By Eric Toussaint – Oct 1, 2026While Donald Trump portrays himself as a president of peace, his second term in office has not marked a retreat from the use of force. Instead, it has been characterised by a significant increase in US military spending, a greater reliance on brutal armed force, and a worrying proliferation of violations by Washington of international law, the laws of war, and human rights. This disturbing trend has already contributed to the outbreak or escalation of new international conflicts, raising the risk of further conflagrations or even the potential spread of wars that could take on a global dimension.Presented by Donald Trump as a tool for establishing peace, the ‘Peace Council’ is, in reality, one of the most perilous initiatives of his new administration, even if it ultimately ends in failure. However, it is essential to look deeper: the Peace Council is fundamentally a colonial entity. Its primary practical function is to enable the United States and its allies to assume political, security, and economic control of Gaza, following the devastation caused by the Israeli war. Thus, it is not merely a new institution intended to circumvent existing multilateral mechanisms; rather, it serves as a means of organising, under the guise of ‘peace’, the placement of Palestinian territory under trusteeship and creating the political conditions for a new phase of colonisation. It is a mechanism aimed at organising, under the guise of ‘peace’, the placement of Palestinian territory under trusteeship and creating the political conditions for a new phase of colonisation.The conflict occurring in Gaza, alongside Washington’s backing of Israel’s policies perceived as genocidal, serves as a crucial indicator: it reveals the type of “peace” that this new institution aims to advocate. The new doctrine of US international policy under Trump, or neo-fascism at the helm of the world’s leading military powerWhy Washington has made China its central strategic adversary?Trump, Europe and the international neo-fascist movement: from ideological support to political coordinationChina–United States: asymmetrical rivalry from a historical and internationalist perspectiveFormer Honduran narco-president Hernández pardoned, Maduro kidnapped: Trump’s cynicismTrump and the uninhibited imperialist domination of the Western HemisphereWestern Hemisphere: A History of the United States Written by WarTrump, Putin and Ukraine: towards a division of spheres of influence at the expense of the peopleThe far right’s conquest of European Union: from national power to the Trumpist internationalThe powerful grassroots resistance movements within the United States against TrumpThe use of force by the United States since 1945A sign of hope: grassroots resistance to Trump and the world order he representsThe United States in Africa: Preventing Emancipation, Maintaining Domination (1957–2026)Trump’s ‘Peace Council’ in the age of genocide: a war machine against the peoples SommaireThe UN, international law and their historical contradictionsAt a time of genocide: the creation of the Peace Council chaired by TrumpAn entire population subjected to overwhelming firepowerThe dehumanisation of Palestinians: a history that did not begin in 2023Trump and his administration in support of Israel and its Prime MinisterTrump, Israel and the destruction of international lawA coalition of countries rallying around Trump, plenipotentiary president of the Peace CouncilThe ICC: when Washington attacks international justiceConclusionThe establishment of the Peace Council is, in fact, part of a systematic campaign aimed at undermining, circumventing, and opposing the international institutions created after the Second World War. This includes the United Nations, the World Health Organisation (WHO), UNESCO, the International Criminal Court, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and UNRWA, among others.However, it would be insufficient to portray this offensive as merely an external attack on a coherent and intrinsically progressive international system. The history of the UN is deeply contradictory. It has provided an important framework for the struggles of oppressed peoples, but it has also, at certain decisive moments, helped to legitimise relations of domination. The history of Palestine provides one of the most dramatic examples of this contradiction.We must fully appreciate what is at stake.The UN, international law and their historical contradictionsAfter 1945, despite all their limitations and the persistent domination of the great powers, the United Nations and international conventions made it possible to enshrine several fundamental principles in law: the prohibition of aggression, the sovereign equality of states, the right of peoples to self-determination, the inalienable right of peoples to full sovereignty over all their wealth and natural resources, the prohibition of genocide and crimes against humanity, and the protection of civilian populations in times of war.But these principles did not fall from the sky, nor did they arise from the disinterested goodwill of the great powers that founded the UN.The former colonial powers largely dominated the UN in its early years. The Palestinian question constitutes a fundamental contradiction in this regard. In November 1947, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 181, which provided for the partition of Mandatory Palestine into two states, one Arab and the other Jewish, as well as an international regime for Jerusalem.The decision was made when most of Palestine’s population was Palestinian, and they had not been consulted about the partition. Resolution 181 thus helped to legitimise internationally a partition imposed from outside and provided a political framework within which Zionist forces could pursue their colonial enterprises. In the wake of this resolution, Zionist militias began the mass expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and the destruction or depopulation of hundreds of Palestinian villages. This event is the Nakba, the Palestinian catastrophe.This UN decision in 1947 set a precedent with particularly far-reaching consequences. Whilst Palestine was still a Mandate territory and the Palestinian Arab population constituted the majority, the General Assembly thus claimed the right to decide on the partition of its territory without the consent of the people living there. Resolution 181 allocated 56 per cent of the territory to the future Jewish state, even though Jews at that time accounted for around one-third of Palestine’s population and owned only a small proportion of the land. The partition plan thus constituted a fundamental violation of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination. Legal analyses have, moreover, emphasised that the partition, imposed without the consent of the Palestinian population, was contrary to the principle of self-determination.Resolution 181 does not ‘recognise’ the State of Israel, which was not yet established, and this alone is insufficient to explain the events that followed. However, it provided the Zionist project with considerable international legitimacy and paved the way for the establishment of a Jewish state in a substantial part of Palestine. In the months that followed, Zionist forces gradually took control of territories extending well beyond those allocated to them under the partition plan, while hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were expelled or forced to flee. The Arab state envisaged by Resolution 181, however, never came into being. The UN itself would later acknowledge that Israel had expanded to cover approximately 77 per cent of the territory of Mandatory Palestine and that more than half of the Palestinian population had fled or been expelled.On 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel. The United States recognised it de facto on the same day. Stalin’s Soviet Union promptly extended diplomatic support to the new state and approved significant arms deliveries from Czechoslovakia to the Haganah, the primary military force of the Zionist movement under Ben-Gurion’s leadership. Rather than being merely a militia, the Haganah was, at that time, evolving into a fully-fledged army, complete with a general staff, intelligence services, an arms industry, and specialised units. Since 1947, it has been engaged in an increasingly offensive strategy aimed at securing the territorial control necessary for the establishment and consolidation of the Jewish state. The Czechoslovakian deliveries – comprising tens of thousands of rifles, several thousand machine guns, tens of millions of rounds of ammunition, and fighter aircraft – significantly enhanced this military capability at a crucial moment during the 1948 war.The 1948 war commenced in late 1947, marked by attacks from Zionist forces on Palestinian towns and villages. Beginning in April 1948, the Haganah launched an offensive aimed at seizing control of the territory designated for the Jewish state under the Partition Plan and securing Jewish settlements; this campaign rapidly expanded into areas allocated to the Palestinian Arab State. The conflict concluded with a military victory for Israel, which resulted in the nation controlling approximately 77 per cent of Mandatory Palestine, while the Palestinian Arab State envisioned by the United Nations failed to materialise, leaving over 700,000 Palestinians displaced and labelled as refugees.Finally, on 11 May 1949, the General Assembly admitted Israel as a member of the UN through Resolution 273. This resolution explicitly referred to Resolution 181 of 1947 as well as Resolution 194 of December 1948, which had, in particular, affirmed the right of return for Palestinian refugees. The UN thus helped to integrate Israel into the international order, while the Palestinian people were deprived of the state promised to them by Resolution 181, and a large proportion of their population was turned into refugees. The Palestinian Arab state envisaged by the Partition Plan never came into being.It would be misleading to present the UN’s history as one that guaranteed Palestinian rights from the start. On this issue, the UN has, on the contrary, been, since 1947, a key player in a process that has flouted the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and contributed to the international legitimisation of the Zionist project. This historical responsibility must obviously lead to the acknowledgement of subsequent struggles waged within the UN to secure recognition of Palestinian national rights. But it precludes treating the UN as a neutral and disinterested arbiter of the Palestinian question. It also helps us understand why Donald Trump’s ‘Peace Council’ must be situated within a broader historical context: that of international arrangements imposed on the Palestinian people in the name of peace, security or the rule of law, even as their fundamental rights are being flouted.The UN’s historical responsibility in this sequence cannot therefore be dismissed. For the Palestinians and for a large proportion of the Arab peoples, the UN is not merely considered the institution that proclaims the right of peoples to self-determination; it is also the institution that, in 1947, helped to legitimise the partition of Palestine and that in 1949, recognised the State of Israel and admitted it as a member.This contradiction is fundamental to understanding the current situation. Trump’s ‘Peace Council’ now claims to be taking charge of Gaza, deciding on its administration, security and reconstruction, whilst the Palestinian people are excluded from decisions regarding their own future. There is thus a striking historical parallel between the international decision imposing the partition of Palestine in 1947 and the current desire to determine Gaza’s future from the outside.In both cases, the central question remains: who possesses the authority to determine the fate of the Palestinian people and their territory?It is, however, misleading to assert that the UN functions solely as a tool of imperial powers.Following decolonisation, the composition of the Organisation underwent significant changes. Numerous formerly colonised peoples achieved independence, statehood, and international representation. During the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, these new states played a crucial role in transforming the UN by advocating for the adoption of principles and resolutions addressing colonialism, apartheid, racism, and imperial domination. They utilised the UN’s institutional framework to gain recognition for the right to self-determination, permanent sovereignty over natural resources, and the right to national liberation.In other words, the progressive principles of international law are not ‘rights’ bestowed by the great powers: they are the product of anti-colonial struggles and the balance of power created by the peoples themselves during decolonisation.The progressive principles of international law are the product of anti-colonial strugglesIt is this aspect that must be defended today. Rights and achievements are fragile. They remain contradictory and are applied very unevenly. But they constitute legal and political obstacles to the arbitrary exercise of power. It is precisely for this reason that Trump (and other major powers) are attacking them.No one should idealise the UN. Since 1945, the major powers themselves have repeatedly violated the principles they helped enshrine in the Charter. The veto power of the five permanent members of the Security Council constitutes a fundamental inequality. The United States has waged or supported numerous illegal wars and interventions without facing sanctions.The history of Palestine demonstrates how the UN has legitimised decisions that contradict the right of peoples to self-determination. But this contradiction in no way justifies the destruction of the international framework. For international law possesses one essential characteristic: even when imperfectly applied, it can be used by peoples against the powerful. This is precisely what Trump’s plan seeks to weaken or destroy. The aim is to create mechanisms enabling the world’s leading power to free itself further from international constraints when they become incompatible with its interests. But Gaza reveals something even more specific: the aim is to transform so-called “reconstruction” into an instrument of colonial domination.At a time of genocide: the creation of the Peace Council chaired by TrumpTo understand what the ‘Peace Council’ really means, we must start with Gaza. The creation of this Council in January 2026 took place whilst a genocide was underway and was made possible by the United States’ military, financial and diplomatic support for Israel.Between October 2023 and August 2026, more than 73,000 Palestinians were killed in Gaza, according to figures from the Palestinian Ministry of Health cited by the United Nations. This figure includes tens of thousands of women and children. As of 31 December 2025, of the 71,444 deaths identified by the Gaza Ministry of Health, 21,283 were children and 10,983 were women, accounting for more than 45 per cent of the identified deaths. In January 2026, according to Reuters, the Israeli army admitted for the first time that the figure of around 70,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza was broadly credible [1].But even this toll is incomplete.The official death toll itself cannot be regarded as definitive. Thousands of Palestinians are still missing and are likely buried under the rubble. Independent estimates have put the number of people missing and presumed dead at around 10,000. The figure of 7,400 put forward in August 2026 by the Gaza Ministry of Health must therefore be regarded as a minimum based on statements from families and not as an estimate of the actual number of deaths under the rubble. The head of the ministry’s death registry himself estimated that the actual figure was probably several thousand higher, particularly because some strikes wiped out entire families without leaving any survivors to report their disappearance.The actual death toll from the war is therefore necessarily higher than the number of bodies actually recorded.And the dead are only part of the disaster. More than 1.2 million people – nearly 60 per cent of Gaza’s population – have lost their homes, according to the joint assessment by the World Bank, the UN and the European Union published in April 2026 [2]. The devastation has left hundreds of thousands of homes damaged or destroyed, along with the destruction of health, education, water, and energy infrastructure.Israel claims that its military operations are targeted at Hamas and Islamic Jihad and that civilian casualties result from these organisations’ use of infrastructure and urban areas.This claim is utterly unacceptable.For two years, the Israeli army has carried out massive bombardments of residential neighbourhoods, refugee camps, schools, hospitals and infrastructure essential to the population’s survival, using, in particular, munitions containing several hundred kilograms of explosives.International humanitarian law specifically requires a distinction to be made between civilians and combatants, that the principle of proportionality be respected, and that every possible precaution be taken to spare the civilian population.The ceasefire that came into force on 10 October 2025 did nothing to put an end to the killings of Palestinians by the Israeli army in Gaza. As of 20 August 2026, Palestinian health authorities reported that at least 1,283 Palestinians had been killed since the ceasefire came into force, according to Reuters [3]. The UN had recorded 1,180 deaths between 10 October 2025, when the truce was announced, and 22 July 2026, according to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) [4]. Despite the ceasefire, Israeli strikes continued, injuring thousands more.An entire population subjected to overwhelming firepowerWe must also consider the nature of the weapons used.Israel has made extensive use of US-manufactured munitions, notably 500-, 1,000- and 2,000-pound bombs. The 2,000-pound bombs, such as the MK-84, weigh approximately 900 kg and contain over 400 kg of explosives. They cause considerable blast and fragmentation: according to the US Air Force, an MK-84 can, for example, scatter lethal shrapnel over a radius of up to approximately 366 metres. In June 2024, Reuters reported the delivery of over 14,000 2,000-pound MK-84 bombs and 6,500 500-pound bombs since the war began. [5]Yet these weapons were used in a tiny, densely populated area where the civilian population had virtually nowhere safe to take refuge.We must be clear on this point: the use of a high-yield bomb does not, in itself, constitute legal proof that the target was civilian or that the attack was unlawful. When an army repeatedly uses such weapons in densely populated neighbourhoods, destroys entire residential blocks, and kills families while they sleep, it becomes obvious that these actions are deliberate massacres.As early as 2024, Human Rights Watch and Oxfam documented indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks, as well as forms of collective punishment against the civilian population. Amnesty International, for its part, established that US JDAM munitions had been used in strikes against homes where civilians were present and called for these attacks to be investigated as war crimes.A scientific study based on satellite radar imagery estimated that by the end of the first year of the war, 191,263 buildings had been damaged or destroyed, representing 57.9 per cent of the buildings recorded in the Gaza Strip before the war. [6]Such destruction on this scale would not have been possible without the United States.Under both Joe Biden and Donald Trump, Washington continued to supply Israel with aircraft, missiles, bombs, ammunition and spare parts. The United States also provided Israel with crucial diplomatic protection.Washington supplied the weapons needed to carry out a genocidal military campaign and, at the same time, shielded Israel from some of the pressure exerted within international institutions.Washington has supplied the weapons needed to carry out a genocidal military campaignThe paradox is therefore striking: the United States now claims to be organising peace and the reconstruction of Gaza, while it supplied a vital part of the arsenal with which Gaza was destroyed.The Peace Council thus appears to be the institution tasked with politically managing the consequences of a destruction to which Washington itself has largely contributed.The dehumanisation of Palestinians: a history that did not begin in 2023The dehumanisation of Palestinians did not suddenly emerge in October 2023. It is part of a much longer history linked to the Zionist colonial project and the portrayal of Palestinians as obstacles to the conquest and colonisation of the territory. From the late 19th century and throughout the 20th century, leaders and ideologues of the Zionist movement regularly put forward ideas in which the Arab and Palestinian presence was regarded as a problem to be resolved in order to enable the establishment and expansion of a Jewish state. The Nakba of 1948 constitutes a defining moment in this regard: the mass expulsion of Palestinians, the destruction or depopulation of numerous localities, and the prevention of the return of refugees have profoundly transformed Palestine. Dehumanisation is, therefore, not merely a contemporary rhetorical phenomenon. It is linked to a colonial enterprise, one of the fundamental driving forces of which was to deny Palestinians their full status as a people with the right to self-determination on their land. Since October 2023, however, this logic has been expressed with particularly explicit brutality.Dehumanisation to justify the genocide in GazaThe dehumanisation of Palestinians is not the work of a few isolated individuals: since October 2023, it has been expressed on several occasions by Israeli political and military leaders holding positions at the highest level. On 9 October 2023, Yoav Gallant, then Minister of Defence, announced a total siege of Gaza and declared,“We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.” On the same day, Yoav Kisch, then Minister of Education, said of the Palestinians, “Those are animals, they have no right to exist. […] they need to be exterminated.” On 10 October, Major General Ghassan Alian, head of COGAT, the Israeli military body responsible for coordinating government activities in the Palestinian territories, addressed the residents of Gaza and Hamas, stating, “Human animals must be treated as such. There will be no electricity and no water [in Gaza], there will only be destruction. You wanted hell, you will get hell.” [7]Three days later, on 13 October 2023, Isaac Herzog, President of the State of Israel, said of Gaza, “It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible. It’s not true, this rhetoric about civilians not being aware or not being involved. It is absolutely not true.” This statement is particularly serious because it calls into question the fundamental distinction between combatants and the civilian population [8] . This statement is particularly serious, as it questions the fundamental distinction between combatants and the civilian population. The significance of these statements becomes apparent when contrasted with the actual acts committed: massacres of civilians, extensive bombardments, sieges, and the deprivation of food, water, and electricity, alongside the destruction of homes and vital infrastructure, as well as forced displacement. It is precisely this convergence between the statements made by officials with decision-making authority and the actions taken that constitutes a crucial element in the analysis of genocidal intent, especially in the reports by Francesca Albanese and the arguments presented by South Africa’s representatives before the International Court of Justice.The rhetoric of dehumanisation, destruction, and expulsion persisted beyond 2023. In March 2025, Israel Katz, who was then the Israeli Defence Minister, issued what he termed a ‘final warning’ to the inhabitants of Gaza, stating that the alternative would be ‘absolute destruction’ and suggesting that they seek refuge in other countries [9]. In May 2025, Bezalel Smotrich, Minister of Finance and Deputy Minister of Defence, declared, “We occupy, purge [the area], and stay”, adding, “we are destroying everything that is still left of the Strip” and asserting that Gaza would be left in ‘smoking ruins, a total destruction never before seen in the world’ [10]. On 11 May 2025, during a meeting of the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated, “We are demolishing more and more houses; they have nowhere to return to. The only sensible outcome will be the desire of Gazans to emigrate out of the Strip. Our main problem lies with the receiving countries ” [11]. These statements thus explicitly link the destruction of the territory, the displacement of the population and the determination not to allow their return.In August 2025, a particularly significant statement came from a very high-ranking military official, Aharon Haliva, former head of Israeli military intelligence, who had led the Military Intelligence Directorate until April 2024. In a recording made public on 15 August 2025, he stated, regarding Palestinian victims, “It does not matter if they are children”, adding that “from time to time, they need a Nakba to feel the cost”. In the same recording, he explained that the death toll was necessary as a “message for future generations” [12].Finally, in August 2026, as the Israeli army continues to kill Palestinians daily while repeatedly violating the ceasefire that officially came into effect in October 2025, the government still openly advocates for dehumanisation. Itamar Ben-Gvir, Minister for National Security and a member of Benjamin Netanyahu’s security cabinet, stated in an interview published on 17 August 2026, “I think targeted assassinations should be carried out in Gaza, taking down 30 to 40 every night.” He added, “There are people there who are not worthy of life. They shouldn’t live. They’re not even people.” And he clarified, “I see all of Gaza as ours”, calling for the establishment of Israeli settlements throughout the Strip and encouraging the emigration of Palestinians [13] .From ‘human animals’ in October 2023 to ‘they’re not even people’ in August 2026, the continuity is striking. These statements range from dehumanisation to the denial of the right to exist, from collective punishment to explicit calls for killings, and from destruction to expulsion and colonisation. The positions held by their authors and, above all, their alignment with the acts committed in Gaza (massacres of civilians, massive bombardments, siege, starvation, destruction of vital infrastructure and forced displacement) are elements that demonstrate the Israeli government’s genocidal intent.The statements cited above are part of a much longer history of the dehumanisation and dispossession of Palestinians.The BRICS and Israel Amid Genocide: When Trade Contradicts CondemnationTrump and his administration in support of Israel and its Prime MinisterTrump’s support for Israel extends beyond his personal relationship with Benjamin Netanyahu, though that relationship is significant.On 13 October 2025, Trump told the press regarding Benjamin Netanyahu: “He’s a wartime President and he did a very good job. […] I think he’s done a great job. I think he was the right person at the right time” [14].On the same day, in his speech to the Knesset, Trump said of the Israeli Prime Minister, “He’s not the easiest guy to deal with, but that’s what makes him great.” He added, “It’s an incredible triumph for Israel and the world”, before announcing, “It will be the golden age of Israel, and the golden age of the Middle East.” [15]This vision forms part of his administration’s official doctrine. The National Defence Strategy of January 2026 explicitly describes Israel as a ‘model ally’ and states that the United States now has an opportunity to ‘further empower it to defend itself and promote our shared interests’. The same document advocates strengthening integration between Israel and US partners in the Gulf. [16] Israel is therefore not merely presented as a state that Washington intends to protect: it is regarded as a pillar of the US strategic architecture in the Middle East, which the United States wishes to empower to defend their shared interests.Trump, ‘President of Peace’, standing on a mountain of corpses and a succession of crimes against humanity This claim to portray Trump as a ‘president of peace’ is now enshrined in Washington’s official doctrine. The National Security Strategy of December 2025 states that “President Trump has cemented his legacy as The President of Peace.” In particular, it credits Trump with having “ended the war in Gaza, with all living hostages returned to their families.” [17] Not a word is mentioned about the tens of thousands of Palestinians who have lost their lives, the thousands who have been detained by Israel, or the ongoing violations of the truce by Israel since October 2025, which include continued assassinations and attacks on Palestinian civilians. The White House’s narrative of ‘peace’ thus transforms a humanitarian catastrophe and the ongoing violence into a personal success for Trump, while relegating the Palestinian victims to the margins of the story.Trump, Israel and the destruction of international lawThere are differences between Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu over certain aspects of the Gaza settlement. But these should not mislead anyone. They are secondary in the face of the massive political, diplomatic, military and financial support provided by Washington to Israel.The Trump administration is not calling into question the strategic alliance with Israel. It is seeking to impose on the Israeli government a strategy devised in Washington to control the post-war period and consolidate its power in the Middle East. Trump can therefore oppose Netanyahu on how to conduct the war or organise its conclusion without calling into question US support for the State of Israel. This distinction is essential. Israel does not merely commit isolated violations of international law; its actions reflect a broader pattern of disregard for such laws. International bodies have condemned Israel’s occupation and settlement activities for decades. The war waged in Gaza has given rise to grave allegations, including the characterisation of the conflict as genocide by the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry. In these circumstances, Washington’s support for Israel cannot be separated from the current crisis within the UN system.The colonial subjugation of Gaza with the UN’s endorsementThe Peace Council is not the result of genuine international negotiations. It is the brainchild of Donald Trump, President of the United States, who chairs it himself and who has secured the Security Council’s endorsement.Indeed, the United Nations Security Council welcomed ‘the establishment of the Peace Council, namely a transitional administration endowed with international legal personality and tasked with guiding the reconstruction of Gaza’ in its Resolution 2803, adopted on 17 November 2025, thanks in particular to the abstentions of Russia and China, against a backdrop of intense US diplomatic pressure. By adopting this resolution, the Security Council has conferred UN legitimacy on the colonial framework envisaged for the transition in Gaza and trampled upon the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination.The colonial nature of Resolution 2803 is particularly evident in the provisions it sets out regarding the administration and security of Gaza. Paragraph 4 authorises the ‘Peace Council’ to ‘ensure a transitional administration’ and to oversee a ‘technocratic and apolitical’ Palestinian committee responsible for the territory’s day-to-day affairs. The Palestinians are therefore not recognised as the political subjects of their territory: their administration is placed under the tutelage of an external authority. The choice of an ‘apolitical’ committee paves the way for a completely subservient, collaborationist Palestinian administration tasked with implementing the decisions of the tutelary power and its allies.Paragraph 7 reinforces this logic. The ‘International Stabilisation Force’ is tasked with taking ‘all necessary measures’ to demilitarise Gaza, destroy its military infrastructure and permanently disarm armed groups. Above all, it must act ‘in close consultation and cooperation’ with Israel and Egypt and collaborate with them to secure the borders. Assigning such a role to Israel, the occupying power responsible for the mass destruction of Gaza, is utterly unacceptable. But it is just as damaging that Egypt—whose dictatorial regime depends on aid from Washington and collaborates with Israel against the interests of the Palestinian people—should also be called upon to participate in the security control of the territory. This resolution is an attempt to put a definitive end to the Palestinian people’s ability to resist oppression and the continuation of genocidal and annexationist policies.The Council is not merely intended to rebuild Gaza. It purports to take control of a devastated Palestinian territory, to organise its administration, reconstruction and security, whilst sidelining the Palestinians themselves from key decisions concerning their future. It is a structure of trusteeship.Trump’s claim is all the more significant given that this placement under trusteeship follows a war that destroyed a large part of the territory, displaced the majority of its population and caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people.The ‘Peace Council’: a colonial institution for GazaThe Palestinian people are therefore expected to accept disarmament, a new administration and international supervision. But the fundamental question remains: what about the occupation, colonisation, annexation of territories, forced displacement, crimes committed against civilians and the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination? What about the right to reparations? What about bringing the perpetrators to justice and sentencing them?And above all, who decides? The Palestinians are de facto absent.Since 2012, Palestine has held non-member observer state status at the UN but has not received an invitation to join the Council. Trump has arrogated to himself the right to decide who acts as the liaison between the Peace Council and those Palestinians with whom he is prepared to engage in dialogue [18]. The Peace Council is an international colonial administration under the leadership of the United States, whose legitimacy is presented as stemming from the need to rebuild Gaza following its destruction. Organising the management of a devastated territory without addressing the relations of domination that caused the catastrophe cannot build a just peace.Reconstruction has become the new name for colonisation.The composition of the Peace Council’s Executive Board is telling. Of its nine members, five are associates or close allies of Donald Trump: Marco Rubio, US Secretary of State – that is, the chief architect of US foreign policy; Steve Witkoff, US Special Envoy; Robert Gabriel Jr., National Security Adviser; Susie Wiles, Chief of Staff to President Trump; and Jared Kushner, Trump’s former adviser and son-in-law. Joining them are Tony Blair, the former British Prime Minister who actively supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq and has since made a name for himself in the financial sector; Ajay Banga, President of the World Bank Group and former Chief Executive of Mastercard; and Marc Rowan, co-founder, Chief Executive and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Apollo Global Management, one of the world’s largest alternative asset managers, which managed approximately $950 billion in assets at the end of 2025; and Martin Edelman, a corporate lawyer specialising in property and senior adviser to Mubadala, one of Abu Dhabi’s leading sovereign wealth funds.And, as we shall see, Donald Trump, in his capacity as Chairman of the Peace Council, wields extraordinary powers there.Diplomacy, military power, international finance and private interests are thus brought together at the apex of a structure under the authority of the President of the United StatesEven the process of joining is telling: it is Trump who invites the states of his choosing to become members, and, according to the Charter, a state can secure an extension of its term beyond three years by paying one billion dollars to the Peace Council.Washington, under Trump’s leadership, is thus seeking to do what is more difficult within a multilateral framework: to build a coalition centred on and led by the United States, to set objectives, to mobilise financial and military resources, and to organise the ‘post-war’ period without having to submit to the procedures, principles, without having to submit to the procedures, principles and potential deadlocks of existing international institutions.But in the case of Gaza, ‘organising for the post-war period’ means, first and foremost, organising for the aftermath of destruction and expulsion in a territory where the Palestinian population is to be placed under a new form of guardianship.Gaza is the first major testing ground for this new architecture.According to the founding charter of the Peace Council, the ambitions of this Trump-led initiative extend far beyond the boundaries of Gaza and are aimed at the whole world. This point is crucial: the colonial administration of Gaza serves as a testing ground for a mechanism that Trump intends to transform into an instrument of international power. The logic is clear: when a territory is devastated by war, the United States and its allies can claim to organise peace, reconstruction, security and administration themselves, bypassing existing multilateral mechanisms. This principle is the law of the strongest, to which Trump seeks to give a new institutional framework.A coalition of countries rallying around Trump, plenipotentiary president of the Peace CouncilAs of August 2026, only 28 countries had joined the Council: Albania, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belarus, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Egypt, El Salvador, Hungary, Indonesia, Israel, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Mongolia, Morocco, Pakistan, Paraguay, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, and the United States. Many of these nations exhibit authoritarian or dictatorial regimes, or they act as subordinate or opportunistic partners. Russia, under Putin, is willing to join as a permanent member, contingent upon Trump lifting the freeze on Russian assets in the United States, which would allow Moscow to fulfil its financial obligation of one billion dollars. Israel is recognised as a founding member, with its membership officially announced on the Council’s website on 12 February 2026. Notably, the countries of Western Europe and Canada [19] have opted not to join the Council, nor have China, India, Brazil, or Mexico.The structure of the Council effectively reflects the project, with Trump serving as its president. He is accompanied by US officials responsible for diplomacy and security, his political entourage, family members, a former British Prime Minister, the President of the World Bank, and a representative from the major private financial sector.Based strictly on the Charter [20], it can be asserted that the powers conferred upon Donald Trump as President of the Peace Council are excessive by the usual standards governing the operations of an international organisation. The Charter first grants him the exclusive authority to establish, amend, or dissolve the Council’s subsidiary bodies (Article 3.2(b)). It also permits him to create sub-committees and to determine their terms of reference, structure, and rules of governance independently (Article 3.4). Furthermore, it exerts direct control over the composition of the executive by appointing the members of the Executive Council, whose terms of office may also be revoked by the Council itself (Article 4.1(a)-(b)). Additionally, the Council appoints the Director-General, whose appointment requires only the confirmation of a majority of the Executive Council (Article 4.1(c)). The decisions of this executive body, even when adopted by a majority, remain subject to the President’s right of veto, which he may exercise at any time (Article 4.1(e)).Trump also has decisive authority over the decisions of the Peace Council itself: decisions taken by a majority of Member States present and voting are subject to his approval (Article 3.1(e)), while he controls the agenda of meetings by approving the one drawn up by the Executive Council (Article 3.1(c)). He may, furthermore, adopt resolutions or other directives himself on behalf of the Peace Council to carry out its mission (Article 9). Moreover, he is the final authority on the meaning, interpretation and application of the Charter, including in the settlement of internal disputes (Article 7). Finally, it holds exceptional power over the very continuity of the organisation: it may at any time appoint its own successor, who would take over immediately in the event of resignation or incapacity (Article 3.3), and it may dissolve the Peace Council when it deems it necessary or appropriate; failing that, the Council must be renewed by him at the end of every odd-numbered calendar year (Article 10.2).The Charter therefore confers upon him a concentration of powers that makes him at once the president, the appointing authority for senior leaders, the legislator by decree, the holder of the veto, the supreme interpreter of the Charter and the person who can decide on the organisation’s dissolution.This structure intertwines the geostrategic interests of the United States with private economic interests, particularly those of President Trump and his close associates. Above all, it provides the US with a tool to transform the destruction of a territory into an opportunity for political, security and economic reorganisation under its control. Above all, it provides the US with a tool to transform the destruction of a territory into an opportunity for political, security and economic reorganisation under its control.The ICC: when Washington attacks international justiceTrump’s policy towards the International Criminal Court reveals the nature of this project even more clearly. On 2 September 2020, his administration imposed sanctions on Fatou Bensouda, then Prosecutor of the ICC, and on Phakiso Mochochoko, Head of the Jurisdiction, Complementarity and Cooperation Division of the Office of the Prosecutor, due to their involvement in the Court’s investigations targeting, amongst others, US personnel [21]. The two officials had been placed on the US list of individuals subject to financial sanctions and visa restrictions. These sanctions were lifted by the Biden administration in April 2021. However, following Trump’s return to the White House, the offensive against the ICC resumed and intensified considerably. On 6 February 2025, Trump reinstated a sanctions regime against the Court; then, in 2026, his administration stepped up sanctions against ICC officials. On 18 August 2026, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced sanctions against Tomoko Akane, President of the ICC, and Abdoulaye Seye, First Deputy Prosecutor of the Court. He added:“The Trump administration has been clear: the International Criminal Court (ICC) is a corrupt and deeply politicised supranational court, which has maliciously abused its authority and overstepped its mandate. (…) Our comprehensive government-wide campaign to dismantle the threat posed by the ICC to national sovereignty will be far-reaching, and we expect other countries to join our campaign by ceasing their funding of and participation in this politicised and unaccountable court. (…) The Trump administration is prepared to take further action, if necessary, to systematically dismantle the ICC until it is incapable of threatening US sovereignty.” [22]The United States has now imposed sanctions on more than a dozen ICC officials or staff members. In response to the US decision, the ICC stated in a press release that these new sanctions “undermine the rule of law”. “When judicial actors are threatened for applying the law, it is the international legal order itself that is put at risk,” it added [23].The measures taken by the United States do not merely pose a legal challenge to the Court’s jurisdiction; they are specifically targeting its judges, prosecutors, and those who collaborate with it, particularly at a time when it is investigating crimes committed in Gaza and has issued arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant.ConclusionWe must view the Peace Council as a component of a much broader movement. Trump is not merely seeking to impose his will on Gaza.He is challenging the limits that international law can impose on American power. He is attacking international judicial institutions. He is threatening or sanctioning those who challenge US interests. He favours power politics and bilateral agreements or ad hoc coalitions at the expense of universal mechanisms.The ‘Peace Council’ must be understood in this context. But Gaza provides this offensive with a particularly concrete dimension: the Peace Council is a colonial institution seeking to organise the placement of Palestinian territory under trusteeship following its massive destruction. Behind the plan to rebuild Gaza lies an attempt at the political and geostrategic reorganisation of the Middle East under the domination of the United States, which regards Israel as its armed wing. And behind the offensive against the ICC lies the desire to shield the leaders of the United States and their allies from the mechanisms of international justice.We must, however, be careful not to present the international order established in 1945 as a homogeneous structure that simply needs to be defended as it stands. The adoption by the UN General Assembly of Resolution 181 in 1947, which addressed the partition of Palestine, and Resolution 273 on 11 May 1949, which admitted Israel as a member of the UN, serves as one of the most tragic illustrations of the failure to respect peoples’ right to self-determination.But colonised and newly independent peoples have gradually transformed this order. In the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, they wrested from the UN recognition of the fundamental principles of decolonisation, self-determination, sovereignty over natural resources and the struggle against colonialism and racism.It is these achievements that must be defended and built upon, not an idealised UN.The issue, therefore, is not a choice between an idealised UN and Trump’s attempt to provide a newinstitutional framework for the law of the jungle. It is a matter of defending and extending the international rights won by the peoples while radically transforming or replacing the institutions that continue to perpetuate the privileges of the great powers.In the face of Trump’s offensive, the response cannot, of course, consist of defending a UN dominated by the great powers and paralysed by the veto right. On the contrary, we must profoundly democratise the international system, strengthen the rights of peoples, abolish imperial privileges and ensure the application of international law to all states and all peoples, without exception; develop a grassroots internationalism; strengthen the anti-fascist and anti-imperialist struggle; and combat imperialist and neo-colonial aggression, whatever its origin.This also means defending the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, their right to freedom and sovereignty, the right of return for refugees, the right to reparations, and the right of peoples subjected to colonial domination to fight for their liberation.True peace in Palestine requires an end to colonial rule, the recognition of the rights of the Palestinian people, and an end to the impunity enjoyed by the powers that violate international law.Footnotes[1] Reuters, Israeli military reported to accept death toll of around 70,000 in Gaza, published on 30 January 2026, accessed 23 August 2026[2] European Union, United Nations and World Bank, Gaza Strip Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment (RDNA), published on 20 April 2026, accessed on 25 August 2026.[3] Reuters, Gaza mediators say latest Israeli strikes undermine efforts to end conflict at critical stage, published on 20 August 2026, accessed 26 August 2026.[4] United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), Humanitarian Situation Report, published on 23 July 2026, accessed on 26 August 2026.[5] Reuters, US has sent Israel thousands of 2,000-pound bombs since 7 October, published on 29 June 2024, accessed on 25 August 2026.[6] Corey Scher and Jamon Van Den Hoek, Active InSAR monitoring of building damage in Gaza during the Israel-Hamas War, 17 June 2025, accessed 25 August 2026. The study uses Sentinel-1 interferometric radar data and a long-temporal-arc coherent change detection (LT-CCD) method.[7] Gianluca Pacchiani, COGAT chief addresses Gazans: ‘You wanted hell, you’ll get hell’, Times of Israel, published on 10 October 2023, accessed on 23 August 2026.[8] The excerpt from the statement by Isaac Herzog, President of the State of Israel, comes from a draft resolution tabled in the US House of Representatives by Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib and 20 other members of Congress on 13 November 2025. Entitled ‘Recognising the genocide of the Palestinian people in Gaza’, this text was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs but was not adopted by the House. Reference: US House of Representatives, 119th Congress, 1st Session, H. Res. 876, Recognising the genocide of the Palestinian people in Gaza, 13 November 2025, p. 8, accessed 23 August 2026. For the English version: U.S. House of Representatives, 119th Congress, 1st Session, H. Res. 876, Recognising the genocide of the Palestinian people in Gaza, introduced by Rep. Rashida Tlaib et al., 13 November 2025, p. 8.[9] The Times of Israel, Emanuel Fabian, In “final warning” to Gazans, Katz says evacuations from combat zones will start soon, published on 19 March 2025, accessed 25 August 2026.[10] The quote from Bezalel Smotrich dated 19 May 2025 can be found in United Nations, Security Council, S/2025/560/Rev.1, Letter dated 18 August 2025 from the Permanent Representative of South Africa to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General, accessed on 25 August 2026.[11] This quotation from Benjamin Netanyahu is taken from the document referenced above.[12] United States House of Representatives, 119th Congress, 1st Session, H. Res. 876, Recognising the genocide of the Palestinian people in Gaza, resolution tabled on 13 November 2025, pp. 7–8., accessed 23 August 2026. For the English version: U.S. House of Representatives, 119th Congress, 1st Session, H. Res. 876, Recognising the genocide of the Palestinian people in Gaza, introduced by Rep. Rashida Tlaib et al., 13 November 2025, pp. 7–8.[13] CBS, Senior Israeli official calls for killing of ’30 to 40’ people in Gaza every night: ’They’re not even people’, published on 17 August 2026, accessed on 23 August 2026.[14] Donald J. Trump, remarks to the press, Pool Reports of 13 October 2025, American Presidency Project, 13 October 2025, accessed 26 August 2026.[15] Donald J. Trump, Remarks to the Knesset in Jerusalem, Israel, 13 October 2025. The official text of the speech is available in the archives of the American Presidency Project; the Israeli Knesset has also published the text. Accessed 26 August 2026.[16] U.S. Department of Defense, 2026 National Defence Strategy, 23 January 2026, accessed 26 August 2026.[17] The White House, National Security Strategy of the United States of America, November 2025, p. 8, Section IV, ‘The Strategy’, subsection ‘Principles’, accessed 26 August 2026.[18] The White House has stated that Nickolay Mladenov, a member of the Executive Board of the Board of Peace, would act as the liaison on the ground between the Board and a Palestinian committee appointed by Trump. Mladenov has been given the title of High Representative for Gaza; see https://boardofpeace.org/ohr. The White House, Statement on President Trump’s Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict, published on 16 January 2026, accessed 24 August 2026.[19] Trump initially invited Canada to join the Peace Council, and Mark Carney accepted the invitation in principle. However, following the Canadian Prime Minister’s highly critical speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos on 20 January 2026 – in which he denounced the major powers’ use of economic integration and tariffs as weapons for the major powers’ use of economic integration as a weapon and other things, the major powers’ use of economic integration as a weapon and of tariffs as a means of exerting pressure – Trump withdrew the invitation on 22 January. The day before, Trump had publicly criticised Carney for not being sufficiently “grateful” to the United States. Reuters, Trump revokes Canada’s invitation to join Board of Peace, published on 23 January 2026, accessed on 26 August 2026.[20] The founding Charter of the Board of Peace, signed January 16, 2026.[21] Michael R. Pompeo, Secretary of State, Actions to Protect U.S. Personnel from Illegitimate Investigation by the International Criminal Court, published on 2 September 2020, accessed 24 August 2026.[22] Marco Rubio, Advancing the United States’ Campaign to Address the Threat Posed by the International Criminal Court, published on 18 August 2026, accessed on 24 August 2026.[23] Euronews, ICC hits back after US announces fresh sanctions on senior court figures, accessed 24 August 2026. (Cadtm)