Context & Background

The current situation in Gaza is the culmination of decades of conflict, blockade, and political deadlock. Following the October 7th attacks by Hamas and Israel’s subsequent military response, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza has reached catastrophic levels. The sheer scale of destruction and the immense loss of civilian life have intensified international scrutiny and pressure on Israel to outline a clear plan for the future of the territory. Prime Minister Netanyahu has consistently stated that Israel will not permit Hamas to govern Gaza post-conflict. However, his vision for an alternative governance structure has largely remained vague, with a recurring emphasis on the potential involvement of Arab partners.

This emphasis on Arab involvement is not entirely without precedent. In the past, various Arab states have played roles in mediating conflicts, providing humanitarian aid, and even participating in peacekeeping operations in the region. However, the specific context of Gaza, with its deeply entrenched Hamas administration and the complex geopolitical realities, presents unique challenges. The historical animosity between Israel and many Arab nations, the ongoing Palestinian quest for statehood, and the internal political dynamics within Arab countries themselves all contribute to the reluctance of these potential partners to be seen as endorsing or facilitating Israeli policy without significant preconditions and assurances regarding Palestinian aspirations.

The political landscape of the Middle East is also undergoing significant shifts. While some Arab nations have normalized relations with Israel through the Abraham Accords, the broader Arab public remains largely sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. Any Arab government that appears to be acting in concert with Israel on the sensitive issue of Gaza governance risks facing significant domestic backlash and a potential erosion of its own regional standing. This delicate balancing act means that Arab leaders must tread very carefully, prioritizing their national interests and public opinion over potentially fraught foreign policy entanglements.

In-Depth Analysis

The core of the problem lies in the conflicting interests and perceptions surrounding the Israeli proposal. For Prime Minister Netanyahu, the idea of Arab forces governing Gaza likely serves multiple purposes. Firstly, it offers a way to fulfill his promise of dismantling Hamas’s governing capabilities without a protracted Israeli occupation, which would be costly in terms of both lives and resources, and would likely draw international condemnation. Secondly, it provides a veneer of regional legitimacy, an attempt to deflect criticism that Israel is seeking to annex or permanently control Palestinian territories. Lastly, it aligns with a broader, albeit often unspoken, Israeli strategy to isolate Hamas and undermine its regional support.

However, for the potential Arab partners, the calculus is vastly different. The primary concern is the perception of complicity. By stepping into a governance role in Gaza, especially under Israeli terms or with Israeli security guarantees, Arab nations risk being seen by their own populations and by the wider Arab world as acting as proxies for Israeli policy. This could be politically ruinous, undermining their legitimacy and potentially fueling internal dissent. Furthermore, many Arab states have a vested interest in a long-term, sustainable resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one that addresses the core issues of Palestinian statehood and self-determination. A limited, Israeli-dictated governance arrangement for Gaza, without a clear path towards a broader peace, is unlikely to be seen as contributing to such a resolution.

The lack of a unified Arab stance on the Palestinian issue also complicates matters. While there is widespread public support for the Palestinians, individual Arab governments have diverse strategic interests and relationships with both Israel and the United States. Some nations that have normalized relations with Israel might be more amenable to dialogue, but even they are likely to demand significant concessions from Israel, particularly regarding a credible peace process, before considering any involvement in Gaza. Other Arab nations, particularly those with stronger historical ties to the Palestinian cause, remain deeply skeptical of any Israeli-led initiatives and would likely view any participation in Gaza governance as a betrayal of Palestinian aspirations.

Moreover, the question of who would constitute these “Arab forces” is highly problematic. Would they be composed of troops from existing Arab states, potentially raising questions about sovereignty and international law? Or would they be some form of transitional administration, perhaps drawn from Palestinian technocrats with Arab backing? The lack of clarity on these fundamental operational aspects further fuels the skepticism. Without a clear mandate, robust security guarantees, and a pathway towards a more comprehensive political solution, any Arab force entering Gaza would likely find itself in an untenable and dangerous position, caught between warring factions and a hostile population.

The political implications for the Arab states involved would be profound. Taking on the responsibility of governing Gaza, a territory with a deeply entrenched resistance movement and a population that has endured decades of conflict and displacement, would be an immense undertaking. It would require not only significant financial resources and security capabilities but also the political will to confront potential resistance and the international legitimacy to act. Many Arab leaders are likely acutely aware of the risks associated with such an entanglement, particularly in the absence of a clear and internationally recognized framework for Palestinian self-governance and statehood.

Pros and Cons

The potential benefits of having Arab forces in Gaza, from an Israeli perspective, are numerous:

• Reduced Israeli burden: It could alleviate the immediate burden of occupation and governance for Israel, both in terms of security and administration.
• Regional legitimacy: It could provide a degree of Arab legitimacy to the post-conflict arrangement, potentially garnering broader international acceptance.
• Deterrence of Hamas: A credible Arab security presence might deter Hamas or other militant groups from re-establishing control.
• International support: It could garner support from Western powers who are keen to see a stable, non-Hamas-led Gaza.

However, the cons are substantial and deeply concerning:

• Lack of Arab willingness: The primary obstacle is the current lack of enthusiasm and outright skepticism from potential Arab partners.
• Risk of complicity: Arab states could be perceived as complicit in Israeli policies, leading to domestic backlash and regional isolation.
• Capacity and mandate issues: Arab forces might lack the necessary capacity, legitimacy, or a clear mandate to effectively govern or secure Gaza.
• Internal Palestinian division: The involvement of external Arab forces could exacerbate internal Palestinian divisions and undermine the legitimacy of any new governing body.
• Unresolved core issues: It does not address the fundamental issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, such as occupation, settlements, and the right of return.
• Security risks: Arab forces could face significant security risks, becoming targets for militant groups or even segments of the Gazan population.

Key Takeaways

• Prime Minister Netanyahu’s proposal for Arab partners to govern Gaza is facing significant skepticism and reluctance from potential Middle Eastern allies.
• Arab nations are concerned about the perception of complicity with Israeli policy and the potential for domestic backlash.
• There is a lack of clarity regarding who would constitute these “Arab forces” and what their mandate and capabilities would be.
• The proposal does not address the core issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is a major concern for Arab states seeking a lasting peace.
• The success of any post-conflict governance plan for Gaza hinges on broader regional and international consensus, as well as a clear commitment to Palestinian self-determination.

Future Outlook

The current impasse suggests that any immediate implementation of Netanyahu’s vision for Arab forces in Gaza is highly unlikely. Without a significant shift in the positions of the potential Arab partners, or a substantial change in Israel’s approach to the conflict, the proposal will likely remain a diplomatic talking point rather than a concrete plan. The international community, including the United States, will likely continue to pressure Israel to present a more viable and internationally supported roadmap for Gaza’s future. This will almost certainly involve addressing the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people and finding a pathway towards a two-state solution, however distant it may seem.

In the interim, the humanitarian situation in Gaza will remain a paramount concern. Without a clear governance structure and security arrangements, the territory risks descending further into chaos, potentially leading to a prolonged period of instability. The responsibility for finding a sustainable solution rests not only with Israel but also with the international community and the Arab world, requiring a coordinated effort that prioritizes de-escalation, humanitarian aid, and a genuine commitment to resolving the underlying political grievances.

The ongoing reluctance of Arab partners highlights a critical disconnect between Israel’s desired post-conflict scenario and the realities on the ground, both in terms of regional politics and the deeply held sentiments of the Palestinian people. Until this disconnect is bridged, and a more inclusive and equitable vision for Gaza’s future is articulated and pursued, the search for “Arab forces” to take charge is likely to remain an unfulfilled aspiration.

Call to Action

The current diplomatic stalemate demands a renewed focus on pragmatic and inclusive solutions for Gaza. International actors, including the United States and European nations, must intensify efforts to foster dialogue between Israel and Palestinian representatives, supported by a unified Arab front. This dialogue should aim to establish a clear roadmap for Gaza’s reconstruction and governance, one that respects Palestinian sovereignty and lays the groundwork for a comprehensive and lasting peace. Arab states, while cautious, can play a crucial role by clearly articulating their preconditions for any involvement and by using their influence to advocate for a political process that addresses the root causes of the conflict. Ultimately, the future of Gaza depends on a collective commitment to diplomacy, justice, and the self-determination of the Palestinian people.