The United Nations Security Council has given its overwhelming backing to a US-sponsored plan for Gaza's future, a move hailed by Washington as a critical step towards securing a fragile peace in the region.
A Convincing Victory on Paper
The resolution passed with thirteen votes in favour, none against, and only two abstentions from Russia and China. This display of near-unanimity at the UN, on Tuesday 18 November 2025, suggests broad international consensus. Even Russia, which had proposed a competing resolution, chose not to block the American-led initiative.
On the surface, this represents a significant diplomatic achievement. The American delegation presented the vote as a pivotal moment, a foundation upon which a lasting peace could be built after the recent conflict.
The Reality on the Ground: Key Objections Emerge
However, the unanimous vote belies deep-seated reservations from the two main actors in the conflict: Israel and Hamas.
While Israel has agreed to most of the plan's provisions, the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is adamant in its rejection of any pathway to Palestinian statehood. This clause was reportedly inserted into the resolution to appease other nations concerned about concentrating too much power with Israel and the US. Yet, Netanyahu has made it abundantly clear he will not permit such an outcome.
Furthermore, with Israeli elections scheduled for next year, analysts suggest that even if Netanyahu were to lose his position, his successor is unlikely to hold a significantly different view on Palestinian statehood, making the resolution's mention of a two-state solution difficult to reconcile with the current trajectory of Israeli politics.
From the other side, Hamas is vehemently objecting to the core stipulation that foreign forces will not only administer Gaza but also be responsible for its security, including the disarmament of Hamas itself.
A Long Road Ahead: Unanswered Questions
The resolution leaves a host of critical details unresolved, casting a shadow of uncertainty over its implementation.
Major unanswered questions include:
- The composition and mandate of the international stabilisation force.
- The extent of the United Nations' influence in the process.
- The funding mechanism for Gaza's massive reconstruction.
- The operational details of the proposed 'Board of Peace', including the potential role of former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair.
- The timeline and conditions for the withdrawal of Israeli troops.
- The consequences if the remaining deceased hostages are not returned.
- The mechanism for accelerating the flow of humanitarian aid into the devastated territory.
Despite the long list of uncertainties, a thread of optimism persists among some observers. The very passage of the resolution ensures the continued, active engagement of the United States, which many see as the essential ingredient for any lasting peace.
Thousands of American military personnel, diplomats, and private sector employees are now involved in planning for Gaza's future. The hopeful perspective is that as long as the US is channeling its vast resources towards planning for peace, however shaky and pragmatic, it is a development to be welcomed.
