Summary
Critical analysis of the Israel/Palestine conundrum is inchoate without thoroughly comprehending the conflict’s foundational basis. Notably, competing claims to land by Israelis and Palestinians; complex international and regional geopolitics; the continuing ideological, proxy, and real wars between the West, that actively support a democratic, economically viable, independent, military power, Israel; and their determination to confront geostrategic threats and rivals in the Middle East especially, Iran, Yemen, Syria et al; the desire of moderate Palestinians to live in peace and safety alongside Israeli neighbours and vice-versa, versus the unending challenge of extremist political parties and neo-fundamentalists on either side and their zero sum aspirations.
It includes disregard for international law; horse-trading on the UN Security Council vis-à-vis the use of veto powers by permanent five members in favour of Israel or Palestine, where the strategic interests of the members are challenged collectively or singularly; extra-judicial killings.
The immediate flashpoint is the ongoing Israeli/Palestinian-Hamas war, re-ignited following decades of conflict between Israel and pro-Palestinian forces, on October 7, 2023, pursuant to Hamas attacks which claimed approximately 1,200 Israeli lives and the abduction of circa 250 Jewish hostages. The Israeli counter-attack has been unrelenting and absolute in its devastation. Israeli forces have killed over 61,000 Palestinians according to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA).
A UN Commission of Inquiry report in September 2025 claims that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza citing aggravating breaches of international law including killing ordinary Palestinians, causing serious bodily harm and mental harm, inflicting conditions calculated to eliminate Palestinians, with intentionality; and impeding births. Israel disputes these claims, but refuses to allow independent monitors, independent journalists and desperately urgent food and medical supplies into Gaza!
Evidently, the conundrum is volatile, riven with multi-dimensional complexities and has eluded an enduring solution for aeons. The material question then is: what, apart from the symbolic value, will formal recognition of Palestinian statehood by France and the UK, two leading European countries and P5 UN Security Council members with veto-wielding powers, and other Western countries accomplish in practical terms, without proactive support from Israel’s strongest backer: USA?
Analysis
In Long Walk to Freedom (1994), Nelson Mandela, stridently argued that: “If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner.”
Nation building and statecraft, over the last century are replete with far-reaching examples of de-escalation and pragmatic resolutions of some of the world’s most intractable problems. South Africa’s own history of upending racialist apartheid for non-racialist multiparty democracy upon the agency of equity, human rights, justice, pragmatic negotiations and the rule of law, establishes that fundamental point, given President Nelson Mandela’s election as the country’s first indigenous leader in 1994.
A second example is characterised by The Svalbard Treaty (1920), which demilitarised the Spitsbergen archipelago, awarded sovereignty to Norway, and regulated mining rights. It was signed by several states in Paris and remains operative. Ergo, although Norway is an alliance member, Spitsbergen falls outside NATO’s jurisdiction. Importantly, Russia exercises fishing, residency and geostrategic rights over the archipelago pursuant to the provisions of this seminal treaty.
A third example is evidenced by the denouement of the genocidal Nigeria/Biafra Civil War (1967-1970) pursuant to the attempted secession of South Eastern Nigeria Ndigbos from the country because of extreme marginalisation, injustice and their rampant killings in Northern Nigeria. The Biafran leadership formally surrendered to the Nigerian leadership on January 15, 1970, and the country embarked upon the enlightened pathway of nation-building adopting the: “no victor, no vanquished” philosophy.
Years of conflict between Egypt and Israel were de-escalated in constructive engagements, rational negotiations, demonstrable political will in US-led mediation by former President Jimmy Carter with the pivotal outcome of the 1978 Camp David Accord and 1979 “Peace Treaty” between former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and former Israeli Prime Minister, Menachem Begin; and the resumption of full diplomatic relations between both countries to date!
The Anglo-Irish Good Friday Agreement 1998 is yet another remarkable case study in conflict resolution. Because it broadly ended lengthy periods of sectarian violence or “The Troubles” in Northern Ireland and resulted in power devolution and power sharing for pro-UK “unionist” and pro-Ireland “nationalist” parties. The Troubles caused the deaths of approximately 3,532 persons and injured circa 47,500 people according to BBC History.
Now, if some of the thorniest political problems over the last century were ultimately pragmatically resolved through negotiations, sensible dialogue, enlightened and genuine political will by key world leaders, not duplicity, why is the Israeli/ Palestinian conflict seemingly so intractable? Should nation-building and statecraft be effectively outsourced to absolutists, existential nihilists, neo-fundamentalists on either side of the conflict? Where is humanity’s claim to civilisation when ordinary Palestinians are vicariously subject to collective punishment and destruction for the acts of Hamas by Israeli forces as argued by the United Nations? How is US foreign policy calibrated to address burning humanitarian concerns in Gaza in a manner which objectively addresses the competing interests of its Israeli ally and law-abiding Palestinians?
These posers demand reasoned analysis. One-time US Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, offered compelling insights on this theme at the height of the Cold War, which remain relevant to the current Israeli/Palestinian conflict and global geopolitics: “What is new about the emerging world order is that for the first time, the United States can neither withdraw from the world nor dominate it”
The inference here is that whilst the US remains a pivotal superpower with the capacity and willingness to project its influence across economic, military, and political domains globally, that capacity is being tested to the hilt with competing superpowers like Russia and China within their asserted geopolitical spheres of influence, in a multipolar global order. Therefore, the US can exert its enormous influence over Israel and demand an immediate ceasefire on humanitarian grounds in the current conflict between the former and Hamas; whilst latter must release all remaining Israeli hostages dead or alive without delay!
Nevertheless, US geostrategic interests collide with that aspiration on three key foundations. One, US and Israeli foreign policy are aligned on the issue of defanging and destroying Hamas. This claim is substantiated by the brazen Israeli attack in Qatar on 9 September 2025, targeting Hamas leaders with multiple deaths and casualties in violation of Article 2 (3) of the UN Charter 1945: “All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.”
Strangely enough, Doha, Qatar, accommodates the US military’s strategic Al Udeid base, hosting approximately 10,000 US military personnel according to The Gun Zone! Foreign policy scholars and international lawyers therefore query whether indeed the US was blindsided by Israel for operational reasons or whether the US was complicit in this attack? Whilst the answer to both might be considered a “known unknown” on intelligence grounds, either way, the US doesn’t come out smelling of roses and the optics from a diplomatic offensive perspective, are shoddy. An unintended consequence of this conundrum is the Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (a nuclear power) Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement executed on 17 September 2025. What will it do for US allies in the Middle East? The Abraham Accords? Future strategic partnerships? Is the US considered a dependable ally by Gulf States?
Second, there is an alignment of American/Israeli strategic interests in destroying Iran’s nuclear capabilities whether the latter claims they are for offensive or defensive purposes, because Iran is viewed by Western powers as an existential threat to Israel and the chief sponsor of Hamas. A point reinforced by US government assessments contained in the Association of Certified Financial Crime Specialists (ACFCS) November 2023 which claim that Iran has expended billions of dollars “to arm, train and fund groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and others as proxies and fulcrum in its foreign and regional geopolitical policy goals …” Additional corroboration is afforded by the US Air Force and Navy attack on Iran’s Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz nuclear facilities on June 22, 2025, whilst defending Israel’s extra-territorial war originally against Palestinian Hamas in Gaza.
Third, is the fragmentation of Western allies’ foreign policy on Palestine on the vexed question of genocide against Israel by South Africa at the International Court of Justice, international arrest warrants against Israeli and Hamas leaders by the International Criminal Court and the recognition of Palestinian sovereignty by UK, Australia, Canada and Portugal on 21 September 2025; France, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Belgium and Andorra on 22 September 2025. The majority of these countries are NATO members, where the US wields enormous leverage. From a geostrategic perspective, Israel and the US are increasingly isolated on this question and it leaves ordinary people asking how the US can ignore serious allegations of genocide against its powerful Israeli ally.
Conclusion
The status quo is unsustainable and beyond rhetoric, leveraging its global pre-eminence, US foreign policy needs to demonstrate courage, and practical leadership in the overriding interests of humanity, strategic equilibrium, natural justice and the rule of law. President Trump’s 20-point Gaza peace is therefore worthy of serious consideration by all the key stakeholders subject to a definitive implementation so it’s not a case of obfuscatory “talks about talks and endless talks” dashing Palestinian hopes of truly sustainable sovereignty.
For the UK, formal recognition of Palestinian sovereignty 108 years after the Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917, which provided inter alia that the British Government:
“Expressed sympathy for Jewish Zionist aspirations and stated that the government viewed favourably the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. It noted that endeavours would be used to facilitate this goal, with the understanding that nothing should prejudice the civil and religious rights of non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status of Jews in other countries”; would appear to correct an historical anomaly against Palestinian and recognise their very rights outlined in the aforementioned Balfour Declaration, whilst envisioning a two-state coexisting Israel and Palestine solution. Symbolic? Yes. However, that in itself does not amount to much without US backing.
For Western allies, recognition of Palestinian sovereignty builds symbolic momentum on the global stage. Bibi Netanyahu can certainly take a cue from the extraordinary antecedents of Jimmy Carter, Anwar Sadat, Menachem Begin, Yitzak Rabin to advance the legitimate cause of peace with his Palestinian neighbours and a strong Israel.
Traversing that “imponderable” will scale the hurdle between leadership and Statesmanship and therefore demands a strategic, not an emotive, response!
Ojumu is the Principal Partner at Balliol Myers LP, a firm of legal practitioners and strategy consultants in Lagos, Nigeria, best-selling author of The Dynamic Intersections of Economics, Foreign Relations, Jurisprudence and National Development (2023).
