The long, difficult road ahead
I’ve been skeptical of the Gaza peace deal, which is in the first stage of its implementation. So here is a much more optimistic outlook, from an impeccably well-informed source (Gershon Baskin).
First stage appears has started well
With President Trump preparing to leave for Cairo and Jerusalem, the first stage of the agreement is going well. Israeli forces have withdrawn as planned, and Palestinians are returning to whatever remains. Massive amounts of humanitarian aid are set to enter Gaza. Those are all unilateral actions.
The exchange of hostages and prisoners is slated to start Sunday or Monday. Hamas and Israel are exchanging lists. That step is more complicated, as it requires careful coordination and some degree of mutual confidence. Nevertheless, the commitment on both sides seems solid.
There is silence so far on the fate of Hamas and its weapons. That suggests the Israelis are prepared to let its remaining militants survive. Rumors of amnesty are circulating if they forswear violence. Hamas long ago decided to give up its governing responsibilities. It hasn’t surrendered, so it will evaporate.
Next up
The deployment of a peacekeeping force will begin the next phase. The Egyptians, Qataris, and Turks are preparing to deploy. Indonesia and the UAE are possible too. They will need to get there fast to prevent revenge, property theft, and other crimes. Stabilization and reconstruction in the past has often observed a “golden hour” in the aftermath of a peace agreement. In this case, I would guess it will be more like a golden ten minutes. The Muslim forces will need not only to deploy quickly. They will also need to maintain a good relationship with both the Israelis and the Palestinians. That will not be easy, especially if spoilers emerge.
Smuggling of people, goods, and drugs is endemic to post-war situations. The sooner the peacekeepers get control of Gaza’s borders and seacoast, the better. Peacekeeper malfeasance can also be a big problem. I imagine the Egyptians aren’t getting paid as well as the Qataris. That could generate problems.
Setting up the civilian administration will be an even greater challenge. There are lots of experienced people. The Palestinian technocrats required are in ample supply around the world. Whether they will leave their jobs to take on a risky mission is not clear. Israel will try to block Palestinians and internationals who used to work for the United Nations. And it won’t be happy if the new administration simply adopts the health and education systems Hamas had created.
Where’s the vision?
Trump has given up on his Mar-al-Gaza vision for a resort without the Palestinians. But he has not replaced it with anything. Are the Americans going to imagine that Gaza can remain a virtual open-air prison? Or are they going to get Prime Minister Netanyahu to swallow the proposition of a Palestinian state? Is Netanyahu even going to be able to remain in power? If not, what will his successor project as a political solution for Israel’s long war with the Palestinians?
This moment is an opportunity, for sure. But it won’t last unless there is a vision for how Israeli Jews and Palestinians are going to coexist in the future. The Israelis are the victors for now. With authority comes responsibility. They need to make the politics work at least as well as they did the military.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
How do we get out of here?
Ikonomou Pantelis, former IAEA nuclear inspector, writes:
President Trump and the international community
The geopolitical pendulum swings decisively through the power of arrogance and ignorance of a potential global hegemon. The US President Donald Trump. Continuous rotation of positions. Theatrical complacency and quest for public impression. Complete lack of strategic goals. Absence of serious planning.
His top characteristic is egotistic despotism. International institutions, fundamental values and universal rules of law are disregarded. Historical allies and friends of America are insulted. Pariah states and authoritarian leaders are admired. Signs of personal insecurity? Perhaps. However, they all result in worldwide untrustworthiness.
The threats to humanity
Most dangerously, the enormous threats to humanity are belittled or ridiculed: nuclear weapons, climate change, epidemics, poverty. Science, the locomotive of human civilization, is mocked. The interest of power succeeds. Might makes right. Extortionate deals are the goal.
Violence is growing and spreading worldwide. Wars and unspeakable human misery are increasing. Geopolitical disorder is on the march. Reasonable questions are raised: Is the sun setting on the West? Will humanity decline? Do we follow an irreversible course towards anarchy? Are these all samples of global entropy? Where is our planet headed?
A black hole lurks. Global threats are now ultimate. We need to comprehend it. If we ignore them, history will cease to repeat itself, forever. It is high time for the international community to act. Within the framework of the UN. Beyond colorful photos, bombastic declarations and inexpensive wishful speeches. There is need for bold decisions and above all, for binding actions.
What can be done?
There are serious proposals for Amending the UN Charter in order to achieve critical changes in the 15-member UN Security Council (UNSC), including: (a) Adding two representatives from Africa and two from Asia, (b) abolition of the right for veto of its permanent five (P5) nuclear members, (c) decisions of the majority of the UNSC to be binding and, (d) anyone who does not comply with the UN Charter should lose the right to vote.
Obviously, there will be serious obstacles. Such as, disagreements in agreeing on which countries will occupy Asian and African seats, Latin American demands, German ambitions, and European over-representation. The gravest hindrance would be the unwillingness of the P5 to give up their veto power. For any amendment of the UN Charter all P5 ultimate approval is required.
The moral and pragmatic power of the vast majority of the world population represented in the UN General Assembly is the most effective instrument for change. Only people can force the P5 leaders to undertake the way out of the catastrophic dead locks. Today’s perilous world crises do not allow for prolonging superpowers’ games through the UNSC. The future of the international community is grave. World leaders’ responsibility is paramount, so is their challenge to preserve and secure world peace.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Round peg won’t fit square hole
Yesterday I speculated on how Hamas might react to the Trump proposal for Gaza. Here I’d like to assume that Hamas accepts or evaporates. How does this proposal for the Day After jibe with past experience?
Little new in the overall outlines
The basic outline looks much like past experience, especially in Bosnia and Kosovo. Both experienced armed external interventions that ended their wars. The international community then set up local structures to implement peace agreements. Multilateral military forces ensured a safe and secure environment.
In Bosnia, a High Representative supervised the local structure, which was a national government. A “Peace Implementation Council” oversaw the process. In Kosovo, the initial structure was a local “Interim Administrative Council” (later “the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government”). A Special Representative of the Secretary General supervised implementation. He reported to the UN Security Council. In both instances, the supervisory authorities wielded legislative powers as well as the power to remove local officials from office.
Trump’s Gaza scheme is similar, without however specifying the powers of the internationals. He would create a bombastically named “Board of Peace,” chaired by Trump himself and including Tony Blair. While Trump doesn’t specify Blair’s role, he is pretty clearly slated to be the senior international official responsible for day to day supervision of a still not clearly defined process.
But the contexts are very different
The world has changed a great deal since the 1990s, which were a unipolar moment, albeit one in which the US was more often than not committed to multilateralism. Now unilateralism, and might makes right, are in vogue. In addition, the Middle East isn’t the Balkans.
The UN Security Council approved the Bosnia military intervention and the Day After effort in advance in the Security Council. The UNSC did not approve the Kosovo military intervention, but it did approve the post-war process was. It is well-documented that impartial interventions approved by the great powers are more likely to achieve their objectives.
In Bosnia and Kosovo, the process aimed explicitly at democracy and open societies, as specified in the Dayton peace agreements and the Ahtisaari Plan, respectively. Trump’s plan doesn’t mention those things. It focuses on delivering services and developing the economy, in addition to de-militarization. It doesn’t mention approval in the Security Council.
Where is the needed neutrality?
Nor is neutrality possible with the President of the United States in the chair. He has allied himself strongly with Israel, which is one of the warring parties in Gaza. Its forces would not withdraw immediately. They would remain at least until the expected Arab and Muslim peacekeeping forces arrive. Past experience suggests that as many as 30,000 of them will be needed for a heavy enforcement action in a territory of 2 million people, in addition to about 7000 Palestinian military and 3500 Palestinian police.
It is going to be more than a few months before we see those numbers in Gaza. In the meanwhile, the Israelis will rule the roost. And once the Arab and Muslim forces arrive they will need close cooperation with the Israelis, who will continue to control access to Gaza.
Can this work?
It is hard to see how this will work. The peg is not only round, it is big and challenging. It won’t fit in a square hole from the 1990s. I suppose it might be better than the alternative, which is continued fighting. But I can also see a lot of people getting killed in a peace operation of these dimensions and difficulty. The President should not be volunteering himself to be responsible for it.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
We are going to unknown places
Apart from today’s post on Gaza, it’s been more or less a month since I’ve posted to peacefare.net. Some may wonder why. Yes, I’ve been working on revising my 2019 book, From War to Peace in the Balkans, the Middle East, and Ukraine. The new edition is due at the publisher, again Palgrave Macmillan, at the end of 2026, for publication in 2027. I’ll do a much deeper dive on the Middle East and Ukraine, in addition to updating the Balkans material. That requires a lot of reading and thinking.
But that’s not the only reason for my silence. It is just difficult to know what to say. My personal circumstances are fine. But the country I grew up in, served for 21 years, and owe my 80 years of good fortune to is not. It is retrogressing and weakening.
Not more polarized
No, we are not more polarized than ever before. Anyone who tells you that has not lived through, or remembered well, the 1950s (remember McCarthyism?) or the 1960s (Vietnam, civil rights?). Political violence was worse in 1968 (MLK, RFK, Malcolm X). But the polarization is more aligned with political parties today.
Political violence is indigenous to the US. It is who we are. Police and vigilante violence against immigrants and racial progress is endemic. The Federal government is now backing it wholeheartedly and ignoring most of it, which is consistently on the right:
The reason political violence is so far down this year is clear. The right is in power, so has less complaint and fewer targets. Besides, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is doing most of what the right was doing in the past.
Freedom of speech infringed
Two weeks ago the suspension of Jimmy Kimmel’s late night show from ABC was the daily trauma. The network was reacting to criticism from the Chair of the Federal Telecommunication Commission. He denounced what Kimmel had said about the assassination of Charlie Kirk, a young right-wing organizer and spokesman. This is what Kimmel said:
We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.
This is not, as most of the coverage would have it, a snipe at Charlie Kirk. It is a criticism of the MAGA reaction to his assassination. Judge for yourself whether it is an accurate characterization:
Still almost nothing is known at this point about the alleged assassin’s beliefs and motivations. The FTC chair is using the regulatory power of the Federal government to limit criticism of the President.
Here’s a challenge: what president in the past 50 years who has used his authority in this way? We are arriving in an unknown place.
A foreign policy of weakness
The same is true for foreign policy. Trump’s tariffs have offended most of the world. They have hit India hard, pushing the world’s fifth largest economy into the arms of Russia and China. The US Navy has sunk unarmed boats from Latin America alleged to be carrying drugs, without producing any evidence. Brazil has defied Trump’s efforts to save his fellow seditionist Bolsonaro from accountability.
Trump is canceling security assistance to the Baltic countries as well as Ukraine, even while spouting pro-Ukraine talking points. Russian President Putin is stiffing Trump’s mediation efforts. Much of Asia is rallying to China’s side. Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are doubting whether the US will help defend them. The leadership of the US military sat silent (and disapproving) while President Trump and Secretary of Defense Hegseth harangued them.
Our advantages are still there, but...
We still have big advantages. Two wide oceans protect our coasts. A big and fairly free economy provides a lot of opportunity for people to prosper. The US military has the resources and deployments that enable it to act worldwide.
But let there be no doubt. the President is weak: his approval/disapproval is 39%/56%. He is under 50% on all the major issues: inflation/prices, jobs and the economy, guns, immigration, and crime.
Trump’s America is a place where freedom of speech is in doubt, right-wing violence is now the government’s responsibility, and friends can’t rely on support. What more could go wrong?
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Will Hamas surrender, fight, or evaporate?
The Trump Administration’s 20-point peace plan for Gaza calls for the unconditional surrender, disarmament and political exclusion of Hamas. It leaves the Israeli Defense Force in place and in charge for the immediate future. It also envisions an eventual Arab and Muslim peacekeeping force as well as Palestinian police. President Trump would chair an international committee overseeing post-war stabilization and reconstruction. The plan does not sketch any certain prospect of a Palestinian state, but it does imagine a reformed Palestinian Authority taking over responsibility in an ill-defined future.
The only concessions to the Palestinians are a possible route to statehood and a guarantee no one will be forced to leave Gaza or prevented from returning. Hamas would have to release all hostages, dead and alive, in exchange for Palestinian prisoners and bodies.
Terms rejected in the past
These are terms that Hamas has rejected in the past. It has wanted the Israelis completely out of Gaza and the hostilities ended in order for the last prisoners and hostages to be exchanged. Hamas has been willing to give up its governing role, but not its weapons.
Warring parties don’t like to sign their own death warrant. This proposal essentially asks the remaining Hamasees to do just that. No Hamas leader would survive staying in Gaza for long if this proposition is accepted.
Has Hamas got any other option?
That may happen even if the Trump plan is rejected. Prime Minister Netanyahu has made it clear he will not end the war without the complete defeat and eradication of Hamas as a military and political organization. Anything less would put his governing coalition in danger of collapsing. And if it collapses he will face accountability for the October 7 attack on Israel, in addition to the corruption charges still pending.
The majority of Israelis are against continuing the war, but the majority doesn’t rule until the next election, in October of next year. If Hamas rejects the 20-point plan, it will have to hold out at least until then. But there is no guarantee even then that either Netanyahu will lose or that a successor government won’t also decide to continue the war.
Hamas could try to go underground, outside Gaza if not inside. Some of its fighters could move to the West Bank while its leadership seeks safe haven in whatever Muslim countries will provide it, likely Iran but few others. Most Arab leaders are content to see Hamas destroyed. Key Arab states, Turkiye, and the Palestinian Authority have welcomed the Trump plan.
My answer
I have no way of knowing what is going on inside Hamas. But it does seem it is close to the end of its rope. Some will fight on, others will try to evaporate. Still, surrender seems unlikely. I fear we are just at one more turning point that doesn’t turn. All the remaining hostages are unlikely to be freed.
One more point: the US President taking charge of Gaza is a truly terrible idea. With any luck, someone will talk Trump out of that part of his plan.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
How experts prevail
Here for your reading pleasure is Harry Kopp’s recent review in the Foreign Service Journal of my book on Strengthening International Norms:
RSS - Posts
