Dealt Out

I read "President Donald J. Trump's Plan to End the Gaza Conflict," which was appended to the NPR story on its announcement. It left me with a question... Who makes sure that the Palestinians get what they're promised? None of the 20 points mentions any sort of agreement that's binding on all parties.

I'm not sure that any rational person would expect the government of Israel to adhere to the spirit of any agreement, even if they were to live up to the letter of one, unless some sort of formal sanctions for noncompliance are involved. There's simply too much bad blood there. And of course President Trump thinks that he's an absolutely trustworthy partner, but given they United States' more or less reflexive support of Israel, I can't see why the Palestinians would take him at face value, either. There's no accountability for either the United States or Israel to ensure a good outcome fore the people of Gaza. And Prime Minister Netanyahu has shown a willingness to openly cross President Trump, and his predecessors, when it's suited his purposes to do so, mainly because strong Evangelical support for Israel is a check on imposing consequences.

Perhaps it's a testament to a person's ability to convince themselves that everyone else's opinion of them is in line with their own self-image. President Trump appears to think that this is such a good deal for the remaining members of Hamas that they'll simply give up the fight, but if that were the case, they'd already be suing for peace. And if the Palestinians were ready, willing and able to aggressively police one another for the sake of Israel, things wouldn't be in the state that they are right now.

A good deal comes across as a win for everyone involved, and it's hard to see how this particular plan gets to that point, given that it's basically a call for an unconditional surrender on the part of Hamas, and sets up Gaza to be controlled by someone who doesn't really appear to have the interests of its residents at heart. It could be that the President understands that, but the threat to allow Israel to "finish the job" of destroying Hamas relies on people thinking that the only reason why that hasn't happened already is the United States forcing moderation on the Netanyahu Administration. I'm not convinced that there's widespread belief in that position.

But there's also a strange paradox built into this plan. Both the United States and Israel claim that Hamas is not a legitimate government in Gaza. But Hamas agreeing to the plan would be a green light for President Trump to effectively take over the government of Gaza with this "Board of Peace." But if Hamas doesn't speak for the people of Gaza, it also can't agree to hand over governance to an international body on their behalf. And it's pretty much a given that as soon as another armed insurgency of some sort starts shooting people, or blowing things up, because they feel that they're getting a raw deal out of all of this, all bets will be off. And they likely will come to see this as a bad deal, because it's highly unlikely that Israel would allow a truly sovereign, reasonable self-sufficient Palestinian territory on it's border. Because a Palestine that could defend itself from Israeli incursion could attempt to launch incursions into Israel. And a strong police force that had the support of the people of Gaza can't also be one that's seen to be a tool of the Israeli security apparatus.

Of course, I'm not a Middle-East researcher, or an expert in crafting international agreements. So things could work out swimmingly. But even given the current situation in Gaza, I can't imagine the groundswell of support needed for this plan to succeed actually materializing. Mainly because this deal isn't being made with, or for, the people who are going to have to pay for it.