Peace agreements, peace arrangements, ceasefires, and armistice agreements have come and mostly gone here along the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea, between a river and a sea. From 1949 on, many pages have been drawn up and many signatures have been attached to them. Very few have withstood the test of time or accomplished what they were intended to achieve by the diplomats who drew them up.
The General Armistice Agreement between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and Israel was finalized on April 3, 1949. Its preamble includes the provision that it was intended “to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine.” That goal had to wait until 1994.
Its very first article stipulated that the United Nations Security Council’s injunction against resorting to military force “be scrupulously respected by both parties.” The use of military force was not solely a matter of regular armies. Already, as The Jerusalem Post, then called The Palestine Post, reported on November 7, 1948, the previous Thursday evening, Eliezer Weiss was writing a letter on his veranda in Rishpon, west of Ra’anana, when he was shot and killed by Arabs who then carried off his wife, Esther.
She was released four weeks later from Jordan, where she had been taken in an exchange of detainees. A few months later, the Haganah had killed several Arabs in Tira, and still later, two members of the Arab raiding party were killed by Arab collaborators operating on behalf of Israel. Kidnapping and hostage-holding are not new to the conflict.
A second item in the armistice agreement, in Article VIII, committed Jordan to permit “free access to the holy places and cultural institutions and use of the cemetery on the Mount of Olives.” Jews could not visit the graves of their family members, not to mention those graves being eventually desecrated and damaged, nor could they approach the Western Wall. That, of course, did not happen until 1967.
While there was a supervision mechanism in place, very much ineffective except for issuing reports, no real punishment clauses were included in the document. In fact, almost none of the dozens of such agreements of the past seven decades have spelled out any specific penalties for infractions or for not following through on the parties’ commitments.
Assuming terror could continue
The result of this was that the Arabs assumed that they could continue to engage in acts of terror, murder, theft, and destruction of crops. Essentially, it was a continuation of the previous three decades of Mandate rule. Commissions of inquiry convened, White Papers were proclaimed and the Jews suffered while the Arabs, disappointed, realized that all they had to do was to continue their violence and eventually, the tide would turn.
At present, we have a new agreement, one facilitated by US President Donald Trump and negotiated by Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. Several of its contents, I think, could have used a slightly more astute author. For example, we read, “Hamas members who commit to peaceful co-existence and to decommission their weapons will be given amnesty.”
There are several more terror groups in Gaza. Could they not be named? And yes, “other factions” does appear in connection with a role in the governance of Gaza. How will they commit to peaceful coexistence? Who are these “independent monitors” who will receive the weapons they hand in?
Can Israel hunt down and eliminate those terrorists who refuse to follow through on this? Who are the regional partners who will guarantee and “ensure that Hamas, and the factions, comply with their obligations and that New Gaza poses no threat”?
What happens if there are violations and infractions?
Nebulous formulations
Another matter concerns other nebulous formulations. For example, we read that “Gaza will be a deradicalized terror-free zone that does not pose a threat to its neighbors.” What does “deradicalization” mean exactly? Is that a political term? A theological one? What is the “threat” to which it refers?
When is a Hamas member deradicalized? Is the Hamas Charter to be rewritten? One hopes, however, that the condition derives from the post-World War II denazification program to remove Nazi ideology from German society, culture, press, economy, judiciary, and politics.
If so, we can understand another element which reads: “An interfaith dialogue process will be established based on the values of tolerance and peaceful coexistence to try and change mind-sets and narratives of Palestinians and Israelis.”
A better job needs to be done than what the late Rabbi Menachem Froman attempted with Sheikh Ahmed Yassin when Froman tried to shake his hand.
US oversight
One could have assumed that all three of the Americans overseeing the agreement, Trump, Witkoff, and Kushner – being businessmen – would be well acquainted with the necessary practice of including penalty clauses in the contracts they draw up to be signed for the delivery of goods or transfer of property or the construction of various buildings. If a contractor or supplier, or agent fails to deliver on time or altogether, the contract stipulates a punishment, usually monetary. This is standard operating procedure. Will this eventually be included in the Gaza plan?
Israel disengaged from Gaza in 2005. It traded land for what? What concrete steps were to take place? Greenhouses were left undamaged as per the agreed-upon conditions, yet were burned down. Synagogues were left standing and they were destroyed. No genuine alarm bells went off in the heads of all those involved in these developments, and certainly no punishment was meted out. Shoulders were shrugged and that was that.
Just as the ceasefire lines and the eventual lines of withdrawal will be fixed, the infringements need to be demarcated, and there must be adequate recompense if each side’s responsibilities are not shirked.
Peace should be a desired commodity and not a forced one. Yet, non-fulfillment of its terms must be penalized as lives are at stake.
The writer is a researcher, analyst, and commentator on political, cultural, and media issues.