Fourteen months after the Hamas-Israel war, the Palestinian issue is once again being sidelined. There’s just so much else going on. Hezbollah has called for a truce with Israel, dropping its earlier demand for a ceasefire in Gaza. Meanwhile in Syria, Bashar al-Assad’s regime has collapsed even faster than Ashraf Ghani’s artificial government in Afghanistan.
On the surface, the recent withdrawal of attention from the Palestinian issue seems to be a fallout of the multiple twists and turns that West Asia provides, with no method to it. But that is a mistake.
While the Israel-Palestine issue is chock-a-block with a complicated history and conflicting narratives, it is typically examined through the lens of the convergence or divergence in the positions of both sides on three issues—territorial compromise, the fate of settlements, and military arrangements.
The perspective I wish to propose addresses the historical dynamics in how the conflict has been perceived— at times as a bilateral issue that Palestine and Israel should resolve for the benefit of their respective citizens, and, at other times, as the key to peace and stability in the wider Middle East.
But as history has shown, the Palestinian issue rarely stays buried. And this time, Donald Trump could be the one to bring it back — with peace as his prize.
Also Read: Hezbollah mistook anti-Netanyahu protests as disunity in Israel—a genuinely liberal country
Regional priority or bilateral problem?
Until the Arab Spring of December 2010, the resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict was regarded as much more than merely settling a dispute between two opposing entities. This broader perspective gave rise to the Madrid Conference, the Oslo Accords, Shimon Peres’ vision of a “New Middle East”, and the establishment of the Palestinian Authority.
Even before it became apparent that the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians were leading to a peace agreement—rather than an escalation of the conflict—the 1994 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, and Yasser Arafat in recognition of the Oslo Accords. The regional significance attributed to Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation during the 1990s provided a justification for the award, despite the eventual outcome still being uncertain.
Following the events of 2010-2011 and the collapse of the regional order in West Asia, the prevailing paradigm began to shift. A marked disregard for the significance of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict emerged, coupled with a growing indifference toward the consequences of lacking a viable political framework for its resolution.
The fall of regimes in Tunisia and Egypt and the rise of ISIS in Syria and Iraq were seen as unconnected to the stagnation of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Compounding this was the internal division within the Palestinian leadership, which struggled to reconcile the secularised regime in the West Bank with Hamas in Gaza. This fragmentation played a key role in the diminishing prominence of the Palestinian issue on the international stage.
The culmination of this neglect was seen in initiatives such as the I2U2 grouping—comprising India, Israel, the UAE, and the US— and the G20’s India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) initiative, where the Palestinian cause was barely acknowledged.
India’s shifting position on the conflict offers another lens through which to see this change, especially when comparing the two right-wing leaders who have led the country. It is often argued that Atal Bihari Vajpayee, during his tenure as Foreign Minister from 1977 to 1979, maintained a pro-Palestinian stance, and continued to exercise caution toward the Palestinians when he became Prime Minister two decades later.
This stands in stark contrast to Narendra Modi, who became the first Indian Prime Minister to visit Israel in 2017. While he travelled to Ramallah a few months later and reiterated support for an “independent Palestinian state,” the visit was relatively low-key compared to the high-profile Israel trip and avoided reaffirming India’s traditional stance on Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state. Modi has also abstained from key anti-Israel votes at international forums and forged warm ties with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
This difference between the two leaders is frequently attributed to their distinct affiliations with Hindutva ideology and their respective views on Israel’s success in surviving within a hostile Muslim environment. However, it seems to me that the simplest explanation lies in the timing of Modi’s rise to power. By the time he assumed office, a few years after the Arab Spring, an international consensus had already emerged— one that increasingly viewed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a bilateral issue with minimal impact on the broader dynamics of the Middle East.
Footnote to frontline, and back again
After the 7 October Hamas attack on Israel last year, the trend shifted once again. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict drew global attention, with Palestinians gaining considerable sympathy, both within Islamic countries and among progressive circles worldwide. The idea that no peace process, nor any economic initiative, can be viable in the Middle East until Palestinians and Israelis return to the negotiating table once again became the prevailing orthodoxy.
Hezbollah and the Houthis in Yemen even linked the end of their war with Israel to a ceasefire in Gaza. Despite all the horrors, there was a global glimmer of hope that the events of October 2023 might serve as the catalyst for the West and Arab countries to renew the Palestinian-Israeli peace process, without which West Asia risks remaining mired in conflict.
Yet, the Palestinian issue is once again being pushed out of international focus — paradoxically under conditions that are the complete opposite of those during the Arab Spring.
Also Read: India should be more explicit in support of Israel, take Tel Aviv’s side, says Israeli minister
Trump, Palestine, and the Nobel Prize
In 2011, the world was caught off guard by the realisation that the Palestinian question had little bearing on the seismic shifts in West Asia, where threats to regional stability were more closely linked to radical Islam and the Sunni-Shiite divide.
However, this time, no one can deny the link between Hamas’ decision to invade Israel in October 2023 and the fall of the Assad regime. The Iranian proxy network that had bolstered groups like Hamas and Hezbollah abruptly collapsed when it became apparent that, unlike in the past, Iran lacked the capacity to deploy troops to rescue the Baʽath regime. Despite the clear, causal connection between Gaza and Damascus, the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has emerged as the first casualty of Syria’s collapse.
The principal reason for this is that the fall of Syria to Hayat Tahrir al-Sham is seen as a mere footnote to a much bigger event: the outcome of the US elections.
During his previous term, Donald Trump had effectively buried the Palestinian cause with the Abraham Accords, a series of agreements signed by Israel with four Arab nations — the UAE, Morocco, Bahrain, and Sudan. He had also moved the US embassy to Jerusalem, fully aware of the humiliation it inflicted upon the Palestinians. He appointed an ambassador to Israel who was an outspoken supporter of West Bank settlements. For Trump, the peace agreements between Israel and the Gulf states, along with Morocco, were definitive proof that regional stability could be advanced without Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation.
But the Palestinian issue has a curious, Sphinx-like way of resurfacing on the global stage just when it seems to have been relegated to the background. It is perhaps within this paradox that Donald Trump’s narcissistic tendencies could serve as the driving force behind a renewed push to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Trump, feeling slighted for failing to win the Nobel Peace Prize despite overseeing peace agreements between Israel and four Arab nations, may seek to claim the mantle of peacemaker where others have faltered. After all, Barack Obama was awarded the coveted prize for far less.
Should Trump come to realise that no Israeli-Saudi peace deal, however momentous, will secure his longed-for recognition as a true leader of peace without resolving the Palestinian question, he may just convince himself that a miracle can be wrought. With the full weight of American pressure behind him, he might be the one to orchestrate the unprecedented: a deal where Israel’s maximum concession aligns precisely with the Palestinians’ minimum compromise. In that moment, the impossible could become, if only for a fleeting moment, inevitable.
Lev Aran is a former coordinator of the Israel-India Parliamentary Friendship League and an Israel-based freelance columnist and journalist. Views are personal.
(Edited by Asavari Singh)
From river to see, Israel will be free.
The whole stretch from Jordan river to the Mediterranean sea belongs to Israel. It has historically been the homeland for the Jews.
Israel deserves to have sovereignty over this whole stretch of land. No compromises on this.