Dalia Al-Aqidi
The world watched in awe as US President Donald Trump’s peace deal last week brought an end to the devastating war in Gaza. After two years of bloodshed, hostage crises and humanitarian suffering, the guns finally fell silent. Arab leaders, world powers and millions of ordinary people celebrated a long-awaited moment of relief and hope.
Yet, as much of the world celebrated this long-awaited step toward peace, the reaction within the US exposed a deeper truth about the nation itself — it is so polarized by partisanship that even the promise of peace could not bridge its political divide.
From Cairo to Riyadh and Jerusalem to Washington, the agreement was welcomed as a turning point. Arab leaders praised Trump’s leadership for restoring diplomacy to a region that had lost faith in it. Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi called the deal “a historic, defining moment.” Leaders from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Jordan and Morocco hailed the ceasefire as a long-overdue step toward regional stability and humanitarian recovery.
Even long-time skeptics admitted that this deal achieved what countless attempts before it could not: it brought an end to the war and opened a path to stability. It did not emerge in a vacuum but was grounded in the legacy of the Abraham Accords. Those accords changed the Middle East’s diplomatic map by proving that peace and partnership could replace endless hostility.
While much of the world celebrated, America’s response was deeply divided. Republicans across the country praised the agreement as a landmark achievement in diplomacy and a testament to the president’s leadership. They argued that Trump had once again delivered what others only spoke of: real progress toward peace through strength, resolve and a clear understanding of the region’s realities. To them, the deal was not just a political win but proof that principled leadership could accomplish what years of cautious diplomacy had failed to do.
But the Democratic Party, instead of joining the world in celebrating this historic moment, chose silence and, in some cases, open doubt. Many of its leaders downplayed the importance of the agreement and were unwilling to acknowledge what had been achieved. Rather than recognize a rare victory for peace, they focused on politics. Some even dismissed the deal as “temporary” or “election-driven,” as if stopping the bloodshed and saving innocent lives were not reason enough for gratitude. Their reaction showed how deeply politics has divided America, even when peace should have united everyone.
Progressive figures such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her allies could not bring themselves to welcome the simple fact that the war had finally stopped. Instead of showing relief that lives were being saved, they used the moment to attack the administration by accusing it of hypocrisy and of ignoring what they called “injustice.” Their response made it clear that ideology, not humanity, guides much of today’s political debate. By refusing to see peace as a good thing simply because it came from the other side of the political aisle, they showed how deeply partisanship has replaced both common sense and compassion in America’s public life.
No comments:
Post a Comment