Policy Problem

A. Stakeholders

The Israel-Palestine conflict, a longstanding geopolitical quagmire, involves several stakeholders whose regions intersect. Sharing borders with Palestine, Egypt and Jordan are seen as primary actors, with their concerns extending beyond immediate national security to the humanitarian crisis and Israeli military responses which have triggered fears of mass displacement. 

For one, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, despite taking a firmly pro-Palestinian stance stating that Israael’s bombardment of Gaza has amounted to collective punishment, has signalled that Gazans seeking refuge in Sinai might not entirely be welcomed. He asserted a commitment to “avoid settling the issue at the expense of others''. To begin with, Egypt is already dealing with an influx of refugees fleeing the civil war in Sudan and is running low on resources necessary to manage a large number of refugees. Moreover, there is a concern regarding national security as Sinai is a region that has been tackling issues surrounding Islamic extremism that does share links with Hamas. 

However, the nation has opened its airport in El Aarish to receive international planes from Jordan, Turkey and UAE, providing essential aid for Gazans, and has also loaded hundreds of trucks transporting more aid through the Rafah Crossing. After negotiations with the US, Egypt has also agreed to provide safe passage to Palestinians with dual citizenship.

King Abdullah of Jordan, sharing similar sentiments, emphasised the “redline” of Israel displacing one million Palestinians. Arguing that he, too, believes Israel’s response is a form of “collective punishment” that violated international law. Jordan already houses millions of migrants from neighbours embroiled in conflict— Palestine and Syria to Iraq. Consequently, diplomatic strain resulting from this most recent flare-up has led to Jordan recalling its ambassador from Israel.

The conflict extends to global players, notably Saudi Arabia and the US, especially since the US facilitated the Abraham Accords in 2020. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was recently moving toward normalisation with Israel. However, since the escalation post-October 7th, there appears to be a shift in Saudi Arabia's stance, with communication to Washington displaying a freeze in normalisation talks. This reversal highlights the Palestinian question’s significance to Arabic nations, emphasising that it remains a non-negotiable aspect of regional diplomacy. The sudden pause in the push for normalisation signals that regional powers are unwilling to overlook the Palestinian issue in pursuit of broader geopolitical objectives.

On the other hand, the US has heavily backed the Israeli response since the attack on October 7th, yet maintains the US’s historical stance on the conflict— support for the ‘two-state solution’. Biden’s 31-hour visit to Israel on October 18, 2023 was symbolic and vital in displaying his support for the Jewish State. He announced $100 million in aid to Palestinians, convinced President El-Sisi to open up a crucial land crossing in southern Gaza, and persuaded Israel to allow humanitarian aid to enter Gaza. 

This web of regional relations underscores the balance that nations in the Middle East navigate concerning the Israel-Palestine conflict. The constantly evolving nature of the conflict exists in stark contrast to the historically unmovable stances of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the United States – highlighting how the Palestinian question is a linchpin influencing strategic geopolitical decisions in the region and beyond. 

B. Nonpartisan Reasoning

Israel’s military officials voiced their intent to completely eradicate Hamas’s military and government power, though how that goal can be accomplished is still in question. While many Western countries claim to follow liberal international order, much of the Arab World feel that these countries are not upholding the humanitarian aspect of international law.

The UN Agency for aiding refugees, UNRWA, funded by UN Member States and other institutions, has made significant humanitarian efforts in the Gaza Strip. They are the primary facilitators bringing aid from Egypt into Gaza. As of November, they also have facilitated 149 shelters to accommodate approximately 690,000 internally displaced people. Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry has expressed support for UNRWA as well.

Previously, Egypt, with the help of its General Intelligence Service, has been a key mediator in cease-fire operations between Israel and Hamas. The stagnant state of cooperation between Israel and Palestine have deterred countries like Egypt from intervening. The United States urges Egypt to open humanitarian corridors into Egypt, and the Sinai Peninsula in particular. Egypt is concerned that in accepting refugees en masse, Egypt would encourage their forced permanent migration, contributing to the removal of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip. In any case, U.S. President Joe Biden believes a humanitarian “pause” is a feasible next step, allowing prisoners to leave.

Briefly mentioned previously, on November 15th, the UN disclosed their plan to ease civilian suffering in Gaza including humanitarian ceasefire, in hopes that it would make delivering humanitarian aid easier and enable hostage releases. The Emergency Relief Coordinator (ERC) of the UN, Martin Griffiths, believes continuous and reliable aid is necessary, so that civilians can use resources without fear of those resources running out. Since Israeli Authorities have cracked down on fuel in Gaza, and Israeli troops raided Gaza’s largest hospital, Al-Shifa, Gaza has faced a fuel shortage. In response,  the UN Plan discusses bringing adequate fuel to the region so that basic aid operations can continue, and Griffiths wishes to to send 200,000 liters of fuel per day to Gaza, issuing an appeal to do so. 

On the same day, the Security Council passed a resolution with no countries against, 12 in favor, and three abstentions from Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. It demanded Hamas to immediately release all hostages, as well as urging countries to not restrict civilians in Gaza from receiving basic aid as per the rules of international humanitarian law. It also called for humanitarian pauses in Gaza, so that UN agencies can access the area safely.

Policy Options

To bring the Israel-Hamas conflict to an end, the Two State Solution ought to be respected. Specifically, that means a halt to Israel’s efforts to constantly enlarge its present territories through bulldozing or occupying Palestinian settlements in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. 

For Hamas, respecting the Two State solution would necessitate a complete abandonment of its objective of removing Israeli presence in the region and a relinquishment of its means to kidnap, injure or kill Israeli civilians. Internationally, efforts ought to be focused on reducing tensions, facilitating bilateral and multilateral talks, in which both Israeli and Hamas representatives participate, as well as deliveries of sufficient and necessary aid for civilians, and holding the unilateral escalator accountable, preferably through economic sanctions or withdrawal of diplomatic recognition. 

Regional stakeholders, like Iran, should also play constructive roles in de-escalating the conflict, and should be treated with the above sanction measures should it decide to intervene in ways contrary to exercising its immense influence over Hamas in a constructive, peaceful manner. 

Nonetheless, hardline, nationalist forces constitute significant shares in both camps, representing barriers facing any peaceful resolution or permanent ceasefire deals between the two sides. It is ultimately up to bilateral talks between the two conflicting sides to reach a permanent peace. While a reconciliation could be agreed upon under the mediation of major powers, such as the Oslo Accords, the willingness to respect such agreement by Hamas — a significantly more bellicose and extreme wing of the Palestinian resistance than the more moderate Fatah — should be doubted. 

Another policy option that Gaza has called for repeatedly is a ceasefire. A ceasefire would put an end to attacks by all parties in the conflict, allowing agencies to distribute aid to afflicted regions. However, a ceasefire has been incredibly difficult to push for, as Hamas and Israel both have different objectives in negotiation. While Hamas wants a complete end to conflict, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netahanyu will only settle for temporary pauses in fighting until Hamas is fully defeated. The United States does not support a ceasefire either, as the U.S. vetoed a U.N. security resolution calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. As of December 2023, Egypt is seeking to broker a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel, with negotiations about which hostages held by Islamist militants in Gaza and which Palestinian prisoners held by Israel could be freed in a truce.