Washington, D.C. – US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has become the latest US government official to warn Israel that it cannot “reoccupy” Gaza after the war with Hamas, in response to recent comments from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Netanyahu raised concerns this week after suggesting that the Israeli army could control security in Gaza “indefinitely” if fighting in the besieged Palestinian enclave ends.
Israeli officials have since said that Netanyahu did not mean that Israel plans to take administrative control of the Gaza Strip, but the country’s intentions remain unclear amid conflicting statements from senior government leaders, including Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.
Speaking to reporters in Japan on the sidelines of a G7 meeting on Wednesday, Blinken said that “the only way to ensure this crisis never happens again is to start creating the conditions for lasting peace and security,” including “no reoccupation of Gaza after the conflict ends.”
The Israeli government has claimed that the occupation of Gaza ended in 2005, when it withdrew forces and settlers from the enclave. But that position has been described by Israeli rights group B’Tselem as “completely unfounded” and rejected by international law experts.
Here, Al Jazeera speaks to Michael Lynk, who until last year was the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in the occupied Palestinian territories, about recent discussions surrounding the Israeli occupation of Gaza and what might happen after the war is over.
Al Jazeera: The US has said it opposes Israel’s “reoccupation” of Gaza. But did the Israeli occupation of Gaza ever end?
Michael Lynk: A few years ago, a comment was made on CBC Radio in Canada stating that Gaza was no longer occupied. I and another organization (Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East) each sent letters saying that Gaza remains effectively occupied.
The test in international law is: is there a military exercise – the term is ‘effective control’ – over the country or territory?
It’s like the guards leave the prison, but they take all the keys with them; They still monitor how much food goes into the prison every day and how much electricity goes into the prison every day. The people in prison are free to roam wherever they please within the confines of the prison, but have no way to leave – that would be “effective control” of the prison.
This is the same way Israel exercises effective control over who and what leaves Gaza and who and what enters Gaza.
AJ: What significance does it have for the US to use the term “reoccupation”?
Clutch: I suspect that the US does not take the position that Gaza is occupied. I don’t know if they even have a coherent position on what the status of Gaza is now. They probably accepted that Israel, by leaving Gaza in 2005, formally ended that occupation.
In fact, it is very difficult to find any statement from any recent Republican or Democratic administration using the word “occupation” to describe any part of Palestine on this subject.
So I think I understand why they use the word “reoccupy”, in the sense that they are talking about Israeli forces holding power in Gaza and exercising military authority when the current situation arises. [fighting] comes to an end.
But like I said, it’s not reoccupation – it’s occupation in a new form.
Al Jazeera: What differences do we see between the US and Israel in their views on what happens after the war in Gaza?
Clutch: What we have is an ongoing tactical debate between the United States and Israel about what Gaza would look like immediately after hostilities end.
Israel says they will probably have to stay in Gaza for some time. And that’s probably because they want to absolutely destroy everything they can find related to Hamas’s military presence.
Given Blinken’s tour of parts of the Arab world over the past week, he recognizes the intense pressure coming from the South in general, and specifically over what Gaza would look like next, and acknowledges that any form of continued Israeli presence in Gaza is a non-starter.
Keep in mind that there are not only calls for the reoccupation of Gaza within Israel, but also (among some far-right Israeli lawmakers for) the resettlement of settlers in Gaza. That’s an argument you might hear in the far-right settler movement.
However, I suspect that there are all kinds of voices within the Israeli military and Israeli military intelligence that say this is a non-starter.
Al Jazeera: What comes next in terms of the Israeli occupation and the future of Gaza?
Clutch: There are a few possibilities.
One of them, which I think should be one of the lowest options, is for Israel to keep its foot on the ground inside Gaza and rule the country through direct military rule for the foreseeable future.
I think that has very little chance of success, partly because I think Israeli soldiers would probably pay a high price, as they did in maintaining their occupation in Lebanon from the 1980s through the 1990s.
A second option, which I think is what the United States would prefer – and you will probably find support from countries in the Global North – is for there to be an international government, led by the Arab world, led by the United Nations, or a combination thereof, with international troops on the ground, there would be an international fund for the reconstruction of Gaza.
And there would be, I think, a serious effort to try to build the administrative capacity to provide basic services in Gaza, as any national or municipal government would eventually do.
And that would, I suspect, include a plan for the Palestinian Authority to take power at some point.
Al Jazeera: Could there be a path to the end of the Israeli occupation?
Clutch: If the Palestinian Authority wants to intervene, they will have to make a difficult political choice themselves.
Are they just coming to provide stability and, if you like, manage Gaza, or is this actually a first step towards an independent Palestinian state? And I would be pretty sure that the Palestinian Authority would insist that they would not want to take over the administration of Gaza.
I think there would be great reluctance to be seen as coming in, ruling and taking over the administration of Gaza on the back of Israeli bayonets. They want a guaranteed prelude to the end of the occupation of East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
And the trouble with that is… if the Biden administration doesn’t have the political power to force Israel into humanitarian pauses, let alone a ceasefire, what hope is there for the United States using political capital to To force Israel – in American elections? – to make the substantive agreements necessary to create an independent Palestinian state that is contiguous, where the settlements have ended and where the Palestinian capital is located in East Jerusalem?
I think the chance of that is less than zero.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.