Envisioning Israeli-Palestinian Security

I am grateful to Brian and Kathy for the opportunity to respond to their articles and share my perspectives on the regional peace initiative and the situation in the Middle East. I also want to thank Brian for his thoughtful reflections on the feasibility of a regional peace initiative. Engaging in this dialogue is crucial, especially when we hold differing views, as it opens the door to finding common ground and advancing meaningful solutions. I see this as a chance to tackle one of the biggest obstacles to achieving peace in our region—the lack of genuine willingness, a lack of trust in the possibility of a solution, and a lack of belief that peace in the Middle East is achievable.

I feel deep, constant, and unbearable pain at the suffering on both sides. As peace activists and human rights advocates, it is clear that we all deeply condemn the atrocities under the Israeli occupation, the murderous attack on civilians by Hamas on 7 October, and the mass killing and destruction that followed in Gaza by the Israeli army. We recognize the long history of violence on both sides, including the devastating suicide bombings in Israeli streets and the rocket attacks on civilian centers in northern and southern Israel. My intention in mentioning these events is not to equate suffering, which is an abhorrent act in itself, but to highlight that without a true understanding of the situation on both sides, achieving a just and effective solution is impossible.

At times, the expectation from me as an Israeli, according to Kathy’s approach, seems to be to repent for every Palestinian killed while ignoring the suffering of the residents of southern and northern Israel. This demand, which is not directed at activists from other countries, often reflects an underlying assumption that needs to be examined critically. Such discourse not only hinders dialogue with Israeli society but also creates alienation between those who seek peace and the global activists who should be our allies. If the goal is peace and not the destruction of Israel, then it is vital to support the groups in Israel that are working towards resolving the conflict. A discourse that acknowledges that Israelis need to feel secure in relinquishing territory, and that the international community should encourage this rather than alienate the Israeli public, is essential for progress.

One of the main issues is the false narrative that is validated in the international discourse, a narrative that oversimplifies the complexity of the situation and turns reality into a story of "good versus evil." This perception not only harms our understanding of the reality on the ground but also serves as a tool for those forces that wish to perpetuate the conflict. For example, the narrative that presents all Israelis as supporters of occupation or all Palestinians as supporters of terror strengthens the extremist factions on both sides and weakens the moderate voices that seek a solution. Instead of sinking into divisive arguments, we must ensure that this discourse remains open and inclusive of all relevant voices to lead to real solutions.

Forcing someone into compliance is a violent approach that usually leads to greater and more evident violence. Boycotts and embargoes are like weapons of mass destruction—they punish the entire population indiscriminately. I have opposed, and continue to oppose, sanctions on Iran, and I certainly do not believe that punishing the Israeli public will change its stance. So far, there has been no genuine internal Israeli discourse on nuclear weapons due to the policy of ambiguity. Before punishing the Israeli public, it is worth trying to initiate or even support such a discourse within Israel.

Just as it is impossible to separate the conflicts in the Middle East from global forces, so too is it impossible to isolate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from its regional context. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not isolated from its regional context; it is part of a broader network of security, political, and economic issues in the Middle East. The solution to the conflict cannot be local alone; it must be part of a regional and comprehensive solution that addresses all these challenges in an integrated manner.

An economic boycott of Israel could harm not only Israeli residents but also Palestinian families who are entangled in the economic structures sustained by the occupation, further complicating the situation. Additionally, a military boycott of Israel could be perceived as an existential threat that leads to a severe backlash and strengthens the state's hardline security stance. Instead, we should focus on research into who benefits from the occupation and take precise and targeted steps aimed at dismantling the economic structures that perpetuate the conflict. The work of organizations like Who Profits has already shed light on these issues, providing valuable insights into the economic interests involved (Who Profits).

An international campaign must address all sides of the conflict and offer solutions that take into account the needs and concerns of all parties involved. Rather than applying pressure that leads to a sense of alienation and defensiveness, we should offer a unifying and advancing discourse—a discourse that understands the legitimate concerns of each side and seeks to bridge the gaps. Violent actions, such as sanctions and boycotts, may be seen as coercion that leads to backlash, while peaceful actions and dialogue create a basis for genuine cooperation. The campaign should combine recognition of the painful reality with a vision for a better future and act with the understanding that each side needs to feel that they are gaining from the proposed solution.

Brian raises concerns expressed by "pro-Israelis" about the feasibility of the Arab Peace Initiative, particularly regarding issues such as refugees, the 1967 borders, and Jerusalem. It is important to understand that the Arab Peace Initiative is not a final agreement, but a broad basis for negotiation. It offers a framework that allows both sides to reach an agreed-upon solution, including on the most difficult issues.

The initiative refers to UN resolutions, but it is important to emphasize that the section on refugees begins with the words "agreed upon solution." This means that the solution to the refugee issue must be one that both sides can agree on. Additionally, one of the central problems with the refugee issue is that the status is passed down from generation to generation, so there is a need to resolve the refugee status within ten years. Instead of perpetuating the refugee status, UNRWA can be part of the solution by helping to regularize the status and create long-term solutions.

Regarding the 1967 borders, there have already been agreements between the sides on these borders, including on population centers such as Ariel. This is a sensitive issue, but it is easier to resolve than other issues, thanks to the agreements already reached in the past. The talk of a united Jerusalem is far from the reality on the ground. Dividing the city, while jointly safeguarding the holy places, will not only reunite Jerusalem but also restore its historical character as a city of light rather than a war zone. It is essential to recognize that the framework offered by the initiative is an opportunity to move toward an agreed-upon solution. Understanding this complexity gives the initiative its strength as a basis for successful negotiations. The initiative is based on the understanding that the solution cannot be one-sided, and it must include all regional and international actors, recognizing the complexity of the situation and the history of the conflict.

I also appreciate Brian’s acknowledgment of the recent rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia. I share his optimism that this development opens up more productive channels of communication with Iran, which is crucial for a comprehensive peace process. Brian is right when he talks about "the elephant in the room," but in fact, it is not just one elephant but a whole herd. However, the forces influencing the Middle East do not behave as solidarity-driven as a herd of elephants but more like a Hydra—mythological creatures whose many heads represent the complex obstacles we face. These external and internal forces impact the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and often operate not out of solidarity but out of narrow interests.

To confront this Hydra, within the framework of Middle East Treaty Organization’s regional peace initiative, we propose creating a "soft landing" for defense industries, to redirect these forces to align with the real needs of humanity in the 21st century. This is positive pressure on the one hand, but also a spotlight that illuminates behavior that has so far taken place in the shadows. At the same time, we must remember that this is a global issue, not just a regional one. The international community’s involvement is crucial to ensuring that these industries are incentivized to transition to more constructive roles.

The regional peace initiative (MEPI) that we are proposing is designed precisely for this purpose. It is based on a deep understanding of regional complexity and offers a holistic approach that takes into account the needs of all parties involved. The initiative includes all regional players—including Iran, Arab states, and non-state actors—and seeks to build a network of regional agreements that will serve as a basis for a comprehensive and sustainable settlement. The advantage of a regional approach is that it allows for addressing external factors that influence the conflict, such as the involvement of superpowers or armed organizations, and brings broader support from the international community. Such an approach can strengthen regional stability and create conditions that will lead to long-term prosperity and peace.