**The Elusive Architects: Netanyahu’s Gamble on Arab Governance in Gaza Falters Amidst Arab Skepticism**

**As Israel seeks a post-conflict administrative solution for Gaza, its proposed Arab partners are conspicuously absent, raising serious questions about the viability of the Prime Minister’s strategy.**

The ashes of conflict in Gaza are still settling, yet the urgent question of who will govern the Strip in its aftermath looms large. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has consistently articulated a vision of handing over control of Gaza to unspecified “Arab forces,” a plan that, according to recent reporting, is meeting with a cold reception from the very potential partners he envisions. This ambitious, yet seemingly undercooked, proposal is now facing the harsh reality of regional skepticism, casting a long shadow over any potential path toward stability and reconstruction in the war-torn territory.

The premise of Netanyahu’s strategy is clear: to find a Palestinian or Arab governing entity that can administer Gaza post-conflict, thereby allowing Israel to divest itself of direct responsibility for the territory and its population. This approach, ostensibly aimed at breaking the deadlock of Israeli occupation and Palestinian self-rule, has found few willing participants. The silence from potential Arab partners is deafening, signaling a deep-seated reluctance to step into a role fraught with immense risk and dubious reward, particularly in the absence of a clear and unified political horizon for Gaza.

The sourcing for this article is from Politico’s National Security Daily newsletter, which highlights the critical challenge Netanyahu faces: his plan to delegate the governance of Gaza to Arab partners is not being well-received by the few Middle Eastern countries that might be considered potential collaborators. This lack of enthusiasm suggests a fundamental disconnect between Israel’s strategic aspirations and the geopolitical realities on the ground, as well as the deep-seated concerns of Arab nations regarding the future of the Palestinian territories.

Context & Background

The current situation in Gaza is the tragic culmination of decades of conflict, interrupted by periods of intensified violence. The October 7th Hamas attack on Israel and Israel’s subsequent military response have devastated the Strip, leading to an unprecedented humanitarian crisis and widespread destruction. In this vacuum of established governance, Israel is acutely aware of the need for an exit strategy that doesn’t leave a security or administrative void.

Historically, the governance of Gaza has been a complex and contentious issue. Following the Oslo Accords, the Palestinian Authority (PA) was established with the aim of self-rule. However, the rise of Hamas, and its subsequent takeover of Gaza in 2007, fractured Palestinian governance. Israel, citing security concerns, has maintained a blockade on Gaza, further isolating the territory and exacerbating its economic and social challenges.

Netanyahu’s “Arab forces” proposal represents a departure from previous approaches. It suggests an external, Arab-led administration rather than solely relying on a reformed Palestinian Authority or a more traditional international peacekeeping force. This idea, while seemingly offering a way to distance Israel from direct occupation, is predicated on the willingness and capacity of Arab states to engage in a deeply complex and politically charged environment. The current lack of buy-in from these potential partners underscores the inherent difficulties in crafting such a solution.

The regional players in the Middle East, while often expressing concern for the Palestinian people, have also been cautious about direct intervention in Gaza. Their hesitations are rooted in a variety of factors, including the potential for entanglement in a protracted conflict, the lack of a clear political roadmap for a two-state solution, and the fear of being perceived as complicit in an Israeli-imposed order. The sensitive nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict means that any external intervention is likely to be viewed with suspicion by both sides, adding another layer of complexity to Netanyahu’s proposal.

In-Depth Analysis

The core of Netanyahu’s challenge lies in the inherent disconnect between his vision and the practicalities of regional politics. The few Arab nations that might be considered potential partners for governing Gaza – such as Egypt, Jordan, or Gulf states – possess significant reservations. These reservations are not merely tactical; they are strategic and deeply rooted in their own national interests and regional standing.

One of the primary obstacles is the absence of a clear political framework for Gaza’s future. Arab states are unlikely to commit resources and personnel to administer a territory without a defined path towards a stable, sovereign Palestinian entity. The lack of a credible peace process and the ongoing Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank further complicate any potential Arab engagement. For these nations, stepping into Gaza without a clear diplomatic horizon risks being seen as legitimizing an Israeli-imposed outcome or, worse, becoming a proxy in a perpetual conflict.

Furthermore, the operational challenges are immense. Governing Gaza would require significant security capabilities, a deep understanding of local dynamics, and the capacity to undertake massive reconstruction efforts. The potential Arab partners would need to contend with the legacy of Hamas, the presence of other militant factions, and the deep societal divisions within Gaza. This is a task that even well-established governments would find daunting.

The perception of Israeli intentions also plays a critical role. Many in the Arab world view Netanyahu’s proposal as an attempt by Israel to avoid its responsibilities as an occupying power and to shift the burden of managing Gaza onto others. This perception fuels a reluctance to participate, as it could be interpreted as undermining Palestinian aspirations for self-determination and lending an air of legitimacy to Israeli actions.

The source material highlights that the plan is “not landing well” with its “few partners.” This is a diplomatic understatement that points to outright rejection or, at best, profound disinterest. Arab nations are acutely aware of the potential for backlash from their own populations, who are generally highly sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. Engaging in a governance role in Gaza, especially one seen as dictated by Israel, could generate significant domestic opposition and damage their regional credibility.

The economic implications are also a significant factor. Reconstruction in Gaza will require billions of dollars. Arab nations, while capable of providing financial assistance, are unlikely to shoulder the full burden of rebuilding and administering a territory without clear assurances of long-term stability and a viable economic future for its inhabitants. Without a broader international commitment and a clear vision for economic development, the financial drain would be unsustainable.

Moreover, the international community’s stance on the future of Gaza will heavily influence the willingness of Arab states to engage. A coordinated international effort, with clear mandates and shared responsibilities, might be more palatable. However, the current ad hoc nature of discussions around Gaza’s post-conflict governance suggests a lack of such unified support.

Pros and Cons

Netanyahu’s proposal, despite its current difficulties, does present a theoretical framework with potential benefits, alongside significant drawbacks.

Pros:

• Reduced Israeli Burden: A primary benefit for Israel would be the offloading of direct administrative and security responsibilities for Gaza, alleviating the costs and political complexities associated with occupation.
• Potential for Regional Legitimacy: If successful, an Arab-led administration could lend a degree of regional legitimacy to the post-conflict order in Gaza, potentially fostering greater stability than an Israeli-imposed solution.
• Facilitating Reconstruction: Arab partners might be better positioned to mobilize reconstruction aid and resources, given their regional influence and financial capacities.
• Addressing Palestinian Aspirations (Theoretically): The idea, in principle, could align with Palestinian aspirations for self-governance, provided it is part of a broader political settlement that includes statehood.

Cons:

• Lack of Arab Partners: The most significant con is the current unwillingness of potential Arab partners to engage, rendering the plan largely unworkable in its current form.
• Security Vacuum and Instability: Without capable and willing Arab forces, there is a high risk of a security vacuum, potentially leading to a resurgence of militant activity and prolonged instability.
• Questionable Legitimacy within Gaza: Any Arab administration perceived as imposed by Israel or lacking genuine Palestinian buy-in would struggle for legitimacy among the Gazan population.
• Operational and Financial Burdens: The immense security, administrative, and reconstruction challenges are likely to prove overwhelming for any single Arab state or coalition without substantial international support and a clear political mandate.
• Risk of Entanglement for Arab States: Arab nations participating in such a venture would risk becoming deeply enmeshed in a protracted and volatile conflict, potentially incurring domestic opposition and reputational damage.
• Undermining Palestinian Authority: The proposal could further weaken the Palestinian Authority, which many believe should be the legitimate governing body for both the West Bank and Gaza, as part of a unified Palestinian state.

Key Takeaways

• Prime Minister Netanyahu’s plan to hand over Gaza’s governance to Arab partners is currently facing significant opposition and skepticism from potential Middle Eastern collaborators.
• This lack of enthusiasm stems from the absence of a clear political roadmap for Gaza, the immense security and administrative challenges, and the perception that the proposal may serve Israeli interests in avoiding responsibility.
• Arab nations are hesitant to step into a volatile situation without guarantees of long-term stability, Palestinian self-determination, and a broader regional consensus.
• The financial and operational burdens of administering and rebuilding Gaza are substantial, requiring more than just the will of a few regional actors.
• The success of any post-conflict governance model for Gaza hinges on genuine Palestinian buy-in and a credible path toward a broader political solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Future Outlook

The current impasse in finding willing Arab partners for Gaza’s governance suggests that Netanyahu’s plan, as it stands, is unlikely to materialize. This leaves Israel in a precarious position, facing the prospect of continued direct or indirect involvement in Gaza’s administration, or the emergence of a chaotic security vacuum. The international community, including the United States, will likely play a crucial role in shaping the future of Gaza.

A more viable path forward might involve a multi-pronged approach that includes:

• Reinvigorating the Palestinian Authority: Supporting and reforming the PA to enable it to effectively govern both the West Bank and Gaza, as part of a comprehensive peace process.
• International Consensus and Support: Building a broad international consensus on the future of Gaza, with clear mandates for security, reconstruction, and governance, backed by significant financial and political commitments.
• Regional Diplomacy: Engaging in intensified regional diplomacy to garner support and coordinated action from Arab states, not necessarily for direct governance, but for vital assistance in reconstruction, security, and economic development under a recognized Palestinian authority.
• Focus on a Two-State Solution: Ultimately, any sustainable solution for Gaza must be integrated into a broader diplomatic effort to achieve a two-state solution that addresses the root causes of the conflict.

Without these elements, the search for Israel’s “Arab forces” will likely remain a fruitless endeavor, leaving Gaza in a state of perpetual instability and hindering any progress towards lasting peace.

Call to Action

The international community, and particularly key global powers, must urgently convene to develop a unified and actionable strategy for Gaza’s post-conflict future. This strategy must prioritize Palestinian self-determination, ensure robust security guarantees, and mobilize the necessary financial and logistical resources for reconstruction and long-term stability. Simply proposing a delegation of responsibility without a foundational political framework or willing participants is insufficient. The focus must shift from speculative delegation to constructive collaboration, involving all relevant stakeholders, to chart a realistic and sustainable path towards a peaceful future for Gaza and the wider region.