Changes Needed to Stop the Palestinian – Israeli Conflict From Deteriorating

The current Middle East conflagration involving Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Yemeni Houthis, with Iran’s involvement until now in the background, now risks directly engaging Iran and potentially engulfing other countries in the region and beyond. This escalating conflict raises the question of whether the warring parties are locked into an inevitable escalation or if measures can be taken to mitigate the situation.

It is true that there is an ideological clash between Palestinian and Israeli aspirations with each side claiming its exclusive sovereign entitlement to the land of Israel. The present modus operandi is that each side is trying to rout the other. Escalation can easily lead to a catastrophic outcome. I believe that a partial reconciliation is possible; one that at least puts a moratorium on the ever-expanding war. However, in order to pull the conflict out of its present apocalyptic trajectory, reconciliation can take place only if all the sides to the conflict make significant strategic modifications which may have to include leadership changes.

Whether deliberate or not, many Western news outlets mislead their audiences about the situation. In my opinion, the media’s focus on condemning the IDF’s targeted attacks on Hamas and Hezbollah leaders, the destruction in Gaza, and Gazan casualties is both inaccurate and misleading. This emphasis not only fails to provide a realistic understanding but also wrongly implies that Israeli restraint would improve the situation.

On October 7, Hamas, unprovoked and in pursuit of its manifesto, launched a war aimed at the annihilation of Israel. The attack began with a brutal massacre primarily targeting civilians and the taking of hostages both dead and living. It also included missile strikes on Israeli cities. Hezbollah joined the war the next day and has since fired an estimated 6,500 rockets on northern Israel. 80,000 people have been evacuated on the Israeli side and an estimated 100,000 on the Lebanese side. The Houthis joined in later firing over 70 missiles on ships in the Red Sea requiring many to re-route and over 200  missiles on Israel including one missile which evaded Israel’s defense system killing one person and injuring several others.

The timing of the Hamas attack likely coincided with several moderate Middle Eastern countries nearing normalization of relations with Israel. This is a key issue of objection for Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and the Iranian regime, collectively known as the Axis of Resistance, which opposes Israel’s existence and rejects negotiation and reconciliation. One goal of their war was to prevent progress on the normalization process with Israel by moderate Arab countries.

Now, over 300 days later, despite its heavy losses and the devastation in Gaza caused by Israel’s attempts to defeat them, Hamas adamantly refuses to unconditionally release the hostages and continues to fire rockets at Israel when possible. It is unsafe for evacuees from the south to return home.  Even with the successful targeting of high-ranking Hezbollah officers, the war with Hezbollah is far from over. It is still unsafe for evacuees from the north to return to their communities.

While each of these regimes has their own bones to pick with Israel, they are only acting semi-independently. The common thread behind the scenes uniting them is Iran. To quote Thomas Friedman of the New York Times: “ Iran is the biggest indigenous imperial power in the Middle East, and through its proxies it has been dominating the politics of millions of Arabs living in Lebanon, Syria, Gaza, Iraq and Yemen — dragging their citizens into wars with Israel that few of them have any interest in. No leader in any of these Arab states today can make decisions hostile to Iran’s interests without fear of being killed.”

In addition, Iran has long encouraged, funded, and armed Palestinian, Lebanese, Houthi, Iraqi, and Syrian militants to fight Israel while avoiding direct danger to itself. The cooperation of these proxy groups with Iran’s imperialistic aspirations, resulting in Israeli retaliation and significant damage, seems misguided and nihilistic. They claim to fight out of concern for the Palestinians, but evidence suggests otherwise. For example, during its 17 years in power, Hamas has invested millions in attack tunnels and military sites within civilian areas instead of improving the lives of Gazans. Since October 7, Hamas militants have been using these tunnels for protection of their militants, leaving the civilian population exposed above ground, to Israeli retaliation. This behavior indicates that their primary goal is to annihilate Israel, not better the Palestinians. Since October 7, the plight of Palestinians has worsened drastically.

The targeting of Iranian generals in Syria in April and the killing of Ismail Haniyeh on Iranian soil last month have upended Iran’s strategy. Iran can no longer promote aggression against Israel without facing direct consequences. Like an abscess which is ready to be incised, these events which directly involve Iranians or Iran reflect uncovering of a problem not its creation. Unfortunately, most Western European countries prefer to downplay Iran’s involvement and the role of its proxies, portraying the conflict merely as a Palestinian-Israeli issue and blaming Israel for its military response. While the United States is unquestionably supportive and loyal to Israel, it does not always endorse Israel’s tactical decisions. Moreover, the U.S.’s legitimate concern about being drawn into a global conflict with Iran, its proxies, and supporters has led to hesitation in confronting Iran. Regrettably, Middle Eastern countries, including Iran, interpret such restraint and equivocation as weakness to be exploited.

To survive against Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, Israel has fought back, as restraint has not been effective. While one can debate the appropriateness of various tactical responses, calling for unilateral Israeli restraint is unlikely to yield productive results. History has shown that if Israel’s response is too weak, it fails to deter the other side. Consequently, the response must be forceful enough to deter further aggression. War, unfortunately, involves one side overwhelming the other into submission. Israel’s exercising  of too much restraint has proven detrimental not only to Israel but also to the other side, as inconclusive actions prolong the conflict and civilian suffering. The present war was initiated by regimes committed to Israel’s destruction. From the perspective of Israelis, this is a war of survival; it must effectively wage war or face capitulation and annihilation.

In contrast, the Palestinian side has a choice. If Hamas were to stop firing rockets, release the hostages, and declare their intention to negotiate, Israel would immediately stop its fighting, and the plight of Gazans would improve overnight. Similarly, if Hezbollah were to cease firing rockets and declare it would no longer initiate attacks, the 100,000 Lebanese evacuees could return home, and the IDF would have no need to target Hezbollah soldiers and commanders. The pro-Palestinian side can choose to continue a destructive path or turn towards negotiation to advance their cause positively. Given past behavior, it is doubtful that the current Hamas and Hezbollah leadership will make this change. However, a younger, pragmatic leadership might be willing to try. If such a shift occurs, many Arab and international governments are ready to support and affirm the Palestinian cause diplomatically.

Israel has not fared well since the current government came into power in December 2022. Even before October 7, policies aimed at weakening the judiciary, increasing funding to the Haredim (one of its coalition partners), and expanding West Bank settlements led to massive weekly protests by mainstream Israelis. The war, which caught the government and IDF by surprise,

There are multiple nonmilitary problems related to the war which are poorly handled. The government’s inadequate civilian response after October 7 led to hundreds of nonprofit organizations filling the gap. Their ongoing lackadaisical approach has further eroded support. The once robust economy is in a downturn. Nevertheless, since October more funds have been diverted to the Haredim and for Settlement development. Despite a gung-ho minister, along with an increase budget, the Department of Internal Security has performed ineptly with an increase in uncontrolled terror violence both on the West Bank and within the Green Line. In addition, the murder rate in the Arab sector has reached an all-time high. Despite the righteousness of their cause, Israel’s international standing has never been lower, including among our allies. Even considering that the country is in the midst of a war with multiple challenges, the government’s overall track record has been dismal.

It should not come as a surprise that while the government does hold a majority in the Knesset, at least half of Israelis do not trust it. They feel the government’s priorities are driven by political expediency and lopsided support for its coalition partners rather than the country’s betterment. Most do not believe Netanyahu is still fit to continue as prime minister.

While a comprehensive peace agreement may seem distant at present, a partial reconciliation or at least a de-escalation is possible. This would require, though, tectonic changes in Middle East policy.

1. Iran has to be restrained. American leadership, with the backing of Western European countries, must make it clear to Iran that they will be held accountable for any direct or indirect support of terror through proxies against Israel. Masoud Pezeshkian, the new president of Iran, is reform oriented. Perhaps he can promote prioritizing betterment of the Iranian people rather than the export of terror. A more opportune chance for better lives for the Arab Middle Eastern countries will only be possible when the forces of moderation dominate the Middle East political landscape.
2. Hamas influence must be neutralized. Hamas has spent 17 years preparing for the events of Oct. 7. Their goal of destroying Israel, and their ongoing attempt to fulfill this goal, unfortunately is inconsistent with pursuing a negotiated compromise.
3. The remaining leadership of Hezbollah will have to be militarily reined in or replaced. The stronger Hezbollah has become, the weaker and poorer Lebanon has become. While Israel has no vested interest in causing destruction to Lebanon, Israelis living in the north of Israel will not tolerate returning to their communities as long as the threat of Hezbollah missiles hovers in the air.
4. The aging, ineffective Palestinian leadership must be replaced. At present both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority claim to represent the Palestinian people. Who actually represents them is not clear. Regardless, neither is doing a good job at providing for the Palestinians. The Palestinian public could be calling for a pragmatic, effective non-corrupt leadership aimed at promoting the wellbeing of the Palestinians along with reaching a negotiated peace with Israel. This type of leadership can give hope to Palestinians thereby providing them with an alternative to resorting to violence.
5. The present Israeli government has markedly failed and should be replaced. An alternative government which prioritizes good governance and more political flexibility will have a better chance of both improving the internal Israeli situation and dealing with Israeli’s neighbors and allies more harmoniously and cooperatively.
6. Netanyahu should be persuaded to resign. Since he will not do so voluntarily, he should be compelled to resign through increased popular pressure within the framework of the law. Netanyahu has been in power for too long, close to 17 years. In contrast, in the U.S., a president can serve at most two terms, or eight years. This American concern for preventing leader entrenchment began with George Washington, who voluntarily stepped down after two terms, establishing an unofficial tradition. This was solidified by law with the Twenty-Second Amendment in 1951. Israel and Netanyahu can learn from American insight on this matter. It is high time for him to resign as prime minister.
7. Regardless of who is at the helm, Israel must stop its settlement expansion. While most Israelis support the right of Jews to live in biblical Israel, and despite the lack of Palestinian leaders publicly supporting a negotiated territorial peace agreement to end the conflict, any future reconciliation will depend on recognizing both Jewish and Palestinian claims to the land and reaching a mutually accepted compromise.

The Middle East countries now find themselves at an uncharted dangerous inflection point.  While it is reassuring that none of the major players are interested in an all-out war, without each party making changes from within, the situation is nevertheless unstable, and prone to spiral downward out of control. Concerned citizens, Pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli supporters can facilitate a positive change by pressuring their own side to make constructive changes rather than demonizing the other side.