Peace Council... Gaza between managing the "day after" and the risks of political guardianship

Dr. Hussein Al-Deek: The appointment of an American general who served in Iraq and Syria as commander of the international stabilization forces reveals the essence of the project, which is the disarmament of Gaza.

Akram Attallah: The composition of the council with American presence raises serious questions about Trump's proposals to transform Gaza into a "Riviera".

Nabhan Khreisheh: Forming the council without Palestinian representation may lead to managing Gaza independently of the West Bank, deepening the division and undermining any national project.

Dr. Suhail Diab: The American project is based on the priority of de-escalation in the Middle East, driven by internal conditions without abandoning the imposition of guardianship in Gaza.

Nour Odeh: The executive committee includes figures with clear ambitions, which puts the future of the Palestinian cause, especially the Gaza Strip, at risk.

Sari Sammour: There is a risk of marginalizing Palestinian factions or turning them into "false witnesses" and making the council an entity that acts with the mentality of a "High Commissioner".

After the American announcement of the formation of the so-called "Peace Council" to manage the affairs of the Gaza Strip, questions are increasing about the nature of this new framework and the limits of its role in the post-war phase, amidst fears of political guardianship over the Strip.
Writers, political analysts, specialists, and university professors, in separate interviews with "Al-Quds", believe that the Peace Council, which was presented as an international mechanism for achieving stability and managing reconstruction in the Gaza Strip, at the same time raises widespread fears of the absence of approved international references and the marginalization of the Palestinian role in determining the fate of the Strip and its political future.
According to writers, analysts, specialists, and university professors, the circulating data indicate that the council has an overwhelming American presence, with its connection to executive, administrative, and security committees whose authority stems from that council and is not linked to national legitimacy, which opens the door to scenarios ranging from temporary humanitarian administration, or the consecration of political and geographical separation between Gaza and the West Bank, leading to a form of guardianship that controls security and economic decisions.
They believe that it is not unlikely that the council will achieve some limited gains, such as reconstruction and alleviating the humanitarian crisis, but these opportunities remain conditional on the Israeli position and the absence of a clear political horizon, which makes the "Peace Council" a pivotal station that may redraw the Palestinian scene, either towards fragile stability or towards deepening division.

Marginalization of the Security Council and the United Nations

Dr. Hussein Al-Deek, Professor of Political Science and International Relations and a specialist in American affairs, warns of the profound dangers inherent in the announcement of the so-called "Peace Council" led by the United States to manage the affairs of the Gaza Strip, considering it a very dangerous development at both the international and Palestinian levels, due to its direct marginalization of the role of the UN Security Council and the United Nations, and the usurpation of their powers stipulated in the UN Charter, practically granting them to US President Donald Trump and his advisors.
Al-Deek explains that the most dangerous aspect of this announcement about the council is the transformation of the future of the Palestinian people, and the future of the Gaza Strip specifically, into decisions issued by the US President and the Peace Council he heads, far from any legitimate Palestinian, Arab, or international authority.

Complete dependence on the American administration

Al-Deek points out that the composition of the council and Trump's announced advisors, including figures closely linked to the Zionist lobby and the Israeli government, reflect a clear bias towards the Israeli narrative, which makes the political decision regarding Gaza completely dependent on the American administration.
Al-Deek explains that this reality means, in practice, a direct derogation from Palestinian rights and a usurpation of Palestinian popular and political will, at a time when this council has not received any mandate from the Palestinian people, nor from the Palestine Liberation Organization, nor from the residents of the Gaza Strip.

Return of guardianship and separation between the West Bank and Gaza

Al-Deek believes that the most likely scenario, according to current data, is the return of the Gaza Strip to a stage similar to guardianship or mandate, with the consecration of complete political and geographical separation between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, so that the West Bank remains under the political umbrella of the PLO, while Gaza's authority is transferred to the Peace Council.
Al-Deek indicates that the so-called "administrative technocrat committee" will be linked to the executive council headed by Nikolay Mladenov, which forms a link between the Peace Council and the Palestinian technocrat committee, within the framework of a new administration for the Strip that is not based on a unified national will.

The essential goal of disarmament

On the security and military level, Al-Deek considers that the US President's announcement of the appointment of an American general who served in Iraq and Syria as commander of the international stabilization forces to be deployed in Gaza reveals the essence of the proposed project, which is the disarmament of the Gaza Strip.
Al-Deek confirms that this goal is the same one announced by Israel since the beginning of the war, and it failed to achieve it by military force, to be passed today through American and international cover.
Al-Deek explains that the political and military decision is now linked to the will of the United States alone, and not to the Palestinian or Arab will, or even to the decisions of the United Nations and the Security Council, which constitutes a strategic danger to the Palestinian cause and the entire national project.
Al-Deek points out that the talk of a Palestinian state on the June 4, 1967 borders is no longer on the table, as the discussion is confined to the future of Gaza, reconstruction, and administrative committees, far from any clear political horizon.
Al-Deek reviews several possible scenarios, including the scenario of failure, if the Peace Council adopts the Israeli narrative and seeks to disarm by force, which could lead to a confrontation between international forces and armed factions, the collapse of the experiment, and a return to the square of escalation.

Potential opportunities to alleviate suffering

Al-Deek points to another scenario, which is to suffice with managing the humanitarian and security situation without real political change, through a temporary de-escalation and limited reconstruction, and postponing the arms issue, within the framework of what he described as a "calm before the storm" period.
Regarding the prospects, Al-Deek believes that there are potential opportunities to alleviate humanitarian suffering, economic openness, and reconstruction, but all of them remain dependent on the Israeli position, lifting the siege, and opening the crossings.
Al-Deek talks about the possibility of rebuilding some trust with some sponsoring international and regional parties, such as Egypt, Qatar, Turkey, and the United States, in addition to the possibility of using this path to rearrange the internal Palestinian house, despite his preference that current developments push towards further division and separation.
Al-Deek emphasizes a number of fundamental dangers, most notably the legitimacy crisis, external control over Palestinian decision-making, the absence of any framework regulating the relationship between the Peace Council and official Palestinian institutions and factions, in addition to the challenge related to disarmament and the absence of a political horizon.
Al-Deek warns that the Peace Council could become a tool to freeze the conflict rather than resolve it, which carries the risk of a new explosion of conflict in both Gaza and the West Bank.

American direction to impose a new reality

Writer and political analyst Akram Attallah believes that the announcement of the so-called "Peace Council" opens the door to complex scenarios, reflecting a clear American direction to impose a new fait accompli on all parties, suggesting that the wheel of the so-called second phase has actually started without waiting for complete Palestinian or regional agreements, despite negative indicators from Israel that warn of obstacles to this phase.
Attallah explains that the series of successive steps, from the formation of the Peace Council initially and its connection to other committees, to the establishment of the Palestinian "Technocrat Committee", through the intermediary committee, to the executive committee headed by Nikolay Mladenov, indicates a strong American impetus driving this path.
Attallah believes that the composition of the council and the nature of its formation reflect an overwhelming American presence, which raises serious questions about the goals of this presence, especially in light of previous proposals launched by US President Donald Trump regarding transforming Gaza into an investment and tourist area similar to the "Riviera" of the Mediterranean coast.
Attallah warns that the continuation of matters in this way could mean the Gaza Strip moving into a state of almost complete American control, with the consequent confiscation of the Palestinians' right to make their independent national decision.

Palestinian retreat from determining their affairs

Attallah confirms that the most dangerous aspect of the current scene is the Palestinians' retreat from the position of the decisive party in their affairs, especially with regard to the Gaza Strip, which raises big questions about the nature of the next stage and what is being prepared for it at the political and security levels.
Attallah questions the Israeli position and how the Israeli government thinks about these arrangements and the claim that they are unacceptable, while Attallah indicates that the success or failure of the Palestinian "Technocrat Committee" is largely linked to Israel's readiness to facilitate its work, whether by opening crossings or providing practical facilities that can reflect on the humanitarian and living reality in the Strip.
Attallah stresses that the core of the problem lies in the nature of the relationship between the Peace Council and the Palestinian Committee, wondering whether the required role of this committee serves Israeli-American interests, or whether it will actually move towards meeting Palestinian interests, including strengthening the unity of the Palestinian people, and maintaining political and institutional communication with the West Bank and the rest of the components of the Palestinian political system.

An opportunity to break the political stalemate... but

Journalist Nabhan Khreisheh believes that the announcement by US President Donald Trump's administration of the formation of the so-called "Peace Council for Gaza" represents a highly controversial step, which carries potential prospects for addressing the post-war phase, but at the same time raises deep risks and challenges that are not limited to Palestinians only, but extend to the entire regional scene.
Khreisheh explains that historical experience with American initiatives, especially those formulated outside the framework of international legitimacy, prompts dealing with this announcement with extreme caution, in light of a previous political record that enshrined Washington's bias towards the Israeli vision at the expense of Palestinian national rights.
Khreisheh points out that the council, in principle, may seem like an opportunity to break the political stalemate and create an international or regional framework for managing the post-war phase in the Gaza Strip, in light of the widespread destruction and unprecedented humanitarian collapse.
Khreisheh explains that the involvement of regional parties such as Turkey and Qatar may, in theory, provide political and financial cover for the reconstruction process, and can also give Palestinians a wider margin of support compared to previous initiatives that were completely biased towards Israel. Khreisheh notes that these two countries have relations with active Palestinian forces and the ability to play a mediating or guaranteeing role in any future arrangements.
However, Khreisheh stresses that these positive prospects clash with a number of fundamental risks, most notably the nature of the council itself, wondering whether it constitutes a real tool for achieving a just peace, or merely a mechanism for managing the crisis in a way that serves Israel's security and reproduces the reality of control and siege in new forms.
Khreisheh believes that the experience of the "Deal of the Century" is still strongly present, and has reinforced the impression that the Trump administration tends to bypass the fundamental rights of Palestinians, foremost among them the right to self-determination.
Khreisheh confirms that the public Israeli objection to the involvement of Turkey and Qatar puts the council before a structural challenge, as Israel may work to thwart any effective role for them or limit their participation to a formal framework, which transforms the council into a regional conflict arena instead of being a platform for a solution.

Administrative separation between Gaza and the West Bank

On the Palestinian level, Khreisheh warns of the danger of marginalizing the Palestinian national will, stressing that forming the council independently of genuine Palestinian representation, or imposing its outcomes as a fait accompli, could lead to managing Gaza separately from the West Bank, thereby deepening the division and undermining any comprehensive national project.
Khreisheh points to three possible scenarios: a formal scenario limited to limited humanitarian administration, a regional conflict scenario that paralyzes the council's work, and a third, less likely but more important scenario, which is the council transforming into a pressing political framework based on international law and giving Palestinians an active role in determining their future.

Contradictory indicators for the next phase

Political science professor Dr. Suhail Diab explains that the announcement of the "Peace Council," the Palestinian National Committee for the Administration of the Gaza Strip ("Technocrat Committee"), and the Executive Coordination Committee of the Peace Council reflects, in form, content, and composition, contradictory indicators for the course of the next phase in the Gaza Strip and the region as a whole.
Diab explains that these steps, on the one hand, express the failure of previous scenarios based on extermination, displacement, and open war, but on the other hand, they open the door to a path fraught with political traps and intrigues.
Diab points out that the current American project is based on the priority of de-escalation in the Middle East, driven by internal electoral and economic conditions in the United States. However, this de-escalation does not mean Washington abandoning its pursuit of imposing political, economic, and investment guardianship over the Gaza Strip, including controlling its real estate future, which portends an escalation of tension in the next phase.
Diab notes that this American priority fundamentally contradicts Israeli priorities, which are based on maintaining the state of war, with a readiness to return to policies of extermination and displacement whenever the opportunity arises, whether driven by electoral motives for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or by ideological motives.

Three conflicting scenarios

Diab believes that the scene is heading towards three conflicting scenarios. The first scenario is the American path, which seeks to be the sole political reference for what is happening in the Gaza Strip, through a clear form of guardianship or mandate, considering that the composition of the "Peace Council" directly expresses this orientation.
As for the second scenario, the Palestinian path, according to Diab, is for the "day after" in the Gaza Strip to be purely Palestinian, through a comprehensive national consensus among all factions, and in coordination with the Arab and Islamic depth and mediators, leading to the success of the Palestinian National Committee, and entering into practical entitlements that include withdrawal, opening the Rafah crossing, bringing in aid, and starting reconstruction.
Diab points out that the third scenario is the Israeli path, which seeks to overturn the table and return to war under the pretext of "dismantling Hamas's weapons," taking advantage of Netanyahu's political and electoral need for such an escalation.
Diab confirms that these scenarios will remain in a state of open conflict, and the results of that will determine the paths and prospects for the political and security future in Palestine and the region.

Raising the stakes for the Palestinian scenario

Diab explains that raising the stakes for the Palestinian scenario requires two crucial factors: first, deepening Palestinian-Palestinian consensus, politically, economically, and geographically, between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, thereby establishing a unified and comprehensive political settlement. Second, the existence of an effective, persistent, and continuously pressing and monitoring Arab-Islamic project, given the link between the Gaza file and broader regional and international projects.
Diab emphasizes that the "Peace Council"'s role is not limited to the Gaza Strip, but rather constitutes a regional chamber for implementing the American strategy in the Middle East, extending from Syria and Lebanon to Yemen and Iraq.
Diab stresses that the extent of deepening Palestinian consensus and the effectiveness of Arab-Islamic action will determine the outcomes of this conflict, unless major developments outside the context occur, such as the possibility of a widespread regional war.

Peace in name only

Writer and political analyst Nour Odeh warns that the announcement by US President Donald Trump's administration of the formation of the so-called "Peace Council for Gaza" represents a step that portends dangerous transformations in the international system and Palestinian politics, considering that the council is essentially "peace in name only," as it seeks to replace the role of the United Nations with a body completely subject to Trump's will and whims.
Odeh confirms that the US President fully determines the council's membership, decides the names of members, their continuity, and the nature of their work, including sending messages to the occupation government's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, about the participation of specific figures.

Figures with clear ambitions

Odeh points out that the executive committee, headed by Nikolay Mladenov, includes figures with clear ambitions, among them an American Jewish businessman known for his hostility towards Palestinians. Jared Kushner and Paul Bremer also participate in the council, who have been developing plans for over a year to transform the Gaza Strip into an investment area for non-Palestinians, which puts the future of the Palestinian cause, especially the Gaza Strip, at risk.
Odeh notes that many of the countries participating in or invited to the council are known for voting against Palestinian rights in the United Nations, and are hostile to Palestinians, such as the governments of Yemen, Argentina, and Paraguay.
Odeh indicates that Trump requires a payment of one billion dollars to guarantee permanent membership, or that the membership of countries be limited to three years with the possibility of replacement later, which reflects the American administration's ambition to subject international work to its hegemony, and perhaps expand the council to include other countries such as Venezuela, in an attempt to overturn the existing international system.

A major threat to Palestinian rights

Odeh believes that these steps represent a major threat to Palestinian rights, as Palestinians are no longer an active party in determining the future of Gaza, and the council threatens to impose an American-Israeli agenda on Palestinian territories.
Odeh explains that the open international scenarios for the council include succeeding in imposing a new system subject to Trump's will, or countries confronting his plans, or the council expanding at the expense of the sovereignty of peoples and national resources.
Odeh points out that the executive council of the Peace Council, which oversees the technocrat committee, is managed by businessmen who think in terms of investment rather than state, with only one woman having relief experience, which raises questions about the possibility of replacing UN relief organizations with private companies, and perhaps the Palestinian people paying the price of their catastrophe, with the possibility of encouraging displacement to facilitate Israel's interests.
Odeh warns that the council may extend to the West Bank in the future, in parallel with the neglect of Palestinian rights, and that national presence is at risk, stressing that this transformation represents a turning point in human history, and requires a different approach to thinking and working at the Palestinian, Arab, regional, and international levels to confront these challenges.

Putting spokes in the wheels

Writer and political analyst Sari Sammour expects that the so-called "Peace Council," the executive council, and the administrative "Technocrat Committee" that have been formed will face a series of deliberate Israeli obstacles, in light of the refusal of the occupation government's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to this path, considering that the next phase will be characterized by obstruction and putting "spokes in the wheels," even if the work wheel continues to turn for a certain period, sometimes at a slow pace and sometimes at a faster pace.
Sammour explains that the Palestinian side, according to the available data, has fulfilled its obligations, while the Israeli side remains the party that does not adhere to implementation, pointing out that the United States, as usual, tends to side with Israel and will not exert serious pressure on it.
However, Sammour suggests that Washington will not allow Tel Aviv to completely sabotage the path, even if it may turn a blind eye to attempts to disrupt and empty the agreement of its content, as happened in previous experiences.

Continuation of the council for a specified period

Regarding the future of the "Peace Council," Sammour believes that its continuation for a specified period is the most likely scenario, while at the same time warning against exaggerating in asserting that "the temporary will become permanent."
Sammour cites the experience of the American civilian administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, who spoke of a long stay and then left after a short period, stressing that political reality is full of surprises, and that modesty in analysis has become a necessity in light of the state of field, political, and geopolitical fluctuations.

Cautious hope for resuming reconstruction

Regarding the positive prospects, Sammour expresses cautious hope for the possibility of resuming the reconstruction process, bringing in humanitarian aid, resuming education in schools and universities in the Gaza Strip, and opening the Rafah crossing to facilitate the travel of the wounded and sick for treatment, in addition to improving health services, removing tens of thousands of tons of accumulated waste, and starting to remove rubble from the streets. Sammour indicates that the realization of these hopes may be partial or complete, depending on political and security developments.

The danger of marginalizing Palestinian factions

In contrast, Sammour warns of serious dangers, most notably the imposition of foreign, non-Palestinian or Arab leaders on the Palestinian people, some of whom carry a colonial legacy, considering this alarming, especially in light of the participation of controversial figures within the council.
Sammour points to the danger of marginalizing Palestinian factions or turning them into mere "false witnesses," and the council becoming an entity that acts with the mentality of a "High Commissioner."
Sammour affirms that the main bet remains on the steadfastness of the Palestinian people and their ability to overcome hardships, and not to lose their sacrifices, in the face of various forms of pressure and imposed guardianship.