March 05, 2025
Nasser Kandil
• The resounding American message, conveyed through Donald Trump’s announcement of a plan to forcibly displace Gaza’s population, demanding that Jordan and Egypt receive them under threat of cutting U.S. aid, was a call for Arab complicity in subjugating the Palestinian people and their resistance. With the Israeli war, and its American backing, reaching a structural deadlock, Trump understood that the real obstacle to displacement was not the availability of host countries but the Palestinians’ absolute rejection of exile. Even after devastating Gaza and killing tens of thousands, the occupation failed to break the Palestinians’ will. Aware that neither the occupation nor the U.S. could alter the equation alone, Trump turned to the Arabs.
• What Washington sought was for the Arabs to deliver a clear ultimatum to all resistance movements, foremost among them Hamas: no reconstruction without disarmament. They were expected to ignore the occupation’s refusal to allow Hamas, or even Fatah, a role in governing Gaza and, if necessary, to accept an Arab-led administration for the Strip, legitimised by an Arab and international mandate. This would be part of a coordinated effort with Washington and Tel Aviv to dismantle the resistance. Furthermore, the Arabs were to declare that normalisation with the occupying entity would proceed regardless of the fate of the Palestinian cause or the prospect of a Palestinian state. Should they refuse, they were warned to brace for American wrath, meaning destabilisation efforts targeting their internal security, incitement of chaos and strife, the suspension of aid to dependent states, threats to freeze the assets of wealthier nations, and sanctions on the personal fortunes of their rulers, all of whom are affluent.
• What emerged from the Arab summit, however, was a resounding “no”, signaling that the Arab world would not capitulate to threats, nor would it be driven to self-destruction by the kind of intimidation Trump displayed in his infamous exchange with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The Arabs recognised that Washington’s demands for their participation in liquidating the Palestinian cause posed an existential threat to their own governments. What follows the al-Aqsa Flood will not resemble what came before it, and if the occupation’s military failed to break the resistance, no other force would succeed. In fact, taking on the burden that the occupation itself could not bear would only lead to the disintegration of armies, the collapse of governments, and internal rifts between rulers and their peoples. Thus, they declared that there could be no solution for Gaza outside the broader resolution of the Palestinian issue, exclusively through the establishment of a Palestinian state. They rejected displacement, settlement expansion, blockade, and starvation. They asserted that governance in Gaza belongs solely to the Palestinians. Within this framework, dialogue could take place, and political solutions could emerge – solutions not far from what the resistance itself has hinted at, such as the formation of a temporary technocratic government.
• This was a partial but significant stance, half of what was required, yet still impactful. However, the other half, which would have been even more consequential, was one the Arab states were unable to shoulder. Still, even half of that half marked a starting point upon which progress could be built. This refers to the practical steps that should have matched the scale of the challenge, such as decisively ending Palestinian division without tying it to legislative and presidential elections that require the occupation’s approval for Jerusalem’s participation, rendering the demand meaningless. Palestinian unity could have been restored through an Arab decision if Saudi and Egyptian efforts were fully aligned. Another measure would have been the unconditional opening of the Rafah crossing, without awaiting Israeli approval, as it is a Palestinian-Arab border. Egypt, however, would require Arab, perhaps even Islamic and international, support to bear the repercussions of such a step, something that remains feasible with the upcoming meeting of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation’s foreign ministers in Jeddah. If the Arabs were to take a decisive stand on ending Palestinian division and opening Rafah, their words would gain executive weight that neither the occupation nor Washington could easily counter, whether through military force or diplomatic disregard.
• Hamas’s welcoming stance toward the summit’s outcomes, along with its willingness to cooperate with the Gaza Administrative Committee formed as a crucial procedural step under Egypt’s sponsorship, signals that the summit might indeed mark a turning point in the political trajectory of the Palestinian cause. Egypt’s role in overseeing the reconstitution of Gaza’s security framework, with the consent of both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, further reinforces this possibility. Following Gaza’s heroic resistance and the immense sacrifices made by its people, Israel’s military solution has failed to erase the Palestinian cause. In response, Egypt has stepped forward with a position marked by courage and initiative, restoring the concept of national security to its rightful place.
