A new American draft resolution on Gaza has drawn fierce criticism from Palestinian political actors, who argue that it overlooks the core rights and demands of a population devastated by two years of genocidal war. They warn that the proposal sidesteps the humanitarian destruction still unfolding on the ground and instead advances arrangements that align with long-standing Israeli objectives. Central to their concern is the suggestion of an international trusteeship mechanism, seen by many as an attempt to impose an external authority over Gaza rather than restore the people’s ability to determine their own future.

Critics argue that the proposed framework threatens to sever Gaza from the wider Palestinian territory and cement new political realities that dilute fundamental national principles, including self-determination and the creation of an independent state with Jerusalem as its capital. They stress that any approach treating humanitarian aid and the opening of crossings as bargaining tools rather than basic rights only deepens the crisis. There is also mounting apprehension that an international force with security powers inside Gaza would risk becoming an extension of Israeli interests, undermining neutrality and sidelining Palestinian institutions.

Political groups insist that any international presence must be limited to border monitoring, operating strictly under United Nations authority and exclusively alongside recognised Palestinian bodies. Their position emphasises that reconstruction, humanitarian access, and the restoration of civil life should not be subordinated to political engineering. With Gaza enduring unprecedented destruction, they call on global powers to uphold international law, halt the continuing genocide, and support a genuine political process that restores Palestinian rights and agency after years of catastrophic loss.