-Sustainable peace hinges on holding Israel accountable for its crimes against humanity, preventing impunity provided by the US and some European countries, and subjecting Tel Aviv to international law

-The author Professor of international affairs, security, and defense at Qatar University, associate fellow at Ibn Khaldon Center for Humanities and Social Sciences, and a non-resident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s “Scowcroft ME Security Initiative” and Middle East Programs. ​​​​​​

ISTANBUL  

The 2023 Israeli war on Gaza has ignited a flurry of speculations about the future of the Gaza Strip and who will hold sway there once the dust of the Israeli aggression settles. These questions are not only pivotal for the immediate future of Gaza and the Palestinians but also have far-reaching implications for the broader Middle East region and international diplomatic efforts.

At the heart of the unfolding catastrophe lies the fate of Hamas, the de facto governing authority in Gaza following the 2006 elections. Since its decision to put boots on the ground in Gaza on October 27, Israel's officials have asserted that the goal is to “destroy” Hamas. However, the action of defeating Hamas, in this case, is not defined, which makes it almost impossible.

However, regardless of this declared goal, Tal Aviv has been vocal about its intention to transfer Palestinians to Gaza, many of whom are already refugees who came to Gaza from different parts of the occupied Palestinian lands to the Sinai Desert in Egypt. The aftermath of this military operation opens up a spectrum of scenarios, each with its own set of complexities and challenges.

The return of the Palestinian Authority (PA) scenario

This option is a non-starter, given Israel’s leverage over the PA and the PA's diminished credibility among the Palestinians under Mahmoud Abbas. To be sure, Israel has continuously and consistently sabotaged and undermined the authority of the PA to both derail the two-state solution and claim that there is no adequate partner on the Palestinian side.

The Biden administration in the United States (US), for instance, has hinted at a desire to see a "revitalized" Palestinian Authority (PA) return to power in Gaza. However, the practicality and acceptability of such a suggestion are questionable. Additionally, the formula for “revitalization” is vague and might be influenced by foreign powers to ultimately insert an Israeli puppet at the helm of the PA.

In this sense, there have been some plans in recent years to substitute Mahmoud Abbas with Mohammad Dahlan. Following the Israeli invasion of Gaza, the “Economist” published a story about Dahlan that was meant to promote him as an option for a post-war Gaza. However, Dahlan denied that he wanted the role. The majority of Palestinians see Dahlanas a corrupt Israeli element anyway.

Hamas's endurance and popularity surge

Hamas was founded in 1987 after the outbreak of the First Palestinian Intifada against the Israeli occupation. The group remains deeply entrenched in Palestinian society and politics. In this sense, it seems unrealistic to expect Hamas to be eradicated entirely. Furthermore, following Israel’s ongoing war against the Palestinians in Gaza, Hamas's popularity has reportedly increased, especially in the wake of recent events, suggesting that it continues to hold substantial influence and support within Palestinian society as a resistant force against Israeli occupation.

In this scenario, the possible involvement of Hamas in a revitalized PA could be more feasible if Marwan al-Barghouthi, a national liberation leader imprisoned by Israel since 2002, takes leadership roles in the Palestinian Liberation Organization and the PA. This would require immediate recognition from the US and Europe of the free, independent, and sovereign Palestinian state, as well as the effective realization of it.

Foreign involvement

During the ongoing Israeli war against the Palestinians, several actors have mulled the idea of an international or Arab military presence in Gaza post-war. The Arab governments rejected this proposal, highlighting that Arabs will not enter on the back of an Israeli tank. Behind closed door meetings, some other ideas might have been mulled such as a potential role for the Abraham Accords’ governments.

A few days ago, Israel’s Netanyahu told Knesset panel that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) would finance the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip after the war. The Emiratis, however, said they would condition financial and political support for the reconstruction of Gaza on the advancement of a US-backed initiative toward a two-state solution.

Turkiye proposed a guarantorship system in which countries from the region and beyond act as guarantors for both the Palestinians and Israelis. Turkiye's President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan asserted “We are ready to be one of the guarantors of the Palestinian side with our humanitarian, political, and military presence.” adding, “We call on strong-willed countries to consider our offer.''

The problem with all these forms of involvement is the fact that no single country, particularly the US and European nations, is willing to effectively deter Israel, which holds the record for disregarding United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions, hold it accountable, or impose consequences when it violates any perceived agreement.

Israeli’s direct military occupation of Gaza

In 2005, Israel claimed to have ended its occupation of Gaza. However, this misleading statement contradicted the realities on the ground in which Israel continued to have “effective control” over Gaza, which, in turn, means in legal terms occupation without boots on ground. Following the land invasion of Gaza last October, Israel indicated that it intends to have overall security control over Gaza. This scenario might manifest in several forms including the reduction of the size of Gaza and its population.

In this sense, Israel reportedly floated the idea of creating a buffer zone between Gaza and Israel from the north to the south to prevent any future “surprise” attacks against Israel. This proposal would be part of a three-tier process that involves “destroying Hamas, demilitarizing Gaza and de-radicalizing the enclave.”

Israel did try these schemes before, both in Palestine and Lebanon, and they failed miserably because, as long as there is occupation, there will be resistance, which they cannot tolerate. Secretary General of the Palestinian National Initiative Movement (PNI), Mustafa Barghouthi, argues, “That is why Netanyahu's goal is to ethnically cleanse people. He wants to have military control of Gaza without people.”

Irrespective of the post-war scenarios for Gaza, it is imperative to recognize the broader context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, encompassing issues of occupation, settlement expansion, and the denial of Palestinian self-determination. Furthermore, sustainable peace hinges on holding Israel accountable for its crimes against humanity, preventing impunity provided by the US and some European countries and subjecting Tel Aviv to international law. Moreover, if the current Israeli war against the Palestinians will not end up with a free, sovereign, and independent Palestinian State, we should prepare for the worse.

​​​​​​​*Opinions expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Anadolu.