It appears that events in Gaza are rapidly moving toward shaping the post-war reality. However, there is no unified national Palestinian vision, which ultimately benefits the Israeli occupation by exploiting the opportunity created by the war. This could lead to a political settlement of the conflict based on the two-state solution, enabling Palestinians to establish their independent state on the territories occupied since 1967. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is keen on preventing the unification of the West Bank and Gaza under a single Palestinian authority, which is essential for statehood. He consistently declares his refusal to allow the Palestinian Authority to assume duties in Gaza, stating that the last thing he wants is for the Authority to return to Gaza. Netanyahu’s long-standing goal is to maintain the Palestinian division, providing a pretext to remain in the West Bank and preventing the implementation of the two-state solution.
Regrettably, Palestinian leadership behavior aligns with this direction. The recent meeting of Palestinian factions in Moscow did not discuss the future of Gaza and the Palestinian territories but rather addressed general issues that do not require a national plan to confront the risks arising from the war on Gaza, the division, and the lack of genuine Palestinian unity. The conditions in which citizens in Gaza or even the West Bank live are catastrophic, perhaps the greatest disaster the Palestinian people have ever faced. The agreement to continue meetings without setting dates or agendas indicates a lack of seriousness in reaching a real national consensus, not even on the upcoming government, which everyone agrees should be a technocratic government responsible for rebuilding Gaza and meeting the needs and interests of all Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. There is also no agreement on a future national work plan that should be based on a unified program.
Wasting time is not in the interest of the Palestinian people. The international momentum tied to the recognition of the importance of resolving the conflict on the basis of the two-state solution, the announcement by some countries of their intention to recognize the State of Palestine on the 1967 borders, and calls for finding a mechanism to impose a solution could all evaporate if the Palestinians, who are the primary stakeholders, are not ready or interested. We may find ourselves alone in the end with this new catastrophe, which could become permanent and erase all the achievements of the Palestinian people in their long struggle over the decades and years. We cannot address our issues without genuine national unity that includes everyone, including Hamas, whose participation and role in national consensus cannot be overlooked. In reality, no arrangement for the situation in Gaza can occur without Hamas’ consent, and anyone who thinks that the current war, regardless of its outcomes, will eliminate Hamas’ existence or role is mistaken. Hamas will be able to thwart any project it does not agree with.
The greatest danger is that the Israeli occupation in Gaza could become permanent, with local mechanisms and bodies created to manage the situation without any political horizon. When they talk about a floating seaport controlled by Israel, it is not just about bringing in aid, which primarily requires opening the land crossings in the north and south. At this stage, we do not need a port, as there is no mechanism to deliver aid fairly and comprehensively to those who need it. The longer-term goal of the port might be to control the process of Palestinian migration, even if it is voluntary. Who can prevent Israel from allowing, or even encouraging, Gazans to migrate by sea when they have the opportunity to find a place to go?
Everyone rejects the idea of local leaders overseeing humanitarian needs in Gaza. However, if there is no comprehensive national consensus and no return of the Palestinian Authority to Gaza within this consensus, no one will be able to prevent the emergence of such undesirable mechanisms. We should remember that at a previous stage, there was talk of forming a committee to manage the Gaza Strip agreed upon by the different factions there. This could resurface, solidifying the division permanently. The problem that some may not grasp when discussing the situation in Gaza is that the Strip can sustain itself due to the presence of gas and oil, which may be in large quantities, and the presence of a seaport, and perhaps an airport. The greater problem could then become centered on the West Bank, which is Israel’s main focus and which it does not intend to relinquish.
If all Palestinian forces and elites do not urgently seek a national consensus on managing Palestinian life in preparation for a political settlement, viewing this as an urgent national task that cannot be delayed or postponed, we may find ourselves with a small state in Gaza managed by certain entities in appearance and overseen by others. Meanwhile, the West Bank could turn into islands and enclaves subjected to the Israeli apartheid system, with no prospect for a unified, contiguous, and viable Palestinian state. Is this what the Palestinian leaderships want?
Author: Ashraf Ajrami