Whoever Owns the Land... Owns the Future

It may be a mistake to view what is presented under the title "Green City" as a construction or housing project aimed at accommodating fifty thousand people. Such an approach reduces the issue to its engineering aspect, while its true dimensions far exceed that.

The real question is not: how many houses will be built? Rather, it is: who owns the land? Who decides its use? Who manages it? Who enforces security on it? And what are the limits of Palestinian sovereignty within it? These are the questions that define the nature of the project and its strategic implications, not the number of buildings or housing units it will entail.

Any reconstruction project loses its national value if it transforms into an entry point for reshaping the political or legal geography of the Gaza Strip, or if it becomes a means to impose new realities on the ground that surpass Palestinian will. History teaches us that major transformations do not always begin with tanks; sometimes they may start with urban plans, reorganizing land use, and producing facts that are difficult to change later.

Thus, dealing with this file should not remain the responsibility of a single entity; rather, it requires a unified Palestinian position, which should be the responsibility of three main parties.

First: The Palestinian Authority.
By virtue of its legal status and international recognition, it is required to declare a clear official position based on the Palestinian Basic Law, affirming that Palestinian land ownership is a protected right that must not be violated or acted upon outside the framework of the law and national sovereignty. It is also obligated to warn any Palestinian companies or contractors against engaging in projects that may raise future legal or national responsibilities if proven to contradict the law or Palestinian rights.

Second: Hamas Movement.
This file transcends being a negotiation tool or part of the daily management of the conflict; it pertains to the future of the land itself. Therefore, the phase requires a shift from managing political disputes to building a comprehensive national stance, as defending the land cannot be hostage to division, nor should the file of sovereignty remain subject to factional or tactical calculations.

Third: The Gaza Committee.
If the committee was formed to defend the interests and future of the sector, its role should not be limited to following developments or issuing positions, but should also be a genuine partner in any discussion regarding the fate of Gaza. Its success hinges on unifying its internal stance and prioritizing national interest over multiple references and political affiliations, as the upcoming phase cannot tolerate hesitation or division.

The most dangerous thing that can happen today is for existential issues to devolve into technical details, and for discussions to be reduced to housing and reconstruction projects, while underlying questions of sovereignty, ownership, and national decision continue to linger.

Palestinians may differ politically, but they should not differ about the land. It is not just a real estate asset; it is the foundation of identity, the address of sovereignty, and the guarantee of the future.

This may be a moment that warrants sounding the alarm, as the realities imposed on the ground become difficult to change once solidified. If a unified Palestinian position, protecting the people's right to their land, does not materialize, future generations may find themselves facing a reality they did not create, yet will bear its consequences.

History remains, as it always has, an unforgettable witness. It will record who defended the land, who remained silent, and who squandered a right that no one has the right to squander.