The three-phase ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas is in critical condition with the collapse of phase one over the weekend, though it is not moribund. Neither side has repudiated the plan, and a summit of the Arab League taking place in Cairo on Tuesday aims to breathe new life into conversations about “the day after” the war ends. If it can paint an enticing enough picture of what that looks like, the hope is both sides and their chief interlocutor America will push harder to manifest “the day before”.
And yet, Israel’s Ministry of Defence is already spoiling for a new fight, this time in Syria. The pretext for a possible Israeli intervention there was laid out by the ministry on Sunday after weekend clashes between Syria’s new rulers, mainly derived from the militant group HTS, and militias from the country’s Druze community in Jaramana, a Damascus suburb. “If the [Syrian] regime harms the Druze,” the Israeli statement said, “it will be harmed by us.”
Community tensions in Syria were perhaps inevitable, given HTS’s sudden sweep to power and the infancy of the country’s reconciliation process after more than a decade of civil war. An Israeli intervention, however, is not. Nor would it be helpful – no Druze leaders have called for Israeli support, and some have even warned it is part of a “plot” to divide Syria.
The suspicion is warranted. Last month, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar accused Turkey of using its influence with Syria’s new rulers to create a new front against Israel. Last week, reports emerged of a meeting between US and Israeli officials in which the latter urged Washington to allow Russia to keep its Syrian military bases.
There is no shortage of commitment to peace on the Arab side. All four of Israel’s Arab neighbours – Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and even Syria under HTS – have repeatedly said they want stable relations with it on the basis of a mutual respect for sovereignty. Israel must start to behave as though it feels the same and extend that principle to Palestinians.
As must Washington. Global attention was focused over the weekend on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy being chastised in the White House on Friday for seeking security guarantees in advance of talks with Russia to end his country’s war. This new American foreign policy doctrine of “peace first, guarantees later” does not seem to apply to Israel, which appears free to carry on fighting with American financial backing as its diplomats resist talks for phase two of the ceasefire or wider peace talks and instead are speaking of opening a new front.
In this context, the Cairo summit is even more important. All countries in the region, and the US, should be focused on ending conflicts rather than creating new ones. Grand, hopeful visions are needed, if only to give negotiators some direction. Arab states are already united in their support for Palestine and ending the Gaza war through the Arab Peace Initiative, which involves a sovereign Palestinian state in exchange for establishing ties with Israel.
The task ahead for the summit’s attendees is to show how this plan remains relevant despite the many developments that have taken place since its inception in 2002, with new details including Gaza reconstruction and Palestinian post-war governance. Washington must understand that the ideal solution is the most obvious one: not Israeli expansionism or Palestinian militancy, but Palestinians and Israelis living side by side, in peace, with two states.
