Israel and the Peace Council: New Opportunities

For Israel, the emergence of the “Peace Council” represents both a new challenge and an opportunity. This concept, operating outside the UN framework, illustrates the rise of ad hoc coalitions and the dilemmas of multilateralism. For years, the UN system has failed to evolve alongside globalization. The current model no longer corresponds to today’s world.

While many have criticisms of President Trump, it must be acknowledged that he will remain in history as someone who shifted the paradigms — and the process is likely not over.

What are we witnessing? The European Union is divided, and a coalition outside the UN framework has been formed — developments that carry significant strategic implications for Israel.

The emergence of the “Peace Council,” backed by Washington, combined with a coalition of willing states operating outside the UN framework, fits into a broader transformation of international governance. This dynamic recalls the ad hoc coalition model used in Ukraine while exposing contradictions within Western and European states.

1. A clearly unprecedented architecture, parallel to the UN system

The Peace Council, officially designed to support the stabilization of Gaza, presents:

• a potentially global mandate;
• powers comparable to those of the Security Council;
• governance independent from the UN system.

At the same time, the UN’s financial crisis weakens its operational role.

Taken together, these developments suggest a shift toward parallel crisis-management mechanisms, at a time when the international system has largely demonstrated its impotence in the face of a Security Council permanently blocked by competing interests.

2. Gaza has become the laboratory for a new intervention model

What the framework means:

An international stabilization force

• 20,000 international troops;
• disarmament of Hamas;
• maintenance of public order.

International administrative governance

An Executive Council for Gaza would exercise civil administration.

This model resembles governance under an international mandate.

3. The coalition of the willing: a model already tested (Ukraine)

The coalition supporting Ukraine constitutes an important precedent because it operates outside the UN framework. At its creation, few voices questioned its international legitimacy.

Main characteristics

• no Security Council decision;
• legal basis: collective self-defense;
• coordination via the Ramstein format
  (The Ramstein format refers to the coordination framework created in 2022 to organize international military support for Ukraine following the Russian invasion. It takes its name from the U.S. air base in Ramstein, Germany, where the first meeting was held.)
• capability coalitions (F-16s, air defense, artillery, drones).

This model allows action when the UN is paralyzed — which is often the case when Security Council members represent opposing strategic interests.

4. A Western strategic contradiction

Several states actively supporting the Ukraine coalition are cautious — even reluctant — regarding the Peace Council.

Examples of divergence

Major participants in the Ukraine coalition:

• United States
• United Kingdom
• Germany
• France
• Netherlands
• Italy
• Poland
• Nordic and Baltic countries

Positions regarding the Peace Council:

• support or participation: Hungary, Bulgaria, some Mediterranean states;
• cautious diplomatic presence: Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland;
• opposition or reservations: France, Spain, Belgium, Ireland, Sweden, Portugal.

The same states that bypass the UN for Ukraine hesitate to legitimize a parallel body perceived as politically oriented.

Reasons for this contradiction

Nature of the conflict

• Ukraine: support for an internationally recognized state under attack.
• Gaza: management of a politically and legally more controversial conflict.

Perception of neutrality

• Ukraine: legitimate collective defense.
• Peace Council: Body perceived as dominated by Washington.

Domestic political risk

• Public opinion is more divided on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Geopolitical implications

• Ukraine: Western consensus.
• Middle East: divergent interests.

5. European Union: real presence, fractured political line

Commission position

• limited participation in Gaza and reconstruction;
• maintaining European influence;
• avoiding marginalization.

Opposition led by France

Paris challenges participation:

• absence of a mandate from member states;
• legal ambiguities;
• risk of weakening the UN.

Supporters: Belgium, Spain, Ireland, Slovenia, Sweden, Portugal.

States engaged or present

• members: Hungary, Bulgaria
• observers or diplomats: Italy, Romania, Greece, Germany, Netherlands, Poland, etc.

➡️ The EU appears diplomatically fragmented — and therefore relatively powerless.

6. Why Europe remains at the table nonetheless

• largest donor of aid to Palestinians;
• expected influence over reconstruction;
• management of migration and security risks;
• avoiding strategic exclusion.

➡️ The objective is to influence without fully legitimizing — a high-stakes diplomatic poker game.

 Strategic implications for Israel

Security and stabilization

• disarmament of Hamas;
• international presence — including a major Muslim country such as Indonesia reportedly willing to contribute to maintaining order;
• reduced risk of military reconstitution.

Burden-sharing in governance

• international civil administration;
• reduction of the political cost of occupation.

International legitimacy

• involvement of third states;
• normalization of new security realities.

Bypassing diplomatic deadlock

• faster decisions than via the UN;
• framework more favorable to security priorities.

Reduced perception of occupation

• participation of moderate Muslim states.

8. Advantages and risks for Israel of active participation

Advantages

Security

• durable stabilization;
• neutralization of hostile military capabilities.

Diplomacy

• shared international responsibility;
• consolidated U.S. support.

Regional legitimacy

• involvement of non-Western actors.

Efficiency

• faster decision-making mechanism than the UN.

Risks

International contestation

• opposition from major powers;
• accusations of erosion of international law.

Contested legitimacy

• perception of an imposed framework.

Strategic dependency

• increased dependence on the United States.

Operational failure

• difficulty disarming Hamas;
• persistent instability.

9. Possible international reactions

United Nations

• defense of its legitimacy;
• pragmatic humanitarian cooperation;
• political pressure against parallel structures.

China

• criticism of a body dominated by a single power;
• defense of multilateralism;
• expanded diplomatic opportunities.

Russia

• denunciation of bypassing the Security Council;
• political instrumentalization.

India

• balanced posture;
• support for multilateralism;
• strategic pragmatism.

The Council could become a new arena of competition between visions of world order.

Conclusion

The Peace Council and the coalition of willing states illustrate a profound shift in international governance: when UN mechanisms are paralyzed, ad hoc structures emerge to manage crises.

However, a contradiction is evident: several Western states that actively support a non-UN coalition for Ukraine hesitate to fully engage in the Peace Council due to the political sensitivity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, legal uncertainties, and the risk of legitimizing an order perceived as unilateral.

For Israel, this framework offers significant security and diplomatic advantages but also carries risks of international contestation and strategic dependency.

Beyond Gaza, this dynamic may signal a shift toward a more fragmented international system in which ad hoc coalitions and traditional institutions coexist in an unstable balance. It is opening new options to Israel.

“According to whether you are powerful or destitute,
the judgments of the court will render you white or black”