Israel’s principal objective in its war against the Gaza Strip continues to be to destroy and uproot Palestinian residents and annex Palestinian territory under the pretense of defeating Hamas, as the Israeli leadership has stated time and time again. As such, the Arab world faces a difficult choice regarding post-war arrangements. Arab leaders were expected to firmly state their stance against Israel’s horrific war of aggression against Gaza and a threat of igniting a wider regional catastrophe at the one-day meeting in the Saudi capital of Riyadh.
The Palestinian Authority (PA) organized the Arab summit, which was to be the first significant gathering of its kind since Israel began its ruthless assault on Gaza. In an apparent effort to topple the Hamas-led government, Israel is continuing its efforts to take complete control of the Gaza Strip, and the leaders in attendance were expected to provide an Arab plan for ending the crisis. They were also supposed to convene to map out what would happen in Gaza “the day after tomorrow” when the fighting stops, including what will happen to power in the Strip in the event of the much-anticipated mass exodus of Palestinians fleeing the fierce Israeli operation.
The host nation, Saudi Arabia, however, abruptly declared that instead, a symbolic summit of Arab-Islamic leaders would take place in an attempt to forge just a “common position” on the “dangerous and unprecedented developments” in Gaza. Consequently, this combined summit became the focal point of the diplomatic reaction to the conflict. The only demands made by the assembled Arab and Muslim leaders in their final communiqué were for an instant cessation of hostilities, the lifting of Gaza’s blockade, and approval for humanitarian supplies to be transferred to the Strip.
Regarding more general matters, the Summit’s 57 Arab and Islamic leaders did reiterate their backing for the statehood and right to self-determination of the Palestinian people in line with the two-State resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian problem. However, their statement gave no details about the precise options under consideration, such as stopping the normalization of relations with Israel, imposing sanctions on nations that arm Israel, or filing a case against Tel Aviv for war crimes before the International Criminal Court (ICC). The mission statement of the Summit lacked clear endorsement of Palestinians’ right to resist Israeli occupation. Many think that this pledge is necessary in order to refute Israel’s claim that Palestinians who resist it are “terrorists.”
As the horrific assaults on Gaza persist, observers are keeping a close eye on the aftermath to see how the Arab world will handle the humanitarian crisis, political unrest, and security failure in the Strip. Regional and international players are now attempting to imagine what the enclave might look like “the day after” the war as the clock is ticking down to Gaza’s complete collapse. The violence in Gaza has resulted in many thousands of deaths, numerous injuries, 6,000 reported missing, and over 1.6 million displaced people. Not only was the core infrastructure of the enclave devastated, but half of Gaza’s housing units were demolished. Israeli aircraft continue to attack Gaza from the air while its troops and tanks push more into the territory, which many fear will result in a major surge in casualties and destruction—though the larger picture of Israel’s assault into the region is still difficult to see.
Israel strongly opposed and opposes all calls for a cease-fire or even a pause in the fighting, but under US and international pressure agreed to a short evacuation corridor along Gaza’s main highway for civilians fleeing their homes in the north. Although Hamas has controlled Gaza since 2007, Israel has vowed to destroy the group and has not provided any details about who would lead the enclave in the wake of the conflict or how it would be connected to the West Bank. Unprecedented instability in the area and growing resentment over the human tragedy in Gaza are being exacerbated by uncertainty over post-conflict prospects even two months into the war.
Israel’s political and military officials are still unsure about the war’s goals and tactics, particularly how it would finish and what would come next as the fighting rages on. After Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, Israeli military authorities declared that their “focus” will be on dismantling the military organization in Gaza at the outset of the Israeli attacks, known as Operation Iron Swords. The fact that Israeli troops have now entered northern Gaza suggests that its tactical activities were intended to isolate Hamas, and there are plenty of hints about them.
Considering the current state of imbalance between offense and defense in the war, Israeli troops on the ground are currently in Gaza City, fighting Hamas in intricate street warfare and suffering massive casualties that are carefully kept hidden from the public. The multiphase operation’s ultimate tactical objective seems to be to encircle Gaza, neutralize Hamas and other Palestinian forces, or compel them to either flee or surrender.
However, it is still unclear what the Israeli campaign’s ultimate goal is and how the military operations’ overarching strategy will be implemented. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made the most definitive public declaration regarding post-war plans when he declared that Israel “will have overall responsibility for security [in Gaza] for an indefinite period.” This implies that Israel may maintain a military presence in Gaza in the future—it withdrew from the Strip in 2005—and also sparks discussions about potential ambitions to reoccupy Gaza. Since the start of the conflict, rumors have been circulating about some of these alarming goals, such as Israel taking control of Gaza, driving out its entire people to live in Egypt, and eventually annexing the Gaza Strip.
Mark Regev, a senior Adviser to Netanyahu, stated that Israel is considering establishing a new structure in the Gaza Strip where Gazans would supposedly be able to rule themselves. Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev proposed seeking international assistance, particularly from Arab nations, to “rebuild demilitarized Gaza after the Hamas withdrawal.” The proposal of an international peacekeeping force in Gaza under an interim administration was one of several suggestions lately put out, either by pro-Israeli think tanks or the media. Under this plan, troops from the US, EU, and Arab states that have struck peace accords with Israel would temporarily oversee the Strip, with their primary role being that of law enforcement. Expanding the Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) present operation in the Sinai Peninsula to monitor the 1979 Peace Treaty between Israel and Egypt is one of the other options.
An alternative would be to hand authority of Gaza over to the Palestinian Authority, headquartered in the West Bank, once Israel’s conflict with Hamas is over, with Israel still bearing responsibility for the enclave’s safety. But Netanyahu rejected this option, saying the PA has failed in the past to “demilitarize” and “deradicalize” Gaza. His suggestion was to establish a “civilian authority” that would be supported by a “overwhelming Israeli military contingent.” Stated differently, the Israeli occupation is expected to be continued indefinitely.
Far-right Israeli Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, Minister of National Security, has advocated for the complete reoccupation of Gaza and the building of settlements on the territory following the war in the Strip. However, given the brutality of Israeli aggression on Gaza, the war’s most terrifying objective might be the forcible relocation of Strip Palestinians. After the battle, plans drafted by Israel’s Intelligence Ministry and made public by Calcalist, an Israeli news outlet connected to the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper group, advocated for the displacement of Gazans—that is, their forcible removal from the territory. In accordance with the three-phase plan, Palestinians who were compelled to leave their homes in Gaza via a “humanitarian corridor” would be relocated to Egypt’s North Sinai, which is unsuitable for human habitation.
The Palestinians and Arab governments vehemently disagreed with all of these plans, viewing them as attempts to use the Gaza War as a means of enforcing a military solution to the Palestinian problem. Unable to maintain complete authority over the Strip, the Palestinian Authority rejected the notion of ruling Gaza during this chaotic period. They were adamant that they would only go back to Gaza as part of a “comprehensive solution” that would bolster Palestinian statehood and put an end to Israeli occupation of all Palestinian lands. Prime Minister of the Palestinian National Authority Mohammad Shtayyeh declared, “(We) are not going to go to Gaza on an Israeli military tank We are going to go to Gaza as part of a solution that deals with the question of Palestine, that deals with occupation.” All of these proposals, according to the political and military leadership of Hamas, are intended to replace its control in Gaza with a new Israeli occupation.
Arab nations avoided saying outright whether or not their administrations had discussed such measures. However, they reiterated their backing for the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as the only organization representing the Palestinian people at the Riyadh Summit. However, after Hamas took over the Strip in 2008, there was talk of deploying Arab forces into Gaza to put a stop to the organization’s rule there and restore Palestinian autonomy in the West Bank.
Though these plans have not yet materialized, it is likely that the pertinent question of whether the Arab world is prepared for the days, weeks, and months following the conflict will still exist once the conclusion of current military operations is known. Arab nations, and neighbors of Israel in particular, ought to be wary of any Israeli policy alternatives that can serve as igniters for further instability in their region. The biggest worry is still that the conflict would lead to a mass exodus as a result of ethnic cleansing and genocide in Gaza or possibly the West Bank, which is rapidly turning into yet another hotspot. Growing concerns are that an Israeli invasion of Gaza will set off a massive wave of displacement similar to that which occurred during the 1948 and 1967 Arab-Israeli wars. After being forced to evacuate, millions of Palestinians were left stuck as refugees in the nations that took them in. A full-scale Israeli incursion into Gaza is expected to have major geopolitical, humanitarian, and fundamental ramifications that could threaten the stability of the already precarious regional order.
Numerous evaluations of the origins and effects of the conflict have been conducted since the war started following the October 7 Hamas attack, but they will all be ineffective if they do not contribute to illuminating the future. As a result of the fighting, a new regional reality is emerging, and many Arab states are finding themselves in a difficult situation as they consider their options in light of the various scenarios and theories. Leaders in the Arab world have historically been unable to move decisively or cooperatively when faced with difficulties; the outcomes of the most recent Summit appear to be no different, even if they could have been far worse.
The situation was made evident during the Riyadh Summit, which infuriated the Arab masses by appearing to ignore reality and by not taking coordinated action to fight Israel. The initial idea was to call an emergency meeting of the Arab League so that Arab leaders could unite and work toward securing an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and putting an end to Israel’s genocide against the Palestinian people.
Top Arab diplomats drafting resolutions ahead of the summit disagreed on whether to take severe action against Israel, such as halting Arab-Israeli rapprochement and threatening to impose an oil embargo on those who support it. In order to prevent more rifts that would highlight the conflict’s inability to be resolved, Saudi Arabia changed its plans for a more somber joint meeting of the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation as a result of the negotiations. The opposing points of view are a reflection of the efforts of Arab nations, such as Saudi Arabia, that have normalized relations with Israel or are seeking to do so in order to tip the regional balance back in favor of the new order they believe would follow from their rapprochement. Thus, the implications of war for Saudi Arabia, which is in talks with the US to establish détente with Israel as the cornerstone of a new regional security framework in which the Kingdom will play a major role, are not at all obscure.
Just as Saudi Arabia was attempting to demonstrate its leadership in the region and expand beyond its current standing while undermining the might of Iran, its principal adversary and Hamas backer, the Gaza battle broke out. In reaction to Israeli assault against Gaza, Saudi Arabia may be able to steer the Summit and Arab politics toward a soft landing, but in the long run, stability in the region will be necessary for it to exercise the leadership it desires. Due to the ambiguity surrounding the events that will dictate the course of action and the possible solutions to resolve the current war and its aftermath, these goals now face significant hurdles. Saudi Arabia’s predicament mirrors the challenging decisions that other Arab players must make since they lack the capacity and motivation to fully intervene in the chaos that has ensued in Gaza after the war.
With Gaza’s Palestinian people in ruins and Israel’s savage aggression wreaking destruction, the region might be “running out of steam” and there won’t be many options for a way out. Furthermore, a fair resolution to the Palestinian issue is hampered by the Arab world’s indecision, which persists under extremely challenging and perilous conditions.
Victor Mikhin, corresponding member of RANS, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.