On July 30, distinguished fellow Ezzedine Fishere published an opinion article in The Washington Post entitled “This country should take over Gaza — for now,” in which he argued that the Egyptian government should become a temporary steward of Gaza to dismantle the threat to Israel and to establish a path towards a Palestinian state. Before becoming a professor at Dartmouth, Fishere served as a diplomat for Egypt and the United Nations.
The Dartmouth sat down with Fishere to discuss his article, its criticisms and the future of the Middle East.
Could you explain the argument that you make in your article ‘This country should take over Gaza — for now,’ as well as what led you to your conclusions?
EF: The basic argument is that the only viable solution I can see for Gaza would be through a transfer of sovereignty over the Gaza Strip to Egypt as a custodial power, in agreement with both Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. During a period where Egypt becomes the custodian of the Gaza Strip, Israel withdraws and hands security to the Egyptian army, and Egypt establishes security in the Gaza Strip. This ends the threat to Israel and proceeds with the disarmament of the Palestinian factions, including Hamas. That would allow for the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip without the displacement of Palestinians. All of this could be part of building a Palestinian state with Gaza as its starting point. Eventually, if this model works well, something similar could take place in the West Bank.
The reason why I think this is the only viable solution is pretty straightforward. Mainstream Israel — both the government and the public — is supportive of continuing to operate in Gaza until it is no longer a threat to the citizens of Israel, so any solution has to satisfy this condition. At the same time, attacks on Israel are going to continue as long as the occupation continues.
We have seen this happening for more than 20 years in Gaza. So instead of staying locked in this vicious circle, you need to end the occupation and achieve security. To do this, Israel needs a responsible, reliable partner in Gaza. Given that Egypt and Israel had a security relationship for more than five decades, and that Egypt and the Palestinians, including Hamas, have an ongoing relationship, and given that Egypt is on the other side of Gaza, it is the obvious candidate to play this role. So basically, in a nutshell, the only party that can be a reliable third party in Gaza is Egypt.
How has your career in diplomacy influenced your opinions on what you expressed in the article?
EF: My work as a diplomat informs things like this article, because I write, not in order to condemn one party or the other, or to provide a legal description of this act or that act. Instead of taking the higher moral ground or denouncing parties, I look for solutions. I look for things that would unblock a crisis or a problem and lead the parties to a better situation.
In a statement to The Dartmouth, the Palestinian Solidarity Coalition at Dartmouth criticized your article, saying, “Notably absent from Professor Fishere’s analysis of the situation in Gaza is one key word: genocide.” How would you respond to this criticism?
EF: This is an article about the situation in the Gaza Strip, where, as the solidarity group is saying, people are facing a danger of annihilation. If you are in a humanitarian assistance group and you want to get food to hungry people in Gaza, do you have to say it’s a genocide? Do you have to condemn occupation? This is not a theoretical discussion. It is not a legal discussion. This is not the International Court of Justice. We’re not establishing who’s doing what and why. There is a place for everything. Legal discussions happen in those places, not when you’re negotiating a way out from a terrible situation. This article is a policy note. It is not meant to establish who’s right and who’s wrong, or even to establish the extent of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or its history or its future. It’s about how we solve this problem in Gaza now.
Israel recently announced that it plans to invade and seize Gaza City. What do you imagine the outcome of this escalation will be?
EF: If we do not find a solution to stop the fighting, guess what’s going to happen? The fighting will continue. There is an asymmetrical power dynamic. We have a state that is armed, and we have an armed group that is a lot weaker, and the armed group is living within a civilian population. So the type of fighting you have seen will continue if we do not bring a ceasefire; the killing will continue, and now that fighting could take the form of occupying Gaza. This is why we must stop the fighting as soon as possible. To stop the fighting for any length of time, you need a viable solution that deals with the threat to Israel and that deals with the occupation for the Palestinians.
If your plan is implemented and successful, what is the next step in solving this issue?
EF: Any solution brings with it a bunch of obstacles and problems. Otherwise, it would have happened on its own. Why would Egypt do it? It’s a huge responsibility. So you have to find ways to make this solution not an additional burden on Israeli-Egyptian relations and not an additional burden on Egyptian-Palestinian relations. Another problem is, how do we guarantee that this doesn’t become an Egyptian occupation, that we don’t replace one occupation with another? How do we reassure the Palestinians that this is the beginning of a Palestinian state and self-determination? Who’s going to pay for all of this?
All of these issues need to be answered. I can sit here and come up with my answers, but it doesn’t help anybody. Those are solutions that emerge out of conversations with the actual parties because they have to address their concerns as we move forward. But this is something a negotiator should be doing. The next step is to take this proposition and go and conduct serious conversations with the Egyptians, Israelis and Palestinians on how to move forward towards a viable solution for Gaza that achieves both security for Israel and self-determination for the Palestinians.
What do you see in the future of the Middle Eastern conflict?
EF: The future of the Middle East is bleak. Unfortunately, it has potential for a much brighter future, but it is a narrow path. The hatred, the lack of trust, the weight of history and historical grievances and trauma are, unfortunately, very heavy, and they weigh down on the actions of parties.
This interview has been edited for clarity and length.
