#778 Musings Beyond the Bunker (Monday October 23)
Good morning,
While we all ponder what the coming weeks look like for Gaza, my apologies for trying to imagine what Gaza could look like a year from now. Undoubtedly, there will be physical rebuilding required, but there also will be the need to rebuild the society, infrastructure, and governmental institutions. I make no claim of expertise in Middle Eastern politics or diplomacy. I’m just an avid reader of history, the news, and political analysis. This is merely an amateur’s perspective on where we are and what might work. For the life of me, I can’t think of many other “good” options.
Curiously, I think that Gaza is capable of a simpler solution that the West Bank. It has no settler issue, it is nowhere near holy sites, and it will need something resembling a government—hopefully soon
WHAT HASN’T WORKED
We know what didn’t work.
Occupation and governance by Israel didn’t work. Occupying and managing the affairs of a restive populace proved to carry security, moral, and implementation burdens too great to maintain. Israel elected to leave years ago with good reason. Last week, President Biden acknowledged that Israel trying to reoccupy and govern Gaza would be “a big mistake.” I agree. It would be a big mistake for Israel, for Gaza, and for the region.
Israel vacating the land and leaving it to determine its political future was an experiment that failed. There was a great deal of optimism that Gaza would prove to be the blueprint for ending occupation that later could be applied to the West Bank. Elections were held and Hamas was victorious. Before too long, it was a stark reminder of the adage that the problem with electing an autocracy or theocracy through democratic means is “one man, one vote, one time.” The 2006 election brought Hamas to power, primarily in a repudiation of the ineffectiveness and corruption of the Palestinian Authority. There hasn’t been an election since. Fast forward to today (well, before the massacre and the impending war) and two-thirds of Gazan civilians have indicated to pollsters that they do not approve of Hamas’s control and would be happy to live alongside Israel in peace. That, of course, flies in the face of Hamas dogma that all of Palestine must be free of Jews, “from the desert to the sea.”
Pumping money into Gaza without international administration of those funds doesn’t work. Notwithstanding Hamas’s stranglehold on Gaza, money has been flowing in, ostensibly for humanitarian aid and for commercial investment. Instead, the money was diverted by Hamas to build an infrastructure of tunnels and growing military armaments to attack Israel. Hamas may have performed some basic functions of government but, in the end, it did little to improve the lives of Gaza’s citizens, as it turned Gaza into a camp to develop militants and a staging ground for attacks on Israel.
From Israel’s perspective, having a heavily armed adversary sharing its border, capable of inflicting significant casualties at will, is unacceptable. So any possible resolution must involve the pacification of Gaza. And the only way that happens is when the people have institutions that protect them and, importantly, hope.
When this war ends, it is difficult to imagine that a country devastated by Hamas rule and a war with Israel that may prove devastating in its carnage, will have the necessary infrastructure and political institutions to transition the territory into something resembling a healthy, stable, productive society. So that won’t work, at least in the short to medium term.
Predating all of this, of course, were the periods under British and Egyptian rule, also unsuccessful in generating a stable, democratic, free government in Gaza. These periods of foreign oversight didn’t work.
So we know what won’t work and the dilemma of finding something that can work.
WHAT IS NEEDED
Presumably someday a two-state solution, encompassing the West Bank as well, can work; although I don’t hold out hope in the short-term, at least until Israel’s current governing coalition is out of power and/or a leader of the Palestinian Authority steps up and is ready to “deal.” These ideas are for Gaza alone, with the intent to include a resolution for the West Bank at a later date.
The options available are limited by what historically hasn’t worked. But the road to some semblance of stability may be to look to historical precedents outside of the region, which might inform a structure that can work. What Gaza will need is a short term solution, one that offers the following:
Offering stability and safety in the short term
Rebuilding through infusion of economic aid, scientific and engineering expertise, and help in establishing a governing mechanism
Allowing an indigenous government to handle the police powers and municipal functions for a society to function.
Providing for a period of outside oversight in the establishment of norms, stability, and institutions that, when that overseeing body leaves, leaves something stable, rather than a vacuum to be assumed by the next terrorist organization
Pacification/ de-militarization of Gaza, with guarantees to Israel that it would no longer have to worry about attacks coming from Gaza
Guarantees to Gaza that Israel will not be meddling in its affairs
An opportunity to continue peace talks alongside the West Bank
HISTORICAL MODELS
I think we have to look to other historic models for how Gaza can move forward. The one I keep coming back to is the idea of a protectorate of some sort. There have been many such protectorates in the past two centuries, in name or in function. Some have worked better than others. The model perhaps most intriguing is how the Allies dealt with Germany, Austria and Japan at the end of World War II. In each of these contexts (and each was different from the others), the countries suffered significant destruction of their physical infrastructure, citizens suffered privation, and the governing institutions lay in ruin
Allied powers that occupied the countries quickly saw the importance of relying upon what remained of indigenous institutions and knowledgeable people on the ground to manage the day-to-day operations of local government, while the allies worked with political leaders to build sustainable structures for national government. The Allies oversaw the development of national governing charters (i.e., constitutions) that guaranteed basic rights and free elections. But the ultimate goal was to stabilize and rebuild these countries, with the goal of welcoming these transformed nations into the global community, not as the vanquished but as full-fledged members.
Importantly, each of these countries was pacified after the war. Disarming the armies and small pockets of remaining resistance allowed for the emergence of relatively stable regimes. I’m not going to address the differences in the Soviet zones of occupation versus those of America, Britain and France, resulting in the disaster that was East Germany. A good case to consider is Austria, occupied for ten years before regaining sole sovereignty in return for a guarantee of neutrality.
In each of the occupations, the Allies saw the wisdom of identifying local leaders with whom they could work, granting them powers of government at the local level (something we didn’t learn in Iraq). Sure, the allies had the power to veto certain legislation during the period of occupation. But the occupation itself served as a petri dish, fed with foreign investment and institutional assistance,, to grow a fully functioning democracy. It went hand in hand with the Marshall Plan to rebuild America.
As time passed, local political institutions and national political institutions grew and were able to take over upon the end of the period of occupation. Austria was occupied from 1945 through 1955. Throughout that time, successive control agreements regarding the occupation granted more and more authority and latitude to the Austrians. It may take that long here.
Fast forward to note that Germany, which suffered devastating violence against its citizens, most notably the Dresden fire bombing, and Japan, which suffered two nuclear bombs and the fire bombing of Japan, later emerged to be among our closest allies. One can hope.
WHAT MIGHT A PROTECTORATE LOOK LIKE?
Why not do the same in Gaza? It has been the terrible plight of the Palestinian people to have lived under multiple rulers over the centuries, most recently under the control of Egypt and Jordan, where they hardly were treated as equal citizens. Its plight under Israeli occupation following the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War, exacerbated in memory some of their leaders’ support for the Nazis in WW2, and the repeated terrorism emanating from within their borders, has not been kind. All of this has been compounded by the often indifferent attitude of Arab governments, which have kept the Palestinians in permanent refugee status, resisting opportunities to resettle and/or invest.
The plan I suggest seems obvious in its simplicity, once one considers the alternatives. But it has challenges in implementation, given the historic animus in the region and the unwillingness to date of neighboring countries to share in the burden of lifting up these people.
Much of this is dependent upon the bravery of the Israeli government and the engagement of the “major” Arab governments. When this war ends, the Israelis will be faced with tough choices. While “to the victor comes the spoils,” to the victor also comes responsibility. As Colin Powell famously warned with Iraq, “once you break it, you own it.” Without getting into the details of the conflict writ large, after this war is over, Israel will have tough decisions to make. Among the toughest will be how to relinquish authority, pacify and stabilize its neighbor, test the depth of its new-found relationships with Arab governments, and move forward. As I envision any peace deal, the leaders of the Arab world would have to respond with the willingness to actually take on leadership in the Middle East in a way it has not to date. Finally, it also will take a willing America (with the help of the Europeans and/or NATO) to act as midwife to the birth of a healthy Gaza, with some sort of temporary peacekeeping mission.
For the moment, I choose to address only Gaza and not the West Bank, which is of greater complexity as a result of the Israeli settlements and the presence of holy places. There is hubris in proposing any solution to problems that have seemed insoluble to date. There no doubt are smarter and more experienced people thinking about this today but I think something outside the historical norms and expectations—something that breaks the mold—has to be considered. This is only one idea, as someone who cares deeply for Israel, for the Palestinians, and for peace. Here’s the idea:
Israel declares victory in Gaza and declares that it has no continuing need or right to presence in a pacified Gaza. It says it will pull out as a peacekeeping force is put in place. With the U.S. and, hopefully, additional international support, Israel pledges to respect the border and calls upon the Arab world to take on the task of administering Gaza for a period of ten years (see below). This requires the Israeli government to act unilaterally, pulling out of Gaza and pledging its support. U.S. guarantees would no doubt be part of this.
The leading Arab governments, presumably including Egypt, Qatar (which often has acted as Hamas’s bank and interlocutor), and Saudi Arabia, take on responsibility for establishing the administration of the Protectorate of Gaza. Some sort of governing body is established to administer the Protectorate. The establishment of a “first phase” of a Palestinian government—the birth of a fledgling nation—would include would require an international support. Importantly, this plan would require a sea change among Arab governments, which heretofore have demonstrated reluctance to accept responsibility for helping the Palestinians in the past. The imprimatur of the U.N. would be desirable, but not dispositive.
The Arab governments involved would rightly insist upon some concession by Israel to meaningful peace talks regarding the West Bank and eventual “merger” with Gaza. I would assume no one enters these talks with any preconditions.
A development bank is established to rebuild Gaza, with primary contributors including Arab governments, Israel, the EU and the United States. Its administration would be multi-national and the deployment of its funds would be monitored to ensure application to civilian purposes and to ensure continued forward progress.
Elections are held shortly after Israeli withdrawal and the introduction of the international administrators. That government would oversee most domestic affairs and its actions would be subject to oversight by the governing administration. Hamas is banned from participation.
During the ten-year administrative period, a deep-water port would be built, as would an airport capable of handling small plane take-offs and landings.
In ten years, there would be a plebiscite of the Gazan people. That election might include various options, including whether (a) to govern themselves, (b) to become part of a Palestinian state with the West Bank (assuming progress on that front, (c) to become a part of Israel, or (d) to become a part of Egypt, subject to that country’s approval.
The Gazan formation documents would disavow violence and a standing army. Like Costa Rica, they would lack a military but have full police power over its territory (subject to limitations during the period of administrative oversight).
The proposal I envision requires the consent only of Israel and the governments participating in the administrative oversight; although greater international support would be preferred.
I haven’t thought through all of the ins and outs of this proposal. But I’m working on it—I welcome your thoughts. I hope to offer it as an op-ed in the coming weeks. I think this proposal offers what we currently lack, namely, a stable government, a timetable for self-government, a rebuilding of the land and its infrastructures, establishing a political system, with guarantees of rights, and peace.
Quite a Musing, I know. But one must hope that cool heads will figure out how to end the historic friction, reduce terrorism, secure Israeli security, and empower the Palestinian people.
Have a great day,
Glenn