عربي English Türkçe اردو فارسى
Logo
Latest News
Features

What Will We Do the Day After the War? Israel’s Million-Dollar Question

Smoke rises from Beit Hanoun in northern Gaza (EPA)
Smoke rises from Beit Hanoun in northern Gaza (EPA)
TT
TT

What Will We Do the Day After the War? Israel’s Million-Dollar Question

Smoke rises from Beit Hanoun in northern Gaza (EPA)
Smoke rises from Beit Hanoun in northern Gaza (EPA)

The million-dollar question in Israel, which has remained unanswered since the lengthy 2014 war on Gaza, revolved around the “day after” regaining control of the territory.

In Israel’s small-scale security and political cabinet, questions such as “What should our actions be on the following day? Should we maintain our presence? Reoccupy Gaza? Restore the Palestinian Authority? Or should we withdraw and potentially face a resurgence of Hamas' power?” were raised.

The questions were discussed by thinkers, journalists, writers, security experts, retired military personnel, and intelligence agencies, including Mossad and Shin Bet.

However, these questions have remained unanswered.

Nine years later, Israel finds itself compelled to fight in the heart of Gaza with the goal of toppling and destroying Hamas’ rule. Nevertheless, the issue of the “day after” the overthrow of the movement’s rule continues to be a cause for concern, assuming that the Israelis succeed in their mission.

Security Control without Clear Answers

After a month of fierce conflict with the Palestinians and significant pressure from the US, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that Israel would assume “comprehensive security responsibility” in Gaza “for an unspecified period” following the conclusion of the war against Hamas.

Netanyahu conveyed to ABC News that Israel will take on comprehensive security responsibility for an unspecified period because it has witnessed what happens when it doesn’t.

“When we don't assume that security responsibility, what we end up with is a scale of terrorism (Hamas) beyond imagination,” said Netanyahu.

While this marks the first time the premier has spoken about Israel’s vision for the day after Hamas, it remains unclear what he means regarding the extent of security responsibility.

Was Netanyahu implying a desire to occupy Gaza, occupy a portion in the north of the territory, and establish a security buffer zone with Israeli forces for some time, or was he speaking about continuing operations as needed after a complete withdrawal?

Israeli officials insist they do not seek to occupy Gaza, and President Joe Biden’s administration has also expressed opposition to this scenario.

Amir Tibon, writing in Haaretz, suggests there is no exit plan from the current crisis, and US officials are concerned about the absence of a clear exit strategy.

He added that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken raised this during his recent visit to the Israeli government, but his impression of the Israeli responses is that “the matter was not explicitly put up for discussion.”

Israeli state-owned free-to-air television channel “Kan 11” confirmed that Netanyahu's government has begun outlining the broad parameters for the post-war scenario and the nature of security control in the Gaza Strip, driven by ongoing US pressures to make a decision on this matter.

Who Holds Civilian Authority?

Over the past 30 days, Israeli officials have put forth several scenarios, including altering the shape of Gaza, reducing its territory, establishing an international governing body, deploying peacekeeping forces, or the return of the Palestinian Authority.

While US officials confirmed that discussions are ongoing, following ideas presented by Blinken to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid believed that the Palestinian Authority is the sole entity capable of assuming control over Gaza after a victory over Hamas.

Lapid asserted that civilian control should rest with the PA, while security control in the foreseeable future should remain in the hands of the Israeli military.

Most Viewed

 
 
Features

Sudan in 25 Years: One War Begets Another

Fleeing the fighting, people are transported by truck from the border town of Renk in South Sudan to a dock to continue their journey to the next destination (DPA)
Fleeing the fighting, people are transported by truck from the border town of Renk in South Sudan to a dock to continue their journey to the next destination (DPA)
TT
TT

Sudan in 25 Years: One War Begets Another

Fleeing the fighting, people are transported by truck from the border town of Renk in South Sudan to a dock to continue their journey to the next destination (DPA)
Fleeing the fighting, people are transported by truck from the border town of Renk in South Sudan to a dock to continue their journey to the next destination (DPA)

The sound of gunfire, barrel bombs, and stray bullets is nothing new in Sudan. What’s new is that the violence has moved from the outskirts to the capital, Khartoum. This shift forced the government and military to relocate to a temporary capital in Port Sudan, nearly 1,000 kilometers away on the Red Sea coast.
Past conflicts were seen as rebellions against the state, but they stemmed from a deeper struggle: the “center” holds all the power and resources, while the “margins” are left with nothing.
These wars have always been about demands for rights and equality.
Under Islamist President Omar al-Bashir, Sudan’s wars shifted from demands for rights to a “religious war” between the Muslim north and the Christian or secular south. This led to South Sudan’s secession and the creation of a new state that joined the United Nations. But what drives the conflicts that continue to devastate Sudan?
Analysts say the root cause is the lack of a national vision and the failure to recognize Sudan’s ethnic and cultural diversity. Without a unified political and economic framework, this diversity has been ignored.
The current war, though fought between two formal armies, stems from the same issues of marginalization and exclusion. These problems sparked Sudan’s first rebellion in 1955, led by the Anya-Nya 1 forces, named after the cobra snake.
The Naivasha Agreement
Sudan’s first civil war ended with the 1972 Addis Ababa Agreement but reignited in 1983 after former President Jaafar Nimeiri imposed Islamic Sharia law. This sparked a rebellion led by John Garang’s Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM).
The conflict escalated into a “jihadist” war as Islamist forces framed it as a battle against “enemies of the faith.” The fighting lasted for years, killing more than two million people.
Unable to secure a military victory, the government signed the Naivasha Agreement in Kenya. The deal granted South Sudan the right to self-determination, with a five-year transitional period to decide between unity or independence.
John Garang briefly became Sudan’s First Vice President during this period but died in a mysterious helicopter crash. His deputy, Salva Kiir, succeeded him and led South Sudan to a 2011 referendum, where the region voted for independence. South Sudan became a new nation, taking a third of Sudan’s land, a quarter of its people, and most of its resources.
Meanwhile, conflict spread to Darfur in 2003, with rebels accusing the government of marginalization. The war turned ethnic when the government armed Arab militias, known as the Janjaweed, to fight African-origin rebel groups. One Janjaweed leader, Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, or Hemedti, later became the head of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF).
The Darfur war claimed 300,000 lives. Al-Bashir’s government was accused of war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity, leading to International Criminal Court arrest warrants for Bashir and three senior officials that remain in effect.
Chasing Peace Across Capitals
In May 2006, Sudan’s government signed a peace deal in Abuja with a faction of the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM) led by Minni Arko Minnawi. However, the movement split, and another faction, led by Abdel Wahid al-Nur, rejected the deal and continued fighting from Jebel Marra in central Darfur.
Minnawi briefly joined the government as an assistant to President Omar al-Bashir but later rebelled again, claiming he was treated as a "kitchen helper" rather than a serious political partner.
Efforts to negotiate peace moved between capitals. In 2011, some groups signed the Doha Document for Peace in Darfur in Qatar, which promised power and wealth-sharing, but fighting continued.
In 2020, Sudan’s transitional government signed a new peace agreement in Juba with key armed groups, including Minnawi’s faction and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) led by Gibril Ibrahim.
The deal gave Minnawi the role of Darfur governor and Ibrahim the post of finance minister. Despite these accords, true peace remains out of reach.
A New Southern Conflict
War broke out in South Kordofan and Blue Nile, two regions given a right to “popular consultation” under the Naivasha Agreement to decide their future. The SPLM-North, an offshoot of the southern SPLM, took up arms again.
The SPLM-N split into two factions: one led by Malik Agar, now a deputy in Sudan’s Sovereign Council, who signed the 2020 Juba Peace Agreement; the other, led by Abdelaziz al-Hilu, controls Kauda in South Kordofan and continues sporadic fighting.
Eastern Sudan also saw conflict in the 1990s, with groups like the Beja Congress and Free Lions opposing Bashir’s regime. These groups later signed the Asmara Peace Agreement, gaining shares of power and wealth.
In April 2019, months of protests forced the military to oust President Omar al-Bashir. But sit-ins continued, and a violent crackdown killed hundreds, drawing condemnation as a horrific crime against civilians.
Under public pressure, the military signed a constitutional declaration in August 2019, agreeing to share power with civilians. This led to a transitional government with Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok, and a Sovereign Council headed by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and his deputy, Hemedti.
War of the Generals
On October 25, 2021, Sudan's army leader overthrew Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok’s civilian government in a coup. Under pressure from peaceful protests, the general later agreed to a framework agreement with civilian leaders, promising a return to civilian rule and preventing the return of the Islamist regime.
However, supporters of the former regime undermined the deal, causing tensions between the army and the RSF, leading to war.
On April 15, 2023, gunfire broke out in southern Khartoum, marking the start of the ongoing conflict. The RSF accused the army of attacking its camps, while some claim Islamist cells within the army targeted the RSF, forcing it to choose between surrender or war.
Miscalculations
The war was expected to end quickly due to the army’s stronger military. However, the RSF surprised the army by using urban warfare tactics to take control of key military bases and government buildings, including the presidential palace.
The government moved to Port Sudan, while Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan was trapped for over three months before escaping.
The RSF expanded its control over Darfur, western Sudan, and the central Gezira region, holding about 70% of the country. After nearly two years of fighting, the army regained some areas, but the RSF still controls large parts of Sudan and continues fierce fighting, with the war still ongoing.
The Worst Humanitarian Crisis
The war in Sudan has killed tens of thousands and triggered what the UN calls "the worst humanitarian crisis in history." More than 11 million people are displaced within Sudan, while around 3 million have fled to neighboring countries. Over half of Sudan’s population, about 25 million people, face severe food insecurity.
Negotiations have failed, with both sides refusing to return to talks after the Jeddah Humanitarian Declaration collapsed, largely due to the army’s and its supporters' refusal to engage.
Root Causes
Former Sovereign Council member and deputy head of the Democratic Civil Forces Coordination “Tagadum,” Al-Hadi Idris blames the war on Sudan’s failure to agree on a “national development plan” since independence.
Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat, he says the main reasons for the conflict are the failure to implement fair development, achieve justice, and the lack of resolution on key issues like the role of religion in politics, national identity, and military involvement in government.
Idris argues that addressing these issues is crucial to ending the war for good.
Mohamed Abdel-Hakim, a leader in the Unionist Gathering, believes the wars stem from unequal development and citizenship.
He says resolving issues like marginalization, protecting people’s rights, and replacing oppressive regimes with democratic governance is key to stopping Sudan’s long-running conflicts.
Abdel-Hakim also calls for reforming the military to create a professional, national army focused on protecting the constitution and civilian leadership, with strict oversight to prevent the army from becoming politicized.