WILL THAULT: An ultracrepidarian’s take on the Gaza Peace Plan

Having neither diplomatic nor political experience in foreign affairs, I do hold an honorary Ultracrepidarian Degree in Unsolicited Opinions, which makes me highly qualified to ruminate with you over Trump’s 20-point peace plan for the Gaza Strip.

Setting aside one’s hatred or love for our president, it seems the rest of the world, desirous of peace in the Middle East, loves this plan. The implementation of Phase 1 of the plan is already underway with a ceasefire, along with a hostage and Palestinian prisoner exchange.

Newsreel footage showing Israelis and Palestinians alike dancing in the streets in celebration of what they hoped to be an end to the war, plus the overwhelming representation of 31 countries and four international organizations at the Sharm el-Sheikh Summit last Monday, marked an unprecedented moment in time.

Egypt, Turkey and Qatar joined the U.S. in signing the “Declaration for Enduring Peace and Prosperity” document that day, with the UK pledging $27 million to help provide water and sanitation to war-torn Gaza, as well as proposing a future conference in Britain to coordinate plans for reconstruction and recovery. The European Union pledged another 1.6 billion in euros to the Palestinian Authority over the next two-years, along with contributions to Gaza’s reconstruction and recovery.

After the signing, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi held a side meeting with nine of the countries in attendance to discuss ways to maintain the ceasefire agreement and to follow up with scheduling a Cairo Conference for Early Recovery and Reconstruction next month.

The greatest challenge is to put an end to the Hamas threat in the region by having them lay down their arms in return for amnesty and “commit to peaceful co-existence.” The peace plan goes on to offer “members of Hamas who wish to leave Gaza (will be provided) safe passage to receiving countries.”

Now is when I put my ultracrepidarian degree to the test… How do we restore a people and their homeland victimized by the total devastation caused by war and continued subjugation to threats and exploitation by homegrown terrorists from within? Dozens of Palestinians suspected of colluding with Israelis have already been executed without trial in public squares by Hamas since the ceasefire began. It reminds me of the murder of innocent civilians by the Nazis in occupied France during World War II as retaliation for underground resistance fighters.

Germany, too, suffered from the near total destruction of their country due to saturation bombing and the crushing blows of heavy armored divisions as they closed in for the kill from all sides in the final months of that war. In defeat, they found their country and even their capital, Berlin, split in two by the victorious occupying forces of the USSR and the West.

There was hunger, homelessness, poverty, displacement and disorder. Yet today Germany has become a thriving European nation, greater than ever before. How can that be and could the same be said someday of Gaza?

After the unconditional surrender of Hitler’s political and military dictatorship, there were two solutions for what to do with the vanquished Third Reich. The Russians chose to rule their occupation zone, East Germany, with an iron fist, while the U.S., UK, and France focused on demilitarization, democratization, and economic reconstruction, which included humanitarian aid and the rehabilitation of infrastructure. Clearly, the Western Allies’ approach was far superior to Russa’s in that West Germany recovered much faster than East Germany before the reunification.

I see parallels between the transitional governance structure in West Germany after World War II and the proposed elements in the peace plan for Gaza. Immediately following Germany’s surrender, the Allied Control Council was created to oversee governance. Its primary purpose was to demilitarize Germany and prevent the resurgence of militarism, while ensuring security and managing affairs.This transitional government also was used for denazification.

The call for a demilitarized Gaza and a transitional government structure echoes this approach, prioritizing peace and stability over military conflict. Like denazification, this would require a dehamasification of the region, by totally disarming and disenfranchising Hamas. This would be enforced by the soon-to-beformed International Stabilization Force, made up of Arab and international partners, with the help of Egypt and Jordan to secure the border areas.

Also, ISF deployment in Gaza would allow training and support for vetted Palestinian police forces. It took almost four years to complete the denazification efforts culminating in the Nuremberg Trials of post-war West Germany. Dehamasification of the tiny Gaza Strip would require only a fraction of that time.

As the Hamas threat weakens, the Israel Defense Forces would withdraw completely from the territory, based on standards, milestones, and timeframes in line with demilitarization mutually agreed upon by the IDF, ISF, the guarantors, and the U.S.

In post-war Germany, the Allies allowed political parties to begin forming in the Western zones within a year of occupation, leading to the establishment of local and regional governments despite ongoing Allied control. By comparison, in the agreed-upon peace plan, the Gaza International Transitional Authority/Palestinian Technocratic Committee would be formed to provide day-to-day governance, overseen by a Board of Peace.

In addition, encouragement of the Palestinian Authority’s involvement, would recognize the value of local governance in peacemaking. Like Germany, perhaps different political parties could be allowed to emerge among the people as well. In West Germany, post-war reconstruction was vital for stability, supported by initiatives like the Marshall Plan, which ultimately provided economic aid to 16 countries in Western Europe after the war, significantly contributing to the region’s economic stability and growth.

Similarly, the Gaza peace plan promotes economic development in Gaza, including a focus on infrastructure. Pledges are already being made toward this end by a host of Arab and partnering nations.

Something that the Allies didn’t consider in their rehabilitation of West Germany, though, was an international transitional body instead of autonomous Allied zones. In the case of Gaza, the Board of Peace, headed by Trump and past UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, would set the framework and handle funding for Gaza’s redevelopment. The Gaza International Transitional Authority/Palestinian Technocratic Committee and the ISF would fall under the supervision of the Board of Peace.

Finally, post-war reconstruction in West Germany included the establishment of a human rights framework to prevent abuses and ensure civil liberties. The Gaza plan also focuses on protecting civilian rights and demonstrates a commitment to peace coupled with justice.

By examining these parallels, it seems possible that the transitional model used in post-war West Germany might offer additional insights regarding the proposed steps in the Gaza peace plan. Both tout structured governance, economic stability and international cooperation; all critical in achieving long-lasting peace in a conflict-torn region, filled with centuries of hatred and mistrust.

But what do I know? I’m just an ultracrepidarian and an old one at that.

Will Thault is a retired businessman who spent much of his career in southwest Georgia before retiring to Alabama.