The article discusses two contrasting plans for Gaza’s future—one proposed by Egypt and another by Donald Trump. The Egyptian plan focuses on $53 billion for emergency relief and infrastructure reconstruction without displacing Palestinians. In contrast, Trump’s plan involves relocating the Gaza population to make way for a U.S.-administered zone. Both proposals have received varied reactions, highlighting the complexities in resolving Gaza’s situation.
On March 4, the Arab League convened in Cairo to deliberate a comprehensive plan for Gaza’s future, orchestrated by Egypt, totaling approximately $53 billion. This extensive proposal, detailed within a 112-page document, emphasizes emergency relief, reconstruction of damaged infrastructure, and long-term economic enhancement. While the summit recognized the plan, future discussions will refine the subsequent phases.
In contrast, on February 4, President Donald Trump unveiled a proposal to transform Gaza into a U.S.-managed “Riviera of the Middle East,” which controversially involves relocating its two million inhabitants to nearby Arab states. The reaction from the Arab world was predominantly one of shock and ridicule, but some interpreted Trump’s approach as a strategic maneuver to encourage a proactive response to Gaza’s future from Arab nations.
Following Trump’s announcement, Egypt promptly began developing an alternative that would not involve the displacement of Gazans. The Egyptian proposal outlined the establishment of “secure areas” for temporary habitation of Palestinians while reconstruction of Gaza’s infrastructure, spearheaded by multiple Egyptian and international firms, would occur. This initiative aims to create tens of thousands of jobs for the local populace, evidencing a commitment to stabilize and rebuild the region.
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi expressed gratitude at the summit for the consensus among Arab countries in supporting Gaza’s reconstruction plan, which enables Palestinians to remain in their homeland. He additionally articulated a vision to work collaboratively with the international community to address the underlying causes of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and seek a just settlement.
The Egyptian framework is divided into three phases over five years. The initial phase, expected to last six months and cost approximately $3 billion, will establish 200,000 prefabricated housing units for 1.5 million displaced individuals. The subsequent two-year phase will focus on rebuilding housing and utility infrastructure, amounting to an estimated cost of $20 billion. The final phase will involve constructing an airport, two seaports, and an industrial zone at a cost of $30 billion.
A significant component of the Egyptian plan is the formation of a temporary Governance Assistance Mission, which would exclude Hamas and oversee humanitarian aid until temporary governance is transitioned to a reformed Palestinian Authority. Despite their exclusion, Hamas has publicly supported the plan, viewing it as an endorsement of the Palestinian cause.
The Arab League summit’s resolution called for the UN Security Council to establish an international peacekeeping force in Gaza and the West Bank. Egypt also committed to hosting a cooperative international conference with the UN to finalize reconstruction strategies. Funding is anticipated from affluent Gulf states and a World Bank-managed trust fund to oversee pledges and donations.
An essential aspect of future discussions remains the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state, with plans for connectivity between the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza as a priority. Comparatively, Trump’s earlier proposal aimed at creating a Palestinian state in the West Bank, excluding settlements, and a significantly enlarged Gaza, connected via extensive infrastructure. This proposition faced immediate rejection from Palestinian leadership but received tacit support from some Arab nations, including Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
Egypt’s reconstruction proposal, endorsed by the Arab League, struggled to gain favor within U.S. and Israeli circles. White House officials criticized it as impractical, citing Gaza’s uninhabitable conditions due to debris and unexploded ordnance. Conversely, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres expressed strong support for the Arab-led initiatives at the summit, advocating for UN cooperation in Gaza’s reconstruction.
There exists potential for U.S. and Israeli positions to evolve in light of ongoing discussions, especially following reports of U.S. engagement with Hamas regarding ceasefire conditions, suggesting an opening for negotiation on Gaza’s future.
The contrasting proposals for Gaza’s future from Egypt and Donald Trump present distinct visions for the territory’s reconstruction and governance. The Egyptian plan emphasizes on-the-ground infrastructure rebuilding and job creation while ensuring the Palestinian populace remains in their homeland. In contrast, Trump’s approach advocates for a significant restructuring of Gaza, involving population relocation and a focus on U.S. administration of the area. With diverse global reactions and ongoing discussions, the path forward for Gaza remains uncertain, yet the necessity for international collaboration is evident.
Original Source: www.jpost.com
