The United Nations Security Council has formally endorsed a US-backed plan for Gaza’s future, based on President Donald Trump’s 20-point strategy to end the war.
Thirteen member states voted in favour of the plan on Monday, while China and Russia abstained. UN Resolution 2803 endorses the creation of an international stabilisation force and a transitional “board of peace” to oversee reconstruction efforts in Gaza.
The temporary stabilisation force is expected to consist of around 20,000 troops tasked with disarming resistance groups, ensuring security, and supporting humanitarian aid and border control. The board, a transitional administration chaired by Trump, will oversee governance and reconstruction in Gaza until at least the end of 2027.
This arrangement is supposed to lead to the formation of an interim Palestinian technocratic government and executive committee for Gaza’s day-to-day administration, paving the way for the eventual return of Palestinian Authority (PA) control.
The US-backed plan will unfold in phases. The first, which is ongoing, involves a highly fragile ceasefire, the almost-accomplished release of hostages and detainees, a partial Israeli troop withdrawal, and increased humanitarian aid.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on
Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
The second phase calls for Hamas to disarm, alongside further Israeli troop withdrawals, and temporary oversight by the board of peace and international stabilisation force.
The third phase makes an extremely vague reference to the crucial issue for a credible, fair and lasting peace – Palestinian self-determination and statehood – by mentioning “a credible pathway” to this outcome. There’s no mention of any parameters or endgame – the so-called final status issues, in diplomatic jargon.
Devil in the details
The UN vote reveals broad support for the Trump plan, but also significant reservations by China and Russia, which view the text as too vague – beyond the initial ceasefire – to commit their political capital. Anyone with a basic knowledge of international diplomacy knows that in any complex deal, the devil is in the details – and this is especially true for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
Russia criticised the resolution for giving “complete control” over Gaza to structures whose modalities are undefined, based only on US promises. History sadly shows how credible American promises are when it comes to the Middle East peace process.
Follow Middle East Eye’s live coverage of the Israel-Palestine war
For its part, China said the resolution “lacks clarity on key issues” and “does not explicitly reaffirm a firm commitment to the internationally recognised two-state solution”.
No need to waste ink on the EU position.
The vagueness of the second and third phases of the Trump plan seems to be a recipe for a tricky path that will be exploited by all the spoilers – and there are many – determined to derail any pathway to peace.
Will Arab and Muslim states act as real watchdogs to ensure the Trump administration is not yet again bamboozled by Israeli manoeuvrings?
The support from key Arab and Muslim-majority nations was crucial in securing approval of the UN resolution, providing a tenuous ray of light at the end of a very long and dark tunnel. But it is not yet clear whether this commitment will provide authentic support for Palestinian statehood, especially amid numerous efforts by far-right Israeli political parties to derail recognition of a Palestinian state.
Will Arab and Muslim states act as real watchdogs to ensure the Trump administration is not yet again bamboozled by Israeli manoeuvrings? Only time will tell.
Overall, the UN resolution received a mixed response, with typical enthusiasm from actors who blindly support the US administration, but significant criticisms from other observers, as its implementation faces major hurdles.
Hamas has explicitly stated that it will not disarm, rejecting the presence of an international force tasked with such a mandate, and warning that this force would become “a party to the conflict”. Other Palestinian factions have also decried the plan as “a new attempt to impose another form of occupation”.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, meanwhile, reiterated his government’s “opposition to a Palestinian state in any territory” – directly contradicting the resolution’s mention of a path to statehood. The Trump administration has not directly reacted to these comments.
Gloomy prospects
Of course, the PA has welcomed the resolution as the only – albeit tiny and fragile – option that could enable it to return to governance in Gaza.
One commentator described the resolution as being among the “oddest in United Nations history” for its lack of detail. Key questions about the board of peace’s full membership, the exact composition of the stabilisation force, and the feasibility of finding Palestinian technocrats to work under this framework remain unanswered.
Potential troop-contributing countries are reportedly wary of being drawn into combat with Hamas fighters, considering that after more than two years of massive and brutal Israeli military operations, the organisation has been degraded but not defeated.
How the UN Gaza resolution creates new foreign ‘mandate’ over Palestinians
Read More »
The unanswered questions about implementation of this resolution are also significant. Will the US succeed in assembling the 20,000-strong stabilisation force from partner countries, all of whom may be hesitant?
How will this force disarm Hamas, in the face of the latter’s explicit refusal, when the region’s most formidable army – Israel’s – failed to achieve this over a period of two years?
But the biggest obstacle to a true and fair peace remains Israel’s relentless opposition to a Palestinian state, and the shameful passivity towards this position demonstrated by the US and EU. Watching the current leaderships in Washington, Brussels and other capitals, it is difficult to be optimistic.
To say the least, this resolution is highly controversial. If the potential to achieve Palestinian independence hinges on stabilising Gaza and charting a new course through these deeply uncertain waters, the prospects are rather gloomy indeed.
The implementation of Resolution 2803 will face fierce opposition from key stakeholders, while requiring clarification on many key operational details – especially the boundaries of a future Palestinian state. The major risk is that these objective difficulties will be exploited by the usual suspects in Washington and Tel Aviv, as they once again kick the can down the road, just as they have done for decades.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
