The severity of prevailing tensions calls for bold, ambitious, and creative diplomacy. Anything less will only perpetuate the cycle of violence, in light of the existential political decisions facing Hamas and Israeli leaders.
The Gaza Crisis must be resolved along with the underlying core issues of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict by encouraging both sides to move beyond revenge, with uncompromising leaders ostracized if necessary.
I draw no moral equivalence between Israel the occupier, and the Palestinians, an occupied people for over seven decades. However, the pain and suffering on both sides have generated a reciprocal culture of revenge and retribution after repeated failed peace processes and an endless cycle of violence.
The contemporary history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, particularly its Palestinian component where people live under oppressive occupation, is clear proof that violence only begets violence. We have witnessed this from both sides as Israeli settlers attempt to seize more territory and Palestinians defend their homes and land.
Consequently, the resolution of the present situation in Gaza with a temporary end to hostilities without resolving the core issue will neither provide Israel security nor Palestinians nationhood.
Past peace processes have repeatedly failed because they were extended over long periods during which political leaders and paradigms changed. A case in point is the Oslo process after which Prime Minister Rabin was assassinated, and President Yasser Arafat later died.
Resuming an extended and ill-defined Palestinian-Israeli peace process will neither gain traction nor have the credibility necessary to garner constituents' support on either side to resolve the difficult questions of closure like precise border delineations, security arrangements, Jerusalem, refugees, compensation, etc.
The Alternatives: Peace or Revenge
The present crisis in the region is a crossroads and our alternatives are polar opposites: either achieve full peace or drown in self-consuming waves of revenge and retribution. The former would enable the Palestinians to believe that the tragic loss of over 18,000 casualties in Gaza was not in vain, and the Israelis to argue that despite their human losses, they have now ensured their security once and for all.
This is best achieved through a comprehensive peace initiative to deal with imminent and longstanding issues, codified internationally in a United Nations Security Council resolution, which would realize a two-state solution along the 1967 borders, with minor mutually agreed modifications and a decision on shared, overlapping or reciprocal status for East and West Jerusalem and the Palestinian right of return or compensation.
The plan should also incorporate detailed security protocols to protect both sides from surprise attacks in the West Bank, Gaza, or Israel, as well as affirm the Arab Peace Initiative adopted by the Arab League summit in Beirut in 2002, which stipulated that ending the Israeli occupation of Arab territories would pave the way for normal Israeli relations with Arab nations at large.
Past negotiations have provided a wealth of documentation detailing Arab-Israeli formulations and compromises on all these aspects. The one thing lacking was the political will of the respective political leaderships.
Potential Sponsors
With very few exceptions, the decisions of regional leaders have determined war and peace in the Middle East. Therefore, the most favourable option would be for an Arab state to initially sponsor this initiative. However, the ongoing violence and continued civilian casualties may render regional sponsorship unfeasible. A second choice for sponsorship would have been the United States given its prominent role in the region since the 1973 war.
However, its unwavering support for Israel even at the expense of international condemnation makes this option untenable, particularly in light of recent events in Gaza. These disqualify the USA as an impartial sole broker of peace, and the country is hesitant to collaborate with Russia or China in this regard.
Sponsorship of the initiative by the President of the Security Council or by a number of its nonpermanent members could be a viable option, particularly with the Secretary-General having already invoked Article 99 of the United Nations Charter on humanitarian grounds.
Success is a long shot, especially in the highly volatile Middle East and amidst tense relations between the major world powers. However, repeating the past or succumbing to complacency will unquestionably only lead to more bloodshed.
The hard but self-evident choices are to embark on substantial diplomatic efforts to resolve the present crisis as well as the root causes of the conflict or have the region witness a tsunami of vengeful violence between combatants and civilians alike.
—————————————————————————————————
*Nabil Fahmy is former foreign minister of Egypt
Short link: