Two months ago, euphoria washed over the people of both Israel and Gaza in celebration of a U.S.-brokered truce that halted two brutal years of war. But today, amid renewed sporadic fighting, the United States and Israel are at odds over how to implement the peace treaty’s next phase.
Critically, that phase will require Hamas to disarm, a move that the militant Islamic group, committed to armed struggle, is refusing to make. Oh well.
In the face of that rebuff, Washington appears to favor delaying disarmament, or watering down its provisions, according to Israeli media reports, to focus instead on reconstructing the Gaza Strip, wide stretches of which were flattened by Israeli bombs and artillery during the war.
For Israel, leaving Hamas in control of its weaponry is unthinkable, given the militant group’s commitment to the destruction of the state of Israel. It might even precipitate a return to full-scale war, some analysts warn. Oh well.
In the Israeli view, “rebuilding Gaza [before Hamas is disarmed] means you are basically cementing Hamas in place,” he adds.
There is mounting concern in Israel among some government and former security officials that it is being dictated to instead of being a partner in directing what happens next. Oh well.
Disarmament can be a long process, but Hamas’ refusal to commit to such a path makes everything else about the peace process even more complicated, argues Boaz Atzili, a professor of foreign policy and global security at American University in Washington.
“That’s because many of the powers that need to finance rebuilding in Gaza have said they don’t want to invest a penny in the Gaza Strip if it will all be ruined by another round [of war] in a couple of years,” he points out. Oh well.
Behind Washington’s apparent readiness to bypass Hamas’ disarmament, he explains, is a behind-the-scenes struggle between countries such as Qatar and Turkey, who want to maintain the ceasefire but want Hamas to be preserved in one form or another, and other regional powers, such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Egypt, which would prefer to see Hamas destroyed.
At the same time, Arab and Muslim countries would be reluctant to contribute troops to the peacekeeping International Stabilization Force (ISF) for Gaza if they risked facing off against armed Hamas militants. Oh well.
Mediators, such as the Turkish and Qatari governments, have been seeking to strike a compromise with Hamas that would allow its forces to retain light defensive weapons while giving up heavy weaponry, such as missiles.
“The big question,” says Mr. Milshtein, “is what Donald Trump says. If the White House is satisfied with this formula, it means we are in Phase 2 [of the ceasefire] and there will be very broad gaps between this compromise and what Netanyahu is demanding,” which is complete Hamas disarmament. Oh well.
“But the one who decides if this is a ceasefire or a resumption of war is Donald Trump,” Mr. Milshtein says.
President Trump’s Gaza peace plan requires Hamas to lay down its arms. The militant Islamic group is refusing to do so. Can the peace process survive?
apple.news
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Sunday after the G20 summit in South Africa that Ankara is still “evaluating” how it might participate in the planned
International Stabilization Force in Gaza.
Only in the Middle East could the same leader who shelters Hamas, compares Israel to the Nazis, and its prime minister to Hitler, suggest with a straight face that his country might help stabilize Gaza. Oh well.
The dissonance between the role Erdogan sees for
Turkey in Gaza and the one Israel will be willing to let him fill is glaring.
If Turkey wants operational access to Israel, it should first remove Hamas’s operational access to Turkey. Until then, Israel cannot afford to allow Turkish influence near.
apple.news
