Israel must not reoccupy Gaza, the US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, has said, adding however that Israel might control the territory for a transition period.
The comments, made at the end of a G7 foreign ministers’ meeting in Japan, echoed White House remarks on Tuesday suggesting opposition to a long-term occupation of Gaza.
The G7 called for humanitarian pauses in the conflict, and urged Israel to comply with humanitarian law, but did not say in its joint statement whether Israel was currently doing so.
By contrast the UN secretary general, António Guterres, said there was something “clearly wrong” with Israel’s military operations against Hamas when so many civilians were being killed.
“There are violations by Hamas when they have human shields,” Guterres said. “But when one looks at the number of civilians that were killed with the military operations there is something that is clearly wrong.”
He added: “It is also important to make Israel understand that it is against the interests of Israel to see every day the terrible image of the dramatic humanitarian needs of the Palestinian people. That doesn’t help Israel in relation to the global public opinion.”
Giving his vision of Gaza after the destruction of the military power of Hamas, Blinken said: “Gaza cannot … continue to be run by Hamas; that simply invites repetition of 7 October,” referring to the attacks this autumn by Hamas in Israel in which at least 1,400 people were killed.
He added: “It’s also clear that Israel cannot occupy Gaza. Now, the reality is that there may be a need for some transition period at the end of the conflict … We don’t see a reoccupation and what I’ve heard from Israeli leaders is that they have no intent to reoccupy Gaza.”
The British foreign minister, James Cleverly, said power should be transferred eventually towards “a peace-loving Palestinian leadership”.
His remarks were designed to match the US’s warning to the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyhau, that Israel cannot rule Gaza once it has achieved its goal of eradicating the Hamas leadership. Netanyahu on Monday said Israel planned to be responsible for security in Gaza indefinitely.
Cleverly, speaking at the end of the G7 meeting, said: “In the short term, it is inevitable that Israel, because they have the troops in Gaza, will need to have a security responsibility.
“But our view is, as soon as practicable, a move towards a peace-loving Palestinian leadership is the most desired outcome.”
Neither Blinken nor Cleverly have put a timeframe on this transfer or the conditions that would need to be met before Israel would withdraw. But the establishment of a Palestinian leadership that Israel regarded as “peace loving” would in practice be more likely a matter of years rather than months.
Western diplomats are concerned that the secular and more moderate leadership of Fatah, which runs the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, is being systematically undermined in Gaza, making it difficult for the PA to gain support among Palestinians.
Some Israeli politicians have discussed fully reoccupying the Gaza Strip, which Israel left unilaterally in 2005. Other former security officials say Israel will not start settlements in Gaza, but must have permanent and complete security control of the occupied territory so as to prevent a repetition of the attack on 7 October. Palestinians would be responsible for civil administration.
Mark Regev, an adviser to Netanyahu, said Israel envisaged a fluid arrangement in which it had powers to enter Gaza to protect its security. He said: “It doesn’t necessarily mean a permanent presence. We can go in and we can go out, but after what Israel went through on 7 October, it’s clear that we’re not going to allow terrorists to reestablish control in Gaza.”
Blinken said the US vision involved “no forcible displacement of Palestinians from Gaza – not now, not after the war”.
He added: “[There should be] no use of Gaza as a platform for terrorism or other violent attacks. No reoccupation of Gaza after the conflict ends. No attempt to blockade or besiege Gaza. No reduction in the territory of Gaza. We must also ensure no terrorist threats can emanate from the West Bank.
“The reality is that there may be a need for some transition period at the end of the conflict, but it is imperative that the Palestinian people be central to governance in Gaza and in the West Bank as well, and that, again, we don’t see a reoccupation. And what I’ve heard from Israeli leaders is that they have no intent to reoccupy Gaza and retake control of Gaza.
“So the only questions are – is there some transition period that might be necessary, and what might be the mechanisms that you could put in place for that to make sure that there is security?”
He said Hamas had hijacked Palestinian aspirations, and ultimately the only way to counter that was not just killing terrorists but coming up with a better idea of Palestinians living side by side with Israel, with two states existing.
However, it is hard to see how an elected Palestinian leadership would be prepared to take over Gaza if Israel insists it retains complete control over all security issues.
The PA in the West Bank already believes it has been forced into the role of a security subcontractor for Israel.
The joint statement from the G7 group of western industrialised nations was silent on the issue of the future governance of Gaza, restricting itself to a pro-forma restatement of the need for a long-term two-state solution.
The statement also papered over the cracks in the G7 members’ stance towards Israel’s assault on Gaza by calling for humanitarian pauses, and highlighting the importance of protecting civilians.
There was nothing in the statement to say whether Israel was in breach of humanitarian law. Biden has confirmed that in a call on Monday he asked the Israeli prime minister to agree to a lengthy humanitarian pause, perhaps as long as three days. Netanyahu, in an interview with ABC, has spoken about a pause lasting hours.
The US has been briefing for days that it privately favours a significant humanitarian pause, believing it is the best way to secure the release of more than 240 hostages.
The G7 foreign ministers’ meeting in Japan also called on Hamas to release hostages unconditionally and asserted Israel’s right to self-defence. Among the G7, France has probably been the lead country at the UN calling for a ceasefire if that is preceded by humanitarian pauses.
Behind closed doors, talks were to continue this Wednesday at the UN security council about the terms of a resolution calling for a humanitarian pause. Russia and the US remain at loggerheads, leaving the world’s primary security body silent on one of the biggest security crises to hit the Middle East in decades.
The G7 statement is unlikely to do much to satisfy countries such as Iran and Russia, which are accusing the west of double standards in the upholding of the international rule of law.
