Talk about the future of the international “peace council” to manage the Gaza Strip raises widespread controversy among international political and legal experts, amid questions about the ability of the international community to find a transitional formula that goes beyond the failures of previous experiences, and takes into account urgent political and humanitarian paths in light of the repercussions of the Israeli aggression on Gaza, and the challenges of the ceasefire concluded this month between the Palestinian resistance and Israel.
Experts’ opinions vary – in their statements to Al Jazeera Net – regarding the chances of success of an international administration in the sector, especially with their emphasis on the importance of local legitimacy, ensuring the participation of Palestinian factions, and the necessity of having a regional guarantor that prevents the international authority from being biased or expanding beyond its original mission.
Previous international governance experiences show that the international community is often forced to adopt this model when state institutions fail and competition for influence intensifies. However, history reveals the limitations of this solution, which imposes strict conditions for any actual transition from international governance to legitimate and sustainable national governance, according to what analysts said.
The international administration plan for Gaza was not immune to this controversy, as experts’ assessments varied between considering it an inevitable necessity for reconstruction and overcoming the collapse, and fears of imposing guardianship on the Palestinians and devoting temporary solutions, especially amid the controversy raised by the selection of highly controversial figures to head the international “peace council,” and the intersection of economic interests with humanitarian crises in the Strip.
The “Peace Council” plan represents a proposal by US President Donald Trump, in an attempt to stop the ongoing Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip, which worsened after the last war that lasted two full years and left tens of thousands of civilian casualties. It is part of the multi-stage ceasefire agreement, including mechanisms that guarantee reconstruction and the resumption of political life in the Strip.
Historical experiences of international regions
Opinions vary about the legitimacy and motives for establishing international administrations, but they agree on the fact that such projects often appear in situations of vacuum, local collapse, or intense international competition, with varying estimates of their morality or effectiveness in the long term. The bet always remains on the extent to which these administrations respect the rights of residents, and their ability to later transfer power to the local national body.
Therefore, Raed Abu Badawiya, professor of international relations at the Arab American University, believes that the international community often resorts to establishing international administrations in cases of collapse of security or the breakdown of state institutions, as the need becomes urgent to fill the political and security vacuum, guarantee the rights of minorities and protect civilians, and create the necessary climate for building new governance institutions.
Abu Badawiya adds – in his statements to Al Jazeera Net – that this option is usually a temporary refuge to establish security and provide basic services, until appropriate conditions are created for the transfer of power to a legitimate local body.
This opinion is confirmed by international law expert Anis Al-Qassim, as the establishment of a temporary international authority is often a way out favored by major powers to avoid the outbreak of conflicts or wars between international parties competing over a strategic region. He explains that previous experiences, such as Shanghai, Bosnia, or Danzig, were motivated by competition between the major powers, and the goal was to contain the clash and not to achieve the desires or ambitions of the indigenous people of the region.
As for Heather Benatzer, a postdoctoral fellow at Princeton University, she believes that the primary motivation behind resorting to this model is always the need for a temporary geopolitical settlement rather than a desire to build sustainable political legitimacy, noting that the international community is pursuing immediate stability even if this comes at the expense of local governance.
Have international zone systems been successful historically?
Analysts agree that the success of international administrations in previous experiences has remained circumstantial and limited, and is linked to the size of the international mandate, the effectiveness of regional support, and the ability of local actors to participate. Local legitimacy and the people’s self-rule remain the determining factor in success and failure. As for international interventions – despite providing services or temporary stability – they remain incapable of ensuring an effective and real transition to permanent local government unless they are founded from the beginning on the participation and approval of the population and their representatives.
Abu Badawiya reviewed the experiences of modern international administrations in his statements to Al Jazeera Net, noting that their results were mixed. The East Timor experience achieved relative success thanks to the clarity of the international mandate and regional support, which allowed for the building of real institutions that later led to independence.
As for the Kosovo experience, it provided a degree of stability and services, but it did not end political divisions and did not establish the legitimacy of sustainable governance, while the Cambodia model revealed the inability of the international administration to build a democratic state or long-term popular legitimacy, according to the professor of international relations at the Arab American University.
Al-Qasim reinforces this assessment, adding that the cases of Danzig, Shanghai, and Bosnia demonstrated that international administrations achieved exceptional interests in circumstances of a complex conflict, but they did not succeed in creating a legitimate and solid national structure, and their fate remained in the end to disappear with the return of clash or vacuum.
But Benatzer – in her article published on the Compact magazine website entitled “Historical Precedents of Trump’s Gaza Plan” – warns that most international administrations suffer from a chronic deficit in legitimacy, an uncontrolled expansion of tasks, and power is often concentrated in the hands of foreign bureaucrats while marginalizing the local population.
Director of the Zaytouna Center for Studies and Consultations, Mohsen Saleh, goes on to stress that all previous transgressions of this kind failed when they collided with the will of the people, indicating that the Palestinian people – in particular – will not accept external guardianship, whatever its form or justification.
The future of Gaza under Trump’s plan
Regarding the future of the Gaza Strip under the peace council proposed by the Trump plan, the voices of analysts agree that this remains dependent on the extent to which the Palestinian will is respected. Everyone acknowledges that the international model cannot succeed if local forces are excluded or the logic of guardianship is repeated, and any attempt to bypass the rights of the Palestinians in favor of international arrangements will only be a temporary stage that will not stand the test of reality or the will of the people.
Therefore, the director of the Zaytouna Center rejects the “Peace Council” plan, describing it as “an idea that goes against history and the rights of the Palestinian people,” and sees it as an attempt to impose international guardianship and give the Israeli occupation an undeserved reward.
In his statements to Al Jazeera Net, Saleh confirms that the essence of the problem in the Gaza Strip lies in the continuation of the Israeli occupation, and not in the absence of an effective Palestinian administration. He says, “The Palestinian people are full of energies and competencies and are capable of managing themselves once the occupation ends, and they do not need anyone’s guardianship.”
Very close to this opinion comes the Benitzer report, in which it stated that Trump’s plan to establish an international administration in Gaza perpetuates the same problems of the past, as it lacks real Palestinian participation, and comes from the standpoint of a political deal that does not care about the essence of legitimacy or local institutions.
The author points out that Trump’s personal orientations and inclination toward imperial policies warn that the “Peace Council” will be closer to traditional international management models that have failed, stressing the necessity of a clear plan to end the crisis, with a neutral oversight structure, mechanisms for effective local political participation, and the commitment of the guarantors to gradually relinquish control.
International law expert Anis Al-Qassem takes a different angle with regard to the proposed “peace council” in Gaza. He says that it already carries the seeds of its failure due to the composition of its leadership, criticizing the choice of Tony Blair to lead the international administration in Gaza, attributing this to his negative record in the Arab world and his failure in several files, as happened in Iraq.
Al-Qasim adds that some influential figures in the Peace Council are preoccupied with their own investment interests, which are far from the concerns of the people of Gaza and their humanitarian issues. Stressing that any administration that ignores these facts will be unable to meet the aspirations of the Palestinians.
Abu Badawiyya stipulates that the success of any international administration in Gaza remains conditional on a clear mandate, effective and guarantoring regional support, and the involvement of Palestinian factions, including the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), in the administration, stressing that ignoring local reality will lead to more complications and popular resistance.
The experts’ opinions conclude that the international “peace council” – if approved – will be a temporary measure imposed by the results of a devastating Israeli aggression that lasted two years and left tens of thousands of Palestinian victims, in addition to thousands missing under the rubble of homes as a result of the Israeli army’s bombing, according to statistics from the Ministry of Health in Gaza.
It is noteworthy that on October 9, Hamas and Israel reached a ceasefire agreement according to a plan by the American President, and with the mediation of Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey, but Israel continued to violate the ceasefire agreement, which led to large numbers of casualties.
The post Will Trump’s plan in Gaza succeed in avoiding the mistakes of previous international administrations? | policy appeared first on Veritas News.
