical to say so, in the end it was self-interest more than humanitarian concern that moved these countries to act decisively. Almost every one of the aforementioned Middle Eastern nations is presently engaged in government programmes (usually given a moniker including the word “Vision”) that are designed to attract inward investment.
If nothing else, Trump understands this – let’s call it the money-man theory of diplomacy. And if he is the person who can eventually cut through centuries-old divisions and turn Gaza, and the wider Middle East, into a peaceful and prosperous place beloved by investors, then he can justly be described as a visionary.
Alexis Self is Monocle’s foreign editor. Further reading? Monocle’s security correspondent, Gorana Grgić, wants Trump’s opponents to better understand his governing style.
