The article explores competing proposals for post-war governance in Gaza by U.S. President Trump, Israeli leader Lapid, and Egypt. It details Trump’s controversial plan for Palestinian removal, Lapid’s vision for Egyptian control, and Egypt’s comprehensive rebuilding strategy. Each plan faces significant obstacles, including the fragile cease-fire and Hamas’s influence, which complicate the prospects for lasting peace.
The question of who will govern Gaza following the conflict remains crucial for the region’s stability. Recent proposals made by U.S. President Donald Trump, Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid, and Egypt showcase differing visions for Gaza’s future, highlighting a complex interplay of regional dynamics. Without an agreement that satisfies both Israel and Hamas, the prospect of enduring peace appears elusive.
President Trump’s plan suggests the permanent removal of Palestinians from Gaza to Jordan and Egypt, where they would reside in newly constructed communities. He envisions the U.S. taking control of Gaza to transform it into a major tourist destination. However, this proposal has faced widespread condemnation for its implications of ethnic cleansing and disregard for international law. Moreover, the plan undermines Palestinian aspirations for statehood, which complicates relations with key allies like Saudi Arabia.
Lapid’s proposal, known as the “Egyptian solution,” advocates for Egypt to govern Gaza’s civilian and security aspects for a duration of eight to fifteen years. This plan aims to demilitarize Gaza and prepare it for self-governance, with potential involvement from the Palestinian Authority (PA). Nevertheless, Egypt has rejected this proposal, stating it lacks prior consultation, which complicates its feasibility.
In contrast, Egypt’s own $53 billion rebuilding plan, which gained approval from Arab nations, focuses on comprehensive infrastructure improvements over five years. It proposes a governance structure led by independent technocrats in cooperation with Hamas, setting the stage for future PA involvement. However, the plan lacks explicit disarmament provisions for Hamas, leading to its rejection by both the U.S. and Israel.
Each proposed plan faces significant obstacles, not least the current fragility of the cease-fire. Israel is pressuring Hamas while preventing humanitarian aid from entering Gaza. This pressure, combined with ongoing military operations in the West Bank, heightens the complexity of achieving a stable governance structure. Additionally, Hamas maintains substantial control in Gaza, complicating the transition to any new governing authority.
In summary, the governance of Gaza post-war remains a contested issue with multiple competing proposals, all facing critical challenges that stem from historical grievances, political opposition, and the ongoing conflict. The successful implementation of any plan will depend largely on the reinstatement of a stable cease-fire and a genuine commitment from all parties to engage in meaningful dialogue.
The situation is further complicated by the Trump administration’s recent halt in intelligence sharing with Ukraine and the engagement with Hamas for hostages, which may shift regional politics. The future of Gaza remains undetermined, resting precariously on the outcomes of ongoing discussions and negotiations.
In conclusion, Gaza’s post-war governance is a pivotal issue demanding careful consideration of various proposals from Trump, Lapid, and Egypt. Each plan reflects distinct approaches to managing the enclave, but all are impeded by geopolitical tensions, the fragile cease-fire, and Hamas’s retention of power. Achieving a stable resolution requires collaboration among regional players and attention to the aspirations of the Palestinian people. Only through strategic dialogue and compromise can a path towards lasting peace in Gaza be forged.
Original Source: foreignpolicy.com
