The United Nations Security Council has adopted a US-sponsored resolution endorsing a new Gaza peace plan, which includes establishing a temporary international force in the enclave. Thirteen countries supported the measure, while China and Russia abstained. The resolution is widely viewed as an attempt to bolster international legitimacy for President Donald Trump’s 20-point plan for Gaza.
However, analysts warn that the resolution raises complex political and legal concerns. Senior researcher at The Mapungubwe Institute for Strategic Reflection (MISTRA), Na’eem Jeenah, commented on the language used throughout the document that is reportedly vague and obscures the broader implications of the proposed structures, including the Board of Peace, Transitional Body, and International Stabilization Force.
Jeenah argues that the approach signals “a new kind of colonialism.”
“Here you have Palestinians who have been struggling for almost eight decades against an occupation. Now you have the United Nations Security Council, supposedly the upholder of global peace, saying there must be some kind of trusteeship over part of the Palestinian territory,” he explained.
He emphasised that the resolution focuses solely on Gaza, effectively isolating it from the rest of Palestine.
“It doesn’t talk about Palestine as a whole, or even about the occupied Palestinian territory. It is, in a sense, separating Gaza politically from the rest of Palestine, and that in itself is a problem,” he said.
Jeenah also raised alarm over the proposed Board of Peace, which he says could be chaired from Washington and empowered to appoint its own governor. Such a structure, he warned, is “seriously problematic and undermining of Palestinian legitimate rights and aspirations.”
On the International Stabilization Force, Jeenah questioned how it would operate and whose interests it would ultimately serve, noting that the resolution provides little clarity on its mandate or accountability.
Listen to the full interview below:
VOC News
Photo: Pixabay
