The recent Israel-Gaza war has highlighted the challenges that Israel faces in implementing its “day after” plan for the Gaza Strip. The plan, outlined by Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, focuses on security measures and the rehabilitation of the area with the involvement of foreign players. However, there are concerns about the feasibility of the plan, the role of Hamas, and the political vacuum in the Palestinian territories. Additionally, the reactions from Arab governments and the United States add further complexity to the situation.
One of the major challenges for Israel is ensuring security in the Gaza Strip. The plan emphasizes Israel’s operational freedom of action and its commitment to preventing any threats to its security. However, given the history of violence in the region and the potential for future outbreaks, it remains uncertain whether Israel can successfully eliminate Hamas as a threat and maintain long-term security.
The plan also addresses the issue of the entry of goods into the Gaza Strip, which has been tightly controlled by Israel for the past two decades. While the plan affirms the continuation of this control, it proposes collaboration with Egypt and the United States to secure the porous border between Egypt and Gaza. This would involve addressing the problem of tunnels, which have been used for smuggling and military activities. However, the effectiveness of these measures remains to be seen.
One of the most significant aspects of the plan is the involvement of foreign players, such as the US, European, and Arab governments, in the rehabilitation of the Gaza Strip. The plan envisions the creation of a multinational task force responsible for this task, including the rebuilding of infrastructure, hospitals, schools, and universities that have been destroyed during the war. However, the willingness of these countries, particularly the EU and Gulf States, to invest in Gaza again after previous investments have been destroyed is uncertain.
Furthermore, there is a question of how the political vacuum in the Palestinian territories, particularly Gaza, will be addressed. The plan suggests the use of local non-hostile actors and administrative mechanisms to govern Gaza, with approval from Israel. This raises concerns about the exclusion of Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, which could further politically separate Gaza from the West Bank. Palestinians view both territories as integral parts of their national identity and will resist any attempt to sever that connection.
The reactions from Arab governments and the United States add further complexity to the situation. Arab governments have, until now, insisted on a ceasefire and the addressing of humanitarian consequences before discussing the “day after”. However, some experts argue that regional planning and investment in Gaza are necessary to prevent lawlessness and famine. The United States has expressed the desire to see the Palestinian Authority ruling over both the West Bank and Gaza, but this is in opposition to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s stance. Additionally, concerns have been raised about the potential resettlement of Palestinians outside of Gaza, fueling fears among the population.
Internally, there are divisions within Mr. Netanyahu’s government regarding the plan. Hardline members argue that reoccupying the Gaza Strip is necessary for security, while others advocate for allowing the Palestinians to stay but express concerns about the misuse of funds. This highlights the complexities of rebuilding Gaza and ensuring long-term stability.
In conclusion, Israel’s post-war plan for the Gaza Strip faces significant challenges. The issues of security, the involvement of foreign players, the political vacuum in the Palestinian territories, and internal divisions pose obstacles to the successful implementation of the plan. Additionally, the reactions from Arab governments and the United States further complicate the situation. The future of Gaza remains uncertain, and the stakes are high as the world grapples with finding a resolution for lasting peace and stability in the region.
