The Palestinian issue has now morphed into a debate over Gaza’s future—the focal point of Middle East diplomacy today. The two-state solution has been sidelined by the immediate question of Gaza, where Palestinian leadership and internal politics will determine Hamas’s fate, the truce’s viability, and whether October 7 marks the Axis of Resistance’s last war on Palestinian and Israeli soil.

The two state Israel-Palestine issue has morphed into a debate over Gaza’s future

President Trump’s Gaza proposal marks a sharp break from the traditional diplomatic solutions the world has grown accustomed to in the Gaza conflict over the past two decades. But it served its purpose: forcing Arabs, Palestinians, and Israelis to break free from failed, recycled strategies and produce real solutions—rather than repeating maximalist rhetoric and playing to domestic audiences. In doing so, the US president smartly forced regional players to share some of the burden of resolving the crisis instead of letting the problem become a sole American responsibility.

Former Egyptian minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit’s demand for Hamas to relinquish power is a First

And it is working. The Arab League’s secretary general and the former Egyptian former minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit has demanded, for the first time, that Hamas consider relinquishing power in Gaza in the wider Palestinian interest. He also criticised the October 7 attack for targeting civilians in Israel which, he said, resulted in retaliation against civilians in Gaza.

Abdulrahman Al-Rashed, a former Saudi newspaper editor, has also advised Hamas to step aside, in his widely read column:

“It can negotiate its own departure in exchange for halting Trump’s plan. The choice, therefore, is either Hamas or two million Palestinians.” Al-Rashed said, “there will be no funding for Gaza’s reconstruction … as long as international and Arab donors believe that the possibility of another war remains open.”

Abdulrah Al Rashad, a former Saudi newspaper editor, stated that ‘it can negotiate its own departure in exchange for halting Trump’s plan’

And Maher Al-Namura, the spokesman of Fatah, the largest party in the Palestinian Authority Government, has publicly called on Hamas to step down to allow Gaza to move on, with more Palestinian voices stepping up to criticize Hamas.

Cairo has deployed troops in Sinai

Egypt has signaled it is readying an alternative plan for resolving the Gaza crisis without displacing its population. Cairo has strong national security reasons for refusing to host Palestinians from Gaza—so serious that it has even deployed troops in Sinai, despite the risk of irritating Israel, given that their peace treaty mandates a demilitarised Sinai.

Egyptian leaders are so concerned about a potential influx of Gazans that the Egyptian defense ministry declassified documents from the 1973 Arab-Israeli war—a clear signal of defiance. Washington-based Egyptian analyst Magdi Khalil explained:
“Egypt has the right to refuse Gazans in order to preserve its national security because these subversive groups went to Jordan in 1970 and tried to seize power there, went to Lebanon and ignited a civil war in 1975, went to Kuwait and stood with the occupier Saddam Hussein, and went to Syria and turned it into a center of terrorism.”

So far the only concrete plan of rebuilding Gaza has come from Trump

Beyond security concerns, Egypt is likely wary of another issue: Trump’s plan and the India-Middle East-Europe corridor position Gaza as a potential regional trade hub, which could undermine the strategic and economic significance of the Suez Canal, a key source of foreign exchange for Egypt.

Despite strong opposition from major European and Middle Eastern states—and alternative plans that have yet to fully take shape—Trump’s proposal remains the only concrete plan for rebuilding Gaza. It carries the weight of American influence and acknowledges a harsh reality: Gaza is a demolition zone, and without a viable solution, Gazans face years in tents and temporary shelters. For any real progress, a plan must prevent further war and convince donors to invest in reconstruction—so far, Trump’s proposal is the only one that meets those conditions, even if there are few takers.

The UAE’s ambassador in Washington, Yousef Al-Otaiba, captured this sentiment during a discussion at the World Governments Summit in Dubai by saying, “We’re in the solutions-seeking business” and that, “I don’t really see an alternative to what is being proposed. I really don’t. And so, if someone has one, we’re happy to discuss it, we’re happy to explore it, but it hasn’t surfaced yet.” And Wall Street Journalist Sadanand Dhume argued in a column titled, If Indians and Pakistanis Can Relocate, Why Can’t Gazans?, that Trump did not invent population transfers and that millions of Pakistanis, Indians, Turks, Armenians and others have been involved in large population transfers over the past century, in sizes much larger than Gaza’s two million residents.

Meanwhile, Lebanon is gradually curbing Hezbollah and Iran’s influence, best demonstrated by its recent refusal to allow an Iranian passenger plane to land, allegedly carrying money for Hezbollah. In Syria, Secretary Marco Rubio, during his visit to Israel, indicated that Washington is closely monitoring the new rulers in Damascus and, so far, finds their behavior satisfactory.

Tehran is holding its strategic cards close to its chest

Iran, for now, is quietly observing from a distance—an interesting stance given that Arab and Western commentators suggest that Egypt, Jordan, and Israel are cleaning up the mess created by Iran’s Axis of Resistance. But despite recent setbacks, Tehran still holds several strategic cards. It knows that regional powers and the West are willing to ease pressure in exchange for potential talks with a future Trump administration on its nuclear program. Additionally, Tehran is hoping that India will help secure an extension on Chabahar’s waiver from U.S. sanctions.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia