A sustainable peace settlement in Gaza needs to meet the legitimate demands of the key parties, but given their inability to negotiate such an agreement themselves it will need to be proposed and implemented by the US and the major Arab nations under UN auspices.

Yesterday**,**  Part 1 of this article discussed the history of the peace negotiations over the last year between Israel and Hamas regarding the future of Gaza, and why they have been unsuccessful. The conclusion was that, unfortunately, there is no reason to believe that seeking a negotiated peace settlement between the two warring parties, Israel and Hamas, will be any more successful in the foreseeable future.

The problem is that for a long time, it has been almost universally agreed that a lasting peace in Palestine and Israel will only eventuate following acceptance by all parties of a two-state solution. However, Hamas has allegedly always rejected a two-state solution, as have many Israelis, including Netanyahu.

As things presently stand, the Israelis and Palestinians are not prepared to recognise that really they are mutually dependent for their security. In addition, Palestinians may also need to accept that they can have a more hopeful future under an alternative Palestinian government to Hamas.

It is therefore now time for the external participants in the peace process so far, such as the US, Egypt, Qatar, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, to come up with a peace settlement that could if necessary be imposed on the combatants, possibly using the authority of the United Nations.

There are several past precedents for this sort of UN intervention. It can be successful if it is based on a return to the two-State solution and is seen by all concerned as being fair and meeting the genuine and legitimate demands of the warring parties.

The demands of the warring parties So what are the critical demands of the warring parties – Israel and Gaza?

For Israel’s part it will not agree to a peace settlement that does not achieve its war aims which are:

• The freeing of the roughly 100 hostages still believed to be held in Gaza.
• Removing the danger of renewed fighting, by eliminating Hamas as a fighting force and from any future government of Gaza.
• Ensuring that Hezbollah will desist and thus allow the 60,000 Israelis who have been evacuated from northern Israel to return home.

While on the Gazan side, clearly continued occupation by the enemy Israel’s forces would be unacceptable. Gazans have already suffered enormous losses at Israel’s hands. Also, Israel’s track record of not allowing free movement of people and provisions would act as a continuing provocation, let alone allowing Israelis settlers to invade and takeover Palestinian land and homes.

In short, therefore, a proposed peace settlement between Israel and Palestine/Gaza needs to meet these requirements of the two contending parties if it is to be viable and long-lasting. A two-state solution also means that this peace settlement should be based on the previously agreed borders as recognised by the UN in 1967, with perhaps minor adjustments where these can be agreed between the two sides.

The new arrangements for Gaza and Palestine as a basis for peace If Israel is to accept that it can safely withdraw, both sides must be confident that under the peace settlement, instead of Israel’s army ensuring that terrorism is not allowed to reappear, an international force will keep the peace in Gaza. This force could be commanded by an American general to ensure that it maintains good contact with Israel, but most of the other members would be drawn from Arab countries to give Palestinians confidence in its impartiality.

This neutral force to keep the peace is necessary, because as long as Israel provides the occupying force it is likely that peace will never be fully restored. Gazans will react to Israeli provocations leading to what Israel will describe as “terrorism” and what others will describe as “freedom fighters” trying to protect Palestinian rights.

Equally to ensure an ongoing peace settlement, Israel will want Hamas to have no future role in the government of Gaza. In place of Hamas, in future Gaza could be governed as part of Palestine by a reformed Palestinian authority, where the government ministers will be appointed by an international force.

Provision would need to be made for elections to govern Palestine in due course after the reformed Palestinian administration has established itself. Hopefully, that would ensure the return of a competent elected government, and not Hamas. Past opinion polling showed that support for Hamas in Gaza had fallen to less than a third before the renewed confrontation with Israel, and hopefully after a few years that will happen again under a competent Palestinian administration.

In two earlier articles, (Pearls & Irritations, Nov 13, 2023, and Sep 17, 2024) I have suggested that this international force should operate as a UN trusteeship. That is still a worthwhile possibility, but media speculation is that the US is talking to the key Arab states and that they would supply the international peace-keeping force and establish and assist the development of the new government of Palestine. This new government with support from its Arab neighbours and perhaps the US and Europe would also be responsible for rebuilding Gaza’s infrastructure which has now been almost totally destroyed.

As regards Israel’s other non-negotiable conditions for a peace settlement, first an immediate task for this international force would, of course, be to find the Israeli hostages and return them as quickly as possible to their families in Israel. Second, Hezbollah has said it will stop firing on Israel once Israel withdraws from Gaza so that condition should be capable of being met quite quickly.

The role of the US Unfortunately, it is hard to see these peace treaty arrangements being established without the active support of the US. However, to date Netanyahu has apparently got away with ignoring US demands. The likely repatriation of Israeli settlers from the West Bank will be a particularly difficult pill to swallow, and Netanyahu also has a track record of opposing UN organisations in the region, such as UNRWA in Gaza and UNIFIL in Lebanon.

But the US must stop Netanyahu and Israel from continuing to call the shots. There is too much at stake for the US itself, to allow Netanyahu to stand in the way of restoring peace in the Middle East. The US has other allies in the Arab states that are equally important.

In the past, nine out of the last eleven US Presidents since Lyndon Johnson, except for Clinton and Trump, have threatened to withhold, or have actually withheld, weapons systems or other aid to Israel in order to influence Israeli policy. Surely it is time for Biden to follow suit if he has to.

Obviously the negotiations leading to acceptance of the two separate States of Israel and Palestine will take time, as will the withdrawal of the Israeli troops. But the peace process should start now with an American sponsored Security Council resolution to establish the legitimacy and role of the international peace-keeping force.

Of course, it will not be easy to persuade the Americans to take the lead in imposing a peace settlement for Gaza. But they know that the two-State solution is the only basis for a lasting peace, and the record shows that it will take outside intervention to restore the two-State solution.

If the US fails to act now, the war in Gaza will be prolonged, and it has already cost far too much in terms of lives and destruction. There is also the serious risk that it will expand to include Iran, and in that case, where will it stop? Furthermore, expansion of hostilities poses major risks for the global economy and risks a further loss of US prestige and influence globally.

Australia as a close ally should be offering its support for this peace settlement and pressuring the US to insist on getting agreement to it.

Read Part 1 of this two-part article below:

https://publish.pearlsandirritations.com/peace-in-gaza-part-1/