The United States has presented its Gaza plan to the United Nations and is now seeking formal UN authorization for an extensive, multi-year international force to oversee security in the Strip until at least 2027.
This initiative, which the administration states is essential for implementing its proposed 20-point plan, represents one of Washington’s most significant decisions in years to place the United Nations at the core of a major Middle East security framework.
In a statement, the U.S. Mission to the U.N. indicated the draft was developed with input from Qatar, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates. The Mission asserted that the objective is to “bring to fruition President Trump’s historic 20 Point Comprehensive Plan,” which received support from over 20 countries at an October 13 summit in Sharm el-Sheikh.
Negotiations with Security Council members began in the first week of November to “stand up the International Stabilization Force and begin a stable, secure, peaceful and prosperous future for Palestinians in Gaza, free of Hamas.” The Mission added that the ceasefire remains “fragile” and delays “have grave, tangible, and entirely avoidable consequences for Palestinians in Gaza.”
New details reported by Axios reveal the scope of the U.S. proposal. According to a draft labeled “sensitive but unclassified,” the resolution would establish an International Security Force in Gaza for a minimum of two years, with its mandate extending through the end of 2027 and the possibility of extensions. A U.S. official told Axios that the plan is to vote on the resolution within weeks and deploy the first troops by January, describing the force as “an enforcement force and not a peacekeeping force.”
Robert Satloff, executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, informed a news outlet that the U.S. engaged the U.N. because several states Washington hopes will contribute troops require a Security Council mandate.
“The decision to approach the United Nations was primarily driven by the request of participating states—countries that the United States hopes will join the stabilization force—who need a UN mandate to assist them politically in dispatching forces to Gaza. Thus, the actual origin of this initiative is to enable and provide a political umbrella for participating states to fulfill a role in the stabilization force.”
Satloff stated that while Israel has expressed genuine concerns about U.N. involvement, it understands why Washington considers the mandate crucial. “There’s no doubt that involving the United Nations introduces its own complexities, and I believe the Israelis have been quite vocal about this. However, they also appreciate that the United States believes it requires this endorsement for the 20-point plan to advance. The Israelis aim to ensure that these complications do not overshadow the plan’s benefits, which is a legitimate concern.”
He warned that the plan faces significant challenges but urged against pessimism. “There are enormous obstacles to the plan’s implementation. The U.N. aspect is just one of them. We’re already observing some fundamental disagreements, for instance, regarding the definition of disarmament, which could derail the entire effort. However, I think one must remain hopeful. The opportunity here is immense. The desire to find solutions among the committed states is genuine and serious. So, while it’s entirely legitimate to recognize the significant obstacles, I don’t believe we should become negative about the prospects here.”
Anne Bayefsky, Director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust and President of Human Rights Voices, offered a starkly different viewpoint. Bayefsky told a news outlet: “Incredibly, the United States has subjected its plans for Gaza to U.N. authorization and oversight. Arab countries claimed U.N. involvement was ‘necessary’ for them to participate and support the Gaza international force. That was a lie and a blatant power grab. The proof is in the text, which could have been a simple statement approving a non-U.N. initiative. Instead, the resolution is a long list of orders inflicting enormous harm on Israeli national security, sovereignty, and right of self-defense, hindering America’s scope of action through a web of agencies and involvement antithetical to U.S. interests and peace.”
She described the move as “an about-face for American foreign policy on the United Nations and the Arab-Israeli conflict,” and argued that the United Nations “has repeatedly demonstrated its antisemitic bias, lack of good faith, and support for Palestinian aggression.” Bayefsky added that the draft “fails to condemn Hamas” and “refuses to acknowledge and affirm Israel’s U.N. Charter right of self-defense before granting the treacherous U.N. unprecedented influence,” calling the omission “devastating to the prospects of real peace.”
Russia has also put forth its own draft resolution, which adopts a profoundly different stance. Moscow’s draft demands an immediate and unconditional ceasefire, the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Gaza, and the deployment of a U.N. peacekeeping mission under the Secretary-General’s authority and with the consent of the involved parties.
The draft further states it reaffirms the 1967 borders and East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state, insisting that Gaza’s reconstruction must occur under Palestinian leadership and sovereignty, not through externally managed institutions. Unlike the American proposal, it contains no provisions for demilitarization or interim foreign governance, instead focusing on “humanitarian relief and international law.”
A news outlet was referred by the White House and State Department to the U.S. Mission to the U.N. for comment.