Gaza peace plan: reading between the lines

The ceasefire agreement on the war in Gaza, signed on October 10 at Sharm el Sheik, is now two weeks old. It is still holding on, in a manner of speaking. The tongue-in-cheek statement conveys its beleaguered state. No sooner the exchange of Israeli hostages  and Palestinian prisoners was completed than began bombing by Israeli Defence Force (IDF), killing 39 and injuring 146 Palestinians. In another violation of the ceasefire deal, on average only 89 aid delivery trucks  have been  allowed to enter  into Gaza  as against the target of 600 trucks daily. The visit of American vice president Mark Vance to Israel on October 20 and the presence of Steve Witkoff  and Jared Kushner in the Israeli capital before him indicate that Trump administration is wary about the  ceasefire unravelling because of violations by Netanyahu Government. This means that Israel does not seriously agree on all the goals envisaged in the 20 point Gaza peace plan drawn up by Trump administration. In other words, the American and Israeli interests in Gaza do not converge in every respect. Reactions by Hamas spokespersons to provisions in the plan on their disarming and the governance of Gaza also indicate disagreements on key issues by the Palestinians. If the first phase of the plan, the ceasefire, was a piece of cake, the second and subsequent phases present great uncertainty because of divergence of interests among  the three stakeholders, i.e. America, Israel and Hamas. The differences in perspectives and objectives of the three major parties involved in the implementation of the plan can be explained with reference to the implications of the 20 points contained in the plan.

The 20-point peace plan crafted by Trump cronies, ostensibly for permanent peace in Gaza, has in reality been an attempt by Trump administration to accommodate Israeli interests with those of America's. It can be seen, going through the points, that in this balancing act the priority goes to America, with Israel assigned a secondary beneficiary role and Gazans (Palestinians) almost relegated to the background with minor consolation prizes and promises for the future. These divergences of interests will not make it possible to make any headway in the implementation of the peace plan.

Point number one requires de-radicalisation on the part of Gazans, by implications the Palestinians. This means not only banning armed groups like Hamas but also sanitising school and college syllabus by expunging all historical records about the expulsion of Palestinians by Israeli militants since 1949 after the establishment of the state of Israel. Likewise, all references to occupation by IDF since 1967 and blockade of Gaza since 2005 will have to be excluded from text books. These amount to erasure of Palestinian identity forged in the wounds of history. No community of men and women sharing a common past that includes not only suffering but also great sacrifices by ordinary individuals and folk heroes can agree to forget their memory and not to pass it on from generation to  generation. Apart from the absurdity of the proposition there is also iniquity involved here because Israelis will be allowed to wallow in the glory of their three thousand year old history and their destiny to live in the Biblical 'promised land'. Point number one, therefore, embodies an absurd and sinister idea. Only colonial powers in the past tried to do this to subjugate their colonised people and they miserably failed.

Under point number two comes re-development of war-torn Gaza, rebuilding roads, markets, schools, hospitals, educational institutions, office blocs, residential buildings, hotels, restaurants and recreational facilities. This is a gargantuan task given the scale of destruction wrought by   IDF over the last two years. The required fund is expected to come from the Arab countries and Europe. Assuming the fund will be forthcoming as expected, the most important question is the role of Palestinians in this humongous re-building project. Unless the Palestinians have a controlling role, Gaza will see a group of carpetbaggers from Arab countries playing proxy for America  and corralling the lion's share of benefits, leaving  only crumbs to the Palestinians. Agency of Palestinians is more important at the later stage when projects are completed and given over to owners. Given that in most cases deeds and titles to land and buildings have been lost under rubbles many Palestinians will be in a difficult position to claim ownership of property lost. This apprehension can be allayed only by having a Palestinian representation in the re-building project's authority. The absence of a representative body in Gaza in the plan during this transition period gives ground to believe that the re-building of Gaza is going to be a great rip off carried out by whalers and dealers of the Trump cabal. It is argued that one of the motivations for Trump administration in re-building Gaza is to make 'mega bucks' without investing a single dollar by Americans. From his utterances made as early as February this year, president Trump has made it amply clear that he looks upon re-development of Gaza from the standpoint of a real estate developer. This suspicion can be removed if the UN is made responsible to implement the re-building projects along with Palestinian representatives.

The fourth point provides for immediate ceasefire, withdrawal of Israeli armed force to an agreed line and freezing of ' present battle lines till conditions are met for full, staged withdrawals. With 51 per cent of Gaza under Israeli occupation this meant the frozen battle lines would give IDF control over more than half of the strip. Anyway, this point was the easiest to accomplish once the belligerents agreed to a ceasefire. The ceasefire that came into effect on the basis of the plan has been fragile, with Israel breaking it with bombings and failing to allow targeted number (600) of aid- carrying trucks daily into Gaza. In the aftermath of these violations Tel Aviv saw visits by trouble shooters like Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushnar followed by high profile visits by the American vice president Mike Vance and the secretary of state, Marco Rubio in quick succession. The visits by the high profile Americans indicate the concern of Trump administration over telltale signs of Israeli government's attempts to derail the peace process. This concern is not for any love of Hamas or the Palestinians who have been treated rather shabbily under the plan as will be shown later. American concern for peace is based on its overarching goal of establishing a strategic security presence in Gaza (a naval base?) and to satisfy the real-estate-mogul-turned president's desire to have five star hotels in the prime sea front land of the strip. Benjamin Netanyahu has realised that America's eagerness to end the war and have permanent peace is genuine but it is more skewed in favour of American interests than Israel's, not to speak of Palestine's. Israel, therefore, has very little reason to allow America to scupper its plan of occupying Gaza for implementation of Greater Israel. Perhaps to drive home this point the Israeli parliament, Knesset, passed a proposal to consider a bill for annexation of the West Bank even before the American vice president left Tel Aviv. The American vice president responded to the news with displeasure, saying he felt insulted. Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, before arriving in Tel Aviv on the heels of the vice president, commented on the Knesset's action that it would harm the peace process. America either does not fully understand Israel's end game in Gaza i.e. making it part of Greater Israel or wants to pre-empt that goal with the implantation of its hidden agenda (American naval base and a real estate a la Riviera). Obliviously, in this battle of conflicting interests, America has the upper hand over Israel, with many cards to play against Israel. The coming weeks will show in which direction the wind blows. Points four and five relate to exchange of Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners. Overcoming minor hiccups the exchanges have proceeded as per plan.

Point six is the most contentious from the point of Hamas as it requires them to surrender arms in exchange of amnesty and safe passage. Hamas spokespersons have made it clear that they would not disarm until the full withdrawal of IDF from Gaza and the establishment of an independent Palestine state. Both the ceasefire and the peace plan is most likely to collapse on this intractable problem. Both America and Israel will blame Hamas for this, renewing the frozen offensive by IDF to occupy the whole of Gaza. In that scenario, Israel will have its settlers occupying  Gaza, expelling Gazans under the pretext of 'voluntary  migration' and allowing its steadfast ally America to have a naval base and the great Israeli friends Donald Trump and his  son- in- law to have their dream real estate project along the coast of Gaza. Parties that can put a spanner to this design to carve up Gaza are only those European countries that have recognised the state of Israel and can impose punishing tariffs or sanctions against Israel. Also reluctance of Arab countries to foot the bill of rebuilding Gaza may act as a disincentive for America's plan to have a beachhead in Palestine.

Analysing the implications of the remaining points is now of academic interest since those will be reduced to of no significance after the failure of ceasefire and the resumption of the war by Israel. Still, those may be gone through quickly to see whose interests they serve.

Points seven and eight are the least problematic as these include reconstruction of roads, restoration of water, electricity, functioning of hospitals and most importantly resumption of humanitarian aid through the UN agencies. But recent declaration by Marco Rubio that UN agency UNRWA will not be allowed to deliver aid in Gaza   makes this untenable. The UN must have unfettered freedom in choosing which of its agency should be involved in aid delivery. Point nine, providing for a technocratic government to govern Gaza during the transition and a Board of Peace, is a hornet's nest, so far as Palestinians are concerned. The presiding over of the supreme oversight body, the Board of Peace, by president Trump and inclusion of former British prime minister Tony Blair as the head of the technocratic government leaves no doubt that what is intended is a trusteeship administered by foreign political stalwarts, a throwback to the era of colonialism. The unprecedented fact of president Trump becoming the chairperson of the Board gives him wide powers to protect American and his own business interests in Gaza. In fact this has been uppermost in the minds of the architects of the so called peace plan. The Palestinians have already rejected the idea of a foreign-dominated technocratic government and want representatives of the Palestinians from the technocratic community in Gaza to govern in the interim period. Point ten envisages the drawing up of a short and long term development  plan  while point eleven  provides for an  economic zone in Gaza where foreign investors can participate bringing their funds. Here too, the Palestinians would like to have roles in policy and decision making to ensure that economic developments are tailored to their needs and the beneficiaries are Palestinians. After all the sacrifices made and sufferings they have gone through they would not like to see a model of development that harks back to the old days of colonialism. Even to a neutral observer Trump's peace plan essentially resurrects memories of old colonial rules. Point twelve assures  that no one will be forced to leave Gaza  but the caveat that anyone leaving will have the right to return raises the suspicion that Palestinians leaving  Gaza is on the cards. One can interpret this as expulsion with a promise of returning. But once the Gazans leave, in whatever number, their promised return  will be beset with so many administrative and security problems that return to Gaza for émigrés will be well nigh impossible. So, the otherwise innocuous point number twelve is actually a Trojan horse.

Point thirteen points out that Hamas will have no role in the governance of Gaza and again requires them to surrender arms. While Hamas may agree to be outside the technocratic government they will insist that the technocratic government should be home-grown, and they have already made public this demand. After fighting against the domination and blockade of Israel for so many years they cannot be expected to agree to a government handpicked by outsiders. As regards surrender of arms, they are likely to reiterate their demand for complete withdrawal of IDF from Gaza before considering   their disarming. Point fourteen requires Arab countries to ensure compliance of Hamas, implying compliance of Israel will be taken care of by America. The Arab countries having done nothing to stop or condemn the war waged by Israel for over two years in Gaza are not likely to be seen as the well-wishers of Palestinians and as such is not in a position to convince  or persuade Palestinians to  implement the plan that is so skewed against their interests. Point fifteen is very important, providing for an international stabilisation force (ISF). As of now decisions about which countries will contribute to this force and who will be in command have been made, revealing the intricacies involved in establishing such a force. Meanwhile, America has set up a command and coordination base in southern Israel with 200 of its soldiers. Countries like United Kingdom (UK) have reportedly joined this co-ordination base. Ostensibly for monitoring, this multinational force is likely to oversee the activities of the ISF, making the latter subordinate to its authority. Point sixteen assures that Israel will not annex Gaza and that IDF will gradually withdraw. This is music to the ears of Palestinians but anathema to Israel. The main objective of Israel's Gaza being occupation of the strip for settlements of Israelis, Netanyahu government will do everything in its power to wriggle out of this clause. The withdrawal of IDF, leaving a perimeter along Gaza border for their security surveillance will mean their permanent occupation of Gaza territory and as such will not be acceptable to the Palestinians. Point seventeen provides for aid delivery in areas that are not under Hamas control. This means 49 per cent area under Hamas control will be deprived of aid delivery by UN.  This is against all humanitarian principles and will be objected to by the Palestinians and aid giving agencies. Interfaith dialogue provided for in point nineteen is premature and a wishful thinking now. Cordial relations between Israel and Palestinians will require contrition and apology from the Israelis who have been the main oppressors and violators of human rights in occupied Palestine. This point is allied to point twenty which envisages dialogue between Israel and Palestine to agree on a political horizon for peaceful co-existence. This again, places a greater moral responsibility for Israel than for Palestinians.

Point number nineteen is most crucial for the implementation of the peace plan. As it is has been formulated, a pathway to a future Palestine state will be created if Palestine Authority (PA) in the West Bank is reformed satisfactorily. The conditionality attached to gaining statehood will be rejected by Palestinians as they consider this as their basic right. After more than 150 countries have recognised the state of Palestine it cannot be made conditional on reforms of an authority (PA) that has become   moribund and irrelevant. Palestinians have waited for long, paying in blood, tears and sweat to the illegal occupiers. Asking them to fulfil conditions for statehood is not only hypocritical but also is violation of international law.

The Gaza peace plan was dead on its arrival because it does not address the basic rights of the Palestinians. The fact that it has been crafted by president Trump and his cronies with ulterior motives make it unacceptable not only to Palestinians but to the Israelis as well.

hasnat.hye5@gmail.com