US-Backed ‘Gaza Peace Plan’ Shuts Out Palestinians and Repackages Israeli Occupation

By Robert Inlakesh – Nov 19, 2025

United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 2803 on US President Donald Trump’s so-called “Gaza peace plan” was adopted on Monday with 13 votes in favour, while only Russia and China abstained.

Although Washington has repeatedly used its veto power over the past two years to block efforts aimed at ending the genocide in Gaza, this time it leveraged the fragile “ceasefire” agreement to push through a resolution that effectively rewards Israel for its genocidal assault on the besieged Palestinian territory.

Since October 7, 2023, the US has vetoed six separate UNSC resolutions that sought to halt Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza. This aligns with a long-standing pattern: since 1970, the US has exercised its veto at least 51 times to strike down resolutions critical of, or condemning, Israel.

The Trump administration has employed the veto twice, most recently in September 2024, continuing the approach taken under the previous administration led by President Joe Biden.

On March 25, 2024, UNSC Resolution 2728 was introduced, marking the only instance during the genocide in which the US chose to abstain, allowing the resolution to pass. The measure called for a temporary ceasefire for the remainder of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, which at the time had roughly two weeks remaining.

Immediately after the resolution passed with a 14-0 vote, Israeli regime officials and settler groups criticized then-President Joe Biden and his administration.

Despite the fact that, under Article 25 of the UN Charter, all Security Council resolutions have historically been treated as binding, Washington quickly declared Resolution 2728 to be non-binding. In effect, it was a message to Israel that it could disregard the Security Council’s decisions, something it did without facing any repercussions.

Another ‘regime change’ operation
With the passage of UNSC Resolution 2803, essentially Trump’s controversial |20-point plan,” the White House is now treating the measure as binding.

The plan has been rejected by all Palestinian political and resistance factions except the Palestinian Authority (PA), which many Palestinians see as unrepresentative.

Although the resolution as a whole is widely seen by Palestinians as biased and designed to serve the interests of Israel and Arab regimes, two provisions stand out as absolute non-starters – the proposed Board of Peace (BoP), and the International Stabilisation Force (ISF).

The so-called “Board of Peace” would be chaired by Donald Trump himself and is intended to function as an administrative authority effectively governing the Gaza Strip. In practice, this would make Trump an unelected ruler of Gaza, empowered, along with still-unnamed officials, to exercise full executive control over reconstruction, aid distribution, and all aspects of ceasefire enforcement.

Although the BoP is formally described as temporary, no clear timeframe has been established, other than its mandate that would require renewal on December 31, 2027, implying a US-led foreign occupation of Gaza lasting at least more than a year.

Then there is the International Stabilisation Force, which raises deeper concerns. Led by the United States and operating “in close consultation and cooperation” with both Israel and Egypt, the ISF would not be a UN peacekeeping mission.

Rather, it would be a foreign invasion force tasked explicitly with confronting and disarming Palestinian resistance groups. The intent is clear from the following excerpt:

“The ISF shall work with Israel and Egypt, without prejudice to their existing agreements, along with the newly trained and vetted Palestinian police force, to help secure border areas; stabilize the security environment in Gaza by ensuring the process of demilitarizing the Gaza Strip, including the destruction and prevention of rebuilding of the military, terror, and offensive infrastructure, as well as the permanent decommissioning of weapons from non-state armed groups; protect civilians, including humanitarian operations; train and provide support to the vetted Palestinian police forces; coordinate with relevant States to secure humanitarian corridors; and undertake such additional tasks as may be necessary in support of the Comprehensive Plan.”

In other words, this is an UNSC-mandated “regime change” operation aimed at completely demilitarising the Gaza Strip, while hand-picking recruits for a Palestinian “police force” that is not affiliated with any major political party, faction, or the Palestinian Authority based in Ramallah, the occupied West Bank.

It appears that part of this new Palestinian force will be four Daesh-linked collaborator death squads that Israel controls inside the area of Gaza it is illegally occupying.

The resolution also says the ISF will “protect civilians”, a claim that rings hollow given that the primary threat to civilians in Gaza has been the Israeli military, which the ISF will not confront but rather coordinate with. If the US defines the Palestinian “non-state armed forces” as a threat, then their disarmament would negate the need for a protection force under this logic.

Moreover, the new “Palestinian police forces” would technically themselves be non-state actors as they would not operate under the PA that represents the State of Palestine at the UN.

Even if they did, neither the US nor the Israeli regime recognises Palestine as a state. Therefore, arming new “Palestinian police forces” would technically be the creation of an armed non-state actor, which could perhaps be prepared for Israel’s South Lebanon Army (SLA).

Failures of a US-controlled UN system
Initially, both Russia and China had expressed opposition to the proposed US draft resolution, citing its inherent bias against the Palestinian people. Moscow even submitted a counter-draft proposal, leading to speculation that it would veto UNSC Resolution 2803.

In response, the United States signaled that if either Russia or China vetoed the resolution, it would give its Israeli allies the green light to break the ceasefire, as if they had not broken it yet.

At the same time, the Arab and Muslim-majority members of the UN Security Council began praising the resolution, despite Hamas issuing a direct appeal to Algeria to oppose it.

Instead, these states lined up one after another to support what many Palestinians view as a “regime-change” resolution, with Algiers even offering compliments to Trump.

This placed Beijing and Moscow in a difficult position: they could either exercise their veto and risk a total collapse of the ceasefire, or abstain and voice their objections from the sidelines.

Ultimately, they chose the latter, allowing the US to push its agenda through the Security Council, demonstrating once again Washington’s ability to assert dominance on the global stage.

Russia’s UN ambassador, Vasily Nebenzya, warned during the session that the ISF could become a party to the war under the resolution’s wording. He also accused the US of twisting the arms of member states to secure their support.

China’s permanent representative to the UNSC, Fu Chong, similarly argued that the US “rushed the council into making a critical decision on the future and destiny of Gaza,” adding that many concerns raised by member states were ignored.

“While there remained major concerns and serious differences among members, the penholder forced the council to take action on the draft resolution. We are deeply disappointed at such an approach, which is disrespectful to the council members and hurts the council’s unity”, he continued.

Despite all this, the UN Director of the International Crisis Group, Richard Gowan, described the passage of the resolution as a “win-win.” In his words, “It’s a diplomatic victory for Trump but also a recognition that the UN matters.”

Russia and China both faced serious criticism from human rights activists and netizens for succumbing to US pressure and betraying the people of Palestine.

Back on September 16, a United Nations commission of inquiry found that Israel was committing genocide in the Gaza Strip.

The month prior, after the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) declared that famine was occurring in the besieged territory, UN Secretary-General António Guterres remarked that “famine is not about food; it is the deliberate collapse of the systems needed for human survival.” He added, “It is a man-made disaster, a moral indictment – and a failure of humanity itself.”

Furthermore, the UN’s principal judicial body, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), has issued a series of rulings that Israel has repeatedly ignored, violations that have been extensively documented by multiple UN agencies.

Given that the United Nations is fully aware that Israel has committed genocide, the gravest of international crimes, the passage of a resolution that does not demand accountability but instead seeks to involve a multinational military force in a mission designed to advance Israeli objectives in the Gaza Strip is particularly egregious.

It stands as an indictment of the UN system, which has failed to impose any consequences on Israel for crimes of the highest severity.

China Explains Its Abstention in UN Gaza Vote

Rather than constituting a “win-win” for the US and the UN, this outcome represents victories for Tel Aviv and Washington, while further undermining the credibility and effectiveness of a UN system that appears incapable of enforcing even the most fundamental principles of international law.

For more than two years, the UN Security Council was held hostage by the US veto, and even when a ceasefire resolution finally passed, Washington undermined it by allowing Israel to disregard it entirely.

Although Russia and China have attempted to promote a multipolar balance, UNSC Resolution 2803 shows that such a moment has not yet arrived, and that the United States remains fully capable of pressuring and coercing the international community into compliance.

(PressTV)