A recent UN Security Council resolution has opened an unprecedented chapter in Gaza’s political future, setting out an externally managed transition that many fear could dilute local authority at a time when the population is still reeling from a genocidal war. While framed as a stabilising framework, the document effectively hands wide-ranging administrative, economic, and security powers to an international consortium. By elevating the arrangement under a binding Chapter VII mandate, the decision moves Gaza into a governance structure in which global actors hold the decisive voice, leaving Palestinian institutions with minimal influence over how the next phase unfolds.

Central to the plan is the creation of an international council tasked with overseeing civilian affairs and reconstruction. This body is granted legal autonomy to negotiate agreements, manage finances, and direct humanitarian and development efforts through a trust fund operated by global donors. For residents who have endured years of blockade, bombardment, and political fragmentation, the concern is that Gaza’s recovery will now depend on external priorities rather than the needs articulated by its own communities. Critics warn that such a mechanism risks entrenching a long-term system of oversight that resembles trusteeship more than temporary support, especially as donors gain direct leverage over reconstruction funds and the pace of economic revival.

The resolution also authorises a multinational security force with broad powers, including control of crossings and key corridors. Although presented as a route to stability, the force’s mandate effectively places essential aspects of Gaza’s sovereignty under foreign management. Israel retains an influential role through mandatory coordination structures and assessments tied to “security stabilisation,” allowing it to shape conditions on the ground without the responsibilities that accompany direct occupation. With a transitional administration envisaged for Gaza alone, separate from institutions in the West Bank, the arrangement risks deepening political division and reinforcing a fragmented territorial reality. For many observers, the model bears the hallmarks of a governance scheme imposed from above, one that could shape Gaza’s identity, mobility, and reconstruction for years to come.