The new UN resolution on Gaza has brought the issue of disarmament to the forefront of the international agenda, creating a dangerous standoff between global diplomacy and militant reality. Adopted on Monday, the US-drafted plan authorizes an “International Stabilization Force” (ISF) with a robust mandate to decommission weapons and destroy military infrastructure within the enclave. While this measure is intended to act as the “security stick” to ensure stability, it has been met with a categorical rejection from Hamas. The group’s vow that it “will not disarm” exposes the core conflict of the resolution: it mandates an action that the armed group in control of the territory refuses to perform, setting the stage for violent confrontation.
The resolution attempts to balance this hard security mandate with a political offering: a “pathway to statehood” for the Palestinians. This clause was crucial for securing the acquiescence of the Palestinian Authority and avoiding a Russian veto at the Security Council. However, just as Hamas rejected the security terms, the Israeli government rejected the political terms. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a public rebuke of the statehood clause, reiterating his long-standing opposition to Palestinian sovereignty. Thus, the resolution is squeezed from both sides, with neither the political reward nor the security requirement finding acceptance among the combatants.
The specific language regarding the ISF is uncompromising, granting it the authority to physically remove the means of war from Gaza. Hamas, however, interprets this not as a step toward peace, but as an imposition of “international guardianship” designed to strip them of their power. Their defiant statement signals that any attempt by international forces to collect weapons will likely be met with armed resistance. This reality threatens to make the ISF’s mission impossible without significant combat operations, raising questions about which nations would be willing to contribute troops to such a volatile environment.
Despite the looming threat of escalation, the United States has championed the plan’s passage. Ambassador Mike Waltz praised the resolution as the key to “dismantle Hamas’ grip” on the population, framing it as a liberation of sorts that leads to a “prosperous and secure” Gaza. President Trump, viewing the resolution as an endorsement of his 20-point plan, called the vote “historic” and is preparing to lead the reconstruction efforts through a new “Board of Peace.” The US stance is one of determined optimism, betting that diplomatic pressure and international force can override local resistance.
This optimism is not shared by the United States’ rivals on the Security Council. Russia and China abstained from the vote, effectively stepping aside to let the US own the initiative while registering their protest. Russian Ambassador Vasily Nebenzya criticized the plan for bypassing the UN’s traditional role and handing “complete control” to a US-led operation. This lack of unified global support, combined with the militant rejection of disarmament, leaves the plan in a precarious position, relying almost entirely on American political will to survive the inevitable challenges ahead.