What is Required from Meladienov

Nikolai Meladienov is not a new name to Palestinians. We have known him as a UN envoy who puts out fires rather than changing the scene, who manages crises instead of solving them, and who maintains "stability" rather than justice. Today, the man returns in a more dangerous and burdensome position: the executive director of what has been called the "Gaza Peace Council," as part of an American-Israeli vision titled the second phase, with its essence being the management of the post-war situation rather than ending its causes. From my position as a Palestinian citizen, not as an international observer, the question becomes legitimate: What do we want from Meladienov? And what should be clearly and unequivocally asked of him? First, Meladienov is required to understand - or at least to act - that Gaza is not just a humanitarian file, nor is it a testing ground for international technocrats. Gaza is a political cause par excellence, and an integral part of the Palestinian national project. Any talk about reconstruction, a technocratic government, or an international security force, without linking it to ending the occupation and ensuring political rights, is merely reproducing the same failures with new tools. He is expected to reject the logic of "permanent temporary management" and not to turn into a manager of a major relief company under a political pretext. Secondly, Meladienov must realize that disarmament is not a technical item executed by a UN decision, but rather a result of a comprehensive political process. Experiences in Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan clearly show: weapons are not disarmed until politics is restored and people feel safety, dignity, and justice. Any attempt to impose the disarmament of Hamas - or others - without a unifying national horizon will lead to a deferred explosion and nothing more. He must say this plainly, rather than settling for a vague diplomatic language that pleases everyone without saving anyone. Thirdly, he is required to draw a clear red line against turning the Peace Council into a tool for entrenching Palestinian division. Gaza is not a separate entity from the West Bank, and any technocratic government imposed in isolation from the Palestinian political system and the Palestine Liberation Organization will be a fragile government, lacking legitimacy, and doomed to failure. He is expected to promote political and institutional unity, not technical management isolated from reality. Fourth, if Meladienov wants to be part of the solution and not part of the problem, he must deal with the Palestinian Authority as a political partner, not as a security or administrative file. The Authority is not just an executive body; it is an internationally recognized political entity. Any bypassing of it or marginalization of its role will undermine what remains of the Palestinian political system and open the door to chaos or long-term international trusteeship. Fifth, he is required to practically connect Gaza and the West Bank, not rhetorically. There is no meaning in the reconstruction of Gaza while the West Bank is being strangled by settlement activity, settlers are allowed to wreak violence, Palestinian funds are withheld, and the geography is being dismantled day by day. Peace cannot be built in Gaza alone, and a Peace Council cannot ignore Security Council Resolution 2803 and other resolutions that affirm the unity of Palestinian land. Finally, Meladienov must clearly choose his moral position: either to be an international witness that beautifies an endless transitional phase, or to be a political figure who understands that true stability does not arise from the barrel of a gun nor from international councils, but from justice, rights, and freedom. Palestinians do not need a new crisis manager, but a partner with the courage to say: there is no peace without ending the occupation, no reconstruction without dignity, and no future without a fully sovereign Palestinian state. These are not impossible conditions, but the minimum logic of politics. Will Meladienov hear the voice of the Palestinian citizen this time? Or will he once again content himself with managing wasted time?