In the context of escalating tensions in the Gaza Strip, the United States has attempted to navigate a complex political landscape with its latest proposal for a governance structure that excludes both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority (PA). This initiative, spearheaded by U.S. presidential envoy Steven Witkoff, raises critical questions regarding the viability of establishing a political framework that does not reflect the realities of Palestinian society, history, and aspirations for independence.
Last week, as Israeli bombardments in the Gaza Strip intensified, U.S. presidential envoy Steven Witkoff announced on social media that the ceasefire was entering a second stage. In subsequent days, the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump revealed plans for a foreign executive committee and a peace board that will oversee a provisional administration in Gaza comprised of Palestinian technocrats. This approach notably aligns with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s desire to exclude both Hamas and the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority (PA) from any future governance in Gaza.
This configuration raises significant concerns as it risks illustrating a superficial understanding of Palestinian society and its complex political dynamics. The idea that a Palestinian political entity can emerge solely from external influences while remaining fully integrated into the ongoing occupation seems highly unrealistic. Over the past 77 years, various Palestinian national movements have arisen, universally rejecting Israeli colonial presence and standing united in their commitment to Palestinian rights.
The diverse methods of resistance among Palestinian factions collectively reflect their commitment to a singular cause; whether it is through political avenues or armed struggle, they share a determined objective—reclaiming their rights and sovereignty. Fatah and Hamas remain the two largest political forces within Palestinian society, each with its unique trajectory in the ongoing struggle for liberation that reflects the diverse narratives of Palestinian identity.
Israel’s approach to governance in Gaza, including attempts to empower select individuals and groups during the conflict, has consistently overlooked the profound connections between leadership and legitimacy within Palestinian society. Some of these individuals, historically marginalized, received backing to align with Israeli interests, but such maneuvers have met with widespread condemnation from within their own communities.
This dynamic mirrors the broader context in the West Bank, where the PA’s collaboration on security matters with Israeli forces has led to dwindling approval ratings. Presently, the legitimacy of the PA stands at a mere 23 percent among the West Bank populace, while President Mahmoud Abbas holds just 16 percent approval. Despite these challenges, grassroots military formations have emerged, independent of both traditional factions, manifesting a new form of resistance that resonates with the broader Palestinian populace.
The drive for legitimacy in Palestine cannot be artificially manufactured through foreign-backed initiatives; it stems from the enduring history of resistance that intertwines national identity and a shared quest for sovereignty. Efforts to circumvent this reality are likely to result in continued instability and chaos rather than a sustainable political solution.
The only credible path forward involves recognizing the right of the Palestinian people to self-govern and establishing a fully sovereign Palestinian state, grounded in the principles and desires of its diverse citizenry. Acknowledging this foundational aspect is essential for fostering genuine peace and stability in the region.
#PoliticsNews #MiddleEastNews