"Peace Council"... Fears of a Coercive Alternative Based on Force and Money

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.