US-drafted UNSC Resolution: Why Clarity on a Two-State or One-State Future Is Now an Imperative
Israel’s Rejection of Palestinian Statehood Has Become Explicit Policy
The latest diplomatic struggle erupted ahead of a crucial UN Security Council vote on a U.S.-drafted resolution regarding post-war Gaza administration. After quiet revisions by Washington inserted language referring to a “credible pathway” to Palestinian statehood, Israel launched an all-out effort to strip the phrase from the text.
War Minister Israel Katz and Foreign Minister Gideon Saar both vowed that “no Palestinian state will be established.”
Itamar Ben-Gvir, a key powerbroker in the coalition, went so far as to dismiss Palestinian identity itself as an “invention.”
These statements are not rhetorical flourishes. They align with the expansion of settlements in the West Bank, ongoing displacement of Palestinians, and the continued push from some ministers for the forced removal of Gazans and re-settlement of the Strip by Israelis—policies fundamentally incompatible with any internationally accepted vision for peace.
A UNSC Resolution Exposes the Depth of the Crisis
- a transitional administration in Gaza, and
- a UN-mandated international stabilization force (ISF) supported by eight major regional governments, including Qatar, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Türkiye, Jordan, Pakistan, and Indonesia.
The proposal has satisfied no one. Palestinian factions have urged Algeria to reject it, denouncing the plan as foreign imposition and “another form of occupation.” Meanwhile, Russia submitted a competing resolution that emphasizes stronger guarantees for Palestinian statehood and territorial contiguity.
The internal splits within the Security Council reflect deeper fractures: the international community is attempting to grapple with Israel’s categorical rejection of Palestinian national rights while also navigating Palestinian concerns that external administration may undermine self-determination.
On the Ground, Violence and Humanitarian Suffering Continue
In the occupied West Bank, Israeli violence and escalating settler attacks have killed seven Palestinians—including six children—within two weeks.
In Gaza, even after a fragile ceasefire, near-daily Israeli strikes since 10 October have killed hundreds. Meanwhile displaced families living in the Mawasi camp struggled through flooded tents after the first winter storm, highlighting the profound humanitarian crisis that persists despite international appeals for protection and aid.
These realities reinforce what Palestinians, human rights organizations, and increasingly international legal experts have long argued: policies that deny meaningful political rights to an entire population inevitably produce cycles of violence, displacement, and humanitarian catastrophe.
The West Cannot Sustain Ambiguity Anymore
For decades, Western governments—particularly the U.S. and EU states—have expressed rhetorical support for a two-state solution even as the material conditions for such a solution were allowed to deteriorate.
Today, Israeli political leaders are not merely undermining the two-state framework; many openly reject it as a matter of principle.
If the two-state solution is impossible, and if permanent occupation or apartheid-like arrangements are morally and legally indefensible, then the only alternative consistent with liberal democratic values is a single democratic state with equal rights for all.
Western governments rarely articulate this basic truth. Instead, they remain caught in a cycle of condemning Palestinian political language while avoiding confrontation with an Israeli leadership dismantling the very foundations of any just peace.
This ambiguity now fuels instability, undermines Western credibility, and leaves Palestinian rights suspended in perpetual limbo.
Two Viable Futures—And Only Two
The world is left with exactly two legitimate pathways that respect Palestinian rights and ensure security for Israelis:
1. A Real, Enforceable Two-State Solution
This would require:
- a sovereign, contiguous Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza;
- an end to settlement expansion and annexation;
- a political horizon backed by international guarantees.
2. A Single Democratic State With Equal Rights
- If Israel continues to rule over the land from the river to the sea, then justice requires equal citizenship, equal legal rights, and equal political representation for all inhabitants—Jewish and Palestinian alike.
Anything else—permanent occupation, fragmented enclaves, demographic engineering, or externally imposed administration—fails every test of legality, morality, and stability.
The Moment of Decision Has Arrived
Israel’s current leadership has made its position clear: no Palestinian state, no political equality, and no credible vision for Palestinian self-determination. Palestinians, meanwhile, continue to endure violence, displacement, and erasure—even as they insist on their right to shape their own political future. The West must now make its own position just as clear. Will it support a two-state solution with real enforcement mechanisms? Or will it support a single democratic state with equal rights?
These are the only two futures that uphold human dignity and comply with international law. Continued ambiguity is not neutrality—it is complicity in a status quo that denies millions of people the right to live freely, securely, and equally in their homeland.
Updated information about the resolution (11/18): UNSCR 2803
Key provisions of resolution 2803:
• Creates a new transitional authority, the so-called “Board of Peace” (BoP).
• A foreign, internationally recognized administrative body with legal international personality, tasked with governing, financing, and restructuring Gaza.
It will be chaired by Donald Trump, with other world leaders joining later.
• Authorizes a Temporary International Stabilization Force (ISF), a multinational force empowered to use “all necessary measures,” UN language for the use of force, to demilitarize Gaza.
The ISF will operate in close coordination with Israel and Egypt.
• Mandates comprehensive disarmament of all Palestinian armed factions: ISF will destroy military infrastructure, prevent reconstruction, permanently remove weapons from service, and enforce demilitarization as a condition for Israeli withdrawal.
• Allows Israel to maintain a surrounding “security perimeter”: Israeli occupation forces remain around Gaza until the ISF certifies that the enclave is free of “renewed terrorist threats.”
• Imposes an internationalized governance structure on Gaza: Daily administration will be run by a non-political, technocratic Palestinian committee, supervised by the US-chaired BoP, not an elected Palestinian authority.
• Gives the BoP control over humanitarian entry and reconstruction: Aid coordination shifts from UN-run mechanisms toward the BoP and its operational bodies.
• Extends the foreign administration until at least 31 December 2027: With the possibility of renewal by the Security Council; regular six-month reports are required.
• Ties Palestinian “statehood” to multiple conditions, including full PA reform, progress on disarmament, implementation of the Trump plan, and BoP-approved reconstruction benchmarks.
• Grants broad privileges and immunities to foreign personnel: Civilian and military actors operating under the BoP/ISF receive legal protections and operational freedom inside Gaza.
Notes:
• Resolution 2803 passed with 13 votes in favor, while Russia and China abstained.
• Algeria, despite public calls by Hamas to reject the resolution, ultimately voted for it and praised US leadership.
• Russia advanced its own counter-draft, then abstained, and afterward stated it “cannot support this decision,” exposing a clear contradiction.
• A broad bloc of Arab and Islamic states (including Qatar, Egypt, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Jordan, Turkiye) supported the US draft.
• Palestinian factions and rights groups unanimously condemned the resolution, calling it a scheme for foreign trusteeship, forced disarmament, and external control over the strip.
Hamas' Reaction to UNSC's Approval of the Plan
"In response to the UN Security Council's adoption of the US draft resolution on Gaza, the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) affirms the following:This resolution does not meet the level of our Palestinian people’s political and humanitarian demands and rights, particularly in the Gaza Strip, which for two years endured a brutal genocidal war and unprecedented crimes committed by the terrorist occupation in front of the entire world—the effects and repercussions of which remain ongoing despite the declaration of the war’s end according to President Trump’s plan.The resolution imposes an international guardianship mechanism on the Gaza Strip, which our people and their factions reject. It also imposes a mechanism to achieve the occupation’s objectives, which it failed to accomplish through its brutal genocide. Furthermore, this resolution detaches the Gaza Strip from the rest of the Palestinian geography and attempts to impose new realities away from our people’s principles and legitimate national rights, thereby depriving our people of their right to self-determination and the establishment of their Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital.Resisting the occupation by all means is a legitimate right guaranteed by international laws and conventions. The weapons of the resistance are linked to the existence of the occupation, and any discussion of the weapons file must remain an internal national matter connected to a political path that ensures the end of the occupation, the establishment of the state [of Palestine], and self-determination.Assigning the international force with tasks and roles inside the Gaza Strip, including disarming the resistance, strips it of its neutrality, and turns it into a party to the conflict in favor of the occupation. Any international force, if established, must be deployed only at the borders to separate forces, monitor the ceasefire, and must be fully under UN supervision. It must operate exclusively in coordination with official Palestinian institutions, without the occupation having any role in it, and work to ensure the flow of aid, without being turned into a security authority that pursues our people and their resistance.Humanitarian aid, relief for the affected, and the opening of crossings are fundamental rights for our people in the Gaza Strip. Aid and relief operations cannot remain subject to politicization, blackmail, and subjugation to complex mechanisms amid the unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe created by the occupation, which requires expediting the opening of crossings and mobilizing all resources to address it through the UN and its agencies, foremost among them UNRWA.We call on the international community and the Security Council to uphold the international law and humanitarian values, and to adopt resolutions that achieve justice for Gaza and the Palestinian cause, through the actual cessation of the brutal genocidal war on Gaza, reconstruction, ending the occupation, and enabling our people to self-determination and establish their independent state with Jerusalem as its capital."
Change is happening
This development at the UN Security Council—the world’s highest forum for maintaining global peace—comes at a moment when global public sentiment has shifted dramatically in the wake of the Gaza war. Across academia and broader civil society, awareness of the structural dynamics of the conflict has deepened, and calls for an urgent, justice-based resolution—rather than one shaped by political alliances or strategic convenience—are becoming more widespread. Reflecting this shift, the Oxford Union Society voted overwhelmingly, 265–113, to declare that Israel is a “greater threat to regional stability” than Iran, a result emblematic of how public understanding of the conflict has transformed in less than a year.
Posts
