Political Analysis: Gaza Strip…The Forthcoming Clash of Wills

Reading Time: 5 minutes

By: Prof. Dr. Mohsen Mohammad Saleh.

Israel and the US have no desire to see Gaza Strip (GS) catch its breath or heal its wounds. Rather, they will continue the confrontation through different means. While this may not entail an immediate declaration of another full-scale war, their pursuit of the subjugation of the Palestinian people and the suppression of their resistance will persist.

The agreement reached represents merely the first phase of Trump’s plan, in which both sides exchanged limited interests: ending hostilities, exchanging prisoners, preventing displacement, allowing the entry of essential supplies and humanitarian aid into GS, initiating reconstruction, and facilitating Israel’s redeployment. Yet, the majority of the twenty provisions in Trump’s plan have neither been agreed upon nor even brought to the negotiating table. Each provision will require arduous, protracted negotiations with a high probability of failure. Accordingly, the most critical and sensitive issues will remain potential flashpoints. Many of these are not confined to Hamas or the armed resistance factions alone, but rather concern Palestinian fundamentals, national consensus, and the Palestinians’ right to make independent decisions. Chief among these contentious matters are the disarmament of the resistance; the proposed international oversight mechanism for GS, known as the “Board of Peace”; the formation of a technocratic government, its powers, mechanisms of oversight and supervising authority; the composition, mandate and deployment of the security force entering GS; and the participation of Hamas (or the Islamic current more broadly) in the Palestinian political system. Closely related to these are the completion of Israel’s withdrawal from the Strip and control over the border crossings.

Israeli Behavior:

The resistance will remain steadfast in upholding national fundamentals and in addressing issues within the internal Palestinian framework. It will neither relinquish its arms nor compromise Palestinian sovereignty over land and people, nor will it forgo the imperative of Israel’s withdrawal from the GS. As for Israel, it is likely to persist in advancing its own interpretation of Trump’s plan, a stance that will inevitably produce a political impasse. Such a deadlock may push Israel toward one of two scenarios:

1. Resuming military operations with the objective of uprooting the resistance, reoccupying the GS, and forcibly imposing its own vision.

2. Engaging in tactical repositioning within the GS, accompanied by a policy of coercive leverage; conditioning services, improvements in Gazans’ living conditions, the formation of a government, and its gradual withdrawal from the GS on the degree of Palestinian compliance with its demands and conditions.

Based on current indicators, the prevailing circumstances appear to steer Israel more decisively toward the second scenario, wherein it is expected to employ the following methods of pressure and coercion:

1. Maintaining the land, sea, and air blockade; exercising control over crossings and the movement of individuals, whether through partial or total closures, and restricting the entry of humanitarian necessities such as food, drinking water, medicine and other essential supplies.

2. Partially or completely obstructing the reconstruction process by prohibiting the entry of construction materials, debris-removal equipment and other necessary resources.

3. Pursuing the systematic assassination of Hamas and resistance cadres.

4. Targeting civil-society systems under the pretext of affiliation with, or operation under the supervision of, Hamas, including civil defense, ambulance services, municipal functions and critical infrastructure.

5. Encouraging gangs, militias and collaborator units hostile to the resistance, providing them protection, attempting to “legitimize” their status and fostering disorder.

6. Conducting limited incursions… modeled on operations in the West Bank (WB).

7. Implementing campaigns of propaganda, incitement and defamation against the resistance, aiming to isolate it in the media and demonize it, in coordination with Western actors as well as Arab and Muslim countries pursuing normalization.

Palestinian Conduct:

This is a pivotal historical moment for Palestinian solidarity, for transcending internal divisions, and for rising to a level befitting the sacrifices, suffering and endurance of the Palestinian people. It honors the demonstrated resilience of the resistance and the global standing that the Palestine issue has regained, as well as the opportunities it has created. It is a moment of cohesion and national unity, for Trump’s plan, and the Zionist project behind it, does not target Hamas or the resistance alone… Rather, it seeks to erase Palestine and its cause, to even undermine the Palestinian Authority (PA) itself, to terminate the “dream” of a state, and to bury the Oslo Accords despite all their flaws.

There are points of convergence between Fatah, Hamas and all Palestinian forces that can serve as a foundation for challenging the “Trumpian” Israeli project:

1. Rejection of international tutelage, including refusal to recognize the “Board of Peace” and to engage with it in any capacity.

2. Rejection of forming a technocratic government under Israeli–US dictates and criteria, ensuring that no externally imposed government is recognized or cooperated with, and insisting that its formation remain entirely a matter of internal Palestinian deliberation.

3. Insistence on the resistance’s arms being a Palestinian matter, intrinsically linked to the end of Israeli occupation, and refusal to reward Israel for its crimes by confiscating these arms, which would only encourage the continuation of its aggression and occupation.

4. Rejection of the arrival of any external security force performing occupation-like tasks by proxy, and definition of any tasks for such forces, should circumstances necessitate their presence. Their mandate would be limited to technical, temporary, border-related functions aimed at facilitating Israel’s withdrawal, carried out solely with Palestinian consensus, and without any interference in the daily lives or internal affairs of Palestinians.

5. Insistence on the evacuation of Israeli control from the crossings, and on Palestinian consensus regarding their management.

6. Insistence on the complete Israeli withdrawal from the GS.

7. Utilization of Arab, Muslim and supportive countries worldwide to regain initiative and implement international resolutions enjoying consensus, including Israel’s withdrawal, the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, the establishment of a fully sovereign Palestinian state, the right of return, and the lifting of the blockade. This approach thereby nullifies the concept of the trusteeship council (Board of Peace) from its foundation, particularly given that 156 countries worldwide recognize the State of Palestine.

Accordingly, even a minimal expression of national unity would suffice to overturn any authoritarian or security measures imposed upon the Palestinian people, thereby asserting their collective will and undermining both Trump’s plan and Israel’s envisioned future for GS.

Clash of Wills:

The forthcoming phase is expected to witness a clash of wills in GS (as well as in Jerusalem, the WB, and the broader region…) The Israeli-US axis will seek to exert maximum pressure and leverage. Nevertheless, Palestinian cohesion and steadfastness are essential to counter these efforts; should they falter, there is a risk that Israel could achieve a decisive victory, potentially advancing the closure of the Palestine issue.

While Israel possesses considerable sources of strength, it cannot fully carry through its coercion of GS, as it is itself constrained by military, economic and human exhaustion, as well as by global isolation. At the same time, Israel is keen not to squander the opportunity afforded by the Trump plan to rehabilitate and “cleanse” its image, integrate into the region, and reopen engagement with the international arena. Consequently, its capacity to maintain pressure remains limited, particularly when it recognizes that its objectives are largely unattainable.