TEHRAN – The United Nations Security Council has approved a U.S.-drafted resolution on Gaza, hailed in Washington as a diplomatic breakthrough. But for Palestinians and many around the world, it's another failed plan—one that prioritizes policing over justice and control over freedom.

On Monday, the council voted 13–0 in favor, with Russia and China abstaining. Their abstentions were significant: Russia warned the resolution must not become “a death knell for the two-state solution.” At the same time, China argued that Palestinian sovereignty and ownership were “barely visible” in the text.

Both powers criticized the minimal UN role and the lack of genuine Palestinian participation, exposing legitimacy gaps at the heart of the plan.

The resolution is part of President Donald Trump’s 20-point Gaza plan. Trump celebrated the vote, declaring that he would personally chair the new “Board of Peace.” His central role underscores how the resolution is designed to advance U.S. political interests.

Meanwhile, the humanitarian crisis continues. Since Israel launched its war on Gaza on October 7, 2023, more than 69,000 Palestinians have been killed. Despite a ceasefire announced on October 10, Israel has repeatedly violated the truce with deadly attacks and restrictions on aid. For many Palestinians, the ceasefire and resolution are not instruments of peace but a cover for Israel and the U.S. to advance normalization with Arab states and distract from what rights groups describe as genocide in Gaza.

Hamas has rejected the resolution outright, calling it an attempt to impose international guardianship on Gaza and strip neutrality from the stabilization force. The group says assigning foreign troops to disarm the resistance movements makes them a party to the conflict in favor of the occupation.

The resolution is presented as a roadmap to peace, but in reality, it is riddled with flaws that make it inefficient and unjust. Each of these flaws undermines Palestinian rights, weakens international legitimacy, and entrenches occupation rather than ending it. Ten distinct problems stand out:

Israel’s outright rejection of Palestinian statehood: The resolution speaks of a “credible pathway” to statehood, but Israel’s leadership has already closed the door. Netanyahu and ministers across the spectrum vow “no Palestinian state,” with some denying Palestinians exist at all. This united rejection makes the resolution’s promise empty rhetoric before it even begins.

Statehood reduced to a vague, conditional promise: Even without Israel’s opposition, the resolution itself offers only symbolic language. Sovereignty is tied to Palestinian Authority reforms and redevelopment benchmarks, with no timeline or guarantees. This turns self-determination into a distant possibility rather than an inherent right.

Palestinian Authority lacks credibility: The resolution envisions the PA eventually taking charge of Gaza. Yet the PA is widely discredited among Palestinians for corruption, incompetence, and complicity with the occupation. Entrusting Gaza’s future to such a body will undermine legitimacy and risk deepening divisions.

Board of Peace lacks definition and accountability: The transitional authority is granted sweeping powers over governance, reconstruction, and security, but its membership and accountability are undefined. Palestinians have no say in who governs them, creating a foreign trusteeship that strips agency and representation.

UN sidelined from oversight: By minimizing the UN’s role, the resolution removes neutral accountability. Russia and China abstained precisely because the UN is marginalized, leaving Palestinians exposed to unilateral control. Without a strong UN presence, oversight is weak and trust erodes.

Legitimacy gaps exposed by abstentions: The abstentions of Russia and China weaken the resolution’s authority. Without full consensus, countries asked to contribute troops or resources may hesitate, undermining implementation. The lack of unanimity signals that the plan is seen as serving U.S. and Israeli interests rather than embodying a genuinely multilateral approach.

Stabilization force empowered but not protective: The International Stabilization Force (ISF) is authorized to use “all necessary measures” to demilitarize Gaza, but it does not guarantee protection from Israeli attacks. This is why Hamas has warned that it strips neutrality and becomes a party to the conflict. Instead of safeguarding civilians, the force risks entrenching control.

No mechanism to restrain Israel: Israel has repeatedly violated the ceasefire since October 10, yet the resolution provides no enforcement tools to stop strikes or hold Israel accountable. Without deterrence, civilians remain exposed, and the ceasefire lacks credibility.

Humanitarian crisis sidelined: The resolution prioritizes policing and demilitarization over urgent humanitarian needs. With tens of thousands of Palestinians killed and aid restricted, this sequence deepens suffering and signals that security interests outweigh human rights.

Conditionality undermines sovereignty: Progress is tied to external benchmarks — PA reforms, redevelopment milestones, and international approval. This externalizes Palestinian rights, turning self-determination into a conditional reward rather than an inalienable entitlement.

To sum up, the resolution functions less as a peace initiative than as a political instrument — one that allows powerful states to claim progress while leaving the core injustice untouched. Unless future efforts place Palestinian agency, accountability, and enforceable protections at the center, Gaza will remain trapped in cycles of control and crisis. What was celebrated abroad as a breakthrough is, for Palestinians, another reminder of how the international system can perpetuate injustice when it refuses to confront the realities of occupation.