GAZA, (PIC)
As the repercussions of the genocide continue, and regional files intersect with the Palestinian scene, the arrangements related to the post aggression phase in the Gaza Strip appear more complex than expected.
Amid talk about the role of the national committee to manage Gaza, the deployment of international forces to separate the parties, and the proposal of disarmament in exchange for reconstruction, questions are accumulating about the chances of implementing these understandings in light of political stagnation and rapidly accelerating regional developments.
In this context, writer and political analyst Mamoun Abu Amer believes that all these files have entered a state of near freezing, due to field and political complications, in addition to their direct connection to the outcomes of the broader regional conflict.
The administrative committee, a postponed step
Abu Amer told the PIC correspondent that the idea of forming an administrative committee to manage civil affairs in Gaza is mainly linked to the implementation of the rest of the terms of the understandings being discussed, foremost among them the introduction of international forces to separate the forces, in preparation for the start of a transitional phase during which a technocratic committee would manage public and service affairs in the Strip.
However, these arrangements, according to his assessment, have moved beyond their supposed timeline, especially after the regional escalation linked to the war in Iran and the rising tensions in Lebanon, which led to a practical freezing of many tracks related to the post-war phase.
The dilemma of entering Gaza
Abu Amer points out that one of the most prominent challenges facing this committee is that its members and officials reside outside the Gaza Strip, explaining that Israel was preventing their entry into the Strip even before the recent regional escalation.
He adds that this issue raises a fundamental problem, as it is difficult to imagine the ability of an administrative committee to manage public affairs in Gaza while being unable to enter the Strip and carry out its tasks on the ground.
Questions about the role of international parties
Abu Amer raises questions about the role of the international parties overseeing this track, noting that the executive committee of what is known as the “World Peace Council” has not yet exerted real pressure on Israel to allow the committee to enter Gaza and begin the practical arrangements to assume administration.
He believes that the continuation of this situation reflects a state of political stumbling, and weakens the chances of the success of the proposed arrangements unless more effective political intervention occurs.
The decisive American role
Abu Amer affirms that the chances of implementing these arrangements remain limited without direct movement from the United States to pressure for the implementation of the terms of the ceasefire agreement, and to allow the start of practical steps on the ground.
This comes at a time when reports speak of the presence of a delegation from the Hamas Movement in Egypt to discuss these files, however this meeting, according to Abu Amer, has not yet resulted in anything indicating the actual start of implementing any of these understandings.
Delay in deploying stabilization forces
Abu Amer indicates that there had been talk about starting the deployment of an international stabilization force in what is known as the “yellow zone” inside the Gaza Strip during the current month of March, but the failure to achieve this step so far reflects a state of procrastination, and reinforces the impression that Israel is delaying the implementation of these arrangements.
The disarmament dilemma
Abu Amer considers that the disarmament file in exchange for reconstruction represents one of the most complex files at the current stage. The problem, as he explains, is not only related to the principle of disarmament, but to the nature of the conditions that Israel puts forward for its implementation.
He says that Israel seeks to impose disarmament before starting withdrawal from Gaza and opening the crossings, and also wants the process to take place according to the mechanism it defines, which raises several fundamental questions, what is the nature of the intended weapons, to whom will they be handed over, and which party will supervise this process?
He also points out that implementing such a step in the absence of a clear local administrative committee or a transitional authority in Gaza appears extremely complex.
The future of the arrangements depends on the results of the war
Abu Amer concludes that the current scene reflects a state of political stagnation, and that talking about clear scenarios for the future of Gaza remains premature unless the political track is resumed and the proposed understandings are implemented on the ground.
He believes that the future of these arrangements will remain linked to the results of the regional confrontation, if developments lead to a reasonable political settlement, matters may move toward gradual implementation of the arrangements in Gaza.
If the confrontation ends with a clear Israeli-American superiority, this may give Israel a greater sense of dominance, which may push it toward rigidity or even evasion of some commitments.
On the other hand, Abu Amer indicates that any Israeli failure in the confrontation with Iran may push the Israeli government to search for arenas with lower political and military cost, which may be reflected in the way it deals with the Gaza file in the coming phase.