Full story
U.S. U.N. Resolution on Gaza
The United States circulated a U.N. Security Council draft resolution to convert the fragile ceasefire into a two-year transitional period under a U.S.-backed 'Board of Peace'.
“The United States pressed the UN Security Council to approve its draft resolution endorsing President Trump’s Gaza peace plan and warned of “grave, tangible” consequences if the text is not adopted and the fragile ceasefire collapses.”
The draft would also authorize a roughly 20,000-strong International Stabilization Force (ISF).
Washington pressed the council to adopt the text and warned that blocking or delaying the resolution could have 'grave, tangible' consequences and risk a return to fighting.
At the same time, Washington stressed it would not deploy U.S. troops.
The draft links reconstruction and Palestinian Authority reforms to a possible future Palestinian state and ties Israeli withdrawals to demilitarization milestones.
That makes approval politically consequential for both Gaza and the region.
Draft Gaza security plan
The draft's institutional architecture is consequential and contested.
It would establish a two-year "Board of Peace", reportedly envisioned to be chaired by Donald Trump.
The proposal would also authorize an International Security Force to work with Israel, Egypt and newly trained Palestinian police to demilitarize Gaza, decommission weapons and secure aid corridors.
Washington has said it will not send U.S. troops.
It has discussed potential contributions with countries including Indonesia, the UAE, Egypt, Qatar, Türkiye and Azerbaijan.
Several potential contributors reportedly have reservations about confronting Hamas, and no firm commitments were confirmed.
Diplomatic divisions over plan
Diplomatic cleavages are stark: Moscow circulated a rival draft that omits the Board of Peace and asks the U.N. secretary-general to lay out international security force (ISF) options.
“Russia has circulated a counter-proposal — which it says was “inspired by the US draft” — that seeks a balanced, unified approach to a sustainable cessation of hostilities.”
Washington sought joint backing from regional mediators and warned that rejection could imperil the ceasefire.
Israel’s government and several Israeli ministers publicly rejected any immediate move toward Palestinian statehood and voiced concerns about the Palestinian Authority meeting reform conditions.
Hamas condemned the U.S. plan as "dangerous" and rejected clauses on disarmament and foreign military presence.
Media reporting on Gaza
Humanitarian stakes and reporting differ by outlet.
Al Jazeera, The New Arab and Anadolu Ajansı document extensive Palestinian suffering.
Al Jazeera noted the two‑year campaign had killed at least 69,179 people in Gaza.
The New Arab highlighted flooding, destroyed homes and 13,000 displaced families in makeshift shelters.
Anadolu quoted claims of more than 69,000 deaths.
They warn that failure to secure an agreed council text risks more civilian harm.
Western mainstream outlets such as CNN and BBC stress implementation problems and sequencing doubts.
Western alternative outlets (Middle East Eye, NewsLooks) foreground Palestinian denunciations of sovereignty loss and describe the draft as effectively imposing external control over Gaza’s future.