The Israel-Hamas War: The Day After

Looking to the Future
Reforming the PA
The Gallant Plan
Creating A Path To Statehood
Hamas is Killing the PA
Gantz Gives Ultimatum
The Academics’ Plan
Hamas-Fatah reconciliation declaration
Trump’s Dramatic Plan
The Riviera of the Middle East
The Arab Plan
Witkoff Creates Confusion
Israel to Take Control of Gaza
A GREAT Plan

Looking to the Future

The Biden administration is concerned with what will happen to Gaza after the war ends. Secretary of State Antony Blinken is insisting on pursuing the two-state solution to offer the Palestinians hope of achieving a political victory following Hamas’s defeat. State Department spokesman Vedant Patel said, “There is no returning to the October 6 status quo,” and “our viewpoint is that Palestinians must be at the forefront of these decisions and Gaza is Palestinian land, and it will remain Palestinian land.”

The Israeli government, which opposed the idea of a Palestinian state before the war, gave no indication it was going to change its position. In the short term, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, “I think Israel will for an indefinite period have security responsibility” for Gaza. He ruled out any international force and insisted that Gaza must be demilitarized.

Israel told American officials to stop talking publicly about the two-state solution. National Unity Party chairperson Benny Gantz, President Isaac Herzog, and opposition leader Yair Lapid have also conveyed their discomfort with the Biden administration’s repeated assertion that it supports the establishment of a Palestinian state. “What I want to urge is against just saying ‘two-state solution.’ Why? Because there is an emotional chapter here that must be dealt with. My nation is bereaving. My nation is in trauma,” Herzog said.

Minister Gideon Sa’ar explained the most likely short-term scenario:

The army also moved to take over the “Philadelphi Corridor,” a strip of land less than 9 miles (14 km) wide separating Gaza from Egypt. Israel had controlled the area for some time but handed responsibility over to Egypt. Hamas then began to tunnel under it to bring weapons and supplies into Gaza. At one point, Egypt flooded the tunnels to prevent smuggling, but on October 16, 2023, NPR filed a report noting that the original tunnels used to smuggle cigarettes and other goods were expanded to be part of the “metro.”

Taking the area will give Israel control over the Rafah crossing, which is the only connection between Gaza and the Arab world and the principal route for travelers. Egypt has rejected Israel’s request to give up the area, which its soldiers are responsible for patrolling according to a security protocol signed with Israel. Alternatively, Israel has requested that sensors be installed along the corridor to alert Israel in case Hamas attempts to rebuild its tunnel and smuggling network after the war. Egypt said it would consider the option but rejected another Israeli proposal to send surveillance drones in response to alerts.

The administration opposes Israel’s reoccupation of Gaza and has suggested that the Palestinian Authority (PA) take over responsibility for the Strip. Israelis, however, do not believe the hugely unpopular PA is capable of controlling the area, given its inability to manage the West Bank effectively and its failure in Gaza when it was the authority there.

Israel must also worry about Hamas terrorists in the West Bank. Simultaneously with the Gaza offensive, the IDF staged raids to kill and arrest Hamas members on its eastern border. MEMRI translated a message from the West Bank branch of Hamas’s student organization calling on Palestinians there to imitate the October 7 attack, and the group posted operational instructions for carrying out terrorist attacks.

Israel would have its own rebuilding effort after the war. In addition to the communities in the south that terrorists overran, the country will have to recover from the tremendous economic cost of the war, and the reservists who had to leave their jobs. In early November, the Bank of Israel stated that the absence of workers cost the economy approximately $600 million per week.

Reforming the PA

Despite the corruption, incitement, and violence emanating from the PA, the Biden administration was pressuring Israel to accept a “revamped and revitalized” PA to take control of Gaza after the war ended. Netanyahu pointedly rejected the idea. “After the great sacrifice of our civilians and our soldiers, I will not allow the entry into Gaza of those who educate for terrorism, support terrorism, and finance terrorism.” He added, “I will not allow Israel to repeat the mistake of Oslo.”

Israeli analysts, including former ambassador to the United States Michael Oren, suggested that Netanyahu was trying to ensure his political survival. Netanyahu is “saying Oslo was a worse catastrophe for Israel than Oct. 7, and I am the best guarantor you have that [such an agreement] won’t happen again.”

“At the moment, Bibi is just playing to the gallery, and the gallery is his political base,” said journalist Ehud Yaari. “I don’t think we’re at a point where Bibi feels he is obliged to make a decision.”

It is possible that Netanyahu will not be prime minister when a decision on who rules Gaza needs to be made, as he might resign or be forced from office. Other cabinet officials might see “little to be gained from defying the White House,” said Yaari.

The Biden administration was also angered by comments by ministers Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir calling for Gazans to be encouraged to immigrate to other countries. “If in Gaza there will be 100,000 or 200,000 Arabs and not 2 million, the entire conversation on ‘the day after’ will look different,” Smotrich said. Ben-Gvir also suggested that Jews return to settle in Gaza.

The State Department spokesman responded, “This rhetoric is inflammatory and irresponsible. We have been told repeatedly and consistently by the Government of Israel, including by the Prime Minister, that such statements do not reflect the policy of the Israeli government. They should stop immediately.”

Subsequently, Netanyahu stated unequivocally: “Israel has no intention of permanently occupying Gaza or displacing its civilian population.” He added, “Our goal is to rid Gaza of Hamas terrorists and free our hostages. Once this is achieved, Gaza can be demilitarized and deradicalized, thereby creating a possibility for a better future for Israel and Palestinians alike.”

The same two ministers have clashed with the IDF Chief of Staff and the Defense Minister.

The Gallant Plan

Defense Minister Yoav Gallant presented a four-pronged plan for the future of Gaza on January 4, 2024. He made clear that Israel would retain control of the borders and the right to take military action, if necessary, inside Gaza. Civil governance would remain the responsibility of the Palestinians. “Gaza residents are Palestinian, therefore, Palestinian bodies will be in charge, with the condition that there will be no hostile actions or threats against the State of Israel,” Gallant said.

The four elements of his plan, as reported by the Times of Israel, are:

These steps would be taken over time, leaving several issues unresolved, such as who would be responsible for law and order in Gaza.

Gallant also said that Palestinians would not be allowed to return to their homes in northern Gaza until all the hostages were released.

According to the TOI, Gallant wants UNRWA to be replaced with another agency to gradually provide refugee services. Shortly after, UN Watch reported that a Telegram group of 3,000 UNRWA teachers was filled with posts praising the 10/7 massacre and photos of dead and captured Israelis.

“This is the motherlode of UNRWA teachers’ incitement to Jihadi terrorism,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch.

While the U.S. agreed with Israel about UNRWA and suspended funding, the administration was again angered when 12 Israeli ministers attended a conference on January 28, 2024, calling for the rebuilding of settlements in Gaza. Gallant subsequently told U.S. officials that the military would not allow any illegal outposts or settlements to be built in Gaza.

The two countries were also at odds over Israel’s stated intention of creating a buffer zone on the Gaza side of the security fence on the southern border. Blinken made clear the U.S. opposed any reduction in the size of the territory in Gaza. 

Creating A Path To Statehood

After several weeks of not speaking, Biden called Netanyahu on January 19, 2024, to try to convince him to agree to create a path for the establishment of a Palestinian state after the war. Blinken had returned from Saudi Arabia earlier, insisting that this was the only way the kingdom would agree to normalize relations with Israel. Netanyahu publicly rebuffed both. “My insistence is what has prevented — over the years — the establishment of a Palestinian state that would have constituted an existential danger to Israel,” he said two days later. “As long as I am prime minister, I will continue to strongly insist on this.” The day before, he had said he would insist on “full Israeli security control of the entire area west of the Jordan River — and that is irreconcilable with a Palestinian state.”

Biden tried to minimize the disagreement by saying, “There are a number of types of two-state solutions....There’s a number of countries that are members of the UN that are still — don’t have their own militaries. Number of states that have limitations.” He added, “And so I think there’s ways in which this could work.”

Competing Visions for the Future

The Palestinian Authority Vision

The State Department Vision

The State Department was reportedly working with its allies to create a timeline to recognize a Palestinian state similar to that demanded by the Palestinians and repeatedly rejected by Israel: withdrawal of many, if not all, Israeli communities in the West Bank; a Palestinian capital in eastern Jerusalem; the reconstruction of Gaza; and security and governance arrangements for a combined West Bank and Gaza. The normalization of relations with Saudi Arabia is meant to be an incentive for Israel to accept the deal.

In response to the reports, Netanyahu said:

The entire PA government, including Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh, submitted its resignation at the end of February to show the United States that it was willing to make changes. Despite an overwhelming majority of Gazans calling for him to resign, Abbas did not. His four-year term continued into its 19th year.

Israeli officials expressed little faith that the PA would change and pointed out it had ruled Gaza unsuccessfully before being overthrown by Hamas. Netanyahu insisted that a buffer zone be created near the border and that Israeli troops have freedom of action in Gaza as they do in the West Bank. He said, “I will not allow the State of Israel to repeat the critical mistake of Oslo, which brought to the heart of our land—and to Gaza—the most extreme elements in the entire Arab world, who are committed to the destruction of the State of Israel and who teach that goal to their children.”

Some analysts, including Israelis, did not believe there was an alternative to the PA but insisted that the PA would have to do more than make cosmetic changes. Maurice Hirsch and Yossi Kuperwasser, for example, said the PA would have to condemn the October 7 massacre, end the pay-for-slay policy, recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people, cease all incitement to murder and glorification of terror, immediately halt all PA attacks on Israel in international forums, and actively fight terror.

PA officials were also talking about including Hamas in the reformed government, a non-starter for Israel. They were also wary of taking control of Gaza and being seen as tools of the Israelis.

A problem for Israel is that its desire to see leaders of clans in Gaza assume authority is nearly impossible so long as Hamas exists. Any Palestinian who agrees to an Israeli plan will be treated as a collaborator. Even before the war ended, for example, a clan leader was executed after Hamas heard he had been contacted to assist in the distribution of aid.

Hamas is Killing the PA

Not waiting for Israel to decide on a policy for the day after the war ends, the Palestinian Authority is maneuvering to gain control but is running into violent opposition from Hamas. The PA’s General Intelligence Service (GIS), headed by Maj. Gen. Majed Faraj is reportedly establishing a security presence in coordination with Israel, Egypt, and other Arab countries. Several GIS members whom Hamas accused of entering Gaza disguised as aid workers were arrested, and at least two were reportedly shot.

Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), and Palestinian National Initiative oppose the formation of a new government “without national consensus” or an Arab peacekeeping force. 

Meanwhile, leaders in Israel clashed over the future of Gaza as Gallant spoke out publicly that it was imperative to plan if the military operation was to succeed. He said that he would not agree to Israel governing Gaza after the war. “The end of the military campaign must come together with political action. The ‘day after Hamas’ will only be achieved with Palestinian entities taking control of Gaza, accompanied by international actors, establishing a governing alternative to Hamas’s rule, Gallant declared. “Indecision is, in essence, a decision. This leads to a dangerous course, which promotes the idea of Israeli military and civilian governance in Gaza,” he warned. “This is a negative and dangerous option for the State of Israel—strategically, militarily, and from a security standpoint.”

His position was aligned with the U.S. but clashed with Netanyahu, who declared that no discussion of the day after could occur before Hamas was defeated. Netanyahu insisted he was “not prepared to switch from Hamastan to Fatahstan.”

Gantz Gives Ultimatum

In another example of the internal dissension over the future, Gantz, a member of the war cabinet, went public with his dissent over the conduct of the war, arguing that the IDF should have gone into Rafah months earlier and that he would leave the government on June 8 if a plan for the day after was not adopted. He implied the prime minister was acting out of selfish political reasons rather than the national interest and that “A small minority has taken over the bridge of the Israeli ship and it is steering it towards the rocks.”

Acknowledging there are “no magic solutions,” he outlined six strategic goals of national importance:

1. Bring the hostages home.

2. Dismantle the rule of Hamas, to demilitarize the Gaza Strip, and to ensure Israeli security control.

3. Form a U.S.-European-Arab-Palestinian administration that will run civilian affairs in the Gaza Strip and lay a foundation for a future alternative that is not Hamas and not Abbas (Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas).

4. Return the residents of the north to their homes by September 1 and rehabilitate the Western Negev.

5. Advance normalization with Saudi Arabia as part of a general move to create an alliance with the free world and the Arab world against Iran.

6. Adopt a service plan to see all Israelis serve the country and contribute to the supreme national effort.

Gantz’s position, like Gallant’s, was more in line with the U.S. position, and, as with Gallant, Netanyahu immediately rejected the outline. Netanyahu said Gantz’s conditions would amount to “defeat for Israel, abandoning most of the hostages, leaving Hamas intact and establishing a Palestinian state.”

Gantz subsequently carried out his threat and left the government on June 9. “Unfortunately, Netanyahu prevents us from progressing to real victory,” Gantz said. “We are leaving the emergency government today with a heavy heart but wholeheartedly.”

Netanyahu continued to ignore pleas from the military and the Biden administration to formulate a plan. He did rule out Israeli resettlement in Gaza and called for “sustained demilitarization of Gaza,” “a civilian administration that is run by Gazans who are neither Hamas nor committed to our destruction,” and “a reconstruction of Gaza, if possible, done by the moderate Arab states and the international community.”

The Academics’ Plan

Four Israeli academics submitted a paper to the government with a “day after” plan that was predicated on the defeat of Hamas, which would mean Hamas would have no control in Gaza, and that the leaders would be put on trial. Once accomplished, the goal would be to “rehabilitate and transform a nation that was led by a murderous ideology, to produce stable institutions and an Arabic culture that does not educate for jihad, a culture that accepts the existence of the State of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.”

To do this, it will be necessary to overhaul the education system by “eradicating jihadist ambitions” and removing extremist teachers and textbooks, with responsible educators using materials devoid of radical content.

In the short term, the professors stated that a governing apparatus would need to be established that fosters trust with the local population and provides the opportunity to create an autonomous Palestinian entity after the initial objectives are achieved. They did not advocate creating a democracy, which has no precedent in the Arab world, but an Arab-Muslim entity that is moderate and not jihadist.”

Netanyahu showed no signs of accepting this or any other proposed plan but was reportedly easing his opposition to the involvement of civil servants who managed affairs in Gaza before the Hamas coup in 2007. The Financial Times reported on July 1 that Israel was planning to launch a pilot program involving the establishment of humanitarian bubble zones in the cities of Beit Hanoun and Beit Lahia. Israel would provide security until a U.S.-trained Palestinian security force can take control. If the plan is successful, it will be expanded to other areas.

The preferred plan for the future was originally to give power to local clans; however, those who agreed to participate were beaten or executed by Hamas. The group said it would “sever any hand of the [Israeli] occupation trying to tamper with the destiny and future of our people.”

A source told the Financial Times, “The idea in Israeli minds is that someone — the Arab states, the international community — will pay for it, and locals in Gaza will run it. But no one is biting.”

“Arab states will not support reconstruction in Gaza or postwar plans unless Israel takes concrete steps towards the establishment of a Palestinian state,” an Arab diplomat told the publication.

A report suggesting that the UAE was willing to send troops to a Gaza peacekeeping force contradicted previous claims. Additionally, Abu Dhabi hosted a secret meeting with Israeli and U.S. officials to discuss postwar plans, hinting that Israel might be softening its stance. However, the prospects for a postwar agreement were undermined when the PLO and Hamas announced a deal to reconcile during talks in China. In response, Israel firmly stated that it would not allow Gaza to be governed by any authority, including Hamas.

Hamas-Fatah Reconciliation Declaration

On July 23, 2024, Palestinian factions Hamas and Fatah agreed to form a government together to resolve their long-standing rivalry. This agreement, facilitated by China, outlined a vision for postwar governance in Gaza. The unity effort aimed to broaden the Fatah-led Palestine Liberation Organization to include Hamas. The factions announced this deal without specific details or a timetable, marking it as an initial step toward reconciliation. Based on history, the two will unlikely end their rivalry, and Hamas reiterated its objection to recognizing Israel, which the PLO did in the Oslo Accords.

Israel vehemently opposes turning over the governance of Gaza to any Palestinian entity, including Hamas. Similarly, State Department spokesman Matthew Miller said, “When it comes to governance of Gaza at the end of the conflict, there can’t be a role for a terrorist organization.... as we have made clear, we want to see the Palestinian Authority governing a unified Gaza and the West Bank. But no, we do not support a role for Hamas.”

Hamas senior official Khaled Mashal told the New York Times, “All their illusions about filling the vacuum are behind us.” He said, “Assuming Hamas won’t be in Gaza or influencing the situation is a mistaken assumption.”

Maj. Gen. Gadi Shamni, a former commander of the Israeli military’s Gaza division, agreed with Mashal, telling the Times that Hamas has retaken towns within “15 minutes” of Israeli withdrawals and “there’s no one that can challenge Hamas there after Israeli forces leave.” 

Another example of why the Israelis did not see the PA as a reasonable alternative to Hamas was the reaction to the killing of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar. Abbas expressed his condolences on the “martyrdom” of Sinwar, calling him a “great national leader.” Other officials had similar reactions.

While the future remained uncertain, Israel’s economy, already struggling due to factors like a lack of tourism, faced another setback. Several foreign airlines announced they would not fly to Israel unless the country amended its travel law, which requires airlines to compensate passengers if flights are canceled on short notice. The airlines argued that the law did not account for the wartime situation. By then, nearly all airlines had already suspended flights, with some doing so for months.

In early December, Fatah and Hamas again announced that they had agreed to establish a committee to administer the supply and distribution of humanitarian aid, manage civic affairs, reconstruct the Rafah border crossing with Egypt, and oversee the Crossing. This “Communal Support Committee” would be subordinate to the Palestinian government on administrative, financial, and legal matters. Given Israel’s opposition to any future role for Hamas, the committee was unlikely to get off the ground.

The defense establishment gradually changed its view and became more accepting of the PA having a postwar role. According to the Jerusalem Post. “Once some of the more independent Gazan sheiks were killed by Hamas, they endorsed the PA, which would rule in coordination with the UAE, Egypt, the CIA, and possibly other players, along with overall Israeli security responsibility.”

Netanyahu, however, remained opposed to the idea and continued to delay any decision on the future of Gaza in anticipation of Donald Trump winning the U.S. election.

The hostage deal negotiated in January 2025 did not establish the framework for the governance of Gaza but did allow Israel to create a buffer zone on the border that will be 700 meters wide, except for five points that Israel will choose where it can move up to a kilometer away from the border. President Trump did not have any specific ideas, but his incoming national security adviser, Mike Waltz, reassured Israelis that “Hamas will never govern Gaza. That is completely unacceptable.”

On January 30, 2025, U.S. Middle East Peace Envoy Steven Witkoff stated that rebuilding Gaza could take 10 to 15 years due to the extensive destruction caused during the 15-month war. He visited Gaza to inspect the situation firsthand, describing it as “uninhabitable” with no water, electricity, or standing structures. While aid is entering Gaza and security measures are holding, Witkoff emphasized that clearing debris alone could take five years, with additional delays due to underground tunnels.

Trump’s Dramatic Plan

In a press conference following his meeting with Netanyahu, Trump announced: “The U.S. will take over the Gaza Strip...We’ll own it, and be responsible for dismantling all of the dangerous, unexploded bombs and other weapons on the site.”

Asked if he was planning a “permanent occupation” of Gaza, Trump said: “I do see a long-term ownership position,” which he claimed would bring “great stability” to the region. The president, who has frequently criticized the use of American troops in foreign lands, went so far as to acknowledge the possibility of sending U.S. soldiers to participate in his plan.

Trump also reiterated that some two million Palestinians would be relocated so Gaza could be rebuilt but did not commit to allowing them to return to their homes. Instead, he talked about  ”the world’s people,” including Palestinians, coming to what he said could become “the Riviera of the Middle East” and “supply unlimited numbers of jobs and housing for the people of the area.”

Trump explained that Gaza had been “absolutely destroyed” and the people who had been “living in hell” would “now be able to live in peace.” Trump said it was time to “do something different” because “if you go back, it’s gonna end up the same way it has for a hundred years.” Reassuringly, he concluded, “We’ll make sure that it’s done world class. It will be wonderful for the people. Palestinians, Palestinians, mostly we’re talking about, and I have a feeling that despite them saying no, I have a feeling that the king in Jordan and that the general in Egypt will open their hearts and will give us the kind of land that we need to get this done, and people can live in harmony and in peace.”

Responding to Trump’s ideas about Gaza, he said, “ I think it’s something that could change history, and it’s worthwhile really pursuing this avenue.” He added, “You see things others refuse to see. You say things others refuse to say. And then, after the jaws drop, people scratch their heads. And they say, ‘You know, he’s right.’ And this is the kind of thinking that enabled us to bring the Abraham Accords.”

Trump’s remarks on Gaza overshadowed the two main issues Netanyahu had come to discuss – the hostages and Iran. Regarding the former, Netanyahu thanked Trump for his role in bringing hostages home and reiterated his three goals: “three goals, destroy Hamas’s military and governing capabilities, secure the release of all of our hostages, and ensure that Gaza never again poses a threat.

The reaction to Trump’s Gaza plan was unsurprisingly negative from Democrats, Europeans, and Arab states. For example, Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) posted, “He’s totally lost it. A U.S. invasion of Gaza would lead to the slaughter of thousands of U.S. troops and decades of war in the Middle East. It’s like a bad, sick joke.”

Annalena Baerbock, Germany’s foreign minister, called the proposal “unacceptable” and against international law; a French spokesperson said Paris is “fully opposed to the displacement of populations” and called Trump’s proposal “dangerous” for regional stability; and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said Palestinians “must be allowed home” to rebuild.

“Trump’s remarks about his desire to control Gaza are ridiculous and absurd, and any ideas of this kind are capable of igniting the region,” Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri told Reuters.

Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian Authority’s envoy to the United Nations, said: “For those who want to send [Gazans] to a happy nice place, let them go back to their original homes inside Israel — there are nice places there, and they will be happy to return to those places.”

The Saudi Foreign Ministry said, “The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia also reaffirms its unequivocal rejection of any infringement on the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, whether through Israeli settlement policies, land annexation, or attempts to displace the Palestinian people from their land.”

Despite the criticism, Trump did not back down, posting that “The Gaza Strip would be turned over to the United States at the conclusion of fighting.” He said the Palestinians “would have already been resettled in far safer and more beautiful communities, with new and modern homes, in the region. They would actually have a chance to be happy, safe, and free.” Meanwhile, “the U.S., working with great development teams from all over the world, would slowly and carefully begin the construction of what would become one of the greatest and most spectacular developments of its kind on earth.” Then, clarifying a point that had concerned even his supporters, he concluded, “No soldiers by the U.S. would be needed! Stability for the region would reign!!!”

Israel appeared prepared to help implement the plan. “I welcome the bold initiative of U.S. President Trump, which could enable a large part of the population in Gaza to leave to various locations throughout the world,” Defense Minister Israel Katz said in a statement. “I instructed the IDF to prepare a plan that would allow any resident of Gaza who is interested to leave to any place in the world that agrees to accept them.  The plan will include exit options at land crossings as well as special arrangements for exit by sea and air.”

The Riviera of the Middle East

Unfazed by criticism, Trump continued to insist he was serious about his plan for Gaza, though some details changed and others remained ambiguous. “As far as us rebuilding it, we may give it to other states in the Middle East to build sections of it; other people may do it, through our auspices,” he said. “But we’re committed to owning it, taking it, and making sure that Hamas doesn’t move back.”

Trump elaborated on his real estate plan in an interview with Fox News. “We’ll build beautiful communities, safe communities — could be five, six, could be two — we’ll build safe communities, a little bit away from where they are, from where all of this danger is,” Trump said.

When asked if the Palestinians would be allowed to return after being sent away, Trump responded, “No, they wouldn’t,” explaining that “They will have much better housing.” He added, “I’m talking about building a permanent place for them.”

Trump also alluded to the billions of dollars the U.S. gives to Jordan and Egypt as an incentive for them to cooperate in taking in Palestinians.

Interestingly, he did not say the United States would own Gaza. Trump said, “I will own it.”

On February 11, 2025, President Donald Trump discussed his plans for Gaza during a meeting with Jordan’s King Abdullah at the White House.

Abdullah indicated Jordan’s willingness to host 2,000 sick children from Gaza but also emphasized the importance of a solution that serves the interests of all parties involved. Trump suggested Arab states should respond to the Gaza plan with visits to the U.S.

Abdullah wanted to make no decisions until Egypt responded to Trump’s plans. Trump expressed confidence in reaching an agreement, saying he was “99%” sure something can be worked out with Egypt.”

Later, Abdullah said he had “reiterated Jordan’s steadfast position against the displacement of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank” in his meeting with the president. “This is the unified Arab position. Rebuilding Gaza without displacing the Palestinians and addressing the dire humanitarian situation should be the priority for all.”

Meanwhile, it was reported that Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi’s visit to Washington has been postponed indefinitely. Cairo is reportedly upset over U.S. and Israeli statements about the Palestinians and has firmly rejected any proposal to allocate Egyptian land for Gaza residents. Instead, Cairo released a statement expressing the desire to cooperate with Trump and present “a comprehensive vision for the reconstruction” of the Gaza Strip that “ensures the Palestinian people stay on their land and in line with the legitimate and legal rights of this people. Sissi also said the establishment of a Palestinian state was “the only guarantee for achieving lasting peace” in the region.

Witkoff explained Trump’s position and the debate it provoked. He asked why the administration should adopt a policy prescription that hasn’t worked for decades. “Now we have the Egyptians saying we have a plan. The Jordanians are saying we have a plan. And people are actually engaging in really important, cogent discussion about what ought to happen there.”

On February 21, the leaders of the Gulf Arab states met with their Egyptian and Jordanian counterparts in Riyadh to discuss an alternative to Trump’s plan. They reached no conclusion but were focused on keeping the Palestinians in Gaza. The question of who would control Gaza remained unresolved, as Abbas insisted that he have full control, a proposition rejected by Israel. Equally unacceptable is any involvement of Hamas. A broader Arab summit on March 4 in Egypt was expected to produce a plan.

Saudi Arabia and the UAE insist that Hamas must disarm and relinquish governance before they contribute financially or practically to rebuilding Gaza. Egypt and Qatar oppose these conditions.

Israel Hayom reported: 

On February 23, 2025, in an interview for CNN, Witkoff reaffirmed that, based on realistic assessments, Gaza’s reconstruction is expected to take 15 to 20 years. He also noted that the issue of returning displaced people to Gaza after reconstruction remains complex and is currently under discussion.

In response to its widespread rejection, Trump appeared to back away from his plan. “I’ll tell you the way to do it is my plan. I think that’s the plan that really works,” Trump said on Fox News. “But I’m not forcing it. I’m just going to sit back and recommend it. And then the U.S. would own the site, there’d be no Hamas. And they’d be developed and you’d start all over again with a clean slate.”

Still, he insisted, “if you gave people the choice between that and living in a nice community, I think I know where they’d go. But we’ll see what happens.”

He added that he didn’t understand why Israel gave up Gaza. “Somebody from Israel, I can’t tell you who, but was well known, decided to give it up. It’s one of the bad real estate deals.”

Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid proposed a plan for the reconstruction of Gaza, framing it as complementary to Trump’s proposals. The plan involved Egypt assuming responsibility for Gaza for 15 years in exchange for erasing its $155 billion external debt, with international and regional allies covering the costs. Under this arrangement, Egypt would oversee Gaza’s reconstruction, manage internal security, and work to prevent arms smuggling and terrorism, with assistance from an Egyptian-Israeli-American security mechanism. The UN Security Council would define Egypt’s role as a “trusteeship,” aiming to transition Gaza to Palestinian Authority control following reforms. Saudi Arabia, Abraham Accords countries, and the U.S. would contribute to the rebuilding effort, with Egypt allowing Gazans who wish to emigrate to do so in an orderly manner. 

Egypt and Netanyahu immediately rejected the idea.

Meanwhile, Witkoff criticized the Biden administration’s plan for Gaza, which assumed that reconstruction and rehabilitation of the territory were feasible in five years. After visiting the territory, he said a 15- to 25-year timeline was much more realistic. Witkoff denied that Trump wanted to evict Palestinians, only to create a better environment for them. That better life required changing the Palestinian education system and providing better career and quality of life prospects for the Palestinians. “Maybe we should be talking about the ability to come back later on,” he said, “but right here, right now, Gaza is a long-term redevelopment plan.”

The Arab Plan

Arab leaders meeting in Cairo on March 4 endorsed Egypt’s five-year, $53 billion plan for Gaza that would allow the Palestinians to remain in temporary housing units during the reconstruction. The first phase would involve removing unexploded ordnance and clearing more than 50 million tons of rubble. The World Bank would oversee a fund to receive donations for the plan. The plan envisions creating sustainable housing, renovating agricultural lands, and developing industrial zones and parks. An airport, fishing port, and commercial port would also be built.

The Arab League called on the UN Security Council to deploy an international peace force not only in Gaza but also on the West Bank. Politically independent Gazans would govern until a reformed Palestinian Authority could take its place.

Egyptian President el-Sissi said there would be no “true peace” without the establishment of the Palestinian state, which is a non-starter for Israel.

Notably, two of the wealthiest Arab states expected to contribute to the reconstruction – Saudi Arabia and the UAE – were absent from the summit. The Saudis insist on Hamas’s removal from Gaza. The UAE is also concerned with educational reconstruction that would eliminate the anti-Israel, anti-Semitic aspects of the current system. 

“The plan shows a realistic path to the reconstruction of Gaza and promises – if implemented – swift and sustainable improvement of the catastrophic living conditions for the Palestinians living in Gaza,” the foreign ministers from France, Germany, Italy, and the U.K. said in a joint statement.

The statement said Hamas “must neither govern Gaza nor be a threat to Israel anymore” and that the four countries “support the central role for the Palestinian Authority and the implementation of its reform agenda.”

Israel rejected the plan, as did the United States. “The current proposal does not address the reality that Gaza is currently uninhabitable and residents cannot humanely live in a territory covered in debris and unexploded ordnance,” National Security Council spokesman Brian Hughes said. “President Trump stands by his vision to rebuild Gaza free from Hamas.”

Hamas objected to the plan’s requirement that it disarm. “The weapon of the resistance is a red line, and it is not negotiable,” Sami Abu Zuhri told Reuters.

Witkoff Creates Confusion

Still, Witkoff surprised many observers when he told Tucker Carlson that Hamas is not “ideologically intractable” and that while their desire to rule Gaza is “unacceptable,” it was possible for them to “stay there a little bit… be involved politically” if they disarmed.

“Nobody is expelling any Palestinians,” President Trump said on March 12. “We should go to other countries of interest with humanitarian hearts, and there are many of them that want to do this and build various domains that will ultimately be occupied by the 1.8 million Palestinians living in Gaza, ending the death and destruction.”

“Stability on Gaza could mean some people come back, it could mean some people don’t come back,” according to Witkoff. “We’re going to attempt to ascertain different development plans for Gaza. They could involve the word two-state (solution). [They] could not.”

Witkoff added, “We need real elections in Gaza… We need a real security force there… If Israel thinks they’re going to have a problem in Gaza because Hamas is going to be there long-term, this is never going to end.” 

Israel and the United States were looking for countries to relocate the Gazans. Reportedly, these include Sudan, Somalia, and Syria. None has agreed to accept any Palestinians.

Israel also set up a bureau to facilitate the voluntary relocation of Gazans. Defense Minister Katz’s office said the new directorate would work to “prepare for and enable safe and controlled passage of Gaza residents for their voluntary departure to third countries, including securing their movement, establishing movement routes, checking pedestrians at designated crossings in the Gaza Strip, as well as coordinating the provision of infrastructure that will enable passage by land, sea and air to the destination countries.” To reinforce the impetus for the decision, the statement said it would be done “subject to Israeli and international law, and in accordance with the vision of U.S. President Donald Trump.”

In a possible reversal, a Lebanese newspaper offered an unconfirmed report that Sisi told Arab leaders that Egypt was willing to temporarily relocate half a million residents from Gaza to northern Sinai in a designated city during reconstruction in Gaza. 

Trump spoke to the leaders of Egypt, France, and Jordan on April 7. The trio “emphasize[d] the need to create conducive conditions for a genuine political horizon and mobilize international efforts to end the suffering of the Palestinian people, restore security and peace for all, and implement the two-state solution.”

Following the meeting with Trump, Netanyahu said, “We’re currently in contact with countries talking about the possibility of absorbing a large number of Gazans. That’s important — because in the end, that’s what needs to happen.”

Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto announced that Indonesia will temporarily host around 1,000 Palestinian medical evacuees and orphaned children from Gaza. They will remain in Indonesia until they recover and conditions in Gaza allow for their return. He emphasized that this is not a permanent resettlement plan and directed his foreign minister to coordinate the evacuation with the Palestinian authorities.

On April 27, 2025, Netanyahu said Israel would retain military control over Gaza and not allow the PA to replace Hamas. “Hamas will not be there... we’re not going to put the Palestinian Authority there. Why replace one regime that is sworn to our destruction with another regime that is sworn to our destruction? We won’t do that...We will not succumb to any pressure not to do that,” Netanyahu said.

He also praised Trump’s idea of the voluntary relocation of Palestinians from Gaza. “Believe me, many of them want to leave,” Netanyahu said.

In the same month, the U.S. and Israel have held preliminary talks about Washington possibly leading a temporary post-war administration in Gaza, modeled after the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, to oversee the strip until it is demilitarized and stable, and a viable Palestinian leadership emerges. The proposed transitional government, led by a U.S. official and possibly joined by other countries and Palestinian technocrats (excluding Hamas and the Palestinian Authority), lacks a fixed timeline and remains in early stages without agreement or designated roles.

In May, Netanyahu offered his most explicit statement about the outcome of the war: “all areas of the Gaza Strip will be under Israeli security control.”

Israel to Take Control of Gaza

On August 8, 2025, Israel’s security cabinet approved a phased strategy to take over Gaza City, disarm Hamas, and then hand control to a civilian administration—explicitly excluding Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. Five conditions for ending the war were spelled out: disarmament, return of all hostages, Gaza demilitarization, Israeli security control, and the establishment of a new civilian government. The wording avoided “occupy” for legal reasons, instead using “take over,” though a senior official said the distinction was superficial and amounted to full military rule. In an occupation, Israel would take on direct responsibility for the welfare of the Palestinians.

Weeks earlier, Reuters reported U.S. and Israeli consideration of a temporary, multinational governance of Gaza, modeled on Iraq’s post-war Coalition Provisional Authority. This administration would include Arab and Western nations and exclude both Hamas and the PA.

Meanwhile, Egypt-led proposals endorsed by the Arab League call for keeping Gazans in place, marginalizing Hamas, and installing a technocratic committee under the PA to oversee Gaza’s reconstruction over a 3–7-year period—contingent on PA reforms and international aid.

Journalist Dan Perry noted the sea change in world opinion: “At its core is a possible end of the abnormal tolerance for Iranian-backed jihadist militias, like Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, that the Middle East — and, to some extent, the world at large — has demonstrated in recent decades. The false narrative of ‘resistance’ is giving way to an understanding that these groups have always been obstacles to peace.” 

This transformation was also reflected, he said, in the UN statement endorsed by the Arab League in which all 22 Arab leaders, including Hamas’s Qatari patron, called for Hamas to disarm and disband. “This declaration represented a startling break from years of ambiguity, during which Arab leaders hedged on Hamas, treating it as part of a messy internal Palestinian dispute,” observed Perry. “Now, they are naming it for what it is: the chief obstacle to Palestinian freedom and regional peace.”

A Great Plan

Trump opposes Israeli annexation of Gaza. Instead, the Washington Post reported in September 2025 that the administration was developing a plan for Gaza that placed the territory under a U.S.-run trusteeship for at least a decade, transforming it from a war-ravaged landscape into what he calls the “Riviera of the Middle East.” In his plan, Gaza would shed its association with poverty and conflict and instead become a hub for luxury tourism, high-tech manufacturing, and AI-driven smart cities.

At the heart of the proposal is the GREAT Trust (Gaza Reconstitution, Economic Acceleration and Transformation Trust), a mechanism designed to attract $100 billion in investment. Unlike traditional aid, this would not be charity but a profit-making venture, with investors promised a fourfold return over ten years. Gaza’s redevelopment would be financed in part by seizing 30% of its land, deemed “publicly owned,” and turning it into the foundation of an investment portfolio.

The plan rests on an ambitious population relocation scheme. All of Gaza’s two million residents would either be “voluntarily” resettled abroad—enticed by a package of $5,000 in cash, four years’ rent subsidies, and a year of food support—or confined in secure zones inside Gaza while reconstruction proceeds. Palestinians who leave would receive digital land tokens redeemable for apartments in new smart cities or cash to finance resettlement abroad. Trump has openly said that Palestinians would “live beautifully in another location,” suggesting they would not return to Gaza once the project is complete.

Infrastructure development is a centerpiece of the proposal. The vision includes AI-powered smart cities with schools, hospitals, green spaces, and golf courses, along with new highways named after Saudi and Emirati leaders who would be expected to fund the projects. Gaza would also get a modern port and airport, linking it to Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, massive utility projects—solar fields, desalination plants, data centers—would turn Gaza into a showpiece of innovation.

Politically, the plan sidesteps the long-discussed idea of Palestinian statehood. Instead, Gaza would be integrated into the Abraham Accords framework, with Israel retaining overarching security control. Governance would begin under Western contractors and gradually shift to a “reformed” local police force.

The plan has drawn sharp criticism. Arab governments, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, reject Trump’s proposal outright, preferring a model where Gaza is governed by technocrats under the Palestinian Authority with Gulf funding for reconstruction—while preserving the prospect of Palestinian statehood. Human rights experts warn that Trump’s approach amounts to a modern form of forced displacement, dressed up as voluntary migration. Palestinians themselves have been vocal in their rejection, saying they will not abandon their homes regardless of financial incentives.

Comparison of the Trump and Arab Plans for Gaza

Table of Contents for the Israel-Hamas War
Bibliography and Photo Credits

About Mitchell Bard