The road to Middle East peace runs through Palestine
As civilians in Israel and Iran contend with the horrific realities of war, many trying to get out of urban centres, another group of non-combatants has nowhere to hide as nightly air strikes take their deadly toll. It was reported at the weekend that Israeli strikes in Gaza killed at least 57 people, with the Palestinian enclave's health authorities saying at least five people were killed on Sunday near aid sites operated by the US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation.
These deaths are just the latest in nearly 20 months of bombardments against a territory with no sirens, air-raid shelters or even functioning infrastructure. Indeed, the continuing immiseration of more than two million people presents a very different picture of conflict to the aerial war taking place between Israel and Iran. The surprise attacks by Israel and the subsequent Iranian retaliation in many ways reflect Israel's image of itself – that of a small country audaciously striking first at an existential threat in a hostile region.
But the region is not hostile in the way the Israeli narrative claims. Dozens of Arab and Muslim countries have repeatedly stated that they are willing to establish ties and develop security relationships with Israel in return for halting the war in Gaza, ending the military occupation of Palestinian land, finding a just solution to the Palestinian refugee issue and working towards a two-state solution.
Indeed, it is a bitter irony that a high-level UN conference on Palestinian statehood planned for this week has been postponed by its organisers because of the conflict that is being fought in the Middle East's skies. Although derailing an international meeting on a two-state solution may suit Israeli leaders opposed to such a settlement, the fact remains that the country's best guarantee of security is full integration into its neighbourhood through a just political settlement with the Palestinians.
Instead of establishing security, this escalation gives Tehran the excuse of self-defence with which to continue developing its nuclear programme in defiance of international opinion
But the UN conference is not the only talks process to suffer. The escalating attacks between Iran and Israel scuttled nuclear negotiations between the US and Iran that were supposed to take place last weekend in Oman. The war is also likely to produce discord rather than consensus at the G7 meeting taking place in Canada. Ali Vaez, Iran Project director at the International Crisis Group, told The National on Sunday that he did not expect the summit to yield any significant movement towards peace, in part because of the countries' refusal to criticise or condemn Israel's acts of aggression against Tehran.
Instead of establishing security, this escalation potentially gives Tehran the excuse of self-defence with which to continue developing its nuclear programme in defiance of international opinion. In addition, it undermines the possibility of Israeli security guarantees that would be based on its regional relationships and instead of dependency on the US. Without a political end to the Palestinian-Israel conflict, the region's future looks like what is presently unfolding – a precarious place beset by managed conflict that threatens to break out into damaging rounds of violence. In the long run, the road to Middle East peace runs through Palestine.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Middle East Eye
44 minutes ago
- Middle East Eye
Israel's war on Iran: Why the UK must stay out
For three decades, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been telling the world that Iran is on the cusp of joining the nuclear weapons club. He has obsessed about bombing it, engaging in a full-scale war, and bringing about regime change. In 2002, Netanyahu pressed the US and others to invade Iraq, on the falsehood that it had a nuclear weapons programme. He proclaimed how much safer the region would be in evidence to the US Congress. 'If you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region,' Netanyahu said. 'And I think that people sitting right next door in Iran, young people, and many others, will say the time of such regimes, of such despots is gone.' As ever, it is best to ignore Netanyahu's advice. The Anglo-US war on Iraq and its subsequent occupation ended Washington's period as the world's sole hyper-power. It paved the way for Iran to dominate not just Iraq, but Syria and Lebanon too. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters It allowed al-Qaeda to prosper and open a new murderous front in Iraq, and it saw the genesis of the Islamic State group, which took over much of Iraq and Syria for a period of time, and mounted deadly attacks across Europe and elsewhere. Fast forward to 2015, when Netanyahu was in Congress hammering former President Barack Obama's Iran nuclear deal, the one mechanism that could limit Iranian nuclear ambitions and put its facilities under detailed and intensive supervision and monitoring. He then persuaded President Donald Trump to rip up the deal in 2018. Had that deal been adhered to, war with Iran would not be happening today. It was not Iran that pulled out of the agreement, but the US. War of choice On Iraq, Netanyahu pressed the US to do the job while Israel watched. This time, he opted to make a pre-emptive strike not on Iran, but on any chance of a viable US-Iranian nuclear deal. By attacking Iran, he is trying to engineer the necessary conditions to suck in the US and its European allies. Netanyahu promotes the line that Iran is days away from a nuclear bomb, without providing precise evidence for this claim. What we do know is that the latest assessment by the US director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, this past March found that 'Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader [Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei has not authorised the nuclear weapons programme that he suspended in 2003'. There was time for diplomacy to resolve the issue. But already, the UK looks to be falling for this. Prime Minister Keir Starmer's government wisely started by calling for de-escalation, but this line has faltered. Ministers are talking about backing Israel's right to self-defence, a complete inversion of the objective reality. Netanyahu has a coterie of useful idiots on both sides of the Atlantic willing to echo and amplify his every warlike utterance It was Israel that unilaterally launched major strikes on Iran, almost certainly a violation of international law and a crime of aggression. This was a war of choice, and the choice was Netanyahu's. The UK was not even given prior warning. Israel's attacks might have incapacitated Iran's nuclear and ballistic-missile programmes for a time, but more likely, this will drive Tehran to pursue both as a priority for its own preservation. Netanyahu has a coterie of useful idiots on both sides of the Atlantic willing to echo and amplify his every warlike utterance. Very few of them demonstrate any sophisticated understanding of the Middle East, let alone the countries targeted for bombing and invasion. In the UK, former Prime Minister Boris Johnson is goading Starmer with the childish argument that his government is 'so weak they make Neville Chamberlain look positively robust'. Starmer has dispatched additional British military assets to the region and will not rule out a deployment in defence of Israel. Even by saying this, the UK government has lurched - without proper strategic assessment or parliamentary debate - closer towards a war that it should stay well clear of. Bulldozing red lines If British forces are deployed to defend Israel, they would be actively facilitating the attacks on Iran. This is how Tehran and others would see it. Britain would not only be complicit, but it would have zero influence on Israel's aggression against Iran, or whether it was in accordance with international law. Imagine, as Israel has done repeatedly in Gaza and Lebanon, that Israeli bombs took out civilian infrastructure, including power stations and waterworks. A complaint from Starmer or his foreign secretary, David Lammy, would not stop the next round of Israeli bombing. UK military assistance might start out with the intent of just knocking out Iranian drones and missiles. But it would not end there. Iran would not hesitate in responding, and it could include British targets as a result. If Britain dips its toes into the bloody waters, before long, it will be up to its neck. If British targets are hit and personnel killed, then British forces would soon be in active participation against Iranian targets as part of a war that Netanyahu orchestrated. The Iraq play book is back for Israel's attack on Iran. But it fools no one Read More » Above all, the UK should not be treating Israel in any way, shape or form as an ally. This Israeli government, as it prosecutes a war on Iran, is simultaneously carrying out a genocide in Gaza. It has bulldozed through every red line. It has systematically destroyed all of Gaza's healthcare system, forcibly displaced almost the entire population of two million people, and openly used starvation as a weapon of war. Its ministers have routinely and without consequence uttered chilling genocidal comments, calling for the annihilation and destruction of Gaza - a threat that is being played out every single day. One hopes that this is not a government with whom the UK shares interests or values. Starmer claims to support international law, but allies himself with a state that the International Court of Justice is investigating for genocide. Netanyahu is wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity. He is, as so many leaders have found out over decades, a brazen liar and deeply untrustworthy. Staying out of this conflict would not be weakness, but a wise choice to avoid a reckless gamble on a war pursued by a leader desperate to save his own skin and political future. The UK should take the lead in returning to a rules-based international order where war is the last resort. It is not de-escalation that is required, but credible conflict resolution, secured with iron-clad diplomatic deals to end the Iran-Israel war and the genocide in Gaza. The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
Gulf Today
an hour ago
- Gulf Today
G7 urges Middle East de-escalation as Trump makes hasty summit exit
G7 leaders on Monday called for "de-escalation" in the Middle East starting with the Israel-Iran conflict, as US President Donald Trump hastily left the group's summit. Trump, who was making his return to the international diplomatic calendar, departed the gathering in the Canadian Rockies a day early as ally Israel pounded Iran. After a day of statements backing diplomacy, Trump ominously took to social media to sound a warning to people in the Iranian capital, whose population is nearly 10 million. "Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!" he wrote on his Truth Social platform. Having earlier hesitated at backing a joint statement on the crisis, Trump relented during a dinner at a forested lodge under the snow-capped mountains in Kananaskis. From left to right: Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, French President Emmanuel Macron, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, US President Donald Trump, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz pose for a family photo during the Group of Seven (G7) Summit at the Kananaskis Country Golf Course in Kananaskis, Alberta, Canada on Monday. AFP "We urge that the resolution of the Iranian crisis leads to a broader de-escalation of hostilities in the Middle East, including a ceasefire in Gaza," said the joint statement released by Canada. The statement said Israel "has a right to defend itself" and stressed "the importance of the protection of civilians," as the growing attacks kill civilians on both sides. The leaders of the club of industrial democracies -- Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United States -- stated their conviction that Iran "can never have a nuclear weapon." Trump for weeks said he favored diplomacy, and his envoy Steve Witkoff met five times with Iranian envoys, but he quickly backed Israel's strikes and said Tehran's clerical state should have agreed to his terms. At a group photo with fellow G7 leaders before the dinner, Trump said: "I have to be back as soon as I can. I wish I could stay for tomorrow, but they understand, this is big stuff." Donald Trump waves to reporters after leaving the G7 Leaders' Summit. AFP French President Emmanuel Macron suggested the United States was ready to make a diplomatic overture. "There was an offer made for a meeting and an exchange," Macron told reporters. "If the United States can obtain a ceasefire, it is a very good thing," he added. Soon after his early exit, Trump rebuked his French counterpart, accusing Macron of mischaracterizing the reason for his departure. "Publicity seeking President Emmanuel Macron, of France, mistakenly said that I left the G7 Summit, in Canada, to go back to D.C. to work on a 'cease fire' between Israel and Iran," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "Wrong! He has no idea why I am now on my way to Washington, but it certainly has nothing to do with a Cease Fire. Much bigger than that. Whether purposely or not, Emmanuel always gets it wrong. Stay tuned!" Before his decision to leave early was announced, Trump had told reporters: "As soon as I leave here, we're going to be doing something." He has repeatedly declined to say if the United States would participate in Israeli military action, although he has said Washington was not involved in initial strikes and the White House said US forces remained in a defensive posture. Onus on Iran Trump earlier said Iran would be "foolish" not to agree to a negotiated settlement. "It's painful for both parties, but I'd say Iran is not winning this war, and they should talk, and they should talk immediately, before it's too late," Trump told reporters as he met Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. The US president will miss a day of G7 meetings that was expected to include discussions with the leaders of Ukraine and Mexico. Donald Trump arrives for a family photo during the Group of Seven (G7) Summit. AFP Since Friday, Israel has struck major nuclear and military sites and killed leading commanders and nuclear scientists in Iran, which has responded with its own volley of drones and missiles on Israel. Macron voiced objections to what increasingly appeared to be Israel's goal -- toppling the clerical state that took power after the 1979 revolution toppled the pro-Western shah. "All who have thought that by bombing from the outside you can save a country in spite of itself have always been mistaken," he said. Iran, since Trump pulled out of an earlier nuclear deal in 2018, has ramped up uranium enrichment but not yet at levels to create an atomic bomb. Israel is widely known to have nuclear weapons but does not acknowledge them publicly. Tariff talks The summit comes after months of tumult on the global stage since Trump's return to the White House. Seeking to shatter a decades-old US-led global economic order, Trump has vowed sweeping tariffs on friends and foes alike although he has postponed implementation until July 9. But Trump voiced optimism about a resolution with Canada and signed documents with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer to confirm an agreement with Britain. Trump has previously mocked host Canada, stating that the vast but less populated neighbor should become the 51st US state. But Trump has appeared to show more respect to Canada since Carney, a staid former central banker, took over from the more flamboyant Justin Trudeau in March. Trump had taken office seeking diplomacy both on Iran and Ukraine, which Russia invaded in 2022. He has since voiced frustration that Russian President Vladimir Putin has not accepted a US proposal for a ceasefire. Agence France-Presse
Zawya
2 hours ago
- Zawya
Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC): Human rights violations could amount to war crimes, UN experts say
In the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Rwandan-backed rebels, Congolese troops, and allied militias have all committed human rights abuses, some possibly amounting to war crimes, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said in Geneva on Monday. Volker Türk told the Human Rights Council that the investigation and analysis undertaken by his office, OHCHR, had revealed 'an apparent total disregard for the protection of civilians during and after military operations.' The OHCHR's Fact-Finding Mission in the eastern DRC is also investigating other alleged violations of international humanitarian law, 'many of which may amount to war crimes,' he said. Arbitrary Arrests After capturing cities and villages in early 2025, the M23 Rwanda-backed rebels arbitrarily arrested police officers and large numbers of other civilians, including children, the UN human rights office reported. According to witnesses, those captured were, and are, still being held in 'inhumane conditions,' and many were forcibly recruited into the ranks of the M23. The Mission is also investigating alleged arbitrary arrests and enforced disappearances of suspected M23 supporters by the military intelligence arm of the DRC armed forces. Extrajudicial Killings OHCHR also reported that members of the M23 carried out summary and extrajudicial executions, which likely amount to war crimes, said Mr. Türk. The Mission is also investigating alleged summary executions by members of the DRC armed forces and DRC-backed Wazalendo militias. UN human rights is also investigating reports of death threats, detention and other reprisals against human rights defenders, journalists, and members of civil society perceived as critical of the M23; including the alleged killings of at least two activists. Sexual Violence The Mission received reports of 'horrific' use of sexual violence by all parties as a means of reprisal against communities, relatives of perceived opponents, and people from other ethnic groups, said Mr. Türk. In North and South Kivu, nearly 40 per cent of survivors of sexual and gender-based violence are children. The UN International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF) estimated that during the most intense phase of the conflict, a child was raped every 30 minutes. Mr. Türk called on 'all parties to the conflict to commit immediately to a ceasefire and resume negotiations, and to respect international humanitarian and human rights law.' Distributed by APO Group on behalf of UN News.
