The decision by Britain, Canada and Australia to recognize a “state of Palestine” yesterday has already been savaged with the entirely deserving criticism that it rewards Hamas for its blood-soaked genocidal campaign against Israel.
Yet it’s also an opportunity to note the weaknesses of the plan itself. France began this round of recognition with a conference and a resulting document called the “New York Declaration.” Now we have been given a window into how that declaration would be carried out and enforced. It’s a window into what the Europeans continue to get wrong.
The overall plan is a peacekeeping force that would disarm Hamas and hand the Gaza Strip over to the Palestinian Authority. Jacob Magid at the Times of Israel has the full details, or at least what is known as of this morning, when the draft plan was leaked to Magid. I’ll concentrate on the parts that show the problems with France’s underlying assumptions.
First is the disarmament of Hamas. That, of course, is what Israel is doing now. Emmanuel Macron and the other signatories to this document appear to believe that there is a less-forceful way to take the guns out of Hamas terrorists’ hands. A UN peacekeeping mission, akin to the one that failed to disarm Hezbollah for decades in Lebanon, is a sign right off the bat that this isn’t a serious plan to free Gaza from Hamas’s grip but rather to force an end to Israel’s military operations in Gaza.
That last part is key: The plan does not insist on waiting until the war is over: “Notably,” Magid writes, “the proposal suggests that the mission could be deployed before an end to the war in Gaza, but it specifies that securing a ceasefire agreement ahead of time is ‘most preferable.’”
“Most preferable” is a contender for understatement of the year. What France is suggesting here is simply adding international soldiers to Hamas’s army. After all, a UN force like this would be coopted by Hamas before it even begins. Macron seems to think a three-way war in Gaza is preferable to a two-way war in Gaza.
And not just Gaza, by the way. Ready for the lunatic idea of all lunatic ideas? As Magid writes: “‘Limiting the mandate of this mission in Gaza in the long term could however lead to a lasting separation between Gaza and the West Bank,’ the proposal warns, arguing in favor of eventual extension of the deployment to the latter territory.”
Extending the French-led UN force to the West Bank. Amazing. What could go wrong?
“However,” Magid writes, “such a move would be ‘subject to political agreement and operational feasibility, given sensitive issues such as settler violence and the presence of Israeli forces.’”
Magid notes that the above sentence is the only mention of Israel. The French plan for Palestine envisions, apparently, no significant coordination with the Israeli army before sending multinational forces into Gaza and the West Bank during wartime. It also envisions sidelining Palestinian Authority forces in land controlled by the Palestinian Authority. The possibilities for total catastrophe are endless.
Not only would a UN force be placed in Gaza to disarm Hamas, but the UN would also be in charge of humanitarian aid. Meaning the precious “neutrality” that the UN claims is sacred is nothing of the sort. Instead of Israel disarming Hamas and an experienced American-backed group distributing aid, you’d have a UN force disarming Hamas and also delivering aid. Which would be awkward in part because the UN insists on relying only on Hamas-connected security forces to accompany their deliveries and manage the food storehouses.
Apocalyptic levels of anarchy would be too kind a way to describe this horror show.
So let’s be clear: It’s not simply the idea of a French-led recognition of Palestine that’s the problem. It’s also that the plan itself is insanely dangerous and virtually guarantees more of everything the plan is (supposedly) designed to eliminate.
Let no one say that the opponents of this scheme refuse to grapple with its details. The execution is worse than the concept, but all of it is terrible.
