Should Gaza be governed by an international player after Hamas? – opinion

One year ago, in an op-ed I had written, I suggested that on the “Day After” in Gaza, after the IDF returns all of our hostages and eliminates Hamas rule from the enclave, an international role player such as the US should govern Gaza temporarily.

Most commentators felt this was nothing more than wishful thinking. Who, indeed, would agree to entrench themselves in the Gazan mud? Today, several weeks after the inauguration of US President Donald Trump, my thoughts have been significantly strengthened.

Trump spoke of turning the Gaza Strip into an American asset – either temporarily or otherwise. He even went further to say there is a dire need to remove the Gazan population of approximately two million people to an alternative place to allow for the enclave’s development and to solve, once and for all, the endless terrorism it breeds against Israel, Egypt, and its very own population, via its leadership.

Whether this solution is realistic or not is secondary. The very fact that such words have been uttered publicly by the president of the United States of America is significant, as they lend an idea not yet visited the legitimacy and weight needed to think out of the box and to contemplate original and creative solutions, which may go against the grain.

This is particularly significant given that what has been considered regarding Gaza thus far has simply not worked.

Gaza's history

Not the potential peace, which was envisioned by former prime minister Ariel Sharon when he unilaterally withdrew from it in 2005-6, nor the work permits, which had been given to tens of thousands of Gazans to work within Israel in the homes and farms of precisely those people whose lives they then ravished on October 7.

Operation Cast Lead in 2008 and Operation Protective Edge in 2014 also failed to achieve the sought-after results.

Moreover, the current Israel-Hamas War, which began after the October 7, 2023, massacre, has also not stopped the breeding of the horrid hatred, incitement, and terror within the Gaza Strip.

The possibility of replacing Hamas’s leadership with the Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas)-led Fatah is an absolute waste of time, as history had already proved, in 2007, when Hamas took over the Gaza Strip and slaughtered their Palestinian brethren – those same Fatah officers in the Gaza Strip.

Likewise, the idea of placing the heads of several large and prosperous families in the enclave, “Hamoulas,” in charge of several areas within Gaza during the current war only lasted a few short days as they were murdered by Hamas and their operatives.

WHAT THE war in Gaza has made crystal clear is the need to destroy Hamas’s infrastructure both above ground and below – namely, the entire underground tunnel network throughout the enclave. This cannot be achieved without the removal of the population of Gaza, either temporarily or otherwise.

It is also very clear that Hamas’s extreme Islamic ideology has, since 2006, entered every home and every school book in Gaza. Hence, an entirely new educational system needs to be introduced and supervised – something which cannot occur if it stays in power and/or Fatah takes its place.

After all, the hatred, incitement, and indoctrination are as much part of the messaging in Judea and Samaria under Mahmoud Abbas and the Fatah party as they are in the Gaza Strip.

The optimal role player that could possibly enact a reformed and new educational system is the United Arab Emirates, which has already proved it was able to execute far-reaching reforms in its own educational system. But they would never even consider it if Hamas remained in power, as they could not operate within Gaza without being endangered.

Without residents, Hamas will not be able to continue its terror activity for several reasons.

First, it would not be able to embed itself in the civilian population who serve as human shields. 

Second, it could not move closer and closer to the north of the enclave, amid throngs of civilians, to a position that would serve as a launching pad to attack nearby Israeli villages and towns. Third, without civilians, Hamas cannot lean upon the excuse of attacking Israel to “protect” the Gazans, as they would no longer be there.

When Yasser Arafat and the Palestinians were banished from Lebanon after they had turned the country into a hotbed of terror and participated in the periodical massacre of hundreds and thousands of Christian Lebanese, the world was silent.

After the Palestinians were banished from Kuwait for celebrating Iraq’s occupation of the country despite the Kuwaitis’ warm hospitality toward them, the world was silent. When the Palestinians were massacred in Jordan in “Black September” in 1970 by the Jordanian king after they had committed terror attack after terror attack in the kingdom, the world remained silent.

If Palestinians are banished from Gaza, temporarily or otherwise, the world would not remain silent as this time, Israel would be involved. However, the continued hostilities in the form of open and unapologetic hatred and genocidal zest, which are clear in every statement made by Hamas leadership in Arabic, cannot continue as they have been until now.

Where would Palestinians go?

THE QUESTION is, where should the Palestinians go? Is Egypt the right venue? No. Not because there is no space in the Sinai Peninsula; there is plenty of space there. Yet, that would mean exporting the problem from one mutual border with Israel to another. Furthermore, the panic that has awakened among the Egyptian leadership in the face of such a possibility is legitimate.

Why? The Egyptians, much like the Jordanians, understand well what it means to import approximately two million Palestinians.

Even though this would be a tiny percentage of their own 110 million-strong population, they remember Hamas murdering their soldiers in Rafah in 2012, the attempts made by the terror group to coordinate moves with terrorist entities in the Sinai Peninsula to undermine the Egyptian central regime, as well as their close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Egyptians understand that every country that has accepted Palestinians has suffered from terrorism and instability. History has proved that, and it is, after all, a legitimate fear.

Jordan is a similar example, only smaller and less stable. The king already faces a huge Palestinian portion of his population easily incited by external factors, such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, to undermine the Jordanian leadership. He does not need another two million Palestinians, who will not only further destabilize his regime but also destabilize the already fragile Jordanian economy and infrastructure.

On top of all that, Jordan shares a border with Israel that is over 330 km. long. With two million more Palestinians in its vicinity, the problem would simply have changed its geography.

Qatar comprises approximately 11,000 sq.km. – about half of the State of Israel. Only 300,000 Qataris live in that geography, alongside the upper echelon of Hamas, which has been lavishly living there for years, in tremendous prosperity.

Why would this country, which is practically the self-declared sponsor of Hamas, not take in the two million Gazan civilians who currently make do with merely 365 sq.km. in Gaza, a territory 30 times smaller in size than Qatar?

The distance from Israel is also significant enough to nullify border skirmishes, and the Egyptians and Jordanians could certainly breathe more easily with that solution.

Instead of hospitality for Palestinians, the latter could offer, in return for continued financial aid from the United States, the much-needed reform in their educational systems, their media, and the general messaging, which could undoubtedly be made more inclusive, tolerant, and multicultural.

The writer is a former MK and current senior fellow at the Misgav Institute for Strategic Affairs.