John Kerry’s big blunder in seeking an Israel-Gaza cease-fire
Secretary of State John Kerry. (Charles Dharapak/Pooll/Reuters)
Secretary of State John Kerry has made a significant mistake in how he’s pursuing a Gaza cease-fire — and it’s not surprising that he has upset both the Israelis and some moderate Palestinians.
Kerry’s error has been to put so much emphasis on achieving a quick halt to the bloodshed that he has solidified the role of Hamas,
the intractable, unpopular Islamist group that leads Gaza, along with
the two hard-line Islamist nations that are its key supporters, Qatar
and Turkey. In the process, he has undercut not simply the Israelis but
also the Egyptians and the Fatah movement that runs the Palestinian
Authority, all of which want to see an end to Hamas rule in Gaza.
A
wiser course, which Kerry rejected in his hunt for a quick diplomatic
solution, would have been to negotiate the cease-fire through the
Palestinian Authority, as part of its future role as the government of
Gaza. Hamas agreed last April to bring the authority back to Gaza as
part of a unity agreement with Fatah that was brokered by Palestinian
President Mahmoud Abbas.
Kerry has been
motivated by two understandable short-term needs: First, he wants to
stop the horrific slaughter in Gaza, with its heavy loss of life among
Palestinian civilians, including children. Second, he seeks to fulfill
the instructions of President Obama, who wants an immediate cease-fire
and has become skeptical about solving the knotted Israeli-Palestinian
conflict.
Kerry’s approach has ignited a
firestorm in Israel, with commentators left and right accusing him of
taking Hamas’s side and betraying Israel. That criticism is unfair, and
it prompted a complaint Sunday from Obama in a phone call to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Secretary
of State John Kerry spoke to members of the media from the State
Department Monday about his recent efforts in the Middle East to secure a
cease-fire agreement between Israel and Hamas. (Associated Press)
Kerry’s mistake isn’t any bias against Israel but rather a bias in favor of an executable, short-term deal.
A case can be made for this “kick the can down the road” approach, as I did last week in discussing Kerry’s recent diplomatic negotiations
over Iran’s nuclear program and with rival political leaders in
Afghanistan. But Gaza has suffered from a generation of brutal
expediency. Any deal that reinforces Hamas’s stranglehold — rather than
building a path toward change of government, elections and eventual
disarmament — is misconceived. In the name of stopping bloodshed this
week, it all but guarantees it in the future. That’s why public opinion
polls show a strong majority of Gazans back the idea of returning to
Palestinian Authority control — because they want an end to the cycle of
intermittent warfare.
Israel has undermined its own cause with statements that appear to be insensitive to Palestinian loss of life. One example is the claim of Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer, that “the Israeli Defense Forces should be given the Nobel Peace Prize” for showing “unimaginable restraint,” at a time when photos and videos provide wrenching evidence of civilian casualties in the densely packed cities of Gaza.
Kerry’s
initial plan was to support Egypt’s demand that Hamas accept a
cease-fire. When Hamas balked at surrender and it was clear that Egypt
lacked the clout to make the deal stick, Kerry turned to Turkey and
Qatar, which as friends and financial backers of Hamas had more
leverage. That put the deal first and a stable solution to Gaza’s
problems second. The deal blew up anyway, victim of Israeli and
Palestinian inability to get to yes.
By turning to Turkey and Qatar, Kerry also enhanced their position in the regional power game. That’s contrary to the interests and desires
of the United States’ traditional allies, such as Egypt, Jordan, Saudi
Arabia and the moderate Palestinian camp headed by Abbas.
If
Kerry has been shortsighted about seeking a path toward a more stable
Gaza, so has Netanyahu’s government. The Israeli prime minister denounced the Palestinian unity agreement
forged by Abbas last spring, even though it opened the way for an
alternative non-Hamas government. More important, Netanyahu consistently
has failed to give Palestinian moderates the concessions that might
enhance their power in both the West Bank and Gaza. When Palestinians
heard Netanyahu say recently that Israel must maintain military control of the West Bank for decades, they ask: What’s the point of negotiating a two-state solution?
Does
Netanyahu really want a months-long, house-to-house military campaign
in Gaza that could push Israeli casualties above a thousand and
effectively mean re-occupation of the territory? If not, he had better
figure out a way to empower Palestinian moderates who, with
international help, can build something different in Gaza.
Whether
Kerry gets a permanent cease-fire or not, the same basic issue will
haunt Gaza going forward, which is how to establish the Palestinian
Authority as a responsible government that actually controls the
territory. Israelis fear that the authority might operate on the
Lebanese model — with Hamas maintaining a deadly militia, just as
Hezbollah does in Beirut.
That’s the
right long-term question to be negotiating — and it’s where Kerry should
be spending U.S. diplomatic capital, rather than in another pursuit of
the interim deal.
Read more from David Ignatius’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.
Comments
Post a Comment