Putting The Cart Before The Horse

With the approach of the Cairo Summit to discuss the Palestinian issue and the reconstruction of Gaza, Arab leaders find themselves facing three main scenarios to make decisive decisions that determine the future of Gaza and the fate of the Palestinians the day after the cessation of the war. The dilemma is no longer limited to reconstruction only but also includes the political and administrative arrangements that ensure the stability of the sector and prevent the recurrence of the devastating conflict.

From the American side, it seems that the Trump administration is adopting a more stringent approach, as it recently stated the necessity of displacing Palestinians from Gaza as a “solution” to ensure regional security, which reflects its traditional position biased towards Israel and complicates any Arab efforts to find an independent solution for the sector.

 This American position raises great concerns in Arab and international circles, given the disastrous consequences it carries for the Palestinians and the entire region, especially in light of the widespread international rejection of forced displacement policies.

The first scenario involves adopting a comprehensive regional solution led by Arabs, aiming to place Gaza under temporary Arab administration, which may include Egypt and perhaps some Gulf states, in coordination with the Palestinian Authority. In this scenario, a transitional body would be established to administer the Strip, which would undertake reconstruction operations, organize basic services, and reorganize the security situation in a way that prevents the recurrence of the conflict. 

This body could also work to pave the way for comprehensive Palestinian elections to be held later, so that Gaza would be part of a unified Palestinian entity. 

This temporary administration would work to restructure institutions within the Strip, ensure the regular provision of health and education services, and rehabilitate infrastructure damaged by the war. It would also undertake the tasks of securing the crossings and ensuring the flow of humanitarian aid, while imposing strict control to prevent the infiltration of any elements that might contribute to destabilization. 

It is expected that the contributing Arab states would have different roles, as Egypt could handle security aspects, while the Gulf states would contribute to financing and reconstruction. This option requires Arab and international consensus, as well as internal Palestinian acceptance, which may be difficult in light of the differences between the factions. 

Israel may not view this scenario favorably, as it strengthens the Arab role in Gaza and limits its influence there. In addition, the success of this scenario depends on the Arabs’ ability to impose a unified vision and work to reduce external interventions that may hinder this solution. Ultimately, this scenario remains a realistic option, but it is fraught with challenges that require active diplomacy and strong political will.

As for the second scenario, it is to support the restructuring of the Palestinian Authority and grant it full control over Gaza after reaching internal understandings with the various factions, including Hamas. In this framework, the security services are integrated into a unified framework under the supervision of the Authority, and the administrative institutions are unified, with an Arab and international commitment to provide financial and logistical support to ensure the success of this transition.

One of the main pillars of this scenario is rebuilding trust between the various Palestinian factions, which requires intensive efforts from regional and international mediators, especially Egypt and the United Nations. This proposal also requires providing guarantees that the faction leaders will not be targeted or excluded from the political scene, which necessitates establishing a joint governance mechanism for a transitional period.

This scenario depends primarily on the ability of the Palestinian Authority to impose its effective control over the Strip, which is doubtful, especially in light of the deep differences between the West Bank and Gaza, and the lack of trust between the Palestinian parties. 

In addition, Hamas’s acceptance of this proposal may be conditional on effective participation in governance, which may not be acceptable to Israel or some regional powers. Moreover, this solution faces obstacles related to the extent of the international community’s ability to commit to funding reconstruction, and to ensuring that Israel does not obstruct any efforts aimed at strengthening the Palestinian Authority’s control over the Strip.

The third scenario, which may be the most complex, is to impose an international solution under the auspices of the United Nations, whereby international peacekeeping forces are deployed to oversee the administration of Gaza for a transitional period, during which the Strip is rebuilt, and the political conditions are prepared to find a comprehensive Palestinian settlement. 

In this scenario, the infrastructure is rehabilitated, security guarantees are provided to prevent the outbreak of new confrontations, while the way is opened for an internal Palestinian dialogue under international auspices to reach an agreement on the future of governance in Gaza. 

This scenario also includes international supervision of the rehabilitation of civilian institutions in Gaza, ensuring the distribution of aid, and preventing the use of resources in any military activities that may lead to a renewal of the conflict. 

It could also contribute to reactivating the peace process between the Palestinians and the Israelis through an international mechanism that ensures the implementation of any understandings reached. 

However, this option faces several obstacles, most notably the rejection by some Palestinian forces of any direct international intervention in Palestinian affairs, and Israel may refuse to deploy international forces near its borders, preferring to keep Gaza under siege or in a state of instability that keeps it weak and unable to pose a security threat. 

Moreover, any international intervention will require consensus among the major powers, which may be difficult to achieve in light of global political tensions. Each of these scenarios carries its own challenges, and the optimal choice remains linked to the extent of the Arabs’ ability to unify their positions and make bold decisions that go beyond narrow political calculations. 

The main challenge lies in reaching a solution that spares Gaza further destruction, establishes a new phase of stability and development, and ensures that the Palestinian issue is not exploited in regional conflicts. The question remains: Will the Cairo Summit be able to overcome Arab differences and present a unified vision to save Gaza and its future?

Hasan Dajah is professor of Strategic Studies at Al-Hussein Bin Talal University

CrossFireArabia

CrossFireArabia

Dr. Marwan Asmar holds a PhD from Leeds University and is a freelance writer specializing on the Middle East. He has worked as a journalist since the early 1990s in Jordan and the Gulf countries, and been widely published, including at Albawaba, Gulf News, Al Ghad, World Press Review and others.

Related Posts

Gaza Cracks Trump’s Image as ‘Peacemaker’

By Giorgio Cafiero

The Gaza ceasefire had been extremely fragile ever since its implementation on Jan. 19. Many analysts doubted that phase two would begin, and the main question was about when, not if, the ceasefire would fall apart. It came as no surprise when Israel completely ended the ceasefire on March 18 and resumed its genocidal war on Gaza, killing roughly 600 [1] Palestinians within the first four days after the truce collapsed.

It is beyond disturbing to think about what will come next for the 2.2 million people in Gaza, especially given that Israeli authorities imposed [2] a blockade on all humanitarian aid on March 2. While briefing the UN Security Council on the day Israel resumed its war, UN Emergency Relief Coordinator Tom Fletcher said [3] “food is rotting and medicines are expiring.” The Israelis quickly undid all humanitarian progress achieved by international actors during the 42-day ceasefire. “Essential survival resources needed are now being rationed,” warned [4] Fletcher.

For all the misleading and outright inaccurate reporting in the Western media, it is clear that Hamas wanted phase two to begin, which was supposed to take place on March 1. However, Israel wanted phase one extended and was against moving into phase two. Had the second phase begun, Hamas would have handed over all the remaining Israeli captives. Now, amid this intense warfare, Hamas claims it is considering US Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff’s “Bridge Proposal,” which aims to extend the collapsed ceasefire into next month, beyond Ramadan and Passover, to permit negotiations for a permanent ceasefire to end this war.

It is not difficult to understand why this genocide resumed on March 18. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his allies in the government were crystal clear that they did not support the ceasefire and wanted Israeli military operations against Gaza to resume. It was only pressure from the incoming Donald Trump administration during the final days of Joe Biden’s presidency that led Tel Aviv to agree to the tenuous ceasefire. Now that the Trump administration removed that pressure on Israel and the American president went all-out with his rhetoric about “hell” in Gaza, Netanyahu received the green light from the White House to continue the genocide.


Trump’s desires and reality

What US President Donald Trump realistically sought to achieve with his obscene rhetoric about a “clean out” [6] of Gaza and outlandish talk of transforming the war-ravaged enclave into the “Riviera of the Middle East” [7] is a question for another article. Nonetheless, it is easy to conclude that such language emboldened the most right-wing and aggressive Israeli elements, including those in the government. These extremists have spent decades fantasizing about a second Nakba and establishing a Palestinian state outside Palestine.

Put simply, for Netanyahu and those around him to champion this plan of mass ethnic cleansing and forced displacement of millions of Palestinians into Egypt, Jordan, and perhaps also some Gulf Arab countries, continuing the war on Gaza is a necessary part of this process. After all, human history has shown that people don’t volunteer to leave their ancestral homeland but typically only do as a result of massive bloodshed.

The Israeli leadership understands this about the Palestinians and their quest to remain on their land. So much was on display with the leaflets [8] that Israel’s military recently dropped on Gaza, which threatened to make Trump’s plan for a “clean out” of Gaza the new reality.

To be sure, Israel’s domestic politics and Netanyahu’s own legal situation were relevant factors too. By restarting the war on Gaza, Netanyahu was able to secure stability within his own coalition. Now, not only is there no reason for him to fear more cabinet members quitting the coalition, but former Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir who left in January because of the ceasefire has returned [9] due to the genocide’s resumption.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu’s testimony in his corruption trial, set for the day that the war on Gaza recommenced, was postponed, [10] highlighting how “security developments” [11] shield him from legal consequences for his alleged [12] breach of trust, bribery, and fraud.

A key question is, where does this all leave Trump? After all, he campaigned on being a “peacemaker” president. While delivering his inaugural address just over two months ago, Trump declared, [13] “We will measure our success not only by the battles we win but also by the wars that we end — and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into.”

At this point, Trump might find himself trapped in Gaza, preventing him from reducing the US military footprint in the Middle East. Trump is escalating conflicts in the region—from Gaza to Yemen and possibly soon Iran—that could keep the US bogged down in this part of the world, which is the opposite of his promises regarding US foreign policy if elected to a second term. It remains to be seen how Trump’s support for Israel’s actions in Gaza and his escalation in Yemen—closely tied to Palestine—will impact his standing among his MAGA base.

The author is the CEO of Gulf States Analytics

[1] https://www.euronews.com/2025/03/22/israel-orders-idf-troops-to-advance-deeper-into-gaza-as-renewed-operation-expands

[2] https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/02/middleeast/israel-halts-gaza-humanitarian-aid-intl-hnk/index.html

[3, 4] https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/03/1161246

[5] https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-intensifying-gaza-strikes-press-hamas-into-freeing-hostages-defence-2025-03-21/

[6] https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/27/middleeast/trump-clean-out-gaza-middle-east-intl/index.html

[7] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/trumps-gaza-israel-plans-riviera-rcna190748

[8] https://www.newarab.com/news/israel-drops-leaflets-saying-no-one-will-care-if-gazans-vanish

[9] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/3/18/israels-ben-gvir-to-rejoin-netanyahus-government

[10,11,12] https://www.middleeasteye.net/live-blog/live-blog-update/report-netanyahus-testimony-corruption-trial-postponed-due-gaza-war

[13] https://www.whitehouse.gov/remarks/2025/01/the-inaugural-address/

Continue reading
The Middle East Octopus

By Dr Khairi Janbek

When we think of contemporary Iran, one always believes that the Arab Middle East had always been dominated by three Non-Arab American allies: Iran of the Shah, Turkey and Israel. One thinks that those “neighborhood police stations” were the guarantors of stability through their convergence, and at times contradictions in the age of Cold War and oil. However, the Shah of Iran was deposed and the anti-communist Cold War ended, but that didn’t mean that oil stopped becoming important nor that both Russia and China were no longer threats.

One would say, that the rehabilitation of Iran and possibly turning it into a negotiations partner aims at keeping the third angle of the police stations triangle going, because non of the Arab countries, no matter how much they tried, could never replace Iran, because no “Arab police station” is permitted to emerge as a third angle.

Having said that, it would be beyond naive to think that the expansion of Iran’s power and influence happened by stealth or escaped the notice of the US and NATO. After all, Iran grew to become a Red Sea country through its influence on the Houthis in Yemen, a Mediterranean country through its influence in Syria as well Lebanon through Hezbollah, and the major Gulf country through its supporters in Iraq. In fact this Iranian domination of space is what has created a common space between all its long arm organizations in the region.

Essentially, if we compare Iran to an octopus, all those various groups are its tentacles, and they all serve the purpose of Iran’s strategic interests, albeit not through a push-button approach, but through not taking any action which would not please their master Iran. Of course, this puts Iran in a strong position to be a major player in the region and an inescapable negotiations partner for the US, which is also convenient for the Americans, in order to remind their Arab allies who is their protector in a region policed by Turkey, Israel and Iran.

Of course, this takes us to the point of saying that, for all intents and purposes, for the Americans a trusted adversary is more important than distrusted friends, and that it would be absurd to think that all those long arms of Iran in the Arab world can be amputated by military means; they certainly can be weakened, but without the consent of Iran and without the right price, so long as it remains behind them, nothing much can change.

At this point, from what one can only see, is that no one in their right mind or otherwise, will permit a war to emerge in which Israel is pitted against Iran and the US as well as NATO putting all their weight behind Israel and forcing the Arabs to choose their camp. That would be the scenario of the end of the world as we know it , or with major civil wars in the Arab countries controlled by the tentacles of Iran, and no one wants that.

Dr Janbek is a Jordanian writer based in Paris

Continue reading

You Missed

Burning Muslim Civilization

Burning Muslim Civilization

Israel Kills Journalist and His Family in Gaza

Israel Kills Journalist and His Family in Gaza

‘Its as Bad as Ever in Gaza’ – UN Workers

‘Its as Bad as Ever in Gaza’ – UN Workers

Thank You Annie

Thank You Annie