The term “unworkable” is haunting the new UN resolution on Gaza before the ink is even dry. Adopted on Monday, the US-drafted plan is being hailed as “historic” in Washington but dismissed as a contradiction in terms by analysts and the combatants themselves. The resolution is built on a trade: Palestinian statehood for Hamas disarmament. But the “core conflict” is that the two parties needed to execute this trade have rejected their respective obligations. Israel says “no” to statehood; Hamas says “no” to disarmament. This leaves the UN plan as a bridge with no foundation on either side.
The “statehood” clause was the diplomatic glue that held the coalition together in New York. It secured the Palestinian Authority’s support and prevented a Russian veto. But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s public rebuke of this clause dissolves that glue on the ground. Without Israel’s consent, the “pathway to statehood” is blocked. This renders the political incentive for the plan null and void.
The security pillar is equally compromised. The “International Stabilization Force” is mandated to disarm the strip. Hamas has vowed it “will not disarm” and labeled the plan “international guardianship.” This means the security mechanism can only function through force, not consent. A peace plan that requires a war to implement is, by definition, struggling to be “workable.”
Despite these structural failures, the US is pushing ahead. Ambassador Mike Waltz insists the plan will “dismantle Hamas’ grip” and create a “prosperous and secure” Gaza. President Trump’s “Board of Peace” is gearing up for reconstruction. The US administration seems to believe that the resolution creates a new reality that will force the parties to adapt. They are betting on the sheer momentum of American power.
The abstentions of Russia and China suggest they do not share this bet. Russian Ambassador Vasily Nebenzya’s warning about ceding “complete control” to the US implies that Washington is taking ownership of a lemon. With no unified global support and total rejection from the local powers, the resolution threatens to become a textbook example of an unworkable international mandate—high on ambition, but fatally disconnected from the conflict it seeks to resolve.
