Trump's Gaza Peace plan faces crucial UN Security Council vote on international force

A key vote scheduled for November 17 at the United Nations Security Council will determine whether the United States succeeds in securing international backing for  President Trump’s Gaza peace plan and the establishment of an international stabilisation  force in the Gaza Strip. After two years of conflict followed by a fragile ceasefire,  Washington is pushing for a resolution that would endorse its twenty-point peace plan and authorise the immediate deployment of a stabilisation force.

 

American diplomats believe they have the minimum nine votes needed for adoption and expect Russia and China to abstain rather than use their vetoes, although both have raised strong objections. The United States has told Council members that negotiations are complete and no further revisions will be made before tomorrow’s vote.

The American draft would create a temporary international stabilisation force composed of member states working with Israel, Egypt, and newly trained Palestinian police to secure borders and demilitarise Gaza. It would also endorse a transitional governing structure known as the Board of Peace, intended to administer Gaza until the end of 2027. The board would act as a provisional directorate rather than a full transitional government and is presented as a central mechanism for implementing the American plan. Washington argues that it requires rapid authorisation so that Arab states that might contribute troops do not appear to be acting unilaterally or as occupying powers.

The United States has faced resistance over the governance structure and the plan’s treatment of Palestinian statehood. China, Russia, and several European states have pressed for clearer language on the functions and composition of the Board of Peace. Arab states have stressed that any force they support must have a robust mandate and that the role of the Palestinian Authority in Gaza’s transitional administration must be better defined. The United Arab Emirates has stated publicly that it does not yet perceive a credible framework for the stabilisation force and will not participate under the current conditions. There is also concern that very few countries have signalled willingness to contribute troops, with Indonesia and Azerbaijan among the only mentions, partly due to fears of being drawn into confrontation with remaining armed groups in Gaza or being viewed as occupiers.

Early drafts of the American resolution were criticised for offering too little on Palestinian statehood. After pressure from France and several regional states, Washington inserted conditional language indicating that once Palestinian Authority reforms are completed and reconstruction advances, conditions may be met for a reliable path to Palestinian self-determination and eventual statehood. This formulation reflects a position advanced by France and is intended to address objections that the plan does not sufficiently align with longstanding Council positions on a two-state outcome. Israel has expressed discomfort with this addition. Israeli officials have also objected to a clause that would prevent Israel from vetoing the choice of troop-contributing countries. Nevertheless, they regard the American proposal as broadly consistent with the ceasefire framework already accepted in Jerusalem.

On November 13, Russia abruptly submitted a counterresolution, slowing the American push toward a rapid vote. Moscow describes its text as an attempt to produce a balanced approach that aligns with previous Council decisions on the two-state solution. Its version omits the Board of Peace and does not authorise a stabilisation force. Instead, it asks the UN Secretary-General to prepare a report on options for such a deployment. It contains stronger and more explicit language on Palestinian statehood and insists on territorial continuity between Gaza and the West Bank under the Palestinian Authority. Russia, supported by China, says the US neglects established guidelines for a two-state solution and is opposed to the Board of Peace.

The United States has warned that attempts to derail negotiations will have grave consequences for Palestinians in Gaza. Moscow, for its part, claims its draft does not contradict the American attempt but instead seeks to amend it to meet prior Council commitments. Diplomats note that tensions have been rising throughout the week as revisions to the American text circulated and as European states, Algeria, and China sought more precise guarantees that the Council would retain authority over Gaza’s political future.

The contrast between the two proposals is stark. The American draft aims to internationalise Trump’s plan by annexing it and making its mechanisms binding through the Council. It focuses on the rapid deployment of a stabilisation force and the establishment of a transitional directorate. The Russian draft favours reaffirming the two-state solution, strengthening the role of the Palestinian Authority, and avoiding any immediate commitment to an international force or to the governance model favoured by the United States.

Reactions from regional states reflect this divide. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Türkiye, the UAE, Indonesia, and Pakistan have jointly called for the swift adoption of the American draft, describing the moment as historic and necessary to secure lasting peace in the Middle East. Yet several of these same states have also made clear that participation in the stabilisation force requires a clearer mandate than the current text provides. European states have demanded clarity on the Board of Peace and the role of the Palestinian Authority. Algeria and other Arab states emphasise the need for guarantees that any governing mechanism must not undermine Palestinian political representation.

Whether either resolution can pass remains uncertain. The United States hopes for Russian and Chinese abstentions while Russia retains the option of a veto. The Council has been gridlocked on Gaza for two years, and the competing texts may again lead to a stalemate. Tomorrow’s vote will test whether Washington can secure enough support to advance its plan or whether the divergent visions for Gaza’s future will keep the Council paralysed at a moment when reconstruction and political transition require decisive international action.

Middle East