On last November 17, the UNSC approved a resolution submitted by the United States on the day after in Gaza. The resolution, numbered 2803, establishes a “Peace Council” as a transitional adminstration body with an international legal personality tasked with setting the framework and coordinating funding for Gaza’s reconstruction, until the Palestinian Authority completes its reform program in a satisfactory manner. The resolution designates President Donald Trump as the president of this council. It also links the resumption of humanitarian aid to cooperation with the Peace Council and with partnering organisations such as the United Nations. The resolution authorises member states participating in the Peace Council to enter into the necessary arrangements defined by the resolution including provisions related to privileges and immunities, and the creation of operational entities with discretionary powers to carry out their functions. Among these is a non-political Palestinian committee composed of Gaza residents, responsible for the day-to-day running of civil services and administration in the Strip under the supervision of the Peace Council. The resolution further authorises the Council to establish a temporary international stabilisation force in Gaza under its leadership, with the participation of other states and accompanied by a newly trained and vetted Palestinian police force, to help secure border areas and stabilise the security environment in Gaza, ensuring the disarmament of the Strip. It notes that the operational entities will be funded through voluntary donor contributions, Peace Council financing mechanisms, and governments. According to the resolution, the Council’s civilian and international presence will continue until the end of 2027, subject to expanding the mandate by the Security Council.

The so-called Peace Council referenced in UNSC Resolution 2803 is not an international body with legal personality. It was formed through a unilateral American decision, and it is not a mandated or neutral transitional administration, as it reflects the interests and objectives of the United States. Nor is it an official occupation authority, since it coordinates with and supports the presence and goals of another occupying power, Israel. The establishment of this council creates a legal grey zone that exceeds what is recognised in international law, positioning it as a quasi-supra-legal entity deriving its status and power from the influence and dominance of the United States. This raises several questions, first and foremost among them: Does the transitional authority (The Peace Council) included by the American resolution meet the criteria of a legitimate transition, or does it constitute a form of external authority imposed on a population under occupation, similar to the Iraq experience in 2003? Can an occupying power or a state sponsoring an occupying power grant a supra-local body such as the Peace Council constitutional powers within an occupied territory? And does the UNSC resolution effectively reproduce the occupation’s authority in a new institutional form? This article also highlights structural risks, such as the potential entrenchment of political guardianship over Palestine by the United States through its monopolisation of decision-making in Gaza, the fragmentation and weakening of Palestinian legitimacy, and the transformation of Gaza into a security-economic model shaped according to American preferences.

OPINION: UNSC 2803: The US-Israeli scheme to partition Gaza and break Palestinian will

Although the resolution makes reference to relevant UN resolutions, it........

© Middle East Monitor