We are focusing on the announced change in relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates along with the conditions involved.  Also, we will focus on some helpful peace concepts.  Thank you for subscribing, and if you enjoy reading this, please forward the newsletter to your friends. ~ KevinQuotes: “Rapprochement is more about practice than institutions.”  ~ Charles Kupchan “Inclined to peace by his temper and situation, it was easy for him to discover that Rome, in her present exalted situation, had much less to hope than to fear from the chance of arms; and that, in the prosecution of remote wars, the undertaking became every day more difficult, the event more doubtful, and the possession more precarious, and less beneficial.” ~ Edward Gibbon Last week the Trump Administration announced a shift in relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates.  This involves the normalization of relations between the two countries that for decades have not recognized each other diplomatically.  We are going to examine the arrangement, the factors surrounding it, and contextualize it within the research study of peace.

With a few exceptions, there seems to be growing support in Congress for this diplomatic effort.  From a consensus standpoint within US domestic politics that is useful.  It may also be important because the agreement may involve solidifying support, which often entails funds from the US.  Palestinian groups have been critical, as well as Turkey and Iran.  Speaking of Iran, many analysts argue that the differences Israel and the U.A.E. each has with Iran have helped to encourage their improving relations with one another. However, these are long-standing divisions and the enmity exists. The balance of power dynamics in the region involves many factors (domestic politics, energy, history of relations, and outside powers) but what seems to align and concern countries in the region most is the sectarian divisions.  (though some disagree)  Much of the suffering and standoff in Syria and Yemen is related to the proxy fighting between groups aligned with either Shia or Sunni. Frequently the efforts are less about achieving aims than about seeking to deny the aims of their sectarian rival.  This has also played a role in the politics in Iraq, Bahrain, and Lebanon, where sectarian divisions have been embedded in politics.  With Iran’s continued efforts to enrich nuclear capabilities, we see Saudi Arabia, with China’s assistance, also enter into this domain, probably as a reaction to the threat of Iran’s nuclear developments.  While there is robust disagreement among Sunni countries and Israel they all agree that their principal concern is Iran. 

Plans for peace are laudable objectives.  But like most laudable things it is very difficult to attain.  No doubt this is the case, whether the focus is on Israel and its neighbors or the entire Middle East. That is why steps like those taken last week are important. When studying peace, we can look at work from Galtung, who characterized two types of peace: positive and negative.  This is not a normative characterization but rather is a description of what is actually done. When considering the meaning of positive peace, it is often described as occurring through a series of actions. Within these actions, there is an objective of moving toward peace, which is fostered through norms, laws, and habits. Meanwhile, negative peace is the result of the absence of war and is not the result of specific actions that facilitate the outcome, most notably at the normative level. The recent development between Israel and the United Arab Emirates is also an agreement (like most agreements) that involves the existence of leverage for each side to influence relations.  This may not include harmony or other types of idealized relationships, but it is also far from a conflictual relationship.  If one party does not meet the terms then the other can withdraw. It is also rumored that other Gulf states may join in similar arrangements, which intentionally hints at the possibility that normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel may happen.  This is particularly plausible given the frequent interaction, although done informally, between these countries on regional affairs. That informal interaction is one of the many widely shared “secrets” in international affairs. In recent decades there have been many failed attempts to reach grand positive peace agreements in the region. Perhaps the lesson we should learn is that the alternative approach of building a foundation is the path to having a negative peace arrangement, and that approach is preferable to numerous alternatives.  Just as war does not last forever, neither does either type of peace.  It's important to recognize that the most desirable form of peace may not be within reach. In this case, it would be hard to assert that positive peace efforts have succeeded. But perhaps more incremental steps are attainable.  These measured positive peace moves like normalization help create a greater environment where negative peace is the dominant state in the western Middle East.  The parties involved seem to acknowledge this.  No doubt the amount of regional balancing and opportunities taken by leaders can influence this, but we could eventually see a series of incremental steps toward peace, which could prove to be very important. What do you expect to happen next in the Middle East?

I am enjoying the chance to share these newsletters with you in the form of the new podcasts and appreciate your continued feedback. You can reply to this email or leave your comments below.  I sincerely enjoy chatting and learning what folks think. Thank you ~ Kevin

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit modlinglobal.substack.com