An American move in the Security Council to promote Trump's proposal for Gaza.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Department of State issued a statement announcing that Ambassador Michael Woltze, the U.S. representative to the United Nations, held a meeting with the non-permanent member states of the United Nations Security Council (E10), which includes Algeria, Denmark, Greece, Guyana, Pakistan, Panama, South Korea, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, and Somalia. According to the statement, which was received by a correspondent from Al-Quds newspaper, Washington welcomed the participation of Egypt, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates in the meeting, in a move described as "embodying regional support" for the new U.S. resolution regarding Gaza.

The statement clarified that the draft resolution aims to welcome the establishment of a "Peace Council" and approve the formation of an "International Stability Force" as outlined in President Donald Trump's twenty-point plan, which was announced by the White House last month as a "comprehensive roadmap" to restore security and stability to the Gaza Strip following a ceasefire. The plan includes the continuation of humanitarian aid, the release of all hostages, and the preparation of conditions for a new civilian administration in the sector under international supervision, with the international force responsible for security and borders during a transitional period. The statement emphasized that "the United States, under the bold leadership of President Trump, will return to achieving results rather than settling for words," stressing that "the historic opportunity to end decades of bloodshed has arrived."

However, behind this optimistic language lies a series of structural and political gaps that raise widespread questions about the realism and sustainability of the U.S. proposal. The first of these gaps relates to the nature of the "International Stability Force" that Washington speaks of without a clear specification of its composition, tasks, or legal reference. Will it truly operate under the umbrella of the United Nations, or will it consist of a voluntary coalition led by the United States? Will it be allowed to deploy in Gaza with Israel's consent, or will its role be limited to monitoring borders and crossings? The absence of these details raises doubts about U.S. intentions and raises fears that the force could become a tool of American influence—or even indirect Israeli influence—rather than a genuine guarantee of security and stability.

On the political level, the plan appears disconnected from the internal Palestinian reality. It does not mention the Palestinian Authority or any Palestinian representative body as a party in the decision-making or implementation process. This neglect is not merely a lack of detail but reflects a vision that treats Gaza as a crisis management arena, rather than as part of a comprehensive Palestinian national project. The absence of a local partner makes any security or administrative arrangements vulnerable to collapse at the first field test, and ignoring the broader political dimension—including the issue of a Palestinian state—turns the plan into a temporary security initiative that does not address the roots of the conflict.

The regional dimension that Washington sought to highlight through the participation of five Arab countries in the meeting seems closer to an attempt to lend formal legitimacy to the project than to express genuine consensus. These countries differ in their positions on Hamas, the future of Gaza, and its relationship with Israel, making the talk of "unified regional support" inaccurate. Many of the participating capitals may have attended the meeting out of diplomatic courtesy or to remain within the circle of U.S. consultations, rather than out of conviction in the plan's feasibility or the fairness of its provisions.

Another contentious aspect is the linkage between humanitarian aid and the release of hostages, a connection that seems practical on paper but involves a dangerous politicization of humanitarian work. Aid that is supposed to be provided based solely on humanitarian need has turned in the proposal into a tool of pressure and negotiation, which contradicts international rules that separate relief from politics. This approach may expose Washington to criticism from humanitarian organizations and place the Palestinian parties in a coercive equation that could increase tension rather than alleviate it.

The promotional aspect that dominates the U.S. statement cannot be overlooked, as it repeats phrases that glorify President Trump's "bold leadership" and the "real results" he promised to achieve. This language does not hide the initiative's connection to the American electoral context, especially with the presidential race approaching. It also seems that the administration seeks to leverage the Palestinian issue as a platform to portray the president as a "peace maker" capable of moving the Middle East, which explains the urgency in presenting the plan before its executive and political elements are complete.

Even if the proposal receives initial support within the Security Council, the issue of implementation remains. The project does not provide a clear vision for funding the international force, overseeing it, or determining its duration of operation. It also completely ignores the subsequent phase of the supposed "stability": who will govern Gaza? How will reconstruction be carried out? What is the position of Hamas or other factions in the new system? These fundamental questions remain unanswered, raising doubts about the plan's ability to move beyond the paper