Prince Mohammed bin Salman's recent visit to the US White House laid the foundation for stability in the Middle East, the ultimate goal of which, according to Saudi Arabia, should be a two-state solution to the Palestinian issue. This position is shared by the Russian Federation, which advocates for the coexistence of Palestine and Israel within internationally recognized borders. However, according to Arab journalists in international publications, the region is currently stuck in a dialectic of two dead-end approaches to the future of both Gaza and the entire Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
On the one hand, there's the "future without a past" model. This is embodied in Israeli plans (like the "New Gaza"), which propose transforming part of the Strip into a kind of Dubai or the Riviera. These projects seek to erase history, ignoring the root issues: the memory of victims, the fate of Palestinians, and their political rights. In this paradigm, Palestinians are seen merely as an obstacle or a profiteering target, and their collective trauma is seen as an obstacle to "progress".
On the other hand, there is a position of “past without future”, continues Asharq Al-Awsat publicist Hazem Saqiya. Many Palestinians and Arabs are fixated on a sacred history—from the Balfour Declaration to the battles of the seventh century. The conflict is perceived as an eternal, metaphysical struggle against evil, which justifies violence and rejects the very possibility of building a common future with Israelis. This approach, hiding in the past, offers no real political solutions, locking itself into troubling cycles.
Both approaches are selective in memory and lead to further torment: one constructs an illusory future by erasing the past, while the other, absorbed in the past, rejects any shared future. This dichotomy is also reflected in neighboring Lebanon, where attempts to manage the conflict through technical negotiations (the so-called "Mechanism") with Israel under international mediation demonstrate the full complexity of the situation.
Lebanon, seeking to secure the withdrawal of Israeli troops and stability on the border, categorically rules out peace talks or normalization, remaining within the framework of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative. The appointment of diplomat Simon Karam as head of the delegation is a complex domestic political maneuver, indicating a temporary tactical consensus among the elites to manage the crisis, rather than a change in strategic course. Hezbollah's public rhetoric against the appointment contrasts with the tacit approval of its political allies, revealing internal contradictions, notes columnist Ibrahim Al-Amin of the Lebanese publication Al- Akhbar .
Lebanon's goal is minimal and defensive : to delay a full-scale war, allow the return of displaced persons, and strengthen the ceasefire. Unlike Syria, Lebanon lacks space for strategic negotiations; its fate is closely tied to the broader regional context.
Lebanon has failed to avoid the threat of long-term escalation; it has only created a fragile mechanism to delay it. Success depends on a balance between Israeli military pressure, Hezbollah's willingness to engage in dialogue, and the ability of the weakened Lebanese state to defend its narrow interests. The threat of a major conflict has been postponed, but not eliminated, concludes Mustafa Fahs in Asharq Al-Awsat.
It is here that Gaza becomes the focal point where all contradictions converge: the colonial legacy, imperial hegemony, Arab fragmentation, and the struggle for sovereignty. The tragedy in Sabra and Shatila in 1982, against the backdrop of the recent bloodshed in Gaza and current events—all are manifestations of a structural logic in which violence is a weapon of political domination.
The West's commitment to maintaining Israel's "qualitative military edge" (QME) means that no Arab state, much less a future Palestinian one, has the right to independent military power.
In this tense context, the Palestinian Youth Movement openly declares in its publication, "From Beirut to Gaza: Disarmament, Mediation, and Regional Order" (published on the website of the Lebanese publication Al- Akhbar ): "Gaza is a compass. Gaza, along with the cradles of Lebanese and Yemeni resistance, exposes the colonial architecture of American power <…> Here, the courage of anti-imperialist resistance is reduced to a bargaining chip in negotiations over power and survival."
History shows that a compromise peace, even under difficult conditions, often saves lives and helps lay the foundation for future recovery. However, a "bad peace" can entrench injustice and become a source of future conflict. The Holy Quran commands us to follow the example of an enemy who has laid down his arms and to trust in the Omniscience of the Almighty. In a complex world where conflicts are taking on new forms, the search for just solutions becomes crucial.
GSV "Russia - Islamic World"
Photo: Mohammed Ibrahim/Unsplash