Egypt’s Gaza Reconstruction Plan
While the Egyptian Gaza reconstruction plan is perceived as more realistic than Trump’s ‘Riviera in the Middle East’ proposal, it does not sufficiently address Israel’s concerns.
- Hirak Jyoti Das
- March 13, 2025
While the Egyptian Gaza reconstruction plan is perceived as more realistic than Trump’s ‘Riviera in the Middle East’ proposal, it does not sufficiently address Israel’s concerns.
Resolution 2728, adopted by the United Nations Security Council on 25 March 2024 carries political implications beyond its text, particularly due to the US decision to abstain.
While the Israel–Hamas conflict was initially concentrated around Gaza, the risks have since escalated to other regions as well.
The Israel-Hamas clash diminishes prospects for the revival of the peace process and strengthens Hamas’ position as the preeminent Palestinian faction.
Israel’s argues that the Hamas does not recognize its existence, which, up to a point, is technically correct. But, a moment of reflection will show that recognition is exchanged only between states and that since Israel has prevented the emergence of an independent Palestine, it has no right to expect recognition from the other side.
Since the revolution that toppled Mubarak, Sinai has become a no man’s land where jihadists from Egypt and Gaza as well as local Bedouins have begun to engage in militant activities.
Both sides appear to have wisely avoided a gruelling battle of attrition by opting for a tactical truce - not seemingly on account of a preference for peace but because of a pragmatic recognition of the futility of further conflict.
With reports noting that the Israeli government had authorised the mobilisation of close to 75,000 reservists ahead of a possible ground invasion, international attention is currently focussed on preventing this possibility
While the United States stands committed to Israel, though in a much muted tone, there has been outrage in the region, particularly from Egypt, Turkey, Iran, Tunisia as well as the Arab League.
A fundamental principle of humanitarian law, non-combatant immunity, has been virtually consigned to history during the Bush years. To a large extent this can be considered a ‘success’ for terrorists. That terrorists do not respect the principle of non-combatant immunity is central to the definition of terrorism. The aim of terrorists is substantially achieved when states also adopt their language and grammar. This has been done to an extent by the US in its militarily aggressive response to 9/11 in Iraq and Afghanistan.