Postwar Governance in Gaza: An Overview of Competing Proposals
Proposals for postwar governance in Gaza by Trump, Lapid, and Egypt center on the future of the region amidst ongoing conflict. Trump’s controversial plan suggests Palestinian relocation, Lapid’s emphasizes Egyptian oversight, while Egypt proposes a comprehensive reconstruction strategy. Each plan encounters significant obstacles, including a fragile cease-fire and Hamas’s enduring control, complicating peace efforts.
In the wake of the ongoing conflicts in Gaza, key figures such as U.S. President Donald Trump, Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid, and Egypt have put forth distinct proposals regarding the future governance of the region. The effectiveness of these proposals is pivotal for establishing a permanent cease-fire and lasting peace. Without a consensus on governance post-war, enticing either Israel or Hamas to halt hostilities remains a significant challenge.
Three prominent plans have emerged for Gaza’s future governance. Trump’s proposal suggests relocating all Palestinians from Gaza to Jordan and Egypt, creating new settlements. Trump mentioned that if cooperation is not achieved, aid could be withheld from these nations while the U.S. would assume control, aiming to transform Gaza into a vibrant locale. However, this approach faces rejection from Palestinian leaders and Arab nations and raises concerns about potential ethnic cleansing.
Lapid proposed an ‘Egyptian solution,’ granting Egypt oversight of Gaza for 8 to 15 years. This plan aims for Gaza to be demilitarized and eventually governed by the Palestinian Authority (PA), allowing for civilian governance under Egyptian administration. Nonetheless, Egypt has rejected the plan entirely, complicating its viability significantly.
Egypt’s proposal, supported by Arab states, outlines a five-year, $53 billion plan to rebuild Gaza, focusing on housing and infrastructure development while initiating power transfer from Hamas to a committee of technocrats who would facilitate governance. Despite endorsing a two-state solution, this plan also faces opposition from the U.S. and Israel due to concerns regarding Hamas’s status.
A major obstacle shared by all proposals is the precarious nature of the current cease-fire in Gaza, which has begun to show signs of instability. The situation is exacerbated as Israel is restricting aid and pressuring Hamas while hosting ongoing military operations. Hamas’s control over Gaza complicates reconstruction efforts, with the group remaining reluctant to relinquish power without meaningful advancements toward Palestinian statehood.
In the political sphere, the Trump administration has initiated dialogue with Hamas for U.S. hostages’ release, a notable shift in U.S. policy, emphasizing their stance on addressing humanitarian concerns. Coupled with the decision to halt intelligence sharing with Ukraine, the international diplomatic landscape remains volatile, as domestic and international pressures collide.
The future governance of Gaza post-conflict is uncertain, hinging on the acceptance of various proposed plans by key stakeholders. Trump’s controversial proposal faces backlash due to its implications on Palestinian rights, while Lapid’s and Egypt’s plans face rejection and legitimacy challenges. The precarious cease-fire and persistent Hamas control add further complexity, necessitating urgent diplomatic efforts to foster a stable resolution. As the situation evolves, the potential for meaningful governance transition in Gaza remains a critical focal point.
Original Source: foreignpolicy.com
