The Twilight of Dogmas: When Jihadists Become Partners and Alliances Fracture

The End of the War on Terror, the Beginning of the Era of Pragmatism. The decision made on Friday in New York passed through mainstream media almost unnoticed, although it fundamentally changes the rules of the game in the Middle East. The UN Security Council, a body established to guard global peace, voted unanimously to lift sanctions on Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). The motion was submitted by Russia and supported by all powers, including Western ones. An organization originating directly from the al-Nusra Front, the Syrian affiliate of Al-Qaeda, has officially ceased to be a pariah.

This is not a bureaucratic adjustment. It is an admission that in Idlib province, where HTS exercises de facto power over millions of people, ideology has lost to administrative reality. The group has evolved from a terrorist militia into a quasi-state apparatus managing hospitals, courts, and taxes. António Guterres, the UN Secretary-General, was mandated to announce to the world that travel bans and asset freezes for HTS leaders are a thing of the past. The international community has decided that stabilizing the region requires a pact with the devil, as long as that devil can maintain order in its territory.

The Syrian civil war, ongoing since 2011, has led to the fragmentation of the country into zones of influence controlled by the Assad regime, Kurds, Turkey, and Islamist groups. Idlib remains the last major opposition stronghold, where millions of internally displaced persons have taken refuge.

The rehabilitation of HTS is a triumph of Realpolitik over the moral absolutism that has dominated the discourse on terrorism since 2001. The West, tired of a decade of ineffective interventions, tacitly accepts the status quo. This decision sets a precedent: the terrorist label is negotiable if the entity gains sufficient territorial and political control. The question of whether the United States will align its domestic sanctions lists with the UN decision remains open, but the signal sent from New York is clear: stability is more important than justice.A Crack in the Transatlantic Foundation. Parallel to the events at the UN, a tectonic shift in the perception of another key conflict is occurring across the ocean. The Gallup Institute published data that should sound like an air-raid siren for Israeli diplomacy. For the first time in the history of measurements, 41% of Americans declare greater sympathy for Palestinians, while support for Israel has dropped to 36%. In just one year, the US ally has lost ten percentage points of public support.

American Sympathy in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Palestinians: 41, Israelis: 36

This change is not a temporary fluctuation, but the result of a generational replacement of elites and voters. In the 18-34 age group, sympathy for Palestinians stands at 52%, doubling the support for Israel (25%). Images of destruction in the Gaza Strip, where according to Palestinian sources over 72,000 people have died, have permanently changed the perspective of young Americans. Terminology used by media such as Al Jazeera, writing about „genocide,” resonates on social media more strongly than official White House communications.

The Democratic Party is becoming a hostage to this trend. The drop in support for Israel among Democrats from 46% to 33% forces the Joe Biden administration to balance between a strategic alliance and the demands of its own electorate. „It's the first time since Gallup began asking the question that more Americans sympathize with Palestinians than Israelis.” — Axios Unconditional support for Tel Aviv, once a cornerstone of bipartisan consensus in Washington, is becoming a political liability. Israel is losing „soft power” in the heart of its most important ally, which in the long run may prove more dangerous than any military attack.Disintegration of Structures and the Corporate Steamroller. While old alliances fall on the international stage, states and organizations are losing cohesion at the internal level. In Spain, the government of the Valencian Community has openly defied the central government in Madrid. Spokesman Vicente Llorca rejected Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez's funding model proposal, ignoring even the appeal of his own regional president, Vicent Boluda. This is not a simple budget dispute—it is a crisis of trust in the unitary state.

„El Consell mantiene la firmeza en la aplicación de un modelo fiscal que garantice el bienestar y la justicia para todos los valencianos.” (The Government maintains its firmness in applying a fiscal model that guarantees well-being and justice for all Valencians.) — Vicente Llorca

An even more drastic example of the dismantling of civic structures comes from North Dakota. Federal Judge Daniel Traynor approved a judgment ordering Greenpeace USA to pay $345 million to the Energy Transfer corporation. The case concerns protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline. This amount exceeds the organization's annual budget many times over and in practice means its liquidation. A legal mechanism, interpreted as a fight against a „smear campaign” and eco-sabotage, was used to financially annihilate one of the most vocal critics of the fuel sector.

$345 million — the amount of damages threatening Greenpeace USA with bankruptcy

This verdict, described by activists as a SLAPP strategy, shows a new reality: energy corporations have gained legal tools to effectively silence social dissent. If Greenpeace falls, it will be a signal to every NGO that the cost of criticizing infrastructure investments can be counted in hundreds of millions of dollars.Counterargument: Is Local Cooperation the Rescue?. One could argue that the described picture of chaos is exaggerated, and at lower levels, the system still functions efficiently. An example is the visit of the Minister of Health of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Jacqueline Drese, to Lithuania. The German delegation meets in Vilnius with Minister Arūnas Dulkys to talk about specifics: telemedicine, staffing, and cross-border care. This is proof that pragmatic cooperation within the European Union continues, away from the big headlines.

However, this visit is the exception that proves the rule. Successes at the regional level, such as the cooperation between Mecklenburg and Lithuania, are possible precisely because they bypass paralyzed or conflicted decision-making centers. While Valencia blocks Madrid and Washington loses its moral compass, only technocratic, low-level initiatives retain agency. The world is not becoming safer—it is simply becoming more fragmented, where survival is determined by local arrangements rather than global law.Perspective. We are entering an era in which „international recognition” loses its normative meaning. If HTS can become a UN partner and Greenpeace can be outlawed by debts, the definitions of „terrorist” and „activist” become fluid and dependent on the balance of power rather than deeds. The decline in support for Israel in the USA suggests that in the coming decade, the protective umbrella for traditional Western allies will be folded. In turn, the verdict in the Energy Transfer case heralds an era in which climate disputes will be settled not at protests, but by bailiffs seizing the accounts of social organizations.

We live in a time when jihadists in suits are welcomed in diplomatic salons, while environmental defenders go bankrupt in courts. Morality in international politics was never a hard currency, but this week its devaluation was officially announced.

Perspektywy mediów: The decisions of the UN and US courts are evidence of the collapse of human rights standards: oppressors in Syria are legitimized, while civil society in America is destroyed. These actions restore order: they recognize real power on the ground (Syria) and hold radicals blocking economic development financially accountable (USA).