Lead: The UN Security Council on Tuesday adopted a US-drafted resolution endorsing former President Donald Trump’s 20-point plan for Gaza. The measure passed with 13 votes in favour, none against, and two abstentions by Russia and China. The resolution endorses creation of an International Stabilisation Force (ISF) and a newly trained Palestinian police while reaffirming the ceasefire and hostage-release steps that began on 10 October. Hamas rejected the vote, saying the text does not meet Palestinian rights and demands.
Key Takeaways
- The Security Council approved the US-drafted resolution by 13 votes to 0, with Russia and China abstaining; the UK, France and Somalia were among the backers.
- The resolution endorses Donald Trump’s 20-point plan for Gaza and explicitly authorises an International Stabilisation Force (ISF) to operate in the Strip.
- Part of the ISF role in the draft is to work on the permanent decommissioning of weapons from non-state armed groups, including Hamas, and to protect civilians and aid routes.
- Unnamed countries have reportedly offered personnel to the ISF; the draft does not list contributing states publicly.
- The initial phase — a ceasefire and exchange/return of hostages and detainees — came into force on 10 October and is described by US officials as fragile.
- The draft also proposes forming a newly trained Palestinian police force in Gaza to replace the force that has been operating under Hamas authority.
- Hamas publicly rejected the resolution, arguing the force would be partisan if assigned disarmament tasks; Israel opposes aspects of the plan, including explicit mentions of a Palestinian state.
Background
The resolution builds on a US-authored 20-point framework presented as a roadmap for stabilising Gaza after sustained conflict. Gaza has been governed by Hamas since 2007, with local police and civil administration operating under its authority; international proposals to alter that status quo have long been politically sensitive. Past international interventions in Gaza and neighbouring areas have ranged from humanitarian missions to multinational observer presences, but no long-term, UN-backed stabilisation force with disarmament duties has been deployed inside Gaza at scale in recent years.
The context for the vote includes the ceasefire that took effect on 10 October and arrangements to return hostages and detainees — measures the resolution reiterates as the initial phase. Israel and Egypt are identified in the draft as partners for on-the-ground coordination with any international force; Israel has consistently opposed moves that it sees as compromising its security prerogatives, and it has also rejected an internationally led roadmap that could recognise a Palestinian state. The vote reflects a rare alignment of most Council members behind a US text while China and Russia chose to abstain rather than veto or block adoption.
Main Event
In a Security Council session, 13 members voted to adopt the US-drafted resolution endorsing the 20-point plan. No Council member voted against the measure; Russia and China abstained, signalling reservations without preventing adoption. The adopted text authorises an International Stabilisation Force tasked in draft language with protecting civilians and humanitarian routes and helping with the permanent removal of weapons held by non-state armed groups.
The draft specifies that the ISF would work alongside Israel and Egypt and that a newly trained Palestinian police force should be established in Gaza to assume local law-and-order responsibilities. That police would be distinct from the force that has operated under Hamas control to date. US Ambassador to the UN Mike Waltz presented the ISF role as securing areas, supporting demilitarisation, dismantling terrorist infrastructure, removing weapons and ensuring the safety of Palestinian civilians.
Hamas immediately rejected the Council decision, asserting the resolution does not safeguard Palestinian rights and that assigning disarmament duties to an international force would strip it of neutrality. The group warned that requiring the handing over of weapons as part of demilitarisation would amount to forcing the resistance to disarm and thus make the force a party to the conflict rather than a neutral actor. Supporters of the resolution argue it is designed to stabilise Gaza and enable humanitarian access while preserving the pathway started by the October ceasefire steps.
Analysis & Implications
Operationalising an ISF with a decommissioning mandate raises immediate legal and practical questions. Disarmament of non-state armed groups typically requires consent, clear rules of engagement, and guarantees about the protection of civilians; if contributors include states aligned with one side of the conflict, perceptions of bias could undermine acceptance by local actors. The draft’s call for the permanent decommissioning of weapons will likely be met with resistance from Hamas and other armed actors who view armaments as a core element of their security and bargaining leverage.
Politically, the Council vote signals strong Western and some non-Western support for a US-authored roadmap but also highlights divisions: Russia and China abstained, and Hamas and Israel have reservations for different reasons. The text’s reference to a possible Palestinian state introduces a contentious diplomatic element that Israel rejects, complicating prospects for broad regional buy-in. The success of any stabilisation mission will depend on concrete troop contributions, a clear mandate, timelines for police training, and mechanisms to monitor compliance with demilitarisation steps.
Humanitarian implications are immediate: proponents say an ISF could secure aid corridors and protect civilians while trained Palestinian police could restore day-to-day public order. Critics warn that if the ISF is perceived as enforcing one side’s demands, it could increase tensions and jeopardise fragile ceasefire arrangements. The resolution’s implementation will therefore be a test of multilateral coordination under difficult security conditions and of whether international actors can design operations that maintain impartiality while meeting political objectives.
Comparison & Data
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Security Council vote | For 13, Against 0, Abstain 2 (Russia, China) |
| Plan referenced | US-drafted 20-point plan |
| Initial phase | Ceasefire and hostage/detainee exchanges in force from 10 October |
| Key new mechanisms | International Stabilisation Force (ISF), newly trained Palestinian police |
The table summarises the decisive elements of the Council action and the early operational structures proposed. The vote tally underscores that a large majority of Council members supported the US text even as two permanent members abstained. The next steps hinge on whether states publicly commit troops to the ISF and on detailed mandates and timelines that were not concluded in the draft.
Reactions & Quotes
US representation framed the ISF as a security and humanitarian enabler; the ambassador emphasised demilitarisation and civilian protection as core tasks.
The ISF will be tasked with securing the area, supporting the demilitarization of Gaza, dismantling the terrorist infrastructure, removing weapons, and ensuring the safety of Palestinian civilians.
Mike Waltz, US Ambassador to the UN (official statement to Council)
Hamas condemned the resolution and warned that assigning disarmament roles to an international force would compromise neutrality and amount to siding with occupation forces.
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 favour of the occupation.
Hamas statement
Unconfirmed
- Which specific countries have formally pledged personnel to the ISF remains unconfirmed; public lists were not included in the draft.
- The precise timeline and sequencing for permanent decommissioning of weapons and how compliance will be verified are not yet detailed in publicly available documents.
- Whether the ISF will have authority to use force to disarm individuals or units without local consent is not clearly specified in the draft and remains subject to negotiation.
Bottom Line
The Security Council’s adoption of the US-drafted resolution marks a significant diplomatic step toward an internationally backed stabilization blueprint for Gaza, centred on an International Stabilisation Force and reconstituted local policing. The measure passed with broad support but also clear dissent: Russia and China abstained, Hamas rejected the text, and Israel objects to parts of the agenda, including references to Palestinian statehood.
Practical implementation will determine whether the resolution stabilises the situation or becomes a source of further contention. Key factors to watch are which countries commit forces, the ISF’s mandate and neutrality safeguards, the sequencing of disarmament, and the capacity-building timeline for a new Palestinian police. Absent detailed operational agreements and local buy-in, the resolution’s adoption may be only the first, fragile step in a much longer process.
Sources
- BBC News — Media report summarising the Security Council vote and reactions
- UN Press (official) — Official UN press resources and meeting records
- United States Mission to the United Nations (official) — Statements and briefings from the US delegation