“If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”
A saying attributed to Harry Truman, the 33rd President of the United States. It aptly describes what is being “cooked” today for the Palestinians and their future. The UN Security Council has become the staging ground—not as a reference for binding executive measures, but as a political umbrella to pass these projects. They are carefully woven first within American and Israeli decision-making circles, then presented to mediators; afterwards the opinions of official Palestinian representatives are sampled, and finally the rulers of their external realities are discreetly probed—sometimes from afar, sometimes through under-the-table communications that may eventually rise to overt, above-the-table contacts.
This entire process results in repeated rounds of re-shaping, adding phrases and removing others, while the core remains unchanged: a set of “facts on the ground” imposed by the gravity of a catastrophe unprecedented in Palestinian history. Its details no longer need further elaboration—only the threat of an even worse phase yet to come.
Meanwhile, Arab media studios race to analyze the draft resolution circulating in political corridors. It is but one of twenty branches of Donald Trump’s grand design of illusions and wish-making. The draft swings left and right—angering some, pleasing others—only to anger those it pleased and please those it angered. Amid this swirl, many remain dissatisfied, for domination over a “gold-laying” issue like Palestine comes with a price.
Some see opportunities for bargaining in distant conflicts. Ukraine, ablaze a year before Gaza, requires a Russian counter-project more sympathetic to Palestinians. China’s entangled interests with the United States demand louder warnings—including the threat of stopping everything in support of the Russian draft—unless backstage concessions are reached. This is the logic guiding events so far.
Now comes the first practical step of Trump’s plan: forming an international support force for “security and stability.” Like the tale of the yellow cow, endless debates follow—its structure, mandate, size, equipment, deployment, and chain of authority—awaiting a decision that may come within hours, or days, or weeks. Someone may decide to “leave the kitchen” unable to bear the rising heat, overturning the table under the pretext that the dish will not suit the palate of those expected to consume it.
Yet the final word on whether this plan sees the light remains exclusively Israeli. The side that exercises military control and determines what enters and exits Gaza will ultimately dictate every ongoing discussion. Anyone who believes otherwise is deluded, no matter how much misleading media suggests the contrary.
Leaks of a supposed upcoming meeting between Wietzkov and Khalil al-Hayya, and the staged “Israeli discontent,” are no coincidence. But in reality, such a meeting changes nothing. Netanyahu has already coordinated it. For those with short memories, Wietzkov has played such roles before—only to ultimately blame Hamas entirely for the failure of negotiations, a conclusion pre-arranged with Netanyahu. Otherwise, the United States and the Trump administration would have had to shed their skin and shift their strategic alliances—something that has never happened and never will.
A familiar symphony is played about “reforms” within the Palestinian Authority. These reforms may grant it the “honor” of sharing governance in Gaza or open the path toward political negotiations for a Palestinian state. But who decides the scope and depth of these reforms? If it is Donald Trump, they might as well be written on ice—his positions melt within hours. If it is Netanyahu, then say no more: thirty years in power have shown his unmatched ability to deceive the world. In his political imagination, the Palestinian people simply do not exist. He even introduced a new term into political discourse—“diplomatic terrorism”—branding the most anti-violence leader on earth (the Palestinian president) as a practitioner of terrorism.
All players now know that Gaza is the last remaining enclave of Muslim Brotherhood influence. Hamas will never relinquish it under any circumstances, nor surrender its weapons. It is betting on time; if time fails, it prefers clinging to the remnants of its rule within the devastated, densely populated zones inside the “yellow line.” As for the areas beyond it, possibly under Israeli or international control, Hamas is prepared to accept them if it ensures its continued status as a player. The model of Ahmed al-Shar’a—whose head is wanted by the United States but is now perfumed by the American president—tempts them. They all emerged from the same ideological cloak, forgetting one decisive difference: Shar’a never raised a weapon against Israel. Without that, the door to American favor remains locked—especially after the events of October 7.
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman will soon visit the United States. His country has taken the clearest stance regarding the outcomes of Trump’s plan, insisting on the Palestinian Authority’s participation in all post-war arrangements in Gaza, and affirming, openly and unequivocally, that the path to normalization with Israel begins with establishing a Palestinian state. For Palestinians, this remains the most trustworthy position among all mediators.
In conclusion:
The most fitting expression for the current reality is: “They are learning veterinary medicine on the donkeys of al-Noor.” This is the condition of Donald Trump—the chief veterinarian—and his team. In their councils, great issues are handled like children’s games: noise without insight, confidence without knowledge, boldness without tools. Instead of drawing lessons from the clear springs of history, they rush toward the darkness of mirages—seeking advice from those who know nothing, consulting those who have never tasted defeat or understood the bitterness of conflict.
They experiment with international security on a table of shallow trials, turning political decisions into a neglected barn where amateurs roam, dressing wounds they cannot gauge, stitching them with threads weaker than a spider’s web. Whoever learns veterinary medicine on the donkeys of al-Noor cannot heal a wound bleeding for more than a century.
تعليقات
إرسال تعليق