This is a crucial turning point, but here’s where controversy begins: the UN plan labeled as the initial step toward peace in Gaza has drawn mixed reactions and sparks debate about its true potential. The Palestinian foreign minister characterized the UN Security Council’s resolution endorsing Donald Trump’s approach to ending the Gaza conflict as an essential first move on a very long journey toward peace. However, Hamas has outright rejected the plan, viewing it as an overreach of international control that they refuse to cooperate with.
Leaders from Arab nations who expressed cautious support emphasized the urgent need for the US to clarify the details concerning the proposed Palestinian technocratic committee responsible for providing services within Gaza. They also called for transparency about the leadership of the international stabilization force (ISF), which is expected to oversee security operations. Still shrouded in uncertainty are the members of the board of peace—the body intended to supervise both the ISF and a Palestinian civilian police force.
Hamas, which remains influential in Gaza, also dismissed the demand to disarm its weapons, asserting that disarmament was never part of the initial agreement. The militant group argued that—if international forces are tasked with disarming resistance fighters—they would compromise neutrality and become part of the conflict in favor of the occupation. Hamas insists that any international presence should be limited to monitoring borders and enforcing ceasefires, operating strictly under UN supervision, and coordinating only with Palestinian authorities, explicitly excluding any role for Israeli forces.
A British diplomat pointed out that disarming weapons would be the most challenging aspect of the process, likely only achievable if Israel fully withdraws from Gaza. Many Palestinians are frustrated because the UN resolution seems only to outline a conditional pathway to establishing a Palestinian state, conceptualized as a union of Gaza and the West Bank—an issue that remains highly contentious.
Despite these points of contention, Palestinian Foreign Minister Varsen Aghabekian Shahin expressed optimism, stating, “The UN resolution marks the initial step in a long journey toward peace. This step was necessary because we couldn’t move forward without a ceasefire.” She also acknowledged that while the US president’s plan hinted at Palestinian statehood contingent upon reforms within the Palestinian Authority, this issue could be addressed later. "As long as the conditions are there, we are satisfied with this first move,” she added.
Meanwhile, Mahmoud Abbas, the President of the Palestinian Authority, has agreed to collaborate with French President Emmanuel Macron on drafting a new constitution for the authority. This effort aims to pave the way for postponed elections and the necessary organizational reforms, including tackling endemic corruption.
The UN Security Council’s resolution was adopted last Monday with an overwhelming majority—13 votes in favor, none against, with China and Russia abstaining. At the start of the debate, the US UN ambassador, Mike Waltz, emphasized the importance of the resolution, stating, “This provides a potential pathway to Palestinian statehood if conditions are met. Opposing it is equivalent to endorsing further conflict.” Following the vote, he claimed the resolution showcased the UN’s potential to serve as a beacon of peace rather than a passive observer. He also expressed hope that this move would help liberate Gaza from Hamas’s influence, offering Palestinians the chance to shape their own future.
Nevertheless, the success of this plan fundamentally hinges on Trump’s continued engagement and his willingness to exert diplomatic pressure on Israel to refrain from exploiting the many opportunities within the resolution to withdraw from Gaza. Inside Israel, reactions have been mostly hostile, though Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu welcomed it, calling on neighboring nations to normalize relations and asserting that they believe Trump’s plan emphasizes demilitarization, disarmament, and de-radicalization efforts in Gaza—adding that urgent steps are needed to recover the remains of hostages left in Gaza.
Opposition leader Yair Lapid criticized Netanyahu for overlooking Hamas’s arms buildup over the years, calling it a strategic mistake that Americans have now begun to correct. He added that Israel’s current government, known for its right-wing policies, is shifting away from annexation and toward principles of cooperation with the Palestinians.
In a notable diplomatic achievement, the UK successfully inserted language into the resolution emphasizing the importance of delivering aid in accordance with international law, thus preserving a role for agencies like UNRWA, supported by the International Court of Justice, to provide humanitarian assistance. However, specific references to aid delivery mostly highlight the UN, the Red Cross, and the Red Crescent.
The UK is also advising the US on disarmament strategies based on its experience with the IRA in Northern Ireland. Yet, both the UK and others agree that disarmament will remain a highly difficult issue, primarily dependent on the changing political context. The Security Council’s text assigns roles to the Palestinian police and the ISF in the disarmament process, but much depends on future negotiations and political will.
