According to Mr. Hani AlMasri, any professional and objective reading of the American draft resolution concerning the Gaza Strip, specifically regarding the formation of an "international stability force", leads to one inevitable conclusion. Mr. AlMasri argues that if this resolution is passed in its current form, it will essentially swing the door wide open for a new occupation of the Strip, all under the veneer of international legitimacy.
Mr. AlMasri points out that this becomes crystal clear when examining the power structure outlined in the draft. The UN Security Council, which is supposed to grant legitimacy to this "stability force," would not actually serve as its ultimate authority. Instead, Mr. AlMasri explains, that role would fall to a "Peace Council" led by Donald Trump, with assistance from Tony Blair and others. In other words, as Mr. AlMasri emphasizes, the "Peace Council" would be the de facto ruler on the ground, not the Security Council. The "stability force" would be empowered to "enforce security" and govern, a far cry from a simple peacekeeping mandate.
Mr. AlMasri raises a critical question about the Palestinians, the rightful people of the land whose state is recognized by the UN as an observer member and by 160 countries, including four of the five permanent Security Council members. He notes that their involvement would be pushed to the sidelines, contingent upon the Palestinian Authority completing a "satisfactory" reform program—with "satisfactory" being determined by the very same "Peace Council."
Consequently, Mr. AlMasri argues, any Palestinian participation, whether through police forces or a committee of technocrats, would be purely ceremonial, lacking any real sovereignty or decision-making power. He warns that this is a tried-and-true recipe for reducing the Palestinian cause to a mere humanitarian and security issue, treating the Palestinian people as scattered individuals in disconnected territories, and stripping the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) of its role as their sole, unifying representative. Mr. AlMasri cautions that such a path is bound to ignite new internal conflicts and spark a war against the international force. He poses a dangerous question: what will become of the roughly 40,000 employees, including 17,000 security personnel of the de facto authority currently operating in less than half of Gaza? And what, he asks, will happen to the Palestinian Authority's own employees working there?
Mr. AlMasri further notes that, adding insult to injury, the draft states that the "stability force's" mandate will last for two years, renewable with the "full cooperation and coordination with Egypt, Israel, and other member states." He argues that in practice, this means the "Peace Council" and its force could remain entrenched for five, ten, or even more years, as long as the definition of "satisfactory" remains at the mercy of Washington and Tel Aviv.
Mr. AlMasri observes an irony in the situation: the Israeli government, which had previously rejected such a force, has now given its blessing after securing almost everything it wanted. He cites a report by Axios, which quoted an Israeli official stating that Israel was involved in drafting the resolution. According to Mr. AlMasri, Israel is now merely haggling over the fine print, seeking to clarify the mechanics of "disarmament" and to eliminate the two-year time limit, which it fears could pave the way for the Palestinian Authority's return to Gaza and the reunification of the West Bank and the Strip—a scenario that, as Mr. AlMasri notes, the Knesset has deemed an "existential threat" in a resolution supported by most members from both the government and opposition.
Mr. AlMasri also highlights that Israel objects to basing the resolution on Chapter VII of the UN Charter, even though this provision would grant an international force the authority to use force to implement its mandate. Without it, he explains, the force would be a paper tiger. Yet, Mr. AlMasri points out the contradiction: Israel simultaneously wants the force to be able to use force, while fearing that this same authority could be turned against its own violations, its ongoing aggression, and its control over crossings and humanitarian aid.
The Stance of Arab, Islamic, and World Nations
Mr. AlMasri reports that the Arab and Islamic nations, along with most countries worldwide that recognize the state of Palestine—especially those slated to participate in the "stability force"—have stood firm in their position that no such step can be taken without an explicit mandate from the Security Council. He notes that while they achieved this requirement, it represents a hollow victory, as the Council's role has been reduced to mere authorization without any real oversight.
Mr. AlMasri calls upon these nations to hold the line and insist on a clear and fundamental role for both the Security Council and the Palestinian Authority from the outset. He argues that the "Peace Council" should function as a body for monitoring and supervision, not as a colonial-style guardianship that cements the division between the West Bank and Gaza and slams the door on the realization of a Palestinian state.
Furthermore, Mr. AlMasri asserts that the international coalition for a two-state solution bears the responsibility of ensuring that this "stability force" is not weaponized against the Palestinian people, particularly if there are attempts to forcibly disarm the resistance. He insists that any such disarmament must result from negotiation and agreement, conducted within the framework of consolidating all arms under a single Palestinian leadership, a single authority, and a unified national decision.
Mr. AlMasri emphasizes that resistance against occupation is a right guaranteed by all international laws and divine and secular codes alike, as affirmed by Article 51 of the UN Charter, which upholds the right to self-defense. He contends that it is therefore meaningless to deny this right, especially in the absence of a serious political path toward an independent Palestinian state—a path that, as Mr. AlMasri notes, the Netanyahu government flatly rejects with explicit American backing.
Mr. AlMasri urges Arab states to refuse granting Israel any additional powers through this resolution, whether in judging the Palestinian Authority's reforms, overseeing disarmament, or dictating the timeline for the withdrawal of Israeli forces.
Concluding Remarks
Mr. AlMasri identifies a major flaw in the draft: its failure to anchor itself in a commitment to international law and the UN resolutions relevant to the Palestinian cause. Instead, he observes, it settles for a vague, wishy-washy phrase referring to "previous Security Council resolutions related to the situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question." Mr. AlMasri dismisses this as a formula devoid of any real substance.
In its current form, Mr. AlMasri warns, this draft resolution is profoundly detrimental to the Palestinian cause. He argues that it bestows international legitimacy upon a new form of colonial guardianship—or rather, a masked occupation cloaked in the garb of international law.
Therefore, Mr. AlMasri insists, it is imperative to demand fundamental amendments to this draft and to reject the US-Israeli blackmail that presents a false choice: either accept the resolution as is, with a few cosmetic changes, or give the Israeli right-wing government a green light to resume the war.
Mr. AlMasri points out that the facts on the ground, both militarily and politically, indicate that the factors for ending the war are still present and have perhaps even grown stronger. He argues that the very act of bringing this draft to the Security Council reflects Washington and Tel Aviv's inability to achieve a decisive victory, either by force or by diplomacy. Mr. AlMasri warns that the international community must not allow the Netanyahu government to achieve through internationally-backed negotiations what it failed to achieve through brute force.
Mr. AlMasri declares that the ball is now in the Palestinian court.
He argues that if the Palestinian leadership and its various factions can rise to the occasion, prioritize the supreme national interest over individual and factional calculations, and agree on a clear objective and the mechanisms to achieve it—by forming a national unity government or a support committee under the authority of the government and the PLO, revitalizing the PLO's leadership framework by expanding participation, and moving toward general elections as soon as possible within a framework of unity and consensus, allowing the people at home and abroad to choose their representatives, leading to one organization, one authority, one decision, and one armed force—then, Mr. AlMasri believes, all American and Israeli schemes will be thwarted.
Mr. AlMasri poses a final question: Will the Palestinians be equal to this historic moment? He admits that given the failure of all previous unity attempts, he does not know the answer. However, Mr. AlMasri insists that what is required of all sincere patriots is to strive for this goal immediately, before it is too late. He concludes by stating that agreeing on what can be agreed upon is far better than continuing a division that leads only to ruin and self-destruction.
