The day after: What does the future hold for Palestinians?

As the Israel-Gaza war extends into its fourth month, a ceasefire remains elusive. 

On 7 October 2023, 1200 Israelis (civilians and security forces included) were killed and some 200 were kidnapped by the Palestinian militant group Hamas.  

Israel's government launched a military campaign in response. 

On the other side of the wall, the Palestinian civilian death toll in the besieged enclave passed 25,000 at the hands of Israel, according to the Gaza health ministry. 

While the images emerging out of Gaza continue to look apocalyptic, statistics draw a grimmer picture. Death and destruction at the hands of the Israeli military still rule the tiny Strip. 

After weeks of military operations, Israel looks to be less successful in 'dismantling' and destroying Hamas – something which Israel's War Cabinet vowed – than in indiscriminately killing Palestinian civilians. 

On 23 January, The Times of Israel said – citing a news website Axios – that Israel has reportedly submitted a proposal through Qatari and Egyptian mediators that would see it agree to pause its military offensive against Hamas for as long as two months, in exchange for a phased release of the remaining 136 hostages in Gaza. 

This may have come at the behest of the growing frustration of relatives of the Israeli captives in Gaza. And if this were to succeed, Israel's proposal would see IDF operations in Gaza become significantly smaller in scope after the pause concludes, Axios reported, but not an end to the war. 

This latest development does not however hint at a long-term answer to Gaza: who will rule the Strip once the war comes to an end? Commentators and experts in the region continue to predict possible scenarios. But more fault lines seem to be on the rise. 

The Joe Biden-Benjamin Netanyahu equation 

Israel's strongest and most formidable ally in the West is the United States. While President Joe Biden's administration has come under heavy fire of criticism for its blind support of Israel since 7 October 2023, the US maintains its stance. 

However, in recent weeks, there seems to be a slight shift — not in the US support of Israel but in what the two heads of state see in the near future. 

On the one hand, the Biden administration has recognised that there will need to be a political process after the war in Gaza ends, and they seem to favour the idea of a two-state solution. But Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, on the other hand, has rejected the idea of Palestinian statehood – reflecting possibly a serious discord.   

Following a call with the Israeli prime minister on Friday, Joe Biden said that the creation of an independent state for Palestinians was still possible while Netanyahu was still in office. The US president spoke to Netanyahu for the first time in nearly a month about differences over a future Palestinian state.

A sliver of hope, perhaps? But a defiant Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, doubled down on opposition to Palestinian statehood. 

"I will not compromise on full Israeli security control over the entire area in the west of Jordan – and this is contrary to a Palestinian state," Netanyahu posted on X late on Saturday night, a day after speaking to the US president.

On Thursday, US State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said there was no way to solve Israel's long-term security challenges and the short-term challenges of rebuilding Gaza without the establishment of a Palestinian state. Miller said Israel had an opportunity now as countries in the region were ready to give it security assurances.

According to a BBC report, the White House acknowledged this week that the US and Israeli governments "clearly see things differently."

The possible breach of the close-knit ties between the US and Israel raises the age-old question – why should the West or Israel decide the fate of the Palestinians?

Who should decide Gaza's future? 

Earlier in November 2023, after a two-day meeting of foreign ministers from the wealthy Group of Seven (G7) countries in the Japanese capital, Tokyo, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced that the Palestinian resistance movement Hamas would no longer be allowed to rule Gaza.

He said, "Israel has repeatedly told us that there's no going back to October 6 before the barbaric attacks by Hamas." According to him, the besieged Gaza, which is separated from the rest of the occupied Palestinian territory, should eventually be unified with the West Bank but only "under the Palestinian Authority."

Tafi Mhaka, an Al Jazeera columnist, wrote that the "G7 nations – the United States, Canada, Japan, the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy – plus the European Union, seemingly ignored what the rest of the world and, most importantly Palestinians in Gaza and elsewhere, may think or want and singlehandedly decided that Hamas is effectively over and Palestine after this war will be shaped according to the wishes of Israel." 

Indeed, the question arises: why do the West think the Palestinians cannot exercise their democratic right to choose a government of their liking? Why does the G7 get to impose a new political arrangement and dispensation of their own will? Is democracy in Palestine only synonymous with the West's, and in this case, Israel's demands?

Marwan Muasher, former foreign Minister of Jordan, wrote in Foreign Affairs, "Overwhelmingly, Palestinians today feel that they were taken for a ride, engaging in peaceful efforts to end the occupation while Israel was creating facts on the ground that make a two-state solution impossible."

In the quest to solve the Palestine "problem," the recurring theme seems to be the exclusion and isolation of the Palestinians. 

Under the label of  "security threats" (regardless of how credible or not), what the world leaders in the West seem to forget entirely is who stands to lose the most in this 'conflict' or 'war.' Since 7 October, the clear answer seems to be Palestinian civilians. If we are to fully believe the statistics, 25,000 Palestinians versus 12,00 Israeli deaths is a clear reflection of the disproportionate security risks facing one group over the other.  

What's the end goal? 

There has never been a collective global outcry for the Palestinian cause as is visible now. Some of the major cities across North America and Europe have seen some of its largest demonstrations of people taking to the streets in solidarity with Palestine. 

In a historic first, South Africa took Israel to the International Court of Justice accusing it of committing genocide against Palestinians. The public hearing was held on 11 January. The verdict is due in a few weeks. 

There has been a shift in the world's opinion, something that the Palestinians did not see before. But with all said and done, can this development have an impact in favour of the Palestinians; and perhaps more importantly can it make a change soon enough?  

Marwan Muasher pointed out that if a serious political process does not occur at the end of the conflict in Gaza, three alternative scenarios will likely unfold. 

The first scenario involves a continuation of the status quo, waiting for a more suitable time for a two-state solution. 

"Moreover, the logic of waiting assumes that there is a static status quo, which is clearly not the case given Israel's continued expansion of settlements," he wrote. Marwan thinks waiting is unrealistic given the current political landscape.

The second scenario is a potentially worse outcome – a mass transfer of Palestinians out of their historic land, either through force or by making life in the occupied territories unbearable. 

The third and most likely alternative is a continued Israeli occupation under increasingly unsustainable conditions. As Palestinians lose hope for a state, their demands for equal rights may grow, leading to a potentially more violent conflict. 

Many have proposed that the Palestinian Authority (PA) take over control of Gaza once the war ends. But, according to Marwan, the Palestinian Authority has significantly eroded its credibility and legitimacy. 

With no elections held since 2006 and low approval ratings even before October 7, a late November poll during a brief cease-fire in Gaza revealed that 88% of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza wish for the resignation of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Merely 7% desired the PA under Abbas to govern Gaza post-war. 

"Either the United States and its international partners must make a historic decision to end the conflict now and move both sides swiftly toward a viable two-state solution, or the world will have to contend with an even darker future," wrote Marwan.  

As the possibility of a rift between the US and Israel grows over the proposed two-state solution, Gaza's future seems to lie precariously in the hands of the people who see the Palestinian civilians as expendable and will do everything to deny them agency.