In recent days, there has been a move towards escalation by Israel and regional countries such as Turkey and Egypt, indicating the onset of a new phase of war or conflict in the Middle East. This necessitates exploring different ways to prioritize the Palestinian issue in discussions and solutions. In this context, we are trying to outline the general features of various positions to aid in formulating an appropriate alignment for the Palestinians in the coming days.
At the Israeli level, the government is trying to overcome internal disagreements about continuing its aggression against the Gaza Strip and to present a narrative on the necessity of annihilating Hamas and redefining the situation of the sector within a security theory that separates it from the West Bank (Palestinian Authority). The United States agrees with this approach, as it facilitates the movements of the Israeli army between the south and north of the Strip.
At this point, the United States plays the role of Israel’s strategic guarantor, effectively acting as a ‘striking force’ in the region. This is evident in its handling of the Rafah crisis, where it works to delay the clash with Egypt until the resistance is maximally drained. Here, the US policy is clear in supplying Israel with the necessary weapons for a prolonged and extensive war, alongside providing political protection against international will.
During this stage, the alignment between Israeli and American rhetoric, whether at the executive or legislative levels, becomes clear. The discourse revolves around expanding precautions to protect the Israeli entity. On one hand, there is an escalating threat of using weapons of mass destruction, and although these are statements, they align with the Israeli war narrative to destroy what remains of the Gaza Strip. On the other hand, US policy works to divide regional positions and prevent them from acting collectively as much as possible. This can be seen in bargaining with Saudi Arabia over the defense system in exchange for normalization, and in the diminished responsiveness to Egyptian concerns along with backing campaigns against Turkey. This policy prioritizes each country differently, pushing them to adopt varying policies towards the ongoing war.
At the regional level, the response to US policy is evident in the weak regional coordination, despite the political stances ostensibly supporting the Palestinian cause. However, these are moving slowly towards defending their national security. With the expansion of Israeli military operations in the Rafah area and the military presence there, Egyptian positions are leaning towards escalation, including raising readiness in Sinai and threatening to cut relations. The halt in security coordination was an immediate measure after the Israeli military took over the Palestinian side of the Rafah crossing, continuing until a Palestinian presence is reinstated on the other side. Egyptian policy seems more concerned with revising its relations with Israel, including peace treaties and the redeployment of the army in Sinai.
In the same vein, the Foreign Ministry announced solidarity with South Africa’s lawsuit at the International Court of Justice, a development signaling an escalation that could lead to cutting relations. These moves not only promote solidarity but also reflect a change in dealing with the threat from Israel and the United States due to the unravelling of the war and American efforts to establish a foothold through managing the temporary port under Marine guard.
Similarly, Turkey has shifted significantly in its stance, moving from aiding and supporting negotiations for a truce to adopting clear positions in support of the Palestinians unconditionally. The initial steps, including boycotting Israel commercially, are fundamental to its foreign policy, signifying Turkey’s position at the forefront of the confrontation. This approach was intensified when President Recep Tayyip Erdogan repeatedly declared support and protection for Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, ensuring that the issue remains within effective international discourse.
On the Lebanese front, the ‘Axis of Resistance’ combines political pressure with planned skirmishes. This pattern keeps tensions without escalating into an open war, considering the internal complexities in Lebanon. As this situation persists over the past months, the possibility of a comprehensive war recedes, and operations remain within calculated estimates, showing minimal impact on the war in Gaza.
Despite these developments, the Palestinian position remains scattered. Politically, there is no unified agenda for direct or indirect negotiations. However, the main issue is the absence of Palestinians at the international negotiation table, which has been accompanied by a perception that initiatives are concerned only with partial issues in the sector like prisoner releases and temporary military arrangements, without engaging in a broader context involving Palestinian parties. In the past phase, the resistance’s reliance on mediators increased as interest in forming a Palestinian consultative framework declined. This situation facilitated keeping the Palestinian side away from shaping the political stance, as they did not provide a means for collective communication with allied countries/mediators, weakening their regional influence and their image globally. This behavior has also undermined coordination among these countries. The apparent effect of these practices lies in the mismatch between the field situation and the negotiation track, contributing to accumulating frustration.
Given the levels of engagement with the aggression and their contradictions, working to speak with one voice will help strengthen the Palestinian negotiating position, as it rebuilds solidarity around the Palestinian issue and gathers regional efforts to enhance coordination among them, opening up to regional parties.
