Security Council Faces First Test for "Peace Council": Report Blames Palestinians and Provides Political Cover for Israel

Washington's Message

Washington – Said Arikat – 21/5/2026

News Analysis

Nikolay Mladenov, the former UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, will brief the UN Security Council on Thursday on the first official report issued by what is known as the "Peace Council," the body formed at the beginning of this year as part of the American initiative for ceasefire arrangements and reconstruction in Gaza.

However, the report, which is supposed to aim at evaluating the implementation of the truce and reconstruction agreement, has sparked widespread criticism since its content was leaked, as it appeared to place primary responsibility for the agreement's failure on the Palestinians, specifically Hamas, while almost completely ignoring the Israeli and American roles in the continuation of the war and the humanitarian collapse in the Strip.

According to information circulated before the Security Council session, the report focuses on what it describes as "Hamas's refusal to give up its weapons" as the main obstacle to implementing the reconstruction plan and political transition in Gaza. It also calls on the international council to exert public pressure on the movement to accept a mechanism of "internationally verifiable disarmament" as a prerequisite for any economic or political progress.

The report comes at a time when Gaza is still experiencing one of the worst humanitarian disasters in its modern history, amidst ongoing Israeli military operations, destruction of infrastructure, restriction of aid entry, and worsening famine and mass displacement. Nevertheless, the report – according to leaks – does not provide serious space for holding Israel accountable for these facts, but rather treats them as “field challenges” related to the security situation.

The "Peace Council" was established within a framework sponsored by the administration of US President Donald Trump, as an international body to monitor the implementation of the ceasefire agreement, oversee the reconstruction of Gaza, and transitional governance arrangements. However, critics have considered from the outset that the Council was designed in a way that gives the United States and Israel the upper hand in determining the future of the Strip, with effective marginalization of the Palestinians themselves and traditional UN institutions.

Observers believe that the Council's first report clearly reveals the nature of the political approach governing its work; it reduces the crisis to the issue of "Hamas's weapons," while avoiding delving into the roots of the conflict related to occupation, settlement, siege, and the ongoing war against Palestinians.

The report reflects a deliberate attempt to reframe the political narrative of the war, transforming Israel from an occupying power accused of committing widespread violations into a party seeking “stability and security,” while presenting Palestinians as the primary obstacle to peace. This approach not only ignores the scale of destruction and killing suffered by civilians in Gaza but also practically seeks to criminalize the Palestinian right to resist occupation and turn the humanitarian tragedy into a political pressure tool to impose Israeli and American conditions under the guise of reconstruction and stability.

What is striking in the report is that it speaks at length about the necessity of "disarmament," but it almost avoids any mention of ending the occupation, lifting the siege, or holding Israel accountable for the destruction of Gaza. This imbalance does not seem accidental, but rather reflects an entire political structure that attempts to redefine peace as a complete Palestinian surrender to Israeli conditions. Instead of addressing the roots of the conflict, the focus is on managing its security outcomes, thereby transforming the United Nations from a platform that is supposed to defend international law into a body that provides diplomatic cover for the balance of power imposed by Washington and Tel Aviv.

The most dangerous aspect of the "Peace Council" is not only its political content but also that it is an attempt to bypass traditional international institutions and replace them with a structure closer to a political platform led by the United States to serve the Israeli vision for the war and its aftermath. The Council, as its first report shows, does not treat Palestinians as a people with national and political rights, but rather as a security and humanitarian file that needs “management and control.” From this perspective, the proposed idea of peace seems closer to a project to re-engineer Palestinian reality under American and Israeli supervision, rather than a genuine path to achieving justice or ending the occupation.