Saudi Arabia and the UAE condition Gaza aid on Hamas’s disarmament—while Qatar pushes for rapid rebuilding with few strings attached.
As Gaza’s ruins cry for rebuilding, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar clash over who controls the future. The stakes: billions in aid, political dominance, and the fate of Hamas.
Beneath the rubble of Gaza lies not just a humanitarian crisis—but a high-stakes power struggle among Gulf states. Saudi Arabia and the UAE, long skeptical of Hamas, are vying for control of Gaza’s postwar future.
They offer money, manpower, and diplomatic weight—but only if Hamas is sidelined and disarmed.
Qatar, however, wants reconstruction now, with far fewer conditions—setting up a confrontation that could delay peace and empower old rivals.
Israel, eager to offload Gaza’s burdens, quietly backs Riyadh and Abu Dhabi. But both Gulf giants demand Hamas be defanged first—insisting that their billions not prop up an armed faction blamed for instability across the region.
They also want the Palestinian Authority restructured, even replaced, before any major investment. Without clear governance and security reforms, they say, rebuilding is just rearming.
But Qatar, the Strip’s lifeline for over a decade, isn’t letting go. Its relationship with Hamas is pragmatic but powerful.
Though it backed a Trump-era pledge for Hamas disarmament, Doha now prefers ambiguity—keeping its leverage intact while playing mediator.
The U.S. sees Qatar as essential to ceasefire talks, making Israel and the Gulf wary of pushing too hard.
Tensions flared again at the Sharm el-Sheikh summit, where Saudi and Emirati absences signaled dissatisfaction with Qatar and Turkey’s prominence.
Meanwhile, Qatar’s push for immediate reconstruction—with little oversight—raises fears in Abu Dhabi and Riyadh that Hamas could rebound and the cycle of violence resume.
For now, all three agree on one thing: disarmament is essential. But while the UAE might consider boots on the ground—under strict conditions—Qatar sees that as a provocation.
No one wants to be viewed as enforcing Israeli policy.
The dilemma is simple: rush to rebuild and risk rearming Hamas—or delay aid and prolong suffering. The answer may lie in a phased approach: step-by-step disarmament, limited Israeli withdrawal, and a vetted Palestinian force.
But unless the Gulf states align on vision and execution, Gaza may once again be trapped between competing ambitions and unfinished wars.
