The ceasefire between Israel and Hamas and the apparent temporary end of hostilities suggests that there is a need to consider what is right and/or wrong with the leadership within all parties directly or indirectly involved in the conflict. Stability between Gaza and Israel; coexistence among Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and their neighbors; geopolitical balance especially vis-à-vis Iran; and the role of the United States are on the table. Leaders need to be focused on all these issues, but ultimately it will require all interested parties to do more about the problem than merely throwing money at the humanitarian plight of the Palestinian people.
The leadership of the Palestinian people is appalling. The PA has no functioning leader. Mahmoud Abbas is an 85-year-old President who cannot proceed with elections on the West Bank because he knows his Fatah party will be defeated by Hamas, a terrorist organization. There are no rising, respected leaders within the PA who could even challenge Hamas. The Palestinians in the street of the West Bank recognize that they are best off--in every regard--when there are no military upheavals. The people tolerate the political corruption as part of their way of life, but they still have a better lifestyle both economically and socially than their Palestinian brothers and sisters in Gaza. Most of them recognize that a military confrontation with Israel will only kill innocent civilians. As for Hamas, as a terrorist group pledged to destroy Israel, they use civilians as weapons shields, and have no interest in promoting an improved economy. Hamas as well lacks serious leadership.
Israel is still led by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. The country has endured four elections in two years. Netanyahu has been in court now facing three major corruption trials. He understands that he must remain in power to avoid having to fully address what might eventually face him in the courtroom. At the same time, Netanyahu is the only national figure around whom enough of the varied political groups on the right and center-right can politically coalesce. There are no alternative figures in Israel who have emerged to lead Israel out of the throes of a pathetic political log-jam. Understandably—and to Bibi’s good fortune—the renewed Gaza confrontation only improved his political standing as a fifth election looms more likely than ever. The current state of the Israeli electorate has moved even more noticeably to the right since the outbreak of hostilities.
Any hope that had existed of involving Israeli Arabs in a Government—which appeared very close before the confrontation—now seems impossible. When 4000 rockets are launched at civilian targets, the Israeli public has every right to be angry. They are only grateful that the rockets were not being launched by Hezbollah which has far more sophisticated guidance systems and could attack directly Israeli population centers.
Egypt was effective in handling the public side of the ceasefire arrangements with apparently some help from Jordan, while the U.S.—with no diplomatic relations with Hamas—apparently operated telephonically on the sidelines. The balance of the Arab world was satisfied to stand back and watch.
The absence of leadership in the Arab world for the Palestinian people continues to be shocking. Since 1948, Arab states have not championed or supported the cause of their own people except with some intermittent, vague lip service. They have not interceded to try to facilitate the creation of viable political institutions. Arab sovereign regional leaders remain happy to permit the international community to care for the Palestinians. Many Arab leaders—especially the oil rich Gulf States and particularly the Arab signatories to the Abraham Accords—fear that the continued growth of an educated liberalizing society and a people who are not as religiously conservative, like the Palestinians, eventually might induce their own people to go to the streets to demand genuine social change.
President Biden demonstrated extraordinary patience in managing U.S. involvement in the conflict and rightfully ignoring the simplistic pro-Palestinian calls from progressive Democrats which gave no nuance or context to their urgings. The President gave Israel enough time to reset the situation in Gaza, but not too much time to launch a land operation by the IDF which would have been catastrophic. He allowed the progressive wing of the Democratic Party to vent and demand action, without wasting too much political capital. Biden demonstrated the wisdom of a veteran leader, far better than any other of the players in the region or at home. Furthermore, the President totally avoided getting caught up in the false analogy of the Palestinians’ cause and refugees’ plight with anti-imperialism, BLM, and DEI rhetoric. Biden recognized that he had enormous domestic challenges as well as bigger global issues on which he needed party support, therefore he made clear to the Israelis the limits to his patience. He wanted to be able to attend the G-7 meeting in London on June 7, operating from as strong a position as possible. At the same time, he needed to press forward with the Administration’s agenda to move ahead with its infrastructure bill, establish a January 6 investigative commission, as well as the entire fiscal 2022 budget.
The region is bereft of serious leaders who are willing and able to sit down and work on a true modus vivendi. This is the starkest consequence of the recent hostilities between the Palestinians and the Israelis. There needs ultimately to be either a two-state solution, a single state, a confederation, or an alternative option to the persistent conflict. Alternatively, the parties will be back on the battlefield sooner rather than later. The next time it could involve a multiple front war with even Iran actively engaged in the conflict.
Comments