Will Trump's plan in Gaza succeed in avoiding the mistakes of previous international administrations?

The discussion about the future of the "International Peace Council" for managing the Gaza Strip raises widespread debate among international political and legal experts, amid questions about the international community's ability to find a transitional formula that transcends the failures of previous experiences and takes into account urgent political and humanitarian paths in light of the repercussions of the Israeli aggression on Gaza.

Experts' opinions vary in their statements regarding the chances of success for international management in the sector, especially as they emphasize the importance of local legitimacy, ensuring the participation of Palestinian factions, and the necessity of having a regional guarantor to prevent the international authority from bias or extending beyond its original mission.

Previous experiences of international governance show that the international community often resorts to this model when state institutions are disrupted and competition for influence intensifies; however, history reveals the limitations of this solution, imposing strict conditions for any actual transition from international administration to legitimate and sustainable national governance.

The plan for international administration in Gaza is not exempt from this debate, as experts' evaluations range from considering it a necessary imperative for reconstruction and overcoming collapse, to fears of imposing guardianship over the Palestinians and entrenching temporary solutions.

The "Peace Council" plan represents a proposal from U.S. President Donald Trump, in an attempt to stop the ongoing Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip, which has escalated after the last war that lasted two full years and resulted in tens of thousands of civilian casualties.

The bet remains always contingent on the extent to which these administrations respect the rights of the population and their ability to later transfer authority to the local national body.

Rami Abu Badawieh, a professor of international relations at the American University of Beirut, argues that the international community often resorts to establishing international administrations in cases of security collapse or disruption of state institutions, where the urgent need arises to fill the political and security vacuum.

Abu Badawieh adds that this option is usually a temporary refuge to stabilize security and provide basic services until appropriate conditions are prepared for the transfer of authority to a legitimate local entity.

This view is supported by international law expert Anis Al-Qassem, as the establishment of a temporary international authority is often a preferred exit for major powers to avoid the outbreak of conflicts or wars between competing international parties over a strategic area.

On the other hand, Heather Benatzer, a postdoctoral fellow at Princeton University, sees that the primary motivation behind resorting to this model is often the need for a temporary geopolitical settlement rather than a desire to build sustainable political legitimacy.

Analysts agree that the success of international administrations in previous experiences has remained circumstantial and limited, linked to the size of international mandates, the effectiveness of regional support, and the ability of local actors to participate.

Abu Badawieh reviews recent experiences of international administrations, noting that their results have been mixed; the East Timor experience achieved relative success thanks to the clarity of the international mandate and regional support.

As for the Kosovo experience, it provided a degree of stability and services, but it did not end political divisions or establish a sustainable governance legitimacy.

Al-Qassem reinforces this assessment, adding that the cases of Danzig, Shanghai, and Bosnia demonstrated that international administrations achieved exceptional interests in complex conflict conditions, but they did not succeed in creating a legitimate and solid national structure.

However, Benatzer warns that most international administrations suffer from chronic legitimacy deficits and uncalculated expansions in their tasks.

Mohsen Saleh, director of the Al-Zaytouna Center for Studies and Consultations, emphasizes that all previous transgressions of this kind have failed when they collided with the will of the people.

Regarding the future of the Gaza Strip under the Peace Council proposed by Trump's plan, analysts agree that it remains contingent on the extent to which Palestinian will is respected.

Everyone acknowledges that the international model cannot succeed if local forces are excluded or if the logic of guardianship is repeated.

Saleh states, "The Palestinian people are full of energies and competencies and are capable of managing themselves once the occupation is lifted; they do not need anyone's guardianship."

International law expert Anis Al-Qassem takes a different angle regarding the proposed "Peace Council" in Gaza, stating that it carries the seeds of its failure due to its leadership composition.

Abu Badawieh conditions that the success of any international administration in Gaza remains contingent on a clear mandate, effective and guaranteeing regional support, and the inclusion of Palestinian factions, including the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), in the administration.

Experts conclude that the international "Peace Council" - if approved - will be a temporary measure imposed by the results of a devastating Israeli aggression