The new Middle East that will emerge after the end of Gaza conflict

The opposition between the United States and Israel is now apparent. President Joe Biden has cautioned that Israel is losing international support in its campaign against Hamas. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has publicly rejected the U.S. plan regarding post-war Gaza. This division has been veiled under the curtain for quite some time. Occasionally, news has emerged suggesting strains in the relationship between the two staunch allies due to extensive civilian casualties in Gaza. However, despite the claims of the American president, support from a significant portion of the world still stands with Israel.

However, Biden has stated that Israel's military campaign is rapidly losing support due to the indiscriminate bombing in Gaza. Additionally, the Israeli government is not interested in a solution based on the involvement of both countries. And a few weeks later, the Gaza crisis is heading into its fifth month.

The ongoing barbaric attacks in Gaza have raised questions about whether there has been any change in the attitudes of the European Union and other key stakeholders in the Middle East towards the situation. Although the situation has somewhat changed, its intensity can be inferred from a confidential document. This document, however, is called a non-paper. The countries of the European Union create such documents to initiate discussions on a complex conflicting issue. Last January, the European Union External Action Service distributed this document to member states of European Union-associated institutions for mutual understanding. It outlines a pragmatic framework for initiating discussions on peace in the Middle East. However, the document is entirely political.

The document does not aim to analyze only what happened on October 7th and Israel's commencement of the massacre in Gaza in response. Instead, it provides a detailed description of why and how this conflict erupted. It also mentions how Israel occupied Palestinian territories in 1967. Finally, the document acknowledges the long-standing oppression and violence by Israel in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. It states that the atrocities against Palestinians have been ongoing for many years, not just since the events of October 7th last year.

It has also been said that the attacks on the West Bank and East Jerusalem in the last 4 months have been hidden under the cover of the Gaza carnage. This document is described as extraordinary because it could potentially produce a report similar to that of Ursula von der Leyen, which is unimaginable. Despite the thousands of Palestinian deaths, including women and children, over the past four months, she has only emphasized Israel's right to self-defense. She has not uttered a single empathetic word about the tragic deaths. Occasionally, she has lightly mentioned the need for proportionate responses to the attacks. However, she has not mentioned even once the need for an immediate ceasefire. Furthermore, she has also managed to gather some support. Besides the United States and the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Italy have joined in. The most intriguing part of the non-paper is its 11th paragraph. It states that once it's over, a peace proposal will be presented to both parties involved in the conflict. Based on this proposal, they will determine the final destiny.

The participating states and international organizations will clearly indicate in this communication whether they are involved in the peace agreement or not and what impact their involvement or lack thereof could have. This paragraph highlights some important points. For example, the peace proposal will be a collaboration of several countries and international organizations. This responsibility will not be solely left to the United States. Behind the decision to involve the United States, there are logical reasons. The Arab world no longer trusts the United States. They believe that the United States is not impartial as a mediator. They have never been impartial; instead, they believe that other states and international organizations' collaboration will provide them with more certainty. Until now, the United States has shown adequate diligence in peace talks. In reality, these proposals have been mainly crafted by Israel and handed over to Washington. The United States has then presented them to the Palestinians as its own plan. However, the United States has repeatedly failed to engage in any discussion with Israel regarding these proposals. Palestinians are well aware of the ongoing game between the United States and Israel. As a result, they repeatedly reject such proposals. Moreover, the American administration propagates that Palestinians have missed opportunities. The United States, the United Nations, the European Union, and Russia have newly formed a coalition comprising these four entities (EEAS). They created this so-called framework at the beginning of the 2000s, but there has been no progress in this framework to date. It is crucial to remember that the Israeli government has expressed opposition to 15 issues within this framework. As a result, nothing substantive remained within that framework.

Furthermore, neither Washington nor any of these four parties has taken any new steps regarding Israel. Another important aspect of this paragraph is the 11th point. It clearly states what kind of transformation could occur if one or both parties withdraw from peace talks. This implies that the non-paper is suggesting a reconsideration of the initial approach taken by the Quartet.

What kind of action is it? Is it punishment or sanctions? Against Israel? The EU hasn't been culpable for past sanctions against Palestinians. However, it hasn't considered taking action against Israel. Are we then witnessing an end to the impunity Israel has enjoyed decade after decade?

In the past few weeks, the European Union's foreign policy chief, Josep Borrell, has taken a bold initiative. He criticized Benjamin Netanyahu's strategy of weakening the Palestinian National Authority, a key participant in the Palestinian nationalist movement, by appeasing Hamas. Recently, he has called on the United States to provide less weaponry to Israel. Another indication of the changing stance of the European Union was found on January 30th, when David Cameron stated that the United Kingdom seeks to formally recognize the Palestinian state. He stated that such recognition would be considered significant progress towards a two-state solution. This implies that the United Kingdom would grant recognition to the Palestinian state even before reaching a two-state solution. In other words, these advancements serve as a slap in the face to Israel and express support for the aspirations of the Palestinians for freedom. Whether Cameron discussed this decision with the White House is still unclear. If discussions are ongoing, it would be a positive development.

Except for Hungary, all 26 EU member states have taken a stance in favor of a ceasefire in Gaza and are pressing for Israel to cease its campaign, signaling a strong demand. Hungary has also stood against issuing condemnations for the Israeli settlers' activities. Therefore, it seems that some change is underway. However, accommodating 30,000 Palestinian non-citizens is a challenging task. In this regard, the EU's position is embarrassing. Nevertheless, it is expected that the EU will stay on the right track. On the other hand, the United States is still creating disruptions in the United Nations Security Council for their decisions. In this disruption, the term ceasefire is being included in American diplomacy for the first time, akin to the first time in history. Along with this, some other significant issues are also being added, such as the cessation of the Rafah campaign. Netanyahu acknowledged before Biden's speech that there is disagreement with the American president on how the post-war Gaza will be managed. In a statement, this Israeli leader further stated, "It is true that we could not agree on what will happen in Gaza the day after defeating Hamas. However, I hope that we can quickly reach consensus." On October 7, before the terrorist attack by Hamas, Biden publicly criticized Netanyahu's coalition government. The reason is that Netanyahu's government had formed an alliance with extremely right-wing parties. However, despite the criticism that arose after the start of the conflict, Biden has continued to support Netanyahu. Netanyahu has been asked numerous times by the international press about post-war Gaza. In an interview with CNN's Dana Bash, he mentioned that under Palestinian leadership, an interim government could play a role in Gaza.

However, even that government needs to be reorganized. On the other hand, before Biden's speech, Netanyahu said, I want to clarify my position. I will not allow Israel to make the same mistake we made in Oslo. The notion that an independent, sovereign Palestinian state will be born alongside Israel originated in the 1990s. Prior to the actual agreements, both sides were engaged in numerous rounds of negotiations, with each side eventually signing agreements. As part of this, the Palestinian Authority was established, and they gained control over parts of the West Bank and Gaza.

At the White House Hanukkah celebration, Biden acknowledged that Hamas's attack and the subsequent Israeli military campaign have led to a complex situation in Gaza. After the Gaza war, Biden has stated that Israel must be cautious about the emergence of a new Middle East. Because public opinion can change at any moment. This cannot be allowed to happen. The United States emphasizes that determining what will happen after the military campaign in Gaza is crucial. Alongside this, discussions about the formation of a Palestinian state must be kept open. Whatever the case may be, time and circumstances will determine the future direction of Gaza.

Author: Researcher and Columnist.