There is a crisis of leadership in the Middle East

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio later explained that Washington’s proposal was aimed at encouraging countries with economic and technological capacity to help with the rebuilding, that Gazans might have to relocate in the interim  and that there was no intention to station US troops in Gaza. Significantly, the White House waded into direct contact with Hamas, to set the parameters for peace, without involving the Israelis.

As US pressure mounted, Egypt and Jordan stoutly rejected Trump’s proposal. They insisted Palestinians would stay on their land and there would be no forced deportations. When the King of Jordan said he would host 2,000 sick Palestinian children, he was criticised by the rest of the Arab world. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, leveraging his position as recent host to US-Russia talks, hosted seven Arab leaders in Riyadh to emphasise unity in the Arab ranks.

Egyptian and Qatari mediators found that the mood had changed — Hamas was unhappy Israel had delayed the release of prisoners and was blocking international relief, while Israel sought to press on without promising withdrawal. The lack of trust has exposed the fragility of the truce. At the Arab summit, Egypt presented a reconstruction plan for Gaza. Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi emphasised the right of Palestinians to rebuild, guaranteeing their existence on their land.

The reconstruction plan envisages three phases, till 2030, at a cost of $53 billion. The first phase of six months would focus on the de-mining and clearing of debris, when Palestinians would be provided shelter in temporary camps within Gaza. Egypt would host an international funding conference. The second phase of about three years would focus on construction, especially of public infrastructure, housing and sources of livelihood. In the final stage, connectivity and industry would be developed and the Palestinian Authority would assume control over both Gaza and the West Bank.

New governance structures would be established in Gaza — Hamas would have to cede power to an independent team of Palestinian experts and technocrats for this purpose, a World Bank supervised trust fund would manage the financial pledges for reconstruction, and the UN Security Council would call for the deployment of an international peacekeeping force in Gaza and the occupied West Bank. The proposal was unanimously endorsed by Arab leaders, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas.

The US has rejected the Arab proposal, reiterating that Palestinians must relocate as the enclave is not liveable. Israel, too, rejected the proposal, discrediting its reliance on the Palestinian Authority and UNRWA and saying that Arab states were using the Palestinian issue to counter Israel. Even as the US has reportedly begun talks with Hamas, tensions seem to have been aggravated by Trump’s ultimatum to hand over the rest of the Israeli hostages.

The Israel-Palestine conflict has a long and troubled history. Israel has struggled to obtain security in its neighbourhood and still needs the support of the US, while the Palestinians fight to retain their land and their home. Their displacement in the West Bank and Gaza and to neighbouring Arab states as refugees has spurred popular resistance in the Arab street, with the potential to destabilise Arab governments if memories of the Nakba or forced deportation are rekindled.

There is an urgent need that hostilities do not resume, hostages and prisoners are returned and the humanitarian cost of conflict is addressed. The US and regional powers including Arabs, Egypt, Iran and Turkey would need to provide a supporting hand but trust between Israel and Palestine would be the key to any progress. Any enduring solution would need guarantees for peace and stability and regard for sentiments on either side, through a process of give and take. It may be difficult for Israel to accept the continuance of Hamas-led governance in Gaza. Similarly, it may be impossible for Palestinians and Arab states to accept the permanent displacement of the former from Gaza or the West Bank.

For the Palestinian Authority, a moderate Fatah-led leadership, both in Gaza and the West Bank, may be the only option. For this, Fatah will have to regain the confidence of the people, deliver governance on the ground and welcome younger leaders, including those in exile or in detention. The activities of militant elements will need to be curbed; they not only pose a threat to Israel’s security but also diminish Palestinian security and stability as their actions invite harsh retaliatory measures.

Israel, too, would benefit from durable security and stability through coexistence. On the one hand, the expansion of Israeli settlements in Palestinian lands has eroded the capacity of the Palestinian Authority and led to friction. On the other hand, Israel’s model of democracy, economic growth, technological excellence and high standards of living is a magnet for Arab countries, many of which have normalised relations with Israel.

In the 21st century, it is necessary to take a fresh look at problems and seek non-conflict-based solutions. There is a crisis of leadership in the Middle East. In some ways, Trump seeks to break the cycle of conflict. Only the transition of self-governance in Gaza and the West Bank, as established in the Oslo Accords, towards the realisation of a two-state solution, can break this vicious cycle, with Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and security.

The writer is a former diplomat and currently professor of Diplomatic Practice at Jindal Global University