Throughout history, plans for “the day after” have been made only after wars have ended.
The most famous relatively recent example is the Marshall Plan, an American initiative to help Europe recover economically after World War Two. It was formulated in 1948, fully three years after the end of the war, and not much imagination is necessary to understand the implications of the release of a Marshall Plan while the Nazis were still fighting, occupying large parts of Europe, and mass murdering Jews.
That is the reality of war and its consequences.
The reality of war
First you fight until your enemy surrenders, and only afterwards can you talk peace and long-term solutions.
No plan for a “day after” in Gaza can be properly formulated, planned, and agreed upon without knowing the exact facts on the ground when the battle has ended.
Firstly, it gives Hamas hope that the end is near, and all it has to do is survive a few more days or weeks until a political, rather than a military, solution is imposed that will leave it to kill, rape, and kidnap another day.
Secondly, no internal or external actor will agree to be openly and publicly part of Gazan governance, with Hamas mobs still able to dispense their own type of vigilante justice, as they have done throughout the war. Just ask the powerful Doghmush clan in Gaza City, whose leader was reportedly killed because Hamas suspected it of seeking to cooperate with Israel to dispense aid to the civilian population.
The Palestinian Authority cannot be involved for a number of reasons. The last time the Palestinian Authority ruled Gaza was in 2007, just two years after Israel handed Gaza over to the PA, when Hamas overthrew its leaders from tall buildings with stunning ease.
More importantly, the PA has shown that it is not much better than Hamas. Its member organizations, Fatah and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, claim to have been involved in the October 7 massacre. Its leaders praised it, called for its repeat, and are happily paying monthly stipends to those involved in the murder, rape, and kidnap of Israelis.
Swapping Hamas for Fatah changes nothing.
The only possible solution, and one that should only entail preliminary outreach below the radar before the war has ended, is for an Abraham Accords governance of Gaza. The Arab nations that signed peace and normalization deals with Israel, with hopefully more in the pipeline, would be the ideal candidates to help govern Gaza after Hamas has been fully defeated.
These nations made peace with the Jewish state because they understood that it is permanent as well as an asset to regional peace and security. They understand that the real threat in the region is the Iranian-led “Axis of Resistance” and that Israel and pragmatic Arab Sunni states have a vested interest in quelling Iranian malevolent influence.
Just as importantly, they understand the danger of radical Islamism and know how to fight it and instill tolerance and peace.
The leaders of the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco have all faced their own extremists with an iron fist and have zero tolerance for those who seek violence and bloodshed.
They have also developed and progressed their educational systems towards tolerance, acceptance of Jews, and peace.
It should also be noted positively that the Saudi Arabian education system has made impressive strides, and last year, it removed all negative portrayals of Jews from the educational materials and textbooks.
As we know, a whole Palestinian generation needs to be educated differently, away from hate, antisemitism, and Jihad.
The Palestinian Authority, despite some protestations to the contrary, has continued to incite hate against Israel and Jews, and this is part of the problem, not the solution.
OF COURSE, Israel should maintain overall security for the Gaza Strip for the foreseeable future until the seeds of change are well established.
Nevertheless, those most capable of bringing about this necessary change, with the correct experience and the right motivation and understanding of regional implications, are these Abraham Accords nations.
Suffice it to say that any nation that makes peace in the near future can and should take a role in Gazan governance.
However, no nation like Qatar, which remains an ally of Iran, a home to Hamas, and a nest of radicalism, antisemitism, and terrorism, should be involved in any way.
The Abraham Accords came out of an understanding that Israel and the moderate Arab Sunni nations have deep and shared interests, that they are better united than divided, and that Palestinian terrorists should not have a veto over these mutually beneficial relations.
It is in the interest of this new regional constellation to ensure that Gaza is no longer used as another front in the Iranian battle for regional supremacy. This would send a clear message to the Ayatollahs in Tehran and its proxies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen that there is a unity of purpose against them and that a new regional alliance will ensure that the first domino in the radical Shiite push for dominance in the Middle East is falling.
Regardless of public statements, moderate Sunni national leaderships want Israel to be victorious over Hamas. Once Hamas has been defeated, they will be able to say publicly what is now only said behind closed doors.
Then, and only then, can they become part of a robust and enduring governance solution for Gaza, which would provide a better future for the Gazan people and necessary long-term security for Israel.
The writer is a Los Angeles-based philanthropist and real estate developer who serves as chairman of the Abraham Accords Roundtable and the Golda Meir Commemorative Coin Committee in Washington, DC.