The catastrophic situation for Palestinians in Gaza continues to worsen while the security challenges for humanitarian organisations increase daily. All semblance of governance has broken down and there is no plan for what happens after the current round of hostilities end.
The Arab League recently called for the deployment of UN international protection and peacekeeping forces in the occupied Palestinian territories until the two-state solution is implemented.
The statement reaffirmed its position that the Palestine Liberation Organisation is the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. This was a clear call for Palestinian factions, especially Hamas and Fatah, to reconcile their differences. Such a move would be essential in order to provide consent for and facilitate the deployment of any international force.
The US is reported to have had preliminary conversations about options for stabilising postwar Gaza, including a proposal to help fund either a multinational force or a Palestinian peacekeeping team.
Israel mounts heavy strikes on Beirut suburbs as defence minister rules out ceasefire
Simon Harris and Donald Trump agree to ‘keep in touch’ in call covering Middle East and Ukraine conflicts
Israeli fire ‘kills 30 Palestinians’ as tanks roll into central Gaza camp
Amsterdam extends protest ban as bid to clarify root of ‘anti-Semitic’ violence continues
In Israel, some members of government have advocated for continued military occupation and even building settlements in Gaza. This latter proposal would be unacceptable to even Israel’s closest allies and would lead to prolonged hostilities and further civilian suffering.
A UN trusteeship for Palestine has also been proposed. Although anachronistic, it has merit as a potential UN mechanism to assist in state building that avoids the dysfunctional politics of the UN Security Council. It would require regional power leadership and a clear time frame for Palestinian statehood to prevent a prolonged process without a clear end date.
It could be some time before Washington and its partners approve any plan, especially since regional powers want to see a commitment to a two-state solution before seriously engaging with the options. Those efforts have been frustrated by Binyamin Netanyahu’s refusal to accept a Palestinian state and Israel’s insistence to date that it will maintain overall security control of the besieged enclave. Even defence minister Gallant has stated there would be too high a price to pay for continued military administration of Gaza.
Who has the capacity to govern Gaza in the aftermath of such destruction and devastation? There are serious doubts about the viability of training a potential Palestinian-led force with the capacity to restore order. At the same time there is widespread concern at the deteriorating security situation and ensuing lawlessness. The most important contribution that peacekeepers can make is the creation of a secure environment.
Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco are reportedly considering a US proposal to provide troops for an international peacekeeping force to secure the Gaza Strip and prevent Hamas from regaining power after the current hostilities end.
However, there are a number of preconditions, chief among them is the requirement for the US to formally recognise a Palestinian state before such a force is created. This is not something the Biden administration is willing to do, arguing that such a unilateral move will not advance the peace efforts. Saudi Arabia has rejected the US proposal to participate as it does not want to be seen as overly collaborating with Israel. Qatar has also expressed reservations.
Last January, US secretary of state Antony Blinken urged Israel to work with regional countries and moderate Palestinians to rebuild, stabilise and govern Gaza once the current hostilities ended. He acknowledged that this can only come through a regional approach that includes a pathway to Palestinian statehood.
Following almost six decades of brutal occupation of the Palestinian territories, most regional players will consider participation only when there is a serious two-state solution plan in place. They do not want to be drawn into a protracted post-conflict war of attrition or be seen as some kind of surrogate occupation force.
The US plan envisages an interim administration governing Gaza, with civilian affairs controlled by local Palestinians and security managed by a peacekeeping force comprising neighbouring Arab states until a reconstituted Palestinian Authority can assume control. The plan includes assistance from the international community towards reconstruction.
The deployment of any UN peacekeeping force will require the co-operation of all parties and UN Security Council approval. It will face many military and political challenges. Israel will seek to establish a security zone in Gaza and withdrawal from the West Bank will also require difficult negotiations and compromise by all sides. While it should have a Chapter VII mandate with the authority to use force when necessary, it must not be a stabilisation mission to take on the remnants of Hamas or other militant groups.
The UN secretary general’s recent report on the protection of civilians described the situation worldwide as resoundingly grim. Nowhere is the vulnerability of civilians more evident than in Gaza. To date the international response to the humanitarian catastrophe has been totally inadequate and in violation of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine which was unanimously adopted by UN member states in 2005.
There has been no shortage of UN resolutions and rhetoric in relation to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. None of these has been matched by a commensurate political commitment to enforce such resolutions, and this has been an overriding weakness with UN and other engagements to date.
While the UN is not equipped for imposing a settlement by force, it can be good at “peace”, mediating and implementing a comprehensively negotiated peace. To succeed, the peacekeeping operation must have a clear mandate and adequate resources and it must be tailored to fit the political, regional and other realities of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It should also reflect the needs and aspirations of the majority of the local population. The UN should also retain the lead role.
The prospect of an intrastate conflict would present a serious dilemma should fighting break out between Palestinian factions. From a peacekeeping perspective, the fear is that the international forces would be targeted and this could render the mission untenable.
Finding agreement for the deployment of international forces is just one step in the process. First there must be a permanent ceasefire and a peace to keep. Any plan must facilitate Palestinian self-determination.
The requirement for a clear, credible and achievable mandate cannot be overstated. Key issues such as rules of engagement, area of operations, freedom of movement are among the more specific details that cannot be fudged and must be agreed before any proposed deployment. Will an international force have the mandate and means to protect civilians?
The Israeli occupation has choked economic and political developments throughout the Palestinian territories and, despite UN agencies, the EU and the presence of other international organisations, any assistance is hindered by the occupation. Plans must be advanced to restore order and protect civilians.
An extensive and focused peacebuilding programme is also required. Funding of the entire operation is a critical issue. The major funder of UN peace operations is the US, so this is another reason for US and EU involvement in the process.
Dr Ray Murphy is a professor at the Irish Centre for Human Rights in the School of Law, University of Galway
- Listen to our Inside Politics Podcast for the latest analysis and chat
- Sign up for push alerts and have the best news, analysis and comment delivered directly to your phone
- Find The Irish Times on WhatsApp and stay up to date