The adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 2803 in late 2025 marks a paradigm shift in the governance of the Gaza Strip, transitioning the territory from Israeli military encirclement to a formalized American-led administration.1 While the text of the resolution speaks of “stabilization” and “transitional administration,” the operational reality on the ground mirrors the structural playbook deployed during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. By establishing a “Board of Peace” and a Civil-Military Coordination Center (CMCC), the United States has effectively designated itself as the new de facto occupying power, utilizing the ambiguity of international mandates to obscure a profound violation of Palestinian sovereignty.2
The “Hostile Army” Thesis: Redefining Occupation
Under international law, specifically Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations, a territory is considered occupied when it is placed under the actual authority of a hostile army. The conventional interpretation limits this to the belligerent force that initiated the conquest—in this case, Israel. However, the introduction of US governance structures fundamentally alters this legal landscape. The United States, having provided the military aid and diplomatic cover necessary for the destruction of Gaza, now assumes authority over its future, fitting the functional definition of a hostile army.
The Security Council has historically acted less as an impartial arbiter of law and more as a guarantor of great-power interests. Just as Resolution 1483 legitimized the occupation of Iraq in 2003, Resolution 2803 utilizes the language of “reconstruction” to validate foreign control.3 This legal maneuvering allows Washington to bypass the Geneva Conventions’ protections for occupied populations, reframing the subjugation of Gaza as a benevolent international police action. By entrusting the political future of the strip to a US-chaired board, the international community has effectively suspended the Palestinian right to self-determination in favor of an imposed administrative order.4
Economic Shock Therapy: From GHF to Real Estate
The parallels with Iraq extend beyond legal definitions to the economic restructuring of the devastated territory. In 2003, the Coalition Provisional Authority dismantled Iraq’s state infrastructure to implement a neoliberal order that favored foreign investors over local recovery. A similar dynamic is emerging in Gaza through the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF).5 This entity, intended to manage aid distribution, has been widely criticized by human rights groups as a mechanism for weaponizing food aid, creating a dependency model that erodes local social fabrics.
This administrative control paves the way for what can be described as disaster capitalism. Remarks by influential US political figures regarding the potential value of “Gaza’s waterfront property” suggest a long-term vision focused on real estate development rather than refugee return.6 The proposed reconstruction plans threaten to burden a future Palestinian administration with debilitating debt from international financial institutions—a tactic deemed a crime against humanity in other contexts of systemic exploitation. Instead of reparations for the genocide, Palestinians are being offered a “Marshall Plan” that cements their economic subservience to the very powers that facilitated their displacement.
The Security Facade: Militias and Multinationals
The security architecture of this new occupation relies heavily on the outsourcing of violence. The Civil-Military Coordination Center, based in southern Israel and staffed by US and UK personnel, serves as the operational hub for this strategy.7 Rather than a neutral peacekeeping force, the plan involves a complex web of multinational troops—including a proposed 20,000 personnel from Indonesia—operating alongside local proxies.
This strategy risks replicating the sectarian chaos of post-invasion Iraq. Reports indicate potential cooperation with non-state armed groups, such as the militia formerly led by Yasser Abu Shabab, to enforce order. These groups, often comprised of individuals with criminal backgrounds or history of collaboration, are being positioned as a local police force. This reliance on unaccountable proxies to “finish the job” of pacification undermines any claim to stabilizing the region and violates the International Court of Justice’s rulings regarding the illegality of continued foreign control over Palestinian territory.
A Future Foretold: The Danger of Complicity
The “day after” plan for Gaza is not a roadmap to statehood but a blueprint for a heavily policed, economically dependent enclave. The exclusion of the Palestinian people from the decision-making process invalidates the legitimacy of these new governing bodies.8 As legal scholars and UN experts have warned, replacing one occupier with another—even under the guise of a UN mandate—does not fulfill the legal obligation to end the occupation.
The international community stands at a critical juncture. Supporting this “stabilization” force equates to complicity in a revised form of occupation that promises surveillance, debt, and permanent displacement.9 The only path to a lawful resolution lies in the immediate enforcement of arms embargoes, the rejection of foreign-imposed administration, and the unconditional protection of the Palestinian right to sovereignty over their land and resources. Without these measures, Gaza is destined to become another Iraq: a broken state managed for the benefit of foreign powers.
Original analysis inspired by Shahd Hammouri from The New Arab. Additional research and verification conducted through multiple sources.
