Israeli and the US visions for Gaza future [closed]

Question

Is there convergence between the Israeli and the US visions for the future of Gaza?

It seems that the conflict in Gaza nears its end, as the Palestinian fighters surrender by hundreds (see here and here) and the US has openly joined the Israeli calls for Hamas to surrender:

“What is striking to me is that even as, again, we hear many countries urging the end to this conflict, which we would all like to see, I hear virtually no one saying – demanding of Hamas that it stop hiding behind civilians, that it lay down its arms, that it surrender. This is over tomorrow if Hamas does that. This would have been over a month ago, six weeks ago, if Hamas had done that,” Blinken said during a press briefing at the State Department Wednesday.

It also seems that the main difference between the Netanyahu's and the American vision of the Gaza future is whether it will be formally affiliated with the Palestinian Authority. Indeed, while Netanyahu has famously stated that Gaza will be neither Hamastan nor Fatahstan, the US seems to suggest that Gaza will be governed by the Palestinian AUthority, but completely revamped:

The administration has encouraged Abbas and his aides to bring into decision-making positions people who are younger, highly capable, have credibility among Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, and are respected and trusted by the international community, a source familiar with the issue told Axios.

In principle these visions are not contradictory, since the US might insist that the new people in the Palestinian Authority are not affiliated with Fatah, which will formally square with the Netanyahu's position.

I am wonder whether any further details have been disclosed:

• Netanyahus wants demilitarized Gaza - does it mean permanent Israeli army presence?
• Will Gaza have a government separate from the West Bank (i.e., independent from Abbas/Fatah)?
• Who will make the appointments to the administrative positions (Israel, PA, via elections?)
• Will people formerly affiliated with Hamas administration be eligible for positions in the new government?

Any reports on these issues are welcome.

Answer 1

If we're going to quote from the fabled Polico article, this bit seems to me the most relevant (US-wise... the self-answer covered the Israeli position best, in their own words):

U.S. officials haven’t had as much luck as they’d like in getting Israeli leaders to discuss in a meaningful way what a postwar Gaza will look like, the [US] administration official said. And some analysts and officials in Washington worry that even trying to define what counts as the end of the war will over time become a point of contention between Israel and the United States. It’s not as if someone will blow a whistle and everyone lays down arms.

“The Israelis are in no mood to talk about the day after,” the administration official said. “They’re very much focused on today, the day of, so there hasn’t been a whole lot of traction there.”

Anyhow, it's difficult to take at face value any reporting on this matter given the ever evolving positions an various statement by different people. E.g. the WSJ reported yesterday that:

A top national security aide to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu indicated that the country could accept a U.S. plan for a revamped Palestinian Authority—which currently governs the West Bank—to also take over the day-to-day administration of Gaza after the war, in a sign that Netanyahu is easing his opposition to the idea under pressure from the Biden administration.

“Israel is aware of the desire of the international community and the countries of the region to integrate the Palestinian Authority the day after Hamas, and we make it clear that the matter will require a fundamental reform of the Palestinian Authority,” Israel’s national security adviser, Tzachi Hanegbi, wrote in an opinion piece published Thursday on the Arabic-language news site Elaph.

Israel, he added, “is ready for this effort.” [...]

Benny Gantz, head of the National Unity party and a former defense minister, has also said that Israel will retain full security control over Gaza and called for local leaders in Gaza, along with a coalition of Arab countries, to assume responsibility for civil administration. Gantz has never publicly rejected a role for the Palestinian Authority.

Possibly Netanyahu is betting that Biden will be out of this his job before he is, and vice-versa.

By the by, one of the ironies of Israel's government lumping Fatah with Hamas is that (according to the WSJ) the Qatar-based leadership of the latter is apparently seriously considering deposing Sinwar, in order to both facilitate an end to the war and a rapprochement with the Fatah. Whether anything will come out of that is anybody's guess, as such attempts at an inter-Palestinian reconciliation have been tried before, with no success.

And then

28 December 2023

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has canceled a war cabinet meeting that was supposed to be held tonight to discuss Israel’s plan for who will govern Gaza after the war.

Netanyahu has refused to hold any such meetings until now, angering the Biden administration, which argues that failure to plan for who will govern Gaza after the war will lead to the IDF being bogged down in the enclave indefinitely.

The Israeli premier’s stance has been influenced by his far-right coalition partners who have similarly rejected any discussion about PA rule in Gaza.

This leaves few if any other options, but Netanyahu has appeared committed to keeping his coalition intact and has accordingly sought to delay “day-after” discussions for nearly three months.

Shortly after tonight’s meeting was scheduled, Bezalel Smotrich’s far-right Religious Zionism party announced it was holding its own faction meeting to protest its exclusion from the discussion.

Hebrew media reports that Netanyahu has agreed to discuss the matter in a Tuesday meeting of the larger security cabinet.

So, the US officials from the 1st quote appear to have been more right than wrong for now, given the composition of Netanyahu's cabinet and the constraints that implies. I guess will see what happens next year.

---

Update 1. More recent developments suggest that neither the IDF nor some other government insiders trust that Netanyahu has any sort of actual plan for the 'day after', beyond more military operations.

Update 2. Even more recently, on Jun 7:

A CIA assessment circulated among US officials this week concluded that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu likely judges he can get away without defining a post-war plan — even as the Biden administration has launched a full-court press to pressure him to bring an end to the conflict in Gaza.

Netanyahu “probably believes he can maintain support from his security chiefs and prevent defections” from the right wing of his coalition by discussing the future of Gaza in “vague terms,” the June 3 report, reviewed by CNN, reads. [...]

The CIA assessment highlights that, within Israel, there is no consensus on the postwar plan for Gaza, indicating each cabinet minister’s ranging views on postwar governance, security and reconstruction. [...]

“There is every reason for people to draw [the] conclusion” that Netanyanhu is prolonging the war for his own political gain, Biden said in a TIME magazine interview this week.

A couple of days later (June 9) Gantz resigned and Netanyahu disbanded the war cabinet:

Announcing his “complex and painful decision” to leave the war cabinet on June 9, Gantz said, “Netanyahu prevents us from moving forward to a real victory [in Gaza].” Eisenkot also quit the war cabinet.

He accused Netanyahu of putting his own personal political considerations ahead of a post-war strategy for the Gaza Strip, claiming that “fateful strategic decisions are met with hesitancy and procrastination due to political considerations,” and urged the prime minister to hold an election in the coming months.

“I call on Netanyahu: set an agreed election date. Do not let our people be torn apart,” Gantz said.

After Gantz resigned from the cabinet, Ben-Gvir demanded to be allowed in. By dismantling the cabinet, Netanyahu avoids having to accede to that demand – or reject it.

Answer 2

US vision
According to Politico How the Biden team is planning for a postwar Gaza Strip, the US advocates for Gaza ruled by the Palestinian authority, with Palestinian-run police force, although in the transition period the security might be assured by an international peacekeeping forces:

Still, the U.S. strategists drawing up the plans keep coming back to the Palestinian Authority, which governs parts of the West Bank but has long been beset by allegations of corruption and inefficiency. It’s the most viable option, they say.

“We’re stuck,” the State Department official said. “There’s a strong policy preference for the PA to play a governing role in Gaza, but it has significant legitimacy and capability challenges.”

The broad vision emerging from the internal talks is that of a multiphase reconstruction of Gaza once the heavy fighting between Israeli troops and Hamas militants ends. An international force will be needed to stabilize the region in the immediate aftermath, followed by a revamped Palestinian Authority taking over long-term.

Key parts of the plan include increasing security-related aid that the State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs offers the Palestinian Authority and allowing for a bigger role for the U.S. Security Coordinator , which has a track record of advising Palestinian security forces, the officials said.

“Ultimately, we want to have a Palestinian security structure in post-conflict Gaza,” a senior Biden administration official said.

What raises the eyebrows is the US suggestion that the peacekeeping for be provided by the Arab states:

erhaps the trickiest immediate challenge is figuring out who will play a role in stabilizing Gaza in an interim post-fighting phase.

While Arab countries have appeared hesitant or outright unwilling to provide troops for Gaza, in more recent conversations some have seemed more open to the idea, the second U.S. official said. The Biden administration has ruled out sending U.S. troops . One idea that’s been bandied about is asking the United Arab Emirates to help rebuild health facilities or train civil servants.

While the proposal for the Arab force had originated from Egypt, it is unclear how such a solution could be acceptable to Israel. As Israel is not recognized by most Arab states, and is in a state of open war with some of them, such a peacekeeping force clearly would not be neutral. The Arab states that recognize Israel either do this very recently, or not trusted even after many years of technical peace - e.g., the peace agreement between Egypt and Israel requires demilitarization of the Sinai peninsula, so that Egypt be unable to mount a sudden attack. This reasoning would equally apply to Gaza. It is also not clear whether the Arab forces would be capable to effectively deal with the residual Hamas presence.

Israeli vision
According to Jerusalem Post Netanyahu: Palestinian Authority can’t return to Gaza, this isn’t Oslo 2 Netanyahu opposes return of the Palestinian authority to Gaza, which he considers a repetition of "Oslo", when the Palestinian Liberation Organization, expelled to Tunisia, was allowed to return to Palestine:

Netanyahu referenced the Palestinian Liberation Organization’s initial exit to Tunisia. He noted that this was a correct decision, adding that the error that had been made was to allow it to return in 1994 with through the Palestinian Authority under the auspices of the 1993 Oslo Accords.

His vision is summarized as follows:

Instead of seeing the kind of governmental reform that took place in Germany and Japan after defeat in World War II, the opposite will occur if “we will return the same entity - that has not undergone any reform or transformation — into Gaza,” Netanyahu said.

“This is what even our good friends are proposing,” he said.

“I think differently and I oppose this. We have to build something different” once the war is over, he said. He emphasized that Israel must have general control over the territory, including security, but that the internal governance would be Palestinian,” Netanyahu said. He clarified that this reference newly created government entity and not the PA.

“The PA doesn’t fight terror it supports it. It doesn’t educate for peace, it educates for the destruction of Israel,” he said.

“This isn’t the entity that needs to enter there [Gaza],” he said.

In other words, Netanyahu differs from the US on the key points:

• The government should Palestinian, but not by the Palestinian Authority.
• The security will be provided by Israel - both in short and long runs.

Convergence
The Politico article pints out that revitalized Palestinian authority could bridge the political gap - satisfying de jure the American vision, but implementing de factor the Israeli one. It is however not clear how the security issue will be addressed:

In response to a request for comment from the Israeli government, an Israeli official, granted anonymity to discuss an issue still under review, said “the gap between the United States and Israel is much smaller than what meets the eye.”

“Both administrations agree that the PA in its current form cannot govern Gaza,” the official said. “A revitalized, reformed one might be able to do it. But we’re still not in discussions about what exactly this reform should look like.”

Still, it’s not clear what — if any — level of change to the Palestinian Authority would satisfy Netanyahu or his political allies.

Palestinian vision
Palestinian Authority plays its usual hard-to-get game, although it is not clear how efficient this strategy will be in the post-Hamas world:

The current Palestinian Authority is disliked by many Palestinians, who view it as corrupt, out of touch and weak. It has not held an election in years and is run by 88-year-old Mahmoud Abbas, who has yet to clearly denounce the Hamas attack.

A spokesperson for the Palestinian Authority could not be reached for comment. Abbas is reported to have previously said that the Palestinian Authority won’t take over Gaza on the back of Israeli tanks , meaning it does not want to be seen as a puppet.

Optimism
Finally, the US seems to be very optimistic about the future of the two-state solution:

he State Department official said American officials are largely motivated by that same outcome, but planning at the moment centers on stabilizing Gaza. One reason President Joe Biden and his aides have refused to call for a long-term cease-fire is that they support the Israeli objective of destroying Hamas, which Washington views as a major obstacle to a two-state solution.