فلسطینی‌ها

What do Palestinians, Israelis, and external players see as the best option for Gaza and its people now that the first phase of the ceasefire is complete?

Refocusing postwar plans on this concept could result in 40 percent or more of Gaza’s population leaving of their own accord—a prospect that should spur U.S. and Arab leaders to reconcile their differing proposals and expedite their preparations for reconstruction.

The supposed “status quo” that some commentators are pushing Israel to embrace is so disfigured and hollowed out that it no longer meets the definition of the phrase.

Trump’s vision to transform Gaza is based on economic and utilitarian considerations, but it fails to take into account the Palestinian connection to the land, which remains a central component of Palestinian national identity.

Despite its risks for regional stability and U.S. policy, the president’s Gaza proposal has put this issue at the top of the priority list.

Cutting aid programs is not inherently wrong—but making those cuts before assessing their specific impact on regional allies and American lives could be disastrous for U.S. policy in the Middle East.

Rather than using the months since the passage of new laws as an opportunity to agree on a more gradual implementation plan and identify alternatives to the controversial relief agency, the parties have simply dug in their heels.

The ceasefire is already shaking up Israel’s politics and high command; prompt, well-coordinated action with Washington could help counter threats on several external fronts as well.

Netanyahu likely wanted to start off on a good foot with Trump—not just out of fear, but because Israel has its eyes on a much wider allied agenda in the region.