Can any external mediator resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict?
The new wave of violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that erupted following an attack by armed Palestinian factions on Israel on October 7 has become one of the most significant events in the chronicle of Middle Eastern discord.
The fighting has been relentless for ten months, causing civilian deaths in Gaza each day, while the shadows of an escalating conflict loom ever darker with the potential involvement of another militarized non-state group – the Lebanon-based Hezbollah.
Over many years of confrontation between Palestinians and Israelis, the current conflict has led to an unprecedented international public reaction, with massive anti-Israel protests held in major cities around the world, demanding an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. A number of European countries, including Spain, Ireland, and Norway, decided to officially recognize the Palestinian state, partly satisfying the demands of demonstrators and showing that the authorities are listening to public opinion.
Some countries have taken a tougher stance on Israel’s actions. In December 2023, South Africa filed a lawsuit against Israel at the International Court of Justice of the UN for a possible violation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. On January 26 of this year, the court ruled that the Jewish state must take all necessary measures to prevent genocide in the Palestinian enclave. Iran, Turkey, Indonesia, Algeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, several Latin American countries, and others have taken a firm pro-Palestinian stance, demanding an immediate ceasefire and the withdrawal of armed forces from Gaza.
Most regional and global players are still striving to resolve the conflict, but so far, no visible results have been observed. Russia, as part of the Middle East Quartet on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resolution, had repeatedly called for negotiations and a settlement based on UN Security Council resolutions even before the events of October 7. Moscow still declares that peace is only possible through establishing political dialogue and creating a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders. Russia has also repeatedly held high-level meetings between Hamas and Fatah, the two main Palestinian political parties. A unified political representation of the Palestinian people is necessary to formulate a main position and represent it in negotiations with Israel, but all Russian initiatives have often been blocked by the US and the EU, who are also part of the Middle East Quartet.
China wants to give it a try
China, in its quest to cement its status as a global player, intervenes diplomatically in international and regional conflicts, particularly noticeable in the Middle East. In 2023, Beijing facilitated a landmark agreement to normalize relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran. This effort underscores China’s growing interest in playing a mediatory role in protracted and complex disputes, such as the Palestinian issue.
The ‘One Belt, One Road’ initiative encompasses Middle Eastern countries where stability is critically important for the success of strategies aimed at creating new trade corridors and investment flows. Resolving the Palestinian issue would ensure predictability and security necessary for protecting and attracting Chinese investments.
China’s peace plan for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, proposed last November, marks a significant shift in its foreign policy by aiming to establish two independent states as a resolution to this enduring conflict. This proposal is an integral part of Beijing’s broader vision to play a constructive role in global geopolitical issues, leveraging its growing influence.
The Chinese peace initiative is structured around several foundational principles. First, it promotes mutual recognition, encouraging both Israel and Palestine to acknowledge each other’s sovereignty and independent status. This acknowledgment is vital for affirming their right to exist and coexist peacefully. The plan also supports returning to the 1967 borders, with adjustments through mutually agreed land swaps to accommodate the current realities and needs of both sides.
Security is another critical component of the plan. It includes robust security guarantees for both states to address Israel’s concerns about safety and to provide mechanisms that ensure Palestine can maintain order within its borders and prevent acts of aggression. This balanced approach aims to foster a durable peace by addressing the core concerns of both parties, setting a foundation for future stability and cooperation in the region.
In January of this year, China, in collaboration with the Arab League, initiated the idea of organizing a major peace conference aimed at stabilizing the situation in Gaza, affirming Beijing’s serious intentions. Next week, China will host representatives from Hamas and Fatah for negotiations, highlighting Beijing’s active role in attempting to normalize relations between key Palestinian factions and contributing to the overall peace process.
These efforts by China not only highlight its global ambitions but also advance its economic interests in the Middle East, strengthening Beijing’s position on the international stage. However, despite progress in the Palestinian issue, current initiatives may face challenges due to cooling relations with Israel and strengthening ties between the Jewish state and other strategic partners, such as India. These factors introduce uncertainty into the dialogue and may complicate the achievement of long-term peace.
The US tries, but struggles
The administration of US President Joe Biden is actively involved in efforts to resolve the long-standing conflict. Despite strong strategic and military ties with Israel, the US has opposed a ground operation by Israel in Gaza, pressuring Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to exercise restraint and seek peaceful solutions. This is not surprising, as Washington does not need additional tension in the Middle East while it is actively confronting Russia, fueling the conflict in Ukraine, and containing China. The US may lack the resources for another “big war” to defend Israel.
Therefore, at the onset of the conflict’s escalation, the US, along with Egypt and Qatar, took steps toward de-escalation. However, as history shows, even years of effort have not led to a stable ceasefire. At the beginning of this month, it was announced that a preliminary agreement had been reached between Israel and Hamas, including a ceasefire and a hostage exchange. President Biden, noting this on social media, emphasized that, despite the agreements reached, there is still much work to be done.
The Biden administration has proposed a comprehensive plan aimed at gradually resolving the conflict. The first phase of the plan includes establishing a ceasefire, an initial exchange of hostages, increasing the volume of humanitarian aid, and starting negotiations for a complete cessation of hostilities. The second phase involves the withdrawal of Israeli military forces from Gaza and the release of the remaining hostages by Palestinian groups. The third phase is focused on initiating projects to rebuild Gaza with the support of the international community, which includes investments in infrastructure and vital institutions of the region.
Implementing this ambitious plan will require significant efforts and careful coordination at the international level. The success of the agreement between Israel and Hamas could be an important step toward long-term peace, but it requires the support of all interested parties, including active participation by regional powers and international organizations.
The US, while maintaining its role as a committed ally of Israel and continuing to provide military support, faces the need to balance strategic interests with the desire for a peaceful resolution of the conflict. This complex balance requires Washington to continue seeking ways to stabilize the region, reduce tensions, and support the peace dialogue process. However, against the backdrop of the Biden administration’s “cool” relations with Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister’s unwillingness to cater to Washington’s dictates, and a fierce election race in the States themselves, the real possibilities for the US to facilitate peace in Gaza are approaching zero.
Mediators can only do so much
The conflict in Gaza continues to deepen despite international efforts to resolve it. Recently, on July 13, the Palestinian Ministry of Health reported the tragic consequences of an Israeli attack in the Al-Mawasi area of Khan Yunis, where 71 people were killed and 289 were injured. The attack was allegedly targeting Muhammad Deif, the leader of Hamas’ military wing, although his elimination has not been confirmed.
Decades of conflict have led to radicalization on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides. Relations between Israel and Hamas, which governs Gaza, are complicated by deep political disagreements: Israel considers Hamas a terrorist organization, while Hamas does not recognize the legitimacy of Israel. These fundamental differences create significant obstacles to peaceful dialogue, exacerbated by security issues, rocket fire, and the Israeli blockade of Gaza, which causes serious humanitarian problems and international condemnation.
Additionally, the sides’ views on a long-term political solution to the conflict radically diverge. Israel demands security guarantees, while Hamas insists on ending the Israeli occupation and recognizing Palestinian rights. These conflicting positions complicate the search for compromises.
The situation is further complicated by the hardline policy of Netanyahu’s government, which aims to completely destroy Hamas. Despite prolonged military action, Hamas has not been fully eliminated, and support for its ideology is growing among Palestinians, especially in the West Bank, traditionally considered a Fatah stronghold.
An internal political crisis in Israel, exacerbated by attempts at judicial reform and mass protests against the government before the conflict began, also adds tension. The economic situation, weakened by the pandemic and worsened by the conflict, has led to the threat of thousands of businesses closing.
These circumstances lead to accusations against Netanyahu that he does not aim to end the conflict, as it could lead to his resignation and the activation of legal investigations against him. It is possible that the conflict will continue until the potential return of Donald Trump to the White House, and all current attempts at resolution may prove futile.
But the problem is not only with the Israeli authorities. The conflict between Hamas and Fatah is one of the key internal factors complicating the process of resolving the Palestinian issue. These two main Palestinian factions have different ideological roots, political platforms, and strategies regarding Israel, which significantly affect the political landscape of Palestine.
Fatah, a traditionally moderate and secular organization founded by Yasser Arafat in 1959, has long dominated the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Fatah focuses on negotiations and the political process as a means to achieve Palestinian statehood and recognition.
On the other hand, Hamas, which emerged in the late 1980s during the First Intifada, is an Islamist group that aims to liberate Palestine from Israeli occupation through armed resistance and social work among the population. Hamas believes that ceasing military action against Israel is a betrayal of the Palestinian cause.
Relations between Hamas and Fatah are complicated by periodic outbreaks of violence. The most vivid manifestation of this was the bloody confrontation in 2007 when Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip as a result of an armed conflict, while Fatah retained power on the West Bank of the Jordan River. This division has deepened the geographical and political fragmentation of the Palestinian territories, complicating efforts for national unity.
The division between Hamas and Fatah and the lack of a unified Palestinian national strategy seriously hinder negotiations with Israel. The international community, including countries supporting the peace process, often has to choose whom to conduct dialogue with, creating additional contradictions and mistrust.
Hamas, controlling Gaza, rejects current peace initiatives as too conciliatory, while Fatah, more open to dialogue, faces criticism from its supporters for being willing to compromise, which can be perceived as betraying Palestinian interests.
To achieve sustainable peace, internal reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah is necessary, requiring significant efforts from both sides and support from the international community. Only by forming a united Palestinian front can a compromise be reached that satisfies the basic demands of all parties and leads to long-term peaceful resolution.
Thus, it is possible that the activities of global mediators may lead to a ceasefire in Gaza, although the likelihood of such an outcome at this stage is extremely low. For a sustainable and final resolution of the Middle East conflict, primarily, the consolidation of the Palestinians and Israelis themselves is necessary with the intention to end the years-long war and coexist in harmony.
