The UAE Conditions Gaza Reconstruction on the Exclusion of Palestinian Resistance

Leaked correspondence published by the Hebrew daily Israel Hayom reveals an Emirati condition for participating in Gaza’s reconstruction: the exclusion and disarmament of Palestinian resistance — a demand that aligns closely with the Israeli position.

According to the report, diplomatic sources describe a coordinated Gulf stance (the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain) that signals willingness to withdraw support from the US reconstruction plan for Gaza if Hamas’s weapons are not removed and its administrative wing is kept away from running the territory. The blunt message is clear: no funding, no rebuilding, so long as the resistance remains a factor — even temporarily — in any post-war arrangements.

The newspaper emphasised that this stance is not a mere “technical reservation” about transitional security arrangements; rather, it reflects an Emirati political doctrine that stretches from Yemen to Libya and Tunisia: anything connected to political Islam is treated as an existential threat to be uprooted before anything else, even at the cost of undermining long-awaited ceasefires or de-escalation tracks.

The consequence is immediate and tragic: linking Gaza reconstruction to exclusionary, de-politicising conditions that cannot be fulfilled quickly will collapse any plan — and the victims will be civilians.

What do the leaks reveal?

First, they show that reconstruction is being used as a tool of coercion rather than an ethical commitment. Any legitimate Arab role in rebuilding Gaza should be measured by service to civilians — not by using reconstruction as leverage to reshape Palestinian political life to suit Abu Dhabi and Riyadh.

Second, Gulf criticism paints the flexibility offered by mediators such as Qatar, Turkey and Egypt — temporary security arrangements to prevent a vacuum — as “leniency.” In the preferred Abu Dhabi model, the alternative is a punitive vacuum: if the resistance is not removed immediately, everything is frozen.

That recasts the formula: weapons first, then discussion. But the logic of “disarm first” ignores basic conflict-management realities: no authority can impose security without credible transitional arrangements and local acceptance; and no armed movement will surrender its arms into a political, security and economic void.

The Emirati doctrine: hostility to resistance

Abu Dhabi treats Hamas and other resistance factions as extensions of the Muslim Brotherhood, placing ideological eradication above any other consideration.

We have seen the catastrophic results of this approach in several Arab contexts: securitising political life, handing real authority to hard instruments, and flattening complex local grievances into a problem of “organisational pathology” rather than occupation, dispossession and siege.

In Gaza, the danger is magnified: to tie the rebuilding of homes, hospitals and schools to the exclusion of a social and military actor that is entrenched on the ground is a recipe for post-war explosion — not closure.

Three dangers of the “reconstruction in return for exclusion” formula

1. A booby-trapped security vacuum. Removing a central player without an accepted local substitute — one that has legitimacy with the popular base — invites chaos: small armed groups, criminal networks, or mercenary cells may present themselves as “temporary guardians.”
2. Social explosion. Collective punishment breeds renewed legitimacy for those who are targeted. Telling a population “no bread, no medicine, no shelter until your strongest faction is broken” will be read as punishment for steadfastness.
3. Stripping the Palestinian agency. Turning Gaza’s future into a bargain between capitals — Washington, Tel Aviv, Abu Dhabi and Riyadh — sidelines local stakeholders: civil society, unions, factions, and community elders. Reconstruction without local agency becomes a material form of re-occupation.

The absence of leaders at Sharm el-Sheikh — a political body language

The absence of Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman from the Sharm el-Sheikh summit was not a mere ceremonial footnote. If the circulated interpretation is accurate, it was open coercion: we will not lend Egypt, Qatar and Turkey cover for a deal that allows even a temporary political presence for Hamas.

Abu Dhabi and Riyadh sought to cement a Gulf veto over the post-war order: either a formula of disarmament and exclusion, or frozen financing. Yet these same capitals present themselves as “partners of stability.” What kind of stability begins by hollowing out the political roof over people’s homes before mending their walls?

Palestinian officials insist on rejecting the exchange of reconstruction for exclusion. They argue that rebuilding is a right for civilians, not a bargaining chip, and that the architecture of services and infrastructure must be separated from political and security tracks. They call for transparent oversight and independent implementing bodies that include the United Nations and professional Palestinian institutions.

Those officials stress that the Emirati approach — and those who align with it — favour destruction over construction: they want to begin the “peace” by erasing a party, not by securing people’s rights, dignity and safety.

Anyone who speaks of “stability” should put the Palestinian civilian at the centre of calculations, not make them hostage to ideological and vengeful conditions. Reconstruction that starts with the exclusion of the resistance will end — whether in life or in death — in the exclusion of Gaza itself from its right to live.