아세안

Western media and politicians often describe the unprecedented devastation since October 7th uncritically accepting three notions. First, that Arab governments vigorously oppose Israel’s actions. Yet, despite the Palestinian question being central to their domestic politics and despite energy suppliers’ leverage over energy-insecure Western states, Arab regimes have issued little more than stern statements. Second, while Israel justifies its violence claiming it will eliminate armed groups and armed resistance per se, scholarship shows this strategy produces the opposite effect. Third, although ‘two-state solutions’ are presented as the only realistic pathways to peace, since 1978 they display similar structures and fail in similar ways, raising the question of why policymakers insist on a failing strategy. This contribution sketches how key characteristics of the Palestine/Israel question’s colonial roots and post-independence regimes’ strategies of power explains these contradictions and how they lead to ‘palliative’ peace processes which defer structural solutions rather than advance them.