A few days ago, before the situation in the Gaza Strip provided tangible on-ground outcomes that could serve as a foundation, discussions revolved around “the future of the Gaza Strip”, delving into the governance and management of the Strip and the circumstances of its Palestinian population. The initial impetus came from the European side, possibly at request of the United States, which appears to be deeply engrossed in tactical considerations. A significant aspect of this preoccupation centers on effectively managing the situation on the ground. This involves both minimizing the risk of Israel incurring further military losses during ground incursions and ensuring the safety of its physical presence within military bases in the region, shielding it from potential threats and losses that might prove difficult to manage.
Thus, it is possible that the United States assigned the European allies the task of debating strategic matters that inevitably concern them, like the future of governance in the Gaza Strip, considering that the stated Israeli objective of the military operation is to drive Hamas out of Gaza and, more significantly from the Israeli perspective, out of the position of running the affairs of the Gaza Strip, since Tel Aviv holds the belief that Hamas’ control over the Gaza Strip’s administration enabled it to intermittently regain its military capabilities following each iteration of the conflict –with the stated goal of each iteration being destroying the infrastructure and capabilities of the resistance factions, with particular emphasis on Hamas.
Recently, a document was leaked that discusses how some European countries have begun considering their post-war options; among these options is internationalizing the administration of the Gaza Strip following the war by forming an “international coalition” to oversee the territory in conjunction with or under the auspices of the United Nations. That document was drafted in Germany, and discussions about it have since begun with the major European parties and been shared with multiple major EU capitals. It covered security-related issues such as demolishing the tunnel network and stopping the smuggling of weapons into Gaza, considering that the proposed international coalition will handle all post-conflict security responsibilities for Gaza. This reference was made in spite of the document’s concerns regarding the indiscriminate bombing and disproportionate use of force against the Gaza Strip in general. According to the document, the pattern of excessive force could be replaced by targeted operations that could help eliminate Hamas’ capabilities. The document went into further detail and presented its interpretation, stating that it is not possible for Israel to destroy Hamas militarily. It also states that Israel’s primary objective should be to eliminate the political and financial lifeblood of the Hamas movement.
Discussions over this subject have shown that the European side is divided over the ultimate ideas that could create a unified and workable future that takes into account Israel’s security concerns and avoids a replay of the events of 7 October 2023. According to reports, European leaders had heated debates at last week’s European Union (EU) summit in Brussels, highlighting the deep divisions that exist within the EU over the Gaza crisis. Leaders of the EU held long hours of talks to arrive at a consensus that called for the opening of “humanitarian corridors” but did not address the need for a ceasefire, either temporary or permanent.
Meanwhile, eight EU countries, including Belgium, France, and Spain, previously voted in favor of a nonbinding resolution calling for an “immediate humanitarian truce”, while Austria and Hungary, along with four other EU member states, voted against it, and 15 countries, including Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands, abstained from voting. The United States and Israel have publicly criticized the EU for failing to properly condemn the Hamas movement.
The European side was not the only one considering the future of the Gaza Strip. Unofficial American entities have also begun asking questions about the day after the war, the most pressing of which is, of course, who will govern and manage the Strip, up to where the population will be geographically located, in the wake of the immense destruction of life within the cities of the Strip. On 31 October, a report was released by the Carnegie think tank, which has close ties to US decision-making, detailing Israel’s plan to expel residents of the Strip to the south, towards the Egyptian Sinai. It contained numerous significant indications, the most significant of which was that Israel’s declared objective is the eradication of Hamas while it is becoming progressively apparent that the war also aims to expel Palestinians en masse from the Gaza Strip. The report referenced former Israeli ambassador to the United States Danny Ayalon and former Brigadier General Amir Avivi, both of whom advised the Palestinians to seek refuge in the Sinai Peninsula after fleeing Gaza via the Rafah border crossing with Egypt. As they put it, this proposal is simply a humanitarian precaution to safeguard civilians during Israel’s military operation. The analysis that Carnegie offered makes reference to the existence of additional reports that suggest that the Palestinians will be relocated permanently outside of Gaza as part of a comprehensive ethnic cleansing process.
Furthermore, on 17 October, a situation analysis was released by the renowned Institute for Zionist Strategies (formerly the Misgav Institute for National Security and Zionist Strategy), which was established and is led by former defense and security officials. In this analysis, the institute explicitly advised the Israeli government to seize the “unique and rare opportunity” to evacuate the entire Gaza Strip and relocate the Palestinians to Egypt. It also suggested setting up a buffer zone along the Egyptian border to prevent them from returning to the Strip. Carnegie noted that these Israeli plans were not entirely novel, as they had precedents that utilized the same framework in various forms and designs, albeit still predicated on the same notion—namely, the ethnic cleansing of the Gaza Strip and the exploitation of Egypt’s neighbouring region – as well as Egypt’s bearing of the most significant burden of the Palestinian cause – in order to provide the ultimate stable solution, which is an exceedingly challenging task for Israel.
