Sunday, June 14, 2026

The Middle East Still Possible

 


The Middle East Still Possible

The Middle East is where continents meet. It can become where humanity meets.

Our previous article proposed a European Civil Power Initiative for the Middle East
[
A European Civil Power Initiative for the Middle East]. Initiatives, however, are only as meaningful as the destination they serve. Before discussing institutions, coalitions or diplomacy, it is worth asking a simpler question:

What kind of Middle East are we ultimately trying to build?


A Region Unlike Any Other

Stand on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean and look outward.
To the north lies Europe. To the south lies Africa. To the east lies Asia.
Few regions sit so naturally at the meeting point of continents.

For thousands of years people moved through this landscape carrying goods, ideas, beliefs and knowledge. Traders crossed deserts. Pilgrims followed ancient routes. Scholars translated texts. Merchants linked distant worlds. Empires rose and fell, while cities flourished, declined and flourished again.
Jerusalem. Damascus. Baghdad. Cairo. Istanbul.

Few regions contain such a concentration of human history.

The Middle East is often described through its conflicts. Yet conflict is only part of its story. Long before modern disputes emerged, this region connected worlds. Long after today’s disputes are resolved, its geography, cultures and people will remain.

The conditions that once made the Middle East one of humanity’s great crossroads never disappeared. The continents remain where they have always been. The trade routes have not vanished. The cities remain. The people remain. And with them remains an opportunity that has accompanied this region throughout its history.


What Remains Unfinished

The modern history of the Middle East is frequently told as a history of struggle.
There is truth in that.
Wars shaped borders. Conflict shaped politics. Security concerns shaped national identities. Enormous energy was invested in defending positions, maintaining balances, confronting adversaries and managing crises.

Yet this is not a story of complete failure.

Israelis built a sovereign state and one of the world’s most innovative economies. Palestinians preserved a national identity despite extraordinary pressures. Arab states transformed themselves from newly independent countries into influential regional actors. Regional powers expanded their reach and influence.

Achievements accumulated. Yet much remained unfinished.

Israel achieved sovereignty but continues to search for a security that military strength alone cannot provide. Palestinians preserved nationhood but still seek the state that nationhood was meant to build. The region gained influence, wealth and capability, while a shared regional future remained elusive.

Perhaps this is the best way to understand the modern Middle East.
Not as a region that failed. As a region that awaits completion.


The Middle East Still Possible

What might completion look like?

Not perfection. No region achieves perfection.

The Middle East has always been diverse. Its religions, cultures, languages and histories are part of its richness. Completion would mean something simpler: a region increasingly able to invest its energies in building rather than defending.

Imagine Jerusalem.

A city visited by Jews, Christians and Muslims from every continent. A city where history remains visible in every street and every stone. A city that continues to mean different things to different people.

Its significance does not diminish. Its role expands.

People arrive not only because of what happened there centuries ago, but because it has become one of the world’s great meeting places. A city of dialogue, scholarship, pilgrimage and exchange. History remains present. The future becomes equally visible.

From Jerusalem, the wider region begins to look different.

Mediterranean ports connect Europe, Africa and Asia. Gulf investment supports innovation across the region. Universities exchange students and researchers. Pilgrimage routes evolve into cultural routes. Ancient heritage attracts visitors from every corner of the world.

The Middle East possesses one of the richest collections of historical, cultural and religious sites on Earth. Millions already visit them. Millions more could.

Cities such as Beirut and Baghdad become known as much for universities, technology, culture and entrepreneurship as for their difficult histories. Their past remains visible, but it no longer defines them.

The same region that today is frequently associated with instability could become one of the world’s most remarkable destinations for learning, travel and discovery.

Solar fields stretch across landscapes that have harvested sunlight for millennia. Water cooperation transforms scarcity into shared responsibility. Regional projects connect cities, economies and communities in ways that make cooperation increasingly ordinary.

The region’s strategic importance comes not only from where it is located, but increasingly from what it creates.

Imagine Gaza.

Imagine it first as a city rather than a symbol.

A Mediterranean city with beaches, ports, universities, businesses and neighborhoods filled with ordinary life. A city connected to the region rather than isolated from it. A city whose young people are known primarily for what they build.

The image may seem distant today. Yet every thriving city in the world begins as an act of imagination before it becomes reality.


A Generation With A Wider Horizon

The opportunities of the Middle East are not limited to geography, resources or history.

Its greatest resource may ultimately be its people.

Across the region, millions of young people are entering universities, starting businesses, developing technologies, creating art and imagining futures different from those inherited from previous generations.

A peaceful Middle East would not create this talent. It already exists.
Peace would simply allow it to flourish more fully.

The Middle East still possible does not require the region to become something new. It requires the region to become more fully itself.

Imagine a generation that still learns history but is not imprisoned by it.
A generation that knows neighboring societies through travel, study, commerce and culture.
A generation that sees opportunity where previous generations often saw danger.
A generation confident enough to inherit the region without inheriting all of its conflicts.


Where Humanity Meets

The purpose of a Civil Power Coalition is not merely to reduce violence. Nor is it simply to support negotiations. Its purpose is to help create the conditions under which a different Middle East becomes possible.

A Middle East where cities become known more for universities than militias.
Where regional influence increasingly comes from what societies build rather than what they can destroy.
Where historical, cultural and religious diversity becomes a source of strength.
Where the region once again serves as one of humanity’s great crossroads.

Peace is not an end state. It is an enabling condition. It allows people to build, travel, study, invest, create and cooperate. It allows societies to spend more energy shaping the future than defending the past.

For too long, the Middle East has been defined primarily by what divides it. Yet beneath those divisions remains something larger. A crossroads of civilizations. A repository of human history. A meeting place of cultures, religions and peoples.

The Middle East is where continents meet.

It can become where humanity meets.

 

EPS-004 - European Position Statement - Greater-Israel Zionism

 



EPS-004 - European Position Statement - Greater-Israel Zionism

A Proposed European Position Statement


Scope of this Position Statement

EPS-001 evaluated an actor: Iran.

EPS-002 evaluated a policy: Israeli settlement expansion.

EPS-003 evaluated a strategy: Hamas armed resistance.

EPS-004 evaluates an ideology and political project: Greater-Israel Zionism.

That distinction matters.

This statement does not evaluate Zionism as a whole. Zionism encompasses multiple historical traditions and political interpretations. Many forms of Zionism are compatible with Israel’s existence as a legitimate, democratic and secure state.

This statement evaluates a more specific proposition:
The belief that Israel should permanently exercise sovereignty over all or most of the territory between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River while denying equivalent national self-determination to Palestinians.

The question is therefore:

Does Greater-Israel Zionism move the region toward or away from the direction identified by the Declaration Compass?


European Objective

Europe seeks a Middle East in which Israelis and Palestinians can pursue security, dignity and self-determination without permanently denying those same goods to one another.

Europe recognizes Israel as a legitimate political entity with legitimate security concerns.
Europe also recognizes Palestinian self-determination as a legitimate and unresolved aspiration.

European policy should therefore support developments that preserve a viable future for both peoples.

Political projects that secure one future while leaving the other permanently unresolved move the region away from durable peace.

The Greater-Israel project raises precisely that concern.


Compass Assessment

Future

Greater-Israel Zionism provides a clear future for Israeli Jews.

It does not provide an equally clear future for Palestinians. Supporters propose various arrangements ranging from autonomy to limited self-governance.
However, these proposals generally stop short of equivalent national self-determination.

The result is an asymmetrical political future. One national project is fully realized.
The other remains conditional, constrained or indefinitely postponed.

The Declaration Compass suggests that durable peace requires a future that can ultimately be inhabited by both peoples.

Compass Assessment: Negative.

Greater-Israel Zionism provides an incomplete future because it leaves Palestinian national aspirations fundamentally unresolved.


Security

Supporters of Greater-Israel Zionism frequently emphasize security. Given Israel’s history, these concerns cannot be dismissed.
Any realistic regional order must provide Israelis with security and protection from violence.

The Declaration Compass nevertheless asks a broader question:
Can security ultimately become reciprocal?

Greater-Israel Zionism tends to frame security primarily in terms of Israeli control.
It provides less clarity regarding how Palestinians might ultimately experience security within the same framework.

The result is a model that may strengthen security for one side while leaving the other unconvinced that its own security concerns will ever be fully addressed.

Compass Assessment: Mixed to Negative.

The project may strengthen Israeli security in the short term while weakening prospects for reciprocal security in the long term.


Reconciliation

The conflict is sustained not only by territory but also by history.

Both Israelis and Palestinians carry powerful historical narratives shaped by trauma, fear, displacement and loss.

Greater-Israel Zionism offers a strong narrative of Jewish continuity, belonging and historical attachment to the land.
What it offers less clearly is a corresponding path through which Palestinian historical grievances can be acknowledged and incorporated into a shared future.

The Declaration Compass views reconciliation not as forgetting history but as transforming history into coexistence.

Political projects that emphasize one historical narrative while leaving another unresolved face difficulty meeting this objective.

Compass Assessment: Negative.

Greater-Israel Zionism provides limited space for reconciliation because it leaves Palestinian historical grievances largely unresolved.


European Position Statement

Europe should distinguish clearly between support for Israel and support for the Greater-Israel project.

Support for Israel’s legitimacy, security and continued existence does not require support for political projects that permanently deny equivalent national aspirations to Palestinians.

Europe should therefore oppose efforts to institutionalize permanent asymmetry between Israeli and Palestinian futures.

Its argument should not be only legal. It should also be strategic.

Greater-Israel Zionism does not merely complicate negotiations.
It moves the region away from the direction required for durable peace.
It narrows the possibility of a future for both peoples.
It weakens prospects for reciprocal security.
It makes reconciliation more difficult.

Europe should therefore continue supporting initiatives that preserve political space for both Israeli and Palestinian self-determination while opposing developments that seek to make asymmetry permanent.


Compass Conclusion

The Compass assessment does not constitute a rejection of Israel.
Nor does it constitute a rejection of Jewish self-determination.

It is an assessment of a specific ideological and political project.

The Declaration Compass suggests that Greater-Israel Zionism moves the region away from the direction required for durable peace. Because durable peace requires a framework in which both Israeli and Palestinian futures can develop together.

The unfinished challenge [1] identified by the Declaration remains the same.
The issue is not whether one people should have a future.
The issue is whether both peoples can ultimately share one regional order based on future, security and reconciliation.


Reference

[1] The Road Not Taken in 1948
Completing What Was Left Unfinished
https://europe-is-us.blogspot.com/2026/06/the-road-not-taken-in-1948.html

A European Civil Power Initiative for the Middle East

 


A European Civil Power Initiative for the Middle East

Making Political Empowerment More Powerful Than Armed Resistance

The previous articles in this series arrived at a simple conclusion.

  • Europe needs its own Middle East strategy.
  • That strategy requires principles.
  • It requires a vision.
  • And it requires a practical role.

The proposed European Declaration for Middle East Stability argued that:
Peace becomes possible when enough people feel that their history has been seen, acknowledged and incorporated into a shared future.

The resulting Compass identified three guiding principles:

  • Future
  • Security
  • Reconciliation

Applying those principles revealed a recurring pattern.

  • Settlement expansion weakens the future.
  • Armed resistance weakens security.
  • Permanent grievance politics weakens reconciliation.

Yet another conclusion emerged as well.
The problem is not simply that destructive strategies exist.
The problem is that too many people see no credible alternative.


A Different Starting Point

Much of today’s diplomacy focuses on reducing violence.
That is necessary. But it is not sufficient.
Violence rarely disappears because people are persuaded to abandon it.
Violence declines when better alternatives become available.

This observation suggests a different objective.
Europe should not merely ask actors to abandon violence.
Europe should help create alternatives that are more powerful than violence.

The purpose of a European Civil Power Initiative would therefore be simple:
To make political empowerment more powerful than armed resistance.


Europe’s Unique Position

Europe cannot solve the Middle East conflict.
The peoples and states of the region must ultimately determine their own future.
But Europe may be uniquely positioned to help create the political conditions under which a solution becomes possible.

  • Unlike the United States, Europe is not primarily viewed as a military actor.
  • Unlike Iran, Europe is not invested in resistance as a regional strategy.
  • Unlike Israel, Europe is not a direct combatant.
  • Unlike Hamas or Hezbollah, Europe does not derive legitimacy from confrontation.

This gives Europe an unusual opportunity. Not to impose a settlement.
But to help strengthen the political, economic and diplomatic alternatives that make peaceful outcomes more attractive.


A Civil Power Coalition

Europe should not attempt this alone. Nor should it present itself as the architect of a Middle Eastern future.
Instead, Europe should invite the formation of a Civil Power Coalition.
A coalition of the willing. A coalition not defined by military alliances, ideology or religion.
A coalition defined by a shared commitment to making political empowerment more powerful than armed resistance.

The founding participants could include willing European states together with key regional partners such as:

  • Jordan
  • Egypt
  • Saudi Arabia
  • Qatar
  • Indonesia
  • Turkey

and others prepared to support the principles of Future, Security and Reconciliation.

The coalition would remain open to broader participation.
Its purpose would not be to choose sides. Its purpose would be to strengthen alternatives.


Four Areas of Action

The Civil Power Coalition would focus on four areas.

Political Empowerment

Political institutions must become more effective than military organizations.

Support for governance, representation, elections, administrative capacity and political participation should therefore become a central priority.

Palestinians need a credible political horizon. Political empowerment should not be viewed as a reward after peace. It should become one of the instruments through which peace is made possible.


Economic Empowerment

People are more likely to invest in the future when they believe a future exists.

Reconstruction, investment, trade, infrastructure and economic development should therefore be treated not only as economic tools but also as peace-building tools.

Prosperity cannot solve the conflict. But conflict becomes harder to sustain when prosperity becomes achievable.


Reciprocal Security

Security must not remain a zero-sum proposition.

Israelis require security. Palestinians require security. The region requires security.

The coalition should therefore support monitoring mechanisms, confidence-building measures and practical arrangements that gradually reduce dependence on military leverage.

The objective is not simply security. It is reciprocal security.


Reconciliation

No durable peace can emerge if history remains permanently contested.

The coalition should support initiatives that encourage acknowledgement of historical experience without demanding historical surrender.

The objective is not agreement on history. The objective is coexistence despite different memories of history.


A Different Logic

The initiative does not begin by asking: What final settlement should be imposed?

Instead it asks:

  • How can political alternatives become stronger than military alternatives?
  • How can diplomacy become more rewarding than confrontation?
  • How can coexistence become more attractive than permanent conflict?

The answers may differ over time.

But the direction remains consistent: Future, Security, Reconciliation.


Europe’s Invitation

The purpose of the Civil Power Coalition would not be to replace existing diplomacy.

It would be to strengthen what existing diplomacy often lacks.

  • A credible political road.
  • A road for Palestinians beyond permanent armed resistance.
  • A road for Israelis beyond permanent domination.
  • A road for regional actors beyond perpetual confrontation.

Europe cannot deliver peace. But Europe can help make peace more powerful than violence.

That may be its most important contribution to the Middle East.


Summary - Looking Ahead

The European Declaration for Middle East Stability proposed a set of principles.

The Civil Power Initiative proposes a practical direction.

The next challenge is operational.

How can the principles of Future, Security and Reconciliation be translated into concrete positions on the major issues dividing the region today?

That remains the work ahead. But every journey begins with a first step.

The first step is building a coalition willing to make political empowerment more powerful than armed resistance. 


Reference

Europe's Missing Role in the Middle East
Why Europe Must Offer More Than Criticism
https://europe-is-us.blogspot.com/2026/06/europes-missing-role-in-middle-east.html

 

 

 

Europe's Missing Role in the Middle East

 

Europe's Missing Role in the Middle East

Why Europe Must Offer More Than Criticism

Europe has become increasingly vocal about the Middle East.
European leaders criticize settlement expansion. They criticize attacks on civilians. They criticize humanitarian suffering. They criticize regional escalation.

Often these criticisms are justified. Yet criticism alone has not moved the region closer to peace. The question is why. The answer may be uncomfortable.
Europe has become increasingly clear about what it opposes. It remains far less clear about what it actively offers instead.


The Limits of Criticism

Consider the main actors in today’s conflict.

  • Europe tells Israel that settlement expansion undermines peace.
  • Europe tells Hamas that armed resistance undermines peace.
  • Europe tells Hezbollah that permanent confrontation undermines peace.
  • Europe tells Iran that regional escalation undermines peace.

Europe is largely correct in each case. But from the perspective of those actors, another question immediately arises:

What is the alternative?

If Palestinians abandon armed resistance, what political path becomes available?
If Israel accepts limits on territorial expansion, what security framework replaces it?
If Iran reduces support for resistance movements, who ensures that Palestinian aspirations remain visible?
If Hezbollah abandons confrontation, what guarantees prevent its constituency from feeling abandoned?

Too often, the answer appears vague.

Europe asks actors to move away from conflict but offers insufficient clarity about where they should move toward.


What The Declaration Revealed

The proposed European Declaration for Middle East Stability [1] was built around a simple insight:

Peace becomes possible when enough people feel that their history has been seen, acknowledged, and incorporated into a shared future.

From that insight emerged three guiding principles:

  • Future
  • Security
  • Reconciliation

Applying these principles to the first European Position Statements [2 (Iran), 3 (Israeli Settlements), 4 (Hamas)] produced a recognizable result.

  • Settlement expansion weakens the future.
  • Hamas armed resistance weakens security.
  • Permanent grievance politics weakens reconciliation.

And something else gained visibility. Israel’s opponents are responding, however imperfectly, to problems they believe remain unresolved [5].

The issue is not simply that destructive strategies exist.
The issue is that too many people see no credible alternative.


The Missing Ingredient

Current diplomacy often assumes that violence can be reduced by asking those who use it to stop.

But history suggests something different.
Violence rarely declines because people are persuaded that it is wrong.
Violence declines when more effective alternatives become available.

This principle applies far beyond the Middle East.
Democratic politics became attractive because it offered an alternative to civil conflict.
European integration became attractive because it offered an alternative to continental rivalry.

The same logic applies here.

Europe should not ask people to abandon violence unless it is prepared to help build alternatives that are more powerful than violence.


Europe’s Opportunity

This is where Europe possesses a unique opportunity.

  • Unlike the United States, Europe is not primarily viewed as a military actor.
  • Unlike Iran, Europe is not invested in resistance as a regional strategy.
  • Unlike Israel, Europe is not a direct combatant.
  • Unlike Hamas or Hezbollah, Europe does not depend upon confrontation for political legitimacy.

This creates a different possibility.

Europe can help construct political leverage that competes with military leverage.
Not by replacing local actors. Not by imposing solutions.
But by creating conditions in which political pathways become more rewarding than armed ones.


A Different Kind of Power

Europe’s strongest instruments are not armies.
They are legitimacy, markets, diplomacy, institutions, reconstruction capacity and international partnerships. These tools are often underestimated because they operate slowly. Yet they can influence the fundamental calculation facing political movements.

If a Palestinian movement can achieve more through political recognition than through rockets, the attraction of rockets declines.

If Israeli security can be strengthened through regional guarantees rather than permanent control, the attraction of permanent control declines.

If regional actors can gain influence through diplomacy rather than confrontation, the attraction of confrontation declines.

The objective is not to eliminate conflict overnight. The objective is to change incentives.


The Role Europe Has Not Yet Claimed

Europe frequently speaks of peace. Less frequently does it speak of its own responsibility in making peace possible.

Part of the modern Middle East emerged through decisions in which European powers played significant roles. Europe cannot change that history. But it can influence what follows.

Its most important contribution may therefore not be another statement, another condemnation or another appeal for restraint. Its most important contribution may be helping create a political road that is stronger than violence.

A road that allows Palestinians to pursue self-determination without permanent armed resistance.
A road that allows Israelis to pursue security without permanent domination.
A road that allows regional actors to support political progress rather than military confrontation.


Looking Ahead

If Europe accepts this role, a practical question follows.

How can political leverage be made more powerful than military leverage?

How can Europe, together with regional and international partners, help create incentives strong enough to move actors away from conflict and toward coexistence?

These questions point beyond principles. They point toward initiative.

And that may be Europe’s next task.


References

[1] A European Declaration for Middle East Stability
https://europe-is-us.blogspot.com/2026/06/a-european-declaration-for-middle-east.html

[2] EPS-001 - European Position Statement - Iran and Middle East Stability
https://europe-is-us.blogspot.com/2026/06/eps-001-european-position-statement.html

[3] EPS-002 - European Position Statement - Israeli Settlement Expansion
https://europe-is-us.blogspot.com/2026/06/eps-001-european-position-statement_0564720085.html

[4] EPS-003 - Hamas Armed Resistance
https://europe-is-us.blogspot.com/2026/06/eps-003-hamas-armed-resistance.html

[5] The Road Not Taken in 1948
Completing What Was Left Unfinished
https://europe-is-us.blogspot.com/2026/06/the-road-not-taken-in-1948.html