Protesters demonstrate outside the Columbia University campus in New York City. Credit: UN Photo/Evan Schneider
 
For decades, five powerful actors—the United States, the Arab states, the European Union, AIPAC, and Israel’s own opposition—have all claimed to seek Israeli-Palestinian peace while enabling permanent occupation, together burying the two-state solution.

By Alon Ben-Meir
NEW YORK, Apr 15 2026 (IPS)

Every powerful actor in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict professes to seek peace. The US and EU repeat the two-state mantra, the Arab states invoke Palestinian rights, AIPAC proclaims its defense of Israel’s security, and Israeli opposition parties promise “responsible” leadership and stability.

Yet each, in its own way, has enabled and entrenched a destructive status quo—shielding Israel from accountability, normalizing permanent ruthless occupation, and rendering Palestinian statehood ever more illusory while fueling radicalization on both sides.

The US as the Prime Enabler

Successive US administrations have long recited support for a two-state solution, yet in practice, Washington has done more to bury that prospect than to realize it. For decades, the United States has shielded Israel from real international accountability while refusing to use its vast leverage to compel any meaningful movement toward Palestinian statehood.

By turning the “peace process” into an empty ritual, the US has provided cover for a status quo that is neither peaceful nor temporary.

At the same time, unconditional US military, financial, and diplomatic backing has enabled Israel’s relentless settlement expansion and creeping annexation of Palestinian land. American officials issue ritual complaints about settlements, but the financial and military aid kept flowing and the vetoes at the UN kept coming, signaling that no red line would ever be enforced.

This toxic mix of lofty rhetoric and impunity has locked both peoples into an ever more entrenched, zero-sum conflict and foreclosed the only viable formula—two states—for ending it.

The Gaza war has stripped away any remaining illusions. Even amid mass devastation and accusations of genocidal conduct, Washington has continued to arm and protect Israel diplomatically, becoming complicit in Israel’s war crimes. To be sure, in the name of protecting Israel, the United States has gravely imperiled Israel’s viability as a democratic state and its long-term security while setting the stage for the next violent conflagration, to Israel’s detriment.

The Arab States’ Shortcomings

The Arab states, though never tiring of affirming the justice of the Palestinian cause and the necessity of a two-state solution, have consistently fallen short of their words. Although they possess enormous strategic weight—withholding or granting diplomatic recognition, and opening markets, energy, airspace, and security cooperation—they have rarely used these tools to force Israel to choose between occupation and peace with the Palestinians.

This failure has signaled to Israel that it can normalize relations with some Arab states, à la the Abraham Accords, while maintaining its grip on Palestinian land without risking any backlash.

Even in the face of Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza, most Arab governments limited themselves to statements, summits, and carefully choreographed outrage that stopped well short of meaningful pressure.

The Arab states that normalized relations with Israel continued to protect key political and economic ties, while the front-line states—Egypt and Jordan—maintained security coordination that shielded Israel from real strategic isolation.

By doing so little when so much was at stake, Arab states have become, in effect, accomplices to the perpetuation of the conflict they denounce. Their inaction has left Palestinians without a credible Arab shield, allowed Israel to entrench settlement and annexation, and pushed the two-state solution—the only realistic path to a just peace and security for both Israel and the Palestinians—to the wayside.

The EU’s Shortsightedness

The European Union is Israel’s largest trading partner and a major source of investment, technology, and diplomatic legitimacy. Yet, it has systematically refused to wield this considerable leverage to force a choice between occupation and peace with the Palestinians.

Instead of linking market access, research cooperation, or association agreements to clear benchmarks on settlements and Palestinian rights, Brussels has largely confined itself to criticism and symbolic measures that Israel has comfortably ignored.

The EU’s posture has effectively insulated Israel from serious economic or diplomatic consequences for entrenching an apartheid one-state reality of perpetual domination.

At the same time, although individual EU states, including France, the United Kingdom, and Spain, have recognized the Palestinian state, they have done virtually nothing to turn that recognition into hard power; arms exports and trade preferences continue with Israel as usual. Recognition becomes a cheap, cost-free declaration rather than a meaningful constraint on Israeli policy.

Thus, EU passivity has helped normalize occupation and settlement expansion while leaving Palestinians without an effective European counterweight, making a genuine two-state solution ever more remote, to the detriment of both Israel and the Palestinians.

AIPAC’s Culpability

AIPAC presents itself as a friend of Israel. Still, by relentlessly reinforcing the country’s most hardline positions, it has turned “pro-Israel” into a rigid orthodoxy that equates any pressure on Israeli governments with betrayal, thereby narrowing the range of policies American lawmakers feel politically safe to support.

For decades, AIPAC has backed Israeli governments without qualification—endorsing military campaigns, providing political cover for settlement expansion, and supporting a maximalist posture toward the Palestinians.

It rallies Congress behind unconditional aid, arms transfers, and diplomatic protection. This has helped Israeli leaders believe they can permanently deepen occupation and de facto annexation while still counting on automatic American support.

AIPAC has refused to use its considerable leverage to press for peace-oriented concessions and territorial compromise. Instead, it has rendered the two state solution an empty slogan while supporting the Israeli policies that make it impossible. In doing so, AIPAC has directly contributed to the ever worsening conflict and put Israel’s security under constant threat.

Still, AIPAC has not awakened from its blind support that jeopardizes Israel’s very existence and, with that, scuttles any prospect for an Israeli-Palestinian peace.

Israeli Opposition Parties’ Dismal Failure

Israel’s opposition parties have failed to offer a credible, sustained alternative to the right’s permanent conflict paradigm, and in doing so have gravely weakened Israel’s chances for peace. Instead of forcefully championing a two-state solution, most opposition leaders tiptoe around the very words “Palestinian state,” intimidated by electoral backlash and the charge of being “soft” on security. Their political inaptitude has allowed the right to define what is “realistic,” narrowing the political options to endless occupation and recurrent war.

Thus, they have directly contributed to the current impasse, making the conflict ever more intractable. Without a major party willing to argue that Israel’s long-term security depends on a two-state solution, the public hears only variations of the same message: manage, contain, punish, but never resolve. This abdication cedes the strategic debate to the extremist Netanyahu and his messianic lunatics, who are creepingly implementing their scheme of greater Israel, which would bury any prospect for peace.

It is a dire reality for the country that the opposing parties failed to coalesce and present a united front to push for a two-state solution, even following the Gaza war, which has unequivocally demonstrated that after nearly 80 years of conflict, only peace would provide Israel with ultimate security.

Every leader from these parties feels they are the most qualified to be the prime minister, but has failed miserably to offer realistic plans to end the conflict.

By failing to unite, organize, educate, and mobilize Israelis around a clear two state vision, these parties are undermining Israel’s security, eroding its international standing, and endangering its very future as a Jewish, democratic state.

The record of these five enablers is devastating. They made a just peace ever more remote, pushing Israel precariously toward an apartheid one state reality it cannot sustain morally, demographically, or strategically, while abandoning the Palestinians to the cruelest, inhumane occupation.

They must change course now—or condemn Israelis and Palestinians to generations of bloodshed that will erase Israel’s reason for being and extinguish Palestinian nationhood.

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most critical maritime chokepoints, carrying around a quarter of global seaborne oil trade and significant volumes of liquefied natural gas and fertilizers.

By Alon Ben-Meir
NEW YORK, Mar 31 2026 (IPS)

Trump’s Iran war has left the Gulf shattered: US bases turned into targets, economies battered, and the “oasis” myth destroyed. Gulf rulers now confront a harsh reckoning over their reliance on Washington and the uncertain search for a new, fragile security order.

As Trump assembled major US naval and air assets in the eastern Mediterranean and the Gulf, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and others quietly urged Washington to avoid a full-scale assault on Iran, fearing a direct blowback on their territory and energy infrastructure.

Nevertheless, the US–Israeli air campaign began on February 28, 2026, without a clearly defined and publicly articulated political endgame beyond “crippling” Iran’s capabilities. This disconnect between military escalation and strategic purpose now lies at the core of Gulf leaders’ anger and sense of betrayal toward Washington.

Trump’s Strategic Miscalculation

Trump’s decision to launch joint US–Israeli strikes on Iran has produced far higher strategic costs than his administration appears to have anticipated, from energy shock and disrupted shipping to heightened regional fragmentation and anti-American sentiment.

Even if Iranian capabilities are significantly degraded, the war has exposed vulnerabilities in US power projection, unsettled allies, and invited greater Russian and Chinese diplomatic activism in the Gulf. The long-term “price” for Washington will be measured less in battlefield metrics than in diminished trust and leverage among its traditional Arab partners.

US Bases Turned to Liabilities

From a Gulf perspective, US bases in Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and the UAE were meant to deter Iran and guarantee regime security; instead, they became priority targets once the war began. Iran explicitly framed its strikes on these facilities as retaliation against Washington, but their location in densely populated and economically vital areas meant that nearby civilian infrastructure also suffered severe damage.

This experience is reinforcing a view in Gulf capitals that foreign basing arrangements draw fire without delivering the reliable protection they assumed for decades.

A Nightmare Realized

Gulf leaders long warned that a war with Iran would shatter their security and economies, a nightmare that has now materialized as Iranian missiles and drones hit oil facilities, ports, power plants, and cities across the region. They blame Washington for launching the campaign and Israel for pressing to “neutralize” Iran regardless of collateral damage in neighboring Arab states.

The sense in Gulf capitals is that their caution was dismissed, while they have paid a disproportionate price in physical destruction, economic setback, disrupted exports, and heightened domestic anxiety.

Shattered Oasis Narrative

The image of Gulf hubs like Dubai, Doha, and Riyadh as insulated “oases” open to business, tourism, and investment has been badly damaged by missile alerts, strikes on ports and airports, and the closure of key sea lanes.

Restoring confidence will require visible reconstruction, enhanced civil defense, improved air and missile defenses, and credible diplomacy that lowers the perceived risk of another sudden war. Investors and tourists will demand proof that the region can manage Iran-related tensions, not just high-end events and mega-projects.

Trump’s Misreading of Iranian Escalation

Trump publicly argued that overwhelming force would quickly coerce Iran and usher in regime change while keeping fighting “over there,” yet he appears not to have anticipated the breadth of Iranian retaliation against neighboring Gulf states or a prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

The IRGC’s effective shutdown of the strait, including attacks and threats against commercial shipping, has produced global energy shocks and exposed the fragility of US planning assumptions. For Gulf leaders, this underscores how inadequate Washington’s war planning was in accounting for second- and third-order consequences.

Calculated Decision Not to Retaliate

Despite heavy damage, Gulf rulers have so far avoided direct retaliation against Iran, calculating that further escalation would expose their cities and infrastructure to even more punishing strikes. Publicly, they stress restraint and international law, but privately, officials acknowledge their enduring geographic reality: they must coexist with a powerful and proximate Iran long after this US-led campaign ends.

By holding their fire, they hope to preserve space for postwar de-escalation and avoid being locked into a permanent state of open conflict.

Recasting Security Arrangements with Washington

Given their limited strategic alternatives, Gulf monarchies are unlikely to sever ties with Washington but will seek more conditional, transactional security arrangements. They are pressing for clearer US commitments on defense of their territory, better integration of regional missile defenses, and greater say over decisions that could trigger Iranian retaliation.

At the same time, they will hedge by deepening ties with China, Russia, Europe, and Asian energy importers, thereby reducing exclusive reliance on the US while keeping the American security umbrella in place.

Gulf Options to Prevent Future Conflagration

To prevent a repeat, Gulf states are also exploring limited de-escalation channels with Tehran, tighter regional crisis hotlines, and revived maritime security arrangements that include non-Western actors such as China and India. They may push for new rules of engagement around energy infrastructure and shipping lanes, seeking informal understandings that keep these off-limits even in crises.

Internally, they are reassessing missile defense, hardening critical facilities, and considering more diversified export routes that reduce dependence on Hormuz. None of these options are fully reassuring, but together they offer partial risk reduction.

Prospects for Normalization with Iran

Speculation about full normalization, including a non-belligerency pact between Iran and Gulf states, builds on prewar trends of cautious dialogue and economic engagement. Whether this is truly “in the cards” depends on war outcomes, Iran’s internal politics, and Gulf threat perceptions: if Tehran’s regime survives but remains hostile, Gulf states will likely revert to hedging—combining deterrence, limited engagement, and outreach to outside powers.

A more pragmatic Iranian leadership could make structured security arrangements and phased confidence-building measures more plausible over time.

No Return to Status Quo Ante

The Gulf States will not return to the prewar status quo; instead, they are likely to pursue a more diversified security architecture, combining a thinner US shield with expanded ties to China, Russia, and Asian importers. This shift will gradually dilute Washington’s centrality in Gulf security, complicating US force posture and Israel’s assumption of automatic Arab backing against Iran.

For Israel, a more cautious, risk-averse Gulf may limit overt strategic alignment, while for the US, enduring mistrust will make coalition-building for future crises far more difficult.

Trump’s Iran adventure is not an isolated blunder but the latest, and perhaps most explosive, expression of his assault on an already fragile global order. By discarding restraint, sidelining allies, and weaponizing American power for short-term political gain, he has accelerated the erosion of US credibility, fractured Western alliances, and opened new strategic space for Russia and China. The Gulf States are simply the newest casualties of this disorder: their cities struck, economies shaken, and security assumptions shattered.

Whatever emerges from this war, it will not be a restored status quo, but a more fragmented, volatile Middle East in which Israel and the United States confront a diminished margin for error and a far narrower circle of willing, trusting partners.

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University (NYU). He taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.

alon@alonben-meir.com

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

By Alon Ben-Meir
NEW YORK, Feb 23 2026 (IPS)

Trump’s immigration policy is destroying America’s greatness Immigrants are the backbone of America’s greatness— powering its economy, enriching its culture, and advancing its global leadership. Yet under the guise of making America great again, Trump’s exclusionary, racist policies are dismantling that very foundation, stifling innovation and tarnishing the nation’s moral standing.

To understand the magnitude and importance of immigrants in the US, and the need for continued immigration, the following clearly shows how deeply they sustain our workforce, drive innovation, and secure America’s competitive edge on the global stage.

The Current State of Immigration

Over 1 million farmworkers in the United States are undocumented, including approximately 40 percent of crop farmworkers. Immigrants account for roughly 70 percent of all US farmworkers, making them indispensable to the agricultural labor force and underscoring how dependent American food production is on this workforce.

We are already witnessing the impacts of immigration crackdowns on the US farm industry. In California’s Central Valley, a majority of farmworkers stopped showing up after intensive ICE raids in July 2025, leaving crops rotting in the fields due to a lack of available workers. This has resulted in substantial financial losses, food waste, reduced farm revenues, and rising food prices.

Beyond agriculture, immigrants from Latin America and other regions are heavily represented in construction, hospitality, and food processing; they account for approximately 33 percent of meat processing and over 80 percent of food manufacturing workers.

In the leisure and hospitality sector, immigrants account for roughly 18 percent of workers; in traveler accommodations (i.e., hotels) alone, over 30 percent of workers are immigrants.

STEM Workforce

According to the National Science Foundation, foreign-born workers account for approximately 22 percent of the US’ STEM workforce. Among science and engineering occupations with doctorates, about 43 percent are foreign-born; in the doctorate-level fields of computer and mathematical sciences, this share exceeds 55 percent.

Roughly 30 percent of full-time science and engineering faculty at US universities are foreign-born, disproportionately present at research-intensive institutions.

Denying admission of scientists from countries such as India and China, Mexico and Argentina would result in serious talent shortages in key STEM fields. Moreover, inventors and entrepreneurs account for a disproportionately large share of US patents, high-growth startups, and advanced-degree STEM workers.

Thus, losing foreign-born scholars would undermine research, reduce innovation, slow scientific progress, and erode US technological and economic competitiveness.

Research on immigrant entrepreneurship indicates that immigrants are heavily overrepresented among founders of new firms, including high-tech firms and “unicorn” startups, which amplifies the long-term damage that restrictive policies toward non-European scientists would inflict.

Immigrants in the US military

In 2017, about 190,000 foreign-born individuals were on active duty, representing roughly 4.5 percent of all active-duty service members. As of 2024, approximately 8,000 non-citizens enlist each year. As of 2022, there were about 731,000 foreign-born veterans—around 4.5 percent of the total veteran population.

Historically and today, foreign-born soldiers have played key roles in every major US conflict, dating back to the Revolutionary War, and mmigrants have received more than 20 percent of all Medals of Honor, underscoring the depth of their contribution to national defense.

Reagan’s Honoring of Immigrants

Perhaps no one could express the vital importance of immigrants to the US, and how they made America the land of opportunity that embodied the very promise that has made America exceptional, like President Reagan in his final speech to the nation:

“Since this is the last speech that I will give as president, I think it’s fitting to leave one final thought, an observation about a country which I love. It was best stated in a letter I received recently. A man wrote me and said: ‘You can go to live in France, but you cannot become a Frenchman. You can go to live in Germany, Turkey, or Japan, but you cannot become a German, a Turk, or a Japanese. But anyone, from any corner of the Earth, can come to live in America and become an American.’

“Yes, the torch of Lady Liberty symbolizes our freedom and represents our heritage, the compact with our parents, our grandparents, and our ancestors. It is that lady who gives us our great and special place in the world. For it’s the great life force of each generation of new Americans that guarantee that America’s triumph shall continue unsurpassed into the next century and beyond. Other countries may seek to compete with us, but in one vital area, as a beacon of freedom and opportunity that draws the people of the world, no country on Earth comes close.

“This, I believe, is one of the most important sources of America’s greatness. We lead the world because, unique among nations, we draw our people—our strength—from every country and every corner of the world. And by doing so, we continuously renew and enrich our nation. While other countries cling to the stale past, here in America, we breathe life into dreams. We create the future, and the world follows us into tomorrow.

“Thanks to each wave of new arrivals to this land of opportunity, we’re a nation forever young, forever bursting with energy and new ideas, and always on the cutting edge, always leading the world to the next frontier. This quality is vital to our future as a nation. If we ever closed the door to new Americans, our leadership in the world would soon be lost.”

How did we fall from President Reagan’s recognition of immigrants’ nobility to Trump’s dehumanizing claim that “they are eating the dogs…they are eating the cats…They’re eating—they are eating the pets…” In that stark descent, we see the horrific moral cost of abandoning truth for political expediency.

Immigrants have been the lifeblood of the American experiment. To close our door to immigrants is to close the door to the very engine of American vitality. If we open our borders, welcoming all regardless of ethnicity, race or faith, we unleash our greatest strength—a nation reborn, limitless in its capacity to dream and achieve the impossible.

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: White House
 
Trump’s proposed “Board of Peace” built around heads of state, including Russia, is structurally ill-suited to end the Israel–Hamas war and to govern postwar Gaza in any sustainable way.

By Alon Ben-Meir
NEW YORK, Jan 26 2026 (IPS)

At a press conference at the World Economic Forum in Davos last week, Trump unveiled his newly formed Board of Peace to end the Israel-Hamas war. During a press conference in the White House, he explained that he created the board because “The UN should have settled every one of the wars that I settled. I never went to them. I never even thought to go to them.”

He claimed that the Board of Peace will be dealing with ending the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza. He invited many heads of state to join the Board and threatened to impose heavy tariffs on the countries of those who refused. Paradoxically, he also invited Russian President Putin to join the pack.

Even a cursory review of the Board’s structure—its executive make-up, role, and responsibilities—makes it glaringly clear that he placed himself at the forefront of everything, from operations to ultimate decision-making. He basically codified US dominance, as long as he ran it.

He granted himself the authority to veto any decision he did not like, to invite or remove any board member, to approve the agenda, to designate his successor, and even dissolve the board entirely. Furthermore, he reserved a central role for himself even after leaving the presidency.

Shortcomings of the Board and its Structure

In more than one way, the creation of this board dissolves the American-built post-war international system and builds a new one with himself at the center. And while Trump is striving to consolidate authoritarian power domestically, he now wants to project himself on the international stage as if he were an Emperor, presiding over a board composed largely of heads of state. Although board members can have their say, they are nevertheless structurally subordinated to him.

No Seat for the Primary Stakeholders

The Board of Peace and the parallel Gaza Executive Board are designed to sit above a technocratic Palestinian committee, with no Palestinian political representative given a seat at the top table, despite their being primary stakeholders. Hamas is required to disarm, without specifying how, and to withdraw from administrative governance.

The Palestinian Authority is relegated to an “apolitical” managerial role, which in effect reproduces the long-standing problem of trying to impose solutions over Palestinians instead of negotiating with them. This has repeatedly undermined past peace frameworks and offers no pathway towards sustainable regional or world peace.

Conflict of Interests

The board is chaired by Trump himself, with membership effectively bought via a $1 billion “permanent seat” fee, creating apparent conflicts between profit, prestige, and peacemaking. Russia, Israel, Gulf monarchies, and others who have direct stakes in arms sales, regional influence, and energy routes, are not neutral guarantors but interested parties likely to instrumentalize Gaza for their own strategic agendas.

Colonial-Style Trusteeship

The architecture explicitly envisions international figures and heads of state supervising Gaza’s reconstruction, security, and governance, effectively turning Gaza into a protectorate administered by external powers.

Human rights advocates and regional observers are already criticizing this as a colonial-style trusteeship that denies genuine sovereignty, which is already generating local resistance, delegitimizing the arrangement, and providing ideological fuel for militant spoilers.

Israeli and Regional Objections

Israel’s leadership has publicly objected to the composition and design of the Gaza bodies. It is enraged over the role of Turkey and Qatar, forcing Netanyahu to distance himself from aspects of the plan even while joining the board under pressure from Trump.

Nevertheless, the Israeli government views key members of the Board and mechanisms as hostile or at odds with its security principles. Israel will either hinder implementation or hollow it out in practice, turning the board into an arena for intra-allied conflict rather than conflict resolution.

Great Power Rivalry Inside the Board

Ironically, the board anticipates concurrent participation by rivals such as Russia, the EU, and US-aligned states, while at the same time, Moscow is resisting US-backed peace terms in Ukraine and leveraging Middle East crises to weaken Western influence. This arrangement invites the board to become another theater of great power competition, where Russia, Hungary, Belarus, and others can obstruct or dilute measures that do not serve their broader geopolitical interests.

This is not to speak, of course, about the widespread concerns and suspicions among European leaders about Putin’s adversarial relations at the table, which is a recipe for discord and prevents concrete action.

Unclear Legal Basis

Another big hole in Trump’s Board is its framing as an alternative to, and possible replacement for, the United Nations, without any legal foundation, universal membership, or binding authority under international law.

A self-selected club by Trump of mostly invited heads of state, tied to a particular US administration and anchored in significant financial contributions, lacks the procedural legitimacy to impose security arrangements, adjudicate disputes, or credibly guarantee Palestinian rights over the long term, to which Trump pays no heed at all.

Overambitious, Under-Specified Mandate

The board’s responsibilities have already expanded from supervising a Gaza ceasefire to a broad charter “promoting stability” and “resolving global conflict,” which is ostentatious and will never come to fruition, while indicating mission creep before it even begins.

Such a variable mandate, with multiple overlapping structures (Board of Peace, Gaza Executive Board, Founding Executive Board), is almost guaranteed to generate bureaucratic turf wars, paralysis, and incoherence—particularly once crises beyond Gaza compete for attention and resources.

To be sure, this is just another of Trump’s stunts, always pretending that he is the only one who can come up with out-of-the-box ideas. Like many of his initiatives, this so-called Board of Peace one falls into the same category—transactional and reversible.

It is a grandiose idea that cannot be sustained structurally, has no enforcement capability, and relies on a contradictory algorithm to allow it to fulfill its mission, which, in any case, remains open-ended and unrealistic.

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, “shocked by reports of violence and excessive use of force by Iranian authorities against protesters”, is urging restraint and immediate restoration of communications, as unrest enters its third week. 11 January 2026. Credit: United Nations

By Alon Ben-Meir
NEW YORK, Jan 15 2026 (IPS)

Unlike ever before, Iran’s Islamic regime is facing a revolt led by a generation that has lost its fear. Young and old, men and women, students and workers, are flooding the streets across the country.

Iran’s future may well hinge on whether its military chooses to act and save the country, driven by economic collapse, corruption, and decades of repression. Women and girls are at the forefront, protesting without headscarves, defying the clergy that once controlled every aspect of their lives. They don’t want reform; they are demanding freedom, economic relief, and the end of authoritarianism.

Shutting down the internet, arresting nearly 17,000 protesters, killing at least 3,000, including children, and Trump’s threat to use force to stop the Iranian regime have not prevented the mullahs from continuing their onslaught. The regime’s ruthless crackdown has been a calamitous wave of repression, taking thousands of lives in a brutal attempt to crush dissent. Yet even in the face of such peril, the public remains undeterred, determined to continue their fight.

Now, however, they need the support of the most powerful domestic—not foreign—power to come to their aid. The Iranian military is the most pivotal institution in the country, capable of catalyzing the downfall of the regime. The military is the key player, with significant internal influence and the capability to drive the necessary change from within, ultimately leading to regime change.

Every officer in the military should stop and think, how do I want to serve my country.

Do I want to continue to prop up a bunch of reactionaries, self-obsessed old men who have long since lost their relevance, wearing the false robe of piety to appear sanctimonious while subjugating the people to hardship and hopelessness?

Should I not support the younger generation who are yearning for a better life, for opportunity, for a future that gives meaning to their existence?

Should I not participate in sparking the revival of this magnificent nation from the doldrums of the past 47 years that have consumed it from within?

Should I continue to prepare for war against Israel, or extend a peaceful hand and invest in building my country with such immense natural and human riches and be in the forefront of all other modern democratic and progressive nations, and restore the glory of ancient Persia?

Do I truly want to continue to wear blinders and let my country be destroyed from within, or should I become part of a newly reborn nation and take personal pride in helping to revive it?

The answer to these questions should be clear to every officer. The military should establish a transitional government and pave the way for a legitimate, freely elected government, and restore the Iranian people’s dignity and their right to be free.

The idea that the Shah’s son, Reza Pahlavi, could return and restore a monarchy is just the opposite of what the Iranian people need. Instead of another form of corruption or an old kingdom, they deserve a democracy and genuine freedom.

In the final analysis, Iran’s destiny may rest on a single profound choice—whether its military steps forward to reshape the nation’s destiny.

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.

The UN General Assembly endorses New York Declaration on a two-State solution between Israel and Palestine. 12 September 2025. Credit: UN Photo/Loey Felipe

By Alon Ben-Meir
NEW YORK, Oct 16 2025 (IPS)

The ceasefire agreement and the release of Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners are only the first steps on the long and treacherous road that could end the calamitous, decades-long Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In my recent article, “A Rare Alignment:The World Stands Ready, Are the Palestinians?”

I tackled what the Palestinians must do to realize their national aspirations. In this article, I address what the Israelis must do not only to end their conflict with the Palestinians, but also to salvage Israel’s moral standing, which lies in ruin in Gaza.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has reached a new breaking point, more precipitous now than any time before. Although Israelis have experienced unfathomable trauma as a result of Hamas’ horrific attack, now is the time for all Israelis to carefully examine the circumstances that have brought them to this fateful crossroads.

Decades of violent conflict and the persistent denial of each other’s rights culminated in Hamas’ savagery, followed by the longest and most devastating war, which has reframed the nature of the conflict. It made it clearer than ever before that those who wrote the obituary for a two-state solution must now rewrite their script. As much as co-existence is inescapable, so is the inevitable rise of a Palestinian state.

Choosing the right path would require courage and a new vision. The Israelis must first disabuse themselves of several beliefs embedded in their psyche and push for a just solution to the conflict with the Palestinians, which is central to gradually restoring Israel’s shattered moral standing, which only the Israelis themselves can reclaim.

Existential Threat
The Israelis have been indoctrinated to believe that a Palestinian state would pose an existential threat and must be prevented at all costs, which has been falsely promulgated for decades by egocentric, nationalist and corrupt politicians like Netanyahu. At this juncture, the Israelis need to accept the irrevocable reality of Palestinian existence and take action to mitigate their fear rather than perpetuate enmity.

Israel was created as a sanctuary for any Jew who wishes to live in peace and security. This millennium-old dream however, cannot be realized, as time has shown, as long as the Palestinians are denied a state of their own.

The Israelis need to overcome their anxieties and misguided beliefs by finding meaning and self-affirmation, which does not hinge on denying the Palestinians their own state. They should step away from the deeply rooted, misguided fear that a Palestinian state indeed poses an existential threat, because without it, Israel renders itself permanently insecure, as time has shown.

Hatred Toward the Palestinians
The Israelis’ hatred of the Palestinians is rooted in a century-old conflict, which has only deepened due to the continuing acts of violence and the prevalence of mutually acrimonious narratives. This is further compounded by the Israelis’ belief that the Palestinians refuse to accept Israel’s right to exist. Instead of focusing on practical measures of reconciliation necessitated by the inescapable coexistence, they clung to hatred, which subconsciously justifies their continuing resistance to Palestinian statehood.

A well-known proverb notes that “Hatred is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die.” Indeed, hatred is self-destructive, and letting go of it is essential for peaceful coexistence. The Israelis must live in the present to free themselves from the shackles of past prejudices against the Palestinians and reach out rather than shun them.

Such an approach may surprise many Israelis, who will find that generally the Palestinians are a willing partner eager to engage, albeit only if they believe they stand a good chance of realizing their national aspirations.

Refusing the Reality of Coexistence
The Israelis need to come to terms with the fact that accepting what cannot be changed and embracing it with understanding and even compassion would ultimately serve their own interests. In essence, Israelis must use their collective power to create the conditions that produce mutual political, economic, and security gains, which is the only way to coexist peacefully. Israelis must ask what the alternative to peaceful coexistence is.

Has anyone come up with a viable and mutually acceptable alternative whereby both can live in peace, short of a two-state solution?

The irony is that while Netanyahu spent decades trying to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, his devastating onslaught on the Palestinians has only produced precisely the opposite. It has rallied the international community to support an independent Palestinian state like never before.

Israel can annex all the West Bank and Gaza, assuming that it could live with international isolation, sanctions, expulsion from various international organizations, etc., but where will the Palestinians go?

For how long can seven million Israeli Jews suppress seven million Palestinians living in their midst and around them? How many Palestinians can they kill, displace, or starve to death? What choice would the Palestinians be left with other than armed struggle?

Since coexistence is inescapable, under what kind of an umbrella do the Israelis want to live? Hamas’ savagery and Israel’s devastating retaliation only attest to the consequences of decades-long mutual systematic dehumanization.

Unless the Israelis accept coexistence as an unmitigated reality, they will have to raise generations of warriors trained to kill Palestinians, destroy their properties, and live by the sword for as far as the eye can see.

The Catastrophic Loss of Israel’s Moral Standing
There are no words to describe the lasting damage that the Netanyahu government has inflicted on Israel as a country and the Israeli people. The whole world was astounded to see Jews, of all people, committing crimes against humanity in broad daylight beyond the capacity of any human being with a conscience to grasp.

Yes, the world applies a double standard when it comes to the Jews, and for good reason. The Jews have suffered for millennia from persecution, discrimination, and expulsion, culminating with the Holocaust, and are expected, because of their tragic experience, to uphold the sanctity of life.

And while the Jews have lived by and spread the values of caring, compassion, empathy, and altruism—values that have shielded them throughout their dispersion—the barbaric Netanyahu government has betrayed these tenets of Judaism. It has left Israel, and by tragic extension, Jews round the world, with no moral ground to stand on while precipitating the exponential rise of antisemitism.

It is hard to imagine how any Israeli government would desert these values and perpetrate this inconceivable cruelty and vengeance upon the Palestinians. The killing of tens of thousands of women, children, and the elderly, the bombing of hospitals and schools, and the deliberate starvation of a whole people as a weapon of war, sent shock waves throughout the world, bewildering friends and foes.

The countries that admired Israel for its incredible achievements in all walks of life are now looking at it as a pariah state that has lost its moral compass and its way.

My Plea to the Israelis—Facing a Moral Reckoning
No one can make light of the trauma and the horrendous suffering so many of you have and continue to endure because of Hamas’ butchery and heartless imprisonment of the hostages. But your government’s retaliatory war, which quickly became a war of revenge and retribution that killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians, did not do justice to your sacrifices by committing horrific war crimes in your name.

The war in Gaza and its consequences demand that Israel face a moral reckoning. You need to confront your government’s actions that plundered the depths of human immorality. Your moral obligation is to rise against Netanyahu’s government.

Remember, the Palestinians will recover from the catastrophe they have endured, rebuild their lives, and coalesce around a renewed effort, with the mounting support of the international community, to realize their aspiration for statehood.

Israel, however, has sustained a far greater catastrophe by forsaking Jewish values. It will take a generation (or more) before your country can regain a measure of moral standing, and that is only if it ends the conflict with the Palestinians in a fair and just way based on a two-state solution.

Now it’s time for accountability. Following the release of the hostages, you now need to embark on bringing an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Pour into the streets by the hundreds of thousands and demand the immediate resignation of Netanyahu and force him to face a commission of inquiry about his conduct before and after Hamas’ attack.

What you need to pursue now is building on the ceasefire and demanding that a newly-formed government move step-by-step toward implementing the Trump peace plan, which must culminate in establishing a Palestinian state.

This will not be a gift to the Palestinians. Rather, this is what you must do to transform the calamitous war in Gaza and the horrific pain, suffering, and losses you have sustained into a breakthrough on the road toward the long-awaited and desperately needed peaceful Israeli-Palestinian coexistence.

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

The State of Qatar delivered a message, September 10, to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and to Sangjin Kim, the Charge d'Affaires at the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Korea and President of the Security Council for September, “regarding the cowardly Israeli attack that targeted residential buildings housing several members of the Hamas Political Bureau” in the capital, Doha. The message was delivered by the Permanent Representative of the State of Qatar to the United Nations Sheikha Alya Ahmed bin Saif Al-Thani. The State of Qatar requested that the message be circulated to members of the Security Council and issued as an official document of the Council.

By Alon Ben-Meir
NEW YORK, Sep 11 2025 (IPS)

Israel’s brazen attack on Hamas’ negotiating team in Qatar while they were deliberating a new ceasefire with Israel raises serious questions not only about the legality of the attack, which violated international laws and norms, and concerns over Qatar’s sovereignty, but also the potential regional and international fallout.

The fact that Israel notified the Trump administration of its impending attack and was given the green light to proceed adds another troubling dimension for all those who will be affected, especially the Gulf states.

Israel’s attack was calculated to achieve several objectives. First, Prime Minister Netanyahu did not want a new ceasefire at a time when the Israeli military is engaged in a major incursion into Gaza City to eliminate the remaining Hamas leaders and fighters.

Second, the gathering of Hamas’ top leaders in one place provided him with an opportunity to eliminate many of them, which he did not want to miss.

Third, he wanted to send a clear message to other Arab states that he would not hesitate to undertake bold action against what he considers an existential enemy, regardless of where they reside and how that might affect their relationship with the Arab countries involved.

Fourth, he wanted to project Israel as the dominant power in the Middle East, if not the hegemon, especially at this juncture when Israel is enjoying nearly unconditional support of the Trump administration.

Fifth, Netanyahu wanted to prevent the collapse of his government by complying with the demands of two of his extremist ministers who threatened to resign if he were to stop the war before the elimination of Hamas “from the face of the earth,” however lofty and unattainable a goal that might be. The attack in Doha was too tempting to pass up.

It is rather hypocritical of Netanyahu to attack Hamas on Qatari soil, when in fact Qatar’s years-long aid payments to the Gaza Strip through Hamas, meant to pay public salaries and prevent a humanitarian crisis, was approved by Netanyahu himself and sent through Israeli territory in cash-filled suitcases—all in an effort to create a wider divide with the Palestinian Authority and prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres condemned the attack and noted that Qatar has played a constructive role in efforts to secure a Gaza ceasefire and the release of hostages held by Hamas.

France’s President Macron said, “Today’s Israeli strikes on Qatar are unacceptable, whatever the reason. I express my solidarity with Qatar and its Emir, Sheikh Tamim Al Thani. Under no circumstances should the war spread throughout the region.”

The adverse implications of Israel’s attack will reaffirm the prevailing international view of Israel as a rogue state that blatantly ignores international norms of conduct and believes it can do so with complete impunity. Still, there will be a time when Israel will have to account for its mischiefs.

The attack further strained the relationship between Israel and Egypt, in particular, because it has been and continues to be involved in the ceasefire negotiations.

Moreover, the attack has certainly further damaged the chance of normalizing relations with other Gulf Arab states, even though both Netanyahu and Trump wanted to expand the Abraham Accords.

The Gulf states are now concerned about the US’ commitment to their security, given that the Trump administration allowed a close ally—Israel—to attack another ally, especially as Qatar hosts the largest US military base in the region.

According to Al Jazeera, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani condemned Tuesday’s strike on Doha, calling it “state terrorism” allegedly authorized by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He said the attack demanded a firm regional response and warned that Qatar would defend its territory, reserving the right to retaliate and take all necessary measures.

To be sure, the pitfall of all of these developments transcends the Israel-Hamas war and the prospect of a new ceasefire. Israel’s habitual assassinations of its enemies, irrespective of their country of residence, raises a serious question as to how far Israel, with the support of the Trump administration, will go in violating international norms of conduct and laws with presumed impunity.

Indeed, beyond the green light that Trump gave Netanyahu to attack Hamas leaders in Doha, his unrelenting support of Netanyahu’s genocidal war in Gaza is deeply troubling for many countries around the world. They now see the US, which has been leading and preserving the world order in the wake of World War II, as a country that lost its way and poses an extraordinary danger to global stability.

Without the US’ consent, Netanyahu would not have dared to attack any of Israel’s enemies across the region, be they Lebanon, Iran, Yemen, Syria, and now Qatar. They see the US as the culprit and are extremely concerned about what might come next.

None of this augurs well for either Israel or the United States because sooner or later, these actions will sow consequences that neither nation can ignore and will come back to haunt them in a very real way.

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University (NYU). He taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Displaced persons’ tents crowded along the coastal strip of Gaza City in the northern part of the Gaza Strip. Credit: UN News

By Alon Ben-Meir
NEW YORK, Sep 9 2025 (IPS)

During the upcoming annual UN General Assembly, several key European countries are expected to recognize a Palestinian state. The question that looms is how to translate such a significant development into reality, whereby the Palestinians will realize their national aspiration for statehood

One of the main issues that may take center stage at the upcoming UN General Assembly is the ongoing devastating war in Gaza, and the international outcry for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state to end the plight of the Palestinians in the context of a two-state solution.

What will make the discussion at the UN about Palestinian statehood more potent and relevant is the expectation that several Western powers, including the UK, France, Canada, Australia, Belgium, and Portugal, will formally recognize a Palestinian state, joining Spain, Ireland, and Norway, which recognized Palestine last year.

That said, although such recognition is significant, it remains symbolic unless many critical measures are taken by all the players involved to mitigate the following four reasons behind the failures in advancing the prospect of establishing such a state.

First, Israel has done everything within its reach, especially now with the support of the Trump administration, to prevent that from happening.

Second, the Palestinian Authority has done little to establish a legitimate representative government and a political apparatus responsive to public needs, even though 147 countries have already recognized it.

Third, the Arab states, though publicly supportive, have provided some financial support but have made no concerted effort over the years to bring the idea to fruition.

And four, the countries that have recognized Palestinian statehood have not taken significant measures to ensure its implementation.

To realistically pave the way to Palestinian statehood, the players involved will have to take momentous measures and remain on course, even though Israel will vehemently resist and lean on the US to use its weight to prevent such an outcome.

The Palestinian Authority

The PA must now wake up to its bitter reality and recognize that independent statehood will remain only a slogan unless it takes the following steps:

First, new elections must be held. Every Palestinian faction must be invited to participate, as long as they commit themselves to a peaceful solution to the conflict with Israel. The Palestinians need to demonstrate a unity of purpose and forsake violent resistance, which has only worked in favor of Israel over the years.

Second, the PA should reiterate its recognition of Israel and commit to entering unconditionally into peace negotiations. This is not a capitulation to Israel’s whims; to the contrary, it will put Israel on the defensive, as it would have no legitimate excuses in the eyes of the international community to reject the Palestinians’ initiative.

Third, the PA must actively engage in public diplomacy by strengthening diplomatic outreach and using the media and public relations to show readiness for dialogue and shape global opinion positively to increase support for the Palestinian cause.

Fourth, it must demonstrate its commitment to democratic principles and human rights, which is essential for the Western countries planning to recognize Palestinian statehood.

Fifth, economic development plans should be presented to gain international confidence, which would encourage many countries supportive of the Palestinians to offer financial support.

Sixth, Palestinian leaders ought to actively promote nonviolent means to highlight the Palestinian cause and gain the high moral ground internationally.

The role of the European Countries

The important role of European countries in supporting Palestinian independence cannot be overstated. Their support must transcend symbolism and focus on the nitty-gritty of what is needed to advance the Palestinians’ cause. The measures to be taken include:

Providing direct economic support to Palestinian institutions and infrastructure while ensuring accountability.

Establishing bilateral trade agreements with the Palestinians to boost their economy, independent of Israel.

Pushing for enhanced observer status and participation of Palestine in international bodies while providing legal forums to pursue international acceptance and rights.

Upgrading Palestinian consulate representative offices in their capitals to a higher diplomatic level.

Funding a public diplomacy campaign in their respective capitals to build support for Palestinian statehood.

Offering training and support for Palestinian internal security forces in coordination with Israel to maintain order and stability.

The Role of the Arab States

The Arab states must play a far greater role than ever before in advancing the Palestinian cause, particularly because it is directly linked to the nature of their desired future relationship with Israel. To that end, the Arab states should work in unison and send a clear message that their relations with Israel hinge directly on finding an amicable solution to the conflict.

The Arab states, led by Saudi Arabia, should:

Make it abundantly clear that no other Arab state would normalize relations with Israel unless there is a clear path that would lead to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.

Threaten Israel that continued violations of the Palestinians’ human rights will lead to the severing of diplomatic relations, especially with the signatories to the Abraham Accords.

Provide targeted financial aid for Palestinian governance and infrastructure, focusing on sustainable development projects, and use collective economic leverage to encourage other countries to support Palestinian statehood.

Open new or upgrade existing Palestinian embassies in Arab capitals.

Support Palestine in the international legal arena for rights and recognition, and enhance the Palestinian narrative and position in Arab and international media outlets.

Align regional policies to support Palestinian diplomatic efforts, work through UN bodies and behind-the-scenes talks, and adopt measures to minimize frictions between Israel and the Palestinians and prevent confrontations.

It would be grossly misleading to suggest that taking all the measures enumerated above will offer smooth sailing toward realizing a Palestinian state. Being in total control of the West Bank and Gaza, Israel, especially under the current Netanyahu-led government, with staunch support of Trump, will stop at nothing to sabotage any effort that could improve the prospect of a Palestinian state.

Notwithstanding the uphill battle, however, the concerted and consistent efforts by all the players will eventually lead to a dramatic change in the trajectory of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

It has been demonstrated that after 80 years of violent conflict, Netanyahu’s strategy to maintain a state of constant hostilities and make incremental gains has now run its course. And the Palestinian strategy of resistance has failed, too. Hamas’ attack and Israel’s retaliatory war have demonstrated that there will be no enduring Israeli-Palestinian peace short of a two-state solution.

The Netanyahu government and the Trump presidency will end, but the Palestinian reality will never fade away. The Western European countries’ decision to recognize a Palestinian state will be a historic game-changer if steady and concrete steps follow their recognition, and they remain determined to realize Palestinian statehood regardless of the changing times and circumstances.

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University (NYU). He taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

People wait for food at a community kitchen in western Gaza City. Credit: UN News

By Alon Ben-Meir
NEW YORK, Aug 26 2025 (IPS)

President Trump, you are the only leader who can stop Netanyahu from committing another genocide in Gaza. The whole world is watching. Do not allow yourself to become an accessory to the murder of thousands of innocent Palestinian women and children and the utter destruction of what’s left of Gaza

As I am writing this column, the Israeli military is converging on Gaza to destroy what has been left after 22 months of relentless war that killed more than 60,000 Palestinians and leveled to the ground 80 percent of its infrastructure.

To say that this is unconscionable is an understatement. The whole world must awake to this unfolding disaster, which is tantamount to a second genocide against the Palestinians. The Netanyahu government is not hiding its intended crimes against humanity. Eli Cohen, a minister in Israel’s security cabinet, despicably stated, “Gaza City itself should be exactly like Rafah, which we turned into a city of ruins.”

Credit: UN News

The whole world should be up in arms and stop at nothing to stop Netanyahu’s new catastrophic offensive. Trump, more than any other global leader, has the power not to ask but demand that Netanyahu stop his second genocide that will kill thousands of Palestinian women and children and displace hundreds of thousands, making Gaza entirely uninhabitable.

Trump must remember that if he does not act immediately, given his power and ability to stop the Israeli new offensive, history will judge him as an accessory to the genocide that will inevitably occur, because the US is supplying Israel with the weapons and ammunition to kill Palestinians.

President Trump must also remember that even if Israel succeeds in its campaign to commit a total ethnic cleansing of Gaza, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will only enter a new phase of violence unfathomable in its scope and catastrophic implications.

Hamas will not be liquidated as a movement, no matter what Israel does. Beyond that, new radical movements will mushroom throughout the Middle East and destabilize the entire region to a level unseen before. Instead of forging new peace accords, Trump will face new, raging, violent conflicts that will be beyond his control.

This is the time when Trump’s leadership will matter the most. There is no time to spare. It may seem oversimplified, but it will indeed take only a phone call to Netanyahu to demand that he stop his offensive immediately. This is a humanitarian issue of the highest order.

Even the most ardent supporters of Israel in the US will understand that America still has a moral obligation that it cannot forfeit, even when a close ally is involved. Instead of aiding the butcher Netanyahu, Trump will emerge as a statesman who rose to the call of the hour.

And if Trump is still dreaming of earning the Nobel Peace Prize, he should not only stop the new Israeli genocidal offensive but also push for an end to the war in Gaza, demand an exit strategy from Netanyahu, and work toward finding a permanent solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University (NYU). He taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

An UNRWA school turned shelter in Al Bureij, Gaza, lies in ruins following a missile attack in May 2025. Credit: UNRWA

By Alon Ben-Meir
NEW YORK, Jul 28 2025 (IPS)

The West, led by the Trump administration, has enabled the Netanyahu government to commit crimes against humanity and became complicit in the unfathomably horrific disaster that is being inflicted on the Palestinians in Gaza

The war in Gaza has crossed many red lines, rendering Palestinian lives worthless, trivial, and of no consequence. Much of the horrific crimes against humanity being committed against the Palestinians in Gaza by the Netanyahu government could have been prevented had it not been for the nearly unconditional and continuing political, economic, and military support of Western powers, led by the US.

If this does not constitute complicity in war crimes perpetrated against tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians, then I don’t know what does.

Western powers’ claims of high moral grounds seemed to have withered completely, as evidenced by the fact that even though most of Gaza lies in utter ruin, and over 59,000 people have been killed, Western support remains shamelessly unabated.

And while the majority of the 2.1 million Palestinians are starving to death, the supplies of killing machines continue to flow, while the suppliers pay less than lip service to the intensifying human cataclysm on the entire population of Gaza.

Before I elaborate on the US’ indispensable role in ending the war in Gaza, a brief review of what other Western powers have failed to do is in order.

Children in Gaza wait in the hope of receiving food. Credit: UN News

France, the UK, and Germany’s Dereliction

The Western powers, especially the UK, France, and Germany, have consistently supported Israel’s onslaught on Gaza, claiming Israel’s right to defend itself. Only during the past few weeks have they started to contemplate addressing the horrific humanitarian crisis in Gaza. They have considered measures— from suspending trade and imposing sanctions to public criticisms and diplomatic efforts—to force Netanyahu’s hand.

In addition, recently the UK, France, and Canada issued a joint statement threatening “concrete reactions,” including targeted sanctions, if Israel fails to end its renewed offensive and allow unhindered humanitarian aid, and insisting on immediate improvements in humanitarian access. The UK and France have also co-hosted international conferences to advance a ceasefire and a two-state solution, and pledged diplomatic and financial support for peace initiatives.

Sadly, Western threats and limited actions fall far short of what is critically needed to end these mind-boggling war crimes being committed by Netanyahu and his government. They must impose an immediate embargo on all supplies of military equipment and spare parts, and, being the largest trading partners, they must freeze all trade with Israel where it hurts. Only by taking these measures can Netanyahu and his corrupt government realize the magnitude of the European ire.

US Complicity in Netanyahu’s Crimes Against Humanity

The US can wield far greater pressure on Israel than what other Western powers can exercise combined. Sadly, though, neither the Biden nor the Trump administrations have used their immense leverage to force Netanyahu to end the horrific war that is on the verge of destroying what’s left of Gaza and devastating nearly entirely its inhabitants.

The US commitment to Israel’s national security has been a given since Israel’s establishment in 1948. But then, even though successive American administrations have and continue to adhere to this commitment, 77 years later, Israel does not feel secure due to the continuing conflict with the Palestinians.

That is, if the US cares about Israel’s national security, which it does, it should have mitigated the source of Israel’s sense of insecurity by relentlessly pushing Israel to reach a peace agreement with the Palestinians, where Israel’s ultimate national security rests.

For decades, successive American presidents, including Trump, have championed the notion of a two-state solution. Although they have made repeated efforts over several decades to forge peace between the two sides, they have never taken concrete steps to pressure both sides to accept the only realistic outcome that they have been advocating, which could have ended the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Not once have the Biden and the Trump administrations threatened, let alone imposed, sanctions on Israel, to stop the indiscriminate bombing of Gaza and the deliberate chokehold on the supplies of food, medicine, and water, which is causing mass starvation and even famine. To the contrary, both continued to supply Israel with the weapons and munitions it was asking for with no reservations.

Military aid to Israel

According to the Costs of War Project, which tracks US military aid and expenditure, since the war began in October 2023, the US has provided Israel $22.76 billion in military assistance. In January 2025, Trump authorized the release of 1,800 MK-84 bombs (2,000-lb weapons) that the Biden administration had previously withheld as a protest against Israel’s actions in Rafah.

Instead of realizing that this heinous Gaza war only reinforces the idea that only a two-state solution would end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Trump offered to take over Gaza and build a ‘luxury riviera’, which would only perpetuate the deadly Israeli-Palestinian conflict for another generation.

Instead of disabusing Netanyahu and his government of the notion of planning to rebuild new Jewish settlements in Gaza, Trump has been pushing the idea of relocating the Palestinians to a third country. This is nothing but music to Netanyahu’s ear, praising Trump for his “ingenuity” because nothing will quench Netanyahu and his government’s appetite more than seizing more Palestinian land and getting rid of the Palestinians once and for all.

Instead of insisting on an immediate ceasefire and developing a clear exit strategy from Gaza, Trump is still tiptoeing around, careful not to antagonize his political base, especially the evangelicals. For these religiously devout Christians, Israel can do no wrong, even though thousands of innocent women and children have been killed and hundreds more are added weekly to the roster of the dead, while Netanyahu is destroying what’s left of Gaza’s infrastructure to render it unlivable.

Now, the Netanyahu government is forcibly displacing the Palestinians in Gaza to the south and building a concentration camp on top of the ruins of Rafah. From there, the government is planning to commit a total ethnic cleansing by exiling the Palestinians to a third country. Yes, another Nakba (catastrophe), à la 1948, is in the making.

Trump Can End the War If He Wills It

Trump’s focus on a ceasefire as a first step is imperative and immediately needed, but it must only be a first step. He must make it unequivocally clear to Netanyahu that, during the cessation of hostilities, he must develop and submit an exit strategy from Gaza. The war must stop and cannot be resumed under any circumstances, and the flow of humanitarian assistance must begin immediately in sufficient quantities to prevent mass starvation.

Yes, given Israel’s dependence on the US on a host of issues, including political cover, economic assistance, and military aid, Trump is in a position not to ask but to demand that Netanyahu adhere to the US’ demand to end this horrifying war, the ultimate consequences of which are hard even to imagine.

Trump, who is clamoring to win a Nobel Peace Prize, is facing a crossroad. At the first road, remaining silent in the face of this pending catastrophe. He will be complicit, before the law, in the war crimes being committed in Gaza. The other road could potentially help him to realize his dream by ending the war in Gaza and beginning an Israeli-Palestinian peace process that would lead to the only viable solution—a two-state solution.

Will he rise to the occasion and do what all of his predecessors failed to achieve?

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs, at New York University (NYU). He taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.
alon@alonben-meir.com Web: www.alonben-meir.com

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

A Security Council meeting on the rapidly escalating crisis in the Middle East. 13 June 2025. Credit: UN Photo/Loey Felipe
 
Rosemary DiCarlo, UN Under-Secretary-General for political affairs told ambassadors that the repercussions of the attacks were already reverberating. “I reaffirm the Secretary-General’s condemnation of any military escalation in the Middle East,” she said, urging both Israel and Iran to exercise maximum restraint and “avoid at all costs a descent into deeper and wider regional conflict”

By Alon Ben-Meir
NEW YORK, Jun 18 2025 (IPS)

Israel’s attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities may be justified if one takes Netanyahu’s explanation at face value. I doubt, however, if he and Trump have fully considered the ominous regional ramifications of the attack and whether negotiations to limit Iran’s nuclear program would have led to much more positive results.

Netanyahu has finally executed what he has been itching to do for many years—attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities and army installations and decapitating many of its military commanders and nuclear scientists.

Even though Trump first appeared to have distanced himself from the Israeli operation, there is simply no doubt that he gave the green light to it, without which Netanyahu would not have dared to make such a move that may well draw the US into the fray and plunge the entire region into a war, potentially with horrific ramifications.

Trump and Netanyahu developed a strategy whereby the United States would deny any involvement in Israel’s decision to attack Iran. They warned Tehran, as Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated: “We are not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region. Israel advised us that they believe this action was necessary for its self-defense.

President Trump and the administration have taken all necessary steps to protect our forces and remain in close contact with our regional partners. Let me be clear: Iran should not target US interests or personnel.”

On Wednesday, Trump expressed misgivings about reaching a negotiated agreement during the sixth round of negotiations between US and Iranian representatives scheduled for next Sunday in Qatar. By that time, he was already aware of Netanyahu’s pending attack.

Although many high-ranking Democrats and Republicans repudiated Netanyahu for daring to take such an ominous action when another round of talks was set, they appear oblivious to what was agreed upon behind the scenes between Trump and Netanyahu.

Netanyahu would attack, and the US would distance itself to prevent Iran from attacking American military targets in the region, knowing that Iran would want to avoid a direct confrontation with the US. The US, however, would come to Israel’s defense by intercepting incoming ballistic missiles.

Trump’s response to the attack on his Truth Social site says it all, threatening further attacks unless Iran accepts a nuclear deal. In a lengthy post, he stated:

“I gave Iran chance after chance to make a deal. I told them, in the strongest of words, to “just do it,” but no matter how hard they tried, no matter how close they got, they just couldn’t get it done. I told them it would be much worse than anything they know, anticipated… Certain Iranian hardliner’s [sic] spoke bravely, but they didn’t know what was about to happen. They are all DEAD now, and it will only get worse! There has already been great death and destruction, but there is still time to make this slaughter, with the next already planned attacks being even more brutal, come to an end. Iran must make a deal before there is nothing left, and save what was once known as the Iranian Empire. No more death, no more destruction, JUST DO IT, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.”

Furthermore, Trump also described the Israeli attack as “excellent” in an ABC interview and cautioned that “there’s more to come – a lot more,” unless Iran agrees to a deal.

The problem here is that, regardless of how weak Iran is as a result of Israel’s successful campaign to diminish Iran’s axis of resistance, Hezbollah and Hamas, and their shattered air defense systems as a result of Israel’s attack a few months ago, Iran still retains a formidable military power and is not about to surrender. To suggest that the Ayatollah will resume negotiations after being humiliated is foolish.

Iran will not succumb and will retaliate against Israel, and regardless of the extent of damage and destruction it will sustain, Iran will want to preserve their pride, and for that, it will be more than willing to sacrifice a great deal more.

The Iranian people, who largely detest their regime, will now rally behind it as they view the Israeli attack with the support of the US as only humiliating, but it will further worsen the economic condition in the country, from which they have already been suffering.

Another outcome of the Israel-US miscalculation is that the attack has only strengthened the voices of many Iranian hardline officials who oppose negotiations with the US in the first place. They had serious doubts about the US’s real intentions, and now they feel vindicated as it became increasingly clear that Trump has given the blessing to Netanyahu.

Moreover, although the Arab Gulf states may quietly cheer the destruction that Israel inflicted on Iran, they are now in a state not only of apprehension but fear that they may be dragged into a war they do not want.

Any regional war will have major economic ramifications, which set back their economic development, which they prize the most, and especially their concerns over the disruption of their oil exports, which is the beating heart of their economies.

Israel’s attack on Iran with US support will further push Iran into Russia’s and China’s arms. For these two countries, it is a heaven-sent development and they will spare no effort to capitalize on it and squeeze all the geostrategic benefits at the expense of the US in particular.

Finally, even if Israel manages to destroy all of Iran’s nuclear facilities, which is unlikely, it will only be a matter of time for it to rebuild and resume its nuclear program, except this time it will do so even with greater vigor and determination to produce nuclear weapons.

Furthermore, Iran would more than likely withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty and open the door to regional nuclear proliferation, which successive US administrations wanted to avoid.

Trump and Netanyahu seem to have forgotten that Iran is a regional powerhouse with a population of 90 million, has enormous natural and human resources, enjoys a crucial geostrategic location, and a rich history that endows it with a unique regional presence. Even after suffering a devastating war, Iran will emerge again as a major power that Trump and Netanyahu must reckon with. Iran is here to stay, and Israel and the US will have to live with it.

Regardless of how the current hostilities end, the long-term solution to Iran’s nuclear program is at the negotiating table. Trump’s desire to reach a quick solution to show some success, especially after having failed to end the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, might have doomed the negotiations with Iran.

And Netanyahu, who is politically beleaguered at home and has been itching to attack Iran and wants to emerge as a hero, decided to exploit Iran’s weakness without carefully considering that the price that Israel might have to pay later will far outweigh what he might have gained today.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

Rescue workers line up body bags in Tal Al Sultan, in Rafah, in southern Gaza. Credit: UNOCHA

By Alon Ben-Meir
NEW YORK, May 30 2025 (IPS)

For over a year, I refused to ascribe Israel’s war against Hamas and the reign of horror it is inflicting on the Palestinians in Gaza as genocide, but now I feel shaken to the core by what I am witnessing. If what I see is not genocide, then I do not know what is.

Last year, I attended the Mailman School of Public Health graduation ceremony at Columbia University. The student selected to deliver a speech on behalf of the student body was an Arab woman. First, she spoke about her experience at the university as a student, but then shifted to the war in Gaza. During her speech, she invoked the word ‘genocide’ several times, about Israel’s atrocious activities and onslaught on Gaza.

At the time, I was enraged, thinking that although Israel has committed many crimes in its execution of war against Hamas, it did not rise to the level of genocide. But over the last few months, as I was looking at the unfolding horror that’s taking place in Gaza—the mass destruction of infrastructure, the indiscriminate killing of men, women, and children, the clear revenge and retribution that’s been undertaken by Israeli soldiers, the starvation to which the entire community been subjected to—I could not but come to the dreadfully sad conclusion that what Israel is committing is nothing but genocide.

Indeed, how do you explain the deaths of nearly 54,000 Palestinians, more than half of them women, children, and the elderly? How do you define the deliberate destruction of hospitals, clinics, schools, and whole neighborhoods with thousands buried under the rubble, left to rot? How do you describe the many Israeli soldiers who boast about the number of Palestinians they have killed? And how do you label a government that cheered its intended goal of demolishing, decimating, and dismantling whatever was left standing in Gaza?

As I kept listening and watching the unfolding horror day in and day out, I could not stop weeping for what has evolved in front of my eyes–indeed, in front of the eyes of the whole world.

But then, hardly anything has happened to end this ongoing travesty. The war continues, the slaughter continues, starvation continues, destruction continues, revenge and retribution continue, making inhumanity and brutality the order of the day.

Yes, I cried with real tears, asking:

Where are all these Israelis who have been demonstrating day in and day out to release the remaining 59 hostages, but never raise their voices to stop the killing of 54,000 Palestinians?

Where are the rabbis who praise God for being the chosen? I wonder, has God chosen the Jews to maim, to mutilate, to massacre, and to kill? Does the Israel that was created on the ashes of the Jews who perished in the Holocaust now have the moral justification to perpetrate genocide against innocent men, women, and children?

Where are the opposition parties in Israel, who have been paralyzed and remain comfortably numb? Why aren’t they screaming, shouting, and protesting against an evil government that is destroying the very moral foundation of a country that sacrificed its soul on the altar of the vilest government in Israel’s history?

Where are the academics, professors, and students that should uphold high moral ground? Why have they buried their voices among the thousands of Palestinians buried with no trace?

And what happened to the so-called ‘most moral army in the world,’ the Israel Defense Forces, that took pride in defending their country only to turn out to become the most depraved force, committing crimes of unspeakable cruelty, ruthlessness and savagery?

They are fighting under the false banner of saving the country from a mortal enemy when, in fact, they are destroying Israel from within, leaving it searching for salvation for generations to come.

I was raised by parents who instilled in me the meaning of caring and compassion, lending a helping hand to people in need, sharing my food with the hungry, and learning never to hate others or hold others in disdain.

I have held these values from the time I was a little boy to this day, recognizing that these are the ideals that have sustained me in times of loss, in times of suffering, in times of sorrow, in times of hope, and in times of anguish, never knowing what tomorrow will hold.

One day, I asked my mother, ‘Mother, what shall I do with people who hate me and want to harm me only because of who I am?’ She pondered for a second, and then said, ‘My son, if a beast comes to hurt you, defend yourself, but never, never become like one. Because if you did, you would have lost your humanity, and you will have little left to live for.’ And, after another brief pause, she told me: ‘Remember, son, an eye for an eye leaves us all blind.’

So many Israelis have told me to my face that we should kill every Palestinian child in Gaza because once they grow up, they will become terrorists bent on terrorizing us for as long as they live, and we should kill them all to prevent that future. How sick and deranged and demented these people are.

Has it occurred to them that what Israel is doing to the Palestinians today is nurturing the next generation of Palestinians to become terrorists because they have nothing left to lose, and avenging what has befallen their people is the only reason they want to live?

Israel has lost its Jewish values, its conscience, its morals, its sense of order, and its very reason for being. Hamas’ savage attack on Israel is unconscionable and unacceptable. Still, the Israeli reaction to the Hamas massacre reminded me precisely of what my mother taught me from day one: if a beast comes to hurt you, never become one, because you will have nothing left to live for.

When this ugly war comes to an end, Israel will never be the same. It has stigmatized itself for generations to come, it has inflicted irreparable damage to world Jewry, it has intensified the rise of antisemitism to new heights, it has betrayed everything that its founders stood for. And above all else, it has lost its soul, and may never find its way back from the abyss.

alon@alonben-meir.com Web: www.alonben-meir.com

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

View of destruction at a school in West Darfur that had been serving as a shelter for displaced people. 14 April 2025 Credit: UN News / Mohamed Khalil

By Alon Ben-Meir
NEW YORK, Apr 24 2025 (IPS)

The ongoing civil war in Sudan is tragic, but the greater tragedy is that if the international community sits on its hands and does nothing to stop this horrific war and prevent further escalation of the conflict, it will come at an unfathomable price

The human toll of Sudan’s civil war, now in its third year, has reached catastrophic proportions, with widespread carnage and violence against civilians. As of November 2024, 28,700 people have been killed. Over 12 million have been internally displaced as of April 2025, and 3.3 million fled to neighboring countries – Chad, South Sudan, and Ethiopia. In Chad alone, 90 percent of Sudanese refugees are women and children.

The Sudan civil war, which was reignited in 2023, stems from decades of ethnic, religious, and political tensions and historical grievances, compounded by a power struggle between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Following the ouster of dictator Omar al-Bashir in 2019, SAF leader Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and RSF commander Gen. Mohamed Hamdan “Hemedti” Dagalo formed a transitional government but clashed over integrating the RSF into the SAF and transitioning to civilian rule. The RSF’s refusal to submit to SAF authority and disputes over control of resources, especially gold, escalated into an open war in April 2023.

Renewed fighting in Sudan’s North Darfur has forced hundreds of thousands of already displaced people to flee once again in search of safety. 20 April 2025. Credit: UNICEF/Mohammed Jamal

Sudan’s colonial legacy created arbitrary borders that ignored ethnic and cultural divisions, leading to the marginalization of non-Arab regions like Darfur and South Sudan. Post-independence governments in Khartoum imposed Islamic law (Sharia) on non-Muslim populations, fueling deep resentment.

Moreover, economic inequalities existed between the predominantly Arab and Muslim Northern elites, who historically controlled wealth and resources, and the African Animist and Christian Southern and Western regions, which faced the plunder of their resources and neglect over the years.

Oil-rich areas like Darfur and Kordofan became a breaking point over equitable resource distribution and the absence of transparency in distributing revenues generated from the sale of gold and oil.

The SAF wants to retain control of the Sudanese state and military apparatus and has resisted RSF demands for autonomy or power-sharing, viewing it as a rogue paramilitary. The RSF, which grew from and is predominantly comprised of members of the notorious Janjaweed militia, seeks to secure political legitimacy, institutionalize its influence through a parallel government, and retain control over lucrative resource-rich territories.

Regardless of the historic account and the decades-long grievances, the atrocities being perpetrated against innocent civilians, especially women and children, defy human consciousness to the core.

Human rights abuses

The non-Arab communities have systematically been targeted by the RSF and allied militias, duplicating tactics from the 2003 genocide. The RSF committed egregious crimes against humanity, manifested by widespread sexual violence, looting, destruction of civilian infrastructure, extrajudicial killings, sex trafficking, and intimate partner violence, particularly in Darfur.

Between April 2023 and October 2024, there were 119 verified attacks on health facilities, leaving 80 percent of hospitals in conflict zones non-operational. Zamzam, Sudan’s largest refugee camp, located in Darfur, was bombarded by the RSF for months, with at least 300 killed between Zamzam and Abu Shouk, a nearby camp.

Both parties have committed massacres and executions, targeting civilians. In January, members of the SAF executed at least 18 people in Khartoum, mostly individuals from Darfur or Kordofan, and a video circulated depicts SAF members reading a list of alleged RSF collaborators, stating “killed” after each name.

UN High Commissioner Volker Türk emphasized that such acts are war crimes and must never be normalized. “Deliberately taking the life of a civilian or anyone not or no longer directly taking part in hostilities is a war crime,” said Türk.

Nothing can justify or explain the day-in and day-out atrocities that send shocking shivers down the spine of every decent human being.

Over 30 million people in Sudan are in need of humanitarian assistance, more than 15 million of whom are children; at least 635,000 Sudanese are experiencing famine. The Trump administration’s cuts to aid have been, as Norwegian Refugee Council head Jan Egeland described, a “moral failure.”

Over 300 soup kitchens which received US funds were forced to close within days of USAID’s dismantlement. Disease runs rampant, with 3.4 million children at risk of epidemic disease.

As the UN Working Group on Children and Armed Conflict reported in December 2024, both the SAF and RSF forcibly recruit minors as young as seven, including in combat roles. These findings are corroborated by the African Centre for Justice and Peace Studies and the International Committee of the Red Cross. Children are also suffering the deepest violation of sexual violence, with 221 reports of rape against children recorded in 2024.

International failures

The international community’s failure to curb arms flows or enforce ceasefires has exacerbated suffering, leaving Sudan’s civilians trapped in what the UN calls “the world’s largest humanitarian crisis.”

Both sides are entrenched, with external backers. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) backs the RSF, while Egypt supports the SAF, which prolongs the conflict. These divisions led to the failure of the peace talks in Jeddah in late 2023 because of mutual distrust and competing regional interests. The SAF and RSF may end up establishing de facto partitioned states, which would further entrench the conflict.

Prospects for a Solution

The international community must act now to stop the fighting and save the lives of countless people who have been victimized by two corrupt warring generals whose lust for power far supersedes the lives of the multitudes, especially women and children, who are killed, displaced, and dying from starvation.

On April 15, the UK, Germany, France, the African Union and the European Union co-hosted the London Sudan Conference, bringing together foreign ministers and high-level representatives to find a resolution to the war. The participating nations have correctly called for an immediate and permanent ceasefire, an end to external interference, and a renewed commitment to Sudan’s unity, sovereignty, and territorial integrity.

They also emphasized the importance of negotiating a settlement leading to a civilian-led government, emphasized the need to protect civilians and coordinate international humanitarian assistance, and firmly rejected any effort to establish parallel governments or to partition the country.

Although their statements are well-meaning and necessary, they fall far short of what must be done immediately to end the unspeakable carnage and destruction. Indeed, disagreement between key Arab states, especially those that have intervened on opposite sides of the conflict, and the co-chairs prevented any further consensus on ending the war.

Sadly, the conference may turn out to be nothing but another round of aimless speeches unless concrete actions are taken without delay. The UK, France, Germany, and the UN must lead to end the war by taking and enforcing the following measures.

Establishing a transitional government: A long-term, mutually acceptable political solution is needed to prevent future wars that have plagued Sudan for decades. To that end, the formation of a civilian government is critical to insulate it from military dominance, while granting autonomy to regions like Darfur, which require compromises and security integration between the RSF and the SAF armies under a single command.

Deploying an international peacekeeping force

The UK, France, and Germany must sponsor a resolution mandating an UN peacekeeping force comprising African Union states along with the UK, France, and Germany playing a supervisory and training role to protect civilians, deter attacks on non-combatants, secure humanitarian corridors, monitor ceasefire violations, and enforce compliance.

They should impose comprehensive arms embargoes and sanctions on the countries supplying weapons—the UAE, Egypt and Turkey—while enlisting other countries to exert international pressure. They must leverage their aid to demand unconstrained humanitarian access, including allowing cross-line aid delivery while supporting local responders to emergencies.

They need to ensure that any peace process includes civil society groups, funds grassroots organizations, and supports independent media to counter disinformation and hate speech.
They ought to provide unified technical and financial assistance to help implement any mediated peace agreement.

The Sudanese people have endured indescribably torturous death, destruction, displacement, and disease. The mediators must remember that history will repeat itself unless the agreement between the warring parties addresses Sudan’s foundational divides, inequality, and ethnic disparities, not just silencing guns.

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

A 31-year-old woman sits by the window. She used to be an entrepreneur before the Taliban takeover. Credit: UN Women/Sayed Habib Bidell

By Alon Ben-Meir
NEW YORK, Apr 7 2025 (IPS)

The Taliban’s egregious violations of women’s rights in Afghanistan, especially banning women from education and even from speaking in public, are beyond the pale. Imposing economic sanctions alone, however, has not changed in any significant way the Taliban’s treatment of women.

By demonstrating that they understand the Taliban’s cultural heritage and religious beliefs, Western powers, with the support of several Arab states, will be in a better position to persuade the Taliban that respecting women’s rights is consistent with their beliefs and would be greatly beneficial to their country.

Although the Taliban were exposed to democracy, freedom, and equality for both men and women for nearly 20 years during the American presence, they reversed these reforms once they reassumed power following the American withdrawal in August 2021, even though the Afghans embraced such freedoms wholeheartedly. From the Taliban’s perspective, these reforms were contrary to their beliefs and way of life.

The Taliban’s Egregious Women’s Rights Violations

In 2021, the Taliban banned all education for girls beyond the sixth grade, which has deprived a total of 2.2 million girls and women of their right to education. UNICEF Executive Director Catherine Russell stated last month that the ban continues to harm the future of millions of Afghan girls, and that over four million girls will have been deprived of an education beyond the primary level if the ban persists for another five years. Accordingly, she said, “The consequences for these girls – and for Afghanistan – are catastrophic.”

Since 2021, Afghan women have faced unimaginable oppression. Beyond education bans, the Taliban forced women to cover themselves completely, with criminal penalties for those who refuse to comply. In December 2024, they announced their plan to shut down all NGOs employing women over so-called dress code violations.

Their voices are literally silenced through an August 2024 law that bans women from speaking outside the home. Their rights are stripped away, and their resistance met with brutality. In the shadows of war and conflict, women and girls endure unimaginable suffering, facing heightened levels of gender-based violence, including arbitrary killings, torture, and forced marriage and sexual violence, leaving deep physical and emotional scars.

The Taliban are not oblivious to these findings, as some officials have publicly argued against some bans, but they nevertheless continue to violate women’s rights under the pretext of their bans being consistent with their religious and traditional role in Afghan society.

The Taliban are predominantly from the Pashtun tribes, which are indigenous to the region and have a strong tribal structure and cultural traditions, which influenced the Taliban’s socio-political orientation.

The Historic Perspective

To better understand the Taliban’s mindset, which reflects their resilience and extremism against foreign domination, it is important to reflect briefly on Afghanistan’s history. The region now known as Afghanistan was a target for invaders as early as the sixth century BCE, facing scores of foreign invaders up through the US-led invasion in 2001, yet has shown great resilience against foreign domination, as invaders repeatedly faced fierce resistance and were ultimately forced to withdraw.

Across centuries, Afghanistan has consistently defied foreign powers, earning its reputation as the “graveyard of empires.” The Taliban’s emergence as a movement was, in large part, a response to the chaos and power vacuum left by the Soviet withdrawal in 1990. They rose to power in 1996 and were ousted by the US-led invasion in 2001.

Afghan religious extremism stems from several factors. The U.S. and its allies funded and armed mujahideen fighters during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, fostering radical ideologies. Saudi-funded schools in Pakistan taught extreme Deobandi and Wahhabi ideologies to Afghan refugees, who returned to Afghanistan to fight in the Afghan Civil War.

Following the departure of the Soviets, the Taliban imposed puritanical Islam rooted in Deobandi ideology and ethnic and political manipulation. Extremism was used to consolidate power, suppress minorities, and resist foreign influence.

Cutting aid alone is not the answer

It is necessary for global powers to hold the Taliban accountable for gender persecution and take punitive actions, including cutting off financial aid; however, thus far, imposing economic sanctions alone has not yielded the desired results.

The Taliban’s harsh treatment of women remains unabated, and to effect a real change, the West must change its strategy.

While the threat of more sanctions should continue to hover over the Taliban’s heads, to effect the necessary changes to improve women’s rights, the West should take systematic measures that align with the group’s cultural and religious teachings.

Working with influential Muslim-majority countries, including Indonesia, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, which is the leader of Sunni Islam, is key in order to challenge the Taliban’s interpretation of Sharia law while highlighting Quranic principles of equality and historical examples of female scholarship in Islam.

In Afghanistan, the restrictions on women’s rights, including education and dress codes, are based on interpretations of Islamic law and cultural practices rather than direct Quranic edicts. To demonstrate to the Taliban leaders that respecting women’s human rights complements rather than compromises their cultural and religious beliefs, the West’s Arab and Muslim partners should cite Quranic verses to make the case.

The first revelation to Prophet Muhammad begins with the command to “read,” which is seen as a universal call to acquire knowledge. Surah Al-Tawbah (9:71) emphasizes the equal responsibility of men and women in seeking knowledge and upholding moral values. Surah Al-Hadid (57:25) promotes education as a means to establish justice and equity in society.

Moreover, the Quran does not explicitly state that women should be segregated from men, nor that they must wear a hijab. Surah An-Nur (24:30-31) instructs both men and women to be modest and guard their private parts, certainly not their heads or faces, but the Taliban interprets this to support the wearing of a burqa that covers Afghan women from head to toe.

In that regard, the West should provide aid to Afghan clerics who advocate for girls’ education and women’s rights within Islamic teachings, and invoke women’s literacy in Afghanistan before the rise of the Taliban to encourage those clerics.

Additionally, targeted economic support for infrastructure projects and agricultural investments should be offered in exchange for reopening girls’ secondary schools or permitting women’s employment in the health and education sectors while emphasizing the economic cost of excluding women.

In conjunction with that, preferential trade terms for Afghan products produced by women should be provided while highlighting how educated women improve public health outcomes for all.

The West should also support community-based schools and computer and science training for women and girls, which reliable local NGOs should administer, and provide safe channels for women activists to air their grievances. Culturally, the West should invest in programs showcasing women artists, poets, and historians as custodians of Afghanistan’s cultural heritage.

In that regard, the media should be used to disseminate success stories of Muslim-majority countries, like Bangladesh and the UAE, where women’s education and employment coexist with cultural and religious values.

By combining religious dialogue, economic pragmatism, and grassroots movements to empower women, the West should pursue incremental progress, which will be more sustainable than seeking instantaneous change.

Recalling the way the Afghan people were treated by foreign powers over the centuries, the Taliban have developed an instinctive adversarial reaction to anything proposed by any foreign power.

This certainly does not justify their treatment of women, but they need to be persuaded, however, that the proposed changes can only benefit their country’s socio-economic conditions while respecting women’s rights, without compromising their cultural and religious beliefs.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

On March 26, Israel and Egypt celebrated the 46th anniversary of their peace treaty, which has upended the very nature of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Egypt remains pivotal in the search for Israeli-Palestinian peace, especially now in the wake of the Israel-Hamas war.

US President Ronald Reagan and Egyptian President Anwar Al-Sadat at a press briefing, August 1981. Courtesy Ronald Reagan Library.

Ending the 1973 Yom Kippur War with the return of the Sinai to Egypt without making a significant concession to Israel, made it possible for Sadat ‘to claim victory,’ which strengthened his standing in the eyes of the public and allowed him to later travel to Israel as a ‘victor.’ He was received in Israel as a great statesman with an honor guard, creating an indelible mark in the minds of Israelis and Egyptians alike.

Sadat’s visionary leadership, matched by Prime Minister Menachem Begin, and President Carter’s determination to seize the hour and mediate between them, paved the way for the historic Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty, signed on March 26, 1979. The treaty has endured for the past 46 years because, from its inception, it has served the long- and short-term geostrategic interests and mutual economic and security benefits of both countries.

Although Egyptian and Israeli governments have changed hands several times over the past 46 years, both sides continue to fully adhere to the treaty’s terms, recognizing its crucial geostrategic importance for their respective countries. Thus, the treaty withstood the test of time despite regional instability and the continuing violent Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The treaty has transcended its monumental implications and benefits for Israel and Egypt. It has fundamentally changed the psychological and political dimensions of the Arab-Israeli conflict as it began to resonate among the Arab states after nearly a decade of chastising and sanctioning Egypt for breaking the Arab world’s bloc of enmity against Israel.

Preventing an Arab-Israeli war

With the signing of the treaty, it became clear that Israeli-Egyptian peace would prevent any possibility of an all-out Arab-Israeli war. Egypt has been and continues to be the strongest Arab country militarily, and without it, the Arab states would not start a war against Israel that would surely end in utter defeat.

Without the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty, it would have been inconceivable that any of these peace agreements would be established. In 1993, Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) established a framework for peace and mutual recognition. In 1994, Israel and Jordan signed a peace treaty.

In 2002, Saudi Arabia introduced the Arab Peace Initiative (API), adopted by the Council of Arab States, which de facto recognized Israel’s right to exist, albeit conditional upon the establishment of a Palestinian state. And in late 2020 and early 2021, the Abraham Accords were signed between Israel and, individually, the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan.

That is, the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty changed the trajectory of the Arab-Israeli conflict in that it psychologically adjusted the Arab States’ mindset toward Israel’s irrevocable existence and opened the door for a political solution, albeit slowly given the continuing conflict with the Palestinians.

Although Saudi Arabia has gained greater prominence in Arab affairs than Egypt over the past decade, Egypt remains central in the search for Israeli-Palestinian peace regardless of its ultimate contour, especially now in the wake of the Israel-Hamas war. Without Egypt’s direct involvement and consent about Gaza’s future in the context of Israeli-Palestinian peace, no solution can be achieved.

Egypt has traditionally been involved directly and indirectly in Gaza. It was in control of Gaza until Israel conquered the enclave during the 1967 Six-Day War and has been engaged time and again in mediating the repeating conflagrations between Israel and Hamas.

At no time, however, has Egypt been more directly involved in the Israel-Hamas conflict than it has since Hamas’ October 2023 attack and Israel’s war of retaliation. Regardless of the eventual outcome of this conflict, Egypt will be affected directly, and hence, it has every right to play a direct role in shaping the ultimate solution.

Today, the question is whether Egypt’s President Sisi will show the same courage as Sadat to take the lead and use the 46th anniversary as a turning point, starting by insisting on a framework for the future of Gaza in the context of ending the Israel-Hamas war and ultimately the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The Arab Summit in Cairo, held on March 4, which included Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE, endorsed Egypt’s comprehensive plan for Gaza’s reconstruction, which aims to rebuild the territory over five years at a cost of $53 billion without displacing its residents. The plan excludes Hamas from future governance, proposing instead a technocratic Palestinian committee under the Palestinian Authority’s oversight.

It emphasizes the need for security, training Palestinian forces, and international support, including potential UN peacekeeping forces. The plan also categorically rejected Trump’s outlandish idea to relocate Palestinians and transform Gaza into a “Riviera of the Middle East.”

Given that Israel will be affected by any plans regarding the future of Gaza, President Sisi should begin to conduct bilateral discussions with Israel to establish exit plans for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza in several stages. Egypt is in a position to disabuse Israel from ever entertaining the idea of exiling the Palestinians from Gaza, threatening that this would jeopardize the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty. Following the Arab Summit, President Sisi said, “The time has come to adopt a serious and effective political pathway that leads to a fair and lasting solution for the Palestinian cause, in accordance to the resolutions of international legitimacy. I have faith that President Trump is capable of doing this.”

Although both Israel and Egypt would like to see Hamas eliminated, they also know that it would be out of their reach as Hamas will remain a relevant player that cannot be discarded. The summit has not ruled out some role for Hamas in implementing the Egyptian initiative.

Indeed, given how battered Hamas is following 17 months of war that devasted much of its armed forces and laid two-thirds of Gaza in ruin, Hamas began in recent weeks to send mixed signals about its future in Gaza. It has shown a willingness to discuss demilitarization as an end goal of a peace process.

Hamas official Husam Badran said that the group was willing to step aside from governing, stating that “Our only condition is for this to be an internal Palestinian matter… As long as there is a national consensus, Hamas will not be involved in the governance.”

The historic Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty remains the bedrock of a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace. The main obstacle to achieving this still is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. No one is in a better place than President Sisi, who can use Egypt’s indispensable role to advance the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, starting with the establishment of an end-game to the war in Gaza.

There is no time better than now to move aggressively toward that end as Egypt and Israel celebrate the 46th anniversary of their peace agreement. Can Sisi rise to the occasion and match Sadat’s vision and courage?

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

A family gathers in a damaged building in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip. 10 March 2025. Credit: World Food Program (WFP)

By Alon Ben-Meir
NEW YORK, Mar 13 2025 (IPS)

77 torturous years of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, punctuated by intense violence and wars, successive Netanyahu-led governments have shattered Jewish values to the core—values that have sustained and preserved Jewish lives for centuries and provided the moral foundation on which Israel was built.

Throughout millennia of dispersion, the Jews had no army, no weapons, and no advanced technology to fight back against persecution, segregation, expulsion, and death, but they survived.

They persevered because they upheld these moral values at all times: in times of joy, in times of suffering, in times of loss, in times of gain, and in times of anxiety when they did not know what tomorrow would bring.

The historian Paul Johnson noted in his book A History of the Jews: “To [the Jews] we owe the idea of equality before the law, both divine and human; of the sanctity of life and the dignity of the human person; of the individual conscience and so of personal redemption; of the collective conscience and so of social responsibility; of peace as an abstract ideal and love as the foundation of justice, and many other items which constitute the basic moral furniture of the human mind.”

Tragically, these moral values have not resonated with Prime Minister Netanyahu and his ardent followers. From the first day he rose to power in 1996, he vowed to undermine the Oslo Accords, and swore to never allow the establishment of a Palestinian state under his watch. Since he returned to power in 2008, the Israeli-Palestinian relationship has hit a new nadir, and the prospect for peace is dimmer today than ever before.

Dehumanizing and brutalizing the Palestinians under occupation in the West Bank, tightening the blockade around Gaza, and categorically objecting to making any meaningful concessions to reach a peace agreement became his life-long mission, rendering the conflict increasingly intractable.

He facilitated the transfer of billions of dollars from Qatar to Hamas, which allowed Hamas to build a powerful militia that is still standing against Israel’s formidable military machine. Netanyahu convinced himself that Hamas was under control, but then came Hamas’ savage attack under his watch.

Though Hamas’ barbarism is unforgivable, and Israel has every right to defend itself, Netanyahu unleashed a retaliatory war against Hamas unparalleled in its scope and disproportionality. The war has laid two-thirds of Gaza in ruin; 47,600 Palestinians were killed, with half of those identified as women, children, or elderly, and over 100,000 have been injured.

Forcible and repeated displacement of 1.9 million people, restriction on deliveries of food, medicine, drinking water, and fuel, and the destruction of schools and hospitals, precipitated a humanitarian disaster unseen since Israel was created in 1948.

Revenge and torture, shooting to kill with no questions asked, and treating all Palestinians in Gaza—men, women, and the elderly—as legitimate targets as if they were all combatants, demonstrate the moral rot that has taken root in Israel.

Asa Kasher, one of Israel’s best-known philosophers, recently stated, “We heard a eulogy from the family of a soldier who was killed, who related how he burned homes and undertook acts of revenge. Where did this disturbed idea of revenge come from?”

These moral crimes have not only violated the laws of war but the very core of Jewish values. They have not brought back to life a single Israeli who was massacred by Hamas, they have only satisfied a corrupt Netanyahu-led government that functions like a criminal gang whose thirst for Palestinian blood is insatiable and would stop short of nothing to achieve its ends.

Furthermore, Netanyahu is using the cover of the Gaza war, where the whole world’s attention is focused, to ransack the West Bank.

During the past 17 months, 886 Palestinians were killed in the West Bank and 7,368 were injured. In 2024 alone, 841 homes in the West Bank and 219 homes in East Jerusalem were demolished. Additionally, as of the end of June 2024, 9,440 Palestinians have been detained on “security grounds,” including 226 minors.

There were 1,860 instances of Israeli settler violence against Palestinians from October 7, 2023, to December 31, 2024; under the watchful eyes of the police and the military, settlers regularly attacked Palestinian villages, setting fire to homes and cars, forcing thousands to abandon their homes and villages where they lived for hundreds of years.

As recently as January 2025, Israel launched a large-scale military operation in the West Bank, displacing 40,000 Palestinians, which is in line with Finance Minister Smotrich’s call for the annexation of the West Bank.

Given what the Jews have endured for centuries in foreign lands, it was once hard to imagine that any Israeli government would be capable of treating another human being the way that the Jews have been treated.

The Netanyahu-led government has steadily been trashing the values that provided the moral foundation of Israel, built on the ashes of the 6 million Jews who perished in the Holocaust; this tragic moral collapse of Israel has infected the Israeli public.

There has been hardly any pushback from Israelis, 80 percent of whom were born after 1967. For them, the occupation has become a way of life—the suppression and incarceration of Palestinians is normal, dispossession of their land is a given, demolishing their houses is unvarying, and night raids are another good measure to instill constant anxiety and fear in their hearts.

The Israelis, many of whom have grown numb to the Palestinians’ daily suffering, should wake up for a brief moment and watch what is being done in their name, internalize the daily tragedies that are being inflicted on so many innocent civilians whose only guilt is being Palestinians. Isn’t that evocative of the Jews’ persecution, whose guilt was just being Jewish?

This total betrayal of Jewish values should send shivers through their spines as it has for every decent human being.

Netanyahu does not want peace. Maintaining perpetual conflict with the Palestinians would allow him to usurp more Palestinian land through coercion, intimidation, and violence than what he can gain through a peaceful negotiating process.

He persistently paints the Palestinians as an existential threat while using night raids, home demolitions, and more to provoke them into committing acts of violence to justify the occupation on national security grounds, while gobbling up their land bite by bite.

Netanyahu opposes a Palestinian state but offers no alternative to a two-state solution. He must show the world another option where both sides can live in peace and security short of that. Is the annexation of the West Bank the answer?

It will do nothing but erase Israel’s Jewish character and deprive it of living in security and peace, defying its founders’ vision and its reason for being. Ninety percent of all living Palestinians were born under occupation. They are left hopeless and despairing and have nothing left to lose.

A fourth generation of youth will now live to avenge the calamity that has befallen their people. What fate will await them? They would rather die as martyrs than live hopelessly in servitude. It will not be if but when a new inferno erupts at a magnitude never seen before.

Netanyahu is champing at the bit to exile the Palestinians from Gaza, courtesy of Trump, who is clueless about the horror that will unfold should he act on his brazen idea. However, Netanyahu’s dream of a greater Israel will be nothing but a lasting nightmare.

Israel will never be able to sustain itself on the ashes of the Palestinians. By forsaking Jewish values, Netanyahu is destroying the moral foundation on which the country stands. The Israelis must remember that the values that guarded the Jews’ survival throughout the millennia must be restored to ensure the survival of the country and, indeed, its very soul.

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

The Arab League meeting room in Cairo. (Alyssa Bernstein/Flickr/CC BY-NC 2.0) Source: Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs.

By Alon Ben-Meir
NEW YORK, Feb 20 2025 (IPS)

When the Arab states convene an emergency session in Egypt to address Trump’s/Netanyahu’s plans to take over Gaza and exile the Palestinians, they must warn Trump that acting on this plan will usher in a catastrophic conflagration that could engulf the entire Middle East.

Regardless of how geo-strategically important the relationship is between the Arab states and the US, the former must demonstrate unanimous resolve to oppose Trump’s and Netanyahu’s disastrous plans to take over Gaza and exile the Indigenous Palestinians.

Given Egypt’s desire to convey the urgency and the far-reaching implications of the Arab summit on March 4 in Cairo, it’s possible that both heads of state and foreign ministers will be in attendance.

They should make it clear that their countries will spare no effort or resources to prevent the US and Israel from acting in defiance of international laws, norms, and conduct, and that such violations will precipitate ominous geostrategic harm to both Israel and the US.

The partnership between the US and the Arab states has endured for many decades because it has mutually served their strategic, economic, and security interests. The Gulf states, Jordan, and Egypt in particular have provided strategic intelligence and air, naval, and ground military bases and ensured energy security.

Moreover, the US-Arab partnerships have been crucial over many years in coordinating and combating terrorism and violent extremism, stemming the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and promoting regional stability. All this led to maintaining American influence in the region and countering the growing presence of rival powers, especially Russia and China.

To be sure, the relationship has never been a one-way street. But leave it to Trump to throw his weight around as if the Arab states survive only at the mercy of the US’ charitable contributions. He ignores the fact that the regional geostrategic environment has dramatically changed over the past two decades.

The Arab states have choices, and the perception that they depend solely on the US for economic and military aid is mistaken. They can resist being pushed around should they choose to because they know their strength and indispensable role and importance to the US.

Moreover, the Arab states should understand Trump’s character: he is a bully and always tests the outer limits of his power. He bluffs, lies, and connives but is deterred only when sternly confronted and realizes that what he might lose outweighs any potential benefits.

Although he knows how implausible his brazen idea is to take over Gaza, he still tests the water on the remote chance that his opponents would cave in. At the first sign of Egypt and Jordan’s firm resistance to his barefaced idea, he walked back on his threat to withhold foreign aid if they didn’t agree to take in substantial numbers of Palestinians.

The fact that he ventured such an absurd idea –to take Arab land as if it were his property and to hell with its inhabitants – is extremely troubling. The Arab states should disabuse him of the notion that he can now or at any time in the future take any unilateral actions that have such a devastating effect on their national security interests.

The Arab League’s decision to convene an emergency session in Cairo is critical in and of itself in that it conveys an urgency to stop Trump in his tracks, unequivocally adopt actionable measures, demonstrate unanimity and resolve, and issue a stern warning.

Replace US aid to Jordan and Egypt

Although Trump previously floated the idea of cutting foreign aid to Egypt and Jordan if they refused to absorb Palestinians en masse, in his meeting last week with Jordan’s King Abdullah, Trump reversed his position, stating that “we contribute a lot of money to Jordan and Egypt by the way—a lot to both. But I don’t have to threaten that, I think we’re above that.”

Nevertheless, in the summit’s final communique, Arab states should announce that they are ready to make up for any aid lost should Trump act on his threat. The total annual aid the US provides to Egypt and Jordan is $3.2 billion, a drop in the bucket compared to the Gulf states’ foreign reserve funds, which is over $700 billion.

This will send a clear message to Trump that Egypt and Jordan do not exist at the mercy of the US, and his tactics of coercion are shameless and will not work.

Disrupting global oil supplies

The Gulf states have served US economic interests by ensuring stable oil supplies. Saudi Arabia, the largest oil producer, has been crucial in maintaining the free flow of oil to global markets and controlling oil production, which directly impacts the gasoline prices Americans pay at the pump.

Saudi Arabia can threaten to substantially reduce oil production, which would almost immediately raise gasoline prices. This would aggravate the inflationary trend in the US, which Trump wants badly to arrest.

Threaten to reconsider major arms deals

Although the Gulf states, Egypt, and Jordan are equipped with US military hardware, they can readily suspend further procurement of US weapons, which would translate to financial losses to US arms manufacturers.

Between 2018 and 2022, the US facilitated arms sales in the region to the tune of $35 billion, including $18 billion to Saudi Arabia, $6 billion to the UAE, $5 billion to Egypt, $3 billion to Kuwait, and $2 billion to Jordan. None of these countries are currently involved in military conflicts and can hold off on further procurements to make their position clear to Trump.

Sanctioning Israel

The first to salivate over Trump’s sickening idea of a Palestinian expulsion was Netanyahu and his fascist government. It is a dream come true. They praised Trump for his “ingenious” idea. For them, exiling Gaza’s population would not only allow Israel to resettle Gaza, but it would also open the door for annexing most of the West Bank and forcing countless Palestinians to leave, thereby realizing their dream of greater Israel.

The signatories to the Abraham Accords—the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco—should warn Israel that they will rescind the normalization of relations with Israel if they make any attempt to exile the Palestinians. Egypt and Jordan should recall their ambassadors from Israel and Saudi Arabia should reiterate that under no circumstances would it normalize relations with Israel.

Introducing UN Resolutions

Algeria, which is currently on the UNSC, should introduce a resolution to the UNSC to prohibit the US from removing the Palestinians from Gaza. Although the US will certainly veto it, the debate over Trump’s insane idea will further intensify international outrage.

From there, the Arab League should call on the UNGA to convene a vote on a similar resolution condemning Trump’s proposal. It is certain that, with the exceptions of the US and Israel, nearly every country will vote for it. Although UNGA resolutions are not binding, the message will not be lost, even on Trump.

In conjunction with the above measures, the Arab states must also advance their own plans for Gaza in the context of a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. By offering valid plans to reconstruct Gaza, they deprive Trump and Netanyahu of proceeding with their perilous plan.

Offer a comprehensive Arab-led reconstruction plan

Given the widespread destruction, the Arab states should agree to allocate an initial $20 billion for Gaza reconstruction, of the estimated $50-80 billion needed. The US, which aided Netanyahu in destroying Gaza, must also provide a substantial amount. The donor countries should invite other countries to bid for various projects, including the dire need for schools, healthcare clinics, and hospitals.

Establishing a Palestinian unity government

The Arab states must take whatever steps necessary to help establish a unity government between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority: one that accepts Israel’s right to exist, renounces violence, and is ready to negotiate peace based on a two-state solution. Although Israel vehemently rejects negotiating with a Palestinian government that includes Hamas, there will be no peace unless Hamas is an integral part of any new Palestinian government.

Netanyahu’s insistence that Hamas can be eradicated is an illusion. After 15 months of horrific losses and destruction, Hamas is still standing. Israel is negotiating with Hamas, albeit indirectly, and if it could not eradicate it in 15 months, it will not be able to eradicate it in 15 years. Hamas’s willingness to relinquish administrative responsibilities but remain a military force outside of the government will not be accepted by the Arab states and Israel.

Whether Hamas chooses to play a relevant role in a new government or not, it must disarm. Having successfully changed the dynamic of the conflict, however, and forced the Arab states to insist on a two-state solution, there is a good chance that Hamas will accept being a partner in any future Palestinian government and take credit for their historic achievement.

Participate in a Multinational Force

The Arab states should be prepared to participate in a multinational force to maintain security and ensure the complete demilitarization of Gaza. Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, which have a vested interest in finding a permanent solution, should lead a force that will include foreign countries, to be agreed upon by the US and these Arab states.

In conclusion, it is worth reminding ourselves that Hamas’ savagery and Israel’s retaliatory war have dramatically changed the very nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. All recent developments have demonstrated that it will be impossible to return to the conditions that existed before October 7, 2023.

Regardless of how insurmountable the difficulties that lay ahead, the Arab states have a unique historic opportunity to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict first by initiating and participating in a process of reconciliation between Israel and the Palestinians, culminating with a two-state solution with airtight security arrangements, involving Israel, the Palestinians, Jordan, and the US.

The world will be watching. Will the Arab states muster the courage and rise to the historic occasion when they convene on March 4 in Cairo, take charge, stop Trump and Netanyahu’s deadly and morally bankrupt idea of exiling the Palestinians from Gaza, reach a historic breakthrough, and avoid a looming catastrophe?

These are not ordinary times. Let this serve as a warning. If Trump and Netanyahu have it their way, they will destroy Israel as we know it and set the Middle East ablaze on an unprecedented scale.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

Much of Gaza has been destroyed in the current conflict. Credit: UNICEF/Eyad El Baba, February 2025

By Alon Ben-Meir
NEW YORK, Feb 7 2025 (IPS)

Even after Trump declared that he wanted to take back the Panama Canal, acquire Greenland by force, if necessary, and rename the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, I could not, like many others, imagine that his madness could reach a new unfathomable height.

At his news conference on February 4, with Prime Minister Netanyahu standing beside him, sporting a sinister grin, Trump announced that the US would take over Gaza, ship the Palestinians like sheep to Jordan and Egypt, build such a mesmerizing Riviera along the Mediterranean Sea and, voilà, bring peace and prosperity to the whole region. ‘What a wonderful and visionary plan that nobody could have possibly conceived but him.’

Of course, his bluster is short of any details. A display of bravado and raw exercise of power is what he wants to project, and to hell with the ramifications of his brazen plan that would set the region on fire, the likes of which is hard to envisage. Though no sensible person believes that Trump can effectuate such a perilous undertaking, mentioning it alone sent shivers down the spine of every Palestinian.

The message to them is simple: forget about the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. This land is the ancestral land of the Jewish people and it must be restored to its rightful owners. Oh, you Palestinians, be prepared now for the second Nakba (catastrophe), but this time, do not worry; the exodus will be well organized; you will settle in Jordan and Egypt and live happily ever after.

What Trump does not grasp, which is no surprise, is that even though much of Gaza lies in ruin, and it will take years and billions to rebuild, this is their land. They can rebuild their homes, restore the infrastructure, tend to their farms, and restructure their businesses, but they cannot replace their land.

Their attachment is to the land, which they cannot relinquish, substitute, or be compensated for. This is where they belong, where their ancestors lived and died, where their cultural heritage resides, and where they still dream of having a better and brighter future and living with dignity, which even the President of the US cannot usurp with impunity. The ramifications of Trump’s brutally brazen plan for Gaza transcends any nightmare that Trump or Netanyahu can envision.

The exodus of the Palestinians would immediately and ominously destabilize the region. Jordan, in particular, will be the first to be destabilized as an influx of Palestinians would shake the foundation of the country, which is already saddled with nearly one million refugees from Syria and Iraq.

Jordan’s internal instability could potentially lead to conflict with Israel, with whom it shares a 350-kilometer-long border, and precipitate the infiltration of weapons and terrorists. This would wreak havoc on Israel and risk the peace treaty between the two countries that served as the anchor for stability.

Egypt, too, views Trump’s ‘ingenious idea’ as preposterous. Notwithstanding American aid to Egypt, President Sisi vehemently rejected Trump’s plan because it would have dire regional consequences that would not spare Egypt and potentially send Israeli-Egyptian peace asunder.

Trump and Netanyahu’s alignment in this regard is extremely treacherous. Instead of building a new structure of regional peace, Trump will plunge the region into widespread violence and wars, denying both Israelis and Palestinians a day of peace.

And rather than expanding the Abraham Accords, he could potentially unravel them, making the prospect of a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace a pipedream while giving Iran’s axis of resistance a new lease on life. To be sure, Trump’s plan is strategically incomprehensible and horrifically ominous.

It is hard to exaggerate what the impact on the Palestinians would be should Trump’s plan come to fruition. The displacement of the Palestinians will be catastrophic on many fronts, which most likely has not even crossed his mind. Uprooting more than 2.2 million Palestinians from their homeland is cruel and forbidding and will create an unprecedented humanitarian crisis.

It will bring to life the mass displacement of Palestinians in 1948, as the memory of those dark days continues to haunt the Palestinians to this day. Many current residents of Gaza are descendants of those original refugees. Moreover, it will destroy family ties, obliterate their cultural identity, and subject them to the horror of resettlement, in lands where they are unwelcome.

Palestinian radicalism will intensify, which will make the current violent conflict look like a rehearsal. Trump completely ignored Hamas, which remains a powerful force in Gaza, and will further validate its narrative that the Israelis are irredeemable foes seeking to eradicate all Palestinians and that only violent resistance is the answer to Israel’s insatiable lust for more Palestinian land.

Another generation of Palestinians will be poisoned, whose mission in life will be nothing but revenge and retribution for what has befallen their people.

For Netanyahu and his fascist government, Trump’s idea of ethnic cleansing in Gaza of all Palestinians is a dream come true. This, along with the creeping, if not outright, annexation of the West Bank, would finally realize his dream of “greater Israel” as a God-given right; Trump, the Messiah, has come to deliver what God had promised the Jews. Genesis 17:8 (NIV) states, “The whole land of Canaan [Israel], where you now reside as a foreigner, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God.”

Everyone, especially Trump and Netanyahu, should remember this: the displacement of the Palestinians from Gaza will vanquish any prospect of a two-state solution, as no one has come up yet with any new viable idea that would end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict peacefully short of a two-state solution. The alternative is perpetual bloodshed to satisfy the corrupt Netanyahu-led government, whose thirst for Palestinian blood is insatiable.

After 77 years of Israel’s existence, Netanyahu and his gang of right-wing extremists seem to have learned nothing. Israel has every right to exist in peace and security, but it cannot build itself on the ashes of the Palestinians. The Palestinians will resist for generations if they must and will never forsake their inherent right to statehood, which is enshrined by UNSC Resolution 181, the same resolution that granted the Jews in Palestine the same right.

Trump believes that he can do whatever pleases him. One thing he will learn the hard way is that he is not the ruler of the world; he cannot take or dish out territories that do not belong to him. He has no jurisdiction; it is against international law, defies reason, and is devoid of any moral tenet.

The Palestinians have endured occupation, blockade, displacement, expulsion, and dehumanization, and suffered decades-long horrific pain and sorrow, but they have endured. They remained resilient and resolute because their thirst for freedom is absolute. No American president, including Trump, can bend their will.

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University (NYU). He taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.
alon@alonben-meir.com

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: WMO/Karolin Eichier. UN News

By Alon Ben-Meir
NEW YORK, Feb 5 2025 (IPS)

In less than two weeks in office, Trump issued scores of reckless executive orders that ironically will gravely undermine rather than enhance his “America First” agenda and America’s global leadership.

Millions of Americans expected Trump to go rogue once he reassumed the presidency, but much fewer expected him to issue scores of reckless and damaging executive orders so swiftly.

Pulling the US out of several United Nations agencies and threatening to take over the Panama Canal and acquire by force, if necessary, Denmark’s autonomous territory Greenland are some of the most outrageous plans that would severely undermine his “America First” agenda instead of serving its best interests globally and domestically.

It is hard to imagine what will happen to America in a year or two if Congressional Republicans don’t wake up and prevent him from pursuing this perilous agenda. They can put America first only by maintaining global involvement, exerting leadership, and having a say at the table instead of relinquishing its role and responsibility to Russia and China, who would happily jump at every opportunity to undermine America’s national interest.

What Trump fails to grasp is that the UN, despite its inflated bureaucracy and the failure of some of its agencies to adapt to changing global circumstances, still plays a critical role in international affairs, where the US has taken the lead and from which the US directly benefited.

Moreover, Trump and his benighted advisors appear oblivious to the importance of the UN as the only international organization that endeavors, among other things, to maintain international peace and security, protect human rights, promote international cooperation, and provide badly needed humanitarian assistance.

Indeed, despite its inadequacies in various areas, the UN remains indispensable. Trump, ‘the fixer,’ should help fix various agencies’ inadequacies, not by defunding their essential work but by taking the lead and working with other countries to make these agencies proficient and effective. This certainly is in the best interest of the US and only complements his America First agenda.

Several UN agencies are targeted for defunding because Trump broadly accuses them of corruption and resource waste. Again, it is inexplicable how these agencies, regardless of their shortcomings, are targeted for defunding when they provide critical services that the global community needs.

The World Health Organization (WHO), founded in 1948, protects global health. Among many of its critically important functions, WHO anticipates and responds to global health emergencies, including worldwide pandemics like COVID-19.

It also works to eliminate contagious diseases, having eradicated smallpox in 1980. Moreover, the organization establishes international health standards and monitors global health trends through research and data collection to steer evidence-based health policy.

How on earth would defunding it serve the notion of America first if the US will have no say in its operation? Diseases don’t stay neatly contained within borders, and leaving the world’s largest collaborative public health body will leave the US the last to know when deadly contagions are spreading.

The UN Human Rights Council is an intergovernmental body responsible for promoting and protecting global human rights. The US withdrew in June 2018 under Trump but announced a re-engagement in 2021 under Biden. The US has had a complicated relationship with this body under various presidents, mainly due to US accusations that the body has been and still is anti-Israel.

In addition, some member states in this agency are committing human rights violations in their own countries, which undermines their credibility as the guardian of human rights. Again, human rights are sacrosanct; any contribution to guarding them is needed.

The US, which has championed human rights, should always be at the forefront and address what’s wrong with this important agency rather than defunding it and letting China and Russia influence its focus and direction.

The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is another agency Trump wants to punish. This indispensable agency seeks to bring peace through international cooperation in education, science, and culture and protects the world’s physical and intangible heritage.

Here again, the US withdrew from UNESCO under Trump in 2019, primarily citing the organization’s alleged anti-Israel bias but also because of mounting arrears and the need for fundamental reforms.

The US rejoined in 2023 under Biden because he recognized its importance, which made up for its deficiencies. Trump’s withdrawal from this agency does not serve his America First agenda, especially when the US’ concerns and interests are ignored, and its contribution is no longer sought out.

The UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) provides assistance and protection for registered Palestinian refugees across the Middle East. Trump cut funding in 2018; Biden restored it in 2021, but Congress passed a one-year ban on UNRWA funding until March 25, 2025.

There is no doubt that this nearly eight-decades-old organization is heavy on bureaucracy and short on efficiency, and a small number of its operatives in Gaza were found guilty of aiding Hamas in its attack against Israel. Nevertheless, it still renders essential services, which, at present, are more needed than ever.

Yes, significant reorganization and streamlining of its operation is absolutely necessary, but that cannot be fixed without the US’ direct involvement. By abandoning UNRWA, the US is abdicating its leadership role in finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Indeed, many involved in the process have explicitly said that, and if anything, now that the war in Gaza is still raging and the Palestinian refugees are in a dire situation, American leadership is needed more than ever before.

The Paris Agreement, adopted in December 2015, aims to limit global temperature increases to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. Developed countries are asked to provide financial assistance to less developed ones to meet climate goals.

Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement in his first term and is doing it again. The belief of most Republicans that there is no such thing as climate change, against the overwhelming evidence, is nothing short of a travesty.

But then, leave it to the willfully ignorant to dismiss the unprecedented storms, hurricanes, fires, rising sea levels, and temperature because they refuse to see reality. Sadly, withdrawal from the Paris Agreement is also tied to Trump’s desire to expand US fossil fuel production, which has a significant adverse environmental impact on the US just as much, if not more, than other countries.

Territorial ambition

Not only Democrats but also many of Trump’s supporters are baffled by his arbitrary decision to take another country’s territory by force if he “has to,” such as Greenland and the Panama Canal, which is outrageous to even think about. Is there one single sane Trump advisor who can tell him that what he is thinking is a gross violation of international law, to unilaterally decide to take over any land that belongs to other countries?

In addition, it is terrifying other countries, creating a dreadful feeling about what the United States represents and the harm it can inflict at this point on other states. To suggest that the US can unilaterally take land from a UN member state, or worse yet, in the case of Greenland, a NATO member state is nothing short of folly—to take by force land from one’s allies.

The US is committed to upholding territorial integrity, and to think that Trump can just take over the Panama Canal and invade Denmark’s territory is the highest of absurdity.

Sadly, with the new Trump administration entering a second term, not only does the UN face an exceptionally hostile White House, but even many of the US’ friends and allies are bewildered and greatly concerned about what he might do next. They fear that nothing good will come out of this Trump administration and are bracing for the worst.

Trump must remember that America First is best served when America is respected, not feared.

Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

The Separation Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and behind it an Israeli settlement. Credit: Ryan Rodrick Beiler

By Alon Ben-Meir
NEW YORK, Jan 6 2025 (IPS)

Trump, who wants an end to the Israeli-Hamas war even before he reassumes the Presidency, must know that denying the Palestinian right to statehood and conceding further Palestinian land to Israel is a recipe for the next horrific inferno that will overshadow even the present calamitous Israel-Hamas war.

Hamas’ horrific October 7 attack and Israel’s massive retaliatory war have fundamentally changed the dynamic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. New political, psychological, and factual regional conditions have been created since October 7 that cannot be ignored, as they directly impacted not only Israeli-Palestinian relations for a generation but also regional stability.

Trump will have to choose between paving the way toward the establishment of a Palestinian state or setting the stage for the next catastrophic conflagration that will dwarf the current war.
Trump should carefully consider the following five crucial changes in regional dynamics if he wants to revive “the deal of the century,” however remote it may seem at this particular juncture.

Hamas’ Massacre and its Psychological Implications

It is hard to overestimate the psychological ramifications of Hamas’ October 7 attack on Israelis as it brought to life images from the Holocaust. In many ways, it reaffirmed Netanyahu’s tragically misleading two-decades-long public narrative and reinforced the pervasive public mindset that the Palestinians posed a perpetual existential threat to Israel.

Thus, any effort that could lead to a two-state solution will face vehement Israeli resistance, which can be mitigated once Israelis come to terms with the fact that their ultimate national security rests on the establishment of a Palestinian state. This must be firmly tied to comprehensive security arrangements to allay the Israelis’ psychologically ingrained national security concerns.

Mutual Realization that Neither can Destroy the Other

After 14 months of brutal war, both sides have failed to achieve their stated objective. Even if Israel captures or kills every Hamas combatant, it cannot liquidate it as a national movement and as an idea. Hamas will survive any losses and terrorize Israel for as long as it takes, albeit knowing that Israel is a formidable military power, far beyond their capacity to destroy.

This mutual realization has changed the dynamic. Though nearly decimated, Hamas largely achieved its goal. It has fundamentally shaken the status quo, making it unequivocally clear that the Palestinian cause will no longer be ignored.

Saudi Arabia’s role

Before October 7, the US had been negotiating Israeli-Saudi normalization. At the time, the Saudis were willing to settle for a vague commitment by Israel ‘to make major progress toward a solution to the Palestinian conflict.’ But as the horror of the war in Gaza unfolded, the Saudis changed their position, mainly due to the public’s outcry about what the Palestinians have tragically endured.

Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) publicly stated, “The Kingdom will not cease its tireless efforts to establish an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, and we affirm that the kingdom will not establish diplomatic relations with Israel without one” [emphasis added]. It should be noted that this statement is not political posturing. Saudi Arabia will no longer settle for a vague reference to the Palestinians’ right to statehood, but MBS can pressure the Palestinians to moderate their position.

Jordan’s Growing Trepidation

Jordan faces significant challenges in maintaining internal stability amid rising public anger towards Israel. It must balance its historical commitments to the Palestinian cause and its peace treaty with Israel, while managing complex regional dynamics. There are also fears of a spillover of Palestinian refugees into Jordan, which can destabilize Jordan, especially if Israel annexes further Palestinian territories in the West Bank. Recently, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich declared that “2025 is the year of sovereignty in Judea and Samaria,” which terrifies the Kingdom.

The ongoing conflicts could also increase militant activity and exacerbate existing vulnerabilities, particularly among Jordanian youth. Moreover, other regional dynamics further complicate Jordan’s position, compelling it to navigate threats from Iranian proxies while managing its relationships with Israel, Western allies, and neighboring Arab states. The creation of a Palestinian state will prevent instability in Jordan, which is critical to Israel’s national security.

International Recognition of a Palestinian State

One hundred forty-six countries have recognized the Palestinian state, which is a significant step because it legitimizes the Palestinians’ right to statehood and places Palestine on equal footing with other states. Three Western European countries, Ireland, Norway, and Spain, have recognized Palestine this year, which may encourage others to follow suit. Unquestionably, the Palestinians have made significant international inroads in support of a Palestinian state.

Trump Faces a Historic Opportunity

Trump may well be in the best position to start a genuine peace process that will eventually lead to Palestinian statehood. Given his commitment to Israel’s security, he must not allow Israel to annex any more territory in the West Bank or resettle in Gaza, as this will only set the stage for the next horrific conflagration and throw the entire region into unprecedented turmoil. Due to the affinity that most Israelis hold towards Trump, he is in a much stronger position than many of his predecessors, not only to call for a two-state solution but act on it.

Working toward Palestinian statehood would dramatically allay Jordan’s deep anxiety about the country’s stability, meet the Saudis’ demand to establish a Palestinian state as a prerequisite to normalizing relations with Israel, give hope to the Palestinians that the day of their salvation is near, and temper extremism and anti-Israeli sentiments. The collapse of the Assad regime in Syria and the dramatic weakening of Iran and Hezbollah will deprive them of exploiting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to advance their regional agendas.

The biggest obstacle Trump will face is the current Israeli government, which has sworn to block the creation of a Palestinian state. This government has learned nothing from decades of occupation. It wants now to annex much of the West Bank, resettle Gaza, and plunge Israel into interminable violence and destruction. There is nothing more ominous for Israel if, indeed, the government implements such a plan. It will shatter the Palestinians’ final glimmer of hope as it will lead to horrific consequences unless Trump prevents it from happening.

For Trump to revive the “deal of the century,” he will have to go over Netanyahu’s head and address the Israeli public directly, pointing out the stark reality that the Israelis continue to be oblivious to. He should emphasize that:

After 57 years of occupation, it has become abundantly clear: the occupation is not sustainable, evidenced by the fact that Israeli-Palestinian relations are worse today than ever before. The situation is bound to explode time and again with ever-increasing death and destruction.

Nearly seven million Palestinians are living in the West Bank, Gaza, and Israel proper, equal to the number of Jews living in the same area. By what means and for how much longer, he must ask, can Israel oppress the Palestinians of an equivalent population with no endgame in sight?

Ninety percent of all Palestinians were born under occupation; they will deprive Israel of peace until they free themselves from the shackles of the occupation that has dehumanized them and robbed them of their dignity.

Coexistence is not one of many options; it is the only option. The Israelis must choose to live in peace or maintain a state of constant hostilities while poisoning one generation after another against the Palestinians.

Conclusion

Trump faces a historic opportunity. He can lay the foundation for a Palestinian state or set the stage for the next catastrophic war. His appointment of an extraordinarily supportive team of Israel gives him the latitude and credibility to persuade the Israelis that only a two-state solution offers them peace and security, and his “Deal of the Century” provides the framework to that en

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center fo Global Affairs at NYU. He taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.
alon@alonben-meir.com Web: www.alonben-meir.com

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

People gather to celebrate freedom in Damascus. UN News Credit: Gaith Sabbagh

By Alon Ben-Meir
NEW YORK, Dec 13 2024 (IPS)

The fall of the Assad regime is a historic watershed event that will have significant regional and international ramifications. The question is, will the rebels fulfill their promise to be inclusive and lift the Syrian people out of their misery, and what can the US and Israel do to help shape the trajectory of the new regime?

It is hard to exaggerate the jubilation of the Syrian people when they heard the news about the fall of Bashar al-Assad, which ended a 52-year-old ‘dynasty’ that will be remembered as the darkest chapter of the country’s existence.

How long the public’s jubilation will last, and whether normalcy will be restored to a shattered country, will depend on whether the new government fulfills its promise to be inclusive, focusing on rebuilding the country and seeking peace and reconciliation, or simply replaces one ruthless dictatorship with a new one.

Perhaps it is premature to determine whether or not the rebels will keep their word with respect to their promises to be inclusive and treat every citizen, regardless of their ethnicity, equally before the law.

However, there are important and positive signs that the new leaders are likely to follow what they have been saying to demonstrate that they are committed to establishing responsible and legitimate governance.

To that end, they called for national unity and a peaceful transfer of power. The rebels’ leader, Abu Mohammed al-Golani, met with the outgoing prime minister Mohammed al-Jalali to discuss the transition of power to demonstrate his desire to work with experienced officials to ensure a smoother power transfer and temporarily supervise the bureaucracy.

Hadi al-Bahra, president of the Syrian National Coalition, outlined plans for an 18-month transitional period and extended his hand to help draft a new constitution and hold elections as desired by the rebel leaders.

To show the rebels’ leaders’ commitment to justice, they swore to hold accountable many army officers who were involved in torture and commit themselves to establishing “a state of freedom, equality, rule of law and democracy,” as Syria’s UN ambassador Koussay Aldahhak stated.

They instructed their followers to preserve the state’s institutions, restore essential services, and reopen banks to ensure economic stability. They further directed their rank and file to prevent the desecration of shrines and cultural centers of many ethnic groups, including the pro-Assad Alawites, making them feel reassured and optimistic that they would not be excluded from joining the political transitional process.

Given the reign of horror that was inflicted on the Syrian people, the new leaders appear to be committed to a new beginning that the public is yearning for, not simply replacing the ruthless Assad dictatorship with a new one.

They want to write a new chapter that would end the public’s pain, suffering, and despair, especially over the past 14 years since the outbreak of the Arab Spring, and bring hope for a better and promising future. On the whole, it appears as though a new era has dawned on Syria.

The above positive signs, however, are not free from the many challenges in regime change, which include integrating the armed groups into a unified structure and preserving all state institutions, as well as laborious negotiations between the numerous opposition groups with different ideologies and loyalties.

There are also concerns that hasty changes might invite other militant groups to emerge and plunge the country once again into a civil war and destroy what was left under Assad.

Finally, the more troubling concern is about the Islamic roots of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), and the question is raised as to whether or not its leader, Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, formerly affiliated with al-Qaida, would revert to extremism. To alleviate these concerns, he clarified that his severing of ties to al-Qaeda goes back several years and pledged to pursue pluralism, ethnic equality, and religious tolerance.

What transpires domestically will affect foreign powers, especially Turkey, Iran, and Russia, which have vested geostrategic interests in Syria. How the rebel leaders navigate between these rival powers will have significant repercussions for Syria and its place in an unstable region ladened with conflicts and competition for greater sway with the new leaders in Damascus.

Setting this aside, for now, the most urgent matter is for the US and Israel, in particular, to take several actions to encourage the new Syrian leadership to pursue what they have publicly promised and maintain the initial social, economic, and political steps they have taken.

The US should first remove HTS from the terrorist list to send a clear message that the US is willing to demonstrate its initial trust that the new leadership will indeed follow what they have promised. Since legitimacy is critical to the new leadership, the US should offer diplomatic recognition, conditional upon the rebels’ commitment to democracy and the rule of law.

In addition, the US should engage in back-channel diplomacy to discuss regional security and offer cooperation. The US could provide economic assistance by first removing the sanctions that date back to 2012, assisting in the efforts to recover funds stolen by Assad himself and his government, and supporting reconstruction efforts, which can significantly help improve living conditions and stabilize the country.

Finally, the US could offer technical know-how and training for civil society organizations and help promote independent media and democratic institutions.

By taking these and other measures, the US can demonstrate its commitment to supporting the Syrian peoples’ aspiration for democracy and the prospect of growth and prosperity while addressing the US’ concerns over regional stability.

To prevent any potential conflagration with the new Syrian government, Israel has established three red lines for the rebels, daring them not to cross. These include: 1) not letting chemical weapons fall into the hands of Jihadist rebels; 2) preventing Iran from deploying Iranian troops to rebuild any military installations on Syrian territory; and 3) no hostile forces deployed near the Israeli border.

Israel has already taken several precautionary measures to prevent any misunderstanding, which include temporarily seizing control of a demilitarized buffer zone in the Golan Heights, bombing suspected chemical weapons sites, and implementing a curfew in several villages within the buffer zone.

Having conveyed that those are preventive measures, Israel can take several steps to encourage peaceful relationships with the new government while mitigating the rebels’ traditional hostilities toward Israel. To begin with, Israel should establish a line of communication with the rebels and extend humanitarian aid to develop goodwill.

In addition, Israel can offer economic incentives and demonstrate its interest in addressing Syria’s security concerns. By combining diplomatic outreach, strategic security measures, and financial incentives, Israel can develop a stable relationship with the new Syrian government while maintaining its security.

There are and will be several other critical issues that separate Israel and the rebels; chief among them is the future of the Golan Heights. However, whether or not the new government accepts Israel’s gestures, by taking these measures, Israel can create a positive atmosphere that can facilitate constructive negotiations about any conflicting issue in the future.

The stunning victory of the Syrian rebels opens up new possibilities for a more peaceful Middle East, or it can set the stage for even more intense violence, death, and destruction. The new Syrian authority must decide which way they choose to go. One thing, however, is certain.

Although other powers, especially Turkey, Russia, and Iran, have a unique interest in Syria’s future, what the US and Israel do will have the greatest impact on the path the new regime in Damascus will choose to travel.

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.
alon@alonben-meir.com Web: www.alonben-meir.com

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: United Nations
 
The UN, which was established to foster global peace and stability, has now become a paralyzed institution that inadvertently contributes to raging conflicts because it is constrained by an archaic structure that no longer meets the dramatically changed world order.

By Alon Ben-Meir
NEW YORK, Nov 1 2024 (IPS)

The United Nations, established in 1945 at the end of World War II, has sadly virtually outlived its usefulness as it commemorated its 79th anniversary due to its failure to reform itself and adjust to the new world order following the collapse of the Soviet Union, which is significantly different from when the UN was established.

The UN’s mission, which is to promote peace and stability, has failed time and again, as many of the current violent conflicts, especially the Ukraine War and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, glaringly demonstrate.

As Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy aptly put it when he asked during his address to the Security Council in 2022: “Where is the security that the Security Council needs to guarantee? … Where is the peace?”

Over the years, scholars and think tanks have offered reformist ideas to make the UN more adaptable and responsive to the changing world order. They have failed primarily because of how the UN was structured and the opposition of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) – the US, Russia, China, Britain, and France – to any significant reforms that could diminish their power.

Offering any comprehensive reforms to the UN is certainly beyond the scope of this column. However, there are some limited reforms that the UNSC can take, without a fundamental change in its structure, to enhance its effectiveness in maintaining global peace.

Before that, it is essential to point out some of the UN’s shortcomings to put into context the limited reforms that can be taken.

The UN Security Council’s structure
The UN Security Council’s structure, particularly the veto power held by its five permanent members, often leads to inaction. This power allows any one of these countries to block resolutions, even if there is broad international support. This has resulted in deadlocks on critical issues such as the Syrian Civil War, the Ukraine War, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The killings of civilians and the destruction of cities and towns, particularly by Israel and Russia, are devastating and continue unabated even through the UN and its humanitarian agencies. The International Criminal Court and UN human rights experts have repeatedly called on the Security Council to act. In these cases, the US and Russia’s adversarial relations prevented them from reaching solutions to mitigate these conflicts.

The composition of the Security Council does not reflect current global dynamics, leading to questions about its legitimacy and effectiveness. Calls for reform have been persistent but largely unaddressed due to the reluctance of current permanent members to alter a system that benefits them.

Only one-quarter of the global population is represented by the Security Council. Blocks of countries, including Muslim states, African nations, South American countries, and India, with over 1.3 billion people, are not represented in the SC.

Peacekeeping Constraints
The UN peacekeeping missions are often criticized for their limited mandates and resources. Peacekeepers are usually deployed in areas where there is no peace to keep, like Cyprus, Kosovo, and Western Sahara. They are generally not adequately equipped or have the authority to engage in violent operations.

This limitation is starkly evident in regions plagued by terrorism and violent extremism, including the Sahel region in Africa, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and the Central African Republic, where peacekeepers struggle to stabilize situations without adequate support from powerful nations. In addition, there is often a disconnect between UN mandates and local realities, which complicates peacekeeping efforts.

Peacekeepers may not be adequately trained or prepared to handle complex regional dynamics, leading to ineffective interventions.

Lack of Enforcement Mechanisms
The UN often lacks effective enforcement mechanisms for its resolutions. While the Security Council can theoretically impose sanctions or authorize military action, veto power and political considerations frequently prevent decisive actions. This allows countries that are committing crimes against humanity or engaged in war crimes to escape any punitive measures with impunity, even when imposed by the UNSC.

National Interests Over Global Peace
The interests of powerful member states often precede collective global security objectives. The major arms-exporting nations are also permanent members of the Security Council, creating conflicts of interest that undermine efforts to resolve disputes where these nations have strategic interests.

This is highly evident in the Israel-Hamas war and Russia-Ukraine wars, where the US, in particular, is providing massive military support. In this context, geopolitical rivalries among major powers hinder consensus on critical issues. For example, China and Russia often align against Western countries on various international matters, leading to a stalemate in effectively addressing conflicts.

Bureaucratic Inefficiencies
Slow bureaucratic processes and mismanagement frequently hamper the UN’s operations. These inefficiencies can delay critical humanitarian aid and other interventions necessary for maintaining peace. Addressing these issues would require substantial reforms, particularly within the Security Council, alongside a commitment from member states to prioritize global peace over national interests.

Reforms that Can Enhance Effectiveness of UN Operations
Given, however, the insurmountable difficulties in undertaking comprehensive reforms of the UN, it is still possible to reform the UNSC to enhance its effectiveness in maintaining global peace, which involves addressing several key issues. Here are several doable reforms that could rectify some of the problems.

Reform proposals include limiting the use of vetoes, particularly in cases involving mass atrocities or violations of international law. This could include requiring a supermajority for vetoes to be effective or mandating discussions in the General Assembly following a veto.

Regional Representation
Ensuring geographic balance and representation of diverse cultures and civilizations is crucial. This could involve creating regional seats that rotate among countries within a region, thereby enhancing representation without significantly increasing the number of permanent seats.

Strengthening the Role of the General Assembly
Enhancing the General Assembly’s role in peace and security matters could counterbalance Security Council paralysis. Initiatives like the “Uniting for Peace” resolution allow the General Assembly to act when the Security Council is deadlocked. Given the differing national interests and geopolitical considerations, consensus-building can still be achieved without necessarily compromising national interests.

Non-amendment Reforms
Reinterpreting existing UN Charter provisions may allow for more flexible responses to global crises without formal amendments. Such reforms could empower other UN bodies to act when the Security Council cannot.

Balancing Power Dynamics
Expanding membership while managing veto power requires careful negotiation to ensure new members do not exacerbate gridlock. There is also concern about maintaining the council’s effectiveness with an increased number of members.

Expansion of Membership
Increasing permanent and non-permanent members is a widely discussed reform. This expansion could include adding new permanent members without veto power, such as countries from underrepresented regions like Africa, Latin America, and Asia. The G4 nations (Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan) and African countries have been prominent candidates for permanent seats.

Although there is broad agreement on the need to reform the UNSC, achieving that involves piloting multifaceted geopolitical landscapes and balancing various national interests. That said, incremental changes, especially those not requiring formal amendments to the UN charter, may offer a feasible path forward.

If the UNSC does not adopt some of these reforms, the UN will virtually outlive its usefulness, especially in the area of conflict resolution, where the daily horrific death and destruction around the world attests to its dismal failures.

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University (NYU). He taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Researchers have found that if abortion care is banned throughout the United States, the number of maternal deaths would rise by 24 percent. This number is even worse for Black women, whose deaths would rise by 39 percent. Credit: The Century Foundation

By Alon Ben-Meir
NEW YORK, Oct 15 2024 (IPS)

The right to abortion is a human rights issue that no government agency, courts, local and state legislators, or anyone else has the right to violate or impede in any shape or form. It is a fundamental right that every woman must be free to exercise with impunity, in consultation with her doctor only, who acts based on his/her professional ethics and responsibility.

The right to abortion, or, as Vice President Harris put it in her debate with Donald Trump, “a woman’s right to make decisions about her own body,” is an unquestionable human right and may be the most critical issue discussed in the 2024 election campaign.

It is a significant issue of bodily autonomy, which extends not only to abortion but to the right of people with disabilities to control what happens to their bodies, the choice to participate in organ donation, and the right to keep medical decisions private.

Moreover, it is a significant issue in healthcare; pregnancy complications such as placental abruption can be life-threatening, and abortion is the only way to save the life of the pregnant woman. Pre-existing health conditions can be severely worsened during pregnancy, even causing death.

It is a women’s rights issue—among the right to vote, the right to free movement, and the right to live free of violence. And yet, during his presidency, Trump hand-selected three Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade and supported states enacting abortion bans with no restrictions, including incest and rape.

The Republicans’ Moral Bankruptcy on Women’s Rights

The Republican Party’s obsession with abortion and, as a consequence, forced pregnancy knows no bounds. Each year, approximately 700 minors in the state of Michigan, for example, must acquire a parent’s consent or a judge’s order to obtain an abortion. In 2022, Michiganders were guaranteed access to abortion under the state’s Constitution – but state law still requires parental consent for people under the age of 18 who seek abortions.

As Bridge Michigan observes, this consent requirement – dating back to 1991 – “forces some young people to face abusive parents and others to go to court to obtain a ‘judicial bypass’ waiver instead.”

A March 36-page ACLU report, In Harm’s Way: How Michigan’s Forced Parental Consent for Abortion Law Hurts Young People, points out that “When a young person does not involve a parent, it is often rooted in concern for their safety and well-being. One healthcare provider said a young client told her, ‘I can’t tell my parents because they will literally beat me, kick me out, and I’ll be on the street.’”

Moreover, many young people do not have access to a parent or legal guardian, which compels them to go through the judicial bypass process, where they face an array of logistical hurdles, “including finding an attorney, scheduling and attending hearings, taking time off school, and securing transportation to and from the court.”

In short, this reactionary and archaic law threatens the health and safety of young people, and it should be immediately repealed in every state where it is enforced to ensure young people’s safety and dignity.

The Horrific Implications of the Abortion Ban

There are many heart-wrenching stories about many young women who sought abortions but ended up dying because of inaccessibility to a normal abortion under the supervision of a doctor. In Georgia, the deaths of Amber Nicole Thurman and Candi Miller have been attributed to the state’s recently overturned abortion ban.

Thurman died of sepsis; she had received an abortion out-of-state but had not fully expelled the fetal tissue, which required a dilation and curettage (D&C) that Georgia had criminalized with few exceptions. Miller similarly did not fully expel the fetal tissue after taking abortion pills and died from a lethal combination of painkillers after suffering in pain for days as her children watched.

According to her family, Miller declined to see a doctor “due to the current legislation on pregnancies and abortions.” The families of Thurman and Miller, as well as many pro-choice advocates, have blamed their deaths on the state’s restrictive bans. And while on September 30, Fulton County Superior Judge Robert C. I. McBurney overturned the state’s heavily restrictive six-week abortion ban, the Supreme Court could issue a stay on the ruling, putting the six-week ban back in place.

According to ProPublica, Georgia’s four Planned Parenthood clinics have since been flooded with calls to schedule appointments, including from women in neighboring states where restrictive bans are still in place. While Republican governor Brian Kemp railed against the ruling, stating “…the will of Georgians and their representatives has been overruled by the personal beliefs of one judge,” the flood of appointments clearly demonstrates that the restrictive law is not the will of the people most affected, but solely of the predominantly chauvinist male lawmakers who will never have to face the decision about their own bodily autonomy.

I firmly stand with the women of Georgia and strongly support the ruling of Judge McBurney, who firmly stated in his ruling, “The Court finds that, until the pregnancy is viable, a woman’s right to make decisions about her body and her health remains private and protected, i.e., remains her business and her business alone.”

Fueling Other Regressive Policies

What is even more troubling is that many politicians and anti-choice activists are using their anti-abortion stance to fuel other regressive policies, such as child marriage. Last year, in a debate in Wyoming over ending child marriage, the state’s Republican Party promoted ‘analysis’ from Capitol Watch for Wyoming Families, which stated, “Marriage is the only institution in Wyoming Statute designed to keep a child’s father and mother living under the same roof and cooperating in the raising of any children that they, together, conceive… Since young men and women may be physically capable of begetting and bearing children before the age of 16, marriage MUST remain open to them for the sake of those children [emphasis added].”

Shameless GOP legislators are more concerned about the home lives of theoretical, future children rather than the living, breathing children who may be pregnant as victims of sexual abuse and whose parents fail them by forcing them into marriages they are not emotionally ready for or may not even want.

As state Rep. Liz Storer (D) stated in 2023, “In Wyoming, you could be married younger than you can legally consent to sex. Think about what that means. A man rapes a child. Is the man charged with rape? Not if the child is forced to marry him.”

And while Wyoming’s bill raising the minimum age to 18 (albeit allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to marry with judicial and parental consent) passed, this despicable and disingenuous argument continues to circulate around the country, which must be combatted at every turn.

It is hard to exaggerate the crucial importance of women’s rights to abortion in this election, not only because women must be free to decide for themselves about their biological needs but also about their freedom and autonomy to live their lives and have families as they see fit and desirable.

Former President Trump and his conspirators in the Senate, House, and state and local legislative bodies are determined to rob women of their freedom. They are doing exactly that: a violation of human rights in every sense of the word, and it must be condemned in the strongest terms.

No woman should ever believe Trump, who is trumpeting his false statements that he will not pass a national abortion ban. Every woman should remember his bigotry and dishonesty in dealing with just about every issue during his first term as president. Should he be reelected, women, who make up 50 percent of the electorate, will be disfranchised and lose their freedom, which is the bedrock of the American constitution.

On the other hand, Kamala Harris was the first vice president in history to visit a Planned Parenthood clinic, has firmly supported reinstating the protections of Roe v. Wade, has talked with the women of this country about this crucial issue, and has been a strong advocate of what women rightfully demand: the freedom to make decisions about one’s own body.

In this presidential election, there is only one option to uphold women’s right to abortion, which is a fundamental human rights issue that has made America proud for more than two centuries. In this pivotal election, only Kamala Harris will protect the sanctity of human rights, of which women’s right to abortion is inseparable.

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.
alon@alonben-meir.com

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

US financial support of various UN organizations is critical not only for the fulfillment of their humanitarian causes but also to serve America’s best national interests. Such support bolsters its global leadership role and influence, enabling it to walk on high moral ground. Credit: United Nations, New York

By Alon Ben-Meir
NEW YORK, Sep 2 2024 (IPS)

During Donald Trump’s presidency, the United States withdrew from several international organizations. These include the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC).

Trump’s actions were partly motivated by a broader strategy, presumably prioritizing “America First” policies. Trump often cited perceived prejudices or inefficiencies within these organizations.

If Trump were to be reelected, he should be persuaded not to take similar actions as that would diminish rather than serve America’s leadership role and its influence on these organizations and prevent it from leading by example and walking the high moral ground.

Although Trump, if reelected, will more than likely withdraw from many of these organizations, when and how he will act would depend on several factors.

Strategic Interests

Trump’s foreign policy has often been transactional. He was guided by what he thought best served America’s interests. If staying in these organizations is inconsistent with his perceived strategic interests, however misguided that might be, he will undoubtedly consider withdrawing again from these and other UN organizations.

Political Climate

The domestic and international political climate could influence his decisions. For example, if Trump enjoyed solid domestic support for disengaging from international organizations or if geopolitical tensions required a reevaluation of alliances, he might pursue similar actions.

Policy Continuity

Trump’s previous withdrawals were propelled by his critiques of many of these organizations, such as suspected mismanagement, prejudice against specific states, or inadequacies in dealing with global issues. Similar actions could be expected if his views on these “concerns” remain unchanged.

That said, given what Trump has been saying and advocating as he campaigns for reelection, he remains committed to his misguided notion of “America First” when, in fact, America’s best interest is served by staying in rather than withdrawing from these international organizations.

Nevertheless, should he still take similar action, it could create significant financial gaps at these organizations, given the US’s role as the largest contributor to the UN.

In 2022, the US contributed over $18 billion, accounting for about one-third of the UN’s overall funding. This substantial financial support is crucial for various UN operations, including peacekeeping, humanitarian aid, and health initiatives.

In the event of a US withdrawal, the UN should be prepared to take several measures to mitigate the adverse impact on these organizations.

Bolstering Alliances

The UN Secretary-General should seek to build stronger coalitions with other countries to step up to fill the financial void and assist in mitigating the impact of a US withdrawal, including nurturing relationships with emerging economies and regional powers. These powers include:

• China: As the second-largest contributor to the UN, China has already increased its financial commitments in recent years. In 2022, China contributed approximately 16 percent of the UN peacekeeping budget and 15 percent to the UN’s regular budget, making it a significant player.

• Japan, Germany, and the United Kingdom: These countries are among the top contributors to the UN budget, with Japan contributing about 8 percent, Germany contributing around 6 percent, and the United Kingdom contributing around 4 percent. While these nations might struggle to fill the gap left by the US entirely, they could increase their contributions to mitigate the adverse impact.

• The EU: Given its commitment to multilateralism and global cooperation, the EU could collectively increase its contributions to the UN, which would offer the block an opportunity to assert its leadership on the world stage.

• Emerging Powers like India and Brazil, which are growing economically, might also be encouraged to increase their contributions. This could allow these nations to gain more influence in international affairs.

While these countries and groups might increase their contributions, it is important to note that the financial gap left by the US would be challenging to fill completely. The UN will have to prioritize its programs and seek efficiencies to cope with reduced funding. Additionally, the loss of US support could lead to strategic shifts within the UN, affecting its operations and influence.

Broadening of Funding Resources

Organizations such as UNRWA should diversify their funding sources to reduce their dependence on any single country, especially the US, which is the largest contributor. This could involve increasing contributions from other member UN states, private donors, and charitable organizations specifically concerned about the plight of the Palestinians.

Such countries may include Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and other oil-rich Arab states.

Involving US policymakers

The UN should engage privately with many US policymakers to address its concerns and demonstrate the benefits of membership in these organizations, which could avert future withdrawals by the new Trump administration. This could entail stressing the importance and the strategic advantages of multilateral collaboration in addressing international challenges.

Reform Initiatives

Addressing criticisms that led to previous withdrawals, such as perceived biases or inefficiencies, could help prevent future disengagements. Moreover, transparent reforms and accountability measures might reassure skeptical member states of the organizations’ importance and effectiveness.

US financial support of many UN organizations must remain unabated. Those who can exert any influence on Trump should point out to him, should he be reelected, how critical US support is for the functioning of these organizations, as well as for the US’s self-interest, which is consistent with Trump’s notion of “America First.”

Given, however, what we know about Trump, the likelihood is that he will not change his ways and may well pursue the same shortsighted policies.

Thus, by preparing and adopting the above strategic measures, the UN and its agencies will be in a much stronger position to survive potential shifts in the US treatment of these organizations and its foreign policy in general under Trump and proceed with their important missions efficiently.

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University (NYU). He taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Kamala Harris. Credit: White House

By Alon Ben-Meir
NEW YORK, Jul 31 2024 (IPS)

Within the Democratic field, no potential candidate for president is better-positioned, at this juncture, to defeat Trump more skillfully and pointedly than Kamala Harris. She is writing a new chapter in American history that will chart a new national course impacting future generations.

When it became clear that President Biden would likely drop out of the race, I hoped that some shining, younger, experienced, and inspiring Democratic candidate would emerge to assume Biden’s mantra and crush Trump.

Once Biden endorsed Kamala Harris, within hours, she responded to the call of a party saddled with uncertainly and sorely in need of coalescing around a leader with qualities to galvanize and unite a party; she rose to the occasion and stymied every potential rival from challenging her.

Her subsequent performance on the stump has demonstrated that she is not only up to the task but also the candidate who will give Trump a run for his money and expose him for what he really is: a man who will not ‘make America great again’ but the one who will bring shame to America and destroy its greatness.

Before I expound on why Harris is the right candidate for the right time, when everything—the Supreme Court, House, and Senate are on the ballot—it is critical to contextualize the social and political environment in which we find ourselves today.

Trump’s dire divisiveness and polarization that is tearing America apart and what the horrific domestic and international ramifications will be should Trump be elected place a formidable burden on Harris to literally save America from the pandemic that has infected the majority of the Republican party.

Yes, a Black and South Asian woman is now tasked to save America from a wannabe dictator, a fascist bent on destroying America’s democracy and its unique standing in the world only to serve his cultish, sickening ego.

No one but Harris can possibly fathom how fateful her mission is and how arduous the road she must travel to restore America’s political and social civility and its leadership in the world will be. She knows she is writing a new chapter on America’s destiny and why she cannot fail.

Harris enjoys many professional skills and attributes and can build on Biden’s legacy and remarkable achievements over the past four years. Here are nine reasons Harris can, and most likely will, crush Trump in the upcoming elections and win.

Harris is inspiring

There was a hunger among the Democratic party to desperately find someone other than Biden to coalesce around without infighting, a candidate that could restore dignity to politics. Harris has engendered tremendous enthusiasm and many qualified voters will vote for her just for that reason.

The polls have already reflected the public fervor for change, a trend that she can sustain as we edge closer to election day. Moreover, the enthusiasm she evoked has also translated to raising a record amount of money during the last week since she became the presumptive nominee.

The age advantage

Harris is relatively young (59) and energetic, with charisma, stamina, and natural flair. She has no age problem that has been haunting Biden. She can now turn the table on Trump and use the age issue against him—he is old (77), fumbles, goes off on tangents, and is generally incoherent, all of which reflects that his age caught up with him prematurely.

Harris’s advantage as a woman

Post-Hillary Clinton, many voters of all ethnicities and ages have become more comfortable with a woman as president. Moreover, at a time of extreme political tension and divisiveness, where compromises are hard to come, women tend to work out compromises and keep a respectful tone in politics, which is particularly needed, thanks to Trump, in this poisonous political atmosphere. She will be in a perfect position to deal with an angry, unhinged, and temperamental fool like Trump and play the adult in any setting with him.

Skilled prosecutor

As an experienced prosecutor in California and attorney general, Harris is best positioned to prosecute the case against Trump, probably like no other. She has prosecuted, over the years, sex offenders, grand larcenists, tax evaders, and swindlers. As she recently said, “I know his type.” Trump will sweat it out with her and not know where the next punch is coming from.

Energizing young Democrats

Many young Black women have been reinvigorated by Harris’ campaign, in part due to her race and gender, with a “Win With Black Women” Zoom fundraising event raising over $1.5 million for the Harris campaign the same day Biden endorsed her. Many young Black men who were disenchanted by Biden and considered giving Trump a chance have returned to the fold and will vote for Harris in droves.

They sought someone to inspire them, and Harris came to quench their yearning. Moreover, younger people are generally less inclined to judge an individual based on gender. In this case, Harris may have an added advantage.

Galvanize Democrats on the fence and anxious Republicans

Given the concerns of a growing number of Democrats about Biden’s age and frailty when he was still the de facto nominee of his party and many Republicans’ anxiety over Trump’s unfitness to serve another term as president, many eligible voters have been swayed to stay out and not vote at all. That has changed with the rise of Harris to the top of the ticket. She has now offered a viable alternative and fundamentally altered the election’s trajectory in her favor.

Harris can speak about abortion freely

Biden, who is a Catholic, supports women’s right to choose and stated last year that the now-overturned Roe v. Wade “got it right,” but is not the strongest Democratic orator on the issue, given his personal religious beliefs on the issue, which is critical for women of all colors and ethnicities.

Harris, on the other hand, has already been Biden’s surrogate on the issue, becoming the first vice president to visit a Planned Parenthood clinic in March, and has made women’s right to abortion one of her central themes. Approximately 65 percent of all women oppose the Supreme Court’s decision to annul Roe v. Wade and found many of the red states passing draconian laws against abortions as despicable and chauvinist. The majority of these women will flock toward Harris, giving her a significant advantage on election day.

Harris has more time and energy to campaign

Unlike President Biden, who must still deal with increasingly mounting domestic and foreign policy issues, Harris has considerably more time to campaign nearly full-time, with the resilience and energy needed to campaign in every swing state time and again. Harris is engaging, and an increasing number of undecided voters in these crucial swing states find her refreshing with solid ideas that address their concerns.

Harris is an excellent debater

As California’s attorney general, she honed her public speaking and debating skills and became an excellent debater who is engaging, charismatic, and an outstanding communicator. Harris is very good at punching back forcefully, which puts her opponent on the defensive. In any debate with Trump, all he will be able to do is bark back and keep trying to change the subject. But he is no match for Harris’ piercing counter-attack, which may force him to lose his composure and badly expose his vulnerabilities.

Combating prejudices and mitigating disadvantages

Many Republicans have spared no time criticizing her on a range of issues, claiming that she has presumably failed in addressing the immigration problem, she is too liberal, has no experience in foreign policy, comes through as ingenuine, is fully supportive of Biden’s policies, which they consider to be an utter failure, and that she will be unable to distance herself from his agenda.

Harris will need to overcome several of these disadvantages, real or perceived. She will continue to face prejudices, particularly racism and sexism, which are hard to mitigate, as old white men would want to stop her. However, Harris can overcome most of the ideological obstacles, provided she projects herself as a uniter who is out to mend the horrific social and political schism that has affected this country to the core.

Harris needs to demonstrate that she is a moderate, mainstream Democrat, defend democracy, and draw a clear contrast with the extremist Republicans. She must focus on the economy as people are hurting and need relief. She must keep Biden’s promise to put a cap on rent increases, limit income tax on those earning less than $400,000 a year, ensure that the rich pay their fair share of taxes, ban medical debt from credit reports, and forgive student loans that have saddled borrowers with endless debt as their minimum payments hardly cover the interest they pay.

Finally, Harris knows that millions of Republicans despise Trump and wish that he would disappear from the political scene and restore sanity to a party that has lost its way—a party that stood for constructive conservatism, respected the rule of law, assumed fiscal responsibility, stood for fair and free elections, strengthened America’s alliances and leadership in the world, and stood firm against Russia and China.

These Republicans are not Hillary Clinton’s “deplorables.” They are dedicated Americans to whom Harris must appeal and solicit their involvement and even offer high-profile positions to those who want to share her vision about America’s future. As an example, she could invite Senator Mitt Romney, a staunch anti-Trump Republican and one of the few voices on the right calling to combat climate change, to serve as her Climate Czar.

Harris must now articulate that new vision for America and explain why she would be the best person to lead the country at this historic, fateful time in American history. Harris must make a new contract with America founded on unity of purpose, growth, and prosperity while safeguarding our democracy with zeal.

Harris can win this election; I believe she will because America is desperately ready for change, and Harris is best positioned to lead the way.

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for
Global Affairs at NYU. He taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Results of the General Assembly's vote on the resolution on the status of Palestine. May 2024. Credit: UN Photo/Manuel Elías

By Alon Ben-Meir
NEW YORK, May 24 2024 (IPS)

It is ironic how Prime Minister Netanyahu, who vehemently opposed the establishment of a Palestinian state, made it all but irreversible because of his misguided policies and extreme ideological bent.

The way he conducted the Gaza war has not only sealed the prospect of a Palestinian state but his political demise

The recent recognition of a Palestinian state by Spain, Ireland, and Norway is the latest blow to Netanyahu’s horribly misguided policy toward the Palestinians, which he pursued throughout his political career to prevent them from ever establishing their own state under his watch, as he stated time and gain.

This recognition is in addition to the overwhelming majority of United Nations General Assembly member states that have recognized Palestinian statehood. In truth, none of the above should come as a surprise, as the writing was on the wall for decades, and it was only a question of time before this inevitability unfolded.

The recent decision of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to issue an arrest warrant against Netanyahu, charging him with war crimes, was another degrading rebuke of Netanyahu for his ruthlessness in the way he is conducting the Gaza war.

The horrific death and destruction that has been inflicted on Israel and the Palestinians in Gaza as a result of Hamas’ October 2023 attack that resulted in the slaughter of 1,200 Israelis and the ongoing and unprecedented war against Hamas that killed 35,000 Palestinians, and the unspeakable human suffering has created a new paradigm.

The establishment of a Palestinian state, which has been particularly resisted by Netanyahu for the past 16 years, has become front and center in the search for a permanent solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide could not have put it clearer when he stated: “The fact that this Israeli government, led by Netanyahu, has been so clear that it has no intention to negotiate with the Palestinian side and has been so accepting and even supportive of new illegal settlements, all that has contributed to the recognition decision. In some sense, it’s a reaction to that.”

The tragic dimension of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that a majority of Israelis bought into Netanyahu’s false argument that a Palestinian state will pose an existential danger to Israel, and hence, the continuing occupation is necessary to prevent the Palestinians from realizing their aspiration for statehood. But what is the alternative to a two-state solution? After 57 years of occupation, even a fool would have concluded that the occupation is not sustainable.

How much more death and destruction must both peoples endure before Netanyahu and his blindly misguided followers come to understand that if it takes a hundred more years and the deaths of a million Palestinians, they will never give up or give in on establishing a state of their own.

What is further baffling is that the multitude of right-wing Israelis keep complaining about Palestinian violence. They ignore the elementary understanding that any people who have been living in servitude for decades under the harshest conditions would rise against the occupier, especially when they have a legitimate right to have their own state, enshrined by the same 1947 UNSC Resolution 194 that granted the Jews the right to establish their independent state.

For 80 percent of all Israelis (those born after 1967), the occupation is a normal state of existence irrespective of the daily suffering and often inhumane mistreatment of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, to which they have been and continue to be subjected.

On January 10, 2024, I wrote: “Sadly, it took the Israel-Hamas war to awaken both sides to their tragic reality. They must now realize there will be no return to the status quo ante. The circumstances that led to the Israel-Hamas war only reinforced the inescapable requirement for a two-state solution. Simply put, there is no other viable option other than continuing the bloody conflict for decades to come.”

But then, what would it take for Netanyahu and his messianic ministers, especially Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, to wake up and realize that every day that passes without a solution, not only will more Israelis and Palestinians be killed in vain, but the conflict will become ever more intractable.

It will exact a mounting price in blood and treasure from both sides without any prospect of changing the inescapable requirement for a Palestinian state to reach a sustainable, peaceful coexistence.

The hurdles to reaching this noble goal are massive; there is the psychological dimension to the conflict that must be mitigated, territorial claims and counterclaims, the dispute over the administration of the Temple Mount (Haram al-Sharif), mutual concerns over security, the final status of Jerusalem, and more. But then, regardless of how obdurate these conflicting issues may be, they will become far more daunting and perilous short of peace based on a two-state solution.

US National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby recently stated: “The president still believes in the promise and the possibility of a two-state solution. He recognizes that it’s going to take a lot of hard work. It’s going to take a lot of leadership there in the region, particularly on both sides of the issue, and the United States stands firmly committed to eventually seeing that outcome.”

Whereas I applaud President Biden’s position and sentiment regarding the requisite of a Palestinian state, he needs to move the needle further and warn Netanyahu that he can no longer take for granted the US position that the creation of a Palestinian state must emerge from direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

While Biden may choose, for political reasons, not to follow the footsteps of the prime ministers of Spain, Ireland, and Norway by recognizing the Palestinian state, he should, at a minimum, permit the Palestinian Authority to reestablish its mission in DC, and reopen the American consulate in East Jerusalem.

That is, if Biden is truly committed to that outcome, then he must demonstrate that by taking real action on the ground. This is the time when leadership is truly needed, and no head of state worldwide can demonstrate that more at this crucial hour than President Biden to bring closer the two-state solution to reality.

Surely, Biden believes in what Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez stated: “This recognition is not against anyone; it is not against the Israeli people. It is an act in favor of peace, justice and moral consistency.” And I might add, it is a moral imperative on which Israel itself was founded.

It is time for Netanyahu to pay the price for dragging Israel into this perilous morass. But then again, he who has resisted the creation of a Palestinian state with all his might made it now more likely than ever before.

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University (NYU). He taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Over 120 journalists have lost their lives in Gaza since 7 October. Credit: Unsplash/Engin Akyurt

By Alon Ben-Meir
NEW YORK, May 1 2024 (IPS)

It is only fitting, against the backdrop of World Press Freedom Day, to recount the horror being inflicted on journalists and reporters around the world, which is increasing day by day. To tell the story of the mounting death of journalists in Gaza, it is essential to put into perspective the plight of journalists around the world.

The random imprisonment of journalists is rampant in many countries; more than 800 journalists have been incarcerated, and nearly 550 marked the beginning of 2024 from prison; hundreds have been killed, and countless others are harassed to prevent them from decimating information deemed unfavorable to their respective governments.

More than half of these journalists are detained in just four countries – China, Myanmar, Belarus, and Vietnam. Other than these four countries, others do not lag much behind, including Turkey, Russia, China, Afghanistan, and Mexico, which is one of the deadliest countries for journalists. In this regard, it is also important to point out the danger and death that journalists are facing in another war zone in Ukraine.

According to Reporters Without Borders (RSF), since the start of the war in February 2022, Russian forces have reportedly killed 11 journalists and wounded at least 35; 12 others were detained, and two journalists are currently missing, while 233 media outlets were ordered to close down.

Regardless of how egregious these violations are against journalists, tragically, these statistics pale in comparison to what has and still is taking place in the Israel-Hamas in Gaza.

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) reported that 97 journalists and media workers were confirmed dead in Gaza: among them, a staggering 92 Palestinian journalists, which has by far exceeded the death toll of journalists in any other war zone in recent memory.

In comparison, only two Israelis and three Lebanese journalists were killed. Overall, according to CPJ, 16 journalists were reported injured, four are still missing, and 25 journalists were arrested. On top of that, there are routine assaults, threats and intimidation, cyberattacks, crippling censorship, and even the killing of family members to prevent journalists from doing their job.

The question is why such a disproportionate number of Palestinian journalists were killed in Gaza, and if there is anything that can be done to minimize this inexcusable death that transcends reason and even the horrific reality of a war that crossed the threshold of inhumanity. There are four reasons behind the astounding number of Palestinian journalists who were killed in particular.

First, many Palestinians who were embedded in civilian communities were killed by the initial Israeli bombing that leveled dozens of buildings, killing hundreds of civilians and, among them, many journalists.

Second, many journalists who were trying to report from the front line of the battles between Israel and Hamas were killed in the crossfire. Sadly, they threw caution to the wind and ended up paying with their lives.

Third, many other Palestinian journalists were killed as collateral damage for being in the wrong place and at the wrong time.

Finally, several journalists were deliberately targeted to prevent them from reporting on the scene. There is no definitive number of journalists in this category, as Israel vehemently denies the deliberate killing of Palestinian journalists.

Sadly, other than the need for Palestinian journalists to exercise extra caution, it is critically important to increase the pressure on both Israel and Hamas to take every precautionary measure to prevent journalists from being killed simply because they are dedicated to reporting on what they see and hear.

This is, of course, easier said than done. Nevertheless, RSF and CPJ should leave no stone unturned to expose the culprits behind this atrocious murder of journalists. The UN and the EU should also take every measure at their disposal to prevent the undue death of Palestinian journalists.

The freedom of the press is the heart and soul of any true democracy, and Western democracies must answer the call.

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University. He taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

World Press Freedom Day 2024

A family cooks in the rubble of their home in the Gaza Strip. Credit: WFP/Ali Jadallah

By Alon Ben-Meir
NEW YORK, Mar 14 2024 (IPS)

In recent weeks, the Biden administration has found itself facing a serious dilemma as to how to balance its commitment to Israel’s national security along with the humanitarian crisis facing the Palestinians in Gaza.

Whereas the United States provides military aid to Israel, including bombs and other defense systems, as a part of the US strategic alliance, this support has always been rooted in their shared democratic values, mutual security interests, and historical ties.

It is also influenced by domestic political factors within the United States, including strong support for Israel among the American people and American lawmakers.

At the same time, the US is facing tremendous pressure to provide humanitarian assistance to the Palestinians in Gaza, including food, water, medicine, and fuel.

Having failed to persuade Israel to increase these supplies to the Palestinians recently, the United States decided to drop this aid from the air and now is also considering building a floating pier to provide such support from the sea, aiming at alleviating the humanitarian crisis.

This could lessen, to some extent, the dire shortages of these essential supplies, but they are no substitute for direct deliveries from Israel in terms of quantities and speed.

This dual approach of supporting Israel’s security needs while also providing humanitarian assistance to the Palestinians is part of the US’ broader diplomatic effort to balance its interests in the region.

However, the United States’ effort to promote regional security by supporting Israel’s right to defend itself while advocating for the Palestinians’ humanitarian needs and acting on them presents a dilemma for President Biden. The Biden administration may well have to resort to direct measures to force Netanyahu to change his policy.

There are significant policy differences between Netanyahu and Biden that go back years before the Israel-Gaza war. They include policy differences related to the expansion of the settlements in the West Bank, the Iran nuclear deal, and President Biden’s efforts to renegotiate a new deal in the wake of Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA.

In addition, and perhaps most importantly, they differ dramatically regarding the overall approach in the search for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where the United States supports a two-state solution to which Netanyahu vehemently objects.

There is also significant disagreement on two other major issues: The Biden administration would like the Palestinian Authority to take charge of the Strip following the end of the war.

Conversely, Netanyahu completely opposes the return of the PA to Gaza, primarily because he wants to maintain security control over most of the Palestinian territories and prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.

As he stated in January, “I will not compromise on full Israeli security control over the entire area in the west of Jordan – and this is contrary to a Palestinian state.”

In addition, whereas President Biden wants to see a clear exit strategy from the war, Netanyahu is insisting on maintaining indefinite security control over Gaza, which, from the United States’ perspective, will result simply in the expansion of the Israeli occupation and creeping annexation of Palestinian territories, with no resolution in sight.

It should be noted that the upcoming US presidential elections in November are playing a role in Netanyahu’s strategy. If there are only two people in the world who want Trump to win the election this fall, the first is Trump himself, and the second is Netanyahu. The Israeli prime minister will do everything in his power to undermine President Biden’s reelection.

He is cheering the fact that President Biden is intensely criticized by some Congressional Democrats as well as a multitude of young voters who oppose his unwavering support of Israel while tens of thousands of Palestinians have died and counting.

He will prolong the war as long as it serves his personal interest and weakens Biden politically as he is embarking on his reelection campaign.

President Biden should not allow Netanyahu to set the agenda. He must now take definitive measures to alert the Israeli public that, although the US commitment to Israel’s national security is unshakable, the US administration differentiates between the state of Israel and the current Netanyahu government with which he has fundamental disagreements.

To that end, there are five different measures that will not affect the US commitment to Israel’s national security but will send a clear message to Netanyahu that the US must draw the line and will not allow him to drag the US into the morass of his own creation.

Although some of these measures are sensitive and may raise some objections from Congress, nevertheless, the Biden administration has no choice but to act to alleviate the massive humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

First, as one of Israel’s largest financial supporters, the US could use its economic aid as leverage. Adjusting such aid levels and stipulating specific conditions related to its use could pressure Netanyahu, at least in part, to reconsider his policies, albeit as indicated, this particular approach is sensitive and would need to be carefully balanced to prevent unintended consequences.

Second, since the United States provides significant military aid to Israel, the administration should assess the kind of weapons it is providing to Israel that indiscriminately kill many innocent Palestinians, such as bombs.

This may well force Netanyahu to follow the US’ advice to resort to a surgical approach to weed out Hamas fighters and potentially capture or kill some of Hamas’ leaders. This, too, would send a clear message that the United States cannot sit idly by while the carnage in Gaza continues, however inadvertently that might be.

Third, on a political level, the United States can introduce a resolution or vote in favor of a resolution in the United Nations Security Council that calls on Israel to agree on a ceasefire for six to eight weeks and allow the flow of aid to the Palestinians while negotiating the release of the hostages.

Fourth, since President Biden has been advocating a two-state solution, he should act by taking interim measures to demonstrate his commitment to that objective. To start, Biden should allow the reopening of the United States mission in East Jerusalem to serve the Palestinians.

In addition, Biden should invite the Palestinian Authority to reestablish its mission in Washington, DC, to restore ties between the United States and the Palestinians. These two measures will demonstrate to the Palestinians that Biden means what he says and, community, congressional Democrats, and many of the EU and Arab states.

Fifth and most importantly, President Biden himself should make a public statement to the effect that while the United States is and will remain committed to Israel’s national security, it has clear disagreements with the Netanyahu government.

As such, the US will no longer support the Netanyahu government in any way that might aid it in continuing its military campaign without clearly spelling out a strategy that will achieve four objectives: 1) dramatically minimize civilian casualties by resorting to surgical operations; 2) articulate a credible exit strategy from Gaza; 3) allow for the creation of an international peacekeeping force to assume overall security; and 4) facilitate the return of the Palestinians to their homes once the fighting comes to an end.

Needless to say, these measures rest on a set of considerations as stated above and their political implications. Nevertheless, President Biden has no choice but to act to balance his commitment to Israel’s national security and his determination to permanently alleviate the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University. He taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Whole neighborhoods have been wiped-out in northern Gaza. Credit: 2024 UNRWA Photo by Abdallah El Hajj

By Alon Ben-Meir
NEW YORK, Mar 11 2024 (IPS)

Israel must uphold its moral values and make every effort to spare the lives of innocent Palestinians as it pursues Hamas’ destruction.

The unfathomable massacre of Israeli Jews by Hamas and its insatiable thirst for Jewish blood has rightfully evoked the most virulent condemnation from many corners of the world, including many Arab states. The call for revenge and retribution by many Israelis was an instinctive human reaction that can be justified in a moment of incomparable rage and devastation.

In this case, the Israelis’ reaction transcended Hamas’ massacre because it brought to life memories from the Holocaust that the Jews foresworn to never let happen again. But it happened, though on a much smaller scale; the savagery and the cold-bloodedness that characterized Hamas’ attack was reminiscent of the Holocaust, which is etched in the mind and soul of the Jews.

Israel’s decision to crush Hamas as a political movement, destroy its infrastructure, and prevent it from reconstituting itself is necessary, and it should relentlessly be pursued with vigor. Under no circumstances and regardless of what the Jews have experienced, however, can the Israeli military justify any acts of revenge against innocent Palestinian men, women, and children who have nothing to do with Hamas’ evil act.

None of the dead or injured Palestinian women and children were asked by Hamas’ leaders whether they should go and massacre innocent Israelis at an unprecedented scale. Although Hamas knew full well the unimaginable price these ordinary Palestinians would end up paying, Hamas was more than willing let them die by the tens of thousands as the sacrificial lamb on the altar of the most vicious beasts that roam the earth.

After more than six months of fighting that inflicted horrific death and destruction on Gaza and claimed the lives of more than 30,000, two-thirds of them women and children, while laying half of Gaza in utter ruin, one must ask the question: was there a strong element of revenge that contributed to this colossal human disaster? Tragically, the answer is YES.

The role of the victim is deeply ingrained in the Jewish psyche, and the leap from being victim to victimizer is subconscious; acting on it is spontaneous. That said, the extent and the scope of the Israeli reaction calls into question whether or not Israeli soldiers have been engaged in acts of revenge beyond their legitimate right to self-defense while pursuing Hamas’ operatives.

When we see in real-time the destruction of one neighborhood after another, horrendously transcending any proportionality of collateral damage which is often unavoidable in a state of war, we see revenge and retribution.

When soldiers boast of serving in the most moral military force in the world but laugh and dance following the explosion and leveling of a residential building to the ground, killing dozens of civilians among one or two suspected Hamas fighters, it is not an act of self-defense, it is an act of vengeance that defies the logic of what’s moral.

When the entire population of Gaza is facing “catastrophic levels of acute food insecurity” and hundreds of children are dying from curable illnesses because they could not receive the medical treatment and the medicine they need, it is an unforgivable crime the whole world is watching in real-time with revulsion and disdain.

When a majority of the Palestinians are forced to evacuate their homes with women and children, and the sick are forced to walk for miles with little or no rations, not knowing where they will sleep and where the next meal will come from, it is cruel and devoid of any moral culpability.

When an entire family is buried alive under the rubble of their building that collapsed over their heads, and they die a slow death before the rescuers and medical teams can save anyone, it is inhuman and severely damages the high moral ground the Israeli army has proudly claimed.

More than 25,000 women and children have been killed in Gaza, including 258 babies who never had the chance to celebrate their first birthday. Infants and toddlers are children just beginning to discover the world. Can the barbaric and utterly condemnable attack by Hamas on October 7 justify or explain the horrific killing of innocents on this scale?

How can any people who claim to cherish life, steal it away from so many completely innocent children, who had their entire lives ahead of them? This not collateral damage, as some Israeli cynics try to explain it. This is revenge – and the cycle of revenge will continue indefinitely.

Shortly after October 7, I recall an interview with an Israeli soldier who said outright that he ‘needs his revenge.’ Does not that soldier, and everyone who thinks like him, realize that this is precisely how Hamas was operating on October 7? Is it not obvious that revenge, by its very nature, has no end?

It is a mechanical and thoughtless response to injury that repeats itself until one party has the moral strength and courage to say enough is enough: we will not go on slaughtering each other wholesale, exacting retribution on individuals who have committed no wrong, whose deaths are meant only to maximize the suffering of those who loved and cherished them.

Does not every Israeli mother realize that every Palestinian mother cares for their children with the same boundless love that they have for their own? Does Israel truly believe that a Palestinian infant has less value than an Israeli babe-in-arms? Can anyone truthfully believe that the moral response to having one’s innocent loved ones killed is to kill more innocents? And on what scale?

How many dead Palestinian children will it take to satiate the desire for revenge? There is no end, because no matter how many Palestinian children Israel kills, it will not bring back to life a single one of those Israeli younglings that were killed on October 7.

Israel is not honoring its dead by this slaughter and devastation, but just the opposite. It is disgracing the dead and themselves. Israel appears bent on demonstrating before the whole world that it has lost all sense of moral compass, proportionality, pity, and compassion. The Jewish people are better than this: it is they who taught us that to save one human life is to save the world.

The deliberate shedding of innocent blood is and will always be an atrocious act of evil that can never be morally justified. And the time has come for Israel to bring an end to this retribution before it loses its soul and whatever moral sympathy the world had for the wrong it suffered over six months ago.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is justifying this collective punishment by dehumanizing the Palestinians, deeming them unworthy of humane treatment. He is waging a merciless campaign against innocent Palestinians who had nothing to do with Hamas’ acts of terror. For Netanyahu, there is simply no moral equivalence. For him and many of his deplorable followers, the Palestinians are sub-humans, and their lives are unequal to those of Israeli Jews.

Israel will win this war; the question is, will it win it while adhering to Jewish moral values that have guided and ensured their survival throughout the centuries, or win it by leaving behind deep moral wounds that will be etched in memory and history books as one of Israel’s darkest chapters?

They must remember that just about every Arab country will quietly (and some even overtly) cheer the demise of Hamas, but they are and will continue to speak ever louder and clearer about their objection to the killing of innocent Palestinians, especially women and children, and they will scuttle any future prospect of normalization of relations between Israel and other Arab states.

The dehumanization of Palestinians will come back to haunt the Israelis simply because the Palestinians have no other place to go. And whether they are ordinary human beings with hopes and aspirations or subhuman, Israel is stuck with them. And regardless of how the war will end, Israel will have to address the conflict with the Palestinians. The depth of the scars of the war will define the relationship for years to come.

As the death toll and destruction rise in Gaza by the minute, the initial overwhelming sympathy toward Israel’s tragic losses has waned even among many of its friends. Indeed, once Israel loses its moral compass in dealing with the crisis, it will no longer be seen as the victim who rose from the ashes of the Holocaust and has every right to defend itself but the victimizer whose survival rests on the ashes of the Palestinians.

Israel’s ultimate triumph rests on its ability to rise above the fray and adhere to the moral values on which the country was founded and which are the only pillars that can sustain it.

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.

This article is a selection from Dr Ben-Meir’s upcoming book, A Historic Point of Departure: Bringing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to a close and creating a new regional geopolitical order, set to be published in April 2024.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

The King of Jordan addressing the UN General Assembly last September

By Alon Ben-Meir
NEW YORK, Dec 1 2023 (IPS)

Although the dire impact of the Israel-Hamas war has touched many countries in the region and beyond, no foreign country has been so profoundly affected by the war than Jordan. Israel must mitigate Jordan’s concerns to save its critical alliance with its neighbor while fully collaborating in the search for a permanent resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Under Prime Minister Netanyahu’s leadership, Israel-Jordan relations have hit a new low. Sadly, after 30 years of peace, there is deep sullenness and disappointment between the two countries. The aspiration for strategic partnership has fallen short, except for security collaboration. Jordan’s King Abdallah and Netanyahu do not see eye-to-eye on many issues.

The King views Netanyahu as particularly responsible for the deterioration of the relationship between the two countries. Of specific concern to Jordan is the Israeli government’s brutal treatment of the Palestinians in the West Bank, its worries about any change in its status as the guardian of the holy Muslim shrines (Haram al-Sharif), and its concerns over the limits of the bilateral economic relations.

What has added significant insult to the already injured relationship is the tragically inadvertent carnage and destruction being inflicted on the Palestinians in Gaza as a result of the Israel-Hamas war.

For Jordan, the future resolution to the Palestinian conflict is the most contentious because whatever happens to the Palestinians, especially in the West Bank, has a direct and indirect impact on Jordan’s security, economy, and demographics due to its proximity and also because half of the population is of Palestinian origin.

Netanyahu made hardly any effort to address King Abdallah’s justifiable worries about the rapidly deteriorating security conditions in the West Bank. Since the Israel-Hamas war began on October 7th, nearly 220 Palestinians have been killed in the West Bank as of this writing, and there is no sign that the violence will abate any time soon.

Indeed, the absurdity here is that given that Jordan has been at peace with Israel since 1995, its proximity to Israel, and its mutual concerns over the region’s stability, the need for full cooperation on intelligence sharing, commercial ties, and national security become ever more critical.

But then, Netanyahu has taken Jordan for granted when, in fact, Amman remained faithful to its collaborative efforts with Israel and continues to play a critical role in monitoring and securing the approximately 300-mile-long border with Israel to prevent the smuggling of weapons and infiltration of terrorists into Israel proper and the West Bank.

The Israel-Hamas war has enormously changed the political dynamic of the Jordanian-Israeli relationship. Although Jordan expressed sympathy toward the Israelis for the unimaginable butchery that Hamas inflicted on innocent Israeli civilians, Israel’s invasion of Gaza and the horrendous destruction and death have enraged the Jordanians to a level unseen between the two countries since they signed a peace treaty in 1994.

More than 50 percent of the Jordanian population are of Palestinian origin and have a strong affinity to their brethren wherever they reside. The death of more than 14,000 Palestinians in Gaza, including nearly 6,000 children and 4,000 women, caused an unparalleled stir in Jordan, damning Israel and demanding an immediate end to the hostilities. In fact, out of sympathy and solidarity, many Jordanian youth have chosen to adopt “Hamas ideology.”

The UN Jordanian delegation presented a resolution to the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) calling for an “immediate, permanent, and sustainable humanitarian truce leading to a cessation of hostilities,” which was adopted by 120 countries. On November 1st, Jordan’s Foreign Minister Ayman Al-Safadi recalled Jordan’s Ambassador to Israel, saying that his decision was an “expression of Jordan’s rejection and condemnation of the raging war in Gaza, which is killing innocent people and causing an unprecedented human catastrophe.”

Jordan considers the forced evacuation and displacement of Palestinians in Gaza as equivalent to a war against civilians that will fundamentally shake the bilateral Israeli-Jordanian relations, mainly because Jordan has the largest Palestinian refugee population of any other country, which makes it extraordinarily sympathetic and sensitive to the Palestinian cause.

Of particular concern to the Jordanian government is that the Netanyahu government is determined to deny the Palestinians the right to statehood, which will have a significant impact on Jordan domestically. What worries the Hashemite Kingdom is that some ministers in the current Israeli government are resuscitating the notion that Jordan is Palestine by their actions in the West Bank.

Although Netanyahu knows how sensitive the Jordanian government is about this momentous issue, he has done nothing to assuage the Jordanians’ growing anxieties that the West Bank Palestinians will be entirely pushed into Jordan.

Amman can play a significant regional diplomatic role in stemming the escalation of the conflict, especially in the West Bank, before it spins out of control. Jordan, the most stable country with moderate political leadership in a region reddened with violent conflicts, has and continues to serve along with Israel as the cornerstone of the US-Middle East security partnership, which both countries must guard with zeal.

There are several necessary measures that the Israeli government must take to alleviate and mend past and present Jordanian grievances and restore and further improve their bilateral relationship, which would best serve their national interests.

First, given Jordan’s direct and indirect involvement with the Palestinians, Israel must not ignore Jordan’s concerns over the violent clashes between the Israeli settlers and security forces and the Palestinians. Recently, the increasing violence in the West Bank compelled Jordan to strengthen its border security to prevent the escalation of violence from spilling over into its territory.

Nevertheless, it could precipitate an influx of Palestinians into Jordan, which Amman wants to avoid. Israel must restate in an unmistakable tone that it respects Jordan’s sovereignty, and any resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be separate and apart from and would not infringe in any way on Jordan’s independence, which Israel recognizes.

Second, Israel must commit to continuing water and gas supplies to Jordan without interruption. This is critical for restoring Jordan’s confidence in any Israeli government, which has been dangerously eroding under Netanyahu. The “Blue and Green Prosperity” project, financed by the UAE and signed in August 2023, enables the exchange of Israeli desalinated water for Jordanian solar energy. This is a significant project for Jordan and must be guarded and fully implemented under any circumstance.

Third, although the collaborative security ties and intelligence sharing between Jordan and Israel remain close, the Israeli government must ensure their security collaboration stays intact and robust. Israel must also carefully address Jordan’s unique security needs given the continuing regional tension and the threats of extremist militant groups, as well as its concerns over Iranian threats, which Israel shares. Amman needs to feel assured that Israel has Jordan’s back.

Fourth, Israel must assure Jordan that under no circumstances would it seek or facilitate any change in the custodianship and the administrative responsibility of Jordan over the Muslim holy shrines (Haram al-Sharif) in Jerusalem. From the Jordanian perspective, the current arrangement gives it a strategic basis that allows it to have a say in any future agreement with the Palestinians in connection with Jerusalem. Although Saudi Arabia aspires to assume that role, Israel should honor its agreement with the Hashemite Kingdom from the time Israel annexed East Jerusalem in 1967.

Fifth, Israel ought to strengthen its economic ties with Jordan by expanding the import-export of goods and services, encouraging Israelis to invest in Jordan, especially in the technological sector, and increasing tourism once the Israel-Hamas war comes to an end and the anti-Israeli Jordanian public sentiment subsides.

The current Netanyahu or any future Israeli government must stop short of nothing to safeguard its ties and constantly improve its relations with Jordan—Israel’s most important Arab ally, partner for peace, and its closest neighbor. Since they have a strong mutual national security interest and strategic alliance, Israel should work hand-in-hand with Jordan in the search for a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because it will directly affect Jordan’s national interest on every front.

To be sure, given the Israel-Hamas war, which makes it impossible nor desirable to restore the status quo ante, it is now more urgent than any time before for Israel and Jordan to mitigate their differences, strengthen their strategic alliance, and find common ground on how to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

For more information on how a sustainable peace agreement based on a two-state solution can be reached, please refer to my essay in World Affairs, “The Case for an Israeli-Palestinian-Jordanian Confederation: Why Now and How?”

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He teaches courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.
alon@alonben-meir.com

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Missile strikes on Gaza are continuing. Credit: UNICEF/Eyad El Baba

By Alon Ben-Meir
NEW YORK, Nov 13 2023 (IPS)

Unless Israel establishes an exit strategy and an end-game that will lead to a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in full coordination with the US and Saudi Arabia, the war against Hamas will only be another brutal violent episode that will prepare the ground for the next conflagration that will engulf the West Bank and potentially set the entire region on fire.

What Is Israel’s End-Game in Gaza?

As the Israel-Hamas war grinds on, the international call for a ceasefire or at a minimum a pause in the fighting for a couple of days to allow for the delivery of badly needed necessities is absolutely essential at this juncture. It is glaringly evident that there is growing international sympathy towards the Palestinians, given the magnitude of destruction and loss of life.

This humanitarian crisis of such incredible scale is overshadowing the unconscionable slaughter of 1,400 people in Israel and the kidnapping of 248 others. Sadly though, although Israel has the right to self-defense, the campaign to eradicate Hamas is increasingly resembling a war of revenge and retribution. It has caused tremendous destruction and human suffering.

After only four weeks, nearly 11,000 in Gaza are dead, one-third of them children under the age of 18, there is a horrifying scarcity of food, medicine, water, and fuel, and nearly half the population is now internally displaced.

This calamity is unfolding in front of our eyes and must stop, even temporarily, to help save the lives of many of the tens of thousands who are wounded, bury the dead, and avert wide-spread starvation. And even though a temporary cessation of hostilities benefits Hamas, it is still worth undertaking not only to alleviate the horrifying suffering of the entire population in Gaza, but also to open a window for negotiating the release of as many hostages as possible, especially all women and children, in exchange for the pause in fighting.

Whereas Israel’s stated goal from the onset was and still justifiably is the destruction of Hamas, Israel has not offered as yet any clear exit strategy nor endgame. Once Hamas is completely defeated, which is still a tall order, Israel with the support of the US and Saudi Arabia in particular will have to offer a sound alternative that meets the Palestinians’ aspiration and render Hamas irrelevant.

President Biden should demand that Prime Minister Netanyahu and his military brass develop, in coordination with the US, a clear exit strategy and an end-game consistent with Israel’s, the Palestinians’, and the US’ national interests.

The protests that have taken place across major cities in the US over the weekend, including Washington, DC, are arguably some of the biggest that we’ve seen in a long time. These calls for a ceasefire or a pause in the fighting for humanitarian reasons are exerting pressure on Biden to change his near-unconditional support of Israel’s war efforts, which he can no longer ignore. This is particularly important because the US’ unwavering support of Israel makes the Biden administration complicit to the unfolding tragedy, which is intensely criticized from the ranks of leading Democrats as well.

What should be the end game? I believe there are three possible scenarios, two of which are impractical in a sense that they will not lead to a permanent solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Israeli control over Gaza

First, Netanyahu is claiming that he wants to maintain security over Gaza, but he’s not saying who will govern and administer the Strip. Does he want to reoccupy all of Gaza or just the northern half, which may explain why he wanted the Palestinians to head south. President Biden is very correct to suggest that the reoccupation of Gaza, be that in part or in full, will be nothing short of a disaster for Israel and will only guarantee the prolongation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Moreover, it should be emphasized here that given Israel’s experience in the occupied West Bank, maintaining security was only marginally successful at best as evidenced by the continuing violence between Israeli forces and Palestinians, which has been increasingly escalating.

Netanyahu is a fool to assume that he can maintain control over Gaza by establishing a security apparatus when the Hamas-affiliated militants in Gaza will subject the Israeli forces to terrorist attacks that will exact a heavy toll in blood and treasure. The violence in the West Bank will pale in comparison to what Hamas’ militants in Gaza will still be capable of doing against Israeli forces without an end in sight.

Resettling Palestinians in Egypt

The second option, which Netanyahu has been exploring with Egypt, would allow the settling of a few hundred thousand Palestinians in the Sinai; Egypt would assume administrative responsibility in Gaza while Israel maintains security. Egyptian President Sisi flatly rejected any future involvement with the Palestinians in Gaza, other than facilitating through the Rafah crossing the passage of people for justifiable reasons as well as the transfer of goods.

The Egyptian government considers Hamas a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is outlawed in Egypt. For this reason, Egypt has also blockaded Gaza to prevent the infiltration of Hamas militants into the country.

Moreover, Egypt has troubles of its own. The economy is in a dire situation, and its concerns over security are mounting. Egypt simply does not want to add more to its domestic problems. Thus, they are not interested in any solution that will burden them with the Palestinians. That said, President Sisi was clear that regardless of how this war ends, a framework for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must be established, otherwise it will be only a question of time when this war will invite another.

Transitional period for Gaza with UN supervision

The third option may well be more viable as it would entail a transitional period whereby the United Nations would assume responsibility. Administratively, as is well known, UNWRA has been on the ground for decades, providing aid and development services, including education, healthcare, microfinance, and job training.

Although it has not been involved in the running of Gaza itself, UNWRA is very familiar with the scene in Gaza. It is familiar with the population’s needs, the prevailing socio-economic conditions, and the day-to-day problems Gazans face. UNWRA is in the best possible position to assume greater responsibility under a modified and expanded mandate, provided that it receives the manpower and the funding necessary.

In conjunction with UNWRA’s added administrative responsibilities, it will be necessary to establish a peacekeeping force to be in charge of security. This force ought to be comprised exclusively of the Arab states that are at peace with Israel, namely the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Bahrain, and Morocco, as well as Egypt.

It should be made clear that although post-Hamas the West Bank and Gaza should be governed by the Palestinian Authority (PA), this should not and in fact cannot happen for at least a year to 18 months following the establishment of a UN administrative authority in Gaza.

During this period, the Palestinians in both the West Bank and Gaza would prepare themselves politically for a new election. The current PA is corrupt to the bone; President Abbas is rejected and despised by the majority of Palestinians and must go. Only a new, fresh, and uncorrupt newly-elected leadership that enjoys the confidence of the people can succeed.

On the Israeli side, no one should hold their breath waiting for Netanyahu and his gang of zealous coalition partners to agree on anything that even resembles an independent Palestinian state. Once the war ends, Netanyahu will face an inquiry about the unprecedented disaster that took place under his watch and he will have to resign or be ousted. Here too, a new government will have to be established in Israel which must commit itself from the onset to a two-state solution.

Once the above two prerequisites are in place, the UN administrative authority will then relinquish its role and responsibility to the PA.

The Arab states should condition their commitment to provide a peacekeeping force upon Israel’s acceptance of a two-state solution. That is, once such a peacekeeping force is created, the process of peacebuilding ought to commence in earnest toward that end. Any interim solution must be used only as a vehicle toward a final resolution, otherwise it would serve as nothing less than a respite from waiting for another disaster to unfold.

The role of the US and Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia and the US can play a major, in fact indispensable, role in this regard: The US has and continues to be the ultimate guarantor of Israel’s national security, and President Biden has done more than any of his predecessors in this regard and demonstrated that in the most unambiguous way by his unflagging support of Israel.

He must make it very clear (and is in a position to do so) to Netanyahu or his successor that the US’ unwavering support bears considerable political cost to America both domestically as well as internationally. Many countries around the world view the US as complicit to the unfolding horror in Gaza. President Biden must put in place a framework for a two-state solution, which he has been advocating for many decades.

The negotiating peace process will certainly take more than year to complete. 2024 is an election year in the US, but regardless of who the next president might be, Biden will have to stick to the plans because another Israeli-Palestinian conflagration will inescapably involve the US. It’s time for the US to put its foot down, no longer give Israel carte blanche to do as it pleases, and condition further support, financial and military, to genuine efforts to negotiate in good faith and reach a peace agreement.

Saudi Arabia can complement the US initiative with its own most significant role by seizing on the breakdown in the Israeli-Palestinian relations and offering an unprecedented breakthrough to bring an end to the conflict. The Saudis should make it clear that once the war ends, they will be ready to normalize relations with Israel on the condition that a new Israeli government agree to a two-state solution and negotiate continuously until an agreement is reached.

This war must end, leaving Hamas dramatically weakened and in disarray. But Hamas’ ultimate defeat will not be on the battlefield, it will be by creating an alternative to Hamas’ governance from which the Palestinians will greatly benefit. That contrast ought to be made clearly and immediately to demonstrate to the Palestinians that Hamas was not only the enemy of Israel but the enemy of ordinary Palestinians. Yes, all Palestinians in Gaza want to live in peace and prosper but were deprived of living a normal life because of Hamas’ violent resistance to Israel, squandering every resource to fight Israel while leaving the people despairing and hopeless.

Israel should not prolong this tragic war by even one unnecessary day. Indeed, if this war lasts another month or two, it is almost certain that 20,000 to 30,000 Palestinians, mostly innocent civilians, and scores of Israeli soldiers will be killed. The continuation of the terrifying death and destruction in Gaza along with Israeli losses will only deepen the hate, enmity, and distrust between Israel and the Palestinians and make a solution to the conflict ever more intractable.

Every Israeli should ask him/herself the painful question: do we want to memorialize the death of 1,400 innocent Israelis butchered by Hamas by killing, however inadvertently, 20,000 Palestinians? Is that how the Israeli victims should be commemorated? This is something that every Israeli needs to think about.

Yes, Israel can and will win every battle against Hamas, but it will lose the war unless a peace process between Israel and the Palestinians begins once the war comes to an end, under the auspices of the US and Saudi Arabia, which must lead to a two-state solution.

For more information on how a sustainable peace agreement based on a two-state solution can be reached, please refer to my essay in World Affairs https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00438200211066350
“The Case for an Israeli-Palestinian-Jordanian Confederation: Why Now and How?”

Dr Alon Ben-Meir is a professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He teaches courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies. alon@alonben-meir.com

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Air strikes on Rafah city in the southern Gaza Strip have caused widespread damage. Credit: UNICEF/Eyad El Baba
 
The unprecedented and unfathomable savagery that was inflicted by Hamas on 1,400 innocent Israeli civilians and off-duty soldiers has shaken to the core every human being with a conscience. Beyond that, it has also rattled the prevailing conditions between Israel and the Palestinians, making it impossible to return to the status quo ante. This incomprehensible massacre offers, though under horrifying circumstances, an unprecedented opportunity to bring a gradual end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This unparalleled breakdown resulting from Hamas’s savagery has fundamentally changed the dynamic of the conflict and created a new paradigm that could lead to a breakthrough of historic proportions to reach a permanent peace agreement based on a two-state solution.

By Alon Ben-Meir
NEW YORK, Nov 7 2023 (IPS)

There are five measures the Israeli government, along with the US and Saudi Arabia, should put in place to move the peace process forward.

First, Israel must limit its ground invasion to northern Gaza, as a large-scale war will inevitably inflict massive destruction and thousands of casualties on both sides, especially Palestinian civilians, and put the lives of the hostages at a much greater risk.

More than anything else, it is a dangerous illusion for anyone to assume that a large-scale invasion will capture or kill all of Hamas’ leaders and senior operatives and prevent it from ever reconstituting itself both as a resistance movement and as a political entity.

Many of Hamas’ leaders have not lived in Gaza for years, or have recently fled. Most of Hamas’ commanders and ‘foot soldiers’ are embedded in the civilian community and a massive complex of tunnels while lying in wait for the ground invasion, in order to kill and injure hundreds if not thousands of Israeli soldiers.

They know full well that they will sustain massive casualties and destruction, but they will only technically lose the war and can still reconstitute themselves regardless of the immense losses they might sustain.

Israel simply cannot eradicate a religious movement or obliterate an ideology. And to suggest, as Israel’s Defense Minister Yoav Gallant recently stated, that “we will wipe them [Hamas] off the face of the earth,” is an illusion. Even if Israel manages to decapitate every senior Hamas leader, it will be only a question of time when a new generation of Palestinian leaders will rise.

If Israel reoccupies Gaza to prevent Hamas from reconstituting itself, it will be sheer madness, a quagmire from which Israel cannot exit without incurring massive casualties. Moreover, Israel will have to care for 2.2 million Palestinians, coupled with a relentless insurgency by Palestinian militants bent on killing and maiming Israeli soldiers.

The urge for revenge and retribution following the massacre of 1,400 Israelis is perfectly understandable, and in the minds of many, revenge is the only way to assuage the unbearable pain that so many Israelis are living with. But then the inevitable death of hundreds of young Israeli soldiers, should Israel decide to an all-out invade Gaza, will only add to the national tragedy and offer no solution.

The better path for Israel is to pursue targeting killings, and engage in a limited invasion into northern Gaza, keep Hamas’ leaders on the run, and cut off the flow of money, while focusing on releasing the hostages. Israel must make it publicly and unequivocally clear that its fight is against Hamas and not against innocent Palestinian people.

Furthermore, Israel ought to facilitate the delivery of all the basic necessities, especially drinking water, medicine, food, and under strict monitoring by UN observers, fuel to generate electricity and feed generators. But since Israel cannot eliminate Hamas, it can only weaken it to a point where it is effectively inoperative by providing an alternative that will dramatically improve the lives of the Palestinians and offer them a promising path for the future.

Second, Israel should come to terms with the inevitability of a Palestinian state and inform the US and Saudi Arabia that it is willing to negotiate a peace agreement with the Palestinians in the West Bank based on a two-state solution. I expect that the current Netanyahu government will fall and sooner perhaps rather than later, there will be a new government in Israel and a new Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.

They should begin to engage, under the auspices of the US and Saudi Arabia, in a peace process accompanied from the onset by a process of reconciliation, both government-to-government and people-to-people, to mitigate the pervasive hatred and distrust between the two.

An Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement in the West Bank that would lead to a dramatic improvement in the living standard of the population and a growing sense of security will be the most potent weapon against Hamas. Hamas will have to choose between joining the peace process by first recognizing Israel’s right to exist, or remaining under blockade.

The Palestinians in Gaza will be well aware of the changing fortune of their brethren in the West Bank and will not accept a continuing life of despondency and despair in Gaza. Hamas being on the run and with depleting resources to deliver what the people need will be hard pressed to change direction, or else face the wrath of the people. Hamas’ claim that Israel is the cause of their suffering will no longer resonate.

In the final analysis, the creation of an independent Palestinian state will be strengthened and peacefully sustained through the establishment of an Israeli-Palestinian-Jordanian confederation, once a Palestinian state is first established.

Indeed, given the interspersed Palestinian populations in the West Bank, Jerusalem, Israel proper, and Jordan, the geographic proximity of the three states, their unique religious affinity to Jerusalem, and their intertwined national security, it is not only possible but necessary to establish such a confederation where all three countries will collaborate on a host of issues to serve their national interests.

Some will say that this is a glaringly naïve proposal and, in any case, this is the wrong time to talk about a two-state solution. Naïve or not, I challenge anyone to tell me what is the alternative? Where does Israel go from here?

The Palestinian problem will not simply disappear; they are not going anywhere and they are more determined today than any time before to unshackle themselves from the occupation. The unfolding tragedy and its inescapably horrifying consequences made the need for a solution ever more urgent. And if not now, then when?

Third, the development of a major economic program is critical to sustaining any Israeli-Palestinian peace in the West Bank. What is needed is a sort of a Marshall Plan for the West Bank to be financed by the Gulf states, the US, and the EU. Such a program should be at the center of the peace process to relieve the people of their economic hardship. The West Bank is in desperate need of better infrastructure, schools, and hospitals. Such national projects would also provide job opportunities for the tens of thousands of unemployed youths.

Moreover, since the Palestinian refugees have and continue to play a major role in the search for a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a solution to the Palestinian refugees must be found based on resettlement and/or compensation.

A solution to this and other conflicting issues, including the future of Jerusalem and the Israeli settlements, which have stymied peace negotiations in the past and remain contentious issues, can be and in fact must be resolved.

The inevitability of coexistence and the inescapable need for a peace agreement based on a two-state solution, coupled with a commitment by a new Israeli government, the Palestinian Authority, and the US’ determination to that end, will facilitate a solution to these conflicting issues, however intractable they may seem at this juncture.

Fourth, Saudi Arabia should play a front and center role, at the urging of the US. Saudi Arabia, which has been negotiating normalization of relations with Israel behind-the-scenes and has linked normalization to the establishment of a path that will solve the Israeli Palestinian-conflict, should publicly state so once the war ends.

This will not only assure the Palestinians that they will not be abandoned, but it will also send a clear message to the Israelis that they now have a historic opportunity not only to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but open up the door wide to normalization of relations between Israel and much of the Muslim world.

The Saudis and every Arab state in the region know that as long as there is no solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, instability will continue to rattle the region, making normalization of relations with Israel tenuous at best. Moreover, Israel must remember that regardless of how the Saudis and other Arab states feel toward the Palestinians, in any violent confrontation between Israel and the Palestinians, as demonstrated in the current conflagration, they will always land on the Palestinians’ side.

And even though the Israel-Hamas war started because of the horrific massacre of Israelis, the Arab public throughout the region and beyond is sympathizing with the Palestinians. It is the death of thousands of innocent Palestinians in Gaza that is capturing headline news now, not the indescribably horrendous massacre of Israelis.

Thus, the greater the casualties and destruction inflicted on Gaza, the harder it will be for the Saudis to resume negotiations over the normalization of relations with Israel. Normalization can serve as the conduit for Israeli-Palestinian peace, which will be deferred for years if not lost for the foreseeable future unless Israel weighs carefully what will happen next if the war spins completely out of control.

But then again, it is up to Israel and the US—which will have a say on this matter as Israel today cannot simply say NO to the US—to ensure that the war does not cripple the prospect of normalization between Israel and other Arab states.

Fifth, the US paying lip service to the idea of a two-state solution must now be acted upon. Successive American administrations have demonstrated consistent support of Israel and the US became the de facto guarantor of Israel’s national security. No US president, however, has demonstrated in words and deeds the US’ commitment to Israel’s security and prosperity more than President Biden.

His visit to Israel in the moment of unprecedented national grief and his dispatch of formidable American forces to the region, including two aircraft carriers to deter Israel’s sworn enemies and prevent the escalation of the war, sent an unambiguous massage that has not been lost on Iran and Hezbollah.

Although Israel is receiving annually $3.8 billion in military aid from the US, at no time in recent memory has Israel found itself so dependent on the US for additional military aid and political backing. Israeli National Security Minister Ben-Gvir’s statement earlier this year that Israel is “not another star on the American flag. We are a democracy and I expect the U.S. president to understand that,” is no less stupid than his boss Netanyahu, who stated in March that “Israel is a sovereign country which makes its decisions by the will of its people and not based on pressures from abroad, including from the best of friends.”

Now the Israeli government recognizes how indispensable America is, forcing it to listen carefully to what President Biden is recommending, which is clearly against waging an all-out ground invasion without very diligent consideration of what comes next, which will otherwise be catastrophic by any account.

Thus, President Biden is now in a position, more than any of his predecessors, to exert significant influence over Israel. There is no better time for the US to formulate a plan that would begin a peace process and stick to it regardless of what transpires on the ground. By providing Israel all it needs to protect itself and maintain a military edge over its adversaries and now to prevail in this war, the US becomes complicit to Israel’s conduct in Gaza.

This is also applicable to the occupation of the West Bank, which is inconsistent with the US’ formal position. Therefore, the US should make it clear to Israel that given America’s unflagging support, it is seen as a party to the occupation which must end.

It is time for the Biden administration to translate the lip service that the US has customarily been paying to the two-state solution into a plan of action. Upon his return from Israel, President Biden reiterated that the two-state solution is the only realistic option.

And however far-fetched this may seem to Israelis and Palestinians at this juncture, President Biden must begin to press the issue and pave the way for serious negotiations, albeit he has to wait for Netanyahu’s exile from the political scene, which may well happen sooner than later.

The breakdown in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can dawn a historic breakthrough to reach at last a peace agreement. There is no need for even one more Israeli or Palestinian child to die on the altar of misguided leadership on both sides. The Israeli and the Palestinian publics must rise in unison pour into the streets by the hundreds of thousands and scream:

Enough is Enough.

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University (NYU). He teaches courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Palestinians being displaced amid threats by Israeli settlers in Nablus area. (October 2023). Credit: UN OCHA
 
The unprecedented and unfathomable savagery that was inflicted by Hamas on 1,400 innocent Israeli civilians and off-duty soldiers has shaken to the core every human being with a conscience. Beyond that, it has also rattled the prevailing conditions between Israel and the Palestinians, making it impossible to return to the status quo ante. This incomprehensible massacre offers, though under horrifying circumstances, an unprecedented opportunity to bring a gradual end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This unparalleled breakdown resulting from Hamas’s savagery has fundamentally changed the dynamic of the conflict and created a new paradigm that could lead to a breakthrough of historic proportions to reach a permanent peace agreement based on a two-state solution.

By Alon Ben-Meir
NEW YORK, Nov 6 2023 (IPS)

Since the 1967 Six Day War, many efforts have been made to reach a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians through mediation conducted by an impartial mediator, face-to face negotiations, international conferences, offering incentives, back-channel talks, interim agreements (in particular the Oslo Accords), and occasionally by an influential party exerting pressure on both sides, especially the US.

None of the above approaches nor several others to reach a peace agreement have worked. The failures to reach an agreement are fundamentally attributed to the fact that both sides claim exclusive ownership to the entire land from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River, albeit they blame each other for failing to make the necessary concessions to reach a peace agreement.

While the prospect of a two-state solution was viable following the 1993 Oslo Accords, the outlook for such a solution became progressively dimmer as Israel moved to the right-of-center. Prime Minister Netanyahu, who was bent on sabotaging the Oslo Accords when he served as prime minister between 1996 and 1999, and has been in power for most of the past 15 years, made it clear repeatedly that there will be no Palestinian state under his watch.

The idea of a two-state solution was steadily losing traction in Israel, the occupation of the West Bank was normalized, and a de facto apartheid state was created, which became a way of life for most Israelis and Palestinians.

The changing dynamic of the conflict

It is well known in conflict resolution that sometimes it takes a major breakdown that precipitates an extraordinary crisis to change the dynamic of a conflict. The shockingly unexpected and devastating Yom Kippur War in 1973, which subsequently led to a peace agreement between Egypt and Israel, offers a potent example.

As such, it made it simply impossible to return to the status quo ante. Indeed, neither Israel nor the Palestinians, including Hamas, will be the same following this most heinous and unprecedented massacre and Israel’s retaliation that has already exacted (as of this writing) more than 8,700 Palestinian casualties—not to speak of the unimaginable death and destruction that will occur as Israel undertakes its ground invasion of Gaza.

This unfolding horror should have been expected because of what was happening on the ground in the West Bank and Gaza over the past few years, especially in the last 10 months since the formation of the most extremist right-wing coalition government in Israel’s history (as I pointed out in my article published on October 3, 2022). Indeed, it did not take a prophet to augur what would happen next.

The increasingly violent flareups in the West Bank have been claiming hundreds of Palestinian lives, mostly under the age of 30, each year (so far this year over 300 West Bank Palestinians have already been killed, as of the time of writing, over 100 since October 7 alone). The frequent night raids, evictions, incarcerations, demolition of houses, and gross human rights abuses became the norm.

Despair, depression, and hopelessness swept much of the Palestinian population, akin to the gathering of a ferocious storm that successive Israeli governments led by Netanyahu chose to brush off. Moreover, it is the psychological dimension of the conflict that has now come into full display, exposing decades-old mental and emotional trauma the Palestinians have been experiencing to which the wright-wing Israelis were oblivious and which was bound to manifest in an unprecedented way.

The Palestinians’ resentment and hatred of Israel were intensifying. Since the new government could not formally annex Palestinians territories, it has resorted to intimidation and harassment of the Palestinians under the watchful eye of the criminal Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir, who gave the settlers free reign to rampage Palestinian communities in order to ‘encourage’ them to leave.

The Netanyahu government’s intent to slowly annex much of the West Bank became abundantly clear. Needless to say, none of the above can justify under any circumstances Hamas’ heinous attack on Israeli civilians. Hamas must pay for it dearly, and pay they will.

But such unthinkable carnage happened because of the perilous “strategy” that successive Israeli governments pursued that enabled Hamas and prevented the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. This also explains why Netanyahu consistently refused to negotiate with any prospective unity government between the PA and Hamas.

The creation of Hamas

Israel created Hamas to counter balance the secular national Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) movement led by Yasser Arafat, which was intended to divide the Palestinians into two camps and prevent the creation of a Palestinian state. The creation of Hamas by Israel, which has been confirmed by many top Israeli military and civilian officials over a number of years, is unquestionable.

Former Brig. Gen. Yitzhak Segev, who was the Israeli military governor in Gaza in the early 1980s, told a New York Times reporter that he had helped finance Hamas as a “counterweight” to the secularists and leftists of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Fatah party, led by Yasser Arafat, stating “The Israeli Government gave me a budget and the military government gives to the mosques.” And among many others, Avner Cohen, a former Israeli religious affairs official who worked in Gaza for more than two decades, told the Wall Street Journal in 2009 that “Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel’s creation.”

In a 2015 interview, Bezalel Smotrich, the current finance minister who is also in charge of Coordination of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT), stated “The Palestinian Authority is a burden, and Hamas is an asset” [emphasis added]. And in an article published in the New York Times on October 18, 2023, entitled “Netanyahu Led Us to Catastrophe. He Must Go.,” author Gershom Gorenberg stated that “Bringing Gaza back under the Palestinian Authority was apparently never part of the prime minister’s agenda. Hamas was the enemy and, in a bizarre twist, an ally against the threat of diplomacy, a two-state solution and peace.”

Indeed, no Israeli prime minister has pursued this disastrous policy of divide and conquer more vigorously than Netanyahu. Although he maintained the blockade over Gaza, he allowed the flow of hundreds of millions of dollars from Qatar and other countries into Hamas’ coffers, knowing full well that more than 50 percent of these funds were used by Hamas to buy and manufacture weapons, including tens of thousands of rockets, and build a massive network of tunnels with command and control while readying itself for the next war.

Gorenberg further stated that “In 2019, for instance, Netanyahu explained why he allowed the Hamas regime in Gaza to be propped up with cash from Qatar rather than have it depend on a financial umbilical cord to the West Bank. He told Likud lawmakers that ’whoever is against a Palestinian state should be for’ the Qatari funding…” Yuval Diskin, head of Shin Bet from 2005-2011, stated in January 2013 that “If we look at it over the years, one of the main people contributing to Hamas’s strengthening has been Bibi Netanyahu, since his first term as prime minister.”

And in a more telling statement from someone who has been deeply immersed in Israeli politics and governance, Ehud Barak stated in August 2019, “His strategy is to keep Hamas alive and kicking… even at the price of abandoning the citizens [of the south] … in order to weaken the PA in Ramallah…”

Netanyahu’s ill-fated “strategy” was an illusion. He believed that he could control the monster that he nurtured over the years, which instead came back to slaughter hundreds of innocent Israelis who have been relying on their government for protection and were tragically let down.

They have been betrayed by a prime minister who has been fixated on bolstering Israel’s security in the West Bank while weakening the security of the southern front along the Gaza border. And while Netanyahu was sparing no efforts to ‘reform’ the judiciary, Hamas was planning, training, acquiring weapons, and perfecting the technique to wage an assault against Israel more daring than anyone could have possibly imagined.

It all happened under Netanyahu’s watch. And worse yet, how is it possible that the world’s most renowned intelligence agency, Israel’s Mossad, failed to detect the planning of an attack of such magnitude that it took perhaps more than a year to prepare? And why did Netanyahu ignore the warning of Egypt’s Intelligence Minister General Abbas Kamel, who personally called Netanyahu and warned him that Hamas was likely to do “something unusual, a terrible operation” only 10 days before the attack?

I do not suggest or even imply that Netanyahu knew what was going to happen but chose to ignore it, but rather that he was simply dismissive of what Hamas is capable of and believed that he had a good handle on what was happening in Gaza. He was preoccupied with passing legislation that would subordinate the Supreme Court and the appointment of judges to elected politicians, which would have destroyed Israel’s democracy and allowed him to assume authoritarian powers, to which he badly aspired.

Although the Palestinians on the whole, be they in the West Bank or Gaza, are innocent civilians, the extremists among them have committed many egregious acts of violence against Israel. The Palestinian leaders missed many opportunities to make peace, and made countless mistakes that aggravated their own situation.

Moreover, by threatening Israel’s very existence, extremist groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad allowed successive Israeli governments to make a strong case against the Palestinians by portraying them as an irredeemable mortal enemy that poses the greatest danger to Israel’s national security and hence, the Palestinians cannot be a party to peace.

With these perspectives established by the Israeli government, maintaining the occupation became the state policy, however unsustainable it has been deemed by any keen and informed observer.

What’s next

That said, once the war is over and the dust settles, a growing majority on both sides will come to recognize one irreversible fact. Co-existence is not one of many options, it is the only option, be that under conditions of peace or perpetual violent enmity. The two-state solution has come back to the table, as it has always been the only viable option. Both sides must now face this bittersweet reality.

The question is what will happen now that Israel and Hamas are engaged in fierce fighting on the ground that will surely exact an immense toll on both sides. I maintain that whether Israel limits its ground invasion of Gaza to its northern part, or continues its targeted bombing of Hamas’s encampments while seeking to decapitate as many of its leaders as possible, or simply stops the fighting, which is unlikely, and focuses on releasing the over 240 hostages, nothing will change in any substantial way the irreversible new paradigm that has bitterly awakened both sides to their miserable, unsustainable status quo.

To be sure, what option the Israeli government will choose to bring an end to the conflict will only define the length of time that that might take, the extent of difficulties in the negotiation, the modalities of the negotiating process, the level of public and international pressure to find a solution, and the likely intermittent violence. But none of these issues will change the fundamental point of departure that point to the endgame of a two-state solution, regardless of how many more hurdles might be encountered.

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University (NYU). He teaches courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

The UN Secretary-General has appealed to Hamas to immediately release all hostages and to Israel to grant “unimpeded access for humanitarian aid” into the Gaza Strip. Credit: UN News/Ziad Taleb

By Alon Ben-Meir
NEW YORK, Oct 17 2023 (IPS)

Israel will recover over time from its colossal intelligence failure and its tardiness in responding militarily to Hamas’ massacre. But it cannot do so unless it upholds its moral values and makes every effort to spare the lives of innocent Palestinians as it pursues Hamas’ destruction

The unfathomable massacre of Israeli Jews by Hamas and its insatiable thirst for Jewish blood has rightfully evoked the most virulent condemnation from many corners of the world, including many Arab states. The call for revenge and retribution by many Israelis was an instinctive human reaction that can be justified in a moment of incomparable rage and devastation.

The Israeli decision to crush Hamas and decapitate its leaders must indeed be pursued with determination and vigor by the Israeli army. That said, the pursuit of destroying Hamas and preventing it from being reconstituted so that it can never threaten Israel again should under no circumstances justify any acts of revenge against innocent Palestinian men, women, and children who have nothing to do with Hamas’ evil act.

In fact, most of the Palestinians in Gaza have been victimized by Hamas itself, which has subjected them to a life of destitute and despair while they are frequently imperiled due to a lack of basic necessities like fuel, electricity, medicine, and drinking water.

Meanwhile, Hamas has been concentrating on battling Israel and using the people of Gaza as human shields as it invested much of its financial resources in buying and manufacturing weapons, training its warriors, building tunnels, and preparing to waging yet another destructive battle against Israel.

Hamas blames the plight of its people on Israel, using the 17-year-old blockade as a justification, which allows it to sow hatred and unrelenting enmity among the people against the Jewish state.

That said, Israel’s indiscriminate bombing of Gaza that has already leveled entire neighborhoods, killed, as of this writing, in excess of 2,300 Gazans, one-quarter of whom are children, and injured nearly 10,000 with little or no access to medical care, only affirms rather than refutes Hamas’ claims against Israel.

None of the dead or injured were asked by Hamas’s leaders whether they should go and massacre innocent Israelis at an unprecedented scale, but Hamas knew full well the unimaginable price these ordinary Palestinians, who just want to live, would end up paying.

Hamas’ unprecedent onslaught against Israeli civilians and soldiers put a significant dent in Israel’s military invincibility that could have hardly been imagined only two weeks ago. And whereby the colossal failure of Israeli intelligence to detect what Hamas was planning may well be rectified over time, the carnage that Israel is inflicting on Gazans severely damages the high moral ground the Israeli army has proudly claimed.

As the death toll and destruction rise in Gaza by the minute, the initial overwhelming sympathy toward Israel’s tragic losses is waning even among many of its friends. Indeed, once Israel loses its moral compass in dealing with the crisis, it will no longer be seen as the victim who rose from the ashes of the Holocaust and has every right to defend itself, but the victimizer whose survival rests on the ashes of its real or perceived enemies.

Prime Minister Netanyahu, who has been busy trying to dismantle Israel’s democracy, will stop short of nothing to try to redeem himself by exploiting these tragic events, hoping to emerge as a “war hero” and save his political skin.

How adversely his public call for revenge might impact Israel’s standing and its future relationship with the Palestinians is of no concern to him. Imposing a total siege on Gaza and depriving more than two million Palestinians of receiving basic necessities and demanding that over a million Gazans evacuate their homes and go south while bombing them to smithereens is a collective punishment that defies morality (and legality) by any measure.

Netanyahu is justifying this collective punishment by dehumanizing the Palestinians, deeming them unworthy of humane treatment. Whereas he rightfully condemned the unimaginable evil act of Hamas that killed over 1,400 innocent Israelis, he is waging a merciless campaign against innocent Palestinians who had nothing to do with Hamas’ acts of terror.

For Netanyahu, there is simply no moral equivalence. For him and many of his followers, the Palestinians are sub-humans and their lives are unequal to those of Israeli Jews.

The dehumanization of Palestinians will come back to haunt the Israelis simply because the Palestinians have no other place to go. And whether they are ordinary human beings with hopes and aspirations, or subhuman, Israel is stuck with them. And regardless of how the war will end, Israel will have to address the conflict with the Palestinians. The depth of the scars of the war will define the relationship for years to come.

Former Defense Minister and Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces, Benny Gantz, who has just joined the government along with the current Defense Minister Yoav Galant, must resist Netanyahu’s call for vengeance. Yes, they will fight with their military might to crush Hamas, but they must also fight to safeguard Israel’s democracy and Jewish values, which forbid the indiscriminate killing of innocent people.

Israel will win this war; the question is, will it win it while adhering to these moral values, or win it by leaving behind deep moral wounds that will be etched in memory and in history books as one of Israel’s darkest chapters?

They must remember that just about every Arab country will quietly (and some even overtly) cheer the demise of Hamas, but they will be loud and clear about their objection to the killing of innocent Palestinians, especially women and children, and scuttle further any prospect of normalization of relations with other Arab countries.

The imminent invasion of Gaza will result in the destruction of this enclave, the likes of which we have never seen before. However, as long as the invasion is not driven by revenge and retribution and instead seeks, as the war comes to an end, to create a new paradigm to bring an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, then all the sacrifices made by all sides will not have been in vain.

This unprecedented breakdown in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could lead to a historic breakthrough, if only the moderate Israeli, Arab, and Palestinian leaders grasp the unparalleled moment this crisis presents.

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University (NYU). He teaches courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Israel's parliament, the Knesset, in Jerusalem. Credit: Unsplash/Rafael Nir

By Alon Ben-Meir
NEW YORK, Aug 18 2023 (IPS)

The prospect of normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia will have enormous implications on Israel and the entire region. Since it will certainly take a personal sacrifice to put Israel’s national interests first, the question is, will Prime Minister Netanyahu muster the courage to do what’s best for the country

Prime Minister Netanyahu faces a historic opportunity to normalize relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia and set the country on an unparalleled path of progress, security, and peace. But for that to happen, Netanyahu will have to agree to accept the Saudis’ reported demand to establish a path that will lead to the end of the occupation and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.

Given, however, Netanyahu’s personal legal woes and his dependence on the most hard-core racist government in Israel’s history to stay in power, will he sacrifice his personal interests by accepting the Saudi demands, which would certainly precipitate the collapse of his government and force him to face his legal peril?

His other choice would be to forfeit such a historic opportunity by continuing to pursue policies that will dismantle Israel’s democracy, convert Israel into an autocracy, intensify the violent conflict with the Palestinians, and put Israel always on the defensive while its enemies lay in wait.

Saudi Arabia is the de facto leading Arab state and is representative of Sunni Islam. Whether or not the Saudis care about the Palestinian cause, they cannot simply abandon the Palestinians to their own devices and still claim the leadership role they highly covet. The Saudis cannot and should not, under any circumstances, agree to normalize relations with Israel unless the Netanyahu government agrees to end the conflict with the Palestinians based on a two-state solution.

For the Palestinians, Saudi Arabia offers the last hope to protect their national interests. Should the Palestinians feel abandoned by the Saudis and have nothing left to lose, they will feel that they have no choice but to resort increasingly to violence against the Israelis with the intent of destabilizing the region and disrupting the normalization process between Israel and the Gulf states, especially Saudi Arabia. The Palestinians know that should a major conflagration ensue between them and Israel, the Arab states will have little choice but to land on their side.

The advantages to Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia knows how much it can benefit directly from the normalization of relations with Israel in terms of technology, intelligence sharing, and above all regional security. Riyadh also knows that Israel wants normalization as much, if not more than they themselves.

In addition, the Saudis know how much the Biden administration would like Riyadh and Jerusalem to reach an agreement because it would greatly serve the US’s overall regional geostrategic interests. This includes curbing China’s influence, containing Iran’s nuclear weapon program, weakening extremism, and stabilizing the region to ensure the US’ long-term unchallenged power over a region of pivotal strategic importance.

Knowing how much both the US and Israel would benefit from normalization and how eager they are to conclude such an agreement, the Saudis put forth three major requirements from the US as a prerequisite to normalizing relations with Israel:

Guaranteeing Saudi Arabia’s national security along the line of the US’ commitment to NATO, where an attack on any member state constitutes an attack on all member states, including the US.
Providing nuclear facilities for civilian purposes including the production of clean energy and for medical purposes along with the prestige that goes with it.

Approving the purchase of the US’ most advanced weapons systems, including the F-35 airplane among other arsenals. The Saudis are fully aware that President Biden wants to secure a major win just before the elections by building on the Abraham Accords. Obviously, they are in a position to hand him such a win provided that he meets their requirements.

Regardless of how desirable and far-reaching the implications of normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia are, for President Biden it remains an extremely difficult task to achieve due to two major factors.

First, the Saudis’ conditional requirements from the US will certainly evoke significant Congressional resistance. But if the deal ends the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based on a two-state solution, over which many Democratic leaders including Senators Chris Van Hollen and Tim Kaine insist, the Senate will more than likely approve it with some modifications because they understand and appreciate how significantly it will benefit the US’ geostrategic interest.

The second and more daunting difficulty President Biden faces is Netanyahu’s objections to making any major concession to the Palestinians, especially one that would lead to the creation of a Palestinian state. In addition, Netanyahu’s current coalition partners vehemently oppose any major concession to the Palestinians and any such move could lead to the dissolution of his government should Netanyahu make even a partial concession, such as the freezing of settlement expansion or ending any further annexation of Palestinian territory.

Juxtaposed to the position of Netanyahu and his government, it is critical for the Israeli public and a few of the less extreme members in the government to understand how paramount the consequences are for Israel’s future should it normalize relations with Saudi Arabia.

The advantages to Israel

It is hard to exaggerate the enormous advantages Israel would reap. To begin with, it will open the door for normalization of relations with most, if not all, of the Arab and Muslim-majority states, end once and for all Israel’s isolation, and dramatically strengthen its national security, as normalization of relations would inevitably entail security collaboration.

And since any Israeli-Saudi agreement will have to include a definitive roadmap to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it will pull the rug from underneath Israel’s staunch enemy Iran and its proxy Hezbollah, and force Hamas to reconsider its militant posture toward Israel.

Moreover, Israel’s export of technology and other scientific knowhow in all fields of endeavor, along with the export of military hardware, will exponentially grow along with foreign investments, making the country an economic powerhouse with a corresponding political influence.

With that, Israel’s friendship and collaborative relations with the US and the EU will reach new heights and dramatically enhance their shared regional geostrategic interest and mitigate any friction in policy or strategy in dealing with any regional conflict.

Finally, ending the occupation will restore Israel’s moral foundation, mitigate the poisonous hatred between Israel and the Palestinians, restore the dignity and the integrity of the Israeli military, and most importantly, end the dehumanization of Palestinians under occupation.

Should an agreement be reached, given the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflicting issues, Saudi Arabia and the US should establish a road map and timeline for the implementation of the various components of the agreement while monitoring the progress made to ensure that both sides are fully complying with the provisions included therein.

Moreover, the Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement should be enshrined in a treaty between the two sides that binds future Israeli and Palestinian governments and is guaranteed by the US and Saudi Arabia.

I concede that the prospect of Netanyahu changing his position is remote. But given his inflated ego and his concern over his legacy, coupled with increasing pressure from the US, there might be a small chance that he changes his mind, albeit such a leap is laden with considerable personal risk.

The question is, will he nevertheless muster the courage and rise to the historic occasion, show statesmanship, and leave a legacy of one who sacrificed himself politically for the sake of the nation?

I doubt he will, but miracles do happen, and Israel today is desperately in need of one.

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He teaches courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau