Is peace in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip possible?

Introduction

Peace means harmony in the absence of hostility and violence. Sustainable peace, rather, is defined in this essay as harmonious coexistence characterised not only by the absence of military violence, but also by the preservation of freedom of expression and the healthy exchange of diverse ideological perspectives. Ideological disharmony, stemming from conflicting objectives, is argued to not be suppressed but integrated into the broader peace-building efforts to establish a sustainable situation in Palestine.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a protracted and deeply entrenched crisis. For peace to be possible it is necessary to examine historical junctures where the conflict appeared closest to resolution and the possibility of resolving the root cause of the conflict, both of which are essential in defying the possibility of perpetual war between the two populations. Conversely, for peace to be impossible the perpetuity of war must be evident in the current context.

With that recognition, it is argued that peace is possible in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Grounded in political philosophy, peace aligns inherently with the interests of states and reveals its perpetuity in the shared desires of both populations in Palestine. Through examining moments where near-peace was achieved and addressing the root cause of conflict, it is argued that peace will prevail in Gaza and the West Bank –– in the form of physical harmony and military ceasefire, whilst allowing the existence of political, ideological and religious dissent across the region.

Locke and Kant –– Peace is in the Interest of the People

Locke’s Two Treatises of Government assesses the concept of the State of Nature, arguing against the inevitability of war, calling it “a state of enmity and destruction.” Locke identifies the nature of people being “biased by their [self-]interest” that can “cause harm”, evident in the case of Palestine. Both Israeli and Palestinian governments have faced accusations of violating international humanitarian laws during the Arab-Israeli conflicts. Over 38,000 people have been reported as killed in the Israel–Hamas war as of June 2024, whilst Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank raises ethical questions about demographic shifts and control over occupied territories, viewed as settler-colonialism under international law. These events defy alignment with the Just War Theory, reflecting increasingly realist and utilitarian arguments aimed at asserting military dominance.

It is argued against such a realist approach, which defines self-interest as the maximisation of power, and instead suggests that the political situation in Palestine suits a liberal perspective, in which the preservation of individual rights is what serves the true interest among both populations. The collective interest for peace and reconciliation is evidenced on Israel’s Memorial Day in 2023, where over 15,000 Israelis and Palestinians attended the joint ceremony in person in Tel Aviv to “break the chain of revenge and hatred.” This desire aligns with the interest of both populations in restoring their livelihoods and obtaining economic opportunities in the region. Interviews with the local population further indicate a strong common interest in preserving peace, exemplified in a The Times of Israel article on Phil, an Israeli in Gaza, who, along with his Palestinian friends, supported each other during the October 2023 attacks. Through maintaining their “Zone of Coexistence,” local Israelis and Palestinians present a shared hope for peace and mutual resilience amidst the crisis and elucidates the framework in which peace is in the interest of the people.

Further grounded in Kant’s ideas, this framework emphasises the rational benefits for individuals and states to pursue peace over the irrationality of war. The individual state of maturity is crucial for achieving economic stability and overall prosperity, and it is only reached in a state of peace, for people’s agency is removed by war in the state of “minority”. It is within the common recognition from Palestinians and Israelis of the importance of a return to the state of peace, that socio-economic conditions shall revamp under the capacity of human potential. Grotius’s argument that the ultimate goal of war is to reestablish peace further reinforces the notion that conflicts eventually seek resolution. For as the pursuit of peace is in the best interest of both populations, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is largely a temporary phenomenon rather than an unresolvable conflict that precludes all possibilities of peace.

Competing Narratives Over Political Legitimacy of Palestine

The root cause of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the conflicting narratives over the legitimacy of inhabitance on the land, which has perpetuated a culture of political violence and territorial disputes. Both Jews and Palestinian Arabs possess ancient narratives that provide them with a sense of continuity on the land. The Five Aliyahs facilitated the Jewish Law of Return, connecting Israelis with their biblical heritage and fuelling the Zionist Movement, whilst Palestinians view East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state, fostering widespread pan-Arab nationalism. “By 1931, Zionist land purchases had led to the expulsion of approximately 20,000 [Palestinian] peasant families from their lands.” These historical episodes suggest the conflict as a struggle over the legitimacy of inhabitancy in Palestine by the two populations. It is argued that for the preservation of peace this debate must be resolved through regional and international recognition of each party’s grievances.

The Abraham Accords in 2020 saw a series of Arab–Israeli normalisation agreements that addressed this issue, with both the UAE and Bahrain recognising Israel’s sovereignty –– evidence for improving diplomatic relations between Israel and neighbouring Arab states. The name “Abraham Accords” shows the regional alignment reflected in the shared Abrahamic roots of Judaism and Islam. Similarly, the PA and PLO have also been recognised as legitimate interlocutors in peace negotiations with Israel following the Oslo Accords in 1993. As of May 2024, the UN General Assembly voted to support Palestine’s bid for full UN membership. The political landscape in Palestine is hence being transformed through diplomatic harmony and mutual recognition of shared legitimacy. This means that on the ideological front, people are increasingly aware of the rights of both Palestinians and Israelis to reside in Palestine. This is the recognition that true peace does not necessitate the absence of dissent –– “all silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility.”

The culture of political violence is the result of this heated debate over legitimacy, witnessed in heightened Jewish and Arab ultranationalism and terrorism during the British Mandate period. The Oslo Accords failed because of the assassination of Rabin in 1995 by right-wing Israeli extremists, followed shortly by the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre where 29 Palestinians were killed. This culture of violence is argued to be exacerbated by foreign financial aid supporting terrorist groups and lingering socio-economic grievances in Palestine.

To address the former, counterterrorist measures are essential. Initiatives like the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006 meet this need by withholding US aid until the condition of renouncing terrorism is fulfilled. In response to threats like Iran’s support for Hamas, the IDF has developed defence systems such as David’s Sling, which has intercepted Qassam and Grad rockets before the Israel-Hamas war in 2023. Counterterrorist efforts suggest the gradual decline in political violence that has long undermined diplomatic efforts in Palestine. The discussion of peace possibilities necessitates the cessation of military combat and the freedom from fear of violence. Counterterrorism efforts thus address the significance of sustaining physical tranquillity as a prerequisite of peace, particularly as demands for ceasefires in Gaza gain prominence.

To address the latter, increased humanitarian aid from foreign nations is crucial. Leading this effort is the European Union, now the largest international donor to Palestinians. In March 2024, the European Commission announced an additional €68 million allocation despite countries suspending payments over concerns related to Hamas’ activities, vital to addressing the Gaza Humanitarian crisis. This crisis is argued by many to be the biggest obstacle hindering the peace process, for its enduring impact on economic conditions in the region. Aid for Palestine should therefore not only prevent support for terrorist organisations to conduct attacks or misuse of funds to incite violence, but also adjust support programs in response to current conditions. The European Commission’s methodology being aligned with this framework, outlines both “an operational screening of the feasibility of projects” and a risk assessment on “possible aid diversion…perpetrated in the framework of the implementation of projects.” Financial aid is directed towards constructive projects including the Gas for Gaza initiative and the Gaza Desalination Plant, ensuring that immediate needs are met while promoting long-term economic development. With international oversight ensuring aid reaches Gaza without being intercepted, it is argued that trust is established in the aid process as a form of diplomacy that encourages moderation within Palestinian society.

Hence, for as the root cause of conflict, being the competing historical narratives over inhabitancy, has been widely acknowledged, conflict in the form of military combat no longer possess its ideological driving force, implying its imminent cessation. Peace is therefore possible in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Evident Progress in the 20th century

Peace is also likely because of strong evidence in global recognition and efforts to reach a mutual compromise. The late 20^th century witnessed notable advancements in peace-making in the Middle East that contributed to periods of near-peace. Notably, the Oslo Accords during 1993-95 marked a milestone in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process where formal recognition was achieved between Israel and the PLO for the first time. The establishment of the Palestinian National Authority provided interim self-government in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with the West Bank proposed to be divided into three administrative areas, facilitating the evacuation of Israelis from bordering territories. It is evident that Rabin, Clinton, and Arafat were committing to peace through mutually beneficial concessions to advance the broader prospects for lasting harmony.

Similarly, the Camp David Summit in 2000 addressed issues such as territorial contiguity, Palestinian refugees’ right of return, and security arrangements. The summit saw concrete proposals, including Israeli concessions on borders and shared sovereignty over parts of Jerusalem. A pilot program was agreed upon where Israel would admit 2,000 refugees annually under family reunification frameworks. Camp David demonstrated the importance of global recognition and support in the peace process, with President Clinton’s strong commitment to facilitating peace in Palestine exemplifying the crucial role of US mediation.

The failure of the accords and the summit was largely because of the nature of political violence in Palestine during the 1990s, when international efforts were not as active as they are now. It is therefore contended that both the endeavours and failures of these negotiations taught lessons to the public and established precedents for subsequent peace efforts, including the Taba negotiations in 2001 and the later Roadmap for Peace. These events show the great possibility of peace through the recognition by political leaders that mutual concession by both parties is required to reach a peace deal. It is the lesson from these past events that we learn, that foster us a prospect for peace in understanding the core of peace-building: compromise. It is this recognition that offers hope for lasting peace. The moment when Hamas leaders and Israeli governors concede their self-interests in asserting military dominance for the acknowledgement of both populations’ rights to survive, and recognise the moral catastrophe in believing in the extinction of an entire population for its conflicting history, is the moment when peace arrives in Palestine.

Conclusion

To conclude, through the historical framework from political philosophy that suggested perpetual peace is in the interest of people, existing peace efforts that followed this framework and fostered the nature of mutual compromise, and the diminishing impact of the conflict’s root cause, it is argued that peace in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is possible. Rather than succumbing to a deterministic view that deems peace unattainable based on ongoing conflict, this essay advocates for a paradigm that learns from conflict. With a mutually recognised, opened, and compromised approach that embraces ideological differences, peace will eventually prevail in the Holy Land.

 Bibliography

AFCFP (n.d.). 2024 Joint Memorial Day Ceremony. [online] American Friends of Combatants for Peace. Available at: https://www.afcfp.org/2024-joint-memorial-day-ceremony#:~:text=In%202023%2C%20over%2015%2C000%20Israelis.

Dumper, M. (2006). Palestinian refugee repatriation : global perspectives. London ; New York: Routledge.

Embassies.gov.il. (2024). Available at: https://embassies.gov.il/MFA/AboutIsrael/Maps/Pages/Jewish%20Communities%20Lost%20in%20the%20War%20of%20Independence.aspx#:~:text=During%20the%201948%20War%20of.

European Commission (2023). Press corner. [online] European Commission - European Commission. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_5941.

European Commission (2024). EU steps up humanitarian assistance for Palestinians - European Commission. [online] civil-protection-humanitarian-aid.ec.europa.eu. Available at: https://civil-protection-humanitarian-aid.ec.europa.eu/news-stories/news/eu-steps-humanitarian-assistance-palestinians-2024-04-26_en#:~:text=This%20support%20aims%20to%20scale.

Gelvin, J.L. (2021). The Israel-Palestine conflict : a history. Cambridge ; New York, Ny: Cambridge University Press.

Goldwin, R.A. (1976). Locke’s State of Nature in Political Society. The Western Political Quarterly, 29(1), p.126. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/447588.

Grotius, H. (2012). On the Law of War and Peace. Translated by S.C. Neff. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jerusalem Post (2023). IDF’s ‘David’s Sling’ missile system used to shoot down Gaza rocket barrage. [online] The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com. Available at: https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-742641.

Kant, I. (1795). Perpetual peace. North Charleston, South Carolina: Createspace Independent Publishing Platform.

Locke, J. (1689). Two Treatises of Government. Awnsham Churchill.

Mill, J.S. (1859). On Liberty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

OCHA (2023). Data on casualties. [online] United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs - occupied Palestinian territory. Available at: https://www.ochaopt.org/data/casualties.

Pandey, S. (2024). European Commission to continue its aid to UNRWA and increase emergency support for Palestine. [online] www.jurist.org. Available at: https://www.jurist.org/news/2024/03/european-commission-to-continue-its-aid-to-unrwa-and-increase-emergency-support-for-palestine/.

Segev, T. (2001). One Palestine, complete : Jews and Arabs under the Mandate. New York: Henry Holt.

Sherwood, H. (2013). EU takes tougher stance on Israeli settlements. The Guardian. [online] 16 Jul. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/16/eu-israel-settlement-exclusion-clause.

Tee, P. (2024). Peace Exists Today between Israelis and Palestinians? Yes! [online] The Times of Israel. Available at: https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/peace-exists-today-between-israelis-and-palestinians-yes/.

UN (1994). Chronological Review of Events/April 1994 - DPR review. [online] Question of Palestine. Available at: https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-204809/.

UN (1997). UNITED NATIONS AS General Assembly Security Council. [online] Available at: https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/IL%20PS_950928_InterimAgreementWestBankGazaStrip%28OsloII%29.pdf.

UN (2006). Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006 - Bill passed by US House of Representatives and Senate/Non-UN document. [online] Question of Palestine. Available at: https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-198515/.

UNDP (2024). Gaza war: expected socioeconomic impacts on the State of Palestine. [online] Available at: https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/2024-05/2400257e-gaza_war-_expected_socioeconomic_impacts-pb.pdf.

WHO (2023). Conflict in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory. [online] www.who.int. Available at: https://www.who.int/emergencies/situations/conflict-in-Israel-and-oPt.

Wintour, P. and O’Carroll, L. (2023). EU aid to Palestinians will ‘not be cancelled’ as decision reversed. The Guardian. [online] 10 Oct. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/10/eu-aid-to-palestinians-will-not-be-cancelled-as-decision-reversed.