The Arab Plan versus the American Proposal

The Arab Summit and later the Organization of Islamic Cooperation approved a detailed Arab plan for the day after the war on Gaza, which includes rebuilding Gaza without displacing Palestinians from it, in response to the US President’s proposal to rebuild but after displacing Palestinians from Gaza and then not returning to it. It is useful to look at some details about the differences between the plan and the proposal and the realism of each.

First, it is important to realize that what the US President presented does not go beyond the proposal without attaching any plan to implement it, which is to displace the residents of Gaza to Egypt and Jordan and not return to them, then rebuild Gaza and make it the “Riviera” of the region. Of course, Trump did not provide any mechanisms to displace two million Palestinians against their will, or what is legally known as ethnic cleansing, and he did not explain how the displacement to Egypt, which rejected this absolutely, did as did Jordan, which is not geographically linked to the Gaza Strip at all. Trump did not explain the reasons for refusing the return of Palestinians to Gaza after its “reconstruction” and its contradiction with his “sympathy” for the people of Gaza and his “desire” to provide them with a decent living without allowing them to return to their land and homeland. The proposal also did not explain how the United States would “own” Gaza, as Trump said, who would rebuild the Strip, and to whom its “ownership” would go. Despite the vagueness of the proposal, its blatant violation of all international laws, and its disregard for the fact that the Palestinians do not want to emigrate, nor are Egypt and Jordan prepared to receive them, the White House and the US State Department came out to describe the Arab plan as “unrealistic” as soon as it was issued, while Israel rejected it in its entirety. It is useful to review the main features of the Arab plan. In addition to presenting a detailed technical plan explaining how to rebuild without displacing the Palestinians through several stages that include housing them in prefabricated homes or tents, while reconstruction is carried out in stages extending over five years, while providing the residents with everything they need from mobile hospitals, schools, places of worship, and infrastructure. The plan also includes an estimated cost of $53 billion, and calls for a funding conference in Cairo next month to begin raising the necessary funds.

In addition to the detailed technical plan, the plan emphasizes essential matters for reconstruction to become a first step on the road to a political path that leads to ending the Israeli occupation and establishing a Palestinian state. The most important of these matters is recommitting to the Arab Peace Initiative, which calls for comprehensive peace after Israel withdraws from all occupied Palestinian territories, and calling for the start of an immediate political path to achieve this. Without this, it is difficult to imagine who in the international community would be willing to provide reconstruction assistance only to see Israel destroy it in the future, as it has done many times in the past.

What is required today is to mobilize the greatest possible international support for the plan, including the European Union, Russia, China, and Japan, and to try to convince the administration to adopt it, then pressure Israel to accept it.

The plan also emphasizes the unity of Gaza with the West Bank, especially in light of Israel’s repeated attempts to separate the Strip from Gaza in preparation for annexing the West Bank.

The plan proposes a transitional administration for the Strip consisting of independent technocrats under the supervision of the Palestinian Authority, following the agreement reached with Hamas not to participate in the administration of the Strip, in response to the Israeli and American argument that absolutely rejects such involvement.

The plan also recognizes, albeit indirectly, that the Palestinian Authority does not enjoy broad support among the Palestinians, and accordingly, in an unprecedented move, the summit highlighted the need for the Authority to carry out internal reforms that include presidential and legislative elections within a year. The plan also made clear, in response to the American and Israeli demand to disarm Hamas, that this can only be achieved if a realistic path to ending the occupation is agreed upon.

Any objective comparison of both the American proposal and the Arab plan shows that the latter is much more realistic than Trump’s proposal. However, the chances of its implementation face several obstacles, the first of which is that Israel is not interested in rebuilding Gaza, regardless of any plans that are presented that do not include displacing the Palestinians from their land, which is Israel’s primary goal. In addition, Israel is also not interested in talking about a political horizon that would end the Israeli occupation, because its eyes are on annexing the West Bank to Israel. It is noteworthy that neither Israel nor the United States have commented on the part related to the political horizon in the plan at all, which indicates their complete lack of interest in it.

While the American side has shown some flexibility regarding the plan in contradictory statements, it is not clear whether the Arab side will succeed in convincing the United States to adopt the plan, even with some amendments. The chances of achieving this, especially with Israeli intransigence, seem weak.

It is important to realize that the alternative to the Arab plan, if it is rejected, is not the unrealistic American proposal that lacks any serious mechanisms to achieve it. The alternative to the Arab plan is the continuation of war, destruction, and the killing of innocent civilians. Therefore, what is required today is to mobilize the greatest amount of international support for the plan, including the European Union, Russia, China, and Japan, and to try to convince the administration to adopt it, then pressure Israel to accept it. I realize how difficult this is, but it seems to be the only option on the scene today. As for the displacement option, it will most likely not pass in light of Palestinian steadfastness and Arab rejection. The next stage is very difficult and will require high-level Arab coordination, and even a unified Arab position that can withstand Israel's expansionist intentions and the US administration's overly rigid and unrealistic ideas, which give Israel the green light to expand its aggression and continue to impose new facts on the ground.

Former Jordanian Foreign Minister