Ignoring initiatives for peace

The writer is a freelance journalist who can be reached at:

egalitarianism444@gmail.com

Amidst the catastrophic conflicts devastating the lives of millions in Gaza, Ukraine, and beyond, peace proposals are being offered by states and organisations deeply concerned about the plight of those affected. Senior officials from various countries have also introduced proposals to restore peace in conflict-impacted regions. However, it appears such initiatives are not being taken seriously by those who view peace as a threat to their commercial and economic interests.

The recent peace proposal for the Middle East by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is particularly noteworthy. In his opening speech at the GCC-ASEAN summit in Riyadh on Friday, he called for creating conditions conducive to stability in Gaza and a lasting peace that ensures a just resolution to the Middle East conflict by establishing a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. Prince Mohammed affirmed the Kingdom’s categorical rejection of targeting civilians under any pretext, emphasising the importance of adhering to international humanitarian law and the need to cease military operations against civilians and their infrastructure, which directly affects their lives.

This is not the first time a peace proposal along the 1967 borders has emerged. In September, Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi strongly advocated for peace, holding firm to assurances of security. Addressing a press conference following Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech, he stated, "The Israeli prime minister came here today and said that Israel is surrounded by those who want to destroy it. We’re here – members of a Muslim-Arab committee, mandated by 57 Arab and Muslim countries – and I can tell you here, very unequivocally, all of us are willing to, right now, guarantee the security of Israel in the context of Israel ending the occupation and allowing for the emergence of a Palestinian state."

The Jordanian foreign minister’s proposal was not only welcomed by Muslim states but was also praised by some Israeli commentators, who commended Safadi’s political sagacity. The proposal prompted Israeli columnist Yoana Gonen to criticise Netanyahu. Writing for the Israeli English daily Haaretz, Gonen remarked, “On Friday we heard a hopeful speech at the United Nations. Of course, it wasn’t the address by Benjamin Netanyahu, a man whose superpower is to wipe out countries and dash hopes. It was a speech by Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi.”

Yet, many critics believe that the Israeli prime minister is not inclined to heed such voices of reason. The recent vote by the Israeli parliament to ban the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) from the country within 90 days indicates that Netanyahu’s toxic ideology and the belligerence of his right-wing allies are dominating the country’s political landscape. The ban has been imposed in defiance of American and other international pressures urging Israel to retain the largest provider of humanitarian assistance to its Palestinian population.

Detractors of Netanyahu point out that it is not the first time the Israeli prime minister has shown contempt for an international organisation; in fact, he has done so on numerous occasions. Netanyahu is said to have used the UN platform to denounce the very body that created the state of Israel through its resolutions. In 2017, he claimed that the UN had been “the epicentre of global antisemitism” and that there was “no limit to the UN’s absurdities when it comes to Israel.” The Israeli prime minister has also been accused of ignoring several UN resolutions calling for a ceasefire in Gaza and has not only labeled the UN’s Palestinian refugee agency, UNRWA, as a terrorist entity but also launched a campaign to bankrupt it.

The proposals by Mohammad bin Salman and the assurances from Jordan’s foreign minister reflect the principles embedded in several articles of international law. These are reasonable initiatives that could not only extinguish the flames of war in Gaza but also in Lebanon and the wider region. The two-state solution is not solely an Arab initiative; even Hamas has expressed a willingness to lay down arms and join a political process if Palestinians are granted a state of their own.

This position held by the Arab states has been endorsed by several European countries, global powers, and international bodies. Therefore, it is highly disappointing to see such moves dismissed with contempt.

The raging war in the region and a possible confrontation with Iran could spell disaster for the Middle East. Therefore, global powers must pay attention to the proposals from Saudi Arabia and the assurances from Jordan. Iran has already made it clear many times that any solution acceptable to the Palestinians would also be endorsed by Tehran. Thus, the solution lies in engaging those willing to negotiate rather than targeting the negotiators.

Another conflict that must end is raging in Europe. Russian President Vladimir Putin recently revealed that Ukraine reached out to Moscow twice to defuse the ongoing war in the invaded country. In an interview with the Russian channel Rossiya 1, Putin urged Kyiv to clarify its stance on peace talks. “Our Turkish partners ... have approached us with what they described as initiatives from the Ukrainian side. But each time we agreed, the Ukrainians had already withdrawn their proposal. This has happened twice. Ultimately, we need clarity on their readiness and intentions," he said.

Putin added that Turkish representatives had given him "Ukraine-related materials" on the sidelines of the BRICS economic bloc summit in the city of Kazan, which he said required careful review and that he had not yet had the chance to examine thoroughly. “Russia never gave up on negotiations with Ukraine, and we are prepared for a reasonable agreement,” Putin said. However, he emphasised that any agreement would need to consider and respect Russia’s interests.

Moscow needs to redefine its interests. Annexing territories of a sovereign country cannot be justified under the pretext of protecting interests. It is natural for smaller states to feel apprehensive about the designs of a major power. Many seem to believe that the world is anarchic, where only might is right can prevail. Russia itself has previously accused the US of targeting weaker states through a regime-change agenda, yet it is engaging in similar actions.

Russia needs to acknowledge that its invasion was a grave mistake that has created fears among other smaller states. The US should abandon its policy of regime change through F-16s and blitzkrieg. Ukraine needs to understand that neighbours cannot be altered. Since Russia initiated the conflict, it should begin talks on the return of Ukrainian territories. Kyiv should also offer assurances regarding the protection of Russians living in these territories. Additionally, Kyiv might need to reconsider its plan to join Nato and instead pursue a no-war pact with Moscow.

The ongoing conflict in Europe clearly indicates that no one is winning the war. Therefore, Turkish mediation efforts should be reinforced, and proposals for peace should not be ignored. A debate on these initiatives might enable the stakeholders to arrive at a solution.