Kosovo’s Calculated Risk: Playing Both Sides in the Middle East

Kosovo’s decision to join a US-led force in Gaza raises fundamental questions about the country’s sovereignty and its relationships with both Washington and Tel Aviv. The move is seen as a strategic one by Pristina, but it also underscores the small majority-Muslim nation’s dependence on international support.

This dynamic has been shaped by Kosovo’s reliance on NATO for protection since the 1999 conflict. As a result, Pristina feels compelled to repay its debts – both moral and strategic – to its benefactors in Washington. For many Kosovo Albanians, the US is associated with the end of repression and the conditions that made independence possible.

The perception of obligation was reinforced by the role of the pro-Israel lobby in the US, which analysts believe influenced Washington’s policy towards Kosovo. “People in Kosovo feel they have a moral debt…and that is the reason for Kosovo’s approach to Israel,” says Nexhmedin Spahiu, a university professor and political analyst in Pristina.

Kosovo’s relationship with Israel has developed within this US-centred logic. Under the Washington agreement of September 2020, Kosovo committed to opening an embassy in Jerusalem, becoming the first majority-Muslim country to do so. This move was seen as a significant diplomatic victory for Pristina, helping to counter arguments used by states with territorial disputes.

However, analysts note that this partnership is not about an autonomous bilateral policy but rather “proxy politics,” contingent on Kosovo’s ties with the US. Artan Muhaxhiri describes it as such: a relationship shaped by and dependent on its connections to Washington.

Kosovo’s national story rests on international protection for civilians exposed to state violence and self-determination. But joining a force that supports Israel in Gaza, where the very same issues of repression and state violence are at play, presents an unresolved contradiction. Kosovo’s participation is not about taking a stand against Israeli aggression but rather about contributing to a framework whose legitimacy is contested.

Muhaxhiri expects a symbolic payoff from Kosovo’s involvement, viewing it as an opportunity to consolidate its state identity, build relationships, and advance international integration. However, others caution that the political and security environment in Gaza fundamentally differs from Kosovo’s historical context.

Kosovo’s decision is not just about its own future but also reflects a broader trend in the Middle East. As countries navigate complex alliances and rivalries, they must consider the long-term implications of their actions. For Kosovo, aligning with American policy has come at a cost: its sovereignty and independence are now entwined with the policies of Washington.

The world watches closely as this small nation navigates its role in the Middle East. Will Kosovo’s move pay off, providing it with international visibility and opportunities for contribution? Or will it be seen as a calculated risk that compromises its sovereignty? Only time will tell. But one thing is certain: Kosovo’s decision to join a US-led force in Gaza raises fundamental questions about the nature of alliances, sovereignty, and the complex web of interests in the Middle East.

In the end, Kosovo’s gamble is not just about repaying debts but also about staking its future in the ever-shifting sands of international politics.