The Palestinians: Between emerging regional opportunities and a deepening internal crisis

Concurrently with the US–Iran negotiations underway in Islamabad, intricate deliberations are being conducted between Palestinian factions and Nickolay Mladenov, representing the “Peace Council.” These talks center on the contentious issue of “disarmament”—a cornerstone of the second phase of the ceasefire proposal originally initiated by US President Donald Trump, which subsequently evolved into UN Security Council Resolution 2803. As evidenced by the roles assumed by mediators in recent months, these processes are advancing through an approach that seeks to integrate the Gaza ceasefire dossier into broader regional arrangements. Within this framework, multilateral mediation channels involving regional heavyweights such as Egypt, Türkiye, and Qatar have been activated.

In this context, Hamas has signaled its acceptance of the plan and fulfilled its initial obligations by facilitating the release of Israeli captives, both living and deceased. In contrast, “Israel” has largely evaded its fundamental commitments—most notably the reopening of the Rafah Border Crossing, the unhindered flow of humanitarian aid, and the withdrawal behind the “yellow line.” As documented in United Nations reports and statements from mediating parties, this recalcitrance has resulted in the systematic disruption of aid deliveries.

Hamas has conditioned its approval of the second phase—which encompasses the sensitive issues of weaponry and governance—upon a national transitional process. However, the comprehensive national framework required to manage this transition has yet to mature, hampered by both internal impediments and external pressures, primarily from the United States. These pressures aim to confine the Palestinian cause within a paradigm of security arrangements dictated by Israeli conditions and placed under international supervision. This trajectory mirrors the ongoing discourse regarding a “disarmament plan” for Gaza’s “post-war era,” aligning with joint Israeli–US designs. Mladenov’s recent consultations in Cairo with Hamas and other Palestinian factions underscore the intensifying pressure to implement these particular blueprints.

The humanitarian devastation unleashed by the war in Gaza since October 7—unprecedented in scale since the Second World War—coupled with relentless Israeli expansion in the West Bank and concerted efforts to undermine the Palestinian Authority, has pushed the Palestinians into a state of extreme fragility. This vulnerability prevents them from leveraging profound global transformations, such as shifts in energy security, the stabilization of maritime trade routes, and the reconfiguration of regional priorities. These shifts, accentuated by escalating tensions in the Red Sea and the reverberations of the war in Ukraine, have forged a new perspective in the international approach toward the Palestinian issue. Yet, these opportunities remain largely unexploited due to the absence of national consensus and a unified political vision.

Furthermore, the imminent risk of a total humanitarian collapse has forced Palestinian and regional actors to pivot their efforts away from strategic objectives toward urgent humanitarian interventions. Consequently, fundamental political aspirations—chief among them the establishment of a Palestinian state—have been relegated to the background, causing the Palestinians to miss critical windows of opportunity presented by current international and regional realignments.

Despite the potential inherent in these transformations, the Palestinians remain the “weakest link” in the process, plagued by persistent internal schisms, the erosion of institutional legitimacy, and the lack of a cohesive political program. This fragmentation severely debilitates their capacity to formulate a national strategy and mitigate further losses. The landscape is further complicated by the diverging roles of regional actors: Egypt’s security-oriented mediation, Qatar’s political diplomatic channels, Türkiye’s role in institutional support, and Iran’s indirect influence.

In this convoluted environment, the Palestinians face the acute risk of being largely marginalized from the ceasefire negotiations. These talks are increasingly tethered to the outcomes of US–Iran and US–Israel dialogues, following an approach based on the decoupling rather than the integration of processes. Such a trajectory aligns with Israel’s strategic objective to dismantle the principle of the “unity of fronts.”

Conversely, the Palestinian side, particularly at the level of the official leadership, is attempting to interlink these processes. Mahmoud Abbas, while welcoming the US–Iran rapprochement, emphasized that any such agreement must encompass the Palestinian dimension. There is a burgeoning realization among Palestinians that exclusion from regional arrangements would leave them isolated, thereby deepening the humanitarian catastrophe.

Under these circumstances, the Palestinians appear trapped in a process that predicates the cessation of hostilities upon security arrangements, imposing security demands in exchange for humanitarian concessions. This approach stands in direct contradiction to the spirit of the UN Security Council resolution, which does not abrogate the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination.

The current landscape is also defined by Israel’s notable inability to translate its military gains into permanent political outcomes, despite the exhaustion resulting from its entanglement in multiple conflicts.

In this light, three potential scenarios emerge:

1. The Continuation of the Status Quo: The persistence of a fragile ceasefire accompanied by escalating humanitarian attrition.
2. Imposed Transitional Arrangements: The imposition of transitional structures led by international actors, with only a marginal role permitted for the Palestinians.
3. The Emergence of a National Reference: While less probable in the short term, this scenario involves Palestinians establishing a unified national reference to reorganize their political and security spheres. This would allow them to secure a place within the nascent regional framework involving Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, Egypt, and Pakistan—a framework with the potential to evolve into a decisive actor in regional security balances and assume a more prominent role in the international system.

In conclusion, the current phase should be viewed not merely as a period of negotiation, but as an attempt to redefine the position of the Palestinian cause within a shifting regional and international order. The decisive factor in this process will be the Palestinians’ own capacity to transcend internal divisions and reconstruct their political standing. Failure to do so may allow alternative arrangements, shaped by external actors, to fundamentally redefine the very nature of the Palestinian question.

Ultimately, the future of the Palestinian cause will depend not only on the conduct of negotiations but on the ability of Palestinian actors to move from a position of passivity to one of active agency. This remains the fundamental variable that will determine whether the present opportunities can be seized or will be lost to history.