Saudi Arabia, Israel and the risks of peace
The terrible losses suffered by Palestinians are the reason to push for peace. Gifting the Saudis a NATO-style security agreement and nuclear tech are not
With a terrifying 33,000 dead and much of Gaza destroyed, Israel’s military campaign in Gaza has come with an awful human cost. But even at this cost it isn’t achieving the Israelis’ objectives. Israel set out to “crush and destroy Hamas” but in spite of the horrific civilian death toll it has yet to kill the most senior leadership of the group in Gaza, such as Yahya Sinwar, leader of Hamas in Gaza and architect of the 7 October massacre. Similarly, the destruction of Hamas’s tunnel network has not been achieved. Nor, crucially, have its hostages been released. Even the IDF itself now claims to have “dismantled not destroyed” 20 of the 24 Hamas battalions. As the failure of Israel’s original mission becomes clearer, the goalposts have been moved. It is now increasingly argued that the awful costs of the Gaza operation are justified in order to send a warning to Hizbullah and Iran not to attack Israel.
I suspect that people making this argument - that the mass killing of civilians in one place is justified in order to warn off military commanders in another place - have not necessarily thought through its implications, including for the Israeli people themselves. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East region and its actions are often seen as having implicit validation on that basis. Whilst there are limitations to Israel’s democratic standards (such as the status of Arab citizens and Netanyahu’s judicial reforms) it is clearly far more free than any Arab territory, including the Palestinian Territories. But it would be foolish to assume that when democracies fight wars they do so without error. The record of the UK and US in Iraq is a useful reminder of this, including the Abu Ghraib scandals or the death in UK custody of Baha Mousa. Had America approached Fallujah or Mosul in the manner of the IDF tackling Gaza its safe to say that there would have been universal condemnation. Simply put, democracies should be held to higher standards, including a healthy scepticism of their military and political leaders.
The failure of Israel’s military objectives in Gaza is not particularly surprising, given that experts, including those sympathetic to Israel, predicted as much in the immediate aftermath of the October 7 massacre. In early November the US think-tank the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) predicted that “both sides now have no good options that will bring lasting peace or stability”. So the best that can be hoped for is some kind of peace deal that frees the hostages, ends the awful death toll in Gaza and restarts progress towards a two-state solution. Something of this nature is on the table but Netanyahu is unlikely to go for it as long as a Palestinian state is part of the equation.
Nukes for Bonesaws?
But this is where the wider risks come in. As part of a purported ‘grand bargain’ for regional peace, the Biden administration has sought to revive the Israel-Saudi diplomatic deal. The idea is that Saudi Arabia recognises Israel, Hamas frees the hostages and the two-state solution is restarted. But what’s in it for the Saudis? A little discussed part of this complex, interlinked peace plan involves the Saudis getting uranium enrichment technology from the Americans as well as NATO-style bilateral defence assurances and AI tech. With the Israeli part of this deal looking unlikely to work out - Netanyahu remains fully opposed to a Palestinian state - the Saudis are hoping to be able to hive off the Saudi-US part of the deal. And the Americans appear to be taking the idea seriously.
You read that right: there is a distinct possibility that Muhammad bin Salman, a man who ordered the Khashoggi murder, who sent squads of assassins roaming the world, who kidnapped the Lebanese prime minister, who started a war with Yemen and tried to start one with Qatar, who sponsored an attempted coup in Jordan and who has presided over mass executions may be about to be rewarded with nuclear enrichment technology. For good reason we do not want Iran to have nukes. We should be similarly nervous about the Saudis under such an erratic and unreliable ruler gaining this capability. (And MBS has not hidden his desire for nuclear weapons.) Similarly a defence pact with a country that has a habit of starting wars, or at least trying to start them, is a risky endeavour.
This is not to ignore the reasons the Americans might consider this: the Saudis see opportunity from the regional chaos and the longer term rise of China. America wants to bind the Saudis into its camp rather than having it gain risky technologies from America’s foes. But as the Saudis demonstrated with their refusal to support the global energy market in the aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, they are not a reliable ally. To reward the unreliable with dangerous and powerful technologies is geostrategically naive.
The idea that Saudi Arabia needs civil nuclear technology to navigate the energy transition is also bogus: clearly, Saudi is perfectly situated for wind and solar power. If the price of peace for Israel and Gaza was the Saudis getting access to nuclear technology, one might at least consider the option. But as a spin-off deal with no two-state solution on the table, it’s pure folly.
Thanks Arthur. Insightful and interesting as always