PNN – The head of Egypt’s Asia Studies Center called the US plan for Gaza unenforceable, stressing that the long-term deployment of international forces in the Strip is not feasible for multiple reasons.
Guest commentary by Ahmed Mostafa: The U.S. resolution on Gaza, recently adopted by the UN Security Council, effectively places the Palestinian people under international guardianship — a move rejected by all Palestinian national groups and factions.
Resolution 2803 proposes an international trusteeship over Gaza led by the United States, effectively suspending Palestinian self-rule. Critics, especially Arab analysts, argue that the plan undermines the natural foundations of Palestinian statehood and risks imposing long-term foreign control over Gaza. One of the most contentious elements is its call for the complete disarmament of Palestinian groups and the designation of movements such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad as “terrorist organizations.” While the resolution has been welcomed by Israel and Western nations, many Palestinians view it as a violation of their right to resist occupation.
Critics further argue that by channeling reconstruction aid for Gaza through a U.S.-controlled body, the resolution exploits the humanitarian catastrophe as leverage to enforce political agendas. In other words, the critics say the U.S. plan turns humanitarian assistance into a tool of coercion, potentially delaying Gaza’s reconstruction until Washington and Israel achieve their goals — namely disarming the resistance and installing a government favorable to them.
The resolution also bolsters the role of the United States and the United Kingdom in Gaza’s security and civil administration, raising concerns among countries like Russia and China, which see it as a neo-colonial tactic to secure long-term influence in the region. Most importantly, the resolution fails to offer a clear path toward an independent Palestinian state, and many interpret it as implicit support for Israel’s expansionist policies. Addressing Gaza’s governance without reaffirming a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders, critics warn, could facilitate the growth of Israeli settlements.
The mixed reactions among Arab states highlight divisions within the Arab League over how to support Palestinian sovereignty. Ultimately, by placing Gaza’s future in foreign hands, the resolution weakens Palestinian self-determination and risks perpetuating the crisis rather than resolving it.
Read more:
What is the role of the OIC and the Arab League?
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the Arab League are facing strong criticism for their passive stance on developments in Gaza. Instead of presenting a unified and robust plan, they have mainly issued statements of condemnation — something that has damaged their credibility.
Both organizations have largely avoided addressing the question of who should govern Gaza, exposing deep internal divisions. Their silence allows others to propose solutions that may not align with the interests of Arab or Muslim nations.
Moreover, the OIC and the Arab League have not opposed the normalization of relations with Israel, particularly through the so-called “Abraham Accords.” While some portray these agreements as steps toward peace, many consider them a betrayal that undermines Palestinian rights and reshapes regional diplomacy without broad Islamic consensus.
Their inaction extends to the economic sphere. Some OIC members, such as Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan, are major suppliers of oil to Israel — effectively financing Israel’s military operations. The OIC has shown no willingness to criticize such actions, revealing a major institutional weakness and a disregard for ethical standards under the pretext of non-interference in member states’ affairs.
This situation also raises doubts about the true strategic loyalty of these countries within global alliances like BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which seek to counter Western influence. Their ties with the West could affect their reliability as partners for states like China and Russia.
Even Turkey, despite claiming to defend Palestinian rights, maintains strong trade relations with Israel and limits its criticism to rhetoric. This complex posture shows that national interests often take precedence over Islamic unity, reducing the OIC and the Arab League to platforms of verbal expression rather than meaningful action.
How is the UN resolution on Gaza related to Mohammed bin Salman’s trip to Washington?
The White House recently announced that the U.S. president has approved major arms sales to Saudi Arabia, including advanced fighter jets and tanks. Riyadh’s primary goal is to secure a firm American guarantee against any attack on its territory — similar to Israel’s attack on Qatar — ensuring that any strike on Saudi infrastructure would be treated as an attack on U.S. interests.
Saudi Arabia is also focused on advancing its ambitious civilian nuclear program, which is essential for Vision 2030. Riyadh fears that its emerging nuclear facilities could become targets for Israel under the pretext of non-proliferation, making a defense pact with the United States even more crucial.
By offering limited support for the U.S. plan for Gaza, Saudi Arabia helps Washington strengthen its diplomatic leverage for implementing the proposal. This support also assists the Trump administration in securing congressional approval for defense spending and a defense treaty, helping it overcome major legislative hurdles.
These negotiations reflect a shift in Saudi foreign policy, with Riyadh actively using its influence to secure binding security guarantees.
Can Western economies continue supporting Israel for years to come?
Israel’s heavy military spending and prolonged conflicts are becoming increasingly burdensome for its Western backers. The Gaza war has been extremely costly, consuming vast financial resources without achieving Israel’s stated objectives — eliminating Hamas or disarming the resistance. This raises doubts among Israel’s allies about whether their investment is worthwhile.
The United States, Israel’s main supporter, is feeling the financial strain most acutely. With public debt exceeding 120% of GDP, the U.S. faces a major economic challenge in continuing massive military aid to Israel while also financing the war in Ukraine.
This pressure compounds an already strained U.S. budget, forcing Washington to weigh difficult strategic trade-offs. Europe faces similar constraints. With average public debt across the EU exceeding 90% of GDP, member states have limited fiscal room to fund open-ended foreign military support.
Internal economic pressures and commitments to domestic welfare further restrict Europe’s ability to finance a long war with minimal strategic return and growing geopolitical liability.
Even relying on Gulf states for financial support is not a reliable long-term solution. Fluctuating global energy prices have weakened Europe’s financial reserves, prompting European governments to recalibrate their strategic calculations — balancing ties with Washington against deep economic and security ties with China and Russia.
Western economic fragility is further accentuated by the resilience of the Axis of Resistance and its supporters. Material and political backing from Iran, along with diplomatic support from Russia and China, ensures that Hamas and other non-state actors remain a persistent military challenge to Israel, undermining Israel’s pursuit of a decisive, low-cost victory.
Meanwhile, the United States is facing excessive strategic pressure on multiple fronts. Its inability to counter China’s economic rise — exposed through failed tariff strategies — and to reverse Russia’s gains in Ukraine signal a global shift in the balance of power that is reshaping the Middle East.
As a result, we are witnessing a strategic shift in which conflicts are increasingly redirected away from the Middle East toward more manageable theaters, particularly in Africa. These regions offer greater potential for proxy conflicts at lower financial cost and reduced risk of escalation among major powers, unlike the Middle East, where wars often become intractable.
Ultimately, the combination of failed military objectives, domestic financial constraints, and global geopolitical shifts is forcing Western states to reassess their support for Israel. The economic realities of mounting debt and intensifying multipolar competition limit their ability to sustain a prolonged war in Gaza, making a strategic re-evaluation of the entire project inevitable.
Can an international peacekeeping force remain in Gaza indefinitely?
A long-term international military or administrative presence in Gaza is unlikely due to enormous material and human costs. Western countries, sensitive to public opinion regarding military casualties, cannot maintain lengthy deployments in high-risk areas. This reluctance undermines the feasibility of a stable, long-term mission, especially given the failures of previous peacekeeping efforts where protecting soldiers took precedence over attempts at state-building.
These strategic constraints stem from the unwillingness of states to endanger their troops. Unlike Israel, which maintains universal conscription, Western nations rely on professional armies, and casualties in conflicts unrelated to their own security are politically unacceptable.
This reality limits the ability of the U.S. and European countries to participate in extended foreign military operations. As a result, there may be a move toward using private military companies or mercenary forces. Although they might allow military engagement with fewer political costs at home, serious doubts remain about their ability to achieve mission objectives, and they may even exacerbate internal tensions.
Financial constraints also pose major obstacles. Maintaining a large international force in Gaza would require billions of dollars annually for salaries, equipment, and infrastructure. With defense budgets already stretched thin worldwide, funding such a long-term commitment is unrealistic.
Historical precedents — from Kosovo to Myanmar — show that successful international interventions require vast resources and a clear path to sovereignty, neither of which exists in Gaza. Past missions occurred in less densely populated and more politically stable environments, while Gaza’s high population density and deep internal divisions create an extremely challenging context.
Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty’s call for deploying international forces reflects this harsh reality. His remarks signal that the situation on the ground is extremely complex and that any such mission would face serious obstacles from the outset.