Spiking the football too early?

This week’s events in the Middle East are nothing short of extraordinary. Israeli hostages are coming home, the bombs have stopped dropping, and the region has breathed a sigh of relief. After two years of vicious fighting which started with a brutal cross-border incursion by Hamas followed by a grueling ground and air war in Gaza, it seems that the Trump administration has achieved a remarkable diplomatic feat. 

Don’t take my word for it, though. Longtime Donald Trump critic and Washington Post columnist David Ignatius lauded the president and declared that this deal was something Joe Biden “could never do.” Former Presidents Bill Clinton and Joe Biden also commended the Trump administration and the other regional negotiators for this success with Clinton going as far to say, “President Trump and his administration, Qatar, and other regional actors deserve great credit for keeping everyone engaged until the agreement was reached.” One need not be reminded of the animosity between the Trumps and Clintons. Paired with a historic visit to the Knesset, this deal is indeed a watershed moment that should be applauded. However, there is still a multitude of problems that, left unaddressed, could unravel the progress that has been made. 

First and foremost is the largest elephant in the room, Hamas. As part of the 20-point peace plan that has been agreed to (specifically point thirteen), Hamas and its jihadist comrades in Gaza have ostensibly agreed that they will have no role in the governance of the strip going forward. Additionally, Hamas and its allies have agreed to “a process of demilitarisation [sic] of Gaza under the supervision of independent monitors, which will include placing weapons permanently beyond use through an agreed process of decommissioning.” However, less than a day after the ink was dry on the ceasefire deal this past week, Hamas began carrying out executions of those it deemed as collaborators or rivals. This is clearly an attempt by Hamas to re-exert control over areas of the Gaza Strip where it still has personnel. This is not typically the behavior of an armed group that is ready to decommission its weapons or give up its bid at mafia-style governance. Hamas’ view of its struggle against Israel is cloaked in religious apocalypticism. While nothing is impossible, getting a group who views its struggle as ordained by God to give up violence is a tall order. 

Second, there is still the problem of Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hezbollah, “The Party of God,” also views its struggle against Israel as eternal. This still holds true despite the immensely crippling “beepers” operation and targeted killing of Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah last year. This has become apparent in recent weeks as the Lebanese Armed Forces, under the ultimate command of Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, have continued their “disarmament” of Hezbollah. While the Lebanese government claims to have made significant inroads on this front, Hezbollah insists that it is only willing to “negotiate” its use of arms within the wider discussion of Lebanon’s national defense. Nasrallah’s successor, Sheik Naim Qassem, went as far to say there would be no disarmament until Israel “withdraws from the occupied [Lebanese] territories, stops its aggression, releases the prisoners, and reconstruction [of war-damaged areas] begins.” This standstill is paired with the fact that the UN peacekeeping operation in southern Lebanon is set to withdraw at the end of next year. This means that there would be no international body assisting/observing the Lebanese Armed Forces in their disarmament of Hezbollah. In a worst case scenario, events over the next year could unravel into a second civil war in Lebanon. Hezbollah, while diminished, still has a large stockpile of arms at its disposal and there is no more dangerous enemy than a cornered one.

Lastly, there is still the question of the Saudi-Israel rapprochement as well as an extension of the Abraham Accords. Most Arab governments who had previously warmed to the idea of a normalization of relations with Israel have called the past two years of conflict a “genocide” committed by Israelis against Gazans. This includes the crown prince of Saudi Arabia Mohammed Bin Salman. How much of this is public posturing and how much of this is sincere cannot be precisely quantified. It is however an instance where Israel might have to start again at square one with some of these nations. This will require continued efforts emanating from Washington to bring these now distanced parties back together once again. The fact that the recent ceasefire plan involved the likes of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and the Emirates is a good sign. However, it is important to revisit the still promising idea of widespread regional recognition of Israel. After all, the first Trump administration’s Abraham Accords dispelled the myth of “linkage” between the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and wider regional recognition. It would be wise for the current administration to remember this and push hard for normalization despite the past two years of bloodshed. 

There are other important questions that not only deserve their own column but also seem set to disturb the current triumphalist mood. What is the status of Syria vis a vis Israel? Is the former jihadist, now leader of Syria, Ahmed al-Shaara someone to be dealt with? What about Iran? What enforcement mechanism(s) is available to ensure that its bombed nuclear facilities aren’t either repaired or replaced? Who will deal with the Houthis in Yemen? 

These are all problems that will rear their heads in due time. As I said previously, it is important to commend the progress made thus far. Rushing the field before the end of the third quarter might feel good, but it distracts from the fact that there is still a lot of game left to be played. 

Jim Pomeroy, raised in Bucks County and a former congressional aide, works in higher education. He is the author of Alliances & Armor: Communist Diplomacy and Armored Warfare during the War in Vietnam