Recently, I delivered a talk on the predicaments in the Middle East at a seminar hosted by Sargodha University. I am thankful to Dr Muhammad Abrar Zahoor Bhatti, Head of the History Department, and Asif Khan, CEO of the Shaheed Bhutto Foundation (SBF), for inviting me. Indeed, the History Department collaborated with the SBF to arrange this well-timed seminar, which provided an opportunity to discuss the historical roots of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and the broader geopolitical struggles shaping the region.
As I traced the origins of the conflict back to the British Mandate period, it became evident how colonial legacies, wars, and power struggles have perpetuated instability. During the British Mandate period, four major trends were noticeable: (1) Zionist immigration to Palestinian land, (2) forced eviction of Palestinians from their land, (3) Palestinian resistance, particularly during 1936–39, and (4) support for Israel from major powers, including the UK and the US. Moreover, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and subsequent British policies generated deep political imbalances, thus, leading to the Nakba (catastrophe) of 1948, when approximately 700,000 Palestinians were displaced from their land. That displacement, which remains unresolved, set the stage for recurring cycles of violence, culminating in the latest war in Gaza.
The recent escalation is not an isolated event but part of a broader pattern of military confrontations. The wars of 1948, 1967, and 1973 redefined borders, reinforced Israeli territorial expansion, and worsened the Palestinian refugee crisis. The Six-Day War of 1967 was particularly significant as it resulted in Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. It turned the Palestinian issue into a protracted struggle over sovereignty and statehood. The latest war in Gaza follows the same grim trajectory: widespread destruction, high civilian casualties—many of them women and children—and an uncertain future. With around 50,000 civilian casualties reported and entire neighborhoods turned to rubble, Gaza continues to suffer as the world debates its fate.
Given the recent developments that struck Gaza and Syria, the Middle East is being reshaped around the concept of “Greater Israel” with unwavering American and European support
While the humanitarian crisis is alarming, the geopolitical dimension is equally significant. The Abraham Accords (2020), which attempted to normalise Israeli-Arab relations, have failed to address the Palestinian question. The Hamas rejected the accords outright, understanding that they were designed to sideline Palestinian aspirations for statehood. Importantly, the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attack further intensified hostilities, triggering yet another large-scale Israeli military response. The fragile ceasefire and consequent prisoner exchanges provide temporary relief, as these do not resolve the fundamental issues of illegal occupation of Palestinian territories, displacement, and denial of statehood.
Moreover, I argued that the Arab states, particularly Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia continue to play a role in managing the latest Israel-Gaza war. Egypt’s historical ties to Gaza position it as a key mediator in ceasefire negotiations, while Jordan balances its diplomatic relations between Israel and Palestine. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, leverages its economic influence and seeks to reshape regional alliances to its advantage. However, the American policies—especially under Trump 2.0—have undermined genuine peace efforts in Gaza in particular and the Middle East in general. His so-called “Riviera Plan”, which sought to redraw regional borders and pressure Palestinian leadership into submission, was widely criticised for violating international law and disproportionately favoring Israel. Arguably, such unilateral approaches alienate Palestinians and reinforce the perception that American diplomacy is skewed against them.
Beyond Gaza, the conflicts in Syria and the looming threat of war with Iran further destabilise the region, I posited empirically. For example, Syria, which has been engulfed in civil war since 2011, has become a battleground for competing global interests. Russia and Iran supported the former Assad regime, while the US and Turkey backed different rebel factions, i.e. HTS, thus, leading to a fragmented state with no clear path to peace and prosperity. Meanwhile, Netanyahu’s potential escalation against Iran raises serious concerns. A military strike on Iran would serve his domestic political interests, strengthen his support among security-focused ultra-conservative constituencies, and align with broader US efforts to curb Iranian influence. Trump’s administration had already set the stage for confrontation by withdrawing from the JCPOA and pursuing a hostile posture toward Tehran. If these policies persist, the risk of a broader regional conflict will only increase, with significant consequences for global energy markets and international diplomacy.
Given the recent developments that struck Gaza and Syria, the Middle East is being reshaped around the concept of “Greater Israel” with unwavering American and European support. Importantly, the four trends that characterised the British Mandate period have not disappeared; rather, they persist today. One, the settler colonialism project continues, with more and more Zionist immigrants moving into occupied Palestinian territories. Two, the Palestinians are still being forcibly expelled from their land, leaving them stateless and vulnerable. Three, however, despite facing immense hardships, the Palestinians continue to resist Israeli aggression and genocidal war, just as they did during 1936–39. Fourth, the major powers—primarily the US and the UK—continue to support Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian land, providing military aid, diplomatic cover, and, above all, economic assistance.
I concluded that the major powers must find an equitable solution to this lingering conflict. Indeed, the US ought to engage with regional Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia not only to end the Gaza war but also to find a resolution to the conflict that the Palestinians accept. Noticeably, the young students engaged in thoughtful questions, which were amicably addressed. Their curiosity and critical thinking reaffirmed the importance of academic discussions on these pressing issues. It is crucial that scholars from metropolitan centers actively engage with universities and colleges in the periphery, hence, fostering meaningful dialogue and ensuring that diverse perspectives contribute to the global discourses on conflict (resolution), peace, and prosperity.