Listen to the article
The situation in the Middle East is becoming increasingly ambiguous with the raging conflict in Gaza between Israel and Hamas entering its third week. Two distinct scenarios are looming on the horizon.
On the one hand, successful negotiations in Qatar and Oman hold the potential to mitigate the likelihood of a widespread outbreak of violence. On the other hand, the failure of these negotiations could potentially lead to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pushing the entire region into a devastating conflict, thus igniting all fronts.
As reported by Arab circles closely monitoring the negotiations, the third week is poised to serve as the ultimate chapter in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Despite promising developments in addressing the hostage issue, it is important to emphasize the need for a period of calm to explore potential initiatives.
These circles consider the timing to be crucial as Israel advances in its ground offensive, disregarding the United Nations General Assembly’s endorsement of a resolution that calls for an immediate and permanent humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza.
Israel, along with its US ally, utterly reject any ceasefire proposal until Netanyahu has concluded his strategic “plan” aimed at restoring the image of the military and intelligence service and fixing his political standing following the recent challenges he has faced. Netanyahu was held accountable for Israel’s setback on October 7, when Hamas carried out its Al-Aqsa Flood Operation, which involved rocket attacks on Tel Aviv and the infiltration of Gaza Envelope settlements. The operation resulted in deaths, destruction and the capture of approximately 230 hostages.
In parallel to the ongoing war, meetings are being held in Oman and Qatar with the aim of halting military operations, releasing all hostages and initiating negotiations for a comprehensive settlement.
An Arab official discloses that the warring parties are engaged in these meetings with the participation of American and Iranian security officials.
As per leaked information, a dispute has arisen among negotiators regarding the agenda and the priority of files. Moreover, Netanyahu remains unwavering in his commitment to “militarily neutralize Hamas” and expel its combatants from Gaza. This comes at a time when the Palestinians are steadfastly opposed to any form of “transfer,” a position shared by Egypt, particularly in light of recent speculations about relocating Palestinians from Gaza to Sinai.
As per knowledgeable Western circles, there are ongoing discussions regarding several potential scenarios. One possible scenario involves a humanitarian truce, the cessation of military operations, the delivery of vital humanitarian aid and the release of all hostages. It also includes the military removal of Hamas from Gaza and the deployment of an Arab force to maintain order and supervise aid distribution, provided that the tunnels are abolished before the reconstruction process begins. This phase would eventually transition to a stage of a permanent ceasefire and a lasting truce, which would be coupled with the commencement of negotiations and the implementation of a political solution with the goal of achieving a comprehensive settlement and a just and equitable peace.
In this particular scenario, Netanyahu’s staunch opposition to the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian State with Jerusalem as its capital is bolstered by the endorsement of US political forces. This renders impossible the two-state solution, which is the only viable option. Netanyahu persists in reaffirming the existence of Israel as a sovereign State and the incorporation of Palestinians within its borders, akin to the 1948 Palestinians, who are represented by Arab MPs in the Knesset.
Should Israel reject the two-state solution, it will face a powerful ultimatum from Arab countries: the cessation of normalization of relations and the abandonment of the Abraham Accords. Before the Al-Aqsa Flood, Washington was banking on potential normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel by year’s end.
Therefore, it is highly unlikely that it will abandon its wager, particularly considering that US President Joe Biden is preparing for the forthcoming presidential elections in a year, and he regards the normalization and peace initiative in the region as his lead card against a Republican opponent, who could be Donald Trump.
As the quest for a resolution to the ongoing conflict unfolds, the US is engaged in negotiations with Iran regarding its nuclear program. These negotiations aim to compel Iran to adhere to the nuclear agreement, reduce its uranium enrichment levels and adopt a nuclear non-proliferation stance, as Saudi Arabia has repeatedly advocated for the acquisition of its own nuclear capabilities.
According to the circles, Iran prefers to reserve discussions about the nuclear issue as the final item on the negotiations’ agenda with Washington, giving priority to a two-state solution to the Palestinian cause. This approach is opposed by the US, which places nuclear negotiations with Iran above all other matters. Washington is committed to a comprehensive peace in the oil-rich Middle East, stressing the need to prevent a spillover of the conflict.
According to the same sources, the presence of the US Fifth Fleet in the region is not geared toward provoking conflict but rather aimed at preventing it, all the while working towards the establishment of a demilitarized, new Middle East. It demonstrates that Washington’s prompt action to resolve the maritime border dispute between Lebanon and Israel serves the best interests of this evolving Middle East. Amos Hochstein, the US envoy to Lebanon, is set to return once military operations cease, in order to help demarcate the land border between Lebanon and Israel, including the disputed Shebaa Farms region. There will subsequently be east-oriented efforts to delineate and control both land and maritime borders between Lebanon and Syria. Furthermore, UNIFIL’s role will expand to the south and east to assist the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) in controlling the border with Syria to halt infiltration and smuggling attempts.
According to Palestinian circles, if Netanyahu were to persist in his plan to eradicate Hamas, destroy Gaza and reclaim it under Israeli control for the exploitation of its offshore oil and gas resources, it could result in highly unfavorable repercussions. This may trigger the activation of multiple fronts involving countries within the Iran-backed “obstructionist axis,” such as Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, the West Bank and Palestine. A similar scenario could potentially lead to widespread conflict with unpredictable duration.
However, such an option is resisted by all parties in the region, irrespective of their perspectives, as it entails losses for everyone, even in the event of a “victory.” Any escalation on these fronts remains in line with the rules of engagement, as everyone prefers negotiated solutions, even amid heightened tensions.
