https://arab.news/nqnsm
It has been a while since the sense of anticipation about the outcome of a meeting between an American president and an Israeli prime minister was as tense as it was when Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu met in Washington last week.
At stake was the question of whether Trump would allow any space for Netanyahu to thwart his plan for peace in Gaza, even implicitly, or if the president would make an offer the prime minister could not refuse. Hence, this was one of the most consequential meetings in living memory between the leaders of the countries, both for the people of Israel and, even more so, for the Palestinians.
When the two leaders emerged from their talks in the Oval Office to face the press, Trump presented, for the first time in many months, some sort of a plan, albeit one that was very thin on details. But it could bring this horrific war to an end — this time with the backing not only of the US but all major countries in the Middle East and many others across the international community.
Let us not delude ourselves, however. This is not a done deal until Netanyahu repeats what he pledged while standing next to Trump when he is back home in Israel, and he has already backtracked on some of the details of the plan in statements given in Hebrew. What he seemingly agreed to in the White House was also a complete contradiction of his gimmicky and defiantly militant speech to the UN General Assembly only a few days earlier.
There are many positives in this plan, which is more of a declaration of principles and intentions than a thought-through blueprint for peace. Above all, it calls on both sides to agree on an immediate end to the war, not a temporary ceasefire. If implemented, this would come as a great relief to the people of Gaza, as Israeli forces are closing in on more densely populated areas of Gaza City, where dozens of people continue to be killed every day.
It would also be a great relief for the families of the remaining hostages, as their loved ones would be released within 72 hours of a deal being agreed. This allows for some degree of cautious optimism — but ending the war and exchanging Israeli hostages for Palestinian prisoners and detainees might prove to be the “easier” aspects of the plan compared with several other of its 20 points.
For the leaders of Hamas, one of the sweeteners that might persuade them to accept the deal (though Netanyahu might find it difficult to sell it to his constituency) is the fact that it would mean the release of 250 prisoners jailed for life, in addition to 1,700 Gazans detained after the Oct. 7 attacks in 2023.
This is one of the most sensitive issues for both societies and it would enable Hamas to claim it was able to achieve something the Palestinian Authority and its leadership failed to accomplish. Considering the losses Hamas has suffered over the past two years, and the demand that it decommissions its weapons and encourages its members to leave Gaza, the release of prisoners could be seen as a face-saver and the most it could realistically hope to achieve.
This is not a done deal until Netanyahu repeats what he pledged while standing next to Trump when he is back home.
Yossi Mekelberg
Moreover, in the past few months, several plans floated to end the war in Gaza have raised the dreadful prospect of a so-called voluntary migration of Palestinians out of the territory. There would be nothing voluntary about it. Aside from the fact that it is simply a horrifically bad idea, the very suggestion was an attempt to legitimize the displacement, probably permanently and forcefully, of the most vulnerable people out of the Gaza Strip.
Thankfully, and due largely to interventions by regional leaders, among others, the latest plan states very clearly that no one will be forced to leave Gaza and that those who do wish to leave will be free to do so and free to return later. Instead, people will be encouraged to stay and be given the opportunity to help rebuild a successful Gaza. This should come as a great relief.
Despite Netanyahu’s categorical rejection during his speech to the UNGA of any prospect for the establishment of a Palestinian state, the plan he agreed to at the White House, even if it is a somewhat noncommittal approach, does recognize the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people and suggests there is a pathway toward Palestinian self-determination and statehood.
Moreover, unlike Netanyahu’s prior empty rhetoric about denying the PA any involvement in the future governance of Gaza, and perhaps of the West Bank as well, the door remains open, under the new proposal, for a reformed PA to play a major role in the reconstruction of Gaza.
For all the aspirations and optimism on display at the White House, the peril here lies in not ensuring the full and rapid implementation of the plan and compliance with it. This means that the full details of how the plan will work in practice must be presented soon.
To which line would Israel forces withdraw, for example? And for how long would they remain in Gaza? Similarly, while there is a broad consensus for dismantling the military capabilities of Hamas and decommissioning its weapons, there are no details about the process and mechanisms for doing so and this vagueness is something that could collapse a deal.
And although assembling an international body of notables titled the “Board of Peace” as an interim body to govern Gaza might work in the short term, the fear is that this interim authority will become permanent, or at least remain in place for a very long time and therefore become colonialism by other means.
One of the major tasks for the Board of Peace, therefore, should be to empower a new Palestinian leadership, not only in Gaza but in the West Bank as well, which would eventually take over from the board and run a future independent Palestinian state.
The 20-point peace plan does not mean the end of the wider conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, but it might well signal the end of the war in Gaza. If the international community has learned anything from the past two years, it is that this conflict should not be ignored and left to its own machinations.
It will require the full attention of everybody if we are to embark on the long and bumpy road toward the healing of open wounds, physical and mental, and, ultimately, a just and fair solution to this conflict.
The journey might just have begun in the White House with the introduction of this plan.
• Yossi Mekelberg is professor of international relations and an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House.
X: @YMekelberg