Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ upcoming visit to Lebanon cannot be divorced from the broader political landscape in which the Palestinian Authority (PA) is currently operating. Abbas’ diplomatic tour, which began in Moscow and will continue through several Arab and international capitals, is not a ceremonial gesture but rather a deliberate attempt to reframe the PA as a credible and responsible actor at a time when regional dynamics are shifting and multiple initiatives are converging.
The stop in Beirut, in particular, goes beyond traditional diplomatic engagement to address one of the thorniest and most enduring issues in Lebanese-Palestinian relations: the question of weapons within the Palestinian refugee camps. A longtime source of mutual concern and caution, this issue is now being approached through a framework that enjoys consensus among both Lebanese and Palestinian leaders, grounded in a simple but decisive premise: There can be no genuine security outside the authority of the Lebanese state, and no real stability without the exclusive control of arms by the state.
At the same time, efforts to improve ties with the United States, despite the challenges posed by the Trump administration’s unequivocally pro-Israel stance, may be a tactical maneuver designed to reassert the Palestinian presence on the international stage. Effective diplomacy often requires engaging with even the most unbalanced interlocutors when doing so can build alliances or reduce pressure.
In this light, the PA’s attempt to project itself as a moderate and responsible political entity serves not only to broaden its diplomatic appeal but also to challenge the prevailing Israeli narrative that seeks to equate the Palestinian struggle with terrorism. This explains the PA’s clear effort to distinguish its position from that of certain armed factions, particularly on contentious matters like the refugee camps in Lebanon.
This holiday season, give to:
Truth and understanding
The Media Line's intrepid correspondents are in Israel, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Pakistan providing first-person reporting.
They all said they cover it.
We see it.
We report with just one agenda: the truth.
The PA’s renewed focus on this issue is not a matter of settling internal disputes but a strategic decision driven by the need to demonstrate goodwill to its international partners, foremost among them the current US administration. Through this initiative, the PA is recalibrating its message, asserting its independence from groups that reject the concept of state legitimacy, and signaling its willingness to engage the evolving regional reality from a place of responsibility rather than reaction.
While the PA harbors no illusions about a sudden policy reversal from Washington, it recognizes that new geopolitical currents are taking shape that demand engagement rather than passivity. The resurfacing debate over regional accords resembling the Abraham Accords is not occurring in a vacuum; rather, it reflects broader attempts to redraw the regional power map in the aftermath of the Gaza war.
Although these agreements were forged under different circumstances, they are now being positioned as a prerequisite for any post-conflict framework for Gaza, suggesting that the path forward is contingent on reconstructing regional alliances under American stewardship. The PA knows its room to maneuver is limited, but it is determined not to be excluded from the discussions shaping the next phase of the region’s future.
The signals the PA is sending through its latest diplomatic efforts are in line with the aspirations of key decision-making capitals, which are eager to see a Palestinian entity capable of meaningful negotiation and of helping reorder the region’s priorities without resorting to reckless escalation or futile confrontation.
Yet this should not be mistaken for a willingness to accept any arrangement that undermines Palestinian rights or reduces the PA to a mere administrative extension of the Israeli Occupation. Since October 7, 2023, the regional and international calculus has undergone a profound transformation. The assumptions that once governed the Palestinian-Israeli conflict no longer hold, and global perceptions have shifted as well.
Within this altered framework, the PA now faces a pivotal juncture that could be defined as “to be or not to be.” What we are witnessing today is not a betrayal of long-standing principles, but rather a deliberate and thoughtful reassessment of how best to act under new conditions—an effort to craft a forward-looking strategy that balances principled political resistance with deft diplomacy, all while maintaining the inalienable right to establish an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital.
Fadhil al-Manasif (translated by Asaf Zilberfarb)