Drenched by floods and abandoned amid the ruins, people in Gaza can draw no comfort from US plans
The declaration of a ceasefire in Gaza in October brought initial relief to its inhabitants. Yet officials there said Israeli strikes killed 33 people, including 12 children, on Wednesday; Israel said its troops had come under fire. Another five Palestinians were killed on Thursday. Hundreds have died since the ceasefire was declared. Even if the shelling stops, the destruction of Palestinian life will carry on as Israel continues to throttle aid, and the consequences of two years of war unfold. The World Health Organization warned last month that the health catastrophe would last for generations.
Food remains in short supply. While displaced families shiver in flooded makeshift shelters, with many facing a third winter of homelessness, aid organisations say they cannot deliver stockpiles of tents and tarpaulins. Israel, which denies blocking aid, has designated tent poles as “dual-use” items that could potentially be used for a military purpose. Save the Children reports children sleeping on bare ground in sewage-soaked clothing.
The Guardian last week revealed US plans for the long-term division of Gaza into a “green zone” under Israeli and international control, to be redeveloped, and a “red zone” left in ruins; a US official described reunion of the strip as “aspirational”. This vision – with international troops essentially propping up Israeli occupation, and Palestinians drawn to those areas to escape squalor and chaos elsewhere – echoes disastrous US policies in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This is the grim underpinning of the UN security council resolution this week, endorsing Donald Trump’s peace proposals. The “board of peace” looks like a colonial authority overseen by Mr Trump, and perhaps anchored by Tony Blair. Palestinian technocrats, somehow both domestically credible and acceptable to the US and Israel – a notable feat – would work beneath it. All this would be possible thanks to an international stabilisation force that the US hopes to see deployed by January. That would be a stretch even if countries prove truly willing to commit troops.
The resolution improved on a draft text and won backing from the Arab world – and angry rejection from the Israeli right – by including references to a Palestinian state and Israeli withdrawal. Yet those references are couched in the vaguest terms, as an unguaranteed reward for sufficiently good behaviour, rather than as a recognition of inalienable Palestinian rights. If all goes according to plan, “conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood”. Israeli withdrawal would be based on standards and timeframes agreed by the military itself as well as the US and others. Countries have backed not what this text does mean but what it might conceivably mean or become.
Some believe that this is the best that can be salvaged from current circumstances, given Mr Trump’s presidency; others hope that it is just possible that this unpromising start could allow something better to be forged. But it is hard not to conclude that for some governments, this is more about conscience-salving and reputation-laundering than the best interests of Palestinians. Germany has already announced that it will resume weapons exports to Israel. For Palestinians, “what looked like a forever war may be metamorphizing into forever misery”, the political scientist Nathan Brown has warned. Countries that were complicit in a genocidal war have all the more duty to demand better.
The Guardian
