The Arab League summit in Cairo endorsed a $53 billion plan by Egypt for Gaza, focusing on emergency relief and infrastructure rebuilding. Trump’s proposal to transform Gaza into a U.S.-run destination by relocating residents attracted criticism. Egypt’s alternative emphasizes temporary safe zones and job creation, while governance changes exclude Hamas. International support is sought for reconstruction and a potential Palestinian state.
On March 4, the Arab League convened in Cairo to discuss Egypt’s comprehensive plan for Gaza, valued at $53 billion. This 112-page proposal emphasizes emergency relief, rebuilding infrastructure, and promoting long-term economic development. While the plan received initial support from the conference, further specifics are still needed for implementation.
In contrast, Donald Trump presented his vision on February 4, aiming to transform Gaza into a Mediterranean hub by relocating its two million residents to nearby Arab nations. His approach was met with skepticism and ridicule, prompting Egypt to develop an alternative that does not involve displacing Gazans.
Egypt’s plan introduces “secure areas” within Gaza where Palestinians can temporarily reside during reconstruction led by Egyptian and international firms. This initiative could create tens of thousands of jobs for the local population. At the March summit, President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi expressed appreciation for regional consensus supporting the reconstruction, ensuring Palestinians remain on their land without displacement.
The proposed plan encompasses three phases over five years. The first six-month phase, costing approximately $3 billion, aims to establish “safe zones” for 1.5 million displaced individuals. This would include 200,000 prefabricated housing units and refurbishing 60,000 homes. The subsequent two-year phase will focus on rebuilding housing and utilities, costing $20 billion, while the final phase will develop an airport, two seaports, and an industrial zone for $30 billion.
Governance in the Strip will change under this initiative, with a temporary Governance Assistance Mission overseeing humanitarian aid, excluding Hamas. Despite this exclusion, Hamas has welcomed the plan as an affirmation of Arab solidarity with the Palestinian cause. The summit also called for deploying an international peacekeeping force and coordinating an international conference for Gaza’s reconstruction.
Funding for the initiative is likely to come from wealthy Gulf states, with a trust fund managed by the World Bank to allocate donor contributions effectively. A future discussion will address the development of a sovereign Palestinian state, emphasizing the need for interconnectedness between the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza.
Trump’s vision, presented earlier, proposed creating a Palestinian state in the West Bank with contiguity to Gaza through a network of roads and tunnels. While it faced immediate rejection from Palestinian leadership, some Arab nations, including Saudi Arabia and Egypt, were open to considering the proposal. Egypt recognized the importance of evaluating the U.S. initiative to restore full rights to Palestinians.
However, the Egyptian plan has encountered criticism in U.S. and Israeli circles, with officials deeming it unfeasible given Gaza’s current conditions. Brian Hughes from the White House emphasized that Trump’s approach to rebuilding Gaza, free from Hamas, remains the administration’s focus. Israeli officials echoed this sentiment, claiming Egypt’s proposal is based on outdated perspectives.
Nonetheless, the Egyptian plan received endorsements from leaders like UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, indicating potential for collaboration on Gaza’s rebuilding efforts. Initial U.S. and Israeli responses to the Arab initiative may evolve, especially as recent reports reveal U.S. engagement in talks with Hamas regarding a ceasefire.
The contrasting plans for Gaza’s future from Egypt and Donald Trump underscore differing approaches to addressing the ongoing conflict. Egypt’s comprehensive proposal prioritizes stability and the well-being of Palestinians, focusing on rebuilding the infrastructure while keeping the population in their homeland. Meanwhile, Trump’s bold approach aims to radically change Gaza’s governance and territorial organization. Both plans have their merits and shortcomings, drawing varying support from regional powers and the international community. The future of Gaza will depend on which proposal gains traction and how stakeholders navigate the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Original Source: www.jpost.com
