Postwar Governance in Gaza: Competing Visions and Uncertain Futures

The future governance of Gaza postwar is uncertain, with proposals from U.S. President Trump, Israeli leader Lapid, and Egypt. Each plan faces significant obstacles related to local and regional opposition, particularly concerning the contentious role of Hamas. The fragile cease-fire adds complexity to governance discussions, impacting future stability in Gaza.

The postwar governance of Gaza remains an unresolved concern amidst the ongoing cease-fire. As regional stability relies on a clear plan, U.S. President Donald Trump, Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid, and Egypt have each proposed differing frameworks in light of recent conflicts. The focus is on ensuring a feasible governance structure to pave the way for peace between Israel and Hamas, which requires mutual agreement from all parties involved.

Trump’s controversial proposal involves relocating all Palestinians from Gaza to Jordan and Egypt, where they would inhabit newly constructed communities. He has suggested that the U.S. would manage the reconstruction of Gaza, albeit with significant opposition from Palestinian leaders and Arab allies due to concerns about ethnic cleansing and violations of international law. It undermines the Palestinian aspiration for an independent state, complicating Trump’s diplomatic efforts in the region.

Lapid’s alternative, often referred to as the “Egyptian solution,” envisions Egyptian control over Gaza’s governance for a duration of eight to fifteen years, aiming to demilitarize the area. This plan includes establishing a peace force comprising Gulf states and the international community to facilitate reconstruction. However, Egypt has deemed this proposal unacceptable, particularly since Lapid did not consult with Egyptian officials prior to its announcement, leaving this plan unfeasible.

Egypt’s reconstruction strategy consists of a $53 billion initiative that seeks to rehabilitate Gaza over a five-year span. This involves extensive infrastructure development, including housing, an airport, and a seaport, with independent technocrats temporarily managing the region on the path toward reestablishing the Palestinian Authority. Despite its support from regional players and the UN, the plan has been rebuffed by Israel and the U.S., predominantly due to its lack of provisions regarding militant disarmament.

The biggest impediment for all proposals is the tenuous nature of the cease-fire, which has recently faced challenges. Without a stable environment, fighting could easily resume, nullifying any chance for governance restructuring. Additionally, Trump’s recent ultimatum to Hamas regarding the release of hostages further complicates the dynamics, as does Hamas’s enduring control of Gaza, which contradicts the desires of both Israel and the U.S. for the militant group to relinquish power. Restoration plans are fraught with uncertainty; the overall future of Gaza remains precarious as tensions escalate in the region.

In summary, the question of who will govern Gaza post-conflict is pivotal to achieving a lasting peace. While several proposals exist, each faces considerable opposition and logistical challenges. The interactions between Hamas, Israel, and influential global leaders such as President Trump and Egyptian authorities will ultimately shape Gaza’s future trajectory. The successful management of Gaza’s reconstruction and governance will depend on a stable cease-fire and cooperative international engagement.

Original Source: foreignpolicy.com