4 European Countries Back Arab Plan for Gaza Reconstruction
The foreign ministers of France, Germany, Italy and Britain said on Saturday they supported an Arab-backed plan for the reconstruction of Gaza that would cost $53 billion and avoid displacing Palestinians from the enclave.
"The plan shows a realistic path to the reconstruction of Gaza and promises – if implemented – swift and sustainable improvement of the catastrophic living conditions for the Palestinians living in Gaza," the ministers said in a joint statement, according to Reuters.
The plan, which was drawn up by Egypt and adopted by Arab leaders on Tuesday, has been rejected by Israel and by US President Donald Trump, who has presented his own vision to turn the Gaza Strip into a "Middle East Riviera.'
The Egyptian proposal envisages the creation of an administrative committee of independent, professional Palestinian technocrats entrusted with the governance of Gaza after the end of the war in Gaza between Israel and the Palestinian militant group Hamas.
The committee would be responsible for the oversight of humanitarian aid and managing the Strip's affairs for a temporary period under the supervision of the Palestinian Authority.
The statement issued by the four European countries on Saturday said they were "committed to working with the Arab initiative," and they appreciated the "important signal" the Arab states had sent by developing it.
The statement said Hamas "must neither govern Gaza nor be a threat to Israel any more" and that the four countries "support the central role for the Palestinian Authority and the implementation of its reform agenda."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Arabiya
2 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
Trump takes the stage at huge military parade in Washington
US President Donald Trump kicked off his long dreamt-of military parade in Washington on his 79th birthday Saturday, as tens of thousands of protesters rallied across the country to call him a dictator. Trump walked on to a huge stage in front of the White House with First Lady Melania Trump, before a 21-gun salute rang out and the US national anthem played.
Makkah Newspaper
4 hours ago
- Makkah Newspaper
Gulf investments: A sovereign right impervious to critices
Do critics have the right to question the Gulf states' investments in thriving global economies? What truly drives these criticisms? The complex interplay of economic and political dynamics reveals a clear truth: such critiques often lack objective grounding, rooted instead in dubious political or ideological motives, tinged with envy and resentment toward the Gulf's remarkable achievements. Statistics and historical data confirm that, since their founding, Gulf states have pursued a balanced strategy for managing their wealth. They blend domestic development, generous foreign aid, and strategic investments in stable, advanced economies. This thoughtful approach has proven successful over decades, enabling Gulf states to preserve and grow their wealth for future generations while setting a global standard for generosity and support for those in need. An unbiased observer can see that critics who brand Gulf investments in robust global economies as 'plunder' or 'waste' often hail from corrupt authoritarian regimes, terror groups, or factions pushing extremist ideologies hostile to prosperity and stability. These detractors deliberately ignore the Gulf states' sovereign right to manage their wealth and investments in line with their national interests. History clearly documents the Gulf's generosity, with hundreds of billions of dollars in aid extended to Arab, Islamic, and developing countries over decades. For example, Saudi Arabia's aid from 1975 to 2024 totaledapproximately 498.54 billion riyals (132.94 billion USD). From 1976 to 1987, its international development aid reached 49 billion USD, second only to the United States. The United Arab Emirates, meanwhile, has consistently surpassed the United Nations' goal of allocating 0.7% of gross national income to official development assistance, reaching 1.17% in 2014. In several years, the UAE exceeded this target, earning acclaim in reports from the OECD's Development Assistance Committee as the top donor relative to its economy's size. The UAE's deep commitment to humanitarian and developmental responsibilities has been driven by a vision that sees fostering progress in developing countries as a foundation for global stability, not just a diplomatic gesture. When viewed with clarity and fairness, it is evident that Gulf states have never leveraged their aid to exert political pressure or meddle in the affairs of recipient countries. Their assistance springs from genuine humanitarian, moral, and religious values, setting it apart from the often conditional aid of some major powers, which is typically tied to political or economic agendas. The Gulf's decision to channel financial surpluses into strong global economies, notably the United States, is not impulsive but a carefully crafted strategy grounded in a deep understanding of global markets and the need for secure, profitable investments. The U.S. economy, accounting for over 40% of global investments, is a natural choice for countries with surplus funds aiming to maximize returns while minimizing risks. Its vast scale, relative stability, and diverse sectors offer a safe and dynamic investment, unlike the volatility of emerging or unstable markets. Gulf investments in the U.S. serve not only economic purposes but also strategic ones, safeguarding political and security interests. Given their geopolitical position and oil wealth, Gulf states face complex security and political challenges, requiring powerful allies to provide protection and support against regional threats. Investments in economies like the U.S. strengthen strategic partnerships, creating shared interests that bolster regional stability and security. Advanced economies attract Gulf investments due to their political and economic stability, robust legal frameworks, diverse opportunities, technological innovation, and ease of market entry and exit. Calling Gulf investments in thriving global economies 'plunder' is a misguided and misleading label, betraying a lack of understanding of global economic dynamics and international investment principles. Investment is a mutually beneficial exchange, not exploitation. Gulf states gain financial returns and strategic benefits, while host economies benefit from capital inflows that fund projects, create jobs, and fuel economic growth. Since their inception, Gulf states have embraced a governance model built on wisdom, transparency, and long-term planning. Recognizing the finite nature of oil wealth, they understood early on that over-reliance on it threatens future generations. Their strategy hinges on three pillars: domestic development, foreign aid, and global market investments. Openness and coexistence define Gulf societies, setting them apart from those under authoritarian regimes or extremist influence. These states have fostered inclusive, tolerant communities where diverse cultures, religions, and ethnicities thrive in mutual respect and cooperation. Millions of expatriates from around the world live and work in the Gulf with freedom and dignity, practicing their religious and cultural traditions without restriction or harassment. To be sure, Gulf investments in strong global economies come from a place of prudent wealth management and a forward-thinking vision to ensure a prosperous, sustainable future for generations to come. Critics who challenge these investments lack credible evidence or rigorous economic analysis, driven instead by questionable political and ideological motives, revealing envy and resentment toward the Gulf region's success in wisely stewarding its wealth and investments.
Arab News
6 hours ago
- Arab News
Has the Russia-Ukraine conflict taken a back seat?
Nearly 150 days after returning to the Oval Office, US President Donald Trump is no closer to brokering a lasting peace between Ukraine and Russia than he was on Day 1. This was a signature issue of his campaign. He regularly criticized President Joe Biden's handling of the conflict and claimed that had he been in office, the war would never have started. Although foreign policy did not dominate the 2024 election, Trump consistently argued that only he could bring the two sides to the negotiating table and deliver results where others had failed. Upon taking office, however, he quickly discovered that the reality was more complicated. After initially promising he could achieve peace in 24 hours, almost five months later any reference to a timeline has quietly disappeared. The problem of finding a path to peace stems from several overlapping challenges. Firstly, the Trump administration is trying to address too many major foreign policy issues at once. This scattershot approach has diluted focus and prevented a sustained effort on any single objective. In addition to the pursuit of peace in Ukraine, Trump is also renegotiating major trade agreements. The deteriorating US-China relationship, particularly in the Indo-Pacific, consumes a significant share of attention. Meanwhile, the revived nuclear talks with Iran and the Israeli attack on Iran have emerged as another top-tier priority, often bumping other diplomatic efforts — such as Ukraine — down the list. Another major hurdle is the lack of internal coordination within the US government. Disjointed messaging and inconsistent policy execution have plagued the administration's approach. The Department of Defense and intelligence agencies have paused or scaled back various forms of assistance to Ukraine at different points over the past few months. Congressional pressure, especially from those Republicans who remain committed to aiding Ukraine, has helped keep support flowing but uncertainty looms. Most estimates suggest existing funding will run out by late summer. Yet the administration has offered no clear plan for what happens next. Moscow knows this and is stalling to buy time. More troubling is the apparent reluctance to exert serious pressure on Russia. In recent months, most of the diplomatic pressure has been directed at Ukraine, which has complied with nearly every US request since Trump returned to office. This lopsided approach is unsustainable. If the administration is truly committed to peace, then some of the burden must also be placed on Moscow. Perhaps the most damaging dynamic at play is the internal division within the president's own party. The Republican coalition is fractured when it comes to America's role in the world, and those divisions are spilling into the administration's foreign policy. The Republican coalition is fractured when it comes to America's role in the world. Luke Coffey One faction, small but principled, consists of Reagan-style conservatives who believe in strong American leadership abroad. They argue that support for Ukraine advances US national security by weakening one of America's top adversaries. But they are increasingly isolated within a broader conservative movement that is shifting toward skepticism, and in some cases outright hostility, toward international engagement. A second, and more vocal, faction is the isolationist wing. These conservatives view America's involvement in Ukraine as a costly distraction and argue that US interests are not at stake. They want a reduced global footprint and see aid to Ukraine as a waste of taxpayer money. Then there are the so-called 'prioritizers,' who argue that all US resources — strategic, diplomatic and military — should be redirected toward confronting China. They believe that maintaining global commitments in Europe or the Middle East undermines America's ability to face its greatest long-term challenge, in Asia. Finally, there is a fringe, but increasingly vocal, group within the party who believe that Russia should be considered a potential US partner. They argue that Washington should seek detente with Moscow as a way of counterbalancing China. Not only is this dangerously naive, it also ignores Russia's record of aggression and subversion against the West. This internal infighting is not only undermining US policy toward Ukraine, it is also creating uncertainty among other traditional American allies. These partners, who have long relied on steady and predictable US leadership, are increasingly unsure of Washington's commitment. The lack of consensus within the White House is weakening America's global credibility and making it more difficult to rally coalitions in defense of shared interests. So what can Trump do? There is no question that he wants to end the war. Beyond the humanitarian interest, he sees a successful peace deal as a way to define his legacy as the leader who brought peace to Europe when others could not. But good intentions are not enough; if he is serious, he must take concrete steps. Firstly, the White House must work with Congress to pass a strong package of sanctions that could be enacted if Russia refuses to negotiate in good faith. Secondly, there must be a contingency plan to ensure continued military and financial support to Ukraine if current funding expires. To reassure those concerned about the cost, the recently signed critical minerals agreement between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky could help finance continued US aid. Trump must also intensify his diplomatic outreach. Countries such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey, both of which have played meaningful roles in prior negotiations, could serve as conveners for future talks. The White House should actively coordinate with these actors, and others who can help bring both sides to the table. While the path to peace remains uncertain, the right strategy — one that combines pressure, incentives, and diplomacy — could get peace talks back on track. If Trump can get this right, he will not only bolster his own legacy, he could end a brutal war, bring a just and fair peace to Ukraine, reaffirm American leadership, and help bring lasting peace to the transatlantic region. • Luke Coffey is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. X: @LukeDCoffey
