A NYT news analysis (not paywalled) discusses the ceasefire in Gaza. The analysis quotes a Trump expert, Julian Zelizer (Princeton, history professor), pointing out that whatever good Trump is responsible for is offset by other things:
“He has a long tendency — he did this in his first term — to overwhelm things that could be good political news for him, because he can’t resist either going after his perceived enemies or just doing controversial things for the sake of dividing and aggravating tensions. .... In the end, I think he believes chaos benefits him. .... I do think the bigger point is no one overwhelms his own positive news the way he can.”
Trump is framing Gaza as another of his consistent efforts to bring peace everywhere. His spokesperson criticizes the NYT for reporting about Trump's militarization of policing and local opposition to it:
“This is another fake angle from the failing New York Times. President Trump is working to end conflicts around the world, just like he is working to quell violence in cities across the country. His efforts both at home and abroad have been successful, the end of the Israel-Hamas war is underway, and cities like Washington, D.C., are thanking him for freeing up resources to bring more justice to victims and hold more criminals accountable.”
That analysis is good as far as it goes. At least the framing arguably is pro-democracy instead of the usual MSM's pro-dictator framing. That is an improvement. Good on you NYT, you are finally starting to get it, a little bit. I think.
Where the NYT analysis disappoints and fails is in ignoring Trump's motives and tactics, and the overall impact of this particular proposed agreement. Although Trump says he is a peace maker, reality says he isn't. The truth is that he is, as always, self-serving, morally bankrupt and brutal.
Trying to avoid TL/TC/DR territory the failures in the analysis are these (TC = too complicated):
- The proposed agreement is a take-it-or-leave-it dictat [1], not a negotiated peace deal. The deal came after Trump threatened hell breaking loose if the Palestinians rejected his terms. Senior Hamas official Mousa Abu Marzouk explicitly acknowledged coercion: "This is a risk, but we trusted President Trump to be the guarantor of all the commitments made. Had there been no commitment from the American president, we would never have agreed to take the risk". The terms that immediately and tangibly benefit the Palestinians are the ceasefire and humanitarian aid. If that happens, it would stop the slaughter and starving of civilians.
- The deal negotiations completely excluded the Palestinian Authority (PA), which is the main, internationally recognized Palestinian political force. The marginalization of the PA was deliberate to exclude legitimate Palestinian representation. Hamas explicitly acknowledged that they lacked a mandate to negotiate on behalf of all Palestinians. That is a significant limit on the legitimacy of any agreement. Thus, the deal was decided almost exclusively between US and Israeli negotiators. Hamas and a few other small armed Palestinian groups made requests through intermediaries who were in indirect contact with negotiators.
- What Hamas reportedly asked for and "got" was what circumstances would require the US and Israel to concede anyway. Specifically, the ceasefire includes (1) release of about 1,900 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for remaining Israeli hostages (needed to get the Israeli hostages) , (2) 600 trucks of humanitarian aid daily (needed to avoid more condemnation for genocide), and (3) allowing displaced Gazans to return to their homes under continued Israeli military presence (needed because there's nothing else practical to do). Israel vetted the prisoner list and rejected releasing Palestinian politicians it wanted to keep in Israeli prisons. The 600 trucks of aid is the bare minimum necessary for survival.[2]
- Other major terms of the ceasefire are so ambiguous and fully under subjective Israeli control that they are just illusions. Specifically, Israel keeps control over ~53% of Gaza after an initial troop withdrawal. Later Israel will control 40% of Gaza and eventually 15%. Israeli forces will never fully leave Gaza. There will be a continuation of occupation because Israel gets to unilaterally decide when conditions allow withdrawal of Israeli military forces. If history since 1949 is predictive, withdrawal conditions will never be met by the Palestinians. Only Israel's own choice is at play.
Q: Does this diktat ceasefire make Trump a great peace-maker, or a thug using his power and threats to force a peace settlement, presumably so that he can keep demanding his Nobel Peace Prize, which is his most likely motive? Or is this not a diktat, and is something else, e.g., brilliant diplomacy?
Footnotes:
1. The German term meaning of diktat is "dictated peace". It was arose after World War I to describe the Treaty of Versailles. The treaty was imposed without negotiation, forcing Germans to accept terms on a "take-it-or-leave-it basis". The term emphasizes the non-negotiable, harsh nature of the settlement where the loser has little or no voice in the terms. The worst possible outcome is slaughtering all remaining enemy civilians and combatants. Only the tender mercies of the victors make any significant concessions beyond not doing that floor of human possibility.
2. At present, Palestinians are starving to death. In any ceasefire, Israel would have allowed enough food in to keep most of the population from starving to death. This can be seen as a concession forced by circumstance. And going home assumes a home remains, which will often not be the case. It will often amount to going back to a plie of rubble.
No comments:
Post a Comment