The Gaza Dilemma: Searching for a Political Solution

The Gaza Strip is one of the most densely populated and impoverished regions in the world, home to over 2 million Palestinians who live under the control of Hamas, a militant Islamist group that has been in power since 2007. The Gaza Strip has been the scene of recurrent cycles of violence and humanitarian crises, most recently in October 2023, when a Hamas attack that killed more than 1,200 Israelis triggered a massive Israeli retaliation that left thousands of Palestinians dead and wounded, and much of the infrastructure in ruins.

The latest war in Gaza has once again exposed the need for a political solution that would end the conflict between Israel and Hamas, and address the underlying issues that fuel the resentment and despair of the people in Gaza. However, finding such a solution is a daunting task, as it involves multiple actors with divergent interests and agendas, and faces numerous obstacles and trade-offs. In this opinion piece, I will explain the challenges of finding a political solution for the Gaza Strip, outline the main proposals that have been put forward by different actors to end the conflict, and analyze the pros and cons of each proposal.

The Challenges of Finding a Political Solution for the Gaza Strip

The Gaza Strip is not only a humanitarian and security problem, but also a political and diplomatic one. Any attempt to find a lasting solution for the situation in Gaza must take into account the following challenges:

• The division between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority (PA), the rival faction that governs parts of the West Bank and claims to represent the Palestinian people. The two sides have been at odds since Hamas won the 2006 legislative elections and ousted the PA from Gaza in a bloody coup in 2007. Despite several attempts to reconcile, the two factions remain deeply distrustful and hostile to each other, and have different visions for the future of the Palestinian cause. Hamas rejects the Oslo Peace Accords and does not recognize Israel, while the PA supports the two-state solution and seeks to resume negotiations with Israel. The division between Hamas and the PA undermines the legitimacy and effectiveness of the Palestinian leadership, and complicates the coordination and delivery of humanitarian and development assistance to Gaza.
• The isolation of Gaza from the rest of the world. Since 2007, Israel has imposed a land, air, and sea blockade on Gaza, restricting the movement of people and goods in and out of the territory. Israel says the blockade is necessary to prevent the smuggling of weapons and materials that could be used by Hamas and other militant groups to attack Israel. However, the blockade has also had a devastating impact on the civilian population, causing widespread poverty, unemployment, food insecurity, water scarcity and power shortages. The blockade also limits the access of humanitarian and development agencies, journalists, and diplomats to Gaza, making it harder to monitor and address the situation on the ground. Egypt, which shares a border with Gaza, has also largely closed its crossing with the territory, citing security concerns and its strained relations with Hamas.
• The asymmetry of power and influence between Israel and Hamas. Israel is a sovereign state with a strong military, a vibrant economy, and a stable democracy. It also enjoys the support and protection of the United States, its main ally and sponsor, as well as the cooperation and recognition of several Arab countries, such as Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf states. Hamas, on the other hand, is a non-state actor with limited military capabilities, a weak economy, and a contested legitimacy. It also faces the hostility and pressure of the international community, which considers it a terrorist organization and imposes sanctions and restrictions on its activities and finances. The imbalance of power and influence between Israel and Hamas makes it difficult to achieve a fair and balanced negotiation and agreement, and creates a sense of frustration and humiliation among the Palestinians in Gaza.

The Main Proposals to End the Conflict between Israel and Hamas

In the aftermath of the war in Gaza, several actors have put forward different proposals to end the conflict between Israel and Hamas, and to improve the situation in Gaza. These proposals vary in their scope, objectives, and feasibility, and reflect the interests and perspectives of their proponents. Here are the main proposals that have been presented so far:

• The U.S. proposal: The Biden administration has drafted a multiphase plan that envisions a revamped PA taking over the governance of Gaza in the long term, after an international force stabilizes the region in the immediate aftermath of the war. The U.S. also wants to revive the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, based on the two-state solution. However, this proposal faces opposition from Israel, which does not trust the PA and does not want to negotiate with Hamas. It also faces skepticism from Hamas, which does not recognize Israel and fears losing its power and legitimacy in Gaza.
• The Egyptian proposal: Egypt, which shares a border with Gaza and has been a traditional mediator between Israel and Hamas, has proposed a phased de-escalation that would start with a humanitarian ceasefire, followed by a prisoner exchange, and then a long-term truce that would include easing the blockade on Gaza and allowing reconstruction and development projects. Egypt also wants to reconcile Hamas and the PA, and to host a conference with other Arab countries to support the Palestinian cause. However, this proposal faces challenges from Israel, which demands a complete disarmament of Hamas and other militant groups in Gaza, and from Hamas, which wants guarantees for its political survival and influence in Gaza.
• The Qatari proposal: Qatar, which has been a major donor and ally of Hamas, has proposed a humanitarian initiative that would provide urgent aid and relief to the people in Gaza, as well as a political dialogue that would involve Hamas, the PA, Israel, and other regional and international actors. Qatar also wants to promote a comprehensive and lasting peace agreement that would address the root causes of the conflict, such as the occupation, the settlements, the refugees, and the status of Jerusalem. However, this proposal faces resistance from Israel, which considers Qatar a sponsor of terrorism and does not want to legitimize Hamas, and from the PA, which views Qatar as a rival and a spoiler of its efforts to unify the Palestinians.

The Obstacles and Trade-offs of Each Proposal

Each of the proposals that have been put forward to end the conflict between Israel and Hamas has its own merits and drawbacks, and faces different obstacles and trade-offs. Here are some of the main pros and cons of each proposal:

• The U.S. proposal:
• Pros: It offers a long-term vision for the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, based on the internationally endorsed two-state solution. It also aims to restore the role and authority of the PA in Gaza, and to enhance the security and stability of the region with the help of an international force.
• Cons: It is unrealistic and impractical, as it ignores the realities and complexities of the situation in Gaza, and the preferences and positions of the parties involved. It also requires a high level of commitment and coordination from the U.S. and its allies, which may not be available or sustainable in the face of other priorities and challenges.
• The Egyptian proposal:
• Pros: It is pragmatic and incremental, as it focuses on the immediate and urgent needs of the people in Gaza, and builds on the existing channels and mechanisms of communication and mediation between Israel and Hamas. It also seeks to foster a regional consensus and support for the Palestinian cause, and to bridge the gap between Hamas and the PA.
• Cons: It is insufficient and short-sighted, as it does not address the root causes and drivers of the conflict, and does not offer a clear and comprehensive framework for the future of Gaza and the Palestinian territories. It also depends on the goodwill and cooperation of Israel and Hamas, which may not be consistent or reliable in the face of changing circumstances and interests.
• The Qatari proposal:
• Pros: It is generous and inclusive, as it provides substantial and unconditional assistance to the people in Gaza, and invites all the relevant actors to engage in a constructive and comprehensive dialogue and negotiation. It also acknowledges and respects the role and status of Hamas in Gaza, and seeks to address the core issues and grievances of the Palestinians.
• Cons: It is controversial and divisive, as it challenges the dominant narratives and policies of Israel and the international community, and undermines the efforts and legitimacy of the PA. It also faces the risk of being rejected or sabotaged by Israel and its allies, who may perceive it as a threat or a provocation.

Conclusion

The situation in Gaza is a complex and multifaceted problem that requires a political solution that is acceptable and beneficial to all the parties involved. However, none of the proposals that have been put forward so far has a clear path to success, and each of them faces significant challenges and trade-offs. The fate of Gaza depends on the willingness and ability of the parties to compromise and cooperate, as well as on the support and pressure of the international community. Until then, the people in Gaza will continue to suffer and struggle, and the cycle of violence and despair will continue to repeat itself.