Gaza After Washington Meeting: Reconstruction Promises and Complex Field Challenges

The Peace Council meeting, hosted by the US capital Washington on the nineteenth of this month, concluded, leaving behind a state of cautious anticipation among the residents of the Gaza Strip. While Palestinians await tangible results to end the suffering of displacement and destruction, the land still lacks the most basic necessities of life despite major international promises.

Participants in the meeting prepared to allocate a massive budget of up to 17 billion dollars as part of a comprehensive plan to rebuild what the war destroyed in the Strip. The announcement also included the start of rehabilitating a new police force, but these steps did not adequately address the outstanding issues that directly affect the daily lives of the residents.

Political analysts believe that the Peace Council's agenda focused heavily on the issue of disarming the resistance, overlooking the requirements for ending the war and the steps required from the Israeli side. This approach raised concerns about marginalizing fundamental humanitarian and political issues in favor of focusing on security arrangements that serve a specific vision.

Sources reported that Palestine was a "present absentee" at the meeting, as direct references to the Palestinian state were absent, and representation was limited to the administrative aspects of the Strip. The Palestinian street demands the necessity of transforming these meetings into real pressure that prevents repeated ceasefire violations by the occupation army.

Urgent popular demands include forcing the occupation to withdraw from about 56% of the Gaza Strip's area, to enable displaced persons to return to their areas. Observers also stress the need for immediate commencement of reconstruction operations away from political conditions that may hinder saving the deteriorating humanitarian situation.

Followers point out that the Peace Council, formed under Security Council Resolution (2803), faces criticism regarding the legitimacy of the membership of parties accused of committing genocide crimes. Palestinians believe that the primary mission of the Council should be to stop genocide in its comprehensive sense, including ending the starvation and siege imposed on the population.

In a related context, sources confirmed that the Council's decisions did not address fundamental issues such as the humiliation of travelers through crossings and the continuation of field violations. The question remains about how to deal with the security file in the presence of thousands of former security personnel who are still on duty in Gaza.

Official reports monitoring violations since the start of the ceasefire agreement last October indicate that the occupation committed more than 1800 various violations. These aggressions, which included shelling and incursions, resulted in the martyrdom of hundreds and the injury of thousands, putting the credibility of international agreements at stake.

As for humanitarian aid, the occupation authorities continue to obstruct the entry of trucks, with the daily average entry not exceeding 259 trucks. This quantity represents only about 43% of the agreed-upon needs, exacerbating the food and medicine crisis within displacement centers and destroyed neighborhoods.

Regarding the movement of individuals, the Rafah crossing recorded low numbers of travelers since its reopening in February, with a compliance rate not exceeding 40%. This systematic restriction on the movement of Palestinians increases popular frustration with the outcomes of international meetings that do not reflect an improvement in their living reality.

Writers and analysts warn against attempts to obscure Palestinian identity through the formation of administrative committees that do not possess real political powers. Also, the failure to disclose the dates of the Israeli army's withdrawal from the "Yellow Line" raises doubts about the occupation's intentions to remain for longer periods within the Strip's territories.

The coming days represent a real test for implementing what was announced regarding the deployment of the international "stabilization force" and the actual start of reconstruction. Some believe that linking reconstruction to disarmament places Palestinians in a difficult equation aimed at trading basic needs for political and security positions.

Experts propose three possible paths to deal with these pressures, ranging from rejection and confrontation that may restart military operations, or calculated political bargaining. The third path is waiting, which may lead to the exhaustion of internal forces and the rise of non-national parties to manage the scene.

Ultimately, the residents of Gaza remain the weakest link in these international tug-of-wars, as they aspire to real independence and a sovereign state. The recognition that the Palestinian issue is a matter of self-determination, not just a humanitarian crisis, remains the fundamental demand that transcends all promises of funding and reconstruction.

Data indicates a shift in the management of the conflict in Gaza to a hybrid warfare model based on reconstruction and international security legitimacy as tools of pressure.