The Day After… or the Point of No Return

Ammon

27-05-2025

Ziad Al Majali - Former Jordanian Ambassador Since the beginning of last year, I've hesitated to write under this title. I believed that objective logic would ultimately prevail—that decision-makers would recognize the danger of approaching a point of no return. That such a scenario could unleash human tragedies that transcend geography and defy the boundaries of both international law and fundamental human values.
Most political leaders—both in our region and globally—have been closely observing the events of October 7, 2023, and the devastation that followed in Gaza. The destruction of life and land that spilled over, albeit more discreetly, into parts of the West Bank. These leaders, along with political analysts, were all waiting for a rational formula to emerge: a concept of "the day after" the Gaza War. A formula that would end the violence and humanitarian suffering, rebuild what was lost—not just in infrastructure and development, but in the shattered trust in peace itself— and reestablish a foundation stronger than that promised by the Oslo Accords. A foundation that could lead to a true and lasting peace in the Middle East—one that fulfills the vision both Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat shared when they signed the 'Peace of the Brave' in 1993.
I was one of those observers. I tried to override my memory of Israel's current prime minister, one I began forming back when he appeared on American television as Israel's permanent representative to the UN in the mid-1980s. Even then, it was clear to me that he could never be part of a peace equation based on Oslo, for he belonged to an ideological school that did not recognize any rights for Palestinians.
Yet, even as I evaluated the alternative—the 'point of no return'—I saw that it was rooted in either a civilizational or religious conflict. Both run deep in human consciousness, and both can logically lead to a zero-sum equation. And when this zero-sum mentality is tied to religion or culture, it becomes enduring. In other words, the attempt to erase Palestinian presence and rights on historic Palestinian land—Netanyahu's dream, shared by Ben Gvir, Smotrich, and Katz—will always keep the door open to an Israeli-Arab conflict, and more dangerously, to a cross-border Jewish-Islamic clash.
Peace-loving nations around the world—including Jordan and its Hashemite leadership—have long warned that an unrelenting war in Gaza could spark uncontrollable regional escalations. And reality has, in principle, validated those concerns: Hezbollah joined the fight, followed by the Houthis, and now we face a full-blown famine in Gaza. This alone could open further doors to regional destruction—destruction that may transcend borders.
Still, when one dares to be optimistic and leans away from the 'point of no return'—from a zero- sum conflict between Israelis and Palestinians—toward imagining 'the day after,' the concept of peace begins to re-emerge. It offers not only the possibility of peace, but of prosperity and development throughout the Middle East. Yet what stands in the way is an international narrative
that claims there can be no peace—no 'day after'—as long as Hamas exists on the ground and holds influence.
This view, however, must be assessed objectively. Because the current extremist Israeli leadership itself cannot be a partner even for the beginnings of such a vision. The ideology of this leadership is the same that led to the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin.
So now, as Gaza teeters on the brink—threatening the security and stability of the Middle East and the world—we must ask: Is there still room for out-of-the-box thinking to save human life, and preserve regional peace as a gateway to broader, global peace efforts?
In my estimation, if many international analysts and observers believe there can be no out-of-the- box solutions while Hamas remains, then it is equally valid to conclude—based on the current Israeli government's positions—that no such thinking is possible unless the Israeli voter quickly reevaluates their stance on the political fate of their leaders.
Israel's allies—from Washington to several European capitals—have a role to play. They must send clear messages to the Israeli electorate, encouraging them to seek new leadership capable of steering the country toward a future of real peace.
Trump's promise to Arab voters in Michigan during his election campaign—that he would bring peace to the Middle East—and his recent repetition of that promise ahead of his Gulf tour, give Washington a greater opportunity to shape the Israeli political landscape. Especially now, as Washington seems convinced of what many of us have long warned: that Netanyahu sees the continuation of this war—even at the cost of innocent civilian lives—as his only guarantee against being cast into the margins of Israeli history.
The more pressing question, after the massacres and misery endured by the people of Gaza and parts of the West Bank, and the explosive anger brewing across the Arab and Islamic worlds, is this: Is it still possible to imagine a formula that could ease cultural tensions and halt the spiral of conflict?
Here, I return to a sliver of optimism—recalling the atmosphere of the First Intifada. It's worth remembering that Yitzhak Rabin, then Minister of Defense and later Prime Minister, was once the architect of the 'broken bones' policy during the Intifada. Yet when regional and international circumstances aligned, it was Rabin himself who became the hero of the Peace of the Brave with President Arafat.
But Rabin's mindset in seeking peace is nothing like Netanyahu's. The latter is searching for a place 'under the sun' while rejecting the Palestinian right to exist—and even worse, seeks geographic expansion at the expense of Arab nations that are UN member states, in accordance with a Zionist vision that his supporters openly champion.
In truth, there is no ordinary Israeli who wishes to sleep under the constant threat of drone and missile attacks. No fleet of fighter jets, nor American aircraft carriers stationed in the Eastern Mediterranean, can provide lasting peace of mind.
The average Israeli knows deep down that the most secure, cost-effective, and sustainable peace is one anchored in mutual recognition. A peace built with a neighbor who shares the right to live safely on their own land, in their own home, under their own roof.
And so, despite the pain, bloodshed, destruction, and the blatant violations of international humanitarian law, I come to this conclusion: The international community—particularly in the capitals of global decision-making—must not lose hope for out-of-the-box solutions. We cannot allow this current moment to poison the cultural and political consciousness of new generations of Israelis—who, since 1996, have been raised in an environment increasingly divorced from the ideals of peace. Nor can we ignore the natural, reactive rise of movements like Hamas in response.
Instead, we must push for a peace built on clear foundations, rooted in truth, structured on timelines, and defined by objective principles. A peace that future generations—not tanks or warplanes—will be motivated and inspired to defend.