Imagine a war-torn region finally finding peace, but only if the world's superpowers can agree on a controversial plan. That's the bold vision the U.S. is proposing for Gaza, with a stabilization force in place until 2027, as part of Donald Trump's ambitious strategy to end the Israel-Hamas conflict. But here's where it gets controversial: this plan, outlined in a draft resolution shared with the United Nations, hinges on extensive negotiations and the elusive consensus of the 15-member Security Council. And this is the part most people miss: without the backing of permanent members like China and Russia, the entire proposal could crumble under the weight of a single veto.
The draft, confirmed by anonymous U.S. officials due to its sensitive nature, is more than just a document—it's a starting point for a complex international dialogue. Arab nations and other potential contributors have made it clear: they'll only commit troops if the U.N. gives its stamp of approval. As U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres aptly put it, 'The entity created in Gaza must have the legitimacy of a Security Council mandate.' This mandate would empower the stabilization force to demilitarize Gaza, decommission weapons from non-state groups, and maintain security until 2027, all while working alongside a temporary 'Board of Peace.'
But how realistic is this? A key sticking point in Trump's 20-step plan is disarming Hamas, a step the group has yet to fully embrace. The draft also calls for close cooperation with Egypt and Israel, securing border areas, and ensuring the uninterrupted flow of humanitarian aid—a task complicated by the region's devastation. The U.N., Red Cross, and Red Crescent would resume full aid operations, with safeguards to prevent supply diversion. Yet, as Britain's Middle East minister Hamish Falconer pointed out, the fragile ceasefire and aid delivery remain top priorities, with many questions still surrounding the plan's later phases.
Here’s where it gets even more contentious: While the U.S. pushes for this resolution, critics argue that the plan overlooks the root causes of the conflict and may not address the deep-seated grievances of both sides. Is this a sustainable solution, or merely a temporary band-aid? Weigh in below—do you think this stabilization force can truly bring lasting peace to Gaza, or is it destined to face insurmountable challenges?
Meanwhile, on the ground, there are glimmers of progress. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) recently confirmed the return of another hostage's remains, a somber yet significant step under the U.S.-brokered ceasefire. Since October 10, Hamas has returned the remains of 20 hostages, including IDF soldier Itay Chen. In exchange, Israel has released the remains of 270 Palestinians, though fewer than half have been identified due to limited DNA testing in Gaza. The Health Ministry, part of the Hamas-run government, relies on posting photos online for families to recognize their loved ones—a stark reminder of the human cost of this conflict.
The war, sparked by Hamas's October 7, 2023, attack on southern Israel, has claimed over 1,200 Israeli lives and seen 251 taken hostage. Israel's retaliatory offensive has resulted in more than 68,800 Palestinian deaths, according to Gaza's Health Ministry, which doesn't differentiate between combatants and civilians. While Israel disputes these figures, it has yet to provide an alternative count. Accusations of genocide from a U.N. commission further complicate the narrative, leaving the international community divided.
As this drama unfolds, one question lingers: Can a stabilization force, backed by a divided U.N., truly pave the way for peace in Gaza? Or will it become another chapter in the region's long history of conflict? Share your thoughts—this is a conversation that demands your voice.
