UN Security Council Adopts Resolution on Gaza, Establishes Peace Commission as Transitional Administrative Body

On November 17, local time, the UN Security Council voted on a draft resolution proposed by the United States concerning the future arrangements for the Gaza Strip. The resolution was adopted with 13 votes in favor and 0 against, with China and Russia abstaining. The resolution aims to establish an internationally led transitional framework for the Gaza Strip after the ongoing conflict. Its core is the establishment of a Peace Commission with international legal status as a transitional administrative body, based on an existing international plan, and authorizes the deployment of a temporary international stabilization force, with the goal of achieving multiple objectives: ceasefire consolidation, humanitarian restoration, security maintenance, and political transition.

I. Overview of the Resolution: Mechanism Structure and Scope of Authorization

According to the adopted text of the resolution, its content is relatively complete, mainly revolving around three pillars: governance, security, and finance.

Regarding political transition and governance, the resolution stipulates the establishment of the "Gaza Peace Commission." This commission will serve as the highest administrative body during the transition period, its powers derived from the authorization of the Security Council, and it possesses international legal personality. Its primary responsibility is to oversee the Palestinian Authority's implementation of a comprehensive reform program aimed at smoothly transferring civil governance of the Gaza Strip to a Palestinian institution capable of exercising jurisdiction "safely and effectively" once the reforms meet predetermined standards. This is seen as creating preconditions for future Palestinian statehood and the exercise of self-determination. The Peace Committee's operations will be subject to international monitoring, and it will be required to submit progress reports to the Security Council every six months. Its mandate is valid until the end of 2027.

Regarding security arrangements, the resolution authorizes the establishment of a "provisional international stabilization force." This force will operate under the overall political leadership of the Peace Committee, with its core mission being to cooperate with Israel, Egypt, and newly trained Palestinian police forces. Specifically, it will be responsible for ensuring border security between Gaza and Israel and Egypt, advancing the demilitarization process, protecting civilian lives, and ensuring the safe access and distribution of humanitarian aid. The presence of this international force aims to provide crucial security guarantees during the transition period and prevent renewed conflict.

Regarding funding and reconstruction, the resolution calls on the international community to provide financial support through voluntary contributions and the establishment of a dedicated trust fund, and to involve the World Bank and other international financial institutions in financing the large-scale reconstruction and economic recovery of the Gaza Strip. This demonstrates the resolution's attempt to construct a post-war recovery model shared by the international community.

II. The Global Political Context of the Resolution's Adoption: Coordination and Differences Among Major Powers

The voting results, particularly the abstentions of China and Russia, reflect the complex consensus and subtle differences within the Security Council regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The 13 votes in favor indicate that the core framework of the resolution—namely, achieving a ceasefire in Gaza, humanitarian aid, and initiating a political transition through international intervention—has gained the support of a majority of Security Council members. This, to some extent, reflects the international community's widespread concern about the ongoing humanitarian crisis and instability in Gaza, and its urgent desire to seek a long-term solution that transcends a short-term ceasefire. The United States, as the proposer of the draft resolution, demonstrates its intention to re-establish a leading role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to attempt to internationalize and institutionalize a plan it initiated.

The abstentions of China and Russia convey a cautious or even reserved attitude. Abstention usually implies neither opposition nor complete agreement. Analysts believe that the two countries' positions may be based on the following considerations: First, the resolution cites plans from specific national governments, and its fairness and effectiveness may not be fully recognized by all members. Second, the resolution authorizes the long-term presence of foreign military forces in sensitive areas, and the boundaries of their operations, coordination mechanisms with the parties involved (especially Israel), and potential risks need further clarification. Finally, key political details such as the source of the transitional body's power and its interaction with various Palestinian factions (including Hamas, which controls Gaza) may not have fully addressed the concerns of all permanent members of the Security Council. China and Russia's abstentions, while avoiding a veto that would hinder international action, also expressed their opinion that certain aspects of the resolution still need improvement.

III. The Peace Commission and the Stabilization Force: Opportunities and Challenges

The Peace Commission and the International Stabilization Force, envisioned in the resolution, are the core implementation mechanisms for this international intervention, and their success or failure will directly determine the extent to which the resolution's objectives are achieved.

The Peace Commission, as a transitional administrative body, faces multiple challenges. One is legitimacy and inclusiveness. The committee needs broad acceptance from the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip and at least tacit cooperation from various Palestinian political factions. How to effectively manage relations with Hamas and other de facto controlling forces in Gaza while coordinating with the Palestinian Authority (primarily based in the West Bank) will be an extremely complex and sensitive issue. Secondly, capacity and efficiency. As a newly established interim international body, its bureaucratic structure, the efficiency of its decision-making processes, and its ability to govern in the war-torn landscape will face severe challenges. Thirdly, reform and oversight. Driving deep reforms of the Palestinian Authority to enable it to take over Gaza involves internal Palestinian political reconciliation and power restructuring; the oversight role and driving force of external institutions need to be precisely managed.

The deployment of the Interim International Stabilization Force (ISAF) is also fraught with uncertainty. Firstly, authorization and rules. The force's command structure, the rules of use of force (ROE), and the division of authority with the Israel Defense Forces in border coordination and operations all need to be clearly defined to avoid misunderstandings and conflicts. How Israel's long-standing security concerns regarding an international force near its border will affect cooperation is a key variable. Secondly, the goal of demilitarization. Achieving "demilitarization" in a region like Gaza, rife with armed factions, is an extremely difficult task, potentially encountering resistance from armed groups, and mishandling could trigger a new cycle of violence. Thirdly, the composition and neutrality of the force. Which countries will send troops? Will its neutrality be recognized by all parties (especially the Palestinians)? These factors will affect the effectiveness and security of its mission.

Fourth, the potential impact on the regional landscape and global governance.

The adoption and implementation of this resolution could have a profound impact on governance in the Middle East and even globally.

Regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict itself, the resolution represents a significant attempt to apply the international interim governance model to the Palestinian territories. If successful, it could open a new path to breaking the long-standing deadlock and establishing a Palestinian state. However, the risk of failure is equally significant, potentially exacerbating internal Palestinian conflict, triggering new confrontations, or plunging Gaza into a longer period of international trusteeship, moving it further away from the goal of autonomy.

For the Middle East, a stable and rebuilt Gaza would help reduce regional tensions and mitigate the risk of conflict spillover. However, the implementation of the resolution will affect regional countries such as Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, and Iran. Their attitudes and levels of participation in the transition process will significantly influence the development of the situation. How regional countries view a US-led, Security Council-endorsed solution will involve complex geopolitical considerations.

Regarding global governance and the role of the United Nations, the Security Council's authorization to establish a fully functional transitional administrative body represents a high-intensity intervention by the UN in post-conflict governance. If successful, it will strengthen the Security Council's position as the core of the collective security mechanism and provide a precedent for handling other similar conflicts. Conversely, poor implementation or negative consequences will exacerbate international skepticism about the effectiveness of multilateral actions. The resolution's requirements for international monitoring and regular reporting reflect a pursuit of accountability and transparency, which are also important aspects of global governance development.

Conclusion

This UN Security Council resolution on Gaza outlines a grand blueprint for achieving peace and reconstruction in Gaza under the leadership of the international community. It reflects a new approach by the international community to resolve long-standing hotspots: establishing a clearly authorized interim international body to integrate security, governance, and reconstruction resources, creating conditions for a final political solution. However, the road to turning this blueprint into reality is fraught with difficulties. The limited consensus the resolution garnered within the Security Council (13 votes in favor, 2 abstentions) foreshadows the uncertainties of great power competition during its implementation. Furthermore, the challenges faced by the Peace Commission and the International Stabilization Force on the ground regarding legitimacy, effectiveness, and security are extremely severe. The future of Gaza depends not only on the design of the resolution text but also on the subsequent political will, pragmatic cooperation, and sustained commitment of all relevant parties—including Israel, Palestinian factions, regional states, and the international community. The world will closely watch whether this significant international action can bring lasting peace and hope to the long-suffering Gaza Strip.