We are all appalled by the scale of the deaths and destruction in Gaza. Every day brings more terrible news.
That is why we all want, or at least say we want, a ceasefire in Gaza. Certainly, with the possible exception of Benjamin Netanyahu, almost all Israelis want a ceasefire so they can get their hostages back. Equally, the Gazans who are suffering terribly want the deaths and destruction to cease. And so does the rest of the world, including, most importantly, the Americans.
So why hasn’t a ceasefire yet been agreed to despite weeks of negotiations?
According to the Americans, who are heavily involved in the negotiations, around 90% of the conditions for a ceasefire were agreed at least a week ago. But the main sticking point has been Israel’s insistence that its troops remain and man a couple of thin strips of land in Gaza.
Most importantly, Israel is concerned that it must man the frontier between Egypt and Gaza. It points out that this is the only way to guarantee that Hamas will not return and restore the tunnels under that border that then allow it to obtain weapons and explosives which would enable a repeat attack on Israel.
For its part, Hamas does not trust Israel to allow the necessary flow of food and medicines via Egypt that are vital to support life in Gaza, let alone allow the imports that will be required for Gaza’s reconstruction. Certainly, there is plenty of evidence of Israel slowing assistance to Gaza from UN and other agencies, and so it is not surprising that Gazans too do not want a ceasefire if that requires continuing Israeli occupation.
But there is an alternative that should satisfy the demands of both the principal protagonists – Israel and Gaza. And what is surprising is that the Americans who are meant to be brokering this ceasefire have not pursued this alternative, because it is based on a proposal by the late Martin Indyk, a former US ambassador to Israel.
Shortly after the outbreak of fighting following the 7 October massacre by Hamas of Israelis, Indyk proposed a peace settlement based on the idea that Gaza would become a UN trusteeship and be governed by the UN until a stable and lasting peace was guaranteed.
Despite its merits, that idea did not take off, but now a variant would be for an international force to occupy and patrol the Gaza borders and thus maintain the peace. This force would be charged with ensuring that vital supplies could cross the frontier quickly while preventing all military supplies or the enhancement of Hamas military capability.
Furthermore, to reassure Israel, it would be best if this force was led by Americana, but equally its acceptance by the Palestinians would be encouraged if this border force was also comprised of soldiers from some Arab nations, such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and/or Qatar.
The obvious people to push this ceasefire proposal are the Americans. Indeed, without their support, it is difficult to see it succeeding. And one wonders why they haven’t put it forward already, given that it is essentially a variant of a proposal by an esteemed former US ambassador.
Perhaps the Americans are wary of Netanyahu’s reaction and his possible rejection of even this moderate proposal that ensures Israel’s security. The present right-wing government of Israel has not accepted the two-state solution, and Netanyahu and his colleagues may well fear that this ceasefire proposal will inevitably lead to implementation of a two-state solution.
But so it should. Everyone else is convinced that a lasting peace will only survive if it is based on acceptance of a two-state solution by both sides. But in that case, if Israel will not accept foreign intervention to police the ceasefire and an eventual two-state solution, then surely the Americans should apply more pressure given what is at stake.
The UN General Assembly is likely to discuss the findings of the ICJ and ICC, which strongly condemn Israel, in the next week or so. If the US does nothing before then, the US will be heavily criticised internationally and will lose influence. Thus, the US needs to intervene now to secure the ceasefire, not only because it is the right thing to do, but also if it wants to maintain its status and influence with other countries.
In the end, the US should be prepared to threaten ceasing aid to Israel if it won’t meet reasonable demands for a ceasefire. After all, the US has never been shy in the past of insisting on getting its way, nor of sending its troops overseas, including when much less was at stake.
Michael Keating is a former Secretary of the Departments of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Finance and Employment, and Industrial Relations. He is presently a visiting fellow at the Australian National University.
Contributions to Pearls and Irritations
Your contribution will fund quality independent comment and analysis in Pearls and Irritations
Contribute
