At a moment of profound shifts affecting the foundations of the international system, the US president Donald Trump’s initiative to establish what he has termed a “Global Peace Council” has emerged as a new American approach to managing international conflicts. This approach is presented not only in relation to Gaza – viewed as a pivotal focal point in the Middle East’s geopolitical landscape – but also as a model intended to be applied to other regions and crises under the same mechanism and US-led vision.
In this context, some observers argue that these developments point towards a potential reshaping of the global peace architecture outside the framework of the United Nations. From this perspective, the “Peace Council” is seen as a project that extends beyond determining Gaza’s fate alone, reaching instead into the contours of the international order in its next phase.
Ambiguity Without Reference
Against this backdrop, Tarik Al-Shami, a writer specialising in US affairs, observes that the initiative gained renewed momentum after Trump announced that the council would include several heads of state. He argues that this development could accelerate the implementation of Trump’s 20-point peace plan.
At the same time, Al-Shami stresses that uncertainty remains a defining feature of the proposal, as many critical issues have yet to be resolved. Among the most pressing questions is the nature of the proposed stabilisation force: its size, its mandate, the constraints it would face, and the obstacles ahead of it – particularly given Israel’s continued objections to the participation of forces from countries such as Türkiye and Pakistan.
Al-Shami also highlights significant ambiguity surrounding the disarmament of Hamas. He asks whether disarmament would be total, as Israel demands, or modelled on the experience of the Irish Republican Army, where weapons were stored under external supervision. Crucially, it remains unclear who would oversee such a process – Israel, a peace or stabilisation force, the Palestinian police, or other parties – and how it would be implemented in practice.
He points out that US officials have spoken of an imminent timetable, which is positive in principle, suggesting that a schedule for disarmament and Israeli withdrawal could be announced within days. However, Al-Shami argues that the real issue lies in the credibility of implementation on the ground. Israel continues to carry out air strikes and bombardments, and to target Palestinian leaders from Hamas and other factions. Nearly 500 people have been killed since the plan began to take shape, prompting him to ask: what kind of peace allows hundreds to be killed in the process?
Al-Shami adds that the US position appears increasingly ambiguous and questionable, citing the recent withdrawal of European observers from the civil–military coordination centre in southern Israel. This move, he argues, reflects European dissatisfaction with how the plan is being implemented and with Israel’s level of commitment.
He also notes the emergence of a new idea that reconstruction should not begin until Hamas has handed over its weapons – a position that directly contradicts earlier US statements about offering Gazans a positive model that demonstrates seriousness about rebuilding and ensuring a dignified life through the peace plan.
Delaying reconstruction, Al-Shami explains, would mean waiting not just months but potentially a year or more, as full disarmament cannot happen overnight – particularly given that the Palestinian police have yet to enter Gaza, and there is no clarity on when or how this process would begin.
For these reasons, he concludes that the entire initiative remains enveloped in uncertainty, expressing hope that the US administration will provide clearer and more detailed explanations of the unresolved issues and decisively address this ambiguity.
He further stresses the need for a genuine balance, specifically by obliging Israel to withdraw, according to an agreed timetable, from the areas it occupies east of Gaza – beyond the so-called Yellow Line – and to halt attempts to expand the territory it currently controls.
Al-Shami also expresses hope that Hamas’s disarmament will ultimately succeed, warning that failure would doom the plan and provide Israel with a pretext to pursue its agenda and potentially reignite a broader regional war.
In the current situation, he argues, Israel appears to have little to lose; there are no remaining hostages or bodies after the last was returned, giving Israel the freedom to wage a wider war that could result in further Palestinian deaths, amid an evident inability by the international community to exert meaningful pressure.
He concludes by saying that the outcome now hinges on Donald Trump himself, whom he describes as operating under strong Israeli pressure that shapes key files in Washington and pushes US policy in the Middle East in ways that serve Israeli interests. Ultimately, the future of the plan depends on whether the Trump administration is serious about delivering a genuine model for peace-making, rather than relying on political rhetoric that produces no tangible results on the ground.
Structural Doubts
Strategic security expert Omar Al-Raddad offers a parallel critique, arguing that the most accurate description of Trump’s “Global Peace Council” is one of functional ambiguity combined with deep doubts about its structure and role. The council, he notes, lacks a clear UN charter, democratic or representative legitimacy, and permanent institutional foundations, relying instead on temporary political understandings rather than enduring structures. This ambiguity, Al-Raddad suggests, is likely intentional, as it grants wide operational freedom outside the constraints of the UN Security Council’s veto system.
According to Al-Raddad, this framework allows Gaza to be treated as a security, political, and economic file rather than a national liberation cause. As a result, Gaza is redefined primarily as a humanitarian aid and reconstruction issue, rather than as the case of a people seeking self-determination.
He adds that the council does not establish a pathway towards a Palestinian state but instead separates Gaza from the West Bank and Jerusalem – a move with far-reaching political implications.
At the same time, Al-Raddad notes that the initiative raises more questions than answers. It remains unclear whether any emerging authority in Gaza would be transitional or permanent, what powers a civil administration would hold, and whether the council itself would endure in the event of political change in Israel.
In his view, the council’s detachment from the UN and Security Council aligns with Trump’s broader approach to reshaping the international system, based on the belief that existing institutions have aged, become ineffective, and reflect outdated power balances dating back to the post-Second World War era.
Resistance from influential states such as China, Russia, and France, he suggests, may stem from concerns that the council would undermine their roles within the current international order.
In conclusion, Al-Raddad argues that the success or failure of the Global Peace Council will serve as a key benchmark for Trump’s efforts to rebuild international alliances on new foundations. Yet uncertainty remains high regarding its prospects, prompting him to urge careful consideration of how such a model, if successful, might be replicated in other conflict zones – particularly in the Middle East.
An Alternative System?
Russian researcher Dmitry Bridzhe, for his part, views Trump’s “Peace Council” as part of a longer-standing effort to establish an organisation that could function as an alternative to the United Nations. He argues that the positions of both Israel and the United States increasingly disregard the UN Charter and international treaties, signalling a dangerous shift with the potential to reshape global politics.
Bridzhe notes that the US-led effort after 1945 to entrench international institutions and the rule of international law has now lost much of its relevance and effectiveness, creating a profound structural crisis in which international law itself carries little practical weight.
As a result, he argues, international relations have moved away from treaty-based governance – including frameworks such as the Rome Statute – towards systems in which powerful states impose rules according to their interests or selectively interpret international law to suit specific agendas. This, he contends, represents a serious structural problem.
He cites US actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Venezuela, alongside developments in the Middle East – particularly the war in Gaza and Israeli policies under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in both Gaza and the West Bank – as evidence of this trend.
Unconditional US support for Israel, and the linking of American national security directly to Israeli security, he argues, clearly illustrates this approach.
From this standpoint, Bridzhe questions whether the council could realistically offer a solution to Gaza’s crisis. He believes the answer is largely negative: any solution would reflect US priorities rather than addressing the fate of Gaza’s population, Palestinian aspirations, or the positions of Palestinian political forces.
He further argues that there is no genuine implementation of a two-state solution, nor is there likely to be one, given Israeli opposition and sustained US backing. These policies, he concludes, are likely to continue amid ongoing regional upheaval, making meaningful transformation extremely difficult – especially given the inability of the UN and Security Council to effect real change, support credible peace initiatives, or play an effective mediating role in conflicts ranging from Ukraine and Gaza to Sudan, Libya, Yemen, and Syria.
