Gaza Between the Occupation's Policy and Palestinians' Responsibility: How Can We Prevent Slipping into a Complete Catastrophe?

The events that took place yesterday morning, Wednesday, east of Gaza City, remain shrouded in mystery, amid claims from the occupying state of injuries to an Israeli officer, followed by violent military retaliation according to the Israeli narrative, resulting in the deaths of about 18 martyrs. This recurring scene, in its various forms, cannot be separated from the broader context of what is happening in the Gaza Strip, nor from the nature of the Israeli policy pursued since the beginning of the war until today.

What the occupying state is doing cannot be reduced to individual violations or "field mistakes"; rather, it is an organized approach based on the use of excessive force, imposing security realities by force, and managing escalation as a domestic political tool. The first phase of the war, which lasted for over a hundred days, saw military operations that resulted in the deaths of more than 450 Palestinians, before the toll later escalated to hundreds of martyrs, amidst the absence of any real accountability or actual commitment to the announced agreements.

This policy is likely to continue, and even escalate, as the occupying state seeks to impose permanent security control over Gaza, creating a "new reality" based on daily intervention and imposing new conditions under the pretext of completing what it calls "absolute victory." This aligns with the prevailing public mood within Israel, where the extreme popular and official sentiments towards Gaza create a comfortable atmosphere for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, serving his political goals, especially with the approaching 2026 election year, where Gaza's fate is likely to become a central issue in his campaign, whether through military escalation or utilizing security rhetoric to rally public support, in contrast to an equally extreme opposition that accuses him of failure and not achieving the war's objectives.

One of the central dilemmas in the current scene lies in the wide gap between Israel’s and the United States’ demands in the second phase, and what Hamas is actually prepared to offer, which seems an unbridgeable gap. Netanyahu is not merely calling for the disarmament of Hamas; he seeks a comprehensive dismantling of its military, authoritative, and organizational capabilities, including its formal and informal structures and its municipal and social networks, making reconstruction a political and security condition rather than a humanitarian path. Within this context, the fundamental contradiction in his discourse emerges, as he speaks of successfully advancing to the second phase as a transition to governance arrangements and international guarantees, perhaps involving a role for the Palestinian Authority, while his practical discourse revolves around military resolution and the rejection of any path that suggests a political horizon for Gaza, thus keeping the war open in various forms.

However, the danger of the scene is not limited to Israeli policy alone; it extends to direct repercussions on the Palestinians, who today face an open humanitarian catastrophe intertwined with famine, health collapse, and comprehensive destruction, alongside threats of forced displacement and the forcible reshaping of the demographic map. Continued occupation crimes and the use of starvation and humanitarian pressure as weapons aim fundamentally to break the Palestinian community and push it toward coercive options, primarily displacement or surrender to imposed realities.

In this context, Palestinian responsibility emerges that cannot be ignored. Dealing with the Israeli policy based on escalation and crimes requires a high degree of political caution, avoiding the trap that the occupation aims to set, which consists of dragging Gaza into calculated rounds of escalation that serve its security and electoral agenda. This necessitates that Hamas, as an active party in the scene, balances between the requirements of steadfastness and community protection, and preventing the occupation from using any pretext for further bloodshed and destruction.

Moreover, the return of the National Committee for Gaza management forms a real test of the Palestinian ability to seize the opportunity and not squander it, whether through internal conflicts or narrow factional calculations. The success of this committee is not only linked to the administrative dimension but also to its ability to contribute to alleviating the humanitarian catastrophe, organizing aid, restoring a minimum level of civic life, and providing a responsible Palestinian model that deprives the occupation of the excuses of "chaos" and "vacuum."

Rescuing Palestinians from the rolling catastrophe does not mean adapting to the occupation or accepting its dictates, but requires building a rational national stance that consciously manages the conflict, prioritizes human protection, and prevents Gaza from becoming an open arena for experimental Israeli force. The battle today is no longer only on the ground but also within the community and the ability to maintain political and humanitarian steadfastness in the face of a project rooted in slow extermination and forced displacement.

Gaza stands at a dangerous crossroads: either slipping into further blood and destruction according to the rhythm imposed by the occupation, or a strenuous attempt to extract a margin of national salvation that protects what remains of the Palestinian community and prevents the humanitarian catastrophe from becoming a permanent fate.