Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu’s recent objection to having the Palestinian Authority (PA) govern the Gaza Strip during a press conference has created a significant hurdle for the United States’ efforts to establish a constructive post-Gaza war regional framework. In addition to hampering the resolution of the Gaza crisis, Netanyahu’s refusal to consider a transition of power to the PA risks precipitating a potential crisis in the West Bank.
A Missed Opportunity:
The U.S. had formulated a comprehensive plan that aimed to alleviate Israel’s burden of governing Gaza, provide the Palestinians with a credible political horizon, and establish a robust regional coalition to counter Iranian influence. Unfortunately, Netanyahu’s objection to the involvement of the PA derailed Secretary of State Blinken’s attempts to gather regional support for this strategy.
Lack of Support from Arab States:
During Secretary Blinken’s Middle East shuttle diplomacy and meeting with Arab foreign ministers, his attempts to secure a unified Gaza “morning after” strategy were unsuccessful. Arab states recognized the potential long-term solution of a reinvigorated Palestinian Authority in Gaza but were unwilling to discuss the transitional period between the Israeli Defense Forces’ exit and the PA’s assumption of control. Their reluctance to engage stemmed from their dissatisfaction with Israel’s West Bank policy, treatment of the PA, and a lack of a credible political horizon for the Palestinians.
Diversion Tactics:
Netanyahu’s diversionary tactics focused on minor humanitarian issues, such as the number of trucks entering Gaza, instead of engaging in discussions on the long-term post-war Gaza stabilization and reconstruction efforts. His prioritization of military victory over strategic planning undermines the potential for a favorable outcome in the aftermath of the conflict.
Netanyahu’s Coalition Concerns:
The Israeli Prime Minister’s reluctance to address the “morning after” scenario is driven by his concern for maintaining his coalition government. The far-right coalition partners’ refusal to support necessary policy changes complicates Netanyahu’s ability to advance measures that would address the Palestinian issue effectively. Additionally, the fear of coalition instability may be exacerbated by Netanyahu’s legal predicament, as he seeks to avoid any actions that could jeopardize his political position during his ongoing corruption trial.
Threats to National Security:
Ignoring the warnings from security experts and pressure from Washington, Netanyahu’s failure to rein in settler violence, curb settlement expansion, and address financial restrictions on the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank risks plunging the region into a crisis similar to that of Gaza. This chaotic environment could not only hinder Israel’s ability to govern a larger Palestinian population but also strain regional relations with Arab neighbors.
A Call to Washington:
To avert a potential disaster, it is crucial for the U.S. administration to convey a clear message to Israel. The message should emphasize support for Israel’s security while urging the need for Israel to address internal provocations that hinder international efforts for a ceasefire. Furthermore, Washington should assert that a regional-international solution to Gazan governance post-war can only be feasible if Israel initiates policy changes in the West Bank, accepts the PA as a long-term solution for Gaza, and commits to a two-state peace process in the future.
Netanyahu’s resistance to engaging in discussions on the “morning after” scenario in Gaza reveals a short-sighted focus on immediate military victory over long-term regional stability. This stance not only jeopardizes Israel’s ability to find a desirable solution to the Gaza crisis but also undermines the U.S.’s efforts in constructing a comprehensive post-Gaza regional architecture. By urging Israel to consider necessary policy adjustments, Washington can contribute to averting a potential quagmire in Gaza and maintain the newly proposed regional order.
Market Capital Research 