U.N. Endorses U.S. Plan for Gaza — Implementation Faces Major Obstacles

The U.N. Security Council has given its backing to a U.S.-led blueprint for Gaza’s future, but key details about how and when the plan will take effect remain unresolved. The proposal would place Gaza under an international Board of Peace chaired by U.S. President Donald Trump and deploy an International Stabilization Force (ISF) to oversee security, disarmament and reconstruction under a two-year, renewable U.N. mandate.

What the plan proposes

Under the plan, the Board of Peace would exercise broad authority over Gaza’s security, reconstruction and economic recovery. An armed ISF would be charged with disarming Hamas and dismantling its military infrastructure, while a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee would manage day-to-day civil administration. The proposal links large-scale Israeli troop withdrawals and reconstruction progress to the effective demilitarization of Hamas.

Major challenges and unanswered questions

Almost every major element of the plan raises practical and political questions: Who will serve on the Board and the Palestinian committee? Which countries will supply ISF troops? How will disarmament be achieved and verified? How much say will Palestinians have in governance, and is there a credible pathway to statehood?

So far, suggested ISF contributors include Egypt, Indonesia, Turkey and Azerbaijan, but none has formally committed troops and some participation is contested. Israel opposes Turkey's involvement. The plan gives Palestinians limited direct influence and offers only conditional language about a possible future path to Palestinian self-determination.

Disarmament: the keystone

Disarming Hamas and demilitarizing Gaza are central to the proposal, but the plan provides few operational details. Hamas has not agreed to give up its weapons; the group says the fate of its arsenal is tied to ending what it describes as Israeli occupation and to the creation of a Palestinian state. The ISF is tasked with overseeing disarmament and supervising a vetted Palestinian police force trained by Egypt and Jordan.

Possible compromise: Regional mediators have floated "decommissioning" — placing weapons in ISF custody for safekeeping rather than requiring an outright, permanent surrender — as a way to bridge differences.

Without credible disarmament procedures and regional buy-in, Israel may delay withdrawals and most reconstruction work could be stalled, leaving civilians in prolonged displacement and aid dependence.

Board of Peace and Palestinian administration

The Board is expected to include international figures described as "distinguished leaders," with names to be announced. The U.N. text envisions a Palestinian committee free of ties to Hamas or to the Palestinian Authority (PA). It does not spell out who will appoint that committee, though the Board is likely to play a central role — a process that could be seen as externally driven and therefore lack local legitimacy.

Palestinian analyst Khalil Shikaki has urged that committee members be chosen through an "all Palestinian" consultative process involving political factions, unions, local leaders and civil society to enhance legitimacy. Hamas calls the plan an "international guardianship" that serves Israeli interests and has warned that forced disarmament could draw the ISF into the conflict.

Where this could lead

The resolution ties future arrangements — including a potential handover to the Palestinian Authority — to a set of internal reforms, reconstruction benchmarks and the Board’s approval. While the PA has expressed readiness to govern Gaza, Israeli opposition and the absence of a clear, guaranteed route to statehood leave the plan’s long-term political outcome uncertain.

For many Gazans, immediate priorities are reconstruction, jobs and a return to normal life. Visible, rapid improvements could reduce resistance to international oversight; slow recovery or stalled political progress would likely fuel resentment and risk renewed instability. Gaza’s fractured landscape — with Hamas, smaller armed groups, the Israeli military, a prospective ISF and newly appointed administrators — creates a volatile environment that will complicate any transition.

Bottom line

The U.N. endorsement grants the U.S. plan international legitimacy but does not resolve the most difficult issues: how to disarm Hamas, who will provide and command security forces, how Palestinians will be included in governance, and whether the process can deliver meaningful reconstruction and a credible political horizon. Absent clear answers and strong local buy-in, implementation could falter or produce outcomes that deepen, rather than ease, instability.