Since the ceasefire was announced on October 10, the Gaza Strip has been divided into the so-called “Green Zone”, which is under Israeli military control, and the so-called “Red Zone”, where Palestinians are evacuated and confined. What separates the two is an invisible “yellow line.”
The administration of US President Donald Trump has indicated it will limit reconstruction to the “green zone”, where Israel and its allies are working on a so-called “alternative security community” plan.
Last week, there were reports that these plans had been cancelled, but colleagues in the humanitarian sector informed me that the first such community is still planned for Rafah in southern Gaza, with 10 more communities to be built in the north along the yellow line.
If these “safe communities” plans go ahead, they will solidify Gaza’s deadly divisions. The purpose of creating these camps is not to provide humanitarian relief, but rather to create controlled expropriation zones where Palestinians are inspected and screened when entering to receive basic services, but are explicitly prohibited from returning to the cordoned-off “red zone.”
These plans represent a recycled version of what Israel has long wanted in Gaza. The creation of a “bubble” (an eloquent euphemism that I first heard proposed by Israeli authorities when I was participating in the coordination of humanitarian operations in Palestine as a UN official) was the first iteration of an area in which Palestinians would be conditioned to be inspected and receive controlled assistance.
This is the harsh reality of the so-called ceasefire agreement in Gaza. It does not bring peace. It would further shatter prospects for Gaza and Palestinian sovereignty. If anything, it’s the Gaza Peace Plan.
On Monday, the UN Security Council voted to legitimize the plan by authorizing a peace commission to administer Gaza and an International Stabilization Force (ISF) to provide security. But which areas will these forces secure? There is no agreed upon peace for these factions to maintain. According to the “alternative safe community” map I saw, the ISF would be positioned along the yellow line to secure newly established camps.
Hamas naturally vetoed the Security Council resolution. It was clear that the clause was not the result of a negotiated agreement. Item 17 of President Trump’s 20-point plan, attached as an appendix to the resolution, could be activated. “If Hamas delays or rejects this proposal, the above operations, including scaled-up aid operations, will proceed in terror-free areas handed over from the IDF (Israeli Forces) to the ISF.” In this way, “alternative safe communities” could become the only effective aid delivery center, thereby prolonging the total blockade of Palestinians in Gaza.
The deadly logic of the evacuation orders that forced Palestinians from their homes over the past two years is now being extended to the plans approved by the Security Council. Those who remain in the “red zone” outside of alternative communities risk being labeled as “Hamas supporters” and are therefore ineligible for protection under Israel’s distorted interpretation of international law, and are subject to continued military operations, as already seen in the past few days.
The fate of Palestinians in the “red zone” remains clearly not reflected in official plans. Indeed, humanitarian organizations that could save lives are shut out by Israel’s registration process, which is meant to stifle criticism and scrutinize staff compliance.
The model of contained communities is not entirely new. The British created “new villages” in Malaya in the 1950s, the Americans created “strategic villages” in Vietnam in the 1960s, and the colonial authorities in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) created “protected villages” during so-called “counterinsurgency” in the 1970s.
Civilians were forced into camps where they were tested in exchange for aid. The plan was to weaken public support for resistance groups fighting colonial rule. Failed.
In South Africa, the apartheid government created Bantustans, pseudo-independent homelands intended to centralize and control the black population. They also failed to prevent the collapse of the settler-colonial apartheid regime.
In Gaza, a peace plan imposed rather than negotiated not only leaves Israel’s occupation intact but also emboldens it. The Security Council endorsed what was contrary to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) rulings on the occupied Palestinian territories, effectively whitewashing the scene of a genocide and creating a monument to impunity.
All of this has unfolded during the so-called ceasefire, in which Palestinians continue to be killed for crossing the invisible lines drawn by the illegal occupation.
The world may welcome this step as an end to the war, and countries reluctant to impose sanctions on Israel will no doubt be relieved to have trade restored and public scrutiny reduced.
Breaking this dangerous status quo will require implementing the very accountability that the United States and Israel have worked so hard to avoid: the ICJ’s judgment. New political coalitions are needed to demand equal application of international law while the West hollows out these institutions. At the most basic level, this requires unimpeded access to humanitarian aid wherever Palestinians are located in the swath, and a Palestinian-led reconstruction to ensure that Palestinians are not forced to survive forever.
The precedent set in Gaza will not fit within the fences of Gaza’s gated communities, which have been blockaded by international forces. That would further erode the foundations of the so-called rules-based order. The only way forward is to return to the principle this entire process has so far ignored: the people’s inalienable right to determine their own future.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance of Al Jazeera.
