As the horrific news coming out of Gaza continues, and the international backlash against it has intensified, it seems some in the British establishment are deciding it’s better not to stay on the wrong side of this war forever. On Dec. 7, the City of London weekly The Economist posted an article titled: “Israel and Palestine: How Peace Is Possible,” which lays out their proposal for a long term peace between the two countries.
The proposal isn’t much to speak of, and mostly patches together an assortment of already-existing proposals such as the Abraham Accords, as well as the notion that trade agreements paired with more rights and freedoms for Palestinians can slowly build a stable relationship. They begin by stating that “If Israel permanently relies on its army to subjugate the Palestinians, it would become an apartheid-enforcing pariah.” Therefore: “For two peoples locked in a violent embrace, peace is the only deliverance.”
The article stresses that “new leaders with a new vision” are required, both in Israel and in Palestine. These leaders will “have to take on their own extremists, who would sabotage coexistence.” In Israel, this means Netanyahu must go, he is “an obstacle to genuine reconciliation,” while in Palestine, “The [Palestinian Authority] must shut down armed groups, foil terrorists and tackle corruption.”
How to initiate all this? It must involve the outside world, and this time the Arab world should play a decisive role. ("Under Oslo, America was the sponsor, but it struggled to exert pressure on Israel, which can muster formidable support in Congress,” The Economist notes.) As more Arab countries recognize Israel, as envisioned under the Abraham Accords, trade and prosperity can grow in the region. In that way, Arab nations’ money can be used to rebuild Gaza, and their soldiers can maintain its security after the war. “Their heft can give a transitional Palestinian leader diplomatic cover while he establishes himself and his administration.”
This pressure from the outside, particularly from the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, The Economist argue, is the key to peace, and is primary to any formalities of a two-state solution.
In its usual fashion, The Economist paints a rosy picture by using the geopolitical maneuvering of the major players in the area to enforce a peace. The Arab countries in the region, however, have strongly pushed for the long-denied two-state solution for Palestine based upon the June 4, 1967 borders as agreed upon by UN Resolution 242. They also have largely rejected calls to “police” Gaza, and rather have emphasized Gaza’s future is a decision for its people to make.
But more importantly is the question of economics. While it is good that The Economist makes a point that “trade and prosperity” will be the key to a lasting peace between these countries, it is only through addressing the requisite scale of large-scale infrastructure and related development projects that this region can hope to have a future in peace. Front and center of this is water and power—both of which are sorely lacking due to massive underdevelopment, and both of which are addressed in Lyndon LaRouche’s Oasis Plan proposal. In this context, it is important to keep in mind that four of the new invited BRICS-11 members are in the immediate region, and could play a part in this kind of large-scale economic development. Not to mention China’s Belt and Road Initiative which comes right through the area and could be a bridge to make Southwest Asia the new crossroads of civilization.
