Another book about the “New Middle East” has recently been published: Battle Ground: Ten Conflicts that Explain the New Middle East by Christopher Phillips. It is not the first book – and will definitely not be the last – about the “New Middle East.” But there is no doubt that since the October 7 terrorist attack by Hamas and Israel’s bombing and widespread destruction of Gaza in retaliation, a new period of violence and human right violations has begun in the Middle East. But one should be aware that violence cannot only be found in Gaza and as a result of the conflict between Palestine and Israel. The populations of several countries are threatened by ongoing sectarian violence, and there is no hope that this period will end soon. Too many local, regional, and global actors have an interest in the continuation of the violence – or at least have no interest in considering ways to establish peace.
The case of Syria
The sad truth is that the atrocities committed by Hamas and Israel’s severe reaction are only adding to the many conflicts that still characterize the situation in many parts of the Middle East, especially in Syria. Paul Pinheiro, Hanny Megally, and Lynn Welchman, representing the UN Syria Commission of Inquiry, wrote recently in The New York Times: “The scale and ferocity of the conflict in Gaza and the unspeakable suffering of its civilians have rightly provoked the world’s outrage. But in Syria, a steep escalation of violence that has forced the flight of tens of thousands more people in what remains the world’s largest displacement crisis is taking place largely unnoticed outside the region……One of the most brutal civil wars of this century has claimed more than 300.000 civilian lives in Syria in the past dozen years.”
Syria is the “best” example of how all the conflicts in the Middle East involve local, regional, and global actors who add to the chaotic situation. In the introduction to his aforementioned book about Syria, Phillips writes: “I noted how the war was not a domestic war that sucked in foreign powers but rather one where internal and external actors interacted from the beginning, impacting the extent and shape of fighting….Large parts of the Middle East in the twenty-first century had become arenas for external competition.” Thus, we should not forget the ongoing tragedy in Syria but also those ongoing in Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen. And we should always remember that it is innocent civilians who suffer the most.
The future of Gaza - more of the same?
This interaction between internal and external actors also characterizes the Israel-Palestine conflict. Unfortunately, in this case too, outside actors are not playing a positive role in trying to find a solution and seem unable or unwilling to take decisive steps to enhance peace and reconciliation. Even in the cases where words of hope and peace are expressed by global leaders, they are not followed by concrete actions. This is especially true for the US but also, to a lesser degree, the EU.
One of the main arguments of this article is that the long-term failure of the “West” to actively support forces of peace and reconciliation allowed local and regional actors to follow the path towards violence and conflict. That is true for the Palestinians, especially Hamas and other violent groups, but also for right-wing forces in Israel who have won increasing influence both domestically as well as in international debates – a power they use to prevent any progress towards peace or any steps towards statehood for the Palestinians.
The way the Israeli government is taking revenge on the population of Gaza for Hamas’ attack shows that it is not willing to look for a way out of the awful cycle of violence and hatred. The extensive bombing of civilian targets will only lead to renewed hatred and more violence. For those who actively want to evict the Palestinians and repopulate Gaza with Israeli Jews, this might not be an issue. But for those Israelis who reject such a genocidal policy, it should be clear that a predominantly military reaction to Hamas’ attack will lead to the continuation of the conflict. Following the same policies will bring a future of more killings on both sides, even if the Palestinians killed by Israel will always outnumber the Jews killed by Palestinians. But this should not be a consolation for anybody.
An international conflict must be dealt with globally
If more of the same is not in any way presenting a path towards peace, we must think about alternatives. The present Israeli leadership – as well as the Palestinian leadership, if we can talk about it as such – is not able or willing to look for alternatives that are in line with international law and might lead to at least a modus vivendi. Therefore, outside actors must play a role in substituting internal actors. As the modern state of Israel is originally the result of a decision by the UN, there are good arguments for international actors to once again take up their responsibility. Of course, the most rational way would be to ask the UN to reaffirm its responsibility for the peaceful coexistence of Jews and Palestinians.
One of the experts who has outlined such a policy is Martin Indyk, who worked intensively in the Clinton and Obama administrations on and in the Middle East. According to Indyk, a new initiative by the US and several Arab states should help the Palestinian Authority (PA) to restructure and gain authority to govern Gaza in coordination with a peacekeeping force legitimized by the UN Security Council. But the UN – and especially the Security Council – would have to play a bigger role. Indyk proposes an update to “UN Security Council Resolution 242, which was passed and accepted by Israel and the Arab states following the Six-Day War in 1967….A new resolution that updated Resolution 242 could enshrine the U.S. and international community’s commitment to the two-state solution in international law. It would invoke UN General Assembly Resolution 181 in calling for two states for two peoples based on mutual recognition of the Jewish state of Israel and the Arab state of Palestine.”
To have such an updated resolution – with reference to the resolution of 1947 that founded Israel and also foresaw the creation of an Arab state – would certainly be a big step forward. But there are still some issues to be solved. First, the present Israeli government and the political majority in Israel are strongly against any form of a Palestinian state. They have no idea how to solve the Palestinian issue nor do they want it to be solved through negotiating a compromise. For some, the solution lies in many Palestinians, especially in Gaza and the West Bank, leaving – either voluntarily or through different forms of violence, especially led by radical Israeli settlers.
Second, it must be clarified how the two states would deal with the existing Palestinian or Jewish population in their respective territories. Will there be a second Nakba – this time for both sides? Manlio Graziano, of Sciences Po Paris and the Sorbonne, writes that “the two-state solution is a recipe for carnage.” Graziano fears consequences similar to that following the division of colonial British India into a Hindu state (India) and a Muslim state (Pakistan). Graziano writes: “The tragedy in which Israelis and Palestinians are imprisoned today is exacerbated by the fact that the only solution that external actors have proposed would simply make their situation worse…In the name of a better future for Israelis and Palestinians, the idea of a two-state solution should be withdrawn.” Anything else under consideration as a “solution” would be extremely difficult, but it would at least be less dangerous than the two-state solution.
In fact, most of those who propose a two-state solution refrain from dealing with issues over how “ethnically clean” the future states should be, how they should deal with the multicultural and multireligious community within their states, or how they would guarantee minority rights. Nevertheless, Indyk’s proposal has the enormous advantage of leading discussions back to the decision by the international community represented by the UN.
This, of course, is in strong contrast to the ideas and ideology of what Gershon Shafir calls “political Judaism”: “Following the 1967 Arab-Israeli war and the 1979 Iranian Revolution the world became accustomed to the term ‘political Islam’, referring to the movement seeking to use political means to advance religious law and ideas, ultimately narrowing religion to ideology. But a parallel phenomenon has risen alongside it: political Judaism…..Even Israel’s non-religious leaders welcomed political Judaism. The labor settlement movement and later the Likud party, needed a new radical justification for continued territorial expansion from pre-1948 colonization in the less-inhabited Palestinian lowlands into the densely populated mountainous parts of Palestine. Political Judaism alone could provide that justification.”
It is critical to refute the trap that the religious extreme right has set. Neither the religious right wing in Israel, often supported by US Evangelicals, nor radical Islamists can direct a path towards peace. Only reference to the UN resolution founding modern Israel and that which ended the 1967 war should provide the basis for enhancing peaceful coexistence between Jews and Palestinian Arabs.
The deplorable policy of the US
Indyk also makes it clear that it is the US, as the largest supporter of Israel, that must act. In fact, US leaders have many nice words and possibly also intentions, but they have no clear strategy or courage to enforce their proposals. Again and again, the US vetoes UN Security Council resolutions regarding Israel. Now too, we see that with all its “diplomatic initiatives,” the US has lost any credibility because of its ongoing veto policy. As Charles A. Kupchan wrote recently: “Despite making political references to the need for a two-state solution, American diplomats have done almost nothing to match their words with actions.”
Marc Lynch and Shibley Telhami even speak about a “Two-State Mirage” and criticize the US for having a double standard policy because of its very different attitude to the use of force by Russia on the one side and that by Israel on the other. Of course, one must counter that the present use of force by Israel was provoked by the ferocious attack by Hamas, while Russia’s aggression against Ukraine was unprovoked. But then, of course, one must also concede that Israel was and is a de facto occupying force in Gaza.
Either way, the US is clearly not acting according to its general moral or legal principles. Lynch and Telhami argue quite rightly: “To overcome Israeli intransigence, the United States must stop shielding Israel from the consequences of severe violations of international law and norms at the United Nations and other international organizations. Such a step in itself could start an essential policy debate within Israel and among Palestinians, which could open up new possibilities. At the same time, the White House should condition further aid to Israel on adherence to U.S. and international norms and should encourage similar efforts in Congress instead of opposing them.” They conclude: “Instead of pushing for a two-state outcome that has almost no prospect of materializing, Washington should recognize the current reality and use its influence to enforce adherence to international laws and norms by all parties.” Even if such a policy is no substitute for finding a long-term institutional solution, it is what oppressed and deprived young Palestinians are most looking for: equal rights and opportunities.
Whatever vision of a peaceful future the US seeks to realize, it must act. Gideon Levy, who was part of the negotiating team for the Oslo talks under Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin, wrote recently in an article titled “Team Biden needs a reset on Israel”: “The administration should condition the transfer of further military supplies on Israel ending the war and stopping the collective punishment of the Palestinian civilian population and should create oversight mechanisms for the use of American weaponry that is already at Israel’s disposal.”
Steven Simon, who worked on the Middle East in the National Security Council, wrote about US policy in the region in his book Grand Delusion: The Rise and Fall of American Ambition in the Middle East: “The delusion was rooted in the conviction that facts don’t matter, just intentions; that we create and inhibit our own reality, our capacities are unconfined, and the objects of our policy have no agency. They are just avatars in our own metaverse.”
It is obvious that President Biden is in a difficult situation. He has an opponent in former President Trump, who himself has no respect for international law or human suffering in Gaza. But Biden has also an increasing number of potential young voters who are critical of his benevolent attitude towards Netanyahu’s government. However, this group of voters is likely smaller than the converse. In addition, irrespective of different voter attitudes, there is a long tradition of US governments that are reluctant to put action behind their words in the case of Israel. The only one who did so was President Trump, and he expressed the wrong words followed by the wrong actions: he confirmed the Israeli government in its neglect of Palestinian rights and aspirations.
And other actors?
The EU has historically been more critical of various Israeli governments and has sought to keep the PA and the Palestinians in Gaza alive. But one must confess that the EU, which is also divided over Israel and Palestine, does not have enough leverage – in a military sense – to put effective pressure on Israel or Palestine. Again and again, Israeli representatives accuse critical voices in Europe of antisemitism. Nevertheless, the EU has tried several times to convene meetings and conferences to overcome the conflict and prepare a path towards peace.
But Arab states that were once interested in a peaceful solution have come increasingly to prioritize improving their relations with Israel. The Abraham Accords, promoted by the Trump administration, did not touch on the issue of Palestine, which encouraged the Israeli leadership to continue their neglect of the Palestinian issue. Now some Arab states and leaders seek to engage in finding a path towards peace, but they are still divided over which way to go. As long as they are not ready to play a strong and active role in the conflict, Arab states must recognize that Israel too will not be ready to give Palestinians a glimpse of hope and self-government. The same is true for Arab states as for the US: many plans and ideas, but no willingness to put actions behind words.
One decisive actor – and as many observers, including myself, would say, a decisive spoiler – is Iran. Iran, as a non-Arab and predominantly Shia state, is in strong competition with Arab Sunni states and especially with the US. In order to strengthen its grip on its own population, Iran has a well-organized but aggressive foreign policy. Tehran and its allied militant groups play a decidedly negative role in Lebanon and Syria – negative in the sense of supporting the dictatorial regime in Syria and in blocking economic and political development in Lebanon. Hezbollah is not interested in a prosperous Lebanon, not interested in a democratic Syria, and not interested in a peaceful prosperous region. In Lebanon and Syria as well as in Iraq and Yemen, Iran is using different militant groups that have their own political aims as proxies to win power and influence. Of course, its nuclear policy serves the same purpose. The Vienna nuclear agreement, the JCPOA, tried to contain Iran’s nuclear aspirations, but Trump – with support from Israel – abandoned the agreement, which only strengthened the efforts of Iran in its role as spoiler. The decision by Trump was one of many US actions without a long-term strategy for peace and development in the Middle East.
Concerning the other two global centers of influence – Russia and China – the US is still in a preferential position. Russia is for the moment engaged in a terrible war against Ukraine, and China is not yet a major player. But this may change quickly. Thus, it would be wise for the US to use this time to develop and implement a forward-looking strategy according to principles of international law.
And the Palestinians themselves?
All the criticism of Israeli intransigence should not cover up or hide the failures of the Palestinian “leadership.” The oft-mentioned and criticized Edward Said said: “Successful liberation movements were successful precisely because they employed creative ideas, original ideas, imaginative ideas, whereas less successful movements (like ours, alas) had a pronounced tendency to formulas and an uninspired repetition of past slogans and past patterns of behavior.” The fact that the radical and terrorist Hamas received so much support in the past is not only due to the Israeli occupation but also because of the uninspiring, bureaucratic, and corrupt leadership of the PA, a fact that was – and still is – welcomed by many Israeli politicians. Palestinian leaders would have to invite younger and more creative representatives to take the lead in presenting the Palestinian cause vis-à-vis Israel but also on the international level. There is much to learn from the successes and failures of anti-colonial movements around the globe. Neither brute force and terrorism nor the undemocratic dominance of a people lead to freedom and democratic self-government.
The basic message of this article remains the same: without engagement by the international community – and especially the US – in deeds and not only words, we will only get more of the same. That is the worst outcome of the tragic events of October 7 and its aftermath, but for the moment it is unfortunately the most likely outcome. With a continuation of the war in Gaza and further conflict between Israel and Palestine, the danger of a conflagration of violence in the broader region grows.
Now may be the last chance for the US and the EU to decisively influence the course of events in the Middle East. To let so many issues boil without a clear strategy to break the cycle of violence is particularly dangerous in view of the internal and external spoilers in the region. The EU provides one example of how countries that fought wars for decades can be brought into peaceful cooperation, and the US also played a role in helping overcome this dreadful past. Even if the situation in the Middle East is different and perhaps more difficult than the European past, one should not give up hope that peaceful cooperation is also a possible future for the region.
Dr. Hannes Swoboda, President of the International Institute for Peace (IIP), started his career in urban politics in Vienna and was elected member of the European Parliament in 1996. He was Vice President of the Social Democrat Group until 2012 and then President until 2014. He was particularly engaged in foreign, enlargement, and neighborhood policies. Swoboda is also President of the Vienna Institute for International Economics, the Centre of Architecture, the University for Applied Science - Campus Vienna, and the Sir Peter Ustinov Institute.