Opinion
Why the Israel-Palestine conflict is unlikely to end in our lifetime
Summary
- Geopolitical interests are ranged against each other in such a way that the constituency for peace is left tragically powerless
Analysts termed 7 October 2023 as Israel’s 9/11 or India’s 26/11. A better comparison of Israel’s black day, however, would be with the Kargil incursion suffered by India. In February 1999, India and Pakistan were close to reaching a peace accord. It would have unshackled both countries from hugely wasteful defence expenditure. However, one party would have lost ground—the Pakistani Army. The cliche about most countries having an army but the Pakistani army having a country is true. The Pakistani army indeed calls all the shots in Pakistan and there was no way it would risk losing its pole position and end up playing virtually no fiddle, like its Indian counterpart. And hence the Kargil incursion was launched. While India may have ‘won’ the war at a tactical level, both New Delhi and Islamabad lost the chance of a rapprochement that could have altered the economic growth trajectory of both nations, strengthening both economies. It was one occasion when a military general outsmarted two seasoned politicians. By the end of the year, Nawaz Sharif was in exile and General Pervez Musharraf was the CEO of Pakistan. A few thousand lives are small change in this game of high-stakes geopolitics.
There are more countries with a vested interest in keeping the Israel-Palestine issue alive than in resolving it. When resources reduce and contenders increase, conflict can become inevitable, and a fight for global and regional dominance finds its boundaries and fault-lines. Israel and Palestine have been subject to geopolitical architecture to reach such a point.
The US has a deep stake in Israel. The Jewish community and its cultural history wields un- paralleled sway in its domestic politics. The US is a major arms trader, and it needs a strategic ally in the Middle East that is stronger than just a regional base for US armed forces. The US is a valuable ally to have, but the problem is that it has several enemies that also want to hold influence in the Middle East, like Russia and China. It makes strategic sense for Moscow and Beijing to prevent an American and Israeli consolidation of power in a region that is a major energy source for the world. Billions of dollars and weaponry diverted in aid to Israel are now no longer to be aimed at fighting Russia in the European theatre of Ukraine. Savagery by Israel suits Russia. If it is acceptable for Israel to use white phosphorous and bomb civilians in Gaza, how can anyone allege savagery on the part of Russia when it starts its final countdown in Ukraine?
China, like India, is friends with both sides. But unlike India, which has strong traditional and independent relationships with all regional powers, Beijing doesn’t benefit from the resolution of the Middle East conflict, as that would only strengthen its arch-foe and also reduce its scope for regional interference (a la the US).
The EU has its own internal conflicts. Europe has traditionally supported the rights of Palestinians and has given refuge and support to various Palestinian groups, even allowing safe havens for some radical elements. However, the EU also has a very strong pro-Israel lobby, so Brussels will prefer to use status quo as a strategy, since any resolution will require one side to yield concessions, thus angering the other.
Their game requires keeping the Middle East issue simmering under control and voicing support when either side overwhelms the other. Also, having global watchdogs and agencies proffer an alternate narrative to balance the official one.
As a region, the Middle East has two rising giants interlocked in a power dance. Bitterly opposed to the US, Iran cannot allow Saudi Arabia to become more powerful, let alone an ally to its arch-nemesis’s surrogate state. And Iran has an ‘arm’s length’ force that can batter Israel badly. Hezbollah, which makes the Hamas look like a street gang, is the equivalent of a light army. Sure, Israel will eventually win a long conflict with US, UK and EU support, but its population and infrastructure could be decimated in the process. Israel’s adversaries can and have taken far more body bags in all past conflicts.
Saudi Arabia, in particular, is caught in a bind. It has been racing ahead with domestic reforms that are not going down well with a sizeable section of fundamentalists in a conservative country that still has the death penalty for alleged sins ranging from adultery to blasphemy. Siding with the region’s Jewish state would be treading on thin ice. And in this fraught scenario, our own nuclear-armed neighbour may seek relevance by drawing attention to what has been touted as an ‘Islamic bomb.’ Note that the Pakistani establishment has deep cultural and other ties with many rulers in the Islamic world to its west, including nuptials and military links.
It is an irony that leaders who espouse a cleaner, healthier, fair and equitable world actively seek to keep conflicts alive, which are an antithesis to all of those aims. A typical Palestinian, Israeli, Kashmiri, Afghani, Ukrainian, or any other human for that matter, first and foremost cares for the foundational essentials of survival, which are food, shelter and economic well-being for oneself and one’s family. However, leaders whip them into a frenzied fear that leads them to disregard Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and instead construct rigid positions, which by definition cannot be resolved. Non-negotiability on both sides over Jerusalem, Kashmir or Ukraine, etc, has wrought much misery. Or perhaps this is not an irony in a world where all five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council are the largest arms producers in the world—a world whose youth routinely die in armed conflicts to protect interests defined by elderly leaders.
