The plan explicitly links reconstruction to disarmament, as investments will only open in sectors that achieve complete disarmament.

The residents of the Gaza Strip need job opportunities and we will give them the chance to improve their lives.

The Russian President believed that any plan that does not include respect for Palestinian sovereignty will be doomed to failure.

More than seventy-five Democratic representatives and senators from both chambers of the US Congress sent a public letter, published on Tuesday, urging President Donald Trump's administration to take a firmer stance against Israeli efforts to impose de facto sovereignty over the West Bank, warning of the repercussions for stability and the possibility of achieving a just political settlement. The signatories demanded clear American intervention to reset the compass and prevent a slide towards unilateral steps that would close the doors to diplomatic solutions.
The letter was originally sent last Friday (1/16/2026) to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and was initiated by Senator Peter Welch and Representative Ro Khanna. It emphasized the need for urgent and tangible actions to maintain the ceasefire in the Gaza Strip and prevent its collapse under the weight of increasing polarization, thereby ensuring that the prospect of a two-state solution remains a viable option, not just a political slogan that erodes over time.
The lawmakers affirmed in their letter that the American role at this stage is extremely sensitive, considering that Washington is capable – if it wishes – of effectively influencing Israeli decisions. They wrote that “American leadership is crucial at this moment,” demanding that the State Department unequivocally inform the Israeli government that its policies in the West Bank will lead to negative consequences that are not limited to opportunities for peace and regional security, but extend to the daily lives of Palestinians and the nature of the strategic relationship between Israel and the United States.
Congressional members pointed out that there are Israeli legislations being prepared or discussed that would gradually entrench annexation, either directly or through the establishment of "de facto annexation" paths. In this context, they called on the United States to re-impose sanctions adopted by the Biden administration and to condemn what they described as the expansion of Israeli settlers through pressure, violence, and the imposition of facts on the ground, making the West Bank an open arena for accelerated geographical and political change.
The letter noted that despite the United States' official rejection of annexation, Israel has recently seen voices within the Israeli government affirming its commitment to expanding "sovereignty" in the West Bank. Lawmakers also pointed to a preliminary vote in the Knesset in favor of two bills aimed at imposing Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank, in addition to dozens of other projects that, if approved, would grant annexation official legal cover in various forms and open the door to transforming settlement from an expansion policy into a permanent governance structure.
The signatories expressed grave concern about bills seeking to annex settlements north, east, and south of occupied Jerusalem, with the aim of creating an expanded municipality under Israeli control, which they consider a central step towards tightening control over Jerusalem and its surroundings and redrawing the map of both land and identity. One of the sponsors of these projects had previously described them as “a major station towards full sovereignty.”
In the same context, lawmakers noted that Benjamin Netanyahu's government has pushed for settlement construction in the "E1" area east of Jerusalem, an area estimated at about 12 square kilometers, and a tender for housing units was issued earlier this month. They considered that this type of project, coupled with other expansions, would practically divide the West Bank into separate northern and southern enclaves, severing the geographical contiguity of Palestinian territories, thereby deliberately undermining the possibility of a future Palestinian state.
The letter was not limited to warning against proposed legislation but also affirmed that the reality of "de facto annexation" already exists on the ground, through recurring patterns of systematic violence, intimidation of Palestinian communities, and forced displacement. It stated that settlers in several areas of the West Bank are working to displace Palestinians from their lands and expand settlements, including in Taybeh, Wadi Fukin, Silwan, and Al-Walaja, which exacerbates tensions and threatens to ignite the region more broadly.
The letter received support from liberal American Jewish groups that identify themselves as pro-Israel but oppose annexation and settlement policies. Hannah Morris, a representative of J Street, said that her organization appreciates Senator Welch's leadership in pressuring the Trump administration and Secretary of State Rubio to ensure a halt to de facto annexation efforts, emphasizing that the establishment of a Palestinian state – not the continuation of occupation or the entrenchment of annexation – is the only path capable of providing a just and lasting peace for both parties.
For his part, Hadar Susskind, president of the New Jewish Narrative organization, said that the Trump administration has failed to curb settlement expansion and destabilize the West Bank, adding that 2025 saw record levels of settler attacks on Palestinians, and that the letter serves as a direct wake-up call to Secretary of State Rubio. He also praised Welch and Khanna for their initiative, expressing hope that the administration would take this frank appeal seriously.
The importance of this letter stems from its issuance by a broad Democratic bloc within Congress, which gives it political and moral weight and reflects the widening gap within Washington on how to manage the relationship with Israel. Annexation, whether in the form of an explicit legal decision or through gradual settlement expansion, puts the United States to the test of its credibility: can it defend the "two-state solution" narrative as a policy, or will it merely repeat it as a diplomatic phrase that does not prevent the collapse of reality on the ground?
The paradox, according to experts, is that "de facto annexation" does not always require an official declaration to become a reality; it is enough for the land to be transformed into separate enclaves, for movement restrictions to be imposed, and for residents to be expelled under the pressure of violence or "laws," until the future is governed by power balances rather than decisions of international legitimacy. Therefore, the lawmakers' demand for the re-imposition of sanctions and decisive intervention is not a procedural detail, but a belated attempt to stop an accumulative process that, if completed, will leave the settlement with only its form, while its substance is lost.

This year's Ramadan comes as the Palestinian territories are experiencing one of their most complex phases in years.

Egypt is determined to understand why the Israeli Air Force bombed a car carrying Gazans working for the Egyptian Committee for the Reconstruction of the Gaza Strip.

I told Netanyahu not to take credit for himself, as the Iron Dome is our own technology.

Egypt demands to 'understand why the Israeli Air Force bombed a car carrying Gazans working for the Egyptian Committee for the Reconstruction of the Gaza Strip'.

The continuation of the occupation's crimes, along with the approval of the American Peace Council and the formation of a committee to manage the Gaza Strip, constitutes a provocative behavior that reflects a mentality of arrogance and disregard for international law and human values. It amounts to a full-fledged crime against humanity for which the occupation authorities bear full responsibility. The brutal practices and inhumane detention conditions faced by prisoners represent a blatant violation of the Geneva Conventions and all relevant international charters.
What the ministers of the occupation government, led by the extremist Itamar Ben-Gvir, are doing is unleashing their hatred and vengeful ideology against the prisoners within a systematic policy based on gloating and revenge. He bears direct responsibility for the execution and killing of dozens of prisoners inside prisons, whether through torture and causing death or through imposing deadly detention conditions. The continued international silence regarding these crimes is considered an insult to international law, international resolutions, and human rights, and undermines the credibility of international institutions concerned with protecting human rights.
The continuous incursions by the occupation army and settler gangs into the cities, villages, towns, and camps of the West Bank, and the commission of successive crimes, the transfer of crimes from the Gaza Strip to the West Bank, the rebuilding of a number of settlements that were previously removed by previous agreements, as is the case in the town of Sanur south of Jenin city, and the expansion of existing settlements through the construction of thousands of new settlement units, cannot continue and must stop. The national constants and goals that the Palestinian people believe in remain the compass for determining the national position in order to embody the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in accordance with international legitimacy resolutions.
 The United Nations and its specialized bodies, and international human rights and humanitarian organizations must take practical steps to punish the occupation and stop the continuous violations against Palestinian prisoners. Work must be done to organize broad solidarity campaigns at the Palestinian, Arab, and international levels to re-highlight the issue of prisoners, and the necessity for the International Committee of the Red Cross to play its full legal and humanitarian role and intervene urgently to ensure the protection of prisoners and stop the crimes committed against them inside the repressive occupation prisons.
 These political and humanitarian developments in the occupied Palestinian territories have cast their shadow over the region in general in light of the announcement of the Peace Council and its executive committee, in addition to the technocrat committee, in implementation of US President Donald Trump's plan, and Security Council Resolution 2803, and the importance of moving forward with political efforts aimed at achieving stability, and ensuring the return of the Palestinian Authority to assume its full responsibilities in the Gaza Strip, and the necessity of initiating a comprehensive national dialogue based on the consensus of all around the Palestine Liberation Organization as the legitimate and sole representative of the Palestinian people, and that the Palestinian National Authority must continue to provide its health, educational, administrative, and other services in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
 The West Bank, including Jerusalem, the capital of the Palestinian state, and the Gaza Strip will remain a single unit in embodying the independent Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since June 4, 1967, within the framework of one political system, one law, and one weapon. Work must be done to establish political and legal links between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip within the framework of the unity of land and institutions, and the necessity of working to ensure that war does not resume, and to accelerate the entry of urgent humanitarian aid to relieve our people, in addition to supporting reconstruction efforts and the necessity of stopping settler attacks in the West Bank, and that the continuation of these violations undermines opportunities for stability and violates international laws and legitimacy.
 

Dr. Omar Rahal: Netanyahu will use facilitating the committee's entry as an additional bargaining chip on the table, as part of a policy of turning details into negotiation files.
Jihad Harb: The presence of the technocrat committee in Gaza and the actual start of its work will open the door to implementing the second phase, which Netanyahu does not want.
Nizar Nazzal: The committee is being prevented because it does not align with Israeli conditions, foremost among them disarmament and ending Hamas's organizational, political, and administrative presence.
Dr. Reham Odeh: Preventing the entry of the technocrat committee into Gaza is not related to the committee's work mechanism, but to lifting the siege on the Strip and the symbolism of opening the Rafah crossing.
Firas Yaghi: Israel seeks to send a message that everything happening in the Strip is subject to American-Israeli consensus and that it controls the scene.
Nu'man Tawfiq Al-Abed: Preventing the technocrat committee from entering Gaza clearly reflects the Netanyahu government's unwillingness to move to the second phase.


Ramallah – Exclusive to "Al-Quds"-

The prevention of the Palestinian National Committee for the Administration of the Gaza Strip, the "Technocrat Committee," from entering the Strip, as political analysts confirm, comes within the context of an escalating Israeli political move that goes beyond procedural or security dimensions. It reflects a systematic policy aimed at keeping the keys to movement and work within the Strip in the hands of the occupation, and in an attempt to obstruct the start of the second phase of the ceasefire agreement in the Gaza Strip.
According to writers, political analysts, and specialists, in separate interviews with "Al-Quds," this step shows that any administrative, humanitarian, or political path in Gaza remains conditional on direct Israeli will, in the absence of a real commitment to move to subsequent stages of the proposed understandings.
Writers, analysts, and specialists indicate that the occupation uses the issue of the committee's entry as a pressure and bargaining chip, by linking it to broader negotiation files, including the second phase, the cessation of war, and the opening of crossings, especially the Rafah crossing. This approach reflects an Israeli desire to obstruct any Palestinian administration, even if it is technocratic in nature, for fear that its work will establish a new political and humanitarian reality in the Strip.

Systematic Israeli Policy

Writer and political analyst Dr. Omar Rahal confirms that Israel's prevention of the technocrat committee from entering the Gaza Strip is not a new step in the occupation's behavior, but rather falls within a systematic Israeli policy based on controlling movement and transit and obstructing any path that could lead to real political or field changes.
He points out that the occupation previously prevented the late President Yasser Arafat and President Mahmoud Abbas from moving, leaving, and entering, in a similar context of restriction and control.
Rahal explains that this prevention carries a clear political message that the head of the occupation government, Benjamin Netanyahu, is the ultimate decision-maker, and he is the one who grants or denies permits, whether for the technocrat committee or others, as he controls all the details.

A Tool of Pressure and Obstruction of the Committee's Work

Rahal considers this step not merely a security measure, but a tool of pressure and obstruction of the committee's work, and a message directed to all concerned parties, stating that any progress in subsequent stages, whether in terms of reconstruction or the field reality in Gaza, will remain subject to Israeli will.
He points out that Netanyahu will use this issue as a bargaining chip in future political and diplomatic negotiations, so that facilitating the committee's entry becomes an additional item on the negotiating table, rather than a given, but rather part of a historical Israeli policy of turning details into negotiation files.
Rahal notes that the formation of the committee itself does not necessarily mean its ability to work, as its entry into Gaza may be subject to a new series of negotiations, procrastination, and Israeli conditions.

Agreements with Israel Lack International Authority

On the internal Israeli level, Rahal believes that this policy also represents a message directed to Netanyahu's partners in the current or future government coalition, stating that he is the guarantor of maintaining the status quo, and not allowing the committee's work to succeed or the situation to move to advanced stages related to reconstruction or direct observation of the extent of destruction in the Strip.
He stresses that the occupation does not respect agreements and does not adhere to deadlines or charters, due to the absence of real pressure tools and mechanisms that force it to comply, noting that the agreements signed with Israel lack a binding international authority, which allows the occupation to interpret and implement them only in its own interests.
Rahal refers to what media outlets have reported about the head of the technocrat committee, Dr. Ali Shaath, being delayed for about seven hours at the Karama Bridge before being allowed to leave for Jordan and then to Egypt, considering this incident to reflect the nature of humiliation and political blackmail.
Rahal believes that Dr. Ali Shaath should have announced his resignation after that incident and put international parties, especially the United States, in front of their responsibilities to pressure Israel to respect the agreements.

The Committee Will Eventually Enter

Rahal expects the committee to eventually enter Gaza, but after Israeli procrastination and the imposition of strict conditions, including controlling entry and exit times, and specifying the areas the committee is allowed to visit, which will prevent it from a comprehensive view of the extent of destruction in the Strip.
Rahal points out that any movement of the committee will remain subject to Israeli instructions, with the possibility of international interventions later to facilitate entry and exit, but without guaranteeing real freedom of movement.

The Second Phase That Netanyahu Does Not Want

Writer and political analyst Jihad Harb confirms that Israel's prevention of the technocrat committee from entering the Gaza Strip falls within its clear attempts to obstruct the transition to the second phase of understandings, due to the political and field implications of this phase that would undermine the occupation's pretexts for continuing the war and military control. Harb explains that the presence of the technocrat committee in Gaza and the actual start of its work will open the door to implementing the second phase, especially regarding the introduction of broader aid under the supervision of an independent body, which would end repeated Israeli pretexts about Hamas seizing aid, and the start of the second phase is not desired by the head of the occupation government, Benjamin Netanyahu.
Harb explains that the second phase goes beyond the issue of humanitarian aid, to include a complete cessation of the war, despite the possibility of continued limited Israeli violations through assassinations or sporadic military operations.
He points out that this phase includes preparations for two basic issues: the first relates to the formation of an international stabilization force and its entry into the Strip, and the second is the start of the disarmament process of the Hamas movement, which would strip Israel of its justifications for military presence in the Gaza Strip or in what is known as the Yellow Zone, in addition to stopping military operations against Palestinian citizens.
Harb explains that the opening of the Rafah crossing is one of the essential outcomes of the second phase, as it will bring about a qualitative shift in the mechanism of introducing aid into the Gaza Strip, and break Israel's almost complete control over the crossings, which will reflect on the humanitarian and economic situation in the Strip.

Maintaining the Stalemate

Regarding the possible scenarios, Harb indicates that the first and worst scenario is not moving to the second phase, and maintaining the stalemate, so that the technocrat committee cannot actually take over its tasks, with the continued Israeli military presence in the eastern areas for a longer period.
Harb believes that this option serves the head of the occupation government, Benjamin Netanyahu, politically and electorally, in light of his move towards elections at the end of this year, and his endeavor to use the war in his internal political battle, and to remain until the end of the current Knesset term with an extremist right-wing coalition.
As for the second scenario, according to Harb, it is based on allowing the technocrat committee to enter and begin its work, which opens the way for managing the affairs of the Gaza Strip and governing it, and leads to an escalation of international demands to launch a reconstruction process, in parallel with disarmament and a gradual Israeli withdrawal from the Yellow Zone.
Harb refers to a third, less likely scenario, which is the implementation of a reconstruction plan only in the eastern areas, according to previous American-Israeli perceptions, based on isolating Palestinian residents or Hamas's administration in the western areas, considering that this possibility has become weak in light of current indicators, foremost among them the formation of the technocrat committee and the executive council to administer the Gaza Strip and the beginning of the formation of a US-led peace council.

Multiple Messages

Researcher specializing in Israeli affairs and conflict issues, Nizar Nazzal, explains that the Israeli occupation's prevention of the Palestinian National Committee for the Administration of the Gaza Strip, the "Technocrat Committee," cannot be understood as a technical or security measure, but rather comes within a clear political context that carries multiple messages reflecting the Israeli vision for the future of the Strip and the nature of the control imposed on it.
Nazzal points out that the first message Israel seeks to establish is the delegitimization of any Palestinian administration that does not comply with its preconditions, noting that Israel wants to confirm the saying that "there is no authority in Gaza without full Israeli approval."
He believes that the refusal to allow the committee to enter the Gaza Strip, despite its technocratic nature, is due to its incompatibility with Israeli conditions, foremost among them the actual disarmament of the Hamas movement and the Palestinian resistance, working under an Israeli security umbrella, and ending Hamas's organizational, political, and administrative presence within the Strip.
Nazzal explains that the second message relates to the failure of the "gray administration," where the technocrat committee represents a compromise solution that is not subject to Hamas or the Palestinian National Authority, a model that Israel rejects because it keeps Gaza Palestinian in identity, and prevents the imposition of a long-term security arrangement.
Nazzal believes that through this prevention, Israel sends a message that the available options are limited to either a complete Israeli model or a vacuum controlled by force.
He points out that the third message is directed to international and regional mediators, foremost among them the United States, Egypt, and Qatar, as Israel seeks to raise its conditions and pressure Washington to impose arrangements that are consistent with the Israeli vision.
As for the fourth message, according to Nazzal, it is to prevent the establishment of any Palestinian authority in Gaza, even if it has no political color or program, while the fifth message targets the Israeli interior, by emphasizing the policy of "no concessions, no Palestinian administration, and no return to past experiences."

Possibility of Limiting to Limited Relief Administration

Regarding the expected scenarios, Nazzal suggests a scenario of continued prevention with a de facto administration, meaning the absence of the technocrat committee and the authority, and limiting to a limited relief administration and undeclared security control, warning that this path will lead to a long attrition and a potential explosion that will return the Strip to the square of war.
He talks about a second scenario based on modifying the committee according to strict Israeli conditions, which would turn it into a formal service committee without sovereign powers, with expected failure in the medium term. As for the third scenario, according to Nazzal, it is the imposition of an international transitional security administration or guardianship, a scenario that carries the risks of popular rejection, field clashes, and the reproduction of chaos.
Nazzal stresses that Israel does not seek to administer Gaza as much as it wants to control its fate without bearing responsibility, emphasizing that the Strip is no longer a service arena, but has become an arena of conflict over sovereignty and a real test of the will of the international community and a turning point in the future of the Palestinian issue.

Symbolism of the Rafah Crossing and Lifting the Siege

Writer and political analyst Dr. Reham Odeh believes that preventing the entry of technocrat committee members into the Gaza Strip is not related to Israeli observations on the committee's work mechanism or its composition and personalities, but rather is fundamentally connected to the symbolism of opening the Rafah crossing and lifting the siege on the Strip.
She explains that all committee members had previously obtained Israeli security approvals before the official announcement of its formation, stressing that the American administration cannot announce the committee without prior coordination with Israel.
Odeh explains that so far no official Israeli objections related to the committee have been issued, which reinforces the hypothesis that the reason for the prevention is primarily logistical, and lies in the mechanism of entry into Gaza through the Rafah crossing.
Odeh points out that Israel still objects to opening the crossing in both directions, under the pretext of not receiving the last body, noting that the occupation refuses to open the crossing exceptionally to committee members, for fear that this will turn into political and humanitarian pressure that forces its continued opening to the residents of the Gaza Strip.
Regarding the possible scenarios, Odeh expects in the first scenario that a solution will be reached for the Rafah crossing problem, allowing committee members to enter Gaza and begin their work from within the Strip, in coordination with Hamas.
Odeh points out that the committee's work in this case will be limited to humanitarian and relief files without security aspects, with an attempt to absorb Hamas government employees within the committee's administration.

Continued Targeting of "Hamas" Elements

Odeh suggests the continued Israeli targeting of Hamas elements, as part of a gradual attrition policy, while Hamas remains responsible for managing the security situation temporarily, until Arab and foreign countries agree to send forces for security supervision in coordination with the technocrat committee, with Hamas seeking to maintain a political and military situation similar to the Hezbollah model in Lebanon if Israeli operations against it stop.
As for the second scenario, according to Odeh, it is the continued closure of the Rafah crossing, and the technocrat committee's work remaining remotely from Egypt, with its tasks delegated to its deputies inside Gaza who coordinate with Hamas to restructure the government sector.
Odeh warns that this scenario may be accompanied by an Israeli announcement of its intention to disarm "Hamas" by force if it refuses voluntarily, which could lead to a return of the war on the Gaza Strip, even partially.

Initial Acceptance with Conditions

Writer and political analyst Firas Yaghi explains that the formation of the National Committee for the Administration of the Gaza Strip, the "Technocrat Committee," came after a long gestation and had previously received approvals from the United States and Israel, meaning that it had initial acceptance from the beginning, but this approval was not absolute, but rather linked to broader political and security conditions related to the second phase of the American plan.
He explains that the understandings that took place between the head of the occupation government, Benjamin Netanyahu, and US President Donald Trump regarding the frameworks of the second phase, confirmed that what has been done so far falls within the framework of formal procedures that do not affect fundamental issues.
Yaghi points out that any practical steps within the Gaza Strip, including the start of the National Committee's work, require a new and direct agreement between Washington and Tel Aviv, stressing that the formation of the committee does not practically mean the start of implementing the second phase of Trump's plan.

A Message from Israel of its Control over the Strip

Yaghi explains that through preventing the committee from entering Gaza, Israel seeks to send a clear message that everything happening in the Strip is subject to American-Israeli consensus, and that it is the party controlling the scene militarily and politically.
He cites the occupation's refusal to open the Rafah crossing except under conditions, most notably finding the body of the Israeli prisoner Rani Goili, in addition to security conditions related to inspection mechanisms and the number of entrants and exits through the crossing, so that the number of departures is greater than the number of arrivals.
Yaghi explains that Israel has put forward proposals that include establishing an electronic monitoring point between the Palestinian and Egyptian sides of the Rafah crossing for remote monitoring, and opening an additional lane after the Palestinian side of the crossing that is under its direct supervision, in addition to stipulating that the number of departures from Gaza be greater than the number of arrivals to it.
Yaghi believes that these conditions reflect the occupation's insistence on establishing its full control, and keeping the technocrat committee within the framework of an administrative service committee without actual powers.

Prolonging the Crisis and Preparing for Displacement

Yaghi confirms that Israeli procrastination in moving to the second phase aims to prolong the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip, and prepare the ground for a displacement scenario.
He points out that Israel is still talking about potential military plans, if the Hamas movement is not disarmed within a specified period, according to what is being circulated about the "Peace Council" that Trump is expected to announce.
Regarding the possible scenarios, Yaghi stresses that the future of Gaza is now linked to the American vision for the region as a whole, which intersects with the Israeli vision on the issue of disarmament and the re-engineering of geography and demography.
Yaghi refers to Trump's statements in which he spoke about the desire of large numbers of Gaza residents to leave it, considering this part of a broader political project aimed at creating a new Palestinian entity without sovereignty, and a Palestinian leadership that is not linked to either Hamas or the Palestinian Authority, within the framework of what Netanyahu described as "de-radicalization," which makes displacement the most prominent scenario in the next phase.

Absence of Real Intention to Implement Commitments

Writer and political researcher specializing in international relations, Nu'man Tawfiq Al-Abed, confirms that the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has at no stage been concerned with stopping the aggression against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip, nor with ending the war or abandoning plans for re-occupation and settlement, and ideas of displacement, ethnic cleansing, and liquidating the Palestinian issue, noting that any path that leads to a ceasefire fundamentally contradicts the doctrine of this government and its political goals.
He explains that this position explains Netanyahu's continuous attempts to obstruct any political or field movement that leads to ending the aggression, noting that the occupation's failure to implement the first phase of the agreement, despite it being the easiest phase in terms of releasing Israeli prisoners and their bodies, reflects the absence of a real intention on the part of the Israeli government to implement its commitments as stipulated in the agreements.
Al-Abed explains that the second phase of the agreement carries commitments that completely contradict the approach of the Netanyahu government, foremost among them the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip from the Yellow Line to the Red Line, which the Israeli government rejects, in addition to establishing the Palestinian people in their land by confronting displacement plans, and launching a reconstruction and economic recovery process through donor conferences, as well as the role of the Palestinian technocrat committee, which the occupation believes contradicts its goals.

Rejection of Any Form of Palestinian Rule

Al-Abed points out that the Netanyahu government does not want any form of Palestinian rule in Gaza, regardless of the party in charge of the administration, explaining that its opposition is not limited to the Hamas movement or the Palestinian National Authority, but extends to a principled rejection of any Palestinian sovereignty or administration over the Strip.
He stresses that international intervention, whether through support or supervision of the technocrat committee, or through the intermediary executive council, or even through the presence of international forces, is considered by the Netanyahu government to be a threat to its approach based on monopolizing Palestinian decision-making, and seeking to impose its vision through the American administration.
Al-Abed warns of Palestinian and Arab fears that some of the proposed frameworks, foremost among them the Peace Council, will turn into an alternative to international bodies, which could harm the Palestinian issue.

A New Phase of Procrastination

Al-Abed confirms that preventing the Palestinian technocrat committee from entering Gaza clearly reflects the Netanyahu government's unwillingness to move to the second phase, and its failure to implement the outcomes of the Sharm El Sheikh summit, warning that this will lead to a new phase of procrastination and delay, and the obstruction of subsequent entitlements.
Al-Abed links this behavior to the internal political crisis Netanyahu is experiencing, and his endeavor to use toughness towards the Palestinian issue as an electoral propaganda tool as Israeli elections approach.
Al-Abed points out that the most likely scenario in the next phase is the Netanyahu government's attempt to keep the situation in Gaza as it is, and continue control and division, until after the Israeli elections, unless real international pressure occurs, especially from the American administration and Arab mediators and guarantors and influential countries, to enforce the implementation of the agreements as agreed upon.

After Trump's speech in which he decided to ask for a piece of ice called "Greenland," as if it were an ice cube that accidentally fell from a cocktail glass onto the White House table, the world rediscovered that when the logic of power gets bored, it doesn't look for warm land, but for a refrigerator. Europe naturally refuses, then Trump returns to explain to them that refusal means nothing when the desire is supported by a long history of considering the planet an open store for whoever owns a strong war fleet and populist rhetoric suitable for electoral consumption.
 
The story seems at first glance a political joke, perhaps even suitable for sarcastic headlines that then pass, but behind this cold jest lies an old logic being recycled in a new language: the land is not a people, nor a history, nor a legal system, but an investment opportunity not yet reserved. In this sense, asking for a piece of ice is no different from asking for an oil field, or a strategic port, or a trade route, or even buying a people as slaves, but the difference is only in the degree of frankness, and in the media dose that accompanies the request.
Trump did not choose "Greenland" in vain, for the location is important, the resources are promising, and the changing climate turns ice into a treasure ripe for exploration and investment. Here, climate change, for which people pay the price, becomes a golden opportunity to rearrange maps of influence. The environmental catastrophe turns into an investment advertisement, and the world watches the show, then applauds in astonishment, and returns to its daily affairs.
What is striking is not only the request but also the way it was presented. There is no talk of sovereignty, nor of inhabitants, nor of historical rights, but only of a deal, as if global politics had officially returned to the era of pirates and major trading companies, when islands were bought and sold for shares, tea, and ships. But the difference is that we live in an age that claims ownership of a huge and impressive discourse of rights, but it is often used for display, not for implementation.
Europe's rejection of the request appeared outwardly as a moral stance, but the rejection itself was overly polite. No one said that the idea itself was scandalous; rather, it was said to be diplomatically inappropriate. The difference is significant when the discussion shifts from the rights of peoples to self-determination to the politeness of statements. At that point, we would have come a long way in normalizing the logic of acquisition in the language of the age, or colonialism in the language of the past, in its essence.
The irony here is that the international system, which is supposed to be based on respect for borders, is the very one that produced centuries of tearing apart and annihilating peoples and redrawing maps by force. The difference today is that the tools are a little softer, and the phrases somewhat more beautiful, but the essence is the same: whoever has power tests the boundaries, and whoever does not writes elegant statements of rejection, then waits for the next news.
The problem is that this pattern does not remain within the realm of anecdotes. When a leader of a major country presents the idea of acquisition as a debatable option, he sends a message to the whole world that international law is a suggestion, not an obligation. Today, a piece of ice or an island, and tomorrow a waterway or airspace, for the market is open only to those bold enough to say very loudly what others think, but with shameful silence.
The solution is not in ridicule alone, for although sarcasm is a necessary weapon to expose absurdity, what is required is to reconnect global politics with the logic of rights, not the logic of deals, and to restore the idea that land is not a commodity, and that peoples are not appendices in sales contracts. Without that, the world will continue to move from joke to crisis, and from a strange request to a new reality, then wonder how we got here?
 
 

In a move that goes beyond the framework of humanitarian or administrative arrangements for the post-war period, US President Donald Trump announced an expansion of the powers of what is known as the “Peace Council,” which he heads, granting it a direct role in overseeing the Gaza Strip.
This step comes concurrently with Washington's withdrawal from dozens of international organizations and agreements linked to the United Nations system, raising fundamental questions about the future of international legitimacy, the limits of the role of UN institutions, and the possibility of Gaza transforming into a testing ground for a new model of “peace of power” based on imposing facts rather than the force of law.
In this context, Gaza is no longer merely a war zone or an open humanitarian tragedy; it has transformed into a political and legal laboratory where new mechanisms for conflict management are being tested, mechanisms that bypass the principles of international law, marginalize the role of the United Nations, and replace the logic of right with the logic of dominance. Dealing with the Strip is no longer based on it being part of an occupied territory subject to clear rules of international humanitarian law, but rather as an “crisis management” issue amenable to special arrangements imposed from outside.
The international system, theoretically, is based on respect for state sovereignty and the right of peoples to self-determination, and on managing conflicts through collective institutions, foremost among them the United Nations.
However, what is being proposed for Gaza today represents a clear bypass of these foundations.
 The Peace Council is not based on a comprehensive UN mandate, nor does it stem from a free Palestinian will; rather, it derives its legitimacy from the balance of power and American patronage, which means shifting the center of legitimacy from international law to a de facto situation imposed by force.
More dangerously, Gaza is not being treated as an exceptional case imposed by war conditions, but as an experimental model that can be generalized. A model based on civil administration without sovereignty, reconstruction without a political horizon, security imposed from outside, and Palestinian representation stripped of its national and political dimension. If this model were to pass without actual objection, it could become a ready-made formula for managing other conflicts, where a just political solution is replaced by a long-term “forced stability.”
This path cannot be separated from the United States' decision to withdraw from a large number of UN-affiliated international organizations and agreements.
The political message here is clear: when international institutions do not serve power politics, they are bypassed, not reformed. Thus, international law transforms from a binding reference into a selective tool, used or marginalized according to interests.
What is being offered to Gaza today is not peace in the legal or political sense, but a formula based on calm without justice, reconstruction without sovereignty, and security without rights.
It is the peace of power, not the peace of law, where the weaker party is asked to adapt to imposed facts as the “realistic possible solution.”
Gaza today is not only under bombardment, but under test: a test of power's ability to impose a model of peace without justice, administration without sovereignty, and life without rights. If this model passes without conscious political and legal confrontation, its repercussions will not stop at Gaza's borders, but will extend to affect the Palestinian cause in all its components, as well as the core of the international system itself. What is happening is not the end of the United Nations, but the beginning of the formation of a world where conflicts are managed outside the law, and this is falsely called peace.

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.