A Council for Peace or a Tool for Normalizing Occupation?
According to Nournews, the 20-point Gaza plan promoted by Donald Trump has encountered structural shortcomings from its very inception, calling into question its ability to meet its stated objectives. While the second phase has now been declared, the first phase—largely focused on prisoner exchanges—failed to halt ongoing killings and acts widely described as genocidal in Gaza.
Warnings issued by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) regarding severe shortages of drinking water and reports of tens of thousands of displaced Palestinians dying from exposure underscore the scale of the humanitarian catastrophe unfolding despite repeated ceasefire assurances.
The inability to deliver meaningful relief during the initial phase has severely undermined trust in subsequent stages, including the proposed Peace Council, and has fueled skepticism over Washington’s intentions.
Observers argue that the strategy appears less focused on ending hostilities than on managing their political and humanitarian fallout in a manner that protects the interests of Israel and its allies. The absence of concrete steps to stop the aggression suggests an effort to buy time and normalize an untenable status quo rather than pursue a genuine and lasting peace.
Concerns have also been raised about the composition of Trump’s Peace Council, which is tasked with administering Gaza after the truce. The council is chaired directly by Trump and includes figures such as U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Trump’s son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner, and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair—individuals long associated with strong support for Israel. Critics say this lineup makes impartial governance virtually impossible and signals that the council is designed to entrench existing power dynamics rather than restore Palestinian authority.
Another central criticism of the second-phase plan is its failure to address what opponents describe as the core issue: accountability for the actions of the Zionist regime, accused of committing war crimes and acts of genocide. Instead of prioritizing an end to aggression, the plan emphasizes reconstruction and state-building, a focus that critics say risks disarming Palestinian survivors while legitimizing continued occupation.
The United States’ role in the initiative is also being questioned. Rather than serving as a peace broker, Washington is accused of seeking to legitimize the status quo and shift the financial and political costs of Gaza’s devastation onto the international community. By installing an administrative framework under U.S. oversight, critics argue, Israel is effectively relieved of responsibility for Gaza, while American strategic interests are advanced.
Calls for substantial financial contributions—reportedly including demands of up to $1 billion from council participants—have further fueled claims that Gaza’s reconstruction is being treated as a political and commercial transaction rather than a humanitarian imperative.
Analysts conclude that unless the United States uses its influence to decisively halt the violence and enforce accountability, any new administrative body, including Trump’s Peace Council, will function as a mechanism to manage the crisis in favor of the occupying power rather than a solution to end it.
