Change of paradigm in Israel-Hamas mediation efforts

.: June 27, 2014

In this article published by I24 News, Nimrod Goren analyses the mediation of the Palestinian Israeli conflict.

Israel can no longer rely on Egypt to broker between itself and Hamas; a fundamentally new set-up is required The list of “wannabee-mediators” between Israel and Hamas is long. Those that have offered assistance in brokering a ceasefire include the UN, the Quartet, the US, the EU, Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Turkey, the Palestinian Authority, Qatar, Tunisia, China and Russia.

It was not always like that. In previous rounds of Israel-Hamas violence the overall formula was rather clear. It was the Egyptians, with American backing, that would eventually deliver. In 2012, after operation Pillar of Defense, the Egyptians were even designated as the guarantors of the Israel-Hamas understandings. Israel wanted this model to continue. Throughout Operation Protective Edge, government officials openly stated their support for Egyptian mediation, while dismissing other options. Minister Yuval Steinitz said that “we do not need to have the entire world involved,” as this decreases the likelihood of a ceasefire being reached. Israel particularly objected to the involvement of Turkey and Qatar, the allies of Hamas. An Israeli minister even told Reuters that “Agreeing to Qatar mediating between us and Hamas would be like agreeing to mediation by Hezbollah or al-Qaida." Yet this time around Israel’s hopes turned out to be divorced from reality. The failure of the Egyptian ceasefire attempt showed that Egypt is no longer capable of functioning as the sole regional middleman between Israel and Hamas.

An effective mediator needs to be able to communicate directly with both sides and, in the very least, to enjoy a degree of trust from them. Otherwise, he will have a hard time delivering the goods. During Operation Protective Edge, efforts to find such a mediator were in vain. Instead, a dual mediation track has been taking shape. Egypt has been working closely with Israel; Qatar and Turkey with Hamas. The “one-track paradigm” of the past has become irrelevant. There was need for an international actor to coordinate the two mediation tracks and to provide an umbrella that would accommodate both. At one point in the crisis, it was the US that tried to fill this role, utilizing their close ties with both Egypt and Qatar. Apparently, that was not enough, and the ceasefire proposal put forth by John Kerry was initially rejected by both sides.

It had to be someone that could talk directly to both Israel and Hamas and not only to their regional proxies. With Israel’s allies in the West boycotting Hamas, Mahmoud Abbas fits this criterion. In recent months he has been busy negotiating peace with Israel and reconciliation with Hamas. However, this is the same Abbas the current Israeli government delegitimizes and dismisses as a partner for peace. Thus, the “mediator/coordinator" paradigm is also proved difficult to implement. The next alternative in line is that of establishing an international body capable of promoting a ceasefire and monitoring its implementation. It should bring together the relevant Western as well as regional actors. A first sign of this paradigm taking shape was the summit in Paris, although it did not include Egypt and the Palestinian Authority – which should be part of any such alliance.

The “international body” paradigm is more likely to succeed than the other mediation paradigms attempted during Operation Protective Edge. There is also a precedent for that. In 1996, an international monitoring group has been put into place to monitor the understandings reached following a round of Israel-Hezbollah violence. An international body needs to do more than merely produce a ceasefire. It should lead to an increased number of countries that are engaging with both Israel and Hamas, and it can evolve into a forum that will help jump-start the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and support constructive intra-Palestinian unification. For this to happen, the Palestinian Authority must also be part of this mechanism. Israel and Hamas should be invited as well, in line with John Kerry’s Cairo statement that the only way the conflict is going to be resolved “is for the parties to be able to come together and work through it as people have in conflicts throughout history.”

Nimrod GOREN © I24 News (Israel)

Nimrod Goren is Chairman of Mitvim – The Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies, and a lecturer on Middle Eastern Studies at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.