Regional Transformations: A War on Meaning.. A Battle Without Fear

Since U.S. President Donald Trump announced his purported plan to end the war in the Gaza Strip, a heated political and social debate has erupted, both Palestinian and Arab, regarding the outcomes of this plan and its implications for the future of the Palestinian cause, and indeed for the future of the entire region.

This discussion, perfectly legitimate, is taking place between the hammer of political rights and the anvil of humanitarian needs, at a moment when the U.S. administration is trying to save the Israeli state by curbing the rising diplomatic momentum against it, especially after the profound shifts in European and Western positions, and the clear changes within American society itself; which has led to an unprecedented isolation of Israel, necessarily reflecting—at least partially—on Washington itself.

However, what deserves more attention than the details of the plan is the qualitative Arab and regional transformation in the approach to the war and stopping it, not as mere mediators, but as active players in shaping what has been termed the day after; which means that the political will that has long been absent is beginning to form with a deep awareness of the dangers faced by the region amid the aggressive practices of the occupying state's leader with full American support.

Here, the real battle began, the battle of meaning, between those who want this war to end the Palestinian file, thus terminating many regional roles, and those who want to turn the current moment into a moment of new and different awareness, recognizing the meaning of existence and its implications for the shared destiny of all the peoples of the region. Perhaps the targeting of the Qatari capital—one of Washington's strategic allies outside NATO—reopens the fundamental question: who is the partner of whom? What is the meaning of alliance? Where do its borders begin? And how is it shaped and concluded? The answer comes as the late Hosni Mubarak said: "Whoever is covered by America is naked."

What is important now is that the deep political reading offered by the influential states in the region has produced this qualitative and important transformation; for Saudi Arabia, before the Doha event, had chosen the path of diplomatic offensive by launching what is known as the international coalition, to push towards a two-state solution in partnership with the French Republic, which represents a significant moral and historical weight in the European arena.

Riyadh and Paris benefited from the evident rift in U.S.–European relations, to muster increasing support specifically within Europe, and in the West generally, around the necessity of engaging in the political process related to the East's conflict.

One of the first fruits of this movement was the recognition by several Western and European countries of the Palestinian state, led by Britain—the state of origin, which once contributed to creating this conflict by pushing towards the establishment of the Israeli state in the East.

This Arab and European shift together constituted one of the most important qualitative transformations in the approach to the conflict, and in re-defining its position within the engineering of regional security that has been absent for decades; the Arabs are no longer merely mediators who content themselves with managing tensions, but have become active parties in reshaping the concept of regional security that guarantees the resolution of dilemmas, foremost among them the desired Palestinian state system, which carries implications for the return of political will to the heart of Arab action.

As for Europe, concerned with preserving its old project in the East—the "Israeli state"—as a functional colonial project, it has started to reconsider events in the East from different angles, as a natural reaction to the growing popular anger from Israeli practices, to the extent of raising the slogan "from the river to the sea,” which poses a real conceptual threat to the future of this project; this has pushed it to review its moral and political positioning in the Middle East, attempting to rebalance between the language of interests and the concepts of principles.

In this sense, we are facing a serious attempt to reshape and engineer international legitimacy on one hand, and the geopolitical climate of the East on the other, without direct confrontation with the United States, which finds itself compelled to re-engage in the region, not under the pressure of allies, but under the weight of its failure to manage major conflicts, especially the Russian-European conflict, and its receding presence in the East in the face of rising roles of European and regional parties seeking to expand their influence.

Thus, the importance of the shift from "Palestinizing the conflict to internationalizing it"—a transformation I have previously written about—becomes evident as a prerequisite for correcting the imbalance of power and affirming the Palestinians' right to exist within a global system that is shifting towards peaceful approaches to conflict resolution.

The question is not who governs Gaza, but who governs meaning

Thus, after the moral exposure of the international system and the Western system alike, the key countries in the region have opened the horizon wide to regain the initiative, through expanding the boundaries of political maneuvering, in a serious attempt to reduce American dominance, in light of its unconditional alliance with the "Israeli state".

And while it may seem in the nature of the relationship to present some tactical concessions, they appear as a necessary passage to maintain strategic objectives; the battle today is no longer merely a confrontation with an external enemy, nor should it remain merely a reaction, but must be fought with the condition of awareness, against the emptiness left by accumulated defeats in the Arab consciousness, and against the value vacuum that has made Arab history and civilization captive to the ink of fear.

From here, and because what President Trump proposed is not merely a plan to end a war, but a form of negotiation on the concepts of freedom, sovereignty, and mediation, the first way to victory lies in the ability to engage in the battle of meaning—without weapons, yes, but also without fear.