The battle of details: Gaza’s next war is political
Many major questions regarding Gaza’s future remain unresolved and continue to fuel sharp debates, not only between Israel and the United States, but also between them and what is now called the “Arab-Islamic Group.” The disputes focus mainly on the composition of the technocratic committee expected to govern Gaza, its relationship with the Palestinian Authority, the role of international forces and Palestinian police slated to deploy after training, the timetable for Israel’s withdrawal, the fate of Hamas’s weapons, and the function of the “World Council” proposed by US President Donald Trump under his leadership.
So far, only the issues of ceasefire and prisoner exchange have been settled. The Arab-Islamic group accepted these terms simply because there was no other way to end the war and the ongoing genocide. From the beginning, Trump’s plan appeared biased and unfair, favouring Israeli demands while disregarding Arab ones. Arab and Islamic states sought to amend it as much as possible, but the final version was not significantly better than the first. It was, however, the only available option, given that Trump alone was capable of halting the war.
What has been announced about the next stage remains vague, mere broad outlines. That is why the “battle of details” has become so critical. Indeed, disputes over these details have already begun. Foreign ministers from Arab and Islamic countries are set to meet in Turkey in the coming days to coordinate their position. Israel, meanwhile, rejects the Palestinian proposal—reached in Cairo—that the committee should consist entirely of Gazans and be headed by a minister from the Palestinian government to bridge relations with Ramallah. Israel insists instead on a structure that aligns with its own interests and perspective, refusing any link to Ramallah and demanding that the committee be tied directly to the occupation and to Trump’s proposed World Council.
Regarding to the “World Peace Council”, Hamas has clearly rejected any form of international or U.S. trusteeship over Gaza, describing it as a new mandate era. The Arab-Islamic group, however, is willing to accept a limited advisory or supportive role for the council in Gaza’s reconstruction—provided it does not act as a governing body or replace the Palestinian Authority, and that it avoids reinforcing the separation between Gaza and the West Bank.
Another major point of contention concerns the role of proposed international forces. As Jordan’s King Abdullah emphasized in his recent BBC interview, the Arab-Islamic group insists that these forces should be deployed only to separate Israeli occupation troops from Gazans. Internal security within Gaza, they argue, must remain the responsibility of Palestinian police—not international troops, which would otherwise be seen as an occupying force rather than peacekeepers. Yet the US and Israeli positions appear to favor granting international forces a much larger role.
This brings back the thorny question of Hamas’s weapons. Israel insists on their immediate dismantling and the complete destruction of Hamas’s military infrastructure, especially its tunnel network, which remains Netanyahu’s government’s main concern. The Arab-Islamic group, by contrast, ties the issue to the withdrawal timeline and the overall framework for the next phase.
Arab diplomats express concern over the growing influence of Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, who has recently reemerged as a key player. Known for his extreme right-wing loyalties and strong influence on the president, Kushner played a major role in drafting the initial “20-point document,” which was heavily skewed toward Israel’s perspective.
If no agreement is reached on the “details” of the next phase, the coming period could unfold along three dangerous paths. The first would be a continuation of instability and the consolidation of an Israeli security-military hegemony. The second would involve Israel maintaining control over the areas it currently occupies—more than half of Gaza. The third, if the current situation persists, would see the emergence of two Gazas: one under Israeli sponsorship, beginning reconstruction and possibly new settlements, as hinted by U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff; and another left under Israeli security domination, plagued by political turmoil, insecurity, and chronic instability.
Many major questions regarding Gaza’s future remain unresolved and continue to fuel sharp debates, not only between Israel and the United States, but also between them and what is now called the “Arab-Islamic Group.” The disputes focus mainly on the composition of the technocratic committee expected to govern Gaza, its relationship with the Palestinian Authority, the role of international forces and Palestinian police slated to deploy after training, the timetable for Israel’s withdrawal, the fate of Hamas’s weapons, and the function of the “World Council” proposed by US President Donald Trump under his leadership.
So far, only the issues of ceasefire and prisoner exchange have been settled. The Arab-Islamic group accepted these terms simply because there was no other way to end the war and the ongoing genocide. From the beginning, Trump’s plan appeared biased and unfair, favouring Israeli demands while disregarding Arab ones. Arab and Islamic states sought to amend it as much as possible, but the final version was not significantly better than the first. It was, however, the only available option, given that Trump alone was capable of halting the war.
What has been announced about the next stage remains vague, mere broad outlines. That is why the “battle of details” has become so critical. Indeed, disputes over these details have already begun. Foreign ministers from Arab and Islamic countries are set to meet in Turkey in the coming days to coordinate their position. Israel, meanwhile, rejects the Palestinian proposal—reached in Cairo—that the committee should consist entirely of Gazans and be headed by a minister from the Palestinian government to bridge relations with Ramallah. Israel insists instead on a structure that aligns with its own interests and perspective, refusing any link to Ramallah and demanding that the committee be tied directly to the occupation and to Trump’s proposed World Council.
Regarding to the “World Peace Council”, Hamas has clearly rejected any form of international or U.S. trusteeship over Gaza, describing it as a new mandate era. The Arab-Islamic group, however, is willing to accept a limited advisory or supportive role for the council in Gaza’s reconstruction—provided it does not act as a governing body or replace the Palestinian Authority, and that it avoids reinforcing the separation between Gaza and the West Bank.
Another major point of contention concerns the role of proposed international forces. As Jordan’s King Abdullah emphasized in his recent BBC interview, the Arab-Islamic group insists that these forces should be deployed only to separate Israeli occupation troops from Gazans. Internal security within Gaza, they argue, must remain the responsibility of Palestinian police—not international troops, which would otherwise be seen as an occupying force rather than peacekeepers. Yet the US and Israeli positions appear to favor granting international forces a much larger role.
This brings back the thorny question of Hamas’s weapons. Israel insists on their immediate dismantling and the complete destruction of Hamas’s military infrastructure, especially its tunnel network, which remains Netanyahu’s government’s main concern. The Arab-Islamic group, by contrast, ties the issue to the withdrawal timeline and the overall framework for the next phase.
Arab diplomats express concern over the growing influence of Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, who has recently reemerged as a key player. Known for his extreme right-wing loyalties and strong influence on the president, Kushner played a major role in drafting the initial “20-point document,” which was heavily skewed toward Israel’s perspective.
If no agreement is reached on the “details” of the next phase, the coming period could unfold along three dangerous paths. The first would be a continuation of instability and the consolidation of an Israeli security-military hegemony. The second would involve Israel maintaining control over the areas it currently occupies—more than half of Gaza. The third, if the current situation persists, would see the emergence of two Gazas: one under Israeli sponsorship, beginning reconstruction and possibly new settlements, as hinted by U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff; and another left under Israeli security domination, plagued by political turmoil, insecurity, and chronic instability.
Many major questions regarding Gaza’s future remain unresolved and continue to fuel sharp debates, not only between Israel and the United States, but also between them and what is now called the “Arab-Islamic Group.” The disputes focus mainly on the composition of the technocratic committee expected to govern Gaza, its relationship with the Palestinian Authority, the role of international forces and Palestinian police slated to deploy after training, the timetable for Israel’s withdrawal, the fate of Hamas’s weapons, and the function of the “World Council” proposed by US President Donald Trump under his leadership.
So far, only the issues of ceasefire and prisoner exchange have been settled. The Arab-Islamic group accepted these terms simply because there was no other way to end the war and the ongoing genocide. From the beginning, Trump’s plan appeared biased and unfair, favouring Israeli demands while disregarding Arab ones. Arab and Islamic states sought to amend it as much as possible, but the final version was not significantly better than the first. It was, however, the only available option, given that Trump alone was capable of halting the war.
What has been announced about the next stage remains vague, mere broad outlines. That is why the “battle of details” has become so critical. Indeed, disputes over these details have already begun. Foreign ministers from Arab and Islamic countries are set to meet in Turkey in the coming days to coordinate their position. Israel, meanwhile, rejects the Palestinian proposal—reached in Cairo—that the committee should consist entirely of Gazans and be headed by a minister from the Palestinian government to bridge relations with Ramallah. Israel insists instead on a structure that aligns with its own interests and perspective, refusing any link to Ramallah and demanding that the committee be tied directly to the occupation and to Trump’s proposed World Council.
Regarding to the “World Peace Council”, Hamas has clearly rejected any form of international or U.S. trusteeship over Gaza, describing it as a new mandate era. The Arab-Islamic group, however, is willing to accept a limited advisory or supportive role for the council in Gaza’s reconstruction—provided it does not act as a governing body or replace the Palestinian Authority, and that it avoids reinforcing the separation between Gaza and the West Bank.
Another major point of contention concerns the role of proposed international forces. As Jordan’s King Abdullah emphasized in his recent BBC interview, the Arab-Islamic group insists that these forces should be deployed only to separate Israeli occupation troops from Gazans. Internal security within Gaza, they argue, must remain the responsibility of Palestinian police—not international troops, which would otherwise be seen as an occupying force rather than peacekeepers. Yet the US and Israeli positions appear to favor granting international forces a much larger role.
This brings back the thorny question of Hamas’s weapons. Israel insists on their immediate dismantling and the complete destruction of Hamas’s military infrastructure, especially its tunnel network, which remains Netanyahu’s government’s main concern. The Arab-Islamic group, by contrast, ties the issue to the withdrawal timeline and the overall framework for the next phase.
Arab diplomats express concern over the growing influence of Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, who has recently reemerged as a key player. Known for his extreme right-wing loyalties and strong influence on the president, Kushner played a major role in drafting the initial “20-point document,” which was heavily skewed toward Israel’s perspective.
If no agreement is reached on the “details” of the next phase, the coming period could unfold along three dangerous paths. The first would be a continuation of instability and the consolidation of an Israeli security-military hegemony. The second would involve Israel maintaining control over the areas it currently occupies—more than half of Gaza. The third, if the current situation persists, would see the emergence of two Gazas: one under Israeli sponsorship, beginning reconstruction and possibly new settlements, as hinted by U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff; and another left under Israeli security domination, plagued by political turmoil, insecurity, and chronic instability.
comments
The battle of details: Gaza’s next war is political
comments