Afrasianet - Sharhabil Al Gharib - History has proven throughout the past that solutions imposed under pressure of arms and blackmail without consensus or logic remain fragile, temporary and liable to collapse at any moment, and previous experiences with the Gaza Strip have proven this theory.
In the midst of a wide-ranging regional war, the issue of the Gaza Strip is no longer just a regular arena of confrontation, but has become a testing ground for reshaping the Palestinian political reality under intimidation and explicit public demands for the full surrender of the Gaza Strip's weapons as a condition for relief and reconstruction, or a return to the pressure of war again.
What is happening today in the Gaza Strip goes beyond the boundaries of humanitarian and political arrangements to enter into a systematic attempt to impose a new reality that touches and achieves the American vision, according to new conditions formulated in light of the imbalance of power.
What is striking about this path is that it does not begin with a complete cessation of all forms of war or addressing its effects and the humanitarian catastrophe it has left behind in the Gaza Strip, but rather proceeds directly from a central condition that is being talked about these days with the heat of the confrontation in the regional arena, and the return of the so-called High Commissioner Nickolay Mladenov with the conditions for disarming the resistance, as if it is the only key to any possible future in the Gaza Strip.
With this proposition, which was mentioned in Mladenov's last speech, it means that Gaza has become, according to the American vision, It is being discussed as a security issue and not a political issue that is intended to be dismantled first before talking about any rights or entitlements for the next phase of President Trump's plan, which is no longer talked about with the previous momentum in light of the Israeli-American war on Iran on the one hand, and Hezbollah in Lebanon on the other.
This was evident in Nickolay Mladenov's statements and his recent meetings with the Hamas leadership in Cairo, where instead of adhering to the traditional gradual approach known in any agreement, which starts with a mutual ceasefire and then moves to relief and reconstruction and reaches the political track, this sequence is being completely reversed, as disarmament is presented as a precondition and not as part of a comprehensive settlement agreed upon between the two countries.
All parties have agreed to President Trump's plan to stop the war on Gaza, but the conditions come as a mandatory entry point to it, and this shift cannot be separated from the broader regional context, as the escalation with Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon is being exploited to re-engineer the reality in the Gaza Strip again.
The proposals in circulation do not include clear guarantees related to the cessation of Israeli aggression in Gaza, or a clear vision with a timetable that guarantees a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, or even reconstruction mechanisms, but clearly link all of this to a comprehensive delivery of weapons, including individual weapons.
Such an approach reflects a structural and strategic imbalance in the balance of negotiations, as the resistance is required to make substantial concessions without a guaranteed tangible return, and this reflects a problem in redefining the concept of the next day after the end of the war in Gaza, as in previous proposals, there was a relative separation between the humanitarian track and the political track, so that relief and reconstruction are treated as unconditional rights, while today there is talk of merging or mixing these tracks with each other so that aid becomes Such a merger reflects an attempt to reformulate the relationship between the logic of imposing force and the logic of the rights of the Palestinian people, so that rights become encumbered and blackmailed, and require compliance with specific political conditions dictated by the US administration through its High Commissioner and the Peace Council.
On the other side of the picture, this trajectory can be read as part of a broader strategy aimed at achieving a quick political achievement in Gaza that compensates for the inability and indecisiveness in other arenas.
However, all political experience suggests that such an assumption is often misleading, weak or does not achieve the desired goals, as imposing political conditions under the pressure of war without consensus or guarantees of Palestinian rights usually leads to fragile results that can explode at any possible moment, and more importantly, Linking reconstruction to disarmament may be counterproductive by reinforcing the state of militancy and rejection within the Palestinian resistance factions and Palestinian society, thus creating an expected spectacle of reproducing an environment that makes escalation an option rather than addressing and containment.
An important question arises in this context, what about the position of the Palestinian resistance factions regarding everything that is being talked about according to information and data? In my estimation, and in a reading of the minds of the Palestinian resistance factions, the resistance will not accept this approach, not only from an ideological logic and a right to resist the occupation guaranteed by all international laws, but also from the logic of realistic calculations, as the surrender of arms in the presence of occupation and the lack of a just solution to the Palestinian issue and in the absence of clear guarantees is considered as an existential strategic danger and not just a negotiating step.
Based on this, it is understandable that the state of tension and attraction expected in the negotiations of the next stage, and the current approach that is proposed does not provide the minimum logic and balance that allows the launch of a serious negotiation track, but rather it keeps the door open for the continuation of military and political pressure on the Gaza Strip from time to time in an attempt to extract gradual concessions from the Palestinian resistance. It makes it difficult to achieve a real strategic breakthrough in this heavy file.
Perhaps the most dangerous in this scenario is the use of war as a tool to reformulate the political reality, and not only as a means to achieve military goals, because when the battle turns into a UN platform to impose prior political arrangements, this practically means bypassing the principle of negotiation and replacing it with the logic of dictation, conditions, and blackmail.
It seems that the current path for Gaza is facing deep structural and even strategic challenges related to the lack of balance and logic, the lack of guarantees and the conflict of goals, as the attempt to impose the next day and talk about the conditions in the weapons and reconstruction file according to the American vision before the end of the war effectively does not establish real stability in the Gaza Strip, but on the contrary, it may lead to the consolidation of a state of rejection and mistrust that makes any future settlement more difficult and complicated, and the important thing in this scene is that Gaza is not only It is a battlefield, but also a testing ground for the political will that the US administration is trying to reshape by force.
History has proven throughout the past that solutions imposed under the pressure of arms and blackmail without consensus or logic remain fragile, temporary and liable to collapse at any moment, and previous experiences with the Gaza Strip have proven this theory, and therefore the real question that must be asked not only about the possibility of passing these conditions, but also about their ability to withstand in a reality that is still open to all possibilities.
