I have been reluctant to write on the crisis that has gripped the Middle East since the Hamas’ November 2023 surprise attack in Israel triggered a chain of violent events that have spread their tentacles to Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, and now Iran. For now, the climax has been the direct exchange of fire for about two weeks between Israel and Iran. This was the first time in history the two nations were engaging in direct and continuous fighting. Before now, it had been Israel against Iran’s proxies in Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen, and Iraq. However, last year saw the two nations twice engage each other in one-off, but measured, tit-for-tat, skirmishes as Iran sought to uphold some pride in the face of Israel’s decapitation of its proxies – the so-called axis of resistance – in Gaza and Lebanon. Mercifully, we now have a cease fire between the two regional powers, at least for now.
My reluctance to comment on the Middle East crisis is borne of my realization that, in the arena of international politics, it is difficult to apply any clear and consistent moral compass in gauging actions of nations, making it quite a complex task to pass judgment as to who is right or wrong. Nations, while acting on the international scene, are often motivated by deep-seated interests, spoken or unspoken, and, many a time, do take the liberty to pursue these interests in disregard to morality and law – if indeed there is any such law. British empiricist, John Locke, noted that while the political processes within nations have become rooted in law and order, the politics of international relations still operates based on the lawlessness of the “state of nature,” where might is right. Therefore, looking into the arena of international politics what one observes is a complicated medley of interacting interests, sometimes overlapping, sometimes conflicting, with everyone, nonetheless, seeking to preserve theirs, employing both legitimate and illegitimate means in a space where strength can always prevail over law and morality. In that muddled mix of interests and manoeuvres, making a categorical moral judgment for or against any of the actors becomes a risky endeavour.
Be that as it may – and at the risk of being accused of bias by persons nursing sympathy for either side of the conflict – I wish to comment on what I believe to be the way out of the unyielding atmosphere of hostility and cycle of violence haunting the Middle East since the creation of the modern state of Israel. In so doing, I will be making my personal assessment of the dynamics shaping the Israel-US-Iran tripartite politics that is critical to the lingering crisis. Inevitably, this will involve apportioning blame where necessary, but less for the purpose of showing moral or legal liability than for the purpose of pointing out what the parties should do or refrain from doing in order to serve the cause of peace in the region.
First is to acknowledge the undeniable fact that the US is critical to peace in the Middle East, hence so much depends on what it does or fails to do. No world power currently is anywhere near the magnitude of power projection the US has entrenched in the region – both in military and diplomatic terms – so none can be more influential than it.
But truth is that in many instances, the US has failed to live up to its bidding in terms of pursuing peace in the region. It has not leveraged its influence over Israel to squeeze out decisive concessions from the Jewish state on key issues of dispute. The most critical of them is the two-state solution which some of Israel’s actions, such as continued building of settlements in the occupied territories, have increasingly compromised. This reinforcement of occupation has also been responsible for years of bloody skirmishes between Israeli civilians and Palestinians, especially in the West Bank.
While the United States has from time to time sought to put pressure on Israel through acts like sanctioning of its citizens involved in violence against Palestinians in the West Bank and public criticism of some of its actions, these moves have not been reasonably decisive to make any visible impact on the crisis. Rather, the US has shown more decisiveness in giving military aid to Israel and giving it diplomatic cover at the United Nations, most visibly, by vetoing anti-Israel resolutions. Surely, the United States and the West in general will share a part of the moral blame for the unyielding logjam in the Middle East conflict.
However, it will be foolhardy for anyone to have expected the United States to cease supporting and backing its vital ally Israel and joining critics to antagonise the Jewish state’s international actions, just to appear as a blameless peacemaker in the region. One would be downright unrealistic to recommend this as the solution because it will never happen. America’s ties with Israel are beyond the mere ideological; it extends to mutual benefits in concrete areas like security, economy, science and technology. The US sees Israel as its dependable proxy in the Middle East where it needs to assert itself in preservation of its economic and security interest. America relies highly on Israel’s defence intelligence as spearheaded by the famously dependable Mossad. Besides, the two nations collaborate intensely on scientific research and development including in the areas of defence, cyberspace, and biomedical knowledge.
So, Israel is a huge asset to the United States and vice versa. In the interest-centred arena of international politics, no one discards its beneficial ally, much less when the ally offers so much as Israel does to the US. A strong Israel gives the United States a veritable strategic advantage in the diplomatic and economic politics of the Middle East, and no nation deliberately throws away its strategic advantage just to be hailed as responsible. Not even the countries criticizing America’s staunch pro-Israel policy will take this path. The sphere of international relations isn’t famous for moral consistency.
So, I would not bank on the unrealistic prescription that the US should suddenly become the fabled Greek goddess of justice, Nemesis, who wields a sword and a scale with which she dispenses justice without seeing through the fabrics of her blindfold. Rather, I would advocate for a creative compromise on the part of the United States wherein it does more to pressure Israel into making decisive concessions – such that will be effective for peace in the Middle East while preserving the core of the American-Jewish interest. These concessions must include a firm commitment to two-state solution and ending of occupation of Gaza, West Bank, and East Jerusalem. Can America successfully do this? Yes, it can if it prioritises this strategy over every other one available to it. And its allies in NATO, EU, and the G-8 have a role to play in persuading and pressurizing the US to take this course.
Then, coming to Israel, the party directly in conflict with Palestine; peace in the Middle East is so much dependent on how much brave it can be to confront the reality that the security it is in dire need of can only be guaranteed through diplomatic compromises and not weapons of war. Indeed, it doesn’t need this advice having fought many wars since 1948 and so is in a perfect position to see by itself the endless path that approach leads everyone through.
Pointedly, Israel should come out of the illusion that there is any more viable path to resolution than the two-state option. For years, the primary sentiment fuelling Palestinian resistance and all its violent ramifications is the loss of their statehood following the six days war of 1967; so to make peace, the logical thing is to return their statehood to them. Having back their state is a matter of racial and historical pride, which no one should expect them to give up.
There are two factors that have complicated the quest to realize the two-state solution. First is Israel’s security concern that a Palestine with a full state status would mean effectively bringing Iran too close for comfort. Israel feels safer contending with headaches it is getting from a quasi-state actor like Hamas than having to deal with a fully-fledged state actor, enjoying sovereignty and international legitimacy, and fortified with a military force – yet remaining a proxy that does Iran’s bidding. The lingo-ideological framework of the modern politics permits it to designate and deal with Hamas and any other armed Palestinian group as a terrorist entity, but all that will change once such a group assumes the status of an actor of a sovereign state.
So, Israel is suspicious, hence its proposals in the past that any future Palestinian state will have no military. But then, the proposal has, expectedly, been rebuffed. No nation effectively claims sovereignty without its own standing army. An exception is the Holy See which, being a country within a country (Italy), is naturally under the protection of the Italian military – an arrangement that has been codified in a treaty between Italy and the Holy See (Vatican).
The second factor making the two-state solution seems far-fetched is the complex internal political landscape of Israel where ideological differences are preventing consensus on how to respond to the Palestinian question, especially regarding the two-state option. While the Likud Party of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu holds moderate views on this, far-right parties such as Otzma Yehudit, HaTzionut HaDatit, and Noam – some of them part of the uneasy alliance that constitutes the present government – maintain a hard-line stance that excludes any future Palestinian state. This far-right ideology is not something anyone can ignore in Israel, especially as these ultra-consertive parties gain more seats in the Knesset (Israeli parliament) lately. Recent statements from Prime Minister Netanyahu strongly suggest that his party’s moderate views on two-state solution are being replaced by a hard-line stance that rebuffs the option. This state of affairs is not helped by events including the November 8, 2023 Hamas attacks on Israel and the response of Iran and its proxies –especially Hezbollah in Lebanon and Houthis in Yemen – to Israel’s retaliatory war in Gaza.
So, it is a really complicated situation here. However, a courageous change of approach can do the magic. Wars will continue to harden historical bitterness, especially when they prove costly in terms of lives of defenceless people as is the case with Israel’s over-one-year assault on Gaza. More radicalisation of succeeding generations will be the likely outcome of children persistently watching the degree of destruction that cuts lives short and devastates homes and the environment. So, while it is a really difficult and complex task, Israel must embrace the challenge. Luckily for the Jewish state, it is the much stronger party in the conflict, and so would have to make much lesser concessions than the Palestinians in any negotiated settlement. So, it should go for it, especially knowing that this is the only way out.
The first act to demonstrate decisive goodwill on Israel’s part will be to dismantle the settlements it has built in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and end the occupation of both Gaza and West Bank as soon as possible, once permanent cease fire is secured in the ongoing conflict with Hamas.
Iran is the next party which has a lot to do and refrain from doing to end the logjam in the Israel-Palestine relations. Its role in the entire event has introduced so much complications to the scenario. I will address this in the concluding part of this essay.
TO BE CONCLUDED NEXT WEEK.
Henry Chigozie Duru, PhD, teaches journalism and mass communication at Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Nigeria.
Thanks for the analysis.