For the past two years, Gazans have lived between hope and fear. They lived in fear of the ongoing Israeli bombing campaign while harbouring the hope of a permanent ceasefire and Palestinian self-determination. In spite of the ceasefire declared on October 10, it seems Gazans are still not free of fear.
The ceasefire, part of US President Donald Trump’s 20-point plan, increasingly seems a ceasefire in name alone. Over the past weeks, Israel has resumed attacking Gaza. The worst renewed attack took place on the night of October 28 when more than 100 Palestinians were killed.
For its part Israel claimed that its soldiers were targeted by Hamas in Rafah in southern Gaza, which is still under Israeli control.
This strange interregnum is beset with ongoing complexities.
Israel is waiting for Hamas to produce all 28 bodies of deceased hostages and is arguing that Hamas is enacting a deliberate go-slow; while Hamas is arguing that it is unable to find and retrieve all the bodies.
Just as compellingly, the demilitarisation of Hamas, one of the conditions of the ceasefire, is unlikely to occur very soon.
For Hamas the prospect of an imminent ceasefire is slipping away.
A successful ceasefire does not hinge on technicalities but on trust and good faith. It is clear that Israel does not respect the spirit of the ceasefire. For all Trump’s bravado, Israel has long ceased to be a good faith negotiator. Crucially, Palestinians feel sidelined by the 20-point plan. No Palestinians were consulted during the drafting of this plan and they fear this could lead to yet another form of occupation.
For all Trump’s bravado, Israel has long ceased to be a good faith negotiator. Crucially, Palestinians feel sidelined by the 20-point plan. No Palestinians were consulted during the drafting of this plan and they fear this could lead to yet another form of occupation.
Palestinian frustration and discontent regarding their exclusion has been exacerbated by the recent creation of the International Stabilisation Force (ISF) for Gaza. The force will take decisions on the security architecture of Gaza and oversee the ceasefire. The make-up of this force is not yet clear but Israel retains a veto over the countries that make participate.
So far, Egypt, Azerbaijan, Indonesia and Turkey have joined the force and volunteered troops. Turkey’s participation created tensions this week when Benjamin Netanyahu rejected its participation. With Trump’s backing Turkey was eventually accepted as a member.
The ISF is expected to gradually take control of the areas currently controlled by the IDF. But the mandate of the ISF is also far from clear. A central point of uncertainty is whether the entity will be able to use force. Will it resemble a peacekeeping intervention that can only use force in self-defence or will it have a peace enforcing role which will require using force?
Although Trump has encouraged Arab countries to form part of the ISF, a number of them have objected to such a role. King Abdullah II of Jordan expressed the reservations of many when he said he will not volunteer to “enforce” the ceasefire if it means directly confronting Hamas. He stated that if participating in the ISF entails peace enforcing and “running around Gaza with weapons”, “no one will want to touch that”. It is easy to imagine the deep resentment such peace enforcement will create in the minds of war weary Gazans.
King Abdullah II also pointed to the deepest flaw in the current process: a clear absence of discussion on Palestinian self-determination and the building of a Palestinian state.
South Africa is not considered for membership of the ISF. At this stage it seems the force will consist only of troops from Arab and Muslim countries. South Africa’s involvement will probably be confined to providing humanitarian aid.
The current reconstruction plan strongly reflects the commercial interests of its two key architects: Donald Trump and his son-in-law Jared Kushner. The involvement of Kushner breeds further distrust among Palestinians. Kushner’s private investment firm has received substantial investment from Gulf states.
Kushner’s vision of the “new Gaza” entails funneling reconstruction funds into Israeli-controlled parts of Gaza while withholding it from areas under Hamas control. Some have referred to this as economic colonisation. The Guardian has described the Kushner-Blair plan as a “moral atrocity”. This plan won out over the proposed Arab-led Egyptian plan which called for “independent Palestinian technocrats” to manage Gaza.
Since, unlike the Kushner plan, this plan was not seen as maximising Gaza’s investment profitability, it was destined to fail. As Matt Duss of the Centre for International Policy has stated: “Part of what’s bizarre is that the Trump organisation is so deeply leveraged in the Middle East that the corruption could sustain the ceasefire.”
Gaza remains an apocalyptic landscape. As Francesca Albanese pointed out in her Nelson Mandela lecture on October 25, the word “apocalypse” carries two meanings: catastrophic destruction and that of revelation. The way in which the reconstruction occurs will reveal much about the motivations of the powerful.
What will emerge from the rubble? If recent decades are anything to go by, Gaza will be reconstructed only to be demolished again a few years down the line. There is money in demolition and profit in reconstruction. For now and partly for this reason, the hope of Palestinian liberation remains trapped deep beneath the rubble.
- Mia Swart is a visiting professor of international law at Wits University
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.