Title: UN Security Council Backs Gaza Plan as Regional Powers Weigh In
In a significant diplomatic development, the United Nations Security Council has passed a resolution concerning the future of the Gaza Strip, based on a framework presented by the United States. The move has elicited a spectrum of reactions from key regional actors, highlighting the complex political landscape.
The UN Resolution: A Framework for Gaza
The resolution, which passed with 13 votes in favor and abstentions from Russia and China, establishes a “Peace Council” and authorizes an international force. Its stated mission is to stabilize the situation in Gaza and, crucially, to guarantee a process for the disarmament of the territory and the dismantling of military infrastructure.
This plan is rooted in the broader context of the so-called “Trump Plan,” with Israeli officials reportedly stating that demonstrating a genuine opportunity was given to this initiative was necessary to persuade the international community.
Israeli Stance: Focus on Hamas
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu emphasized that the primary mission, as defined by the Security Council resolution, remains the dismantling of Hamas and the disarmament of Gaza. He outlined a conditional path forward, stating that international forces are expected to lead the disarmament efforts in a second phase of the agreement. He warned that a failure to achieve this could lead to a resumption of hostilities.
Concurrently, an Israeli official was cited addressing the matter of Iran, stating, “We are under no illusion that the threats from Iran will disappear,” while clarifying that there are currently no plans for an attack.
Hamas Rejects the Mandate
In a firm rebuttal, the Hamas movement has rejected the resolution. Hazem Qassem, a Hamas spokesman, told Al Jazeera that any talk of disarming the movement is an Israeli attempt to justify its continued actions in Gaza.
A subsequent official statement from Hamas elaborated its position, asserting that resistance against occupation by all legitimate means is a guaranteed right under international law. The movement stated that the weapons of the resistance are intrinsically linked to the ongoing occupation and that any discussion of them must remain a national, internal matter. Furthermore, Hamas argued that tasking an international force with disarming the resistance strips that force of its neutrality and effectively makes it a party to the conflict on the side of the occupying regime.
The passage of this resolution sets the stage for a new and challenging phase in the region, pitting a UN-backed framework against the firmly held positions of involved parties on the ground. The focus now shifts to the practical implementation of the resolution and the responses it will provoke.