Though it is hard to contemplate in the wake of the brutal terrorist attacks by Hamas of October 7, and the maelstrom of human tragedy engulfing Israel and Gaza, it may prove that the current Israel-Hamas war forms the last chapter in the long-running Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East.
The Arab-Israeli conflict started shortly after the UN partition plan, intended to create separate Jewish and Palestinian states in the land west of the Jordan River, was released in 1947. Jewish leaders accepted the plan. Arab leaders rejected it. The plan was never implemented. War broke out.
Aggression by its Arab neighbours in 1948, 1967 and 1973 attempted to wipe out the fledgling state of Israel but failed.
Subsequent peace attempts to create a Palestinian state, notably the Oslo Accords, the Camp David summit of 2000 and the Annapolis Conference of 2007, foundered on the rocks of Palestinian rejectionism, in which Hamas played a key role.
The last major peace effort, led by secretary of state John Kerry during the second term of the Obama administration, collapsed in 2014 after Hamas kidnapped and murdered three Israeli teenagers before launching an assault against Israel from Gaza.
The October 7 terrorist assault on Israel by Hamas, and its mass torture, killing and kidnapping of Israeli civilians, marks simply the latest attempt by Hamas to disrupt peace efforts in the Middle East.
In this instance, Hamas sought to derail the prospect of diplomatic normalisation between Israel and the de facto leader of the Arab world, Saudi Arabia, an agreement that would have set the stage for a broader settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
As must now be clear to any observer, Hamas has no desire to seek an accommodation with Israel. It remains ideologically committed to the destruction of the state of Israel, the extermination of the Jewish people there and the establishment of an Islamic caliphate. In these aims it is supported by Iran.
Hamas is resolutely opposed to any form of coexistence with Israel or a two-state solution. It is a stance that puts Hamas at odds with much of the Palestinian people and that has cost the Palestinian people, whose interests it purports to represent, much needless suffering and tragedy.
If there is ever to be an enduring peace in the Middle East, then the military defeat of Hamas and its removal from political power in Gaza are a necessary first step.
This is why the call for a ceasefire, superficially appealing as this may sound, is so misplaced.
Temporary humanitarian pauses, which Israel has agreed to observe, will help civilians escape the worst of the fighting in the north.
But a ceasefire that leaves Hamas in power will only be a recipe for further conflict and civilian suffering, and will allow Hamas to obstruct future efforts at peace.
Hamas stands in the way of broader peace in the region and between Israel and the Palestinians.
The surest way to a better future for both peoples is Hamas’s swift destruction.
And the quickest way to end the current Israel-Hamas war, and spare civilian lives, is for Hamas to release the 240 hostages it holds and surrender its leadership. Hamas’s defeat could set the stage for a broader peace effort and a final resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
With Hamas gone, the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza could once again be governed by the Palestinian Authority, which supports a two-state solution and does care for the welfare of its citizens.
No longer at risk of being outflanked by extremist actors, the Palestinian Authority under Mahmoud Abbas would have the scope to negotiate with Israel.
Israel would have a single Palestinian party to negotiate with and one that is not committed to its destruction. Rejectionists in Israel would no longer be able to point to Hamas as a justification for not entering serious peace negotiations.
The Israeli governing coalition, having been discredited by the gross security failure on its watch, will almost certainly change after the conflict is over. The government that replaces it will be one that is more open to peace efforts.
I know from my own conversations with key figures in Israel’s current war cabinet, including former generals Benny Gantz, Yoav Gallant and Gadi Eisenkot, that they recognise that improving the lives of the Palestinians living alongside them and providing them with a political horizon form an essential plank of Israel’s security.
Setting the stage for this period of suffering to be succeeded by a more hopeful future is the task of diplomacy. This task is being led by the US, but it is one that Australia should be supporting.
But almost alone among Israel’s friends, Australia’s Foreign Minister has not visited Israel since the October 7 terrorist attacks. In fact, in 18 months in office, Penny Wong has not once visited the Middle East.
If we want to support a more hopeful future for both Israelis and Palestinians, and put Australia’s views on how this conflict should ultimately be resolved, then press conferences from Adelaide will not do the trick.
Wong should be travelling to the Middle East and involving herself directly. That, after all, is the job of Australia’s chief diplomat.
Dave Sharma was ambassador to Israel from 2013 to 2017 and was the federal Liberal member for the seat of Wentworth from 2019 to last year.
More Coverage
Read related topics:Israel
Join the conversation
Israel flags new approach in its war on terror
Time will tell if the attacks in Lebanon are a one-off tactic or a deliberate escalation.
Read more
Welcomes to country are a mark of mutual respect
Just like toasts at birthday parties or speeches at weddings, welcomes to country are sometimes over-cooked or strike the wrong chord. But conducted properly at the right events, this practice enriches all of us and furthers reconciliation.
Read more