The perception among many political practitioners is that the end of the conflict in Gaza might promote a deal that eventually could open a path to the long-wished-for regional peace.

For months such wishful-thinking politicians and pundits have been hoping that a ceasefire in Gaza will unleash events that could resolve the Palestine-Israel conflict through a two-state solution and finally lead to a comprehensive Middle Eastern peace.

Even without a serious plan to implement a ceasefire in Gaza, the Biden administration has also been trying to sell a fantasy peace plan – that the aftermath of the fighting must result in the creation of a Palestinian state – thus bolstering relations with its Arab allies and finally clear the way for regional peace.

However, Israel remains unprepared to nod for a two-state solution, even a nominal one that would be palatable to would-be Arab partners. Its ultra-right coalition government has repeatedly publicly stated its opposition to ending the occupation and accepting a Palestinian state.

As the war in Gaza moves into deadlock, with the carnage thus far causing more than 150,000 deaths and injuries and leaving the Strip as a whole battered, achieving lasting peace in the region is now more difficult to achieve than ever.

The historic peace treaties and normalisation agreements that the Palestinians and some Arab countries have reached with Israel over the last five decades are now being increasingly challenged. The peace initiatives in circulation, such as a Saudi-Israel normalisation deal, could now have turned a corner.

In historical terms, this is known as a culminating point – a time when a void is the natural result of destroying all the opportunities for rebuilding a fractured world and in this case be able to negotiate on favourable terms and secure a durable peace.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not shown any desire to end the war or interest in a deal that could terminate the Israeli offensive in Gaza and engage in meaningful talks over a sustainable end to the war that would create a pathway to Palestinian statehood.

Analysts should make no mistake that Israel’s endgame in Gaza and its brutal crackdown on the Palestinians in the West Bank have been deliberately orchestrated by Netanyahu and his allies in a way designed to frustrate the prospects for a two-state solution.

Worse still, Netanyahu’s opposition to the establishment of a Palestinian state once the conflict in Gaza comes to an end is casting a dark shadow on Israel’s commitments to the peace treaties it has concluded with Egypt, the Palestinians, and Jordan.

While the “Framework for Peace in the Middle East,” part of the 1979 Camp David Accords with Egypt, clearly states that Israel should work for a peaceful settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the 1994 Wadi Araba Treaty with Jordan obliges it to work for “a just and lasting peace” in the Middle East.

Successive Israeli governments have failed to meet their commitments to Egypt and Jordan with regard to promoting regional peace, including their persistent rejection of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative as a basis for ending the conflict.

Israel’s policy of annexation and territorial control has rendered this historic Arab land-for-peace proposal meaningless.

The Oslo approach to Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking has effectively come to an end as a result of Israel’s procrastination in implementing the 1993 Oslo Accords, whose core issue was the withdrawal of the Israeli military from the Palestinian Territories and the transfer of responsibilities to the Palestinian Authority as a prelude to statehood.

The so-called “Abraham Accords,” the bilateral normalisation agreements between Israel and some Arab countries including the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco demonstrating these countries’ preparedness to live in friendship with their Israeli neighbour, have so far failed to prevent Israel’s barbaric onslaught against Gaza.

All these agreements recognised Israel’s sovereignty and enabled the establishment of full diplomatic relations, economic ties, and sometimes also security and military cooperation. Yet, they have also demonstrated the chronic failures of the Middle East peace process.

Even more startlingly, Israel’s conduct of the war in Gaza and its occupation of the West Bank have been deemed savage, barbaric, and vengeful. While it still exercises hegemonic rules and apartheid in the territories under occupation, Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza is self-evident.

Since 8 October last year, the Israeli army has killed anything that moves in Gaza, including women, children, the elderly, babies in incubators, and even animals. It has bombed schools, hospitals, and ambulances and has not spared churches and mosques either.

Israel’s war strategy and its occupation policy is designed to dehumanise the Palestinians and subjugate them to total submission in order to break their resistance and their national-liberation movement, which is defended and protected by international law.

The killing of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh on Iranian soil at the end of last month was the latest evidence of Israel’s intention to fuel more tension and sabotage efforts to reach a deal halting hostilities and making a pathway for peace.

The major developments over more than 70 years of struggle culminating in the ongoing Gaza carnage have underscored the fact that all peacemaking efforts have been frustrated by Israel’s policy of expulsion and expansion, the manifestation of Zionism’s will and an opportunity to advance its cause of a Greater Israel.

Even from an international law perspective, the Middle East peace process has been abandoned. Israel’s actions have underscored the legal consequences arising from its arrogant policies and gruesome practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem.

In a landmark ruling last month, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) declared that Israel’s occupation of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, was unlawful and mandated it to end its occupation, dismantle its settlements, provide full reparations to Palestinian victims, and facilitate the return of displaced people.

In an authoritative opinion, the ICJ ruled that international law protects the rights of the Palestinians and that they do not need to negotiate with their oppressors for those rights under the Oslo Accords or any other political framework.

The historic ruling dealt a definitive blow to decades of US and Western efforts to situate Israel outside the reach of the rule of law.

Although there has been no clear evidence that the ICJ’s non-binding opinion will be implemented, there are strong grounds for thinking that it will have major consequences on the legality of all the peace and normalisation agreements signed with Israel.

At the same time that Israel is facing charges of genocide at the ICJ, the International Criminal Court (ICC) continues to look into a request from its Prosecutor for arrest warrants to be issued against Israel’s leaders for crimes against humanity, further undermining the country’s efforts to sideline international law and the Palestinian right to self-determination.

As the international law-centred approach to Palestine has been gaining ground and Israel continues to directly fuel yet more violence in the Middle East by launching strikes against Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Yemen, the outcome for the region looks to be a ruinous conflict that no one can control.

With Israel now involved in a war against the Palestinians and with five countries in the Middle East, the risk of escalation has only grown. There are fears that increasing US involvement will bring about a new era of largely unchecked regional instability and even wider war.

There are historical parallels showing how international peace can collapse leading to the outbreak of larger and bloodier wars. The Peace Treaties of 1919-1923 following World War I left behind them dire consequences, for example.

There was much tension and resentment following the end of World War I, and the Treaty of Versailles, considered unfair by Germany, helped to lead to yet another war, which turned into World War II.

Analysts should have no problem in pinning down the risks of escalation in the Middle East, as these are devilishly evident. Whether on the battlefields of Gaza or in the greater Middle East theatre, there is a natural resistance to Israel’s hegemony, and this is likely to keep the wider region on the verge of war until there comes some “breaking point.”

* A version of this article appears in print in the 15 August, 2024 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly