The Peace Council and Gaza... and Bypassing the Principles of International Law

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.