Israel needs to adopt a long-term objective in its response to Hamas’s attack of Oct. 7. Israel’s immediate objective is the defeat of Hamas. The question becomes what is to happen not only to Gaza but also to the West Bank when that happens.
For Israel simply to withdraw from Gaza would lead to a resuscitation of Hamas. For Israel to stay in Gaza would revive the problems which led to its withdrawal in 2005.
The recent negotiations around a ceasefire, release of the hostages, an Arab peacekeeping force and Israeli recognition of a Palestinian state, if accepted, would keep Hamas in power. The May 31 proposal of US President Joe Biden, which would keep Hamas in power in Gaza, is a non-starter. A ceasefire was already in place on Oct. 6, before the Hamas attack of Oct. 7. For Hamas, a new ceasefire would be a rearmament pause before its next attack on Israel. The Hamas leadership has said as much.
Simply putting the Palestinian Authority nominally in charge of Gaza leads to the same dead end. In the 2006 Palestinian elections, Hamas won. There have been no elections since then. With a new election, the result would likely be the same.
For peace negotiations to reach a plausible agreement, both an ideal result in mind and a strategy to reach that result must be in place. The ideal solution is well known – two states living side by side in peace with each other. The strategy should be directed to overcoming the widespread animosity among Palestinians to the existence of Israel and the resignation of Israelis to the reality of that animosity.
To want to live side by side in peace with each other, both populations must want peace. The continued terrorism against Israel and Israelis emanating not only from Gaza but also from the West Bank, as well as the Palestinian Authority’s failure to accept one Israeli peace plan after another, has made the Palestinian Authority not a credible peace plan partner and has generated radicalism within Israel opposing peace.
Among the Israeli residents of the West Bank, there are groups who engage in terrorism against Palestinians in pursuit of the integration of the West Bank into Israel. The government of Israel has been remiss in preventing this terrorism and remedying the consequences.
Current negotiations with Arab states may give the Palestinian Authority again a peace plan offer, this time, one they may accept. The suggestion that they would or even could implement a peace plan effectively is a lot harder to credit.
Instead, those Arab states currently proposed as contributors to a possible peacekeeping force after a ceasefire should agree, along with the Palestinian Authority, on something different. They should agree to deny Hamas’s propaganda, counter Hamas’s allies, and stand against Hamas’s physical and military survival. In areas of Gaza where Hamas has been defeated, the Israel Defence Forces would withdraw, to be replaced by Arab coalition forces, led by Egypt, as governing trustees. The same coalition, led by Jordan, would advise and assist the Palestinian Authority to act consistently in the West Bank with what the coalition is doing in Gaza. The United Nations General Assembly, if the proposed Arab coalition and the Palestinian Authority took the initiative, could authorize the UN Trusteeship Council to supervise the trusteeship over Gaza.
The proposed trusteeship would step into the shoes of the Palestinian Authority, with sole control over Area A outlined in the Oslo Accord, joint control with Israel in Area B and no control over Area C. The boundaries of the West Bank trusteeship, under this arrangement, could be shifted to take into account territorial swaps proposed in various peace negotiations.
To Israel, that sort of agreement would signal commitment by the Arab coalition to the defeat of Hamas and a lasting peace. From an Arab coalition perspective, Hamas’s defeat would mean victory over a common enemy, reining in terrorism based on distortions of Islam, a form of terrorism that has plagued the Arab world. From a Palestinian perspective, such an agreement could provide security for distribution of aid and medical supplies, which, despite the abundance of deliveries, has been to date difficult and dangerous.
Eradicating the terrorist threat completely is unrealistic even in the most peaceful of states. An Arab coalition Gaza trusteeship and a West Bank advice and assistance role would remain in effect until such time as Gaza and West Bank can form a functioning state; until the terrorism threat emanating from these territories is marginalized; and until Palestinians generally are ready to accept Israelis as their neighbours.
This Arab coalition trusteeship for Gaza and advice and assistance role for the West Bank may be lengthy, lasting even a generation. The education of children in Gaza and the West Bank has motivated many Palestinians to seek death through killing or trying to kill Jews in order to become religious martyrs who have earned afterlife redemption. That education must be undone.
Peace between Israel and a Palestinian state is an ideal. Realizing that ideal requires taking steps which address directly the causes of failure of all peace efforts to date.
David Matas is an international human rights lawyer based in Winnipeg and senior honorary counsel to B’nai Brith Canada. Noemi Gal-Or is a retired professor of international relations and an international law lawyer based in Vancouver.