Arab leaders must embrace multipolarity to counter Trump’s Gaza plan

In the aftermath of Trump’s ludicrous Gaza plan, which has now been watered down, Arab leaders have been scrambling to present a counterproposal — one that doesn’t spell disaster for them, unlike Trump’s brazen scheme to have the US “take over” Gaza while forcing millions of Palestinians into exile in other Arab countries.

With the emergency Arab League Summit in Cairo being held tomorrow, efforts to finalise a concrete plan have taken on greater urgency. On 21 February, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman hosted Arab leaders in Riyadh for an “informal gathering” aimed at formulating a unified response. Once finalised, the plan is expected to be presented at the upcoming Arab League meeting.

However, unlike their immediate and forceful rejection of Trump’s proposal, this time, the Arab leaders’ response has been noticeably vague. In stark contrast to standard protocol, the Riyadh meeting concluded with no final communiqué, no press conference and no official details — just a single photograph of leaders from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Egypt, Kuwait, Jordan and Bahrain standing shoulder to shoulder. This glaring silence suggests that, as of now, there is still no concrete counterproposal to Trump’s Gaza plan.

This may be due to several fundamental problems. First among them is the stark absence of the clause “self-determination” for the Palestinians, which by now should be understood as non-negotiable. In fact, Trump’s original plan sought to deny this principle altogether in the most simplistic and unrealistic way — by proposing that the US would “take over” and “own” Gaza while forcibly displacing its population — a policy amounting to ethnic cleansing.

Unfortunately, the counterproposals floated so far also fail to address this principle. At best, they focus narrowly on rebuilding genocide-torn Gaza while sidestepping the critical question of governance. Others suggest handing it over to another widely unpopular, corrupt Palestinian faction to assume full responsibility.

READ: Who will govern Gaza the day after the war?

At worst, they mirror Trump’s colonial mindset — such as the proposal by Israeli opposition leaders to have Egypt assume control over Gaza. Palestinian resistance group Hamas has already made it clear that it will never allow any foreign force in Gaza and that it “will deal with them as occupation forces.” And believe me, they will.

Another unresolved sticking point is who will finance Gaza’s reconstruction. A joint assessment by the United Nations, European Union and World Bank estimates that rebuilding Gaza will cost over $50 billion, with at least $20 billion needed in the first three years alone. Thus, Trump’s proposed takeover of Gaza may well be a ploy to pressure wealthy Gulf states into footing the bill. While he has since walked back his demand that Arab nations accept displaced Palestinians, he is now waiting for Arab leaders to propose an alternative — one that would see them pay for reconstruction while the US reaps the political benefits. All of this has left Arab leaders between a rock and a hard place. They must formulate a proposal that satisfies both the Palestinian people and their own citizens while also navigating the many red lines set by Israel and its staunchest ally, the US.

As the old adage goes, in situations like this, we must think outside the box. For Arab leaders, that means thinking beyond the framework of the US-led world order, which has become obsolete anyway. In this regard, they should embrace the multipolarity of the current global landscape, where multiple centres of power influence international affairs, economies and policies.

The global landscape in 2025 will be very different from that of 2017 when Trump first took office. Even his own administration acknowledges this shift. In his inaugural address, Trump signaled restraint, stating that: “We will measure our success not only by the battles we win but also by the wars that we end – and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into.”

READ: Real homeland of Gaza’s refugees is in Haifa, Acre, Jaffa not Gaza

Talks of a potential “New Yalta Conference” are already gaining traction, especially amid reports that Trump will join Chinese President Xi Jinping at Moscow’s Victory Day celebrations, marking the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II.

Even Trump’s Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, has conceded that the world is returning to a multipolar structure.

This is a reality Arab leaders must embrace and leverage. While the Middle East remains largely within Washington’s sphere of influence, several countries have already begun hedging their bets in anticipation of Trump’s return by engaging with other centres of power, especially China. Some have even grown into regional powers themselves. By leveraging this shifting geopolitical landscape, Arab leaders can craft a far more effective approach to the Gaza crisis — one that is not dictated by Washington’s interests.

First, Arab leaders should engage the broader international community to push for a Palestinian-led solution in Gaza. European nations — many of whom are increasingly critical of Israel — could serve as strategic partners, particularly as divisions within the transatlantic alliance deepen under Trump’s leadership.

Second, on the question of reconstruction, expertise from East Asia — particularly China and Japan — could be far more effective than a US-led effort. More importantly, by internationalising the rebuilding effort, Arab leaders could push for greater accountability from the Zionist regime in accordance with international law. There is no question that Israel should shoulder the financial responsibility for reconstructing Gaza, which it has utterly destroyed.

Even if this demand is not met, Gaza’s wealthy Gulf neighbours are more than capable of funding the effort — but only under conditions that ensure a just and lasting peace. Unlike previous deals, this time, Arab leaders should not allow their financial contributions to come with political strings attached. Trump, as transactional as he is, may find such an arrangement appealing. But in a multipolar world, he must also understand that those who contribute nothing no longer get to dictate the terms. Trump cannot have his cake and eat it too. The 1948 Marshall Plan for postwar Europe serves as a case in point.

Ultimately, Arab leaders must recognise that the only way to deal with a bully like Trump is to stand up to him. And as they gather for the emergency Arab League Summit, perhaps the best way to do so is by reminding him that he is no longer the only power in the room.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.