Egypt’s Counter-Trump Proposal to Sideline Hamas and Rebuild Gaza
The plan envisions an “International Stabilization Force,” primarily composed of Arab troops, to assume security responsibilities in Gaza.
Egypt has drafted a plan for post-war Gaza that aims to replace Hamas with interim governing bodies controlled by a coalition of Arab, Muslim, and Western states. The proposal, according to Reuters, serves as a counter to former U.S. President Donald Trump’s vision for Gaza, which sparked controversy by suggesting mass displacement of Palestinians.
The Egyptian proposal, expected to be presented at an Arab League summit on Tuesday, does not specify whether it would take effect before or after a permanent peace agreement. However, it marks a significant effort by regional powers to shape the future of Gaza.
A Response to Trump’s Vision
Trump’s plan, which appeared to depart from longstanding U.S. policy supporting a two-state solution, drew sharp criticism from Palestinians and Arab nations. The fate of Gaza remains a critical and unresolved issue in post-war negotiations, with Hamas firmly rejecting any externally imposed governance structure.
Egypt’s plan, while offering an alternative framework, leaves key questions unanswered, including how Gaza’s reconstruction will be funded and how Hamas—an entrenched and militarily powerful entity—will be removed from power.
Interim Governance and Reconstruction
Under the Egyptian proposal, a “Governance Assistance Mission” would temporarily replace Hamas-run governance in Gaza. This interim body would focus on humanitarian aid and the initial phases of reconstruction, avoiding explicit details on long-term governance structures.
“There will be no major international funding for Gaza’s rehabilitation if Hamas remains the dominant armed political force,” states the draft plan’s preamble. This underscores the reluctance of international donors to finance rebuilding efforts while Hamas remains in control.
Egypt, Jordan, and Gulf Arab states have been working for nearly a month to develop a diplomatic strategy opposing Trump’s plan. Among various proposals, Egypt’s framework has emerged as the most viable alternative.
While the draft does not specify who would oversee the governance mission, it mentions drawing on expertise from Palestinians in Gaza and the diaspora to accelerate the region’s recovery.
Rejection of Mass Displacement
A core element of the Egyptian proposal is its firm opposition to the U.S. suggestion of mass Palestinian displacement. Arab states, including Egypt and Jordan, have warned that such a move would pose a serious security threat to the region.
Responding to inquiries about Egypt’s plan, White House National Security Council spokesman Brian Hughes stated, “President Trump has been clear that Hamas cannot continue to govern Gaza. While he stands by his vision for a post-war Gaza, he welcomes input from our Arab partners. His proposals have compelled the region to engage rather than allow the situation to worsen.”
Security Arrangements and the Role of Hamas
Senior Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri denied any knowledge of Egypt’s proposal, reiterating that “the future of Gaza must be decided solely by Palestinians.” He rejected any attempt to impose external governance or foreign forces on the enclave.
Notably, the Egyptian draft does not mention elections or outline specific consequences if Hamas refuses to disarm or relinquish political control.
Instead, the plan envisions an “International Stabilization Force,” primarily composed of Arab troops, to assume security responsibilities in Gaza. Over time, this force would facilitate the establishment of a new local police force.
Security and governance under this framework would be supervised by a steering board consisting of key Arab nations, members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the United States, Britain, the European Union, and other stakeholders.
The proposal does not grant a central governing role to the Palestinian Authority (PA), which has low approval ratings among Palestinians in both Gaza and the West Bank. A Palestinian official, speaking anonymously, asserted that Gaza remains under the PA’s jurisdiction and must be managed by Palestinians.
“We agreed with the Egyptians on a committee of Palestinian experts to assist the PA in governing Gaza for six months. This committee coordinates with the PA but does not report to any non-Palestinian entities,” the official stated.
Reconstruction and Funding Challenges
Since Hamas expelled the Palestinian Authority from Gaza in a 2007 civil conflict, it has suppressed opposition and fortified its power through an extensive tunnel network and military infrastructure—much of which Israel claims to have destroyed during the war.
The Egyptian plan does not specify who would finance Gaza’s reconstruction, which the U.N. estimates will cost over $53 billion. Sources indicate that Gulf and Arab states would need to contribute at least $20 billion in the initial rebuilding phase.
The proposal suggests that nations on the steering board could establish a reconstruction fund and host donor conferences to secure long-term financial support. However, no concrete financial commitments are outlined in the draft.
Resource-rich Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates could be crucial financial backers. However, the UAE, which views Hamas as a security threat, is unlikely to provide funds until the group is sidelined.
Future Governance and Civil Society Involvement
To promote local involvement, the draft proposes the creation of a “Civil Society Advisory Board” composed of academics, NGO leaders, and other prominent figures to provide guidance on governance and reconstruction.
The foreign ministries of Qatar, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia have not yet commented on Egypt’s proposal or their potential financial commitments.
While Egypt’s plan presents a structured alternative to Trump’s controversial vision, it still faces significant hurdles, including Hamas’ resistance, uncertainty over funding, and the challenge of implementing security measures in a volatile post-war environment.
