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.

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