What Will The Future Hold For Palestine in 2025?

In 2024, there were a host of startling developments occurring in the Middle East and the wider world that impacted Palestine, most of them unforeseen 12 months ago: the continuation of the unrelenting Israeli genocide in Gaza, the battlefield defeat of Hezbollah and the devastation in Lebanon, the overthrow of Bashar Assad in Syria, the isolation of Iran, the election of Donald Trump, and a series of seminal rulings by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC).

All of these seismic events make the assignment of imagining what Palestine’s future will be in 2025 a precarious task. Yet, with caution thrown to the wind, we can make some educated guesses on six leading features.


Leading scenarios for Palestine’s future

Donald Trump’s return to the US presidency will certainly encourage Israel’s accelerating subjugation of the Palestinians. His major appointments on the Middle East – including his secretary of state, his ambassador to Israel, and his two regional envoys – are all diplomatic gifts to Israel’s far-right nationalist government. His political instincts are all about respecting the strong and disparaging the weak. The only restraint that Trump may impose on Israel would result from his quest for a substantive deal with Saudi Arabia, which is publicly demanding a credible path to Palestinian statehood.

A genuine Palestinian state is further away than ever. In 2025, more Palestinian land will be confiscated, more illegal Israeli settlements will be built, and settler violence, already at record levels, will only intensify. While Trump might restrict Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from formally annexing parts of the West Bank, de facto Israeli annexation will continue unabated. The ability of the Palestinian Authority to shape events in its favor will likely shrink even further. As for the comatose peace process, the Palestinians long ago arrived at a traffic intersection, and the red light never changed. It remains red today, its only color.

The genocidal war on Gaza will finally end with a formal ceasefire, the release of Israeli hostages, and some Palestinian detainees. However, the unimaginable toll of deaths and suffering among the Palestinian civilians in Gaza will continue, as starvation, infectious diseases, a decimated economy, and a devastated landscape afflict the population. Hamas won’t be completely defeated, but it has suffered a grievous blow in the short run. Israel will push hard to build settlements in the north and for clan warlords to run the rest of Gaza, which Trump might allow. Another great test will be the raising of the $40-60 billion needed for the reconstruction of Gaza; this will create tension between Trump and his Gulf states allies, who will resist paying the lion’s share of the consequences of a war they opposed.

Will the international community face the Palestine issue in 2025?

Respecting Palestine, the United Nations will face some of its most perilous challenges in 2025. The one-year deadline set by the General Assembly for Israel to completely end its occupation of Palestine arrives next September, with Israel and the US committed to defying the obligation. In addition, Israel – with Trump’s backing – is seeking to dismantle UNRWA, the UN agency that delivers education, health, and social services to Palestinian refugees in the Levant. The challenge for Europe and the Arab world will be whether they will defend the UN, its core commitment to successfully resolving the oldest item on its political agenda (Palestine), and the preservation of its largest agency.

Israel’s diplomatic isolation will continue, even as its relationship with its superpower patron will deepen. Its outlier status at the United Nations – particularly at the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council – will see even more lopsided votes against its 57-year-old occupation, its denial of Palestinian self-determination, and its abuse of international law. The arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court against Benjamin Netanyahu and his former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant will make him politically radioactive, with heads of state and government that have signed the 1998 Rome Statute refusing to meet him. Pressure will grow within Europe to rethink various trade and cooperation agreements with Israel as a reaction to the war and its horrendous humanitarian consequences.


Role of international law more important for Palestine than ever

The role of international law in pronouncing on the question of Palestine will become even more momentous in 2025. After the signature rulings by the ICJ and the ICC in 2024, we are likely to see a growing movement to insist upon a rights-based approach to peacemaking in Palestine, replacing the discredited (but still very much alive) realpolitik approach of the Oslo process.

The momentum created by the recent genocide reports by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch will continue to echo through UN corridors and foreign ministries. But there are also headwinds: Republicans in the US Senate are determined to sanction the ICC for issuing the arrest warrant against Netanyahu, meaning that the viability of the court will require a stout defense by the 124 members of the Rome Statute, particularly from Europe.

As we learned from the past year, there will almost certainly be unexpected surprises in 2025. And while there will continue to be dark times for the Palestinians in the year ahead, the war in Gaza has also sparked a global movement of solidarity – particularly among the young – that will continue to inspire courageous thinking and bold acts. Its lasting impact should never be underestimated.

Michael Lynk he author is a professor emeritus of law at Western University, London, Ontario, Canada. He served as the 7th United Nations special rapporteur for human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory between 2016 and 2022. Opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Anadolu’s editorial policy.

CrossFireArabia

CrossFireArabia

Dr. Marwan Asmar holds a PhD from Leeds University and is a freelance writer specializing on the Middle East. He has worked as a journalist since the early 1990s in Jordan and the Gulf countries, and been widely published, including at Albawaba, Gulf News, Al Ghad, World Press Review and others.

Related Posts

Mad President and Street Brawl

By Dr Khairi Janbek

People from my generation remember a pop group which used to sing a song called the lunatics have taken over the asylum. Now, they were not themselves lunatics but merely performing for their audience and their fans, in the same manner. Neither Trump nor his band wagon are necessarily a bunch of thugs, but they are merely performing for their fans and audience.

However one cannot find any reason for world leaders to go to the Oval Office in order to provide US president Donald Trump with the material to entertain his fans and audience.

He ambushed King Abdullah of Jordan with the entry of journalists when that was not supposed to happen in order to market his absurd Gaza plan, president Emmanuel Macron of France provided him with the opportunity of posturing as an antagonist to the EU, prime minister Keir Starmer provided him with the opportunity of showing what Britain was groveling for – a free trade agreement and a role of being a bridge between the US and EU.

Ironically however, the worst of the Trump performance was left for Volodymr Zelensky, though his trip was the only one that made sense.

Zelensky for all intents and purposes, went to sign an agreement to hand the resources of Ukraine to America, but suddenly the situation deteriorated to almost a street brawl. Why? The whole thing was agreed upon by both sides from the start.

Of course, Zelensky expected a protection commitment from the USA in exchange for the mineral resources, but in fairness, without an explicit US commitment protection would have been implicitly there since supposedly, American companies and workers would be working in Ukraine, so what has actually happened to derail the whole agreement?

Of course, any such agreement with potential implicit US protection of Ukraine, is totally against Russian interests, especially according to some speculation, Putin has the intention to occupy the whole of Ukraine, therefore the talk in the corridors, is that Putin has offered Trump the exploitation of Ukrainian resources in the occupied territories of Russia, which in effect sabotaged the minerals agreement between US and Ukraine, and rescued Trump from having to give security guarantees; albeit implicit to Ukraine.

Now, at the peril of repeating the usual cliche of the EU facing a crossroad on its path, something which had happened frequently, this time it’s in fact different. The truth is that the US has been distancing itself from the EU at least from the days of president Obama, but the difference now is that the EU is being attacked by both the US and Russia, and finds itself as the large leviathan with clay feet unable to move.

The dilemma of differences within the EU are prominent, with full support for Ukraine, with some having lukewarm support, while some with no support at all, moreover the NATO future is hanging in the balance, to keep or not to keep that is the question, but what is the alternative? A European army which is yet to crystallize as an idea, or just drop all the effort?

What it boils down to now, is the idea of leadership of the “Free World”, certainly this notion has always been a nebulous idea, still, the US stood by it and projected its image accordingly, but now, it seems the US is not interested in world affairs except in what it can exploit and use and abuse for its own interests, which means, who will be the new leader of the Free World?

In fact, is there a need for a leader of the free world assuming that there is such a world? If the EU has any such pretensions, then big changes are necessary within its membership as it must be realized the road is very long for such an objective. But in the mean time, we have to settle for the theory of the mad president, ie. Trump would do anything, and peace by force with an oxymoron.

Dr Janbek is a Jordanian writer based in Paris.

Continue reading
Putting The Cart Before The Horse

With the approach of the Cairo Summit to discuss the Palestinian issue and the reconstruction of Gaza, Arab leaders find themselves facing three main scenarios to make decisive decisions that determine the future of Gaza and the fate of the Palestinians the day after the cessation of the war. The dilemma is no longer limited to reconstruction only but also includes the political and administrative arrangements that ensure the stability of the sector and prevent the recurrence of the devastating conflict.

From the American side, it seems that the Trump administration is adopting a more stringent approach, as it recently stated the necessity of displacing Palestinians from Gaza as a “solution” to ensure regional security, which reflects its traditional position biased towards Israel and complicates any Arab efforts to find an independent solution for the sector.

 This American position raises great concerns in Arab and international circles, given the disastrous consequences it carries for the Palestinians and the entire region, especially in light of the widespread international rejection of forced displacement policies.

The first scenario involves adopting a comprehensive regional solution led by Arabs, aiming to place Gaza under temporary Arab administration, which may include Egypt and perhaps some Gulf states, in coordination with the Palestinian Authority. In this scenario, a transitional body would be established to administer the Strip, which would undertake reconstruction operations, organize basic services, and reorganize the security situation in a way that prevents the recurrence of the conflict. 

This body could also work to pave the way for comprehensive Palestinian elections to be held later, so that Gaza would be part of a unified Palestinian entity. 

This temporary administration would work to restructure institutions within the Strip, ensure the regular provision of health and education services, and rehabilitate infrastructure damaged by the war. It would also undertake the tasks of securing the crossings and ensuring the flow of humanitarian aid, while imposing strict control to prevent the infiltration of any elements that might contribute to destabilization. 

It is expected that the contributing Arab states would have different roles, as Egypt could handle security aspects, while the Gulf states would contribute to financing and reconstruction. This option requires Arab and international consensus, as well as internal Palestinian acceptance, which may be difficult in light of the differences between the factions. 

Israel may not view this scenario favorably, as it strengthens the Arab role in Gaza and limits its influence there. In addition, the success of this scenario depends on the Arabs’ ability to impose a unified vision and work to reduce external interventions that may hinder this solution. Ultimately, this scenario remains a realistic option, but it is fraught with challenges that require active diplomacy and strong political will.

As for the second scenario, it is to support the restructuring of the Palestinian Authority and grant it full control over Gaza after reaching internal understandings with the various factions, including Hamas. In this framework, the security services are integrated into a unified framework under the supervision of the Authority, and the administrative institutions are unified, with an Arab and international commitment to provide financial and logistical support to ensure the success of this transition.

One of the main pillars of this scenario is rebuilding trust between the various Palestinian factions, which requires intensive efforts from regional and international mediators, especially Egypt and the United Nations. This proposal also requires providing guarantees that the faction leaders will not be targeted or excluded from the political scene, which necessitates establishing a joint governance mechanism for a transitional period.

This scenario depends primarily on the ability of the Palestinian Authority to impose its effective control over the Strip, which is doubtful, especially in light of the deep differences between the West Bank and Gaza, and the lack of trust between the Palestinian parties. 

In addition, Hamas’s acceptance of this proposal may be conditional on effective participation in governance, which may not be acceptable to Israel or some regional powers. Moreover, this solution faces obstacles related to the extent of the international community’s ability to commit to funding reconstruction, and to ensuring that Israel does not obstruct any efforts aimed at strengthening the Palestinian Authority’s control over the Strip.

The third scenario, which may be the most complex, is to impose an international solution under the auspices of the United Nations, whereby international peacekeeping forces are deployed to oversee the administration of Gaza for a transitional period, during which the Strip is rebuilt, and the political conditions are prepared to find a comprehensive Palestinian settlement. 

In this scenario, the infrastructure is rehabilitated, security guarantees are provided to prevent the outbreak of new confrontations, while the way is opened for an internal Palestinian dialogue under international auspices to reach an agreement on the future of governance in Gaza. 

This scenario also includes international supervision of the rehabilitation of civilian institutions in Gaza, ensuring the distribution of aid, and preventing the use of resources in any military activities that may lead to a renewal of the conflict. 

It could also contribute to reactivating the peace process between the Palestinians and the Israelis through an international mechanism that ensures the implementation of any understandings reached. 

However, this option faces several obstacles, most notably the rejection by some Palestinian forces of any direct international intervention in Palestinian affairs, and Israel may refuse to deploy international forces near its borders, preferring to keep Gaza under siege or in a state of instability that keeps it weak and unable to pose a security threat. 

Moreover, any international intervention will require consensus among the major powers, which may be difficult to achieve in light of global political tensions. Each of these scenarios carries its own challenges, and the optimal choice remains linked to the extent of the Arabs’ ability to unify their positions and make bold decisions that go beyond narrow political calculations. 

The main challenge lies in reaching a solution that spares Gaza further destruction, establishes a new phase of stability and development, and ensures that the Palestinian issue is not exploited in regional conflicts. The question remains: Will the Cairo Summit be able to overcome Arab differences and present a unified vision to save Gaza and its future?

Hasan Dajah is professor of Strategic Studies at Al-Hussein Bin Talal University

Continue reading

You Missed

Masafer Yatta – A Travesty of Justice

Masafer Yatta – A Travesty of Justice

Bahrain Revives Its Pearling Legacy

Bahrain Revives Its Pearling Legacy

Glasgow Cinema Boycotts Coca-Cola

Glasgow Cinema Boycotts Coca-Cola

61 Palestinians Killed in Israeli Jails

61 Palestinians Killed in Israeli Jails

Israel Starves Gaza For Politics

Israel Starves Gaza For Politics

Israel’s Aid Blockage…Collective Punishment

Israel’s Aid Blockage…Collective Punishment