Postwar Governance in Gaza: Proposals and Challenges

Various proposals for postwar governance in Gaza have emerged from U.S. President Trump, Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid, and Egypt. Trump’s plan suggests relocating Palestinians, while Lapid’s focuses on Egyptian control. Egypt’s rebuilding plan aims to revitalize Gaza but faces obstacles. Ensuring a sustainable cease-fire is essential to advance any proposal.

The question of who will govern Gaza following the current conflict is pivotal for achieving lasting peace in the region. Various proposals have emerged from significant political figures, including U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid, alongside Egypt’s involvement. Addressing these plans is crucial as their acceptance will determine the viability of a permanent cease-fire and eventual stability in Gaza.

President Trump’s controversial plan suggests resettling all Palestinians from Gaza to Jordan and Egypt. He proposes U.S. stewardship over the rebuilding of Gaza, envisioning it as a major tourist destination. However, while Israel has shown support, the plan faces severe criticism for its implications of ethnic cleansing and potential violations of international law, along with significant political backlash from Arab allies.

Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid’s proposal, dubbed the “Egyptian solution,” involves the establishment of Egyptian authority over Gaza’s security and civilian management for up to fifteen years. This plan aims to demilitarize Gaza while promoting the eventual self-governance of its residents. However, Lapid admitted to not consulting Egypt prior to unveiling the plan, which Egypt subsequently rejected.

Egypt’s plan, approved by Arab nations, outlines a $53 billion initiative for rebuilding Gaza in three phases over five years. This would include immediate debris removal, followed by construction efforts for housing and infrastructure. Under this proposal, Hamas would relinquish power to an independent committee to guide governance, yet it too faces skepticism concerning the disarmament of militant groups and the legitimacy of the Palestinian Authority.

Sustaining the cease-fire is crucial for any postwar governance strategy. The current situation suggests growing instability, as Israel is imposing conditions on aid and Hamas is accused of undermining the cease-fire. Any resumption of intense hostilities may derail all proposals, leading to further uncertainty about Gaza’s future governance.

In conclusion, the future of Gaza’s governance post-conflict remains uncertain as three key proposals from Trump, Lapid, and Egypt reflect contrasting approaches. Each plan faces significant hurdles including political backlash, lack of consensus, and regional tensions. Achieving sustainable peace will require a carefully negotiated strategy that considers both the reconstruction of Gaza and the aspirations of its people, amid the fragility of the current cease-fire.

Original Source: foreignpolicy.com