Is peace in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip possible? -Andrew Ye

“I was terrified. I didn't make any noise. And I prayed for any god -- I didn't really care which god -- I just prayed for a god that they won't find me."

The words of Rothem Mathias, a teenager, reflect the plight of thousands of innocents, Palestinian and Israeli, caught amidst a violent conflict spanning generations with no end in sight. It begs the question - is peace in Gaza and the West Bank possible? 

Throughout history, this land has been both a cause and prize for violence, death and destruction. Modern day weapons have increased the efficiency of the killing, which is now captured and shared globally in unprecedented detail thanks to modern day broadcasting and social media. This begs the question; is peace in the West Bank and Gaza Strip possible? Despite the evidence of the past 75 years, the answer must remain yes - without equivocation or qualification. However, the current climate has made an already challenging process appear insurmountable. Achieving a lasting peace, and preventing history from repeating itself, requires active engagement from external parties, economic and social frameworks to be built, and the emergence of more moderate voices on all sides. In order to outline what a potential peace process could look like, it is necessary to define the key terms. “Peace” will be defined as a long lasting agreement between two or more parties that allows them to coexist harmoniously, from trade to the intertwining of cultures. At a minimum, it is an absence of conflict or hostility, but in practice, lasting peace works best when parties adopt a friendly attitude towards each other. The other key term specific to the situation in the West Bank and Gaza is “Zionism”; this will be taken to mean the movement to create a state for Jews. 

Peace efforts in the West Bank and Gaza face deep rooted, multi-faced hurdles across religious, economic and geo-political dimensions. At its core, the conflict is centered around the control of Jerusalem, a religiously significant city in both Islam and Judaism. Access to and control over this city holds special symbolic and religious meaning, and also provides meaningful economic opportunities to capitalize on religious tourism. Both Palestinians and Jews believed that occupation meant control, therefore, both flooded the area around the city and within the city itself. This was especially prominent in the late 19th century, when two concepts were born out of this race to occupy Jerusalem. Zionism and Arab Nationalism movements saw a major rise in participation, both movements wanting control of Jerusalem as well. As the amount of people moving began to increase, so did the tension between these two movements. In 1948, Israel was established as the state of Jews. Although Palestine had yet to be established, many in the Arab Nationalism movement, including regional power brokers Saudi Arabia and Egypt, felt Arabs were already the rightful occupants of that land. While Israel achieved formal recognition and international legitimacy, thousands of inhabitants ended up stranded in the other’s “territory”, with an estimated 500,000 Jewish Israelis living in the West Bank today. That has led to regular skirmishes, with Arab states often covertly backing and funding attacking or even engaging directly in larger-scale conflicts such as in 1967. The October 2023 terrorist attack by Hamas, and full-scale Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip in response, has contributed to a general sense of pessimism towards arriving at a long-standing peace arrangement in the near future. 

Peace attempts in the past have achieved different levels of progress, particularly after periods of relative stability - however, all have ultimately proved unsuccessful.  Dividing the land, commonly referred to as a two-state solution, is often seen as both the most practical remedy, but is not politically viable amongst key demographics in both Israel and Palestine wielding influence today. Arguably the most advanced, if ultimately futile effort, was the 1993 Oslo Accords, where Palestine and Israel reached an agreement intermediated by the UN. This agreement did not last long as none of the goals set by the UN were met. Both Israel and Palestine had different interpretations over key elements of the deal, from the pausing of future settlements to improved economic development. Another example of a failed attempt at peace was the Camp David Accords. Despite the US leading a multilateral coalition of countries to facilitate the peace process, it proved to be unsuccessful, with neither side able to agree on the eventual status of Jerusalem. Crucially, neither Israel nor Palestine suffered any material consequences in terms of aid and support when the peace was not kept; pressure from external parties alone cannot lead to a true peace.

In order to achieve long-lasting peace, there must be a common understanding between both Palestinians and Jews. On a human level, Palestinians and Jews must be afforded the same rights, which is not the case today. This means domestic policy makers must enshrine equitable housing and citizenship laws and provide equal economic opportunities, with the international community acting as a guarantor. This will naturally facilitate more communication at the ground level, and help the respective populations better understand others’ perspectives and religious views. After this equity is achieved, it becomes important to establish consequences of not maintaining the peace. This provides an impact and an incentive for both sides to respect peace agreements. A peace agreement that is long lasting has no time limit. It becomes the new status quo. Previous peace attempts have been more enforced than internalized which has always led to violence. In order for there to be peace, there must be a foundation. 

The engagement of external parties to regulate and establish terms has often led to limited progress, but has never been fully successful over a long-period of time. This raises questions as to the efficacy of involving other countries. The verdict? Peace needs internal stakeholders to be fully on-board with any agreement. Instead, when external parties try to enforce ‘peace’, this only escalates the damage and ill-will. To maintain peace, external countries simultaneously engage in trust-building exercises, and use threats of sanctions or war to tame more extreme viewpoints. While this incentivizes peace in the short term, the moment that these countries take a step back and get rid of these threats, the region is no longer peaceful. For example, the UN had been an enforcer of peace in the West Bank and Gaza Strip for years. However, after recent events like COVID, Russia-Ukraine war, the UN has diverted its attention to other global issues. External parties will rightfully always have to manage competing priorities, and therefore relying solely on their engagement to achieve peace is onerous and impractical. Instead, the role that external parties should play is to act as trust builders and bring both Israeli and Palestinian authorities to the negotiating table. Attempts to arrive at a ceasefire in exchange for a release of hostages have relied on Egypt, Qatar, and the United States pressuring Israeli and Palestinian delegations. However, internal political dynamics have limited progress on a long lasting peace deal, despite the efforts of external countries.

External countries’ influence is limited because in this conflict, religious and cultural considerations trump economic ones. Economic sanctions are often an effective tool to condition and influence a country’s behavior, as it can completely stifle economic development and create domestic unrest. However, in Israel’s case, the non-violent but controversial Boycott Divest and Sanctions (BDS) movement has only had limited impact.  Many individuals and countries, including the US, limited their involvement with BDS over concerns of appearing anti-semitic and the policy backfiring. Despite starting decades ago, research suggests that only 16% of US adults were aware of the movement and only 5% supported it. On the other side, sanctions against Hamas are not seen as meaningful given the already crippled state of Palestine’s economy. Ultimately, this conflict has seen religious and cultural considerations trump economic ones, which is why external parties have had less sway in dictating an outcome.

However, returning economic vibrancy to the region is necessary to ensure the peace is long lasting. Firstly, through an economic standpoint. Both the infrastructure and economy will need to be rebuilt, with external countries providing aid for the rebuilding of infrastructure. However, both Israel and Palestine should not become aid-dependent. Palestine in particular needs to become self-sufficient. Palestine's GDP before the conflict was around 1500$ USD per year, the lowest amongst countries. After the war is over, Palestine’s infrastructure will have collapsed. In order to rebuild the economy and reduce the influence of terrorist organizations like Hamas, there needs to be a high-level, three step plan for the region. First, restoring dignity to the people of Gaza, providing food, shelter, clothes, and medical assistance. Although the UN has already gathered ~$1.1 billion for this, the amount needed will continue to rise as the conflict continues. Providing such necessities isn't a one time cost either, and there is a risk that external parties will lose the stamina, interest and economic wherewithal to continue their funding. Organizations like Hamas are able to prey on the domestic population suffering in poverty by promising things will get better, or simply taking control by force. Therefore, implementing a Universal Basic Income (UBI) would allow for sustenance for these essential needs until the economy can be self-sustaining. Second, the rebuilding of Palestinian infrastructure. This will be a multi-year, multi-billion dollar operation given the scale of the bombing and violence that has taken place. International assistance will be vital in providing the material, technical know-how, and equipment to rebuild much of Gaza; thankfully, the West Bank has not experienced the same level of destruction to date. A UBI will be needed to ensure that local Palestinans are able to live with some dignity and afford basic goods while the state is literally being re-built, as following the brain-drain and physical destruction, the GDP of Palestine will remain close to negligible in the immediate aftermath of the conflict. In order to foster productivity, there must be a way to restart the engine of the Palestinian economy and foreign construction companies should be encouraged to make longer-term investments and commitments to the region. Thirdly, economic investment needs to occur alongside state building reforms, as governance issues and historic widespread corruption amongst Palestinian movements have hindered previous economic development efforts. If Palestine is economically empowered and governed responsibly, there will be less likelihood of a shift towards extremist organizations. As a result, achieving economic autonomy will reduce the chances of a future conflict, and is a necessary condition to achieving a true, long-lasting peace. 

The West Bank and Gaza Strip have been regions of conflict throughout history. However, today’s documentation of every minutiae of violence in the region is unprecedented. Through both social media and traditional news channels, the atrocities committed in these regions and the impact on innocent civilians have been broadcast to the entire world, inflaming different stakeholders. It is not that the region itself is more dangerous than before. Rather, the human and economic costs of a failure to establish real peace in this region are more visible to the world. A long lasting agreement between Israel and Palestine that allows them to coexist in harmony, from trade to the intertwining of cultures, is possible. Through this agreement between Israel and Palestine, peace can be achieved in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. External parties, including key stakeholders such as the USA, Saudi Arabia and the United Nations must create the framework for real peace talks, but cannot and should not act as long-term security guarantors and aid providers. Instead, efforts should focus on establishing economic conditions, such as a universal basic income, that will allow Palestine and Israel to develop a meaningful trading relationship. Creating long-term economic interdependence and a path towards growth, prosperity and a long lasting peace. Discussions of long term peace have always been hypotheticals. For the sake of Rothem Mathias, and millions more like him, it is time those hypotheticals become reality.