Post-War Governance in Gaza: Analyzing Competing Proposals

The article discusses proposals for post-war governance in Gaza, highlighting plans from U.S. President Donald Trump, Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid, and Egypt. Each proposal has unique challenges and criticisms, particularly in terms of acceptance by key regional players and the enduring influence of Hamas. The effectiveness of these plans hinges on the fragile ceasefire status and long-term peace strategies.

In light of the ongoing conflict in Gaza, the critical question of governance post-war is at the forefront of international discussions. Several proposals have emerged to address this pressing issue, notably from U.S. President Donald Trump, Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid, and Egypt. The effectiveness of any governance plan is paramount to achieving a lasting ceasefire and facilitating reconstruction. Without a viable resolution to the governance question, further conflict appears inevitable.

President Trump’s proposal suggests relocating all Palestinians from Gaza to Jordan and Egypt, aiming to resettle them in newly developed communities. He advocates for the U.S. to take control of Gaza for reconstruction, envisioning it as a prosperous area akin to the “Riviera of the Middle East.” However, this controversial plan has faced significant backlash from Palestinian leaders and Arab nations alike, and critics argue it could be seen as a form of ethnic cleansing and a violation of international law.

In contrast, Yair Lapid’s plan, dubbed the “Egyptian solution,” involves a temporary Egyptian governance of Gaza’s civilian and security infrastructure for up to 15 years. This proposal envisions a demilitarized Gaza, where Egypt, in collaboration with Gulf states and global partners, would lead reconstruction efforts. Despite its intentions to incorporate Palestinian authorities, Lapid’s proposal has been rejected by Egypt, undermining its feasibility.

Egypt’s own reconstruction plan, approved by Arab nations, includes a comprehensive $53 billion initiative over five years focused on debris removal and substantial rebuilding efforts. This plan proposes the establishment of an autonomous committee of technocrats to manage Gaza, education and infrastructure development, while stopping short of asking for Hamas’s disarmament. Still, without clear financial commitments and amidst ongoing tensions, the plan faces many uncertainties.

Collectively, these proposals face significant obstacles, particularly if a ceasefire collapses. The recent expiration of an initial ceasefire phase and the ongoing Israeli blockade on aid to Gaza exacerbate the situation. Additionally, the persistent influence of Hamas complicates any governance transition, as significant powers in Gaza remain under their control. This landscape of reconstruction efforts is marred by geopolitical tensions, leaving the future of Gaza’s governance shrouded in uncertainty.

The question of who will govern Gaza after the war remains unresolved, with various proposals from Trump, Lapid, and Egypt offering differing visions for the enclave’s future. All plans present significant hurdles, aggravated by the fragility of the current ceasefire and the persistent influence of Hamas. To establish lasting peace and enable reconstruction, a unified and acceptable governance strategy is essential. However, the present climate underscores the complexities involved in achieving these goals, leaving Gaza’s prospects precarious as the situation evolves.

Original Source: foreignpolicy.com