After eight months of Israel’s brutal war in Gaza, the United States, its European allies, and other leading world powers have had enough. Along with facing a horrendous level of civilian deaths—as of mid-June the UN has found that more than 37,000 have been killed and 78,000 injured in the war—the people of Gaza have been denied food and basic health care, and they are continually uprooted, as more and more of the strip’s housing is obliterated. Gaza’s universities have been destroyed and its education system shattered. Communicable diseases are rapidly spreading, and infant mortality has skyrocketed. Nowhere is safe.

In an effort to end the violence, U.S. President Joe Biden has announced a cease-fire and hostage-release plan that he said has been drawn up by members of Israel’s war cabinet and should be acceptable to both sides. On June 10, the UN Security Council endorsed the plan in a 14–0 vote with Russia abstaining. Yet despite this rare international consensus, the war continues. Hamas has said it welcomes the plan in principle, and it has requested some clarifications before fully endorsing. More surprising to many observers is the resistance of Israel’s own government to the plan, notwithstanding the fact that the Biden administration maintains its terms are Israeli.

In fact, the reasons for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s refusal to end the war are clear: if he embraced the cease-fire, his right-wing coalition would collapse, and he would face elections that he would almost certainly lose. In such an outcome, he would also likely be forced to stand trial on corruption charges. Moreover, a cease-fire would also force Netanyahu to confront what comes next and his own failure to put forward a viable plan for postwar Gaza and how it should be governed as requested by Washington. This is a problem that his own war cabinet has repeatedly raised. Indeed, it was Netanyahu’s unwillingness to articulate such a plan that provoked the resignations, on June 9, of two leading members of his war cabinet, Benny Gantz and Gadi Eisenkot, and he has now dissolved the war cabinet entirely.

The Israeli government’s failure to think coherently about solving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict comes at an enormous price—and not only for Palestinians. Already, Israel has found itself increasingly isolated at the UN Security Council, in Western capitals, and in Washington. By prolonging the suffering of so many Palestinians, it is also endangering its relations with Arab partners. Meanwhile, the war, which has already spread to Israel’s northern border and to the Red Sea, is destabilizing the greater Middle East.

This is particularly tragic since the pathway to peace is neither difficult nor complicated to understand. In my five years as Palestinian prime minister, I learned that what is required is courage and consistency, especially from the international community. A durable peace, which is just a first step of any postwar plan for Gaza, must address the national aspirations of the Palestinian people. Any governance arrangement has to be designed and led by Palestinians rather than imposed from outside. It must draw strong support from Arab countries and receive international backing. And it must provide a unified Palestinian leadership and a path to statehood while satisfying the security needs of both the Palestinians and the Israelis, thereby laying the foundation for regional peace and security, as well. Fulfilling these requirements may seem like a formidable challenge, but there is already a template for how it can be done: the long-standing Arab Peace Initiative, which has been repeatedly endorsed by governments across the Middle East, as well as by leading world powers.

THE SAUDI GRAND PLAN

Though it has been little mentioned in recent months, the Arab Peace Initiative emerged from a crisis that was in many ways similar to the one facing the Middle East today. By early 2002, the process created by the Oslo accords in 1993 had collapsed, and the region had plunged into turmoil and violence. Israel’s military response to the second intifada had led to intense fighting in the West Bank, with high numbers of Palestinian civilian casualties, and the United States was trying, unsuccessfully, to secure a cease-fire. Thousands of Palestinians had been killed and around 28,000 injured; hundreds of Israelis had also lost their lives. Tragically, rather than seeking reconciliation with its Palestinian neighbors, Israel began building a separation wall in the West Bank, located mostly within occupied Palestinian territory—a barrier that the International Court of Justice, in a subsequent 2004 decision, found denies the Palestinians the right to self-determination and other basic human rights and violates international humanitarian law.

To end the growing bloodshed and solve, once and for all, the underlying drivers of the conflict, Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia put forward a bold solution. According to the framework he presented to the Arab League summit in March 2002, the Arab world would take the extraordinary step of recognizing Israel within its 1967 borders—a possibility that had hitherto seemed unthinkable—provided that Israel ends its occupation of Arab territories and accept the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state in East Jerusalem, Gaza, and the West Bank. “Only within the context of true peace can normal relations flourish between the people of the region and allow the region to pursue development rather than war,” the crown prince stated.

To carry out these aims, the plan called for Israel to withdraw its army to the borders that had existed before the June 1967 war. It also called for East Jerusalem to be the capital of the new Palestinian state and for the two sides to reach an “agreed upon” settlement of the Palestinian refugee question based on UN resolution 194. In return, the plan would allow for Israel’s full integration into the region and normalization with the Arab world, and an end to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. To implement these steps and lay the groundwork for a Palestinian state, the plan called for a special committee of a few Arab League members to be established with support from the European Union, Russia, the United Nations, and the United States.

Amid such entrenched conflict, some assumed that it would be difficult to get broad support for the Saudi framework. Yet at the Beirut summit, the plan was unanimously approved by all attending members of the Arab League, including from numerous states that had never recognized Israel. In 2003, the plan—now known as the Arab Peace Initiative—was also recognized in the so-called road map for peace jointly put forward by the European Union, Russia, the United Nations, and the United States. The API was readopted at the Arab League’s 2007 summit in Riyadh, and it has repeatedly gained the support of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which comprises 57 Arab and Muslim states, including Iran. In December 2017, in a statement signed by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani among other leaders, the OIC affirmed support for a “two-state solution” that was “consistent . . . with the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative.” Thus, it offered the prospect of ending Israel’s conflict even with some of its most entrenched antagonists.

Unfortunately, none of these many endorsements led to the plan’s realization. For one thing, the API has never been seriously considered by the Israeli government, which has not been under any pressure to accept it and which has been encouraged in its deflection of peace proposals by lack of U.S. engagement. In an attempt to promote the API, President Mahmoud Abbas called for the full text of the plan to be published in Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper, in a Hebrew translation, as well as in The Washington Post. When Abbas proudly mentioned this to U.S. President George W. Bush, the president reacted coolly and suggested that Abbas save his money.

But amid the current catastrophe in Gaza—the most devastating war for both sides in decades—such foot-dragging can no longer stand in the way. The Arab Peace Initiative provides the most promising basis for ending the war with a plan that can be endorsed by all sides. Therefore, it is crucial that the United States embrace the API framework and work with other partners to secure its implementation. This could be done through an international conference in cooperation with Saudi Arabia and relevant Arab countries. If Washington firmly endorses such a plan with the strong backing of leading Arab states and international allies, it will be very difficult for Israel to dismiss it out of hand. Moreover, at a time when the Biden administration is desperate for a breakthrough in Saudi-Israeli normalization, the Saudis search for an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Palestinians yearn for self-determination, and the Israelis seek to restabilize their security with the region, the API is a win-win for all.

MORE AUTHORITY, MORE ACCOUNTABILITY

To understand how the API approach could end the current crisis, it is necessary to consider the conditions for effective governance that it would enable. Palestinian government has been hampered by the expansion of Israeli settlements and land expropriation; the undermining of its fiscal viability; restrictions on Palestinians’ movement and access to their natural resources and markets; daily military incursions into Palestinian towns and refugee camps; and Palestinians’ lack of sovereignty and the prevention of Palestinians in East Jerusalem from voting in Palestinian legislative elections, campaigning, or running for office.

With the full backing of the Arab world as well as Israeli recognition of Palestinian sovereignty, however, the Palestinian Authority could run the affairs of the Palestinian people in a dramatically more effective way. It would have full control and would be fully accountable to an elected Palestinian Legislative Council. Backed by normalization between Israel and the entire region, the API framework would also offer security guarantees to Israel through a third-party security presence for a specified period. The Palestine Liberation Organization, in turn, would be required to engage all Palestinian political factions to accept the plan, including Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Crucially, the postwar administration of Gaza and the West Bank will have to be unified. There must be a single, inclusive Palestinian government responsible for all Palestinian territories. The PA will not undertake responsibility for Gaza at the behest of the Israeli government. But it would do so as part of a comprehensive agreement that is supported by the international community and the main Arab countries. In such a scenario, the Palestinian leadership would need to consult with all Palestinian stakeholders, including political organizations and civil society institutions, to ensure that any such government is acceptable to the broadest possible constituency.

The first priority of the plan must be to provide security and ensure peace so that Palestinians and international donors can begin the urgent work of relief and reconstruction in Gaza. Any new security arrangements will need to be implemented with the help of Arab and international partners. During my tenure as prime minister, there was growing recognition that the Palestinian security sector needed serious reform and restructuring. To implement these reforms, however, the PA needed strong international and Arab support, which was only partially delivered. At the same time, the International Criminal Court, which the Palestinian leadership has granted full jurisdiction over crimes committed on Palestinian territory, must bring to justice those responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity or impunity will continue to prevail.

Given the asymmetry of power between the Israelis and the Palestinians, progress on building a viable Palestinian state will require the strong oversight of a commanding, evenhanded mediator. Only the United Nations, with the support of the major world powers, can fulfill that role. A peace envoy should be appointed to work on the preparation of an international peace conference to secure the implementation of the plan. In case of deadlock between the two sides—for example over matters concerning security or access to border entry points—this mediator must assert absolute authority. 

To supervise the process, a UN protection force should be deployed all over the Palestinian territories to protect the Palestinian people and assure Israel that its legitimate security concerns are met, on one hand, and to oversee the Palestinian transition toward statehood, on the other. Once all parties to the plan have agreed to these principles and have established a firm timetable for their implementation, they can begin the difficult negotiations over so-called final status issues, including the status of Jerusalem, Israeli settlements, borders, security, water rights, freedom of Palestinian prisoners, and the refugee situation.

Ultimately, only free and fair elections can quench Palestinians’ thirst for democracy. As secretary-general of the Palestinian Central Elections Commission from 1995 to 1998, I was responsible for an internationally credible election process. I know what conditions must be satisfied to have a legally and democratically sound vote. If there is a will, elections can be held even when streets are still filled with the rubble of war. A general election under international auspices should, therefore, be held as soon as practicable. This will require, among other things, the release of all Palestinian political prisoners and the creation of a free and fully conducive democratic political environment. All Palestinians, including those in Jerusalem, must be given the opportunity to participate in elections, both as voters and as candidates. Election results must be recognized and supported internationally.

SUPPORTING PALESTINIAN SOVEREIGNTY

In addition to paving the way for Palestinian statehood, a comprehensive peace framework would give international actors a direct stake in the rebuilding and development of Gaza and the West Bank. At present, Gaza has been destroyed and the West Bank has been severely impoverished. The cost of reconstruction will be enormous. Moreover, given recent experience, donors will be wary of financing a Marshall Plan for Gaza unless they are confident that the underlying political deadlock has been effectively addressed.

One advantage is that the PA already has a presence in Gaza. Despite deep divisions with Hamas, the PA has long been involved in the social, economic, and administrative life of the strip. The government I led until early 2024, for example, charged each of the ministries and other PA institutions with undertaking a detailed assessment of civilian needs arising from Israel’s war. This work is ongoing and provides a baseline for planning for Gaza’s reconstruction together with the World Bank and relevant UN agencies.

For these efforts to succeed, however, the PA must have responsibility for implementing them with the backing of regional and other international partners. The PA has accumulated a wealth of experience working with multilateral and bilateral donors—having overseen hundreds of millions of dollars in investments in infrastructure projects in both Gaza and the West Bank in a transparent manner. Among these are the Salah al-Din Road in Gaza; sewage systems, desalination plants, and multiple hospitals; housing projects funded by Qatar and the United Arab Emirates; hundreds of schools funded by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, France, Japan, Norway, Sweden, and the Islamic Development Bank; energy projects funded by the World Bank; cultural community centers supported by China, India, and Japan; and technical assistance projects backed by Ireland and the United Kingdom.

Quite a number of these projects were implemented under my supervision through the Palestinian Economic Council for Development and Reconstruction, which I ran before being appointed prime minister. Other projects were led by PA institutions, as well as through the engagement of UN agencies. That strong tradition of international aid, however, has been tarnished in recent months. As has been widely noted, Israeli unsubstantiated allegations against the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees—UNRWA, the agency that has long provided essential support for education, health, and human development in Gaza—led to suspension of the agency’s funding by many donor countries. But even before this, some donor governments had reduced their assistance, raising serious questions about their commitment. 

Given that no other organization is equipped to undertake the extensive activities and services supported by UNRWA and the extreme difficulties now faced by international nongovernmental organizations trying to operate in Gaza during the war, donors who have suspended their funding are leaving the Palestinians in the lurch at a moment of their greatest need. In April, an external UN investigation of UNRWA found that the agency had mechanisms in place to ensure neutrality and that there was no supporting evidence of Israeli claims that a “significant number” of the agency’s staff were members of terrorist organizations. Simply put, there is no plausible alternative to UNRWA, and it must be fully funded by regional and international partners.

THE ONLY PATH FORWARD

The PA recognizes that it needs to undertake major reform and rejuvenation. Given the tools and international support to do so, it could build a better, more efficient administration that is fully accountable to the Palestinian people. As prime minister, I presented a comprehensive reform agenda to the international donor conference held in Brussels in May 2022 that was welcomed by most delegations. But rather than demanding when the Palestinians will put their house in order, diplomats and commentators should focus on a more urgent issue that must happen first: ending the war in Gaza and Israel’s continuing encroachments in the West Bank. The Palestinian people cannot have confidence in any political initiative if their leaders are unable to exercise the full administrative authority needed to provide a minimal level of hope for a better tomorrow, security, and economic prosperity. Palestinians yearn for and demand more from their leaders, but their ire is rightly directed at Israel, the occupying power.

In any sustainable peace, the PA must be allowed to function as a national entity and not as a mere security agency beholden to the Israeli government. That is why any “day after” arrangements must address all Palestinian territories and not just Gaza. This is precisely the approach that the Arab Peace Initiative would take. To launch such a comprehensive plan, an international conference should be convened by the United Nations with full support of the Security Council to set an implementation plan for ending Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories that began after the 1967 war. It must address all final status issues during negotiations and navigate a new relationship between the Israelis and the Palestinians based on the principle of Palestinian sovereignty.

None of this will be easy. But with a renewed democratic mandate that is endorsed by world leaders and backed by the entire region, the new Palestinian government will be well placed to bring about a renaissance of Palestinian life. It could undertake the urgent tasks of rebuilding shelter, health, and educational facilities; reviving the shattered Palestinian economy; and laying a firm foundation for future growth. It is worth underscoring that 145 of the United Nations’ 193 members have formally recognized Palestinian statehood; it is time for the world to finally make that a viable reality. The time to resolve the Palestinian question is now.

October 7, 2023, was not the beginning of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict but rather the terrible effect of a conflict that had already been underway for 76 years. This time the spark was in Gaza; next time it could be in the West Bank. The resulting onslaught by Israel in turn threatens to create more such abhorrent violence in the future, and also to further isolate Israel from the regional partners on which its long-term security depends. The only way to put an end to this misery is to address the crux of the problem: Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands, its unfair treatment of Palestinians, and its refusal to allow Palestinians a real chance to build a state of their own.