In a move without clear precedent, the United Nations Security Council has passed a resolution establishing a novel international framework to govern the Gaza Strip. The measure, which passed unanimously with two key abstentions, seeks to transform a fragile ceasefire into a lasting administrative arrangement, though its practical implementation faces immediate and profound questions.
The resolution vests ultimate authority in a newly created “Board of Peace,” to be chaired by former U.S. President Donald Trump and composed of what he described as “the most powerful and respected Leaders throughout the World.” This board, while reporting to the Security Council, is not formally subordinate to the United Nations itself. Its primary mandate will be to supervise a temporary, two-year administration for Gaza.
This administration rests on three pillars: a multinational International Stabilisation Force (ISF), a committee of Palestinian technocrats to handle civilian affairs, and a local police force. Critical details, however, remain conspicuously absent. The composition of both the board and the peacekeeping force is undetermined, though U.S. officials have indicated a desire to deploy troops by January and have reportedly sounded out nations including Egypt, Indonesia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates.
The challenges are formidable. The ISF is tasked with “ensuring the process of demilitarising” the territory, a directive Hamas has already flatly rejected, setting the stage for potential confrontation. Furthermore, the force is expected to assume security control from Israeli military units, a transition that could itself prove volatile. Meanwhile, identifying Palestinian officials willing to serve under this international board and who retain credibility with Gaza’s 2.2 million residents is seen by observers as a near-impossible hurdle.
Analysts suggest the resolution’s unanimous passage—with Russia and China abstaining—reflects not consensus on the plan’s merits, but global exhaustion after years of conflict and a calculated ambiguity that allowed diverse nations to assent. The text’s language on Palestinian statehood is particularly cautious, describing it as a future possibility contingent on Palestinian Authority reforms and reconstruction progress, rather than an affirmed right.
Reaction has been polarized. While some diplomats privately express hope that the framework draws the international community deeper into Gaza’s governance, potentially diluting unilateral control, Israeli coalition members on the right denounced any hint of sovereignty for Palestinians. For many supporting governments, the resolution represents a pragmatic, if deeply flawed, mechanism to sustain humanitarian aid flows and keep diplomatic channels open, with the long-term aim of influencing the process from within.
The coming months will test whether this unusual diplomatic construct can transition from a hazily-worded document into a functioning reality on the ground, or if its unresolved contradictions will render it unworkable.