The statement issued by the Arab Foreign Ministers Summit in Cairo, along with the statements from the White House and the Egyptian Presidency regarding US President Donald Trump’s call with Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah Al-Sisi this week, indicates a lack of responsiveness to Trump’s remarks about the displacement of Gaza’s residents and suggests that he has understood the Arab stance.
The statement issued by the summit in Cairo last Saturday served as a unified Arab front against any attempt to displace the Palestinians from their homeland. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Jordan, and Egypt, all allies of the United States, rejected Trump’s proposals.
Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar collectively invest hundreds of billions of dollars in the US, with Saudi Arabia recently announcing plans to invest an additional $600 billion during Trump’s current term. This suggests that Trump’s financial pressure tactics against regional states could be met with counter-threats, potentially disrupting his economic and political plans in the region, especially concerning Saudi Arabia.
Although the summit statement reaffirmed full support for the Palestinians’ resilience and right to their land and their inalienable and legitimate rights under international law, its language, despite being firm regarding Palestinian rights, adopted a diplomatic tone when addressing Trump. The statement welcomed the ceasefire agreement in Gaza, acknowledged the US’ significant role in achieving it, and emphasised the necessity of working with the Trump administration to achieve a just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East based on the two-state solution.
In a related context, the official responses from the Egyptian and US governments regarding Trump’s call with President Al-Sisi, which followed Trump’s remarks on displacing Gaza’s residents, suggest that the plan has failed. Neither side commented on the displacement issue, instead adopting a friendly and cooperative diplomatic tone focused on bilateral relations, the consolidation of the Gaza ceasefire, and humanitarian aid delivery to Gaza residents.
The Egyptian Presidency’s statement emphasised President Al-Sisi’s message, which highlighted the international community’s reliance on Trump’s ability to broker a lasting and historic peace agreement to end the long-standing regional conflict, an alignment with the Arab Foreign Ministers Summit declaration. This unified Arab stance on the Palestinian issue could send a strong message to the world, demonstrating the political and economic influence of the Arab states and their formidable force in global power dynamics.
A lot of developments coming from Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza have fortified the unified Arab stance against Israeli displacement schemes, which Trump has proposed due to his strong support for Israel. One of the most important developments is the failure of Israel’s plan to forcibly expel the Palestinians from the north of Gaza, as most residents returned to their homes during the first phase of the ceasefire. Furthermore, Israel’s failure to neutralise Hamas or achieve full military and security control over Gaza undermines its announced war objectives of securing military dominance, dividing Gaza, initiating settlements, and displacing its people.
The huge number of casualties, including those killed, injured, orphaned, widowed, and displaced, has sharpened the global pressure to prevent the resumption of war, particularly after the ceasefire revealed the extensive destruction of the entire Strip. These developments raise critical questions about the war’s feasibility, including the rationale for continuing the destruction and the killing after the ceasefire, given that Hamas has not been eliminated after more than a year of war. They also raise questions about how long the war will need to continue, the extent of any additional casualties the world will tolerate after the ceasefire, and whether the war has any strategic value moving forward.
These factors help to explain Trump’s decision to impose a ceasefire in Gaza after a non-stop war that may complicate his goals in the Middle East. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s eventual acceptance of the ceasefire, despite his initial reluctance, was made under conditions he previously opposed.
The Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth has claimed that Hamas has managed to endure the Israeli assault and that it has not been eliminated despite facing severe Israeli military strikes and the elimination of a number of its military and political commanders. These developments have also undermined Netanyahu’s plans to preserve an Israeli presence in the Strip after the war. Yoav Gallant, the former Israeli defence minister who led the Gaza war alongside Netanyahu, has publicly rejected the idea of Israel continuing military or civilian control over the Strip post-war. Instead, he has called for a Palestinian authority to govern Gaza.
A return to war following the current ceasefire phase seems unrealistic for several reasons, most noticeably Trump’s unwillingness to see the conflict resume. Trump’s primary goal appears to be securing billion-dollar defence and technology deals with Saudi Arabia, which requires stability and a ceasefire not just in Gaza but also in Lebanon and, if possible, with Iran.
In addition, Netanyahu wants to prevent the return of the Palestinian Authority (PA) to control the Strip, and Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon, has argued that the PA is weak and unlikely to rule the Strip successfully even if given the chance. Nonetheless, Israel has agreed to withdraw from significant portions of the Philadelphi Corridor and Netzarim Axis and to reopen the Rafah Crossing under the 2005 agreement, involving joint management by the PA, the European Union, and Egypt.
Israel’s incapacity to offer a workable governance alternative for the Strip has made the situation more complex. During the war, Israel aimed to recruit local Gazan leaders to form a replacement administration to Hamas, but this effort did not succeed. Likewise, Israel has sought to build an Arab coalition to take over Gaza’s administration, but it has found no willing partners, given its refusal to allow territorial continuity between the West Bank and Gaza or to accept a Palestinian state.
Hamas has indicated some ability to control Gaza during and in the wake of the war, especially amid the humanitarian crisis, and it has shown flexibility regarding its direct involvement in post-war administration. Hamas has expressed openness to forming a technocratic government or a social support committee through a Palestinian consensus. However, the US refuses any role for Hamas in controlling the Strip and supports the return of the PA. Israel is also unlikely to accept ending the war under an arrangement that sees Hamas return to governance. The Arab states favour PA governance of Gaza after the war.
This scenario seems to be the most realistic and would likely involve cooperation with the Arab states, the deployment of an Arab or international force to stabilise Gaza post-war, facilitating elections in Palestine, and initiating Gaza’s reconstruction. The key challenge remains the continued military presence of Hamas in Gaza, which neither the US nor Israel accepts. Addressing this issue will require a coordinated Palestinian-Arab regional strategy to manage these concerns.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 6 February, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: