• World
    • Africa
    • Asia Pacific
    • Central & South Asia
    • Europe
    • Latin America & Caribbean
    • Middle East & North Africa
    • North America
  • Coronavirus
  • Politics
    • US Election
    • US politics
    • Donald Trump
    • Brexit
    • European Union
    • India
    • Arab world
  • Economics
    • Finance
    • Eurozone
    • International Trade
  • Business
    • Entrepreneurship
    • Startups
    • Technology
  • Culture
    • Entertainment
    • Music
    • Film
    • Books
    • Travel
  • Environment
    • Climate change
    • Smart cities
    • Green Economy
  • Global Change
    • Education
    • Refugee Crisis
    • International Aid
    • Human Rights
  • International Security
    • ISIS
    • War on Terror
    • North Korea
    • Nuclear Weapons
  • Science
    • Health
  • 360 °
  • The Interview
  • In-Depth
  • Insight
  • Quick Read
  • Video
  • Podcasts
  • Interactive
  • My Voice
  • About
  • FO Store
Sections
  • World
  • Coronavirus
  • US Election
  • Politics
  • Economics
  • Business
  • Culture
  • Sign Up
  • Login
  • Publish

Make Sense of the world

Unique insight from 2,000+ contributors in 80+ Countries

Close

The Case for War and Peace in the Middle East

By Gary Grappo • Aug 20, 2014

Copyright © Shutterstock; All Rights Reserved

The latest violence in Gaza could lead to a positive outcome, if all sides are willing to make painful compromises.

The confrontation between Israel and Hamas in Gaza again raises the nagging question of how to settle the Middle East’s most enduring conflict. As Israelis, Palestinians and the international community seek a much desired end to this latest and bloodiest round in the conflict, this question hounds us.

The first lesson in the conflict may be in what it reveals. It is no concession to Hamas to acknowledge that Palestinians want and deserve an end to occupation and the establishment of their own state. That, of course, is not the entirety of Hamas’ objective. Besides the establishment of a rigidly totalitarian Islamist state, Hamas also seeks in word and deed the destruction of the state of Israel.

While it may desire eliminating Israel, it has no capacity to do so and, therefore, has chosen to wage war on Israel’s most vulnerable component, its population — either through wanton mass launches of ill-guided rockets or carefully planned attacks on Israeli towns, villages and military posts via an extensive network of sophisticated tunnels extending from Gaza.

Inability to meaningfully challenge the State of Israel and now the demonstrated folly of attacking Israel’s population, all at the staggering expense of innocent residents in Gaza, underscore for all but the willfully self-deceived the moral bankruptcy of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and fellow travelers. It is telling that Hamas receives little support in the Muslim world. Depending on the outcome of the ongoing Cairo negotiations, the resumed role of the Palestinian Authority (PA) in Gaza and, most critically, the support the PA receives from Israel and Egypt, Hamas is likely to face declining fortunes in the Palestinian Territories.

Hamas’ stated goals for launching this latest round of self-destructive jihad against Israel — lifting of Israel’s blockade of Gaza by opening entry points on the Egyptian and Israeli borders, and releasing Hamas prisoners held by Israel — could have been more realistically and much less costly attained by adhering to the principles of the Middle East Quartet: rejecting violence, accepting previously negotiated Israeli-Palestinian agreements and recognizing Israel.

Israel’s Options

While Hamas is at war with Israel and its population, Israel is not at war with Palestinians or Gaza. Were Israel truly at war, its overwhelming firepower could easily have leveled Gaza from one end to the other. But confronted by an organization committed to its destruction on the one hand, but only able to wage war against its vulnerable population on the other, Israel responded as any state — especially a democratic one — would, to protect its population.

The crimes of Hamas are inexcusable in exposing and using innocent Gazans for purely tactical and international propaganda reasons. It was a hopeless tactic to achieve goals that could more easily have been reached through other, non-violent means. Israel’s defense, however regrettable from the standpoint of the loss of innocent Gazan lives and destruction of infrastructure, is understandable.

Is there another option? Stand by passively and permit thousands of rocket launches, relying exclusively on the otherwise supremely effective Iron Dome missile defense system? Turn a blind eye to the tunnels dug right into Israeli towns and villages to allow murder and kidnapping of Israeli civilians?

No democratically elected government can be expected to remain in office in the face of a partial defense of its citizenry. No nation in the world considers passivity to be a satisfactory defense. So, anything less than a full-throttled defense would have been met with Israeli public outrage. In Israel, as in any nation, democratic or otherwise, the government’s first responsibility is to protect the population. So, despite the heartrending suffering visited upon the innocent people of Gaza, Israel responded in the only way it could to deter the Hamas threat to its population.

The crimes of Hamas are inexcusable in exposing and using innocent Gazans for purely tactical and international propaganda reasons. It was a hopeless tactic to achieve goals that could more easily have been reached through other, non-violent means. Israel’s defense, however regrettable from the standpoint of the loss of innocent Gazan lives and destruction of infrastructure, is understandable.

Palestinians with no affiliation with or sympathy for Hamas desperately long for the end of Israel’s occupation and the establishment of their own state. The international community overwhelmingly supports the peaceful realization of these legitimate aspirations. For Israel to ignore such feelings, for example, by perpetuating settlement activity in the West Bank, is to continue to place itself in the eyes of the international community on the side of an unjust aggressor, however illegitimate may be the actions of groups like Hamas.

Yet in recent years, Israel has done little to address some of the fundamental wrongs of its occupation of the Palestinian Territories. It has eschewed or only grudgingly gone along with efforts by the US and the Quartet to sit with Mahmoud Abbas and the PA and resolve the conflict.

Return to the Negotiating Table

So, a second lesson in this latest conflict is a simple and oft-repeated one: Palestinians will seek to end the occupation by all means at their disposal, even violent ones. As demonstrated by the sophisticated tunnel network uncovered by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in this latest round of the conflict, Hamas and others will develop or obtain (from their supporters like Iran) more complex and advanced ways of attacking Israelis. In turn, Israel will continue to bring massive and overwhelming force to protect its population and ensure the security of the state. Therefore, the only solution to the conflict is negotiation. The Israeli government and the PA must recommit to sitting with one another and making the necessary and critical, gut-wrenching choices to finally bring this conflict to an end.

None of this is especially revelatory. But Gaza is a reminder that extending this conflict and postponing the tough choices will impose higher and higher costs on both sides — lives, infrastructure and opportunity for Palestinians, and security and international standing for Israel.

Perhaps the most symbolic move Israel could take right now to resolve this conflict and restore confidence in Israel’s goodwill is to announce its willingness to return to the negotiating table to settle on the borders of a Palestinian state. That would necessitate a decision by both sides on the acceptance of the 1967 lines as a basis for discussions and on the disposition of Israeli settlements in the West Bank via land swaps. Concomitant with the resumption of negotiations, Israel should announce the suspension of all further settlement expansion or construction.

In addition, Israel could also double down on this necessary and vitally important decision now by gradually relinquishing control of those areas on the West Bank — known as Areas B and C, where it retains either security control (Area B) or complete administrative and security control (Area C) — to the PA, so it can finally begin a comprehensive effort to revive and build a genuine economy and a future state.

Lesson for the Palestinian Leadership

There are lessons for the PA and Fatah under President Abbas’ leadership, too. Neither can expect to retain the support of the Palestinian people as long as this stalemate continues and violent extremists are the only ones seen to be acting, however futilely. Moreover, inaction by the PA and Fatah will also undermine the unity government formed in June, none of whose members are affiliated with either of the two major Palestinian parties. Working with a willing Israeli leadership, the PA must show all Palestinians there is a non-violent alternative capable of ending the occupation and establishing a viable state.

To do so will mean an honest and realistic appraisal of Israel’s needs. First, it must acknowledge Israel’s security needs. The Gaza episode amply demonstrates the potential threat Israel and its population face from nearby enemies. It must have, therefore, an acceptable security guarantee, including an IDF presence, on the West Bank in any future deal creating an independent Palestine, at the very least for the short- to medium-term. Abbas has indicated he may be willing to accept such a presence for a limited time period.

Second, the Palestinians must also acknowledge the need for the future viability of the Jewish, democratic state. That means dropping the demand for the right of return of Palestinian refugees to Israel. The two sides have showed an ability to discuss the return of specific numbers of Palestinians to Israel. However, Israel can never accept their “right” to return. It would effectively repudiate the right of Jews and Israel itself to their place in the Middle East.

Finally, for both parties and the international community, there is Gaza and its security. As long as Hamas is armed, it presents a threat to Israel, which in turn renders Gaza insecure. As the West Bank, Gaza must be demilitarized and placed under PA security forces supervision. Doing so would also allow Egypt and Israel to open border crossing points, greatly easing the lives of Gazans, giving them access to necessary goods and services, allowing them to travel and significantly expand their economic opportunities. But Hamas, Islamic Jihad and others must be disarmed. Until that happens, Gaza will remain an “open air prison.”

As has always been the case, peace in the Middle East depends on the will of the parties. In light of the devastating events of the last month, both are reminded that the costs of postponing tough choices only grow more horrendous. And if Gaza was not sufficiently convincing, we can be sure that more convincing incidents are sure to follow.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

Aleksandar Todorovic / Shutterstock.com

Share Story
Categories360° Analysis, Middle East & North Africa, Politics TagsGaza, Israel, Israeli, Mahmoud Abbas, Palestine, Palestinian
Join our network of more than 2,000 contributors to publish your perspective, share your story and shape the global conversation. Become a Fair Observer and help us make sense of the world.

READ MORE IN THIS 360° SERIES

Gaza's Demilitarization is Not the Way Forward
By Shairee Malhotra • Nov 07, 2014
A Birthday Wish From Gaza
By Nour Omar Shaban • Oct 13, 2014
Missile Defense and the High Cost of Living in Israel’s Fortress
By Zach Goldberg • Sep 13, 2014
Noam Chomsky: Ceasefires in Which Violations Never Cease
By Noam Chomsky • Sep 12, 2014
Norman Finkelstein: Israel, Settlements and the ICC (Part 2/2)
By Manuel Langendorf, Abul-Hasanat Siddique & Norman Finkelstein • Aug 22, 2014
Norman Finkelstein: Israel, Settlements and the ICC (Part 1/2)
By Manuel Langendorf, Abul-Hasanat Siddique & Norman Finkelstein • Aug 21, 2014
Gaza: Living Through a War
By Huda Kishawi • Aug 20, 2014
The West Bank May Be On the Verge of Exploding
By Gershon Baskin • Aug 20, 2014
Maintaining the Siege of Gaza: A Crime Against Humanity
By Kourosh Ziabari & Richard Falk • Aug 20, 2014
Conversations About Gaza: “But Hamas…”
By Donna Nevel • Aug 18, 2014
Bombs and Screams: The Reality of War in Gaza
By Nour Omar Shaban • Aug 07, 2014
Gaza: A War of Hashtags
By Laila Barhoum • Aug 05, 2014
Gaza Protests in Paris: Pro-Palestinian or Anti-Jewish?
By Jennifer Helgeson • Aug 01, 2014
War and Peace: The Youth of Gaza
By Nour Omar Shaban • Aug 01, 2014
A Durable Ceasefire for Gaza
By Muriel Asseburg • Aug 01, 2014
Who Wins and Who Loses in Gaza?
By Drew Holland Kinney • Jul 30, 2014
Gaza: No Innocent Victims?
By Alia Brahimi • Jul 27, 2014
Middle East Conflict: Need for Credible Mediator
By James M. Dorsey • Jul 27, 2014
London Gaza Demo: Voices From the Street
By Fair Observer • Jul 27, 2014
The Gaza Conflict: Occupation, Rockets and War Crimes
By Manuel Langendorf & Abul-Hasanat Siddique • Jul 26, 2014
Consequences of the Israeli Blockade of Gaza
By Omar Shaban • Jul 25, 2014
Time for a Shift in the Middle East Peace Paradigm
By Gary Grappo • Jul 24, 2014
Human Rights Watch Whitewashes Israel: The Law Supports Hamas
By Norman Finkelstein • Jul 23, 2014
The UN, War Crimes and Israel’s “Right to Defend Itself”
By Manuel Langendorf & Josef Olmert • Jul 23, 2014
The Gaza Crisis: Timing a War
By Omar Shaban • Jul 18, 2014
Israel and Hamas: Locked in Conflict?
By Manuel Langendorf & Hillel Schenker • Jul 16, 2014
US Complicity in Israel’s Attack on Gaza
By Nora Lester Murad • Jul 11, 2014
Chants and Violence: Racism in Israeli Soccer
By James M. Dorsey • Jul 08, 2014

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Post navigation

Previous PostPrevious Euro Crisis Turning Point: Two Years of Banking Union
Next PostNext The Brazilian Street: Powers of Change
Subscribe
Register for $9.99 per month and become a member today.
Publish
Join our community of more than 2,500 contributors to publish your perspective, share your narrative and shape the global discourse.
Donate
We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your donation is tax-deductible.

Explore

  • About
  • Authors
  • FO Store
  • FAQs
  • Republish
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Contact

Regions

  • Africa
  • Asia Pacific
  • Central & South Asia
  • Europe
  • Latin America & Caribbean
  • Middle East & North Africa
  • North America

Topics

  • Politics
  • Economics
  • Business
  • Culture
  • Environment
  • Global Change
  • International Security
  • Science

Sections

  • 360°
  • The Interview
  • In-Depth
  • Insight
  • Quick Read
  • Video
  • Podcasts
  • Interactive
  • My Voice

Daily Dispatch


© Fair Observer All rights reserved
We Need Your Consent
We use cookies to give you the best possible experience. Learn more about how we use cookies or edit your cookie preferences. Privacy Policy. My Options I Accept
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Edit Cookie Preferences

The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.

As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media.

 
Necessary
Always Enabled

These cookies essential for the website to function.

Analytics

These cookies track our website’s performance and also help us to continuously improve the experience we provide to you.

Performance
Uncategorized

This cookie consists of the word “yes” to enable us to remember your acceptance of the site cookie notification, and prevents it from displaying to you in future.

Preferences
Save & Accept