Two parallel worlds seem to exist in the Middle East. The world which is immediately present in our minds is one of conflicts, violence, and war. And that world took on a new profile by the attack of Hamas on October 7, 2023, and the answer of Israel in completely destructing Gaza and the war between Israel and Hezbollah. Nearly every minute a new element of brutality and killing adds to the vicious circle of violence. To think these days about peace may sound obscene.
Nevertheless, also now, as during all phases of violence and wars, some people argue for reconciliation and a new start. This world is one of mostly intellectual approaches to conflict and peace. For many years, these two worlds do not meet. The Israeli governments, especially those led by Netanyahu, however, have no interest in creating conditions for peace. And on the Palestinian side, the radical forces were never interested in compromise and conciliation. They are principally supported by “outside“ forces including Iran and Iran-promoted militias.
The Palestinian authority lost its credibility and support by closely cooperating with the Israeli security apparatus. Recently, a technocratic government has been installed that tries to overcome corruption and has the concrete interests of the Palestinians on its mind. Nevertheless, for many years, probably since the Oslo agreements, there has been no progress toward peace.
If the present war fought by the Netanyahu government on the Gaza and Lebanon fronts is so disastrous for its neighbors and for Israel‘s image that peace “must“ come! But it could also have the contrary effect! A long war of revenge from all those who have been humiliated by Israel and suffered by its military strikes! Even weakened militias and countries can strike back! The policy of Netanyahu and his extreme right coalition partners, intended to destroy all of Israel’s enemies, resulting in thousands of innocent civilians as “collateral damage” - may have the contrary effect. And besides using extreme force this government has no strategy and no readiness to use diplomacy to find a way towards peace.
October 7 and its Aftermath
Since October 7, things have become even worse. Israel answering with force to the vicious attack of Hamas is self-evident and justified. But Netanyahu and his extreme right government use the defense of Israel to widely destroy Gaza and stabilize and extend its occupation of the West Bank. The International Court of Justice in The Hague issued a clear verdict on this issue: “The State of Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is unlawful; the State of Israel is under an obligation to bring to an end its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as rapidly as possible; the State of Israel is under an obligation to cease immediately all new settlement activities, and to evacuate all settlers from the Occupied Palestinian Territory…”
It is no surprise, that the present Israeli government - and beyond - does not respect this verdict and criticizes it. Somewhat surprising is the fact, that several Western governments which insist in many cases on the respect for the rule of law, are also quite critical of this clear legal interpretation of the Israeli behavior and are not ready to ask the Israel government to respect this legal opinion, even if it’s “only” an advisory opinion. The West shows a very inconsistent attitude concerning aggressive military actions and civilian casualties in the case of Ukraine/Russia and the case of Israel/Palestine. Even if in the case of Ukraine there is only one aggressor and in the Middle East, there are several aggressors responsible for the ongoing conflict and war.
Extension of War to Lebanon
In the meantime, the disrespect for international law became even worse. One of the prominent examples is the killing of Hezbollah activists but also many innocent people by “pager bombs”. As Michael Walzer writes in the New York Times, they were “terrorist attacks by a state that has consistently condemned terrorist attacks on its citizens.” Michael Walzer, who is the author of the book “Just and Unjust Wars” makes it clear, that one must make a precise distinction between condemning an act of war and the war itself. Adding to these legal issues, Michael Walzer does not believe in the effectiveness of the Israeli actions. “I can’t believe it will make anybody safer. It invites retribution, and even if retribution is for the moment difficult, the desire for revenge won’t go away.”
Volker Türk, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, was quite clear in his statement: „Simultaneous targeting of thousands of individuals, whether civilians or members of armed groups, without knowledge as to who was in possession of the targeted devices, their location and their surroundings at the time of the attack, violates international human rights law and, to the extent applicable, international humanitarian law.” Again, as Michael Walzer makes it clear: “It is important to distinguish the judgments we make about the conduct of war from the judgment we make about the decision to go to war.”
We must be as objective and fair as possible in evaluating the crimes committed by all actors, Hamas, Hezbollah, and other militias, but also Israel if we want to look for a way out of the turmoil in the Middle East. As the former UK ambassador to Lebanon recently wrote in the Financial Times: “Hamas, Hezbollah and the Israeli hardliners want to bury a two-state solution, displace the other side and destroy the prospect of coexistence.” I would add that these forces try to torpedo any solution because they prosper with the continuation of the conflict and with going to war again and again. What for most of us is awful and dangerous is a justified political instrument: leading wars to destroy the enemies without regard to “collateral” damages.
Fawaz A. Gerges from the London School of Economics speaks in the New York Times of the ‘risk of a new forever war’: “The ‘total victory’ that Mr. Netanyahu and his cabinet are seeking over Hezbollah will not bring the absolute security that Israelis want and need. Whenever Israel decides to stop its military campaign, millions of Arabs will remain traumatized as they have seen their brothers and sisters in Palestine and Lebanon be slaughtered with gruesome impunity… The key to stopping the decades-long cycle of bloodshed and the circumstances that have allowed Iranian influence to grow is the end of Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands and the granting of Palestinian self-determination.”
It is not clear what will happen after Israel bombed so many places in Lebanon and killed the head of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah. It certainly weakened Hezbollah, but it might even radicalize the still-existing Hezbollah fighters. Can Iran tolerate that several leaders and militants of its ally, Hezbollah have been killed by Israel? A dangerous circle of force and violence may lead to an outright regional war and as mentioned above to a “new forever war”.
Looking Beyond the War
Despite these radical forces and the intransigent behavior of all war participants, the discussions about “solutions” for the Palestinian question are continuing. Recently Omar M. Dajani and Limor Yehuda came forward with a proposal for “A Two-State Solution That Can Work”. Contributing to “Foreign Affairs”, they argued for a confederation between Israel and Palestine, which “would resolve thorny questions arising from the incongruence between citizenship, nationhood, and statehood as well as between demography, nationality, and sovereignty.” They add: “It would provide Israelis and Palestinians with an institutional framework strong and flexible enough to manage the common challenges they face.”
This was already the approach I took in the framework of a report elaborated by a study group of the Bruno Kreisky Forum in Vienna, published in 2014 under the title: “Rethinking the Politics of Israel/Palestine - Partitions and its Alternatives”. My conclusions under the title “After Weapons Spoke, Human Rights Must Prevail” were based on a policy of fighting the “striking inequalities” between Israelis and Palestinians, especially - but not only - those leaving outside Israel: “ It is only within this egalitarian framework of basic social, civil, and political rights that we could and should proceed to consider institutional solutions. One such solution could be a two-state federation with some common institutions: from elements of security, water supply, and especially a joint Human Rights Court that guarantees basic rights to all citizens.”
An Economic Blueprint
Recently a more elaborate study presented concrete ideas and proposals on how a new path towards peace and economic development could be designed. Under the rather complicated title “Rebuilding Gaza as Part of a Palestinian Economic Leap Plan and a Wider Regional Stabilization Process“, Yair Hirschfeld and Yitzhak Gal presented detailed proposals for the “integration of Palestine and Israel into the regional economy of the Middle East“. These proposals were elaborated before October 7, but as far as necessary they were adapted afterward.
The proposals provide a regional framework for the economic development of Gaza and the Westbank. They underline the interests of Arab countries like Saudi Arabia and The United Arab Emirates (UAE) but especially of the neighbors of Israel and Palestine, Egypt, and Jordan for a strong and sustainable economic development in the post-oil era. “Regional stability is the top priority interest of Saudi Arabia and the UAE. It is viewed as a pre-condition for their own long-term economic, social, and political stability. Moreover, regional stability is a must for their economic plans for the “post-oil” era. Without open and secure transportation links, free and growing regional trade, and thriving tourism, they will not be able to achieve their strategic economic goals.”
A common regional economic integration framework would be even more important for the weaker economies of Egypt and Jordan. In the past, Jordan and Egypt could realize a strong economic growth. But in the meantime, “economic growth has weakened considerably over the 2010s. This process has been compounded by a series of new, and increasingly exacerbated risks. Most importantly, water and food security challenges, which have already become a heavy burden, and lobal warming are expected to make this burden heavier in the 2020s and the 2030s.” Close regional cooperation and the reduction of the risk of war would benefit these two countries enormously.
Israel would also benefit from such an integration process. The reduction of security risk and the absence of war would reduce the military expenditures as one could see after the peace agreement with Egypt. The security benefits of economic integration would be the most important contribution and asset for Israel. But such an economic integration would also “make the Arab world the second largest export market of Israel (after the EU)” and create a wide range of economic and technological cooperation.
What the authors propose for the Palestinians is an immediate “Gaza Reconstruction Program”, the “enhancement of trade and economic ties between Gaza and the West Bank”, and a “set of game-changing infrastructure projects” like a Palestinian sea port, railway lines connecting Gaza to the West Bank and additional land ports and crossings between Palestine and Israel and towards its neighbors. It would be necessary to shift “from absolute dependency on Israel infrastructure (water, electricity, transportation, etc.) to Palestinian infrastructure” and to diversify “trade towards Arab and other non-Israeli markets.” Nevertheless, the Gaza economy would still be closely linked to Israel’s market including the labor market.
The energy sector is of prime importance for regional integration. So, it would be necessary to develop the Gaza Marine Palestinian gas field and connect it to the Israeli or Egyptian gas piping infrastructure. But also, the development of solar-powered electricity - using the rrooftops- would contribute to full energy self-sufficiency in the Gaza Strip. For the water supply, a cluster of large desalination plants would be needed. It could “meet the drinking water and other household and municipal water needs of Gaza and the West Bank.”
In addition to the regional integration, one should also think about the link to the recently promoted India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC). This project was promoted at the September 2023 G20 summit in New Delhi. In a comment by Alberti Rizzi from the ECFR, one can read: “Despite the huge challenges the instability in the Middle East presents, the war in Gaza and its fallout have not changed the long-term strategic and economic goals of the IMEC participants… Europeans should use the remaining hiatus in IMECs development to converge on implementation plans that can reconcile the goals of the corridor’s participants.
Already much of the necessary infrastructure for the Middle East exits as the study of Hirschfeld and Gal confirms: “The backbone of this ambitious undertaking is a rail connection running from the Mediterranean Sea through Jordan to the major ports of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates along the Arabian Gulf. Nearly 90% of this railway line is already built and in operation…” Europe should help to build the rest, especially in Jordan and Palestine.
Iran, Russia, and China
It is obvious that such a wide integration process would on the one hand, create the conditions for peace and on the other hand, offer concrete economic benefits for the citizens in the region. The designing and development of the European Common Market and later of the European Union is - with all deficiencies - the best example for bringing peace and welfare via economic integration. But there are many open questions we must deal with. Will political forces in the respective countries, especially in Israel and Palestine, allow such a development or at least a debate about such an idea? And what about the neighbors, especially those under the influence of Iran? Given the inter-linkages between the war in Gaza and Lebanon, can any regional integration concept leave out Lebanon? And what about another regional player Turkey? Would an inclusion of Turkey complicate the issues or rather make it easier?
But evidently, the biggest obstacle is to be found in Teheran. How could Iran and its proxies be convinced at least not to torpedo such a new economic and finally political order as proposed by Hirschfeld and Gal? Can a reconfirmation or renegotiation of the nuclear deal JCPOA and a lifting of sanctions help to convince Iran to at least tolerate a regional integration process between Israel, Palestine, and their Arab neighbors? We must realize that the revolutionary impetus of the Iranian leadership has been implanted in several countries in the region: Lebanon, Syria, Yemen! Overcoming these obstacles will be challenging, particularly given the resistance from Iran itself and, more so, from the Revolutionary Guards! The Iranian side has a quite different approach to order and stability in the Middle East and it cannot be seen how and under what conditions Iran would be ready to change course.
And concerning this approach, it is similar, even if not identical to the attitude of Russia and China! Both accept Israel as fact, but they are not interested in stability if instability is annoying and disturbing the West by fostering divisions between states and inside Western societies! Iran knows it cannot destroy Israel and, in this respect, the Iranians would not have Russian or Chinese support! But having the issue of Israel’s existence open gives the Iranian leadership the possibility to use the Israel issue to keep up their authoritarian rule over its citizens! And they are quite happy about the right-wing extremists in Israel who give them ample reason for their hardline course! As Thomas L. Friedman wrote recently in the New York Times: ”The Jewish state of Israel is in grave danger today. And the danger comes from both Iran and the current Israeli ruling coalition.”
Besides recognizing the security interests of Israel, Iran will never cease to play an important role. Outside actors like Russia and China must be considered. During a debate at the Vienna Institute for International Economics (WIIW), I asked Yair Hirschfeld, the lead author of the study on Gaza reconstruction, how a regional framework for cooperation could be established without interference from Iran, Russia, and China. His answer was clear. The West must recognize the interests of these countries. We cannot find peace only on Western terms and by recognizing only Western interests. I think that is a valuable answer.
But what are the interests of these countries? Do they intend to play a constructive role in building up a regional peace order if their “interests” are recognized? What if one of the principal interests of some of these countries is to deny basic human rights to its citizens? And who could bring the different governments and leaders to a negotiating table? Unfortunately, the UN and its Secretary General do not have the recognition and wide acceptance for taking such an initiative, even if the respective countries would be willing to go towards that path.
A Decisive and Determined Western Strategy
The present fragile structure of the Middle East is widely the result of Western imperialist military and political maneuvers and interventions in the 19th and 20th centuries. Britain and France, and then the US sought to dominate the region and gain control over its energy resources. Many promises given to local populations - Arab and Jews alike - have not been kept. The terrible Holocaust organized by Nazi Germany supported the creation and growth of Israel. Radical forces in Israel and on the Arab side torpedoed several efforts to find territorial compromises. And the West failed to bring the two sides together.
The West should finally assume a positive and long-term responsibility in creating the conditions for regional cooperation and peace. Without strong and coordinated actions, predominantly by the U.S. and secondly by the European Union, there is no chance of getting into a phase of implementing well designed plans, like that of Hirschfeld and Gal. Instead of a piecemeal approach, we need a strong and coordinated effort to handle the different issues and to overcome the wide range of obstacles. As the U.S. becomes increasingly focused on finding the right strategy in its relations with China, and the European Union faces a war on its soil, it will be difficult to muster the necessary readiness for such a unified strategy. But one should never give up hope.
Dr. Hannes Swoboda, President of the International Institute for Peace (IP), 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 und 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.