What next for Gaza?

There’s been some debate on X as to the next phase of the Gaza conflict. Echoing Donald Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu says the ceasefire will end if Hamas does not free hostages by Saturday. The clock is ticking.

One of my first concerns at the beginning of the military operation in Gaza was that there was no clear idea about what the end state looks like. A reaction to 7/10 was warranted, and this time, it had to be final. But now comes the hard part. Now that much of Gaza lies stand in ruins, there follows the vexed question about the future. There is renewed talk of clearing Palestinians from the strip.

As I remarked in the previous post, the options are all suboptimal. Realistically, there are only two. Containment or displacement. Displacement, while regrettable, looks like the only sustainable option.

Though this may seem disproportionate, only a radical solution can end this. The bottom line is that Jihad is endemic to Gazan society. It is now well documented that children are indoctrinated in radical Islam that says slaughtering Jews (not Israelis) is a holy cause, along with all the shtick about martyrdom etc. Gaza is Hamas, and Hamas is Gaza. You cannot liberate Gaza of Hamas. There is scant distinction between Hamas and the general population. Gazans approve of what Hamas did on 7/10.

You could occupy Gaza and dissolve Hamas as a political entity but it would have to be on a permanent basis, because to hand it over the Gazans to form their own administration would result in exactly the same embezzlement and diversion of funds and materials to build terror tunnels. The essential issue is that Palestinian statehood aspirations are distant second to prosecuting Jihad, particularly since Iran, for their own purposes, will sponsor them to do it.

The ideal outcome would be for a polity to emerge from within Gaza that rejected the permanent refugee status, kicked out UNRWA and started building the basics of a functioning statelet. That would start with water, sanitation, health and education, while employing their monopoly on violence to stop terrorists operating in their own territory. That would then earn the trust of Israel, which could then gradually ease restrictions, and Israel would no doubt contribute to the reconstruction.

But that, categorically, is not going to happen. Gazan society has a zombie-ant brain fungus in the form of Jihad. You can recognise Gaza as a territory, but only its inhabitants can build a state - starting with the basic institutions. Instead, they will outsource all that to the ever-willing NGOcracy and UN agencies in order to spend more time with their rockets. It's wearily predictable and we know this because that's what happens every time.

As such, there will never be a viable sovereign entity that isn't an intolerable threat to Israel (and wider regional peace), and Israel is not obliged to go through the motions (and the expense) just to come out exactly where it is now with a jihadi enclave squatting on its borders. The only sustainable solution I see is to simply end the cycle. Since Jordan was the other half of the Mandate of Palestine, that, to me, seems the logical place to send them.

Of course, this option is far easier said than done. It would be done without the consent of Gazans and would not be willingly accepted by Arab states. Donald Trump, though, seems to think he can leverage it. That doesn’t seem very plausible to me, but he is apparently serious.

This will, of course, have blowback. It would certainly put a target on America’s back and we could again see Palestinian terrorism operating globally. Many in the MAGA camp will be asking what’s in it for America. This isn’t the America first policy Trump promised. It also has ramifications of Britain and Europe, being that the ECHR provides an open door to virtually anyone.

But again, there is no optimal scenario. These continued flare-ups do have ramifications for Britain, not least because our universities are nests of communism, antisemitism, and Islamic radicalism, and it keeps spilling out on to our streets. It is also a driver of Islamic sectarianism in British politics, because antisemitism (the real kind) is endemic to Pakistani culture too, and is part of their religious curriculum. That much is becoming a deadly threat to our national security.

As such, it is not in our interests for this ethno-religious war to continue on the same terms. To advocate for more of the same containment is to condemn Gazans and Israelis to another fifty years of bloody conflict.

The thing about civil wars and ethno-religious wars is that nothing is ever resolved until one side comprehensively wins. This one hasn't been settled because Israel has not been allowed to win by the international community. Thus the UN etc is complicit in the war dragging on for as long as it has.

7/10 was the game-changer for Israel, where it is, quite rightly, determined not to allow the slightest chance of a repeat. As such, it is ignoring the corrupt "international community" and initiatives led by the likes of South Africa, and putting a stop to it - as humanely as they can (under the circumstances). Hardly optimal, but war never is. This is just the FAFO principle at work. Whether we approve or not, the West no longer gets a say in it.