Discussing issues of concern to the Arab region in this space, my motto has been “We have only ourselves.” This applies primarily to the Palestinian cause, but it bears in mind Syrian, Lebanese, Sudanese, Yemeni and Libyan questions in which local political forces failed to reach a consensus that would safeguard the state against division and civil war. These are also the types of issues where foreign meddling generally makes things worse, generating spirals of brutality and endless nightmares.

Today, our starting point with what the Arabs have traditionally deemed their “central” cause is that the ceasefire negotiations have reached a standstill. Despite strenuous mediating efforts on the part of the US, Egypt, and Qatar, whose representatives have been shuttling from one capital to another, it is clear that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar disagree on every aspect of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict apart from one: obstructing a path to a peace process, the only access to which is a ceasefire in Gaza.

There is little point in delving into all the details of the differences between them in the negotiations, attributing blame or determining who is or is not on the right side of the international law. Readers would probably find such details offensive when the sanctity of human life is being so grossly abused and the fabric of civilisation torn to shreds. What matters is that the war continues to drag on, and the international community appears to have run out of diplomatic options for stopping it.  

Historically, all success stories in the Arab/Palestinian-Israeli conflict have been the product of regional will and open and direct contact between the Arab and Israeli sides.

The fact is that, firstly, all stable peace agreements to date have been concluded by nation states united around a unified leadership. Secondly, these nation states had a national project targeting not just freedom and independence but also sustainable development and catching up with and boarding the train of modern civilisation. Thirdly, the agreements were negotiated face-to-face between Arab and Israeli leaders. As a result, they manifested an immediate and higher national interest.

As we learned from the experiences of president Al-Sadat, King Hussein and president Arafat, as well as the leaders of the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan, peace deals were all motivated by the pursuit of strategic interests. These included recovering occupied territory, warding off the ill will of third parties, and winning strategic gains, such as the solution of the Western Sahara question in favour of Morocco or the lifting of a terrorist designation in the case of Sudan. In every case, there was a national project that necessitated stability in order to start building. That is a hard commodity to come by in times of war. In all these cases, what is more, Israel had sufficient cause to relinquish occupied territory or give a foothold to the Palestinians. As for the US, while it supported the peace efforts of the main parties, it did not play an essential role, except as facilitator and expeditor for Israel. The national interests of the parties involved were their guiding light, and they can only be sought in peace.

The significance of the failure of the ongoing negotiations is best understood in terms of the significance of their success. As we know, a ceasefire is the first step on the way to the realisation of the two-state solution, which the Arab countries and the PLO agree is acceptable. While much has been said about the Palestinian state and its right to independence, as long as the other half of the equation is Israel, thought must be given to determining its position and to its integration into the region. In this context, it is only natural to raise the problem of the current situation in Israel as embodied in the gang of fanatics from Netanyahu, Ben-Gvir, and Smotrich to the rest of the Israeli far right, followed by the rest of Israeli society with its various currents.

There are two sides to what I propose here. The first is that the Arab countries which have signed peace agreements with Israel and those which were about to normalise relations with it should unify behind a single message addressed directly to the Israeli people, telling them they must choose between either continuing to occupy Palestinian territory or peace and integration into their Arab environment. The second is to direct a message to the Palestinian people, urging them to return to their original political framework, the PLO. This is their internationally recognised, legitimate representative and, as such, it should hold the monopoly on policymaking and on recourse to arms.

The treaties and agreements signed by pro-peace Arab countries contain provisions for various forms of cooperation. To these can be added the Eastern Mediterranean Natural Gas Forum as a platform for economic integration, and a similar forum could be created for the northern Red Sea region. Even without having reached a peace treaty, Israel and Lebanon have agreed on terms enabling them both to exploit the gas fields that span the maritime borders between them.

The regional approach I am describing here opens avenues to agreements and peace. Naturally, it is not easy, but it is the only available means to solving the problem.

* A version of this article appears in print in the 19 September, 2024 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly