Global Pushback Intensifies Over U.S. Proposal for Gaza Stabilization Force
The Trump administration is encountering rising resistance at the United Nations as its proposal for a Gaza stabilization force faces objections from several major powers, including Russia, China, and key Arab nations. The plan, which aims to introduce a new governance mechanism for Gaza amid ongoing regional tensions, has become a focal point of diplomatic friction at the Security Council.
A Controversial Element: The “Board of Peace”
At the center of the dispute is Washington’s idea to establish a “Board of Peace”, a temporary international body that would oversee administration in Gaza during a transitional period. U.S. officials argue that this mechanism is necessary to stabilize the territory, accelerate reconstruction, and prevent extremist groups from regaining influence.
However, several countries with veto power—Russia and China in particular—have called for the complete removal of this element from the draft resolution. They contend that the board risks undermining Palestinian political structures and could infringe upon sovereignty.
Arab nations have amplified these concerns, warning that any externally imposed governing council without Palestinian leadership at its core could trigger deeper instability rather than resolving the crisis.
Security Council Divisions Widen
The pushback highlights widening divisions within the Security Council over how to address governance and security in Gaza after months of conflict and humanitarian strain. While the U.S. believes its proposal would support long-term peace efforts, its critics argue that the plan may set a dangerous precedent for international interference.
Russia and China have urged a more “balanced and inclusive” approach, stressing that any stabilization mission must be approved by—and coordinated with—legitimate Palestinian authorities.
Regional Reactions and Concerns
Across the Middle East, several governments have signaled discomfort with the proposal. Diplomats from Arab countries say they fear the plan could weaken regional diplomacy and sideline Arab-led initiatives that prioritize Palestinian self-determination.
Critics also argue that the introduction of a foreign-led governing body risks further complicating Gaza’s delicate political landscape, where internal factions and humanitarian challenges already pose significant obstacles to peace.
The Road Ahead: Negotiations Continue
Despite the opposition, U.S. representatives are continuing backroom negotiations in hopes of reaching a compromise that maintains key elements of the stabilization plan without provoking a veto. Whether or not such a compromise is achievable remains uncertain.
What is clear is that the debate underscores the deep global divisions over the future of Gaza and the broader direction of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. As the UN deliberations continue, the fate of the proposed stabilization force—and the controversial “Board of Peace”—will be a critical test of international consensus on one of the world’s most sensitive geopolitical challenges.
