Gaza Between American Mandate and Settlers: Rejection of the Security Council Decision and Revealing the American Role

The United Nations Security Council recently approved the U.S. draft resolution based on the Gaza management plan, which calls for the establishment of a temporary "Peace Council" under the supervision of an international force. Despite the formal indications of the possibility of a future Palestinian state, the resolution reveals a broad mandate for the United States that transforms the council from a neutral international mechanism into a direct American tool, while Israel remains free to expand its settlements in the West Bank. This makes the current reality an American mandate over Gaza and a settler mandate over the West Bank, depriving Palestinians of any real sovereignty.

The resolution explicitly ignores the Oslo Accords and the two-state solution, as well as the international recognition of the State of Palestine by more than 149 countries. This step aims to polish Israel's image and present it as a responsible and legitimate party, while canceling Palestinian national rights and the legal and political gains of the Palestinian people.

The resolution carries serious risks, including complete American control over political and security affairs in Gaza, marginalizing any independent Palestinian or international influence, and linking any promise of a future Palestinian state to the Palestinians' acceptance of specific dictates without guaranteeing their sovereignty or the right of return. Moreover, it deepens the Palestinian divide by focusing on Gaza without addressing the West Bank, Jerusalem, or the rights of refugees, putting Palestinians in a precarious position and weakening their ability to negotiate as a cohesive unit.

From a security standpoint, the resolution imposes disarmament of Palestinian factions in Gaza while allowing Israel to retain all of its military capabilities, creating a strategic imbalance in favor of the occupation. There are no mechanisms to hold Israel accountable for war crimes and violations against civilians, while reconstruction is managed through an international fund controlled by the U.S. and Israel without guarantees for accountability. Reconstruction thus becomes a political tool for consolidating the occupation rather than a service to civilians.

Legally, the resolution diminishes the possibility of referring Israeli violations to the International Criminal Court, as it transfers the executive authority of the semi-international force under direct American supervision. The framing of the resolution between Chapters VI and VII grants Washington a wide margin for interpretation to serve Israel's interests at the expense of the Palestinian people, making the reality in Gaza a de facto American mandate while the West Bank remains under settler control without restrictions on settlement and displacement.

Furthermore, the resolution undermines the independence of the Security Council as the task of forming the Peace Council is left to one state without the participation of neutral countries, converting the council into a tool that is more influenced by American will than an independent international body, in stark violation of the principles of collective conflict management.

In light of this reality, rejecting the resolution becomes a national necessity, and Palestinians must adhere to their national rights: Jerusalem, return, ending the occupation and settlement, and full sovereignty, while confronting any international funding that threatens their political independence. Additionally, the resolution should be used as a platform to rebuild national unity and escalate international legal action through the court and United Nations organizations, while exposing violations and the dangers of American and Israeli mandates through media.

The resolution remains an unprecedented strategic threat to Palestinians, as it grants the United States unlimited authority over Gaza and allows Israel to continue its violations in the West Bank without restraint, turning the temporary reality into a permanent one and disregarding all international obligations towards Palestine. It cannot be seen as an opportunity to improve the humanitarian situation, even temporarily, and must be firmly rejected to prevent the consolidation of the American-Israeli mandate over the land of Palestine before the Palestinian national project turns into mere management under occupation.