The massacre perpetrated by Hamas on October 7 opened a new chapter in the tragedy that is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For more than 75 years, too many opportunities to achieve lasting peace have been wasted, whether by the intransigence of some, the extremist excesses of others, the imbalance of the commitment of a third party, or even the latter’s disinterest in a conflict that we too wanted to believe had been permanently anesthetized.
In a text published on November 18 in the Washington Post, the President of the United States, Joe Biden, expressed his intention to be resolutely involved in resolving it. He stated that “our objective must not be simply to stop the ongoing war, but to put a definitive end to it.” This desire to re-engage the United States, which remains the indispensable power, coupled with the tens of thousands of victims in recent weeks, requires us to redouble our ambition in the search for effective peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
For a transitional administration in Gaza
This will obviously not be easy, and the chances of success may appear very slim. But what are the other options? A return to the status quo which prevailed on October 6 would consist of accepting the more or less long-term repetition of a new cycle of appalling violence. Removing the threat posed by Hamas cannot happen through a reoccupation of the Gaza Strip by Israel, and even less through the disappearance of all Palestinians from the enclave, as the most radical elements on the scene suggest. Israeli politics.
The return of a moribund and ineffective Palestinian Authority in the wake of IDF tanks is hardly credible and doomed to failure. The takeover of the security and administration of Gaza by one or more Arab countries in the region is not even desired by any of them. Interference by a single major foreign power (including the United States) would certainly constitute a form of imperialism.
Faced with these unthinkable options, the best (or least bad) solution seems to us to consider the establishment of a transitional administration in Gaza with three objectives: ensuring security; work towards reconstruction; and lay the foundations for economic development. Such a model has already proven itself with the pacification and reconstruction mission in East Timor in 1999, or that in Kosovo the same year. The UN could even consider restarting its Trusteeship Council, which has been dormant since 1994.
In order to have a strong legitimacy and mandate, such an administration will have to rest on two pillars involving the United Nations Security Council: a regional agreement under Chapter VIII of the Charter on the one hand, the constitution of a force of peace enforcement based on Chapter VII to restore order and ensure security on the other hand. Such a multinational approach will provide both the benefit of giving hope to Gazans and reassuring the Israeli government by completely ruling out the return of Hamas and extremist groups.
It could even ultimately promote the emergence of a full and functional administration of the territory, thus offering a concrete prospect of a solution to the heavy dispute which has surrounded the creation of a future Palestinian state for too long (starting with Gaza then expanding to the West Bank).
The success of such an approach, as was the case in the past for example in Bosnia or Kosovo (involving NATO and the EU), requires the establishment of an interposition force with a mandate strength of the Security Council. This force must be sufficiently imposing to ensure security and, if necessary, impose peace. We are talking here of at least 50,000 members of well-armed, well-coordinated UN troops, with clear rules of engagement, provided by countries that so desire (excluding Russia for obvious reasons) and placed under a single command designated by the Council (as was the case during the Korean War).
This last point is important to avoid any repetition of the catastrophic scenario of the intervention which ended in failure in 1993 in Somalia. The constitution of such a well-integrated and well-organized military structure is an absolutely essential condition to avoid any decision-making paralysis.
A realization of the “return of Canada”
To rebuild Gaza and offer economic prospects to its inhabitants, considerable financial resources will obviously be required. The transitional administration, or even the Trusteeship Council, must be able to collect significant sums and must regularly take stock of the use of these (as well as the evolution of the security situation).
These sums could come from the usual Western powers, but also from the rich Gulf countries which would be ready to help the Palestinians financially without having to get involved (too) politically for fear of offending their public opinions or damaging their relations which were going to develop. improving with Israel. International institutions (IMF, World Bank, UNDP, etc.) will also have to be involved, and this will be all the easier if they do it within a framework and a mission led by the UN.
The implementation of such an initiative may appear too complex and doomed to failure, the most cynical or pessimistic will object. Let us nevertheless dare to make a proposal to Prime Minister Trudeau: champion this transitional administration, travel the world to praise its merits, promise strong Canadian participation in the establishment of an international interposition force and propose to the Council to security the reactivation for Gaza of the Trusteeship Council.
Enlist the support of our powerful neighbor and convince President Biden to invest in a command infrastructure for this new mission (this would also immensely reassure Israel). Do the same by obtaining the support of the Europeans and try to win the support of the leaders of the “Global South” who claim to play a role in world affairs, such as President Lula of Brazil and Prime Minister Modi, of India (which, incidentally, could repair a few broken pots).
Georges Clemenceau said that it is easier to wage war than peace. The stretching of this insoluble Israeli-Palestinian conflict is there to attest to this. But today, the question arises acutely: how can we build peace after violence as trying and frightening as that we have witnessed since October 7?
This tragedy forces us to be ambitious. Because Middle East security and global security are at stake. Because what is at stake is the easing of tensions within Western societies increasingly divided by this conflict. Because it’s about what Canada can really do to “be back” on the international scene. Because our values are also at stake.