作者： admin

Residents of the Gaza Strip have expressed deep skepticism following the United Nations Security Council’s adoption of a resolution that authorizes foreign governance and an international force in the war-torn territory. The resolution, drafted by the United States and passed on Monday, has been met with criticism from locals who argue that it prioritizes political conditions over urgent humanitarian needs. Abu Malek Jerjawi, a Gaza resident, lamented that the UNSC’s decision ties reconstruction and relief efforts to disarmament, a move he described as ‘deeply disappointing’ and a ‘disaster’ for the population. ‘The Council disregarded all humanitarian needs and tied them to political considerations,’ Jerjawi told Middle East Eye. The resolution, known as UNSC 2803, supports a transnational governing body led by former U.S. President Donald Trump and the establishment of an international force to oversee the demilitarization of Gaza. However, critics fear this approach will exacerbate tensions rather than bring stability. Satellite analysis by the United Nations Satellite Centre (UNOSAT) reveals that over 80% of structures in Gaza have been destroyed or damaged since the conflict began more than two years ago, leaving most of the 2.3 million residents internally displaced and lacking basic necessities. Nermin Basel, a mother of three who fled Gaza during the war, emphasized that any international plan must guarantee the return of displaced Palestinians. ‘Leaving was never our choice, but staying meant certain death,’ she said. ‘Any plan to end the war and improve the situation must ensure we can return.’ The resolution has also been rejected by armed Palestinian factions, including Hamas, which insists that resistance to occupation is a legitimate right under international law. Critics argue that the resolution risks eroding Palestinian claims to the land and fails to address the root causes of the conflict. Jerjawi warned that the mandate granted to the international force could ‘reproduce the war’ rather than end it, further destabilizing the region.

The Israeli parliament’s National Security Committee convened on Wednesday to deliberate a contentious bill proposing the death penalty for Palestinians convicted of terrorism, with lethal injection as the designated method. The legislation, spearheaded by MK Limor Son Har Melech of the far-right Otzma Yehudit (Jewish Power) party, successfully passed its first reading last week and is now advancing toward its second and third readings, the final steps before becoming law. Committee Chair MK Tzvika Foghel, also from Otzma Yehudit, outlined the guiding principles of the bill earlier this week, emphasizing its alignment with what he described as the Israeli public’s demand for justice following the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attack. Foghel argued that the death penalty would eliminate the possibility of future prisoner exchanges, which he claimed endanger Jewish lives. The bill mandates death sentences for individuals convicted of murdering Jews solely based on their ethnicity, including planners and dispatchers of such acts. It further stipulates that executions must occur within 90 days of sentencing, with no avenues for appeal, commutation, or pardon. The proposal has sparked intense debate in parliament, with heated exchanges between Otzma Yehudit lawmakers, including National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, and left-wing MPs who were forcibly removed from the session. Critics, including MP Gilad Kariv of the center-left Democrats party, condemned the bill as racist and driven by vengeance, arguing that it disproportionately targets Palestinians. The Public Defense’s Office at the Ministry of Justice also criticized the bill, citing global evidence that the death penalty lacks deterrent effects. Despite opposition, the bill garnered support from coalition parties and the right-wing opposition party Yisrael Beiteinu, while centrist parties abstained from voting. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has publicly endorsed the death penalty, aligning with the bill’s assertion that imprisonment is insufficient to deter terrorism. If enacted, the law would mark a significant shift in Israeli policy, as the country has not carried out an execution since 1962. Human rights organizations, including the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, have vehemently opposed the bill, arguing that it violates fundamental human rights principles and disproportionately targets Palestinians. The debate unfolds amid reports of rising Palestinian detainee deaths in Israeli custody, further intensifying scrutiny of the proposed legislation.

A recent UN Security Council resolution endorsing former US President Donald Trump’s 20-point plan for Gaza has been criticized as a breach of fundamental international law principles, rendering it legally invalid, according to a prominent international law expert. The resolution, approved on Monday, supports the establishment of an international stabilization force and grants Trump supreme control over Gaza, with a ‘board of peace’ overseeing the plan’s implementation for two years. Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair’s involvement has also drawn significant attention. Ralph Wilde, a leading international law scholar and practitioner, argued that the resolution attempts to impose a ‘trusteeship’ over Gaza, a colonial arrangement that undermines Palestinians’ right to self-determination. Wilde, a professor at UCL and author of an award-winning book on international trusteeship, expressed dismay that his work is being used as a ‘manual’ for this trusteeship. He emphasized that trusteeship, historically used to justify colonial rule, contradicts the post-World War Two adoption of self-determination as a fundamental right in international law. Wilde further argued that replacing one form of trusteeship with another does not constitute self-determination and remains illegal. He noted that even if Palestinian representatives accept the plan, it would still be unlawful, akin to the Oslo Accords’ legitimization of certain aspects of Israel’s occupation. Wilde also highlighted that the UN Security Council’s authority is limited by the principles of justice and international law, and the resolution’s authorization of trusteeship is void as it violates these principles. The resolution passed with 13 votes in favor and abstentions from China and Russia.