Hamas has issued a defiant rejection of the newly adopted UN Security Council resolution endorsing President Donald Trump’s peace plan for Gaza, vowing that it will not disarm and will resist what it terms an “international guardianship mechanism.” The statement, released moments after the resolution’s passage on Monday, potentially pits the militant group against a new international stabilization force (ISF) authorized to demilitarize the enclave. Hamas reiterated its stance that its fight against Israel is a form of legitimate resistance, directly challenging the central security pillar of the US-drafted plan.
The resolution in question, which passed the Security Council despite Russian and Chinese abstentions, provides a UN mandate for Trump’s 20-point proposal. This plan envisions a transitional authority, the “Board of Peace” chaired by Trump, to manage Gaza’s reconstruction and economic recovery. More critically, it authorizes the international stabilization force to oversee a complete demilitarization process. This includes decommissioning all weapons held by groups like Hamas and destroying military infrastructure, a provision Hamas has now publicly and vehemently rejected.
The US ambassador to the UN, Mike Waltz, presented the resolution as a landmark achievement that “dismantles Hamas’ grip” and allows Gaza to “rise free from terror’s shadow, prosperous and secure.” He promoted the plan as a “possible pathway for Palestinian self-determination” and a chance for a new political horizon. President Trump himself celebrated the vote on social media as a “moment of true Historic proportion,” promising more exciting announcements, including the members of the Board of Peace, in the coming weeks.
This optimism from Washington contrasts sharply with the concerns raised by the abstaining powers. Russian Ambassador Vasily Nebenzya accused the council of rubber-stamping a US initiative without any clear role for the UN. He argued that the resolution effectively gives “complete control” over Gaza to the US-led Board ofPeace and the ISF, the operational details of which “we know nothing about so far.” China’s ambassador echoed these concerns, highlighting a significant lack of consensus among the world’s major powers on the future governance of Gaza.
Adding another layer of complexity, the resolution has also stirred controversy in Israel, not for its security provisions, but for its diplomatic language. The text includes a reference to a “credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood” once certain conditions, like Palestinian Authority reform and redevelopment, are met. This language prompted Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, facing pressure from his right-wing coalition, to publicly reiterate his opposition to a Palestinian state and his commitment to demilitarizing Gaza “the easy way or the hard way.”