peacefare.net

Gaza isn’t healing

Last month’s fifty day conflict between Hamas and Israel has exacted a punishing toll on Gaza, both in terms of the destruction of homes and infrastructure and in terms of the human cost. The most recent UN report puts the number of number of fatalities among Palestinians at 2104. The report identifies over half of this figure as civilians, with almost a quarter children. This economic and humanitarian damage to Palestinians, combined with the losses sustained by Israelis (mostly soldiers serving with the IDF), has deepened mistrust and recriminations between the two sides. Although a ceasefire has held since August 26, the possibility of a return to violence remains. Low level incidents such as Tuesday’s alleged mortar attack risk re-escalation of tensions, putting a lasting settlement ever further from becoming a reality.

In light of this continued instability, New America Foundation’s discussion on Next Steps for Israelis and Palestinians: Assessing the Impact of the Gaza Conflict focussed on the initial responses of Gazans and Israelis to the recent fighting. Joining Leila Hilal, Senior Fellow of New America’s International Security Program, was Hagai El-Ad, Executive Director of B’Tselem, an Israeli human rights organization, along with Samer Badawi, journalist and writer at the +972 Magazine. To round off the discussion, the panel was augmented by special guest Brian Barber, Advisor to UNICEF and founding director of the Center for the Study of Youth and Political Conflict.

Badawi and El-Ad drew attention to the current mood in Gaza. Though it is clear the civilian population of Gaza has endured a great deal of suffering throughout the fighting, there is a general sense of defiance amongst Gaza Palestinians. Related, though perhaps more significant, are the levels of popular support for Hamas. Badawi made comparisons with the aftermath of Operation Cast Lead, noting that while in 2012 a significant number of Palestinians expressed skepticism and even hostility towards Hamas and its actions, today there is little criticism of the group from civilians.

The panelists suggest that this is at least in part due to the belief that Hamas’ attacks have drawn the world’s attention to the ongoing siege in Gaza and the hardships faced by its people. The ever deteriorating conditions following almost eight years of blockade have led to increasing numbers of Gazans subscribing to a stark choice: a slow death accepting the constrictions and collective punishment of the blockade, or the risk of an immediate death as a consequence of defying the besiegers.

The lack of blame for Hamas within the Gaza Strip is in sharp contrast to the official IDF and Israeli government line. El-Ad noted that throughout the conflict, Israeli officials issued statements declaring that Hamas, through its actions, was responsible for all Palestinian casualties. He further suggested that this position has been used to justify – or at least partially excuse – Israeli violations of international law. To El-Ad this approach is part of a tendency by Israel to prioritize managing its public image over making meaningful changes to its policy. Supporting this, he drew attention to the question of the IDF investigating itself over human rights violations, and to its general insistence that such violations occur exclusively at squad level, as opposed to at the policy level.

This PR drive comes in response to an awareness within Israel of its increasingly negative image on the world stage, which however makes little difference to the doctrines and command structures that allowed abuses to occur in the first place. Instead of these heavy handed attempts at appearing to address international and domestic concerns, El-Ad believes that only credible independent inquiries, coupled with a review of those policies which have led to disproportionate deaths amongst civilians, can rehabilitate Israel’s image.

Barber rounded off the discussion with his own concerns for the future of Gaza. In conducting his study into the long term consequences of conflict exposure on Palestinian youths, he has also seen  rising defiance and resistance among his subjects to the ongoing blockades – which have now lasted almost eight years. Barber is especially concerned now due to a surge in mental suffering across all sectors of Gazan society. Many report feeling increasingly “broken and destroyed” due to the sanctions, war and deteriorating conditions. If the pressure is not released soon there could well be serious implications, both for the ability for Gaza to rebuild itself and function, and for the chances of a future peace agreement.

With increasing commitment by Palestinians to resistance, and Israel more interested in superficial reviews of the failures of the past months than serious changes in policy or structures, it seems unlikely that the August 26 ceasefire will represent a significant turning point. Meanwhile the humanitarian situation in Gaza is becoming critical. It remains to be seen whether the path to peace can be resumed.

A video of the event may be found here.

War, politics and law

The seven week conflict between Hamas and Israel, dubbed Operation Protective Edge by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF), began in early July and reached a ceasefire in late August. It left over 2,000 Palestinians and 70 Israelis dead. While the media fervently covered the battle, the international community stood relatively silently on the sidelines. Hamas and Israel remain distrustful of each other. The bill for reconstruction will amount to $8 billion. The implications of the conflict have had far reaching consequences for Israeli and Palestinian domestic politics as well as their human rights records.

At Friday’s Middle East Institute panel on the way forward, Mathew Duss, President of the Foundation for Middle East Peace moderated the discussion with Khalid Elgindy, a Fellow at the Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, Michael Koplow, Program Director at the Israel Institute, and Joe Stork, the Deputy Director at Human Rights Watch in the Middle East and North Africa Division.

Discussing the impact of the conflict on Palestinian domestic politics, Elgindy said that Hamas’ popularity was dwindling before the conflict. The group gained “new-found popularity” with Palestinians both in Gaza and the West Bank during the conflict. Hamas’ popularity came largely at the expense of support and confidence in the Palestinian Authority, whose President Abbas was already perceived as ineffective in peace negotiations with Israel and over-reliant on US-led peace negotiations. The Palestinian national movement is in “crisis” with “chronic dysfunction” in Palestinian political parties, Elgindy said. The priority needs to be cooperation between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority.

Koplow described the political atmosphere in the Israeli government pre- and post-conflict. Before the incursion into Gaza, the political dynamic was “relatively stable,” with Prime Minister Netanyahu “firmly in control” and the left largely disorganized. Netanyahu commanded almost unconditional support from the public, which was then challenged by the kidnapping and killing of 3 Israeli teens in June 2014. During the war, support for “staying the course” dwindled from over 80% to 30%. Following the ceasefire, the far right has garnered support as the Prime Minister faced pressure from his own party to reoccupy Gaza. Instead, Netanyahu announced plans to expand settlements in the West Bank in order to appease not only those in his own party but also those farther right.

Although Human Rights Watch has been unable to confirm its impressions due to Israel and Egypt blocking access, Stork sketched Israel’s and Hamas’ compliance, or lack thereof, with the laws of war. The 2014 operation in Gaza showed patterns of indiscriminate hostilities that date back to 2009. One of the most pressing issues is whether or not the parties distinguished between combatants and civilians. What constitutes a legitimate target has become subjective. Human Rights Watch does not define “terrorist operatives” as those who belong to a particular political party while Israeli law does. The IDF has also been cited in a number of cases for using force in areas where there were no military combatants. Rockets fired from the Palestinian side are categorized as war crimes because the targets are indiscriminate, failing to distinguish between civilians and combatants.

In the end, Duss posed a difficult but crucial question, “how can we avoid getting here again?” As both sides continue to dig in their heels, it becomes increasingly difficult to reach a compromise on the critical issues that must be reconciled before there is lasting peace.

PS: Here is the C-span video of the event.

Resolve or manage?

The most recent crisis in Gaza has forced the international community to ask what alternatives can the Palestinian leadership offer to Hamas’ violence? What future does Israel want for its people and its relationship with Palestinians? Should we reconsider whether resolving this conflict is a real priority for governments in the region or if it is just an arena for proxy conflict? Last week, Brookings hosted “The Gaza Crisis: No Way Out?” to address these issues and the dynamics of the long-standing conflict. Martin Indyk, former US Special Envoy to the Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations, Khaled Elgindy, previous advisor to the Palestinian leadership, and Natan Sachs discussed the policy options and regional implications of the current situation.

Indyk discussed the current relationship between the US and Israel and the chronic nature of the conflict. The US has criticized Israel for its blatant disproportionality in this war. There are now apparent strains in the strategic relationship, which survives due to deeply rooted ties and support by many in the US.

However, Israel is a different country than it was thirty years ago. It is now economically and militarily strong and has relationships with other powers beyond the US. New alignments with China, India, and Sunni monarchies in the Arab world have allowed Israel to play the conflict in a different way. According to Indyk, it is not that Israel no longer needs the US, but it now feels more independent of the US than ever before.

Elgindy discussed Palestinian Authority President Abbas’ role in the most recent Gaza conflict. This crisis is the third in six years. Each has marginalized Abbas further. He has had little to no success in advocating peaceful dialogue. Palestinians have come to ignore him because of the lack of results. They choose to pay attention to Hamas.  While many did not vote for Hamas, nor do they share its ideology, Hamas’ approach—as painful as it can be—produces results in their eyes. Because of this Abbas has gradually shifted closer to Hamas’ approach rather than the other way around, while both Fatah and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) have openly embraced Hamas and the resistance.

The US should therefore make peace with the Palestinians as a whole rather than dividing approaches between Gaza and the West Bank. This will allow Hamas and the Palestinian Authority to work together rather than forcing the leadership to take the most effective and violent approach. Hamas knows that there is no chance to open the border in Gaza without a role for the Palestinian Authority, while at the same time the Palestinian Authority desperately wants a role in Gaza. Abbas has been trying to reassert his relevance. This could ultimately be a win-win situation for both sides.

From the Israeli perspective, Sachs stated that Netanyahu wanted to avoid this conflict in Gaza. The original hope was simply to contain the unrest. It has now escalated into a painful and drawn-out battle.  Netanyahu believes that Hamas dragged Israel into this mess. Thus, Hamas is just as much at blame for the large loss of civilian lives and destruction over the past month.

According to Indyk, Netanyahu has rediscovered Abbas. The Palestinian Authority forces have remained loyal to him. His peaceful behavior over the last month makes him a serious player.  Israel is beginning to sense this, strengthening the idea of a two-state solution in the future. Elgindy advised the international community to empower Abbas by including Hamas under the umbrella of the PLO. This would allow them to have a stake in the political process in order to prevent regression in future talks.

Elgindy also pointed to the fact that the US has focused almost exclusively on conflict resolution to the total neglect of conflict management. This is a mistake. The US should reconsider Israel’s use of disproportionate force in warfare, which is not a legitimate way to conduct military operations.

Indyk concluded that there should not just be a focus on crisis supervision, but rather a stable balance between management and resolution. In the end, all parties must come together in working with the UN and the international community on humanitarian aid and reconstruction in Gaza.