True peace eludes Middle East without Palestinian statehood

Peace talks remain superficial gestures, leaving the region trapped in cycles of conflict

Even if a ceasefire were to be reached and diplomatic talks commenced, the true stability in the Middle East will continue to be out of reach without addressing the Palestinian statehood rights.

Achieving a truce in the region without addressing that goal is mere self-deception. For nearly a century, the wars and suffering witnessed have been caused, directly or indirectly, by this unresolved issue.

As long as there is no consensus among Palestinians regarding their objectives, the path to peace will be fraught with obstacles, forming a complex and difficult equation.

The situation in Palestine differs fundamentally from other historical occupations like the British in India, the French in Algeria, or the American presence in Japan. Instead, what exists in Palestine is akin to a “settlement” that finds its only parallel in South Africa; other settlements, like those in Australia or North America, effectively diminished the native populations to near extinction.

Settler occupation leads either to coexistence at best or decay at worst. Genuine coexistence requires political awareness free from populism and demands a different political strategy than typical decolonisation movements. Nelson Mandela, for instance, did not expel white South Africans, despite calls from some of his supporters. Instead, he rose above populist rhetoric, embracing inclusivity even with a majority population.

Some Palestinian factions are open to coexistence, yet they often lack populist appeal. Meanwhile, others are unwilling to compromise on anything short of liberating “all of Palestine.” The division among Palestinian groups serves to benefit their adversary, with evidence showing that Israel, particularly the Israeli right, has leveraged and at times even funded these internal divisions.

On the other hand, there is a faction within Israeli politics, often referred to as the “Israeli right,” that opposes the establishment of a Palestinian state. This group, along with Palestinian elements that seek total liberation “from the river to the sea,” perpetuates the conflict, trapping the entire region in a cycle of strife. This situation hinders both forces that seek to exploit the status quo and those that aim for regional development and progress.

Some in Israel believe that establishing a Palestinian state is the best way forward for internal Israeli peace. However, both Israeli and Palestinian extremism often work in tandem to silence those voices through threats of genocide, forced evacuation, and violence.

The Oslo Accords, for example, were halted by an indirect collaboration between the Israeli right, which escalated tensions and assassinated Yitzhak Rabin, the architect of Oslo, and the Palestinian hardliners who launched countermeasures that fuelled right-wing momentum, contributing to the failure of the first credible path toward a settlement.

Advocating for a settlement

Following any ceasefire, given the Israeli state’s legal structures and the unprecedented losses Israel has faced, a significant portion of Israelis may begin to question the hardline approach that has brought them to the brink of internal and external peril. This introspection could lead to the rise of a movement advocating for a settlement.

Interestingly, the two most hardline figures in the current Israeli government, Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, advocate for measures reminiscent of the treatment of Native Americans. Their extremism can be partly traced to their ethnic backgrounds — Ben-Gvir from an Iraqi background and Smotrich from a Ukrainian background.

Feeling part of a minority, they turn to populist tactics as a strategy to project themselves as extreme nationalists. This does not imply that others are not extreme, but rather that political tactics have become a tool for gaining influence.

Following the significant losses suffered by Israel over the past year, there is a possibility that a political group seeking compromise may emerge. However, this potential outcome hinges on the presence of a balanced Palestinian political movement that avoids populist rhetoric and is backed by meaningful democratic reforms within the Palestinian Authority. These steps are essential before any progress can be made toward a political solution.

At that point, Arab and allied countries could work to advance the statehood project through diplomatic efforts, following the model of Saudi Arabia’s initiative within the International Coalition for the Palestinian State, which has gained substantial international support.

These are just general expectations for what might unfold, contingent on a significant reduction in populism — which has influenced the issue at every stage — and moving away from the myths and misconceptions that have taken hold without informed understanding or familiarity with the dynamics of post-World War II international relations.

The current war, while a crisis, also presents an opportunity that must be thoughtfully considered and leveraged.

Mohammad Alrumaihi is an author and Professor of Political Sociology at Kuwait University