Salahuddin Khadiv, an international affairs expert, in an interview with the website of the Strategic Council on Foreign Relations, emphasized that this plan is more of an effort to impose the demands of the Israeli regime via Washington than one aimed at addressing the roots of the crisis.

Referring to the Islamic Jihad movement’s description of this plan as “a prescription for the continuation of aggression and regional explosion,” he added: Stringent conditions like disarming Hamas and removing it from the governance structure of Gaza double the distrust. Past experiences have shown that without practical international guarantees and real supervision, promises of reconstruction and lifting the blockade will be practically ineffective.

The Reconstruction Challenge in Gaza

Khadiv, stating that in this plan, “the main post-war focus is the reconstruction of Gaza,” emphasized that the US has somewhat set aside versions similar to the “Riviera” plan, which considered population displacement and turning Gaza into a tourist area, in the new plan. However, this change does not guarantee a fundamental resolution of the Palestinian issue.

Recalling the experiences of the 2008, 2014, and 2021 wars, he said that although previous ceasefires temporarily helped end the wars, the damage and destruction in Gaza this year are far more extensive. Famine, massacres, and the destruction of infrastructure have made the responsibility of reconstruction much heavier and cast doubt on the managerial capacity of all parties involved in Trump’s plan.

Khadiv stressed that Hamas, for both field and political reasons, will adopt a cautious approach in its response to this plan. The issue of reconstruction could be a source of future disputes and crises.

The Danger of a Power Vacuum and Post-War Opportunities

Khadiv warned that some plans are reminiscent of the US experience in Iraq after 2003. Just as the dissolution of security institutions in the post-2003 Iraq experience created a power vacuum, Hamas laying down its arms might make a similar power vacuum in Gaza. Hamas’ disarmament could pave the way for the emergence of new armed movements and a new cycle of violence.

Referring to the shift in Western public opinion regarding the Zionist regime, he believes this has weakened the political legitimacy of the regime. “This shift could create a more favorable atmosphere for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. However, achieving this is contingent upon the careful management of the reconstruction process.”

Executive Obstacles and Prerequisites

Khadiv listed issues, including the manner of the Israeli regime forces’ withdrawal, the list of prisoners for exchange, the mechanism for aid distribution, the framework for deploying international or Arab forces, and financial and supervisory guarantees to prevent abuse, as among the executive obstacles facing Trump’s plan. He described the twenty-point declarations announced by some parties as general and lacking executive details, stating that each clause requires the resolution of interpretive and field disputes. The review of the plan by Hamas has just begun.

He described three influential currents affecting Gaza’s future: the July plan by France and Saudi Arabia aimed at establishing a Palestinian state without Hamas; previous plans that called for the expulsion of residents; and newer plans that rule out population displacement. He said: Some ambiguous phrases in the statements might be interpreted as unacceptable for parties inside and outside the region, but for some Arab governments, they suffice as a political concession.

In conclusion, he deemed it essential to design an executable roadmap with timed phases and measurable indicators, noting that neglecting the prerequisites could quickly lead to a security vacuum and a new round of violence.