Academics Analyze Challenges of "Peace Council" for Gaza: Legitimacy Crisis and Gap Between Ambition and Reality

The "Peace Council" is preparing to hold its first meeting in the United States, chaired by Donald Trump, amidst a state of international anticipation tinged with tension and divergence in the positions of major capitals. Questions are escalating regarding the legitimacy of this new entity and its operational mechanisms on the ground, in light of a growing trust gap between declared objectives and the actual balance of power on the ground in the Gaza Strip.

This meeting will be held with the participation of 27 countries, based on a mandate from the UN Security Council to follow up on the implementation of the ceasefire agreement and full oversight of governance and reconstruction paths. International experts are scrutinizing this move, describing it as facing rejection in research circles due to the broad powers granted to its president and its structure's association with a specific political figure.

Observers believe that this new framework could turn into a parallel platform to traditional UN structures, which could lead to the destabilization of international balances that have been stable since the end of World War II. Academics point out that granting the Council's president veto power and absolute control over the agenda weakens the principle of diplomatic multilateralism upon which the global system was founded.

Dr. Khaled Al-Haroub, Professor of International Politics, stated that academic discussion currently focuses on the question of legitimacy before effectiveness, considering the initiative a re-formulation of diplomatic rules of engagement through the centralization of decision-making. He explained that this approach creates a trust gap among Washington's traditional partners in Europe and Asia who fear the marginalization of their historical roles.

Al-Haroub stressed that the success of any peace framework depends entirely on its ability to produce a real balance of interests among conflicting parties and to possess effective leverage tools. He warned that the absence of clear enforcement mechanisms, coupled with continued violations on the ground, puts the Council to a harsh credibility test from its very first moments.

For his part, political analyst Ali Qassem Najm considered that the initiative aims to reshape regional spheres of influence, as Washington seeks to exclusively control the Gaza file. He affirmed that this path is met with strong reservations in Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran, as it bypasses accredited international references and weakens UN legitimacy.

Najm warned that the absence of a detailed vision for governance and security in Gaza could open the door to dangerous political vacuums exploited by competing regional powers. He pointed out that historical experiences prove the failure of unilateral initiatives to gain the trust of local parties, emphasizing that active Palestinian participation is the essential condition for any sustainable stability.

In a related context, Dr. Ali Al-Harithi noted that the first meeting comes at a critical humanitarian moment that requires tangible results on the ground, not just strategic speeches. He explained that the continued field tension and the slow pace of aid entry through crossings deepen doubts about the Council's ability to translate its mandate into a reality that improves the lives of civilians.

Al-Harithi believes that the current focus on the donor conference and reconstruction requires a stable security environment and a clear civilian administration with defined powers to succeed. He added that the formation of technocratic committees is an organizational step, but empowering them requires practical understandings with the controlling forces on the ground to ensure they do not clash with the complex reality.

For her part, researcher Tahani Al-Fuqaha indicated that the language used in the Council's founding documents raises a philosophical discussion about the future of the existing international system. She said that the texts carry a critical discourse of current mechanisms with promises of resolving conflicts, but resolution in complex issues requires cumulative legitimacy built on consensus, not imposition.

Al-Fuqaha warned that the clear European reservation weakens the image of international consensus around the Council, and the disregard for direct Palestinian representation represents a blatant structural challenge. She affirmed that any path that ignores the principle of self-determination enshrined in international law will complicate the chances of transitioning from a mere ceasefire to a comprehensive political settlement.

Experts' assessments converge on a fundamental point, which is the "implementation gap," where the Council advances with promising rhetoric while reports of continued violent field tensions accumulate. This contradiction places the Council before two choices: either to innovate real pressure mechanisms or to face a rapid erosion of political credibility before the international community.

All eyes are now on the outcomes of the first meeting, awaiting the announcement of practical paths that include independent monitoring mechanisms and a clear timeline for reconstruction operations. Observers are also anticipating the formula through which the Palestinian side will be involved, which is the point that will determine the popular and political acceptance of this initiative.

Academics concluded that any peace initiative lacking the pillars of comprehensive international legitimacy, inclusive representation, and effective implementation tools will remain merely a broad title. The real test for the Council remains its ability to open a genuine political horizon that ends human suffering in Gaza, away from electoral calculations or unipolarity.

This Council is read in light of profound shifts in the structure of the international system, where its current formula grants its president exceptional powers that weaken the logic of multilateralism upon which the world has been built for decades.