Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
A $53 billion reconstruction plan for Gaza, the establishment of a committee to govern the Strip for six months, preparations for the Palestinian Authority’s return and the possible deployment of international forces — this is the essence of Egypt’s initiative, presented at the Arab League’s emergency summit last Tuesday, dubbed the “Palestine Summit.”
The "Gaza 2030" plan is primarily a response to U.S. President Donald Trump’s call for an Arab-led initiative on Gaza. Arab states hoped the proposal would shut down the idea of forced population transfers from Gaza, which they vehemently oppose.
4 View gallery
Arab League meets in Egypt at 'Summit for Palestine'
(Photo: Egyptian Presidency, Reuters)
Israel's main concern is who will control Gaza after the war. Since early 2024, Egypt has been pushing for an administrative committee to govern Gaza, presenting it as a framework for a new order without Hamas.
Hamas, for its part, has embraced the initiative while rejecting any disarmament or withdrawal from Gaza. “We will accept any move based on Palestinian national consensus but oppose external attempts to impose a new order. Hamas doesn’t have to be part of that order and it’s unclear if we even want to be,” Hamas spokesperson Hazem Qasim said.
The elephant in the room — Hamas’ continued armed presence — is addressed in the initiative with language unlikely to convince Israel: “The proliferation of armed groups in Gaza is a dilemma that can be managed and even eradicated through a clear political horizon and a diplomatic process.”
This effectively mirrors the Hezbollah model, under which Hamas retains military power and political influence across Gaza without formal sovereignty or civilian responsibility.
“Arab states are divided over Hamas’ future, particularly its military strength, and opted for vague wording, acknowledging that the group cannot currently be disarmed or persuaded to disarm,” said Wadie Awawdeh, a columnist for the London-based daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi.
The Palestinian Authority (PA) indeed seeks to return to Gaza but fears the initiative will serve as a mere facade while Hamas remains the real power, as happened in the 2014 and 2017 reconciliation efforts.
4 View gallery
Palestinian Authority Chair Mahmoud Abbas
(Photo: Michael M. Santiago / GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA / AFP)
In an attempt to assert relevance — likely under heavy Egyptian pressure — PA President Mahmoud Abbas announced several steps at the summit: an amnesty for Qatari loyalists expelled from Fatah after PA politician Mohammed Dahlan was accused of plotting against him; general and presidential elections in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem next year; and the appointment of a deputy to the chairman of the PLO Executive Committee, a move that strengthens the chances that Hussein Al-Sheikh, secretary-general of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, will succeed Abbas.
“This is fundamentally unserious, driven by external pressure. Abbas is notoriously fickle,” said Samer Sinijlawi, a senior figure in Dahlan’s West Bank faction.
Get the Ynetnews app on your smartphone: Google Play: https://bit.ly/4eJ37pE | Apple App Store: https://bit.ly/3ZL7iNv
The White House responded swiftly. “The promoted initiative fails to recognize that Gaza is currently uninhabitable and President Trump remains committed to its reconstruction without Hamas,” it said in a staetment. While not an outright rejection, it highlights the challenges of implementing the plan and ending the war and it did not close the door on Trump’s proposal, contrary to Arab hopes.
“The Arab world isn’t overly concerned with Washington’s response. There’s no viable alternative on the table and Trump may well push Arab states to modify the plan,” Sinijlawi explained. “Notably, some Arab states are dissatisfied with the Egyptian initiative, seeing it as overly tactical, focused on reconstruction and finances without strategic depth.
“A key indicator is that the UAE’s ruler and Saudi Arabia’s crown prince skipped the summit. If these two nations deepen their involvement, alongside assurances that American firms will play a role in reconstruction, Washington’s stance may soften,” he added.
Israel aligned with Trump’s position, with the Foreign Ministry spokesperson saying that: “The initiative is rooted in outdated perspectives, ignores the October 7 massacre and continues to rely on the PA and UNRWA.
4 View gallery
Caricature of Arab League throwing away Gaza transfer plan
(Illustration: Ashraq Al-Awast)
“For 77 years, Arab states have used the Palestinians against Israel, perpetuating their refugee status. Trump’s plan offers Gazans a chance at freedom and should be encouraged. Arab states rejected it without giving it a fair chance,” according to the Foreign Ministry.
The initiative underscores Israel’s limited strategic options and the need to distinguish between feasible solutions and fantasies. Currently, three alternatives exist. The first is a return to the pre-cease-fire combat model — prolonged attrition under the guise of steadily approaching total victory, without clear timelines.
The second is a full-scale occupation of Gaza, which would dismantle Hamas’ military and governmental capabilities but would require domestic consensus, international backing, a large-scale reserve mobilization and immense resources — none of which are currently evident.
In both scenarios, the chance of rescuing hostages alive is almost nonexistent, meaning the slogan of “destroying Hamas and freeing the hostages simultaneously” lacks viability.
The third alternative involves advancing the second phase of the hostage deal and possibly incorporating elements of the Arab initiative. This would come at a steep price, primarily allowing Hamas to remain in Gaza — albeit with its power curtailed through U.S. security oversight and non-Palestinian control of the Philadelphi Corridor.
It’s not an ideal scenario but it’s the lesser evil between the other two, which are currently impractical. Crucially, it remains the only viable path to securing the hostages’ release.
Meanwhile, various unrealistic notions persist — believing renewed fighting will pressure Hamas on hostages, force it out of Gaza or lead to its voluntary disarmament; finding an Arab actor to take over Gaza; or relying on Trump’s plan.
“Author Emile Habibi once sardonically observed that inter-Arab summits serve as a blessing for Israel, as they produce resolutions that continuously shift in Israel’s favor. The current initiative fits that description — it’s not ideal but it contains elements worth considering. Israel’s rigid stance risks missing strategic opportunities, chief among them normalization with Saudi Arabia,” Awawdeh explained
Looking ahead, Israel must align its objectives along a realistic timeline. The simultaneous pursuit of total victory and hostage release is unachievable. The most pragmatic near-term course is advancing Phase II of the hostage deal, despite its steep costs — ending the war and withdrawing from Gaza.
Dr. Michael MilshteinHamas is unlikely to “fade away,” or collapse in some hypothetical “Gazans’ Spring.” It will always seek to attack Israel and instill in Palestinians a vision of its destruction. Given this reality, in the long term, the only way to uproot Hamas will be through the full control of Gaza, prolonged presence there and the development of a viable alternative.
Such a historic endeavor is best undertaken by a leadership untainted by the failures of October 7 and the flawed assumptions that collapsed that day.
Dr. Michael Milshtein is the head of Tel Aviv University’s Dayan Center Forum for Palestinian Studies.