I offered my comments for Tom Hussain’s story on the US rejection of the pan-Arab plan for Gaza’s post-war recovery, as a counterproposal to Mr. Trump’s outrageous “Riviera” idea.
The report, found here, features snippets of my full remarks. I would further add that:
(1) The Arab plan for Gaza represents a projection of solidarity by Arab leaders in a bid to counter Trump’s “Middle East Riviera” proposal, underscoring the broad consensus that the US president’s vision does not sit well not just with ruling elites, but also with their publics. The plan, however, remains narrowly focused on reconstruction and omits the crucial, intertwined elements of politics and security among other important details.
While Egypt appears to be taking the lead, questions over funding remain — the Arab plan lays down a plea for the international community and financial institutions to support Gaza’s reconstruction. In other words, there remain reservations by regional states in committing funds to the cause.
(2) Without Israeli assent to the Arab proposal, such a plan is at risk of being a mere document. The plan does not address the post-war role of Hamas, which is regarded as an existential threat by Israel. Without guarantees that Hamas will be discharged from any leadership duties, if not, disarmed at the very least, it is difficult to see how Israel — and the US — will take such a plan seriously.
Likewise, the plan’s support for a transitional Palestinian administration is not synonymous with reformed Palestinian leadership, and instead points to a temporary, technocratic takeover. Finally, the call for presidential and legislative elections — welcomed by Hamas — outlined in the same plan, will be problematic in charting a leadership path forward since it implies that the group is allowed to run and reorganise.
Dr. Clemens Chay 