09/17/2024 - 18:56 PM
By Yazeed Al Rashed Al Khuzai *
The Arab-Israeli conflict has long been one of the most complex and intertwined conflicts in the modern world. Political, religious, and economic interests of regional and international powers have converged. Since the Balfour Declaration in 1917, through the Palestinian Nakba in 1948, and to the present day, events and international decisions have accumulated to form a map of conflict that goes beyond mere competition over land and identity. While political settlement attempts have continued through decades of negotiations and agreements—from the Oslo Accords, through the Madrid Agreements, and up to temporary truces between Israel and Hamas—none have succeeded in offering a fundamental and lasting solution to the Palestinian issue.
The failure of these negotiations reflects not only the wide gap between the conflicting parties but also the absence of a comprehensive and genuine vision for permanent peace in the region. Israel, in its pursuit of strategic security, continues to expand its settlements and impose a blockade on the Gaza Strip, while Hamas fiercely opposes, refusing to recognize Israel and clinging to the resistance project. These intractable positions from both sides, along with the direct or indirect support of international powers biased towards one party or the other, have dramatically and unprecedentedly complicated the scene.
Under these circumstances, it can be said that any future success in negotiations between Israel and Hamas, regardless of its scope or size, will be nothing more than temporary reliefs that do not meet the fundamental aspirations of the Palestinian people nor offer lasting and fair solutions. The solutions presented today are either attempts to manage the crisis or temporary ceasefires that allow Israel to continue imposing new realities on the ground, while Palestinians continue to live under the weight of siege and international isolation. What we see today is nothing more than a postponement of the conflict, not its resolution.
What fuels the situation even more is that the entire Middle East is held hostage to ongoing conflicts and continuous tensions, especially in the absence of a genuine international will to achieve a just and comprehensive settlement. Regional dynamics make it difficult to imagine a radical solution on the near horizon. Thus, these negotiations between Israel and Hamas-even if they achieve temporary success-are insufficient to bridge a deepening gap that continues to widen with time.
A Brief Background to the Arab-Israeli Conflict:
The Arab-Israeli conflict, now referred to as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict due to the fragmentation and decline of Arab support for the Palestinian cause, traces its roots to the British colonial period in the Middle East, particularly on the land of historic Palestine. The beginnings of this conflict date back to the early 20th century, when Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. With the end of World War, I and the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Palestine became a territory under British mandate in accordance with the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916, which divided spheres of influence between major colonial powers and created Arab leaderships and regimes that persist to this day.
The critical moment that clearly marked the start of the conflict was the issuance of the Balfour Declaration in 1917. The British government issued an official letter to Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild expressing its support for the establishment of a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine. This declaration sparked concern among the Arab peoples, including the Palestinians who lived on the land of Palestine, as they saw Britain seeking to grant their land to an external colonial movement. This statement marked the beginning of real tensions between the Palestinians and Western powers, which supported increasing Jewish immigration to Palestine.
With the beginning of Jewish immigration to Palestine, the Arab population began to feel threatened demographically and politically. Although Jewish immigration initially started slowly and sporadically, it accelerated significantly later, especially with the increasing migration of Jews from Europe to Palestine. This migration contributed to the escalating tensions between Arabs and Jews in Palestine, as Palestinians felt they were gradually being replaced on their lands and expelled into exile in various countries around the world.
The Seeds of the Zionist Movement:
The roots of the Zionist movement date back to the late 19th century, specifically in 1897, when Theodor Herzl officially established the Zionist movement during the First Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland. The main goal of this movement was to establish a national state for the Jews in Palestine in response to the challenges faced by Jews in Europe. The driving force behind this movement was the belief in the necessity of finding a national home to unite Jews in one place, where they could live freely and safely. The Zionist movement viewed Palestine as the "historic homeland" for the Jews based on Jewish religious beliefs and heritage. This goal led the Zionist movement to focus its efforts on purchasing Palestinian land to settle Jews there, further intensifying tensions with Palestinian citizens and Arabs in general.
The Establishment of Israel and the Impact of the 1948 Nakba on Palestinians and Refugees:
After the end of the British mandate over Palestine in 1948, the Jews declared the establishment of the State of Israel on May 14 of the same year. This declaration coincided with the Arab states' declaration of war on Israel in an attempt to prevent the division of Palestine and the establishment of the Jewish state. With the outbreak of this war, approximately 750,000 Palestinians were displaced from their villages and towns to neighboring countries, which later became known as the "Nakba."
Palestinian communities were greatly affected by this forced displacement, with hundreds of Palestinian villages destroyed and turned into Jewish settlements. The Palestinian refugee crisis became a central part of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, as these refugees continue to live in camps in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and other parts of the Arab world. The right of return for these refugees to their homes in occupied Palestine remains one of the main unresolved issues hindering any political solution to the conflict.
International positions towards the Palestinian issue have varied significantly. While the United States and Britain openly supported the establishment of the State of Israel, official Arab positions were entirely opposed to this proposition, despite secret relations and communications some Arab countries had with Israel at that time. Western support, especially from the United States, played a critical role in enabling Israel to expand and seize more Palestinian land after the 1948 war. This support came in the form of economic and military aid, along with broad political backing in international forums like the United Nations.
On the Arab side, official positions toward the establishment of Israel were only united symbolically and in media statements rejecting or condemning Israel's establishment. Traditional wars with Israel followed to save face in front of Arab peoples. However, this Arab unity was fragile and short-lived due to internal divisions among Arab countries over how to deal with Israel and resolve the Palestinian issue.
Despite repeated attempts to unify the Arab stance, international interventions, especially from the U.S., only added to the complexity of the political landscape in the region.
The Role of Oslo and Madrid:
The Oslo and Madrid Accords played a significant role in changing the political landscape of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The peace process between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) began in earnest after the Madrid Peace Conference in 1991. This was the first time Israel and the Palestinians sat together at the negotiation table under international sponsorship. The Madrid Conference was part of an initiative launched by the United States following the Gulf War, aimed at resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict within a negotiation framework.
These efforts and initiatives culminated in the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, which were the first of their kind where the PLO recognized Israel and committed to ceasing hostilities against it. In return, Israel recognized the PLO as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. The accords led to the establishment of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA), which served as a form of self-governance over specific areas of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
However, the Oslo Accords did not resolve key issues such as the status of Jerusalem, refugees, final borders, and settlements. The delay in implementing these accords and the erosion of trust between both sides deepened the divide between Israel and the Palestinians, allowing for the rise of movements like Hamas, which opposed Oslo and did not recognize such agreements.
Hamas and the Palestinian Authority:
The internal conflict between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority (PA) has been a key factor in the failure of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. After Hamas won the Palestinian legislative elections in 2006, tensions escalated between Hamas and Fatah, the latter represented by the Palestinian Authority. In 2007, Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip by force after bloody clashes with Fatah forces, effectively splitting the authority between the West Bank, controlled by the PA, and the Gaza Strip, controlled by Hamas.
These internal divisions weakened the Palestinian position in any negotiations with Israel, as there was no longer a unified Palestinian authority representing all Palestinians. For Israel, this internal Palestinian split justified its hardline stance in negotiations with Hamas, viewing the Palestinian Authority as lacking full control over all Palestinian territories.
Israel considers Hamas a terrorist entity and does not recognize it as a partner in any negotiations with the Palestinians. For Israel, the military operations Hamas conducts against Israeli civilians, in addition to the rockets launched from Gaza, represent an unacceptable security threat. This Israeli stance complicates any peace efforts, as Israel refuses to directly negotiate with Hamas.
On the other hand, Hamas views itself as a resistance movement, and its fundamental position is the rejection of Israel's recognition. Hamas also refuses all agreements that recognize Israel, such as the Oslo Accords. The movement seeks to establish an independent Palestinian state on all of historic Palestine, making negotiations with Israel challenging due to the fundamental political differences between the two sides.
International Mediation:
There have been numerous international mediations between Israel and Hamas in attempts to resolve the escalating conflict between the two sides. Both Egypt and Qatar have played prominent roles in mediating between the parties. Egypt, in particular, has played a crucial role in brokering ceasefire agreements and truces between Israel and Hamas, especially during military escalations in the Gaza Strip. This is largely due to Egypt’s strong relations with both parties, as Egypt directly interacts with Hamas due to its control over the Rafah crossing, while also serving as a key security partner for Israel. Qatar has also played a significant role by providing financial aid to Gaza, making it an influential player in dealings with Hamas. Meanwhile, the United States, as Israel's strategic ally, has supported peace efforts but has largely been biased in favor of Israel.
Despite these mediations, efforts have faced major obstacles due to the entrenched positions of both parties. The United Nations has played a secondary role, primarily through humanitarian aid and limited political interventions.
The Consequences of the Gaza War:
Since Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip, Israel has imposed a suffocating blockade on the region in an effort to curb Hamas's military capabilities and prevent the smuggling of weapons. However, this blockade has had a severe impact on the humanitarian situation in Gaza, leading to economic paralysis and worsening unemployment and poverty rates. Most of Gaza's population lives under extremely harsh conditions, marked by shortages of water, electricity, and basic necessities. This has been especially evident following Hamas's "Al-Aqsa Flood" attack on October 7, 2023. The resulting continuous Israeli bombardment of Gaza has led to massive civilian casualties, with more than 41,084 civilian deaths, including 16,673 children and 11,269 women, as well as 1,049 elderly, and 699 victims in the West Bank. These numbers were accurate at the time this study was prepared. The Gaza war can simply be described as the unparalleled catastrophe of the third millennium.
The humanitarian situation has deteriorated to the point that Gaza has become a disaster zone, lacking the basic elements of human survival. This reality makes the resumption of any future negotiations exceedingly difficult, as Hamas sets strict conditions for the success of any talks, most notably the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip, including key strategic areas like the Netzarim Corridor and the Philadelphi Corridor or Route. Hamas sees this withdrawal as a fundamental precondition for any progress toward a peace agreement. However, Israel completely rejects this demand and insists on remaining in those areas, citing them as vital to its security strategy to prevent arms smuggling and protect its borders, further complicating the prospects for a political solution.
Israel’s security strategy, since its founding, has always been centered on safeguarding its borders and deterring external threats, particularly from Palestinians and neighboring Arab states. This strategy is a core part of Israeli doctrine, where security takes precedence over any attempts to achieve peace or make concessions in future negotiations.
The Alternative Homeland Project:
The idea of the "alternative homeland" has been around for decades and involves relocating Palestinians to other countries, particularly Jordan, to resolve the Palestinian issue once and for all. This concept gained momentum after the Nakba of 1948, when hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were displaced to Jordan and neighboring countries. With the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and escalating tensions, the notion of the "alternative homeland" has emerged as a potential solution to relieve pressure on Israel by resettling Palestinians in Jordan and turning it into a Palestinian state.
Although the alternative homeland project has not become an official policy of successive Israeli governments, it now enjoys substantial support within Israel and in international circles that believe Jordan is the ultimate solution to the conflict. By relocating Palestinians to Jordan, Israel could solve the demographic problem it faces and secure full control over Palestinian territories without the threat of an internal demographic challenge.
The Jordanian Monarchy's Position:
The Jordanian monarchy, under King Abdullah II, has adopted a cautious and pragmatic approach to sensitive issues, including the alternative homeland project. While the public stance of the regime is one of outright rejection of this project, with King Abdullah II repeatedly affirming that Jordan is not a substitute for Palestine and that no arrangements undermining Palestinian rights can be accepted, the truth behind the scenes suggests a different scenario. International reports and informed sources indicate that King Abdullah II has effectively given the green light to discuss the possibility of implementing the alternative homeland project, but with key conditions that ensure it is carried out under the leadership of the Jordanian monarchy.
This move, which comes within a delicate political framework, has led to increased discussion in international circles and within Israel about the potential for implementing the alternative homeland project under the leadership of the Jordanian monarchy. The Jordanian regime sees arrangements that preserve its control over demographic and political changes in the country, along with guarantees of billions in international aid, as a way to transform this project from a threat into an opportunity to strengthen Jordan’s position on the regional and international stage.
King Abdullah II is seeking to capitalize on international and regional support, particularly from the United States and European countries. In this context, it appears that the Jordanian regime is ready to accept the alternative homeland project if it is implemented under its leadership and in a way that ensures full control over its consequences, both domestically and externally. The increasing discussion of this scenario within Israel and Washington reflects the regional and international awareness of Jordan’s crucial role in realizing such projects, especially if presented as part of a comprehensive solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
At the same time, King Abdullah II is keen to maintain a delicate balance between quietly accepting the project behind closed doors and presenting a public stance of opposition to it to avoid losing internal popular support, especially from groups that view the alternative homeland project as a threat to Jordanian national identity. The monarchy thus continues to handle this issue cautiously; aware that any public move toward accepting the project will require significant domestic and international preparation. King Abdullah II aims to turn potential threats into opportunities while maintaining the stability of the regime and enhancing Jordan’s strategic position on the world stage.
In times of war, as in peace, the awareness of the Palestinian and Jordanian peoples is essential. The issue is not just about a devastated or minimized homeland; it is a crisis involving people being manipulated by leaders in the East and West, North and South. The compass must always point toward the right of people to self-determination and sovereignty. Has the message been received?
*Political Analyst and Poet
Email: vipyazeed@gmail.com
Comments