UN Security Council Approves US-Backed Gaza Peace Plan

The United Nations Security Council, on Monday, November 17, adopted a resolution drafted by the United States that aims to progress beyond the existing precarious ceasefire in Gaza and advance toward a longer-lasting peace, along with the ultimate rebuilding of the heavily damaged territory.

The measure secured a robust majority, as the 15-member council voted 13 in favor and none against. Russia and China both chose to abstain yet refrained from exercising their veto to prevent its adoption. This outcome lends additional global legitimacy to the 20-point Gaza proposal advanced by United States President Donald Trump, elements of which served as the foundation for the truce that began last month.

President Trump celebrated the resolution’s approval on social media, drawing particular attention to the creation of the new transitional governing body: “Congratulations to the World on the incredible Vote of the United Nations Security Council, just moments ago, acknowledging and endorsing the BOARD OF PEACE,” he wrote.

The resolution formally authorizes the creation of two primary transitional mechanisms, both of which are planned to remain operational until the conclusion of 2027.

The first of these is The Board of Peace, designed to function as the interim governing authority. Among its core duties are supervising the disarmament of Hamas and other armed groups—an essential requirement from Israel—and directing the reconstruction efforts throughout Gaza.

The second mechanism is the International Stabilization Force (ISF), a temporary multinational peacekeeping contingent that will deploy to Gaza “under a unified command.” The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Michael Waltz, explained that the ISF’s mandate encompasses securing the streets of Gaza, monitoring the demilitarization process, safeguarding civilian populations, and ensuring the safe passage of humanitarian assistance through protected corridors.

American officials have openly recognized the importance of an “international mandate” to bolster the overall initiative, and the resolution supplies the required United Nations authorization for nations to take part in the ISF. Ambassador Waltz emphasized the significance of the vote by declaring that “a vote against this resolution is a vote to return to war.”

Although the precise composition of the International Stabilization Force has yet to be finalized, the resolution permits troops provided by participating countries to be deployed in close coordination and collaboration with both Egypt and Israel.

The United States has held talks with multiple nations concerning potential troop contributions, with a particular focus on countries where Muslims form the majority of the population.

Nations that have reportedly been contacted or have indicated willingness to supply personnel include Indonesia, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Qatar, and Egypt. For instance, Indonesia has announced publicly that it has prepared as many as 20,000 troops trained specifically for medical and infrastructure-related duties in connection with a possible peacekeeping mission.

The objective is to assemble a powerful coalition of peacekeepers, a substantial number of whom would come from Muslim-majority countries, in order to maintain security in the region and shield humanitarian operations. Nevertheless, the final roster continues to be a sensitive matter, with reservations expressed regarding the participation of certain countries because of their previous political ties with Israel.

Even though it has been adopted, the resolution is encountering considerable criticism, mainly because of its perceived lack of clarity regarding the sequence of steps and specific details, which diplomatic sources from Western nations believe will create obstacles during implementation.

A primary point of worry centers on the Vague Transition Timeline. The text of the resolution does not establish a precise timetable for the transitional bodies to transfer authority to the Palestinian Authority (PA), indicating only that the handover will occur once the PA “has satisfactorily completed its reform program.”

Although the resolution does mention Palestinian Statehood, it offers no firm schedule, noting that the prerequisites for a viable path forward will materialize only after the PA has completed its reforms and significant progress has been made in rebuilding Gaza.

Moreover, Hamas denounced the draft resolution prior to the vote, describing it as “an attempt to impose international guardianship over Gaza and promote a vision biased toward the occupation.” After the vote took place, Hamas contended that assigning any stabilization force responsibilities that involve disarming the resistance “strips it of its neutrality and turns it into a party to the conflict.”

The two Security Council members that abstained also raised objections. The representative from Russia voiced apprehension that the resolution might become “a death knell for the two state solution,” whereas the representative from China maintained that “the Palestinian sovereignty and ownership are not fully reflected.”

The resolution does urge UN member states as well as international organizations to provide personnel, matériel, and funding to both the Board of Peace and the ISF. Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has continued to assert his stance that “Gaza will be demilitarized, and Hamas will be disarmed, either the easy way or the hard way.”

A Gentle Reminder: Every obstacle is a stepping stone, every morning; a chance to go again, and those little steps take you closer to your dream.

Nnamdi Okoli