Egypt’s response to Trump’s Gaza plan involves a strategic effort to create an alternative proposal in collaboration with regional allies. Key summits and diplomatic engagements have showcased both a commitment to addressing Gaza’s challenges and the deep divisions within the Arab states. Despite these endeavors, substantial obstacles remain, including reluctance from powerful nations and differing political agendas.
Cairo’s reaction to President Donald Trump’s controversial Gaza Riviera plan, which seeks to have Egypt and Jordan accommodate a large influx of Gazan refugees, has been strategic and methodical. The plan, viewed as destabilizing, specifically targets these two nations that have historically upheld peace agreements with Israel. Jordan, anticipated to face the biggest repercussions, has been collaborating with Egypt to mitigate the fiscal and political burdens posed by the US initiative throughout this crisis.
In an effort to counter the Riviera proposal, Egypt has initiated a phased strategy to create an alternative plan that garners the support of various regional stakeholders. The first significant action was a high-profile mini-summit in Riyadh on February 21, which involved pivotal leaders from Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait, and Bahrain. The summit was organized to forge a unified response to the challenges introduced by Trump’s plan and to assess regional support against US influence.
Following this initial summit, Egypt sent an unofficial delegation of seasoned political figures to Washington on February 26 to engage with US officials. Through these discussions, the delegation sought to adjust the Trump administration’s Gaza strategy and explore viable options for Egypt’s position in this matter. These initial diplomatic maneuvers were crucial for gauging American sentiments and refining Egypt’s approach.
As tensions escalated, Cairo convened an emergency Arab summit on March 4 to fortify regional alliances against external pressures. However, the apparent reluctance of major leaders, such as those from the UAE and Saudi Arabia, to attend highlighted divisions within the Arab bloc. Their absence suggested a hesitance to support Egypt publicly unless substantial concessions were made, revealing underlying rivalries and differing priorities within the region.
Deep-seated divisions became apparent during and following the summit. The absence of UAE’s Mohammed bin Zayed and Saudi Arabia’s Mohammed bin Salman indicated a reluctance to fully endorse Egypt’s stance without guarantees of political and economic objectives. Significant contention persisted around the political future of Gaza, with Saudi and Emirati leaders advocating for a diminished role for Hamas, contrasting with Egypt’s position to maintain some influence from the group.
Meanwhile, the UAE proposed an international oversight plan for Gaza, along with substantial financial assistance over three years. However, Egypt dismissed this idea due to fears of possible permanent displacement of Palestinians. Jordan expressed similar concerns regarding the influx of refugees. The relationship between Cairo and its regional partners highlights a struggle for power and influence in determining Gaza’s future and relief measures.
The absence of Palestinian Authority (PA) representation at major discussions, particularly at the Riyadh summit, indicated a sidelining of the organization during critical negotiations. As PA President Mahmoud Abbas pursued an agenda for restoring PA governance in Gaza, his initiatives faced skepticism and resistance from Egypt and the UAE, both of whom favored alternative approaches to managing Gaza’s reconstruction and aid distribution.
Amidst the chaos of the Arab summit, tensions resurfaced between Algeria and Egypt due to Algeria’s exclusion from preliminary dialogues concerning Gaza’s future. Discontent remained over historical grievances linked to the Palestinian leadership and Egypt’s long-standing role as a mediator, culminating in calls for resolution at future diplomatic engagements, though none materialized at this juncture.
Of particular note is the effort by Egypt to seek US support for its reconstruction plan. High-profile meetings in late February with prominent US officials aimed to lobby for backing; however, no commitments were secured. The divergence between Egyptian and American objectives poses serious challenges, as Washington continues to prioritize conditions related to Hamas’s status and potential collaboration with Israeli entities to support Jordan and Egypt’s roles.
To sustain Reconstruction initiatives, Egypt suggests utilizing the World Bank for oversight of financial commitments and assurances. Yet, financial backing from supportive nations like Saudi Arabia and the UAE remains tentative, complicating Egypt’s ambitious endeavors for rebuilding Gaza.
In the backdrop of these developments, discussions between the Trump administration and Hamas emerged, suggesting a shifting focus in US policy. Such engagements signify dramatic alterations in regional dynamics, compelling Egypt to reassess its strategies and alliances amidst persistent obstacles to its Gaza plans, including opposition from Israel and reluctance from Arab nations.
The potential for Egypt to navigate this complex situation depends not only on consolidating regional support but also on exploring relationships with global allies, such as Europe and China, while ensuring that reconstruction efforts do not falter. As the situation continues to evolve, the road ahead remains uncertain.
In summary, Egypt’s response to the challenges posed by the US Gaza plan has unfolded through a series of carefully structured diplomatic initiatives. While attempts to garner regional support have faced significant roadblocks due to internal divisions and reluctance, Egypt remains steadfast in its commitment to a reconstruction plan for Gaza. However, without adequate backing and alignment of interests from regional and international stakeholders, the path to securing and implementing effective measures remains fraught with uncertainty and complexity.
Original Source: thecradle.co
