On 18 November 2025 the UN Security Council voted 13-0, with China and Russia abstaining, to endorse a US-backed package of proposals for Gaza advanced by former President Donald Trump. The resolution calls for an international stabilisation force (ISF), an oversight body described as a “board of peace” and a conditional pathway toward Palestinian statehood tied to Palestinian Authority reform and Gaza reconstruction. Supporters said the text should unblock aid and begin reconstruction, while critics warned its wording leaves key questions unresolved, including troop commitments and who will govern Gaza in the near term. Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly reasserted his opposition to a Palestinian state, raising doubts about Israeli cooperation in implementing the mandate.
Key takeaways
- The Security Council passed the resolution on 18 November 2025 by a 13-0 vote; China and Russia abstained rather than vetoing.
- The text endorses an international stabilisation force to take over security as Israeli forces withdraw, but no country has yet committed troops.
- An annex and conditional language introduce a possible route to Palestinian statehood once the Palestinian Authority reforms and reconstruction is underway.
- The package creates a so-called board of peace chaired by Donald Trump to provide overall oversight, though its membership and authorities are not fully defined.
- The resolution aims to facilitate immediate humanitarian access for Gaza’s 2.2 million residents and accelerate reconstruction after two years in which at least 71,000 Palestinians have been killed.
- Arab and Islamic states supported the compromise to secure ceasefire extension and humanitarian measures and are expected to be prime contributors to any ISF.
Background
The vote came after two years of stalled diplomacy over Gaza that followed a major escalation of hostilities and widespread international alarm. During that period at least 71,000 Palestinians were killed and humanitarian conditions deteriorated sharply across the Gaza Strip, home to roughly 2.2 million people. The United States circulated a draft resolution that initially omitted explicit reference to Palestinian statehood; language on an independent Palestine was later added as a concession to Arab and Islamic states in order to secure their political and potential logistical support. Israel has long opposed an independent Palestinian state on its current terms, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reiterated his rejection of statehood during consultations with Washington and in public remarks that followed the vote.
Key stakeholders include the Palestinian Authority, which would need to enact reforms to satisfy the resolution’s conditions; regional Arab and Islamic states, some of which have offered to provide peacekeepers for an international stabilisation force; and international institutions tasked with coordinating reconstruction and aid. European Council members and other Western states pushed for stronger language on sovereign rights but accepted a compromise text to prioritize an immediate extension of the truce and humanitarian access.
Main event
The Security Council session on 18 November approved the resolution by 13 votes in favour and two abstentions from China and Russia, avoiding vetoes that would have blocked the text. US Ambassador Mike Waltz framed the resolution as charting a new course for Israelis and Palestinians, while negotiators acknowledged that references to Palestinian self-determination were deliberately crafted as conditional provisions. The text links progress toward statehood to measurable PA reform and substantive reconstruction on the ground in Gaza.
The resolution mandates an international stabilisation force intended to fill the security vacuum after Israeli military withdrawal and authorizes it to disarm and dismantle armed groups. However, the mandate does not specify which states will supply troops, and no formal pledges emerged during the vote. The document also foresees a Palestinian technocratic committee to handle day-to-day governance and services in Gaza, but its composition and authority remain to be settled.
Another novel element is the so-called board of peace, described in the text as providing overall oversight and chaired by Donald Trump. The board must report to the UN but, as drafted, is not explicitly constrained by the UN or by the Palestinian Authority, raising questions about accountability and legal status. Backlash within Israel’s governing coalition prompted Prime Minister Netanyahu to publicly restate his opposition to a Palestinian state, which could complicate Israeli cooperation with aspects of the plan that require coordination on territory or sovereignty.
Analysis and implications
Practically, the resolution seeks to accomplish three immediate goals: secure and expand humanitarian access, provide a security architecture to replace Israeli forces in Gaza, and create a framework for reconstruction that could, over time, open a pathway to Palestinian self-determination. If implemented, expanded aid corridors would relieve urgent shortages and allow reconstruction projects to begin, but those outcomes depend on rapid agreement on the technocratic committee and troop contributors for the ISF.
Politically, the conditional reference to Palestinian statehood represents a compromise that balances Arab and Islamic demands with Israeli and US sensitivities. The choice to make statehood contingent on PA reform and reconstruction reduces immediate sovereignty guarantees and leaves the timing and substance of any future state uncertain. That conditionality may weaken the text’s credibility for Palestinians while providing just enough diplomatic cover for key regional actors to engage.
Security implementation faces acute obstacles. The mandate authorizes the ISF to disarm militant groups like Hamas, but it is unclear whether potential troop contributors would accept a confrontation mandate or how rules of engagement would be enforced. The absence of early troop commitments increases the risk of a security vacuum during the transition, which could undermine both humanitarian operations and political progress.
Legally and institutionally, creating a board chaired by a nonstate actor and qualifying it as the primary oversight mechanism raises questions about how UN authority, Security Council prerogatives and Palestinian sovereignty will be balanced. That ambiguity could produce disputes between the board, the UN, Israel and the Palestinian Authority over the interpretation and implementation of key provisions.
Comparison and data
| Item | Figure |
|---|---|
| Security Council vote | 13-0 (China, Russia abstained) |
| Population of Gaza | 2.2 million |
| Palestinians killed in past two years | at least 71,000 |
| Peacekeeper troop pledges | none formally committed |
The table highlights the key measurable elements of the decision: a solid Security Council majority, a humanitarian imperative tied to Gaza’s large civilian population, and a troubling absence of concrete operational commitments for the ISF. European and Arab diplomats emphasized the need to agree names for the Palestinian technocratic committee and troop contributors quickly if the resolution is to deliver real relief on the ground.
Reactions and quotes
Diplomats and regional representatives framed their support as a pragmatic choice to extend a truce and secure immediate humanitarian relief, even if the language on statehood was less robust than some had sought. Several envoy statements insisted the resolution must be read with its annex and that the text preserves Palestinian rights while enabling urgent assistance.
A new course in the Middle East for Israelis and Palestinians and all the people of the region alike.
Mike Waltz, US envoy to the UN
Waltz used the phrase above to summarize the US view that the resolution offers a strategic reset. Diplomats close to US negotiations said the administration accepted conditional wording on statehood to lock in Arab backing and potential logistical support for stabilisation efforts.
The transitional arrangements must be implemented in accordance with international law and respecting Palestinian sovereignty and self-determination.
James Kariuki, UK chargé d affaires
The UK envoy stressed adherence to international law as essential if the resolution is to be effective. European diplomats told reporters they had secured amendments they considered essential to preserve balance and legal integrity in the text.
This text sows the seeds of Palestinian sovereignty and enables the Palestinian people to exercise their rights.
Amar Bendjama, Algerian envoy
Speaking for the Arab bloc, the Algerian representative said his delegation voted in favour to maintain the ceasefire and create conditions for the exercise of Palestinian rights, while urging full compliance with the resolution’s annex.
Unconfirmed
- No state has formally pledged troops for the ISF, and it is unconfirmed which countries would accept a mandate to confront armed groups such as Hamas.
- The membership, legal authority and reporting lines of the board of peace remain undefined and unconfirmed in public documents.
- It is not yet confirmed which individuals or parties will serve on the Palestinian technocratic committee or when those names will be finalized.
- Whether Israel will permit full implementation of provisions that touch on territorial control or sovereignty is unresolved following Prime Minister Netanyahu s reaffirmed opposition to a Palestinian state.
Bottom line
The Security Council vote on 18 November 2025 represents an unusual convergence of interests that produced a pragmatic, if partial, solution aimed at stabilising Gaza and opening reconstruction and humanitarian pathways. The resolution ties longer term political gains, including any pathway to statehood, to PA reform and tangible progress on reconstruction, which reduces immediate guarantees of sovereignty but may make implementation more politically viable for some partners.
Execution will be the decisive test: without rapid agreement on troop contributions, technocratic leadership and clear oversight arrangements, the plan risks creating expectations that cannot be met and a security vacuum that endangers civilians and aid operations. Observers should watch which countries commit to the ISF, the composition of the technocratic committee and how the board of peace defines its authority, since those decisions will determine whether the resolution delivers relief and a real chance of durable political progress.
Sources
- The Guardian (UK news)