Yossi Schwartz ISL (RCIT section in Israel/Occupied Palestine) 06.08.2026
The recent statements by the High Representative for Gaza on behalf of the “Peace Council,” Nickolay Mladenov, as well as the statement issued by the Council after its meeting with Israel’s war criminal Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, sparked a wave of outrage and condemnation on social media in the Gaza Strip.
The reactions began following a post by Mladenov on Network X on August 2, in which he referred to the Israeli attacks carried out in the Gaza Strip over two days, saying that while they had caused civilian deaths and the destruction of medical equipment, it was justified because it was done in the context of the efforts of the “Peace Council” the United States, and the mediating countries – Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey. To persuade the Palestinian factions to agree to a road map dealing with the transfer of civilian control and disarmament.
On Aug. 3, Mladenov and the “Peace Council” team met with Netanyahu in Jerusalem. In a statement issued by the council afterwards, the meeting was described as “constructive and detailed,” and said that there was a common understanding between the council and the Israeli government regarding the final goals of the next phase.
The council said that the goal is the complete disarmament of weapons in the Gaza Strip and the transition from the “rule of arms” to civilian administration. It also stressed that the full Israeli withdrawal beyond the Yellow Line will not take place until the process of dismantling light and heavy weapons, including the tunnels, is completed. In other words, a license to continue the genocide.
Commentators in the Gaza Strip said in Hamas media and on social media that the announcement shocked large parts of the Gazan public, because they believed it was a reversal of the perception promoted a few days earlier, according to which the cessation of military operations, the increase in the flow of humanitarian aid, and the gradual Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip should be carried out simultaneously and mutually with the implementation of the other articles of the agreement.
The text published by the council after the meeting with Netanyahu set the disarmament and the dismantling of the tunnels as a precondition for any full Israeli withdrawal. In doing so, critics claim, it allows Israel to remain inside the Gaza Strip for an indefinite period of time and effectively gives it the right to determine whether Palestinian commitments have been “fully implemented” or not and to continue to control the Gaza Strip and murder civilians
The angry reactions to these announcements reflected a clear change in the public’s attitude toward the “Peace Council.” Writers began to use the term “Genocide Council” instead of “Peace Council” as an expression of their belief that the Council has become a tool for managing the results of the war and dictating Israeli arrangements for the Gaza Strip, instead of blaming the side that destroyed the Gaza Strip and killed tens of thousands of Palestinians.
In other responses, Mladenov and the council members were described as “accomplices in the genocide,” claiming that they provide political cover for the continued Israeli presence inside Gaza and link the end of the occupation to the implementation of open security demands that do not guarantee the Palestinians their rights or sovereignty.
Palestinian commentators have also argued on social media that the council does not treat Gaza as occupied Palestinian territory from which the Israeli military must withdraw, but rather as a security issue that must be reshaped in accordance with Israel’s demands.
Others argued that the use of terms such as “the rule of arms” and “creating a safer future for Israelis and Palestinians” equates the occupying power with the people under occupation, and ignores the fact that Israel still controls most of the Gaza Strip militarily and continues to bomb, kill and demolish.
Those who follow the mood in the Gaza Strip say that the reactions show that the Palestinian public sees the order of events as an existential issue. This is because implementing disarmament before the IDF’s full withdrawal could leave the Gaza Strip without any ability to defend itself, while Israel will maintain its army, aircraft, and weapons, as well as the right to resume military activity at any time if it decides that the agreement has not been implemented in accordance with its terms.
In the assessment of the same sources, the current state of anger in the Gaza Strip presents the Peace Council with a real crisis of confidence with the Palestinian public, which could affect the ability of any plan under its supervision to win Palestinian public support. There is already a growing feeling on the Gaza street that the Peace Council is not a mediator, but rather a political branch of the US administration and the Israeli government.
Down with the Genocide Council!
Israel out of Gaza!
Stop the genocide in Gaza!
For Democratic socialist Palestine from the river to the sea!