GPO 2025

Winners at a Losing Game: In a Burning Middle East, Peace is a Security Imperative

Amid the widening conflict in the Middle East, Hiba Qasas highlights the changing realities since October 7, 2023 and discusses how non-traditional peacemakers are supporting pragmatic efforts to end the conflict.

Geneva Policy Outlook
Jan 20, 2025
5 min read
Photo by khalid kwaik / Unsplash

By Hiba Qasas

In September 2023, the US national security adviser Jake Sullivan painted a picture of a “quieter” Middle East. Many shared the view that the status quo seemed sustainable, with little imperative for addressing the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Regional normalisation efforts appeared to sidestep the Palestinian question entirely, and with international attention elsewhere, there was no urgency to re-engage.

That fragile illusion was shattered on October 7th. The magnitude of the trauma was profound. The attacks claimed over 1,200 Israeli lives, and more than 100 hostages remain in captivity. A year on, the war has claimed the lives of approximately 45,000 Palestinians, including over 13,000 children, displacing over 90% of the Gazan population and leaving Gaza in ruins. This is not just an escalation of conflict and a humanitarian catastrophe. It underscores the existential threats and intergenerational trauma felt by Israelis and Palestinians.

October 7th revealed the urgent need for new pillars: diplomacy and political engagement. Without these, no security framework is complete.

October 7th revealed the broader illusion and failure of hard security doctrines. Three pillars of Israel’s security framework failed: deterrence, intelligence, and swift, decisive victory. It emphasised the urgent need for new pillars: diplomacy and political engagement. Without these, no security framework is complete.

Containment without resolution is unsustainable. The reality of occupation and insecurity can no longer be ignored on the road to lasting regional stability. This moment is not just a strategic inflection point for Israel but for the entire region, which now faces a more destabilised and volatile landscape than before.

Three Major Shifts: A New Reality

The current crisis forces us to confront three significant shifts that signal a new reality for the region:

  1. The realisation of an untenable status quo: The status quo does not deliver security for Israelis nor dignity and self-determination for Palestinians, forcing both societies to acknowledge that military means are not a panacea. Despite the increasing prominence of radical voices, there is a growing understanding that progress in the region requires directly addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  While support for a two-state solution is generally low in Israel – just 34% – it rises to over 60% when framed as part of a regional normalisation agenda and broader political-security framework. Among Palestinians, 70% support either a two-state model or a two-state confederation.
  2. A shift in international dynamics: After years of neglect, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has again captured global attention. The “I stand with Israel” and “I stand with Palestine” movements amplify rising polarisation, antisemitism, and Islamophobia, from campuses to streets and election campaigns. International actors now have an imperative to act. They possess the leverage and pressure needed to play an indispensable role in resolving the conflict.
  3. A leadership deficit: The profound lack of confidence in political leadership in the two societies allows new actors – business leaders, security experts, opinion shapers, elite and civil society, and even unlikely political allies – to step in. With the old guard unable or unwilling to move forward, this opens the door for a people-led movement championing a new paradigm.

Changing the Game: The New Champions of Peace

Israel’s and Palestine’s business and security establishments mirror the shift in public opinion. Traditionally not associated with peace activism, they are increasingly vocal about the existential threat posed by returning to the status quo. They may speak in terms of “separation” or “divorce,” but the end goal is the same: a two-state solution that provides security for Israel and self-determination for Palestinians. This pragmatic approach gains traction across the political spectrum. These actors recognise that waiting for perfect conditions for peace is a recipe for perpetual conflict. 

Israeli and Palestinian business and security establishments are increasingly vocal about the existential threat posed by returning to the status quo.

Amid tragedy and radical voices, there is still hope. A recent poll shows that 74% of Israelis now view resolving the Palestinian issue as crucial to their security. However, distrust remains deeply entrenched: 86% of Israeli Jews and 94% of Palestinians see the other side as untrustworthy. Decades of violence, trauma, and conflicting narratives fuel pervasive dehumanisation, making it challenging to envision shared solutions.

At Principles for Peace and through the Uniting for a Shared Future (USF) initiative, we saw this movement take shape, bringing together leaders from business, security, media, politics, and civil society. Our coalition embraced five guiding principles: mutual recognition of the right of both peoples to self-determination, independence, and statehood; security and safety; dignity; agency and inclusion; and trust through healing. These principles are the foundation for a new political framework.

Despite claims that “there is no partner on the other side,” there are partners for peace on each side. The USF coalition stands ready to leverage its members’ influence, credibility, and ingenuity to build strong partnerships with international and regional actors. The immediate priority is ending the ongoing violence in all its myriad facets. Planning for post-conflict recovery is essential to ensure we lay the foundation for lasting peace.

More War or Peace

The path to peace is often shorter when travelling through the depths of pain and loss rather than from the comfort of the status quo. The immediacy of the current crisis demands urgent action. Beyond the humanitarian concerns lies a rare strategic opportunity. The question is whether leaders will seize this moment or allow it to slip away, condemning another generation to conflict.

True realism today means recognising that peace, far from being an idealistic luxury, is the only pragmatic path forward. The alternative is an endless cycle of violence that serves the interests of neither side.

Those dismissing peace initiatives as naive must confront an uncomfortable truth: the current approach delivered neither security for Israelis nor dignity and self-determination for Palestinians. True realism today means recognising that peace, far from being an idealistic luxury, is the only pragmatic path forward. The alternative is an endless cycle of violence that serves the interests of neither side.

Meeting the Opportunity

This opportunity may not come again in our lifetime. The cost of squandering it will be measured not just in the lives lost today but in the futures denied to generations of Israeli and Palestinian children.

Ultimately, there are only two paths forward: further destruction of both societies through war, or peace. The winners at this losing game will be those who play a different script – those who start building peace now, recognizing that true victory lies in ending it altogether.


About the Author

Hiba Qasas is the Founding Executive Director of the Principles for Peace Foundation in Geneva and a peacebuilder with over 22 years of experience in conflict resolution and peacebuilding. She has held leadership roles at the United Nations, including Country Representative in Iraq and Head of the Middle East and North Africa Section at UN Women. Hiba is also the co-convenor of Uniting for a Shared Future, working with Israeli and Palestinian leaders to promote security, dignity, and statehood for both peoples. Her expertise spans crisis-affected regions, resilience, and women's empowerment.

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the Geneva Policy Outlook or its partner organisations.