Tony Blair, with the support of Washington, Jared Kushner and Saudi, proposes a Gaza International Transitional Authority to replace the current governance of the Striscia.
What until a few days ago circulated only as a diplomatic indiscretion was revealed: the proposal of Tony Blair, former British Prime Minister and former special correspondent in Middle Eastto draw the future of the Gaza Strip after the war. A plan that has received the support of Washington and that aims to replace the current structure of the strip with a new administrative entity, the Gaza International Transitional Authority (trip)conceived as a provisional authority with international mandate.
According to reports from several newspapers, the TRIP would have the task of guaranteeing security, managing essential services and starting a path to one Governance Palestinese reformed. It would therefore be a bridge administration, destined to avoid the emptiness of power after the war and prevent that Gaza It falls into a spiral of anarchy and violence, fertile ground for new militias. The heart of the project revolves around the disarmament and the demobilization of the fighters through a Balkan -type process, modeled on the experiences of the 90s in the Balkans, when the international community promoted programs To collect the weapons of the militiasdissolve the paramilitary brigades and reintegrate the fighters in civil life. Blair He would like to replicate that model in Gaza, gradually dismantling the military car without undertaking an annihilation war that would risk never ending. A curious but not accidental aspect is that the name never appears in the document of Hamas: we speak generically of “armed structures” to be dismantled and a new authority called to manage the transition.
It is a calculated silence, useful not to stiffen the Palestinian front and not to hinder the negotiations on the hostages, but which for Israel risks appearing as an attempt to save, at least symbolically, the organization responsible for the massacre of the 7 October 2023. The proposal also addresses the question of property rights, establishing that those who leave Gaza for security reasons would keep the ownership of their homes and the possibility of returning. It is an attempt to defuse the accusation of “New Nakba“, Which accompanies any hypothesis of evacuation, and to offer a formal guarantee to the Palestinian civilians. At the same time, the plan is connected to the release of the hostages and to the ceased the fire: only if it will be clear who will govern Gaza and with what guarantees can a temporary respite be transformed into a stable agreement.
Behind the scenes, the role of Jared Kushner It is decisive. The former director of Donald Trumpformer architect of Abraham agreementswould encourage Blair to elaborate a formula capable of meeting the favor of Gulf monarchies and, at least in part, of Israel. It is not surprising that theSaudi Arabia has been identified as the real pivot of the transition: Riyadh Not only does it have the resources necessary to finance reconstruction, but can give the project a political legitimacy that would otherwise miss. Mohammed Bin Salmanhowever, would not invest lightly: in return he wants guarantees on a credible perspective of Palestinian state and the consolidation of the strategic partnership with Washington. The logic of this design is clear: to move the axis of the Palestinian question from military soil to that of economic diplomacy, offering a model of “peace through development”. Gaza It would be transformed into a conversion laboratory, in which the concrete conclusion should replace weapons, while the funds of the Gulf They would guarantee wages, infrastructures and economic opportunities. But here the first analytical node is hidden: the belief that an injection of money and projects can erase deceived conflict, ideology and political-religious belonging. Previous experiences in Middle East They show that the economy can be a stabilizing factor only if inserted in a credible political framework. Without a shared Palestinian national perspective, the risk is that the trip becomes a purely technical administration, tolerated until the funds arrive, but without real legitimacy.
The second critical element concerns Israel. While not having expressed an official position, it is clear that a Jerusalem Skepticism prevails. The absence of the name of Hamas In the text it is seen as a form of diplomatic ambiguity that risks weakening Israeli narrative on the need to eradicate the Islamist movement. In addition, Israel will hardly accept to entrust the safety of its borders to an international authority of new creation: the control of the smuggling of weapons from Sinai and the sea remains a constant concern, and any proposal that does not provide for a direct role of Jerusalem will be rejected as unreliable.
To complicate the framework there is the question ofNational Palestinian authority. Blair and his sponsors would like that, in perspective, it was precisely the ANP who took over the trip, but the chronic weakness of the Administration of Mahmoud Abbas It makes it not very credible. In the eyes of the population of Gaza, his return would play as an imposition from the outside, especially if orchestrated by Blair, Kushner And Riyadh. Here the problem of legitimacy is grafted: a transitory authority dropped from above, without popular consensus and linked to sponsors perceived as too close to Israel, risks triggering new tensions instead of placing them. Ultimately, the plan Blair-Kushner He tries to offer a way out to the war without tackling the thorniest political node: The Palestinian representation. If those who are entitled to govern will not be clarified Gaza After the transitory phase, and with what international recognition, the risk is that the TRIP An administrative shell remains, destined to collapse in the first jolt. The international community will also be able to present it as an innovative solution, but without the consent of the Palestinian population e Without concrete responses to Israeli security needsit is likely that an elegant diplomatic exercise remains, useful for gaining time and newspaper titles rather than building peace.
