» Lesen Sie diesen Artikel auf Deutsch

Trump’s 20-point plan is formulated in such imprecise terms that it permits all sorts of interpretations. Critical voices deem it a shoddy colonial concoction, especially since, in contrast to the Israeli side, the Palestinian side was not consulted at all when it was being drafted. The blueprint, focused mainly on economic development, actually has little in common with a true peace plan. At best it is about pacification. However, others have pointed out opportunities latent in the proposal, including not only the reconstruction of Gaza, but also Palestinian statehood, mentioned in point 19 as a potential goal for the distant future. Statehood is regarded as attainable, provided that developments in Gaza have advanced far enough and that a Palestinian reform process has succeeded.

The fundamental evils of the conflict are being ignored

The Arab countries had pushed for a clear commitment to a two-state solution. However, the far-right government of Benjamin Netanyahu has been unwilling to accept anything more than the flowery intention of the U.S. to mediate an Israeli-Palestinian dialogue on a political framework for peaceful and prosperous coexistence. The fundamental evil of the conflict, the occupation, is entirely left out of Trump’s »peace plan.« It blithely ignores the explosive situation in the West Bank, where radical settlers, backed by extremists in the Israeli cabinet, terrorize Palestinian villages on an almost daily basis.

»The ›dawn‹ over the Middle East has quickly faded.«

Given the lack of practicable alternatives, the international community overlooked these facts. It reserved its applause for Trump, because without his forceful intervention the devastating war in Gaza, unleashed by Hamas’s October 7 massacre, presumably would have continued unchecked. Thanks to him the last 20 surviving hostages from Hamas’s tunnels were liberated in exchange for Palestinian prisoners. And in fact, the hostage deal, the core element in phase one of the ceasefire agreement, went off incredibly smoothly. A gloating Trump already glimpsed the emergence of a »historic dawn over a new Middle East.« However, that hope has quickly faded.
Even the handover of corpses, which was in the hands of Hamas at war’s end, unfolded sluggishly. During those events radical Palestinian Islamists, who actually had been supposed to disarm but who confidently wielded Kalashnikovs, looked like the de facto power amid Gaza’s ruins. There was also no lack of clashes, especially near the poorly marked »yellow line« running along a longitudinal curve. At first, the Israeli army did indeed withdraw behind that line, but even so it still occupied 53% of the Palestinian coastal strip. The military responded with heavy artillery and sporadic air attacks, goaded by Netanyahu’s far-right coalition partners. In the seven weeks since the ceasefire went into effect alone, there were more than 350 Palestinian casualties.
 

Trump dismissed all such clashes as »skirmishes« that did nothing to call into question the continuity of his »peace plan.« In Jerusalem his most prominent envoys – from Vice-President Vance to Secretary of State Marco Rubio to his son-in-law Jared Kushner – made it quite clear that the USA intended to run the peace process. Admiral Brad Cooper, commander-in-chief of U.S. troops, personally inspected the specially designed command center in Kiryat Gat not far from Gaza. According to the Washington Post the new command center – rather than the Israeli military authority COGAT – is supposed to take charge of aid deliveries to Gaza. The report added that, although Israel would be consulted, the final decisions would be made by the United States.

Devastation and reconstruction

It remains to be seen to what extent these arrangements will speed up reconstruction. After the 50-day Gaza War of 2014, Israel put numerous materials like pipes, steel beams, and cement on a »dual use list« since they could be used by Hamas to  build tunnels. Every shipment had to go through lengthy approval procedures, and many items were never allowed in. Trump more likely will be interested in rapid progress. It goes without saying that the reconstruction of Gaza promises prodigious business deals for the Saudis, the Gulf Emirates, and international firms.
The devastation of Gaza after two years of extremely heavy bombardment is enormous. UN authorities assume that over 80% of the buildings have been completely or partially destroyed. In cities like Rafah as well as entire neighborhoods in Gaza City, the destruction may even exceed 90%.  The World Bank estimates that more than 70 billion U.S. dollars will be needed to rebuild territory. It could take decades just to remove the estimated 55 million tons of partly contaminated war rubble. Also, there are no sustainable solutions for disposing of the rubble heaps. One idea is to use them to stabilize the coast and build harbor facilities.

»For the foreseeable future, having an intact roof over one’s head will be a luxury.«

But these are dreams of the future. The most pressing need right now is to provide emergency shelters, upon which some 90% of Gaza’s population depends, including 21,000 children disabled by the war. For the foreseeable future, having an intact roof over one’s head will be a luxury in the 40-kilometer-long coastal strip. The entire infrastructure will have to be restored: hospitals, schools, water supply, sewage treatment plants, and a basic road network: in short, »everything that is fundamentally important to enable people to recover« according to the political economist Omar Shaban, the founder of the Gaza NGO »Pal-Thin.«
Meanwhile, the donor conference, actually envisaged for the end of November by Egypt in cooperation with the German government, has been a long time coming. The same is true of the beginning of phase two of the U.S. plan. Its core elements include an interim administration consisting of technocrats with no political ties to either Fatah or Hamas. The plan also calls for multinational troops, the so-called International Stabilization Force (ISF), to pacify Gaza, supplemented by a specially trained Palestinian police unit. Supervision would be provided by a »peace board« chaired by Trump himself with Tony Blair serving on the smaller executive board.
The United States did manage to get the requisite UN mandate approved by the Security Council, but only after adding a passage (nearly as vague as the one in Trump’s 20-point plan) to the draft resolution about a »credible path« toward establishing a Palestinian state. The moderate Palestinian leadership under president Mahmoud Abbas welcomed that commitment, but it was fiercely rejected by the Israeli government. By contrast, Hamas, is strictly opposed to the entire scheme.
The most controversial point in the UN mandate, limited to two years, is the task assigned to the International Stabilization Force: to »take out of service« the weapons of radical Islamist and other groups. Neither Arab nor European countries showed much willingness to send their forces to Gaza, where they would confront and tangle with the militants. Disarmament would have to be linked to an end to the occupation but since that has not happened, it would be »premature,« as a spokesman for the apparently newly self-confident Hamas pointed out. Even though its popularity has declined among Palestinians, Hamas still maintains its aura of being a resistance organization. And this is among the reasons that explain why a solid Palestinian majority − in Gaza 52% and in the West Bank 78% − have expressed opposition to its disarmament, according to surveys carried out by the Khalil Shikaki Research Institute. The trouble is, who among the donor nations will want to risk its dollars if in the end a renewed conflict between Israel and Hamas might break out, nullifying any kind of reconstruction?
The idea of building new housing projects only in the Israeli-controlled part of the Gaza Strip east of the »yellow line« may seem obvious at first glance, but from a political point of view it is highly problematic. In this way, so hopes Ohad Merlin of the MIND Security Institute in Israel, a kind of anti-Hamas bubble could emerge in Gaza. Over time, so runs the thinking, more and more people would recognize that life is better there. Yet the situation of Gaza’s inhabitants, who overwhelmingly live in the western i.e − the Hamas-dominated − side, would remain as miserable as before: a breeding ground for radicalization.

New variants of foreign control?

De facto the so-called »yellow line,« actually conceived as a temporary line of withdrawal for the Israeli army, would divide the Palestinian coastal strip into an Israeli-occupied »green zone« and a »red zone.« Reconstruction indeed has been slated for the green zone, but so far only mafia-style family clans that cooperated with Israel during the war live there. The red zone, dominated by Hamas and densely populated, would end up empty-handed. And in the Middle East provisional arrangements have a way of becoming permanent. In this case, the pattern of reconstruction would render the dream of a Palestinian state still more difficult to realize.
Consequently, many Palestinians see in the postwar scenario envisioned by Trump nothing more than a new variant of foreign control. The autonomous government of the West Bank, powerless and unloved but still the internationally legitimized antipode to Hamas Islamists, has little with which to counter the latter. Once again it turns out to be a major drawback that there is no unified Palestinian leadership that might take an active part in shaping the process.

»The future of Gaza will also depend on proactive initiatives from the Palestinians.«

As the journalist and Fatah member Samer Sinijlawi commented in an appeal to his countrymen and -women, »We can’t just wait for donations from the outside. It is our job to mobilize resources and expertise from Palestinians all over the world. Our civil society must also take an active part.« No one needs to ask the Gazans to do these things. Supported by NGOs, they have already been organizing self-help projects ranging from classrooms in tents, materials for students, the clearing of important road transport corridors − even a film festival. As Sinijlawi put it, »We must teach our children that honor is not demonstrated by revenge but by the ability to build a new life in spite of all the pain.«
But self-help projects are no substitute for a viable political perspective based on true rights rather than on the right of the stronger. In the long run such a perspective would benefit Israel’s security. The survey research institute Shikaki expresses that insight in a nutshell: »The Trump plan has ended the bloodletting but it doesn’t cure the underlying illness.«