Gaza Committee: Between Humanitarian Necessity and the Trap of Conflict Management

The real issue facing Palestinians after Trump's announcement of the beginning of the second phase of the so-called "peace plan" does not lie in the definition of the technocratic committee that was agreed upon nationally and regionally, with American consent, despite the clear Israeli interventions that preceded it. This committee, by Palestinian and regional definition, is presented as a temporary service framework aimed at managing the daily affairs of an afflicted people and attempting to restore the minimum means of life after an extermination war, and nothing more.

However, the fundamental question is not posed from this definition, but rather regarding the Israeli logic that tends to employ every pathway—whether humanitarian or political—in service of its long-term strategic goals. Since its establishment, Israel has excelled at creating facts on the ground and then imposing them as a starting point for any subsequent political discussion, obliterating the rights and facts that preceded them.

In this context, the technocratic committee appears, in Israel's view, as a service tool that can be emptied of its substance to become a potential bridge for managing the conflict as a way to evade its resolution, and perhaps a possible entry point for gradually liquidating the issue, especially if it succeeds in pushing the United States, the West, and the region to treat this committee as a practical alternative to any real political pathway. For technocrats, by political definition, may manage people's affairs, but they do not possess – nor are they supposed to possess – the right to determine the fate of an entire national cause.

Therefore, instead of turning a blind eye to the risks, or questioning the nature and intentions of the technocratic committee, the responsible Palestinian position should be to caution against the political context in which it was born, as this context lacks any explicit guarantees linking the temporary administrative pathway to a clear political horizon. In colonial contexts that do not adhere to moral standards, it is not natural to acknowledge a "neutral" technical management as a suspended title in the air, as technical tools quickly become political tools once they are detached from the questions of sovereignty and rights.

The Palestinian experience, since the Oslo Agreement and its aftermath, has proven that Israel does not treat transitional arrangements as temporary stages leading to a final settlement, but rather tends to view them as long-term alternatives that allow it to manage Palestinian life under the condition of occupation, without approaching the root of the conflict politically. Hence, acceptance of a service committee without a guaranteeing political framework risks transforming reconstruction and civil governance into a new mechanism for "conflict management" instead of dismantling it in a way that leads us toward resolution.

Worse still, the committee’s success in fulfilling its daily service tasks—which is a necessary humanitarian success—may be used internationally to justify the perpetuation of the status quo through the promotion of the notion that "stability is possible without a political solution," a notion that has long formed the backbone of the Israeli perspective in dealing with the Palestinian issue for decades.

In the broader context related to the revealing moment of the imbalance of power around the world, the strategic goals of the White House in its support – as it claims – for the technocratic committee cannot be separated from the logic that has governed Washington's approach to the conflict over the last two decades, which is based on replacing political solutions with improved conflict management. When President Trump repeats the phrase "peace through strength," it does not refer to a peace based on justice or historical settlement, but rather to imposing administrative and security arrangements that produce a degree of functional calm allowing for the prioritization of other objectives, foremost among them the "Abrahamic Peace" project.

In this sense, Gaza appears as an advanced model establishing the concept of governance stripped of sovereignty, which necessarily leads to reconstruction without a political horizon and security control whose task is to ensure no explosion occurs, in exchange for international recognition of the logic of "stability for life." Upon the unconditional acceptance of such a reversed equation model, the colonizer no longer needs a justifying discourse; it is a model that serves, in its essence, colonial objectives in a highly sensitive and complex international moment, during which Washington is engaged in an open conflict to prevent the formation of a multipolar world system.

Thus, "stability" in Gaza becomes part of a larger geopolitical equation, but it diminishes the impact of focal points of tension that could weaken the United States' ability to manage its most strategic conflict, even if that comes at the expense of postponing or diluting the political question of Palestine. Hence, "the peace plan" is redefined not as a political solution, but as an organizing framework for the existing reality, which is the most dangerous aspect of this approach.

In conclusion, Palestinians have experienced this path starting from civil governance after 1967, reaching a transitional authority that was born but remains suspended without sovereignty. This confirms that the dilemma is not that the Gaza Committee emerged in response to an urgent humanitarian necessity—it is indeed a real necessity that cannot be overlooked—but in the danger of its transformation, as history has taught us, into a permanent framework through which to manage a long-standing conflict, leading to the pressing question: Are we facing a genuine treatment of a temporary humanitarian necessity, or a quiet reproduction of a hybrid mandate, a mandate that provides services with one hand while deferring justice with the other? Here, precisely, we pose the question of the Gaza Technocrats Committee between humanitarian necessity and the trap of conflict management—not as a conclusive analytical summary with solutions, but as an open political warning that rejects complicity.