Gaza: Between the Dilemma of Rescue and the Entitlement of National Liberation

The issue of governance in the Gaza Strip is no longer merely an administrative or technical matter; it has transformed into a complex political and moral knot, intertwined with both factual and hypothetical data alongside Israeli schemes and Trump’s plans. At the heart of this crisis, the question is no longer just who governs Gaza? But rather: Is there a real possibility to rescue its people from the compounded disaster and create conditions for humanitarian stability and a political pathway to end the occupation?

Israeli Obstacles: Disrupting Relief and Continuing Dominance

Any vision for governance in Gaza collides with intertwined structural obstacles. The Israeli stance focuses on disrupting relief and hindering reconstruction, keeping the option of displacement as an unannounced but present goal in their policies and procedures. In doing so, the concept of governance is emptied of its meaning; effective governance is impossible without control over crossings, resources, and freedom of movement, elements that Israel systematically seeks to undermine.

Palestinian Positions

The National Authority: Symbolic Legitimacy vs. Responsibility

The Palestinian Authority tends to focus on restoring its symbolic influence in the sector and getting rid of Hamas more than it is concerned with providing practical answers to the humanitarian needs of the people. This approach clashes with the Israeli position that prevents actual governance, and the Arab position that conditions a "trustworthy" authority on reconstruction without ensuring sovereignty or national consensus.

Hamas: The Symbolism of Survival or the Priority of the Nation

Hamas has treated its survival in Gaza as a symbol of political and moral victory; however, this becomes a humanitarian burden when symbolism takes precedence over the national and living priorities of the people in the sector. Governance without material and institutional tools becomes part of the dilemma of managing the disaster, neither a means for the population’s resilience nor a tool for their rescue, leaving the question of national destiny unanswered.

Strategic Options: Hamas and the Authority

In light of the genocidal war and the destruction it has caused to the political structures, both Hamas and the Authority face a crossroads that cannot afford time management or a cyclical crisis. The continuation of Hamas in military confrontation in its current form extends humanitarian and urban depletion without a political horizon, while accepting imposed arrangements may gradually diminish its role in favor of a fragile calm and conditional reconstruction. In contrast, the Authority’s mere management of the crisis within existing frameworks or engaging in post-war arrangements without a comprehensive national mandate entrenches stagnation and turns it into an administrative authority managing the outcomes of aggression instead of confronting it politically.

The most viable and responsible option emerges from both parties engaging in a comprehensive national transitional leadership where the National Consensus Government is one of its core components, tasked with managing relief, reconstruction, and unifying institutions, placing the decision of peace and war within a single Palestinian reference, thereby halting the bleeding and preventing externally imposed solutions, and returning the Palestinian issue to a comprehensive political and liberation track.

The Challenge of Israeli Refusal: Unity and Responsibility as the Equation for Change

The major dilemma facing any transitional Palestinian formula in Gaza is the opposing Israeli stance, which seeks to prevent any effective independence in decision-making or control over resources. In this context, the fundamental elements of Palestinian strength manifest in national unity, seriousness in administration, and moral and political responsibility.

National unity, through a comprehensive transitional leadership and a single national consensus government that is non-factional, provides a solid framework that is difficult to surpass, as it transforms any Israeli attempt to impose unilateral conditions into a confrontation with the internal Palestinian consensus. Seriousness and responsibility in managing the phase, placing humanitarian and political priorities above calculations of control or symbolism, give the international community a chance to accept this formula as a practical and reliable framework for rescue and reconstruction, rather than just a symbolic or factional discourse.

In short, Israeli refusal can be partially broken or its impact mitigated by building solid foundations for internal Palestinian legitimacy, providing responsible and transparent management, and ensuring clear international commitment to protecting the transitional formula, so that Gaza becomes a space for political and humanitarian reconstruction, not just a continuous battleground.

The Arab Position: Funding Between Support and Interests

The Arab position is complex: There is a willingness to provide funding for relief and reconstruction, but it is conditional on the existence of an alternative authority to Hamas, along with a specific political commitment to ensure control over resources. This funding does not provide a practical vision for how to establish an alternative authority with real and internal legitimacy, and merely adheres to a symbolic condition of having a "trustworthy authority," making its role more political than practical. The Arab contradiction interacts with the Israeli stance, which benefits from any internal Palestinian disruption, and with the American position that balances support for Israel and concern for Arab satisfaction, without providing effective international power to ensure implementation.

The American Position and Trump’s Plan: Success Without Tools

The American position remains biased towards Israel, albeit formally taking the Arab stance into account. Trump’s plan aims at achieving a "political success" without actual executive tools, transforming it into a theoretical framework that lacks the capacity to rescue people or stabilize.

Testing Palestinian Responsibility

In a moment of catastrophe, the question is not who is right, but who bears the responsibility for the continuation of humanitarian bleeding? Hamas must distinguish between its factional role and the priorities of the people, and separate between symbolism and humanitarian need, agreeing to transitional arrangements that place needs above control calculations. The Palestinian Authority must move beyond the "salvation from Hamas" approach and focus on a transitional humanitarian and national role that can manage relief and reconstruction within a Palestinian, Arab partnership, and international support.

Future Scenarios

In facing this reality, three possible scenarios emerge: the continuation of "non-governance," which consists of partial management under an Israeli ceiling with the continuation of the blockade and halting reconstruction, which has the highest humanitarian and social cost; forced resolution, which assumes imposing arrangements by force or through external dictates, reproducing violence and turning governance into a security control tool; and finally, the most viable scenario is the transitional rescue that can succeed, redefining governance as a transitional rescue function within an international guaranteed framework and genuine Palestinian partnership, with an Israeli commitment to halt disruption and active Arab political role, breaking the vicious cycle and establishing a political and humanitarian horizon.

From Humanitarian Stability to National Liberation

Real stability in Gaza cannot be achieved in isolation from a clear political horizon, and a pathway to end the occupation cannot be opened without rebuilding national legitimacy based on human protection first. Governance at this stage is not merely symbolism or factional victory, but a test of ethical, national, and international responsibility together. True stability lies in linking relief to reconstruction and turning rebuilding into a political and national lever, rather than just a symbolic or financial tool, with the creation of a binding political path on both the international and Arab levels, leading to the end of the occupation and empowering the Palestinian people to exercise their inalienable right to self-determination and national independence. Without these conditions, Gaza will remain a stage for collective failure, and the circle of political and humanitarian deadlock will continue at the expense of the lives and destiny of its people, as well as the entire national destiny.