The Middle East: An Unsustainable Status Quo

In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a status quo has been established through imperialistic manoeuvres. The USA manipulates this situation to favour Israel: Israel seizes land through violent means, establishes “Jewish settlements,” and then proceeds to expand the occupation, steadily enlarging its captured territories. That encapsulates Israel’s concise 75-year history.

The US leverages this status quo to monopolize mediation between Israel and Palestine, sidestepping a genuine solution and diverting negotiations away from the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Why? Because Israel is a bulwark for safeguarding US interests in the Middle East. President Biden stated this 37 years ago: “If Israel did not exist, the United States would have to create an Israel to protect its interests in the region.”

STATUS QUO: ONE STATE, TWO PEOPLES

Those who would create Israel if it didn’t exist reject the idea of a Palestinian “state.” The occasional US mention of a “two-state solution” is linked to the manoeuvring it undertakes in response to the new power dynamics brought about by multipolarity in the Middle East, not because it earnestly desires its realization!

When the US utters a “two-state solution,” it essentially upholds the status quo of “one state, two peoples.”

Operation Aqsa Flood could potentially disrupt this status quo. Naturally, the Netanyahu administration will retaliate against Gaza due to this operation, which has tarnished his government’s reputation.

For the first time in half a century, Israel has encountered an assault resulting in over a thousand casualties, significantly denting its credibility, especially with images of its top regional commander being apprehended and escorted from his home in his underwear.

But can Netanyahu take further steps?

‘TWO-STATE SOLUTION’ MAY GAIN MOMENTUM

The war could escalate into Lebanon and subsequently impact Syria and Iran. That possibility exists.

Yet, a more plausible scenario is this: Following an intense bombardment and a partial ground operation, international circumstances and internal Israeli conflicts may compel Tel Aviv to come to the negotiating table.

Israel’s internal conflicts are conspicuous: The Israeli populace hasn’t succumbed to the hope of “rallying behind the government in times of war.” On the contrary, as the fifth day unfolds, the prevailing sentiment is that Netanyahu’s occupationist policies bear responsibility for the current situation. To the extent that Haaretz can still run headlines like “Netanyahu is a gang leader unfit to continue as Israel’s prime minister.” Consequently, it’s arduous for a government that fails to rally its people to extend the war regionally.

The international conditions are evident: In recent years, the impetus for all Middle Eastern developments lies not with the US but with regional cooperation involving China and Russia.

These two circumstances underscore that the status quo in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is no longer tenable. Contrary to expectations, this may lead to a stronger inclination towards the “two-state solution.”

PEACE IS BORN FROM CONFLICT

Rome obliterated the “Second Temple” two thousand years ago and expelled the Jews. We aren’t in a position to hold the Romans accountable. We cannot negate what transpired over two millennia. To sum up, the goal of achieving the “Third Temple” cannot be attained solely by destroying the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Therefore, the solution lies not in the past, but in the present.

Today, the situation stands as follows: Palestinians cannot dismantle Israel, and Israel cannot eliminate all Palestinians. This enduring impasse doesn’t serve the interests of either person. Those who profit from this are individuals who gain economically and politically from the plight of both populations.

Peace doesn’t arise from tranquillity but from moments of conflict. The region is closer to a two-state resolution today than it was yesterday, and likely even closer tomorrow than today.