The Palestinian Between Samson, Megiddo, and Jerusalem From Palestinian Steadfastness to the Arab Geostrategic Depth Model

Despite the pain, Gaza’s steadfastness, amid the rubble, tents, and routes of displacement, has offered some of the highest expressions of remaining steadfast on the land. One phrase has taken root, encapsulating the Palestinian relationship with the land: “By God’s covenant, we will not leave.” In Cairo, carrying all its emotional, humanitarian, national, and historical meanings, another phrase resonated through platforms and official positions, moving beyond the limits of a slogan until it became a sovereign position: “Displacement is a red line.” Only a short geographical distance separates the two phrases, yet together they encapsulate a much larger equation. The first expresses the Palestinian will to remain in place. The second expresses a state’s recognition that uprooting the Palestinian from that place does not affect the Palestinian alone, but extends to its own national security, borders, and the future of its region. In Gaza, the Palestinian says: I will not leave. In Cairo, the sovereign position of the Egyptian state rises: Displacement will not be a solution. Here, in my assessment, an equation emerged that deserves to be understood as more than a position associated with the Gaza war. A geostrategic model has emerged. The Palestinian maintained his presence in place, while Egypt constituted the direct geographical and political depth rejecting the transfer of that Palestinian outside his land, and the broader Arab position provided this rejection with political and regional support. In other words, we came to face three interconnected layers: Palestinian steadfastness on the land → Direct Egyptian depth → Broader Arab support. This does not mean that Egypt alone “protected Gaza,” nor that other factors of power were absent from the scene. Rather, geography made Egypt the Arab state most directly connected to the equation of displacement from the Strip. The Palestinian’s continued presence in Gaza therefore shifted from being solely an issue of solidarity to an issue that also intersects with Egyptian national security. But the significance of this model may extend beyond protection from displacement. If geostrategic depth can constrain the ability of overwhelming power to reshape geography unilaterally, then it may also contribute to something broader: the restoration of strategic balance. Such balance is not an end in itself. Its value lies in creating conditions in which politics can recover space from destructive ideological imaginaries, and in which regional stability can be built on respect for the rights of peoples and the sovereignty of states. Here begins the idea I seek to discuss: If this geostrategic depth contributed to making the uprooting of Palestinians from Gaza more complex and costly, can a similar function be constructed to protect Palestinians in the West Bank and Jerusalem — and, through that protection, contribute to a wider regional balance?