The U.S. military’s
recently established Civil-Military Coordination Center (CMCC) in Kiryat Gat
hosted a meeting last month in Israel with over 400 officials and members of
the business sector. The materials were developed by U.S. security agencies and
independent advisors. The discussion was arranged by Lt. Gen. Michael Fenzel,
the U.S. security coordinator for Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
A slide featuring a
question mark between “Phase 1” and “Phase 2” of the Trump
plan was included in a 67-slide unclassified presentation, according to
Politico. This is a visual representation of ambiguity about how the next
phases will be implemented.
The presentation featured
discussion accoutrements from the Blair Institute, which was created by former
British high minister Tony Blair and has been involved in agreement attempts,
as well as U.S. government” situation reports” on conditions in
Gaza.
The documents emphasize
that the United States is still committed to the agreement, but they also
punctuate how the public sanguinity raised by Trump and his administration is
at odds with the challenges of stabilizing the Gaza Strip and reaching a long-
term peace between Israel and Hamas.
Important elements are yet
unknown, but the proposal calls for an international stability force to oversee
the demilitarization of Gaza and monitor a truce.
There are still concerns
regarding the force’s composition, deployment site, rules of engagement, legal
mandate, and oversight, one presentation suggested that the US would be in
charge of the force. The article claims that there is opposition to the Palestinian
Authority’s engagement in Gaza and that Israel is hesitant to leave the area
while Hamas is still armed.
The effort is “a
full-time job,” according to David Schenker, who was Trump’s assistant
secretary of state for the Middle East during his first term. He told Politico
that the administration’s small diplomatic corps might not be adequate for the
amount of work needed.
“Divorced from the peace
deal is a plan of how to actually implement this peace deal,”
said one of the
participants of the symposium.
“Everyone is floating around at 40,000 feet
and nobody is talking operations or tactics.”
“Hamas is buying time
for eventual reassertion of control,”
according to another confidential document
referenced in the presentation.
“Every delay works in their
favor,”
the statement says, pointing to risks to security and
humanitarian efforts in parts of Gaza that are not controlled by Hamas.
What are the main implementation obstacles cited in Politico’s
report?
Challenges implementing the multinational stabilization force in
Gaza to preserve peace and security, which threatens implementation of the
plan. Conflicts over governance, especially regarding the possible inclusion of
Palestinian technocrats who will oversee the interim administration, with Hamas
apprehensive about completely giving up political and military authority.
Failure to obtain disarmament of Hamas, or guarantees that Hamas
will demilitarize sufficiently to satisfy the former by Israel. Difficulties in
implementing the ceasefire framework and security arrangements outlined in the
ceasefire while regional backers such as Turkey and the UAE are ambivalent. The
intricacy of interests in balancing political and security interests in the
plan among Israel, Hamas, Palestinian groups, and external actors.
Threat of collapse of the plan if elements of the framework are
not realised, resulting in instability or a de facto partition of Gaza instead
of peace. circumstances.
