Middle East needs a multipolar security order

President Donald Trump's Gaza peace plan builds on the New York Declaration, a resolution presented jointly by Saudi Arabia and France at the UNGA last month and adopted by 142 votes. Calling for inclusive efforts to end the war in Gaza, it demanded  Hamas release all hostages, surrender its rule in the enclave and “hand over its weapons to the Palestinian Authority”.

But Washington and Tel Aviv rejected it vehemently because the measure emphasised the implementation of a two-state solution immediately. In contrast, the peace plan unveiled by Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu centred on disarming Hamas and shelving the likelihood of Palestinian statehood for an indefinite period.

Hamas has given a partial nod to the peace plan, agreeing to release all hostages yet refusing to disarm until Tel Aviv’s full withdrawal from Gaza. However, Netanyahu’s forceful rejection of Palestinian statehood, history of reneging from ceasefires, genocidal ideology and far-right leadership further arouse concern that even if a deal is reached, it will briefly pause Israel's hostilities rather than promoting sustainable peace.

According to Axios, the version of the peace plan agreed between Trump and Netanyahu differs significantly with the one presented to the Arab and Muslim leaders and shared with Hamas, enraging Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Türkiye. 

The last-minute edits, especially linking Israel's troop withdrawal with Hamas disarmament, and a report in Times of Israel revealed that some clauses were deliberately left ambiguous to protect Tel Aviv’s interests, denying the formation of a Palestinian state and retaining Israel’s control on the occupied territories. 

Statements from Qatar and Pakistan – Trump’s plan “requires clarification and negotiation” and the 20 points “made public are not ours” – amplify suspicions the initiative is carefully crafted to skew it overwhelmingly in Tel Aviv’s favour.

The underlying objective behind these revisions was to provoke Hamas' dismissal of Trump’s peace proposal, thereby enabling Netanyahu to deflect political backlash at home. Hamas, by expressing its willingness to resolve the crisis, undercut these attempts. If enacted in its current form, the plan would only halt, not cease, Israeli hostilities. In the long run, it could expose vulnerable Palestinians to future Israel’s assaults.

Such an outcome would embolden Tel Aviv to entrench its dominance and threaten the sovereignty of other nations as illustrated by its attacks on other countries and unprecedented strikes on Hamas leadership in Qatar.

Netanyahu’s apology to Doha and Trump’s executive order, pledging to consider “any armed attack” against Qatar as a threat to America’s peace and security, is largely symbolic. The presidential directive bypasses the Senate, making it nonbinding for future US administrations.

At face value, the initiative seems to assuage region-wide skepticism on US security guarantees. It also reflects unease in the White House over the Strategic Mutual Defense Agreement (SMDA) between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Although the Riyadh-Islamabad pact was in the making for years, Israel’s aggression against Qatar and the initial US tepid response accelerated its signing.

Over the last few years, the Gulf has seen the rise of "more pragmatic, less ideological" leadership. These Gen-Z leaders viewed Hamas, over its historical ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, as a threat to their dynasty rule. While regional countries didn’t criticise the movement, fearing a public backlash, they drew closer to India and embraced the Abraham Accords to secure strategic dividends from normalised ties with Israel.

But Tel Avis’ ceaseless violations of regional sovereignty have shifted the same pragmatism in Islamabad's favour. In response, they have been trying to diversify their security partnerships away from Washington. The SMDA signals this tectonic shift in Middle East geopolitics.

America’s fragile-now-selective commitment to Gulf security urges regional nations not to solely rely on unilateral initiatives or assurances and pursue alternative, multipolar defence arrangements. Netanyahu’s pursuit of “Greater Israel” – a controversial term used in reference to areas including East Jerusalem, West Bank, Gaza Strip, Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights Israel captured in the 1967 war – gives them a blunt warning: after disarming Hamas, they will be the next.

With its veto powers at the United Nations Security Council and political and military influence in the Middle East, the US has granted Israel an unbounded authority to act with impunity. 

And its stated position – to maintain Israel’s qualitative military edge and bolster its ability to “counter and defeat” all kinds of military threats from any state or coalition of states as well as ensure unrestrained supply of arms to eliminate Hamas – stipulates it to protect Israel no matter what consequence result from Tel Aviv’s expansionist goals.

The volatile regional security landscape demands that the Arab and Islamic world move beyond rhetorically condemning Israel’s actions and ambitions and begin institutionalising defence cooperation into a comprehensive multipolar security partnership.

Such an inclusive regional security order, to which the SMDA could serve as an effective platform, won’t abandon security partnerships with America. This mechanism will aim to add an extra layer of defence, contributing to building a robust regional security architecture that is capable of maintaining strategic balance and promoting durable peace in the Middle East. 

The author writes on geopolitical issues and regional conflicts. He can be reached at axar.axam@gmail.com