Amid ongoing Western media discussions regarding the aftermath of the Gaza war, it becomes evident that the presented options pose difficulties. Formulating plans and strategies for the post-war period is not as straightforward as some may assume. All the suggestions, whether discussed privately or publicly, involve conflicting perspectives, and some appear overly optimistic.

In my perspective, the most complex aspects of the post-war debate revolve around the future of Gaza, encompassing issues of civilian governance and security dependence. Identifying initial steps toward a resolution or a comprehensive political settlement for the entire Palestinian issue becomes a challenge when considering this point as one of the obstacles to overcome.

There is an indication that Israel may not simply relinquish territory to become part of an independent Palestinian state, especially if it cannot eliminate extremist organizations and neutralize their military and political leaders. The likelihood of achieving this goal remains unclear, given indicators from the battlefield.

Another aspect involves the proposal of joint foreign control of the strip, an idea that appears more like fiction. No Arab or Muslim country desires involvement in this conflict, given the evident failures associated with this scenario.

Another idea is transferring Gaza’s administration to the Palestinian Authority, which holds the most international and regional recognition, with some reforms in its current structures. This seems logical initially but proves challenging to implement due to inter-Palestinian differences or deep-rooted problems within the Authority, such as corruption, weak capacity, and administrative laxity.

Envisioning acceptable reforms within a reasonable time frame becomes challenging. The big cruncher—how to push an extremist ideological movement out of the Palestinian street?

The deeply ingrained ideology of extremist organizations makes it challenging to truly change the prevailing culture towards coexistence and moderation within a short period, especially given the harsh living conditions that require constant efforts to improve, change attitudes, and gradually eradicate radical thinking and violence. This assumes a suitable environment for implementing this agenda.

Opinions differ about Gaza’s future among different segments of the Israeli population, regional, and international perspectives. The issue may not only be related to the direction of Netanyahu’s government but also to right-wing Israelis concerned about a potential repeat of the October 7 terrorist assault.

They see something like annexing the Golan Heights to Israel as the solution to the Gaza situation, considering the unilateral disengagement plan with the Palestinian territories under Sharon a strategic mistake with disastrous consequences culminating in a catastrophic terrorist attack.

These concerns can be understood in light of what happened that day and its catastrophic impact on Israel’s collective consciousness. Reality also points to an equation dominating the discussion the day after, which cannot be overlooked: The commitment of Gulf donor countries to fund Gaza reconstruction plans with a clear and non-negotiable horizon and path to a Palestinian state.

Bridging this gap is necessary to obtain funding to rebuild life in Gaza. This, in turn, is a necessary step to discuss the possibility of completely eradicating the culture of violence and extremism in Gaza. Undoubtedly, the current situation is full of challenges, and the coming days may be full of surprises.

No one really thinks about the fate of the nearly two million Palestinians living in the Strip amid the destruction and the closure of all means of livelihood.

How this huge number of people can be settled, and their lives organized for an unknown period until Israel completes its security measures to remove the tunnels and clear the entire Strip of the military infrastructure of Palestinian organizations, assuming the intention to withdraw from the area once these measures are completed, remains a highly uncertain issue.

The destruction in the Gaza Strip may mean postponing the possibility of a peaceful solution to the Palestinian issue and delaying peace until humanitarian and emergency solutions are found for the residents of the Strip. However, it should be noted that further pressure on this huge population in the narrow corner of Rafah could lead to new crises and tensions on the Egyptian borders.

It could also present other regional parties with a strategic puzzle that has so far remained unmentioned in the Gaza debate. The solution surely begins with listening to the voice of reason because, under the circumstances, there is no alternative. It must be recognized that the lack of hope and prospects for the future is a valuable gift Israel is giving to extremist organizations.

These organizations have flourished over the years due to two crucial factors: the lack of prospects for a settlement and the absence of an alternative on the Palestinian scene. It is no secret how a significant portion of the Palestinian people thinks of the Administration’s leadership, and how this feeling persists.

Real progress towards peace must focus not only on governments and leadership but also on the orientation of the Palestinian and Israeli peoples. There is a great popular divide on issues such as the two-state solution, as seen in published opinion polls.

However, I believe these are temporary sentiments influenced by the current crisis and can be corrected through increased efforts and orientation towards the future. All in all, Israel must look pragmatically at the details of the conflict and realize that the only way to live in peace is to establish the principles of coexistence between the Palestinian and Israeli peoples. There is no way to exclude, marginalize, much less destroy, the other side in this conflict.