AT PENPOINT
US President Donald Trump has merely confirmed the suspicions of critics of his Gaza peace peace plan by loading his proposed Gaza Peace Council with Zionists and Israel-friendly Arab states, while not naming a single Palestinian to it. There is also to be an Executive Board which will supervise the Palestinian Committee of technocrats, whose head has also been named, Ali Shaath, a former Palestinian authority deputy minister. Also named is the head of the International Stabilization Force, Maj Gen Jasper Jeffords, who played an important role in the Hezbollah-Israel ceasefire last year.
Apart from the governmental figures, the appointments of Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner stand out, as American Jewish Zionists, as is Marc Rowan, the billionaire financier who heads the Atlas Group. Named to the Executive Board is Israeli real estate mogul Yakir Gabay, whose business empire is based in Europe. Gabay makes it seem that Trump has not given up on his dream of turning the Gaza Strip into the Riviera of the Middle East. With Rowan also on board, Trump has not only the real estate expertise, but also the financial backing necessary for the enterprise. Trump has not bothered to appoint any Christian Zionists, unless one counts him and other non-Jewish Americans as Christian Zionists.
The decision to ask Israel to be represented on the Board seems strange, as it is not balanced by an invitation to any representative of the other party to the conflict. There may well be no point in naming a Hamas representative. Hamas leaders probably remember what happebed to the last Hamas representative: he was killed by the Israeli attack on Qatar.
Now that Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has been invited to join the Board, the road is also opened for the country to contribute a contingent to the ISF. Joining is likely to be justified by two things: first, the need to have a place at the table, to remain engaged with the process. Second, the invitation to Indian PM Narendra Modi. That is likely to add another pro-Israeli voice to the Council. India is also represented by World Bank President Sanjay Banga, who is an Indian-American, but is the son of an Indian Army lieutenant-general, and thus is more likely than not to be both anti-Pakistan and pro-Israel.
However, there are voices in Israel, including from within the government, which have expressed unhappiness with the composition of the Council. National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir (Otzma Yehudit) slammed the announcement, and claimed that the only way to end the war was to clear the Gaza Strip. “The Gaza Strip does not need any ‘administrative committee’ to oversee its ‘rehabilitation.’ It needs to be cleansed of Hamas terrorists, who must be destroyed, alongside massive voluntary emigration, in accordance with the original plan of President Trump.”
Another angle of criticism came from those who want the return of all hostages, among them the parents of Ran Gvilli, the last Israeli hostage, whose body is held by Hamas. This element feels that the Israeli government should not have moved to the next stage after the release of hostages, to the Peace Council, until the fate of the last hostage, Gvili. This ignores the fact that Hamas lost control of the hostages, including some bodies, because of Israeli bombardment, both by artillery and from the air.
Pakistan must be wary of joining an enterprise which seems designed to achieve Israeli ends rather than justice for the Palestinian people, or even peace for Gaza on its people’s terms, as it has done. Apart from the religious duty owed by Muslims to the land of the Masjid al-Aqsa, Pakistan has a peculiar link with Palestine: the parallels between the Palestinian people’s struggle for self-determination resembles that of the Kashmiri people too closely to be overlooked.
Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich based his attack on the inclusion of Turkiye and Qatar, both of which he accused of harbouring Hamas, saying that Hamas would be back because it had been given a voice on the Council. It might be some relief to Pakistan that it is not included among such countries, even though it might be the cause of some chagrin for India.
The criticism by two ministers occurs because the Netanyahu government is a coalition, and also that while Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is unhappy with the Council’s composition, he does not want to criticize it himself.. Even if ministers belong to different parties, they would not dare make such remarks without tacit consent, if not actually instructions, from their principal.
Smotrich would prefer to see military action continue, and to clear the Gaza Strip of Hamas, as well as to get the Gazans to leave. He spoke of Trump’s plan, which was actually inspired by Zionist thinking of how to deal with the Gaza Strip.
The chairman of the technocrats’ committee, Ali Shaath, is a civil engineer, with a doctorate from Belfast University, and a native of the Gaza Strip, hailing from Khan Younis. This qualifies him for the task of converting the Gaza Strip into a befitting Riviera. He represents the last shred of the role that was promised the Palestinian Authority, having been deputy planning minister at one stage, Still, it is a far cry from being handed the Gaza Strip on a plate, as PA President Mahmoud Abbas had once hoped. Shaath has announced that he wants to clear the rubble in three years. That gives an immediate idea of the kind of timeline that the world can expect.
One of the key elements in the whole matter remains financing. Whether the more conservative plain-or-vanilla reconstruction, or the more ambitious Trump Riviera plan, the Gaza Strip requires a major investment. None has been lined ep. There is some talk of the countries on the Council putting up $1 billion apiece, which is easier said than done. Leave alone Pakistan and India, which do not have that kind of money, not even if the money was spread over several years, other countries might wish to avoid this, like Russia, which needs all the money it can get to fight its war with Ukraine, or Poland.
While the size of the Board makes it unwieldy, what makes for a bigger problem is the need to coordinate the schedules of so many heads of government. The easiest way out would be to select a time which would be fixed annually, something like the UN General Assembly, which takes place roughly at the same time annually, so that world leaders may plan their year around it. Indeed, the last UNGA had Trump meet leaders of the Muslim world on the sidelines, an experience which could be repeated. as a lot of leaders are in town anyhow.
Pakistan’s decision may not be based on national interest or the wishes of its people. In its history, it has always answered whenever the USA has called, ever since the time of the Baghdad Pact, back in 1954, to the War on Terror. If it has not answered any calls since then, it is possibly because none has been made.
The arguments for answering the call would be that this was a step towards a Palestinian state, impossible by staying out of the process. It will also be said that India’s presence will have to be countered. Also, sending troops will be a defence of the Qibla Awwal. The last is going to be when the forces are under the command of an American officer, under the most pro-Israel President of recent times.
Pakistan must be wary of joining an enterprise which seems designed to achieve Israeli ends rather than justice for the Palestinian people, or even peace for Gaza on its people’s terms, as it has done. Apart from the religious duty owed by Muslims to the land of the Masjid al-Aqsa, Pakistan has a peculiar link with Palestine: the parallels between the Palestinian people’s struggle for self-determination resembles that of the Kashmiri people too closely to be overlooked.
