The Quest for Peace -The Peace That Eluded the UN Founders

Nabeela Al-Mulla is a seasoned diplomat of the State of Kuwait, having formerly served as her country’s ambassador to Zimbabwe, South Africa, Austria, Belgium, the United Nations, and the European Union. She is currently a distinguished lecturer at the American University of Kuwait. The views expressed in the article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the State of Kuwait.

With the Middle East once again drawing international attention, the question presents itself as to whether a lasting peace is possible in the region. Many initiatives and proposals have attempted to bring about resolutions to various crises. These unresolved conflicts, which are frequently left to fester when they are not erupting, simmer as sources of instability. Our times are taken up by managing and containing crises rather than resolving them. With the current geopolitical challenges in the region, it has become increasingly evident that addressing such issues at their core is paramount for fostering lasting peace and security. Furthermore, ensuring a lasting peace requires constant effort with binding instruments needing constant attention and updates to remain relevant and address unforeseen issues that may arise in the future. This can be readily applied to conflicts and disputes worldwide; however, nowhere is this more pressing than in the Middle East.

Paramount among these conflicts has been the inability of the international community to resolve the central issue of the Palestinian right to self-determination. The quest to establish a home for the Palestinian people—a people renowned for their strong national identity throughout the region—remains unfulfilled. The Question of Palestine is a prime example of how leaving an issue unattended could result in it becoming intractable. The issue has remained unresolved since the early years of the United Nations, when there were only 51 member states, compared with the 193 today. Recurring bouts of violence and conflict are being dealt with as time passes, with no prospect of a lasting peace. Efforts to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict have been ongoing for decades, with numerous peace initiatives and negotiations taking place. However, deep-seated mistrust, diverging interests, and geopolitical considerations have often stymied progress. The Oslo Accords of the 1990s provided a framework for peace negotiations, leading to the establishment of the Palestinian Authority. Issues such as the status of Jerusalem, the right of return for Palestinian refugees, the dispossession of Palestinians from their land, and the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank remain major stumbling blocks to a final resolution. 

Israeli and Palestinian flags over the city of Jerusalem

The United Nations has remained at the forefront of efforts to achieve a resolution to the Question of Palestine since 1948. One of the more interesting and often forgotten attempts to resolve the issue was the early mediation by the United Nations. It was, in fact, the first mediation attempt by the fledgling United Nations to resolve any conflict. In May of 1948, through UN General Assembly Resolution 186, mediation efforts were entrusted to the well-known Swedish diplomat, Folke Bernadotte. He pursued efforts to conclude a ceasefire in the Arab Israeli conflict following the 1948 war. He initially envisioned a union of Transjordan and Palestine with Jews and Arabs coexisting under one country. This proved unpopular with almost everyone. And as he was working on a second plan he was assassinated by the paramilitary Zionist group Lehi.

His mediation efforts were continued by his American assistant, Ralph Bunche, who after the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 50 at the end of 1948, was able to get Egypt and Israel to agree to a truce in February 1949. This paved the way for similar armistice agreements between Israel and the other Arab States, namely Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. For his efforts, Bunche was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1950. He was the first individual within the United Nations system to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. In his personal view, however, Bunche believed that the Palestinian Arabs were the primary losers in the conflict between the Arab States and Israel. He observed that the truce agreements effectively dashed the UN’s plan for an independent Palestinian state. The Israelis retained the majority of the conquered land, expanding from the initially allocated 55 percent to 79 percent of British-ruled Palestine. Whatever remained was divided between Jordan and Egypt for the Palestinian Arabs. While the armistice agreements aimed to initiate peace negotiations within a year, these discussions never materialized. Despite calls from the UN advocating for the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes, this demand was never fulfilled, leaving the issue of Palestinian refugees unresolved. This lack of a complete resolution would evolve into the intractable issue that the region witnesses today.

In 1949, the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) was established to supervise the implementation of the Israeli-Arab Armistice Agreements and thus it is as old as the Question of Palestine itself. It was the first peacekeeping mission authorized by the UN Security Council even though the Charter of the United Nations does not include reference to peacekeeping as such. It was primarily an observation force tasked with monitoring ceasefires and preventing incidents from escalating. They have maintained a presence throughout the region since then and established offices throughout the Levant and Egypt.

UNTSO last met on December 19th, 2023, and its officials spoke at length giving observations from a neutral viewpoint. They warned of the dangers of conflagration in the wider Middle East. In their report they highlighted the deteriorating humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip with words such as “insurmountable challenges” and “displacement of an unimaginable scale.” Furthermore, the UNTSO officials outlined the rapidly deteriorating situation in the West Bank, which witnessed increased drone strikes, military operations, and violent settlement activity in the wake of Israel’s attacks on Gaza. They also drew attention to the financial struggles of over 150,000 Palestinian workers due to Israel restricting entry. Moreover, UNTSO also reported on the high risk of further escalation in the wider region. True enough, incidents have increased in number and in space with attacks on American bases in Iraq, Syria, and Jordan, flare ups with Hezbollah, and the current threat to maritime freedom of navigation in the Red Sea by the Houthis. The report mentioned that there is no replacement for a comprehensive political solution that will resolve the core issues driving the conflict. While UNTSO is not currently on the frontlines of Gaza, they offer an in-depth understanding of the issues as they have been part of it since the beginning and their mandate is linked to the conclusion of a final peace settlement.

While UNTSO has maintained a low profile, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) has taken center stage, not only recently but over the years. UNRWA has acted as a viable administrator in Gaza, the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and in refugee camps in Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. It was established in 1949 by the United Nations General Assembly to provide essential services to Palestinian refugees, which it has done effectively over the years. The prime issue plaguing the organization is its financial well-being, often at the whim of Western donors, deemed necessary to address the hazards and plights experienced by Palestinian refugees on a daily basis.

That brings us to today, dealing with the ongoing consequences of the October 7th massacre. The indiscriminate response by Israelis defies human memory and has already destroyed the lives and impacted livelihoods of millions of Palestinians. The bombardment of the Gaza Strip has left over 32,000 Palestinians killed and over 74,000 wounded. A vast majority of those killed have been women and children. In fact, since October 7th, 2023, Israel has killed more children than had otherwise died in four years of worldwide conflict. It has left over 23 million tons of rubble and unexploded ordinances and has devastated the infrastructure in the entire Gaza Strip. The unprecedented destruction and widespread famine have even resulted in the case being brought to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which stated on March 24th, 2024, that “Israel shall ensure that its military doesn’t commit acts which constitute a violation of any of the rights of the Palestinians in Gaza as a protected group under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.” Israel has, for the most part, not even put in minimal effort to comply with the ruling. The Israelis argue that they have a right to self-defense. However, that is no recourse for the mass humanitarian distress and gross disregard for civilian lives that we are witnessing in Gaza. Countries and people have the right to self-defense, but we are governed by laws and international norms that must apply equally to everyone. This bloody escalation only drives us further from the goal of a comprehensive solution and will feed fuel to extremists on both sides while creating obstacles to daily life.

Aggravating the humanitarian situation in Gaza is Israel’s latent quest to dismantle UNRWA, whereas the Israelis have now accused members of UNRWA of participating in the October 7th attacks. These accusations have led over 15 countries, including the United States, to pause almost $450 million in funding to the organization. Abruptly severing its support, as Israel seems inclined to do, lacks the characteristics of responsible governance, leaving the Palestinian people bereft, especially in their pursuit of statehood. The absence of a central power to uphold them amplifies the challenges they face. Moreover, the West’s response to UNRWA’s situation reveals a glaring double standard in accepting Israeli official narratives. This acceptance perpetuates a narrative that masks the ethnic cleansing inherent in the marginalization of the Palestinian population. Fortunately, a couple of countries have since resumed their funding, realizing the rash nature of their initial reaction.

Israel has floated the idea of replacing UNRWA with USAID or the World Food Programme. There is no conceivable way that any organization could take over UNRWA’s many responsibilities. This is just another way for the Israelis to further delegitimize the rights and disregard the plight of the Palestinian people by removing their most important lifeline. What we are witnessing is a systematic attempt by the Israelis to cripple any and all governmental or non-governmental organizations that aim to improve Palestinian livelihood. The Israelis do not want to be held accountable for their actions. Immediately following the outbreak of the October 7th crisis, the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres called for a humanitarian ceasefire. The blatant Israeli response was to call for his resignation claiming that Guterres had “lost all morality and impartiality.” Israel dismissed the fact that Guterres was quick to condemn the massacre. Israel’s critical attitude towards the United Nations and its indiscriminate attacks against the Palestinians in general have been met with worldwide concern if not condemnation. Indeed, the plight of the Palestinian people has received worldwide support and empathy.

The immense backlash to the Israeli indiscriminate attacks has sent shockwaves throughout the Middle East with protests and boycotts sprouting all over the region. While some have remained relatively contained, the conflict has drawn in and reignited tensions on the border with Lebanon and further south on the Arabian Peninsula as well as scattered attacks on American troops in Iraq and Syria.

Israel and Lebanon have maintained an uneasy truce since the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War, which lasted 34 days and resulted in significant casualties and widespread destruction in both countries. Since then, sporadic fighting has emerged on occasion, with Israel and Hezbollah clashing along the border with airstrikes or rocket and drone strikes respectively. The events in the wake of the October 7th attacks have witnessed a significant increase in activity along the border, with a steady escalation in attacks by both Israel and Hezbollah against the other. UNTSO officials have reported many ceasefire violations occurring across the Blue Line and everyday seems to bring reports of an Israeli airstrike or Hezbollah rocket attack that threaten to erupt into a full-fledged war. It is no secret that the recent flare-up in fighting is linked to the Israeli actions in Gaza. The leader of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, has on many occasions slammed Israeli actions and offered support to Hamas during the most recent struggle, despite having no role in the initial October 7th attack. The status on the border has always been precarious as Israel and Lebanon have yet to conclude a formal peace treaty from the original war in 1948.

Throughout the past 70 years, the stability of Lebanon has been victim of the lack of a comprehensive and final solution to the Palestinian question. The mass influx of Palestinian refugees and territorial disputes stemming from the end of the 1948 hostilities have left the Lebanese state in a perilous position. Over the years this has resulted in a 15-year civil war, an Israeli invasion in 1982 that only ended in 2000, and the most recent Israel-Hezbollah war in 2006. All these conflicts are similar in that they are flare-ups of a deeper unresolved issue. A final peace treaty between Israel and Lebanon is inextricably tied to the resolution of these issues.

One of the most glaring and globally visible results of the Gaza crisis are the recent attacks on Red Sea shipping. The strategic importance of the sea lanes in and around the Gulf, Arabian Sea, and the Red Sea cannot be overstated. Much of the world’s trade and shipping passes through these vital arteries. The most recent bout of drone and missile attacks on vessels may have stemmed from the failure to address the attacks on Gaza, but regional maritime threats have emerged in the recent decades as global challenges that threaten to disrupt security and stability of freedom of navigation and trade routes worldwide. The result was restricted containment or management of the threat.

At the outset, the current naval response lacked an international or regional acceptance similar to previous naval operations in the region—namely the UN-sanctioned efforts to protect Saudi and Kuwaiti oil tankers in the Gulf during the Iran-Iraq War and counter-piracy efforts in the Arabian Sea off the Somali coast of the last decade. There is legitimacy to act based on UN Security Council Resolution 2722 of January 10th, 2024, authorizing states “in accordance with international law, to defend their vessels from attacks, including those that undermine navigational rights and freedoms.” Contrary to the Iran-Iraq war, the GCC countries have not signed up collectively to be part of the U.S.-UK strikes on the Houthis’ outposts. While averse to the Houthi strikes, there is an inherent wariness of the fallout on the peace process in Yemen. To this end the GCC countries expressed their grave concern over recent developments in the Red Sea region and stressed the urgent need for de-escalation to uphold security and stability in the area and ensure unrestricted navigation in accordance with international law. Furthermore, they also urged restraint and discouraged further escalation amid ongoing events while condemning persistent foreign interventions in Yemen’s internal affairs, along with the smuggling of military personnel and weapons to the Houthi militias.

The current attacks in the Red Sea are indicative of two deeper unresolved conflicts, that of the Palestinian issue and the current stalemate in Yemen. With attention turned away from the civil war in Yemen and parties abiding by an uneasy ceasefire, the Houthis have taken the opportunity of the current war in Gaza to showcase their support of the Palestinian cause while also using the opportunity to flex their muscles and build public attention and support for their cause. Equally, the Gaza crisis was perhaps perceived as an opportunity to evade their own responsibility to address the current stalemate in Yemen. The Houthis want the world to know that they are a power, a force to be contended with. A lull in the will to commit to a final political settlement has left the issue unattended to, as more pressing issues presented themselves. It has been easy to explain the Houthi issue away as a part of Iranian efforts to increase their power and influence in the region. Reports of a small barge roaming the Red Sea, manned by the revolutionary guards, and guiding missile and drone attacks pander to the popular idea that Iran is behind it. It is not that straightforward. The conflict is a symptom of a deeper issue, one that predates the current conflict and goes back to unresolved issues from the unification of Yemen in 1990 and power sharing in the country. The predictions from UNTSO that the instability from the Gaza war would spillover has indeed come to fruition. 

The fallout of the war in Gaza has reignited other dormant issues, none more latently dangerous than the spreading of the weapons of mass destruction (WMD). In addition to border disputes and maritime threats to the global economy, arms control and disarmament are also critical components of promoting managed or lasting peace in the Middle East. The proliferation of weapons, both conventional and non-conventional, has contributed to escalating tensions and conflicts in the region. Efforts to curb the spreading of WMDs are particularly important given the potential for catastrophic consequences if they were to be used.

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was agreed upon in 1968 and entered into force in 1970. At the time, the safeguard regimes administered by the International Atomic Energy Agency did not envision some of the clandestine nuclear activity they would need to face in the future, most notably with the Democratic Republic of Korea and Iraq. This led to the conclusion of the Additional Protocol, as the traditional safeguard agreements alone were not sufficient to deal with these emerging threats. This is how nations must tackle all international agreements, with periodic revisits that would ensure addressing contingencies not foreseen earlier.

Israel has never confirmed or denied that it possesses nuclear weapons. This ambiguity has left it arguably free of certain international responsibilities and accountability, as other countries in the region are unable to use the Israeli nuclear arsenal as a pretext for seeking their own nuclear programs—even peaceful ones. That is why the recent mention of nuclear weapons by an Israeli minister comes at a critical juncture, as Israel’s current stance remains opaque and disheartening. This was from a government official and it was not even his first time! Even after being lightly censured by his own government, far right Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu renewed his call for striking the Gaza Strip with a nuclear bomb. Such statements not only provide other countries, notably Iran, with ammunition to question its commitments regarding its nuclear program but also escalate tensions across the entire region and erode regional and international trust in a nuclear weapon-free world. It is akin to stirring a pot fraught with volatile consequences.

This display of irresponsibility by Israeli officials and government ministers—who seem to disregard international norms—is deeply concerning. Even if their remarks were off the cuff and flippant, the gravity of the subject matter demands a more censored approach. It impacts deep security concerns and derails ongoing attempts to curb the Iranian nuclear program. The lack of regard for the potential repercussions reflects a dangerous disregard for global stability.

What is particularly of concern is the apparent double standard in the Western response to the flagging of nuclear weapons. While the West swiftly condemned Russia for any mention of recourse to tactical nuclear weapons, similar statements from Israel seemed to attract scant attention. This inconsistency not only undermines efforts to promote nuclear non-proliferation but also perpetuates a narrative of unequal treatment in international affairs. In the face of such disparities, it is imperative for all nations to uphold consistent standards and prioritize diplomacy over inflammatory rhetoric.

Here we are in 2024 with no political solution in sight, yet we are inundated with secondary solutions that came as a fallout of the failure to tackle the original issue. The first attempt to broker a peace settlement in Palestine dates back to UN Security Council Resolution 50 in 1948, the last being Resolution 2728 on March 25th, 2024. This was over 2,650 resolutions and 75 years ago! The most recent resolution calls for an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan, the immediate and unconditional release of hostages, and the necessity to expand the flow of aid into Gaza. While it is a step in the right direction, Israel has a history of ignoring Security Council resolutions and it does nothing to try to resolve the root of the issue. This cycle must end as this cannot go on any longer.

Achieving lasting peace in the Middle East requires a multilayered approach that addresses various issues, including the longstanding question of Palestinian statehood. Efforts by UNTSO play a crucial role in observing and mitigating conflicts but cannot replace broader peace initiatives. Their presence in southern Lebanon may provide some reassurance to the population, but they have no real power to enforce peace or a lasting solution. Likewise, UNRWA’s activities and responsibilities are of paramount importance. They are the lifeline on which so many Palestinian people depend.

Furthermore, maintaining freedom of navigation and countering recent resurgence of maritime threats requires concerted international cooperation to resolve the underlying causes of the threats. This logic can be readily applied to arms control and disarmament efforts to prevent further escalation of conflicts fueled by the proliferation of weapons.

While challenges persist, continuous diplomatic efforts and international collaboration remain essential for fostering and ensuring lasting peace in the region and beyond. Bolstering the UN and its various institutions, while also respecting international legal norms, laws, and institutions, are an integral part of this solution.
 

Back to Table of Contents