A ceasefire in Gaza remains elusive. Suspending it over concerns of giving
Hamas a chance to regroup is problematic. The current war aims to annihilate
Hamas, but it has left the organization far from dismantled, making the need
for it to regroup unlikely.
اضافة اعلان
Hamas would be relatively unaffected without a ceasefire, while for Palestinian
civilians, it is now a matter of life and death. At this moment, the absence of
a ceasefire is not in their best interest but serves the interests of Israel.
Much of this brief reading will be contested,
depending on views and biases. It is naïve to expect individuals, or states, to
be unbiased in this conflict. To assume otherwise preludes a major gap in
analytical and foreign policy frameworks, at which point resolutions, including
the two-state solution, will be doomed to fail.
The two-state solution does not begin with
Palestine and Israel. It begins when foreign policymakers consider the
complexity of biases, all biases, and their implications on resolutions.
The two-state solution does not begin with Palestine and Israel. It begins when foreign policymakers consider the complexity of biases, all biases, and their implications on resolutions.
What is seen in the West is a tale of two
faces: millions of citizens are calling for a ceasefire and the recognition of
Palestine whereas governments are racing to prove the most support to Israel,
transgressing the sovereignty of their nations, their values, and citizens’
rights in the process.
Fearmongering
Some governments have even disregarded truth
findings before compounding their support, essentially placing blind trust in a
state that currently has little incentive to avoid lies. John Mearsheimer, in
his book Why Leaders Lie: The Truth about Lying in International Politics,
argues that when leaders lie, they rely on fearmongering/threat-inflation and
liberal lies to mask violations of international norms, particularly in times
of war.
Thus, Western governments’ unwillingness to
forge a ceasefire has everything to do with a broken foreign policy framework
that relies on single-input decision-making and serves to amplify one side’s
biases over the other. Oftentimes, this framework is counterproductive to
global actors’ own objectives, since they tend to have vested interest, and
demonstrated action, in attending to both conflicting sides.
For instance, the U.S. is not just Israel’s
biggest supporter, but it is also Palestine’s biggest non-Arab supporter. It
attempts to maintain a double-pivot, quasi-balanced stance in the conflict and
cater to the needs of both sides. The U.S. provides an average of USD 600
million per year in humanitarian support to the Palestinians.
However, Arab public opinion sees a different
image. Early results from a poll currently conducted by NAMA Strategic
Intelligence Solutions show most Jordanians do not think the U.S. provides the
most humanitarian aid to the Palestinians. Rather, the overwhelming majority
believes the U.S. is taking a pro-Israel stance.
A twofold position
This is indicative of strategic messaging
gaps. While the U.S. looks to maintain an image of equity, to equally
representing the interests of both the Palestinians and the Israelis is a
near-impossible task. Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s op-ed “Defending Israel is essential. So is aiding civilians in
Gaza” best
illustrates this twofold position.
Palestinians deserve the same representation
However, his statements in Israel, in which
he identified himself “as Secretary of State, as a Jew, as a husband and a
father,” deviated from that stance. Though he has every right to identify
himself in that manner, the Palestinians, too, deserve a similar level of
understanding, affinity, and representation.
Urging representatives to be unbiased,
especially in the context of this conflict, is unrealistic. This is indicative
of an overlooked failure in mediation frameworks. Even for impartial bodies,
such as the United Nations, the use of one special representative, or an envoy,
to mediate between two conflicting parties does not enjoy a successful track
record. It only takes one party to perceive a mere iota of bias to render the
envoy’s efforts inept.
Thus, in order to overcome, or circumvent,
the inefficacies of this framework, a paradigm shift is imperative to
decentralize and depersonalize foreign policy making – to represent conflicting
parties’ interests by different individuals, whose biases can prove valuable.
Biases can be an asset, only when all biases
are considered. Therefore, instead of placing the burden in the hands of one representative
and expecting them to act fair and unbiased, the use of two envoys can bypass
this challenge.
Looking at the U.S. is home to thousands of
Palestinian and Arab immigrants, and many hold key political and diplomatic
positions, including current State Department Special Representative for
Palestinian Affairs Hady Amr. Someone of such a profile would surely be
welcomed by Palestinians and Arabs, as the face of the pro-Palestine component
of the United States’ double-pivot stance.
Thus, Western governments’ unwillingness to forge a ceasefire has everything to do with a broken foreign policy framework that relies on single-input decision-making and serves to amplify one side’s biases over the other. Oftentimes, this framework is counterproductive to global actors’ own objectives, since they tend to have vested interest, and demonstrated action, in attending to both conflicting sides.
A twofold stance, which ought to be the
objective of a mediator, should be mirrored by the use of two envoys, who can
then channel inputs back to the decision-maker. This can enhance the sense of
affinity among the targeted groups, as they would be able to better connect
with those representing their interests.
When a group feels represented by those who
have their best interest at heart, they become more likely to consider second
and third-best alternatives to their main demands, thereby turning an
inherently zero-sum conflict into a situation more conducive for win-win
scenarios. This applies to the Two-State Solution, the best win-win scenario
brought to the table thus far.
A two-state solution, for one land, requires
a two-envoy effort under one framework, tasked with maintaining a sense of
mutual benefit through the effective representation of interests, relaying
inputs and outcomes back and forth between the group they represent and the
decision maker, who has to consider both inputs equally for such a framework to
be effective. If and when a group’s interests, or suffering, were to be deemed
more important than the other, then there is no discussion to be had, and no resolution
to ever be achieved.
Mohammed Abu
Dalhoum is the president of MENAACTION and a senior research analyst at NAMA
Strategic Intelligence Solutions.
Disclaimer:
Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect Jordan News' point of view.
Read more Opinion and Analysis
Jordan News
.jpg)
.jpg)
