“The Day After” is a phrase currently in vogue in political circles. It refers to the period immediately following the complete removal of Hamas from governance of the Gaza Strip. There are plenty of ideas about what should or should take over, but the fact is that no steps seem to have been taken to make any of it a reality.
On Friday, US President Joe Biden took the lead.“The time has come to end this war,” he declared, “and the Day After Begins.”
He went on to outline what he called an “approved Israeli proposal” consisting of three steps that would lead to the return of all hostages, dead or alive, a permanent cessation of hostilities, and the reconstruction of Gaza without Hamas in power “the next day.”
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office confirmed that he had “authorized negotiators to submit proposals for the return of the hostages being held in Gaza.”
Meanwhile, the deadline is fast approaching for Netanyahu to avoid or accept a threat from War Cabinet Minister Benny Gantz to resign from the coalition government because no decision has been made.
At a press conference on May 18, Gantz said he wanted Netanyahu to present an agreed-upon vision for the post-conflict response in Gaza by June 8 at the latest, including outlining who will govern the Gaza Strip and how, the day after an end to the war with Hamas is declared.
Gantz has called for a six-point plan for the war cabinet and said he would pull his 12-seat centrist parties out of the government if his expectations were not met. His departure would not destroy the coalition, which would still have 64 of the 120 seats, but it would be shaken up so much that it could disappear.
On May 30, Gantz’s National Unity Party, anticipating his own ultimatum, joined other opposition parties in submitting a bill to the Knesset to dissolve parliament, which, if passed, would force general elections within the next few months.
On May 15, Defense Minister Yoav Galant sought clarity on post-war plans and urged Netanyahu to abandon any military reoccupation of the Gaza Strip, which he had said might be necessary for a period after the war.
Israel’s presence in Gaza
If Netanyahu were to completely abandon the idea of ​​an Israeli presence in Gaza “the next day,” he would almost certainly alienate ultranationalist parties that are so keen to annex Gaza and allow settlements there. They would also be unlikely to support Biden’s new initiative. But losing them from the coalition would not be the coup de grace for Netanyahu’s government as once thought. Following Biden’s announcement on June 1, opposition leader Yair Lapid vowed to support the prime minister if he went ahead with a ceasefire and exchange agreement.
The problem with Gantz’s “tomorrow” vision is that Arab countries, individually or collectively, have yet to develop plans or strategies for dealing with the aftermath of the war, participating in the “tomorrow” governance of Gaza, or supporting the establishment of a Palestinian state. Arab countries in general, and the Abraham Accords countries in particular, have been forced to walk a shaky path since October 7.
Arab public opinion overwhelmingly supports Hamas and opposes the Israeli invasion of Gaza, and while Arab governments are happy to see Iran and its allies under attack, they have carefully avoided backing Israel’s military operation.
The prestigious British think tank Chatham House believes Arab countries in the region should work together to support the Palestinians. “The time for countries to act is now,” they wrote.
So far, these Arab countries have relied on U.S.-led efforts to broker a plan focused on a ceasefire, and accordingly have refused to discuss “tomorrow’s” reconstruction or political and security scenarios, they explain.
“These countries are refusing to fund reconstruction efforts without guarantees that Israel will not launch another cycle of bombing,” Chatham House says. Apparently, they believe Hamas is likely to survive the war in some form, “but only if a ceasefire is established,” they say. [the Arab states] “We will begin to consider our role in a complex political settlement process. But this strategy carries risks that could delay prospects for peace, including further postponing a broader vision of regional integration that includes Israel…Investing in ‘what happens next’ must start today.”
The United States shares this view. “It is essential not only that the conflict in Gaza end as soon as possible, but that Israel present a clear plan for how it will govern, defend, and redevelop Gaza,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken said at a Senate committee hearing last week. Without that, Blinken said, Israel would face the unacceptable choice of a long military occupation and insurgency, a resurgence of Hamas, or anarchy and lawlessness.
Washington is pressuring Arab countries to agree to send in an international force that could establish security in Gaza in the short term. The U.S. will not send its own troops on the ground, but would like countries such as Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Bahrain and the UAE to do so.
Unfortunately, these countries have made it clear that they will only join if Western countries recognise a Palestinian state, a path towards a two-state solution is agreed upon, and they join at some sort of invitation from the Palestinian leadership, which must mean some form of Palestinian Authority, and Prime Minister Netanyahu has ruled the Palestinian Authority out as a partner in any “tomorrow” strategy.
“What happens the next day cannot be separated from the political process. It has to be part of a comprehensive package. Without the political process, no one will have any footing on the ground,” the BBC quoted an Arab diplomat as saying.
Some Arab countries believe, contrary to popular belief, that normalizing diplomatic ties between Israel and Saudi Arabia could be key to getting Israel to agree to a broader political settlement. There has also been discussion of Turkey’s role in using its influence over Hamas to force it to agree to some kind of post-war agreement.
But the idea of ​​Hamas having a say in Gaza’s future runs completely counter to the political consensus inside Israel: there can be no “after” until the terrorist group is completely neutralized militarily and politically and can play no role whatsoever in the governance of the Gaza Strip.
The author is Eurasia Review’s Middle East correspondent. His latest book is “Trump and the Holy Land: 2016-2020.” Follow him at www.a-mid-east-journal.blogspot.com.
