This is not the first time, either regionally or globally, that such a headline has appeared. It is a formula that is often repeated after pivotal events, the latest being the Arab uprisings of 2010-2011.
In reality, anticipating change and advocating for it has frequently occurred in world history. In the aftermath of World War I, for example, with its massive suffering and about 15 million casualties, a high percentage of the population of the European countries at that time, there were many calls to prevent such a catastrophe happening again.
This resulted in the establishment of an international organisation, the League of Nations, to facilitate communication between different nations and prevent their ordinary disputes from escalating into violence and war.
However, as history shows, this desire to prevent war was not fulfilled, and the world slid into another global conflict just 20 years later, this time having a death toll of around 51 million, more than three times that of World War I.
Many of the survivors lived with permanent disabilities. Fortunately, the Cold War (1947-1989) ended without a hot war, especially considering the potential catastrophic consequences that one could have had owing to the existence of nuclear weapons. Some even referred to the end of the Cold War in a different context as the “end of history.”
How do the lessons of this past guide us in engineering the present? Will the widespread destruction and form of genocide that is taking place in Gaza lead to a “New Middle East,” as happened 50 years ago in 1973?
We are facing similar factors.
Hamas, for example, chose to launch its attacks on Israel on almost the same day as 50 years ago and the surprise attack on Israel on 6 October 1973. That attack was also unexpected, inflicting numerous losses on the Israeli side.
The events of 7 October 2023, like their predecessor 50 years ago, also exposed the vulnerabilities of the Israeli intelligence agencies. There might be an inquiry in Israel after the Gaza war, possibly leading to the resignation of the current government, that could be similar to the Agranat Committee that led to the resignation of Golda Meir’s government in Israel in the 1970s.
The government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may be concerned about the establishment of an investigatory committee, followed by condemnation and resignation after the fighting stops. One of the main reasons for his government to continue the war and the widespread destruction that goes with it is essentially to maintain the current situation and then return to what it was beforehand.
Hasn’t Israel officially declared that when the war ends, it will be responsible for “security” in Gaza, meaning it will continue to occupy and besiege the Gaza Strip? This is an extremely foolish policy even for Israel, as was seen in the success of the Hamas attacks on 7 October and even before them when protests erupted within Israel against the government’s policy towards the judiciary.
What matters to us is not to return to the previous situation before this destructive war, an achievement that the October 1973 War succeeded in doing. Regardless of reservations about the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty, one of the outcomes of the 1973 War, Egypt has now regained its sovereignty over Sinai.
The focus now should be on building a new or different Middle East and on resisting the return to the state of occupation and blockade that existed before the war. This is the real resistance and one that could easily garner international support even within Israel itself.
No one wants a repeat of the current catastrophe. The Arab and Islamic world can rely on international support, including from the UN General Assembly and the UN secretary-general. Let us therefore work earnestly together on an agenda for the future and mobilise global support for it.
The writer is professor of international relations and political economy at the American University in Cairo.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 23 November, 2023 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: