Middle East: Once again, the same scenario is being raised but with different faces. "Trump" proposes the displacement of Palestinians, and Arab countries reject it, yet at the same time, they search for an internationally acceptable formula for managing Gaza; in other words: rejection of displacement but acceptance of something even worse—trusteeship over Gaza, paving the way for the complete liquidation of the issue

In a dramatic scene that is not strange to the Arab observer aware of the facts, the emergency Arab summit was held in the Egyptian capital, Cairo, on Tuesday to discuss developments in the Palestinian issue and the Arab-Egyptian plan related to the Gaza Strip, which is supported by the United States.

This summit comes in the context of an Arab scene dominated by chaos and gloom. It reflected concerns that have reached the point of fear and loss of trust in the leaderships sitting on the thrones of regimes, amidst the Israeli occupation's brutal nature, not as a result of the October 7 events, but as an extension of a path that began on the first day of the occupation.

The events related to the Arab-Zionist conflict reflect the reality's outcomes. It becomes clear that the Zionist lobby within the Arab region is fueling the state of discord and internal conflict. The Palestinian division enhances its progress, making the situation more fragile, and the occupation entity exploits this weakness, as seen in Lebanon and Syria.

In the summit, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas praised the Arab plan for rebuilding the Gaza Strip, calling on U.S. President Trump to "participate in it and support reconstruction efforts based on not displacing our people in Gaza."

Abbas presented the vision that is supposed to be Palestinian, explaining that it involves the Palestinian Authority taking over its responsibilities in Gaza through its governmental institutions, relying on the Egyptian plan, and making the international reconstruction conference, which Egypt will host next month, a success.

Observers believe that the Arab plan, prepared in closed rooms, seems to have been created to remove Hamas from the scene and try to return Gaza to a time before Oslo, with a new legitimacy. However, the political calculations and their declared plans did not take into account what the people of Gaza and their resistance want, who have withstood the harshest wars. The challenges that exist today are difficult for all parties.

According to observers, there is a lack of political will in the Arab world to confront these plans, with some countries relying on normalization or balancing with the United States, amid the absence of a coherent Arab strategy that strengthens Arab unity or even initiates and solidifies internal Palestinian unity, instead of

seeking to widen its cracks over who the sole legitimate representative is.

In this context, during the "Gaza Summit," Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi confirmed the work with the Palestinians to form a committee of independents to manage the Gaza Strip, noting that the Gaza Reconstruction Committee will be responsible for managing its affairs "as a prelude to the return of the Palestinian Authority."

He added that "Egypt is training Palestinian security personnel who will take over security in the sector during the next phase," stressing that "his country’s plan guarantees the continued presence of the Palestinian people in their land and its reconstruction, calling for its adoption."

Regarding the "peace agreement" (Camp David in 1978) between Egypt and Israel, Sisi considered it "a model to be followed to transform the state of war into peace and prosperity."

The Iraqi president, Abdul Latif Rashid, called for urgent action to rebuild the Gaza Strip and establish a fund for this purpose. He expressed strong support for the plan presented at the summit regarding "the reconstruction of the sector," firmly rejecting any attempts to find an alternative place for the Palestinians outside their land. He warned against what he described as "catastrophic" projects aimed at liquidating the Palestinian cause.

On his part, Mauritanian President Mohamed Ould Ghazouani emphasized the importance of consolidating the ceasefire agreement in Gaza, implementing all its terms and phases, and working toward the adoption of a two-state solution as a fundamental condition for peace in the region.

Jordanian King Abdullah II also rejected Israel's decision to block humanitarian aid from entering Gaza, confirming that it violated international law, as well as any displacement plans for the Palestinians. He declared his support for Gaza's reconstruction plan and "the Palestinian Authority's efforts in reform and preparing an executable vision for Gaza's management, linking it to the West Bank."

Bahrain's King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa expressed his rejection of all projects aimed at displacing Palestinians, emphasizing support for the Egyptian plan for Gaza.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres stated at the summit that "Palestinians breathed a sigh of relief during the first phase of the ceasefire agreement, and we must prevent the resumption of fighting by all means." He stressed the need for a political framework for Gaza's reconstruction based on international law principles, asserting that Gaza should be an integral part of the Palestinian state without any territorial cuts.

The Arab summit was held amidst ongoing conflicts that are draining Arab efforts without providing real protection for Palestinian rights. The Palestinian cause has imposed itself despite attempts to marginalize it, but Arab consensus does not serve it and does not align with the aspirations of the Palestinian people.

In an analytical review of the summit's final statement and its outcomes, observers confirm that the Arab stance is determined based on each country's national interests, with complete alignment with Washington’s policies. Some regimes even set conditions for Gaza’s reconstruction, adopting pretexts that align with the occupation’s goals.

Conversely, it is clear that these regimes are willing to spend billions to expand their influence in other Arab countries, at the expense of the Palestinian cause, according to their interests. They will not act unless directly threatened. Therefore, observers believe that it is better to let the Palestinians decide their own fate.

When the enemy pushes for a temporary deal in which half the prisoners are exchanged for a few weeks of calm and a handful of food trucks, without making any substantial change to the political issue, the status of the war, or the deployment of its forces, this does not solve the war's problem but merely postpones it. It allows the enemy to gain time, secure the return of some of its prisoners, and deprive the resistance of half of its strength. This is what the resistance firmly rejects, both before and after the summit.

The resistance in Gaza has matured politically to deal with all the rapidly changing variables, almost leaping over snakeheads. The Arab summit’s statement is not entirely accepted nor completely rejected. 

Translated by Almasirah English website