With Jordan and Egypt closing the doors to any discussion regarding the proposal to deploy their forces in the Gaza Strip after the end of the war, one wonders about the reasons for this position, whether on the part of these two countries, or by other Arab countries who have followed the same tone in recent days.
Next Saturday, Saudi Arabia will witness an emergency Arab summit to discuss the ongoing war in Gaza, and with the lack of clarity on the main headlines the countries’ leaders will focus on, observers who spoke to the site Al-Hurra’s government pointed out that the proposal to “deploy forces” will have a place on the table, despite the rejection. “Conclusive and definitive.”
Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Al-Safadi said Wednesday that his country “rejects any talk of post-war administration of Gaza, through Arab and non-Arab forces.” This statement was followed by a Wall Street Journal report stating that “the United States proposed that Egypt temporarily handle security in the Gaza Strip,” but Cairo “refused.”
According to the newspaper, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), William Burns, discussed the proposal with the Egyptian president, Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, and his intelligence chief, Abbas Kamel.
The proposal comes, according to the American newspaper, “so that the Palestinian Authority can take full responsibility after the defeat of Hamas” in the current war between Israel and the Palestinian movement, classified in the list of terrorists in Israel, America and the Union European.
But Sisi rejected the proposal, saying that “Egypt will not have a role in eliminating Hamas because it needs the armed group to maintain security on the border,” according to the Wall Street Journal.
What’s behind the rejection?
As the Israeli war in Gaza enters its second month, the United States of America seeks a post-war scenario and, on the other hand, it is clear that Israel “will not remain in the Gaza Strip in the form of occupation.”
While “international administration and the deployment of international forces emerge as one of the options,” says former Jordanian information minister Samih Maaytah, “America and Israel prefer to deploy Arab forces and are trying to commercialize the issue.”
In an interview with the Al-Hurra website, Maaytah believes that the Egyptian refusal stems from the premise that Egypt is “the closest country to Gaza”, while Jordan rejects the proposal “because it believes it places the burden to preserve the so-called Israeli territories.” security in Arab countries”.
The reasons also refer to the fact that “the required Arab position is not to help change the situation in Gaza, but rather to work to stop the aggression, and then start a political process, the objective of which is to guarantee Palestinians their rights, the most important of which is the Palestinian state.”
Dr. Abdullah Al-Assaf, professor of political media in Saudi Arabia, believes that “the issue of deploying Arab forces is unacceptable and contains a kind of political malice, because it will lead to transferring the conflict to an Arab-Arab zone.”
Therefore “there will be a big problem,” Al-Assaf explains to the Al-Hurra website, saying: “There could be an attempt to penetrate by the Palestinian side and force the Arab forces to face fire, which will turn the problem into an Arab one -Arabic”.
Furthermore, “Arab forces may clash with Israeli forces, and then the conflict will become regional and turn into a conflict.”
The rapporteur himself believes that “the presence of international forces under the supervision of the United Nations is the internationally accepted way” and that “this is the most important thing that needs to be emphasized at this time”.
The issue of sending Arab or Egyptian forces to Gaza “after the war” has been raised in more than one Egyptian-European and Egyptian-American discussion.
The issue was also raised during US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken’s recent visit to Cairo, according to the editor-in-chief of Al-Ahram newspaper, Ashraf Al-Ashry.
In an interview with the Al-Hurra website, Al-Ashry believes that “the proposal is absolutely rejected, because it is neither coherent nor responsive to the Egyptian and Arab positions, which believe that a Palestinian state must be created through a political solution. “
“Once the war is over, a big question arises: what will the next day be like?” Al-Ashry explains: “His country, together with the Arab countries, is currently seeking a ceasefire, after which it will devote itself to finding a political solution.”
“For fear of a trap”
Until now, the issue of “post-war Gaza” remains in the realm of scenarios and proposals.
Although Western reports make it abundantly clear, the fate of the fronts on the ground and the balance of power have not been decided, in light of intensifying land battles and continued aerial bombardment, with countries trying to reach a ceasefire .
Egypt and Jordan have consistently expressed their rejection of any attempt to “displace” Palestinians from the Gaza Strip, and as the pace of bombing intensified and with it the number of civilian casualties, it became apparent that Amman had taken an escalating stance towards Israel. .
Its Foreign Minister, Ayman Al-Safadi, also said on Wednesday, according to media reports, that “Hamas is a never-ending idea, and whoever wants a different situation must respect the rights of the Palestinian people and achieve comprehensive peace ”.
Al-Safadi added: “Jordan rejects any scenario that addresses only the Gaza issue, and this will perpetuate Israel’s goal of separating the Gaza Strip from the West Bank.”
From the point of view of Jordanian researcher Dr. Amer Al-Sabaila, the issue of “deployment of Arab forces in Gaza after the war is dangerous, because it places the responsibility on the Arab side, and this is something that cannot be supported. “
Therefore, the Jordanian and Egyptian capitals categorically rejected the proposal.
On the other hand, Al-Sabaila adds to the Al-Hurra website that “the scale of the Arab-Arab conflict on many issues is great” and that “what has united them recently is the international coalition to fight ISIS”, and before that, the “Peninsula Shield Forces” that went to Bahrain.
But “the idea of joint Arab forces in Gaza is risky, and begins with a possible confrontation with resistance factions or the Israeli side.”
There are reasons related to “responsibility”, as Al-Sabaila believes that “everyone is cautious and does not want to fall into the trap” and “does not even want to have a role that could develop later, because we are talking about an unclear phase.”
“Peacekeeping forces” are usually international, as are “peace enforcement” forces, and the Arab character may give them a “competitive and conflictual dimension” if they are deployed.
The Jordanian researcher continues: “Everyone wants to avoid this scenario.”
He also believes that “the rejection of the proposal by the Arab countries will lead to the idea of internationalization, that is, the formation of an international committee with an Arab presence, rather than Arab countries being at the forefront of a mission this could end in a situation with undesirable consequences.”
What is the title of the general summit?
Next Saturday the Saudi capital, Riyadh, will witness an emergency Arab summit, requested by the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas.
His adviser on religious affairs, Mahmoud Al-Habbash, spoke on Tuesday of “a fundamental goal, which is the ceasefire and an end to the killing of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.”
Al-Habbash added: “The priority now is to stop the aggression, and we are ready to do everything to stop the war in the Gaza Strip,” stressing that “the Palestinian leadership appreciates any effort that seeks to stop the war in Gaza . “
Former Jordanian Information Minister Samih Al-Maaytah believes that the Arab summit will not discuss the proposal to “deploy Arab forces” to Gaza after the war, but rather “we will talk about the need to find a productive political process among the Palestinians and Israel”.
He will also focus on the issue of “giving Palestinians rights to their land, and before even calling for an end to the aggression.”
The professor of political media, Abdullah Al-Assaf, explains that “the next Riyadh summit will be different and not a protocol, and will try to announce the Arab and Islamic position on the Palestinian issue.”
This will also confirm, according to Al-Assaf, that “the Palestinians are not alone in the open, and that there is Arab and Islamic support in exchange for overt support that is inconsistent with international norms carried out by Western countries, which have demonstrated their prejudice against Israel and the fall of the slogans with which they broke our heads,” as he stated.
He adds: “When we look at what is happening in Ukraine and Palestine, we see that there is a double standard. They are dealing with Ukraine on one scale and with the Palestinians on another, which is unacceptable. The summit it will send a message of solidarity and that there is an Arab and Islamic consensus that what Israel is doing in Gaza is unacceptable.”
“Power and Conditions”
As for the Egyptian side, according to journalist Ashraf Al-Ashry, Cairo seeks “a political solution, with the return of the Palestinian Authority, for the possibility of focusing on resolving the issue.”
The proposal to “deploy Arab forces” will not be on the table in Riyadh, and Al-Ashry expects “countries to call for a Palestinian state, with the return of authority to Gaza under certain conditions.”
These conditions can be represented by “a political solution, as well as by the strengthening and presence of the role of the authority in the phase following the end of the occupation”.
As well as “giving guarantees that Israeli occupation or operations will not be repeated and agreeing on a proposal that there will be a Palestinian-Palestinian return.”
“Cairo believes that any proposal from European or Arab forces is a leap in the air and will not achieve the desired goal in a political solution.”
The editor-in-chief of the Al-Ahram newspaper continues: “There is Egyptian determination not to give the opportunity to return to occupation in Gaza again.”
He talks about what he described as “the fundamental point,” which concerns “the return of authority to Gaza, once again under Palestinian administration, with Palestinian-Palestinian capabilities and qualifications, under Arab and international cover that guarantees it protection and presence away from any Israeli skirmishes”.
For his part, political media professor Al-Assaf explains that the next summit will address “the need to open crossings and bring fuel to operate hospitals and provide aid, provided that it is not selective or limited in quantity.”
During the summit, Arab leaders will send “a message to Western countries about the need to urgently stop asymmetric warfare,” and Al-Assaf says that “it is necessary to reach a two-state solution and it must be recognized that there is a belief: Israel cannot eliminate the Palestinians, nor vice versa.”
There is another dimension: “Israel will never live in stability, security and protection, and therefore the solution must be to return to the Arab initiative and develop it.”
The spokesperson explains that “the solution proposed by Saudi Arabia and approved by the Arab League in 2002, the so-called Arab Initiative, provides that there will be an integrated Palestinian state so that Israel can enjoy security and stability”.