Abstract 

This article examines the emergence of the “Gaza Peace Council” as a pragmatic mechanism for managing the post-war phase rather than resolving the Palestinian conflict. It argues that the council reflects a broader international and regional tendency to contain crises through functional arrangements focused on security stabilization, humanitarian relief, and administrative regulation, while deliberately avoiding engagement with the underlying political roots of the conflict.

From a realist perspective, the study acknowledges the immediate benefits of such a framework, including the reduction of human suffering, the facilitation of humanitarian access, and the provision of minimal governance in a devastated environment. However, it critically highlights the inherent limitation of these gains, emphasizing their conditional and non-political nature.

The article identifies a central dilemma: the risk that crisis management frameworks, when detached from a defined political horizon, may evolve into permanent structures that entrench the status quo rather than transform it. In this context, the reconfiguration of Gaza as a purely humanitarian-administrative case represents a strategic shift with long-term implications for the broader Palestinian question.

Accordingly, the paper advances a balanced, pragmatic approach based on conditional engagement—leveraging immediate functional benefits while firmly anchoring any ceasefire or reconstruction process within a gradual, clearly defined political trajectory that safeguards Palestinian rights and prevents the institutionalization of temporary arrangements.