UN resolution on Gaza: a step towards peace?
The UN Security Council has endorsed US President Trump's Gaza peace plan with a resolution that provides for the deployment of an international force to stabilise the ceasefire and evokes a 'pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood'. Commentators examine whether the resolution could bring peace to the region.
Pragmatic but unfair
Dnevnik sees no real prospect of a two-state solution:
“Since there is no broad support for any other plan to achieve two states for two peoples, a poor resolution with a poor plan is the only pragmatic alternative to another Israeli war in Gaza. Whether it will stand the test of time and actually result in a Palestinian state is highly questionable. Because in Washington, nothing has changed when it comes to double standards regarding Israel and the Palestinians. Israel has never experienced the kind of pressure that is repeatedly exerted on the Palestinians to change their policies.”
Viability highly questionable
The chances of success remain unclear, the Stuttgarter Zeitung points out:
“The two parties to the conflict remain sceptical or openly hostile to the plans. ... Hamas has exploited the power vacuum since the announcement of the ceasefire and the partial withdrawal of the Israeli military to consolidate its position in the Gaza Strip. ... Netanyahu has just reiterated that he will never agree to a two-state solution and thus a genuine political perspective for the Palestinians. ... There are also serious doubts as to whether Israel will really tolerate an international force as a buffer between itself and Hamas – or whether it will insist on its right to intervene militarily in the Gaza Strip if deemed necessary.”
Responsibility shifted to Hamas
The Neue Zürcher Zeitung writes in praise:
“Trump has also brought about a strategic turnaround: while pressure on the Israelis was steadily increasing at the beginning of autumn, with a few clever tricks Trump has managed to place the responsibility for Gaza's future squarely on Hamas. ... If it plays along with the plans, it will be disarmed and the Gaza Strip de-radicalised. But if it refuses to cooperate, it will be in violation of international law and will show the world that peace is impossible as long as it exists. However, the resolution still contains numerous pitfalls. ... Only recently, the UN decided to end the mission of the Unifil peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon, which had completely failed in executing a very similar task, namely disarming Hezbollah.”
No future without immediate aid
El País looks at the dreadful state of affairs in the Gaza Strip:
“Although the list of resolutions with which Israel has not complied is long, this text at least seems like a viable project. ... While all this is happening in the offices of New York, the situation in Gaza is desperate. ... Torrential rains have flooded the areas where tens of thousands of tents were pitched. ... The systematic destruction of infrastructure has destroyed drainage and sewage systems and there is the danger of epidemics breaking out. ... Plans for the future are welcome, but the people of Gaza need immediate aid.”
Israel losing control
The resolution has far-reaching consequences, according to The Spectator:
“For Israel this is a moment of profound uncertainty – a reminder that military operations, however successful, do not automatically dictate the shape of the political landscape that follows. ... The resolution marks the first time the Security Council has mandated an armed international deployment into post-1967 territory as a buffer between Israelis and Palestinians. It envisions governance in Gaza without Israeli oversight and without the need for Israeli approval. These features represent a break from decades of precedent and a narrowing of the space in which Israel can exercise control over its own security perimeter.”
Who will do the disarming?
Radio station Český rozhlas has its doubts:
“The peacekeeping forces are to be deployed at the beginning of 2026, so in a few weeks' time. It remains unclear who will send troops. However, it is unlikely that any of these countries will be prepared to use their troops to forcibly disarm Hamas. ... According to Hamas, the resolution to send in peacekeeping forces violates the sovereignty of the Gaza Strip and deprives it of its right to 'legitimate resistance against occupation by all means'. For the Israelis, on the other hand, disarming Hamas is of crucial importance, as they see this as the only way to eliminate the threat from Gaza. But they themselves have not succeeded in doing so after two years of war - and now it seems that no one else can either.”