Israel and Hamas at war | Who to negotiate peace?

We are still far, very far from a peace negotiation in the Middle East. The scale and consequences of the Israeli ground offensive in Gaza will undoubtedly be decisive for the future. But some countries already seem better placed than others to play the role of mediator in this deadly conflict. If mediation is possible… Overview.

Egypt

Egypt has played mediator between the two camps in the past. It maintains good relations with Israel and has a certain legitimacy within the Palestinian population. Its geographical proximity to Gaza is also an asset for possible negotiations, since it can use its common border with the enclave to put pressure on Hamas. “Hamas depends on Egypt, because Egypt could prevent Gazans from crossing its border,” summarizes Benjamin Toubol, doctoral student in political science at Laval University. On Monday, Egypt announced a “regional and international summit on the future of the Palestinian cause” scheduled for Saturday, to which Qatar and Kuwait are notably invited.

Qatar

The small Gulf country could play a major role in the matter. Doha has clear ties to the United States and other Western countries sympathetic to the Israeli cause. Which does not prevent it from hosting the Hamas office abroad for ten years, as well as its political leader, Ismaïl Haniyeh. Far from harming it, this proximity to Hamas gives it a certain advantage. “Israel finds it useful that there is a place that speaks to everyone. Qatar is like a small UN. This is part of his foreign policy. It has already played a major mediation role in the past. With Egypt, it is the most plausible mediator,” summarizes Rex Brynen, professor at McGill.

Türkiye

Turkey cultivates relations with both camps. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has already offered to act as mediator, “including prisoner exchanges, if both parties demand it”. But this negotiation can only be in the medium term, believes Benjamin Toubol. “Certain conditions would have to be met and the conflict would have to drag out over time. »

Russia

Playing the moderation card, Vladimir Putin has so far avoided choosing a side. He said it was necessary to “work on diplomacy rather than the military aspect and look for solutions to stop the fighting as soon as possible”. For the Kremlin, the goal of peace negotiations must be the two-state solution, approved by the UN, with the creation of a Palestinian state with a capital in East Jerusalem.

UNITED STATES

Unilateral support from Israel, Washington can hardly play a mediation role. “Arab countries in general are closer to Vladimir Putin than to the United States,” adds Benjamin Toubol. This does not mean that the United States does not have a say, but above all it has a coercive position. They told Lebanon and Iran: “if you try something, we will intervene”. This is not mediator rhetoric. »

A short-term negotiation?

This would be surprising, considering that Israel has not yet launched its ground offensive and is still seeking revenge. We will also have to see how Benjamin Netanyahu views the post-invasion period. Will he want to occupy the Gaza Strip? Otherwise, who will lead the enclave after the departure of the Israelis? “For the moment, mediation is possible – although unlikely – and on limited issues, in particular on the hostage issue,” explains Boaz Atzili, professor of foreign policy and global security at the American University of Washington. “Hamas could ask for a ceasefire, but I don’t see Israel agreeing at this point. »

A longer-term negotiation?

Much has been said about the radicalism and intransigence of Hamas. Absolutely, will the organization want to negotiate? It’s a real question, Rex Brynen admits. “Hamas’ moderation has been debated for several years. There are people in Hamas who want to destroy Israel. There are people in Hamas who hate Israel, but who are open to the two-state solution because they don’t think they can destroy Israel. There are people in Hamas who favor peace negotiations, but still hope that Israel will be destroyed. All of these things are true simultaneously. What is also true is that in the past, the existence of Hamas suited Israel, because it prevented it from speaking more broadly with the Palestinians. Netanyahu said it explicitly: the existence of Hamas is a good way for us not to talk about a Palestinian state…”