A Peace Plan for Gaza

Asharq Al-Awsat, London, October 27

In the ever-evolving peace process between Israelis and Palestinians, it has become clear over the past decade that negotiations between the two sides are nothing more than a futile exercise in endless delays. However, the absence of major violence in recent years has fostered a false sense of stability in Israel. Even those who were not fooled by this illusion have been caught off guard by the sudden and devastating outbreak of war sparked by Hamas’ attack on southern Israel on October 7. Sadly, the past three weeks have seen an unimaginable loss of life. For Israel, this is the most devastating loss of civilians in its 75 years of existence. For Palestinians, more civilians have been killed in just the first 15 days of this conflict than during the entirety of the Second Intifada, which spanned over five years, and all previous bouts of violence combined. Even more troubling, it is likely that thousands more innocent Palestinian lives will be lost if Israel continues to pursue its stated, albeit elusive, goal of eliminating Hamas and its infrastructure in Gaza. It is clear that the current course of action will only lead to further tragedy and suffering for both sides. The endless cycle of violence and retaliation must be broken in order to achieve a true and lasting peace. It is time for leaders on both sides to prioritize the protection and preservation of human life over their own political agendas. Only through genuine and meaningful dialogue can the vicious cycle of violence finally be put to an end and pave the way for a brighter future for all in the region. In light of the current situation, our top priority must be halting the headlong descent towards disaster. This means that Hamas must release Israeli civilians without conditions. While the recent release of some detainees is a positive step, we can and should expect further releases to occur. Unfortunately, Israel is not currently receptive to talks of a cease-fire. Even the Biden Administration has not exerted pressure on Israel to entertain this possibility. Instead, the United States has simply urged Israel to hold off on a ground invasion of Gaza until more detainees are freed. It is no exaggeration to say that such an invasion would result in an unparalleled bloodbath, heighten the risk of a larger regional conflict, and potentially destabilize several Arab nations. Additionally, the invasion would only serve to weaken the Palestinian Authority (PA) and inflame public outrage in the West Bank. Given these grave considerations, it is concerning that Israeli officials have shown disdain for the UN secretary-general’s recent call for an immediate cease-fire to alleviate the “epic suffering” in Gaza. This can only be seen as a dangerous manifestation of recklessness and a destructive inclination towards aggression. The time for swift and decisive action to prevent further harm is now. There is still a glimmer of hope that the release of incarcerated Israeli civilians may pave the way for progress in Arab and global diplomacy. The pressing issue now is determining who will take the reins in the aftermath of the current Israeli operation. As we look towards the future, we must immediately discard the notion of imposing any specific resolution on the Palestinians and compelling them to accede to it. It is also imperative to dismiss the idea that the current structure of the PA can effectively lead the Gaza Strip. Given the devastation inflicted by the Israeli assault, it is doubtful that the PA, in its current state, possesses the willingness or capability to govern in Gaza. Furthermore, their declining legitimacy under the strain of ongoing conflict removes any possibility of them assuming the role. However, a properly reformed PA could prove to be the best option moving forward and beyond. It could serve as a vital link to facilitate a regionally endorsed, internationally supported effort to put an end to the Israeli occupation. This framework must effectively address the inherent flaws that have long hindered the peace process over the past three decades. The PA was established in 1994 as a transitional government in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, following the Oslo Accords signed by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) representing the Palestinian people. However, both the PA and the PLO have seen a decline in legitimacy due to the failure of the Oslo framework to deliver on its promise of a Palestinian state on the land occupied by Israel in 1967. This has fueled a growing disillusionment with the possibility of achieving this goal, resulting in increased support for armed resistance movements like Hamas. As a result of this erosion, doubts have been raised concerning the PLO’s claim as the sole legitimate representative of all Palestinians. In addition, the chronic mismanagement of the PA and the exclusion of various Palestinian political factions has further weakened their standing among the people. Reform and reconstruction of the PLO and the PA have long been necessary, and this task is now more urgent than ever. The first step should be the immediate and unconditional expansion of the PLO to include all major political groups, including Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. In the 2006 parliamentary elections, Hamas emerged victorious with an absolute majority. Despite no subsequent elections being held, opinion polls show that Hamas still holds significant popular support. Moreover, any attempt to resume the peace process can only be deemed credible if all factions, including those with different political ideologies, are represented in the PLO. The PLO must evolve without sacrificing the principles of the peace process. However, this process cannot continue in its current form if it is to succeed in achieving its goals after 30 years of disappointment. The first step towards a genuine resolution is for Israel to officially acknowledge the Palestinians’ right to a sovereign state in the occupied territories since 1967. This recognition would simply mirror the PLO’s recognition of Israel’s right to exist, a fundamental component of the Oslo Accords in 1993. Until this acknowledgment is granted, the expanded PLO can adopt a comprehensive platform that represents the diverse Palestinian perspectives on what constitutes a viable resolution. This approach would maintain the possibility of initiating a meaningful peace process through negotiations that ultimately establish a Palestinian state under the widely accepted two-state solution. After decades of conflict and many lives lost, it’s time for the PA to fully take on the responsibility of governing the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. This means that the PA, led by a government approved by the expanded PLO, will manage all affairs during a multiyear transitional period. To ensure a peaceful and cooperative relationship, both Israel and the PA must make a strict commitment to nonviolence during this time. Ultimately, the PA will hold national elections, as agreed upon from the start of the transitional period. I have long advocated for these necessary reforms, dating back to an article I wrote for Foreign Affairs magazine in 2014. Despite the clear feasibility of this plan, it has not been implemented officially due to internal conflicts and disagreements. However, with the current situation so dire, the time for action has come. With support and encouragement from Arab countries, this plan offers a trustworthy path toward lasting peace. While this vision may have its flaws, it is undoubtedly a better alternative to the options currently being considered by Israel, all of which would only bring more violence and bloodshed and diminish the possibility of reaching a true and lasting peace. It’s time to put an end to the cycle of conflict and strive toward a peaceful and prosperous future for both Israelis and Palestinians. — Salam Fayyad, former prime minister of the Palestinian Authority (translated by Asaf Zilberfarb)