Russia invited Palestinian factions to meet in Moscow on February 26 to discuss national unity, a gathering uncertain for Hamas attendance. The Palestinian Authority pressed for an international voice in the conflict with Israel. In Munich, Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayeh suggested that unity talks should be grounded in widely accepted principles, while signaling willingness to discuss reconciliation from a solid, principled base. The remarks followed a speech by the Israeli president at the Security Conference, underscoring the ongoing international attention on the region.
These stated criteria come from the Palestine Liberation Organization, which Shtayeh emphasized as essential for any interlocutor to engage with. The Palestinian Authority lamented the absence of a partner to sit with in Israel and called for intervention by the European Union, the United Nations, the United States, or Arab states, arguing that the situation is grave given the presence of voices in Benjamin Netanyahu’s government that may be unsympathetic to Palestinian statehood as such.
Russia has not had official representation in Munich since the start of the Ukraine invasion, now marking two years. That absence has defined the Munich Security Conference (MSC), which this year reached its 60th edition and highlighted Western support for Ukraine as a central theme. Leading voices, from Chancellor Olaf Scholz to NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris, echoed this stance, amplified by the presence of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenski in Munich and participation from Baltic states, Poland, and Finland. Finland joined NATO as its 31st member, while Sweden’s accession process remained pending. The MSC opened with the death of Russian dissident Alexei Navalni, triggering broad Western repudiation of Vladimir Putin across the conference, intensifying the sense of a divided world order on the Russia-Ukraine crisis.
The Western consensus in favor of Kyiv contrasts with the split voices on Gaza. The United States and Germany have continued to defend Israel, arguing its right to self-defense in the face of the October 7 Hamas attacks and the plight of hostages. Yet criticisms of Israel’s response to the Gaza crisis are growing louder, including concerns about the humanitarian impact on millions of Palestinians displaced by fighting. In Germany, scrutiny remains tempered by historical responsibility, with calls to uphold international humanitarian law while avoiding broad condemnation of Israel.
El doble rasero, según Borrell
The division over the Gaza war resurfaced at the conference’s close. The European Union’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Josep Borrell, who spoke on Friday, returned to Munich for the final session on Sunday. He warned that Russia is exploiting Western missteps and a double standard, urging a robust, action-oriented response rather than mere words.
No one doubts the complexity of the challenge. The question remains whether a viable alternative to current strategies can be offered that would allow Israelis and Palestinians to coexist peacefully. The EU diplomat’s remarks reflected a broader plea for a balanced approach that respects both security concerns and humanitarian needs while avoiding a politics of punishment that could entrench suffering.
During the debate, the Spanish foreign minister, Jose Manuel Albares, voiced his rejection of portraying Spain as hostile to Israel. He expressed hope for a unified Palestinian front. The idea was to connect Gaza with the West Bank through a corridor and to anchor a capital in Jerusalem, urging skeptics and supporters alike to seize the opportunity presented by this tragedy to advance a two-state solution. Albares argued that the moment demanded a practical framework that could sustain peace rather than a platform for blame.
Jordan’s Ayman Safadi condemned what he called a collective killing of Palestinians, noting that tens of thousands have been killed or displaced, including thousands of children. Israel’s former minister Tzipi Livni responded to earlier remarks by Shtayed, which had attributed the origin of the Palestinian tragedy to events dating back to 1948, reminding listeners that plans proposed by the international community in 1947 could have benefited both sides but were rejected by parts of the Palestinian leadership. Livni highlighted the historical context and stressed the importance of revisiting viable options that could lead to durable coexistence.
The MSC thus framed a moment of high diplomatic sensitivity: Western unity on Ukraine contrasted with a more fractured approach to Gaza. The discussions reflected a search for pragmatic avenues that acknowledge security imperatives while advancing humanitarian protections and political solutions. The shared hope was that a renewed commitment to dialogue would help bridge gaps between the parties and foster a path toward lasting peace.