Leaders Seek Path to Peace
As Israel mourned the loss of Shiri Bibas and her two children, aged 9 months and 4 years, whose bodies were returned from Palestinian captivity last week, leaders of the Arab world gathered in Riyadh on Friday to discuss long-term peace strategies.
Upset by President Trump’s unusual proposal to have the U.S. take over Gaza while international investors rebuild the area, Gulf States, Egypt, and Jordan have taken the lead in negotiating alternatives to displacing Palestinians from Gaza. So far, they have rejected all proposals and discussed the possibility of sending $20 billion in funding over three years. Nothing has been confirmed. An emergency Arab League summit is set to take place in Egypt on March 4th.
The ideal solution would be to put a non-radical group of Palestinians in charge. While Hamas holds a tremendous amount of power in Gaza, a sustained Israeli military presence could give a non-Hamas entity the support it needs to establish control and maintain order in the Gaza Strip.
This is exactly what Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid proposed at an event with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies earlier this week. Lapid, who also leads the opposition in the Israeli government, proposed an Egypt-led reconstruction of Gaza. While this proposal would deny Israel a direct role in rooting out Hamas, it would also make it possible to step back and allow another party to assume responsibility for reconstruction.
Rethinking Gaza Leadership
The most realistic option for administering the Gaza Strip is for the Palestinian Authority (PA) to start from scratch. The upside of turning Gaza over to the PA is that it is a well-established force in the region and widely seen as the official face of the Palestinian people. In addition, if a permanent peace agreement includes something akin to how the West Bank is set up, Israeli security forces would have the freedom to conduct counter-terror operations.
But while the PA is preferable to Hamas, it is not an ideal partner, having paid out millions of dollars to terrorists and their families through its “pay-to-slay” program. This program must be stopped before Israel agrees to allow the PA to run Gaza.
There are positives and negatives to Israel itself building up a new Palestinian entity. On one hand, Israel could rid Gaza of terrorist groups like Hamas or corrupt and terrorist-supporting groups like the PA. On the other hand, such an alternative would require much greater effort in terms of time and resources.
Any of these options would be an improvement on the status quo: a Hamas-Israel ceasefire pending something more permanent. However, Hamas’ actions, particularly concerning the Bibas family, demonstrate that an alternative arrangement must be made. Whatever decisions arise, one thing must be clearly established: Hamas can have no role in the long-term future of Gaza.
Ending Hamas’ Grip
When Hamas handed over the bodies to the Red Cross, thousands of people gathered to witness the transfer. An uninformed onlooker could be forgiven for thinking they were witnessing some type of festival. Dancing people, singing children, and graphic banners graced the scene.
Hamas is a brutal terrorist group, but the cult of death it has fostered in Gaza runs deep. If this ideology is to be defeated, Hamas cannot be allowed to remain in power. They organized the October 7th attack to kill Jews, promised many more such attacks, and attempted to launch attacks in conjunction with hostage transfers. Attempting attacks during a ‘ceasefire’ shows that Hamas cannot be trusted.
The world is laser-focused on the current ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas, but energy must be devoted to a long-term solution. For the good of both the Israeli and Gazan people, Hamas can have no role in this solution.
Matthew Cookson
Middle East History & Policy Fellow | Young Voices
