GIVE PEACE A CHANCE

ByAjay Singh

PUNE: As the talks remained inconclusive and Israel resumed actions in Rafah, the US denied them a consignment of 3,100 bombs, but that was merely a cosmetic gesture.

Will they? Won’t they? Will Hamas agree to the ceasefire? Will Israel accept the proposal? Will both sides agree to the counter proposals put up by each other? That was the question that loomed large in the peace talks at Cairo between Israeli, Hamas, Egyptian and Qatari negotiators, even as Israeli tanks closed in on Rafah for the start of their long threatened offensive.

Ever since the Gaza conflict began seven months ago, there has only been a brief respite in early November. Then, during a four-day ceasefire (later extended to a week) the guns stopped firing and 105 Israeli hostages were returned in exchange for 240 Palestinian prisoners. That ceasefire broke down and a much-expected Eid ceasefire and Ramzan truce did not materialise. Finally after months of cajoling, negotiations were showing some kind of progress at the Cairo talks.

The negotiations for the ceasefire in Gaza hinged around the release of hostages by Hamas and cessation of military activities and resumption of humanitarian aid by Israel. Hamas demanded a complete cessation of fighting during which they would release hostages in a phased manner and humanitarian aid would be allowed to enter Gaza. Hamas proposed an initial 42-day ceasefire in the first phase, during which they would release 33 hostages (a figure which was reduced from the 40 agreed earlier, and subsequently reduced to just 18)—largely women and children—in exchange for thirty Palestinian prisoners for each Israeli released. Three hostages would be released on the third day of the ceasefire and three more every seven days thereafter. In that time Israel would halt military action and partially withdraw troops from North Gaza. In the second phase, there would be another 42 days of complete cessation of fighting and all remaining hostages—including captured soldiers and reservists—would be released. It would also be marked by a complete withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza. In the final phase, the bodies and remains of the deadइस शब्द का अर्थ जानिये would be handed over, the blockade of Gaza would stop and Israel along with USA, Saudi, Egypt, UAE and the United Nations would oversee the reconstruction of Gaza till a “final just and equitable solution” was hammered out.

The release of hostages has been a divisive issue in Israel with the calls to “bring them back” intensifying. Of the 240 hostages, 105 were released in a prisoner swap and only three rescued by Israeli troops. Of the 125 or so remaining, many have been killed in cases of mistaken identity and bombing attacks and just an estimated 80 or so could still be alive. The reduction of figure of hostages to be released by Hamas, indicates that they may not have so many living hostages left. Israel was close to accepting the proposal for a ceasefire and hostage swap, when it was nixed by the hardliners of Netanyahu’s coalition government who insist on continuing the war till “total victory” is achieved. Israel demands a complete return of hostages with only a brief pause in the fighting to permit humanitarian aid—not a complete ceasefire. This would enable them to resume their offensive after the hostages were released and was predictably rejected by Hamas, who insist on a complete cessation of hostilities before they hand over the only card they hold—the hostages.

Israel had delayed its Rafah offensive for months now—perhaps using the threat as a pressure tactic during the negotiations. With this round of peace talks seeming to have fizzled it, It has now re-started its actions towards Rafah, irrespective of world pressure and international opinion. Two divisions have moved southwards, the 1.5 million Gazans huddled there have been warned to vacate the area, and Israeli tanks have taken over the Rafah and Kerem Shalom crossings—the two main crossing on the Egyptian side through which aid could flow through. Israel’s professed objective for their threatened offensive in Rafah is to eliminate the three odd Hamas battalions reportedly sheltering there, along with the remnants of the Hamas leadership—including Yahya Sinwar and Mohammed Deif. But clearing the densely populated built up area will be difficult and inconclusive. It will cause a humanitarian disaster even exceeding the devastation of the past seven months. It will add to the toll of over 35,000 Gazans killed so far, increase the threat of famine and starvation, and add to the rubble of destroyed buildings and infrastructure, which will now take over 80 years to rebuild—provided Israel allows it.

The US has been trying to dissuade Netanyahu with a mix of coercion and sweeteners. As the talks remained inconclusive and Israel resumed actions in Rafah, it denied them a consignment of 3,100 bombs—but that was merely a cosmetic gesture. Israel insists that it will “go it alone” if required, and one can only hope that good sense prevails and Netanyahu does not place his political survival over the greater good. A ceasefire, followed by talks to hammer out a long term solution could still salvage Israel’s position in the Middle East. In spite of condemnation, no Arab nation has acted directly against Israel and the Abrahams Accord that it signed with UAE, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco still holds. The Israel-Saudi rapprochement which was derailed by the 7 Oct attacks is still on the cards. Saudi Arabia is still keen on an agreement with Israel and USA which will provide it technology and security in return for investments, and also carry US security guarantees to enable it to focus on reshaping its economy. The Israel-Saudi-US deal could be the game changer in the region, and perhaps Israel may not want to jeopardise that. Israel could be urged to accept an equitable deal, in return for acceptance in the Arab world. Saudi may demand long-term guarantees for the Palestinian people and thus reinforce its standing as the leader of the Arab world. This could be win-win for all, less Iran.

In another conflict zone—Ukraine—talks of another “Peace Summit” are being bandied about, even as the war seems poised to take another turn. War-weariness and the exhaustion of their stocks of weapons, manpower and ammunition had prompted Zelensky to propose a ‘Peace Summit’ to be held in Switzerland in June. Ukraine, India, Turkey, China and a host of nations were to be parties in that; but Russia was not invited, making it meaningless. Pressure had intensified for Ukraine to accept a ‘land-for-peace’ formula in which Ukraine would abjure its claims to join NATO, in return for a halt in fighting and security guarantees for the future. Russia would keep the land it captured in a fait accompli (as they did with Crimea in 2014) but would not expand any further. With remarkable timing, the USA released a $61 billion aid package of modern weapons and munitions to Ukraine, that will allow it to continue the fight for a few months more—till the US Presidential elections, at least. The Russia-Ukraine peace talks are a non-starter, and ominously Russia seems to be readying itself for a fresh offensive which they could launch before the newly promised aid starts trickling in.

Wars which should have been concluded months and years earlier have gone on interminably. In Gaza, a ceasefire always seems within touching distance, only to fizzle out. But it is still quite likely that the ceasefire will eventually materialise. The release of all hostages, a complete cessation of fighting by both sides, resumption of humanitarian aid, and eventually the reconstruction of Gaza is a logical first step—for the time being at least. It would not bring a permanent end to the turmoil of the Middle East—for that the root cause of the problem has to be addressed and resolved. But it would provide a temporary respite and perhaps give peace another chance.

Ajay Singh is an international award-winning author of seven books and over 200 articles. He is a regular contributor to The Sunday Guardian.