Gaza’s Future: US Plan Wins UN Vote, But Lacks Key Support

The UN Security Council has adopted a US-drafted plan for the future of Gaza, but the victory was hollowed out by a lack of support from key global and local players. The resolution, which passed on Monday, endorses President Donald Trump’s 20-point plan, including a “Board of Peace” and an “international stabilization force” (ISF). However, the abstentions of Russia and China, and the immediate rejection from Hamas, raise serious questions about the plan’s viability.
The resolution’s passage was only possible because Russia and China, both veto-wielding permanent members, abstained. Their ambassadors made their displeasure clear. Russian Ambassador Vasily Nebenzya complained that the resolution gives the UN no clear role, instead handing “complete control” to the US-led board and force. He accused the council of blessing “Washington’s promises” without knowing the “modalities” of the plan.
On the ground in Gaza, the reaction was even more definitive. Hamas, the militant group that would be disarmed by the ISF, issued a statement calling the resolution an “international guardianship mechanism” that its people “reject.” The statement emphatically declared that Hamas “will not disarm,” posing a direct threat to the international force before it even assembles.
The United States, however, celebrated the vote. Ambassador Mike Waltz presented the plan as a “possible pathway for Palestinian self-determination” that “dismantles Hamas’ grip.” President Trump, who will chair the Board of Peace, called the moment “historic.” The US plan did secure one key endorsement: the Palestinian Authority, Hamas’s rival, welcomed the resolution, a move diplomats said was critical in preventing a Russian veto.
This complex web of support and opposition highlights the plan’s precariousness. Even Israel, a key US ally, is not fully on board. The resolution’s mention of a “pathway to… statehood” for Palestinians prompted Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to publicly reiterate his government’s opposition to such an outcome, demonstrating the deep contradictions at the heart of the new initiative.