Alwaght- After relatively long hemming and hawing, the UN Security Council finally passed the US-drafted Gaza resolution, with 13 voting in favor and China and Russia abstaining. The motion is meant to form an "International Stabilization Force" (ISF) in Gaza to ensure that Israel-Hamas ceasefire will be long-term.
The idea for formation of such force dates back to Trump's 20-point peace plan for Gaza that proposed Washington in association with the Arab countries and the world community will head ISF for immediate deployment in Gaza.
The force's mandate is to train and support Palestinian police units in Gaza. Its deployment also paves the way for the second phase of the ceasefire, which focuses on the political and economic aspects of the agreement.
The resolution enables the creation of a "Peace Council," a transitional governing body for Gaza that will operate until the end of 2027. This council will also oversee the Strip's economic reconstruction and recovery.
In theory, this council revives a core concept from Trump's 20-point plan: placing Gaza under the administration of an international technocratic committee led by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Trump. Trump himself confirmed this connection in a post on his Truth Social platform, writing: "I congratulate the world on the UN Security Council's unbelievable vote to establish a Peace Council in Gaza, which I will chair. This resolution is one of the greatest consensuses in UN history and will lead to more peace throughout the world."
His original plan had explicitly called for Gaza to be overseen by a temporary, two-year transitional government. This administration would be backed by a multinational peacekeeping force and a committee of Palestinian technocrats, who would be responsible for providing daily public services to Gaza's residents.
Consequently, all the warnings and doubts about Trump's 20-point plan that seeks a Gaza mandate and tying its fate to the behind-the-scenes American-Israeli plans for the future of the Strip are now made about this resolution.
Formation of Palestinian state in ambiguity
Unlike previous drafts, this resolution does reference the potential for a future Palestinian state. However, it makes its realization conditional on a long list of prerequisites, effectively postponing it to an uncertain future. The text states that once the Palestinian Authority implements necessary reforms and begins the reconstruction of Gaza, the conditions may be set for Palestinian self-determination and the establishment of an independent state. Analysts believe this clause is largely performative, arguing that Washington's primary goal was to secure the votes of skeptical Security Council members. They point to a lack of any concrete, actionable plan to fulfill this promise.
Meanwhile, in a stark contradiction to the White House's claims, hardline officials in Tel Aviv have shown no willingness to grant the Palestinians any concessions on this front. Netanyahu and other hardline ministers have repeatedly stated they will not permit a Palestinian state, in any territory.
Washington's call for the Palestinian Authority to begin implementing the resolution is further complicated by the Netanyahu government's refusal even to recognize the PA or its leaders. Israel's National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir has gone so far as to claim he has "a prison cell ready" for Mahmoud Abbas.
Given these extreme positions, any move by the Palestinian Authority faces immediate and serious obstacles. Without genuine guarantees from Tel Aviv, Washington's plans for peace and an independent Palestinian state remain little more than rhetoric. The prospect of a practical implementation appears nearly impossible, offering no viable path forward for the Palestinian people and dimming hopes for the realization of their rights.
No peace
Though Trump claims the UNSC resolution makes ground for world peace, having in min d that disarming the Palestinian groups is mentioned as the prerequisite for formation of a Palestinian state, even if international forces are deployed to Gaza, sustainable peace will not be achieved in Gaza, let alone Trump-claimed world peace.
The leaders of resistance groups have repeatedly stressed that until an independent Palestinian state is formed and provided arms, they will not hand over their arms to any foreign force, while Tel Aviv officials insist on concluding the case as soon as possible, otherwise they will restart massive military campaign in Gaza.
In response to the passage of the American-backed resolution, the Palestinian groups Islamic Jihad and Hamas have condemned the move, declaring it an attempt to impose a mandate over Gaza and a violation of the Palestinian people's rights. They stated that no faction or segment of Palestinian society would accept such a plan.
The groups emphasized that any international effort to cement a ceasefire must respect the rights and decision-making autonomy of the Palestinian people. Without this fundamental principle, they asserted, no real or sustainable solution in Gaza is possible.
The core of their rejection lies in the resolution's deviation from earlier concepts. According to the Trump's plan that garnered agreement of the Palestinians, the political and security administration of Gaza was to be given to a group of Palestinian technocrats and police forces. But the resolution, to surprise of all, talks about entrusting all Gaza affairs to foreign forces that are unrelated to the Palestinian factions. This is not what the resistance leaders would accept. So, the so-called peace-keeping force would, in fact, as as a representation of Washington and Tel Aviv and will pave the way for gradual occupation of Gaza.
International forces may clash with resistance forces
The American plan for an international force in Gaza is so ambiguous that even powers like China and Russia view its success as unlikely. These nations argue that the Washington-backed resolution ignores the rights and interests of the Palestinian people and could permanently block the path to a two-state solution.
A particularly contentious element is the mandate given to the international force. As stated by Russia's UN ambassador, Vassily Nebenzia, the force itself could become a source of renewed tension and conflict in the occupied territories.
Critically, the resolution authorizes the ISF to ensure the disarmament of Gaza, including the collection of weapons and destruction of military infrastructure. This role effectively transforms them into enforcers of the Israeli regime's agenda, significantly increasing the likelihood of direct confrontation with resistance fighters.
Consequently, instead of reducing tensions, this force risks becoming an accelerant for further escalation. Pursuing this approach not only makes peace in Gaza more fragile than ever but also threatens regional stability, demonstrating that the resolution's humanitarian and political goals face severe, perhaps insurmountable, obstacles in practice.
The gaps between international views and those of the Israeli and American leaders about the nature, goals, and missions of the so-called peace mission in Gaza are so serious that even formation of such a force remains shrouded in mystery. Many of the countries having announced readiness to send forces under the US-led mission have essentially not accepted the mission to disarm Hamas, arguing it is impossible to implement. There is a question asked by all: How can a limited international force realize an aim the Israeli regime over the past two years with mobilization of all of its military capacities, intelligence and crimes has failed even to move close to?
Lack of enforcement mechanism
One of the fundamental weaknesses of Washington's plan is the lack of an enforcement mechanism for success of its Gaza mission, to an extent that so far no entity is determined to undertake the job of decisions and activities of the Peace Council. While Trump has declared he will personally oversee the process, this claim lacks credibility. The US government has a long-standing and unequivocal record of supporting the Israeli regime, consistently adopting a biased stance.
In this context, any potential failure or escalation involving the international force can easily be blamed on resistance groups. This scenario provides a perfect pretext to justify the continuation of expansionist policies and military pressure against the Palestinian people. Hardline ministers in the Tel Aviv cabinet have long awaited such an opportunity to pursue their actions under a veneer of international legitimacy, thereby widening their campaign of suppression and destruction.
Russia and China insisted that the international force must operate under the direct supervision of the United Nations to ensure transparency, impartiality, and accountability. However, Washington rejected this proposal, opting instead to retain control of the force unilaterally, under its own influence and that of its allies.
In response, the Russian representative stated critically that "Today is a sad day for the Council … Beyond the wishes of the interested parties, there’s also the concept of the integrity of the Security Council. And today … that integrity and the Council’s prerogative were violated." This statement underscores the profound concern among major powers about the erosion of international principles and the imposition of unilateral dictates.
In general, formation of an international force in Gaza according to the plan of Trump, whose bias to Israeli regime is clear, can complicate the security riddle instead of making peace. Lacking enforcement mechanisms and ambiguities surrounding this force will raise risks of tensions with the resistance forces and undermine the prospects of peace in the region.
