Palestine Without Illusions: Why Are There No Readymade Alternatives in the Era of Trump and Beyond?

With every escalation of violence in Palestine, discussions fill with dramatic interpretations about the collapse of the global system or sudden changes that will unexpectedly shift the balance of the conflict. These narratives provide a temporary sense of comfort as they suggest that a massive external solution is inevitably on its way, but the reality is much less dramatic and harsher. The Palestinian cause is no longer a priority for the major powers; instead, it has become a file that must be contained at minimal cost, especially when any serious solution conflicts with the security of Israel or the interests of Washington.

The approach of American policy in managing the conflict openly reveals that the stronger party imposes facts on the ground, while the weaker party is asked to coexist with them. There is no real Palestinian state on the horizon, no effective pressure on Israel, and no willingness to pay a political or military price for justice. There is only management of the conflict, a temporary cooling of fronts, and a prevention of a major explosion that could embarrass Washington or confuse its allies.

However, the deeper problem is that by the time the world is preoccupied with analyses of American policy, Israel has completed half the battle on the ground. In the West Bank, the procedures to change reality are accelerating daily through Israeli decisions, including lifting the confidentiality of land records to facilitate settlers' acquisition and modifying registration procedures to speed up the declaration of vast areas as "state land," reducing legal restrictions on settlement expansion, and empowering the Israeli army to demolish and intervene even in areas under the administration of the Palestinian Authority (classified areas A and B).

These actions are not mere administrative decisions but gradual steps towards actual quiet annexation, transferring the West Bank from temporary military rule to direct Israeli civil control, making any future solution geographically impossible while settlements expand, villages are isolated, cities are choked, and the Palestinian Authority is gradually emptied of its content.

The problem is that Palestinians, like many in the region, have spent decades betting on external solutions through a "neutral" American mediator, the Quartet, decisive international pressure, or a united Arab position. The long experience has proven that these bets were closer to wishes than to realistic politics, and negotiations since Oslo have been used to manage the occupation instead of ending it, while Arab regimes are mired in their crises and international powers treat Palestine as a conflict card, not a liberation cause.

In this reality, the question of alternatives becomes an internal question before anything else. We are not in a phase of "imposing a solution" but in a phase of resilience and conscious management of time. Gaining time here is not passive waiting but disrupting Israeli resolution and preventing the transformation of defeat into a definitive end to Palestinian history.

Gaining time means first preserving existence and keeping Palestinians on their land, halting genocide and mass killings, preventing displacement, protecting social and economic fabric, and not allowing the occupation to turn into an ordinary, natural reality. The most dangerous thing that can affect any liberation cause is not repression but becoming accustomed to repression. Israel is betting on exhaustion and time, hoping Palestinians will be worn down before it is, and daily resilience, no matter how silent it seems, is in itself a failure of these bets.

In this context, national unity becomes a practical necessity rather than a moral slogan. Division is no longer just a political dispute but has turned into a tool in the hands of the occupation to manage each part separately and the constant claim that "there is no partner.” Without rebuilding a unified leadership capable of making strategic decisions, all forms of resilience will remain deficient and subject to containment.

As for long-term popular resistance—through civil disobedience, strikes, boycotts, and legal and rights pursuits—these are essential tools in an uneven military battle. The occupation does not collapse with a single blow; it collapses when it becomes a constant political, economic, and moral burden. These tools do not create loud headlines every day, but they gradually raise the cost and prevent the normalization of the occupation as a natural thing in global consciousness.

International transformations are not a ready savior either; neither China nor Russia will engage in a confrontation with Washington for Palestine, and a less unilateral world may open spaces for maneuvering, but it does not provide magical solutions. These are not alternatives but tools that can be used cautiously without illusions.

With the continuation of settlement expansion and the erosion of the possibility of establishing a geographically connected Palestinian state, a difficult discussion about the shape of a final solution arises. However, at this very moment, it seems that the most pressing question is not what the solution is, but how to prevent the current reality from being solidified as the end of Palestinian history.

In the end, neither the American administration nor any external force will liberate the land, nor will a regional war bring justice. The real alternative today is more modest and significantly more challenging: a long-standing resilience, conscious management of time, building internal strength, and a political and moral draining of the occupation until the circumstances change suddenly or gradually. History does not grant its opportunities to those who wait but to those who remain standing when the moment arrives.