The United Nations Security Council approved an American-led resolution endorsing and providing an international legal structure for the Trump administration’s 21-point peace plan announced in late September that has entailed an initial phase of a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel that began on Oct. 10.
China and Russia abstained in the Council vote on the draft text, which some members perceived as deeply problematic from the start of negotiations because of few references to Palestinians’ direct say in Gaza’s future.
Algeria, the voice of the Arab Group in the Council, voted yes to the US resolution, but said at the outset in its remarks, “We underline that genuine peace in the Middle East cannot, cannot, be achieved without justice, justice for the Palestinian people, who have waited for decades for the establishment of their independent state.”
The resolution represents the next phase of the peace plan by authorizing an international stabilization force to operate in Gaza and a transitional governing body, both to be controlled by a Trump-headed Board of Peace. The board will be in play until Dec. 31, 2027, and subject to renewal by the Security Council, but otherwise its members and the UN Secretariat are being handed a minor role in the US plan.
“Today’s resolution represents another significant step towards a stable Gaza that will be able to prosper, and an environment that will allow Israel to live in security,” said Mike Waltz, US envoy to the UN, after the vote.
Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett, Guyana’s envoy to the UN, also voted yes, but in her remarks after the count, she said the two-state solution “must remain the centerpiece of all peace efforts in Palestine.”
A reference to the two-state solution to end the age-old Palestinian-Israeli conflict, endorsed by approximately 160 countries, including France and Britain last summer, is not mentioned in the US text. As the document describes, the Board of Peace would have transitional governing authority over Gaza and be responsible for funding reconstruction, following “relevant international legal principles” until “the Palestinian Authority (PA) has satisfactorily completed its reform program” laid out by the US plan and other relevant proposals.
From there, a possible “pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood” is noted, but there is no timeline given. The coordination of aid into Gaza will also be controlled by the Board of Peace, giving it authority over UN humanitarian programs.
“The big challenge with this resolution is that it is not based on the consent of the Palestinian people and political formations, and it ignores the necessity to build and promote their consent and cooperation,” wrote Laurie Nathan, a professor of the practice of mediation at the University of Notre Dame, in an email to PassBlue.
“The Board of Peace and the International Stabilization Force will consequently lack legitimacy in the eyes of many Palestinians and will be perceived as instruments of coercion and occupation,” Nathan, who teaches in the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, added. “They are likely to be met with Palestinian resistance, including violent resistance. This is not a viable path to peace, security and stability.”
The Council vote was held after two rushed weeks of “arms-twisting in capitals or pressuring delegations here in New York,” as Russia put it. In fact, Russia introduced a last-minute, simplified countertext late last week, to the consternation of the US. Moscow’s draft resolution disregarded the Board of Peace and requested a concerted role for the UN and the Security Council to play in Gaza’s next phase by primarily directing the secretary-general to advise on the nature and makeup of the proposed stabilization force in Gaza.
Instead, Council Resolution 2803 relies heavily on President Trump’s peace board to oversee the transitional governance of Gaza as well as reconstruction and economic recovery programs and managing the movement of people into and out of the Strip. Some Council members continued to express reservations about the US plan after the vote on Nov. 17.
Britain, for example, said in its remarks that the arrangements being “embarked on today must be implemented in accordance with international law and respecting Palestinian sovereignty and self-determination.”
Soon after Russia’s proposed draft text was circulated to Council members, Egypt, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Pakistan (a Council member), Indonesia and Türkiye publicly backed the US resolution, as announced in a statement released by the US mission to the UN. Yet on Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister said at a cabinet meeting, “Our opposition to a Palestinian state in any territory has remained unchanged.”
In the resolution, the temporary international stabilization force, or ISF, will consist of troops contributed by “participating States” and overseen by Egypt and Israel. The force will not be a peacekeeping operation and have no enforcement power under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, leaving it outside strict rules of engagement and other UN norms and monitoring. Yet, one analysis says the wording about the ISF being authorized “to use all necessary measures” to carry out its mandate “is code for the authority to use force.”
The force’s responsibilities will be broad and include helping to “secure border areas” and to permanently demilitarizing Gaza — Hamas and other militias — while protecting civilians and humanitarian aid operations. The text says the ISF will rely on voluntary funding from “donors” and Board of Peace “funding vehicles and governments.” It calls on the World Bank and other financial institutions “to facilitate and provide financial resources to support the reconstruction and development of Gaza,” using a dedicated trust fund governed by donors, who are not named.
The text also says that as the ISF “establishes control and stability,” the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) “will withdraw from the Gaza Strip based on standards, milestones, and timeframes linked to demilitarization to be agreed between the IDF, ISF, the guarantors, and the United States” except for a “security perimeter presence” to remain until Gaza “is properly secure from any resurgent terror threat.”
Russia’s counterproposal, backed by China, was emphatic about the future of the Palestinian territory, saying it “reiterates its unwavering commitment to the vision of the two-State solution.” Additionally, Russia’s version foresaw a solution “where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders, consistent with international law and relevant UN resolutions.”
On Nov. 14, Russia declared the intent behind its counterproposal, stating that since the Security Council “is the main body responsible for maintaining international peace and security, it should be given a rightful role and the necessary tools to ensure accountability and control.”
It appears that Russia’s intention will not be fulfilled for now. As Vassily Nebenzia, Russia’s ambassador to the UN, said after yesterday’s vote, “there is no cause for celebration: today is a sorrowful day for the Security Council.”
We welcome your comments on this article. What are your thoughts on the US plan for Gaza?
Related Posts
Dulcie Leimbach is a co-founder, with Barbara Crossette, of PassBlue. For PassBlue and other publications, Leimbach has reported from New York and overseas from West Africa (Burkina Faso and Mali) and from Europe (Scotland, Sicily, Vienna, Budapest, Kyiv, Armenia, Iceland, The Hague and Cyprus). She has provided commentary on the UN for BBC World Radio, ARD German TV and Radio, NHK’s English channel, Background Briefing with Ian Masters/KPFK Radio in Los Angeles and the Foreign Press Association.
Previously, she was an editor for the Coalition for the UN Convention Against Corruption; from 2008 to 2011, she was the publications director of the United Nations Association of the USA. Before UNA, Leimbach was an editor at The New York Times for more than 20 years. She began her reporting career in small-town papers in San Diego, Calif., and graduating to the Rocky Mountain News in Denver. Leimbach has been a fellow at the CUNY Graduate Center’s Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies as well as at Yaddo, the artists’ colony in Saratoga Springs, N.Y.; taught news reporting at Hofstra University; and guest-lectured at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and the CUNY Journalism School. She graduated from the University of Colorado and has an M.F.A. in writing from Warren Wilson College in North Carolina. She lives in Brooklyn, N.Y.
![[Re]Group - A Playbook for Turbulent Times -Subscribe Now](https://passblue.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/regroup-v2_unf2026_square_600.500@2x.webp)
Why did Russia this time not use its Veto?
Maybe because they count with bully T to give Ukraine a treatment similar as the Palestinians: deciding over their heads, manhandling other powers – including UK, France, and the EU- to accept something that is humiliating not only for Ukraine but also for Europe.