Shortly after the United Arab Emirates and Israel announced their normalization of relations, the Chinese foreign minister expressed opposition to peace deals between Israel and the Gulf states, calling instead for the resurrection of the 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran and the creation of a mechanism for “collective security” in the Middle East. Addressing the UN Security Council in October, Wang backed down somewhat, instead making vague appeals to “good neighborliness” and promoting stability “without the intervention of biased non-Gulf players.” Tuvia Gering comments:

China views Donald Trump’s [diplomacy] in the Middle East and the recent breakthroughs in the Gulf as limiting its influence. . . . China seeks a multipolar alternative that challenges the Western-led “traditional security concept” enabled by “American hegemony” and [wishes] to replace it with a Chinese-led “shared security concept.”

Specifically, Beijing continues to support the Iran deal and reject sanctions against the Islamic Republic. China is expected to encourage the incoming Biden administration to rejoin the nuclear deal and end Trump’s strategy of “maximum pressure.”

For China, a U.S. military presence is necessary for keeping the Gulf calm, but the [Biden] administration’s skepticism of Egypt and Saudi Arabia (relating mainly to human rights) could force these countries to extend cooperation with their “comprehensive strategic partner,” China, in fields other than economy and trade. . . . Israel must do everything in its power to raise its concerns with the new administration in this regard. It would be a mistake to engage Iran at the expense of American regional security partners. Doing so would boost China’s foray into the region and undermine the positive momentum of the Abraham Accords.

If there is to be peace, Palestinians will have to unlearn the hatred of Israel they have imbibed during nearly two decades of Hamas rule. This will be a difficult task, but Cole Aronson argues, drawing on the experiences of World War II, that Israel has already gotten off to a strong start:

The population’s compliance can . . . be won by a new regime that satisfies its immediate material needs, even if that new regime is sponsored by a government until recently at war with the population’s former regime. Axis civilians were made needy through bombing. Peaceful compliance with the Allies became a good alternative to supporting violent resistance to the Allies.

Israel’s current campaign makes a moderate Gaza more likely, not less. Destroying Hamas not only deprives Islamists of the ability to rule—it proves the futility of armed resistance to Israel, a condition for peace. The destruction of buildings not only deprives Hamas of its hideouts. It also gives ordinary Palestinians strong reasons to shun groups planning to replicate Hamas’s behavior.