PNW STAFF
The war in Gaza may be drawing to its bitter end, but what comes next could shape the Middle East for decades. President Donald Trump is positioning himself at the center of the effort to chart a post-war order, a move that has set off both intrigue and concern as to where this might be heading.
In recent days, Trump has convened or prepared to meet with leaders from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Indonesia, and Pakistan. The message is clear: the United States wants Arab and Muslim nations not only at the table, but on the ground in Gaza.
What Trump is proposing is a plan that, at least in broad strokes, seeks to secure the release of hostages, provide a roadmap for Israeli withdrawal, and establish a form of governance in Gaza that leaves Hamas on the sidelines. But the most striking--and controversial--element is the idea of a multinational peacekeeping force drawn largely from Muslim and Arab states. Indonesia has already signaled its willingness to send tens of thousands of troops. Others, including Egypt and Jordan, are being courted for similar commitments.
For many observers, this is nothing short of remarkable. The idea of Muslim troops entering Gaza to replace the Israeli Defense Forces could be seen as a step toward regional ownership of a Palestinian future. It would also relieve the United States from having to commit its own soldiers--an option that would be deeply unpopular at home. Instead, Washington would likely play a background role, offering logistical, financial, and intelligence support, while leaving the visible presence to regional partners.
But the plan is fraught with challenges. Israel has already made it known that there will be "bitter pills to swallow." Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is aware of the broad contours of Trump's proposal but faces fierce opposition from within his own government to any scenario that hands even partial authority back to the Palestinian Authority or reduces Israel's control over Gaza's borders. For Israel, the nightmare scenario is a premature withdrawal that allows Hamas--or a successor militant group--to reassert itself.
Arab states, too, are wary. Sending troops into Gaza is not just a question of logistics; it is a political gamble. Peacekeeping forces can quickly become targets, and no Arab government wants to see its soldiers killed in a conflict that is not fully under its command. Conditions would have to be tightly defined: who controls the force, how long it stays, what its rules of engagement are, and how it coordinates with both Israel and the Palestinians. Without clear answers, many nations may hesitate to commit.
One of the most glaring problems with Trump's vision is the assumption that Muslim-majority nations can act as neutral peacekeepers in Gaza. History gives plenty of reasons to doubt this. Many Arab and Muslim countries harbor deep hostility toward Israel, rooted in decades of conflict, ideology, and cultural resentment. Even governments that have formal diplomatic ties with Israel often face domestic populations where anti-Israel sentiment runs high. Placing their troops in Gaza, in close proximity to Israel, is not the same as stationing them in a neutral territory--it is putting them directly into one of the most combustible environments on earth.
No comments:
Post a Comment