Global & US Headlines
UN Security Council Green-Lights Trump-Led Gaza Stabilisation Force
In an extraordinary 13-0 vote on 18 Nov 2025, the Security Council adopted Resolution 2803, giving legal cover to a U.S.–written plan that installs an International Stabilization Force and a Trump-chaired “Board of Peace” to run post-war Gaza.
Focusing Facts
- The resolution passed with 13 votes in favour, 0 against; permanent members China and Russia abstained but did not veto.
- The text folds in President Trump’s 20-point plan announced 29 Sep 2025 and explicitly empowers the Board of Peace—chaired by Trump—to oversee Gaza’s transition.
- Hamas rejected the scheme as “foreign guardianship,” while Netanyahu endorsed it despite hard-right cabinet objections; Pakistan, Egypt, Qatar and others signalled willingness to contribute troops.
Context
Major powers imposing security administrations on contested territory is not new: after WWI, the 1920 British Mandate for Palestine and, more recently, the U.N.–mandated Kosovo Force in 1999 both promised orderly transition yet morphed into long occupations. Resolution 2803 revives that logic—external force first, self-rule later—at a moment when multipolar rivalries usually paralyse the Council. Its passage shows a temporary convergence of U.S., Arab and even tacit Sino-Russian interests around containing Gaza’s violence, but also spotlights the century-long pattern of Palestinians being governed by frameworks they did not draft. Whether this breaks the stalemate or entrenches a neo-mandate depends on how quickly power is ceded to a reformed Palestinian authority—something previous interventions (e.g. U.S. in Iraq, 2003–2011) failed to do. On a 100-year horizon, the vote matters less for its immediate troop deployment than for testing whether the U.N. can still craft enforceable state-building blueprints in an era of eroding U.S. hegemony and deep regional mistrust.
Perspectives
Right-leaning Western media
e.g., The Telegraph, The Indian Express — Portray the US-drafted Gaza resolution as a historic diplomatic breakthrough that puts Washington at the centre of post-war reconstruction and even opens a pathway to Palestinian statehood. By celebrating a Trump ‘victory’, these outlets gloss over the plan’s ambiguities, minimise Palestinian objections and present the mission’s militarised mandate as unproblematic, reflecting a tendency to applaud Western leadership and downplay its pitfalls.
Chinese state-owned media
e.g., China Daily — Emphasise that the resolution is too vague, lacks a clear Palestinian role and risks serving Israeli interests rather than truly advancing a two-state solution. Beijing’s criticism underlines its strategic rivalry with Washington; by fault-finding it deflects attention from having abstained and positions China as defender of multilateralism without accepting responsibility for an alternative plan.
Iranian & Palestinian resistance-aligned outlets
e.g., Tabnak, Middle East Eye, Asharq Al-Awsat — Denounce the resolution as an imposed guardianship that could legitimise Israeli control, disarm Hamas and erode Palestinians’ right to self-determination. Their framing aligns with ideological opposition to US-Israeli initiatives, stressing worst-case motives and casualty figures while ignoring any potential humanitarian or diplomatic gains that might weaken resistance groups’ influence.