In a recent conversation with former University of London-SOAS LMEI director Robert Springborg, the latter noted that the Israel-Gaza conflict “won’t be solved by any one brilliant idea, but the concerted efforts of a team of highly informed pragmatists — and visionaries — paying close attention to the intricate details of timing and sequence.” It’s understood that US Secretary of State Blinken has attempted to convene such a braintrust within the State Department, but one has questions: Even if this group were to come up with a workable sequence of moves, would they have an audience, given the downgrading of State Department influence over the last several administrations? And, in an election year, do Biden and his closest advisors have the appetite for risk and sense of time pressure, to go for something big? Do the risks of acting outweigh the risks of waiting until Biden is the safety zone of a second term?
What’s Happening on the Ground Now:
The recent focus on hostage deals and cease-fires is clearly -- or hopefully -- not the main event, as it treats the Netanyahu government and Hamas as the main negotiating parties -- when really, as numerous commentators have noted (including me) the primary audience here should be the Israeli and Palestinian people, each been hijacked by their own leadership and their own leaderships’ influencers and paymasters.
“Hostage drip” will not resolve the hostage situation, practically or morally. Alone, it will do the opposite, freeing some while putting the rest at higher risk; it will at best be a temporary reprieve from daily terror for the Gazan civilians. And doesn’t solve the issue of the (unrealistic) destruction of Hamas.
Any “time” these maneuvers buy may be a part of a Biden plan that hasn’t yet been revealed, but it should be obvious that time invites other risks, including the expansion of the crisis (notably with Hezbollah in Lebanon, e.g.). Nor will rehabilitation of existing broken structures - whether the Netanyahu government, or the Palestinian Authority, lead to stability. One only needs look at various other conflict in the region, from Libya to Yemen, to see how those rehabs turned out.
New Life for the 2-State Solution
While other models may be possible, I agree with former Oslo Accords negotiator Ambassador Martin Indyk’s basic conclusion in Foreign Affairs, that “an unimaginable war can bring about the only imaginable peace (i.e., a 2-state solution),” and that President Biden’s personal relationship with Israel and the Israeli people is key to that outcome.
There are some obvious, huge obstacles to this, most if not all of which are larger than they were during the failed Oslo Accords in the early 1990s - including the fact that there are so many more armed and radical settlers in the West Bank mixed in with Palestinians. And unfortunately that issue is the one that may be hardest to address, harder than getting Hamas leadership out of Gaza — and certainly won’t be quick.
What is different now, compared to the 1990s, is there are new points of leverage. The 10/7 Hamas attack on Israel that launched the current war, in which Israeli has killed as many as 29,000 Gazans, has changed the Israeli-Palestinian-Arab paradigm yet again, as did the 2020 Abraham Accords.
Looking at the Abraham Accords -- Slant
Indyk and others dismiss the 2020 Abraham Accords (which the Biden Administration initially embraced) as at best a dead end, and (like the Palestinians) a betrayal of the previous process: An attempt to get something for free, at the expense of the Palestinians.
To look at the Abraham Accords this way (even if it were somehow completely obvious, which I’d argue it isn’t, based on polling of the Arab world, done at the time) I think is a mistake, for whatever motives, positive or negative, one imputes to their architects is now moot. What matters is what you can do with what you have at your disposal — and the Abraham signatories collectively have influence, certainly over Israelis who under their rage and sense of insecurity, still count broader engagement with the Arab world (in and of itself and as a unified front against Iran) as crucial to their well being. And to deny that the fact that the Saudis are now a key ingredient to any ‘grand deal’ with Israel and the recognition of a Palestinian state is a direct consequence of the Abraham Accords is jarring.
I believe the Israelis and Palestinians are in their present emotional states incapable of sorting out this current war; trusted outsiders will need to create the enzymatic substrate for a deal, with the consent of the governed. Something else useful about the Abraham Accords, is that it models how this can be done: the Emiratis broke a taboo in speaking directly to the Israeli people, not its politicians. They painted them two outcomes, depending on whether or not Netanyahu annexed of parts of the West Bank as he then planned: one potentially extremely positive, one unequivocally negative.
Second, its signatories (UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco) collectively constitute a platform for the redemption of both Israeli and Palestinians atrocities since 10/7: Many are not willing to see that there are two bad guys here: Netanyahu’s government is ordering the killing, but Hamas invited him to do it. And it wasn’t just Hamas, but Hamas’ backers who pulled the trigger. In such gang wars, civilians always the disproportionate victims.
The Abraham signatories, plus the past Arab signers of peaces with Israel, Jordan and Egypt -- and the future stand-out, Saudi Arabia, and the United State (collectively let’s call them the “Past and Future Peacemakers with Israel,” all have it in their best interests now, to make good on past deals -- i.e., to assure the creation of a prosperous Palestinian state. They’re all, as one might say, committed, morally, financially, and otherwise. Further, to varying degrees, most have Iran and its proxies (of whom Hamas is the current star) as their primary adversary. They all need Middle East stability to assure their economic transitions, and fight the consequences of other inevitable forces, like climate change and the contamination of shared resources, which is already wreaking havoc on the region encompassed by Israel, Jordan and the Palestinian territories.
Further, “The Signatories” each have different assets to add to pot: the Saudis have the ability to invest in Gaza like no other country; the Emiratis have been a model in the Arab world for building massive modern cities out of practically nothing -- particularly, ports and logistics facilities and amenities, which will be at the core of any future Palestinian state’s economy.
The Egyptians and the Jordanians (most of whom are of Palestinians origin) are familiar neighbors to the Palestinians, and are more likely, with other neutral outside parties, to be able to serve as buffers. It may be very wise — even necessary — to include new, and unexpected external parties to the Peacemakers group, for greater stability and to balance out Russia and Iran. India, which is friendly with both the Gulf States and Israel, is one. And there may even be benefits to the US and the West to include China.
The “Peacemakers” are the natural constituency with which to present both Israelis, and Palestinian people with a deal that overrides the fear that causes them each to cling to the forces that are driving them over the edge.
For a Palestinian state to become a reality, I agree with Thomas Friedman’s recent NYT Op Eds that argue the vision needs to be delivered in technicolor, up front, fully funded, guaranteed and wrapped in a bow. It’s going to have to be a virtuoso performance. Certain things will need to happen quickly and simultaneously, so there’s no time for opposition.
Biden will have to parlay his influence with the Israeli people into a quid pro quo; Palestinians will need to see an actionable vision for an independent state with a functional, competent rulership and resources to rebuild (or build) properly, for the first time.
The contours of the state and other past thorny issues will have to be resolved together, at once, unlike the drawn out, staged Oslo approach; and yet it will take time to pull all a Palestinian state together. Managing that interim period will be one of the unknowns, as it will open the door to the possibility of more explosions and the intrusion of extremists, among which the more than 100,000 armed and ideologically extreme settlers in the West Bank, out of half a million settlers’ total.
Policy Innovation is Necessary:
There have been a few ideas floated by analysts, notably former Gaza resident Ahmed Al Khatib for the creation of humanitarian enclaves immune from Israeli fire.
To this, I’d add the order of a “string-of-pearls” state-building process, with each new zone being added to the last, and recognized by the international community as part of a formal Palestinians state -- including an administrative and economic capital near Gaza’s current, destroyed port. Even if most of the residents of these zones are women and children to start, that’s a start, as Israel (or, even better, the Abraham Accord states) destroy the rest of physical Hamas’ infrastructure (and Hamas is granted free passage to an outside state, like Qatar).
There are models for transitional governments led by technocrats - trusteeships, charter cities, transitional governments; the United Nations does like to admit that it creates governments out of thin air, but the International Community and the UN have done so at least twice in Libya, i.e., installed or otherwise favored unelected, broadly illegitimate governments for the sake of political expediency and “stability.” But these efforts to almost always result in bigger knots down the road.
If starting over with a new government, the Palestinians — as a group, among the best educated and accomplished in the Middle East - should be represent by their best -- not their worst. And perhaps, this will inspire the Israelis to aim as high. There are technological innovations in the realm of e-government that can inspire. Libyans looked to Estonia at one time for inspiration in this regard.
US Political Risk
There are those who argue that Biden should wait until his second term, when he’s free of political constraints to solidify a grand deal. Risk is present no matter what -- if he waits until next year, a massive regional war could have broken out. And the US will remain blamed by much of the world for not having restrained Israel.
If Biden moves and falters, he could drive the US foreign policy into a quagmire ahead of an election, and assure his own loss. But as my esteemed colleague noted (after the first above-mentioned comment), any “peace formula” will have to be constructed in such a way that the Biden administration has a safe exit at every successive step, to insulate itself from an explosion. This may not be possible. But one thing is clear: There is no win that doesn’t require massive political courage on the part of the US and its partners — and the peoples of the region, too.
One hopes the White House is not replaying records of all the times in which the Middle East has killed a US president’s second term (there have been many); that his team is looking at forming broad Arab coalitions with the strongest interests to create a functional, moderate Palestinian state; and that the US plan is, indeed, for the President to speak directly with the Israelis, and the Saudis and other Arab peacemakers drive home to Palestinians a high level vision, with practical steps and guarantees as to how it will be implemented, and what their responsibilities are in this process (e.g., repudiating Hamas, helping identify and choose their future leaders through on-line polling and referenda, e.g.) And that the tilt is towards pre-election, not post-election action.
Ironically, it’s the US’ standing by Israel after the 10/7 attack that is the best indicator for Israelis -- and perhaps, paradoxically, Palestinians -- that the United States will do what it says regarding peace between the two.
Dr. Ethan Chorin is a former diplomat and author of Benghazi: A New History (Hachette, 2022)
*As always, please see my Substack for corrections and updates. The Middle East- Told Slant is a reader-supported publication. Consider a free or upgraded subscription.
I think if the Biden administration waits until after the election they'll find that sitting on their hands was one of the many reasons we end up with Trump redux. Conversely, rolling up their sleeves and doing all they can to makes this work, and give proper, meaningful support to Ukraine, might well confirm Biden's second term. But I fear they aren't brave enough and we'll have the worst in all scenarios. I truly hope I'm wrong
There will never be any two-state solution, because Israel is hell-bent on preventing it. They have already approved 3400 new homes for a West Bank expansion, and they are likely to divide Gaza in half (marked by the new highway they have constructed) and take the northern part for their annexation plans. Palestine has all but ceased to exist in the minds of Israelis, and in fact, their Hasbara talking points reinforce the idea that Palestine never existed as a state or a people. The last step is obliterating all infrastructure in the south and hoping their obfuscation and obstruction creates a mass starvation event which either kills or displaces the remaining population to other countries - the other option being that they will remake south Gaza as the open-air prison for those people who refuse to relocate. As long as they can plausibly deny the technical definition of genocide and claim 'self-defense," they will continue unabated in their expansionist goals.
Additionally, Israel has a policy of undermining, replacing, and even assassinating leaders that are not sympathetic to its plans and policies. Take for example the thwarted plot to assassinate George H W Bush when he threatened to revoke US loan guarantees to Israel in order to prevent further illegal Israeli settlements. This is the risk if US leaders face if they directly oppose Israeli interests. And given the strength of the AIPAC lobby, and their now direct funding campaigns for "yes" candidates that support Zionist goals, there is a near zero chance of anyone applying "pressure" to the extremist government of that state.
Given the hegemony of pro-Zionist thought, Palestine is already gone. I think it's time to accept that.