The Roadblock to Peace in Gaza Isn’t What You Think

Arab leaders want stability, Israel wants security, and the U.S. wants a deal—but without a real alternative, nothing changes

Egyptian President presides over extraordinary Arab Summit. Photo: Egypt Presidency

President Trump and Israel wasted no time rejecting the latest Arab proposal for Gaza. The plan, which calls for a new "technocratic" leadership composed of non-Hamas politicians, was dismissed outright for one key reason: it doesn’t include disarmament of Hamas. Apparently, that’s a dealbreaker.

But is it really? I have a few theories.

First, everyone knows Hamas isn’t about to hand over its weapons and call it a day. That means someone has to take them away—by force. But who? If it’s Egypt, that would mean Arabs killing other Arabs, which, despite what some might say, isn’t quite the same as the sectarian bloodshed of Iraq, Syria, or Libya. Those conflicts are messy, deeply rooted in identity politics and power struggles. But an Egyptian soldier gunning down a Palestinian in the name of "stability" would be viewed across the region as outright betrayal. Cairo knows this, which is why they’d rather keep their troops on their side of the border and let someone else figure it out.

Then there’s the issue of opposition—or, more accurately, the lack of it. Hamas has ruled Gaza for over a decade, and from what I’ve heard from Palestinians who recently escaped, there isn’t much room for dissent. They’ve jailed, exiled, or outright eliminated anyone who challenges them. This aligns with what we already know: in places like Lebanon or Iraq, you can find countless people openly cursing Hezbollah or Iran’s influence. In Gaza? Not so much. It’s not that people don’t have grievances—it’s that the cost of voicing them is far higher.

Part of the problem is that for many Palestinians, the very definition of being "pro-Palestinian" has been shaped by a culture of resistance. Whether it’s religious (Hamas) or secular (PFLP and other factions), armed struggle has been baked into the narrative. In Lebanon or Iraq, one can argue they oppose foreign influence for the sake of their own country. A Palestinian saying they oppose Hamas? That’s dangerously close to being labeled a traitor.

And even if we ignore the fear factor, let’s be honest—Hamas isn’t some fringe group. There’s no reliable polling in Gaza, but given their longevity and control, it’s safe to assume they have a solid base of support. This, of course, doesn't justify collective punishment.

A similar argument can be made about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The majority of Russians might support it, but that doesn’t mean every Russian civilian deserves to be a target. The point is, pretending Hamas is just a rogue militia without any grassroots backing is wishful thinking.

Where things get particularly interesting is the strategic divide between Israel, the U.S., and Arab states. Arab leaders still believe that a Palestinian state would weaken groups like Hamas and reduce radicalization. Israel, on the other hand, sees it as a reward for terrorism. And after October 7th, public support inside Israel for any Palestinian state is minimal, with just 27% in support of a two-state solution. The Arab states, meanwhile, just want to stop waking up to headlines and videos of dead Palestinians. Not just because of moral outrage, but because those images radicalize their own populations. No leader wants to be accused of cowardice or complicity, and no monarchy wants to risk another Arab Spring-level uprising. That’s why Saudi Arabia has made it clear: no normalization with Israel unless Palestinians get a state. Monarchies may not be democratic in the liberal sense, but their survival depends on maintaining their legitimacy.

The bigger problem is that when no reasonable solutions exist, the bad and maximalist ones gain traction. The longer this drags on, the more radical ideas will seem like the only way forward. Extremist ideologies flourish in a vacuum; without an alternative vision, they will always appear as the only viable option. This is why the Trump administration, always keen on a high-profile deal, may try to force something through—but without a strategy beyond optics, it will likely crumble the moment the cameras turn off.

So where does that leave us? For starters, there has to be a real alternative to Hamas in Gaza, and not just in exile. Right now, anyone opposed to Hamas has either fled Gaza or is keeping their mouth shut. That needs to change. Civil society groups, independent media, and political voices that reject extremism and corruption need to be supported—not just rhetorically, but with real investment. Give people a reason to believe in something other than armed struggle, and maybe—just maybe—that belief will start to take root.

The Arab world, for its part, needs to stop treating the Palestinian issue like a fire that can be contained. Every time there’s a new war, a new wave of radicalization follows. Instead of just condemning Israel, Arab states should take an active role in fostering credible Palestinian leadership. That could mean backing new political entities, using economic incentives to push for gradual demilitarization, or—dare I say it—acknowledging that simply throwing money at the problem hasn’t worked.

And just as the world worked to counter ISIS propaganda, there needs to be a real effort to challenge Hamas’ ideological grip. Right now, they control the narrative, and anyone who dissents risks their life. That has to change. Alternative media and online campaigns aimed at shifting the discourse could make a real difference. Ideas shape reality, and for too long, the only idea that’s had oxygen in Gaza is that resistance—violent or otherwise—is the only way forward.

Rejecting the Arab proposal outright without offering a roadmap ensures one thing: the cycle will continue. Israel and the U.S. can dismiss it, but without a long-term strategy, they’re just delaying the inevitable—more war, more radicalization, and eventually, an even worse alternative to Hamas emerging. At some point, someone has to break the pattern. The real question is, who will step up to do it?