With Israel’s military operation in Gaza nearing its end, the post-conflict future is a pressing concern. The displacement of nearly 1.9 million Gazans has the international community closely monitoring the situation.
A security official stated that while there’s no easy solution, Gaza’s future hinges on the policies of the incoming Trump administration.
Another official emphasized the importance of the “Trump effect,” with former Israeli military intelligence chief Amos Yadlin adding that Trump’s actions could facilitate previously impossible pressure on Hamas.
Defense Minister Israel Katz’s vision for Gaza’s future—maintaining full Israeli security control, similar to the West Bank, preventing any Hamas resurgence or attacks—has sparked significant debate.
This vision suggests Israeli security control alongside new governance. Reports suggest Egypt and the Palestinian Authority are exploring a “technocratic” body to manage Gaza’s infrastructure, aid, and reconstruction, independent of Hamas.
Jerusalem officials assert that Israel will retain security control without re-establishing settlements. They plan to conduct operations against terrorism as needed and hope to involve Arab countries like the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt in reconstruction.
However, senior IDF officials warn that without a comprehensive post-conflict strategy, military gains could be reversed. They believe that a lack of viable alternatives to Hamas will perpetuate the conflict.
Some Israeli officials attribute the strategic ambiguity to uncertainty surrounding US policy under the new administration. They cite ongoing engagements in Lebanon, Syria, and with the Houthis, prioritizing these over Gaza’s immediate future. The war’s conclusion, they insist, depends on hostage release and Hamas’s complete dismantling.
Various proposals for Gaza’s future exist, with differing approaches to Israeli involvement.
Retired Major General Giora Eiland advocates a more forceful approach, suggesting the evacuation of northern Gaza, followed by a siege to compel Hamas’s submission and potentially secure hostage release.
Eiland envisions long-term Israeli military control of parts of Gaza, without civilian presence or settlements. He believes this strategy, aligned with US military doctrine on international humanitarian law, would pressure Hamas.
Conversely, Major General (res.) Amos Yadlin supports a diplomatic solution involving Arab states like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Jordan, and Morocco mentoring a Palestinian technocratic body.
Yadlin, CEO of Mind Israel, believes Arab states can stabilize Gaza after Hamas’s military capabilities are eliminated. He suggests Hamas could transition into a political party accepting the Quartet’s 2017 conditions.
A key point of contention, and a red line for the Israeli government, is the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) role. Israeli officials explicitly rule out PA involvement in post-Hamas governance, citing its West Bank performance.
This exclusion raises concerns about governance and stability. While Israel prefers a technocratic model, its viability without the PA remains questionable.
Amidst the PA debate, the UAE has emerged as a key player, acceptable to all sides. Its involvement in humanitarian aid and reconstruction efforts provides a potential alternative to Hamas.
While Israel welcomes Arab participation in reconstruction, security remains paramount. Israel aims to prevent a return to the pre-October 7 status quo and ensure Hamas doesn’t regain power.