The current, harrowing blood-letting in the Middle-East could be regarded as an acid test of the fair-mindedness and impartiality of not only the immediate parties and stakeholders to the conflict but also those of the entirety of the international community. In fact, the perpetuation of the conflict testifies to the inability of the key adversaries to the dispute to overcome some lingering misperceptions and prejudices that they have had about each other over the decades. These negative attitudes have, in turn, helped shape the core issues in the conflict.

Transcending these mind-barriers has emerged as a key challenge, among other crucial requirements. While the forging of an immediate ceasefire in the Middle East is the most urgent requirement, the world community would sooner rather than later need to grapple once more with the gut issues to the conflict which have proved unresolvable over the decades.

There is a general tendency, in mainly the South, to view the Israelis as the ‘villains of the piece’, and very destructive and obdurate ones at that, but if some progress is to be made towards resolving the Middle East imbroglio by political means, this perception would need to be eased off minds and hearts.

If the Israelis are being seen as ‘land-grabbers’, then, it renders it incumbent on impartial students of the conflict to investigate as to whether this description has a substantial basis to it.

To begin with, as indicated in this column last week, the Israelis, no less than the Palestinians, have been a dispossessed people. History bears this fact out. From ancient times, the Jewish people in the Middle East region, have been more an enslaved and conquered community rather than a free one. Biblical history, for one, gives proof of this. The Jews did occupy territories of their own in what is described today as the Middle East, but they were often defeated in war and taken into slavery by some of the big powers of those times; the Egyptians and Assyrians, for example.

This does not give the Israelis priority rights over land in the Middle East of today, but it would prove sensible to bear in mind that they too have a case of landlessness, so to speak, to consider. Overall, it is a democratic solution that takes into consideration the legitimate needs of the communities or ethnicities concerned that would lay the basis for a political solution to the conflict, but simplistic labeling of the social groups concerned would prove highly counter-productive in the peace-building effort. This is a cardinal requirement in this connection that deserves recognition and fulfilment.

However, going forward, it would prove conducive to a political solution to recognize that the Israelis, no less than the Palestinians, are a nation. That is, they bear a distinct cultural and religious identity, for instance, that entitles them to an independent state. It is this principle that lends legitimacy to the ‘Two State’ solution. It is Israeli nationhood that provides legitimacy to the Balfour Declaration of 1917 as well, which essentially makes a case for a ‘National home for the Jewish people.’

The ‘Two State’ formula has won recognition from considerable sections of the world community over the years as a sound enough basis for a political solution in the Middle East but it is plain to see that it is yet to be accepted by the entirety of the Palestinian polity or even the totality of the Israeli state. However, the fact is that the ‘Two State’ solution has won wide recognition as a viable solution and has played a substantial role in the formation of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, which until about 30 years ago was another storm centre in the Middle East conflict.

As mentioned by this columnist previously, what remains to be done is for the main stakeholders to the conflict, including the UN, to help demarcate acceptable geographical boundaries for the envisaged ‘Two States’. Needless to say, this has proved the main stumbling block to working out of a mutually-acceptable Middle East solution.

The immediate priority, though, for the international community is to put a halt to the unfolding and mind-numbing violence centred on the Gaza strip. Needless to say, the ordinary people on both sides of the divide are suffering ineffably and all sections seeking to play a positive role in the region are obliged to give of their best to end the suffering of the relevant civilian populations.

In fact, peace negotiations are unthinkable in the present, unprecedented blood-letting. Accordingly, ending the violence in the Middle East emerges as the foremost priority for the world community. It stands to reason that the longer this task is delayed, the less amenable will be the main sides to political negotiations, given that animosities would grow exponentially within the main groups in proportion to the violence unleashed.

At the time of writing, the news is that US President Joe Biden would be undertaking a visit to Israel with the express intention of helping to open a ‘Humanitarian Corridor’ in the areas of violence. This is to enable the civilians of the Gaza to be provided food, medicine and other forms of material assistance.

The US initiative is bound to win wide approval but the Biden administration is also obliged to bring pressure on the Netanyahu government of Israel to seek a political solution to the conflict. The US should also look to end the Israeli naval blockade on the Gaza, given that the suffering of Palestinian civilians needs to be ended.

Equally importantly, the Biden administration should seek to contain the expansion of Israeli settlements in currently contested territories. If the US and other allies of Israel are looking to give the ‘Two State’ solution a chance, what are described as Jewish settlement activities need to be brought under control. This will render easier the demarcation of permanent land boundaries of the envisaged two states. In fact the freezing of Jewish land settlements would be key to reducing hostilities between the adversarial sides.

However, the road ahead to peace in the Middle East is an extremely rocky one. All external quarters, with an interest in the wellbeing of the Middle East, would need to play a highly constructive role in the region if a negotiated solution is to be made possible. The external backers of the adversaries are specially obliged to enable their sides to see the merit in a political solution, rather than a military one. The latter approach, it ought to be clear now, could only bring the sides closer to mutual-annihilation.