The Security Council's delegation to America in Gaza reveals the United Nations' slide towards legitimizing contemporary colonialism.

More than two years after the unprecedented humanitarian tragedy faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, characterized by widespread killings, comprehensive destruction, and forced displacement that turned life upside down, the recent decision by the Security Council raises fundamental questions about the function of the international system and its ability to protect peoples. The decision does not seem to be an attempt to end the suffering of Gazans as much as it appears, as described by civil and human rights legal expert Craig Mkhayber, an additional deviation towards an approach that prioritizes geopolitical interests over the principles of international law, where justice is replaced by arrangements that facilitate domination rather than limit it.

Upon examining the structure of the decision, it becomes clear that it grants the United States a central role by establishing a new entity called the "Peace Council," tasked with managing Gaza and coordinating directly with Israel, completely sidelining the Palestinians. This model, as Mkhayber, who held a senior position in the UN human rights system until the end of October 2023, points out, is merely a recycling of the foreign guardianship approach that the world experienced in the mid-20th century, when major powers managed the affairs of peoples from above their heads. This approach fundamentally contradicts the right of Palestinians to self-determination and reveals a deep rift in the international legitimacy system.

Mkhayber recalls in one of his analyses the legal context represented by the International Court of Justice ruling that affirmed the illegality of the occupation and the necessity of ending it. However, the Security Council completely ignored this ruling and moved towards entrenching a dual structure of control: the continuation of the Israeli occupation on one hand, and the addition of an international umbrella led by the United States on the other. In his article published in "Mundoais," Mkhayber describes this situation as a "dual colonial layer" that redefines the occupation in a form more acceptable to major powers, transforming the path to its end into a long-term management project.

What darkens the picture further is the absence of any reference in the decision to the documented crimes committed in Gaza – from mass killings to siege, starvation, forced displacement, and destruction of civilian infrastructure. It is as if the Security Council is treating one of the harshest humanitarian disasters as a technical issue that requires a new administrative arrangement, rather than as a crime that necessitates accountability. This neglect, as Mkhayber insists, makes the idea of "peace" promoted by the decision merely a cover for managing the conflict rather than resolving it.

The establishment of the "International Stability Force" reveals another part of the problem, as the proposed force seems closer to a security apparatus aimed at controlling the population, preventing resistance, and disarming, rather than being a mechanism for protecting civilians. Its functions are limited to monitoring borders and coordinating with Israel, without any guarantees to deter or hold accountable for Israeli assaults. Through his extensive experience in following UN missions, Mkhayber believes that such forces, when imposed outside local will, become a party in entrenching imposed arrangements, rather than protecting the populations they are supposed to serve.

The irony peaks when the decision exempts Israel from the responsibility of reconstruction and compensation for the destruction left by its war on Gaza, placing the financial burden on the international community. Thus, the disaster turns into a political and economic opportunity that grants the occupation covert support, contributing to what Mkhayber describes as the "normalization of disaster," meaning transforming the crime of genocide into a prelude to a new political phase built on the ruins of Palestinian rights.

These arrangements have been met with widespread rejection from Palestinian forces, international law experts, and civil society organizations, which see the decision as an assault on Palestinian national rights and a direct threat to the credibility of the United Nations. Instead of exercising its original role in protecting peoples, the organization today appears – as Mkhayber has repeatedly warned – to be gradually transitioning from a guarantor of international legitimacy to a founder of a parallel legitimacy that serves the interests of dominant powers.

Despite the United States' success in passing the decision, its implementation on the ground is fraught with major challenges. Managing Gaza through an imposed foreign force without popular acceptance is difficult to sustain, as numerous international experiences show. Mkhayber asserts that any political model imposed from abroad, no matter how robust it seems, quickly collapses in the face of the will of the people.

Thus, confronting this trajectory becomes a multi-level responsibility: political to thwart it, legal to hold accountable those responsible for the crimes, and popular to protect the Palestinian narrative and its rights. There may also be a need to utilize alternative tools within the international system, such as "Uniting for Peace," in an attempt to restore some of the balance that has been disrupted within the Security Council. In this context, Craig Mkhayber's voice remains a stark reminder that the United Nations loses its meaning when it