A series of rapid developments in the context of the movements to stop the fighting in Gaza, even through the policy of stages, have been witnessed by the diplomacy of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in recent days. It is a race taking place between the continuation of the war with the possibility of escalation and expansion, on the one hand, and appeals at calm and accessing the door of settlements, temporary or permanent, on the other hand.
President Trump presented his vision for a solution, which is based on the “temporary or permanent” transfer of the people of Gaza to neighboring countries, and elsewhere. He presented his vision for economic development for Gaza, without its people, as if it was a barren land to be invested in and developed, and not part of a homeland. Trump also lifted the sanctions imposed by the previous administration on Israeli settlers who attack the Palestinian population. On another level, the Arab ministerial meeting in Cairo started this month, followed by the joint letter that the ministers sent to their American colleague to warn against the policy of forced displacement of the people of Gaza, and to affirm the well-known Arab position regarding a permanent settlement to the conflict.
In short, we are witnessing a political escalation in Israeli goals, most of which are supported by Washington. This is met with a warning about the dangers of this policy, if it continues, and its repercussions on actual security and stability within the framework of the conflict based on achieving a comprehensive and permanent settlement, as the official Arab position always emphasizes. These rapid and contradictory diplomatic and military developments in terms of policies and goals are taking place five months before the international conference in New York, next June. The conference will be held based on the joint Saudi-French initiative for a comprehensive political settlement and a two-state solution.
Today, we are at a crossroads between two paths: the first is buying time and policies of appeasement, and pre-emptive containment of any possible tension or escalation, whether on the political level or on the ground, within the logic of buying time and temporary conciliation. The second is developing a roadmap that is practical in its path, and comprehensive in its vision and objectives, which must be clearly included in reaching a final settlement.
All of this must take place within a specific timetable, although in a flexible manner, but not indefinite. The second track is what the international conference expected in June should practically adopt. The New York reunion should create conditions for a “peace conference” that includes the relevant international and regional powers, sponsoring and accompanying the negotiation process. The process must be revived on the foundations upon which a comprehensive settlement is built, based on implementing the relevant international resolutions and reaching a “two-state solution.”
This is not easy, of course, and there are many obstacles, especially Israeli ones. It is not an impossible path if a firm and therefore effective international position is crystallized, based on practical consensus, to gradually reach a comprehensive, just and permanent settlement.
Only such a settlement will allow for lasting stability: the necessary condition for the prosperity required for the people and countries of the region.