Winning the Peace in the Holy Land Might Require Imposition

It is finally beginning to dawn on many military strategists in the West that not only might Israel not win its war on Gaza, but it might outright lose it. Israel refuses to admit this ugly reality and continues with its brutal war killing Palestinian civilians while slaughtering Israeli soldiers. The world and especially the United States is now losing patience. Can peace somehow be snatched from the jaws of utter tragedy?

That Israel may lose this war may have come as a surprise to some, but in reality, Israel has been losing wars for well over two decades, as highlighted by Israel's own Ha'aretz recently. Indeed, the only questionable claim some in Israel may have of a semblance of a victory has been its expansion in the West Bank through illegal settlements. October 7th proved how unsustainable that concept was. In fact, not only did it prove to be untenable, but rather outright counter-productive, even in terms of land mass. Here's why:

Prior to October 7th, for almost two decades, Israel and its far-right governments mostly led by Netanyahu had been peddling to their society that it was ok to "gift" Israeli settlers Palestinian land. But all the land that settlers grabbed over the two decades now pales to the land that was evacuated by Israel to shield its citizens from rocketry and potential invasion in retaliation to its perceived historic injustice. On its Northern border with Lebanon, Israel has had to vacate land amounting to some 30% of the country size; and in the South, bordering the Gaza strip, it has had to do the same to a further 15% of its land mass. This effectively means that since October 7th, Israel has become almost 45% SMALLER than it had been before, displacing hundreds of thousands of Israelis as was recently highlighted by the New York Times.

To any casual observer, exchanging 45% of Israel's land for some illegal settlements to satisfy the unquenchable thirst of settlers would seem like a lousy barter. But of course, this trade-off was not apparent to many an extremist Israeli politician, including Netanyahu, who until October 7th was arrogantly trying to sell expansionist policies to the world, going as far as displaying the now infamous "River to the Sea" map in the UN General Assembly. As it happens, the whole world has now realized that such illegal Israeli expansionist policies have not only become unsustainable, but worse yet, have produced an existential threat to Israel proper, which finds itself struggling to cope even with one of the smallest regional powers, Hamas.

Two months into the raging war in Gaza, warnings to Israel have been increasing from all corners of the globe, even from close friends like journalist Thomas Friedman and US President Joe Biden, one of Israel's most stalwart supporters. They are all essentially warning of the same thing: Israel's extremist policies have alienated the world; and Israel needs to stop destroying itself as it attempts in vain to destroy the notion of Palestine. Even former Israeli PM Ehud Barak, who once wisely exited Israel from Lebanon, issued a similar warning, going as far as to cite pre-biblical text that warned about the eighty-year curse, which throughout history has plagued any established Jewish state (Israel happens to be approaching this milestone).

The response by those in power in Israel has of course been adamant: Yes for war at any cost. No to Hamas existence. No to Palestinian Authority taking over. No to a Palestinian state. But given that Israel is effectively not winning the war in Gaza on the battlefield, is continuing the war sustainable militarily, economically, socially, and internationally? In the meantime, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority have come out and said that they were willing to accept peace with a two-state solution, based on the UN's internationally recognized 1967 borders. If one is willing to take them up on their offer, it would appear that what stands in the way of peace in the holy land at the moment may not be Hamas, but extremist Israelis in power.

And so the world finds itself facing two scenarios. The first is a continuation of this vicious war, which is killing more and more Palestinian civilians, while driving Israelis deeper and deeper into a military abyss. The other scenario as unlikely as it may seem is peace, which the whole world, including most Palestinians and some Israelis, are actually for. How to get out of this dilemma?

As the Palestinians appear ready, the Israelis might need to be compelled by the international community to come to the table, accepting the ugly reality of battleground dynamics and real politik. But even if they come to the table, it must not be assumed that a just peace might be attained. Indeed, a more reasonable assumption might be that the Israelis will try their best to compensate their losses on the battlefield with wins on the negotiation table. They could make such demands as Hamas leaving Gaza, not paying retribution for all the destruction, not dismantling illegal settlements, not giving back occupied land, not releasing Palestinian prisoners, not agreeing to a contiguous, autonomous, and fully independent Palestinian State along the recognized 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital, and not allowing the Palestinians the right to return. This must not be allowed as it will derail the peace. Similarly and in exchange, all the Palestinian factions must be forced to accept Israel and must assume the responsibility of their own Palestinian state, holding it accountable for the welfare of all its citizens and the Palestinian Diaspora, while disallowing any security infringements with Israel. 

Left to their own devices and given all the bloodshed, the warring parties may not be inclined to sign such a peace. However, if the world wants to have a lasting peace in the Holy Land, all these conditions MUST be accepted by both parties,  circumventing all the post-Oslo shenanigans. Notwithstanding all the tragic violence, death, and destruction, the world in its entirety should now place as its utmost priority Winning the Peace in the Holy land. If they will not do it on their own, the two states must be imposed upon to sign a lasting peace. If that requires a forced peace through UN resolutions, then so be it. If it means having UN forces separating borders, so be it. And if it means the need to build walls between the two states on the 1967 borders, so be it. 

While there may never have been such a destructive moment in the history of the two peoples, perhaps somewhat counter-intuitively, there might never be a better moment for final and lasting peace to emerge from the rubble, not unlike democracy emerged from a destroyed Europe after World War II. But first a space for peace has to be cleared up by the international community. Second and more importantly, this winning the peace has to be seen as the primary objective by the whole world, regardless of the warring parties. Having seen the scope of the calamity, the suffering of people, and the utter destruction, there should now be one and only one objective and that is Winning the Peace that finally brings resolution to a conflict that has gone on for too long and brought the region to the brink of utter catastrophe. If the only way to bring this about is through international imposition, then let it be.

Land for Peace is Still Paying Dividends. Why Not in Palestine?

In the spring of 2000, Israel still occupied a large part of my homeland Lebanon’s southern territory, following its invasion in 1982. Local communities resisted the occupation; and as a result, many were killed by Israel, while others were jailed in the notorious Khiam prison. They fought back with the attacks focused on Israeli troops. During those nineteen years of occupation, more than 1,300 Israelis died in what some term as Israel’s “Vietnam”.

That very spring of 2000, while attending Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, several Lebanese and Israelis happened to be taking a negotiation’s class with Ambassador Dennis Ross. On the first day introductions, I recall one of the Israelis, an older mid-career student named Ram, stood up proudly in class to say he had been an Israeli fighter pilot during the siege of Beirut in 1982. When my turn came, I retorted that I had been a child civilian on the receiving end of his bombs for the three-month siege. This apparently made it up through the school’s echelons; and a group of us were asked if we would like to hold a public Lebanese-Israeli school debate with American intermediation.

The day of the event, the hall was full of anticipation as the two sets of negotiators sat parallel to each other, with the American moderators perpendicular to both. The Israelis drew first; and argued that Israel was occupying the south of Lebanon because it “provided Israel with a safety zone”, without which they would be constantly under attack from Lebanon. We retorted that the best way for Israel to achieve its safety is to stop occupying Lebanese land and retreat behind its own borders. The counter-retort by the Israelis was that our hypothesis was wishful thinking; and that a sovereign state needed to defend itself from “terrorists” on its border denying its very existence. We argued that, if once they left Lebanon, our “resistance fighters” continued attacking, they had the right to defend themselves, while currently they were breaking international law and could not claim self-defense. They said what we were proposing was too risky. Our final retort was that there was really only one way to find out: For Israel to leave. And if things didn’t work per our hypothesis, I looked at Ram, “You may get the chance to fly over Beirut once more!”

As it happens, less than three months later, Israel did decide to exit unilaterally from Lebanon, in fulfillment to what was PM Ehud Barak’s campaign promise. What ensued was a flood of Southern Lebanese villagers returning to their homes after years of exile. The exit of Israel was hailed as a divine victory by the Lebanese, particularly the resistance. In Israel, the exit came as a relief to most Israelis who had come to see its futility. What ensued is worthy of highlighting.

In the 23 years since Israel’s exit from Lebanon, the deaths to Israeli soldiers dropped by a jaw dropping 97.6% (from 1,303 during the two decades of occupation to a mere 28 post exit). This excludes the only flare up that occurred in 2006, as a result of the hijacking of two Israeli soldiers, which was perpetrated by the Lebanese resistance to release all the Lebanese prisoners still held in Israeli jails six years after their exit (they were subsequently all released). But even if we include the 2006 war, the reduction in Israeli deaths still fell sharply by 85.1%. Currently, there remains a fairly small, disputed area and no prisoners. While not quite at peace, there is now a de facto détente with most skirmishes within an acceptable framework (which is holding up even at the height of the Israel-Gaza war). In fact, the two nations inked an oil and gas exploration deal last year.

In retrospect, it might be worthwhile to ask what lessons that conflict and its resolution teach us? First, occupations lead to higher deaths on all sides. Our hypothesis at Harvard was indeed correct: Deaths were substantially reduced after the Israeli occupation ended. Second, taking and keeping prisoners also increases conflict, while releasing them will reduce from it. This would seem obvious to some, but in the Middle East the bravado of tried-and-failed policies seems to pervade with some trying to convince the world that violence is the only way. It isn’t. And third, US intermediation is key to clear up the space for rational discussion and to keep things together when the going gets tough.

Bottom line, the land for peace formula is still very much alive and paying dividends in Jordan, Egypt, and arguably even Lebanon. It has saved countless lives and delivered relative regional stability. Why not try it in Palestine? And in light of all the pointless death and destruction on all sides, especially the Palestinian, what proof do extremist war mongers have that their brute force, occupation, and imprisonment works better?