Egypt’s ambitious plan to rebuild Gaza, unveiled at an emergency summit in Cairo last Tuesday, is steadily gaining international traction. It is even beginning to sway the Trump administration, which initially pushed for the forced displacement of Gazans, though its position remains contradictory and vague. However, the future of Hamas is a sticking point for all sides regardless of the issue of Gaza’s reconstruction.
Endorsed by Arab leaders and designed to keep Gaza’s residents in their homeland, the $53 billion Egyptian Gaza reconstruction plan aims to keep residents in place by establishing a six‐month transitional administration, followed by a five-year handover to the Palestinian Authority.
The plan has received notable support from the foreign ministers of France, Germany, Italy, and Britain, who praised it as “realistic.”
However, it faces significant hurdles, notably opposition from the United States and Israel and complications arising from the exclusion of Hamas from the transitional committee. The plan’s future now depends on whether regional and international actors can overcome these challenges.
The Trump administration on Thursday delivered mixed messages about its stance on the Egypt-led Arab plan for post-war Gaza management. Last week, US special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, described the proposal as a “good faith first step” with many appealing features. However, just hours later, State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce labelled it “inadequate.”
Her remarks during her initial press briefing echoed those of White House National Security Council spokesperson Brian Hughes, who had previously pointed out that the plan fails to consider “the reality that Gaza is currently uninhabitable” and reiterated that President Donald Trump remains committed to his own vision to transform the Gaza Strip into a “Middle East Riviera.”
Underscoring the incoherence of the Trump policy, US President Donald Trump said Wednesday that no Palestinians will be displaced from Gaza, appearing to walk back on previous threats to expel the enclave’s 2.2 million residents.
Trump shocked the world in January when he proposed a US “takeover” of Gaza and the permanent resettlement of its population in neighbouring countries.
An alternative to the Middle East’s Riviera
Mouin Mardawi, a senior Hamas official, argued in an interview with The New Arab that the Egyptian plan serves as “a viable alternative” to forced displacement, providing a concrete and actionable framework without altering Gaza’s “political and demographic composition. “
“It as a clear reflection of Egypt’s firm stance on the Palestinian cause and the future of the enclave’s people,” he said. “The plan’s credibility is bolstered by its endorsement from Arab nations and warm reception from several Muslim countries.”
But as for Hamas’s future in Gaza, Mardawi maintained that the group is “a national liberation movement” and an integral part of the Palestinian political and social fabric. He expressed support for an administrative body or government that enjoys both national consensus and international recognition.
“Our people are looking for leadership that can steer the ship through this transitional phase in accordance with a shared national vision,” he explained. “What is unacceptable is any government that operates under Israel. The right path forward must offer a logical and practical solution for all parties involved.”
Mardawi also asserted that sustained Arab and Islamic pressure could ultimately force the U.S. to engage with a unified political will. Such a shift, he suggested, “might even alter Israel’s position.”
Meanwhile, political analyst Ibrahim Rabaiah underscored that while Egypt’s initiative prioritizes keeping Palestinians in Gaza, countering displacement efforts, and positioning itself as an alternative to former President Trump’s proposal for relocating the population, the plan does not specify what role, if any, Hamas, the militant group that has ruled the enclave since 2007, will have.
“The coming phase would be highly sensitive, with negotiations over Hamas’s future set to be complex in the weeks and months ahead.
On this point, Mardawi noted that the group has already signalled its decision to refrain from participating in the administrative committee tasked with overseeing the enclave.
For its part, Israel remains resolute in its opposition to both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority playing any role in governing the strip. However, he adds that Israel has yet to articulate a viable alternative for Gaza’s future.
“This ambiguity has fueled a growing debate within Israel itself,” he noted. “Will the occupation be temporary or permanent? Will Israel fully reoccupy Gaza or limit itself to controlling key strategic areas? Will it take charge of reconstruction efforts and regulate the entry of building materials through border crossings? Thus far, Israel has been firm in its rejection of existing proposals, yet it has failed to offer what Prime Minister Netanyahu might consider a ‘magic solution’ for the enclave’s future.”
Hamas’s arsenal
According to Rabaiah, Israel may escalate pressure on the Palestinian population in Gaza, as key decision-makers in the negotiations believe the current proposal fails to resolve the security dilemma, both in terms of its operational framework within Gaza and the future of security control in the territory.
At the same time, Hamas is attempting to establish a model similar to Lebanon’s, where it would retain military power while a separate authority governs political affairs. But, as he pointed out, “the international community rejects this arrangement, and the central obstacle remains Hamas’s weapons.”
Rabaiah also argued that the group views its arsenal as a crucial bargaining chip, one it will not relinquish without achieving a new political reality, namely, the establishment of a Palestinian state. “This,” he notes, “is something Israel categorically rejects at the moment.”
At the same time, he warns that without U.S. backing, the Arab plan is unlikely to materialize.
“Washington will not move forward with the plan unless it receives clear answers about Hamas’s future and the fate of its weapons,” he explained.
Rabaiah also precited that Israel will employ every available means of pressure to achieve its objectives. Reconstruction, he notes, “is not the endgame but rather the beginning, one that must be followed by governance.” Any governing body, he argued, must have full security control.
Despite exploratory discussions between Hamas and the United States, which have revived conversations about a long-term truce, Washington ultimately seeks an administrative entity in Gaza “without security control,” he added.
Hope for Gaza
Israeli affairs analyst Antoine Shalhat sees Egypt’s plan as significant primarily for its outright rejection of the mass displacement strategy championed by former President Donald Trump, an approach that Israel quickly moved to formalize through concrete mechanisms.
According to Shalhat, Israel remains fundamentally guided by the ideology of “population transfer,” a euphemism for forced population relocation, which has long underpinned its policies toward Palestinians.
“The Egyptian initiative, by contrast, reaffirms Gaza’s territorial and historical significance to Palestinian national rights, an assertion Israel has sought either to dismantle or circumvent,” he added.
As for Hamas’s future, Shalhat argued that the group remains a persistent force, and Israel’s military campaign has failed to eliminate it, something even Israeli officials have tacitly acknowledged.
“Some voices within Israel have gone even further, admitting that despite the sustained bombardment, Hamas has not been decisively weakened,” he explained. “Its role as a symbol of resistance and self-determination will continue to shape the postwar landscape and the broader Palestinian struggle.”
Despite Trump’s initial rejection, Shalhat believes that US opposition is not set in stone. He argues that shifting Washington’s position is both possible and necessary, a task that falls to Arab states and the international community.
“The battle over the plan has only just begun, and the likelihood of policy shifts depends on diplomatic pressure,” he continued. “To that end, countries with strong ties to the US must engage in immediate, strategic outreach. Crucially, influencing the American stance could, in turn, play a decisive role in shaping Israel’s next moves regarding Gaza’s future.”
This article is published in collaboration with Egab.
Moataz al-Halaq and Youssef Yehia Abu Hashish are freelance writers from Gaza
