The United Nations Security Council’s Monday vote marked a watershed moment for the Gaza Strip, as a new U.S.-authored resolution set in motion sweeping changes for the war-torn enclave. With nearly all hostages now returned after a grueling conflict between Israel and Hamas, the international community’s gaze has shifted to what comes next for Gaza’s battered streets and its uncertain political future. The newly approved resolution, which passed by a 13-0 margin with abstentions from Russia and China, authorizes an International Stabilization Force (ISF) and lays the groundwork for a potential future Palestinian state—though not without controversy and skepticism from many quarters.
At the core of the resolution is the creation of the ISF, a multinational force of roughly 20,000 troops, set to deploy as early as January 2026. According to Straight Arrow News and CBS News, the ISF will be responsible for overseeing Gaza’s borders with Israel, providing security for the region, and—perhaps most contentiously—demilitarizing the territory. The force’s mandate includes using “all necessary measures,” a phrase that, in U.N. parlance, authorizes military action in compliance with international law. This is not just a peacekeeping mission; it’s a robust intervention with teeth.
But the ISF is only one part of the equation. The resolution also establishes a transitional body, the so-called “Board of Peace,” to oversee Gaza’s governance alongside the ISF until December 31, 2027. In a move that has stunned political observers, former U.S. President Donald Trump has been tapped to chair this board. Trump wasted no time taking to social media after the vote, declaring, “Congratulations to the World on the incredible Vote of the United Nations Security Council, just moments ago, acknowledging and endorsing the BOARD OF PEACE, which will be chaired by me, and include the most powerful and respected Leaders throughout the World.” He added, “This will go down as one of the biggest approvals in the History of the United Nations, will lead to further Peace all over the World, and is a moment of true Historic proportion!”
The Board of Peace, however, is not designed to be a de facto government. Instead, it will monitor a technocratic administration made up of Palestinian and international experts, aiming to guide the region through a delicate transition. Its mandate expires at the end of 2027, by which time control is expected to shift to a “reformed” Palestinian Authority (PA), provided certain reforms and redevelopment milestones are met.
For many Palestinians and their supporters, the resolution’s language on statehood is both a glimmer of hope and a source of frustration. The document states that, after the PA’s reforms and Gaza’s redevelopment, “the conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood.” Yet, as CBS News notes, the language is intentionally vague, offering no guarantees of full sovereignty. During negotiations, Arab nations and Palestinians pushed hard for stronger commitments, and the final text reflects a compromise that leaves the future open-ended.
Reactions to the resolution have been as divided as the region itself. Hamas, unsurprisingly, has come out forcefully against the plan. In a statement reported by Reuters and Al Jazeera, the group declared, “Assigning the international force with tasks and roles inside the Gaza Strip, including disarming the resistance, strips it of its neutrality, and turns it into a party to the conflict in favor of the occupation.” Hamas insists that any international force should be deployed solely at the borders to monitor the ceasefire and must remain fully under U.N. supervision. The group’s fighters, hundreds of whom remain trapped in tunnels in Israeli-controlled Gaza, have shown no sign of surrender. Since the ceasefire began on October 10, at least two Israeli soldiers have been killed in ongoing skirmishes, underscoring the fragile nature of the peace.
Israel’s response has been equally uncompromising. Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz stated on November 5, “the IDF is acting to destroy the tunnels and eliminate Hamas terrorists without any restrictions within the yellow area under our control.” Israel’s U.N. ambassador Danny Danon echoed this resolve after the Security Council vote, saying, “Just as we are determined to bring all the hostages home, we will demonstrate the same determination in ensuring that Hamas is disarmed. We will not stop or let up until Hamas no longer presents a threat to the State of Israel.” Meanwhile, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has publicly vowed to oppose any move toward Palestinian statehood, arguing it would reward Hamas and risk creating a larger Hamas-run state on Israel’s borders.
The resolution’s adoption was made possible, in part, by the support of key Arab and Muslim nations—including Qatar, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Jordan, and Turkey—who had all signaled that Security Council authorization was essential before they would consider contributing troops to the ISF. Algeria’s ambassador to the U.N. reported that the Palestinian Authority “openly welcomed the initiative,” a sign that the PA sees the resolution as a potential path back to governing Gaza after nearly two decades of Hamas rule.
Not everyone is convinced. Russia and China both abstained from the vote, with Moscow having circulated a rival resolution that called for stronger support for Palestinian statehood and stripped out references to the transitional board. Russian Ambassador Vasily Nebenzya criticized the adopted resolution, saying it gives “complete control over the Gaza Strip to the Board of Peace and the ISF, the modalities of which we know nothing about so far.” Former U.N. human rights official Craig Mokhiber went even further, calling the resolution a “US-Israel colonial outrage” and noting, “This proposal has been rejected by Palestinian civil society and factions, and defenders of human rights and international law everywhere.”
The ceasefire itself remains precarious. While the first phase saw the release of all living hostages by Hamas in exchange for about 2,000 Palestinian prisoners held by Israel, the remains of some deceased hostages have not been returned, with both Hamas and U.S. officials citing difficulties in recovering bodies amid Gaza’s devastation. Flare-ups of violence—including Israeli airstrikes in response to Hamas attacks—have continued despite the truce, and international advocates have accused Israel of not delivering all promised aid to Gaza.
As the ISF prepares to deploy, its tasks are daunting: secure the borders, oversee demilitarization, and coordinate with a trained Palestinian police force to help maintain order. The force is also expected to cooperate closely with Egypt and Israel to ensure the flow of humanitarian aid. Israeli forces, for their part, are to withdraw from Gaza “based on standards, milestones, and timeframes linked to demilitarization,” all of which must be agreed upon by the ISF, Israeli forces, the U.S., and the ceasefire’s guarantors.
With the ink barely dry on the Security Council’s resolution, Gaza stands at a crossroads. The international community’s bold new plan offers a possible route to stability—and perhaps, eventually, statehood—but its success will hinge on the willingness of all parties to compromise, and on the ability of the ISF and Board of Peace to navigate a minefield of competing interests, lingering distrust, and deep-seated grievances. The path forward will be anything but simple.
