By Jamal Nusseibeh
It is extremely difficult, in the fog of war and with the pain of the incredible losses and destruction that are being wreaked on our people, to see beyond to a world where this all ends. But end it must. Every war must end with a peace, and, to repeat the oft-quoted statement, one only makes peace with one’s enemies. To do so, we, the Palestinians, must take the initiative and help the world to help us. Only by exercising our freedom and right to self-determination can we actually be free. However, we will not be able to do it alone: we will need our initiative to be supported by an international intervention and, for their own interest, by the Israelis.
First, we must declare that the old paradigms are dead. The Oslo Accords, and their related agreements, were a failed attempt to bandage a complex trauma. From the Palestinian side, we need our current leadership in the PLO to openly state that the ongoing Israeli assault on Gaza – technically an Area A under Oslo – is a final, fundamental, and irremediable breach of the agreements, and that they are therefore null and void. Instead, the PLO should clearly state that the sovereign State of Palestine exists, based on the Declaration of Independence of November 15, 1988, and as recognized by over 139 Member States of the United Nations. It should immediately request full recognition and membership in the United Nations.
By doing so, the context of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict will be returned to its previous legal condition, or perhaps an even better one: a people living on its land, occupied (and abused) by a foreign occupier. Sovereignty in the occupied territories, all of them – Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem – will clearly reside in the Palestinian people, and the Palestinian state. No more fragmentation into areas A, B, and C. The ambiguity of the Palestinian state’s current borders should not be an impediment to its ability to be recognized and dealt with by other countries: Israel (successfully) declared its independence in the midst of war and never defined its borders.
In practical terms, this means terminating all Oslo-related cooperation, including security cooperation, with the Israeli government. In order to replace it, Palestinians should propose full cooperation with international and regional friends instead. There is a long and deep history of US and European involvement in Palestinian security matters. The Palestinians should propose to work directly and only with them (and possibly other regional allies as well), instead of with the Israelis.
To end the war, we, the Palestinians, must take the initiative and help the world to help us: only by exercising our freedom and right to self-determination can we actually be free.
More importantly, I propose that the Palestinian leadership reach out and ask for immediate international protection for its people. This could happen within the current mechanisms of the United Nations, for instance. I believe that, as I propose elsewhere in more detail,* it is in the interest of these countries, first and foremost the United States, to intervene with allies to provide this protection and, with it, the context in which to reach a peace agreement. This international intervention, which I suggest should be time-limited to three years, would serve to ensure a cessation of hostilities (including the return of hostages) and enable the delivery of urgent humanitarian aid and assistance to Gaza. It would act to guarantee the protection of civilians in the occupied territories and also the security of Israel; and it would provide space and time in which to organize national elections for both Palestinians and Israelis, aiming at a peaceful and final resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian, and the broader Israeli-Arab, conflict.
The framework of the Arab Peace Initiative would guarantee the fairness of the outcome and the long-term benefit to Israel and others of reaching this agreement. It would also generate support and involvement by regional partners, such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and would lead to a peace supported by the peoples of the region as well as its governments. Additional elements will also need to be addressed, such as the issues of accountability for war crimes, reparations, and reconstruction.
With regard to the outcome, while a one-state solution is being widely discussed again, and while it may be the fairest outcome in the long term, it would be strongly resisted by Israel and its supporters and lead to many more years of conflict and suffering before being achieved. Thus, the only way to resolve the conflict in the short term is on the basis of two states, which will provide each side with the required expression of its national identity. Such a resolution, as specified by the Arab Peace Initiative, would need to allow the return of refugees, resolve the sharing of Jerusalem, and ensure the end of occupation. However, the details of the agreement can and should permit much more than that. The proposed “A Land for All” structure allows for the resolution of all these issues, an agreement on the basis of two states but with the flexibility to allow a broader, and perhaps deeper, peace to take root. It provides for a sharing of spaces and interaction between peoples that can only be to everyone’s advantage.
The new leadership of the Palestinian people will need to be elected. Without the limitations of Oslo, we will be able to include all Palestinians in this process, not only those resident under Israeli rules within certain areas. Elections – for a new sovereign national council, for instance – are the only way to guarantee legitimacy. They are also a fundamental expression of the self-determination for which the Palestinians have struggled for decades. The imposition of leaders, whether by friends or foes, will not be accepted by the people, nor will it allow for a secure and stable future for the region.
Elections … are the only way to guarantee legitimacy. They are also a fundamental expression of the self-determination for which the Palestinians have struggled for decades.
These elections should be run freely and allow the participation of all parties. The stabilizing context provided by an international protection force, and the legal guarantee of a fair and equitable peace agreement as its outcome, will support the emergence of a majority in favor of ending the conflict. It will give space and time to re-humanize the other. These elections will be run on platforms related to the future, not the past. The electorate will include the diaspora and refugees, not only residents of the occupied territories. All Palestinians should be involved in debating questions such as: What will our Palestine look like? Will it be a religious state or a secular one? Do we want social and political freedoms or not? What about health care, education, social security? Nobody – not Hamas, or anyone else – should be prevented from running in these elections and participating in these debates, to ensure maximum legitimacy of the process and its outcome. In this context I believe that a secular, pro-peace platform will carry the day; but in any case, as in any other real election, it is up to the candidates to persuade, and up to the people to choose.
Why would Israel agree to any of this? First, the paradigm of Israeli security has collapsed as well. No walls, military superiority, technological advances, or surveillance drones will be able to ensure the long-term safety of Israelis – as shown by October 7. Only a proper peace and regional acceptance can do so. Moreover, I believe that the majority of Israelis, like Palestinians, want to live in peace and have normal, productive lives focused on the pursuit of happiness. All Israelis understand that unless they ethnically cleanse all of Palestine/Israel, including 1948 Palestinians with Israeli citizenship, they have to live with the Palestinians. (Even ethnic cleansing would only create endless conflict and instability.) They also must realize, as most of them do, that a peace agreement is needed.
Israel is also facing a new world, one in which the unconditional support it has received from the United States and Western allies is facing unprecedented questioning and may not survive in its current form. The United States itself is facing increasing difficulties in a multipolar and conflicted world. Thus, I would agree with the frequent Israeli refrain that it can only rely on itself: but in this case, I argue that a fair and equitable peace agreement is the only way it can rely on itself to guarantee its safety and security. It is furthermore clear that Israel also needs to have time to hold elections to replace its current government. The proposed international intervention would have a similar positive impact on the Israeli people and would help the outcome of that process reflect the voice of a peaceful majority.
It is also clear that such an international intervention would face difficulties without US leadership or support. The United States has stood fast by Israel since its inception and is its strongest ally. This also means that the United States has the greatest leverage on Israel. From the US perspective, this intervention would be both the most effective way of supporting Israel in the long run and the best way of protecting and advancing US interests in the region and the world. Everybody benefits – even the US taxpayer, who can finally stop subsidizing the Israeli military and start enjoying the fruits of a more peaceful world rather than sending more troops to fight in yet another Middle East combat arena in the Red Sea.
This week, Palestine faces another week of war, another week of senseless bombings and endless civilian casualties in a conflict that began almost a century ago. It is time to end it, so that next week in Palestine can be the first of peace. This article posits that this is not only possible but in fact crucial for the peoples of Israel and Palestine and to ensure regional stability and peace as well. We must take action in order to achieve this peace; and we need the support of the world and the Israelis in order to achieve it.
*Jamal Nusseibeh, “Only U.S.-led Intervention Can Bring Peace to the Middle East,” Time, January 6, 2024.
