The position of American political forces, elites, and institutions on the Sharm el-Sheikh peace agreement and reconstruction
Executive Summary
1. The signing of the agreement in Sharm el-Sheikh is viewed in Washington as a major diplomatic achievement for Trump—particularly because it coincided with the release of hostages and the acceleration of humanitarian aid—but the welcome is not without reservations within the American political establishment.
2. Trump realized the impact of the Gaza issue in bolstering his domestic position as a man of peace, and in gaining support and endorsement, especially in light of the stance of university students, American society's openness to social media, and its awareness of the difficult humanitarian situation and Netanyahu's transgressions. This made Trump reluctant to lose those who supported or opposed the continuation of the war, or those who feared American isolation.
3. The extent of the impact of external issues in mobilizing support and votes within the United States was not significant, but the Gaza crisis is extremely unique and will have a significant impact. Trump does not want to lose Jewish votes and support, but he also cannot continue in this difficult situation by supporting Netanyahu and losing a large segment of the conscious American society that rejects Israel's continued war and rejects broad military support for Israel from taxpayer funds. Therefore, signing a peace agreement and promoting the Trump peace plan is the best solution at this time, and one that will make most parties accept it, each according to their own reasons and interpretations.
4. The partisan divide is clear: The Republican majority (conservative leaders) celebrates it and considers it a political victory for Trump; among the Democrats, there is cautious congratulations from key leaders, along with strong criticism from progressive movements.
5. The legislative path for any large-scale infusion of reconstruction funding for Gaza will face strict parliamentary oversight (oversight/conditional requirements to prevent the transfer of funds to armed elements), meaning that implementation depends on institutional and legal details that have yet to be determined.
6. Field and political risks (sporadic violations despite the ceasefire, the need to deliver large amounts of aid, the presence of unexploded ordnance, and security risks in Gaza) make the Pentagon and the aid community cautious about any long-term US role on the ground.
First - Political Parties and Movements
1- Republican Party
Party Leadership and Traditional Power Circles
• General Reading: Republican Party leaders, particularly those close to Trump's inner circle, present the agreement as a diplomatic achievement that highlights its ability to "achieve tangible results" (release of hostages, a ceasefire, opening humanitarian aid). This rhetoric is exploited by Republicans at the electoral and political levels to highlight the Trump administration's effectiveness in a sensitive foreign policy issue.
• Expected Tactics: Support for emergency legislation for humanitarian aid or logistical facilitation to enable aid entry, but with strict oversight of every dollar allocated for reconstruction to prevent it from reaching groups that Washington considers "terrorist." Republicans will also use this narrative to appeal to their pro-Israel voter base and adopt "security" as their primary metric.
The extreme conservative faction within the party
• Position: A stronger celebration, propaganda of a moral and political victory; some elements will push to restrict aid or impose extremely stringent security conditions, or use the agreement to escalate regional pressure on Iran or its proxies.
2- The Democratic Party
Traditional Leadership (Former Presidential Office/Moderate Senators)
• Statements: A mix of acknowledgment of positive outcomes (release of hostages and alleviation of humanitarian suffering) and calls to complete the process through international mechanisms that guarantee the protection of civilians and the rights of refugees. Some leaders (including former presidents or senior politicians) have offered measured praise, along with a call for multilateral action.
The progressive and left-wing faction
• Critical position: They believe the agreement may offer "temporary solutions" without addressing the roots of the conflict (occupation, refugee rights, the status of Jerusalem). They demand human rights and political conditions on any reconstruction programs, and lobby against any policy that might re-empower corrupt government structures or those involved in oppression. Progressive organizations and figures may demand greater transparency and the inclusion of Palestinian civil society.
The Political Scope of Democratic Reactions
• Domestic Impact: Democrats will provide humanitarian aid but will set a ceiling on political satisfaction; they will exploit any loopholes in implementation to criticize the Trump administration to their base (especially if political guarantees for Palestinian rights appear lacking).
Second: Congress (Senate and House): Legislative Accounting and Oversight
Introduction
• Reality: Any large-scale US reconstruction funding passes through Congress. Even if there is an executive order from the president to expedite humanitarian aid, large-scale reconstruction funds require legislative approval or special appropriations. The United Nations estimates reconstruction needs at tens of billions (press reports citing UN agencies indicate massive needs that may reach tens of billions).
1- Senate
• General Situation: Any proposal for emergency humanitarian aid will likely enjoy bipartisan support, but long-term reconstruction funding will be accompanied by security and legal conditions to monitor spending. Senatorial leaders from both parties will demand the establishment of cooperation mechanisms with regional partners (Egypt, Qatar, Turkey) to share responsibility.
• Influential Representatives: Members of the Foreign Relations and Appropriations Committees will emphasize detailed reviews and safeguards to prevent the diversion of funds to armed groups.
2- House of Representatives
• Dynamics: The battle will be more reflective of the public mood and ideology. Progressive MPs may reject any deal that does not guarantee human rights; right-wing MPs will push for sanctions in the event of any security breach. Extremist groups (left/right) may exploit the issue politically in front of their bases.
3- Expected Outcome of the Legislative Framework
• Likely Scenario: An emergency humanitarian package will receive rapid support. A comprehensive reconstruction package—meaning infrastructure contracts, extensive housing reconstruction, and government funding to manage the reconstruction—will be subject to strict controls, multilateral participation, and periodic reviews. In practical terms: Funding requires oversight mechanisms and automatic sanctions if the terms are violated.
Third: The Military Establishment (the Pentagon) and Intelligence
1- General Position
• A cautious and professional tone: The Pentagon supports aid delivery efforts and endorses logistical and intelligence roles (e.g., opening relief corridors, securing the transport of goods, and removing mines), but it is very cautious about participating in large-scale security operations or deploying US ground forces without a clear decision on the scope and mission.
2- Operational Considerations
• Field Risks: The presence of unexploded ordnance, destroyed infrastructure, multiple armed groups, and the risk of renewed violence make any US field engagement complex and costly. The military leadership also seeks clear legal framework for its missions (who has the authority to fire, when, and how).
Note:
• Any concrete US security role will require legal authorization from Congress and clear funding requirements; otherwise, the roles will remain logistical, supportive, and time-limited.
Fourth: Jewish and American Lobbies and Organizations
1. Traditional pro-Israel lobby groups (AIPAC) and other influence groups
• General position: cautiously welcoming or supportive; emphasizing the need to protect Israel's security and preventing the transfer of any funding to armed groups. These groups will pressure Congress to ensure that any aid provided does not weaken Israel's ability to defend itself or lead to security risks.
2. Liberal/progressive Jewish groups (J Street and others)
• Position: They show greater support for a multilateral approach and conditions for protecting civilian rights, and they press for the involvement of international and local organizations to monitor aid distribution and achieve justice for civilians.
3- Arab/Human Rights and Civil Society Lobby Groups
• Their priorities: transparency in distribution, protection of the rights of displaced persons and refugees, accountability for violations, and guarantees that funds are not misused for political or security purposes. These groups will pressure progressive legislators and UN institutions to establish oversight mechanisms.
4- Influencing US Policy
• The balance between lobbying for Israeli interests and human rights lobbies will be clearly evident in the formulation of legislation: rapid humanitarian aid + strict oversight of comprehensive reconstruction.
Fifth: The Business Community and Chambers of Commerce
1- Economic and Political Opportunities
• Reading: Businessmen and construction companies will view the reconstruction of Gaza as a huge business opportunity (infrastructure, electricity, water, roads, housing contracts). They will lobby through chambers of commerce and business interest groups for international financing packages available to contractors.
2- Concerns
• Concerns relate to security, the stability of local governance, and the political environment that determines who will win contracts (corruption issues, contract terms, transparency procedures). Large companies will demand a legal framework that guarantees the protection of their rights and transparency in the distribution of contracts.
Sixth: Relief and Humanitarian Organizations
1- Their Practical Priorities
• Accelerating the entry of essential aid, removing logistical obstacles, providing disinfection and demining equipment, supporting temporary shelter projects, and coordinating with the United Nations and local authorities. Organizations express concerns about the large "scale of need" (UN reports indicate huge reconstruction costs).
2- Demands for Transparency
• Methods of disbursing funds, mechanisms for their delivery to the end beneficiaries, and preventing their diversion for military purposes. It also calls for international coordination that ensures a fair and transparent distribution.
Seventh: Media and American Public Opinion
1. Conservative Media vs. Liberal Media
• Conservative press: Report-oriented coverage—highlighting Trump's achievements and expressing optimism about the ceasefire.
• Liberal/Human Rights Press: Addresses the humanitarian and critical outcomes, and urges long-term political positions for Palestinian rights.
2. Public Opinion
• A broad wave of humanitarian sympathy for the victims of the conflict; however, the political divide is reflected in the interpretation of the reasons for the agreement and its political motivations. The upcoming elections will struggle with a changing media climate that exploits the agreement politically.
Eighth: How Trump Views the Issue of "Reconstructing Gaza" (His Intentions and Apparent Plan of Action)
1. Rhetoric and Declared Vision
• Milestones: Trump's statements focused on rapid reconstruction, contingent on the "dismantling/disarmament of Hamas," and that reconstruction management must prevent the diversion of resources to armed groups. The rhetoric is romantic-pragmatic: quickly restoring stability through regional (Egypt, Qatar) and international partnerships.
2- Readiness of the Implementation Plan (Elite Assessment)
• Main Criticism: Political elites and experts note that the plan's rhetoric is broad but lacks implementation details: Who will assume local governance? What are the oversight mechanisms? How will the administration address congressional concerns?
• Expected Outcome: Trump has a political package to begin immediate humanitarian implementation (emergency aid, opening corridors), while comprehensive institutional reconstruction will require legislative and international consensus and precise benchmarks before significant funds can be released.
Ninth: Pressure Points and Practical Risks (Detailed to Influence the Decision)
A number of press reports and investigations have confirmed that various factors will influence the position of political forces and elites in resolving the issue of reconstruction:
1. Risks of Fund Transfer: A mechanism must be in place that includes immediate and successive audits of every disbursement, with legal immunity to suspend funds in the event of suspicion. (Congressional and security lobby demands.)
2. Who Runs Gaza?: Any absence of an acceptable local governance structure will complicate the distribution of reconstruction funds. Regional partners (Egypt and Qatar) and UN organizations must establish joint implementation mechanisms.
3. Political and Legal Legitimacy: Reconstruction without addressing political issues (rights, refugee returns, the status of Jerusalem) could generate subsequent tensions; this is what progressive movements and human rights organizations warn against.
4. Risk of Renewed Violence: Uncontrolled incidents or ceasefire violations could re-raise the question of the security presence and the nature of American participation. The Pentagon will demand clear limits on its authority.
5. Construction and humanitarian risks: Massive needs (UN: estimated at tens of billions for comprehensive reconstruction) and the complexities of mine and rubble removal.
Brief Conclusion
• Trump's signing in Sharm el-Sheikh was widely welcomed by all parties, and it restored diplomatic momentum and opened a humanitarian and political window, but it did not remove doubts about the ability to implement comprehensive reconstruction without precise conditions and strict oversight mechanisms. Partisan divisions, Congressional sensitivity, military reticence, and lobbying ambitions will all remain determining factors in the implementation process. The success of the reconstruction project requires a combination of significant international funding, strict oversight, smart regional engagement, and a political framework that addresses the root causes of the issue, at least at the level of governance and transparency.