Germany Backs Egypt’s Gaza Reconstruction Plan

Germany on Friday expressed strong support for the Arab League’s reconstruction plan for Gaza, which stands as an alternative to US President Donald Trump’s proposed US takeover of Gaza.

“The German government welcomes the Arab League’s plan for the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip,” Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s spokesman Steffen Hebestreit told a news conference in Berlin.

“The plan includes many valuable elements we can build upon. Constructive discussions should begin immediately,” he said, adding that Berlin maintains that Gaza must not pose any security threat to Israel in the future.

At the same news conference, German Foreign Ministry spokesman Sebastian Fischer stated that the plan contributes significantly to a sustainable solution by addressing political and security concerns in the Gaza Strip.

“We also believe that it is appropriate to rely on the Palestinian Authority as a key player in this process,” Fischer said. “The plan supports the long-term goal of a two-state solution and also a resumption of direct negotiations between the Israeli and Palestinian sides. We also support this,” he added.

When asked about Germany’s position on other plans and proposals, such as the relocation of Palestinians to neighboring countries, Fischer firmly stated that “forced relocations and expulsions are always contrary to international law.”

Continue reading
Who is Going to Rebuild Gaza?

No official announcement was made following the Riyadh Summit, which was considered fraternal, friendly, and consultative rather than formal. The summit, held a few days ago, was attended by the Gulf states, along with Jordan and Egypt, in anticipation of the Cairo Summit scheduled for March 4. The Cairo Summit is expected to approve and announce a new Arab plan for rebuilding Gaza as an alternative to Trump’s plan. However, more importantly, the Arab plan presents a comprehensive political approach linking the Gaza issue to the establishment of a Palestinian state and a peaceful resolution in the region. This approach counters Israel’s new policies, which are based on political hegemony—not only in Palestine by eliminating the two-state solution but also by expanding Israel’s security boundaries to include parts of Syria and Lebanon and inciting the U.S. into a confrontation with Iran.

The Egyptian-Arab approach is still in its final stages of preparation. It takes into account a combination of financial, technical, political, and security aspects concerning Gaza. Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Mustafa has proposed modifications to the plan originally put forward by the World Bank, the United Nations, and the European Union, which estimated the cost of rebuilding Gaza at over $50 billion in a rapid and preliminary needs and damage assessment report (IRDNA). Instead, Mustafa proposed a more realistic and feasible plan costing no more than $20 billion, to be implemented in three phases. The Egyptians have incorporated this into their reconstruction plan, which includes dividing Gaza into three safe zones, using temporary housing (caravans) and tents, and developing a technical vision for redesigning the sector’s infrastructure through specialized Egyptian companies.

The Arab approach links the reconstruction plan to several key elements. The first is the technical, logistical, and financial aspect of rebuilding. The second is reforming the Palestinian Authority (PA) to counter Israeli claims of its incompetence, with reform measures covering political and security aspects. The third element concerns the administration of Gaza in the post-occupation phase. A significant development has occurred with the Palestinians agreeing on a temporary administrative committee responsible for technocratic affairs. Hamas has accepted this arrangement, and President Mahmoud Abbas has reluctantly agreed to it, as it implicitly means that the PA will not return to Gaza.

The most challenging aspect of the Arab plan lies in the security arrangements during the reconstruction phase. Arab states refuse to deploy security forces or enter Gaza without a clear vision for ending the Israeli occupation and establishing a Palestinian state. As Arab diplomats emphasize, what is needed is not just a roadmap for resolving the Palestinian issue, but rather an agreement on final-status issues and recognition of a Palestinian state—followed by a roadmap for implementation, not the other way around.

The most contentious issue in the Arab approach is Hamas’s weapons. Israel, along with the United States, will not accept Hamas retaining its weapons in Gaza. Israel has made it clear that it links the second phase of the process to this condition, and the U.S. has accepted this demand. On the other hand, the Arab side ties the issue of disarming non-state actors to the establishment of a Palestinian state that would have the exclusive right to possess weapons. The key question remains: Who would disarm Hamas? The only legitimate entity that could do so is a recognized Palestinian state, which remains the missing piece in U.S. policies that align with Benjamin Netanyahu’s vision.

The Arabs hope that this approach will establish a new framework for relations with the United States and offer alternative strategic options. They even believe it could persuade President Donald Trump to secure several achievements—perhaps even earning him a Nobel Peace Prize in the end.

This is undoubtedly a highly optimistic approach, but it represents a new Arab attempt to present a united position and alternative strategic options. However, the biggest challenge this vision overlooks lies in the details. As the saying goes, “the devil is in the details.” What kind of Palestinian state is actually possible under the current circumstances? What was previously proposed by Trump himself? Is there a single Palestinian—any Palestinian—who could accept a state comprising only 30% of the West Bank, without East Jerusalem, and without control over borders? How could Hamas and its supporters—or even the majority of Palestinian refugees—be convinced of such a proposal, even if there were Israeli and American acceptance of the new Arab approach?

Mohammad Abu Rumman is a columnist in The Jordan Times.

Continue reading
Cairo Confirms 4 March For Gaza Rebuild Summit

Egypt confirmed on Tuesday that it will host an emergency Arab summit on March 4 to discuss plans to rebuild the Gaza Strip without displacing its Palestinian inhabitants.

The summit was originally scheduled to be held on Feb. 27, but was postponed to March 4 “to complete logistical preparations,” the Egyptian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

The ministry said the new date was set in coordination with Bahrain, the current chair of the Arab League, and in consultation with Arab countries according to Anadolu.

The summit follows a proposal by US President Donald Trump to take over Gaza and resettle its Palestinian inhabitants to develop it into what he called “the Riviera of the Middle East.”

On Sunday, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi confirmed that his country is preparing a “comprehensive” plan to rebuild Gaza without displacing Palestinians.

Trump’s plan for Palestinian resettlement has been rejected by the Arab world and many other nations, who say it amounts to ethnic cleansing.

The controversial idea came amid the ceasefire agreement that took effect in Gaza on Jan. 19, halting Israel’s genocidal war, which has killed nearly 48,300 Palestinians, most of them women and children, and left the enclave in ruins.

Continue reading
Arabs Condemn Netanyahu’s Call For Palestinian State in Saudi Arabia

Arab countries strongly condemned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s statements suggesting the establishment of a Palestinian state in Saudi Arabia.

In an official statement, the Saudi Foreign Ministry reaffirmed its “categorical rejection” of such rhetoric, emphasizing that “the Palestinian people have a right to their land, and they are not intruders or immigrants to it who can be expelled whenever the brutal Israeli occupation wishes.”

The statement said, “This extremist, occupying mentality does not understand what the Palestinian land means to the brotherly people of Palestine,” asserting that Israel “does not think that the Palestinian people deserve to live in the first place.”

The Qatari Foreign Ministry said in a statement that Netanyahu’s statements are “a flagrant violation of international law and a blatant infringement of the United Nations Charter.”

The ministry affirmed Qatar’s full solidarity with Saudi Arabia and reiterated its “categorical rejection of calls for the forced displacement of the brotherly Palestinian people.”

In a statement, Jordan’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Sufian al-Qudah said, “The Israeli government continues its provocative policies and statements that undermine the sovereignty of nations and the principles of international law.”

He stressed Jordan’s “absolute rejection of these provocative statements, which reflect an exclusionary and inciting ideology hostile to peace and contribute to further escalation in the region.”

The Foreign Ministry in Muscat, in a statement, reaffirmed “Oman’s firm stance in support of the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on its full sovereign territory in Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital, based on the 1967 borders.”

The Bahraini Foreign Ministry, in a statement, expressed the kingdom’s “strong condemnation and denunciation of the irresponsible Israeli statements regarding the establishment of a Palestinian state on Saudi territory,” considering them a “blatant violation of international law and the UN Charter.”

The ministry reaffirmed “Bahrain’s full solidarity with Saudi Arabia and its unwavering support for its security, stability, and sovereignty.”

The Iraqi Foreign Ministry issued a statement expressing its “firm rejection of these remarks, which constitute a blatant violation of Saudi Arabia’s sovereignty and an attack on the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, in addition to contradicting international law and the UN Charter.”

The ministry emphasized “Iraq’s full solidarity with Saudi Arabia and its unwavering stance in supporting the security, stability, and sovereignty of nations.”

The Yemeni government, in a statement issued by the Foreign Ministry, condemned Israel’s arrogant and provocative remarks against Saudi Arabia, describing them as “a dangerous escalation that threatens the stability of the entire region.”

The ministry warned that “Israel’s arrogant statements not only target Saudi Arabia but also represent a serious escalation that endangers regional stability as a whole.”

https://twitter.com/PressTV/status/1888667745274724703

The Mauritanian Foreign Ministry, in a statement, described the Israeli prime minister’s remarks as “irresponsible,” adding that they “constitute an unacceptable violation of international norms and laws and a provocation that threatens the security and stability of the region.”

Arab League Secretary-General Ahmed Aboul Gheit firmly denounced “in the strongest terms” the Israeli prime minister’s remarks about relocating Palestinians to Saudi Arabia. He emphasized that “the logic behind these statements is completely unacceptable and reflects a total disconnect from reality.”

Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Secretary-General Jassem Al-Budaiwi stated that “these dangerous and irresponsible statements confirm the approach of the Israeli occupation forces in their lack of respect for international laws and treaties, as well as the sovereignty of nations.”

Palestinian resistance movement Hamas strongly described Netanyahu’s remarks as “hostile toward Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian people, reflecting an arrogant approach and a colonial mindset that disregards the historical rights of the rightful owners of the land.”

On Thursday, Netanyahu suggested that Palestinians should establish their state in Saudi Arabia rather than in their own homeland, dismissing any notion of Palestinian sovereignty.

“The Saudis can create a Palestinian state in Saudi Arabia; they have a lot of land over there,” he said.

Earlier, on Feb. 4, US President Donald Trump said Washington would “take over” Gaza and resettle Palestinians elsewhere under an extraordinary redevelopment plan that he claimed could turn the enclave into “the Riviera of the Middle East.”

His proposal was met with wide condemnations from the Palestinians, Arab countries, and many other nations across the world, including Canada, France, Germany, and the UK as reported in Anadolu.

Continue reading
Jordan: United Kingdom Plan and Dashing The Chance for Peace 

By Khairi Janbek

In order to reinforce the concept of the unity of the two banks, which was reaffirmed at the Cairo Arab Summit in 1970, and in order to placate the rising Palestinian sentiments, King Hussein unveiled on 15 March, 1972, his United Arab Kingdom Plan (UAK). 

In an address to the nation on that day, the late King elaborated on the proposed plan, as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan would, after the withdrawal of Israel from the West Bank, become the United Arab Kingdom comprising of two regions: First: Region of Palestine ie. West Bank and any future territories to be liberated and whose inhabitants opt to join in, with Jerusalem as its capital. Second: Region of Jordan, is East Bank and its capital Amman.

Furthermore, Amman would be the administrative capital of both regions. The King would be the head of state. There would be a local parliament and local government for each region, as well as a federal government and a parliament. There would be one federal supreme court and one army. 

The late King added, this arrangement is his preference, though he intended to give the Palestinians, after liberation, the opportunity to determine their own future, and pledged to respect their choice.

Despite the fact that this plan was only a proposal, it drew violent reactions from the PLO as well as the Arab states who all in the 1970 Arab League Summit reaffirmed the unity of the two banks. 

The late Mr. Yasser Arafat considered the plan a mere ressurection of Jordan’s long standing policy of insisting that the West Bank was an integral part of Jordan, and the Palestinians residents were Jordanian citizens. He considered that, a real threat to his own claim of representing the Palestinian people.

The late president Sadat of Egypt wanted to identify his own regime with the Palestinan cause, and announced before a cheering crowd at the Palestine National Council (PNC) meeting in Cairo on 10 April 1972, the break of diplomatic relations with Jordan. Syria, in order not to be upstaged by Egypt, cut diplomatic relations with Jordan and closed its borders.

Significantly the Plan remained under consideration until the Rabat Arab Summit of 1974, when the Arab states decided the sole representative of the Palestinian people should by the PLO. 

The Rabat Summit forced Jordan to withdraw from direct involvement in the peace process at the time when the eyes of the whole world and the attention of the USA, were focused on the settlement of the Arab-israeli conflict.

The Rabat decision confused the issue. Instead of concentrating on the basic problem of Israel’s occupation of Arab lands, the questions of Palestinian national rights and independent Palestinian state were introduced. The nature of the problem changed overnight. 

Jordan tried to seperate the issue of withdrawal from the issue of national rights of the Palestinian people. Jordan stood for the ending of the Israeli occupation of all Arab lands; occupied after 1967 war, establish peace and then address the question of Palestinian national rights within the context of inter-Arab relations.

But the Arabs states supported the claims of the PLO as the sole representative of the Palestinian people, and the PLO leadership was not prepared to accept Israel’s withdrawal from the West Bank in favor of Jordan, fearing that would prevent it from attaining its goal; Creation of an independent Palestinian state. 

The various Arab states supported the PLO for their own reasons, and were totally content to dump the Palestinian problem on the shoulders of the PLO.

The Late President Sadat and ex-US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, exploited the PLO’s position and the Arab support to it, and manipulated events in order to enable Egypt to sign a separate peace with israel. 

The Rabat decision which neutralized Jordan’s role, and paved the way for Egypt’s separate peace with Israel, enabled Tel Aviv to tighten its grip on the West Bank and the Golan Heights. 

Developments since Rabat have shown that, Jordan’s position for a comprehensive peace settlement with Israel, would have been the best chance for a lasting peace. A chance dashed in Rabat.

Dr Khairi Janbek is a Jordanian writer based in Paris and the above opinion is that of the author and doesn’t reflect crossfirearabia.com. 

Continue reading