The Deal of De Facto Reality: Taming Consciousness, Not Securing Rights
NYN | Articles
By Dr. Ameera Fuad Al-Nahal
In a historical moment laden with bloodshed and massacres, the “deal” is being reproduced—not as a solution, but as a tool to reshape Palestinian consciousness. It inverts the equation of rights into negotiable interests. Hebrew media promotes what it calls a “comprehensive agreement” as a triumph of Zionist rationality and unprecedented flexibility. But Palestinians know the truth: what is being proposed is merely an attempt to impose a new de facto reality cloaked in false humanitarian language and promoted through misleading terms designed not to meet the people’s demands, but to domesticate them.
The people of Gaza are not parties in a border dispute. They are an indigenous population facing a continuous genocide—committed in full view of the world and its shameful silence. While massacres are orchestrated on the battlefield, another battle is being waged at the negotiating table using soft power tools: media, psychological pressure, regional blackmail, and conceptual sabotage. In this context, the “deal” becomes not just a political proposal, but a historical test: Will the occupation succeed in turning its military and political predicament into a negotiating opportunity—masking its battlefield failure and beautifying its crimes? Or will Palestinians hold fast to their legitimate rights, demanding gains that reflect their sacrifices, not the desires of mediators?
What we are witnessing today is not a negotiation over the future of a besieged territory, but an attempt to assassinate a nation’s awareness and domesticate a culture of resistance through toxic rhetoric filtering into both Arab and Western media. In this complex scene, it is essential to deconstruct the architecture of this deal, analyze its true objectives, and expose the mechanisms of pressure surrounding it.
The current deal is being marketed as a humanitarian moment, a rescue proposal from the hell of war. But this deceptive attempt to reframe scenes of massacre with soft diplomatic paint does not reflect reality. It hides its colonial core: an effort to solidify the results of aggression and repackage the uprooting of an entire people in a legalistic wrapper that leaves the essence of occupation untouched—granting it preemptive legitimacy.
This deal is not founded on justice. It’s part of a soft colonial design that redefines Palestinian consent—not based on fixed rights, but on what the moment of collective exhaustion will allow. Here arises what can be called “post-massacre management”: a stage in which the occupation seeks to control the public space shaped by bombardment and destruction, turning it into political capital through soft tools such as conditional negotiations, multi-track processes, and pressure from regional and international intermediaries. This deal does not end aggression; it draws its contours and cements a framework of control by reconstructing a “stable” situation that serves Israeli security—not Palestinian dignity. What appears to be a humanitarian solution is, in reality, a political escape route for an occupying force that failed to achieve its objectives—now seeking a mercy-laden exit.
Since the beginning of the deal’s promotion, Hebrew media has been keen to project an image that the occupation has made exceptional concessions and shown great flexibility, suggesting that the ball is now in the Palestinian court. This narrative positioning is far from innocent; it is an extension of the Zionist deception machinery, which transforms every military failure into a symbolic victory. The so-called flexibility does not appear in documents, but is fabricated in newsrooms and discussion panels on Hebrew channels portraying the occupation as a responsible force while demonizing the resistance as an obstacle to humanitarian relief.
In analyzing media tactics during war, Zionist journalist Tal Lev-Ram said, “Messages must precede bombs.” This is exactly what Hebrew media is doing: constructing a psychological narrative that pressures Palestinians internally, making the deal seem like a last chance before catastrophe. This manufactured narrative serves two aims: first, misleading international opinion with false moral rhetoric; and second, subjecting Palestinians to a systematic psychological pressure that paints this moment as a rare opportunity unlikely to return. In this context, “flexibility” becomes a tool of soft blackmail. In truth, it’s about entrenching a low negotiation ceiling under the guise of realism. This is not flexibility; it is aggressive consciousness engineering—surrounding Palestinians with massacres and then offering them conditional lifelines as if they were gifts. It is a moment where the camera merges with the rifle.
What is happening in Gaza is not just genocide. It is a full-scale project to dismantle Palestinian society—psychologically and culturally. The deal now presented is a new tool of soft extermination, replacing the language of blood with that of “dignified living.” It redefines national dignity as temporary human relief. In this context, terms like restoring calm, long-term arrangements, and saving civilians are used to drain the situation of its political substance. In truth, the occupation seeks to entrench a post-massacre reality: a ceasefire that doesn’t end aggression, reconstruction conditioned on silence, and an agreement that freezes resistance under the label of stability. What’s on offer is not a deal to end war, but to neutralize weapons—where liberation is replaced by funding conditions, and peoples are domesticated through a global humanitarian discourse that speaks in the name of victims without holding the oppressor accountable.
Though the scene appears to be Palestinian-Israeli, the negotiation table is crowded with foreign actors playing less-than-innocent roles. At the forefront is Qatar, pushing the initiative through a complex mix of mediation and pressure. Ironically, Doha itself is under U.S. and Israeli pressure to pace negotiations in a way that ensures Israel’s safe exit.
In this framework, CIA Director William Burns’s meetings with Qatari officials in Doha are not just coordination rounds, but crucial instruments of regional pressure. Simultaneously, both Egyptian and Israeli intelligence agencies are working actively to tone down resistance rhetoric and push a formula that defeats no one—but blocks all sides. What is happening behind closed doors is more dangerous than the negotiation itself: siege, corridors, and even aid entry are being used as bargaining chips. This is what could be called compound siege diplomacy, where the victim is forced to negotiate for the right to breathe.
Amid these complexities, there is an urgent need to redefine the national stance—not through slogans, but by understanding that what is happening is a systematic attempt to end resistance as a comprehensive reference for the Palestinian people.
What is required of Palestinians is not mere verbal rejection of the deal, but an understanding that the battle is ongoing—and that negotiations mark a turning point, not the end. The responsibility falls heavily on intellectuals, elites, and resistance media to expose the reality of what’s happening—not with incitement, but with the construction of awareness that safeguards Palestinian decision-making from political dilution. The resistance must be given full space to manage the battle according to its field vision, free from internal pressures that cement a divide between blood and political stance. This is not a time for slogans; it is a decisive moment to define the nature of the future: either dignity worth the price, or a distorted reality imposed under a humanitarian veil that doesn’t even acknowledge the blood of children.
This deal is being presented as a rescue option, when in reality, it is part of a larger Zionist-American re-engineering of the region—aimed at control without cost, normalization without withdrawal. The Palestinian is simply asked to sign off on his life as it is: besieged, oppressed—but calm.
In the face of this equation, it’s not enough to politically reject the deal. We must deconstruct it at the level of consciousness, expose its discourse, and rebuild our understanding of victory—not as a temporary ceasefire, but as full liberation from the terms of occupation, however they’re repackaged. Dismantling the deal in awareness means resisting its narrative from within its own vocabulary: rejecting the reduction of the cause to border crossings, resisting the downgrading of the national dream to mere facilitations, and exposing the rhetoric that tries to convince the victim that signing away half their rights is historical wisdom, and that accepting conditional survival is political realism.
Rebuilding the concept of victory doesn’t just mean resuming resistance. It means reclaiming the true meaning of dignity: that a truce cannot be imposed between two rounds of slaughter, but must be part of a comprehensive project to restore land, agency, and identity. A ceasefire, under continued occupation, aggression, and siege, is merely a new form of war disguised as forced silence.
This is why the real battle is no longer only on Gaza’s borders—but in the collective consciousness of the nation. We must win where we are expected to surrender: in language, in naming, in perception, and in meaning.
—A Palestinian writer on political affairs
