Unveiling the Aftermath of the #Gaza War: Time to revisit the Two-State Solution or redraw boundaries in the Middle East?

Introduction

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has long been a persistent issue, characterized by violence, failed negotiations, and intermittent loss of political will to make peace amid ongoing disputes over land, resources, and political autonomy. The Middle East peace process, or any of the several iterations that followed, with the aim of achieving a two-state solution, has faced many setbacks.

?

Applying schematic and nodal analysis, this piece aims to explore potential ramifications of or perhaps opportunities arising from the recent escalation. This piece does not intend to invoke a rights discourse. It seeks to explore a realpolitik way out of the current mayhem, assuming a cease-fire has finally materialised. Could we consider the deep humanitarian crisis among Palestinians and the changing political landscape within Israel as catalysts for reviving peace? Have the two sides reached a will to annihilate each other yet recognized the implausibility of this option? Or are we about to witness another Sykes-Picot deal bringing a change in the balance of power by redrawing boundaries within the Middle East to create a new Middle East, which might explain the silence of countries in the region? What are the potentials for success in reviving the peace process and the Two-State-Solution? What key factors we must consider, what challenges we must address, and what solutions we ought to implement?

?

Setting the Scene

Just as Israel, the USA, and some Arab countries thought they could put the conflict away as done and dusted, or at the least hoped that normalizing relations with Israel without much of conditions would by default pave the way to restitute Palestinian or Muslim rights in the Holy Land, the recent escalation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has once again brought to the forefront the question of the geopolitical landscape in the Middle East. Shrouded in history, political disputes, and complex power dynamics, the region faces significant challenges in envisioning a new geopolitical map.

?

The recent events have led, and most probably will continue to lead, to shifts in power dynamics and alliances in the region, conflating once again domestic agenda and external affairs in countries all over the world. The conflict has polarized countries, with some supporting Israel and others backing the Palestinian cause, and a few, but others in increasing numbers, asking for voices of reason to be heard. The potential outcomes can lead to a reconfiguration of alliances and new geopolitical realities. Iran, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, for example, have historically aligned themselves with different actors in the region, and their positions are likely to evolve further. Indian aspirations to become a regional player have been dwarfed by its shifting alliance to an uncredible mediator, the USA, and extreme national right-wing Islamophobic rhetoric. China’s active peacemaking engagement in the region, supported by its UN Security Council permanent membership, and global economic influence positions it to play a more prominent role in the region.

?

Besides the above traditional regional influential actors, emerging players such as Qatar and the United Arab Emirates have been flexing their influence in recent years. These countries have been involved in mediating regional conflicts and expanding their political and economic reach. Their involvement in any future redrawing of the Middle East would be inevitable and they will undoubtedly play a significant role in shaping the new geopolitical landscape. A silent player that often goes unnoticed is Oman. By the dent of its strategic alliances with the USA and UK, and equally strong ties with the GCC, Jordan, Egypt, Palestine, and Iran, coupled with a good track record of mediation and reconciliation success stories as well as meaningful participation in previous iterations of the peace process, leave alone its established credibility and neutrality, Oman is poised to play a pivotal role in any future Middle East negotiations for peace.

?

?

Pre-requisite for Peace

For peace to have a chance of being resuscitated in the Middle East, we would need first and foremost strong leadership and clear political will, that will recognize the rights of Palestinians, such as, inter alia, liberation and self-determination. We would also need to adopt a multi-track approach that will engage different international diplomatic players and address core issues directly as well as reconciliation and closures. Most importantly, we would need a mediator or perhaps a consortium of mediators that bring objectivity, fairness, and credibility to the negotiation table.

?

As far as leadership and political will are concerned, having strong and committed leadership on all sides, willing to make difficult compromises, is vital for the success of any peace process. The phrase ‘all sides’ does not mean the Palestinian and Israeli sides only. It includes leaders of all influential players. No one should be left behind since this would present an opportunity for sabotaging prospects of peace in the region.

?

Leaders must prioritize peace over immediate political gains and should work to gain the support of their respective constituencies. Unfortunately, this has not been the case for the last decade. That is where international diplomatic engagement would need to be leveraged. To further support such a much-needed leadership, domestic political environments need to be made conducive to negotiations and peacemaking. Radicalization and polarization would need to be contained leading to public sentiment favouring peaceful coexistence and an end to the continuous violence. This sentiment needs to be further cemented by reconciliation commissions to bring closure to decades of conflict and pain.

?

International Diplomatic Engagement and the Players:

Increased international diplomatic involvement, including mediation efforts by influential actors such as the USA, the European Union, Iran, China, Turkey, and the Arab League, can create a conducive environment for negotiations and encourage both parties to compromise, especially considering promises of normalization as far as Israel is concerned, and aid and reconstruction as far as Palestinians are concerned. It is important to note here that it is extremely unlikely that the United Nations could play a crucial role in providing a platform for dialogue, bridging gaps, and ensuring the commitment to international law and resolutions. So, the Middle East peace process is dependent on the aforementioned influential actors. While much is known and said about the roles provided by the USA and EU, there are other players who are equally significant, such as Iran, China, and Turkey.?

?

Iran has historically been an influential player in the region and has supported Palestinian aspirations. However, its strained relationship with Israel and its support for militant groups such as Hamas have hindered its credibility as a mediator. Nonetheless, given Iran's political weight and regional influence, it could potentially play a role in encouraging dialogue and peace-building efforts between the Israelis and Palestinians. Informal discussions with people close to decision-making circles in Iran suggested that recognizing the importance and influence of Iran might very well mellow down its extreme and militant rhetoric, which has often been directed to domestic consumers.

?????????????

Involving Iran more actively would tap into several of its potential strengths. Iran's regional influence allows it to exert pressure on various Palestinian factions and Hizballah to engage in negotiations and compromise. ?Its historical support for the Palestinian cause could provide a certain level of trust and credibility among Palestinians. Iran's involvement could potentially push Israel to consider negotiations seriously, consider several incentives and tracks, and foster a more inclusive peace process. However, Iran’s involvement comes with its own perils and challenges. Iran's support for militant groups creates concerns about its intentions and the potential for undermining the process by fueling violence. This would require Iran to demonstrate goodwill through several confidence-building measures. One final factor to be considered is Iran’s growing nuclear power, which can act as a deterrent and reason to engage it in the peace process.

?

China, on the other hand, presents a more promising partner. China has gradually increased its involvement in the Middle East in recent years, particularly through economic engagement. While traditionally maintaining a neutral stance in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it could potentially play a role in negotiations or provide support as a mediator. Such a neutral stance and non-interference policy could create an atmosphere of impartiality, fostering trust among both Israelis and Palestinians. Moreover, its economic engagement and investment initiatives could offer incentives and leverage for encouraging constructive dialogue and cooperation.

?

However, the USA would see such an involvement as a displacement of its influence in the region and dominance in world affairs. Creating its own unipolar system in parallel to a US-led unipolar system, China’s economic influence in the region has been subjected to some form of containment, albeit to limited success. Moreover, China's limited experience in conflict mediation could pose challenges in navigating the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Finally, China's recent growing ties with Israel may undermine perceptions of its impartiality and credibility as a mediator among Arabs and Palestinians.

?

Turkey presents an interesting case. It has historically maintained active diplomatic involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and has positioned itself as a supporter of Palestinian rights while maintaining a tug-of-war-like relationship with Israel. Although its relationship with Israel has deteriorated in recent years, it could still potentially play a role in broking the peace process. Israel sees Turkey as an important neighbour with the potential to become an ally that can offset the position of Iran and Saudi Arabia in the Muslim world political landscape.

Moreover, Turkey is a key member of NATO which adds some international clout and leverage to its historic and geopolitical significance to Israel. In addition, Turkey’s current ruling party’s relationship with Hamas, along with its moderate Islamic stance, could potentially bridge divides between Israel and Islamist factions within Palestine. The downside in the case of Turkey is its domestic political dynamics, including its own conflict with Kurdish groups and authoritarian tendencies, as perceived by the USA and some Western countries, which may undermine its perceived neutrality.

?

?

Addressing Core Issues:

The peace process must address the core issues, including the 1967 borders, the status of Jerusalem, the right of return for refugees, security arrangements, and the status of settlements. A comprehensive approach that addresses these fundamental concerns is necessary for a viable and lasting solution. This must not be left to the end. History informs us that previous initiatives to achieve peace in the region left some of these issues on the back burner. They always backfired and acted as barriers to a conclusive peace. Thus, these core issues must be confronted at the beginning of any attempt to broke peace in the region. Socially intolerable decisions must be made if peace is to have a chance. Once again, compromise on all sides would be required to achieve peace with finality.

?

Moreover, confidence-building measures, such as freezing settlement expansion, easing restrictions on movement, and improving economic conditions, can help build trust between the Israelis and Palestinians. Other confidence-building measures such as easing militant or annihilative discourse would also be required among sponsors of the peace process and influential players in the region. ?

?

In order to sustain any confidence-building measures and produce some concrete results on the ground, as soon as practicable, negotiating the peace process would need to adopt a multitrack approach involving not only top-level negotiations (informally and formally) but also grassroots initiatives, people-to-people dialogue, and civil society engagement. Such an approach can foster mutual understanding, reduce hostility, and generate support for peace, leading ultimately to reconciliation and closures.

?

Regional Stability and Arab Peace Initiative:

A comprehensive peace agreement should consider the broader regional dynamics and involve other Arab states. The Arab Peace Initiative, which offers normalization of relations between Israel and the Arab world in exchange for a two-state solution, could be a valuable framework for negotiations.? This must be complemented by engaging regional powers, such as Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, in supporting and participating in the peace process. They, along with others, can provide additional stability and resources, increasing the probability of success. This, however, would be contingent on which scenario Israel and the USA chose.

?

The involvement of powerful external actors, such as the USA, Russia, China, Iran, and Turkey, cannot be overlooked. These global and regional powers may exploit the situation to further their own interests and exert influence over the region. Their actions and policies, however, will undoubtedly shape any potential redrawn Middle East and its future trajectories.? There are two possible scenarios for this conflict: (1) a Two-State-Solution, or (2) a further fragmented Middle East plagued with sectarianism.

?

If a Two-State Solution scenario is to prevail, this would involve liberating the occupied Palestinian territories allowing the restitution of the State of Palestine alongside Israel. In this scenario, the redrawn Middle East would see distinct borders between Israel and Palestine, potentially leading to diplomatic recognition and peaceful coexistence. However, reaching this solution would require extensive negotiations, compromises, commitments to investments in infrastructure, and shifts in the geopolitical stance of regional and international actors.

?

If a scenario of a further fragmented Middle East is to take place, this would push the USA to further divide, rearrange, or redraw borders within an already fragmented and economically challenged Middle East. The conflict between Israel and Palestine could exacerbate existing fault lines within countries such as Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, where ethnic and sectarian tensions are already prevalent. This scenario would lead to a more volatile region, with various factions vying for power and control.

?

?

Back to the Future:

Now that we have examined the nodes that would come into play in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, let us go back to the questions that gave rise to this piece seeking to visualize future impacts of the current escalation of the conflict.

?

To revive or not revive the Middle East Peace Process is no longer an option. History, whether in the past or the making, is teaching us that peace in the Middle East is imperative if the rest of the world wants to have peace and prosperity. Attempts to push this conflict under the carpet and ignore the plight of the Palestinians have proven to be a misjudgment, at the least.

?

One could argue that the deep humanitarian crisis among Palestinians, in Gaza particularly, compounded by Israeli persistent bombardment and a changing political landscape within Israel, and soon within the US and EU countries, could be viewed as catalysts for reviving peace. Israel cannot continue its suppressive oblivion of Palestinian rights hoping to ensure security through military supremacy and American support. The Two-State-Solution would be in Israel’s interests. No one can guarantee Israel’s security and stability, not even the USA, except through a lasting peace with its neigbours.

?

Lessons learned from successful conflict resolution cases suggest that once the two parties have become exhausted or lost the ability to annihilate each other, then would be the most opportune moment to reach a compromise and give peace a chance. Thus, to ascertain whether either or both sides reached a will to annihilate each other is a starting point that would need to be construed in light of the implausibility of such annihilation. On the Palestinian side, they have nothing to lose but everything to gain. Their will to die or for that purpose annihilate the State of Israel has become an axiom. The Israeli treatment is used to indoctrinate such an axiom in generations across the globe. Only hope of peace could mellow this radicalization or even reverse it. On the other hand, Israel’s takes are higher. It has everything to lose but can gain peace and security. Israel’s existence is at stake. Its lifestyle and trajectory to the future are at stake too. Peace would facilitate the normalization of Israel’s relationships with Arab neighbours and permit it to become an economic leveraging power in the region through its R&D capabilities.

?

Attempting another Sykes-Picot deal will bring calamity to the region. Israel and the USA have often alluded to redrawing boundaries within the Middle East to create a new Middle East that is more friendly to Israel than the status quo. History once again comes to remind us of the most recent lessons from Iraq and the ongoing threats of instability it has been posing to the region. Any attempt to redraw the region would only exacerbate its fragmentation and sectarianism. ?It would complicate the acceptance of Israel in the region due to the religious status of Jerusalem and leftist association with the struggle of Palestinians.

?

?

In conclusion, reviving the Middle East peace process and achieving a two-state solution is a complex and challenging task that can no longer be left to Israelis and Palestinians alone. It should not be qualified as a domestic USA issue nor a mere sovereignty and independence case. It is a core factor for the stability of the region. By addressing the core issues associated with this Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a multitrack approach availing of current regional dynamics, there is a potential for success in reviving the peace process. The alternative is grim for all in the region, including Israel. Success would require sustained commitment, willingness to compromise, and a genuine desire for peace from all sides involved.