In a reading published in the Israeli newspaper “Maariv,” Moshe Elad presented an analysis and an Israeli interpretation of the repercussions of recent events in Syria, the advance of Syrian forces in northern Syria, the Syrian forces' control over oil and gas fields, and their internal and regional implications. Elad is an Israeli academic, a lecturer at the Western Galilee Academic College, and a former colonel in the Israeli army. He is known for his political and strategic analyses of Middle Eastern affairs, which gives his reading a dimension that reflects the Israeli security establishment's vision and its deep concerns about the ongoing transformations in the Syrian arena.
The Israeli reading presented by Moshe Elad regarding the Syrian forces' control over oil and gas fields attempts to appear descriptive and realistic, but at its core, it is an anxious reading charged with Israeli strategic concerns more than it is a neutral analysis of an internal Syrian field development. The language used reveals a deep fear of the return of the Syrian state with its central function, not merely a change in control maps or a decline in the influence of one actor or another.
Talking about what happened as “an event of deep regional significance” is not an innocent description but an implicit acknowledgment that one of the pillars of the project to dismantle the Syrian state since 2011 is being shaken, and that control over energy means restoring one of the nerves of sovereignty without which a modern state cannot exist. Israel, which has long bet on Syria remaining a weakened, fragmented state without resources, realizes that oil and gas are not just economic income but a political condition for rebuilding the center, imposing national decisions, and restoring regional negotiation tools.
What is striking in Elad's reading is his insistence on portraying the state's recovery of its resources as a “dangerous” act threatening minorities, while deliberately ignoring the fact that the disintegration of the state and the spread of armed entities is what historically opened the door to massacres and civil strife. The Syrian experience during the war years proved that areas outside state authority were neither safer nor more stable, but rather open arenas for external intervention, tribal fighting, and direct American and Turkish hegemony.
As for attributing the responsibility for the “collapse of the Rojava project” and the David corridor, which Israel dreamed of, to the control of the oil fields, it reveals the analysis's bias rather than its objectivity, because this project, since its inception, was not based on the right to self-determination as much as it was based on a security and military function linked to the American presence and the proxy war against ISIS. When Elad talks about stripping the economic basis of self-rule, he ignores the fact that these resources were never owned by a specific local power but rather a Syrian national wealth that was utilized in the context of an international war against the Syrian state.
In this context, Israeli concern appears regarding the Arab tribes abandoning the Kurdish alliance, not as a concern for stability but as a fear of the collapse of one of the indirect administration patterns that allowed eastern Syria to remain outside the comprehensive national equation. For Tel Aviv and Washington, tribes are not a social actor with national interests but a card that can be used or lost in the game of influence.
As for talking about “Washington's dilemma,” it is in reality a description of the American exposure, as it has become clear that the United States is no longer willing or able to engage in an open conflict to maintain post-ISIS arrangements, and that the “fire separation” policy is not a strategy as much as it is a gradual withdrawal management and an attempt to save face, which explains the feeling of local allies, especially the SDF forces, that they are facing a repetition of American abandonment scenarios from Afghanistan to northern Iraq previously.
At the core of the Israeli reading, the clearest contradiction appears when Elad admits that Israel prefers “controlled instability” over the existence of a unified and strong Syrian state. This sentence summarizes the Israeli security doctrine in Syria, which does not see the state's unity and the restoration of its sovereignty as a factor of stability but as a long-term threat, even in the absence of Assad, and even assuming Damascus moves away from Tehran, because the problem for Israel is not in the identity of the ruling regime in Syria as much as it is in the existence of a state that possesses its decision, borders, and resources.
Therefore, the recovery of the north and the oil fields cannot be read only as an economic or military shift but as a gradual breaking of the functional partition equation that prevailed during the war years, where Syrian geography was distributed among international and regional spheres of influence, and returning these resources to the state necessarily means reopening the question of sovereignty and rearranging the relationship between the center and the peripheries outside American and Israeli conditions.
The Israeli reading, then, is not a warning of chaos as much as it is an expression of fear of stability when it comes on an independent national basis. Stability that is not subject to dismantling or external management is the most disturbing scenario for Tel Aviv, which explains this overt concern about a “strong Syria” even if it comes in a new form and with different faces.
Ultimately, what is happening is not just a battle over oil, but a battle over the meaning of the state in Syria, and over who controls wealth, borders, and sovereignty, which makes this development a subject of close Israeli monitoring, not because it poses an immediate danger but because it signals the end of one phase and the beginning of another in which Syria is no longer just an arena, but is poised to return as a player, even if the road is still long and full of dangers.

In a remarkable shift in its approach to the Syrian file, the United States has practically announced the end of its military support for Kurdish forces, concurrent with escalating confrontations in the north and northeast of the country between the forces controlling Damascus, which have an Islamist orientation, and local Kurdish forces. This shift reflects increased American involvement in supporting the new Syrian authority led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, after years of relying on the Kurds as a key field partner.

US Special Envoy Tom Barrack affirmed that the Kurds have a "real opportunity" to integrate into the new Syrian state, noting that the central government will guarantee them "equal rights" if they accept submission to its authority. Barrack's statements did not focus as much as they did on the justifications for this shift, explaining that Washington's previous support for the Kurds came in the context of the absence of a reliable partner in Damascus during the war on ISIS, a circumstance he said no longer exists today.

According to Barrack, the United States' consideration of "Hayat Tahrir al-Sham" as a party consistent with its security and political interests made continuing to bet on the Kurds an unjustified option from the perspective of the American administration. This new assessment, it seems, has redrawn the map of alliances in Syria, at the expense of field allies with whom cooperation lasted more than a decade.

In contrast, local officials and Kurdish leaders expressed deep shock and disappointment, considering that Washington is "abandoning" them at a critical moment, specifically with the start of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham's attacks on areas that Kurdish forces had controlled with direct American support in previous years. These individuals believe that the decision represents a repetition of a known American pattern in managing temporary alliances.

This is not the first such retreat. In 2019, President Donald Trump's administration allowed Turkey to launch a wide-ranging attack on Kurdish areas, following a US decision to withdraw military support, a move that sparked widespread controversy both inside and outside the United States. It seems that history is repeating itself today, even if the pretexts and contexts differ.

The current move is not without opposition within Washington itself. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham warned Hayat Tahrir al-Sham against continuing attacks on the Kurds, threatening the possibility of reimposing sanctions on Syria if the escalation continues. However, this position seems isolated from the White House's direction, where President Trump publicly expressed admiration for the group's leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa, describing him as a "strong and charismatic personality," in a clear indication of the priority of the relationship with the new leadership in Damascus.

Over the past months, Washington has repeatedly expressed its dissatisfaction with the Kurds' adherence to the self-governance formula, as Barrack stated that the American administration concluded that "federalism is not suitable" in the Syrian case, and that the Kurds must abandon their own political ambitions and fully integrate into the central state.

For his part, Ahmed al-Sharaa gave the Kurds a short deadline to accept the terms of integration, amidst a previous record of political marginalization, which included their exclusion from government positions and the postponement of parliamentary elections in their areas. With the absence of any clear guarantees regarding the form of their future representation, their political fate remains uncertain, at a time when Washington believes that what is offered to them is sufficient to close this file.

The new American stance on the Kurds in Syria reflects a strict pragmatic logic that governs Washington's foreign policy, where alliances are measured by immediate interest rather than by a long record of partnerships. After the Kurds played a pivotal role in defeating ISIS, they are no longer a strategic necessity in the eyes of American decision-makers, which reveals the fragility of the guarantees Washington provides to its non-state allies in conflict zones.

Experts believe that the American bet on Hayat Tahrir al-Sham carries long-term risks, as it grants international legitimacy to a militia that was classified as "terrorist" and whose political structure remains untested. Furthermore, the marginalization of the Kurdish component may open the door to new rounds of instability and undermine any sustainable settlement in Syria. While Washington seeks to simplify the scene by supporting a single center of power, it may later find itself facing complexities even greater than what it is trying to overcome today.

US President Donald Trump is expected to host a special signing ceremony today, Thursday, to launch the "Peace Council," an idea he previously proposed on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos. Initial data indicates that more than twenty countries have so far accepted to join this council, while the position of key European allies of the United States remains unclear, as none of them have announced a formal commitment. Some countries have even expressed their rejection of the idea or deep reservations about it.

In this context, eight Arab and Islamic countries announced, in a joint statement issued from the Qatari capital Doha on Wednesday, their welcome of Trump's invitation to join the "Peace Council." The statement was issued by the foreign ministers of Qatar, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Indonesia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, where they affirmed their acceptance of the invitation extended to the leaders of their countries and their agreement to initiate the necessary formal procedures to complete their accession according to the legal and administrative frameworks adopted by each country.

The statement noted that some of these countries, including Egypt, Pakistan, and the UAE, have already begun taking practical steps towards formal accession procedures. The foreign ministers also stressed their support for the political efforts led by the United States, affirming their readiness to contribute to the implementation of the council's tasks as a transitional framework, as stated in the comprehensive plan to end the Gaza conflict, a plan that received the support of the UN Security Council under Resolution No. 2803.

Meanwhile, US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff stated on Wednesday that up to 25 countries have accepted the invitation to join, saying in a television interview (on ABC network) that the number of leaders who responded positively exceeds twenty and may approach twenty-five. According to US officials, invitations were extended over the weekend to more than fifty world leaders, while a White House official expected the number of members to reach nearly thirty countries.

Despite this momentum, the initiative has been met with cautious stances from a number of Washington's allies, who have not shown explicit support for the council or quick acceptance of Trump's invitation, amidst serious questions about the need for a new international body that could be understood as a competitor or alternative to the United Nations. Speaking on Wednesday, Trump described the council as "the most prestigious ever formed," considering that it would do work that the United Nations should have done, adding that cooperation with the United Nations would continue, but at the same time he stressed that the council would be "special" and capable of "achieving peace." When asked if the council could replace the United Nations, he did not rule it out, saying: "Perhaps."

Among the European countries that rejected the idea or expressed significant reservations were France, Norway, and Sweden, while the position of other countries such as Germany, the United Kingdom, and Italy remained hesitant without clear commitment. An invitation was also extended to Russia, which the Kremlin confirmed this week despite the ongoing war in Ukraine. State media quoted Russian President Vladimir Putin as saying that the proposal is primarily related to settling Middle East issues and finding solutions to the urgent problems of the Palestinian people, especially the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip.

The list of countries said to have accepted the invitation includes Israel, Kosovo, the UAE, Hungary, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Egypt, Armenia, Turkey, Pakistan, Qatar, and Jordan. Trump told reporters in Davos that the council is "the greatest council ever formed," adding that everyone wants to join it, and that it includes "controversial" figures who are capable of getting things done and have "tremendous influence." The White House has not released the full list of invited countries, and it remains unclear how many countries will actually sign during the anticipated ceremony on Thursday.

Information indicates that the idea of the Peace Council was first proposed last year based on a two-year mandate from the Security Council, with the aim of managing and reconstructing Gaza, but the draft charter of the council does not directly mention Gaza. According to a copy of the draft reviewed by an American news network, the council is designed to have a much broader mandate as an "international organization" and a "peacebuilding body," seeking to resolve conflicts around the world and secure lasting peace, making it closer to a US-led alternative to the traditional UN model.

The draft also reveals that Trump, who is expected to chair the council, could hold this position for life, as he can continue until he decides to resign, according to a US official. The official added that a future US president may choose to appoint a new US representative to the council. The draft also stipulates that countries that accept the invitation will receive a three-year membership, while permanent membership is granted to countries that contribute more than one billion dollars in cash during the first year. The US administration affirmed that these contributions are "voluntary" and should not be considered as membership fees, stressing that the council will adhere to strict financial oversight and supervision standards if funding is provided.

In a notable development, Putin proposed that Russia pay the one billion dollars from the assets frozen by the United States due to the war in Ukraine. The discussion also included the formation of an executive committee to oversee the council, comprising former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, along with Steve Witkoff and Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner.

The idea of the "Peace Council" raises a fundamental question about the logic of creating new international frameworks at a time when many countries' trust in global governance institutions is declining. When Trump presents the council as more effective than the United Nations, he is not only criticizing the bureaucracy of the international organization but also hinting at an American desire to possess tools of influence that are faster and less constrained by collective legitimacy. However, this could open the door to polarization rather than consensus.

The accession of influential Arab and Islamic countries gives the council political and symbolic weight, but it also puts these countries to a dual test: how to balance supporting a new international path led by Washington with protecting the independence of their decision and not being dependent on agendas that change with changing US administrations? Previous experiences in the Middle East show that initiatives lacking clear guarantees and transparent mechanisms can turn from peace projects into tools of pressure, especially when crises intensify.

What is most controversial in the proposed structure of the council is the mixing of "peace" and "funding," by linking permanent membership to a huge financial contribution. This condition creates the impression that influence within the council can be bought, not earned through political responsibility or adherence to international law. Moreover, granting lifetime presidency weakens the idea of institutional rotation and makes the council closer to a personal project. Therefore, its legitimacy will remain a constant question.

It represents a new and blind persistence of US policy in its absolute support for the Israeli occupation and its arbitrary, illegal, and inhumane policies against the Palestinian people.

The Israeli escalation is "the worst," with the expansion of violations in Gaza, its north, and Khan Yunis to the south.

The irony is that "Trump's" invitation to "Netanyahu" to participate in this council came despite the issuance of an arrest warrant against the latter by the International Criminal Court.

https://youtu.be/jfSr0QPPqGk

https://www.youtube.com/live/jfSr0QPPqGk

The third session of the "Political Salon: Palestine 2035", with a dialogue titled: "The Regional and International System: Whither Palestine?" The meeting features: Dr. Ali Al-Jarbawi, Professor of Political Science, interviewed by: Mr. Mohammed Daraghmeh, writer, journalist, and director of Al-Sharq Channel's office in Palestine.

The Department of Political Science and the Master's Program in International Relations, Diplomacy, and Global Security, at the Faculty of Law and Public Administration, held the third dialogue of the Political Salon: Palestine 2035, on Tuesday, January 20, 2026, titled "The Regional and International System: Whither Palestine?". It hosted Professor of Political Science Dr. Ali Al-Jarbawi, and was interviewed by the director of Al-Sharq Channel's office in Palestine, Mr. Mohammed Daraghmeh.

Daraghmeh opened the session expressing his happiness at the presence of such dialogues within Palestinian universities, given that the idea of dialogue platforms is missing in the Palestinian academic and journalistic context, in light of the absence of the Legislative Council and the atmosphere of political life.

The International System and the Idea of Positioning

Al-Jarbawi believes that the rules of the international system have not changed but have become exposed. The international system after World War II was built on the basis of the balance of power, not on the basis of international law, but the major powers were concerned with applying and consolidating the idea of international law at that time, as it suited their interests. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States of America has dominated the scene until today, and what we see today in American foreign policy is an attempt to continue its hegemony over the international system in light of the emergence of competing international poles. Al-Jarbawi indicated that the international system currently crystallizing consists of three main poles: the United States of America, which is a military-economic pole, Russia, a military pole, and China, an economic pole.

Al-Jarbawi explained that the current international system is based on the idea of positioning, meaning that America, returning to the Monroe Doctrine, sees the Western part of the world as an exclusive sphere of influence for it, and this explains its behavior towards Venezuela, and what is happening today in Greenland. China considers the South China Sea and Taiwan Island as areas subject to it, just as Russia, in its war on Ukraine and its expansion in the Arctic, is trying to maintain its sphere of influence. Therefore, Al-Jarbawi stressed that those who will pay the price as a result of this competition between the three poles are the countries of the Global South and European countries.

Al-Jarbawi pointed out that the Palestinian issue in the current international community is a file among a group of other files and issues. The Palestinian issue is no longer of the same importance that distinguished it previously, when it played the role of a disruptive force in the region.

The Regional System and the Absence of Arab Influence

Al-Jarbawi considered that the Arab regional system, specifically, contributed significantly to keeping the Palestinian issue alive in the past, when compared to other issues that did not last long, such as the Armenians, Kurds, and others. But today the Arab regional system is weak and divided, lacking a central Arab power, and Egypt's exit from the Arab-Israeli conflict equation after signing the peace agreement had the greatest impact in causing this weakness. He pointed out that Arab countries today are no longer able to carry the Palestinian issue as before, but rather are trying to get rid of it, and the Palestinian leadership today pins its hopes on the Saudi position rejecting normalization with Israel without reaching political solutions that lead to a political entity.

Al-Jarbawi also touched upon the actors of the current regional system in the Arab region, as he saw that there are three central countries that possess political decision-making that affects the situation in the region: Israel, Turkey, and Iran. As for the Arab countries, they are currently playing only functional roles, and Saudi Arabia may be the only exception due to its religious standing among Islamic countries, as well as its material and oil power.

The Palestinian Future and the Center of Political Entity

Al-Jarbawi explained that the establishment of what is called a technocratic government in Gaza is a starting point for transferring the center of the Palestinian entity from the West Bank to the Gaza Strip, and what is happening during this period, such as the formation of the Peace Council and other steps, aims to form a new vision for the Palestinian future, which is being made by external hands, and its political center will be in the Gaza Strip, and the rest of the West Bank will become subordinate to the center. Al-Jarbawi noted that the countries of the world have reached a stage where they want to end the Palestinian file and get rid of this burden, and America is at the forefront of these countries, but the American position does not align with the Israeli position, although it intersects with it, as American interests in the Arab region are not solely dependent on protecting the Israeli presence.

Al-Jarbawi referred to the situation in the West Bank, as he saw that the current political focus is on the Gaza Strip, and there is no mention of the deteriorating conditions in the West Bank. In this regard, Al-Jarbawi believes that focusing on Gaza means allowing the West Bank to Israel and the settlers, and transforming it into something resembling cantons. What hinders the Israeli plan in the West Bank is the population density, which is difficult to get rid of easily.

Internally, Al-Jarbawi affirmed that the Palestinian political level shows complete agreement with the plans on the table, and the Palestinian political system is in a state of clinical death, and Palestinians themselves always link internal problems and setbacks to an external factor, and evade responsibility. Moreover, Palestinian forces today have become narrow factional interest groups, far from possessing a comprehensive national project. He pointed out that the Hamas movement is a pragmatic movement, and therefore it will work to make some changes in its orientations in order to adapt to the new situation, and it will be qualified in the future to be part of the future political entity.

Al-Jarbawi spoke about some of the problems that may arise in the coming period after the formation of what is called the Gaza Committee, as it is likely that this committee will be given powers and funding that exceed those granted to the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, in addition to the possibility of extending the influence and functions of this committee to reach the West Bank, and this committee is merely a Palestinian facade implementing decisions dictated to it from outside. As for the Palestinian Authority and its institutions, Al-Jarbawi believed that the presence of the Authority during this period does not pose a dilemma for Israel and its policies in the West Bank; on the contrary, the Authority provides what is called the legal presence for Palestinians, represented by passports and Palestinian identity cards, and this hinders the idea of integrating Palestinians into Israeli society and bearing the burden of that for Israel, and thus indirectly pushing for emigration and departure in a way that Israel does not bear legal responsibility, at least.

The meeting witnessed significant interaction from students and attendees, which gave the dialogue session a participatory character in the discussion and the posing of difficult questions.

After the recent war, observers' attention is no longer limited to the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, but has extended to include the political dimensions that may completely redraw the Palestinian national project. What is happening in the Strip today indicates the beginning of a potential strategic shift that redistributes Palestinian authority, transforming Gaza from a haven of suffering into an institutional center for the Palestinian entity, while the West Bank faces political neglect and gradual marginalization.

The focus on Gaza and its institutional organization under the supervision of the Peace Council is not merely a humanitarian response, but rather a strategic step with broad political dimensions. The current arrangements, supported by Arab and Israeli participation, grant the Council legitimacy to exercise direct oversight over Gaza's administration, akin to a guardianship council that reshapes the trajectory of the Palestinian conflict and ensures no deviation from predetermined goals. This analysis intersects with what Ali Jarbawi discussed in his book "From Expulsion to Autonomy: The Zionist Quest to Bury Palestine," where he explains how Israeli policies after 1967 sought to control the Palestinian entity through a restricted autonomy model, with a gradual shift of the political center of gravity towards Gaza at the expense of the West Bank (Jarbawi, 2023).

Israel's joining the Peace Council reflects the Council's strategic direction, but it does not mean full agreement with all its objectives; Israel seeks to prevent any independent political transformation that might threaten its interests, while ensuring that any Palestinian administration remains within the bounds of Israeli control. In this context, US support for Israel creates a cautious framework that allows the Council to exercise its oversight within strict controls that protect Israeli interests, and provides international political cover that limits any path that might lead to actual political independence.

On the internal Palestinian front, the gradual shift of the national entity's center from the West Bank to Gaza reflects a comprehensive rearrangement of political, economic, and social priorities. After the war, the political capabilities of Hamas and armed resistance were exhausted, reaching the maximum limits of their political influence, while the National Authority and Fatah suffered significant political losses, especially in light of Israel's rejection of any negotiating partner and the escalating wave of popular skepticism that weakened trust in traditional leaders. Within this context, Gaza emerges as the center of the new Palestinian entity, which strengthens its position at the expense of the West Bank, and deepens the feeling of marginalization and exclusion among Palestinians there, thus widening the internal division gap and creating a suitable environment for the establishment of new institutions that rely on international and regional support instead of traditional national legitimacy.

The economic and developmental dimensions of this transformation are no less important than the political dimension. Reconstruction and relief in Gaza are no longer purely humanitarian issues, but have become a strategic political tool, where economic projects and financial aid are subject to the oversight of the Peace Council, which allows for the building of new institutions that align with its vision, and limits the ability of any Palestinian entity to exercise its political independence. The focus on Gaza as an institutional center allows for the use of economic development as a means to reproduce national authority under external supervision, and to solidify Gaza's position as the heart of the new Palestinian project, while controlling resources and their impact on the local community.

On the regional and international levels, the Peace Council plays a pivotal role in redistributing influence within the Palestinian arena. The participation of Arab states grants the Council regional legitimacy and enhances its role as a mediator to control the internal Palestinian conflict, while the Israeli role ensures the protection of its interests and prevents the emergence of an independent Palestinian entity. In contrast, US support for Israel provides international political cover that strengthens the Council's power and its impact on the ground, while maintaining a clear ceiling for its political movement.

The current situation also reflects a psychological and political dimension of great importance among the Palestinian people, who have lost confidence in the leadership of traditional organizations, whether at the level of the resistance option or the political and negotiating path. This political vacuum opens the door for the Peace Council to become a platform for reproducing national authority in a new institutional manner, but within strict constraints that prevent any real political independence. The shift of the political and economic center of gravity towards Gaza imposes a deep restructuring of national identity, where relief and development tools become part of a broader strategy to redraw the Palestinian project in line with Israeli and international interests, which aligns with Jarbawi's (2023) analyses on external control over the development of the Palestinian entity.

We are today at a moment of major transformation in Palestinian politics, which may reproduce the entire political scene. Recent developments open the door for the emergence of new political parties, or the restructuring of existing parties and their transformation into entities that adapt to internal and external realities, and respond to the demands of the Palestinian street that has lost confidence in traditional elites. Future elections may turn into a real platform for reshaping national authority, and giving popular action a direct role in guiding the national project, allowing for the emergence of new leaders who will redraw the future balance of power.

In conclusion, what is happening in Gaza today is not limited to being a humanitarian response to the war catastrophe, but represents a comprehensive strategic turning point in the trajectory of the Palestinian conflict. Gaza is gradually transforming into an institutional center for the Palestinian entity, at a time when the West Bank faces neglect and marginalization, while the Peace Council emerges as a new supervisory and political framework that manages the restructuring process within strict constraints that prevent any real political independence. Relief and reconstruction are no longer merely humanitarian tools, but have become strategic tools for reshaping the Palestinian national project in line with Israeli, regional, and international interests.

Dr. Ahmed Rafiq Awad: A council of this nature will lead to the creation of an oppressive force that does not adhere to international law and consensus, and dominates global events.
Khalil Shaheen: The formation of the council is not merely a parallel body to the United Nations, but rather an alternative to its role in resolving conflicts and managing global crises.
Dr. Osama Abdullah: Requiring financial payment for political engagement means shifting international relations from their legal and institutional frameworks to a commercial framework.
Suleiman Bisharat: This step is part of a comprehensive vision of the global Zionist movement, through which Trump seeks to dismantle the current international system.
Dr. Abdul Majeed Swailem: UN institutions have come under continuous American pressure, making international law, in the eyes of the new oligarchy, merely a tool for mockery.
Mohammed Al-Rajoub: Trump's proposal goes beyond the issue of funding to an attempt to redefine international legitimacy and sources of power in the global system.

 The circulating proposal by US President Donald Trump regarding the so-called "Peace Council," and the condition of paying one billion dollars for countries wishing to join it, is stirring widespread debate in political and academic circles. Warnings are being raised that this step is not only about funding a new mechanism but also affects the core of the international system that has existed for decades, opening the door to redefining concepts of international legitimacy and managing global peace and security outside the framework of the United Nations.
Writers and political analysts, in separate interviews with "Al Quds", believe that the proposed council may represent an attempt to establish an alternative international body with high financial and political flexibility, managed according to the logic of power and deals, personally headed by Donald Trump. This would allow for rapid intervention in conflicts and the imposition of settlements that serve American interests, without adhering to international law or the system of justice and human rights represented by existing UN institutions. Writers and analysts believe that transforming peace into a project conditional on the ability to pay means moving from the principle of sovereign equality to the logic of "he who finances decides."
In the Palestinian context, writers and analysts warn of growing fears that this council could be used to pass solutions that bypass international legitimacy resolutions related to occupation, refugees, and Jerusalem, and to impose political and economic guardianship over the Gaza Strip, and perhaps later over the West Bank, amid the marginalization of the UN role and its declining status. They warn that the success of this proposal, even partially, could entrench a unipolar international system based on dominance and financial blackmail, and lead to the weakening of international multilateralism, with repercussions not limited to the Palestinian issue but extending to the stability of the global system as a whole.

A Dangerous Step

Writer and political analyst Dr. Ahmed Rafiq Awad considers US President Donald Trump's request for countries wishing to join the Peace Council to pay one billion dollars a dangerous step on the international level, indicating that the purpose of these funds is to finance extensive interventions by the council in managing international crises and conflicts.
Awad explains that these funds aim to transform the council into an effective institution capable of imposing its conditions and changing situations in different parts of the world through force or alliances, or by encouraging parties to defect and form new governments.
He clarifies that the council's budget, assumed to be of this size, makes it a tool for rapid intervention and more effective decision-making than the traditional UN system, including legal and humanitarian bodies such as the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, human rights organizations, UNRWA, UNICEF, and the FAO.

A Council That Creates Oppressive Power

Awad points out that the Peace Council, in this form, is an American power council with great flexibility and effectiveness, capable of offering rewards or bribes and changing situations according to US interests. This reflects a new global system that Washington wants to be the sole pole without considering any other international interests or poles.
Awad emphasizes that the formation of the council in this manner will practically lead to the creation of an oppressive force that does not adhere to international law or international consensus, and will dominate global events to serve only American interests.
Awad believes that this step reflects Trump's skepticism about the United Nations and his accusation of its laziness and inefficiency, indicating that the real goal is to establish a global body that does not hinder aggressive American and Israeli policies.

Warnings of a Third World War

Awad warns that the formation of the Peace Council with such massive budgets could lead to significant fluctuations in international affairs and may become one of the factors that increase the likelihood of a widespread global conflict, even a Third World War, if the council is used as a tool for control and intervention in conflicts without any legal or moral deterrent.
He asserts that Trump's previous experience with the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, and the council's aim to settle the conflict in the Gaza Strip, represents a model that Trump wants to generalize to the world, reflecting his determination to reshape the international system according to his own interests, away from any international authority that restricts his movements.

Reshaping the Global System

Writer and political analyst Khalil Shaheen warns that US President Donald Trump's latest move to propose the "Peace Council" is not merely a symbolic endeavor or a peace initiative, but rather part of a broader plan to reshape the global system according to a unipolar vision, focusing on absolute American dominance and the exploitation of other countries' resources for the benefit of the United States.
He points out that Trump's request for countries wishing for permanent membership in the Peace Council to pay one billion dollars is merely one manifestation of the policy of dominance and plunder adopted by the US President, citing what happened with Venezuela, where its president was kidnapped and its resources, especially oil, are targeted, as well as the policies of pressure on Gulf Arab states since the beginning of his term to increase their investments in the American economy without any actual return or protection for regional security.
According to Shaheen, the American proposal to form the council is not merely a parallel body to the United Nations, but seeks to be an alternative to the international organization's role in resolving conflicts and managing global crises, including the implementation of international covenants and agreements aimed at protecting human rights.
Shaheen explains that the proposed council is entirely subject to Trump's will, whether in accepting or excluding countries, or in issuing final decisions that are subject to the approval of the US President, which has angered a number of European countries and raised questions about the fate of the United Nations and its traditional role.
Shaheen touches upon Trump's attempt to gain legitimacy for the Peace Council through the Security Council, affirming that this council, as stated in the American resolution, is practically limited to the Gaza Strip, to oversee the end of the war and reconstruction. However, at the same time, it does not possess any actual UN legitimacy, and even the word "Gaza" is not mentioned in the text of the proposed charter, which indicates that the real goal is to reshape the global system to serve US interests and the slogan "America First," without regard for Palestinian rights or the rights of any other country.

Marginalizing the European Role

Shaheen emphasizes that this plan includes marginalizing the European role and transforming international conflict into a sum of major poles between the United States on one side and Russia and China on the other, which may lead to the dismantling or marginalization of NATO. He points to Trump's continued use of violent methods in managing international conflicts, going beyond the slogan "America First."
Shaheen believes that Trump's recent messages, including his disregard for the Nobel Peace Prize, which he asserted he no longer needed, and the issue of occupying Greenland, clarify that he is no longer interested in diplomatic displays of peace and insists on the option of force as a primary tool to achieve his goals.

Entrenching Guardianship Over Palestinian Affairs

On the Palestinian level, Shaheen warns that the formation of the Peace Council and the Executive Office headed by Mladenov, along with the Palestinian National Committee for the Administration of the Gaza Strip, entrenches direct American guardianship over Palestinian affairs, excluding the Palestinian Authority and Hamas from any effective role, and aims to destroy the Palestinian political entity, marginalize the Authority, and weaken its institutions, thereby threatening the project of an independent Palestinian state.

Palestinian Absence and Creating a Vacuum

Shaheen points out that the Palestinian absence from negotiations and new bodies has led to the creation of a vacuum being filled by American-Israeli formations, which may extend in the future to the West Bank, to include the administration of areas currently managed by the Palestinian Authority, thereby dissolving national identity and eliminating any hope of transforming the Authority's project into an independent state.
Shaheen stresses the necessity for Palestinian political forces to initiate confronting these plans with well-considered steps, starting with the reintegration of civil and security governance institutions in the Gaza Strip, to prevent the imposition of new structures that would lead to the complete exclusion of all components of the Palestinian political system, and to achieve a political balance that gives Palestinians the ability to manage their own affairs.
Shaheen explains that the Palestinians' disregard for previous Egyptian efforts to form a community support committee led to the imposition of these three structures, reflecting the danger of continued absence in developing clear and effective strategies.
Shaheen emphasizes that the risks arising from Trump's policies include the entire international system, and that Palestinians constitute a small part within a broader American vision for re-dominance and colonialism, as the American administration deals with Gaza as a purely American affair, without regard for the role of the Palestinian Authority or the international community, which necessitates immediate action by Palestinians to avoid losing complete control over their political future.

The Logic of the Deal, Not International Legitimacy

Political researcher and academic Dr. Osama Abdullah warns of the deep and dangerous implications of the discussion about former US President Donald Trump's request for countries participating in the so-called "Peace Council" to pay one billion dollars, with this council being promoted as a potential alternative to the United Nations. This cannot be read from a financial perspective alone, but must be understood within Trump's philosophy of managing international politics based on the logic of the deal, not international legitimacy.
Abdullah explains that requiring financial payment to enter an international political framework practically means shifting international relations from their legal and institutional framework to a commercial framework governed by the ability to finance, thereby transforming peace from a political right based on international law into a project conditional on economic capability.
Abdullah believes that this approach reflects an attempt to redefine the concept of peace itself, so that it is no longer linked to ending occupation or respecting UN resolutions, but rather to managing conflict through economic and financial tools.
Abdullah points out that this approach is consistent with Trump's previous proposal in the "Deal of the Century," which treated the Palestinian issue as a development crisis that could be contained economically, not a national liberation issue based on established political and legal rights.

Marginalizing the International System

Abdullah notes that the talk of an alternative council to the United Nations reflects a clear trend towards marginalizing the existing international system instead of reforming it, in the context of a hostile stance towards multilateral institutions, considering them an obstacle to American policy, especially in issues related to Israel.
He explains that the main risks of this path lie in weakening the international legal system and replacing it with selective arrangements managed according to the balance of power and money, which empties UN resolutions concerning the Palestinian issue of their political content, turning them into historical references with no practical effect.

Legitimizing Occupation in a New Form

Abdullah warns that establishing an alternative framework under the name of "peace" may open the door to legitimizing occupation in a new form, by managing the conflict instead of ending it, and offering economic and humanitarian solutions as an alternative to political rights, especially the right to self-determination and the right of return, thereby transforming the Palestinian refugee from a legal rights holder into a humanitarian burden requiring funding.
Abdullah suggests that this proposal will be used in the short term as a political and financial pressure tool on countries, rather than a comprehensive institutional project, but he warns that its development into an actual parallel framework could lead the international system into a dangerous duality, and open the door to the gradual dismantling of UN institutions, with repercussions extending beyond Palestine to the structure of the international system as a whole.

On the Threshold of a New Global Stage

Writer and political analyst Suleiman Bisharat believes that the world stands on the threshold of a new stage, directly dominated by the personality of US President Donald Trump, who seeks to have his personal presence dominate the international arena.
According to Bisharat, Trump's desire to shape this role comes in the context of his feeling of inability to run for a third term, trying to compensate for this by imposing his personality on global policies and controlling the fate of other countries' decisions through economic and political tools.
Bisharat points out that Trump's request for countries and parties wishing to join the new council to pay one billion dollars reflects two intertwined aspects; first, Trump's individual personality, which tends towards dominance and control, and second, the practice of a kind of political blackmail against countries and individuals whose options seem limited in the face of his influence and economic and political power.
Bisharat explains that this step reflects Trump's nature as a dealmaker and investor, transcending traditional values and principles to form alliances and controls that serve his own interests.
Bisharat emphasizes that this step is part of a comprehensive vision of the global Zionist movement, through which Trump seeks to dismantle the current international system, which has been or has become a tool for holding Israel accountable, especially after the war on the Gaza Strip. Bisharat believes that the goal of this process is to protect Israel and strengthen its occupation project, while shaping a new world order that aligns with the interests of Zionist hegemony, leveraging tools of power, political and financial pressure to dismantle any potential international opposition.
Bisharat believes that the next stage holds significant challenges, reflecting a conflict of personal and global interests, and showing the new face of the world that the Trump administration is trying to draw, transcending traditional international laws and redistributing centers of influence according to specific interests and purely investment values.

A Financial Oligarchy Seeking Acquisition

Writer and political analyst Dr. Abdul Majeed Swailem believes that US President Donald Trump's proposal of a "Peace Council" to manage the Gaza Strip represents an attempt to replace the United Nations and the Security Council with an extortionist alternative entirely subject to his will. Swailem explains that Trump has appointed himself the sole president of this council, possessing veto power and deciding everything, which makes any action or decision within this framework entirely dependent on his approval.
Swailem points out that this new formation, which he described as a dual-natured real estate core, includes elements of conservatives and ideologues, but at its core, it is a financial oligarchy seeking to acquire the wealth of nations and control resources, using all possible means, including blackmail and confrontation with traditional allies.

Rebellion Against the Traditional International System

Swailem notes that Trump views traditional international alliances through a new lens based on balances that are no longer linked to previous rules, reflecting a rebellion against the international system, international relations, and traditional alliances recognized since World War II.
Swailem explains that this American approach reflects a complete marginalization of the UN role, which has lost its effective capacity for decades, especially in Palestinian issues, and is only invoked to cover American policies when needed, while being obstructed in any issue that does not serve Washington's interests.
Swailem believes that UN institutions, whether serving Israel or other goals, have come under continuous American pressure, through sanctions, blockade, or restriction, which makes international law, in the eyes of the new oligarchy, merely a tool for mockery.
He points to real-world examples such as what happened in Venezuela, where the United States announced its intention to control the country's oil wealth, while the United Nations took no action, reflecting a slow death of its role and status.
According to Swailem, the Peace Council proposed by Trump comes in this context as an expected step to compensate for the exhausted and marginalized United Nations, and an attempt to restore American dominance on the international stage, while reducing the role of traditional allies and controlling all policies related to international issues, including the administration of Gaza.
Swailem believes that all members of the Security Council, both permanent and non-permanent, realize that the United Nations is fading in terms of its role and status, and that Trump seeks, through the Peace Council, to establish a new model of direct American hegemony, reflecting the "America First" vision and affirming a rebellion against all traditional international standards.

Redefining International Legitimacy and Sources of Power

Academic and researcher in public administration and political science Mohammed Al-Rajoub believes that the circulating discussion about US President Donald Trump's request for countries wishing to participate in the so-called "Peace Council" to pay one billion dollars per country goes beyond being a matter of funding, reaching a deep attempt to redefine international legitimacy and sources of power in the global system, amid news that this council seeks to be an alternative to the United Nations.
He explains that the essence of the idea is not merely to create a new body, but to transform the concept of peace itself into an investment project, where joining the mechanism for managing international peace and security becomes conditional on financial capability, not political representation or adherence to international law. Al-Rajoub believes that this approach reflects a commercial logic in managing international politics, where legitimacy is measured by payment and deals instead of consensus and equality among states.

Producing Hegemony and Circumventing the United Nations

Al-Rajoub points out that the second implication of the American proposal lies in reproducing hegemony in a new form; instead of explicit withdrawal from multilateral institutions, an alternative entity is proposed where the United States controls its financial and political keys, making funding a tool of pressure and exclusion, and those who pay participate, while those who do not pay are excluded from the "peace table."
The third implication, according to Al-Rajoub, relates to the attempt to circumvent the restrictions imposed by the United Nations, especially concerning international humanitarian law and resolutions of international legitimacy related to the Palestinian issue. The proposed council may provide political cover for imposed settlements and redefine peace as the absence of conflict, not the achievement of justice.
Al-Rajoub warns that the greatest danger lies in undermining the multilateral international system, as the United Nations – despite its flaws – is based on the principle of sovereign equality and provides small and weak states with a negotiating voice, however symbolic. Replacing it with a funded council means moving to a "club of the super-rich" where crucial issues are managed by the logic of deals.

Legal Chaos and Multiple Authorities

Al-Rajoub believes that establishing parallel institutions outside the UN framework opens the door to legal chaos and multiple authorities for legitimacy, which may justify military interventions, the imposition of sanctions, and the sponsorship of peace agreements not based on international law.
According to Al-Rajoub, in the Palestinian case, this council could be used to pass solutions that bypass UN resolutions related to occupation, refugees, and Jerusalem, while marginalizing the humanitarian and rights dimension represented by essential UN agencies.
Regarding potential scenarios, Al-Rajoub suggests three paths: practical failure of the council due to widespread international rejection, or international division that increases polarization and deepens the paralysis of the global system, or partial success that imposes a "forced peace path" in some issues, especially in the Middle East, according to the balance of power, not the balance of right.
Al-Rajoub indicates that Trump's request is not a financial detail, but an indicator of a vision that sees international law as a constraint and peace as a deal, warning against the logic of "he who pays decides" as the most dangerous to the international system.

The occupation repeatedly obstructed efforts to search for the body in areas behind the Yellow Line.

Targeting the Supreme Leader will be considered a "declaration of war" and will lead to the issuance of a "jihad fatwa from religious scholars and a response from the soldiers of (Islam) around the world."

The continuous intransigence by the occupation government is the main obstacle preventing the closure of this file.

The council's charter outlines global roles that extend beyond the Gaza issue, aiming to "ensure lasting peace in conflict-affected or threatened areas."

Hamas does not impose any preconditions to ensure the formation of the committee or the start of its work, and expects professional and independent technical performance.

The demolition does not target mere UN buildings that are supposed to be internationally protected, but rather represents the culmination of an Israeli legislative and military campaign aimed at ending the existence of the organization.

Washington – Said Arikat 

US President Donald Trump is preparing to launch one of the most controversial diplomatic initiatives at the Economic Forum in Davos, by organizing a signing ceremony for what is known as the "Peace Council," a new international body that Washington seeks to present as an alternative reference for managing global conflicts, foremost among them the second phase of Trump's peace plan in Gaza. However, this step, intended to be a display of American leadership, appears to be surrounded by widespread international hesitation and increasing skepticism about its true objectives.

According to an official invitation that was circulated and confirmed by a US official, the signing ceremony is scheduled to be held on Thursday at 10:30 AM, with limited attendance from leaders and officials, at a time not without political implications. The choice of Davos, as a global economic platform, reflects the US administration's desire to link peace with governance and investment, but at the same time raises questions about the absence of broader international institutional coverage.

It is worth noting that international concern stems not only from the nature of the nascent council but also from the way Washington seeks to present it. While the council was initially promoted as a mechanism to oversee the administration of Gaza in the post-war phase, the final charter – which international media outlets reviewed – was completely devoid of any direct reference to Gaza, and laden with implicit criticisms of the United Nations, considering that existing institutions "have repeatedly failed" and need a more "bold" alternative.

Invitations to join were extended to dozens of countries, including major and regional powers from Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. A number of leaders confirmed receiving the invitation, but responses ranged from reservation to silence, indicating the extent of hesitation in granting this initiative early political legitimacy. Israel stands out as a special case, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu received the invitation, but openly expressed his displeasure with the composition of the "Gaza Executive Council," particularly the involvement of Turkey and Qatar in pivotal roles.

According to observers, this Israeli displeasure did not remain within the diplomatic framework, but was translated into direct contacts with Washington, during which Netanyahu expressed Tel Aviv's "surprise" at the formula by which the Executive Council was announced. Despite his attempt to publicly downplay the influence of Qatar and Turkey, the facts indicate that this council will effectively be the body overseeing the administration of Gaza in the post-war phase, which puts Israel in a new equation it had not anticipated.

In parallel, Israeli reports revealed that Netanyahu's government ignored American demands to reopen the Rafah crossing, a step that reflects the extent of the divergence between the two sides regarding the implementation of Trump's twenty-point plan. Israel justifies its position by linking any on-the-ground step to the disarmament of Hamas and the recovery of the last hostage's body, while Washington believes that obstructing the crossing undermines the broader political path.

On the international level, the financial clause in the Peace Council's charter – which stipulates a payment of one billion dollars for permanent membership – constituted a major flashpoint. France explicitly announced its rejection of this condition, considering it contrary to its commitments within the United Nations, a position reflected in its foreign minister's statement to parliament. Similar positions were issued by Canada and Poland, amid fears that the council would turn into a paid club subject to a single political will.

Trump did not hesitate to respond in his usual manner, threatening punitive trade measures against hesitant countries, in a speech that intensified criticisms that see the council as an American attempt to circumvent the existing international system, rather than reform it. In this context, academics and experts warned that the initiative could be interpreted as a "power grab" rather than a comprehensive peace project.

The launch of the Peace Council from Davos reflects Trump's vision of international relations as deals managed by force and financial influence, not through institutional consensus. The condition of payment for membership, and granting the US President almost absolute authority in forming and excluding members of the council, undermines any claim of neutrality or pluralism. This model may attract some countries seeking Washington's approval, but it alienates the majority who see the United Nations, despite its flaws, as the only legitimate framework for managing international peace and security.

In the Palestinian context, the Peace Council appears to be an attempt to re-engineer the post-war phase in Gaza outside traditional references. However, bypassing the United Nations, marginalizing local actors, and imposing controversial executive structures, threatens to reproduce the same legitimacy crises that failed previous initiatives. Sustainable peace is not imposed from above, nor is it managed through closed councils, but requires genuine political and popular acceptance on the ground.

Internationally, the lukewarm response to Trump's initiative reflects a growing awareness that the global system is undergoing a rebalancing, which does not allow for unilateral alternatives to multilateral institutions. Even traditional allies of the United States have become more cautious about engaging in projects that might put them in direct confrontation with their international obligations. In this sense, the Peace Council may turn into a test of the limits of American influence, rather than a coronation.

The General Secretariat of the Popular National Conference for Jerusalem considered that the Israeli occupation government's demolition today, Tuesday, of buildings belonging to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) at its main headquarters in Sheikh Jarrah in occupied Jerusalem, is a practical and advanced step on the ground to liquidate all international institutions that symbolize the issue of refugees and the right of return for the Palestinian people who were uprooted from their land and thrown into exile and camps. 

The General Secretariat stated in a statement that this arbitrary occupation measure aims to send a message to the international community that Israel is proceeding with its liquidation project for the Palestinian cause, the features of which began to emerge effectively after October 7, 2023, noting that the world, with its suspicious silence, gives Israel the green light to implement this criminal plan without taking into account any international deterrent. 

The General Secretariat stressed that the leadership of the extremist Itamar Ben-Gvir in the demolition operation and the military display during it means that the war on the United Nations Relief and Works Agency is taking place with a clear Israeli political decision led by the extreme right in the occupation state, whose outward appearance is Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, and whose inner reality is Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who derives the legitimacy of his actions, which violate international law, from the United States of America. 

The General Secretariat considered that the plan to liquidate "UNRWA" is not new, but rather a declared issue by the occupation state, which launched a wide-ranging attack on refugee camps in the northern West Bank last year, where it destroyed the camps of Jenin, Tulkarm, and Nur Shams and displaced their residents again, while continuing its aggressive military campaign against the Jerusalem camps, foremost among them Qalandia camp, which is subjected to daily incursions by the occupation army, which kills, arrests, and demolishes without any regard for the international community and relevant international resolutions on the refugee issue, especially Resolution 194. 

The General Secretariat stated in its statement that the demolition of "UNRWA" facilities and the storming of its headquarters in East Jerusalem and the closure of its facilities directly contradict the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice issued on October 22 last year regarding "Israel's obligations concerning the presence and activities of the United Nations and other international organizations" in the occupied Palestinian territory; as the court affirmed that Israel, as an occupying power and a member of the United Nations, is obligated to cooperate in good faith with the United Nations, and to ensure full respect for its privileges, immunities, properties, and personnel, and its duty to facilitate the work of United Nations agencies, including "UNRWA", not to obstruct it, dry it up, or subject it to undermining measures. Consequently, the demolition, closure, and accompanying political supervision constitute an actual obstruction of a UN mandate and an infringement on the protection of the property of an international organization, which is a clear contradiction of the duty of "facilitation" emphasized by the court in the occupied territory, including East Jerusalem, according to specialized human rights institutions.

The General Secretariat stated that targeting the "UNRWA" headquarters in Jerusalem specifically aims to permanently control the headquarters and annex it to the sovereignty of the occupation state on the one hand, and on the other hand, the arbitrary measure indicates that Israel is forcibly imposing its sovereignty over Jerusalem and its international and Arab institutions as an advanced step towards resolving the issue of the holy city and blocking any political solution that would lead to making East Jerusalem the capital of the future Palestinian state. 

The General Secretariat also warned that the next target for the occupation bulldozers will be the Qalandia Training Institute, known as "Al-Sina'a," which Israeli army forces have raided more than once and given the agency a specific period to evacuate it with the aim of controlling it and establishing Judaization projects inside it under the false slogan of "developing the area by establishing recreational facilities and economic institutions that revive the area," knowing that the actual control of the institute will be by the occupation municipality, which is simultaneously establishing a massive settlement project at Qalandia International Airport, where it has begun building about 9,000 new settlement units in this area, which is crowded with Palestinian refugees. 

It is worth noting that the demolition of the agency's buildings in Sheikh Jarrah specifically comes at a time when "UNRWA" has become largely unable to carry out its mandate in the occupied Palestinian territory due to new Israeli laws and procedures, especially with regard to providing humanitarian aid, education, health care, and other essential services that are a lifeline for millions of Palestinian refugees, half of whom are children. This systematic obstruction leads to depriving them of their basic rights and undermining the elements of their survival, especially in the Gaza Strip, where about 2 million refugees face an imminent threat to their lives as a result of policies of starvation and deprivation of medical care and essential life-saving materials, in parallel with the continuation of killing, targeting, causing injuries, and severe suffering.

The General Secretariat of the Popular National Conference for Jerusalem stressed that these measures represent a blatant violation of Israel's obligations as an occupying power and reveal a comprehensive policy aimed at paralyzing "UNRWA's" ability to perform its mandate and forcibly pushing it to withdraw from the West Bank, including occupied Jerusalem, in preparation for re-engineering the demographic and institutional reality in the holy city.

The General Secretariat stressed that international silence on what is happening legitimizes the forcible violation of UN humanitarian work, demanding the activation of international accountability mechanisms, not just verbal condemnations, and putting an end to the policy of impunity that encourages Israel to continue its violations without deterrence. It also called on the international community to compel Israel to fully implement the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice issued on October 22, 2025, including reopening closed headquarters, restoring electricity and water, stopping any confiscation or demolition of UN property, ensuring the continued unhindered operation of "UNRWA," stopping any measures that obstruct the entry of supplies or the movement of personnel or access to headquarters, and securing safe corridors for UN teams.

This area is under army control, you must evacuate immediately. You are endangering your life.

The total number of cold-related child deaths since the outbreak of the war reached 19 cases in a new chapter of severe humanitarian suffering.

The announcement of the formation of the "Executive Committee for the Administration of Gaza" and the International Peace Council, under the direct patronage of the American administration and with personal impetus from President Donald Trump, initially appeared as a qualitative shift in the post-war approach: a transition from the logic of ceasefire to the logic of administration, and from relief to reconstruction. However, the speed of the Israeli reaction, the unity of internal division in Tel Aviv, and the complexities of the regional scene raise a central question: Are we facing the beginning of a new path, or merely a re-production of the crisis with different tools?.

It is noteworthy that the American announcement did not come in a vacuum, but at a highly sensitive political moment: a second phase of the ceasefire agreement, Israeli military and political exhaustion, unprecedented international humanitarian pressures, and a clear American desire to impose a new "political engineering" for Gaza, even if it clashed with the Israeli ally itself.

It seemed there was an early clash between Trump and Netanyahu on the path. The statement from the Israeli Prime Minister's office, which denied any prior coordination with Tel Aviv regarding the formation of the executive committee, was not merely a procedural objection, but a clear political declaration of Israel's practical rejection of the new path. More importantly, this rejection came publicly, indicating the first clear confrontation of this level between Netanyahu and Trump since the latter's return to the decision-making center.

The Israeli objection is inseparable from the composition of the council, especially the inclusion of Turkey and Qatar, two countries that the Israeli security establishment views as political adversaries in the Gaza file. Therefore, it was not surprising that Netanyahu's discourse intersected with the positions of Ben Gvir, Smotrich, and Bennett, despite their internal differences, in rejecting any civilian or international administration of Gaza outside direct Israeli control.

Here lies the essence of the crisis: Israel, or at least its ruling right, does not want an alternative administration for Gaza, but rather wants either a permanent vacuum or long-term military rule, with encouragement of emigration and societal dismantling, while Washington, with Trump's pragmatism, moves towards a functional administration model that prevents explosion without entering the quagmire of direct occupation.

The composition of the "Founding Executive Council" clearly reveals the nature of the American vision, a political-financial-investment administration, rather than a traditional peace initiative. The presence of figures such as Jared Kushner, Marc Rowan, Ajay Banga, and Tony Blair, indicates a shift in thinking from the logic of "conflict resolution" to the logic of "post-conflict management" through financing, investment structures, and linking stability to money, jobs, and infrastructure.

As for the "Gaza Executive Council," it is the field arm that combines security, mediation, influence over factions (Egypt, Turkey, Qatar), humanitarian work (United Nations), and funding and implementation (UAE and private sector). This formula, despite its coherence on paper, carries deep contradictions within it, most notably the absence of Israeli acceptance, and the lack of clarity regarding the actual scope of powers on the ground. As for the European Union, it represents the absent presence and suffers from a silent dilemma, and this needs explanation.

From "Al-Masry Al-Youm"

     The first Artificial Intelligence camp hosted by Lamset Ommi Center in Deir Dibwan and implemented by Aqlama Company was not just a training program for children, but a deep human experience that redefines our relationship with technology. Intensive days, interspersed with practical activities and interactive experiments, transformed AI from a complex term in the news into a tool for play, expression, and discovery in the hands of young children.
 Throughout the camp, the program was not limited to technological tracks only, but also included many educational events, sports activities, and recreational activities that gave children space for psychological release and building relationships among themselves. Group games, movement exercises, and simple competitions rebalanced sitting in front of screens and engaging in physical activity, so the child left the hall carrying in their memory an integrated experience: knowledge that develops the mind, play that frees the spirit, and human interaction that promotes the values of cooperation and belonging.

Day One: Breaking the Ice and Building Curiosity

The activities began with introductory games and ice-breaking, not just to set the mood, but to plant the first seed in the child's mind: technology is not something scary. From here, the concept of artificial intelligence was introduced through examples close to their world; how does the phone suggest their favorite videos? And why does the app understand what they say? Amazement was drawn on their faces, because the explanation was formulated in the language of childhood: questions, short stories, and daily situations.

Day Two: Began with a Journey into the World of Programming and Ended with Smart Stories

On the second day, we entered the world of programming. The goal was not to turn children into professional programmers, but to introduce them to the spirit of programming: for the child to understand that the computer does not “think” on its own, but waits for someone to tell it what to do. Simple examples and short codes were tried and executed by the children themselves, and the most beautiful moment was when one of them succeeded in making their small program work, as if they had accomplished a global invention.
 As for the artificial intelligence activity on this day, it was about using smart applications to write stories and research, where their small ideas turned into complete texts without losing their childlike spirit.

Day Three: Starting with Microsoft Office and Moving on to Generating Images from Children's Imagination

On the third day, we moved to Microsoft Office applications through practical activities suitable for the participants' ages: writing text, formatting a presentation, and preparing simple tables. The focus was on the concept of “how do I use the tool to serve me?”
 In the artificial intelligence activity, children used the Google Gemini platform to generate images, so they wrote descriptions from their imagination and words turned into digital paintings within seconds that reflected the innocence of childhood and the boldness of imagination.

Day Four: Virtual Reality Day: When the Child Sees the Future with Their Own Eyes

Within the camp, the Syndicate of Information Sciences – through a partner institution – implemented a VR virtual reality day. Children wore glasses and entered new worlds with great enthusiasm.
In the activity related to artificial intelligence, they learned about applications that serve society in agriculture, marketing, and industry with examples from their daily lives.

Last Day: Canva and Comic Strips

The camp concluded with training on the Canva platform, supported by artificial intelligence technologies, where children created comic strips and short videos in which they expressed their dreams and ideas with remarkable freedom.

 This camp was not just about teaching tools, but about building a new relationship between the child and technology; a relationship based on curiosity, not fear, and on imagination, not indoctrination. The camp concluded with a symbolic and moving moment represented by the distribution of certificates to the participants, where the children expressed their pride in what they had accomplished with genuine smiles of pride, holding in their hands the first official recognition of their ability to understand and create technology, not just consume it. These certificates were more than colored paper; they were an early message that this generation is capable of leading a humane digital future that does not swallow their childhood, but rather learns from it how to smile.

Researcher and consultant in media and digital marketing. In an era where information flows are accelerating, algorithms are no longer merely innocent organizational tools, but have transformed into something akin to fast food for the mind; satisfying, momentarily delicious, yet nutritionally poor and toxic in the long run. Today's algorithms are designed to feed our attention, not our consciousness, and to satisfy our instincts, not our critical thinking, just as highly processed foods loaded with carbohydrates and sugars provide quick energy, then leave the body exhausted, unbalanced, and addicted to more.

These “poisoned” algorithms do not produce knowledge, but rather continuous consumption. They do not ask: What does the mind need? Instead, they ask: What keeps it engaged for as long as possible? Content is presented in short, similar, highly stimulating, low-depth doses, addressing the primitive brain responsible for quick pleasure, and marginalizing cognitive areas associated with analysis and complex thinking. The result is a mind full of content, empty of understanding, just like a body full of calories, poor in nutrients.

The analogy with fast food is not just metaphorical, but structural. Just as industrial food companies studied the chemistry of hunger and addiction, algorithm platforms have studied the chemistry of attention and dopamine. Repetition, surprise, controversy, anger, fear – all are digital flavorings added to content to increase its “consumability,” even if it lacks cognitive value. Over time, the mind becomes accustomed to this pattern, losing its capacity for cognitive patience, for reading a long text, or following a complex idea, or tolerating a differing opinion without aversion.

More dangerously, these algorithms do not just weaken thinking, but reshape it. They create cognitive bubbles, returning to us what we like and believe, and excluding what disturbs us or challenges our convictions. Here, the mind becomes like a person who eats the same fast food every day; they think they are full, but in reality, they suffer from cognitive malnutrition. The ability to criticize erodes, the sense of verification weakens, opinions turn into reactions, and knowledge into quick impressions.

In the Palestinian context, as elsewhere, this effect is more clearly visible, because algorithms do not operate in a vacuum, but within politically and psychologically charged environments. Highly emotional content is preferred, shocking images spread faster than deep analysis, and abbreviated narratives take precedence over complex understanding. Thus, the user is pushed, without realizing it, to consume ready-made narratives, instead of building a conscious stance based on knowledge and context.

Resisting these algorithms does not mean withdrawing from the digital space, just as resisting fast food does not mean stopping eating, but rather regaining nutritional awareness. We need a balanced “cognitive diet,” integrating speed and depth, news and analysis, interaction and reflection. We need to train the mind for patience, for asking questions, for systematic doubt, and for breaking the algorithmic addiction that trades our consciousness for fleeting moments of pleasure.

In the end, algorithms are not absolute evil, but they become toxic when left without awareness, without accountability, and without the ability to choose. Just as we learned that the body does not live on sugar alone, we must learn that the mind does not live on trends alone. The mind needs real nourishment, sometimes slow, sometimes not outwardly appealing, but it is the only thing capable of building a conscious human being, not a perpetual consumer.

We live a daily paradox that we barely notice. Our cities and villages are full of modern cars, brightly lit shops, and smartphones in every hand. From the outside, the scene looks like a natural picture of a contemporary economy. But behind this facade, a harsher reality hides: our lives are dependent on a tap. A water tap that opens or closes, an electricity breaker that disconnects or reconnects, and a fuel truck that is allowed to pass or is prevented. We own the tools, but we don't have the keys to operate them.
This is “false abundance.” Consumer abundance that conceals deep structural fragility. An economy that appears modern in form, but is inherently impotent, because it does not control the simplest inputs of life: energy, water, and fuel. In this model, economic capacity is not measured by the volume of consumption, but by the ability to continue when this consumption is forcibly stopped.
The problem here is not technical or administrative, but structural par excellence. The Palestinian economy, as it has been shaped over the past decades, was designed to function as a dependent consumer market, not as an independent productive economy. More than 85% of the electricity consumed in the West Bank is purchased from Israel, and the annual electricity bill is estimated at more than three billion shekels, drained from household income and the local economy. The occupation is not managed by checkpoints alone, but also by monthly bills.
In this context, many discussions about “improving networks” or “expanding their capacity” seem incomplete, and sometimes misleading. They assume that the defect is in the network's efficiency, not in its nature, meaning they try to fix a tool that was originally designed to be a control tool. And here lies the biggest trap: every investment in restoring the old network, without changing its logic, is an investment in deepening dependency.
From here, the need arises to re-ask the question from its roots: Do we need a better network, or a different relationship with the network? The thesis is simple in its formulation but radical in its results: the solution does not lie in waiting for international aid to rehabilitate networks over which we have no sovereignty, but in gradually becoming independent from them, by building decentralized alternatives that reduce fragility and expand the margin of decision.
This starts with energy. Reliance on a centralized electricity grid that is managed politically before it is managed technically makes the entire society hostage to a single decision. In contrast, decentralized energy production through solar systems and micro-grids opens up a different horizon. The cost of these systems has decreased globally by more than 80% over the last decade, and the average home system now recovers its cost within two to three years. The paradox is that the bill by which we finance dependency can be transformed into an investment that gives families a minimum level of energy security.
However, the trap of false abundance is clearly evident in the petroleum file. The Palestinian citizen suffers, from time to time, from a sudden shortage in supply, which directly affects transportation, production, and the prices of basic goods. These crises are often not related to the absence of fuel from regional markets, but to the absence of a stable local stock capable of absorbing shocks. Despite talks about plans to establish petroleum depots, the reality is still based on a model that relies on continuous flows without an actual reserve.
In this model, people's lives turn into a state of perpetual waiting: waiting for a truck, an approval, or the opening of a crossing. Any disruption in supply, no matter how short, creates an immediate crisis because the safety margin is almost non-existent. The problem here is not purely technical or financial, but structural. Owning a stock means owning a minimum of stability and decision-making power, which the current framework does not provide.
The same logic applies to gas. There are no real strategic gas reserves, but small operational tanks sufficient for a limited number of days. Any disruption in supply immediately affects homes, bakeries, and hospitals. Again, gas is available in the region, but it is not available as a safety tool, because storage itself is absent.
The scene of false abundance is not complete without stopping at the “bloated cash” in Palestinian banks. On paper, the picture looks reassuring: customer deposits in Palestinian banks exceeded twenty-one billion dollars, a figure that reflects high liquidity. But this abundance, like energy abundance, is restricted. A large part of this liquidity does not turn into productive investment or independent infrastructure, but remains confined within the banking system, seeking security in an economy that lacks decision-making tools.
In contrast, estimates indicate that the consumption of fuel in the Palestinian territories exceeds one billion liters annually. We are facing a large energy market in terms of demand, but it operates without a stable strategic reserve, which means fuel is imported moment by moment, and becomes vulnerable to interruption in any crisis. Again, abundance in numbers, and fragility in reality.
Energy, petroleum, gas, and cash are not separate issues, but different expressions of one model: abundance in form, and fragility in control. Available electricity that can be cut off, nearby fuel that is not guaranteed, and high liquidity that is not utilized. In each case, the problem is not the absence of the resource, but the absence of the keys.
In the end, independence from the network does not mean isolation from the world, but rebalancing the relationship with it. To be part of the system, not its hostages. The real problem is not that we are poor in resources, but that we are poor in controlling them. And we do not need new abundance, but keys. When we have them, abundance transforms from an illusion… into a viable reality.
*International Economic Consultant, and Board Member of International Digital Transformation

In the midst of one of the cruelest moments in contemporary Palestinian history, the idea of forming a national committee to administer the Gaza Strip was proposed, not as a preferred political option, but as an urgent attempt to deal with a deep political and administrative vacuum imposed by the war and its catastrophic humanitarian consequences. At the same time, it is a direct result of the inability of both the Palestinian National Authority and the Hamas movement, and with them the entire national movement, to resolve the most important national entitlement: the formation of a unified national consensus government, despite the declared consensus on this in the “Beijing Declaration.”

From here, the idea of the committee cannot be approached with a logic of preconceived rejection nor with a logic of excessive reliance, but rather as a potential transitional tool, whose success remains contingent on clear conditions, while its failure is linked to its slipping outside the comprehensive national framework. The committee was not proposed because Palestinians chose temporary solutions, but rather imposed on them because they have failed, until now, to achieve the fundamental solution represented by a consensus government that assumes its responsibilities in Gaza and the West Bank together.

The idea came about because both the Authority and Hamas failed, for different reasons, to move from managing the division to ending it. The Authority remained captive to political and security calculations and did not initiate a comprehensive formula that responds to the scale of the catastrophe in Gaza. In contrast, Hamas did not definitively state its position to mediators and public opinion in a way that would open the door for a real, not merely formal, consensus government.

An emergency committee, not a political project

The committee comes in an exceptionally harsh context, where an unprecedented destructive war has left a near-complete collapse in the administrative and service infrastructure, and created an actual vacuum in managing people's affairs. Therefore, it cannot be seen as an alternative political project or a final solution, but rather as a temporary arrangement whose success is measured by its ability to serve the people, prevent the entrenchment of separation, and prepare the ground for the return of the comprehensive national path.

The first opportunity for the committee lies in its direct function: organizing relief, managing basic services, and ensuring a minimum level of regularity in daily life. However, this humanitarian task is not separate from politics; any flaw in transparency, justice, or efficiency is enough to turn the committee from a tool for alleviating suffering into an additional burden. Therefore, the trust of the people and social forces becomes a foundational condition for its success, not a subsequent result.

The danger of turning the temporary into a permanent chapter

However, the committee's ability to function is not determined solely by its internal structure, but also by its surrounding political environment. Israel views Gaza as a separate file and seeks to manage its reality in a way that serves the goal of permanent separation between it and the West Bank. The danger here lies not in the committee's existence itself, but in its transformation into a long-term administrative framework that reproduces the division under a humanitarian title, or in its being trapped within a power struggle between Hamas, seeking hegemony, and the Authority, wishing to impose it as an extension of a non-consensual government. Therefore, the committee's success requires its explicit linkage to the single Palestinian entity, and a clear time limit that prevents the entrenchment of the status quo.

Risks of administration, funding, and the Israeli veto

A highly sensitive question arises here regarding dealing with the existing functional structure: employees of the former Hamas administration, and Authority employees working or suspended since the years of division. This is not just a technical question, but a political-social one par excellence. Gaza has tens of thousands of employees who have accumulated practical experience in harsh conditions, and they cannot be bypassed or excluded without enormous social and administrative costs.

Function: Justice and administrative professionalism, not loyalty

The realistic approach is to separate function from political choice. Any committee seeking success is required to deal with the functional staff as an administrative resource that should be organized, not an arena for settling scores. A transitional formula can be envisioned based on phased integration, professional assignment, and relative neutralization of public office from polarization, until institutions are reunified within a comprehensive national framework.

Related to this is the question of funding and salary payments, which is one of the most sensitive issues. The committee does not have financial sovereignty or self-resources, which makes it hostage to external funding or arrangements with the Authority. Here, funding becomes a double test of relative independence and transparency. Linking spending to clear mechanisms and professional oversight reduces the chances of politicization and enhances the trust of employees and society.

In contrast, the danger arises of Israel's attempt to impose a “veto right” on the administrative structure, whether by controlling the movement of individuals or interfering in the selection of employees, as happened in previous experiences. If this scenario materializes, it will undermine the essence of the committee's national idea. Therefore, rejecting its transformation into a tool for security selection is a fundamental condition for its success, despite the narrow margin of maneuver.

National risks and the meaning of entity

The reconstruction file is no less complex. The question is not only who funds, but who decides, who supervises, and how priorities are set. If this file is managed with a technical logic isolated from national authority, the danger of turning reconstruction into a tool for normalizing separation will remain. However, if it is subjected to a transparent national framework that links relief with institutional rebuilding, it can turn into a political-social lever.

As for the international position, it is governed by delicate balances. The United States shows pragmatism in supporting any arrangement that achieves “stability,” without actual readiness to engage in a path that restores the unity of the Palestinian entity or opens the horizon for self-determination. In contrast, Europeans and a number of active Arab countries, especially Saudi Arabia, along with Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey, can play an important role in ensuring that Gaza is not separated, by pressing for temporary arrangements linked to a comprehensive national path, not an isolated humanitarian administration.

From here, the importance of emphasizing that the committee is temporary and time-bound emerges, and that its existence must coincide with a parallel national path that returns the ball to the Palestinian court. The required path is organized popular pressure to generate a real political will that leads to the formation of a unified national consensus government as soon as possible, which assumes its responsibilities in Gaza and the West Bank together, and restores the unity of decision and institutions.

In conclusion, the people of Gaza should not be left captive to the feeling of betrayal accumulated by years of genocide and siege, nor should they be pushed into isolation as victims separated from their national context. What happened in Gaza is not a local fate, but a general Palestinian wound. Justice for its people is not achieved by managing their isolation, but by returning them politically and morally to the heart of the single Palestinian entity.

Gaza: A national issue, not a humanitarian file

From here, a direct responsibility falls on the living social forces in Gaza, from popular committees and civil society organizations to youth, women's, and trade union activities, to deal with this stage as a moment of pressure, not waiting. What is required is not to defend temporary arrangements for their own sake, but to use them as a tool to impose the entitlement of ending the division and building national unity.

This is what a truth dictates that should not be accepted to continue to be overlooked or ignored, namely that Gaza is not just a humanitarian matter or a temporary administrative file, but it is the heart of the Palestinian cause, and the dignity of its people and the meaning of their sacrifices will not be restored except through the unity of national decision and the unity of the political project, and steadily moving towards the entitlement of self-determination and the embodiment of an independent state.

The more statements and leaks there are about the "Peace Council" that US President Donald Trump announced he would establish, the more ambiguous the picture becomes instead of clearer. From the first moment Trump announced his intention to lead this council to oversee the ceasefire in Gaza, it became clear that the project goes beyond a mere temporary mechanism to manage the post-war phase, opening the door to a broader redefinition of international conflict management frameworks.

Over the past few days, dozens of countries have received official invitations to join the new council, including traditional US allies such as Britain, France, Canada, and Saudi Arabia, as well as countries not considered within the American orbit, such as Russia and Belarus. This unprecedented diversity in the list of invitees raised questions about the nature of the council, the limits of its political alignments, and whether it is intended to be a truly inclusive platform or an expanded American influence tool.

A careful reading of the Council's charter, which was attached to the invitations, revealed that Trump's vision is not limited to Gaza alone. The charter states that the Council aims to "secure lasting peace in conflict-affected or threatened areas," meaning its mandate would be expanded to include other global conflicts, under the slogan of establishing "a more flexible and effective international body than existing frameworks."

This ambition was met with sharp criticism, as opponents saw that the Trump administration was practically seeking to establish a parallel entity to the United Nations, dominated by Washington, reflecting the President's distrust of traditional international institutions, which he has long accused of bias and bureaucratic bloat. Although the UN Security Council approved a US-drafted resolution in November granting the Council a cover of legitimacy, doubts about its true intentions have not dissipated.

Under the charter, Trump, as chairman of the Council, enjoys broad and unprecedented powers, including appointing a second executive board, possessing an effective veto right, and even naming his successor. Countries wishing to obtain permanent membership are also required to pay more than a billion dollars in the first year, which opens the door to a huge budget, without sufficient clarity on the mechanisms for monitoring its expenditure.

In the Gazan context, the nature of the Council's executive role remains ambiguous. Despite the absence of direct Palestinian representation in the Council's bodies, it will oversee a group of Palestinian technocrats to manage public services. However, this task seems extremely complex given the on-the-ground division between areas under Israeli control and those controlled by Hamas.

Political sensitivity increased with the formation of subcommittees including Turkey and Qatar, which provoked public Israeli protest, a rare departure from traditional harmony with the Trump administration. Countries like France, on the other hand, openly declared their reluctance to join, considering that the Council's charter raises fundamental questions about respect for the existing international order.

The "Peace Council" cannot be separated from the broader context of Trump's vision for international relations, based on marginalizing multilateralism and replacing it with flexible arrangements subject to the logic of power and money. The requirement of high membership fees and granting the president almost absolute powers suggest a transformation of peace from a legal and moral value into a political project manageable according to the balance of influence. Here, the Council does not appear to be a reformist alternative to the United Nations, but rather a reformulation of hegemony with new tools.

In the Palestinian case, the Council raises additional concerns, as it reproduces the logic of international guardianship without genuine political representation for the people of the land. Technocrats, no matter how efficient, cannot compensate for the absence of national legitimacy. Moreover, linking the future of Gaza to conditional reforms, managed by a body headed by an American president, entrenches a structural imbalance in the peace process, and transforms reconstruction into a tool of pressure, not a human and political right.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, in a striking and unprecedentedly sharp statement, declared that the Security Council "no longer represents the world" and has become "ineffective" in performing its primary role of maintaining international peace and security. This declaration was not a fleeting description of a temporary crisis, but a frank diagnosis of a deep structural flaw striking at the heart of the international system, at a moment when destructive wars are proliferating and the ability of international law to curb the logic of force and enforce accountability is declining.

Guterres's words come as the world witnesses a series of open conflicts that have turned into harsh tests for the very idea of collective security. In Gaza, bombing, siege, and starvation continue amidst the Council's inability to enforce a binding ceasefire. In Sudan, the state is disintegrating under the weight of a bloody internal war that largely falls outside the scope of international attention. As for Libya, Yemen, and Syria, their long wars have turned into chronic crises that are managed but not resolved, while the war in Ukraine drains the international system and exposes the limits of deterrence and UN mediation in the face of a conflict between major powers.

In all these cases, the Security Council appears unable to perform its essential role. Resolutions are stalled, projects are vetoed, and statements are watered down to the point of political emptiness. This repeated impotence is no longer an exception, but has become a structural pattern that raises a fundamental question about the utility of the Council in its current form.

Investigating the causes of this paralysis leads directly to the very structure of the Security Council, which remains captive to the post-World War II balances of power. The right of veto, monopolized by five permanent members—the United States, Russia, China, Britain, and France—has transformed from a balancing mechanism into a tool of obstruction. In Gaza, as in Syria and Ukraine, the veto has been used to protect allies or prevent accountability, not to prevent escalation or save civilians.

In recent years, draft resolutions related to ceasing hostilities, protecting civilians, or delivering humanitarian aid have fallen in more than one conflict zone. In Yemen, Sudan, and Libya, crises have been left to fester under slogans of "deep concern" and "calls for restraint," while any real enforcement mechanism has been absent. Here it becomes clear that the Council does not suffer from a lack of reports or information, but rather from direct subservience to power calculations.

The erosion of the international system is not limited to the Security Council's inability to act, but is also manifested in blatant disregard for international law outside its chambers. The attempted kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, according to consistent reports, constituted a dangerous precedent carried out in a cross-border security manner, without any regard for the principle of state sovereignty or the immunity enjoyed by heads of state. Notably, this incident was not met with serious discussion within the Security Council nor with clear institutional condemnation, revealing how international law is allowed to be suspended when the violator is an influential party, in a UN silence that amounts to tacit acceptance.

Alongside this functional impotence, a fundamental flaw in representation emerges. The Council does not reflect the political or demographic map of the world whose decisions it affects. Africa, which includes Sudan and Libya and bears the brunt of conflicts, does not have a single permanent seat. The Arab world, which includes Gaza, Yemen, and Syria, is absent from the permanent decision-making center, while Europe retains double representation despite its declining relative global weight.

This flaw in representation undermines the Council's legitimacy and deepens the gap between those who decide and those who pay the price. States and communities experiencing the horrors of destructive wars do not have a permanent voice in the body that determines their fate. As this situation continues, trust in the UN system erodes, and the impression that international law is applied with blatant selectivity becomes entrenched.

Guterres warned that the Security Council's impotence is not confined to its chambers, but reflects on the international system as a whole. When the Council fails in Gaza, Sudan, or Ukraine, states' inclination towards unilateral solutions and alliances outside the UN framework increases. Thus, the logic of collective security recedes in favor of policies of deterrence and force.

Despite repeated calls for Security Council reform, whether through expanding permanent membership or restricting the use of the veto in cases of major crimes, progress remains almost non-existent. Reform is contingent on the approval of the five permanent states, i.e., the very powers that benefit from the existing paralysis, making change indefinitely postponed.

The moral impact of this stagnation is no less serious than its political impact. In Gaza, Yemen, Syria, and Sudan, failure is not measured by the number of postponed resolutions, but by the number of lives left unprotected. And when the highest international body is unable to stop the bleeding of civilians, it gradually loses its ability to claim moral authority.

The conclusion is that the Security Council's crisis is not in an exceptional circumstance, but in a structure that produces and reproduces impotence. Either the Council is rebuilt to reflect today's world and limit the privilege of the veto, or it will continue to erode until it completely loses its role. Then, the wars in Gaza, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, Syria, and Ukraine, and the precedent of the kidnapping of a sovereign head of state, will not be mere isolated events, but permanent symptoms of the collapse of an international system that failed to reform itself.

Last week, the 279th Emirati humanitarian aid convoy entered the Strip, loaded with 15 trucks comprising 291 shipping pallets, and with a total weight of 266 tons of diverse aid, including food parcels, medical supplies and equipment, in addition to specialized medical devices.

The convoy was notably distinctive, as it included 7 ambulances and a water tanker, which enhances field response readiness and contributes to meeting vital needs, as part of the continuous Emirati humanitarian efforts to support the residents of the Strip.

These efforts are part of an integrated operational system supervised by the Emirati humanitarian aid team in the city of Al-Arish, which includes preparing, sorting, and organizing shipments according to priorities, to ensure their organized and rapid delivery to those in need in Gaza.

Other batches of Emirati aid previously entered, including shelter supplies, such as tents, blankets, tarpaulins, and relief bags, in addition to supplies for the elderly and children, to support affected families and meet basic daily needs.

The UAE reinforces its humanitarian efforts within Operation "Gallant Knight 3" through regular land convoys arriving from Al-Arish to the Gaza Strip, affirming its steadfast commitment to the approach of giving and standing by the Palestinian brethren.

In its worst nightmares, NATO never expected to face an imminent confrontation with its largest member, who threatens to swallow one of its countries, claiming it lacks the ability to defend itself if invaded by its enemies, "China and Russia," even though the dealmaker never stopped flirting with the "Dragon" and courting the "Bear" before turning against Ukraine and becoming one of its "staunchest friends."
Months ago, the alliance conducted an assessment of the challenges facing the "Iron Curtain" and, in light of it, decided to raise its military budget by 5 percent, as part of a defensive doctrine that considers Russia a potential threat to the alliance, before waking up to a threat from within that promises to undermine its pillars, remove the nuclear umbrella from its allies' heads, and demand a "protection bill" with a capriciousness that lacks the slightest sense of responsibility, leaving the alliance facing a financial apparatus that does not hesitate to impose "political tolls."
The "sick man" wanted to find a doctor in Washington to treat his pains, only to find that he had been left to suffer his pains alone after the doctor decided to close the clinic and refrain from providing treatment.
Perhaps the question that arises from this confusing drama is, if Trump does all this to his allies, what can he do to his enemies? The bullet that hit "NATO" from one of its members is greater than what it is wary of receiving from some of its enemies.