The exquisite dilemma of the war in Gaza

The goal of a two-state solution wrestles with the need to crush Hamas

On Friday, a confab of Arab and Muslim foreign ministers is coming to Washington to meet with Secretary of State Antony Blinken - their final stop on a world tour of the five permanent United Nations Security Council member states to drum up support for ending the war in Gaza.

Last week the delegation – including representatives from Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Nigeria, the Palestinian Authority, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey – visited the United Nations to mark the UN’s International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People by calling for international recognition of Palestine. They also pressed the Security Council to push Israel for a permanent ceasefire in its war with Hamas.

Their tour has been a bit of a roadshow to shape the global narrative...Until now. Arab leaders know the power to influence Israel rests solely with the US. And diplomats say an end to the fighting will be secondary on the agenda to a larger and more burning question that everyone is asking but nobody can answer: What comes “the day after” the war?

Conversations with US, Israeli, and Arab diplomats underline dueling priorities and strategic objectives - a messy blend of immediate security and humanitarian concerns and long-term political aspirations.

The Arab diplomatic push is rooted in a simple yet profound truth: the current war, with its catastrophic human and economic toll, must yield more than rubble and grief. The devastation, the global polarization, the spike in antisemitism and Islamophobia - these aren't just footnotes in this decades-long regional conflict. They are clarion calls for “more than an aspirin to cure the symptom,” as one diplomat put it.

Israelis, still shaken by the October 7 attacks, are not in a mood to discuss the day after. They are focused, in the words of one Israeli official, on “destroying anything that smells of Hamas in Gaza.” It’s not unjustifiable given the vicious October 7 attacks. But that strategic goal, if it can be called that, is more tactical than visionary.

On the flip side, the Arabs aren't playing a tactical game. They're eyeing a strategic horizon: A path toward the creation of a Palestinian state would represent a beacon of hope rising from the ashes of conflict. As another Arab diplomat put it, “this war can’t be about destruction and nothing else. If Hamas leaves Gaza, something else positive has to come in its place once and for all.”

On Friday in Dubai, after meeting with Arab leaders on the margins of the COP28 climate conference, Vice President Kamala Harris laid out how America sees the post-war landscape. In my last post I wrote about what the Biden administration doesn’t want: “forcible displacement, no reoccupation, no siege or blockade, no reduction in territory, and no use of Gaza as a platform for terrorism.”

But in the clearest administration statement to date about the US vision for the “day after,” Harris said post-war rebuilding can only succeed “in the context of a clear political horizon for the Palestinian people, toward a state of their own led by a revitalized Palestinian Authority and backed by significant support from the international community and the countries of the region.”

To any rational person, all of that should seem perfectly reasonable, in fact it is necessary – not just to give the Palestinians hope for a future beyond occupation, but to end this decades-long conflict which has caused suffering for Israelis and Palestinians, divided the region, and prevented Israel from taking its place among Middle Eastern nations.

But here is the exquisite dilemma: It’s all shadowed by Hamas’ stranglehold on Gaza. 

Here’s why:

The Biden administration is proposing an ambitious three-legged strategy calling for “significant resources” by the international community to help rebuild Gaza, along with the Palestinian Authority assuming security and governance for the strip after 17 years (after being sufficiently “revitalized”).

Gaith al-Omari, a former Palestinian negotiator for the Palestinian Authority and, in my opinion, one of the most thoughtful Arab analysts, put it like this:

“If Hamas is left standing, then Hamas will emerge as the primary address for the Palestinians. You can forget about the PLO, Hamas becomes it. They will lead the Palestinians.”

The US vision also depends on significant resources and political commitment from the international community, which has helped rebuild Gaza time and time again after conflicts with Israel, only to see the enclave flattened again. And it’s also a moot point, because Israel will never allow the massive resources needed to flow into Gaza for a genuine reconstruction process while Hamas is still in charge there.

The popular option being explored is for an Arab coalition, or trusteeship, to come in and take over for a transitional period – both for Gaza and the West Bank. 

Arab diplomats acknowledge their countries have an interest in loosening Hamas’ grip on the Palestinians. The group’s spokesman, Abu Obeida, is currently a rock star in the Arab world. If Hamas survives, that further emboldens Iran and its proxies: Hezbollah in Lebanon and all of the militias in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen.

“There are things we are willing to do provided we're all working towards the same end game, which is a two-state solution,” another Arab diplomat said. “But don’t talk to us about what comes next if we're not talking about what the ultimate destination is.”

Here is the rub: There's a lack of appetite in Israel, even amongst moderates, to discuss a two-state solution. Even after the war, the subject will be “toxic,” in the words of more than one Israeli official.

Some Israeli officials can articulate a future where Gaza is rebuilt into a prosperous region. It sounds attractive but it’s also predicated, as they describe it, not just on removing Hamas from power in Gaza or destroying its military capability – it requires a radical transformation in the Palestinians’ governance, education, and social fabric. That’s a generation-long endeavor which isn’t going to happen on its own.

“Even if Hamas’ military is destroyed tomorrow, Hamas 2.0 will take its place without meaningful progress on the creation of a Palestinian state,” says al-Omari.

Now nobody is thinking the ultimate “two-state solution” is going to happen tomorrow. But that framing, and some interim steps toward that endgame, is a prerequisite for Arab involvement.

It’s also, by the way, the price of the crown jewel in Biden’s recent Middle East foreign policy’s efforts and Israel’s goal of Arab recognition – a peace deal with Saudi Arabia.

“Israel is going to lose friends. They're going to lose friends and gain enemies in the region and leave at a time when we've kind of accepted Israel as part of the region,” another Arab diplomat friendly to Israel told me. “Israel needs to accept living in the region with us. And the way that works is through a two state solution.”

Photo by Steve Johnson on Unsplash

Loose change: 

There is an entirely other conversation about how the world is plotting the Palestinian’s future  without their involvement.  

And another on whether there can be a two-state solution without dealing with the primary sponsor of terrorism in the region: Iran. 

Those will be the subject of future posts.