Who Will Govern Gaza Post-War?

The article examines the proposals for post-war governance in Gaza by Trump, Lapid, and Egypt. Each plan faces significant challenges in terms of acceptance, execution, and the ongoing cease-fire’s stability, highlighting the complicated dynamics in the region.

Post-war governance in Gaza is a contentious issue, with various significant proposals coming from U.S. President Donald Trump, Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid, and Egypt. The resolution of who will govern Gaza post-conflict is critical for achieving a lasting cease-fire and peace. Without a clear, mutually agreeable plan, a commitment to cease hostilities from either side remains improbable.

Trump’s proposal involves the resettlement of Palestinians from Gaza to Jordan and Egypt, suggesting that the U.S. would take control of Gaza and facilitate its transformation into a luxurious area akin to the “Riviera of the Middle East.” Critics argue that the plan is tantamount to ethnic cleansing and violates international laws regarding displacement.

Lapid’s plan, referred to as the “Egyptian solution,” envisions Egypt managing Gaza’s civil and security matters for a period of 8 to 15 years, with support from Gulf countries and the international community. This approach would include demilitarization and points towards eventual Palestinian self-governance. However, Egypt has not endorsed the proposal, complicating its viability.

Egypt has proposed a comprehensive $53 billion plan aimed at rebuilding Gaza over five years. This plan aims to remove debris and establish housing while retaining a temporary governing committee of technocrats to lead reconstruction efforts. The proposal promotes a two-state solution and does not require Palestinians to leave during rebuilding, yet has faced rejection from both Israeli and U.S. authorities.

One of the major hurdles for all three plans is the tenuous cease-fire, currently at risk of collapse due to ongoing aid blockades and military tensions. If fighting resumes, none of these governance plans can materialize. Moreover, the future of Gaza is complicated by Hamas’s persistent control, which both the U.S. and Israel oppose. Alternatively, Hamas might allow a shared governance model if certain conditions, including a Palestinian state, are met.

Furthermore, the escalating Israeli military actions in the West Bank could undermine any peace efforts, inflaming tensions as the region remains on edge. The situation remains highly volatile, necessitating a careful approach to avoid a return to conflict.

In conclusion, the question of post-war governance in Gaza involves competing plans from Trump, Lapid, and Egypt, each facing significant challenges. The outcome will depend on the delicate balance of regional politics, international interests, and the ongoing cease-fire’s stability. Without unanimous agreement and a commitment to a peaceful resolution, the prospects for governance and reconstruction remain uncertain amidst the current hostilities.

Original Source: foreignpolicy.com