The UN Security Council’s recent endorsement of a US-backed resolution marks a significant moment in Middle Eastern geopolitics, as it supports the Trump administration’s Gaza peace initiative. Passed with 13 votes in favor, while China and Russia abstained, the resolution pushes for immediate action in implementing the plan’s provisions and highlights the international community’s approach to addressing the longstanding conflict.
The resolution appoints the Board of Peace (BOP) as a transitional governance mechanism in Gaza, responsible for coordinating redevelopment efforts until the Palestinian Authority’s reform program is complete. Key to this initiative is the establishment of a temporary International Stabilization Force (ISF), designed to oversee security and humanitarian operations. The force will operate in consultation with Egypt and Israel and will be tasked with the demilitarization of Hamas and the stabilization of the region. The ISF is empowered to use necessary measures in line with international law, to ensure peace and security in the region.
The role of the ISF is central to the plan, which outlines the gradual withdrawal of Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) predicated on a mutually agreed demilitarization timeline. This withdrawal offers a potential pathway to reducing military presence in Gaza, although a security perimeter will remain until stability is ensured.
US Ambassador Mike Waltz underscored the significance of the resolution, emphasizing the ISF’s role in dismantling terrorist infrastructure and ensuring the safety of Palestinian civilians. In stark contrast, China’s representative criticized the resolution for its lack of clarity and failure to support key principles such as Palestinian governance and a two-State solution. This position reflects China’s longstanding stance and informed their choice to abstain from voting.
The BOP and ISF are central elements of the “Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict.” This 20-point plan, initiated on October 9, involves a ceasefire, hostage releases, and the partial withdrawal of Israeli forces, while increasing humanitarian aid into Gaza. Despite these developments, tensions remain high amid accusations of ceasefire violations. According to a recent report, at least one Palestinian journalist has died in renewed clashes, and Israel continues to place restrictions on aid delivery.
Critics of the resolution include Dennis Ross and Assaf Orion, who argue that using Chapter VII of the UN Charter, traditionally reserved for direct threats to peace involving military force or sanctions, could be counterproductive in this context. They suggest that Chapter VI, which focuses on diplomacy, might be more appropriate for handling this sensitive conflict.
The implementation of this resolution could reshape the geopolitical realities of Gaza, although much will depend on its execution and the cooperation between involved parties. As the situation develops, close scrutiny will be necessary to assess the actual impact on peace and stability in the region.