The draft submitted by the United States supported by a vote of 13 members of the UN safety Council. China and Russia, although they did not veto, abstained. As the British "The Guardian" points out, the adopted resolution is simply a breakthrough after years of diplomatic deadlock. However, its content is deliberately out of focus – so as not to paralyze the full initiative already at the start.
The most crucial point of the arrangement is the establishment of global stabilisation forces (ISFs) to be liable for protecting Gaza's borders, the safety of civilians, the creation of humanitarian zones and training of the fresh Palestinian police. ISF would besides have a mandate to disarm armed factions – including Hamas. That's what caused the biggest opposition.
Hamas: "We will not put Gaza under global supervision"
The extremist group of Hamas powerfully rejected the plan, recognising it as an effort to "impose an global curate over Gaza" and take the right to resist.
"The resolution forces the mechanics of curatels over the Gaza Strip, which our people and factions powerfully reject" - we read in the authoritative announcement of the organization.
Hamas' concern is besides due to the fact that the task provides for the Gaza administration led by an apolitical Palestinian body, supervised by the alleged Council of Peace – a body set up by Donald Trump, with an obscure structure and complete independency from the UN or the Palestinian Authority.
Israel: Opposition to Palestinian Statehood
Although Israel did not block the resolution, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rapidly distanced himself from its most crucial elements. In public statements he recalled that his government inactive "categorically opposes the uprising of the Palestinian State in any territory".
This may make fundamental obstacles to the implementation of a task which, at least in theory, assumes that as the demilitarisation and reconstruction of Gaza can pave the way for the "self-determination and statehood of Palestinians". It was this last-minute evidence that was added to the resolution as a bow to arabian and muslim countries that agreed to take part in the stabilisation mission.
Arab countries agreed to compromise
Despite many reservations, arabian countries agreed to support the document. Algerian Ambassador Amar Bendjam, acting on behalf of the arabian States, called the resolution "a step towards the implementation of the inalienable rights of Palestinians".
However, he made it clear that the vote "for" does not mean full consent, but that he wants to keep a truce and support for 2.2 million civilians in the Gaza Strip. The annex to the resolution besides includes provisions prohibiting the annexation of territories, occupations and forced resettlement.
Trump and Waltz on a historical step
The plan provides for the establishment of a Palestinian technocratic commission to manage Gaza and supply civilian services. However, it is not known who would be part of it or who would call it. Equally unclear are the criteria for reforming the Palestinian Authority, which is the condition essential for the start of the state-building process.
Trump and his envoy at the UN, Mike Waltz, called the vote "historical step" and "new hand" for the mediate East. Waltz acknowledged that the plan would be returned to "a number of breathtaking announcements" – suggesting at the same time that the present resolution was only the first phase of a larger political project.
What's next? Forces that no 1 wants to send
The biggest question mark concerns the real readiness of states to send troops to the Gaza Strip. Although the resolution calls for the creation of an ISF, no country has yet declared itself ready to participate in the mission. The arabian Emirates has already announced that they will not join it without a clear legal framework. Europe is silent and the US has not declared their own quotas despite political patronage.
As a result, the plan truly remains a list of wishful wishes. alternatively of resolving the conflict, it can polarize the region even more – especially if ISF is actually sent to disarm Hamas without their consent.
