This article discusses the competing proposals for post-war governance in Gaza from key leaders including Trump, Lapid, and Egypt. Each plan outlines different strategies for rebuilding Gaza and future governance but faces significant challenges, particularly in maintaining a cease-fire and addressing Hamas’s role. The proposals underline the complexities of achieving lasting peace and stability in the region.
The discussions regarding governance in Gaza after the conflict are ongoing and involve various proposals from U.S. President Donald Trump, Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid, and Egypt. Understanding who will govern Gaza post-war is crucial for establishing a lasting cease-fire and peace in the region. This article explores three competing plans to address the future of Gaza.
Trump’s Plan: Trump envisions removing Palestinians from Gaza and relocating them to Jordan and Egypt, where they would live in newly constructed communities. The U.S. would oversee the reconstruction of Gaza, transforming it into a luxury destination. However, this plan has faced severe criticism for potentially advocating ethnic cleansing and violating international law. It risks undermining Palestinian aspirations for self-governance and complicating Saudi-Israeli relations.
Lapid’s Plan: The Israeli opposition leader’s proposal, termed the “Egyptian solution,” suggests that Egypt take control of Gaza for up to fifteen years. It aims to lead a peacekeeping effort alongside international partners to rebuild Gaza while laying the groundwork for future self-governance. This plan does not remove residents but allows for those wishing to leave to do so. However, Egypt’s rejection of this plan could render it unfeasible.
Egypt’s Plan: Egypt has proposed a robust $53 billion initiative to rebuild Gaza over five years, focusing on infrastructure and housing. This plan suggests that Hamas would surrender power to a committee of technocrats while Palestinians remain. The proposal supports forming a peacekeeping force and training a police force but has been dismissed by the Trump administration due to concerns about disarming militant groups.
Common Challenges: All three plans face obstacles if the cease-fire collapses. Tensions are high as aid to Gaza is currently blocked, with Israel negotiating terms with Hamas. Moreover, Hamas’s continued control poses a significant challenge to any reconstruction process, as efforts to remove its authority have been unsuccessful. Without significant changes in governance or commitments from key stakeholders, rebuilding efforts may remain unviable in the unstable political landscape.
The future governance of Gaza hinges on the acceptance of one of several proposed plans from key figures and nations. Trump’s controversial approach advocates mass displacement and U.S. control, while Lapid’s vision relies on Egyptian leadership, and Egypt proposes an ambitious reconstruction strategy. Success in these efforts depends on maintaining the fragile cease-fire and garnering cooperation from involved parties, especially in mitigating Hamas’s influence.
Original Source: foreignpolicy.com
