Time to Madrid Conference 2.0

The following was co-authored by Michael Harari and Abderahman Salaheldin. Abderahman Salaheldin, PhD, a retired Egyptian ambassador who served in Turkey and the Czech Republic. Over his four-decade diplomatic career, he spent 17 years in the United States and is currently a member of DIPLOMEDS – The Council for Mediterranean Diplomacy. Michael Harari is a retired Israeli ambassador who held key positions in Cyprus, London, and Cairo. He currently works as a consultant on strategy, policy planning, and energy, and is a member of DIPLOMEDS – The Council for Mediterranean Diplomacy.

The dramatic developments in the region since October 7, 2023, have been accumulating in an unprecedented manner, making it difficult to understand their implications and to identify opportunities that they may present. The picture was further complicated by Israel’s “12-day war” with Iran, which the US has also joined.

Our focus should continue to be on the ongoing Israeli bloody conflict with the Palestinians, although it would be appropriate to also look at the Lebanese and Syrian arenas, where positive potential progress emerges. The historical parallel precedent that immediately comes to mind is the Madrid Peace Conference, which was convened on October 31, 1991, after the first Gulf War. Let’s recall and compare the circumstances then with those of today to examine whether and how we can move in a similar direction.

The First Madrid Conference

• The feeling in Washington under the Bush Sr. administration and the dominant Secretary of State James Baker in 1991, was that, given the broad Arab coalition that sided with the US in the war against Saddam, and the success in keeping Israel out of the war, a diplomatic effort was needed to advance the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The US administration felt that it needed to balance the war it was leading with peacemaking.

• At that time, Israel had signed a peace agreement with only one Arab country, Egypt. The effort focused on the other fronts: the Syrian, the Lebanese and the Jordanian-Palestinian parties.

• In Israel, a Likud led government by Yitzhak Shamir held power, maintaining a hawkish political stance regarding the political process, and was certainly not enthusiastic about the idea of an international conference. At the same time, there was a complete Israeli opposition to seeing a PLO representative at the conference, which, as we recall, led to forming a joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation.

• The Bush administration was therefore required to exert assertive pressure on Israel, which led to its participation, subject to an agreement that this would be a one-time international meeting in the format of an international conference. The Bush administration promised Shamir that the subsequent negotiations are going to be bilateral and direct between Israel and each of its neighbors.

• The conference did not result in a significant breakthrough on any of the tracks, but it did enable important dialogue between Israel on one hand and Jordan, Syria and the PLO. While this dialogue did not lead to a peace agreement even years later, it eventually paved the way, under the Rabin government, for the Oslo process with the Palestinians, which allowed in turn for the peace agreement with Jordan to be concluded in October 1994.

The Suggested Second Madrid Conference

Present circumstances are different but same challenges remain, the conflict between Israel, Syria, Lebanon and, above all, the Palestinian people. We may argue that present circumstances may be even more promising, and certainly essential.

• Among the Trump administration’s White House officials, and especially the president himself, there is a clear sense of achievement (perhaps premature). This is in light of the results of the “12 Day War” against Iran, with the participation of the US, the new conditions in Lebanon, after the significant damage to Hezbollah, and the collapse of the Assad regime in Syria. President Trump is projecting a willingness to strive for further achievements, which may even earn him the Nobel Peace Prize, by promoting Israeli-Palestinian peace, and expanding the “Abraham Accords”.

• Israel currently maintains peace agreements with both Jordan and Egypt, alongside the Abraham Accords. An Israeli public debate has been recently underway regarding the feasibility of similar peaceful rapprochement moves with Saudi Arabia, Syria and Lebanon. In the Palestinian context, there is a prevailing perception within Israel that the Oslo process has failed, and that there is no viable ‘partner’ on the Palestinian side. This perception has only been reinforced by the events of October 7th.

• Israel has a hardline right-wing government in power, in fact the most extreme government in the country’s history, with an agenda of annexation (in the West Bank) and a Palestinian population transfer from the Gaza Strip to turn it into an American Israeli “Riviera”. Its political stance is completely opposed to the two-state vision.

So, what would it take Washington to conclude that, to stabilize the region after nearly two years of regional war, it would need an international event like the Madrid peace conference of 1991?

On the one hand, current circumstances are more promising: The willingness of more Arab States to advance normalization with Israel; Iran’s and its allies’ weakness; And the continued split among the weekend Hamas and the discredited Fatah leadership. Israel’s relative regional military superiority should enable its people and government to take more risks for peace and respond more positively to US pressures if Trumps decides to act on his wishes to earn the Noble Peace Prize.

On the other hand, in Israel there is widespread opposition and deep skepticism toward any political process with the Palestinians and the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. This sentiment is partly a reaction to October 7th, and no less so due to the long years of Netanyahu’s leadership, during which he deepened mistrust and suspicion toward any political process with the Palestinians.

Moreover, the weakness and internal divisions within the Palestinian camp – further intensified by Israel’s actions aimed at weakening the PA and maintaining the split between Gaza and the West Bank, even at the cost of allowing Hamas to stay in power in Gaza – have all undermined Israeli confidence in the capacity of any Palestinian leadership to make and sustain strategic decisions.

Where, then, will salvation come from?

We envision three different possible opportunities:

First, President Trump has stood by Israel’s side and intervened militarily against Iran. He has established his credits with the American Jewry and the Israeli public. It is an opportune time for him to use those credits to exert reasonable pressure on Netanyahu to conclude a regional peace deal.

Secondly, the Arab world is weaker and more divided. However, the key Arab states are able to initiate a political, assertive and focused campaign to support the US move in this direction. Such an Arab umbrella may make up for the weakness and division among the Palestinians and encourage new elected Palestinian leadership to emerge. It would also provide political cover for a Saudi normalization with Israel which would be the cornerstone of a new, more peaceful and prosperous Middle East.

Thirdly, the Israeli public’s skepticism, suspicion and manifestations of hostility and radicalization could perhaps be expected after October 7th. However, they come after long years of Israeli indoctrination against any peace process with the Palestinians, the continuous Israeli settelments expansion in the Palestinian occupied territories, the deliberate weakening of the Palestinian Authority, and Israeli killing of tens of thousands of civilian Palestinians in Gaza and hundreds in the West Bank since October 7.

One must also hope for new voices among the opposition in Israel, who would lead and act with faith and determination in this direction to renew trust in the political process, and to recognize the necessity and benefits of working to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There still exists a sane, albeit too quiet, majority, that with a gentle push, both external and internal, could come to recognize that even the greatest achievements on the battlefield must ultimately be translated into political gains and into a reconfiguration of relations between the two people. No Israeli security could be guaranteed unless and until an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement is concluded that would be based on having two States for two people living together in peace on the historic land of Palestine.

Three decades ago, the Madrid Peace conference helped laying the ground for bilateral negotiations that led to the Oslo accords with the PLO which, in turn, allowed for the Israeli Peace Treaty with Jordan. The conference also launched a regional multilateral negotiation on cooperation in areas such as arms control and regional security, water, refugee issues, environment, economic development, and other subjects of regionwide interest.

Today, a new regional peace conference could also address the issue of nuclear weapons proliferation from a regional perspective in order to move beyond the stalemate that was created by the Israeli-American 12 days’ war against Iran.

The suggested conference would also provide a regional and international umbrella and incentives for Israel and the Arab States to make daring concessions that would establish peace in the Middle East and end the ugly war and the loss of life that have been going on continuously for about two years. We believe that President Trump has a unique opportunity to make a historic change in our troubled region of the world. If he seizes this opportunity, he will need and deserve our wholehearted support.