For Palestinians in Gaza, life is endured moment to moment, not knowing whether there will be food for their children’s next meal, or clean water for an ailing parent, or – with the death toll now having reached at least 8,796, according to the Gaza health ministry – whether their family will even survive the day.
Israel, however, must look ahead to address what will happen in Gaza “the day after” the war with Hamas. The devastation and need will be almost unimaginable. Though the ground offensive is under way, Benjamin Netanyahu does not have an endgame for this conflict, the extension of which may extend his own tenure as prime minister. Unless Israel can offer such a plan, US patience is likely to run out.
After the atrocities of 7 October, when Hamas killed at least 1,400 Israelis and others, control of Gaza by whatever of the group survives will not be tolerated again. But as the US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, told a Senate panel on Tuesday: “We also can’t have – and the Israelis start with this proposition themselves – Israel running or controlling Gaza.”
Instead, Israel is floating implausible ideas. Mr Netanyahu reportedly sought to convince European leaders to pressure Egypt to accept refugees, at least temporarily: an old idea given new life. An Israeli thinktank led by former officials published (then deleted) a paper recommending the “unique and rare opportunity to evacuate the whole Gaza Strip”; a leaked report from an Israeli government research body reportedly advocated the forcible and permanent transfer of all 2.2 million inhabitants. Cairo has been absolutely clear that this is a non-starter, not least because all foresee that Palestinians are unlikely to be able to return.
Nor is there enthusiasm for another idea reportedly explored by the US and Israel, which would see regional powers take control temporarily, backed up by a multinational force, possibly including US and British troops. It is hard to see western leaders opting to put their personnel in harm’s way. More plausible might be an Arab peacekeeping force, funded by Riyadh. The UAE has stressed that it is not pulling back from its normalisation of ties with Israel, and the White House says that Saudi Arabia is still open to a deal. But politically, they could not sign up without a proper deal for Palestinians.
All this leads to the Palestinian Authority, whose prime minister, Mohammad Shtayyeh, told the Guardian that it would not run Gaza without a solution for the West Bank. Its already tattered political credibility with its people, many of whom regard it as not only corrupt but as a security contractor for the Israeli state, would be nonexistent.
The relentless expansion and entrenchment of settlements led even many ardent supporters of the two-state solution to conclude that it was no longer feasible. Now it is clear that sweeping it off the table also failed. If the repeated invocation of the two-state solution by western leaders in recent days was partly intended to deflect criticism of their failure to condemn the enormous civilian toll of Israel’s offensive, it also reflects a growing sense that there is no longer a choice. Mohammed Dahlan, sometimes cited as a possible, if controversial, future leader of the Palestinians, also laid out a postwar path to a future state this week. The terrain could not, however, be less promising or more treacherous. It is clear that it cannot be crossed under the current political leadership.
