[9th EAI Academy] ⑥ Middle East Peace: A Difficult Journey

YouTube Link : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWFtuwtLP88

Video Script

Middle East Peace: The Overture to a Difficult Journey

Hello, I am a researcher from the Department of Arabic Studies at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies. Today, I will be discussing the Middle East, a topic that may differ somewhat from those you have covered previously. I am unsure of your prior knowledge of the Middle East, but it is a region that is widely discussed. Therefore, in this short time, I aim to explore the various conflict factors in the Middle East under the title 'Middle East Peace: A Difficult Journey.' Specifically, focusing on the recent Arab-Israeli conflict frequently reported in the media, there have been numerous peace efforts in the Middle East aimed at resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict. We will examine these efforts from the perspective of diplomatic history.

Geopolitically, the Middle East is situated at the crossroads of Europe, Africa, and Asia. Conflicts exist not only between Arabs and Israelis but also between Arab and non-Arab countries. The countries marked in green on the map are Arab nations, while Turkey and Iran are non-Arab countries. Recently, the conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran has also been widely reported.

Thus, conflicts exist between Arabs and Iran, between Israel and Iran, and among Arab nations themselves. Among these multifaceted conflict factors, today we will focus on the Israeli-Palestinian issue and the relations between Israel and other Arab countries. You are likely familiar with Israel, as it frequently appears in the media, and you have probably heard much about the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Many of you may be interested in the Gaza Strip. As you can see on the map, the West Bank and Gaza Strip are currently designated as Palestinian territories. Although not recognized as a state by the United Nations, there have been international efforts to establish a Palestinian state centered in these two regions. As the title 'Middle East Peace: A Difficult Journey' suggests, there have been various significant turning points, and we will examine a few based on the content presented today. During the Cold War, it is known that there were four major wars in the Middle East, from the First to the Fourth Arab-Israeli War, spanning from 1948 to 1973.

In 1978, the Camp David Accords marked a historic peace effort, leading to a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. Following the Fourth Arab-Israeli War and the end of the Cold War, the Madrid Peace Conference was held in 1991. This event was a significant turning point in the history of Middle East peace during the Cold War. Although it ultimately failed, the Oslo peace process followed the Madrid Peace Conference in the 1990s. The Oslo peace process garnered considerable attention and resulted in Nobel Prize awards.

There were high expectations that peace was finally at hand and that the Israeli-Palestinian issue would be resolved. However, the Oslo peace process ultimately failed after numerous setbacks, particularly following the outbreak of the Second Intifada in 2000 and Ariel Sharon's visit to the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Despite mediation efforts, such as the Wye River Memorandum, these will be examined in detail later. Since 2000, Israel has withdrawn from southern Lebanon and, in 2005, from the Gaza Strip.

This is also a significant event. On August 15, 2005, Israel carried out its first withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. This decision, made twenty years ago, is currently causing considerable debate within Israel, given the ongoing military operations, including the reoccupation of Gaza. In the mid-2000s, the Annapolis Conference was held, representing another concentrated international effort to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian issue through a two-state solution.

After all these efforts failed, the Arab Spring in 2011 brought about significant political upheaval in the Arab world. Subsequently, the focus shifted more towards peace between Arab states and Israel, rather than the Israeli-Palestinian issue. While the Palestinian issue remained important, it became a persistent challenge, leading to a significant reduction in diplomatic efforts. Consequently, the Abraham Accords were signed in 2020, leading to the events that culminated in the outbreak of the so-called Hamas-Israel War on October 7, 2023.

Background of Israel's Establishment and the Zionist Movement

Let us examine this history. First, let us briefly look at the process of the establishment of Israel in 1948. Jews lost their past state and lived scattered around the world as a diaspora. The Zionist ideology emerged, advocating that Jews must return to their homeland, the land of Israel, Eretz Israel, and establish a state there.

The Zionist ideology spread further in 19th-century Europe due to the persecution experienced by Jews, such as the Dreyfus affair. Based on these experiences in Europe, Zionist thought gradually solidified. Theodor Herzl is a figure who developed this Zionist movement into a political movement. He authored the book 'The Jewish State,' arguing that the liberation of Jews was impossible without the establishment of a Jewish state. Herzl would later realize his dream.

The First Zionist Congress was held in Basel, Switzerland, in 1897. Theodor Herzl was elected as the first president, and the driving forces of various Zionist movements were integrated and developed into a systematic movement. Through these political efforts, a step was taken towards the establishment of the State of Israel. After the end of World War I, Britain was entrusted with the mandate for the region of Palestine in 1918. While administering this region, Britain significantly encouraged Jewish immigration. Under the British Mandate, the Jewish population increased substantially, and Chaim Weizmann, a prominent Zionist leader at the time, announced plans for the establishment of a Jewish nation-state. He would become the first president of Israel.

After World War I, the Jewish population in the region of Palestine increased from approximately 8% in 1918 to about 31% in 1945. This population growth became a significant asset for the future establishment of the State of Israel.

Furthermore, the Balfour Declaration was a promise made by the British Foreign Secretary during World War I to establish a national home for the Jews in the land of Palestine. This signified that a geopolitical great power, Britain, had become a sponsor of the Zionist movement. At that time, the Rothschild family wielded considerable influence in Britain, and this declaration by the British Foreign Secretary was an expression of support for the Rothschild family. During the British Mandate, the Jewish population in the region of Palestine grew significantly, leading to political tensions.

Notably, from 1936 to 1939, clashes occurred between newly arrived Jewish immigrants and the existing Arab population, causing turmoil. To resolve this issue, Britain dispatched a committee chaired by Sir John Hope Simpson, which proposed a plan to partition the region into Arab and Jewish areas. However, there were several problems.

Britain determined that it could no longer effectively govern the land of Palestine and transferred the issue to the United Nations. The UN, referencing reports such as the Hope Simpson report, adopted UN Resolution 181, which proposed the partition of the region into Arab and Jewish states. Jerusalem, being a religiously sensitive area, was recommended for special international administration.

The Jewish community supported the UN resolution, but the Arab states rejected it. This was because they found it difficult to accept the very concept of a new state being created. Amidst this situation, on May 14, 1948, Israel declared its independence. Major powers such as the United States and the Soviet Union recognized Israel, leading to the birth of modern Israel.

The day after the establishment of Israel, May 15, 1948, the First Arab-Israeli War broke out. The war officially ended with the signing of an armistice agreement in March 1949. In this war, Israel repelled the Arab coalition forces and emerged victorious, expanding its territory. Furthermore, under the armistice agreement, Egypt and Jordan occupied parts of the Palestinian territories. Egypt came to control the Gaza Strip, and Jordan annexed East Jerusalem and the West Bank. This war also gave rise to the Palestinian refugee issue, which remains a significant point of contention to this day.

The First Arab-Israeli War and the Palestinian Refugee Issue

Approximately 750,000 Palestinian refugees were dispersed to other countries at this time. Many Palestinians migrated to places like Jordan, leading to the emergence of the refugee problem. As seen in the table, two more wars occurred subsequently. The Second Arab-Israeli War broke out in 1956.

The Second Arab-Israeli War and the Suez Crisis

The cause of the Second Arab-Israeli War was Gamal Abdel Nasser's rise to power in Egypt through a revolution in 1952. At that time, Egypt was the leading power in the Arab world, and during the Cold War, the United States sought to incorporate Middle Eastern countries into its sphere of influence, particularly aiming to make Egypt a pro-American nation.

Nasser was an anti-imperialist leader who opposed the long period of colonial rule by Britain over Egypt. His anti-imperialist stance against American and European imperialist powers made him a threat to them during the Cold War.

However, Nasser did not align closely with the United States. Following the Bandung Conference in 1955, he pursued a path aligned with the Non-Aligned Movement and, despite various enticements from the US, did not maintain the alliance relationship the US desired. Originally, the US had offered substantial aid, including loans for construction projects like Aswan. When Nasser did not conform to the US's expectations, the US adopted a policy of strong pressure. Angered, Nasser took control of the Suez Canal, a strategically vital waterway.

Ultimately, Britain, France, and Israel invaded, leading to the Second Arab-Israeli War. The Suez Canal was of great importance to Britain and France at the time. The war lasted for about two months before concluding. The significance of this war was that while Britain and France had considerable influence in the Middle East, the Cold War had begun, and this war, despite British and French intervention in the Egyptian conflict, did not yield tangible results, forcing them to withdraw. Both the United States and the Soviet Union opposed the war.

Another significant aspect of this war was that it marked the decline of British and French influence in the Middle East and the full intensification of the bipolar US-Soviet system. Following the war, Arab nationalism surged. While the Arab states were defeated in the First Arab-Israeli War, in the Second War, Egypt, as a single nation, could not claim a complete military victory against the three great powers of Britain, France, and Israel, but it could be considered a political victory. Consequently, the popularity of forces advocating nationalism soared. This was a cumulative result of issues such as the Red Sea and Suez Canal disputes that intensified after the Second War.

The Six-Day War and the Emergence of the Occupied Territories Issue

Amidst these circumstances, in June 1967, Israel launched a preemptive strike against Egypt, initiating the Six-Day War. This was because Egypt was the leading power of the Arab League. What comes to mind when thinking of the Six-Day War? It was a war that lasted only six days, strategically Israel had the upper hand, and UN Security Council Resolution 242 was adopted. This resolution called for Israel to withdraw from occupied territories and for Arab states to recognize Israel, but there were considerable debates surrounding its wording.

This was because the interpretation of the resolution differed according to the interests of each party. Regardless, this war resulted in Israel occupying East Jerusalem from Jordan, the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights from Syria, bringing the issue of occupied territories to the attention of the international community. It became a war where the territories occupied by Israel began to be a major point of contention. Shortly after the Six-Day War in 1967, an Arab League summit was held in Khartoum, the capital of Sudan. The Arab League is an alliance of Arab states.

The Fourth Arab-Israeli War and US Mediation Efforts

At the summit, the 'three noes' principle was announced: no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiation with Israel. This is referred to as the 'Khartoum Resolution.' These sentiments intensified as a result of the Six-Day War. In 1973, the Fourth Arab-Israeli War broke out, with Arab states such as Egypt and Syria initiating attacks against Israel. This was a different scenario from the Six-Day War. While there were various causes, the sudden death of President Nasser from a heart attack in 1970 had a significant impact.

Anwar Sadat became president afterward, but at the time, the international community did not expect Sadat to rule Egypt for a long period. He was considered an interim leader due to succeeding Nasser after his sudden death. However, Sadat ruled for a very long time. This might have been an intention to strengthen his political prestige and demonstrate strong leadership. While there were many other variables contributing to the outbreak of the war, geopolitical factors played a role in addition to personal ones. Despite having a wealth of information regarding the possibility of attacks from Arab states, Israel, from a diplomatic perspective, did not pay sufficient attention to its defensive preparations.

Israel was militarily confident and had numerous trenches, such as the Bar-Lev Line, for the defense of the Suez Canal. They believed they could counterattack if they held out for a certain period, leading to lax security. However, the attacks from the Arab states were quite fierce. The Arab coalition comprised 24 countries, and even today, they consider the Fourth Arab-Israeli War a victory. President Sadat was later assassinated, and the assassination occurred on the anniversary of the victory of the Fourth Arab-Israeli War, i.e., a victory celebration.

From Israel's perspective, it was undoubtedly a defeat, and the war inflicted heavy casualties on both sides. Today's topic is not just the war itself but the journey of Middle East peace negotiations. This is where it becomes important. Despite numerous conflicts, the international community likely felt it could no longer stand by. Especially since the Fourth Arab-Israeli War involved confrontation between the US and the Soviet Union, the Middle East conflict could have escalated tensions in US-Soviet relations. The Middle East, known as the "powder keg of the world," and its conflicts could significantly impact international affairs, particularly the policies of great powers like the United States. Therefore, mediation was necessary. The Fourth conflict served as a crucial turning point, a significant catalyst for intensified US mediation efforts in the Middle East conflict. Henry Kissinger was a key figure at the time.

Kissinger played a crucial role in US diplomacy in the 1970s, serving as both Secretary of State and National Security Advisor. As seen in the image, you may have heard of "shuttle diplomacy." Shuttle diplomacy refers to Kissinger's extensive travel between Middle Eastern cities, mobilizing his staff and resources to resolve the Middle East conflict after the Fourth War. Kissinger visited Middle Eastern cities such as Damascus, Tel Aviv, and Cairo.

These US mediation efforts are referred to as "shuttle diplomacy." This signifies that diplomatic negotiations in the Middle East gained momentum. Kissinger's on-site visits led to the "disengagement agreements." These were agreements for the withdrawal of forces after the war, while troops were still in place. Such diplomatic efforts were undertaken. Another significant aspect is that US mediation negotiations, spurred by the Fourth War, began to prioritize the Arab-Israeli issue over the Palestinian issue.

The Camp David Accords and the Neglect of the Palestinian Issue

The relations between Egypt and Israel, and Syria and Israel, are different from the Palestinian state mentioned earlier. While the Palestinian issue was significant, the resolution of matters concerning areas like the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip was delayed. Some scholars argue that the United States intentionally postponed the resolution of the Palestinian issue. While there is no definitive answer, the focus was more on achieving peace between Arabs and Israelis. It is in this context that the Camp David Accords emerged. The Camp David Accords are peace agreements between Egypt and Israel. Mediated by President Carter, these accords were also not a direct resolution of the Palestinian issue.

Egypt and Israel reached a peace agreement. From this perspective, it was strategically very beneficial for the United States. Egypt was the leading power in the Arab world and had close ties with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Beyond a mere peace agreement, the Carter administration and figures like Kissinger believed that bringing Egypt into the free world camp would greatly contribute to the balance of power in the Middle East. Thus, a strategic relationship was formed.

It might have been relatively easier to intentionally focus on resolving the Egypt-Israel relationship rather than the Palestinian issue. The Camp David Accords were successful. The fact that peace negotiations proceeded even under the right-wing government led by Prime Minister Menachem Begin in 1977 carries various implications. Several interpretations are possible. While there was an attachment to ancient Jewish lands, a key component was the return of the Sinai Peninsula, occupied by Israel, to Egypt.

Historically, Israel lacked a legitimate basis for holding onto the Sinai Peninsula. The right-wing government tended to focus more on the West Bank and Samaria, i.e., the West Bank region. Various factors contributed to this complex situation. President Sadat pursued liberal reforms, but the Egyptian economy was struggling. The Sinai Peninsula was strategically important and also significant in terms of energy resources. Furthermore, the United States provided substantial economic aid as a condition for the accords. Egypt was experiencing economic difficulties, making such assistance crucial. With multiple factors converging, the Camp David Accords were signed, and Egypt and Israel successfully normalized relations. This, however, led to the neglect of the Palestinian issue.

As I mentioned, the focus was more on the Arab-Israeli conflict than the Palestinian issue. The resolution of this issue was left ambiguous with a vague provision for establishment within a five-year grace period and subsequent consultations. This ambiguity is often cited as a reason for criticism of the Camp David Accords. From the perspective of other Arab nations, Egypt violated the 'three noes' principle. This principle, adopted at the 1967 Arab League summit, stipulated no peace with Israel, no negotiation with Israel, and no recognition of Israel. Consequently, Arab nations strongly condemned Egypt, leading to its isolation and expulsion from the Arab League. Egypt faced significant isolation, including the relocation of the Arab League headquarters, though it was later readmitted under the Mubarak regime. The prevailing sentiment at the time was critical of these developments. While various factors contributed to President Sadat's assassination in 1981, the Iranian Revolution in 1979 also played a role.

The Oslo Peace Accords in the Post-Cold War Era

The term 'Cold Peace' on the PPT suddenly comes to mind. The normalization of relations between Egypt and Israel is referred to as 'Cold Peace' because, even with the recent Abraham Accords establishing peace agreements between Arab nations and Israel, they should not be considered alliances. 'Cold Peace' implies that while peace relations have been normalized, the depth of cooperation is inherently limited. This is even more so when the Palestinian issue remains unresolved. Let us now move on to the Oslo Accords. Following the Camp David Accords of the Cold War era, the Oslo Peace Accords took place in the post-Cold War period. Oslo was spearheaded by US President Bill Clinton, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Chairman Yasser Arafat.

The individuals in the photo are Clinton, Rabin, and Arafat, with Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres also visible below. All of them received the Nobel Peace Prize. The Oslo peace process holds a different significance compared to the Camp David Accords or negotiations during the Cold War. The subjects of the Oslo Peace Accords were Israel and Palestine. Representatives of Israel and Palestine met and concluded peace agreements. With the end of the Cold War, the United States was able to actively engage in Middle East issues, in which it had not been heavily involved previously. At that time, the atmosphere was such that no country could easily oppose this US momentum. Indeed, the Madrid Peace Conference began in 1991, with Soviet representatives also participating.

Most countries participated. Although Israel was reluctant to engage in multilateral conferences, the Madrid Peace Conference was a multilateral meeting. It took the form of a conference where Israeli representatives and representatives from various Arab countries gathered. The significant momentum generated by the United States led to the Oslo Peace Accords.

The Madrid Conference was a multilateral meeting, taking the form of a conference where Israeli representatives and representatives from various Arab countries gathered. The significant momentum generated by the United States led to the Oslo Peace Accords.

During the First Gulf War, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was effectively facing financial difficulties. Yasser Arafat, the PLO Chairman at the time, was not receiving much political attention. The First Gulf War began in 1990 with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, leading to US intervention. In this war, Arafat took a stance supporting Iraq.

Most Gulf states sided with Kuwait, but a significant portion of the PLO's funding relied on support from these Gulf states. When Arafat sided with Iraq, the Gulf states drastically reduced their support for the PLO. This situation created an atmosphere conducive to peace negotiations. Subsequently, with the emergence of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who would later receive the Nobel Peace Prize, the atmosphere shifted, and the First Intifada (Palestinian popular uprising) occurred, increasing international attention to the Palestinian issue. Against this backdrop, the Oslo Peace Accords were signed. Currently, as a result of the Oslo Peace Accords, Israel has divided the regions into Areas A, B, and C.

Area A is under the full civil and security control of the Palestinian Authority. Area B grants the Palestinian Authority civil control, but security and military aspects are controlled by Israel. Area C is under Israeli control. The fundamental aim of the Oslo Peace Accords was to establish a Palestinian state through the Two-State Solution.

The Oslo Peace Accords specifically aimed to establish a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Since establishing a state in one go was difficult, it was decided to proceed in stages, with the first phase granting autonomy for five years, gradually expanding it, and ultimately establishing a Palestinian state. In this process, the PLO and Arafat were recognized as Palestinian representatives. However, the Oslo Peace Accords ultimately failed, facing backlash from hardline factions on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides. This led to the tragic assassination of Prime Minister Rabin.

During the peak of the Oslo Peace Accords, from 1993 to 1996, the number of Israeli terror fatalities surged. This is related to the increased activity of armed groups like Hamas, which was formed around the time of the First Intifada. The significance of the Oslo Peace Accords lies in the fact that the conflict parties, Israel and Palestine, met directly and agreed on the Two-State Solution. During the Cold War, the Palestinian issue was primarily discussed through third countries (e.g., Egypt, Jordan) due to a lack of clear representation.

At that time, there was a lack of clarity within Palestine regarding who would be the leader. However, through the Oslo Peace Accords, Arafat gained international recognition as the representative of the Palestinians. Ironically, during the Reagan administration in the 1980s, the US advocated for 'Peace without PLO,' attempting to exclude the PLO.

Thus, the recognized representation changed over time according to the international community's perspective. The Oslo peace process proceeded amidst complex circumstances and was also subject to strategic manipulation. Confrontation between the parties persisted, and tasks to be resolved, such as phased approaches, final status negotiations, declarations of independence, and settlement issues, remained ambiguously defined. After the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin, the election of Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996 led to a loss of momentum for the Oslo Peace Accords.

Subsequently, changes in government occurred repeatedly, and negotiations faltered due to the extreme complexity of the final status issues. Furthermore, hardline factions within Palestine, such as Hamas, disseminated the perception that a two-state solution was difficult. Ultimately, the Oslo Peace Accords were not properly implemented and were halted.

Gaza Disengagement and the Rise of Hamas

In 2005, Israel disengaged from the Gaza Strip. In 2000, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, despite his right-wing orientation, pursued the Gaza disengagement. During this process, settlements were dismantled, an event frequently referenced in relation to the current Gaza issue. Benjamin Netanyahu, who was the Finance Minister at the time, resigned in protest of Sharon's Gaza disengagement. Netanyahu continues to this day to seek to exert strong control over the Gaza issue.

Israel's experience of disengagement emboldened Palestinian resistance forces. This is evidenced by Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon and Gaza in 2000. Following the Gaza disengagement, Hamas came to govern the Gaza Strip. Although Hamas secured a majority in Palestinian elections, the international community did not recognize this outcome. This led to intensified conflict between Hamas and Fatah, resulting in the current situation where Hamas governs the Gaza Strip and Fatah governs the West Bank.

The Middle East security environment has significantly changed since the 2000s. Iran's influence has grown, and Turkey has also expanded its influence in the region. There are analyses suggesting the expansion of resistance forces such as Hezbollah, which is close to Iran. In the 2006 Lebanon War, Israel suffered considerable damage from Hezbollah. Some analyses suggest that Israel has since strengthened its preparations against Hezbollah.

The Collapse of the Annapolis Negotiation and the Trump Administration's Middle East Policy

There have been various conflicts, such as Israel's airstrikes on Gaza in 2008. The Annapolis negotiation in 2007-2008, where Israel presented its maximum concessions, was unsuccessful. The Israeli Prime Minister at the time was Ehud Olmert, and the Palestinian side was represented by Mahmoud Abbas. Discussions even included plans for joint management of sensitive areas like Jerusalem, but the negotiations ultimately failed.

Following this, the Barack Obama administration took office. President Obama, viewing the Palestinian issue as a factor weakening U.S. influence, sought to revive the two-state solution. This process led to some strain in relations with Israel. Notably, the Obama administration's pursuit of the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) faced strong opposition from Israel. Furthermore, the Obama administration opposed the construction of Israeli settlements and, just before leaving office, supported the passage of a UN Security Council resolution condemning the construction of Israeli settlements.

Following the collapse of the Annapolis negotiation, the Haiti crisis occurred. Subsequently, the Donald Trump administration proposed the 'Deal of the Century.' The Trump administration insisted on providing economic benefits to Palestinians while denying them the ability to establish a state in terms of security, citing potential threats to Israel's security.

The Abraham Accords and the Diminished Priority of the Palestinian Issue

The Trump administration's 'Deal of the Century' involved supporting economic activities in Palestine by establishing industrial zones, but it did not recognize military sovereignty, maintaining the existing Israeli settlements. Additionally, the Trump administration spearheaded the Abraham Accords, promoting the normalization of relations with Middle Eastern countries. The decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel had a significant impact.

When the Trump administration recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital, the backlash from Arab countries was less significant than anticipated. This suggests that international attention to the Palestinian issue has waned. With focus shifting to other complex issues in the Middle East, such as the Syrian civil war and the ISIS problem, the Palestinian issue has been relegated to a secondary concern.

Amidst this atmosphere, the Abraham Accords gained further momentum, leading to the normalization of relations between Israel and the UAE, Bahrain, and Sudan. This was partly possible because the Palestinian issue had fallen in international priority.

Outbreak and Current Status of the Hamas-Israel War

The events in the Gaza Strip occurred within this context. On October 7, 2023, Hamas launched a surprise attack on Israel, resulting in numerous Israeli deaths and the capture of approximately 250 hostages (estimated to be around 20 survivors currently). Southern Israeli towns suffered severe damage. Conversely, Israeli airstrikes on Gaza led to a surge in Palestinian fatalities, and the situation remains ongoing.

Based on direct visits to the war-affected areas in Gaza, the kibbutz villages suffered immense damage at the time. From Israel's perspective, the moment of the attack at 6:29 AM felt as if the world had stopped. This had a profound impact on Israel's sense of security.

The Gaza war is ongoing, with both sides suffering immense casualties. Israel experienced significant loss of life and hostages due to Hamas's attack, while Palestine has also seen numerous casualties from Israeli airstrikes. This conflict does not appear to be nearing an end easily.

at 29 minutes. What was striking was that Israel stopped the world. This conveyed the seriousness with which Israel viewed the incident, comparable to the 9/11 attacks. From a U.S. perspective, the adjacent handles are found in Israeli bomb shelters. People take shelter there. These shelters are primarily designed to defend against missile attacks. Therefore, the handles are rarely locked from the inside. This means the doors can be opened from the outside. The shelters themselves. This is to allow others to evacuate quickly if the surrounding area is affected, enabling the doors to be opened from the outside.

However, this time, Hamas operatives were outside. The shelters were not designed for this purpose. Therefore, Israel viewed those handles as a symbolic representation of the people trying to lock them from the inside, or trying to open them. Consequently, Israel's security policies have undergone significant changes regarding the presence of groups like Hamas or Hezbollah in border areas following the war.

Background and Historical Challenges of the War

From Israel's perspective, yes. From Hamas's perspective, it's about the long-standing humanitarian crisis and the fact that life in Gaza has not been normal since the withdrawal in 2005. There are aspects for both sides. I am not taking sides; I want to present the historical facts to you. While the historical factors I've mentioned have accumulated as the background to the Israel-Hamas war, during the Abraham Accords, attention to the Palestinian issue weakened, with particular media focus on the normalization of Saudi-Israeli relations. There was a concern that if this happened, there would be no further attention to the Palestinian issue. There was also the aspect of the right-wing Israeli government. What was the operational name of the recent Hamas war?

The operational name was 'Al-Aqsa Flood.' Al-Aqsa refers to the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, a symbol for Muslims. It refers to Jerusalem. This signifies that the Jerusalem issue has not progressed in the direction desired by Arabs due to the hardline policies of the right-wing Israeli government, yet no one is speaking out about it.

There is a possibility that Hamas intended to convey a political message with the operational name 'Al-Aqsa Flood.' This is not precise but can be inferred. The voices of hardliners within Hamas have also grown louder. The war broke out under these circumstances. The Israel-Palestine issue is not merely a problem between Israel and Palestine; from Israel's perspective, it also had aspects of a proxy war between Hamas and Iran. There was a war between Iran and Israel in June. The entire Middle East perceives this in terms of proxy wars. This is from Israel's viewpoint. Figures such as Ismail Haniyeh were mentioned, and the first full-scale war occurred.

Do you recall Trump's airstrike on Iranian nuclear facilities? It was a 'bunker buster' operation. The situation ended when Iran struck a Qatari US military base, suggesting that Trump's variable was present during the initial full-scale war. Large-scale airstrikes were impossible acts of defiance, and Iran's deterrence capabilities were significantly diminished. Hezbollah, in particular, was greatly weakened. Forward defense has traditionally relied on surrounding countries to protect Iran, but these forces have been significantly weakened.

This is the final slide. We've had a lot of time for questions and answers, but what I want to convey from history is this: You may not have time to delve deeply into the Middle East, and it might be an unfamiliar region, but you are aware that there are many conflicts and disputes in the Middle East. One of these is the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is currently receiving attention through the Gaza war, and the Israel-Iran war is also related to Gaza.

The war and the Palestinian issue were important intertwined problems. Throughout history, there have been many efforts towards peace agreements, and numerous discussions, such as the two-state solution, have taken place but were unsuccessful. Israel and Arab nations are still dealing with this issue, carrying the experiences and traumas from these past failures. It is an unresolved problem. I believe it is necessary to reflect on history to find solutions to the problem. Therefore, I have presented this in a short time. Listening to these three points raises questions: the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Israel-Palestine conflict, and is peace possible without Arab-Israeli peace?

This refers to the Abraham Accords, etc. From Israel's perspective, it could be argued that if the Palestinian issue is not resolved, normalizing relations with Arab countries could eventually lead to a resolution of the Palestinian issue. However, there is doubt about whether such an approach is feasible. What are the fundamental reasons why so many peace negotiations have failed? And regarding the six Gaza wars, we can discuss various aspects since the withdrawal in 2005. Frankly, historically, my role is not to provide answers but to pose questions, and I hope you will show greater interest in diplomatic history. I will conclude today's lecture here. Thank you.

■ Kim Kang-seok, Professor of Arabic Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies.