When the Palestinian Issue is Reduced to Gaza Management

The first meeting of what was called the "Peace Council" in Washington was not a fleeting economic occasion, but a clear political declaration to redefine the Palestinian issue. It is no longer presented as a national liberation issue related to ending occupation and restoring sovereignty, but as a file of management and development that is monetarily feasible. In one hall, billions dominated the scene, regional corridor maps and technological projects were showcased, while the fundamental question underlying the conflict was absent: Who will end the occupation? And who recognizes the Palestinians' right to sovereignty?

The scene seemed closer to a replacement process than to a settlement: replacing politics with management, freedom with investment, and justice with the language of returns and financing. Gaza transforms from a title of open political confrontation to a space being considered for "effective governance". Thus, the conflict is reduced to numbers, and rights are compressed into presentation slides.

What was remarkable was not only the showmanship of U.S. President Donald Trump, but also the approach led by his team, headed by Jared Kushner. The management of the file was conducted with the mentality of a startup seeking investors, crafting attractive offers that promise returns, while Washington's political power is used to attract funding and commitment. However, money cannot buy sovereignty, nor can it dismantle an occupation system, nor grant a people their right to self-determination. It can build roads and ports, but it cannot build legitimacy.

Trump appeared in a victorious mood. After months of ambiguity, the council presented preliminary results, even if some were merely flashy presentation slides. A clear mixture emerged: the mentality of the "great deal" with intense political pressure to secure funding. Yet what was offered as an economic achievement seemed, in essence, a political maneuver.

The most striking irony is that those who hold the decision of war on the ground were present in the council, while the victim and its legitimate representative were absent. Those who spoke about "Gaza management" were present, while those who spoke about its right were absent. Palestinian representation was reduced to marginal bureaucratic channels, as if the issue were an administrative dispute needing an executive committee, not a people demanding their freedom.

Here lies the truth: the priority is not for those who have the right, but for those who have the money and influence. The problem is redefined as a funding crisis, not an occupation crisis. The "next day" is presented as a reconstruction plan, not a political entitlement that ends the roots of the conflict.

However, the issue does not stop at the limits of this council. Most countries discuss the future of Gaza as if it were a vacuum awaiting management. There are projections for security arrangements, a multinational force, transitional governance, and conditional reconstruction. All of this is presented as an alternative to the question that is meant to be avoided: When will the occupation end? And how can Palestinians be enabled to freely choose their political system?

Excluding Palestinians from self-determination is not a trivial detail, but a policy to produce "low-level stability"; stability that satisfies the security calculations of the occupying state, prevents regional explosion, and keeps the crisis under control. Stability without justice, and without a political horizon.

Most dangerously, Gaza's future is separated from the context of the entire Palestinian issue. The matter is not about managing a besieged sector, but about the future of a people striving for freedom. Reducing the discussion to the limits of Gaza reproduces division and turns the "next day" into a tool for reshaping the Palestinian scene to fit regional and international calculations, not national will.

The question that must be asked without ambiguity is: Who has the right to determine Gaza's future? The powers that failed to stop the war? Or those who provided the political cover for its continuation? Or is the right, simply, for the people of Gaza themselves within a comprehensive national framework that is not subject to guardianship?

Any path that exceeds two clear principles, ending the occupation in all its forms, and respecting the Palestinian people's right to choose their representatives, will be nothing more than a temporary management of a deep crisis. Such initiatives may succeed in buying time, but they will not buy legitimacy and will not establish lasting stability.

Gaza is not an investment project, nor a mere item on the agenda of a council. It is part of a people who have not relinquished their right to freedom. Any "next day" built on ignoring this truth will only continue the crisis, in a more elegant form, and with less sincerity.