Why Don’t the States Guaranteeing the Truce Act—Is the “Peace Council” a Cover for Prolonging Genocide?

The second phase of the alleged truce, according to the American vision, imposes the issue of disarming Hamas, while it is well known that the Zionist enemy did not comply with any of the conditions of the first phase, whereas Hamas adhered to them in full.

Conditions in Gaza have reached a level of severe and dangerous decay, and the American insistence on forming what is called a “Peace Council” is incomprehensible; what peace can be hoped for when the situation in Gaza resembles an inevitable death?

It is as if the enemy’s hidden plan, in collusion with its American ally, is to deliberately undermine the provisions of the truce in order to complete the stages of ethnic cleansing in Gaza, and then later move on to the deal promoted by Trump during his second election campaign: emptying the Strip and turning it into a tourist resort.

Here the fundamental question arises: where are the states guaranteeing the implementation of the truce provisions? And what are they doing in this “Peace Council”?

And why the insistence on forming a “Peace Council” in the midst of:

* a comprehensive siege,
* systematic destruction of infrastructure,
* and the obstruction of humanitarian relief,

which stands in explicit contradiction to:

* the Charter of the United Nations (Article 1),
* and the Fourth Geneva Convention, which makes the protection of civilians a prerequisite for any settlement.

Countries such as Turkey, Qatar, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia possess real tools of pressure on the American administration; merely threatening, for example, to withdraw Saudi investments from the U.S. market would be sufficient to make a tangible difference.

What is currently taking place in Gaza is a systematic continuation of the crime of genocide; the Zionist enemy has not withdrawn from the territories it occupied, but continues to expand and advance into densely populated areas, killing and displacing at will. Accordingly, the guarantor of the truce bears direct moral and political responsibility, and what we see today is these states turning away from their duties toward our people in Gaza.

Nothing is more abhorrent than the betrayal by those closest to a besieged people’s suffering—hostages to Zionist aggression and Western Crusader support. Palestinians in Gaza want effective action from the guarantor states: they want deeds, not statements of condemnation and denunciation; they want political and economic pressure, and even military pressure, for that is not impossible at a time when the enemy shows no regard for any international law or charter.

By way of reminder, states that:

* participate in sponsorship,
* or are granted guarantor status,

bear, under international law, the responsibility to prevent the crime, not merely to condemn it.

*United Nations reports (OCHA) confirm the occupation’s ongoing violations even during periods of de-escalation.*
*The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) confirms the continuation of military operations in civilian areas despite temporary agreements.*