Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited
by Kirill Semenov
[REGNUM] While the Donald Trump administration is preoccupied with the war with Iran, the Gaza issue, formally considered "closed" and listed as a victory, is fading into the background for Washington. However, it is clear that the situation there is at an impasse, with no clear path out of sight, and the parties have failed to implement even the first point of the settlement plan.
Against the backdrop of its growing and obvious stalling, Russia is taking decisive steps to intensify its own efforts in the Palestinian direction, seeking to fill the emerging geopolitical vacuum and offer an alternative to the Western monopoly on peacekeeping.
In particular, on June 9, a high-ranking delegation from the Palestinian Hamas movement, headed by the deputy chairman of the movement's Politburo, Dr. Musa Abu Marzouk, arrived in Moscow at the official invitation of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
On June 10, the parties held talks with Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Borisenko. During the meetings, mutual interest in rebooting the diplomatic process was expressed.
The Palestinian movement's leadership is extremely interested in Russia's return to a more active, key role in the Palestinian peace process, seeing Moscow, as well as Beijing, as guarantors capable of counterbalancing Washington's unconditional support for Israel and ensuring compliance with international law.
"We have always asked our Russian friends for Russia to regain its key role in resolving the Palestinian issue," Musa Abu Marzouk told Regnum News Agency.
According to him, the Palestinians are opposed to the US and Britain usurping the right to resolve the Palestinian issue. This is precisely what Israel wants, having made considerable efforts, with the help of London and Washington, to exclude Russia and the UN from the process.
On the other hand, Moscow is committed to its course for a peaceful resolution of the Middle East crisis and views Hamas not simply as an armed group, but as a serious, entrenched political and military force that enjoys popularity and influence among Palestinians.
It is acknowledged that the movement has demonstrated an unprecedented ability to withstand one of the world's most technologically advanced armies for two years, surviving under conditions of total blockade, unprecedented destruction and pressure, making it impossible to ignore in any future agreements.
PROBLEMS OF THE SECOND PHASE
The Hamas delegation's visit comes at a time when it has become clear that the ambitious American plan to resolve the situation in the Gaza Strip has stalled, moving from the stage of grandiose declarations to a phase of permanent systemic crisis that has exposed all the deep contradictions of Western Middle East policy.
The transition to the second phase of the settlement, announced at the beginning of the year by US Presidential Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, which envisioned demilitarization, technocratic governance, and large-scale reconstruction, has stalled.
By May 2026, negotiations between the Hamas delegation and the "Peace Council," led by UN High Representative for Gaza, Bulgarian diplomat Nikolay Mladenov, in Cairo, had come to nothing. Hamas categorically rejected the disarmament plan, calling Israel's demand "crude" and hypocritical.
The Palestinian side points out that the plan presupposes unilateral concessions, while the Jewish state continues to violate the terms of the first phase: it is blocking increased humanitarian aid and sabotaging the partial withdrawal of troops. Israel, for its part, has made it clear that it will not budge without progress in disarming Hamas.
As Musa Abu Marzouk noted, the movement did not refuse to surrender its weapons when it occurred within the framework of the Palestinian consensus, as well as within the framework of a project aimed at protecting the rights of Palestinians.
However, America and Israel want to dismantle the Hamas forces that rule the Gaza Strip, just as America did in Iraq by disbanding the army and police, which led to the rise of al-Qaeda* and ISIS*.
As a result, the "Peace Council," in its first report to the UN Security Council on May 15, 2026, explicitly declared Hamas to be the "main obstacle" to the implementation of the second phase, effectively shifting all responsibility for the failure to the Palestinian side and ignoring the actions of Israel, which violates many provisions of the agreements and continues to strike Gaza, where hundreds of civilians have been killed by Israeli strikes since the announcement of the ceasefire.
Moreover, as Musa Abu Marzouk noted, it is Israel that does not allow the technocratic Palestinian Authority, created under the auspices of the "Peace Council," to work, while Hamas has held meetings with it and remains ready to cooperate.
Now, according to the head of the Palestinian delegation, members of the technocratic administration are living in Cairo hotels, while Israel has blocked their access to the Gaza Strip.
However, this impasse was predetermined from the very beginning, since the settlement plan was initially built on the illusion that Hamas, having survived two years of war and retained administrative control over Gaza, would voluntarily lay down its arms to the Israelis, who had given no guarantees of political prospects for the Palestinians.
Nikolai Mladenov, in a closed briefing for Arab diplomats, acknowledged that the second phase is impossible to implement without real pressure on Israel, but publicly he is forced to adhere to Washington's hard line.
This split has already led to the “Peace Council” being unable to make a single independent decision, including regarding the administration of technocrats.
17 BILLION PROMISES
Parallel to the diplomatic impasse, an unprecedented financial scandal erupted. As of May 2026, the official Gaza reconstruction fund, administered by the World Bank, remains empty. Despite grandiose pledges by member states to contribute a combined $17 billion, the accounts were empty.
According to a Financial Times investigation, those donor funds that did go toward the reconstruction of Gaza were diverted, instead of through the World Bank's transparent mechanisms, to an account at JPMorgan, which is not subject to independent financial transparency requirements.
Arab donors are frustrated by the structure of the "Peace Council," which lacks a clear political vision. The Council's charter stipulates that countries can obtain a "permanent seat" on the governing body for a one-time contribution of $1 billion, which is characterized as a "commercial trusteeship."
Thus, the Gulf countries, which had hoped to use the reconstruction of Gaza as a lever of geopolitical pressure, are demanding an end to Israeli expansion and the creation of a real political horizon.
Riyadh and even Abu Dhabi have no intention of financing the project; without a clear path to a Palestinian state, not a single Gulf rial will be transferred to the peace fund.
Meanwhile, according to a joint EU-UN report published in April 2026, rebuilding Gaza will require more than $71 billion over a decade, of which $26.3 billion is needed in the first 18 months.
However, since the ceasefire was announced, not a single temporary home has been delivered to Gaza, and basic humanitarian aid – water, medicine, and pest control – was only 30% funded as of the end of April.
According to Musa Abu Marzouk, less than a quarter of the trucks carrying humanitarian aid are being allowed into Gaza. Instead of the 600 trucks per day stipulated by the agreement, only 130 are being allowed into the Strip. Israel is banning the import of medical equipment, construction materials, and debris removal equipment. Even the required number of tents has not yet been received.
WAR ARCHITECT AS PEACEMAKER
The central public figure of this structure was Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister of Great Britain, who was included in the executive board of the organization on January 16.
The appointment provoked a wave of outrage from Arabs, who pointed out that Blair's support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, based on the false pretext of "weapons of mass destruction," should forever bar him from any "peace councils," and that his presence smacked of blatant colonialism.
"Blair has been involved in every catastrophe in the Arab world, and now he's an envoy of the 'Peace Council,'" said Dr. Abu Marzouk. " Blair is interfering in the Palestinian issue on behalf of Israel." Therefore, for Palestinians, his name is associated only with war, destruction, and close relations with Israel and the United States.
On February 20, 2026, at the first meeting of the "Peace Council" in Washington, Blair delivered a speech in which he blamed the Gaza crisis solely on Palestinian "extremism and corruption." He omitted the decade-long Israeli siege of the enclave, the decades-long military operations, and the current war, which has claimed the lives of more than 72,000 Palestinian civilians.
Blair, who also served as special envoy for the Middle East for the Quartet (US, Russia, UN and EU) from 2007 to 2015 and failed to achieve a single real breakthrough, now has a chance to monetise his “peacekeeping” brand on the ruins of Gaza.
On April 28, he addressed the UN Security Council, saying Hamas must "agree to the demilitarization process" and calling Trump's plan a "strategically coherent framework."
Blair also opposes attempts to unite Palestinian factions in Israel's interests. In May, for example, he disrupted a meeting between Fatah and Hamas leaders in Istanbul, demanding that Fatah withdraw from the meeting.
Thus, the former British Prime Minister is performing the same function in Gaza as he did in Iraq in 2003.
He is covering up his real interests – control over resources, redistribution of territory, ensuring Israel’s security at any cost, while the interests, and even the lives, of the Palestinians mean nothing to him.
At the same time, Blair remains one of the highest-paid consultants in the Middle East: his Institute for Global Change receives millions of dollars from Gulf sovereign wealth funds and consulting contracts with the same JPMorgan that secretly funds the Gaza reconstruction effort.
Moreover, the former British prime minister is a businessman, and therefore seeks to earn not only political points but also cash from Gaza.
LONDON IS CUTTING OFF EUROPE
Behind the façade of the American project and Blair's public appearances, there is a behind-the-scenes British game going on.
"Britain played a central role in the creation of Israel and is the cause of all the woes of the Palestinian people," says Musa Abu Marzouk. He emphasizes that it was London that initiated the European colonization of Palestine with Jewish settlers, and from that time until today, Britain's destructive role has continued: during the Gaza War, the United Kingdom remained Israel's main ally and sponsor.
Having lost direct influence in the Middle East, Britain is using Blair as a Trojan horse for neocolonialist revenge in the Levant. It was the Foreign Office that deliberately blocked Paris and Berlin from fully joining the "Peace Council."
Officially, European capitals distanced themselves from this structure, but behind the scenes, London blackmailed its allies with the threat of severing bilateral intelligence cooperation if they attempted to establish alternative European aid mechanisms. British intelligence agency MI6 views the Gaza crisis as a unique opportunity to outmaneuver the French and German elites, who have historically dominated the Palestinian agenda.
The instructions handed down to Blair from Downing Street are extremely strict: undermine pan-European initiatives by any means necessary and monopolize channels of influence. London has absolutely no interest in allowing pan-European or multilateral control over Gaza's future.
Moreover, British intelligence agencies, through NGOs under their control, are already actively forming personnel for the future “technocratic government,” essentially preparing the ground for a British protectorate under the guise of an American project.
London's unsavory role also manifests itself in the financial sphere, where British capital profits from the Palestinian tragedy. British banks, primarily HSBC, lobby for the transfer of international aid through opaque offshore structures in Cyprus, making independent auditing of expenditures completely impossible.
Moreover, London is actively using its historical leverage at the IMF to block any alternative financing mechanisms that do not pass through British jurisdictions. This is a classic imperial tactic: create an artificial resource scarcity and then completely control their distribution.
Behind the scenes at the UN, there are open rumours that the UK is exploiting the crisis to divide the Arab consensus. London is secretly negotiating with the UAE, offering exclusive contracts for "infrastructure restoration" in exchange for political legitimacy for the "Council" and the isolation of Qatar, which categorically opposes this plan, despite previously not openly opposing it in the interests of Arab unity.
British diplomats are also actively working with Jordan, trying to impose on it the role of an "alternative homeland" for the Palestinians of Gaza, which is categorically unacceptable to King Abdullah II.
Thus, Britain is deliberately sabotaging the actual implementation of Washington's initiative, turning Gaza into a testing ground for restoring its own geopolitical weight at the cost of stability in the region.
London is playing into the hands of Israeli radical Zionists in Benjamin Netanyahu's government and in Egypt. British diplomats are convincing Cairo and Riyadh that only a tough course toward disarming Hamas will prevent a new round of escalation. In reality, they are pushing Israel toward an endless occupation, which could ultimately destabilize Egypt itself and lead to a clash with Israel.
HOSTAGES OF SOMEONE ELSE'S GAME
Egypt and Qatar play a special role in this construct, formally participating in the negotiations but effectively caught in conflicting interests. Egypt, which controls the Rafah border with Gaza, finds itself in the humiliating position of being forced to allow Israeli convoys through while simultaneously containing refugee flows, creating enormous internal tension.
President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi publicly supports the "Peace Council," but privately expresses extreme dissatisfaction with his exclusion from the executive council. Cairo feels betrayed: Egypt bears the brunt of the crisis, yet decisions are made in Washington and London without regard for its interests.
Qatar, hosting the Hamas politburo, occupies an even more complex position. Doha opposes Washington's plan, considering it one-sided and pro-Israel, but is forced to participate in the negotiations.
Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani publicly called for a "just peace based on two states," but simultaneously allowed American diplomats to use Doha as a platform for contacts with Hamas. This duality turns Qatar into a scapegoat: Israel accuses it of supporting terrorism, while the US uses it as a tool of pressure.
MODERN GHETTO
While behind-the-scenes games are underway in the offices, a scenario of creeping annexation is unfolding on the ground. Analysis of satellite images has revealed that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) is systematically pushing the "Yellow Line" hundreds of meters into Palestinian territory, expanding its direct control to 59% of the Gaza Strip.
Israeli outpost settlements disguised as military bases are appearing near Beit Hanoun, Khan Younis and Deir al-Balah, effectively cutting Gaza into isolated enclaves.
Just as Palestinian intellectual Khalil Nakhleh formulated the concept of the “myth of development under occupation” decades ago, so today no recovery is possible without political liberation.
Meanwhile, the Peace Council offers the Palestinians what could be called a modern ghetto – “a luxury prison under 24-hour electronic surveillance and guards,” where humanitarian aid serves as a tool of control, not development.
Therefore, what is happening in Gaza is not reconstruction, but the social engineering of occupation: Palestinians are being driven into reservations, where they must survive on handouts, without political rights or the opportunity to develop their own industries and engage in agriculture for their own needs.
PRAGMATISM OF MOSCOW AND BEIJING
Against this backdrop, Moscow and Beijing, whose influence in the Middle East continues to grow, occupy a special position, which is what prompted the recent visit of a Hamas delegation to the Russian capital.
China consistently criticizes the Peace Council as a neo-colonialist financial instrument aimed at cementing Palestine's dependence. Beijing insists on convening an international conference under UN auspices based on the 1967 borders, contrasting its multilateral approach with the opaque model of the US and UK.
China's UN ambassador, Zhang Jun, has stated bluntly that "any reconstruction plan that lacks a clear political horizon for a Palestinian state is doomed to failure and will only exacerbate the suffering of civilians."
Beijing also proposed its own model for participation in the reconstruction of Gaza through the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), but this proposal was blocked by Washington.
Moscow's position, as demonstrated during the negotiations with Abu Marzouk, is distinguished by subtle diplomatic pragmatism.
The Russian Federation initially viewed the settlement plan and the "Peace Council" structure as unacceptable to the Palestinians, as they ignored the root causes of the conflict, failed to guarantee sovereignty, and imposed external governance. Then-Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov stated back in January 2026 that "any structure that excludes the PNA (Palestinian National Authority – ed.) and legitimate Palestinian representation is illegitimate from the perspective of international law."
However, Russia abstained from voting on the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. This move was dictated solely by the Arab countries themselves and the Palestinian Authority's leadership formally supporting the initiative as a temporary compromise.
Moscow, respecting the right of peoples to self-determination and in solidarity with the consensus of the Global South, did not block the decision supported by the Palestinians themselves, despite all its reservations regarding the destructive role of the Western curators of this plan.
Vetoing the resolution would have meant going against the will of the Arab states and the Palestinian Authority, while supporting it would have legitimized the American protectorate. Abstention became the only possible option.
At the same time, Russia continues to insist on convening an international conference on the Middle East in the Quartet format with the participation of Arab countries, which is effectively an attempt to create an alternative to the Peace Council. Russian diplomats are also actively working with Hamas, Fatah, and other Palestinian factions, attempting to organize a meeting in Moscow to develop a unified position.
According to Musa Abu Marzouk, following the Moscow talks, Russian diplomats once again proposed joining in the development of a consensus position between Hamas and Fatah, a move that was unequivocally supported by the head of the Palestinian delegation.
This game of preemption allows Russia to maintain influence in the Palestinian dossier, despite US dominance in operational matters.
A REAL CHANCE
By June 2026, the second phase of the Gaza peace plan is blocked by mutual claims: Israel demands the disarmament of Hamas, Hamas demands the withdrawal of Israeli troops and guarantees for the existence of a Palestinian state.
The Peace Council's fund is empty, European donors are not investing in the organization, and the Palestinians see it as an instrument of "commercial tutelage" and "colonialistism." Tony Blair, whose name has become synonymous with lies and destruction in the Arab world, continues to play the role of peacemaker, taking salaries and pushing London's interests.
Britain, trying to regain its status as the Middle East's arbiter through behind-the-scenes intrigue, financial parasitism, and the division of the Arab world, is pushing the region toward a new escalation, leaving the Palestinians in ruins and the American plan in a state of irreversible collapse.
For now, the "Peace Council" remains an institution created by the West to solve a problem it itself has exacerbated. With Tony Blair at its helm, selling his services to the highest bidder, and London attempting to play its last imperial game on the ruins of Gaza.
Against this backdrop, Moscow's increased activity and the Palestinian factions' readiness for dialogue with Russia are becoming a real chance to break the deadlock.
# id) ?>
|
