Donald Trump’s Board of Peace overseeing the reconstruction of Gaza was always going to raise a host of niggling questions. From the outset, the US President made it clear he would be the helmsman of what was essentially an outfit of selected corporate overseers tilling the soil for The Donald’s posterity fund. These anointed sorts have been given the ostensible task of reviving and resuscitating a pulverised, rubble strewn enclave that has seen atrocities aplenty visited upon it. But to what end?
The envisaged structure of control over Gaza, seen as a vital part of fulfilling Trump’s 20-point plan for the territory, opens the second phase of the peace process. It’s already clear that the Board is a cheese platter of billionaires and pro-Israeli figures, with Bulgarian diplomat Nickolay Mladenov being named its “High Representative”. A Gaza Executive Board will work with the Office of the High Representative and an inconsequential Palestinian technocratic body, the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG). In a statement, the White House notes that the NCAG will be led by technocrat Ali Sha’ath, formerly of the Palestinian Authority, who will be charged with the tasks of restoring core public services, the reconstruction of civil institutions, “and the stabilization of daily life in Gaza, while laying the foundation for a long-term, self-sustaining governance.”
We already have a sense of how the pantomime will unfold. There are the Trump feet washers such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio; men of money such as the Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff; the family angle with the President’s son-in-law Jared Kushner; and that paragon of insincerity and ill-judgment on Middle East affairs, former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair.
The charter of the Board of Peace, a copy of which was circulated among dozens of heads of state with invitations to join, carries a fee of US$1 billion for countries seeking a permanent seat on it. Those not wishing to provide the fee will serve for three years. The document is further notable for what it does not say. Gaza does not make it into the text. Nor does the United Nations. It does, however, speak about the need for “a more nimble and effective international peace-building body”, which looks ominously like a subversive stab at the UN, a body whose alleged impotence Trump has done so much to encourage. To make peace durable, it was important to have “the courage to depart from… institutions that have too often failed.” The proposition as to why such institutions fail is never considered, much like the happy arsonist who starts fires in order to extinguish them.
Even before these bodies have taken shape, trouble is brewing. Despite the warm, favourable slant shown towards Israel in this venture, one designed to keep Palestinians in their downtrodden place, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was not delighted to find out that Turkey and Qatar would also have a role to play on the Gaza Executive Board. They might spoil the platter and sour the offerings. “The announcement regarding the composition of the Gaza executive board, which is subordinate to the Board of Peace,” stated a note from the PM’s office, “was not co-ordinated with Israel and runs contrary to its policy.”
In remarks made during an agitated debate in the Knesset plenum on January 19, Netanyahu was adamant that involvement by Ankara and Doha would not be military in nature: “Turkish or Qatari soldiers will not be in the Strip.” These sentiments are seemingly misplaced, given that Qatar lacks a force suitable to make such a contribution. The Israeli PM also insisted that both countries would be denied any authoritative role or have any influence on the various bodies, despite Trump’s willingness to include Turkish and Qatari representatives on the Gaza Executive Board.
Despite being overlooked on the issue of consultation regarding Turkey and Qatar, Netanyahu was boisterous enough to insist that standing up to Washington was something he was rather good at. “When it comes to Israel’s essential interest, we can argue, we can sharpen our positions, and, by the way, we can come to agreements.”
This did not convince the opposition leader and chair of the Yesh Atid party, Yair Lapid. As with most Israeli politicians, the prospect that the Palestinians might even dare to behave in sovereign fashion in Gaza remains both inconceivable and abhorrent. Allies of Hamas, he complained, “have been invited to run Gaza”, while the “dominant factor” of the Palestinian technocratic committee was the Palestinian Authority. This suggested one of two possibilities: either Netanyahu had slyly “agreed behind our backs that Turkey, Qatar, and the Palestinian Authority would be in Gaza” or he had been ignorant of their inclusion, in which case “Trump doesn’t give a damn about you.” Israel was “returning to Gaza, not at the starting point, but to a point much worse than at the beginning.”
Those worried about this venture being one to displace or marginalise the UN (Julien Barnes-Dacey of the European Council on Foreign Relations is of this view) should think again. Chaos seems imminent, with the Board looking much like a waxwork effort by sketchy amateur artists, likely to melt when heat is applied. There will be much fractiousness and no longevity about a project that says nothing of institutions and everything about the moods of a person who, when he departs, will see it wither. Narcissism lies at its core and may well die with it. The concern here is whether aspirations for Palestinian sovereignty will do the same.
Comments