The most brutal and savage war in recorded history was unleashed by Israel in October last in a rising crescendo of carnage and atrocity, choreographed in cold blood. Since then the besieged land of Gaza under Israeli occupation has witnessed deaths and destructions on a scale that has embarrassed even Israel's friends and allies in America and Europe. As of the third week of March, after five months of the war of retribution, more than 31,000 Palestinians have died the most horrific deaths through bombings, shelling, bullet fires in their homes, some dying in hospitals with destroyed facilities and to cap it all, hundreds of thousands now face deaths in a famine that has been described by European Union's foreign spokesperson as a 'weapon of war' chosen by the Israelis. The high number of deaths, razing to the ground of entire residential areas, disruptions of food, water, electricity, energy supplies and wanton destructions of hospitals, creating a humanitarian crisis of unprecedented proportions have caused extreme worries and concern around the world.
While America, United Kingdom (UK) and the European countries have remained consistent in their support of Israel's 'right to defend' itself against attacks by the militant ('terrorists') group Hamas and have stubbornly opposed ceasefire, they are now frantically trying to reach a 'humanitarian ceasefire' for six months to effect the release of remaining hostages and distribution of relief materials. Emboldened by their unstinted support from the beginning of the genocidal war, Israel has baulked at the suggestion of even a humanitarian pause and is bent upon carrying the bloody onslaught till Hamas is destroyed. That this straightforward intention is a ploy for permanent occupation and annexation of Gaza is now evident to all, including America. Public refusal by the Israeli government of the two-state solution emphasised by almost all countries has made the long term goal of Israel crystal clear. That allowing Israel to overrun southern Gaza in and around Rafa where 1.5 million Palestinians have sought their last refuse will take the civilian casualties to unconscionable levels, reinforcing charges of complicity in genocide against the Western allies of Israel and scupper their plan of setting up an independent Palestinian state have brought about a subtle shift in the attitude of the allies of Israel. Short of outright condemnation, as the rest of the world has been doing since the beginning of the war, Israel's Western allies are now bringing diplomatic pressure to bear on Israel to desist it from the current strategy of general invasion of southern Gaza and instead adopt an alternative way of surgically finishing off Hamas without harming civilians further. Israel, realising that the allies are still united in their moral support of its 'right to defend itself,' has agreed to draw up a plan to avoid civilian casualties by creating 'humanitarian islands' in Gaza. The UN agencies with experiences of working in ground zero have categorically dismissed the idea of finding any safe haven near Rafa as the narrow strip of land is now accommodating nearly 1.5 million people in place of half a million before the war. The plan for so called 'humanitarian islands', if drawn up by Israel will be a ruse and will be implemented more by breaches than compliance, to judge by its war records so far.
One positive development of the impasse in relief distribution and the catastrophic humanitarian crisis in Gaza has been the exasperation of the Western allies of Israel with its refusal to let humanitarian aid flow unimpeded to war ravaged Gaza to avert famine from taking its toll. Dropping relief materials from air by America, UK and announcement of opening a maritime corridor to Gaza are clear signs of Western allies outflanking Israel in respect of dealing with the humanitarian crisis. As an unintended consequence this move holds the key to the long term solution of the Palestine problem viz. the creation of two states. Before dilating on this prospect, let the scenarios that are likely to emerge on the basis of the present circumstances in Gaza be discussed at some length.
The first scenario is one where Israel has its present way, abetted and aided by its Western allies, and occupies the whole of Gaza after removing the last bastion of Hamas. Israel establishes full control over the territory where the survivng Palestinians are reduced to third class citizens and made to live the life of a subjugated people under arrangements reminiscent of apartheid in South Africa. No UN agency is allowed to exist and function in Gaza (or the West Bank) on the ground of UNRAW's alleged complicity in the October 7th attack by Hamas. Some Palestinian refugees are given shelter in Egypt and perhaps in Europe at the behest of America. The West bank is also annexed by Israel, allowing the state of Israel to cover the land from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, as envisaged by the messianic Jews. Jewish settlements take place in a planned manner displacing Palestinians who are made to live in modern day ghettos in areas designated for them. In this scheme of things Arab countries will not agree to normalise relations with Israel and America's Middle East policy will remain unfulfilled.
The second scenario is one where Gaza and the West Bank are not annexed formally by Israel. Instead, status quo ante, as it existed before 2007 when Israel withdrew its army from Gaza and allowed Palestinians to rule themselves under Israeli occupation with a land-sea blockade, is restored in an amended form. Israel oversees the security situation by keeping the army inside Gaza and earmarks a coastal belt for Israeli settlers. Under pretext of de-radicalisation, Israel controls all educational and religious institutions. The land and sea blockade will be withdrawn, it becoming unnecessary after military occupation of Gaza. The status of Gaza and the West Bank under this scenario will that be of a colony with limited areas of local autonomy. Some of the Arab countries may normalise their relations with Israel but militancy among Palestinian youths will not be extinguished making it difficult for Israel to achieve stable peace.
The third scenario is the realisation of 'two-state' solution with the West Bank and Gaza as the territory of the new State of Palestine and East Jerusalem as the capital. Given the opposition to this by the present Israeli government only a determined and united effort by America, UK and EU can make headway in the implementation of this old solution that has been talked about off and on in the recent past but not seriously taken up for implementation. With all the sympathy and popular support for the Palestinian cause that have outpoured after the heavy price they have paid in bloods, sweats and tears over the past five months this is the most opportune moment to give the idea a concrete shape. But even when presented as the articulation of the world community's demand, Israel will fight 'tooth and nail' to oppose the creation of a Palestine state and use every means to thwart any attempt at making it a reality. Here time is of the essence and any delay in the name of post-war reconstruction will push the creation of the Palestinian state to the background. So, if America, UK and the EU countries are to atone now for their selfish pursuit of geo-political interests in backing Israel they should seriously mean what they are saying regarding two-state solution. For a starter, they should immediately recognise the State of Palestine irrespective of the ground reality of absence of any state-level institutions in Gaza. The Palestine Authority in the West Bank can be restructured to make it more representative and functional. Simultaneously, a body of advisors comprising eminent Palestinians drawn from Gaza, the West Bank and the Palestinian diasporas can be constituted to lend greater credibility to the Palestine Authority. Peacekeeping functions along with reconstruction works can be entrusted to the UN. The announcements of these decisions should take place on the eve of the 'day after', i.e. ceasefire. Ceasefire should not be de-linked from the setting up of the new state of Palestine. Like the ceasefire, declaration and recognition of independent Palestine must be seen as a fait accompli and not left for decisions to be taken later. These decisions and actions cannot be postponed until after reconstruction of war-ravaged Gaza is over. Allowing an interregnum between the ceasefire and the recognition and creation of Palestine state will give opportunities to the opponents, particularly Israel, to invent excuses or to water it down to a degree that makes the new state lacking in substance. To weaken the negative stand of Israel with regard to the creation of the Palestinian state, it must not be allowed to be in total control of Gaza after ceasefire. That is why it is important for America and its allies to ensure that Rafa is a red line which Israel cannot cross. Israel may raise objections to this on the ground that vestiges of Hamas are still in southern Gaza. To placate them an arrangement can be made under which Hamas leaders and hard core cadres go on self exile to countries that are willing to give them political refuge. Hamas can and should accept this if their political exile is part of the package that involves the creation of an independent state of Palestine. After all, this has been at core of their armed struggle. As a quid pro quo to the acquiescence of Israel for the creation of Palestinian state they have to recognise the state of Israel.
Two issues will remain unresolved after this package of decisions and announcements are made simultaneously on the eve of the 'day after.' First is the question of status of land illegally occupied and settled by Israel. Here some concessions have to be made by the new government of Palestine in the form of redrawing the borders keeping the security concerns of Israel. A tripartite body comprising UN, Palestinian and Israeli representatives can be set up to settle the territorial issue through negotiations. This is going to be a tortuous process and time consuming. As long as there is the prospect of a just and fair settlement of the issue neither party will feel any sense of disadvantage. Apart from security concern, the overriding factor at work here will be geographical contiguity. The new state of Palestine cannot be expected to function properly if it is handed over a moth-eaten land mass that harks back to the state of apartheid in erstwhile South Africa.
The second issue is regarding militarisation of the Palestine state. Israel has all along raised red flag on this, justifying its occupation of Palestine land. It is expected to highlight this in arguing against the Palestine state having an army and ask for its permanent disarmament. A national arm force has been regarded as a symbol of sovereignty as long as nation states have been established and it would be an insult for the Palestinian state to be denied of this time honoured privilege. Israel, an undeclared nuclear power, will hardly be in a disadvantageous position if Palestine has a standing army.
Every war comes to an end and the devastating Israeli onslaught in Gaza will also be over, sooner or later. If the 'day after' is to be a return to status quo ante or worse, ends up legitimising Israel's occupation of Palestinian land then not only all the deaths of innocent civilians will be in vain, the security of Israel will continue to be in the cross-hair of its adversaries. It is in its greater and long term interests that Israel should agree to the creation of an independent state of Palestine. The current disillusionment of America and other Western allies of Israeli can be considered as a positive development for peace in the Middle-East because it will help to harden their attitudes towards Israel. Israel, cosseted by its Western allies for long, can be made to be reasonable only when they declare that enough is enough and Palestinians must have their rightful claims honoured. The air drops of relief materials to the beleaguered civilians of Gaza and the opening of a maritime corridor for the same purpose portends the beginning of a fair and just policy of Western powers towards the Palestinians without bothering to worry what Israel might think of this assertion of authority by them. It is sad that this demonstration of boldness in foreign policy on the part of the veto wielding West has to come at the expense of so many innocent lives, their livelihoods and shelter. Having come thus far in disentangling themselves from the ultra- nationalistic domestic agenda of Israel ( illegal occupation ), the West cannot but take their changed attitude and policy to their logical conclusions viz declaration of ceasefire in the UN Security Council and the creation of an independent Palestinian state.
At the time of writing this piece, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu is in Washington to drum up support behind his sanguinary policy in Palestine. If American politicians do not warn him against further bloodletting and mayhem in Gaza the blood on their hands will become more distinct and indelible. America will go down in history as the country that allowed and abetted the killing of thousands of innocent civilians by Israel's bloodthirsty regime in the name of 'right to defence'. America's much vaunted moral standing in the world will be in tatters for the whole world to see. Backing Netanyahu's Israel is not worth this price.
At the same time while this is being written, a draft resolution has been placed by America before the Security Council calling for 'determining imperative' of ceasefire in Gaza and release of hostages. Through this, America has sought to redress the balance in the policy of unstinted support to Israel since October 7 but in a tongue-in-the cheek language. If it is sincere to salvage the loss in international standing, both for America and Israel, the draft resolution should be unambiguous and comprehensive, linking ceasefire, release of hostages, withdrawal of Israeli army from Gaza, declaration of recognition of the state of Palestine and of an interim government, UN peacekeeping force and a multilateral programme for reconstruction of Gaza. What the dire situation in Gaza demands is a package of integrated actions that address both the short and long term goals by telescoping the timeline. This is too late for a piecemeal and long drawn out program to appear credible, far less to have a chance of being successful.
© 2024 - All Rights with The Financial Express
