As I write this, there has still been no breakthrough in the ceasefire talks in Cairo. All we know is that another round will take place in Doha. What we are more acutely aware of is that Israel has launched a major assault against the West Bank where it was met with fighters from Fatah and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). Note that, a week ago, the spectre of a regional war loomed after Hizbullah and Iran threatened to avenge the assassinations of Fuad Shukr in Beirut and Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran. That chapter ended with a pre-emptive Israeli strike on Hizbullah which was followed by the latter’s missile and drone barrage against Israel, after which both sides announced they had accomplished their aims.

But the fighting continued in Gaza and the West Bank. The Houthis have also vowed to avenge Israel’s destruction of the port of Hodeida. Instead of one front, therefore, ceasefire negotiations are now needed on multiple fronts. Many US sources have stressed the urgency of a ceasefire in Gaza, which Biden wants to add to his record of achievements. The scenario for this, so far, involves a proposal for a ceasefire that would take place over three six-week stages. The first would initiate the ceasefire, secure the exchange of some hostages and prisoners, and raise the level of humanitarian relief allowed into Gaza. The ceasefire would continue into the second phase during which the remaining prisoners and hostages as well as the bodies of the dead would be exchanged. The two sides would then negotiate over the third ceasefire, at which point the direction of the talks would shift from extinguishing a raging fire to lighting the way towards peace.

This proposal is still out of reach. It is rivalled by another scenario, which is wider war on multiple regional fronts. Already the war has spread to the West Bank, although it is not yet clear whether this will be a permanent front, complementing the Gazan front, or a flare-up that will end as suddenly as it began. Meanwhile, Iran, which a couple of weeks ago had vowed to exact a harsh revenge against Israel, appears to have chosen another course: to resume negotiations with Washington over Iranian nuclear weapons. It is uncertain how close Iranian uranium enrichment operations are to the breakout point. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has stated that he has no problem negotiating with the enemy. The tone of the statement implies that Iran is interested in direct talks with Washington focusing not just on the nuclear issue but on all the current conflicts in the region. This is the opposite of the full-scale regional war scenario, and paradoxically Iran is key to both.

Amid these complex alternatives, nothing yet points to a scenario or path for reordering the regional situation in such a way that there will be no alternative but a ceasefire, enabling all parties concerned to, first, catch their breath and, secondly, prepare for a regional conference capable of addressing the intricate and interwoven issues behind the current war. Some wise and visionary Arab countries have long since called for a drive to resolve the region’s problems. They are now in contact with Tehran and with Washington, of course. Some of them have peaceful relations with Israel. It might be argued that this regional-based alternative is unlikely to work, at the very least because another scenario is underway. However, that latter scenario has not made progress. It has not stopped the killing, enabled the arrival of humanitarian relief, or facilitated a prisoner/hostage exchange.

The regional path forward suggested here brings things back to basics, starting with the fact that no peace agreement has ever been reached without direct contact between the main concerned parties. Egypt set a model for this with president Anwar Al-Sadat’s visit to Jerusalem, paving the way for the Camp David Accords. In like manner, a Jordanian initial meeting with an Israeli leader led to the Wadi Araba Treaty. Even the Palestinians, despite the complexity of their conflict with Israel, reached the closest point yet to a peace agreement after negotiating face-to-face in the Norwegian capital that gave its name to the Oslo Accords. No less important is that the regional approach would seek to forge a project for security, peace and development in a region that has been run too long by militias. These non-state actors have taken over sovereign state functions such as making crucial decisions on matters of war and peace. The cost of this, in terms of lives, sacrifices of new generations, and destruction of infrastructure, societies and civilisations, is incalculable. It is time for this region’s nation states to take the initiative.

* A version of this article appears in print in the 5 September, 2024 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly