UNSC approves US resolution on Trumps Gaza plan; what challenges it faces
The UN Security Council endorsed a US-backed resolution for President Trump's Gaza peace plan, aiming to end the conflict with an international stabilisation force. While a pivotal step towards peace, the plan faces immense challenges. Ambiguity, lack of commitment for troops, Israel-Hamas distrust, future governance disputes, and funding issues make its implementation a daunting task despite the initial approval.
New Delhi: The UN Security Council (UNSC) on Monday gave its nod to a US-backed resolution endorsing President Donald Trump’s plan to end the Gaza war and authorising an international stabilisation force for the Palestinian enclave.
It marks a pivotal step, which offers international backing for US efforts to pave the way for the war-ravaged zone towards peace after two years of deadly conflict.
Taking to social media, Trump said: "This will go down as one of the biggest approvals in the History of the United Nations, will lead to further Peace all over the World, and is a moment of true Historic proportion!”
The UN vote endorses Trump’s 20-point ceasefire blueprint and builds on the momentum of the wobbly truce he helped secure with allies. It is a crucial move in the US effort to build Gaza’s post-war future after the conflict wrecked havoc on the territory, killing thousands and displacing as many.
Challenges galore
However, Trump's plan is riddled with many challenges and implementing it will be a daunting task. The core component of the plan is deployment of an international stabilisation force in Gaza. However, not a single country as yet has committed to deploy troops as the zone is volatile. Any country which does so knows the repercussions and the heavy cost involved. Moreover, the structure of the force and how it will engage is also extremely hazy. More clarity has to come into these aspects.
The ambiguous nature of the plan doesn't augur well for both Israel and Hamas. It could cause more trust deficit between them. There is every likelihood that both sides may indulge in trading accusations on falling short on commitments and provisions.
While Hamas says it's ready to relinquish its governance of Gaza, hardliners in Israel are opposed to any plan that may rebuild Palestinian political authority, even under international control. The future governance continues to remain a bone of contention. The plan envisages a future when the Palestinian Authority (PA) can "securely and effectively take back control of Gaza”. However, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has outrightly rejected this. "A credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood”, as the plan spells out, is also unacceptable for Netanyahu.
The plan says US will establish a dialogue between Israel and the Palestinians to agree on a political horizon for peaceful and prosperous coexistence with the creation of Palestinian statehood. However, there is no mention of how this will be done. Trump has said that the members of the Board of Peace -- with him at the top -- will be named in the coming weeks. But the big question is how will these members be chosen and how far they will be unanimous.
An uphill task
The plan points out that the stabilisation force will ensure "the process of demilitarising the Gaza Strip” and "the permanent decommissioning of weapons from non-state armed groups”. However, no timeframe has been set to achieve this. How will Hamas give up weapons and how Israel Defence Force enforces compliance with the plan is to be seen too. Hamas has already said that giving the force a role inside Gaza that includes disarmament "strips it of its neutrality, and turns it into a party to the conflict in favour of the occupation”.
Humanitarian efforts and reconstruction will require massive funding. Billions of dollars will be needed for economic recovery. But there are fears that donor fatigue may set in and security risks could hamper the rebuilding process before it fizzles out.
Trump may have celebrated the UNSC vote, but the plan's time of reckoning lies ahead. The ground realities are too harsh and the plan's execution will depend largely on how all the parties involved align and follow the path of shared interest. It surely is an uphill task and the plan has to withstand the challenges.