The recent diplomatic activity sparked by the newly brokered Israel-Hamas ceasefire demonstrates the encore of international strategic repositioning, concerning post-conflict arrangements in Gaza. Shifts in the conditions of the ceasefire advanced by Trump signaled the first international repositioning, as the ceasefire conditions specify the United States placing troops in the territory. The ceasefire has been seen as a breakthrough in diplomacy.
The informal ceasefire has been lauded by some as a diplomatic breakthrough
Others regard the ceasefire with a degree of skepticism, and after a week of intense fighting and a humanitarian crisis, a hostile ceasefire is considered appreciable.
Many of the implications of the recent accords are the diplomatic consequences of the negotiations.
The Trump-backed plan was first embraced by Israeli officials. This is because Israeli officials perceived the strategic opportunity of allowing the United States to reposition its troops in proximity to Gaza. This is viewed as the United States completing its Middle Eastern strategic repositioning after a period of relative disengagement.
A stabilization plan – What the Europeans are calling for
The American military presence caused European and Arab leaders to share their ideas about different transition frameworks for Gaza. Stakeholders want to meet new challenges with a different approach, combining generous humanitarian efforts, reconstruction, and avoiding future humanitarian crises.
European diplomats are advocating for a stabilization plan that includes the UN and regional authorities to allow Gaza a more self-contained and autonomous recovery. Their plans outline reconstruction governance that is open and representative of the will of the Palestinian citizens, not reconstruction politics from outside the territory.
Arab leaders are more concerned with transitional plans that allow reconstruction from the humanitarian and political crisis for their citizens, unsolved settlements concerning the population’s political occupation, and forced displacement.
Different priorities are clear from the different plans
The US and Israel’s ‘axis of security’ approach completely undermines the plan from Arab and European leaders, which is built on all political and humanitarian aspects. This is why there are many undocumented meetings and new coalitions in the political centers of the Arab world-Cairo, Amman, and Brussels.
One key sticking point has to do with what happens to Hamas after the ceasefire. The Trump plan apparently ignores Hamas by proposing instead a technocratic administration with international donor support.
Critics say ignoring Hamas will provide no legitimacy to any new governance framework and will likely cause new tensions to flare.
The other issue under contention is the reconstruction of Gaza after the recent conflict. The damage is substantial. The U.S. has promised aid, however, European countries wish to impose guidelines for aid to prevent the potential for abuse.
Arab countries, especially Qatar and Egypt, will likely provide the bulk of rebuilding resources and will aid the reconstruction of Gaza in other ways.
Renewed discussions on a peace agreement
The ceasefire has renewed discussions on a potential comprehensive peace agreement addressing Israel and Palestine relations.
The current deal has opened diplomatic discussions for the first time in years, but it does not deal with any of the key issues like borders, refugees, or Jerusalem. Analysts believe the overall success or failure of this ceasefire will determine the future of the proposed negotiations.
The ceasefire has renewed discussions on a potential comprehensive peace agreement addressing Israel’s relations.
The violence has stopped, and the ceasefire is now starting to gain traction diplomatically. Whether this moment brings durable change or is simply a time to take a breath is all on the ability of international and regional bodies to disentangle the interests and encapsulated resentments wrapped in a spider web of issues surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.