The United Nations Security Council is voting today on a U.S.-sponsored proposal that, if approved, would deploy an International Stabilization Force in Gaza until at least 2027. Yet the text goes far beyond a security mission: it establishes a deeply contested transitional political architecture that many Palestinian diplomats and analysts see as a new form of colonial-style administration.
The U.S. draft calls for the creation of a “Board of Peace” (BoP), an entity with international legal personality and sweeping executive powers over Gaza. This transitional council would oversee civil administration, coordinate reconstruction, reform local institutions, and support the formation of an “apolitical” Palestinian technocratic committee. Until that committee and the Palestinian Authority “satisfactorily complete” a reform program approved by the United States, the BoP—chaired by Donald Trump and joined by figures such as Tony Blair—would administer much of Gaza’s civil and political life.
Trump’s original plan
The draft revives core concepts from the plan advanced by former President Trump’s White House in 2020 and again in 2025. The notion of a “possible pathway toward a Palestinian state” does not stem from any genuine recognition of Palestinian self-determination, but rather from a strategic formulation meant to legitimize a highly conditioned process. The plan itself was crafted in close coordination with Israel and publicly backed by Benjamin Netanyahu, who later declared that a Palestinian state was “unthinkable” under any circumstances.
For many Palestinians, there is no doubt: Washington has no intention of granting a real Palestinian state. The language in the draft is, at best, an apparent promise; at worst, a diplomatic cover for entrenching a model of external control.
Russia, China, and Arab states reject the “Board of Peace”
In the days leading up to the vote, Russia and China—both wielding veto power—called for the complete removal of the BoP from the draft. They argue that the body would create a parallel structure replacing the authority of the Security Council while sidelining the Palestinian Authority. According to diplomats briefed on the negotiations, Moscow and Beijing propose narrowing the resolution to its essentials: authorizing an international stabilization force that reports directly to the Security Council, without political structures designed by a single member state.
Their objections are supported by several Arab countries, which criticize both the nature of the BoP and the absence of any clear transitional role for the Palestinian Authority. They also point to the weak language on Israel’s future withdrawal: the current draft leaves timelines and conditions in Israel’s hands, allowing it to retain troops in Gaza for years under the pretext of “preventing threats.”
An international force with a sweeping mandate
The U.S. plan envisions deploying the International Stabilization Force (ISF) under a unified command accepted by the BoP. This force would cooperate closely with Israel and Egypt and would be authorized to use “all necessary measures” to fulfill its mandate: protecting civilians, coordinating humanitarian assistance, monitoring borders, dismantling armed groups’ military infrastructure, and supporting the training of newly vetted Palestinian police forces pre-screened by the United States.
In practice, the ISF would become the dominant security actor in Gaza until a process of “full demilitarization” is certified, with standards and timelines defined jointly by the Israeli military, the United States, guarantor states, and the ISF itself.
An uncertain future for Gaza?
For the Palestinian public, today’s vote is not only a test of Gaza’s immediate future but also a measure of the deeper meaning of sovereignty. As written, the draft risks establishing a foreign administration that decides which Palestinians are deemed “acceptable” to govern, what reforms they must implement, and when—or whether—Israel fully withdraws.
Moreover, analysts in Ramallah and Gaza warn that the U.S. approach revives the logic of “security first, self-determination later,” a framework historically used to delay any meaningful political horizon for Palestine indefinitely.
The Security Council convenes today in a climate of diplomatic friction, with a proposal that sharply divides global powers and regional actors. While the United States insists on creating a transitional governance apparatus of its own design, Russia, China, and several Arab states call for an intervention strictly under UN control, free of colonial structures or disguised tutelage.
In Gaza, the debate is felt with a mixture of uncertainty and distrust. For some, an international force could bring humanitarian relief; for many others, the U.S. proposal represents a direct threat to Palestinian self-determination, masked as a peace plan.
