Gaza Peace Council Deemed US Tool for Israeli Expansionism
According to the International Desk of Webangah News Agency, the recent introduction of a mechanism named the “Gaza Peace Council” in the early months of 2026 signifies an effort by President Donald Trump and his Western allies to manage the post-crisis situation in the Gaza Strip through “political engineering.” The stated objectives of this council include accelerating the reconstruction of devastated infrastructure, establishing a technocratic and civilian administrative structure, and ultimately “normalizing living conditions.” However, analysts contend that such councils typically serve a dual purpose: outwardly responding to global public pressure to end the humanitarian catastrophe, while covertly acting as instruments to institutionalize the desired order of the occupying power.
The structure of this council is designed to lack any enforcement mechanisms to curb Israel’s war machine or compel the regime to withdraw to its pre-conflict borders. Its architecture is focused more on the concept of “economic peace” and disarming the resistance, rather than upholding fundamental Palestinian rights, including the right to self-determination. International relations history indicates that intermediary bodies without punitive leverage against the aggressor ultimately help stabilize the status quo in favor of the more powerful player. Consequently, the Gaza Peace Council, in its current configuration, lacks the capacity and will to halt the territorial expansionism of the Israeli regime.
Counterbalancing the diplomatic rhetoric surrounding the Gaza Peace Council are the ground realities and ideological underpinnings governing the Israeli regime’s ruling elite and its American supporters. Mike Huckabee, the U.S. Ambassador to Israel, recently stated in an interview with Tucker Carlson that he explicitly defended the idea of “Greater Israel” and outright rejected any prospect of establishing an independent Palestinian state. Huckabee’s remarks, rooted in Christian Zionist and far-right extremist beliefs, reflect the overarching doctrine of the ruling coalition in Tel Aviv and a significant portion of policymakers in Washington.
His emphasis on the historical Jewish claim to all lands between the river and the sea indicates that the Israeli regime’s overarching strategy involves the gradual absorption of remaining Palestinian territories, continuous settlement expansion in the West Bank, and altering the demographic makeup of the Gaza Strip. This interview reveals a strategic reality: while the international community is occupied with initiatives like the Gaza Peace Council, the primary policymakers in the Washington-Tel Aviv axis are advancing a project of ethnic cleansing and territorial expansion. The establishment of a conciliatory institution like the Gaza Peace Council, juxtaposed with the public articulation of the “Greater Israel” doctrine by a senior American diplomatic official, portrays a strategic paradox. This situation exemplifies the instrumental use of diplomacy to buy time and cover for hardline actions. The Gaza Peace Council plays a “pacifying” role to reduce international sensitivities, while the Zionist expansionist machine advances its territorial annexation projects under the guise of this relative calm. Peace plans that ignore the root causes of the crisis – occupation and apartheid – become part of the problem and contribute to the continuation of the crisis.
The Gaza Peace Council does not act as a barrier against Israeli expansionism; rather, by reducing the Palestinian issue to a purely humanitarian and economic matter, it effectively paves the way for the realization of far-right extremist aspirations. This council is a diplomatic trap attempting to pressure Palestinian groups into accepting imposed security structures through promises of reconstruction. Mike Huckabee’s statements regarding the “Greater Israel” concept serve as valuable evidence supporting the discourse of resistance. Iran has consistently emphasized that the Israeli regime is inherently expansionist. The U.S. Ambassador’s interview demonstrates that Tel Aviv’s ultimate goal is to establish regional hegemony, directly threatening the national security of Iran and other regional nations. Initiatives like the Gaza Peace Council are assessed by the Axis of Resistance not as opportunities for peace, but as a “Trojan horse” for intelligence infiltration, soft disarmament, and altering geopolitical calculations in favor of the U.S. and Israel. Maintaining military deterrence capabilities and strengthening solidarity on multiple fronts are the only valid responses to an alliance that employs diplomacy to advance its expansionist objectives.
The answer to the critical question of whether the Gaza Peace Council can halt Zionist expansionism is a definitive and evidence-based “no.” As long as the United States acts as an unconditional supporter of the Israeli regime’s crimes and expansionist policies, and its ambassadors ridicule international law, no peace council will be able to alter Tel Aviv’s behavior. The Gaza Peace Council, at best, is a bureaucratic body for distributing humanitarian aid, and at worst, an executive arm of Israel for the inexpensive management of occupied territories. The mission of the media, elites, and decision-makers in Iran and the geography of resistance during this sensitive period is to expose this duality and stark contradiction. Lasting peace is never achieved through imposed institutions that disregard the right to legitimate defense. The only element capable of standing against the destructive idea of “Greater Israel” is the preservation and enhancement of the “balance of threat” and imposing strategic costs on the occupiers, as the history of the Middle East has proven that expansionist regimes only halt when confronted with hard power and practical deterrence, not with resolutions and peace councils lacking backing.
