Five serious repercussions of the UN Security Council’s decision on Gaza
The
adoption of the U.S. draft resolution on Gaza by the UN Security Council
represents a step fraught with wide-ranging political, security, and
humanitarian risks. The resolution effectively reshapes the future of the Strip
according to an American-“Israeli” vision that ignores the roots of the
conflict and sidelines Palestinian national rights.
The
main risks emerge in the following points:
1. Legitimizing security
arrangements that keep Gaza under international guardianship:
According to international media
reports, the U.S. proposal includes the creation of transitional security
arrangements led by an international force tasked with oversight duties in Gaza
arrangements that Hamas has described as “international guardianship” over the
Strip.
Assessments from Palestinian research
centers indicate that this mechanism could weaken Palestinians’ ability to
exercise sovereignty and grant external powers broad space to manage the
security landscape in ways that align with “Israeli” interests.
2. Restructuring the
Palestinian political system:
According to political coverage
published about the proposal, the resolution requires wide-ranging reforms to
the Palestinian Authority and links Gaza’s reconstruction to these changes. As
Palestinian analysts emphasize, this linkage constitutes direct intervention in
the political structure and may reshape the Palestinian political system
according to American standards. This would negatively affect the unity of
national decision-making and place the political process under growing external
pressure.
3. Entrenching the humanitarian crisis and normalizing displacement:
Reports from humanitarian
organizations indicate that the proposal offers temporary relief solutions
without addressing the root causes of the humanitarian collapse, primarily the
ongoing blockade and continuous aggression.
Sources within UN agencies also
emphasize that as long as the occupation controls the crossings and borders,
any humanitarian improvements remain subject to “Israeli” will, potentially
turning mass displacement into a long-term reality intended to become
“normalized.”
4. Entrenching the equation
of “ending resistance without ending the occupation”:
According to political analysts cited
by international media, the U.S. proposal reproduces the equation long
advocated by Washington: a prolonged calm in which resistance is neutralized
without ending the occupation or lifting the blockade.
Under this approach, “Israel’s”
security is ensured, while core issues—such as halting aggression, the right to
self-determination, and reconstruction remain without binding legal or temporal
guarantees.
5. Creating a new political
crisis under the cover of international legitimacy:
Experts in international law indicate
that the resolution gives the occupation an opportunity to reorganize the
political and security landscape in Gaza under the cover of international
legitimacy, rather than pushing it to end the occupation or commit to a just
political process.
According to observers, this means
that Gaza could be managed in the coming years through an international system
that serves the priorities of major powers, rather than the needs or national
aspirations of its people.
The U.S. draft resolution, in its
current form, does not offer a permanent solution for Gaza. Instead, it
entrenches a new crisis managed internationally and exploited politically,
threatening Palestinian unity and rights while giving the occupation a golden
opportunity to reorganize the landscape under the cover of international
legitimacy.
_____________________________________________
You may also like:
Gaza’s Reconstruction: The New Jihad of Rebirth and Renewal
11 Reasons Why Zionist Occupation Failed to Win
Two Years of Gaza Genocide… World Watches and Turns Away
What are the Zionist obstacles to the reconstruction of Gaza?
_______________________________________________
