Monday’s resolution, adopted under Chapter VII, establishes a U.S.-led international trusteeship of Gaza and withholds Palestinian autonomy. The plan, discussed at the Sharm el-Sheikh talks, argues that stability should be prioritized over sovereignty and suggests an interim government under significant control from the United States and Britain. Critics, particularly Arab analysts, argue that the system risks disrupting the natural order of statehood and creating a long-term foreign protectorate. The main issue is a resolution that would label groups such as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad as terrorists and call for the complete disarmament of Palestinian factions. While this is attractive to Israel and the West, many Palestinians see it as a unilateral call for peace that ignores their right to resist occupation, which is recognized under international law.
Moreover, critics argue that the reconstruction plan, which funnels international aid through U.S.-controlled entities, uses the dire situation as a lever for political compliance. They argue that it could turn humanitarian aid into an instrument of pressure and delay reconstruction until disarmament and governance goals are achieved. The resolution also strengthens the role of the United States and Britain in security and civil governance, raising suspicions from countries such as Russia and China, which see it as a neo-colonial tactic to ensure long-term influence in the region.
Importantly, the resolution does not propose a clear path to a sovereign state for Palestine, which many believe supports Israel’s expansionist policies. Addressing only the governance of the Gaza Strip without reaffirming the two-state solution based on the 1967 borders could encourage further Israeli settlement expansion. The mixed reactions among Arab states reveal rifts in the Arab League over support for Palestinian sovereignty. Ultimately, the resolution risks undermining Palestinian sovereignty by placing control over Gaza’s future in foreign hands and is likely to perpetuate the crisis rather than resolve it.
Will this UN resolution on Gaza supporting the American vision coincide with Mohammed bin Salman’s visit to Washington, where Saudi Arabia, fearing a repeat of the Qatari scenario, has offered to buy F-35 aircraft and air defense systems from the US and enter into a joint defense agreement with the US in military and defense agreements? It is as if the Qatari scenario was intended to use the Zionist scarecrow to drain energy from the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council countries while also protecting Saudi Arabia’s peaceful nuclear program.
What is the role of not only the Arab League but also the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in what is happening in Gaza?
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the Arab League have been criticized for not taking effective action on Gaza. They primarily issue denunciation statements without developing a solid unification plan, which undermines their credibility. These organizations have particularly avoided discussing who should govern Gaza, demonstrating internal divisions and a lack of leadership on foreign affairs. This silence allows others to propose solutions that may not be in line with the interests of Arab and Islamic communities.
Furthermore, the OIC and the Arab League are not opposed to normalizing relations with Israel, especially through agreements such as the Abraham Accords. While some see these as steps toward peace, many others see them as a betrayal that undermines Palestinian rights. This change, without the collective consensus of Muslim countries, will completely change the diplomatic landscape in the region.
Their inaction also extends to economic issues, as OIC member states such as Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan are major oil suppliers to Israel. This financial support directly funds military operations against the Palestinians, creating serious moral and political contradictions. The OIC’s reluctance to criticize these member states exposes its weakness in prioritizing non-interference over enforcement of ethical standards.
This situation raises questions about the true loyalty of these countries in global alliances like BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) that seek to counter Western influence. Relations with the West could undermine the credibility of countries such as China and Russia as partners.
Even Turkey, which advocates for Palestinian rights, maintains strong trade relations with Israel, even as it criticizes it with rhetoric. This complex approach emphasizes the struggle for unified action, shows that national interests often take precedence over Islamic unity, and that both the OIC and the Arab League have become platforms for words rather than meaningful action.
Did this UN resolution on Gaza supporting the US position coincide with Mohammed bin Salman’s visit to Washington?
Saudi Arabia is focused on signing a formal mutual defense treaty and acquiring advanced U.S. weapons, including F-35 fighter jets and air defense systems. This move was triggered by a hypothetical event in September 2025. There, Israel’s unilateral attack on Qatar revealed that the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries are vulnerable despite their wealth and demonstrated the ineffectiveness of their current defenses.
The 2025 incident is seen as a strategic show of power aimed at weakening the PGCC by creating a continuing threat. This situation has put pressure on PGCC countries to increase defense spending and seek external security, diverting vast financial resources from important economic development projects.
Saudi Arabia’s main goal is to prevent similar threats within its territory. Saudi Arabia aims to ensure strong U.S. national security to deter any attack, and has signaled that attacks on its infrastructure will be treated with the same gravity as attacks on U.S. interests. The deal also relates to the protection of the ambitious peaceful nuclear program, which is crucial to Vision 2030. Riyadh is concerned that its emerging nuclear facilities could become the subject of nonproliferation discussions, making a U.S.-Saudi defense agreement essential for protection.
Additionally, Saudi Arabia is helping the United States gain diplomatic influence by providing limited support to U.S.-backed programs on Gaza. This assistance will help the Trump administration secure Congressional approval of defense funding and defense treaties and overcome significant legislative challenges. The negotiations mark a shift in Saudi foreign policy, as the kingdom actively uses its influence to obtain security guarantees.
Can the presence of international peacekeeping forces and international control of the sector be sustained in the long term?
The long-term economic sustainability of Israel’s military operations is becoming increasingly untenable for Western backers. The Gaza operation has proven to be extremely resource intensive and costly without achieving the stated strategic goals of dismantling Hamas or demilitarizing the resistance, thereby raising questions about the return on large financial investments that strain the economies of allies.
This financial pressure is also being felt acutely in the United States, a major backer. With public debt exceeding 120% of GDP, financing the war in Ukraine while continuing to provide large-scale military aid to Israel poses serious macroeconomic challenges. This would strain a budget already facing unsustainable deficit spending and force a difficult opportunity cost analysis of the U.S. government’s strategic commitments.
European attitudes are similarly constrained.
Dr. Ahmed Mustafa
Director and Founder of the Asian Center for Egyptian Studies and Translation