As the war in Gaza draws to a close, Jordan and Egypt have firmly shut down any discussion regarding the proposal to deploy their forces in the Gaza Strip, raising questions about the reasons behind this stance, not only from these two nations but also from other Arab countries that have echoed the sentiment in recent days.
An emergency Arab summit is scheduled to take place in Saudi Arabia next Saturday to discuss the ongoing war in Gaza. Observers spoke about the doubt that the “deployment of forces” proposal will find a place on the agenda, given the “absolute and final” rejection.
Jordan’s Foreign Minister, Ayman Safadi, stated on Wednesday that his country “rejects any talk of managing Gaza post-war through Arab or non-Arab forces.” This statement followed a report by Indian news website The Kashmiriyat, claiming that “the United States proposed to Egypt to temporarily manage security in the Gaza Strip,” which Cairo “rejected.”
According to the newspaper, CIA Director William Burns discussed the proposal with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and his intelligence chief, Abbas Kamel.
The American newspaper suggests that the proposal aims to enable the Palestinian Authority to take full responsibility after the defeat of Hamas in the current war between Israel and the Palestinian movement, which is listed as a terrorist organization by Israel, the United States, and the European Union.
However, el-Sisi rejected the proposal, stating that “Egypt will not play a role in eliminating Hamas; because it needs the armed group to help maintain security at the border,” as reported by Al Arabiya.
What’s behind the rejection?
As the Israeli war in Gaza enters its second month, the United States is looking for a post-war scenario, and it is clear that Israel “will not remain in the sector in the form of occupation”.
While “international administration and the deployment of international forces is one of the options,” former Jordanian Minister of Information, Samih Maaytah, says that “America and Israel prefer the deployment of Arab forces and are trying to market this idea.”
Maaytah believes the Egyptian rejection stems from Egypt being “the state closest to Gaza,” while Jordan rejects the proposal “because it sees it as throwing the burden of maintaining what is called Israel’s security onto Arab states.”
The reasons also relate to the Arab position, which is not to contribute to changing the situation in Gaza but to work to stop the aggression and then move to a political process aimed at granting Palestinians their rights, including a Palestinian state.
Dr. Abdullah Al-Assaf, a 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 would lead to an Arab-Arab conflict.”
He further explained that “there might be attempts at penetration from the Palestinian side, forcing Arab forces to engage in gunfire, which would turn the problem into an Arab-Arab one.”
There is also a possibility that “Arab forces might clash with Israeli forces, thus turning the dispute into a regional conflict.”
The same speaker believes that “the presence of international forces under the supervision of the United Nations is the internationally recognized way,” and that “this is the most important thing to point out at the current time.”
The clause regarding sending Arab or Egyptian forces to Gaza “after the war” has been raised in several Egyptian-European and Egyptian-American discussions.
Even during the recent visit by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken to Cairo, as Ashraf El-Ashry, editor-in-chief of Al-Ahram newspaper, believes that “the absolute rejection of the proposal is because it does not align with Egyptian and Arab positions, which see that a Palestinian state should be established through a political settlement.”
“Once the war is over, a big question emerges.. What is the shape of the next day?” El-Ashry clarifies that “his country, along with the Arab states, is currently seeking a ceasefire, to be followed by a search for a political settlement.”
Fear of a trap
So far, the issue of “Gaza after the war” remains within the framework of scenarios and proposals.
While Western reports frequently highlight it, the fate of the fronts on the ground and the balance of power have not been decided, amid intense battles on land and continuous bombing from the air, with attempts by countries to reach a ceasefire.
Egypt and Jordan have always expressed their rejection of any attempt at “displacement” of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip. As the intensity of the bombing increased and with it the number of civilian casualties, Amman took an escalating stance towards Israel.
Even Jordan’s Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi said on Wednesday, as reported by the media, that “Hamas is an idea that does not end, and anyone who wants a different situation must meet the rights of the Palestinian people and comprehensive peace.”
Safadi added: “Jordan rejects any scenario that deals with the Gaza issue alone, as this will entrench Israel’s goal of separating the sector from the West Bank.”
Jordanian researcher Dr. Amer Al-Sabaileh views the topic of “deploying Arab forces in Gaza after the war” as dangerous, “because it throws the responsibility on the Arab side, and this is something that cannot be sustained.”
Therefore, the capitals of Jordan and Egypt have categorically rejected the proposal.
On the other hand, Al-Sabaileh adds that “the size of the Arab-Arab disagreement on many issues is significant,” and that “what has recently united them is the international coalition to combat ISIS,” and before that, “the Peninsula Shield Forces” that went to Bahrain.
But “the idea of joint Arab forces in Gaza is fraught with risks, starting with the potential confrontation with resistance factions or with the Israeli side.”
There are reasons related to “responsibility,” as Al-Sabaileh believes that “everyone is cautious and does not want to fall into the trap,” and “also does not want to play a role that may evolve later, because we are talking about a phase that is not clearly defined.”
Usually, “peacekeeping forces” are international, as are “peace enforcement forces,” and if given an Arab character, it might bring a “competitive and conflictual dimension.”
The quotations have been verified against the original source and other news outlets to ensure accuracy.
Arab summit in Riyadh: A unified stance on Palestine
The upcoming emergency Arab summit in Riyadh, called for by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, is set to focus on the critical goal of ceasing hostilities and ending the killing of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. Mahmoud Al-Habbash, the advisor for religious affairs, emphasized the urgency of stopping the aggression and expressed readiness to do everything possible to halt the war on Gaza. He appreciates any efforts aimed at achieving this end.
Former Jordanian Minister of Information, Samih Maaytah, anticipates that the summit will not discuss the proposal of deploying Arab forces in Gaza post-war. Instead, it will address the necessity of a productive political process between Palestinians and Israel, centering on granting Palestinians their rights on their land and demanding an immediate cessation of aggression.
Dr. Abdullah Al-Assaf, a professor of political media, points out that the Riyadh summit will be distinctive and not merely ceremonial. It aims to declare the Arab and Islamic position on the Palestinian issue, affirming that Palestinians are not alone and highlighting the stark and internationally discordant support that Western countries have shown Israel.
Al-Assaf also notes the double standards evident when comparing the situations in Ukraine and Palestine, with different scales of judgment being applied. The summit is expected to send a message of solidarity and a unanimous Arab and Islamic consensus that Israel’s actions in Gaza are unacceptable.
Egypt’s stance and the return of the Palestinian Authority
According to journalist Ashraf El-Ashry, Cairo is seeking a political settlement that would facilitate the Palestinian Authority’s return to Gaza, with a focus on resolving the issue. The proposal for deploying Arab forces is unlikely to be raised in Riyadh, as Arab states are expected to demand a Palestinian state and the return of the Authority to Gaza under certain conditions.
These conditions may include a political settlement, enhancing the Authority’s role post-occupation, and guarantees against further Israeli occupation or operations. The return would be Palestinian-led, under Arab and international protection, away from Israeli skirmishes.
Dr. Al-Assaf adds that the summit will address the necessity of opening crossings, fuel delivery for hospitals, and aid distribution without selectivity or quantity restrictions. Arab leaders will urge Western countries to urgently halt the disproportionate warfare and acknowledge the two-state solution as the only viable path to peace.
He emphasizes that Israel will never live in peace and security until a solution based on the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, which calls for a fully sovereign Palestinian state, is realized, allowing Israel to enjoy security and stability.
