There has been a lot of discussion on why a highly aggressive Israeli regime agreed to a ceasefire in Gaza. Partial explanations that have been offered include the need to give overstretched Israeli armed forces a break and the pressure brought upon by the new US President on Israeli leadership to use less violent methods.
So what exactly may Trump have said that Netanyahu felt OK to accept, even if reluctantly?
One guess is that may be President Trump convinced Netanyahu to try the same change in strategic policy that he is seeking to adopt at a wider level for the USA. This policy has the same objective of seeking world dominance as before but this objective is to be achieved in different ways and as far as possible by avoiding highly destructive wars.
So Trump may have convinced Netanyahu to also try this different strategy, and to create a favorable impression of listening to the new President, while at the same time gaining a rest and recovery period for his armed forces and achieving the release of hostages for which domestic pressure had been mounting, Netanyahu agreed to the ceasefire.
However he must have also asked President Trump or his emissaries—if we stop war, what are the other ways of achieving our objective of driving away the Palestinians?
At least a partial indication of the answer he may have received became available within a few days when President Trump announced that about 1.5 million Palestinians can be resettled in neighboring Arab countries particularly Egypt and Jordan. Subsequently in different statements Trump has stated this in even stronger terms, even mentioning the possibility of direct US role in Gaza. However this relocation has been firmly rejected by the Palestinians as well as by Egypt, Jordan and organizations of Arab countries, showing remarkable unity after a long time.
So what happens next? President Trump’s new strategy of seeking dominance by means other than war is being tested in the context of a close ally. It is clear that the objective of ethnic cleansing remains in place and what is more it has the support of the USA. Only it is to be achieved, as far as possible, by means other than war.
However if it is not possible to achieve this by means other than war, then will there be a return to aggressive attacks, or war? Answer to this question will be awaited with growing anxiety not only by the directly affected people, but by all those with a deep desire for peace.
The wider issue is of whether President Trump’s new strategy of seeking Dominance by Means Other Than War (DOWM) can prove to be a success for the USA while helping to avoid some potentially very destructive wars.
However before we can answer this question, we must ask what exactly DOWM includes.
From present indications of only a brief period of the new government, DOWM appears to be based on AAERB. The first A stands for annexation of neighboring areas that can be achieved without war. This may lead to the more or less complete annexation of Greenland, or a somewhat lesser level annexation of Canada, perhaps giving it some special status, making the USA for effective purposes the country with the largest area and the most natural resources, overtaking Russia and China in these contexts, acquiring a lot more strategic depth, gaining more control over the Arctic and coming closer to its European allies from the new Greenland borders.
The next A stands for remaining substantially ahead in the arms race, including steps towards space warfare.
E stands for economic warfare in the form of tariffs, sanctions etc. as well as ensuring the continuation of the special world currency privileged status.
R stands for regime change, including in traditionally friendly countries, in fact even closest allies like Britain and Germany, to have here regimes which are more in tune with the ‘Trump-era’.
B stands for bullying which is now the more favored way of doing things, or ensuring things get done.
All the five aspects of AAERB are questionable in various ways, despite being ethically wrong. However even all five taken together are less dangerous than the prospects of moving steadily closer to World War 3 which is where the Biden regime was taking the world.
So while all forces of peace and justice should oppose all five aspects of AAERB, they should also take care to ensure that the hands of those who favor the course of highly destructive wars are not strengthened in any way.
This brings us to the ultimate irony that while AAERB is supposed to be a strategy that provides an alternative to destructive wars, if it fails in achieving the objective of US dominance at world level, this may lead to a return of wars for achieving dominance. What is more, in the process of implementing AAERB, certain tensions may be accentuated which increase he possibilities of wars instead of decreasing them.
Hence the clear conclusion is that the objective of seeking world dominance should itself be given up. Instead if the USA wants at all to maintain a very special status in the world, it should aspire for what this writer has been calling ‘enlightened leadership’, based on using its special strengths for providing leadership on a path of justice based peace and environment protection. This path of enlightened leadership, which avoids both destructive wars as well as AAERB, will ensure for the USA a durable leadership role based on goodwill, not force. The opportunity of such enlightened leadership of world was available to the USA first in 1945, and then again in 1990. On both occasions the USA missed the good bus, instead opting for journeys of aggression. One can only hope against hope that it can be persuaded by the forces of peace to choose a genuine and sincere path of peace and welfare in the near future, a choice that will bring tremendous relief to the entire world. For this peace movements must be strengthened in the USA at several levels.
Bharat Dogra is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Protecting Earth for Children, Planet in Peril, Earth without Borders, A Day in 2071 and Man over Machine—A Path to Peace.
