Is there a unified national vision to stop the genocide?

The genocidal government in Tel Aviv views the continuation of the war as a gateway to pursuing plans for internment and starvation camps, a prelude to mass transfer, and a political refuge for its continued rule. With Washington's obstruction of international legal tools and frameworks, it pays little attention to shifting international positions, which can no longer remain silent regarding the ongoing genocide and unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe in modern times. This government has also proven indifferent to the issue of Israeli detainees as a means to stop the war.

On the other hand, the resistance movements, especially Hamas, which is leading the confrontation and negotiations to end the war, cannot accept proposals presented to them that do not stipulate, or at least do not guarantee, a ceasefire. They are aware of the intentions and plans of the Tel Aviv government, which violated the January agreement by refusing to move to its second phase, which involves negotiations for a permanent ceasefire.

Hamas chose to respond positively to Witkoff's paper, which was laden with observations and details, all of which were correct. As expected, Netanyahu viewed it as a rejection of the proposal, which had been designed by his minister, Dermer, during his recent visit to Washington. However, Netanyahu did not formally accept the proposal until Hamas responded. Witkoff considered Hamas's response completely unacceptable, adding that the war could not be stopped without resolving the issue of Hamas relinquishing power and disarming it.

Netanyahu, who returned to negotiations under pressure from the Trump administration, imposed the equation of negotiating under rolling fire, known as "Gideon's Chariots." With this, he is setting the stage for crowding people in, allowing them to be displaced under the pressure of starvation. He is also pursuing negotiations to force the resistance to surrender, seeking to uproot it, as he constantly repeats. This is not only by disarming it, but also by forcing the Palestinian people to accept the fait accompli that will enable them to declare victory.

Meanwhile, amidst the roar of artillery in Gaza, plans for annexation, settlement, and Judaization continue on a large scale across the West Bank, including Jerusalem, in accordance with what has become known as the "decisive plan." Terrorist settler militias are being unleashed, armed and organized by official decisions of the occupation government, while the Palestinian, Arab, and international response has not gone beyond issuing statements of condemnation and denunciation.

Faced with this dilemma in all its dimensions, the most dangerous of which is the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza and the threat of subsequent displacement from it and the West Bank, national responsibility requires the exercise of reason without abandoning the Palestinian people's demands to halt the genocide, fully withdraw from the Gaza Strip, expand humanitarian aid to its people, begin providing shelter, provide hope for the possibility of thwarting displacement plans, and embark on reconstruction. The question is: How can we move toward this?

Perhaps, and it is still possible, as part of its positive response to Witkoff's risky and cautionary paper, Hamas should have included in its response that, in the absence of any guarantees, and given the clarity of Netanyahu's objectives in negotiating with it regarding how to uproot it, and to affirm the seriousness of its declared positions, that, based on its commitment to reunifying the two parts of the homeland, and the requirement for this to entail relinquishing control of the Gaza Strip, it would hand over the Gaza Strip file, with all its components and future, as an integral part of the national entity, to an independent, trustworthy, and empowered national unity government to complete the negotiations in a manner that guarantees the fulfillment of the demands of the national consensus. With the exception of Netanyahu, this position would not be opposed by anyone, especially since it presents a national and realistic vision for what has become known as "the day after."

This is in addition to the fact that such a transitional government's top priority, in addition to stopping the war, will be confronting the annexation plans in the West Bank, based on national consensus and popular confidence that will enable it to address the world, not only to stop the war, rebuild the Gaza Strip, prevent displacement, and confront settlement and settlement terrorism, but also to capitalize on the shifts in international positions towards ending the occupation and determining the fate of our people on their homeland; so that the enormous sacrifices made by our people are not blown away by the strong winds, as we are no longer able, without restoring our unity and unifying our positions, to confront them.