Everything that was tried has been a litany of failure
There are moments in history when existing paradigms collapse, and great change becomes possible. Such moments gave us the end of colonialism, slavery, empires, and communism. Often they follow great calamities, like the two World Wars, of the one we are currently enduring in the Middle East.
Until now, many considered it self-evident that the two-state solution is the only way forward on Palestine. They believed that Israel cannot absorb millions of Arabs – and also bet that the Palestinians will responsibly govern themselves, which has to date not occurred. But after the shockingly barbaric massacre of 1,400 Israelis by Hamas terrorists from Gaza (the Mediterranean coastal strip from which Israel had totally pulled out in 2005), even a moderate future Israeli government will balk at a similar complete handover of the other Palestinian territory, the West Bank (which could put the next potential swarm of marauders on the outskirts of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv).
Essentially everything tried so far to end the Middle East conflict has failed: The total Arab rejection of the early years; Palestinian uprisings; the starry-eyed Oslo peace process with its Nobel Prizes; unilateral pullouts; Arab boycotts of Israel and Israeli blockades and bombardments of Gaza. It is a litany of failure that has brought us to this point.
I still favor a partition of the Holy Land; it remains the least-bad option. But it seems that new ideas are needed to get there. Instead, we get the ossified routine.
For example, that Israel must invade and reoccupy Gaza (despite the mass casualties that will result and the obvious absence of a day-after plan). Or that peace with Saudi Arabia must now be put on hold (even though Riyadh’s rulers still desire it). Or that if the the criminals of Hezbollah drag poor Lebanon again into the fray, they can be supported with impunity by Iran and other than urging restraint on Israel there’s not much to be done.
I’d like to propose an alternative approach: To critically examine the old ideas and blow up routinely applied assumptions. Here’s a sampling.
Saudi Arabia
Rather than handing Hamas and Iran a win, the Saudis should fast-track peace with Israel and drag Kuwait along with them (as I argue in the TV appearance below). Let the “Arab street” protest all it wants. Doing the right thing despite hotheads in the street is one of the few advantages of being a dictatorship.
Israel needs this prize to delay sending troops into Gaza, or to keep any operation short (some ground phase has indeed begun already), and instead focus on its hostage crisis. Saudi Arabia would get its security umbrella from the US, and a say in what happens next in Palestine, which it has always wanted. All sides would prosper. The only real holdouts to regional peace would be an array of failed states — Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Libya (the latter two may be suggestible).
War on Terror
There should be zero tolerance for Hamas and Lebanon’s Hezbollah. These terrorist groups exist solely to create chaos and bloodshed and wherever possible impose radical Islam. To various degrees they answer to Iran, which wants nothing good for Palestine and Lebanon. If Gaza lies in ruins, if thousands are dead there, this nihilist coterie records a win; they want the same for Lebanon. If Western markets become rattled, if the US starts to look militarily overstretched, all that is icing on the cake.
The US and the EU should make any connection with, funding of or sanctuary for these groups heavily illegal. That begins with Qatar, which operates as a base and a bank for Hamas, yet also hosted the World Cup and wants a seat at the table of civilized nations. As for Iran, the sanctions should return with redoubled force and EU participation until Tehran leaves Lebanon and Palestine alone. Yes, I know Iran has natural gas, and colludes on energy skullduggery with Russia; no one said it would be easy.
International rescue plan for Gaza
Gaza has long been a thorn in the world’s side, probably at no time more so than today. And an Israeli invasion will result in thousands more martyrs and refugees, along with a replenished stock of terrorists — a massive gift for Iran. The global community (and the Arab world) should commit $500 billion to a rebuilding fund — conditioned on the removal of Hamas. In its place will rise a rejuvenated version of the Palestinian Authority in the long term, and some form of international protectorate — perhaps with an Arab force — in the short term. It is the least bad option – certainly less bad than an Israeli occupation.
The situation is hugely complex, but the key is creating maximal pressure on Hamas, along with crushing isolation. One alternative might be for Israel and Egypt to further tighten their blockade while allowing out those who wish to leave for the West Bank, with generous assistance along the way and a solid guarantee they can return (if they actually so desire). If Hamas forces everyone to stay, that would create even further dissent and pressure on the group inside the strip. Despotic rulers eventually are toppled. The civil war that will break out in Gaza will be long overdue.
The Jordanian option
By turning Israel into an evenly binational and not-so-democratic state, Israel’s West Bank settlements are one of history’s spectacular blunders. That said, the Palestinians cannot be trusted at present to rule the territory fully; some version of Hamas could very well take over, primed and ready to make monumental trouble. Neighboring Jordan doesn’t want more Palestinians but sufficiently incentivized it might reconsider receiving control over parts of the West Bank as an interim solution if Israel pulls out of them.
Basically, the Palestinians need to see movement toward independence in the West Bank, and to have their non-contiguous islands of autonomy connected and upgraded. Israel fears a vacuum; Jordan can assist, along perhaps with other Arab players. It’s a big ask, but Jordan’s economy is hurting hard and even kingdoms can always name their price.
This might also nudge the region toward understanding that there is nothing necessarily sacrosanct about the 1967 borders that define the West Bank and Gaza — they’re just the cease-fire lines of 1949. Maybe the Palestinians should have more; maybe they should have less; but that this random armistice line is the epitome of historical justice would be an improbable coincidence.
Internationalization of the Old City
Suleiman the Magnificent did everyone a favor in building the stone walls around the Old City of Jerusalem. It is ready-made for Vaticanization. The Palestinians have demanded a partition of the entire city of Jerusalem, which given the history of conflict would require an impenetrable new border snaking through a dense urban landscape. Instead, Israel should consider forsaking formal sovereignty over the walled Old City only, with a new administration involving interested Muslim parties such as existing allies like Morocco and Jordan as well as . . . Saudi Arabia.
Israel would handle security. Just as the Vatican is not formally part of Italy but is realistically still in Rome, so would the Old City not formally be in Israel but realistically still be in Jerusalem. Palestinians would have to be slightly less fanatical about sole possession of the Haram-a-Sharif (a.k.a. the Temple Mount); religious Jewish Israelis would need to get over themselves and accept an elegant solution to a combustible dilemma.
None of the ones I sketch above would be popular at first, or maybe ever. And each invites ridicule from the purveyors of conventional wisdom and inside-the-box thinking. But together they would reshuffle the deck of the benighted Middle East.
Never has the need for reshuffling been greater. The victims on both sides of the catastrophic last three weeks are evidence enough for me.
