Gaza, the world’s largest open-air prison, remains under the shadow of the Israeli regime’s daily attacks and crimes. Yet what has become increasingly concerning in recent developments is the gradual transformation of the concept of “peace” from ending occupation into managing and entrenching it. While previous agreements had emphasized the withdrawal of occupying forces from Gaza, Nikolay Mladenov, the senior envoy of the “Gaza Peace Council,” has announced that Israel will withdraw only from areas where the complete removal of weapons and tunnels has been officially declared.
This position bears clear similarities to the stances of Benjamin Netanyahu and Bezalel Smotrich, officials who have described the disarmament of Gaza as a precondition for its reconstruction. This alignment raises a fundamental question: Has the council established through the Trump administration’s initiative truly defined its mission as ending the crisis and war, or is it becoming a mechanism to provide political and financial cover for the continuation of occupation?
Verification; A Key to a Door That Never Opens
The experience of the Israeli regime’s conduct and that of its Western supporters shows that concepts such as “verification,” “official declaration,” and “completion of commitments” can become an endless process for creating new conditions. A clear example of this approach can be seen in Iran’s nuclear file, where despite the implementation of commitments and extensive monitoring measures, continued ambiguity-building became a tool for maintaining political pressure.
There are now concerns that the same pattern could be repeated in Gaza. This would mean that the occupier’s withdrawal would not serve as the starting point for reconstruction, but rather as a conditional reward dependent on fulfilling a series of requirements whose completion remains in the hands of the very party that is itself the occupier. Under such a framework, “verification” may only end when nothing remains of an independent and Palestinian Gaza.
This logic is not limited to Gaza. In Lebanon and Syria, the disarmament of resistance groups and the establishment of new security arrangements have also become among the main pressure points pursued by the Israeli regime. If this path continues without guarantees for the withdrawal of occupying forces, it could expand the geography of occupation rather than provide security.
Peace With Others’ Money, War at Others’ Expense
The several-month performance of the Peace Council indicates that two seemingly different policies, but with a common objective, are advancing under the umbrella of this structure: First, reconstruction and management of the humanitarian crisis to reduce public pressure on the Israeli regime; and second, shifting the war into a new phase in which other countries bear the costs while Israel benefits from the security gains.
Estimates put the cost of rebuilding Gaza at around $70 billion. The Peace Council, established in January 2026 with extensive support and publicity from Donald Trump, was supposed to serve as the central mechanism for this reconstruction effort and for attracting international aid. Member states pledged $7 billion in humanitarian assistance, while the United States also promised $10 billion. However, the council’s official fund at the World Bank has effectively faced a lack of resources during its months of operation.
Of the nine countries that pledged assistance at the Washington meeting, only the United Arab Emirates and Morocco have provided limited amounts, while the United States has also failed to fulfil its $10 billion commitment. At the same time, severe restrictions on the entry of aid trucks into Gaza continue; a contradiction that exposes the gap between reconstruction rhetoric and realities on the ground.
Indigenous Security; Only Way to Break Cycle of Occupation
If the Peace Council, instead of ending the occupation, becomes a mechanism for managing it, the consequences of this process will not be limited to Palestine alone. The continuation of Israeli regime attacks, developments in Lebanon and Syria, US threats against Iran, and efforts to draw regional countries into prolonged wars of attrition are signs of a redesign of the West Asian security order based on the interests of Tel Aviv and Washington; an order that also places the security of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey, and other regional countries at risk.
Under such circumstances, the real test of the Mecca trilateral security agreement has arrived: Will regional countries move beyond political agreements in confronting a common threat and reach joint action?
Sustainable security in West Asia will not come from outside the region. Countries that host US military bases and weapons cannot simultaneously speak of “indigenous security.” A fundamental transformation of this situation requires strategic independence and the formation of a regional security mechanism; one that is based on cooperation among regional countries rather than reliance on extra-regional powers.
Within this framework, ending the US military presence, forming an independent security alliance among regional countries, and providing practical support for the rights of the Palestinian people could represent the first step towards breaking a cycle in which occupation is presented in the name of peace, war in the name of security, and destruction in the name of reconstruction.
NOURNEWS