A simulation of a regional peace conference

Riyadh Summit 2025: The idea and the goal

According to Dr. Levin Schnur, the simulation depicted an event supposedly taking place in May 2025. According to the backstory, U.S. President Donald Trump and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman invite representatives from various countries and other leaders to discuss ways to realize their shared vision: regional stability and prosperity. Levin Schnur emphasizes that the organizers deliberately avoided the term “peace conference,” choosing instead to focus on the common interests of all parties.

She explains that a simulation is an academic tool designed to generate insights and prepare for future scenarios under conditions of uncertainty. The main goal was to “shake up the paradigm” and encourage “political imagination” by creating a playful environment that allows participants to think outside the box.

The participants and their interests

Boris raised doubts about the likelihood that countries like Lebanon or Turkey, or a Palestinian delegation, would agree to sit at the same table with Israel. Levin Schnur replies that the key is interests. Every country, she argues, has a broad set of interests that goes beyond the conflict with Israel. Lebanon, for example, is a weak state trying to recover, and it might find a regional transportation network more interesting than focusing on the conflict. According to her, the experts who played the roles of the representatives believed that such a meeting has potential.

Regarding the Palestinians, she notes that the invitation was sent to a “Palestinian leadership” and not explicitly to the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian representative in the simulation, Samer Sinijlawi, stressed that he does not represent Hamas or Fatah.

The Palestinian representation and the Israeli interest

Boris notes that the actual Palestinian leadership is Hamas in Gaza and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, and wondered about the chances that a moderate voice like Sinijlawi’s would be elected. Levin Schnur replies that the Palestinian Authority is corrupt and collapsing, and that recent polls show very low support for both Hamas (less than 6% in Gaza) and the PA. In contrast, there is broad support for the two-state solution.

The main insight from the simulation, she says, is that stability on the Palestinian front is an interest of all regional players, including Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United States. Palestinian governmental weakness is a vulnerability through which radical forces could penetrate and undermine the stability of the entire region. Therefore, this is not about doing a favor for the Palestinians, but about a shared interest.

Behind the scenes: The challenges and unique aspects

The simulation included representatives playing the roles of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. The Turkish representative and the Saudi representative participated via Zoom, partly due to difficulties the Turkish representative had in obtaining a visa. Levin Schnur says that the simulation was based on detailed “content files” prepared by experts, which included consultations with officials from the relevant countries.

She points out two unique aspects of this simulation. First, it was public and intended to make the insights accessible to the general public. Second, it did not try to promote a specific future scenario, but only to examine what a plausible future might look like. Levin Schnur talks about a previous simulation she conducted on the constitutional crisis in Israel, which she says predicted developments with surprising accuracy.

Language, culture, and self-interest

Boris asks why the simulation was conducted in English, even though the Israeli and Palestinian representatives began their conversation in Arabic. Levin Schnur replies that the use of English reflects American presence and influence. According to her, this points to a broader problem: Israel must remember that it has to look after its own interests. The United States, even under a friendly administration, primarily promotes its own interests.

She argues that Israel’s current leadership is not sufficiently engaged in formulating long-term plans. She compares this to another study of hers, in which she found a hundred-year history of proposals for an Israeli constitution, evidence of political imagination and long-term planning. Finally, she emphasizes that a goal was also to create a model for collaboration within Israel, which is why the initiative included bodies from various political backgrounds, such as the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.