On November 18, the United Nations Security Council approved U.S. President Donald Trump's plan for the Gaza Strip, endorsing a draft resolution submitted by Washington.
Trump hailed the vote as a historic moment, while Palestinian factions--particularly Hamas--condemned the resolution as an act of international guardianship imposed on the coastal enclave.
The approved plan authorizes the deployment of an international stabilization force in Gaza and outlines political pathways that could eventually lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state. The resolution passed with 13 votes in favor, while Russia and China abstained without exercising their vetoes, both describing the American text as problematic and potentially exacerbating the crisis.
The resolution includes language referring to a pathway toward a Palestinian state, igniting widespread debate within Israel and the Palestinian territories.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu insisted on Sunday that Israel's opposition to a Palestinian state on any territory remains unchanged. However, he faced fierce criticism from ministers within his coalition, who accused him of political failure and silence in the face of growing diplomatic pressure.
Within Netanyahu's camp, the resolution is seen as a strategic threat, with some analysts warning it could pave the way toward an irreversible diplomatic process. Israeli newspaper Maariv noted that the ambiguity of the language allowed for multiple, sometimes contradictory interpretations.
While Washington views the resolution as a framework for a long-term political solution that could allow for the emergence of a Palestinian entity, critics argue that the plan is vague and heavily conditioned on factors such as: long-term reconstruction of Gaza; reforms within the Palestinian Authority; full demilitarization of Gaza; international inspection mechanisms.
The Israeli right views the plan as an attempt to introduce the concept of Palestinian statehood through the back door, masked as a postwar solution for Gaza.
The American plan divides Gaza into zones to be rebuilt under joint Israeli-international oversight, with certain areas designated as green monitored zones during a lengthy transitional phase, while heavily damaged zones remain restricted.
Proponents argue this system is necessary to restore order after months of conflict, though critics warn that it could entrench foreign and Israeli control over Gaza's civic and security structures.
Palestinian factions, led by Hamas, issued a memorandum on Sunday rejecting the U.S. proposal. Their main objections include: the resolution imposes international guardianship over Gaza; an international force could become a de facto extension of Israeli security control; any such force must be fully under UN authority, not coordinated with Israel; coordination must occur exclusively with Palestinian official institution; its mandate must be limited to protecting civilians, ensuring aid delivery, and separating forces, without assuming security or administrative power.
The factions emphasized that questions of weapons and resistance remain internal Palestinian matters tied to any future political settlement that ends the occupation.
In the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority cautiously welcomed the initiative.
Omar Awadallah, Assistant Minister of Foreign Affairs, told BBC Arabic that the resolution marks the first time an American proposal explicitly references the Palestinian right to self-determination and independence.
He argued that the proposal challenges Israel's rejection of any Palestinian role in Gaza's future and could be built upon, especially given numerous existing UN resolutions affirming Palestinian sovereignty.
The revised U.S. draft requires the Palestinian Authority to implement transparent institutional reforms and demonstrate progress in Gaza's reconstruction, conditions that Washington says may create the necessary environment for a credible path toward Palestinian statehood.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
Post Article Comment and Rate This Article
