A FRAGILE DAWN IN WEST ASIA: Weaving Hopes Through Shattered Dreams
- Hindu College Gazette Web Team
- May 9
- 11 min read
INTRODUCTION
Compromise is often seen as a sign of weakness. But can strength justify torture, deaths, and grave injustices? Not to hundreds, but to thousands. Thousands of alive, living, breathing humans.
There’s a story about it, about a forest in which stood an old mighty tree. Two birds lived on its branches, constantly arguing over territory. One claimed, “This branch is mine; I used it first.” The other countered, “But my ancestors lived here long before you.”
One day, a fierce storm broke a branch. The second one took over the first’s nest, saying, “This is mine now. You can find another spot.” The first built a new nest but soon noticed the other kept pushing it further away. This led to frequent fights between them. Ultimately, their fights weakened the tree until it finally fell, leaving both homeless.
The two birds in this story are Israel and Palestine. While this story runs the risk of oversimplifying this deeply complex issue, it does hint at the fate their story might have if they do not make peace; if the ceasefire that came into force on January 19, 2025, after more than 15 long months of war between the two that consumed thousands of lives, fails. This ceasefire, although an object of scepticism, is also a beacon of hope, a hope that permanent peace between the two states is not entirely out of grasp.
THE CEASE-FIRE AND PEACE
After a catastrophic war in Gaza, lasting for over 15 months, Israel and Hamas have agreed on a ceasefire deal following gruelling negotiations over one year mediated by the US, Qatar, and Egypt. The ceasefire is spread over three stages. The first stage, spread over 42 days, will see Israeli forces in the Gaza Strip pulling back, maintaining a buffer zone, and allowing the displaced people to return to what remains of their homes. More importantly, 33 hostages in Hamas’s captivity will be released in exchange for Palestinians held by Israel. International aid coming to Gaza will also see a surge during this stage.
The negotiations for the second stage will begin on the 16th day of the first stage. This stage will see the exchange of remaining hostages. It is this stage that is most crucial, as bargaining on permanent issues will begin. Among them is a permanent ceasefire, including cessation of hostilities and a complete withdrawal of Israel from the Gaza Strip.
The third stage will deal with the vexed issue of the ‘day after’, who will govern and oversee the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip. It is at this stage that issues that have remained perennially unresolved, including borders, settlements and refugees, might be dealt with. These issues have remained a bone of contention in previous peace agreements between the two states and are thus the reason behind the scepticism surrounding the efficacy of this ceasefire. This article traces just that, the history and the reasons behind the failure of past agreements, and endeavours to offer hope for this ceasefire by proposing workable solutions.
TRACING THE BONE OF CONTENTION
Few conflicts have been as protracted as that of the Israelis and the Palestinians. It has its roots in the 20th century. Following the defeat of Ottoman Turkey in World War I, under the mandate system of the League of Nations, the historical Palestine came to be controlled by the British. Coinciding with these developments, the modern Zionist movement was increasingly garnering influence, advocating the migration of Jewish people to the biblical Israel, which overlapped with Palestine. Soon, it became the official policy of the British government to encourage this migration, stating that it favours “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” This threatened to change the demography of Palestine, sparking confrontations between the Jews and the Arabs.
While the tensions between the Jews and the Arabs became unmanageable, the British became increasingly eager to withdraw from the region following the Second World War. Finally, the British turned the matter, in 1947, to the newly formed United Nations, after its failed attempts at partitioning the land between the two peoples. The United Nations, in its Resolution 181(II), proposed a separate partition scheme dividing historical Palestine into Arab and Jewish territories. Arabs perceived this plan to be deeply unfair, as they thought it unjustly favoured the Jewish population. Amidst heightened tensions, the British date of withdrawal neared. On 14th May 1948, one day before the British Mandate was to be over, the Jews declared the establishment of the State of Israel, sparking the first Arab-Israeli War of 1948.
In the Arab-Israeli War, Israel fought against the Arab nations, including Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq. After the war, Israel controlled more land than what had been allocated to it in the UN Plan. Parallelly, the Arab nations, now, controlled chunks of Palestine, with Egypt controlling the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip, Jordan controlling East Jerusalem and the West Bank. More importantly, the war saw the massive displacement of Palestinian or Arab people from Israeli territory, becoming refugees in the areas under Arab control. This constitutes the first core issue of this conflict- the issue of refugees.
After the first Arab-Israeli War, the peace hung by precarious armistices. Finally, it yielded in 1967 when Israel and the Arab nations fought in their second war, which came to be known as the Six-Day War. The results were catastrophic for the Arab nations this time. Israel wrested to itself the areas of East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank. What should be the legitimate borders of Israel and a future Palestinian state, if any, then, constitutes the second core issue. These areas, to date, continue to be under Israeli occupation, and it continues to erect settlements over these areas. These settlements emerge as the third core issue, as their existence is seen by the Palestinian people as antithetical to a future Palestinian state. At the same time, both stake claim to the city of Jerusalem, forming the fourth core issue.
ROAD FROM 1967 TO OSLO
Post the 1967 war, all four of these issues emerged as an area of contention in the region, rendering it susceptible to violence, unrest and terrorism. Terrorist attacks and suicidal bombings became very common. So did military conflicts including a surprise attack by Egypt and Syria on Israel in 1973 and an armed conflict between the Lebanese factions of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) and Israel in 1982.
Moreover, frustrations with Israel’s expansion of its settlements in the West Bank, along with a combination of other factors, including economic hardships, sparked Palestinian demonstrations, protests, and acts of violence and terrorism against Israelis in the latter half of the 1980s. The early 1990s saw the first ‘Intifada’, a period of widespread violence, sparked by excesses committed by the Israeli military. It is this period that saw the creation of Hamas, a militant Palestinian Islamic resistance organisation that attacked Israel on October 7, 2023. Within a year of its creation, Hamas released its charter, explicitly stating the destruction of Israel through Jihad (Islamic holy war) as its aim. With this suicidal bombings led by Hamas became a frequent occurrence.
This cyclical violence had a significant impact on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The intensity of the conflict attracted international attention, changing the political landscape and demanding a mutually agreed-upon resolution. The Madrid Peace Accords of 1991 were an attempt to promote bilateral and multilateral Arab-Israeli cooperation. These accords set the stage for the pathbreaking Oslo Accords.
OSLO ONWARDS:
In 1993, in a major breakthrough, Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) signed the Oslo Accords through the painstaking mediation of the USA. These accords were pathbreaking as Israel and the PLO mutually recognised each other as interlocutors in this conflict, with the PLO eschewing all forms of terrorism. This was a new stage, as until now, all peace efforts were limited to the Arab nations; with these accords Israel agreed to directly negotiate with the PLO, seeking resolution to the core issues enlisted above based on UN Resolutions 242 and 368. Thus, the accords envisioned the establishment of two states—Israel and Palestine. PLO agreed to recognise Israel’s borders as they stood pre-1967 in what came to be known as the “Two-State Solution”..
The Oslo Accords consisted of interim agreements that enjoined Israel to withdraw or redeploy its troops from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank and establish self-governance for Palestinians in a “transitional period,” of five years. In return, the PLO will recognize Israel’s right to exist. Significantly for the essential purposes of the accords, both parties agreed to resolve, in the “transitional period” the four core issues of the conflict- refugees, borders, Israeli settlements, and Jerusalem. For the first time in a long time, hope seemed ascendant.
In an atmosphere of hope, both parties began implementing Oslo. Israel started a piecemeal withdrawal and PLO became hard on terrorist elements. The accords were met with feverish opposition from extremist elements from both sides, leading to a cycle of violence. This eroded the faith and then the very desirability of the peace process. Hamas and other militant bodies would not be satisfied until Israel’s destruction and Israelis saw the withdrawals and prisoner releases as a betrayal. But the political leadership remained steadfast.
In the initial years, the issue of borders dominated the negotiations, with the actual implementation of agreed frontiers becoming challenging as the changed political leadership under Israel’s right-wing party Likud, with Netanyahu at the helm, was circumspect about dealing with the PLO. The more vexed issues of refugees and settlements came to be dealt with earnestly during the times of Ehud Barak. American mediation had a significant role to play in these deliberations. But the talks never really materialised on the ground as Israel kept on erecting settlements and the terror acts never stopped. The Camp David Summit (2000) was a last-ditch effort at reconciliation where the two parties almost came to an agreement if it wasn’t for Jerusalem. Both parties couldn’t agree on joint control of the city, reducing the peace process to nought. The frustration, in no time, resolved into the second intifada.
It was from the unrest during the second intifada that Hamas gained strength, capitalising on the self-serving narrative that the peace process was but a sham which it itself had been perpetuating. With repeated peace failures the Palestinians increasingly saw truth in that narrative. When Ariel Sharon withdrew Israeli troops and settled the population from the Gaza Strip, it became a fertile ground for Hamas to embolden itself. Before long, Gaza became a centre for airstrikes from Israel in response to similar attacks from Gaza. It is the logical result of this violence and counter-violence that the October 7th, 2023 attack happened.
Now that both parties have agreed to a cease-fire, the time is again fecund to introspect on what went wrong and what can be done.
A TROUBLED PEACE
While the Oslo Accords represent shattered dreams of peace, they also highlight the harsh reality that the path to peace is not an easy one; it's long, hard, and strewn, more often than not, with failures. However, these failures serve as learnings on what pitfalls to avoid. Oslo has left us with many such learnings crucial to ensuring the success of this cease-fire and to bringing about permanent peace.
One major reason for the failure of peace agreements between the two states has been the lack of trust. While both sides kept signing peace agreements, they did not follow through with what they agreed to. Israel never stopped expanding its settlements or showed any enthusiasm in earnestly dealing with the refugee problem and the PLO could never fully control terrorist elements. An independent Palestinian state is considered to be an anathema to Israeli security.
Secondly, even if both sides adhered to their promises, compromises were met with discontent among the extremist elements in both states. Furthermore, domestic politics in Israel has heavily influenced the process, with the right-wing outfits being opposed to compromises. Additionally, continuous failures cast doubt on the legitimacy of the parties anchoring the negotiation process. There was a lack of trust on the Israeli side due to the absence of an acceptable Palestinian party. Palestinians, on the other hand, became wary of the US as the mediator, believing it was biased towards Israel.
Last but not least is the question of Hamas. The signing of peace agreements is no guarantee that Hamas, with its avowed aim to see the complete destruction of Israel, can ever be trusted. With these many problems, one is compelled to think, can peace ever be a reality for these two states, more importantly, the innocent civilians?
Going back to our metaphorical story at the beginning of the piece, many branches of this peace tree have already fallen, right from 1948 to the present. Moreover, the recent 15-month-long war between them has weakened it further. Yet, the positive takeaway is that the tree has not fallen entirely. There is still hope. This ceasefire offers a chance to prevent further collapse and, perhaps, finally bring the two sides to a lasting peace.
ON SOLUTIONS AND HOPE
Proposing solutions to this intractable problem is all but easy, as it is a heady mix of history, mythology, and identities. We have offered workable solutions, keeping the four core issues highlighted as our guide.
Trust is crucial for any conceivable peace process. But on the Palestinian side, both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas do not represent acceptable interlocutors. The Palestinian Authority is too discredited and Hamas too extremist. A role for Arab states, as Egypt and Qatar have shown in the present ceasefire, can be imagined here to represent the Palestinians. The parties playing mediatory roles (read the USA) have to ensure that they are unbiased and are perceived as so. Though difficult, trust can be fostered in this environment.
So far as borders are concerned the “two-state” solution seems promising. Israel’s right to exist can’t be denied, and its border as it stood before 1967, which is often called the “green line,” has to be recognised. This will allow the Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Of course, this is not as simple as it may seem. For instance, Israel will also have to recognise the ‘right to return’ of the Arab refugees, displaced during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. This poses its own dilemmas as it threatens to change the demography and the nature of the Israeli state. Both sides will have to take into account the empirical realities in order to come to an agreement.
The Israeli settlements in the West Bank should be handed over to the future Palestinian state, with the residents being recalled to Israeli territory. These settlements have long been declared illegal by the International Court of Justice. Thus, it is only fair for Israel to transfer these settlements to Palestine. There would definitely be political tremors in Israel for this, but demands of fairness, if not international law, must be respected. One would like to imagine a choice for the settlers to either go back or stay with the future Palestinian state, recognising their rights.
Finally, we propose for both states to have joint sovereignty over Jerusalem with the religious rights of both peoples over the al-Aqsa Mosque and the Temple Mount ensured. To resolve disputes, a commission elected by the residents but functioning under the general authority of the United Nations can be established.
We humbly acknowledge that these solutions may seem really difficult, if not outrightly impractical, but the seeds for an end to this violent conflict and hope could be found in them.
CONCLUSION
The road to peace for Israel and Palestine has been long and fraught with failures. Like the fallen branches in our metaphorical tree, peace processes so far have only crumbled. Yet the trunk remains. This ceasefire, is a glimmer of hope, that perhaps a new chapter of long-lasting peace; a chapter of mutual co-existence and cooperation over violence; a chapter that celebrates compromise as a strength, can still be written.
By Roshan S. Dhotre and Shalnitya Devi
Roshan Shivnath Dhotre is a second-year student pursuing BA (Hons.) Political Science at Hindu College, University of Delhi. His interests include International Relations, Geopolitics and contemporary politics. Being perceptive to changes, he likes to follow global and national trends in politics and diplomacy.
Shalnitya Devi is a second-year student pursuing BA (Hons.) Political Science at Hindu College, University of Delhi, who channels her curiosity into understanding the world around her. She takes keen interest in Political Science, Economics and Environmental Science and loves expressing herself through art and design, blending creativity with purpose.
References
Comments