Envisioning Israeli-Palestinian Security

Introduction

While the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is marked by a bloody history and various attempts, both successful and unsuccessful, to change the situation, we must remain hopeful that a new path can be found. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the longest and most complex conflicts in the modern world. It involves a struggle over identity, land, national rights, and questions of historical justice. This conflict affects and is affected by not only the two involved parties but also the countries in the region and world powers, each side presenting its own narrative with overlapping but not entirely coinciding stories. While endless debates focus on history and who started what, the current point in time reveals indescribable human suffering, with tens of thousands dead, hundreds of thousands injured, and widespread physical and mental suffering. Infrastructure and communities have been extensively destroyed, leaving many displaced and as refugees. In southern and northern Israel, residents have been forced to leave their homes due to rocket attacks, while many families are dealing with the abduction of their loved ones by Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other groups. In Gaza, people face severe shortages of water, food, and basic health services under constant threat of bombings and destruction. At this point, this article aims to demonstrate that only a broad political settlement can ensure security for the region's residents and that it is not enough to address only Israel and Palestine, but the entire Middle East for a stable and beneficial solution.

Historical Context

The history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is intricate and multifaceted, with events dating back to antiquity when the region was a strategic point for many empires, including the Roman, Byzantine, and Ottoman Empires. With the end of World War I and the beginning of the British Mandate, tensions between different ethnic groups increased. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the subsequent British support for a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine further intensified these tensions. After World War II and the Holocaust, there was significant international support for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. The United Nations' Partition Plan of 1947, which proposed dividing Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, was accepted by the Jewish leadership but rejected by the Arab states and Palestinian leaders. This decision led to the declaration of the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, followed by the 1948 War and the Nakba, which displaced hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. Most of them still hold refugee status in host countries such as Lebanon, Syria and Jordan, and also in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, mainly due to the refusal of host countries to grant them citizenship, and the unique mandate of UNRWA to extend refugee status through generations, and Israel's refusal of the right of return.

Peace Agreements Between Israel and Arab States

Since the establishment of Israel, three major peace agreements have endured: the Camp David Accords with Egypt, the peace treaty with Jordan, and the Abraham Accords with several Arab states. The Camp David Accords (1978) and subsequent treaties with Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994) were significant milestones in Middle Eastern diplomacy, bringing enduring peace and establishing diplomatic and economic relations. In 2020, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, Morocco, and Israel signed the Abraham Accords, marking a significant shift in regional dynamics by promising normalized relations, including diplomatic, economic, and cultural exchanges.

These treaties have proven resilient and serve as models for potential future agreements. However, they did not lead to normalization between the peoples involved and did little to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict directly. The Abraham Accords allowed Israel to sidestep the Palestinian issue, focusing instead on broader regional normalization. For Palestinians, these agreements signaled that their cause might not be a priority for the signatory states. Additionally, a significant portion of these agreements involves arms sales and forming a coalition, along with Saudi Arabia, against Iran. While Saudi Arabia has not yet joined these accords, it maintains relations with the United States and engages in talks with Iran. Yet, the Abraham Accords remain intact even after the October 7, 2023 events, the Israeli attack on Gaza, and the missile attacks on Israel. This demonstrates the stability and resilience of diplomatic agreements even amidst significant conflict.

Peace Efforts Between Israel and the Palestinians

Despite various attempts, no comprehensive solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been achieved. The Oslo Accords, signed in 1993 and 1995, were a significant step towards peace, proposing a phased approach to resolving key issues. However, violations by both sides, the rise of Hamas, the continued expansion of Israeli settlements, and the Second Intifada undermined these efforts. The incremental nature of the Oslo process meant that each setback had a significant impact, and the failure to address core issues such as Jerusalem and refugees ultimately led to its collapse, leaving primarily security arrangements between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. From Oslo, we learned that a step-by-step approach is risky and that a parallel process allowing progress where possible, while addressing issues and reaching understandings where stalled, is preferable.

The Arms Control and Regional Security (ACRS) talks aimed to build regional security frameworks and included multiple Middle Eastern countries. These discussions stalled primarily over Israel's demand for confidence-building measures versus the Arab states' demand to address Israel's nuclear arsenal. From these talks, we learned that while Arab states prefer to discuss nuclear disarmament, Israel prioritizes regional security guarantees. Therefore, this process should also be managed in parallel.

In 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza. While intended to improve security and reduce friction, the withdrawal did not involve coordination with the Palestinian Authority. If then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had negotiated the withdrawal with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, even a symbolic gesture such as a joint handshake could have strengthened Abbas' position and hindered the rise of Hamas, potentially paving the way for further agreements.

The Arab Peace Initiative (API) of 2002 proposed an Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders and the establishment of a Palestinian state in exchange for full normalization with all Arab states. The initiative covered the core issues of the conflict and provided a solid basis for negotiations. However, it lacked substantial follow-up and engagement from both sides. While the API continued to receive support during meetings of the Arab League, it was not actively promoted, and Israel did not respond to the initiative. This suggests that the API may serve more as a political tool than as a genuine effort to resolve the conflict.

Efforts that succeeded, such as the Camp David Accords and the peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, established lasting peace and diplomatic relations. However, the Oslo Accords and other initiatives faced significant challenges and ultimately did not achieve their goals. The failure of these initiatives highlights the need for a new approach that addresses the root causes of the conflict, builds trust between the parties, and ensures that agreements are realistic and enforceable. The unilateral actions, such as Israel's withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, underscore the importance of negotiated agreements over unilateral moves, as the latter often lead to further instability.

Top of Form

The Need for a Comprehensive Political Settlement

Striving for a peaceful resolution can often be perceived as naive, particularly when the discourse of war and military action seems more realistic and urgent. However, armed actions are not a solution but actions that provoke reactions. They may provide immediate responses to threats, but they cannot offer sustainable solutions. Ultimately, lasting peace is achieved through political settlements. The phrase "Shall the sword devour forever?" from 2 Samuel 2:26 is not an endorsement of military solutions to conflict but a call for change and the pursuit of political resolutions. Contrary to the prevailing view among right-wing Israelis, this quote is a question or warning, not a recommendation for action.

It is crucial to distinguish between state security at the military level and the human security of the state's residents. While leaders may benefit from a state of war and maintain their power through fear and threats, it is the citizens who bear the highest price. Justifying violence against the other as a response to military actions perpetuates the cycle of violence and does not allow for a genuine and sustainable solution. Behind the rhetoric of military solutions lies immense suffering and destruction that cannot be overlooked. Therefore, a comprehensive political settlement is not just desirable but necessary for a lasting resolution to the conflict.

The Day After

At the end of any war, reconstruction and rehabilitation are crucial to ensuring future stability and prosperity. In Gaza, the West Bank, and Israel, efforts must include not only rebuilding destroyed infrastructure and homes but also comprehensive social and economic rehabilitation. Investments in health, education, and employment infrastructures are essential to ensure residents can live with dignity. Human security encompasses access to clean water, food, healthcare, education, and stable infrastructures. Achieving human security is an enormous challenge in the Middle East, but it is crucial for creating stability. Beyond being a basic human right, the security of people (as opposed to states) promotes social stability and undermines the interests of fundamentalist groups.

Reconstruction should also focus on building trust between the warring parties and creating a foundation for future cooperation. Economic and social development must be an integral part of the reconstruction process, with an emphasis on creating jobs and improving living conditions. Regional cooperation is key to achieving stability and security in the Middle East. Historical examples, such as the peace treaties between Israel and Egypt and between Israel and Jordan, show that cooperation can bring stability and stand the test of time. After World War II, Europe achieved the formation of the European Union within a few decades, and it is hopeful that the Middle East can achieve similar cooperation in less time and with less destruction. From previous peace efforts, we have learned that steps should not be conditional upon each other, unilateral actions are often counterproductive, and building trust is essential.

The path to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is fraught with obstacles and challenges, and while the current war demonstrates the need for a political settlement, much opposition remains. Extremist groups on both sides, whether Israeli or Palestinian, do everything they can to prevent any progress toward peace. The severe economic situation in Gaza and some areas in Israel also makes the reconstruction process difficult. The economic cost of reconstruction and rehabilitation is enormous, and deepening social and economic disparities add to the challenge. Additionally, there are significant challenges in terms of international support. Often, insufficient international support and the involvement of regional and international actors with different interests hinder the peace process. For example, Iran's influence on Hamas and Islamic Jihad and the various Arab states' ties with Israel affect the progress of the process. All these are obstacles that need to be addressed to achieve a sustainable solution.

The Arab Peace Initiative: A Comprehensive Solution

The Arab Peace Initiative (API), introduced in 2002, remains one of the most promising frameworks for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and achieving lasting peace in the Middle East. Proposed by the Arab League, the API offers a comprehensive peace plan based on land for peace, the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, and full normalization of relations between Israel and the Arab world. Despite its lack of active promotion, the API remains the best basis for negotiation, having already secured the backing of all Arab League states. It provides a regional security framework alongside local conflict resolution, addressing core issues such as the right of return for Palestinian refugees, the status of Jerusalem, and security guarantees for Israel.

The API acknowledges the interconnectedness of regional stability and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, offering a collective security arrangement that reassures Israel and integrates it into the region. This approach promises not only peace with Israel’s immediate neighbors but also normalization with the entire Arab world, including diplomatic recognition and economic cooperation. For Palestinians, it offers the possibility of statehood and self-determination within the 1967 borders, addressing long-standing aspirations for independence. The API's principles can appeal to the Israeli public by emphasizing the security and normalization benefits, offering a balanced approach that ensures Israel's security and integration into the region.

To be effective, the API needs active promotion and updates to reflect current Middle Eastern realities, including the involvement of regional players like Iran. Engaging Iran in the peace process, despite the complex dynamics involved, would address significant security concerns for Israel and its neighbors. New diplomatic frameworks should include all regional countries, and the participation of civil society and non-governmental organizations is crucial. Civil society has demonstrated its potential for significant contributions to peacebuilding, as shown by its role in the ongoing UN Conference on a Middle East Free of Weapons of Mass Destruction. The ability of Arab states and Iran to reach a consensus on regional treaty texts shows that cooperation is possible even among long-standing adversaries. Promoting and updating the API with the involvement of all regional players and civil society is essential for creating a sustainable and lasting peace in the Middle East.

The Role of Civil Society

While civil society does not wield the same power as diplomats, it holds the unique ability to tackle complex problems and the responsibility to identify where it can effect change. Civil society organizations can bridge gaps, offer innovative solutions, and build public support for peace initiatives. Their contributions are vital in facilitating dialogue, fostering mutual understanding, and promoting practical solutions.

One notable contribution from civil society is the Middle East Peace Initiative (MEPI), which aims to develop and implement a comprehensive peace strategy to address longstanding conflicts in the Middle East. This initiative builds on the principles of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative (API) and seeks to leverage regional and international efforts to promote stability and cooperation.

The MEPI approach includes in-depth research, recruitment of experts and partner organizations, roundtable processes, and effective diplomacy and lobbying. These efforts emphasize the importance of regional solutions to local conflicts, starting with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and linking its resolution to broader regional processes. The initiative also stresses the need to include Iran and non-state actors in any regional solution.

By focusing on human security, aligning with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and addressing the interconnectedness of regional stability and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, MEPI aims to create a framework that mitigates conflicts and promotes regional development and prosperity. Civil society also plays a critical role in identifying where they can be most effective, emphasizing practical solutions and continuously striving for progress.

People often struggle to imagine peace, but they might be able to envision a future where the Middle East is connected by a network of railways to Europe and Asia, facilitating trade, travel, and cooperation. This vision can inspire hope and provide a tangible goal to work towards, demonstrating the transformative potential of peace.

In this context, I urge those who care about the conflict to abandon the familiar "sides" of Israel versus Palestine and choose the side that strives for a political solution, against the side that seeks to destroy the other or maintain the perpetual conflict.

Conclusion and Recommendations for the Future

Although the current situation seems dire, with deep mistrust and ongoing violence, it is crucial to remember that significant positive changes are possible. Just as Europe emerged from the devastation of World War II to establish the European Union, so too can the Middle East aspire to a future of peace and cooperation. The destruction and suffering witnessed in recent conflicts underscore the need for a fundamental change in approach.

Leaders and civil societies must work together to achieve this goal. Regional cooperation initiatives should be promoted, trust built between parties, and support given to peace and economic prosperity initiatives. Civil society organizations play a central role in this process, offering innovative solutions, fostering dialogue, and building public support for peace.

In conclusion, it is not enough to stop the current bloodshed; the Israeli-Palestinian conflict requires a new approach that prioritizes comprehensive political settlements over military actions. By learning from past efforts, focusing on human security, and leveraging regional cooperation, a stable and prosperous future for all residents of the Middle East can be achieved. The Arab Peace Initiative, updated to reflect current realities and inclusive of all regional players, provides a viable framework for this future. Leaders, civil society, and international stakeholders must commit to this vision and work tirelessly to make it a reality.