A Ceasefire Would Erode All Hope for Regional Peace

Even at great cost, the US and Israel must resist calls for a full cease-fire in order to prevent further instability and to create the foundation for a more moderate, prosperous and stable MENA, for everyone’s sake: Palestinians, Israelis, and all citizens of the region. 

Regional Threats to Israel and MENA: 

With the slaughter of 1200 Israelis and the rape, torture, and maiming of thousands more in southern Israel, the Hamas massacre of October 7th has plunged the region into a much larger conflict than any previous episode of confrontation between Israel and Gaza. Attempts to reduce this war into a binary struggle over land is a misguided and potentially dangerous understanding of events. Rather, this battle is another chapter in a long struggle between moderate and extremist axes in the MENA region and an extension of Iranian-fueled insurgencies in Yemen, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere. 

The Iranian regime and its proxies have been watching the region closely, undoubtedly alarmed by the normalization deals and a sophisticated Saudi-Israeli rapprochement fast-tracked by the Biden administration and potentially leading up to a stronger Saudi-American defense pact. The Saudi-Israel normalization deal would have further strengthened the Palestinian Authority, likely reestablishing it as the most legitimate representation of Palestinians. In late September, Saudi Arabia had taken further steps to concretize the agreement before the deal was even signed, appointing a non-resident ambassador to Ramallah. The normalization deal sought to accelerate the vision for The New Middle East - a stable, prosperous, economically integrated region with moderate monarchies who favor socio-economic stability and interfaith dialogue. However, it also fundamentally threatened Hamas’ legitimacy and its vision for an Islamist Palestinian state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, in which not only would Israel cease to exist, but would also subjugate Palestinians to a brutal, fundamentalist regime similar to that of their Iranian patrons and the brutal Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Palestinians in Gaza, already oppressed by Hamas due to the group’s continued allocation of humanitarian resources to terror infrastructure instead of welfare, would have easily accepted a more moderate and economically beneficial Palestinian leadership, especially when powered by significant Saudi funding. 

With so much at stake, Hamas launched the barbaric attack in desperation, though they trained for it for some time, all while the moderate axis of the region focused on promoting tolerance and regional integration. Once Saudi Arabia started taking concrete steps towards consolidating normalization, Hamas and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps understood they must respond lest they lose more traction. The fighting that has erupted in the weeks since is not merely a binary fight between Israel and Hamas; instead it is a proxy war between the moderate and extremist axes of the region. This is precisely why Israel and the United States have had no other choice but to resist international pressure for a cease-fire despite the extremely difficult and devastating impact on Gazan and Israeli civilians; much like the war in Yemen, the conflict in Gaza is a new, morbid chapter in the fight to maintain the possibility for a New Middle East where moderation can thrive and extremism is contained. 

Normalization is the only path to socioeconomic prosperity and deradicalization is a threat to extremism: 

To understand this proxy war, it’s critical to revisit one of the reasons for regional shifts towards rapprochement and normalization with Israel in the Gulf and Morocco. In the wake of the Arab Spring, in which the proletariat called for dignity and economic reform, socio-political movements were hijacked by Islamist organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood who sought to destabilize and topple regimes. The United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Morocco pursued the peace agreements with Israel as part of a broader effort to counter extremist mobilization, which became an existential threat to the survival of some Arab monarchies. The UAE, for example, designated the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots (including Hamas) terrorist organizations after the islamist takeover of Egypt. Similarly, the Moroccan monarchy strong-armed Islamist party leaders to approve its peace deal with Israel, thus delegitimizing much of its anti-Israel sentiment and breaking the Islamist Justice and Development party from within. 

While normalization accompanies a bigger vision for more socio-economic development in the Gulf and Morocco, the US and Israel failed to recognize the fight against the populist appeal of Islamists as one more important reason behind normalization. In reality, the MENA region remains divided between deep support and belligerent outrage against extremists. In fact, Riyadh has repeatedly clashed with Doha over support for islamist movements, going so far as to impose a blockade on Qatar in an effort to sever these ties. Both the US and the Israeli government however, falsely believed that Hamas and other extremist groups, could be reasoned with. Had they pursued a zero-tolerance policy towards them, like some of their Gulf allies, this devastating war may have been avoided. 

The conflict presents a complicated, multifaceted challenge for Israel and the anti-extremist axis of stakeholders including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, and Morocco. While engaging with regional leaders in recent weeks, Secretary Blinken aimed to prevent them from yielding to domestic pressures opposing normalization. Simultaneously, he assured that Israel and the US would continue their efforts to counter Sunni extremist group Hamas in Gaza, Shiite organization Hezbollah along the Israeli northern border with Lebanon, and Shiite Houthi rebels in Yemen. The Houthis even declared war on Israel and have been sending periodic missiles that get intercepted by the US and Saudi Arabia. Thus, while Israel and Palestine are at the forefront of the news cycle, the real battle is essentially a proxy war between extremist and moderate stakeholders.

To better understand this, we have mapped out the different winners, losers, and potential beneficiaries of the anti-extremist insurance policy that can come out of this war, shedding light on some of its broader implications and potential positive outcomes. As global pressure for a ceasefire increases, we must understand that Israel has no other choice but to continue fighting this devastating war for a greater good, despite the painful cost of losing additional Palestinian and Israeli lives. 

Losers: 

Israeli and Palestinian Civilians: Those living in the line of fire in Israel, particularly those in southern regions, have suffered casualties, property damage, and ongoing trauma due to rocket attacks. 240 hostages remain in Hamas captivity, 1200 Israelis were killed and 5,000 injured. Muslim Bedouins and East Jerusalem Palestinians in Israel’s Negev region also fell victims to the October 7th rampage by Hamas fighters and subsequent missile attacks. On the Gazan side, Hamas has announced over 11,000 Palestinian deaths in Gaza, a figure that US President Biden has openly challenged since the numbers are disclosed by the same terrorist governing body. However, thousands have lost their lives, many of whom are children, women and senior citizens, and the infrastructure, particularly in Northern Gaza, has been severely damaged or leveled to the ground. 

Hamas: While Hamas may gain sympathy and support from certain radical groups, the toll of the group’s attacks on Israeli civilians and the damage inflicted on Gaza is a significant setback. The horrific details of the October 7th massacre were live streamed to the general public; Israeli analysis of the bodies show signs of beheading, torture, and rape, including of children. The international community now views them as barbaric and a hindrance to peace in the region, even in some Arab media. Moreover, Qatar can no longer financially back the terrorist group without facing repercussions from the US. With meager financial support and little sympathy from Palestinians and those in the West who understand how Hamas sacrifices Palestinian and Israeli civilian blood for their own political gains, the organization will struggle to survive. 

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: Netanyahu is clearly losing his long-standing credibility and political capital both at home and abroad because of his immense lapses in leadership leading up to the October 7th massacre. Even his regional Gulf allies have singled him out with unprecedented criticism. This follows several months of domestic turmoil over judicial overhaul legislation proposed by Israel’s radical right wing government, which was sworn in last December. To deflect public outrage, Netanyahu has sought to pin failures on security leaders, before being forced to backtrack after serious backlash from his political friends and foes alike. 

The Pro-Islamist Axis:

Iran: Iran must be held accountable for its strategic support and funding of Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Houthi rebels in Yemen, along with smaller Islamist militias across the region. The backlash against Iran has already begun with the freezing of Iranian assets in Qatar, and will lead to further isolation, regional opposition, and domestic frustration. This will deepen local pressure which may finally oust the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. 

Yemen: The Iran-backed Houthi rebels, whose slogan is “death to America, death to Israel, curse the Jews and victory to Islam,” have launched numerous rockets at Israel in a likely bid to distract from growing discontent at home. While Houthi missiles are unlikely to cause any serious damage to Israel, they have the potential to prompt retaliatory attacks from Israel and its allies, potentially exacerbating the dire local humanitarian crisis. 

Syria and Lebanon: Both states, which serve Iranian interests and perpetuate instability in the region, could face even further social collapse and economic depression if they are dragged into a long multi-front war with Israel. Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah’s recent speeches have also explicitly threatened the US, which means Lebanon could also face American retaliatory measures if the war is not contained. Any further military engagement in either Syria or Lebanon could mean devastating consequences for the local populations. 

Qatar and the Sunni Islamist Axis: Despite a long history of investments in US relations that have been constraining the American response and in Western progressive policy and intellectual spaces, Qatar may face a public relations disaster after its support for Islamist ideology and groups, including Hamas, is better understood across the globe. It will also be further alienated by anti-Islamist, Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain. 

Winners: 

Israel: The unprecedented horrors of the October 7th massacre have exposed the brutality that Israeli citizens face from terrorist groups and the existential threat to Israel and Jews all over the world, highlighting the need for a Jewish state and further legitimizing her right to exist. Unlike in May 2021, there is virtually no internal turmoil between Jewish and Arab Israeli citizens during this conflict so far, which could also open up new opportunities for cooperation between different fractions of an ethnically, religiously and politically diverse Israeli society moving forward. 

Militarily, the Iron Dome defense system has proven effective in intercepting a limitless amount of rockets, highlighting Israel’s ingenuity in the face of terror and the country’s virtually unbeatable military capabilities. 

Israel's diplomatic efforts have also garnered unprecedented support from Western allies, including the US, the UK, Germany, France, and Ukraine, reinforcing Israel’s position as a

strongly democratic country on the global stage after several months of socio-political turmoil challenging its democratic status. 

Anti-Islamist Axis: Countries that oppose Islamist groups like Hamas are also winners in this conflict. Saudi Arabia, which was on the cusp of an agreement with Israel before hostilities broke out, may benefit from demonstrating resistance to Islamist forces in the region. Signatories of the Abraham Accords, among them the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, who normalized relations with Israel in 2020, are also likely to find themselves on the winning side. Their proactive approach to forging peace with Israel will be viewed more favorably in the West, potentially leading to enhanced regional stability and economic opportunities. 

Potential Gains: A New Story in a New Middle-East: 

Palestinian Authority (PA): If the PA manages to successfully rule Gaza after the war, as suggested by US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, it stands to gain legitimacy among Palestinians and the West as well as financial support from Saudi Arabia. A reinvigorated PA would enhance prospects for Palestinian statehood and reopen negotiations towards sustainable peace, especially with Saudi Arabia playing a big role to conserve its “2030 and beyond” vision that guarantees its long term economic and political interests in the region. 

Jordan: Jordan has sought to maintain its ongoing cold peace with Israel and alliance with the West, even requesting Patriot Air Defense missiles from the US to repel spillovers from the Israel-Gaza War. Moreover, the monarchy is paralyzed by pressure from a large domestic Palestinian population, and has even used military force to quell pro-Palestinian protests on its shared border with Israel. This serves the interests of the Jordanian leadership, for whom any local instability could potentially threaten its rule and legitimacy. The country also stands to gain from the likely strengthening of the PA after the war’s end, having fostered close relationships with members of the ruling Fatah party. 

Egypt: Egypt has the potential to gain tremendously in the aftermath of the war as it continues to play a responsible and pragmatic role. By continuing to act as a humanitarian broker in the deescalation of ongoing violence, utilizing close connections between Egyptian Intelligence Chief Abbas Kamel and Hamas, Egypt’s international diplomatic status will rise in the eyes of many, forging deeper trust from Western and anti-Islamist Gulf and other allies. An Israeli victory and the strengthening of the PA will also enable the strengthening of already-existing relations between Egypt, the PA, and Saudi Arabia, a key funder of the PA and close ally of Egyptian President Sisi. Moreover, the destruction of Hamas would sever Egyptian Islamists’ ties with those in Gaza, minimizing chances of future Islamist insurgency in Egypt. 

Regional Stability: Should the ongoing conflict lead to more decisive action against extremist and Islamist groups in the region and the dismantling of their financial and military capacities,

we will undoubtedly see a more stable Middle East come to life. Countries in the region that have been working towards peace, stability, and economic prosperity would pursue regional integration, dialogue, and cooperation that fuels economic development and slowly dismantles the socio-economic drivers of extremist radicalization. 

Conclusion: 

The war between Israel and Hamas is not a binary struggle, as it is seen by most of the world, but rather a multilateral proxy war between the extremist axis and the moderate axis of powers in the MENA region. This is precisely why Israel and the United States have had no choice but to continue fighting despite devastating effects on Gazan and Israeli civilians amid desperate calls for a ceasefire. Ultimately, this conflict is about neutralizing radical forces that seek to subvert the possibility of MENA’s emergence as a stable, prosperous region and help transform it into a vision for the New Middle East where moderation rules and extremism is contained. 

Any form of occupation or resettlement in Gaza will derail this vision, and as such, Israel must resist and contain some of its far-right actors and be prepared to support pragmatic solutions for a new future for Palestinians. Israel should seek to fill the power vacuums in Gaza through close cooperation with the US, Saudi Arabia, and other regional allies. This will replace Iranian, Qatari, and Turkish influence in Gaza with more moderate actors, which could support a long-lasting resolution to the Palestinian struggle for dignity and statehood. 

Written by the Emma Lazarus Institute co-founders Chama Mechtaly & Eitan Charnoff.