The Middle East has long been the focus of world attention, especially the conflict between Israel and Palestine.
In the latest round of conflicts, the attitude of the countries of the Middle East has changed unexpectedly.
This article will delve into this change, focusing on the ceasefire agreement proposed by Egypt and Qatar and the key points in it, revealing that this agreement is essentially a "Kaesong surrender" negotiation, as well as the subtle changes in the attitude of Middle Eastern countries towards the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
The article will also focus on the impact of factors such as Hamas's internal ** and Houthi attacks in the Red Sea on the attitudes of Middle Eastern countries, and ultimately highlight the attempts of Middle Eastern countries to pressure the Houthis and their supporters (Russia and Iran) to change their behavior in the Red Sea region through agreements.
The subtle changes behind the protocol
As the Israeli-Palestinian conflict escalated, Egypt and Qatar proposed a significant ceasefire agreement.
Surprisingly, however, the agreement is essentially a kind of "Kaesong surrender", demanding that Hamas relinquish control of the Gaza Strip in exchange for peace with Israel.
This shift shows a 180-degree shift in the attitude of Middle Eastern countries in the face of conflict, moving away from simply supporting Palestine to forcing Hamas to accept a deal that seems unfavorable to them.
Change due to crisis
Behind this change is a combination of factors.
First, the situation in the Gaza Strip is further complicated by the internal Hamas situation.
On the one hand, the Hamas militants in Gaza have expressed their "vow not to surrender" and advocate a bloody war to the end
On the other hand, Qatar's top brass in Hamas has strongly advocated "ending the war as soon as possible," creating internal and external contradictions. This internal contradiction puts the countries of the Middle East in a difficult position when formulating their attitude towards the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
The new position of the countries of the Middle East
The promulgation of the agreement seems to mark a strategic adjustment of the attitude of Middle Eastern countries towards the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
In the past, they had shown strong support for the Palestinians, but now the countries of the Middle East have begun to force Hamas to accept the terms of the ceasefire.
The change is a response to the Houthi "indiscriminate" attacks in the Red Sea and the enormous impact on shipping across the region.
The actions of the Houthis have not only put pressure on Israel, but also on Middle Eastern countries.
The political game behind it
The ceasefire agreement proposed by Egypt and Qatar highlights the political game between Middle Eastern countries.
Qatar is one of Hamas's financiers, and its role in supporting the ceasefire is in the spotlight.
Egypt, as a mediator, is actually pressuring the Houthis and their supporters (Russia and Iran) to try to change their military operations in the Red Sea by concocting this "surrender agreement".
Behind this political game are the interests of the countries of the Middle East and their different interpretations of the situation.
The pressure of indiscriminate attacks
The Houthi "indiscriminate" attacks in the Red Sea have put tremendous pressure on Israel, and at the same time have made countries in the Middle East feel "under pressure".
As a direct consequence of this type of attack, Red Sea shipping was severely disrupted, negatively impacting the global shipping lifeline.
Liu Heping, an expert on international issues, pointed out that the Houthi actions not only threaten global shipping, but also lead to divisions within Islamic countries.
This situation has forced Middle Eastern countries to reassess their role and position in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Behind the double-edged sword
The Houthis' indiscriminate missile firing in the Red Sea has been described as a "double-edged sword".
Although this method can exert pressure on the international community to pressure Israel to cease fire by disrupting shipping in the Red Sea, it will also have an adverse impact on Middle Eastern countries, including China's "own camp".
This forced Middle Eastern countries to make a trade-off between safeguarding their own interests and maintaining regional stability, which eventually prompted Egypt and Qatar to propose a ceasefire agreement to try to solve the problem through peaceful means.
Test the other party's bottom line
Now, the countries of the Middle East seem to be facing a huge test, that is, who "can't bear it" first.
If Israel "can't bear it" first, this round of conflict may end in Hamas's favor, such as Israel abandoning its plan to "eradicate" Hamas and unconditionally withdrawing its troops.
And if the countries in the Middle East "can't bear it" first, then this round of conflict may end in a way that is beneficial to Israel, and the countries of the Middle East may begin to force Hamas to "surrender", abandon Gaza, and achieve a "long-term ceasefire".
This moment has become a test of the "patience" of the countries of the Middle East and Israel.
Competing interests and regional stability
Egypt and Qatar support the ceasefire agreement because of their economic interests and concerns about regional stability.
The Suez Canal "transit fee" is at an all-time high, however, the actions of the Houthis have left Egypt with heavy economic losses.
The pressure on Middle Eastern countries over the Houthi behavior in the Red Sea has forced them to seek peace agreements to maintain regional security and stability.
In the subtle changes in the attitude of Middle Eastern countries towards the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the ceasefire agreement has become a way to resolve the current crisis.
Behind this change is both a geopolitical game and an urgent need for economic stability.
By delving into the key points of the agreement and the new positions of Middle Eastern countries, we can better understand the evolution of this conflict and provide more constructive thinking for future peace and stability in the region.