Gaza

The Gaza peace plan, 2 weeks in: continuing assessment

/ Dan Smith / 1 Comment

On 8 October, two years and one day after Hamas’s savage incursion into Israel that triggered Israel’s hyper-destructive onslaught on Gaza, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio passed a note to President Trump in the middle of a press conference, then whispered to him to say he could announce that a ceasefire had been agreed.

So began the implementation of the 20-point Gaza peace plan that Trump had announced at the White House on 29 September. Discussion followed between Israel, Hamas and other interested parties – the USA, Egypt, Qatar, Turkey and doubtless many others via standard diplomatic channels. On 3 October, after Trump set a 5 October deadline for Hamas to accept the plan or suffer “all hell”, Hamas agreed to release the remaining hostages it had held for two years, including the bodies of the dead, and repeated what it had said before, that Gaza could be run by a technocratic administration as Trump’s peace plan envisaged. As multiple news outlets reported, this was a partial acceptance – a “yes but” rather than full-blown consent. While Trump threatened Hamas with “complete obliteration” if it refused to fit in with his plan, the Israeli bombardment of Gaza continued, and negotiators met in Sharm el-Shaikh, Egypt, to get the peace plan on the road.

Two weeks after Rubio whispered in his President’s ear, how is the plan doing? I gave my view of it before there was any action, aiming to assess it as a plan, in its own terms, asking not whether it was right or wrong, fair or unfair, but would it work? It is what you could call a negotiations perspective, a technical assessment. In the same vein, two weeks in, how does it look now?

Continue reading →

Armed conflict and human health

/ Dan Smith / Leave a comment

When you consider the psychological and sociological impacts, people live with the imprint of violent conflict for decades after the fighting has stopped. That can be because you saw something horrible or experienced something utterly terrifying or perhaps because your chances of having a normal childhood have all been blown apart by the war.

More people are injured in armed conflict than are killed, and some injuries are life changing, involving amputations or severe damage to organs including the brain.

Beyond that, hospitals, food systems, and sanitation and sewage systems are destroyed. The general health of people suffers, so other infections take a toll, during the war and in its immediate aftermath. Indirect deaths after armed conflicts match or exceed the number of people who die directly.

Continue reading →

Evaluating President Trump’s Gaza peace plan

/ Dan Smith / 6 Comments

The fate of the peace plan for Gaza announced at the White House on Monday 29 September is not yet decided. Because Hamas accepted the hostage return part of the proposed deal, while seeking negotiation of other parts, US President Trump ordered Israel to stop bombing. It did not immediately do that though the Prime Minister’s office said it was preparing for “immediate implementation” of the first stage of the plan.

There has, of course, been considerable coverage of the plan in the news media. Some focusses on its prospects, including the impact of divisions within Hamas about it, along with the matter of whether Trump will impose a deadline for Hamas’ acceptance and how long it might be. There has been some coverage of gaps and uncertainties in the plan and plenty of advocates have been out there to disparage or support the plan. And there’s been quite some discussion about whether President Trump prevailed over Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in crafting the plan, or the other way round.

But, so far as I have seen, there has been little dispassionate coverage of whether it is actually a good plan, whether it will work. So this post is my clause-by-clause assessment of the Gaza peace plan.

Peace is a tricky business. An 1100 word document containing 20 points is not a treaty, is not legally binding, and is bound to contain a number of generalities and broad statements of intent. That leaves plenty of room for uncertainty to creep in. Nonetheless, it is a serious document and not the first one to address how to end the war in Gaza. It builds on the never-implemented January 2025 agreement, which itself built on the never-implemented May 2024 agreement. With those foundations, there ought to be some key issues on which there is clarity but there should also be some latitude for uncertainty, interpretation and further discussion.

In sum, not surprisingly, what comes out is mixed – some strengths, some weakness, some areas of clarity and some confusion.

Continue reading →

World order §5: Laws and norms – and the double standard

/ Dan Smith / 1 Comment

How do you solve a problem like the world order?

We have had one – an order, a way of arranging international relations through institutions, treaties, law and norms – for virtually eight decades since the end of World War II. It has had its ups and downs and gone through some changes, though nothing fundamental. But now, so much seems to be going wrong at once – more armed conflicts with rising death tolls, worsening ecological disruption, growing economic inequalities and fragmenting social cohesion in numerous countries.

It all adds up to system failure on a world scale. This post, number 5 in a series based on the introductory chapter to the recently released SIPRI Yearbook 2024, focusses on the importance of laws and established norms in the world order.

Continue reading →

World order §4: Conflict management in a disordered world: the Security Council and Gaza

/ Dan Smith / 1 Comment

During the 2020s, on current trends, four times as many people (or more) will die in war as in the first decade of this century. Since 2010, the number of armed conflicts each year has almost doubled. The number of refugees has more than doubled in the same period. Meanwhile the world spends vastly more on the military than ever before, 2.443 trillion US dollars in 2023, compared to about 1.1 trillion at the start of the century.

What is going on? What has happened – is happening – to the world and to conflict? How come conflict management doesn’t seem to be working any more?

This post is number 4 in a series, based on the introductory chapter to the recently released SIPRI Yearbook 2024, asking, What world are we shaping for ourselves in the coming decades if these trends continue unchanged? 

Continue reading →

World order §1: Order under pressure

/ Dan Smith / 4 Comments

As global security deteriorates, one of the problems both in understanding it (even in knowing what to worry about most) and in figuring out what can and should be done is that so much seems to be going wrong at once. Beyond the individual issues of rising inter- and intra-national conflicts, ecological disruption, economic inequalities and malfunction, and fragmenting social cohesion in so many countries, there is a system failure on a world scale.

That thought directs attention towards the world order — the way in which international relations are arranged through institutions, treaties, law and norms — and the problems that are and have been chipping away at it.

The 2024 Yearbook of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) is out now, compiling and reflecting on the key data and trends in peace and security during 2023. In the introductory chapter, I explore the problem of the world order today. The chapter is available in full online. Here on my blog, this and succeeding posts will present the arguments in a somewhat tweaked, less formal and slightly fuller manner, with some updating to cover the way things have moved on.

Continue reading →

The worries of a peace researcher

/ Dan Smith / 1 Comment

“How easy is it to talk about peace and disarmament today when the world is busy rearming?”

That’s the question that Dagens Nyheter, Sweden’s biggest selling daily paper, asked itself, its readers and me in a recent article. About me, it said, “SIPRI’s director says he is a born optimist, but when DN meets him, he describes the world in black and dark grey.”

And yet at the end, the reporter, Ewa Stenberg, managed to find some light amid the dark.

Continue reading →

The Middle East – who cares?

/ Dan Smith / 7 Comments

Or at least, who cares enough to try to start thinking anew? The region is burning. Apart from the parties to the conflicts who want to win, nobody seems to have any idea of what to do. Continue reading →

Obama in power (6):policies clarifying, pattern still hazy

/ Dan Smith / 3 Comments

By the time Obama was inaugurated, he had promised so much, there was a risk that he could only disappoint. Let’s not get too carried away in these tough times, but there is some much needed good news: perfect his administration is not, but the first signs in foreign policy are far from negative. This extended post surveys the key issues. Continue reading →

The special significance of the Israel-Palestine conflict

/ Dan Smith / 1 Comment

Why is it that the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians generates such intense feelings among so many people? It goes deeper and spreads more widely than virtually any other current political issue. People who have no personal stake  – no relatives in any part of Israel and Palestine, for example – express themselves on this conflict with genuine feelings of grief and anger, where other conflicts provoke only a more general humanitarian response or concern for the unjustly treated. What’s special about Israel-Palestine? Continue reading →