Israel-Hamas War: Four stages for a post-war Gaza

GRAFFITI COMPARES Hamas to ISIS, in Tel Aviv, Nov. 1.

Saturday, October 7, was a watershed moment for the people of Israel. It had been 50 years, almost to the day of the Yom Kippur War, when a breakdown of Israeli intelligence began, leading to the current total breakdown, which this time failed to stop a well-planned massacre of civilians, not soldiers.

This massacre is said to have been planned almost two years in advance. Hamas knew exactly when the Supernova music festival would take place, how many guards would be present, where the kibbutzim were, and how many people lived there, using Palestinian workers from Gaza as their informants.

However, it was also a watershed moment because it became obvious to many that the whole concept of the Oslo Accords was based on a flawed concept that resulted in civilian rather than military casualties. It was also based on the flawed idea that we could just wash our hands of the West Bank and Gaza by allowing a terrorist entity, the PLO, to control those areas.

For the first time in 30 years, there is a consensus in Israel that not only were the Accords a failure but also that it is time for Hamas to be removed from running Gaza. Hamas toppled the Palestinian Authority in an election in 2006, and then forcibly kicked the PA out of Gaza at gunpoint in 2007.

In the October 7 massacre, perpetrated by Hamas terrorists carrying the ISIS flag, they killed, mutilated, and burned bodies, raped women, and beheaded babies. This is in addition to taking men, women, and children as hostages.

CAMP DAVID, not Oslo: (from L) Egyptian president Anwar Sadat, US president Jimmy Carter, and prime minister Menachem Begin sign the Camp David Accords in the White House, 1978. (credit: Courtesy Jimmy Carter Library/National Archives/Handout via Reuters)

CAMP DAVID, not Oslo: (from L) Egyptian president Anwar Sadat, US president Jimmy Carter, and prime minister Menachem Begin sign the Camp David Accords in the White House, 1978. (credit: Courtesy Jimmy Carter Library/National Archives/Handout via Reuters)

The heavy involvement of Iranian liaisons in directing and financing the attack was probably why it was so vicious. Hamas and Hezbollah are now puppets of the Iranian regime whose goal is to kill Israelis and wipe the country off the map. Maybe this is why our world allies at present do not seem to be trying to prevent such a regime change in Gaza.

US President Joe Biden equated Hamas with ISIS and, for the first time, did not ask Israel to limit its response. Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer (New York) called to “totally eliminate” Hamas, and Republican Senator Marco Rubio (Florida) said Israel has no alternative but to eradicate Hamas. I think it’s quite clear that the people of Israel today would like the Hamas and Jihad leadership forcibly removed, and rightly so. As Golda Meir once said, “You cannot discuss peace with those whose goal is to kill you.”

Our military leadership was complacent due to its reliance on the Iron Dome and on the many AI systems, including a multi-billion-shekel fence that fell in five minutes. This gave the illusion of things being under control.

This rosy dream of the Iron Dome defense lasted a decade. The enormous amount of rocket fire overwhelmed the system, thus enabling Hamas to use it to camouflage its ground incursion.

OCTOBER 7 was a watershed moment in Israeli society because the entire Zionist ethos since the First Zionist Congress in 1897 was based on the idea that Zionism was needed to create a shelter for the Jewish people from antisemitism. This goal was one that the State of Israel viewed extremely seriously. The Israeli army was there to protect its citizens, as well as Jews at risk around the world.

But on October 7, the army was not there. At a 4 a.m. meeting on Oct. 7, the head of IDF Intelligence dismissed the idea of a Hamas attack. The “concept,” as it is now referred to, was based on some type of arrogance. The people paid the price as they have since the beginning of the Oslo Accords.

The difference is that now they have woken up. The political leadership realized this and commanded the IDF to rid Gaza of Hamas, an idea ridiculed in the past by the army’s top brass.

In the past, the counterargument has always been “So you want us to control one to two million Palestinians?” Or “What about the cost, the loss of lives?” We now see that the loss of lives is greater if we keep Hamas there than if we don’t.

SO WHERE do we go from here? What can we do with Gaza the day after?

Some US officials have already called for the return of the PA to Gaza. It was Einstein who said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

I believe that a more serious discussion must take place for the sake of the security of the State of Israel, as well as for the sake of the Palestinian population in Gaza, who themselves have been victims of the totalitarian Hamas regime since 2007. These people have been held hostage by their own leadership and have no alternative but to support them. Many would probably leave if they had the opportunity.

I will describe four possible “day after” scenarios or stages to begin this conversation.

Step one: Israeli control of Gaza

Israel controlled Gaza from 1967 until 1993, when it was totally demilitarized as was the West Bank. That is why the intifada of 1986 involved throwing stones at soldiers. This was usually carried out by children. It was a challenging situation but definitely better than our present situation which presents a mortal threat to the entire State of Israel. This control has to be the first step. After all, you cannot go down the wrong path and still find your way. You have to backtrack before moving to the right path.

Joint control: Egypt and Israel

Much has changed since 1993. The current Egyptian government is working with Israel on many issues. As Egypt is our neighbor just south of the border, it is important to turn to the Egyptians first. It’s true that they let us down by turning a blind eye to the border and allowing Hamas to bring in weapons. Therefore, the border would have to be controlled jointly. However, it is still imperative to discuss joint control of Gaza with them first.

Israel would have to continue doing the “dirty work” of removing the old regime and creating a demilitarized Gaza; but afterward, the civilians would be under military control, run, at least partially, by Egypt and Israel. The idea of joint control over the Gaza Strip could be discussed as a possibility.

Multinational peacekeeping force

The biggest change since 1993 has been the Abraham Accords. There are now multiple Arab countries cooperating with Israel. It is no secret that the Arab countries, except for Qatar, are quite satisfied with Israel’s decision to destroy Hamas’s military capabilities.

Therefore, after the regime change, a multinational force could be created consisting of Arab nations and Israel to run Gaza, with the blessing of the US and any other country that seeks Gazans’ welfare. This would also give the Abrahamic Accord countries an opportunity to create a better future for the Gazans, for whom they have expressed support.

International support could be requested to set up factories for employment. Since the force would be predominantly Arab, with Israeli involvement mainly in overall security and border logistics, it would be easier for the Gaza inhabitants to relate to them. Being totally demilitarized, it would not pose a threat and might even set an example for what could be done when international funding is used for jobs, social aid, and education and not for war.

It seems obvious that UNWRA would have to be dismantled, since all it does is perpetuate the refugee situation. In addition, the toppling of the regime and the possible success of this changeover would send a message to the PA in the West Bank that it needs to get its act together.

This is an important point, since the Hamas massacre ignited violence in the West Bank that could radicalize the PA, so a successful operation in Gaza would be a preemptive move in that sense as well. It would also have a profound impact on the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict and remove Iranian influence from Gaza. All Gazans who want to depart would be allowed to leave or visit any country aside from Israel and Egypt unless they received appropriate visas. No one has to remain in Gaza to please others.

Due to the mass destruction of housing in Gaza, which created many homeless families, it is incumbent upon Israel to turn to the international community and demand, even temporarily, taking in a certain number of Gazans to help them rebuild their lives, whether in Arab countries or elsewhere. This would facilitate the social integration of those who remain.

The remaining population would live in a demilitarized entity. A hand-selected local police force carrying batons or possibly handguns could be run under the authority of the peacekeeping forces and report to them. Israel would have the final say on security and open mobility to maneuver anywhere in the Gaza Strip.

Local leadership

Local leadership would be cultivated and tested in stages. Peace and mutual understanding would need to be taught in schools. The international peacekeeping force would remain for as long as local leadership has not been established or would continue alongside it. As it grows and creates a new local identity, it could work alongside the international force.

The original Camp David Accords under US president Jimmy Carter described autonomous cities. In this scenario, cities in the Gaza Strip could be run by Gazans who would report to the international peacekeeping forces and, of course, to Egypt and Israel.

Middle East analyst Mordechai Kedar suggests that Gazan cities be run by the tribes that already exist there. There are six extended families (emirates) who live there and have a certain amount of influence on the population. This would prove to be a natural leadership in the Strip’s six cities.

The return to Camp David instead of Oslo would be a return to a US-backed proposal. The Gaza Strip would be an autonomous zone with its own identity, but the sovereignty would be that of Israel, unless Egypt wanted to negotiate joint control. There would be an on-the-ground Israeli presence in northern Gaza as a buffer zone, including an army base and a possible settlement. (In the Middle East, even a small portion of land gain shows victory, which is essential in demonstrating that the old regime is gone.)

THE OLD notions have dissolved, and a new vision is needed quickly.

It’s time to take responsibility and set things right. It’s imperative to start this conversion for the sake of the State of Israel, as well as for the Gazans.

Israelis are a people who want peace but know how to fight when challenged. We have no interest in telling the Gazans how to live their lives, which is why we attempted to leave them to their own leadership in 1995. However, that experiment was a dismal failure.

We must now try to create a new vision – one in which fighting will be a thing of the past, and our security will not be compromised.

If we gave Oslo a chance, we can give the more promising idea of mutual cooperation a chance. 

The writer is a lecturer in Jewish thought at Bar-Ilan University.