Listen to the article
A month has gone by since the deadly attack by the Hamas movement against Israel on October 7, which has wreaked unrelenting havoc and tragedy on the Palestinian population of Gaza. According to reports from the last few days, the Israeli army has clearly made progress, dividing the tiny enclave, home to more than 2 million people, into two parts: North and South. Israeli troops have reportedly moved as deep as the center of Gaza City.
These progresses achieved at the level of the ground offensive — if it is actually confirmed and geographically consolidated — are of paramount importance. In fact, they could pave the way for brief “breaks” in shooting and fighting that would in turn facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid. At a later stage, if these military gains ultimately achieve the expected results, they could lay the groundwork for the revival of a comprehensive and sustainable political solution, which will occur in due time. While waiting for the situation to further stabilize on the ground, some indications of a possible political-diplomatic roadmap are looming on the horizon and lend a preliminary indication as to the direction from which the wind might blow.
Primarily, some elements are coming forward from statements and approaches on behalf of American leaders. The latter are stressing the need for “short and targeted” humanitarian truces, as stated by the White House. President Joe Biden discussed this matter during a phone call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and European leaders are reiterating this issue daily. One of the goals in this regard is to successfully reach a short military pause and deliver much-needed humanitarian aid to the Palestinian population. Doing so before the Arab summit, scheduled to be held in Riyadh next Saturday, November 11, helps curtail any steep position that Arab leaders might be forced to adopt. The former director of the General Security of Lebanon, Abbas Ibrahim, who has taken on the role of mediator in this dossier, confirmed late Wednesday evening that a “break” in the war is “imminent.” In addition, Ibrahim is expecting “a swap between dual Israeli nationals and wounded or detained Palestinians held in Israeli prisons.”
In this context, for the past forty-eight hours, the White House has been mentioning a plan that includes truces or breaks that could last up to ”a few hours or a few days.” The use of the plural regarding truces has come up for the first time in the statements of US officials. This suggests that Washington wishes for the Israeli offensive against Hamas to go on. Maybe so until the accomplishment of the objective proclaimed by the Jewish State, namely the eradication of Hamas from the Palestinian scene.
This Western demand for a limited “humanitarian truce” is complemented by the clear rejection of any ceasefire at this stage and the refusal to revert to the situation in Gaza before October 7. The White House spokesperson was clear on this issue, as were President Emmanuel Macron and the Group of 7 (the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Japan, and Canada).
On the macro-political level, a recurring theme in American and Western positions is the refusal to involve Hamas, alone, in any future negotiations aimed at achieving a comprehensive political solution. In this regard, reliable sources have indicated (for the sake of more clarity) that the Arab countries, especially the Gulf States, refuse to have Iran as a direct stakeholder in the process of resolving the Middle East conflict.
This crucial point has regularly surfaced in the positions of the United States, the European Union, and other countries in the Western world since October 7, in addition to those of the Arab States and the Palestinian Authority. Not a single day goes by without international decision-makers emphasizing this peace option. In other words, we could witness a return to the Oslo process, complemented by the Abraham Accords.
Such a path would require the sidelining of both the Israeli and Palestinian extremes that torpedoed the Oslo accords in 1994 and 1995, namely, Hamas and Netanyahu’s extreme right. Ironically, they are both trapped in the midst of a war whose culmination could very well lead to the embodiment of the spirit of the Oslo process that they had fought against almost thirty years ago. An accord they had opposed without offering their peoples a prospect other than that of chronic instability, terrorism, and perpetual, endless armed conflict…
