By PETER YOUNG
Developments in Gaza have dominated the world’s news reporting for some time now with extraordinarily extensive coverage. So everyone is surely aware that, despite uncertainty and delays right up to the last minute, the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas started as planned on Sunday. During the hours of these delays, Israel continued hitting Gaza and there were more civilian casualties.
At the time of writing over the weekend, three hostages who had been held by Hamas for 15 months are back in Israeli territory and there has been a limited military withdrawal. Hamas says that for every hostage released 30 Palestinian prisoners will be freed from Israeli jails. Meanwhile, displaced people in Gaza are returning to the homes they fled - or, because of the massive destruction, at least to the areas where they had been living.
For those with a hazy memory of the events that precipitated the war, it is worth recalling that Hamas mounted an unprecedented cross-border attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, killing some 1,200 people and taking 251 back to Gaza as hostages. The attack triggered a massive Israeli offensive on Gaza in a bid to destroy Hamas operatives, supporters and its buildings, causing heavy loss of life and severe damage. According to figures produced by Hamas, nearly 47,000 Palestinians have died. The result is that Israel has exacted a terrible revenge by killing so many, including large numbers of civilians, and leaving the territory in ruins.
Last week, the Israeli government approved the Gaza ceasefire and hostage deal with Hamas which is an extended agreement that comes into force in phases.
The details have been so well publicised that they do not bear repetition here, apart from saying that, self-evidently, the first phase is Sunday’s exchanges together with the granting of permission for hundreds of aid lorries to enter Gaza. A total of 33 hostages and more Palestinian prisoners will be released over a period of six weeks. This will be followed by release of the remaining hostages together with a full withdrawal of Israeli troops. Then, the final phase will involve reconstruction of Gaza and the return of any remaining hostages’ bodies and agreement to administrative arrangements for governing Gaza in the longer term.
Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has needed to retain the support of the far-right of his fragile coalition government, which reportedly is always threatening to bring his government down. So, he has insisted that the ceasefire is temporary and that he reserves the right to break it, if any of its terms are breached or not implemented by the other side, and “finish the job in Gaza”. What is more, a joint operations room with representatives from Egypt, Qatar – the middle men in the negotiations – and the US will be set up to monitor compliance and implementation in order to ensure the ceasefire holds.
From a study of the UK press, it is clear that, mixed with satisfaction that the hostages are being freed, there also exists widespread scepticism amongst critics of this deal. There are those who, after the horrors of October 7, refuse to countenance any deals with Hamas whom they vilify as a murderous terrorist group that is proscribed by the US, UK and others, including Israel of course.
For Israeli ultra-nationalist politicians, in particular, this is said to be a major problem for they find it repugnant to negotiate with terrorists who murdered huge numbers of Israelis in October. But Netanyahu’s government, under pressure from the US and the hostages’ relatives, insists that Israel’s priority is to liberate all of them and therefore a deal has to be made even with terrorists. There is also anxiety for the remaining hostages and their families that the deal really will be seen through to the end and that they will be brought home eventually.
President Biden set the ball rolling for the ceasefire plan with his proposals in May last year. A draft agreement was finalised earlier this month in Doha, the site of the peace negotiations, broadly based on this plan. But, according to reports, it was not until President Trump came on the scene that real progress was made in reaching agreement. Apparently, in mid-December the dynamics of the talks shifted decisively and the pace changed. Hamas became increasingly isolated after some of its leaders were killed by the Israelis, Hezbollah in the north had been forced separately into a truce and Assad’s Iran-backed regime in Syria was swept away.
This new piece on the chessboard in the shape of the President-elect had sent messages to the effect that he wanted to see a settlement before his inauguration, famously warning that there would be “hell to pay” if the hostages were not released by then. He increased pressure on both the Israelis and Hamas, sending an envoy to see Netanyahu who was said to be obstructing the deal. Reportedly, the Israeli prime minister was subjected to some serious “strong-arming” with the result that the Trump camp persuaded him to set aside his reservations.
Trump’s envoy then apparently returned to Doha for more talks and spent time with Biden’s own envoy in what some US officials claimed to be a “new unprecedented transition effort in American diplomacy”. In reports in the UK press, Hamas officials have commented that they “could not have imagined a deal could have been reached without pressure from the incoming US administration led by President Trump”. So, the general view amongst the UK media seems to be that Trump is justified in claiming much of the credit, though Biden’s contribution should equally be recognised.
The considered judgement of experts is that the long-overdue ceasefire is a considerable diplomatic achievement but some analysts are saying that the repercussions of so much death and destruction during the last 15 months will be felt for at least a generation. Sadly, however, even though it should stop the immediate violence and put a stop to the enormous suffering and bloodshed, it will not end the overall conflict which is as bitter and intractable as ever.
The first challenge will be to make sure the ceasefire is maintained. The Gaza war has had consequences across the Middle East but has not led to a general war in the region. It is likely that the new president will seek to expand the Abraham Accords, negotiated during his first administration, under which Israel’s diplomatic relations with the United Arab Republic, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco were normalised. According to reports, extension of these to Saudi Arabia, which is the most powerful Arab state and leader of the Sunni Muslim world, was also on the cards. But, of course, that did not eventually happen.
Many believe that it is impossible to achieve a long-term solution to the broader conflict in the Middle East unless a two-state solution is put in place. They also believe that Israel’s objective of completely destroying Hamas is unattainable. This is because as soon as one terrorist is eliminated another anti-Israeli ideologue will step up to replace him. Hamas’ infrastructure can be destroyed and the threat it poses can certainly be reduced. But it must be the case that there will always be new recruits convinced of the justification of Hamas’ aim to destroy Israel.
Significant visit to Ukraine
Barely six months after comfortably winning a general election, British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer is being criticised at home for making too many overseas trips. For example, the UK newspaper The Guardian recently shrilled that Starmer “always seems to be abroad”.
But, given Britain’s prominent position in the world and the need for a leader of government to be involved in a wide variety of international issues, it is hardly surprising that he has to travel a good deal. I do not know whether a claim that such travel is excessive can be remotely justified. But surely no one could reasonably complain about the prime minister’s visit last week to Ukraine. During it, Britain and Ukraine announced a landmark 100-year ‘Partnership’ formalizing the two countries’ enduring friendship and a strengthening of their collaboration in a range of different spheres.
In Western capitals and in Kyiv itself there is concern that once Donald Trump is installed as the new US president he will reduce Washington’s aid and support to Ukraine. At the same time, he is likely to try to broker a peace agreement with Russia that may involve what Kyiv will doubtless consider unhelpful concessions because he wants to bring the Ukraine war to a swift conclusion.
Such concessions could include ceding parts of the east of the country to the Russians. This view is based on his public pronouncements on the subject and on his known attitudes to NATO – and it is worth noting that Trump has already indicated that he wants, early in his presidency, to meet Putin.
It has therefore come as no surprise that Germany and other European countries are considering what security guarantees they can provide as a part of any peace agreement that Trump may push for. It is now clear that that was the context of Starmer’s visit. It was his first to Ukraine since becoming PM in July last year and came just days before Trump’s inauguration.
The premier underlined to President Zelensky Britain’s continuing support of his country by offering with allies robust security guarantees following the possible negotiation of a ceasefire. The 100-year partnership agreement which he signed was to support Ukraine in a variety of ways and deepen security and cultural ties – and, with a dose of reality, the signing ceremony was punctuated by a loud explosion that turned out to be Ukraine’s air defences shooting down a Russian drone above the presidential palace.
Later, Zelensky announced that Britain had undertaken to provide Ukraine with more than $3 billion in new military aid and that the 100-year pact would include a variety of spheres, like technology and education, that would contribute to the country’s development.
At a press conference, Starmer said that the UK would look at “practical ways to get a just and lasting peace… that guarantees your security, your independence and your right to choose your own future”. He also added that Britain would “play its full part” in contributing to a potential peacekeeping force.
President Zelensky referred to possible NATO membership but Starmer stressed publicly the importance of the immediate need to ensure Ukraine was in the best possible shape to fight the Russians now in 2025 as they continued to advance in the east. Britain had already provided some $15 billion in military and other aid. Although dwarfed by the US figure of $63 billion, it was nonetheless a considerable sum and the new 100-year pact demonstrated Britain’ s ongoing commitment in the face of uncertainty coming from Washington.
Clearly, this was a successful and worthwhile trip to Ukraine by the prime minister. The unprecedented 100-year plan demonstrated Britain’s commitment to stand shoulder to shoulder with a sovereign Ukraine, and it should constitute a major step in supporting the country’s long-term security.
So, perhaps the response to The Guardian should be that yes, prime minister Starmer does travel a good deal… but invariably to good effect!
Comments
Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.
Sign in to comment
OpenID