الأسبوع الماضي مرّت على المنطقة والعالم مناسبتان تاريخيتان، في يومين متتالين من شهر واحد، يفصل بينهما نصف قرن، بالكمال والتمام.
في السادس من أكتوبر 1973، نشبت بين العرب وإسرائيل رابع حرب نظامية.. وفي السابع من أكتوبر 2023، نشبت حرب (غير نظامية) بين الفلسطينيين (فصائل في غزة) وإسرائيل. في كلا المواجهتين كانت المبادرة بهما عربية، وكانتا تحدياً لمن تكون الهيمنة على مقدّرات المنطقة.. وكلا الموقعتين كانتا اختباراً لإمكانات الردع لدى الطرفين، وفي كلا النِزالين، كانت لهما أصداء عالمية ترددت في أرجاء المعمورة، شرقها وغربها، شمالها وجنوبها.
هناك قواسم مشتركة، تجمع بين الحدثين، جميعها تشير إلى أن منطقة الشرق الأوسط هي: أكثر بقعة عدم استقرار في العالم.. وأنها: تاريخياً وثقافياً ودينياً، من أكثر مناطق العالم توتراً، ولها قيمة جيوسياسية، في قلب العالم، قديمه وجديده، من يتحكم بها تكون له اليد الطولى، ليس فقط السيادة والهيمنة الإقليمية الكونية، بل أكثر: القول الفصل في مستقبل سلام، المنطقة والعالم. المواجهتان اللتان وقعتا في المنطقة، خلال جيل واحد من تاريخ البشرية، تتحكمان في حركتهما العنيفة، معادلة صفرية، هي أكبر من حسمها في فترة تاريخية واحدة، حتى ولو كان يفصل بينهما، نصف قرن. هي مواجهة أزلية، تستمد تاريخيتها «الدياليكتية»، من عناصر تبدو كونها عصية على الالتقاء، بعيداً عن المساومة وغير قابلة للمزايدة.
لكن، كما أن لإرادة القتال، أجندة خاصة بها، ما أن تُطفأ نارها، إلا وتشتعل، ولو بعد حين، إلا أن إرادة التوازن والاستقرار ما تلبث وأن تثبت جدارتها، أيضاً، ولو لحين. في كل الأحوال يكون السلام بعيد المنال، لا يمكن حسم إرادته دفعة واحدة.
يبدو أن أطراف الصراع في المنطقة، لا تحكمهم قيم السلام، بقدر استسلامهم لغواية الاستمرار في الاقتتال، دون التبصر في عوائد السلام وفداحة سيطرة روح الاقتتال، ومعاودة الأخير، على حساب هدُن الهدوء والاستقرار القصيرة، في عرف قوانين الطبيعة وتوازناتها.
ليس مثل الحرب الطويلة والمريرة الأخيرة، التي استمرت لعامين، ولا يظهر في الأفق القريب أن لها عمراً افتراضياً تضع أوزارها فيه، نهائياً. حربٌ استنزفت الكثير من الموارد، كما كان الكثير من البشر وقوداً لاستمرار اتقاد لهيبها، والأهم: الأضرار الجسيمة التي أصابت استقرار المنطقة، بل وحتى أمن وسلام العالم. حربٌ تميّزت بطول حركة عنفها وشموليته وبعد امتداده، وعدم اقتصار لهيبها على ساحة نزالها الضيقة. حربٌ عجزت إمكانات النظام الدولي بمؤسساته وقوانينه، حتى أن تقترب من وضعٍ حدٍّ لها. غير سابقتها (حرب 1973)، التي نجحت مؤسسات النظام الدولي، في أقل من ثلاثة أسابيع أن تضع وزرها، كمؤشر لإفراغ كلا الطرفين لما في كنانتهما من عتاد، كما لخواء كليهما مما في جعبتهما من أهداف وحلول.
حربان كانتا تختلفان في هوية أطرافهما، كما اختلفتا، في سبل وطرائق إدارتهما. كانتا تختلفان في أهداف طرفيهما. حربٌ 1973، كان كلا طرفيها يتمتعان بهوية دولية متماثلة، كونهما أعضاء في مجتمع الدول، كلٌّ منهم يتطلع لتعزيز أمن حياضه السيادي، في منطقة رغم أنها فقيرة في مواردها، إلا أنها غنية في إمكاناتها الجيوسياسية والأمنية والتاريخية.
أما الحرب الأخيرة، فإنها بين طرفين، ينتمي أحدهما لمجتمع الدول يتذرع بقيمة حقه دفاعاً عن النفس، أما الآخر وإن كان ليس من مجتمع الدول، إلا أنه يستخدم مؤسسات وقوانين وأعراف وحراك مجتمع الدول، ليصبح عضواً دولياً معترفاً به.
حربُ أكتوبر 1973، كانت بين جيشين تحكم علاقتهما الصراعية، معادلة توازن قوى حسّاس، رغم أن أحدهما قد يكون ممتلكاً لرادع غير تقليدي لم يعلن عنه. بينما الحرب الحالية، تدور بين طرفين، لا جيشين نظاميين. أحدهما يمتلك أدوات ردع فتاكة، لا تردعه عن ارتكاب جرائم حرب، تسقط به إلى درك ممارسة إبادة جماعية ضد خصمه، بينما الآخر يمتلك من الصلابة والإرادة والتصميم، على خوض حرب غير متكافئة، بصبرٍ وجلدٍ منقطع النظير. أحدهما يتمتع بدعم النظامين الإقليمي والدولي، بينما الآخر يفتقد الاثنين معاً، إلا أنه لو كان وحيداً في مواجهة مؤسسات النظام الدولي الرسمية، إلا أن الشارع، على مستوى العالم، يتعاطف معه ومع قضيته.
مهما تكن نهاية الحرب الحالية، التي لن تشبه نهاية الحروب السابقة، إلا أنها، كما كانت الحروب السابقة، خاصةً تلك الأخيرة، قبل نصف قرن، ستكون أقرب للهدنة منها، لوضع حل جذري وحاسم للصراع. كما أن الحرب الحالية، وإن وضعت أوزارها، إلا أن ذيولها الإقليمية والدولية، ربما يراها البعض أنها انتصارٌ لقيم الإنسانية وحب السلام. الفلسطينيون ستحظى قضيتهم بتأييد العالم وتعاطفه، بينما ستواجه إسرائيل وقادتها صعوبات حقيقية، في إعادة استيعاب الدولة العبرية في مجتمع الدول، كما سيواجه قادتها دعاة الحرب وروّاد العنصرية، مصاعب حقيقية وملاحقات قضائية دولية، تمنعهم من الحركة وأداء مسؤولياتهم السياسية بهدوء وثقة.
حربان في نصف قرن، قد تحددان في أي مسار سيتجه النظام الدولي، تحملان علامات استفهام حقيقية، لمصير أمن واستقرار وسلام العالم.
طلال صالح بنان
بين السادس والسابع من أكتوبر
14 أكتوبر 2025 - 00:00
|
آخر تحديث 14 أكتوبر 2025 - 00:00
تابع قناة عكاظ على الواتساب
Last week, two historic events passed in the region and the world, on two consecutive days of the same month, separated by half a century, to the letter.
On October 6, 1973, the fourth conventional war broke out between the Arabs and Israel. On October 7, 2023, a (non-conventional) war erupted between the Palestinians (factions in Gaza) and Israel. In both confrontations, the initiative was Arab, and both were a challenge for dominance over the region's resources. Both battles were tests of the deterrent capabilities of both sides, and in both conflicts, their echoes resonated globally, throughout the world, east and west, north and south.
There are common denominators that link the two events, all of which indicate that the Middle East is: the most unstable region in the world... and that it is: historically, culturally, and religiously, one of the most tense areas in the world, with geopolitical value at the heart of the world, both ancient and modern. Whoever controls it has the upper hand, not only in terms of sovereignty and regional dominance but also: the final say in the future of peace, both in the region and the world. The two confrontations that took place in the region, within a single generation of human history, are governed by a zero-sum equation, which is greater than can be resolved in a single historical period, even if half a century separates them. It is an eternal confrontation, deriving its historical "dialectical" nature from elements that seem resistant to convergence, far from compromise and unamenable to bargaining.
However, just as the will to fight has its own agenda, once its flames are extinguished, they ignite again, even after a while, the will for balance and stability also proves its worth, albeit temporarily. In all cases, peace remains elusive; its will cannot be resolved all at once.
It seems that the parties to the conflict in the region are not governed by the values of peace, as much as they are succumbing to the temptation of continuing to fight, without considering the returns of peace and the severity of the spirit of fighting, and the resurgence of the latter, at the expense of the short-lived truces of calm and stability, according to the laws of nature and its balances.
There is nothing like the long and bitter war that lasted for two years, and there is no sign on the near horizon that it has a hypothetical end in which it will finally lay down its burdens. A war that drained many resources, as many people became fuel for its continued flames, and most importantly: the severe damage it inflicted on the stability of the region, and even on the security and peace of the world. A war characterized by the length of its violence and its comprehensiveness, and the extent of its reach, not limited to its narrow battlefield. A war that the capabilities of the international system, with its institutions and laws, have failed to bring to an end. Unlike its predecessor (the 1973 war), where international system institutions succeeded in less than three weeks to put an end to it, as an indicator for both sides to deplete their arsenal, as well as for both to be left empty of their goals and solutions.
The two wars differed in the identity of their parties, as they also differed in the ways and methods of their management. They differed in the objectives of their sides. The 1973 war saw both sides enjoying a similar international identity, as they were both members of the community of nations, each looking to enhance the security of its sovereign territory, in a region that, although poor in resources, is rich in its geopolitical, security, and historical potentials.
As for the recent war, it is between two parties, one of which belongs to the community of nations and invokes the value of its right to self-defense, while the other, although not part of the community of nations, uses the institutions, laws, customs, and movements of the community of nations to become an internationally recognized member.
The October 1973 war was between two armies whose conflictual relationship was governed by a sensitive balance of power equation, even though one of them may have possessed an undeclared unconventional deterrent. Meanwhile, the current war is between two parties, not two regular armies. One possesses lethal deterrent tools that do not prevent it from committing war crimes, leading it to the depths of practicing genocide against its opponent, while the other possesses resilience, will, and determination to engage in an unequal war, with unparalleled patience and endurance. One enjoys the support of both the regional and international systems, while the other lacks both, yet even if it were alone in facing the official institutions of the international system, the street, at the global level, sympathizes with it and its cause.
No matter how the current war ends, which will not resemble the endings of previous wars, it will, like the previous wars, especially the last one, half a century ago, be closer to a truce than to a radical and decisive solution to the conflict. Moreover, even if the current war lays down its burdens, its regional and international ramifications may be seen by some as a victory for the values of humanity and love for peace. The Palestinians will gain the world's support and sympathy for their cause, while Israel and its leaders will face real difficulties in reintegrating the Jewish state into the community of nations, as its leaders, war advocates, and pioneers of racism will face real challenges and international legal pursuits that prevent them from moving and performing their political responsibilities calmly and confidently.
Two wars in half a century may determine the direction in which the international system will head, carrying real question marks about the fate of security, stability, and peace in the world.
On October 6, 1973, the fourth conventional war broke out between the Arabs and Israel. On October 7, 2023, a (non-conventional) war erupted between the Palestinians (factions in Gaza) and Israel. In both confrontations, the initiative was Arab, and both were a challenge for dominance over the region's resources. Both battles were tests of the deterrent capabilities of both sides, and in both conflicts, their echoes resonated globally, throughout the world, east and west, north and south.
There are common denominators that link the two events, all of which indicate that the Middle East is: the most unstable region in the world... and that it is: historically, culturally, and religiously, one of the most tense areas in the world, with geopolitical value at the heart of the world, both ancient and modern. Whoever controls it has the upper hand, not only in terms of sovereignty and regional dominance but also: the final say in the future of peace, both in the region and the world. The two confrontations that took place in the region, within a single generation of human history, are governed by a zero-sum equation, which is greater than can be resolved in a single historical period, even if half a century separates them. It is an eternal confrontation, deriving its historical "dialectical" nature from elements that seem resistant to convergence, far from compromise and unamenable to bargaining.
However, just as the will to fight has its own agenda, once its flames are extinguished, they ignite again, even after a while, the will for balance and stability also proves its worth, albeit temporarily. In all cases, peace remains elusive; its will cannot be resolved all at once.
It seems that the parties to the conflict in the region are not governed by the values of peace, as much as they are succumbing to the temptation of continuing to fight, without considering the returns of peace and the severity of the spirit of fighting, and the resurgence of the latter, at the expense of the short-lived truces of calm and stability, according to the laws of nature and its balances.
There is nothing like the long and bitter war that lasted for two years, and there is no sign on the near horizon that it has a hypothetical end in which it will finally lay down its burdens. A war that drained many resources, as many people became fuel for its continued flames, and most importantly: the severe damage it inflicted on the stability of the region, and even on the security and peace of the world. A war characterized by the length of its violence and its comprehensiveness, and the extent of its reach, not limited to its narrow battlefield. A war that the capabilities of the international system, with its institutions and laws, have failed to bring to an end. Unlike its predecessor (the 1973 war), where international system institutions succeeded in less than three weeks to put an end to it, as an indicator for both sides to deplete their arsenal, as well as for both to be left empty of their goals and solutions.
The two wars differed in the identity of their parties, as they also differed in the ways and methods of their management. They differed in the objectives of their sides. The 1973 war saw both sides enjoying a similar international identity, as they were both members of the community of nations, each looking to enhance the security of its sovereign territory, in a region that, although poor in resources, is rich in its geopolitical, security, and historical potentials.
As for the recent war, it is between two parties, one of which belongs to the community of nations and invokes the value of its right to self-defense, while the other, although not part of the community of nations, uses the institutions, laws, customs, and movements of the community of nations to become an internationally recognized member.
The October 1973 war was between two armies whose conflictual relationship was governed by a sensitive balance of power equation, even though one of them may have possessed an undeclared unconventional deterrent. Meanwhile, the current war is between two parties, not two regular armies. One possesses lethal deterrent tools that do not prevent it from committing war crimes, leading it to the depths of practicing genocide against its opponent, while the other possesses resilience, will, and determination to engage in an unequal war, with unparalleled patience and endurance. One enjoys the support of both the regional and international systems, while the other lacks both, yet even if it were alone in facing the official institutions of the international system, the street, at the global level, sympathizes with it and its cause.
No matter how the current war ends, which will not resemble the endings of previous wars, it will, like the previous wars, especially the last one, half a century ago, be closer to a truce than to a radical and decisive solution to the conflict. Moreover, even if the current war lays down its burdens, its regional and international ramifications may be seen by some as a victory for the values of humanity and love for peace. The Palestinians will gain the world's support and sympathy for their cause, while Israel and its leaders will face real difficulties in reintegrating the Jewish state into the community of nations, as its leaders, war advocates, and pioneers of racism will face real challenges and international legal pursuits that prevent them from moving and performing their political responsibilities calmly and confidently.
Two wars in half a century may determine the direction in which the international system will head, carrying real question marks about the fate of security, stability, and peace in the world.


