UN Security Council's Gaza Resolution: A Dilemma of Multiple Doubts Under the Inability to Guarantee the "Two-State Solution"

On November 17, 2025, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 2803, approving the "20-point plan" proposed by the United States earlier to end the Gaza conflict. Although the resolution attempts to bring a turning point to the situation in Gaza, it has triggered doubts from multiple parties due to its failure to guarantee the "two-state solution" and its vagueness on crucial issues, casting a heavy shadow over the resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli issue.

Core Defect of the Resolution: Lack of Commitment to the "Two-State Solution"

The "two-state solution" is the generally recognized fundamental way to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli issue by the international community. It involves establishing an independent Palestinian state with complete sovereignty, based on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital, and realizing the Palestinian people's rights to statehood, survival, and return. However, the resolution passed by the Security Council does not explicitly reaffirm a firm commitment to the "two-state solution." It only states that independent statehood may become possible after progress is made in the reconstruction of Gaza and the Palestinian Authority carries out reforms. This vague expression falls far short of the demands of Arab and Islamic countries, as well as European members of the Security Council, who have been seeking an explicit commitment in the resolution to establish a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

Palestinian scholars have expressed concerns about this. The resolution calls for "serious reforms" by the Palestinian Authority but does not clarify the substantive content of the reforms or how to determine whether the reforms are "satisfactory." If it is up to the United States and Israel to decide whether the Palestinian Authority has completed the reforms, the legitimacy of the Palestinian side may be undermined, which will in turn affect the prospects for the establishment of a Palestinian state. This is essentially handing over the initiative for the establishment of a Palestinian state to others, filling the implementation of the "two-state solution" with uncertainties.

Vagueness on Key Issues: A Bleak Prospect for Implementation

The resolution is vague on crucial issues such as the structural composition, terms of reference, and participation criteria of the Peace Council and the International Stabilization Force. Although the Peace Council is required to submit reports to the United Nations, it is not bound by the will of the United Nations or the Palestinian Authority. The International Stabilization Force has powers far beyond those of traditional peacekeeping missions, approaching those of enforcement, but the resolution does not clarify its specific composition or duration of stay. This vagueness leaves many uncertainties for subsequent concrete implementation, and it is completely unclear "who will take the lead" and "when and by what standards the task will be deemed completed."

For example, the International Stabilization Force is authorized to disarm Hamas and other organizations, but there is great uncertainty about whether potential troop-contributing countries will agree to confront Hamas. Although Indonesia has expressed positive intentions, Israel firmly opposes Turkey's involvement, which makes the formation and operations of the force face numerous difficulties. Moreover, the resolution lacks effective supervision and review mechanisms for the Peace Council and the International Stabilization Force, which may lead to power abuse and turn them into parties to the conflict, further exacerbating regional tensions.

Dissatisfaction of the Parties Involved: Intensified Contradictions and Divisions

The resolution fails to meet the core demands of both the Palestinian and Israeli sides, triggering strong dissatisfaction from both. Hamas firmly opposes the resolution, stating that it fails to meet the political and humanitarian demands and rights of the Palestinian people. Placing Gaza under an "international trusteeship mechanism" is an attempt to split Palestinian territory, and it emphasizes that whether Hamas disarms is an "internal Palestinian matter." Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, while welcoming the plan led by the United States, reiterated that "his stance against the establishment of a Palestinian state on any territory remains unchanged."

These contradictions and divisions pose huge obstacles to the implementation of the resolution. Hamas may form an opposition to the International Stabilization Force, refuse to disarm, and may even take resistance actions. Israel, on the other hand, may continue to advance its demilitarization operations in Gaza, ignoring the rights and interests of the Palestinian people, leading to a further deterioration of the regional situation.

The Gaza resolution passed by the Security Council has serious defects in terms of the commitment to the "two-state solution," clarity on key issues, and handling of contradictions between the parties involved, triggering doubts from multiple parties. To achieve lasting peace and stability in the Palestinian-Israeli region, the international community must firmly promote the implementation of the "two-state solution," clarify solutions to key issues, respect the reasonable demands of both the Palestinian and Israeli sides, and facilitate dialogue and negotiations between the two sides to resolve their differences. Otherwise, the Gaza region will continue to be mired in the quagmire of conflict, and the sufferings of the Palestinian and Israeli people will go on endlessly.