Riyadh Summit and the Fate of the Palestinian Cause

The Riyadh Summit is a pivotal moment in testing the seriousness of the Arab position on the Palestinian issue, and the extent of its ability to translate its rejection of displacement into actual and binding steps. However, the absence of Palestinian representation from the meeting raises fundamental questions about how decisions are made regarding the future of the Palestinian issue, in light of the absence of its owners from the discussion table. This absence does not only reflect political marginalization, but also raises the possibility of arrangements being formulated outside the traditional Palestinian framework.

Since the 1970s and the Arab League's recognition of the Palestine Liberation Organization as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, the Arab brothers have never met to discuss the fate of the Palestinian issue without the representation of the PLO.

It seems that the Arab countries are trying, through this summit, to find a formula that balances their position of rejecting displacement, and their efforts to avoid a direct clash with the US administration. With the increasing pressures, whether from Israel or Donald Trump, the Arab countries find themselves facing a difficult equation between maintaining their rhetoric in support of the Palestinians, and adapting to the political reality imposed by Washington. The absence of the Palestinians from the summit indicates the possibility that there are arrangements being discussed regarding the “day after” phase in Gaza, without the participation of the Palestinian Authority or the active forces on the ground, which could lead to reshaping the Palestinian situation according to external agendas.

Among the issues likely to be discussed in this context is the issue of not integrating Hamas into any future framework for governing Gaza, and whether a community support committee from Gaza will be formed to assume alternative administrative tasks. There is also the question of who will finance these arrangements, and what guarantees can be provided, especially in light of previous experiences in Gaza and the repeated Israeli attacks that have thwarted many initiatives. In addition to discussing the security file and the possibility of a European-Emirati entity maintaining security in coordination with the Palestinian Authority. These sensitive issues require clarity of vision and a real commitment to ensure that unsustainable solutions are not imposed.

Saudi Arabia is leading efforts to bring Arab positions closer together, to dispel fears that these developments will lead to the adoption of solutions that bypass the Palestinians, whether by imposing new security arrangements that include Arab or international forces, or by presenting proposals based on an American-Israeli vision aimed at restructuring the administration in Gaza and the West Bank, which may amount to separating Gaza administratively in the form of the State of Gaza. In this context, the question remains as to whether the Arab countries are prepared to take an independent and firm position towards the Trump administration, which has long employed “coercive diplomacy” to pressure the Palestinians and Arabs, with the aim of pushing them towards making political concessions in preparation for ending the Palestinian issue according to an Israeli perspective based on procrastination and buying time to complete the colonial project.

Arab positions have succeeded in reducing the risk of forced displacement against Palestinians, but gradual displacement operations are still ongoing, which requires taking practical and sustainable measures to confront them, especially in what is happening in the West Bank, and trying to impose a new reality, represented by expanding Israeli settlements, destroying infrastructure, and creating harsh living conditions that push Palestinians to undeclared forced migration. This requires moving from positions rejecting displacement to practical and binding policies that go beyond political statements to clear executive steps that prevent the reproduction of displacement scenarios.

Arab countries are trying to present an alternative vision to the US administration, which includes a comprehensive plan for the "day after" phase in Gaza, which ensures avoiding the risks of displacement and annexation, and thwarting the "Greater Israel" project, which threatens the Palestinians' right to self-determination. Therefore, the Palestinians must cooperate and coordinate with Arab countries to respond to Trump's statements, by proposing a comprehensive initiative that ensures the completion of the prisoner exchange and the sustainability of the ceasefire deal, by adopting a clear political framework that includes the establishment of an independent Palestinian state and the Palestinians' right to self-determination. The absence of such an alternative will impose a fait accompli of occupation and apartheid, which the Netanyahu government is translating on the ground.

The responsibility of the Palestinian leadership at this stage requires a re-evaluation of the strength of its representation and its effectiveness in moving the Palestinians from the stage of occupation to independence. This requires a frank national dialogue that presents a practical and tangible proposal that reflects a comprehensive political vision, based on the current situation represented by the separation of Gaza on the one hand and by settlement, annexation and the redeployment of the occupation army in areas (C), (B) and (A).