Occupation hazards

Indefinite control of Gaza will not bring peace

 As the Israeli Defence Forces’ (IDF’s) ground campaign makes deeper inroads into Gaza, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said Tel Aviv intends to maintain “overall security responsibility” for an indefinite period in the territory until it defeats Hamas. This declaration effectively spells the end of peace prospects in West Asia for the foreseeable future as well as the concept of the internationally accepted two-state solution that recognises a Palestinian state alongside Israel. These implications have not escaped the US, which had, till war broke out, sought to play the role of mediator in bilateral negotiations to normalise relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia. On Wednesday, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken unambiguously stated that Israel could not occupy Gaza after the end of its war with Hamas. Since Israel under Mr Netanyahu’s latest government, the most right-wing in the country’s history, is unlikely to retreat from land the IDF has occupied, the question is what this muscular declaration presages for the region.

History provides a clue. In the 1967 war, Israel captured Gaza, the West Bank and east Jerusalem, all territories that Palestinians seek for a future state. In that period, the IDF directly governed these areas, depriving Palestinians of basic rights and building Jewish settlements in all three areas. The period till 2005 saw the rise of two uprisings by the Palestinian people. This template of a permanent war of attrition is likely to intensify with IDF’s occupation radicalising more Palestinians as it has done in the West Bank. Mr Blinken has expressed the hope that Gaza could adopt the West Bank model, where the Palestinian Authority (PA) runs a semi-autonomous government under the IDF. This suggestion indicates the tone-deaf nature of Washington’s understanding of the crisis since the PA under Mahmoud Abbas is deeply unpopular with Palestinians and considered an agent of the IDF’s permanent occupation. For Palestinians in Gaza, self-government has proven a mirage. Although Israel removed settlers and soldiers from the territory after 2005, the IDF retained control of its coastline, airspace and most of its land borders, which did not alter the reality of occupation for most Gazans and radicalised them enough to bring Hamas to power in 2006.

On a practical note, any proposed indefinite occupation of Gaza, coupled with the fact that Israel occupies 60 per cent of the West Bank, would effectively leave almost no territory for a two-state solution. It is also likely to spur Israel’s traditional regional enemies — Iran-sponsored Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen — to greater violence. Occupation would also radicalise Arab Street, home to millions of displaced Palestinians, causing diplomatic difficulties for those West Asian states with which Israel has normalised ties – Egypt, Jordan, the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco. Indeed, the irony is that nuclear-armed, US-supported Israel’s friendly relations with most of West Asia (including Saudi Arabia, with which it enjoys cordial informal ties), has brought it neither stability and security nor lasting peace. Other possible collateral casualties could be the recent Iran-Saudi peace deal brokered by China, and US President Joe Biden’s hopes of resuming the stalled nuclear deal with Iran. Both Israel and Palestine have been ill-served by Mr Netanyahu and Hamas, who see political benefit in ratcheting up communal tensions. The need for cooler, moderate heads on both sides has never been more urgent.