The Blogs: Middle East Experts Weigh In: Normalization and Regional Stability

Conflict at a Crossroads: What’s Next for Israel, Gaza, and US Policy?

On Feb. 25, the Israel Policy Forum (IPF) hosted a panel at Adas Israel Congregation in Washington, D.C., where three Middle East policy experts provided Israeli, Palestinian, and American perspectives on the region’s current challenges and prospects for the future.

The discussion featured insights from Shira Efron, Ibrahim Eid Dalalsha and Rachel Brandenburg. Efron, a long-time leader of prominent think tanks such as the Center for American Progress and the Middle East Institute, has advised Israel’s Ministry of Defense and the United Nations on Gaza’s humanitarian challenges. Dalalsha, founder of the Horizon Center for Political and Strategic Studies, spent two decades advising the U.S. Consulate General in Jerusalem on Palestinian civil society and peace efforts. Brandenburg, a former official at the State Department and the U.S. Institute of Peace, has worked extensively on U.S. foreign policy, national security and counterterrorism. Together, the panelists addressed some of the most pressing questions concerning President Donald Trump’s Gaza proposal, Israeli and Palestinian public opinion, and humanitarian aid efforts.

Key Takeaways from the Panel

Shira Efron recognized that although a ceasefire in Gaza may provide necessary humanitarian relief resources, it also risks further embedding Hamas’ political power over the region. The ceasefire allows Hamas the opportunity to rearm and replenish their military infrastructure, increasing Israel’s vulnerability to future unprecedented attacks. She noted that the majority of Israelis are in favor of advancing to the second phase of the ceasefire deal rather than of an indefinite resume of fighting. She added that public opinion is consistently at odds with the Likud government’s policies. She touched on the next election cycle in November 2026, where the tension between Netanyahu’s government and the Israeli public could finally unravel.

Ibrahim Eid Dalalsha focused on the ongoing IDF maneuvers in the West Bank, where he is from. He claimed that Israeli military operations in the West Bank, which confront terrorist activity and security threats, are harming Palestinian civilians at a higher rate than military targets. He mentioned that 150,000 Palestinians who worked inside the Green Line have lost their jobs since the war began. As a result, they have lost their primary source of income, which was dependent on the Israeli labor market. Before the Oct. 7 attacks, approximately 165,000 Palestinians worked in Israel and in Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including 130,000 with legal work permits and around 35,000 working without authorization.

He addressed questions regarding Palestinian public opinion concerning President Trump’s Gaza proposal, insisting that they are not being taken seriously among Palestinians. When asked about Palestinian societies’ reaction to the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks, he claimed that “no Palestinians besides militants would support the killing of women and children” and went on to claim that 50% of those killed in Gaza have been civilians—a statistic that lacks credibility.

Rachel Brandenburg addressed U.S. policy, particularly the Trump administration’s potential approach to the conflict. She pointed out that Trump doesn’t want to fund foreign wars and that his administration is “letting Bibi do whatever he wants.” She also noted that Trump and his allies believe normalization with Saudi Arabia will happen this year, which could dramatically shift the region’s balance of power.

My Thoughts: The Gaps in the Discussion and Prospects for Normalization

Despite the impressive foreign policy expertise of the panelists, I couldn’t help but notice a lapse in the conversation. For one, any discussion of Hamas’s role in prolonging the war was neglected. There was little mention of Hamas’s negotiation strategies, which consistently demand extreme exchanges that pose severe risks to Israeli security. The group has continuously pushed for deals that gravely endanger Israeli society, such as releasing hundreds of convicted terrorists in exchange for only a few hostages, whether dead or alive.

One insightful aspect of the discussion stood out to me: the prospect of Saudi Arabia’s potential normalization with Israel and what its greater effect on regional dynamics and security could look like. The three panelists touched on how a legitimate agreement could redefine Israel’s alliance network in the Middle East and weaken Iranian dominance.

Unfortunately, current geopolitical tensions threaten this ideal vision of normalization. Saudi Arabia, Israel and the U.S. are at odds over the future of Gaza, as Prime Minister Netanyahu supports Trump’s proposed temporary relocation plan, while Saudi Arabia has been organizing with other Middle Eastern countries to formulate a counterproposal. Egypt and Jordan have expressed shared grievances over security concerns about Trump’s Gaza relocation plan, fearing it could undermine regional stability.

As the panel concluded, it was evident that while the discussion shed light on some vital concerns in the region, the broader path forward remains completely uncertain. The intersection of Israeli security, the visionless future of Palestinian governance, and flighty U.S. policy presents layered challenges with no simple solutions. However, the conversation reinforced the reality—decisions made in the coming months will shape the region’s trajectory for years to come. With shifting alliances and competing proposals, the ability of regional and global leaders to balance individual interests with long-term stability will determine whether this moment becomes an opportunity for real change or yet another episode of hostilities.