When whispers of a U.S.-led postwar reconstruction plan for Gaza first circulated, many analysts saw it as a diplomatic triumph — a chance to rebuild after years of war, bring stability to the enclave, and chart a path toward a fragile peace. But in recent days, that vision has begun to fracture. Now, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain have delivered a chilling warning to Washington: they will not bankroll Gaza’s reconstruction unless Hamas relinquishes control, lays down arms, and cedes territorial authority.
The messages came through channels of diplomacy, delivered to President Donald Trump’s emissaries, including Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. Arab and U.S. diplomatic sources confirm the communications. The warnings are not offhand threats but strategic signals that the Gulf states may be pulling back from even the illusion of support for the Trump plan if its guarantors do not compel Hamas to disarm.
A Shift in Gulf Diplomacy
Saudi Arabia’s posture is perhaps the sharpest. A senior Saudi diplomatic source told U.S. counterparts bluntly that Riyadh would no longer participate in reconstruction efforts unless there is a decisive American response and sharper pressure on Hamas — as well as a recalibration of how mediator nations like Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey engage with the group. The source also indicated that Saudi Arabia is downgrading its level of engagement and may skip a coming reconstruction summit hosted in Egypt.
The UAE, meanwhile, drew a narrower line. It signaled that it might continue funding rebuilding efforts in southern Gaza — where Israel maintains security control — but that it will refuse to commit to broader reconstruction unless conditions are met: Hamas must disarm, and an international force must assume full civilian and security authority, as outlined in Trump’s plan.
These positions reflect growing frustration among Gulf backers with what they perceive as leniency toward Hamas. According to diplomats briefed on the matter, the communications to Washington cite a litany of grievances: public armed displays, extortion of local merchants, targeted assassinations of clan rivals, and steadfast refusal to cede weaponry or relinquish territorial control. “As long as Hamas retains its weapons, we will not continue with the process,” the message reportedly states.
One Saudi official underscored the rhetorical boundary. He insisted Hamas “has inflicted enormous harm on the Palestinian people” and warned that the group “will sabotage any force that tries to restore order.” In his words: without serious moves to uproot Hamas’s grip on Gaza, “there is no chance of rehabilitation and reconstruction.”
Reconstruction as Leverage
At the heart of this Gulf pushback is leverage. Reconstruction is expensive, politically charged, and logistically complex. The Gulf states, long key financial backers in the Arab world, know their money confers influence. But they are now signaling that their coffers are not unconditional. By refusing to fund reconstruction while Hamas remains armed and in control, they aim to turn their role into a form of geopolitical pressure.
The Gulf’s abstention would deal a major blow to any plan to rebuild Gaza without a fundamental governance shift. Washington and the Trump administration had assumed that Arab states would serve as the financial backbone to any postwar recovery. Now, that assumption is unraveling.
In diplomatic circles, some view the Gulf’s threat as a test: Will the United States forcefully back its Gaza vision, or relent to the political constraints of regional actors who must balance their own domestic, regional, and international interests?
Hamas Under Scrutiny
Critics of Hamas say the group behaves less like a traditional governing body and more like a militia ruling by a combination of political power and brute force. The inputs cited by Gulf states raise serious red flags: armed street confrontations, extortions, internal assassinations, and blatant public reassertions of authority despite the ceasefire. These incidents, they argue, expose why reconstruction funding must come only alongside disarmament.
Hamas, for its part, has shown limited openness to compromise. While it has accepted, in public, certain terms of a ceasefire, it has resisted any sweeping move to fully surrender arms or step away from territorial governance. Some see this as logical self-preservation: laying down arms entirely would mean surrendering their identity, their control, and what remains of their legitimacy within Gaza.
Analysts caution that disarming Hamas is not just about weapons on the ground. It is about power structures, messaging, and political survival. Even if heavy arms were surrendered, the group might preserve underground networks or mobilize again. In the Gulf’s view, half-measures won’t suffice. They insist on full compliance, verified demilitarization, and the removal of Hamas from explicit governance roles.
The U.S. Response — Caught Between Promises and Realities
Washington finds itself in a tight spot. The Trump administration has promoted a 20-point Gaza plan that envisions a demilitarized Gaza governed under civilian authority, backed by international security forces. But much of that plan depends on conditionalities that could be hard to enforce without Gulf-state participation.
In recent days, U.S. military leaders have also publicly pressured Hamas to disarm. CENTCOM urged Hamas to halt violence against civilians and comply with terms of the ceasefire. President Trump himself issued a stern warning that the U.S. would disarm Hamas forcibly if it does not do so voluntarily.
Yet U.S. dependence on Arab funding and strategic cooperation means that its leverage may be limited. If Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain walk away, it would force Washington to either revise its plan, rework incentives, or assume more direct financial risk.
Regional Tensions and Diplomatic Backlash
The Gulf’s pushback also strains relationships with mediator nations. Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey have played essential roles in negotiating Hamas’s compliance over decades, often shielded by political ties. The Gulf message demands these mediators become harder on Hamas. Saudi Arabia, for example, signals that its patience is wearing thin and that its strategic alliances may shift unless mediator behavior changes.
Saudi Arabia’s likely decision to skip Egypt’s reconstruction conference is especially telling. The Gulf sees fault lines forming — if Gaza rebuilds under Hamas’s thumb, the legitimacy of U.S. and Arab diplomacy will be undermined. By threatening to stay away, Riyadh is casting its vote of confidence away from the current framework.
The absence of Gulf leaders from recent summits — Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and UAE’s Mohammed bin Zayed notably skipped the Sharm el-Sheikh ceremony — sent a strong symbolic message. Trump himself noted their absence in public remarks, a tacit acknowledgment of the growing rift.
What It Means for Gaza’s Future
If Gulf states follow through on refusing funding, the consequences for Gaza would be profound. Reconstruction would stall; humanitarian needs would deepen; infrastructure, housing, and basic services would languish without coordinated support. Reconstruction under a weak or compromised system would likely perpetuate inequality and security gaps — making future conflict more probable.
But for Gulf states, the calculus seems clear: funding under Hamas’s unchanged governance risks rewarding spoilers, undermining regional security, and granting Hamas de facto control over the rebuilding process. Their refusal is a gamble, but one rooted in long-term regional strategy.
Fragile Peace and Conditional Hope
The Gulf warning is more than an ultimatum; it is a turning point. The path forward demands that the U.S. and coalition partners reexamine assumptions. If they fail to pull reconstruction and disarmament levers simultaneously, the post-war vision for Gaza may collapse before it begins.
The Gulf states are no longer passive backers — they now force the terms of engagement. Whether Washington can recalibrate and salvage its plan, or retreat into diplomatic reassessment, remains to be seen.
What’s certain is that reconstruction is no longer a humanitarian project alone. It has become a geopolitical battleground over who will control Gaza’s future.
Post a Comment