The question of the day after: What follows the Gaza war?

Many Western and Arab political circles are concerned about what comes after the war. Most statements by American, Israeli and Arab officials revolve around visions for the day after the war. Media leaks published in this context cover many scenarios.

But the Israeli and American positions remain the most prominent among the overall visions circulating. The officially announced Israeli vision revolves around remaining in Gaza for a period of time. It wants to achieve the desired military and security objectives from the ongoing war with the terrorist movement Hamas.

It also excludes any role for the Palestinian Authority. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently sharply attacked the Authority and considered it an existential threat postponed for Israel. He said that it has the same agenda as the terrorist Hamas and wants to achieve it by other means and mechanisms.

He even called for readiness for a war that the Authority could wage in coordination with Hamas. These are statements that may seem politically motivated and purposeful, but do not deny that there is a very deep divide between Israel and the Palestinian Authority with all its figures.

The strategic vision of the Americans regarding the fate of the Gaza Strip is based on building a regional alliance supported by the Americans. It aims to manage the Gaza Strip. Despite the differences in some details, they generally agree that some countries of the Cooperation Council will bear the cost of the plans to rebuild the Gaza Strip.

They will also participate in the management of the Gaza Strip in security and political terms. Regional countries such as the Emirates will play a central role in some points of this American plan.

I pointed out in an article in mid-November last year that the international and regional influence on the Israeli decision on the future of Gaza depends on how the military confrontation in Gaza turns out. It is therefore difficult to delineate the roles for the foreseeable future until the military data that will determine the roles are available or finalized.

The evidence says that Israel has asserted its opinion regarding the rejection of a final ceasefire with the Hamas terrorist movement. It has not yielded to any international pressure in this regard. It has been able to direct the course of the war according to its decision.

It has also been able to align the role and position of the American side next to it. Therefore, it can be said that it will repeat the same scenario if it succeeds in imposing its say militarily definitively on Gaza. It will be the one who decides who manages what.

And it will set the nature and limits of the role of any regional or international party. Here, it is hard to imagine that Israel accepts to hand over the strip to any party or group, at least in the initial stages after the end of the war and until the completion of the implementation of the plan it believes will guarantee its security and prevent a recurrence of the October 7, 2023 scenario.

Therefore, Israel will not accept any scenario of the ones currently circulating among the international and regional parties, including the American one, about the future of the Gaza Strip. Israel fully trusts that it will receive the full support of the Americans for whatever Israel will decide in this regard, whatever it may be. This is something that gives Israel a great deal of leeway.

The idea that the Gaza Strip remains under the full administration of any Palestinian party or the presence of other willing Arab actors looks unlikely. It is not believed that any Arab state will accept to interfere in the Gaza quagmire without agreeing on guarantees and specific conditions.

The UAE, being frequently mentioned in the scenarios circulating about the day after the Gaza war, has taken the initiative to draw the boundaries of its role and position in this context. The state confirmed this through its the permanent representative to the UN, Lana Nusseibeh, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal.

She said that there must be an implementable plan for a two-state solution and a serious roadmap before dealing with the day after and the reconstruction of Gaza. Nusseibeh added that without a roadmap for a two-state solution, the UAE will not fully invest in reconstruction. She said that this is not the path they have taken with the Abraham Accord.

This is a rational and fully understandable strategic position in light of past experiences and also the current geopolitical conditions. It is not possible for the resources of the Gulf Cooperation Council countries to remain open to bear the costs of evil and disastrous plans and decisions. Everyone knows who is behind and who is implementing them and what they want and how they think.

This is especially true in light of the failure of all previous experiences in which some GCC countries bore the burdens and bills of reconstruction and financed multi-billion projects that did not contribute to security or regional stability. The countries of the GCC seek a lasting solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

It is important to link reconstruction plans and financial and political support for those plans, whether in Gaza or the West Bank, to a peace process that can be normalized and supported by the US, without disregarding the interests of the countries of GCC who need to reconcile their historic commitments to the Palestinian people and their earnest desire for peace with Israel.

They have suffered and endured much for the Palestinian cause and are regionally accused in every crisis by the advocates of sedition and chaos, promoted by the media, damaging their reputation and status.

These countries adopt a path based on achieving security and stability, away from exploiting the blood of the innocent Palestinian people and seek to guarantee for all the peoples of the region, including Israel, the right to live in peace and coexistence. Evidently, some GCC countries, particularly the Emirates and Saudi Arabia, are playing a balancing act in the Gaza crisis.

They are doing their utmost to protect the Palestinian civilian population and stop the bloodshed. They are working at the diplomatic level and in the corridors of the Security Council and the UN General Assembly.

So, it is illogical to make the GCC countries foot the bill for the mistakes of the others or to automatically conclude that the Gulf coffers will finance reconstruction each time a Palestinian party commits a stupidity or a crime that opens the gates of hell in Gaza or elsewhere.

Salem AlKetbi, UAE political analyst and former Federal National Council candidate