Hamas and other Palestinian factions have strongly rejected the UN Security Council resolution endorsing Donald Trump’s Gaza stabilisation plan, citing threats to sovereignty, resistance rights, and local governance.
The resolution, approved by the UN, calls for deploying an international stabilisation force to Gaza. Palestinians warn this could undermine their political autonomy and limit control over daily affairs.
“This plan does not represent us,” said Moamen Abdul-Malek in Gaza City. “Our people can govern ourselves. Foreign forces cannot assume responsibility for our lives or land.”
Hamas emphasized that the international stabilisation force could strip local resistance groups of their weapons, even though defending under occupation is a legitimate right under international law.
Mohammed Hamdan echoed concerns: “Removing Gaza’s defensive capabilities disregards the legal and moral rights of our people, leaving us vulnerable while occupation continues unchallenged.”
Sanaa Mahmoud Kaheel noted that Palestinians initially expected the Palestinian Authority to take over governance. “With international forces involved, uncertainty now dominates every aspect of life.”
The resolution is part of Trump’s proposed ceasefire plan, aiming to demilitarize Gaza and restore stability. Critics, however, argue it may empower foreign control over the enclave.
Hamas officials warned the plan could allow external powers, particularly the United States, to tighten political and economic influence, potentially reshaping Gaza’s administration according to foreign interests.
Trump’s past statements suggested redevelopment and economic projects could follow the plan, fueling Palestinian fears of external domination rather than genuine stabilisation and self-rule.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres urged turning diplomatic momentum into concrete actions, emphasizing the need for urgent humanitarian aid and protection for civilians in Gaza.
The Palestinian Authority described the resolution as “a first step toward peace,” but many Palestinians reject it as insufficient without clear guarantees of sovereignty and genuine self-governance.
Violence continues alongside diplomatic efforts: Israeli forces in the West Bank shot and injured a child and an Al Jazeera journalist during demonstrations in the Nur Shams refugee camp.
One Israeli was killed, and three others wounded in a suspected car-ramming and stabbing attack near Hebron, highlighting the ongoing cycle of violence in the region.
An Israeli drone strike in southern Lebanon’s Bint Jbeil killed one person, signaling the broader regional instability that could affect the effectiveness of the international stabilisation force in Gaza.
Palestinians insist that any peace plan must prioritize humanitarian aid, rebuilding, and local governance, instead of imposing external military oversight or administrative control over the territory.
International observers note that the UN-backed plan aims to halt hostilities and monitor ceasefires, but without Palestinian support, its legitimacy and success remain in doubt.
Deploying foreign forces without consent may inadvertently serve external interests, analysts warn, potentially inflaming tensions and undermining prospects for long-term peace in Gaza.
Residents express concern about restrictions on movement, surveillance, and enforcement measures. Many fear international forces could intervene politically, limiting Gaza’s authority over its internal affairs.
Public opinion is deeply divided. While some hope for improved security and humanitarian aid, others see the resolution as a disguised occupation with foreign oversight embedded in daily life.
Historically, interventions in Gaza have often failed to achieve sustainable peace, reinforcing Palestinian concerns that the UN resolution could repeat previous mistakes despite good intentions.
Behind-the-scenes negotiations continue, with the UN attempting to balance security, political rights, and humanitarian needs, yet operational details and timelines remain unclear and contested.
Palestinians call for a detailed roadmap, including troop withdrawal schedules and assurances of full local control, arguing these conditions are essential for the stabilisation plan to gain legitimacy.
The international stabilisation force is designed to monitor ceasefires and prevent escalation, but Palestinians remain skeptical of its true mandate and whether it aligns with their interests and security needs.
Political analysts suggest that any foreign stabilisation effort without local involvement risks increasing tension and strengthening opposition groups, undermining rather than advancing peace efforts.
Community leaders have demanded full transparency, emphasizing that any reconstruction, security, or humanitarian interventions must involve local authorities to prevent exploitation or imbalances in Gaza’s governance.
The resolution highlights the difficulty of implementing US-backed initiatives in Gaza, showing the challenge of aligning international plans with local realities in a deeply polarized and conflict-prone environment.
Despite international pressure, Palestinians continue to assert their right to self-determination, rejecting external forces as arbiters of governance, insisting peace must emerge from local consensus.
While mediators stress the urgency of stabilisation, Palestinians emphasize that respect for autonomy, humanitarian needs, and political self-rule are prerequisites; without them, peace risks remaining unattainable.
Read more: Ireport247news
