������

The outright rejection by US President Donald Trump and Israel of the Arab states'��plan for Gaza, which was meant to counter the US president’s contentious proposal for the mass displacement of 2.1 million Palestinians, leaves regional states in a precarious position.

With few options left, Arab countries must decide whether to escalate diplomatic pressure or adjust to the shifting political landscape.

For the first time in years, Arab leaders appeared united as they backed a formal 100-page proposal drafted by Egypt in an Arab League emergency summit in Cairo on 4 March.

The proposal, which clearly rejected any attempt to displace Palestinians in Gaza, also stipulated the appointment of a new technocratic government free of Hamas participation - a condition agreed upon by all stakeholders, including the military group that has governed the enclave since 2007.

However, Israel - in conjunction with a supportive and seemingly unquestioning American administration - swiftly dismissed the proposal almost as soon as it was published.

This coincided with Tel Aviv’s abandonment of the ceasefire agreement in Gaza, as Israel cut off all humanitarian aid starting on 2 March and resumed military violence. Trump, meanwhile, threatened severe repercussions if Hamas did not accept Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s unilateral proposal of extending the ceasefire’s first phase to ensure the release of all hostages, without promising anything to Palestinians.

As the US becomes an even less reliable ally than before for many Arab states, observers say one way of strengthening the Palestinian position diplomatically is by investing in alternative international relations to help pressure other major powers to support the Arab proposal.

“At this stage, Arab countries, especially Egypt, are expected to seek the support of the European Union (EU) and some major world powers to support the Egyptian plan,” political researcher in international relations told ������.

The EU option

The EU, which is caught in a tug-of-war with the White House over the Ukraine-Russia conflict, has expressed objections to Israeli policies in Gaza and could be an ally on the future of Gaza if Arab countries find a clear way to convince EU leaders of their plan’s viability, Fouad explained.

While several countries, including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Algeria did not send high-profile representatives to the Cairo summit due to disagreements over the financial and political framework of the Gaza reconstruction plan, the EU sent , who affirmed that “the EU will be present on the ‘day after’ to work with partners on a lasting and sustainable peace” in Gaza.

Fouad also said that the chances of a direct escalation between Arab states and the US remains very unlikely, particularly Cairo and Riyadh, which are keen on maintaining strategic ties with Washington. “While it will be difficult to take sharp measures, some states may take bolder political steps to counter Western pressure,” noted Fouad.

“The issue of Palestinian displacement in Gaza remains a major point of contention, with Arab states firmly rejecting any forced demographic changes, even if some actors may be pressured into accepting alternatives,” said Fouad, noting that despite divisions between Arab states, the Palestinian cause will remain an issue of contention which could bring them together.

Dependency on the US

, Israel blocked the entry of all humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip, including fuel, after Hamas rejected a new Israeli proposal to extend the ceasefire’s first phase.

This decision sparked widespread criticism from humanitarian organisations from around the world, with Oxfam considering it an act of collective. The UN, South Africa, and many European states also quickly criticised the decision.

France, Germany, and the UK released a joint statement, telling Israel to “abide by its international obligations”, adding that the decision “would risk violating international humanitarian law”.

However, that goes both ways according to, Professor of Political Science at Cairo University, who points out that there is huge Arab “economic and military dependence on Washington”. The biggest recipient of US military aid after Israel is Egypt.

He contends this also makes military escalation by Arab states on behalf of the Palestinian cause unlikely as a bargaining chip, even if US intransigence pushed nations to the edge.

According to Professor of Political Science at Cairo University Dr Ammar Ali, perhaps the best diplomatic leverage that regional allies have now is their power to refuse to sign normalisation treaties with Israel, or in the case of countries like the UAE, Egypt, Bahrain, Jordan, and Morocco, pulling out of previous accords.

“Trump sees Arab states signing the Abraham Accords with Israel as a major policy achievement from the previous term, and the goal for this one,” he said.

Yet experts like Dr Nafaa see Arab success as coming through a synthesis of different pressure levers and strongly warns against “slipping towards Israeli perceptions that seek to deal with Arab countries individually”.

Journalist and fellow political analyst insists there must be a combination of “Arab coordination supported by international support accompanied by economic and political action that reflects the extent of the connection of regional interests to the future of Gaza”.

In effect, leverage ultimately comes down to a common denominator: Arab unity. While this is possible, summits like Cairo risk it slipping away, due to a “remarkable absence of the leaders of the Gulf and the Arab Maghreb,” according to Professor of Political Science at Cairo University.

Conscious of what is at stake, Dr Assad is pessimistic about where regional allies now stand. “The Arab position is confused, the Palestinian factions are mired in their internal conflicts,” he concludes.

“All the while Israel and America are proceeding with their plans without real confrontation”.

This piece was published in collaboration with .