The Rapprochement Must Go on – Ideas on the Current Situation in the Near East

Dr. Mirko Wittwar

Dr.Fariborz Saremi
Oct 25th 2023

In 2013 a book was published under the title `The State of Israel – a Tragedy. An Attempt to
Solve an Unsolvable Conflict´. 1 Basically, the book claimed that the long-standing Israeli-
Palestinian conflict could be solved if both parties were ready for compromise. The necessary
steps, it stated, would have to be far-reaching and would require both parties to think the
unthinkable – i. e. to give up on positions they respectively believed to be essential. Yet,
notwithstanding its basically optimistic approach, the book contained a dire warning: `[…]
nobody can tell if things are going to happen as suggested on these pages, if they are going to
happen in similar ways, or indeed if they are going to happen in completely different ways.´
If, however, the book goes on, things would not happen in at least similar ways, `in a not-far-
away future the Near East might indeed be ablaze, with catastrophic consequences for the
world and for Israel´.
Ten years later, none of the steps and measures proposed by the book has been taken. Instead,
both parties entrenched even further. Israel gave ever more way to indifference, scepticism
and fear and was ever less ready for compromise. The Palestinian side, on the other hand, had
nothing to offer than incompetence and blatant corruption, empty rhetoric and gestures from
the side of their leadership and outright terrorism from the side of the militants, thus even
reinforcing fear and scepticism in Israel. And as a result, at the moment of writing these lines
the Middle East seems to be on the brink of being ablaze.
The Hamas terror attack on Israel on the morning of October 7 th , together with massive rocket
attacks on the whole country from that same moment on, was nothing less than a declaration
of war on Israel – and given the indiscriminate slaughter of men, women, children, young and
old (the Hamas terrorists were literally shooting at everything alive, including pets) – the
nature of this war was has been made clear: this is a genocidal war, aiming at the complete,
physical annihilation of the Israeli nation. Once again, Israel is fighting for the sheer survival
of its people.
From this there concludes the necessity of destroying Hamas once and for all, at least as far as
this can be achieved at all. The fact that such an attack was possible is proof that further
attacks of the same kind would have to be expected – what has happened once may happen
again – with the result that Israel´s border region to the Gaza Strip would become

1 Mirko Wittwar; Der Staat Israel – eine Tragödie. Versuch zur Lösung eines unlösbaren Konflikts; Berlin 2013

uninhabitable. Israel´s inevitable military reaction, however, does not come without terrible
suffering for innocent people, the civilian inhabitants of the Gaza Strip, who are cynically
used by Hamas as human shields. And this plays well into the hands of Hamas, as every
civilian casualty in the Strip further increases Arab enmity towards Israel.
This growing Arab enmity again makes any attempt to solve this crisis and any effort to
prevent it from spilling over across the whole region so difficult. The leaderships of the
neighbouring Arab countries are well aware of the danger, and they make relentless efforts to
contain the crisis. But their hands are considerably tied. They are caught in a dilemma: on the
one hand, none of them wants confrontation with Israel, indeed there has been a years-long, in
some cases decades-long, tradition of cooperation with Israel, clandestinely or openly. On the
other hand there is the `pressure of the street´, the pressure on the Arab governments by their
own populations who take side with Hamas and with what they believe to be the case of the
Palestinian nation. Ironically, this again is the result of decades-long anti-Israel propaganda
precisely by these governments.
In Israel, right from the moment of the Hamas attack there was general agreement that Iran
was behind the event. And this estimation is borne out by the facts. Hamas is completely
dependent on Iran when it comes to arms supplies, funding and political support. Simply this
makes any idea that Hamas committed an action such as that of October 7 th , i. e. the beginning
of outright warfare against Israel, without foreknowledge and approval of Iran look absurd.
Hamas would never have dared alienating their most important sponsor by starting open war
against Israel if the Iranian leadership had disagreed. From this there concludes that Iran was
at least informed beforehand and gave the green light. And there is more: about three months
earlier there happened a meeting in Lebanon of leading representatives of Hamas, leadership
members of Iran´s proxy, Hezbollah, and a deputy commander of the Iranian Revolutionary
Guards. The latter is a clear indication that military issues were discussed.
And this is well in line with Iran´s political interests. Given Iran´s aspirations of gaining
control of the entire Middle East – towards which the recent rapprochement with Saudi
Arabia was a great step – there was the threat of a setback with dire consequences for these
aspirations: the Saudi-Israel rapprochement which was so close at hand that Saudi Crown
Prince Muhammad bin Salman felt free to say that it was imminent. This would alter the
whole situation in the region, and Iran´s aspirations would come to naught, because such a
rapprochement would eventually result in an Israeli-Saudi alliance which would clearly be
anti-Iran – a political-military block which would prevent any Iranian progress in the region.
It was foreseeable that any Hamas attack on Israel of the scale of October 7 th would provoke
an Israeli answer which would be as unprecedented. Israel would have no choice but to react
with all its military might, and that would mean massive retaliation on the Gaza Strip. This
again would necessarily result in the Arab states – including Saudi Arabia – moving away
from Israel, i. e. exactly the situation we are confronted with now. The Hamas attack of
October 7 th was meant to undermine the Saudi-Israel rapprochement, and it worked perfectly:
Saudi Arabia brought all thus connected talks with Israel to a halt.
It is thus obvious that indeed Iran was behind what happened on October 7 th . Hamas and the
Palestinians are just pawns in the game who are sacrificed for the sake of Iranian interests,
even more so as the vast majority of the Palestinian population is Sunni and thus, in the eyes
of Iran´s Shia leadership, nothing more than heretics who may be treated like dirt. And this is
where any attempt to solve the crisis must begin. This move by Iran must be thwarted.

As yet, all diplomatic efforts to defuse the situation focus on appeasement: appeasing the
Arab states to move not too far away from Israel, possibly towards open confrontation,
appeasing Israel to strike not too harshly, in particular not to hit the Strip´s civilian population
if ever possible (this includes the efforts to bring supplies into the Gaza Strip), to contain the
conflict from spreading all across the region, i. e. to talk Israel out of a ground offensive
which would most likely make Hezbollah intervene, aso.
As far as the Arab states are concerned, this is much effort for little gain, because none of
them wants any confrontation with Israel anyway, may come what will. And as concerns
Israel, such attempts are futile, at least in the long run. Israel´s air strikes so far have been the
heaviest ever against Hamas, and even if one succeeds with postponing the ground offensive,
it will come sooner or later, and rightly so. Hamas´s attack of October 7 th has made clear that
any kind of coexistence with Hamas is impossible and that this time Israel will have to fight it
out. The country is fighting for its sheer existence. This may well result in intervention by
Hezbollah, which again may bring the USA in who have already sent two carrier strike groups
to the Eastern Mediterranean. All this may well happen, and there is good reason for being
concerned, indeed worried. But things are going to develop as they will anyway, and there is
no way of stopping Israel now, even more so as the situation has really become unbearable.
As the saying is: `Never take counsel of your fears.´ There is no running away from the
inevitable.
Instead, another approach might be much more fruitful and promising. As said above, Iran´s
goal is to drive a wedge between Israel and the Arab states, between the governments of the
Arab states and their people, and between these states themselves. And thus far this has
worked out well. On the other hand, from the point of view of the Arab states the Israeli-
Palestinian issue is a nuisance, but it is far from being vital. That is why there has been a cold
yet stable peace between Egypt, Jordan and Israel, why the Abraham Accords were possible
and why Saudi Arabia sought a rapprochement with Israel. All these enterprises more or less
ignored the case of the Palestinians, yet still they were possible. Rightly so, Israel is not
considered a danger by any Arab state. But Iran is, and again rightly so.
The Arab states are well aware of the vital threat posed by Iran, because other than Israel,
with whom they have differences about this or that point, not least about the Palestinian issue,
Iran´s leadership is driven by a mixture of power-political aspirations of domination and an
inveterate, irrational, if not to say insane, sense of mission: to once and for all wipe out the
heresy of Sunnism and bring the whole region back to what they believe is the only true faith
– making Shia victorious once and for all. A vital threat indeed.
This is where the focus of diplomacy must be on. Currently, notwithstanding their basic
awareness, under the pressure of the circumstances the Arab states shy away from further
pursuing their rapprochement with Israel. It must be the task of Western diplomacy to
convince them that this is exactly what Iran wants them to do, contrary to their own interests.
The West must open their eyes to what basically they know anyway: that their enemy is not
Israel but Iran, and that they will maintain their independence not in conflict with but by way
of cooperation with Israel, that Iran is the common enemy of all states in the region, and that
thus it is in their best interest not to interrupt or halt but to continue and improve their
relations with Israel.
This looks like a bold proposal. However, a closer look shows that it is not as unrealistic as it
seems at first sight. As already said, the governments of the Arab states are driven by the fear

of coming under pressure by their own populations. Basically, this concern is justified.
However, a close look at what is actually going on reveals that in the context of the current
events there were anti-Israel demonstrations most of all in three countries: Egypt, Jordan, and
Lebanon. Lebanon, to begin with, is anyway in the stranglehold of Iran´s proxy, Hezbollah.
Given this fact, nothing can be gained and nothing can be lost there, which is why we may
leave it out of consideration here, as decisions there are made by Hezbollah (and Iran) and
cannot be influenced from the West. Both Egypt and Jordan, on the other hand, have officially
recognized Israel, have signed peace treaties with it, and basically maintain cool yet stable
relations with Israel. There is no indication that they are going to fundamentally change their
attitude. The governments which are still swaying and which must be won over (again) are
most of all those of the Gulf states, primarily the most important of them, Saudi Arabia. In
these states, however, the streets have remained widely quiet – we have not heard about
masses of protesters taking to the streets there; there were more anti-Israel protesters taking to
the streets of London than of Riyadh. This is a clear indication that the populations there are
by far not as enraged by Israel´s reaction to the Hamas attack of October 7 th than generally
assumed, than maybe the governments themselves fear. Thus, what will happen if they just,
perhaps after a short pause, go on with the rapprochement with Israel? We may dare a
prediction: probably nothing. There is simply no indication that these governments would face
serious, destabilising resistance by their own populations in such a case. And it is the Gulf
states which count. Qatar is a special case, given its good contacts to both Hamas and Iran,
and given the fact that it is one of Hamas´s main sponsors – however, the latter rather
concerns civilian funding, not weapons. But Qatar attempts to maintain good relations with
everybody in the region and is far from being what may be called an ally of Iran. If all other
Gulf states act in unison, Qatar may very well be expected to follow suit, even more so as it is
no sworn enemy of Israel but since long has also been maintaining unofficial yet quite good
relations with it. Should it not do so, it will find itself in isolation, as was the case a couple of
years ago and made the country alter its course at least to a certain degree.
Thus, this way Iran´s as yet successful move of playing several parties in the region – Israel,
populations, the governments of individual states – out against each other for the sake of its
final domination can be thwarted. Instead of pointlessly attempting to talk Israel out of the
inevitable, the West must attach importance to convincing the Arab states of who their true
enemy is and who is not. If this is successful, there will be no conflagration of the whole
region, as it is feared. If this is successful, the worst to come will be Israel´s war on Hamas –
with catastrophic consequences for the civilian population of the Gaza Strip, there is no denial
of this – and perhaps also a two-front war against Hamas and Hezbollah – which will cause
severe destruction in Israel itself. Even an intervention by the US against Hezbollah would not
be likely to set the whole region ablaze – if the Arab states simply go on with the course they
set before October 7 th , most of the region will remain fireproof. The only countries to perhaps
step in might be Syria (paralyzed and incapacitated by Assad´s war on his own people), Iraq
(unlikely because of the still considerable US influence and military presence there), or Iran
itself. The latter may be considered even more unlikely: The Islamic Republic has in most
cases been very careful to not appear on the surface but to pull the strings from behind the
scenes, and notwithstanding its obvious connection to the attacks of October 7 th there is no
indication that it will change its behaviour and come out to the open. Should it do so,
doubtlessly the consequences would be dire, but Iran is well aware of the fact that also for

itself this would be a `conquer or die´ situation. As yet, it has always shied away from such a
danger.
Then, however, there remains that one fundamental problem, the original problem which
burdens the region since 1967 – the fate of the Palestinian people and the occupation of the
West Bank. The long pursued solution for this problem, the so called Two State Solution, was
in fact dead long before October 7 th , although nobody dared saying so. And now, given the
shock and awe prevailing in Israel, it has been officially declared dead by the current Israeli
government as well as by a number of voices in the West. For the moment, this is an accurate
description. In the current situation there is no way of implementing any Palestinian state in
the West Bank alongside Israel.
But the problem remains. Israel has been acting as an occupation force since 1967, and it has
paid dearly – in money, in home-political tension, in being terrorised, in lives – while indeed
not gaining that what is the overall imperative of the State of Israel: safety. In the long run,
the situation is as unbearable for both sides – Israeli and Palestinian – as it was ten years or
longer ago.
Hamas is no child of the occupation. Its roots are much older, as is its anti-Israel stance –
Hamas would not tolerate any Israeli state even if there was no occupation at all. Hamas´s
claim to be the champion of the Palestinian cause is nothing than a pretext. But the occupation
makes the fight against Hamas and the other Islamist terror groups much more difficult,
because the bad situation of the Palestinian population in the West Bank keeps the floodgates
open for enmity towards Israel – and for support of Hamas and other terrorist forces. It is the
occupation which prevents the Palestinians from the West Bank from making their peace with
Israel and which kindles scepticism and antipathy towards Israel all over the Arab world.
There must be a solution for the West Bank problem, otherwise there will be no peace in the
region. And the given solution is still the so called Two States Solution, simply because the
only alternatives would be either a One-State-Solution or the endless continuation of the
occupation. The former would mean annexation of the West Bank by Israel while granting
full citizenship rights to its Palestinian population, which way – because of the sheer weight
of numbers – the whole idea of Israel as a place of refuge and protection for Jews would be
reduced to absurdity. The latter, on the other hand, would be nothing else than a One-State-
Solution without admitting it and with citizens (or inhabitants) first and second order. This
cannot be a lasting solution, not least because it is in clear contradiction to everything Israel
wants to be (apart from the fact that it is unacceptable for those citizens second order, i. e. the
Palestinians).
However, one grave reservation must be made, and this refers to who represents the
Palestinian population, to the Palestinian elite at the political, administrative and intellectual
level. This may be demonstrated by three examples. After the beginning of the Israeli air
strikes on Gaza Strip as a reaction to the Hamas atrocities of October 7 th and after Israel´s call
on the population there to go South to escape these strikes, a spokeswoman of the West Bank
Red Crescent claimed that such a flight was impossible because the road to the South was
under constant Israeli bombardment. This was simply untrue, the road was not attacked by
Israel, except for just one incident which allegedly caused 70 casualties but whose originators
are unclear – given the fact that Hamas call on the people to stay and actively try to prevent
them from leaving, this may very well have been an action by Hamas itself. What really
happened is still unknown. Then, in response to the incident at the al-Ahli Arab Hospital that

same spokeswoman claimed that this had been a deliberative Israeli attack – later it turned out
that in all likeliness it had been caused by a misfiring rocket from the Strip itself. Soon after,
in the face of all evidence presented not only by Israel but by UN observers, the USA,
Canada, and independent observers such as Al Jazeera – the latter well known for its very
critical attitude towards Israel – that the incident had not been caused by an Israeli attack, the
Palestinian envoy to Great Britain still insisted in accusing Israel, simply wiping all the
evidence off the table. And Palestinian intellectuals (with very few laudable exceptions) from
all over the world struck the same tone: not a word of sympathy for the victims of the
atrocities of October 7 th , not a word of condemnation, instead the general claim was that this
had been a `natural´ reaction to Israel committing `the same kind of atrocities to Palestinians
on a daily basis over more than seventy years´. Nor had the Palestinian Authority under
Mahmoud Abbas just one word of sympathy for the victims or of condemnation but only
lamented an Israeli `aggression´ against the people living in the Gaza Strip, without
mentioning the fact that Hamas there does not only hold hostage over 220 Israelis but actually
more than 2.1 million Palestinian civilians, using them as human shields. Whatever terrible
political mistakes Israeli governments may have made since the founding of the State of Israel
– and there are more than just a few – this is not just a different way of seeing things, these
are outright lies. If this is the general attitude of the Palestinian elite, one must admit one
thing: with such personnel no Palestinian state which might exist peacefully alongside Israel
is imaginable. Whatever the details will be, if there shall be any Palestinian state, one will
have to start out from scratch, from the civil society, from the common people who, given the
fact that the PA administration has actually been imposed on them, have never had a say and
whose attitude is actually widely unknown. Future representatives of the Palestinian people
will have to come from there, neither from PLO/Fatah nor from the current elite in general.