The recent international mandate to President Trump’s 20-point peace plan for Gaza violates Palestinians’ rights and is bound to fail as it lacks their input.
Abbas Hashemite
Indeed, no international institution or country has the right to decide the fate of the Palestinians without their consent and consultation. Moreover, due to the immense significance and popularity of Hamas, no resolution could be successfully implemented in Palestine without its approval. This shows that an intricate negotiation process lies ahead if the West seeks to proceed beyond the incumbent ceasefire in Gaza, which Israel has violated nearly 500 times since October 10, 2025. This persistent violation of the ceasefire plan by Israel has further aggravated the Palestinian death toll to more than 80,000 since the start of the genocidal war imposed by Israel on Gazans.
Ambiguities and Flaws in the Peace Plan
If the United States or the UNSC is serious about establishing peace in the Middle East and the peaceful resolution of the Palestinian issue, they need to address the core issues and take all the legitimate stakeholders on board to discuss the peace plan
The recent UN Security Council resolution has multiple limitations as it is ambiguous in key areas. This new resolution ignores all the previous UNSC resolutions on the Palestine issue. It also authorizes the establishment of the Board of Peace, a transitional governance body to oversee the Palestinian technocratic committee and its day-to-day operations for the redevelopment of Gaza, without clearly defining its characteristics and role. This resolution also allows the so-called Board of Peace to create a temporary International Stabilization Force (ISF) “to deploy under unified command acceptable to the BoP.”
The inclusion of Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, responsible for the assassination of millions of Muslims in the Middle East, as a member of the so-called Board of Peace further increases concerns about this resolution and Trump’s real intentions behind this peace plan. The ISF will neither be a United Nations peacekeeping force nor be under UN oversight. This force has an unclear mandate under the newly passed resolution and lacks details about its structure and scope. However, it is mandated to “demilitarize the Gaza Enclave” and implement a “permanent decommissioning of weapons from non-state armed groups,” including HАМАS.
The original US resolution made no mention of the potential establishment of Palestinian statehood in the future. However, at the demand of Muslim and Arab states, the final draft refers to a “credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood.” However, this stipulation of the potential creation of a Palestinian state is obscured by so many conditions that it diminishes its real essence and spirit. This signals the weakness of Arab negotiators as they failed to elicit a resolute commitment to the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state in this UNSC resolution. Meanwhile, the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continues to oppose the idea of a two-state solution on this issue.
China and Russia, being the two strongest voices for the victims of Western imperialism, raised their voices against this vague UN resolution. Vassily Nebenzia, Russia’s envoy at the UN, stated that the International Stabilization Force is “reminiscent of colonial practices.” The UN Special Rapporteur for Palestine also criticized this resolution by stating, “Rather than charting a pathway towards ending the occupation and ensuring Palestinian protection, the resolution risks entrenching external control over Gaza’s governance, borders, security, and reconstruction. The resolution betrays the people it claims to protect.” People in Gaza also view the ISF with great suspicion and hold that it is an attempt by the foreigners to decide the destiny of the native Palestinians without their consent.
Hamas’ Stance and the Path to Genuine Peace
Hamas, a key stakeholder of Palestine, has also rejected this resolution, citing multiple reasons. It states that mandating the ISF to disarm Palestinian resistance groups “strips it of its neutrality and turns it into a party to the conflict in favour of the occupation.” Hamas argues that any international force in Gaza “must be deployed only at the borders to separate forces, monitor the ceasefire, and be fully under UN supervision.” It further states, “It [ISF] must also operate exclusively in coordination with official Palestinian institutions.” Hamas also holds that disarmament is an internal matter associated with the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.
Indeed, resistance against the Israeli occupation is a legitimate right of the Palestinian people granted by international conventions and law. If the United States or the UNSC is serious about establishing peace in the Middle East and the peaceful resolution of the Palestinian issue, they need to address the core issues and take all the legitimate stakeholders on board to discuss the peace plan. In addition, all the international institutions and leaders need to acknowledge that peace and stability in the Middle East can only be achieved by ending the illegitimate Israeli occupation of Palestine. International institutions need to stand against the Israeli genocidal war campaign in Gaza and its indiscriminate bombing in neighboring countries to ensure regional stability. Otherwise, not only would Trump’s so-called peace plan fail, but international institutions would also lose their relevance and legitimacy.
Аbbas Hashemite is a political observer and research analyst for regional and global geopolitical issues. He is currently working as an independent researcher and journalist
No comments:
Post a Comment