A Revolution of the Mentalities
“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.”
George Bernard Shaw
For the past few weeks, I and many other commentators have been writing about the tragic situation in the Middle East.
Some readers think that all it will take for negotiations to succeed is for Israel to agree to a two-state solution.
Others wring their hands in despair and wonder what can be done to change the variables and achieve peace in the region.
For peace to be achieved, many complex developments must occur.
Absent massive change in leaders and attitudes — a revolution of the mentalities — there can be no successful conclusion.
First, who will represent the Palestinians?
Should it be the Palestinian Authority, a corrupt and ineffective body that sits in Ramallah with little relevance to what the Palestinian people need and want?
What about Hamas and Hezbollah, two terror-based organizations who refuse to recognize Israel’s right to exist, who are antisemitic and who vow to remain an existential threat to Israel?
Or how about Egypt and Jordan, two neighboring states with which Israel has diplomatic relations? Neither country supported a Palestinian state when they governed Gaza and the West Bank respectively from 1948 to 1967. Neither side has an especially friendly history with the Palestinians, and Egypt has stopped any inflow of Palestinian refugees from Gaza.
The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) – currently the major component of the Palestinian Authority today governing the West Bank -- mounted an unsuccessful coup in Jordan in 1971 and were sent packing by the Jordanian Legion.
Hamas is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood – anathema for Egypt’s ruling military President. However, since we have discovered that tunnels between Gaza and Egypt capable of supplying truckloads of weapons and ordnance, one wonders if President Al Sisi is playing both sides or if his regime has been compromised by corrupt regional military leaders running the border region with Gaza.
Hezbollah is a creature of Iran whose Islamic regime will never accept a Jewish state in the region.
So, there is obstacle number one – who are the potential partners for peace negotiations to begin?
Secondly, what is the goal to which all can subscribe?
Peace?
Each side has its own definition of peace.
To the Palestinians it is a Middle East devoid of Israel.
For most Israelis, it is a Middle East in which Israel is the dominant power with a weak Palestinian state on its borders.
But Israel is not a homogeneous bloc either.
The current Netanyahu coalition will not likely ever accept an independent Palestinian state along the 1967 borders as stipulated in U.N. Security Council resolution 242. Yet, with the resignation of Benny Ganz from the War Cabinet, Netanyahu’s hold on power may have been irretrievably weakened.
In the 1990’s, the Clinton peace plan offered the Palestinians 97% of the land that they sought with East Jerusalem as its capital. Not only did Yasser Arafat refuse it, but the Palestinians soon after launched the intifada uprising that led many Israelis to no longer trust the Palestinians.
In 2005, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon unilaterally pulled Israel out of Gaza and removed Israeli settlers, some forcibly. In response, Gazans elected the Hamas terrorists as their government and launched a war of attrition against Israel.
Moderate Israelis may eventually accept a demilitarized Palestinian entity as the price of peace, but not likely a full state with complete sovereign powers given the long history of violence and terrorism on the part of Palestinians both in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, and outside of Israel.
Trust needs to be established on both sides.
Nor is there any sign that there are credible Palestinian leaders capable of enthusing Palestinians of all stripes to engage in negotiations that will only conclude in partially satisfying their national aspirations.
Finally, there is Iran.
Unless the Islamic Republic regime is overthrown and replaced by a secular government, and Hamas and Hezbollah are destroyed, there is little scope for peace between the various factions of Palestinians and Israel.
Israel cannot be expected to realistically negotiate if these existential threats continue to exist. Nor will it negotiate away its very existence – the price that Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran would demand for peace.
Generations of fear and hatred must be overcome before any trust can be established between all parties, and a revolution in their thinking and feelings must occur to set a foundation for fruitful dialogue.
Finally, what country or organization could act as a convenor for peace?
The United Nations and its main agent for Palestinians the UNRWA have lost all credibility with Israelis as both organizations have demonstrated strong support for and even active participation in divisive and violent actions with Hamas.
The U.N. Secretary-General has managed the whole October 7th tragedy ineptly, and Israel and many people around the world have no faith in his credibility or neutrality.
The Red Cross has refused to visit the Israeli hostages and to bring them required medication and provide them with the care that they and their families need.
Indeed, the Red Cross behaved in a similar fashion during the second world war when they visited Nazi concentration death camps and saw nothing, reported nothing.
So, there we have it.
A situation in which there are no clear common goals acceptable to all sides, no clear sides that can participate in serious negotiations, and no convening authority with the credibility and clout to bring all sides to the table and negotiate a consensus.
A situation that requires a revolution of the mentalities on all sides appears highly unlikely.
Could such a revolution occur given the current geopolitical realities of the region?
The Middle East is a Rubik’s Cube where no sides align, and none can since there is no mediator capable of turning the cube and developing strategies for successfully aligning all of the parties.
This is the reality of the situation as I see it, and it leaves me sad to conclude that needless violence, destruction, and deaths will likely continue to plague the region for the foreseeable future.
I hope that I am wrong.
So, if any reader has better ideas, I am all ears.
Thanks for another great article. A healthy recovery wish for your wife.
I am sad like you. Peace seems like such a difficult task, and yet the celebration of D-Day reminds me of what it must have been like in the days before the end of the war. We must always keep hope alive.
Some quick thoughts. The two state solution is gone, gone many years ago. We are flogging a horse that no party in the region will accept.
There is the one state. It would need to be secular in its constitution to accommodate both Jews and Palestinian ethnic entities. Unfortunately, Jews will object because the proposal defeats the purpose of Israelis owning their own religious state.
We could think of a federation of two states. Could be mapped out.
Both Israel and Palestinian Territories are led by extreme right leadership. I cannot imagine a viable future that would émerge from such hostile antagonists. The resignation of Mr Gantz today does not resolve the stalemate between the extremes. In fact, this only exacerbates the problem.
Somewhere , somehow, someone must hit heads or should one simply walk away. This may sound cruel. But, how many more innocent women and children need to die before responsible adults, ie leadership, take over this agenda.
Maybe this leadership lies in a referral to UN Chapter XII concerning the UN Trusteeship System, Articles 76 - 83, if I am not mistaken. I can already see that there would be major resistance to even raising this possibility. I would take the time to think this tool over. It may, in the future , be the only way to resolve such an entrenched international problem. This could be best adapted to the case of post-war Gaza. Let’s explore alternative solutions rather than constantly ranting over what doesn’t work!
If a child lives with hostility, he learns to fight.