Between a temporary truce and the perpetuation of the occupation... A reading of the Egyptian initiative

While Trump's decisions put China and the United States on the brink of war, sparking new flashpoints and potentially escalating wars, particularly with Iran if negotiations over the nuclear issue fail amidst the changing international landscape, this is not to mention the ongoing situation in Palestine, which is saturated with fire, blood, tragedy, and the depth of suffering.

Initiatives to cease fire in the Gaza Strip are being re-proposed, most notably the new Egyptian initiative. This initiative is being hastily formulated amidst international and regional political pressures and the reality on the ground, through which the occupation is attempting to impose terms of surrender, not just a truce or a ceasefire for a specific period, despite the crisis Netanyahu is facing within Israeli society across its various political and security sectors.

Although the Egyptian initiative is based essentially on national concern, it bears the hallmarks of a "conditional truce" rather than a political solution or a genuine withdrawal of occupation forces, even from Gaza. Despite talk of three phases beginning with a ceasefire and withdrawal from residential areas in the Strip, a careful examination of the reality and our past experiences as Palestinians reveals that we are facing a new attempt to manage the crisis, not resolve it. The difference here is fundamental.

A ceasefire is an urgent humanitarian necessity, and there is no dispute about its urgent priority. However, the fundamental question is: Under what conditions? And at what political cost? Is a ceasefire possible while the occupation remains inside Gaza or at its gates, while the blockade continues, and while a civilian committee is conditionally mandated to administer the Strip under the watchful eye of the occupation and with non-Palestinian guarantees?

What is being proposed under the title of a "Community Support Committee" for the administration of Gaza cannot be separated from the outcomes of this initiative, nor from attempts to define the future shape of Gaza according to Israeli security standards. Will the committee, if established, be a step toward unifying national ranks and establishing a truly representative field authority, or will it serve as a gateway to the creation of a temporary, functional administration that serves non-national goals and perpetuates division under the guise of humanitarian need?

I believe that any attempt to create a new administrative reality in Gaza that is not based on comprehensive national consensus, and does not emerge from a unified vision within the framework of the Palestine Liberation Organization as the sole legitimate representative of our people and the holder of political and legal jurisdiction, despite its urgent need to develop and expand its performance and base as a broad national front, is liable to be transformed into a tool of political subjugation, regardless of the intentions of those responsible for it.

Today, Israel is trying to escape its predicament through an equation of no military victory, but political and security gains. In doing so, it is betting on a face-saving truce and internal reorganization of Gaza to ensure the weakening of the resistance and the continuation of indirect control.

By supporting the initiative, the United States is not seeking justice for the Palestinian people, but rather to protect Israel's security and the "stability of the region," under the umbrella of American strategic interests within the framework of the "New Middle East" vision. The renewed talk here of a "new deal," whether formulated by Trump or another, is nothing more than an attempt to reproduce the failure with a new face and to sidestep the root of the problem, which is essentially the continued occupation of all Palestinian territories by settlers.

What we need is not just an initiative to heal the bleeding, despite the importance of stopping it, of course, but rather a national vision that redefines the battle against the occupation's ambitions and policies of uprooting and displacement, and that links Gaza, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the diaspora in a single national liberation project, based on a political will that possesses independent national decision-making, a clear vision and program, political and field unity, and a genuine popular will that stands behind this project.

I believe that any truce that does not include a complete withdrawal from Gaza, a lifting of the blockade, and a guarantee of the Palestinian people's freedom to self-determination is a fragile truce that could turn into a political trap. Any committee not formed by unanimous Palestinian national will will be an administration without sovereignty, a tool for freezing the status quo, not a tool for changing the situation.

Today, we Palestinians are called upon to take a clear, realistic, rational, and national liberation stance: There will be no truce that legitimizes the occupation, no administration without legitimate national representation, and no national project built under the bayonets of the usurping occupier.

If the Egyptian initiative is not subject to Palestinian national consensus, and is not linked to a complete withdrawal, the dismantling of settlements and the apartheid regime, and the achievement of justice for the victims and our steadfast people, in accordance with a clear vision and timetable, in cooperation with the parties to the international initiative to achieve the establishment of an independent, sovereign Palestinian state, it will be a temporary solution to the occupation crisis, not to our freedom.

............

Although the Egyptian initiative is based on nationalist concerns at its core, it bears the features of a "conditional truce" more than it represents a political solution or a real withdrawal of the occupation forces, even from Gaza.