UN Security Council Endorses Trump’s Gaza Plan, Paving the Way for International Peace Effort
In a landmark move, the United Nations Security Council has approved a resolution endorsing Donald Trump’s controversial peace plan for Gaza, a decision hailed by the U.S. as a significant step toward regional stability. The resolution passed with 13 votes in favor and two abstentions, from Russia and China, laying the groundwork for a potential international stabilisation force (ISF) in Gaza and signaling a possible path toward Palestinian self-determination.
The vote marks a rare moment of consensus at the UN, where geopolitical divisions often hinder effective action. U.S. Ambassador Mike Waltz described the approval as “a new course in the Middle East for Israelis, Palestinians, and all the people of the region alike.” However, the resolution’s passing was far from simple, with behind-the-scenes compromises and fierce opposition from key players, particularly Israel and Hamas.
A Compromise for Peace
The U.S.-backed resolution outlines a series of measures aimed at ending the violence in Gaza and paving the way for a lasting peace agreement. Central to the plan is the deployment of an international peacekeeping force, which would take over security duties in Gaza following the withdrawal of Israeli military forces. Additionally, the resolution includes references to the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state, though the language used was deliberately vague.
The reference to Palestinian statehood was a significant concession to the Arab and Islamic countries, who made clear that their support for the plan hinged on the inclusion of such language. In return, these nations are expected to provide peacekeepers for the proposed international force. However, the specifics of the peacekeeping mission, including who will contribute troops, remain uncertain, with no country yet committing to the effort.
Anwar Gargash, a senior UAE diplomat, signaled that his country would only participate in the peacekeeping mission if there was a clear legal framework in place. This has added further complexity to the already delicate situation, with many questions still left unanswered.
Opposition from Israel and Hamas
Despite the overwhelming support for the resolution in the Security Council, the plan faces stiff opposition from both Israel and Hamas. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has reiterated his firm opposition to the creation of a Palestinian state, a stance that could undermine the resolution’s long-term goals.
On the eve of the UN vote, Netanyahu expressed concerns about the potential creation of a Palestinian state, stating that Israel would not allow the implementation of the proposals outlined in the resolution. While Netanyahu’s government reluctantly accepted the resolution’s wording in initial discussions with Washington, he quickly backtracked after a backlash from the far-right factions of his coalition.
Meanwhile, Hamas, the militant group that controls Gaza, rejected the UN-backed resolution, denouncing it as an “imposed international guardianship mechanism.” Hamas officials insisted they would not disarm or relinquish control of Gaza, a position that could lead to tensions with the proposed international stabilisation force.
A Path to Palestinian Statehood?
The resolution’s language on Palestinian statehood remains ambiguous and conditional. While it acknowledges the possibility of Palestinian self-determination and statehood, it ties this potential outcome to future reforms of the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the rebuilding of Gaza. Specifically, the resolution states that only once the PA has reformed and Gaza has been reconstructed will “the conditions be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood.”
This vagueness is a point of contention, particularly among Arab and European delegates, who pushed for a firmer commitment to the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. While some delegates, such as Algeria’s Amar Bendjama, expressed support for the resolution as a necessary first step toward Palestinian sovereignty, others remained cautious, urging the international community to ensure the full implementation of Palestinian rights.
The Role of Trump and the ‘Board of Peace’
As part of the resolution, Trump will chair a new “Board of Peace” tasked with overseeing the implementation of the peace plan. However, the composition and authority of this board remain unclear. According to diplomats, the board will report to the UN but will not be bound by the wishes of either the UN or the Palestinian Authority, further complicating the resolution’s potential for success.
Trump celebrated the vote as a “historic moment,” suggesting that more announcements regarding the composition of the Board of Peace and further steps toward the implementation of the peace plan would follow in the coming weeks.
Challenges Ahead
Despite the UN Security Council’s endorsement of the plan, numerous challenges remain. The international stabilisation force (ISF) faces significant logistical hurdles, not least in securing commitments from countries willing to contribute peacekeepers. Moreover, the contentious issue of Palestinian self-determination remains unresolved, with key stakeholders, including Israel and Hamas, opposed to significant elements of the plan.
The resolution’s vagueness, while necessary to gain broader support, also raises questions about its long-term viability. As James Kariuki, the UK’s chargé d’affaires to the UN, noted, “The transitional arrangements that we embark on today must be implemented in accordance with international law and respecting Palestinian sovereignty and self-determination.”
The next steps in the implementation of Trump’s Gaza peace plan will depend heavily on the ability of the international community to navigate these challenges and find common ground among the various parties involved.
