Between Friedman's speech and Trump's interests, Palestine is a national liberation issue, not a bargaining chip.

Amid the rapid changes in US policies toward the Middle East, Thomas Friedman's latest article stands out as an indicator of a shift in rhetoric, if not in the substance of policy. Friedman, a longtime advocate of Israel, this time directs his criticism at the Netanyahu government, accusing it of undermining regional alliances and destabilizing the region. This rhetoric, which coincides with the sensitive timing of Donald Trump's regional moves, raises questions about whether Palestine is once again a bargaining chip in the game of grand interests—not in terms of rights but in terms of calculations.

In his article published in The New York Times on May 9, Friedman delivered a clear political message to US President Donald Trump: "This Israeli government is no longer our ally." The article not only criticizes the extremist Israeli policies led by Netanyahu, but also holds it responsible for undermining the American project in the Middle East and pushing toward regional chaos that threatens Jordan and Egypt and destroys what remains of the "two-state solution."

What is surprising in the article is that Friedman, known for his traditional support for Israel, praises what he sees as Trump's independence toward Netanyahu, describing his disregard for him as a step in the right direction. He also notes that the current Israeli government no longer prioritizes security or peace, but rather seeks annexation, displacement, and the consolidation of nationalist and extremist religious supremacist hegemony, threatening the foundations of the US-Israeli-Arab alliance that was established in the 1970s under US auspices.

From this perspective, the article can be read as a media and political introduction to a possible shift in US policy toward the Palestinian issue. When Friedman declares that the Netanyahu government is no longer an ally and notes that Trump's first plan included a form of a deficient and demilitarized Palestinian state, this may open the door for Trump to deliver a "political surprise." This surprise does not necessarily reflect a bias toward our people and their just national cause, but rather seeks to achieve a foreign policy achievement that strengthens Trump's negotiating position during his upcoming visit to Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar. It also gives him an advantage over the Biden administration, especially in light of the competition with China and Russia and his efforts to control regional resources of oil, gas, minerals, and sea lanes.

Despite my deep doubts about the possibility of Trump proceeding with a serious recognition of a Palestinian state, due to structural reasons within the US-Israeli alliance, most importantly ideological, there are indications that he will use the Palestinian card tactically, the most important of which are:

1. Realigning alliances, as evidenced by Trump's decision to cut off contact with Netanyahu, and perhaps by separating some regional issues from Israeli influence, as evidenced by Washington's talks with Iran and the Houthis.

2. A political pressure card, as Trump may use "conditional recognition" as a domestic and foreign pressure card, or to strengthen currents within the Republican Party that have begun to view Israel as a burden, while at the same time strengthening the position of the Palestinian Authority vis-à-vis Hamas, with which negotiations are being conducted without a commitment to a just solution that ends the settlement occupation.

3. A formal settlement formula: The Trump administration may propose a formal Palestinian state without real sovereignty or clear borders, serving American regional security and limiting Iranian influence, without meeting the definitions of a state under international law.

In this context, Friedman's statements represent an indicator of deeper shifts in the American political mood. At the same time, however, they warn of the danger of repurposing the Palestinian issue within broader regional arrangements involving Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, and attempts to "re-float" the Palestinian Authority in opposition to other Palestinian forces, as part of a regional project that repositions Washington to serve the New Middle East project, without fundamentally changing the colonial reality imposed on our land.

The danger of these trends lies in the potential for them to be presented as compromise solutions that appear to recognize the state, but in reality, they represent a trade-off of national rights for security and economic understandings, forcing us, the Palestinians, to accept a permanent status quo devoid of national independence, sovereignty, or dignity. Nevertheless, the new discourse could constitute a window of pressure and a political opportunity, if properly utilized by Palestinians, to adhere to national principles, foremost among which are the immediate end of the genocidal aggression, as well as the end of the occupation and settlement activities, the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on the pre-June 4, 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital, and the resolution of the refugee issue in accordance with Resolution 194.

What is required today is not to be deceived by false promises or tactical moves, but rather to formulate a solid national vision that capitalizes on international variables and contradictions to serve our cause, without falling into the trap of "smart policies" that end in normalizing the occupation or accepting coexistence with the status quo.

The current moment, with its variables and contradictions, calls upon the PLO and the entire Palestinian national movement, especially Palestinian youth, to shoulder their responsibilities in renewing the national liberation project and unifying ranks on the basis of inalienable rights and democratic unity. Opportunities for change are not granted, but seized. The real stake lies in our people's awareness and will to transform any political change into a lever for struggle that brings us closer to freedom and national independence, rather than being reduced to the calculations of others or used as pawns in the bargaining market.