Since Hamas’ surprise attack on Israel on October 7, our newsfeeds have been filled with reports and images of civilian causalities, mass destruction in Gaza, evacuation orders, airstrikes, and the need for humanitarian assistance for Palestinians. The Israel-Hamas war has spotlighted a long-simmering conflict in the region that came to a head this month.

When it comes to such an intractable conflict, how does someone begin to discuss—or even to think about—peace? To answer this, we sat down for a conversation with SIS professor and Abdul Aziz Said Chair in International Peace and Conflict Resolution Mohammed Abu-Nimer on what the peace process could look like in the Israel-Hamas war.

*Editor’s Note: This interview with Mohammed Abu-Nimer was conducted before a deal was reached to allow aid delivery to Gaza through Egypt.

Hamas's surprise attack on Israel on October 7 came as a shock to the world and resulted in swift retaliation and a declaration of war by Israel. The Israel-Hamas war so far has resulted in thousands of Israeli and Palestinian civilian casualties, thousands more injured, mass destruction in Gaza, and an evacuation order from the Israeli military for more than 1 million Gazans to head south. As a peace and conflict resolution expert, where do you even begin when discussing such a difficult conflict? 

Our starting point [in] peacebuilding and conflict resolution is usually by saying that and acknowledging that militarization and wars and violence cannot really be the solution for conflicts related to a request of freedom and dignity and security for people involved in this conflict. In the case of Israel and Palestine, they have tried, or we have tried as well, this type of approach with Hamas for the past 16 years and with the Palestinian people for the past 75 years, if not more. Every time we engage, the parties—Israel as a government and military, as well as the Palestinian people with the PLO in the '80s and '90s or Hamas now in the 2000s and on—every time we use military and weapons to settle these differences and conflict, it results in further destruction, further victimhood. 

But even more importantly, it feeds into the notion of primordial existence and threats to primordial existence. People begin thinking in terms of dehumanizing the other and not seeing the humanity on the other side. It's very painful to see civilians killed on the Israeli side, but also on the Palestinian side. Particularly now, as you mentioned, you see so much destruction in Gaza, and so many statements made by the Israeli political and military leaders were dehumanizing Hamas, dehumanizing Gaza, dehumanizing Palestinians. That I think [has] an even more severe negative impact on the future relations between Israelis and Palestinians. 

I am thinking of the future generation. What are we now leaving this young generation after? Thousands of Palestinian children were killed, and tens of thousands of Palestinians were injured. What are we leaving after this battle? Definitely not peacemaking and definitely not a resolution that responds to the dignity and the freedom of the Palestinians or even security for the Israelis. 

What does the peace process look like when a conflict goes from cold to hot, like in the case of the Israel-Hamas war? And where could the peace process start? Is it even possible to strategize for peace when a long-simmering conflict like this becomes a hot war?

In a situation like this where you have an ongoing bombardment and military engagement and offensive done by Israel at this point with the full support of the US and the full endorsement of European countries as well, the first thing you start with is the call for ceasefire. Even before the call for a ceasefire, something that President Biden tried to achieve, and I think failed at as well, is just a pathway corridor for humanitarian and medical relief to be delivered to the hospitals, to the families, to people who are without shelter. Corridors for humanitarian relief on the ground [and] calling for a ceasefire are the first two steps usually we introduce in these cases. 

Unfortunately, so far, the Israeli government has not agreed to both, whether it is humanitarian relief packages with medical relief or even food, have not agreed to that despite the intervention from the American government through the President, as well as the Foreign Minister or the Secretary of State. That's unfortunate, but I don't think we should lose faith. Looking at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, two or three years after every round there is another proposal for peace negotiations and for resolution of this conflict. The request for freedom and liberation, the request for living in dignity and security will not die, neither among Palestinians nor among Israelis. Unfortunately, we have not learned the lesson yet that military solutions are not effective and are not long-term arrangements for such demands. [Editor’s note: the first aid trucks to Gaza arrived through the Rafah crossing from Egypt on October 21, two weeks after the conflict began.]

As a peace and conflict resolution expert, you know that when a conflict is hot, political leaders are often making decisions with military leaders, and humanitarian concerns can fall by the wayside. Strategically, can you make the case to political and military leaders that humanitarian efforts and humanitarian aid also constitute a part of political and military strategy? 

International laws and international regulations and norms already made it very clear that civilians should not be targeted, hospitals should not be targeted, and schools should not be targeted. And all of these have been violated by the Israeli offense on Gaza. Again, the main argument here is that the more destruction you put on Gazans, the less likely you can have any security and peace in the future. Practically, it's impossible, and you cannot eliminate 2.5 million people who live in the most densely populated area around the world and who also have lived in an open-air prison for the past 16 years. The continuation of the bombardment of civilians and houses cannot be justified as a military strategy because it will not provide you with any military gain against Hamas fighters, Hamas militant groups, and Hamas weaponry. You're basically destroying any capacity and any possibility to engage with Palestinians in the future. 

At this point, the war is not really between Hamas and the Israeli military. The war has become a war between Israel and the Palestinian people all over the world—and even many people in the Arab and Muslim world. I think that's defeating the purpose of defeating terrorism and defeating Hamas in general. We have to, again, go back to international law and international norms, call for a ceasefire, and stop the targeting of civilians and hospitals and schools and any other civilian targets. 

What kind of conversations are you having with your peace and conflict resolution students regarding this conflict? 

In this situation, students, faculty, and people have a real dilemma in what type of position to take. Do they side with one side? Do they let their emotion drive their judgment here? Or are they capable of stepping back and looking at the exchanges, at the dynamic of the conflict, and go back to the ethics of peace, to the norms of peacebuilding? Go back to the values of humanity and be able to identify a position that encourages and supports the humanity on the two sides rather than take, again, an uncritical, biased, blind position. 

We encourage students to step back, look at the conflict from this perspective of peace, justice, and nonviolent resistance, and look at these values and how we can apply them to this situation. The first application is to insist on a ceasefire, stop this madness of civilian bombardment, and definitely be able to see that the blockade around Gaza of no food, no water, no electricity, no internet communication, and no mobility—this is a form of ethnic cleansing. This is a preparation for genocide, which triggers more fears. We train our students how to respond to those basic fears of Palestinians as well as Israel. And I think right now the Israeli public is driven by its fear and by this existential threat that has been brought back by the attack of Hamas on Saturday, October 7. And the Israeli politicians and the Israeli media have cultivated that attack to trigger more and more existential fears. Unfortunately, during this period, we lose our judgment, and we lose our human values in caring for other people. 

You received your BA and your MA from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. How did your time in Israel impact your view of this conflict? Did your time in the Middle East inspire you to study interfaith peacebuilding and conflict resolution? 

I am myself a Palestinian who lived north of Israel and went to school with many Israeli Jewish students and have worked for 12 years in programs of peace building and coexistence between Arabs and Jews inside Israel and have seen this kind of violence many times since 1980. Unfortunately, every time we come back to the same fears, to the same insecurities, and we try to respond to the fear and insecurity. We try to respond to the deprivation of freedom and justice by weapons and by military means. It failed already. 

My work in Israel and Palestine for the past 35 years has been on dialogue on peacebuilding and reconciliation. There are Israelis and there are Palestinians—and there are American Jews—who work for peacebuilding and justice and freedom and also who stand against the occupation and the apartheid in the West Bank as well. With those groups, we always work closely and try to find the common ground and how both sides, Palestinian and Israeli peacemakers, can advance the notion of justice and freedom in their own respective communities. My experience during this period has been working with those who are interested in peace, who are interested in dialogue, but on the principles of justice, freedom for all, and not only for one side.