A Soft Ultimatum to Israel: The West Is Close to Imposing Decisive Deadlines

Global pressure on Israel has started to take the form of a 'soft ultimatum' amid growing US-European cooperation towards setting a decisive deadline for a ceasefire, to serve as a 'red line' that Israel must respect. Simultaneously, there is increasing coordination with Arab and Muslim countries, aiming to formulate an agreement that ensures the attack of October 7 against Israel can never be repeated by enforcing a new security and political equation beyond 'containment'. Meanwhile, Gulf Arab states – Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Oman, Bahrain, and Kuwait – are providing humanitarian aid to Gaza and closely cooperating with Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority to establish a regional and international pragmatic de-escalation strategy, outlining the path toward "lasting peace."

Currently, these efforts are clashing with Israel's categorical rejection of a ceasefire until the mission of destroying Hamas and its leadership is accomplished, no matter the humanitarian cost to the people of Gaza and the political cost to world leaders, and no matter how long it would take. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is defending not only his country but also his survival in power to avoid the prison sentence awaiting him on corruption charges.

Prolonging the Gaza war will not serve Israel's official objective set out by its leaders – crushing the military infrastructure of Hamas and pushing its leaders out of Gaza – nor its unofficial objective of forcibly displacing Gaza residents to the south or outside the Strip.

US President Joe Biden cannot issue a blank cheque to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his military to proceed with the 'cleansing' of Gaza of its residents under the pretext of purging it from Hamas. Similarly, European governments are not willing to bless Israel's extremism under the pretext of self-defence and retaliation against the extremism of Hamas. Regional security is crucial for Europe, as well as for the United States and other partners in the G7. The consequences of endorsing such actions are considered highly costly for the leadership in all these countries.

Foreign ministers of the G7, during their meeting in Tokyo this week, affirmed their support for "ceasefires and humanitarian corridors" and discussed ways to revive peace efforts on the "day after" once the conflict subsides. They emphasized the two-state solution principle for two peoples as the only way to settle the conflict. The G7 industrialized nations – the United States, Britain, Germany, Italy, Canada, Japan, and the European Union – condemned Hamas's attacks on Israel and called on Iranian authorities to refrain from supporting the Palestinian militant movement and Lebanese group Hezbollah. The final statement underscored that G7 members, alongside regional partners, are working to prevent the expansion of the conflict in the Middle East and collaborating, including on sanctions and other measures, to prevent Hamas from receiving financing.

For the first time in a long while, the language of sanctions appeared in the context of discussing Israel, not just on Hamas and its supporters. Indeed, Deputy Prime Minister of Belgium, Petra De Sutter, said recently it was time to impose sanctions on Israel for its "inhumane" bombing campaign in Gaza, adding that it was clear that Israel does not care about international calls for a ceasefire. She said that the European Union should immediately suspend the economic and political cooperation partnership agreement with Israel, calling for banning Israeli politicians and soldiers responsible for "war crimes" from entering the European Union.

The Belgian position is, however, an exception and not the rule. It is also confined to the European sphere and will not be echoed across the Atlantic. Indeed, in the United States, it is inconceivable that either the Republicans or Democrats would impose sanctions on Israel. Israel is well aware of this, and that is why it persists in its actions.

Still, the problem for President Biden is that American public opinion has shifted away from unconditional and unlimited support for Israel. The Democratic Party is divided to the extent that solid left-wing opposition to Israeli actions jeopardizes Biden and his electoral prospects, given the strong left's opposition to Israeli actions and insistence on imposing a ceasefire on Israel.

While Netanyahu sees a ceasefire as bringing about his political undoing, Biden faces political undoing if he submits to Netanyahu's and his military's rejection of a ceasefire. The humanitarian pause announced by President Biden for four hours daily will not be sufficient, nor is it practical. Moreover, its inadvertent or intentional association with the idea of 'transfer,' i.e., the forced displacement of Palestinians from their homes and land, endorses the policy adopted by Israel, which believes that the solution to the Palestinian question lies in forcibly displacing the people of Gaza to Sinai in Egypt and expelling the people of the West Bank to Jordan.

The Arab opposition, especially from Egypt and Jordan, to Israel's policy of forced displacement does not guarantee the failure of this policy. Stopping it requires more than just opposition as it is being de facto implemented.

A significant and not-to-be-underestimated portion of European and American public opinion, especially the Jewish segment, believes that the solution to the Palestinian-Israeli and Arab-Israeli conflict lies in Egypt welcoming millions of Palestinians into the vast Sinai Peninsula with substantial international assistance, primarily from Arab countries. This is in addition to the demand for other Arab countries to receive thousands of Palestinians away from Palestine for their resettlement on their lands.

The response in Arab and international circles, not to be disregarded in its size and magnitude, is that it is unacceptable to uproot an entire people from their homes in a process of ethnic cleansing that ends with Israel seizing Gaza, with its idyllic coastline, offshore gas resources, and its strategically advantageous location for the Ben Gurion Canal project. This project, known as an 'alternative' to the Suez Canal, was first secretly devised in 1963 by the US Department of Energy, according to the Eurasia Review, and it connects the Gulf of Aqaba with the Mediterranean, circumventing the Gaza Strip to connect with the Mediterranean Sea. This project brings economic benefits and immense strategic advantages for Israel and its allies.

Public opinion in the Arab world and on the global stage is watching and judging, especially among the younger generation, opposing what Israel is doing in Gaza at the same time as condemning Hamas for holding hostages and allegedly hiding under hospitals. Israel does not care as long as there is an opportunity to destroy the military and command infrastructure of Hamas – an achievement it would boast as a partial victory. However, erasing Hamas politically is not something Israel can achieve, and this it knows. Therefore, it insists on expelling Hamas leaders to regional countries to host them.

Israel rejected the package deal offered by Hamas on November 3, outlining its vision for a compromise and concessions in return for a ceasefire. Israel refuses to save Hamas's skin in any form and staunchly opposes anything that could be claimed by Hamas as a victory. Israel's precondition for any resolution is dismantling Hamas's military capabilities, and it wants the United States, Europe, and others to demand that Arab countries, Turkey, and Iran provide guarantees to ensure that Hamas or similar organizations cannot repeat the events of October 7 in any form.

The US administration is exploring this realistic and practical formula, which involves assurances to calm Israel and lead to normal relations with it in the future. This is what is happening behind the scenes with Arab countries directly concerned with the conflict with Israel, Gulf countries interested in peace and normalization with Israel, and those playing intermediary roles behind the scenes, such as Qatar in the hostage file and Oman in the relations with Iran.

The warm reception extended by the President of the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, to the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, in Abu Dhabi this week, reflected their determination to strengthen collaboration in all fields. Both play significant roles away from the spotlight and seek to build on common ground. Each maintains its approach to the events in Gaza.

In a post on X, formerly Twitter, Sheikh Tamim spoke about "intensifying efforts to stop the aggression on Gaza," emphasizing the international community's humanitarian role in opening safe corridors and delivering aid. For his part, Sheikh Mohammed stressed on X the need for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, ensuring safe passages for humanitarian aid, and protecting all civilians. The UAE and Qatar are determined to promote efforts towards de-escalation, ensuring a just and lasting peace in the region.

For years, the UAE has emphasized the need to de-escalate conflicts across the entire Middle East, not only in the conflict with Israel but also by addressing differences with Iran, in particular. Dr. Anwar Gargash, diplomatic advisor to the UAE President, first mentioned the policy of "de-escalation" three years ago in the virtual political circles of the fourth Beirut Institute Summit in Abu Dhabi. Last week, while speaking at the World Policy Conference on Saadiyat Island, he emphasized that the events of October 7 and the Hamas attacks proved that the policy of "containment" had failed. "Containment has limitations, and we need to find solutions today," he said. He highlighted the opportunity for the United States to play the role of "problem solver" in the region, stating that the UAE is among the "most constructive", not the loudest countries, in working quietly to find solutions.

The upcoming summits called by Saudi Arabia in the next two days (at the time of writing) will be of utmost importance, and the world will be watching. The Arab message toward Hamas and its adventures, as well as toward Israel and its retaliations, will be a matter of global concern. The expected language is anticipated to differ from the traditional statements issued by Arab summits.

The thinking in most Arab countries has become more innovative and bolder. However, Arab and global public opinion does not tolerate this level of Israeli aggression against Palestinian civilians, despite the anger over Hamas's actions among a large segment of Arab public opinion.

Therefore, Arab governments will have to tread carefully yet courageously, presenting what they have with a clear vision and outlining everything required of them, as well as from the United States, Israel, Palestinian organizations, and the Palestinian Authority—the legitimate and sole representative of the Palestinian people.

This Palestinian Authority faces a crucial test. It has an opportunity, yet there is a looming abyss into which it will fall if it misuses the Arab and international readiness to assist it, as it tends to do.

Once again, this stage requires bold leadership. The Biden administration must dare to compel Israel to cease its actions. Iran must dare to restrain its proxies from further pyrrhic 'victories'. Arab countries must unite to make a qualitative leap that relies on courage because everyone is watching and waiting, especially now.