The "Peace Council" proposed by Trump for the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip and achieving stability was announced amidst significant political and media buzz. However, in reality, it is closer to a fragile and deceptive political experiment that does not seek to address the roots of the conflict, but rather to temporarily contain it according to the interests of the American administration, the Israelis, and some Arab regimes. The momentum gained by the Council did not stem from international legitimacy or Palestinian-Arab-international consensus, but rather from Trump's personality and his media outbursts, and from the desire of Arab and international parties to absorb his impulsiveness to achieve immediate interests, most notably stopping the Israeli aggression and saving civilians from the crushing humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, with discussions about Palestinian rights and sovereignty postponed to the future. This reliance on a postponed solution carries significant danger, as it leaves Gaza vulnerable to Israeli hegemony and undermines the Palestinian people's ability to exercise their right to self-determination, while the Council is used as a facade to manage the crisis instead of solving it.
The Council suffers from astonishing structural fragility from the moment of its definition, as it transformed from a transitional administrative body for the reconstruction of Gaza into a loose international entity for conflict resolution, without any clear link to the Palestinian issue, and without any international guarantees or Palestinian legitimacy. This transformation reinforced the impression that the Council is merely a flexible political tool in Trump's hands, where everything is subject to his mood and individual powers, and he can amend memberships and decisions as he wishes, as if he were a sole ruler, not the head of a respected international administration. At the same time, the Israeli occupation appears as an active partner in "peace-making," while the Palestinian people are excluded from any decision-making position, and their right to freedom and sovereignty is reduced to a security and economic file whose details are managed from above, as if justice is merely a secondary matter to be addressed later.
And if we look at the Council from a more dangerous and malicious angle, it turns into a tool to divert attention from the catastrophe that befell Gaza, by flooding the scene with an endless series of committees, deliberations, projects, plans, and conferences on the management and reconstruction of the Strip. In this context, time itself becomes a political tool, where international and local energy is drained in managing the form instead of addressing the essence, and the Palestinian people are left to live in a painful state of waiting, while the idea of a real solution gradually fades, and the interest of world powers in the issue diminishes until Gaza becomes merely an area where the daily struggle for survival is managed, not a political future.
Arab countries and the Palestinian Authority, despite their keenness to stop the war and save people, find themselves forced to accept a temporary reality that is completely different from their national aspirations. Europeans will not provide real support, and international donors have not yet imposed their conditions, but in the course of work, they will be observers, and they will seek to ensure the inclusion of the rights and sovereignty of the Palestinian people in any reconstruction plan. If these rights are ignored, the Council will collapse in its current form or in its vision that relies on investment and reconstruction independently of the Palestinian people and their aspirations.
Even on the ground, humanitarian and relief projects may succeed in improving some living conditions or limited rehabilitation of infrastructure, but they are completely incapable of imposing a complete Israeli withdrawal or disarming the resistance, because these issues are not resolved by transitional administrations or economic projects, but through a real political solution that recognizes the sovereign rights of the Palestinian people.
The most dangerous thing is the reduction of the Palestinian issue to the management of the economic and security crisis, and the transformation of the people's tragedy into investment projects without a political horizon. Palestine has not yet achieved its full independence, but the Palestinian people always possess sovereignty and rights that cannot be ignored or confiscated, and their issue cannot be addressed by merely reconstructing the form, without addressing the origin of the occupation and control. Turning the humanitarian tragedy into a technical file for managing Gaza and postponing justice in the name of realism does not create peace, but rather postpones the explosion, and makes the Council, at best, merely a "lame duck," possessing an official image and formal tasks, but lacking the ability, and even the will, to open the way for a real solution that recognizes the rights and sovereignty of Palestinians.
Through the "Peace Council," America is trying to extricate Israel from the predicament it fell into after the war, and to try to stop the moral bleeding it is experiencing internationally and even domestically in the United States. The Council presents an image of international efforts for reconstruction and stability, but in reality, it is a tool for managing impressions and alleviating pressure on Israel, while postponing the addressing of Palestinian rights and sovereignty, which allows the American administration to appear in a humanitarian and political position, without challenging the interests of its strategic ally.
In my estimation, after all this, the Council will fail, and I do not see any real ingredients for its success on the ground, although it may achieve hidden goals for those who established it, especially those related to controlling the international administration of reconstruction and directing it according to their interests.
Ultimately, the "Peace Council" appears as a temporary tool, aimed at managing international impressions and alleviating popular anger, more than a means to achieve a just peace. It is a council based on power and interest, not on justice and right, and over time it may turn into a facade to hide the catastrophe that befell Gaza, while the Palestinian people continue to face occupation and marginalization policies. Any formal or interim achievement will not change the essence of reality, and will not prevent the crisis from exploding again, because peoples possess sovereignty that cannot be negotiated, even in the absence of an independent state, and recognizing this right is the only step towards any real and sustainable solution.
شارك برأيك
Peace Council: A Lame Duck for Managing the Gaza Tragedy