George Zeidan from the Carter Center in Israel and Palestine penned an op-ed in Foreign Policy, “The Battle to End Palestinian Self-Determination,” on the consequences of the war with Iran. The argument is that the war could serve as a distraction that Israel could exploit to “quietly advance” policies such as displacing Palestinians or annexing the West Bank.
If the Knesset passes a puppy-celebration day bill, half the press will call it the anti-kitten law, making it difficult to imagine Israel quietly accomplishing either of those things. So, the piece’s argument is already questionable.
Zeidan cites the construction of New Rafah, funded by the United Arab Emirates, as one piece of evidence. This is because many of the prewar municipalities fall behind the agreed-upon Yellow Line and in areas of Israeli occupation, which will serve as a buffer zone to ensure Israeli security. It is worth re-emphasizing that this is in accordance with the ceasefire agreement.
Worse, Zeidan and his editors at Foreign Policy omit a set of facts and create others to advance the argument.
Zeidan writes, “In Gaza, the fragile cease-fire has not prevented Israel from continuously violating the terms of the agreement.” Later, he adds, “The [National Committee for the Administration of Gaza] exists as an official structure but is barred by Israel from entering the strip. Its mandate is ambiguous, given Israel controls roughly 60 percent of Gaza.”
“Low-level violations” of the ceasefire, such as Israeli airstrikes, are happening on both sides. Zeidan acknowledges that “Hamas, for its part, has maintained control over part of the Gaza Strip,” but immediately excuses the group’s continued governance of parts of Gaza because “the organization is still reeling from the war and has yet to articulate a consistent position on Trump’s 20-point peace plan.” But three points are necessary to add context: 1. This is a violation of the ceasefire; 2. Hamas does not simply maintain but is actively trying to expand its control over Gaza, invoking Israeli airstrikes; 3. Hamas accepted the ceasefire agreement, belying the assertion that it has yet to articulate a position on it.
The partial enforcement of the ceasefire includes Israel’s barring the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza from entering Gaza. Zeidan mentions this without providing the Israeli explanation, which is Hamas’ constant violation of the ceasefire and worries that it will not be able to govern Gaza. Nickolay Mladenov, the Bulgarian high representative for the Board of Peace, in charge of enforcing the ceasefire, said, “If you put the committee tomorrow in Gaza and the violations of the ceasefire continue the way they are now, we’re only embarrassing the committee and ultimately making it ineffective.”
Zeidan also cites a Haaretz report stating that food aid to Gaza has dropped by 80 percent. The original report cites “figures held by the American-run Civil Military Coordination Center (CMCC) in Kiryat Gat,” which operates under the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM). But CENTCOM has not published any updates about the CMCC operation, and Haaretz neither links to a source nor explains if the figures it cites were provided to it directly by CENTCOM.
Most egregiously, Zeidan claims that “only a handful of medical patients were allowed to cross for treatment abroad” via the Rafah crossing when it was open for 25 days in February. According to the United Nations, World Health Organization “facilitated the medical evacuation of 289 patients, alongside 521 caregivers,” between February 3 and February 25, much higher than “a handful,” which means 5 or fewer. To worsen the matter, while the op-ed mentions that the crossing had been closed temporarily, it omits that it was reopened on March 19, six days prior to the piece’s publication.
Foreign Policy is a prominent publication that informs policymakers and the commentariat. It is regrettable to see it publish an opinion piece with factual errors and purposeful omissions of context. Zeidan is entitled to his opinion, but not at the cost of accuracy. CAMERA urges Foreign Policy editors to set a higher standard for their publication.