Controversial Surrounds UN Resolution to Establish International Force in Gaza
London , UK – November 21,2025
The fragile peace holding in the Gaza Strip has been given a potential, albeit controversial, framework for long-term stability following a crucial vote at the United Nations.
The US-drafted resolution, which seeks to turn the current tentative truce into an enduring peace, secured a near-unanimous vote in the Security Council, passing 13-0 with abstentions from Russia and China.
However, despite the diplomatic success, profound controversy surrounds the UN resolution, primarily due to its authorization of an International Stabilization Force (ISF) and a transitional governance body, which both Palestinian factions and some permanent Council members view as a form of “international guardianship” that violates Palestinian sovereignty.
This divisive vote highlights the complex and often-contradictory requirements for building lasting peace on fragile foundations.
A US-Led Plan for Post-Conflict Governance
The resolution, formally adopted by the Security Council, endorses President Trump’s previously announced 20-point ceasefire plan.
This plan details a comprehensive roadmap for Gaza’s future following the two-year conflict between Israel and Hamas.
The key elements of the UN-backed resolution are centered on creating mechanisms to enforce security and oversee the reconstruction and political future of the devastated territory.
The resolution’s centerpiece is the International Stabilization Force (ISF). This armed force, whose mandate expires at the end of 2027, is authorized to be deployed to Gaza with a broad set of responsibilities.
These include overseeing borders, securing key infrastructure, and—most controversially—demilitarizing the territory by dismantling militant capabilities and disarming Palestinian factions.
To govern the enclave during this transitional period, the resolution also mandates the establishment of a “Board of Peace,” which President Trump himself is slated to chair, underscoring the deep US imprint on the plan.
This arrangement is the first time the Security Council has supported a formal mandate for foreign forces and a non-UN governance body inside post-1967 Palestinian territory.
Hamas Rejects “International Guardianship”
The immediate and most significant backlash came from the Palestinian militant group Hamas, which issued a sharply worded rejection of the resolution.
In a public statement, Hamas condemned the US-drafted measure as an attempt to impose an “international guardianship mechanism” on the Gaza Strip, which it argued infringes upon the sovereignty of the Palestinian people and their right to self-determination.
Hamas specifically objected to the ISF’s mandate to disarm militant factions.
The group asserted that any international force undertaking such tasks would lose its neutrality, effectively making it a party to the conflict in favor of Israel. Hamas maintains that armed resistance remains “legitimate” and issued a veiled warning that any force attempting to confiscate their weapons may face confrontation.
Furthermore, they argued that any international presence should be limited to monitoring the ceasefire and borders under full UN control, not internal governance.
This open hostility from one of the central parties to the conflict immediately casts a shadow over the resolution’s feasibility on the ground.
Controversies in Washington, Moscow, and Jerusalem
The resolution did not escape controversy among the permanent members of the Security Council.
Russia and China, despite refraining from using their veto power, both chose to abstain from the vote.
Russian Ambassador Vasily Nebenzya criticized the resolution for granting the United States excessive and opaque authority, accusing Washington of seeking “complete control over the Gaza Strip.”
China’s envoy echoed the concern, noting that the resolution sidelines the UN itself, offering it no clear role in shaping Gaza’s future political landscape.
In Israel, the resolution also ignited debate. While the Israeli government welcomed the establishment of the ISF and the move toward demilitarizing Gaza, the text contains highly contentious language regarding the future of a Palestinian state.
The resolution references a “credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood” once the redevelopment of Gaza has advanced and the Palestinian Authority has carried out reforms.
This reference to statehood, which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long and openly opposed, sparked immediate criticism from his right-wing coalition partners, signaling that the political path forward remains deeply fraught for all involved parties.
The challenge now lies not just in getting the ISF deployed, but in reconciling the fundamentally opposed visions for Gaza’s long-term future.
Headline Points
Resolution Authorizes Force:
The UN Security Council adopted a US-drafted resolution that authorizes the deployment of an International Stabilization Force (ISF) to secure and demilitarize the Gaza Strip until late 2027.
Hamas Rejects Sovereignty:
Hamas firmly rejected the resolution, labeling the ISF and the US-chaired “Board of Peace” as an unacceptable “international guardianship” that violates Palestinian sovereignty and demands the disarming of resistance groups.
Russia and China Abstain:
Russia and China abstained from the vote, criticizing the resolution for granting the US too much control over Gaza’s political and security future.
Israeli Controversy:
The resolution sparked controversy in Israel due to its inclusion of language referencing a “credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood,” a proposal strongly opposed by Prime Minister Netanyahu.
