Rebuilding Gaza: The Arab Plan V. Trump’s Displacement

By Michael Jansen

The Muslim world has added its considerable weight to the plan adopted by the Arab summit for the reconstruction of Gaza while Palestinians remain in the strip. A meeting last week in Jeddah at foreign minister level of the 57-member Organisation for Islamic Cooperation extended full support to the detailed plan drawn up by Egypt. Therefore, both the Arab world and worldwide Muslim Umma have rejected the proposal of Donald Trump to expel 2.3 million Palestinians from Gaza and transform the devastated coastal trip into a “Middle Eastern Riviera.”

The 91-page $53 billion Egyptian plan itself is a major accomplishment as it was drawn up in less than 30 days. Its framework was presented last month to a mini-summit in Saudi Arabia of the Gulf countries, Egypt and Jordan, and approved on by Arab foreign ministers ahead of the maxi-summit.

https://twitter.com/swilkinsonbc/status/1896998936856105132

During the first six-month $3 billion stage of the plan Hamas would cease administering Gaza and a committee of Palestinian technocrats overseen by the Palestinian Authority would clear rubble from the main north-south Salaheddin highway. Palestinian residents would shift to seven relatively clear sites where 200,000 temporary housing units would be built to shelter 1.2 million. Additionally, 60,000 damaged buildings would be repaired to house thousands. Egypt and Jordan would train a Palestinian police force to enable a reformed Palestinian Authority to take over Gaza’s governance from Hamas. Nothing was said about disarming Hamas’ military wing which could be a contentious issue.

The second $20 billion two-year reconstruction stage would focus on permanent housing and rehabilitation of agricultural land, electricity, water, sewage and telecom-munications. The third 2.5-year stage costing $30 billion would continue with housing and build an industrial zone, a fishing port, a commercial seaport, and an international airport. Funding would be raised from donors in the Gulf, Europe, the US and international financial institutions. Disbursement and investment would be internationally supervised.

It is hardly surprising that the US and Israel should reject the Arab/Muslim plan. US National Security Council spokesman Brian Hughes issued a statement which said, “The current proposal does not address the reality that Gaza is currently uninhabitable, and residents cannot humanely live in a territory covered in debris and unexploded ordnance. President Trump stands by his vision to rebuild Gaza free from Hamas. We look forward to further talks to bring peace and prosperity to the region.” Trump, however, did not propose a Gaza free from Hamas but a Gaza free from Palestinians. This is neither acceptable nor legal under international law.

Despite, Hughes dismissal, Washington appears to be divided. Trump’s regional envoy Steve Witkoff said, “There’s a lot of compelling features” in Egypt’s plan for postwar Gaza, and observed that there was “a path” for Hamas to leave Gaza.

The Israeli foreign ministry said the Egyptian plan “fails to address the realities of the situation.” For the ministry these “realities” were created by the October 7th, 2023, raid on southern Israel by Hamas which killed 1,200. Naturally, the ministry reiterated Israel’s support for Trump’s plan as “an opportunity for the Gazans to have free choice based on their free will.” By this, the ministry meant bombed and starved Palestinians would freely choose to leave Gaza although Gazans have said they have chosen to stay in the strip despite dire conditions.

https://twitter.com/MiddleEastEye/status/1898059822869737723

Gazans are determined to resist a second Nakba, their catastrophic 1948 expulsion from their cities, towns and villages. This left them homeless, landless and stateless and the world has done nothing to remedy their situation over the past 77-years although the “path” to a Palestinian state has been charted since 1988 when the Palestinian National Council issued the Palestinian Declaration of Independence and a call for a mini-state in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza, 22 per cent of the Palestinian homeland.

 While 30 per cent of Gazans are indigenous, 70 per cent were driven into the Gaza strip from nearby areas. Many still live in UN refugee camps. More than 30,000 took part in the Great March of Return by protesting along the border between Gaza and Israel. The demonstrations began on March 30, 2018, and continued until December 27, 2019. The mainly peaceful protesters demanded the right to go home in areas conquered by Israel in 1948 and an end to the Israeli blockade of Gaza. Israeli snipers opened fire at protesters, killing 266 youngsters and injuring almost 30,000 others, Gaza’s health ministry reported. Many of the injured received crippling wounds in the legs.

These demonstrations should have been proof positive that Gazans are not going anywhere else. For them, Gaza is their home, their present and their future. The Arab plan is designed to provide a decent life for native Gazans and refugees alike in a scrap of territory which amounts to one per cent of their occupied Palestinian homeland.

The writer is a columnist in The Jordan Times.

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

Oslo: Strangling The Dove

By Dr Khairi Janbek

When we do a recap of the Oslo Agreements, they were a series of accords between Israel and the PLO signed in 1993. It was a process meant to lead to a permanent settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict within five year, including decisions on borders, refugees, security, Jerusalem and settlements.

But right from the start, voices were divided over the process, while for others, the whole idea had a built-in mechanism for failure from the start. The Palestinians started seeing that the Oslo Agreements were neither ending the establishment of Israeli settlements nor the end to occupation, while for the Israelis it didn’t seem to end their security concerns.

Indeed, it is pointless to think which comes first, the chicken or the egg, because two different fears and logistics persisted from the start.  But also, it is important to think about the circumstances which brought about the idea of launching the process, and which did put the PLO in a tough position for being perceived as supporting the wrong side which lost; Iraq.

The room for manoeuvre for the late Yasser Arafat was very tight as he stood to lose the legitimacy of the PLO.

What one is trying to say is that, right from the start, outside official circles, many on the Palestinian side were against Oslo probably as many as was the case on the Israeli side.

The gradual erosion of Oslo mainly through the continued Israeli actions kept feeding extremism on both sides.  Nevertheless, the concept was not revoked by any Israeli government because of its effect on Arab public opinion, pressure which is likely to block any peace initiative. Moreover, the international atmosphere was not conducive for such an initiative.

Having said that, one cannot claim that the international atmosphere is currently more indifferent to the abrogation of the Oslo, rather Israel seems to have more leeway in undertaking unilateral actions with more impunity.

Of course, it is not international law that can be counted on in this respect but rather, at least for the time being Donald Trump’s disapproval of the idea of annexing the West Bank by Israel. This is despite the fact that all the Israeli actions of dividing the West Bank from north to south first and currently from west to east, goes unnoticed. But the important thing has been till now, and don’t say the magic word, end of Oslo.

However, the recent development is that Israeli political parties, the partners in Netanyahu’s government are all pushing openly, for the abrogation of the Oslo agreements and cancelling out all the Israeli obligations towards it.

One can only say such an open declaration is a matter of principle by the Israeli government, because the changes on the ground are there for all to see. One supposes all parties are playing for time to see the end of the Palestinian national aspirations.

The columnist is a Jordanian writer based in Paris, France

Continue reading
How Trump Burned Western Friendships

By Jassem Al-Azzawi

Something remarkable is happening today in the corridors of western powers. America’s closest allies are no longer whispering their frustrations behind closed doors; they are now shouting them from the podiums of their parliaments and in press conferences. And US president Donald Trump is responding in kind. The transatlantic alliance, painstakingly built over eight decades, is now fracturing in a live broadcast.

The immediate cause is the American-Israeli war on Iran, launched on 28 February, 2026, without consulting NATO partners, United Nations, or even Washington’s closest friends. But the rift runs deeper than a single conflict; it reflects a strategy that is indifferent to its allies, or even openly contemptuous of them.

“The Americans clearly lack a strategy.”

The breaking point was starkly illustrated in the frank remarks made by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz to students in Marsberg, northwest Germany. Merz likened the conflict with Iran to past US failures in Afghanistan and Iraq.

“It’s clear the Americans don’t have a strategic plan,” he said, describing Washington’s approach as “ill-conceived.”

He went even further, suggesting that the US was being “humiliated” by Tehran’s negotiating tactics which is a stunning public accusation from a Chancellor who, until recently, was one of Washington’s most hawkish European allies.

Trump reacted furiously, writing on his TruthSocial platform that Merz “doesn’t know what he’s talking about” and threatening to reduce the number of US troops stationed in Germany, currently at 36,436. He then told the German chancellor to mind his own business:

“The Chancellor of Germany should spend more time ending the war between Russia and Ukraine, where he has been completely ineffective, and fixing his own battered country… rather than meddling in the affairs of those who are eliminating the Iranian nuclear threat.”

This verbal sparring is transcending all diplomatic norms and is shakening the foundations of the US-European axis.

Starmer: “I’m fed up,” he says publicly.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer invested considerable political capital in cultivating a working relationship with Trump, but that investment has now proven costly. When asked about Trump’s threats to destroy Iran, Starmer told ITV:

“These are not words I would ever use, because I speak from our British values ​​and principles.”

The harshest language came when Starmer placed Trump alongside Vladimir Putin as partners in causing British economic hardship, telling Talking Points:

“I’m fed up with seeing families and businesses across the country struggling with fluctuating energy bills because of Putin’s or Trump’s actions around the world.”

On British military involvement, Starmer was unequivocal: “I will not change my mind, and I will not back down. It is not in our national interest to join this war, and we will not do so.” Trump rewarded this initial stance with a statement to The Sun newspaper: “Starmer has not been cooperative. The relationship is clearly not what it used to be,” he said.

Meanwhile, the International Monetary Fund underscored the scale of the material risks by lowering its 2026 growth forecast for Britain to 0.8 percent. This is a direct consequence of the energy shock Trump’s trade war has inflicted on British households.

Sanchez and Carney: Europe and Canada Draw a Line

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has emerged as the most vocal European leader in his criticism of Trump and his uncompromising stance. After Trump threatened to sever all trade ties with Madrid following Spain’s refusal to allow US troops to use the Rota and Morón air bases, Sanchez did not back down. When the ceasefire was announced, his judgment was scathing:

“A ceasefire is always good news, but this temporary relief cannot make us forget the chaos, destruction, and lives lost. The Spanish government will not applaud those who set the world ablaze just because they have finally appeared with a bucket of water.”

For his part, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney offered a broader structural indictment, stating in a speech at the Lowy Institute in Sydney:

“Geostrategically, dominant powers are increasingly acting without restraint or respect for international norms and laws, while others bear the consequences.”

He described the war as “a failure of the international order,” adding that “the United States and Israel acted without engaging the United Nations or consulting allies, including Canada.”

The alarm bells were not only ringing abroad; Senate Democrats launched a fierce campaign to reclaim congressional authority over a war they deemed illegal, unauthorized, and a diplomatic disaster.

Senator Tim Kaine’s diagnosis was accurate: “There was no clear justification, no clear plan, and no effort to engage allies or Congress. When you make diplomacy impossible, you make war inevitable.”

Senator Chris Murphy was even more blunt.

“We have never seen a foreign conflict so publicly mismanaged. We have become a laughingstock around the world, while hurting Americans who are now paying billions more in fuel prices.” Senator Tammy Duckworth linked the current disaster to America’s post-World War II pattern, saying:

“Our duty is to ensure that our nation never again slides into an endless, self-serving war.” Despite this, all six war powers resolutions introduced by the Democrats failed due to Republican loyalty to Trump, even as the war cost the lives of 13 Americans in its first month and the price of a gallon of gasoline reached $4.30.

Time for reckoning has come…

Whether Trump’s antagonism toward allies is a strategic dismantling or simply the impulsiveness of a leader who confuses aggression with strength, the result is the same. He threatened to withdraw from NATO, imposed trade sanctions on Spain, threatened to withdraw troops from Germany, and pushed the “special relationship” with Britain to the brink of collapse. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s warning also came to light.

Trump will “re-examine” Washington’s commitments to allies who did not support the war, as a declaration of “conditional friendship.”

America’s friends are being pushed away, its adversaries are watching, and the West, for the first time since 1945, is genuinely unsure whether it can rely on Washington.

Jassem Al-Azzawi is an Iraqi writer and journalist who contributed this article to the Arabic website, Al Rai Al Youm and appears in Crossfirearabia.com.

Continue reading

You Missed

Israel Kills 200 Lebanese Children – UNICEF

Israel Kills 200 Lebanese Children – UNICEF

Nakba – 78 Years of Occupation Misery

Nakba – 78 Years of Occupation Misery

Palestinians Remember The Eveil Nakba

Palestinians Remember The Eveil Nakba

Nakba – 78 Years On

Nakba – 78 Years On

An Egyptian House in a German Town

An Egyptian House in a German Town

Nakba Art

Nakba Art