After Hamas’ brutal attack against Israel, which resulted in many dead and wounded civilians, the most important and urgent task of today is ending Hamas’ rule of Gaza, where the terrorist organization holds the Palestinian population hostage. But the question that must be answered next – if not in parallel to the military action – is how to prevent the next war between Israel and either Hamas or whoever may succeed it. Significantly, this can only be achieved if the basic rights of all people living in Israel and Palestine are secure. This should be obvious to all observers, but unfortunately many simply defend Israel in its war against Hamas without considering how future aggression from Gaza can be avoided.
Years without progress towards peace
Since the Oslo Accords in the 1990s, there has been no serious progress towards finding a peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. On the one side, the Israeli government, particularly under the leadership of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has only been managing the conflict – and, at that, poorly. Netanyahu generally preferred to speak with Hamas rather than the Palestinian Authority (PA). He used – and often misused – the PA as an instrument to advance Israel’s security concerns and measures. This strange relationship between Israel and the PA undermined the PA’s authority among its own population. Moreover, corruption within the PA leadership added to this mistrust, especially among Palestinian youth, for whom the chance to lead normal lives has grown ever smaller. Consequently, Hamas took control of Gaza and presented itself as the true defender of the Palestinian people. Neither the PA nor Israel wanted additional elections because they feared it would result in the rise of new radical groups.
It is high time to overcome this dangerous state of affairs. To bring an end to the vicious cycle of violence, we need a new government in Israel, a new and rejuvenated PA, and an end to the extremist rule of Hamas in Gaza. Stopping this endless series of wars in the Middle East is important first and foremost for its people, Arabs and Jews alike.
But it is also important for civil peace in Europe. In my contribution to a book published in 2014 by the Bruno Kreisky Forum titled Rethinking the Politics of Israel and Palestine, I wrote: “A new start is necessary and Europe should take the lead. Otherwise, the conflict in the Middle East will provoke rising conflicts inside our own countries, such as those seen during the last war in Gaza – where, alongside the peaceful and honest demonstrations protesting Israeli governments actions, we saw very nasty and unacceptable reactions against Jews… which is not only morally unacceptable but also a big disservice to the Palestinians.”
Examples of such “nasty and unacceptable reactions” could again be observed recently – even after the heinous actions of Hamas. Thus, for the sake of the citizens of Israel and Palestine but also in the interest of mutual respect between Jews and Muslims in Europe, we need stronger European engagement in support of peace and security in the Middle East. Unfortunately, there is insufficient discussion or new ideas about how this aim can be reached among representatives of the European Union (EU). More often, ideas come from the side of the US, which remains active in proposing peace plans for the region. Without strong engagement by the American government, no progress is possible.
Different peace plans
Over the past twenty years, the possibility of implementing the UN Partition Plan of 1947 and creating a viable Palestinian state – parallel to Israel – has become increasingly unrealistic. One could argue at length over which side has been more responsible for the failure to find a compromise, but certainly the ongoing land grab by Israeli settlers – tolerated or even supported by their government – has created a strong sentiment of despair and anger among Palestinians. Both the US and the EU have repeatedly criticized the creation of new settlements but have refrained from any kind of “sanctions” against Israel. Even today, Israeli settlers – with the support of the ruling right-wing government – continue with their activities, which are in clear violation of international law. These settlers actively seek the expulsion of Palestinians from their homes. The settlers and their supporters within Israel will serve as an enormous obstacle to any peace between Israel and the Palestinians. As long as right-wing religious forces remain in power in Israel, there is no chance for peace.
We cannot foresee how or when the present war will end, nor can we know to what degree Israel will seek to maintain control over Gaza or if this will be tolerated by the US, as Israel’s greatest supporter and supplier of arms. At the moment, we know that the US is working on alternative plans for both Gaza and Palestine as a whole.
In a recent analysis for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Dennis Ross (the former special assistant to President Barack Obama for the Middle East), Robert Satloff, and David Makovsky presented a plan for how a new Palestine could be created while guaranteeing the security interests of Israel – which is certainly a better option than an extended occupation of Gaza. The goal of the three authors’ plan is, in the long term, to return Gaza to the control of the PA. But, in the short term, a Gaza Interim Administration should be established. Within this body, the civilian administration should be run by Palestinians, while public safety and law enforcement should be directed by a consortium of Arab states who have reached peace agreements with Israel. In addition, a new international agency should be established with the responsibility for the repair, reconstruction, and development of Gaza. The US should take the lead in promoting this plan, but, in order to strengthen its legitimacy, the mandate of the UN Security Council would be necessary.
Already in 2003, Martin Indyk (also a US Special Envoy for Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations) put forward a similar plan. He feared – correctly – that “Palestinian terror attacks and Israeli military responses are dragging both communities deeper and deeper into the abyss.” His plan assumed a freeze in the building of settlements and the structural reform of the PA. Parallel to these steps, the US would push for the creation of a trusteeship for Palestine: “A well-designed trusteeship for Palestine would have an explicit mandate to build an independent, democratic Palestinian state.” This plan would also be legitimized by the UN Security Council. Parallel to the trusteeship, a sort of Marshall Plan would be created to rebuild the Palestinian economy.
As it concerns security, the plan proposed the establishment of special forces under the command of the US. The fact that these international forces would be under US command would reassure Israelis. Indyk did not foresee the inclusion of Arab troops, but “Egypt and Jordan should be encouraged to play an active role in training the restructured Palestinian security services.” However, as several other Arab states have since normalized diplomatic relations with Israel, these countries could be directly involved as security guarantors.
Another proposal was put forward by former Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. His proposal begins by making it clear that any hope that the “PA, in its current configuration would return to exercising its purview over the Gaza Strip” is a non-starter. The PA and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) “suffered from an erosion of legitimacy brought on by the failure of the Oslo framework to deliver on its promise of a Palestinian state on the territory Israel captured in 1967 and has occupied since.” For Fayyad, it is important that all political factions in Palestine are included within the PLO. Only a PA that is based on an enlarged and inclusive PLO would be able to regain power in Gaza.
A long way towards an agreement
All these plans and ideas leave out many important issues. First, would Israel – after many years of de facto opposition – be prepared to agree to a separate Palestinian state? Would Israel – regardless of the current government – be ready to agree to a compromise concerning settlements, perhaps in the framework of a land swap with Palestine? Could a stable majority be found in Israel who are prepared to deal with the domestic (and sometimes violent) conflicts with settlers and their ideological supporters?
What borders could possibly be accepted by Israel and Palestine? How could the mutually emotional question of Jerusalem be dealt with? How might a connection between the two separate territories of a future Palestinian state be organized? On this particular issue, I will always remember the moment when Shimon Peres, the leader of Israel’s Labor Party and later President of Israel, drew a road and rail bridge on a napkin in the restaurant of the European Parliament that would connect the two territories without Palestinian travelers touching Israeli territory. Is such a plan realistic?
Another open issue is the reaction of Israel’s neighbors. Who is ready to take responsibility for the future of Palestine? The plan outlined by Ross, Satloff, and Makovsky suggest including the countries that have normalized their relations with Israel. But what about Saudi Arabia? It has thus far hesitated to conclude an agreement along the line of the Abraham Accords. Moreover, the timing of Hamas’ attacks was likely chosen to prevent the conclusion of such an agreement. It would be very helpful if Saudi Arabia offered to play a role in mediating between the two sides. But is Saudi Arabia prepared to strengthen ties with Israel under the condition of its readiness to enter into constructive negotiations with the Palestinians?
Another vital question surrounds the attitude and actions of Iran. Iran remains the biggest spoiler to any negotiation because of its support for Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and various extremist groups in Iraq. In the last year, the two primary adversaries in the Muslim Middle East – Iran and Saudi Arabia – underwent a rapprochement under Chinese mediation. However, it is not yet clear how Hamas’ attack or Israel’s reaction have impacted that rapprochement. Has it undermined the new cooperation between the Saudis and the Iranians, or has it in fact strengthened it? Either way, Iran – especially with its stronger ties to an aggressive Russia – is always a risk factor in the region. Is a common strategy by the US, the EU, and Arab countries vis-a-vis Iran possible if Iran continues to play a destructive role? Or can Iran be convinced to refrain from supporting extremist groups across the region?
Furthermore, whatever the West intends to do, Russia and China will insist on playing a bigger role than in the past. Theoretically, a more nuanced approach to the conflict and the involvement of the UN Security Council could bring the big powers into a new dialogue. Irrespective of their enormous differences concerning Ukraine and Taiwan, the big powers – with the help of some countries of the Global South – could share responsibility for security in the Middle East. But perhaps this is an overly optimistic.
We should also not forget that Hamas’ brutal attack, Israel’s extended counterattack, and the continuing expansion of Israeli settlements expelling Palestinians from their homes has sowed anger and mistrust on both sides. The fact that Hamas’ forces kidnapped and killed Israeli peace activists shows not only their cruelty but also their lack of care for human life. Rational thinking must emphasize the urgency of finding a path towards peace now. This would also be the best – if not the only – way to stop Gazans from voting for Hamas. Unfortunately, emotions in Israel and Palestine as well as around the world are not contributing to clear thinking. Emotions are never a good guide to compromise. Even if the US is pushing – hopefully together with the EU – for talks, negotiations, and eventually an agreement, some forces will refuse to give up and will attempt to boycott any compromise. Common international efforts could overcome these obstacles, but it would require enormous foresight and a willingness to address all these difficulties.
And the EU?
Taking all these obstacles into account, there is no reason for responsible political forces to refrain from embarking on that long route towards peace. Hamas’ brutal attack has painfully revealed the lack of a clear Middle East policy in the West, including in the EU. The EU’s past policies have been characterized by repeated failed attempts. Torn between Israel’s criticism for its alleged neglect of Palestinian terrorism on the one hand and the need to recognize the right of self-governance for the Palestinians on the other hand, the EU has often done too little too late. In addition, the US has not been ready to go beyond gently criticizing Israel and has vetoed even balanced resolutions by the Security Council. With this attitude, the US has also blocked the activities of the EU – in no small part because both Israel and the Palestinians sought US support for any peace talks. Even if expectations of the US were and still are different, the country is seen as the vital partner for any agreement. As a result, the EU has long acted in the shadow of the US.
Nevertheless, the EU should be not afraid to put forward its own ideas. Even if Israel continues to accuse the EU of being too supportive of the Palestinians, this should not deter the development of an active Middle East policy. However, differences are also evident between EU members, as some countries’ policies – such as that of Austria – are influenced by shame and guilt over crimes committed in the past rather than the need to support a peaceful Middle East. But the horrible crimes committed during the Nazi era – and before – cannot be undone by denying the Palestinians the right to self-determination. Only a policy of supporting the implementation of the UN Partition Plan of 1947 and creating a Palestinian state would help remedy crimes committed in our past.
Moreover, as elaborated in several contributions to the book by Bashir Bashir and Azar Dakwar, the creation of a Palestinian state would not preclude many forms of cooperation between Israel and Palestine and would not prevent all willing states in the region from building mutual respect as well as a comprehensive security mechanism. In this respect, the EU could contribute with its experience in developing a regional security system. That would be one big step forward.
Further reading:
Bashir Bashir, Azar Dakwar (editors), “Rethinking the Politics of Israel /Palestine”, S&D Group European Parliament and Bruno Kreisky Forum for International Dialogue
Robert Sattloff, Dennis Ross, David Makovsky, “Israel’s War Aims and the Principles of a Post-Hamas Administration” Policy Analysis/PolicyWatch 3799
Martin Indyk, “A Trusteeship for Palestine”, Foreign Affairs, May/June 2003
Salam Fayyad, “A Plan for Peace in Gaza”, Foreign Affairs, October 2023
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.