Israel's Divergence: Peace, Power, and Pragmatism in the Middle East

The Middle East traditionally moves in rhythms shaped by state-led diplomacy, royal ambition, and shifting solidarities rooted in Arab or Islamic identity. Israel charts a distinct course, shaped by its particular form of democracy—robust for its Jewish citizens yet contested regarding Palestinians under its control—alongside relentless security imperatives and deep Western ties. Recent events highlight this divergence, but the story is less a clash of opposites than a web of competing priorities, where survival, power, and pragmatism collide across a region still grappling with the legacies of colonialism, displacement, and unresolved national aspirations.

A Region Reimagining Itself

From Riyadh to Abu Dhabi, Gulf leaders are crafting futures centered on economic ambition. Saudi Arabia's Vision 2030 channels oil wealth into futuristic cities, tech hubs, and cultural reforms, aiming to diversify beyond crude. The UAE positions itself as a diplomatic and commercial bridge, transforming handshakes into skyscrapers and global expos. These states see stability and prosperity as intertwined—war disrupts markets and deters investors.

Yet their pursuit of peace carries its own contradictions. Underpinned by authoritarian control and strategic calculations, the Gulf's pivot reflects hunger for global relevance, but human rights concerns persist—dissidents remain imprisoned, migrant workers face exploitation, and regional rivalries simmer beneath the surface of economic summits.

Israel's Calculus: Security and Sovereignty

Israel's path follows different imperatives, rooted in both genuine existential concerns and the dynamics of a political system that increasingly rewards hardline positions. Its leaders frame strikes in Gaza, Beirut, or Sanaa—where senior Houthi figures were recently targeted—as vital to national security. Blocking Arab delegations from visiting Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah, condemned by Saudi Arabia as "proof of extremism," signals rejection of dialogue that might acknowledge Palestinian political claims.

This security-first approach reflects real threats: Hamas's rockets, Hezbollah's arsenals, and Iran's network of proxies. But it also serves domestic politics, where coalition mathematics and electoral incentives often favor confrontation over compromise. What looks like defiance doubles as both survival strategy and political calculation, entrenching cycles that make peace increasingly distant.

This maximalist approach clashes with Gulf calls for restraint. Yet paradoxically, the same Gulf states have normalized ties with Israel via the Abraham Accords, prioritizing commerce and shared concerns about Iran over Palestinian solidarity—a shift that has left Palestinians feeling increasingly abandoned by traditional Arab allies.

Palestinian Voices: Between Abandonment and Resilience

Often reduced to statistics of casualties or refugees, Palestinians navigate a shrinking political horizon. In Gaza, Hamas maintains control through a mix of resistance rhetoric and authoritarian governance, while ordinary Gazans endure blockade and bombardment. In the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority loses credibility as Israeli settlements expand and its own governance grows more autocratic.

Palestinian civil society—human rights groups, grassroots organizers, and everyday families—continues advocating for dignity and rights despite international fatigue. Young Palestinians increasingly bypass traditional political structures, turning to social media and direct action to assert their narrative. Their fragmentation across Gaza, the West Bank, Israel proper, and the diaspora complicates a unified strategy, yet their persistence challenges both Israeli policies and Arab states' normalization moves.

Iran's Strategic Depth

Iran pursues regional influence through what it calls the "axis of resistance"—a network spanning Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Iraq. Tehran frames this as defending the oppressed and resisting Western-Israeli hegemony, though critics see imperial ambition masked as liberation theology.

For Iran, regional proxies serve multiple purposes: projecting power without direct confrontation, maintaining leverage in nuclear negotiations, and rallying domestic support through external conflicts. This strategy creates the very instability that Gulf states seek to avoid and that Israel cites as justification for military action—a self-reinforcing cycle that serves hardliners in Tehran, Jerusalem, and beyond.

America's Tangled Role

The U.S. attempts to balance irreconcilable positions—unwavering support for Israel, partnerships with Gulf autocracies, rhetorical commitment to human rights, and desire for regional stability. Washington provides Israel with billions in military aid and diplomatic cover while urging restraint. It arms Saudi Arabia while criticizing its human rights record. It seeks to contain Iran while attempting nuclear diplomacy.

The Trump administration's recent "last warning" to Hamas over hostages—met with the group's stated readiness to talk—exemplifies American efforts to project strength while seeking resolution. Yet this approach reflects the same fundamental tensions: demanding immediate results while the underlying grievances that fuel such crises remain unaddressed.

This juggling act increasingly satisfies no one. Israelis doubt American staying power; Gulf leaders question U.S. reliability; Palestinians see betrayal of stated values. Rather than puppet or puppeteer, America appears as a power entangled in contradictions of its own making, its influence real but increasingly constrained by regional actors pursuing independent agendas.

A Region of Contrasts and Convergences

The contrasts are vivid: Saudi Arabia co-hosts summits on Palestinian reconstruction while Israel expands military operations; the UAE champions tolerance while Israel implements policies human rights groups call apartheid; Egypt mediates ceasefires while maintaining its own blockade of Gaza.

Yet these paths intersect in unexpected ways. The Gulf's economic ambitions require regional stability that Israel's security policies disrupt—but also depend on containing Iran, an interest Israel shares. The Abraham Accords demonstrate how commerce and security can align, even as they sideline Palestinian aspirations. Climate change and water scarcity create shared challenges that transcend political divisions.

The Narrative Divide

The Middle East's wealthiest states bet on integration and prosperity, however imperfectly implemented. Israel remains locked in cycles where security considerations—both genuine and politically expedient—override compromise. Palestinians face diminishing options as international attention drifts and Arab solidarity fractures. Iran exploits instability while contributing to it. America struggles to reconcile interests with ideals.

The region's story isn't simply split between progress and destruction, but rather a complex web where ambition, fear, historical grievance, and pragmatism intersect. Gulf states pursue global relevance while managing internal contradictions. Israel prioritizes security through means that may ultimately undermine it. Palestinians persist despite abandonment. Iran advances through disruption. Even the U.S., neither puppet nor puppeteer, finds itself increasingly reactive rather than directive.

The Paradox Persists

This is the Middle East's enduring paradox: visions of prosperity and integration advancing alongside conflicts rooted in unresolved historical injustices and competing nationalisms. The divergence between Israel's path and its neighbors' is real, but so are the threads binding them—shared threats, economic opportunities, environmental challenges, and the uncomfortable reality that no party can achieve its goals while ignoring others' core concerns.

Skyscrapers rise in Dubai, rubble smolders in Gaza, Tehran calculates its next move, Washington struggles for balance, and millions of ordinary people—Israeli, Palestinian, Arab, Iranian—navigate lives shaped by decisions made in distant capitals. The region's future depends not on choosing between peace and power, but on finding formulas that acknowledge both security needs and human dignity, historical grievances and future possibilities. Until then, the divergence continues, and with it, the human cost.

Paul Scribner is a corporate leader and communicator with over two decades of experience in global finance, strategic investment, and organizational leadership. He writes on leadership, faith, and the lessons found in both successes and failures.

Kelly Delp is a communications strategist and writer with a background in storytelling, non-profit leadership, and organizational culture. She partners with leaders to craft clear, compelling narratives that inspire trust and action.