Israel-Hamas deal: Short-term fixes to evade permanent solution

_______________

OPINION

By Alan Collins Mpewo

The deal. One that has been of global interest, but not the deal the world has for decades sought – a permanent solution. War is cruel.

The ultimate price has until October 11, 2025, been paid. Death has been the final price paid for the decades Israel and Palestine have had a stand off. And what was thought would be a ‘mere’ weeks’ conflict, has dragged on for over two years. It is still thought by some observers that the war could be revived shortly after the call-off by the two adversaries.

The number of children reported dead during the conflict have roughly been estimated beyond 20,000 children. More than 28,000 girls and women have been reported killed in the conflict coming to the ceasefire, while the numbers of men have by many observers ceased to count, and are only aggregated on percentage of the total deaths recorded – at approximately 40% of total deaths reported.

The numbers matter. Yes they do because every life matters, and as such, it should be regrettable that the war ever happened. The ultimate price that is (has been) paid.

But in every war comes a victor. Not always, but mostly as history observes. And sometimes the victor is not the actual bearer of the primary loss. President Trump has a feast of the year 2025 to assert the heroics. “I delivered as promised.” He has been vocal since taking office for his Second Term as President of the United States of America about the subject of ‘war’.

The Israel-Palestine conflict got high value in the White House ahead of the Russia-Ukraine war because of the obvious interests Washington under President Trump’s reign holds. It should not come as a surprise because it was not different from his first term. Israel has always been the infallible darling of the US.

And while the world in recent months took steps of account towards the excesses of war such as South Africa’s claim against Israel in the International Court of Justice, the UN Human Rights Council sessions on the Gaza Question, and open calls by various States globally for an end of the assault occupation, much of it have received disregard from a US’s mouthpiece perspective.

The cease fire deal, now in effect, had at its centre, release of hostages that have been held by both sides. Thus the deal saw partial withdrawal of Israel’s forces from major areas such as the Rafa Border Crossing which will ease access to medical treatment on the Egyptian side for some casualties, and the access to humanitarian aid within the wrecked region.

A sigh of relief perhaps, but for how long. The two-State solution as proposed decades ago has been maintained for some critics as the only longlasting solution.

Indeed, a number of countries have in 2025, especially in Europe, declared total recognition of the Independent State of Palestine. On all occasions, even before the UN, the US has either shown regret or exercised its veto right. One Country in the extreme parallel. Interests. So who are the winners?

Certainly after the first phase of the deal, the lingering question is “What does the future of Gaza look like? And who decides the future?” By now the short answers must already be clear. Coming this far, the shaping events have turned the eyes to the White House. It all got sealed by the bidding of Gaza to real estate conversations – a future likened to ‘paradise’.

That will definitely not be received without resistance. The wider international community remains optimistic. In fact, even within Israel, protests have been reported of some sections of the country’s citizens that believe the war’s agenda was never as sold to them earlier.

They call for a total end to the war. The winners? That is only a question that can be answered in time. The next phase of negotiations complicates the conversation more.

The solution of the Israel-Palestine question should not be a reserve of the very country that vetoed severally in the past efforts to straighten the situation by the wider international community. The solution is ultimately one that should lie to the member States of the UN as a collective. Equal decision making. Equal bearing in the rebuilding.

The US keeps steering away from engaging other States and as such, plays a part in the extension of the conflict.

The whole idea has been to avoid the resurrection of the two-State  solution. Back door negotiations for example are neither going to answer the proposed terms of disarming Hamas, nor provide the leadership that is the imagination of the US in Gaza. Of course the desire of Israel is to fully alienate Gaza without question. But that will not come without resistence. It remains an unavoidable trip back to the UN resolutions over time that have suggested interesting, but reasonable solutions. Without doing so, the US and Israel will only see themselves in an illusion as winners for a short time, but in reality, losers too for a long time.

The writer is a Senior Research Fellow, Development Watch Centre