AN END IN SIGHT?
An end in sight?
With a view to offering a fresh perspective on the enduring Israel-Palestine conflict, The Democracy Forum convened a panel of experts at a recent webinar to debate this divisive topic
The viability of a two-state solution, the need to commit to a rules-based order underpinned by international law, and the relevance of the rise of non-state actors to the current problem in Gaza were among the mesdiscussed at a recent TDF webinar,‘The never-ending conflict? Role of the international community in helping to end Israel-Palestine hostilities’.
International reaction to the current hostilities has followed predictable lines, began TDF President Lord Bruce in his introductory address. While moral support and material assistance for Israel’s military response initially enjoyed bipartisan affirmation in Washington, it is increasingly losing unanimity. Despite leading Democrats insisting that military assistance to Israel must be conditional, Lord Bruce said it is unclear what leverage US President Biden effectively holds. Referring to how the conflict has received detailed scrutiny from international justice, he evoked the May 20 decision by Karim Khan, prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, to seek arrest warrants for the leaders of both Israel and Hamas, which was quickly followed by an International Court of Justice ruling that Israel must halt any military operation in Rafah that could harm civilians. Then came the recent advisory ruling by the ICJ that declared Israel’s long-term occupation of Palestinian territory unlawful.
Lord Bruce also alluded to UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres’ statement at January’s Security Council that a lasting end to hostilities can only be achieved through a two-state solution, with ‘any refusal to accept the… solution by any party’ having to be ‘firmly rejected’. Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid expressed his belief that while it must inevitably embrace a two-state solution, Israel must not lose its legitimacy as one of the few functioning democratic states in the region. But what sort of state would Palestine become, wondered Lord Bruce, given there is scarce evidence of its democratic credentials. The last elections to the Legislative Council were in 2006, and the most recent Amnesty International report (2023-24) criticises the authorities in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip for continuing to ‘heavily restrict freedom of expression, association and assembly’. Citing the Washington Institute’s David Makovsky, Lord Bruce pointed to the need for a future state to ‘provide dignity and sovereignty for the Palestinians’ while also being ‘strong enough to deal with extremist actors like Hamas’. As a delicate balance without international parallels, Makovsky concludes it is nevertheless ‘not impossible’, while Lord Bruce ended on a more pessimistic note: ‘Or is it?’

Before offering the floor to the speakers, chair Humphrey Hawksley, a former BBC Asia correspondent, referred to the Israel-Palestine hostilities as a ‘troublesome backdrop’ to all our lives. Why, when so many other global conflicts can be brought to an end, does this one endure? he wondered. How much can the international community drive the solution, or, after more than 70 years, is it the problem?
The framing of the conflict is different when one looks at the vast majority of the international community
Despite joining the panel from Egypt, Dr H.A. Hellyer, Senior Associate Fellow at RUSI and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, did not wish to talk specifically about the region, since he felt that the international community was closer to a consensus on this issue, more broadly, than regional powers. Yet defining ‘international community’ was difficult, he said, as commentators working from Britain and the US tend to see the conflict as one between two sides, Israelis versus the Palestinians, with a need for ‘give and take’ from each, whereas the framing of the conflict is different when one looks at the vast majority of the international community, for example Africa, South America, Southeast Asia, and even increasingly Western public opinion. In these cases, the framing is of Israel illegally occupying territory and the need to restore the impact of international law on the issue. The International Criminal Court is very significant in this regard, Hellyer said, and the vast majority of the global community respects it and takes it rulings very seriously. Yet Washington’s response was essentially to threaten the ICC, which does not say much about the US government’s upholding of international law.
Support for the Palestinian Authority from the international community must be a basis for any solution to the conflict
So the credibility of the international rules-based order has been badly hit over the past nine months, argued Hellyer, as the wider community sees countries like the US attacking institutions such as the ICC, and not taking the ICJ seriously, or its advisory ruling that Israel must withdraw its troops and pull out its settlements. A more pertinent question on the whole Israel-Palestine matter would be, he suggested: What would enable Israelis to move differently on these issues of occupation, and the establishment of a Palestinian state? Not the international community, he believed, as Israel pays no attention to the international community on these issues, viewing the UN as suspect and rejecting ICC and ICJ rulings. Rather, it is the US that has a huge responsibility in this regard, as it has tremendous leverage over the Israelis. But will it choose to use it? So, concluded Hellyer, two crucial points are: a commitment to the rules-based order, underpinned by international law, and the ramifications of doing that; and the willingness of strong actors to proceed on that basis, or not.

Dr Toby Greene, Visiting Fellow at the London School of Economics’ Middle East Centre, considered how to reconcile the fact that a two-state solution remains, in his view, the only conceivable route to sustainable political order, and the fact that this approach faces grave challenges. Yet even amidst the current catastrophic situation, there are glimmers of opportunity, he argued, proposing an approach that focuses on bottom up Palestinian state building linked to a regional diplomatic process. He touched on the core causes of the conflict: two national movements, Jews and Palestinian Arabs, with compelling claims to self-determination, sharing the same geographical space, with hardliners on both sides continuing to deny the legitimacy of the other side’s national claim, as do others in the global community. Greene said that, without what would inevitably be a long-term, gradual solution towards a two state solution, there will be continuing bloodshed.
With regard to the role of the global community in helping to end the conflict, Greene argued that international interventions need to reflect the full complexity of the situation; those that are not balanced will not provide solutions. He cited the recent ICJ ruling calling on Israel to end the occupation, which, he argued, subverts the UN Security Council 242, passed in the wake of the 1967 war, that linked Israel’s obligation to end the occupation to another, equally important principle: to end belligerence and threats against Israel. These two principles in parallel are the way to resolve the conflict. Additionally, said Greene, there is a need for strong international focus on how to build an alternative state for Palestine via a rebuilt, credible Palestinian Authority. and institutions on the ground, while Israel must look to its future leadership, perhaps a pragmatic coalition government. The idea of a Palestinian state is not currently appealing to Israelis and needs to be communicated very carefully. Far more appealing to Israelis is expanding the normalisation process with Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia, which has huge economic potential for Israel but could also be the cornerstone of a regional strategic alliance against Iran, and could hence be a game-changing development.
For F. Gregory Gause, Professor and John H. Lindsey ’44 Chair at the Dept. of International Affairs, Bush School of Government and Public Service in Washington DC, the notion of non-state actors, or weak states that do not effectively exist as governing entities, is very relevant to the current problem in Gaza, and the Arab-Israeli problem more generally. Who started this war? he asked: Hamas, a non-state actor. Then we have Hezbollah and the Houthis, also non-state actors. The decline and sometimes collapse of state authority in many parts of the Arab world, and the concomitant rise of non-state actors to power and prominence, is a much larger issue than the specific Israel-Palestine one, Gause said, and it could be traced back to the Arab Spring, or even earlier to the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, when the US destroyed a very bad Arab government, but in the hubristic and misguided belief that it could easily rebuild a central authority in Iraq.
The rise of these non-state actors, facilitated by their support from Iran, and which have little interest in the stability of the status quo, has been the major issue in the geopolitics of the region, argued Gause. Contrast this with Arab countries at peace with Israel, Egypt and Jordan, which are relatively authoritarian, but also relatively effective at managing their non-state actors. The Gaza issue is embedded in this larger issue of the restoration of state authority in the larger Arab world. So what can the international community do? asked Gause. There is little evidence that outside actors can build strong states in the region, and it seemed to him that what we have in the Israel-Palestine issue is a proto state in the Palestinian Authority. Despite differences and geopolitical rivalry between, say, Russie/China and the West, all agree that the Palestinian Authority is the player that represents the Palestinian people, and support for the PA from key global players in world politics can, hopefully, bring Israel round to thinking of the PA as a partner, rather than a threat. Thus, concluded Gause, support for the Palestinian Authority from the international community must be a basis for any solution to the conflict.
MJ Akbar is the author of several books, including Doolally Sahib and the Black Zamindar: Racism and Revenge in the British Raj, and Gandhi: A Life in Three Campaigns
To watch the full discussion, tune in to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlX646M4N6E