Gaza Peace: Contents and Discontents
On September 30, US President Trump with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at his side at the White House, announced a 20-point Peace Plan for Gaza. Earlier, Qatar joined the US to form as Trump announced a ‘trilateral mechanism’ of the three countries. A prominent Indian newspaper reported Trump as saying, “We agreed to launch a formal trilateral mechanism between Israel, Qatar, and the United States to enhance mutual security, correct misperceptions, and avoid future misgivings”. It will be recalled that Israel had bombed a building in Qatar on September 9 which housed a Hamas mediating team.
Naturally, Qatar had been outraged and the US got on the defensive because, as noted by this writer in these columns earlier, Qatar has the US Udeid airbase on its territory. To assuage Qatari sentiments, Trump got Netanyahu to call his Qatari counterpart to express regret at the Qatari action and to assure that the Jewish state would not repeat it in the future. In his media statement though Netanyahu emphasized that it had targeted Hamas and not the Qatari national who lost his life.
For the US, it is important to have Qatar on board because of its contacts with Hamas and the airbase.
In his statement on the Plan Netanyahu stressed that it met the objectives of Israel. He said the “plan is consistent with the five principles my government set for the end of the war…all our hostages, both those who are alive and those who died, all of them, will return home immediately. Hamas will be disarmed. Gaza will be demilitarized. Israel will retain security responsibility, including a security perimeter for the foreseeable future. And lastly, Gaza will have a peaceful civilian administration that is run neither by Hamas nor by the Palestinian Authority”.
The significant point is that Israel’s interpretation of the Plan is not on all fours with that of the eight Islamic states who the US has gathered to support it. These are Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan and Indonesia. While welcoming the Plan and praising Trump, the Foreign Ministers of these countries in a joint stated mentioned inter alia “They reaffirm their joint commitment to work with the United States to end the war in Gaza through a comprehensive deal that ensures unrestricted delivery of sufficient humanitarian aid to Gaza, no displacement of the Palestinians, the release of hostages, a security mechanism that guarantees the security of all sides, full Israeli withdrawal, rebuilds Gaza and creates a path for a just peace on the basis of the two state solution, under which Gaza is fully integrated with the West Bank in a Palestinian state in accordance with international law as key to achieving regional stability and security”.
Thus while Netanyahu has put the disarmament of Hamas as a key element of Israel’s aims, the Islamic group has not mentioned Hamas at all. In respect of Hamas, US and Israel are on the same page. For this is what the Plan states with regard to Hamas: “ Once all hostages are returned, Hamas members who commit to peaceful co-existence and to decommission their weapons will be given amnesty. Members of Hamas who wish to leave Gaza will be provided safe passage to receiving countries”. (Point 6). This is a clear illustration that Hamas will no longer be a viable group in Palestine. This idea is further strengthened: “Hamas and other factions agree to not have any role in the governance of Gaza, directly, indirectly, or in any form. All military, terror, and offensive infrastructure, including tunnels and weapon production facilities, will be destroyed and not rebuilt.
There will be a process of demilitarisation of Gaza under the supervision of independent monitors, which will include placing weapons permanently beyond use through an agreed process of decommissioning, and supported by an internationally funded buy back and reintegration programme all verified by the independent monitors. New Gaza will be fully committed to building a prosperous economy and to peaceful coexistence with their neighbours”. (Point 13)
What US and Israel want is that the Palestinians should be without any defence forces. Indeed, during the period of Israeli withdrawal the Plan contemplates an International Stabilization Force. It would appear that Trump wants this force to come from Muslim countries. The problem for these Muslim countries is that their people may find the idea that the Palestinians to become completely defenceless unacceptable. Hence, the fact that the Islamic group has entirely skirted this issue though it has said that a Palestinian state should have an international character. This implies that it will have the capability to defend itself.
In the long run the question is whether Israel will accept a two state solution which the majority of the international community wants. The Plan is equivocal on it. It states: “While Gaza re-development advances and when the PA reform programme is faithfully carried out, the conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood, which we recognise as the aspiration of the Palestinian people”. (Point 19). This is neither here nor there.
As I conclude this article Hamas’s response to the Plan is awaited. It is unlikely though it will fully agree with it. The Plan states that in that case it will go ahead in the areas of Gaza that are free from Hamas’s presence. This is not feasible. If Hamas rejects the Plan Trump will allow Israel to attack Hamas will renewed vigour and the hapless people of Gaza will continue to suffer.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi has welcomed that Plan. He has said that it provides a viable pathway for long term and sustainable peace and has asked all concerned to stand by Trump’s initiative. These are fine sentiments.
