How Gaza is entering an uncharted era of foreign guardianship
By placing Gaza under an international trusteeship, the UN has triggered the most consequential reshaping of Palestinian political authority since 1948
The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has effectively placed Gaza under an international trusteeship, marking what analysts describe as the most significant reconfiguration of Palestinian political authority since 1948.
Resolution 2803, adopted with 13 votes in favour and abstentions from China and Russia, establishes a framework that creates a parallel governance structure that sidelines both Hamas and potentially diminishes the Palestinian Authority's sovereignty.
The resolution, welcomed by the Palestinian Authority but vehemently rejected by Hamas, authorises the creation of an International Stabilisation Force (ISF) tasked with monitoring a ceasefire and "demilitarising" Gaza, a mandate that Palestinian factions view as accomplishing through international diktat what Israel failed to achieve through repeated military campaigns.
Palestinian analysts believe that by endorsing President Trump's "Comprehensive Plan" announced on 29 September, the Security Council has essentially ratified an American-Israeli vision for Gaza's future, one that restructures Palestinian political life according to external specifications rather than national consensus.
The resolution arrives at a moment when Gaza lies in ruins after months of devastating conflict, its infrastructure decimated, and its population desperate for reconstruction.
Yet the international community's response, rather than unconditional humanitarian assistance, comes with strings attached: institutional reforms, disarmament, and acceptance of what critics characterise as foreign custodianship.
The framework threatens to cement the geographical and political separation between Gaza and the occupied West Bank, potentially foreclosing the possibility of a contiguous Palestinian state.
As Palestinian political analyst Khalil Shaheen observes, this represents "an unprecedented turning point" that fundamentally alters the Palestinian political system, opening the door to "direct international guardianship" that may prove impossible to reverse.
How the resolution reshapes Gaza's governance
Shaheen argues that resolution 2803 constructs a multi-layered governance apparatus that effectively removes decision-making authority from Palestinian hands.
At its apex sits the Board of Peace, described as a transitional administration with international legal authority, which will coordinate reconstruction financing and establish operational frameworks.
According to Shaheen, this body operates under Trump's direct leadership, with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair tapped to head the international administration overseeing the territory.
Beneath this sits the International Stabilisation Force, authorised to deploy "under unified command acceptable to the BoP" and tasked with maintaining security, supporting demilitarisation, and dismantling what the resolution terms "terrorist infrastructure".
US Ambassador Mike Waltz characterised the force as essential to creating "a stable Gaza that will be able to prosper and an environment that will allow Israel to live in security".
"The resolution strips Gaza from the rest of Palestinian geography, creating a new reality based on foreign guardianship," Mustafa Jarrar, Hamas spokesperson in the West Bank, told The New Arab.
The movement, which previously called for international forces to grant it legitimacy, now finds itself confronting an arrangement it views as designed to eliminate its military capability.
Jarrar warned that “any attempts to forcibly disarm Palestinian factions could trigger direct confrontations,” potentially igniting the very violence the resolution purports to prevent.
The resolution's temporary nature, authorising the Board of Peace and international presence until 31 December 2027, offers little reassurance to critics who note that "temporary" international administrations have historically proven remarkably durable, he adds.
The document conditions any pathway to Palestinian statehood on the Palestinian Authority's "satisfactory" completion of reform programmes, effectively making self-determination contingent upon meeting externally imposed benchmarks.
Between acceptance and rejection
The Palestinian response to Resolution 2803 exposes the widening chasm between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, a division that the resolution may inadvertently deepen.
Abbas Zaki, a member of Fatah's Central Committee, welcomed the decision as an international endorsement of the PA’s position, arguing it demonstrates the international community's commitment to resolving the Palestinian question whilst facilitating the PA's reassertion of control over Gaza.
The Palestinian Authority views the resolution as validation of its long-standing cooperation with international partners and its pursuit of statehood through diplomatic channels.
Zaki emphasised that the framework allows for international reconstruction financing, enhances prospects for resumed Israeli-Palestinian dialogue, and reinforces the necessity of completing institutional reforms, all priorities that align with the Authority's governance strategy.
Hamas, conversely, perceives the resolution as betrayal wrapped in humanitarian rhetoric.
"This decision amounts to internationalising the killing of Palestinians, distributing their blood amongst global capitals whilst granting Israel political and moral immunity to continue its crimes," said political analyst Murad Harfoush.
The movement refuses to surrender its weapons, which it considers essential for defending Palestinians and resisting Israeli occupation. Whilst expressing willingness to negotiate truces or agreements that respect Palestinian rights, Hamas insists that disarmament efforts driven by international pressure merely complicate circumstances and weaken the Palestinian position.
The divergence reflects fundamentally different assessments of Palestinian agency and strategy. Where the PA sees opportunity for institutional strengthening through international partnership, Hamas sees surrender of the resistance project that defines its identity.
Jarrar noted that the resolution "exceeds international references" and establishes "field arrangements outside the Palestinian national will," effectively reproducing a constrained framework for Palestinian self-determination.
The regional and international calculus
Resolution 2803's passage reveals significant shifts in regional and international alignments, with implications extending beyond Palestinian politics.
Russian Ambassador Vasily Nebenzya characterised the Council as giving its blessing to a US initiative on the basis of Washington's promises, noting that members were giving complete control over the Gaza Strip to the Board of Peace and the ISF, the modalities of which we know nothing about so far.
The abstentions by Russia and China signal discomfort with American unilateralism, whilst stopping short of outright opposition.
Algerian Ambassador Amar Bendjama, speaking for Arab and Muslim countries that supported the text, acknowledged Trump's peace efforts but stressed that genuine peace in the Middle East cannot be achieved without justice for the Palestinian people who have waited for decades for the establishment of their independent State.
Harfoush warns that Arab states, which previously supported Palestinian factions covertly, will now "boast of their open support under the guise of implementing the Security Council resolution, thereby ignoring the sacrifices borne by the Palestinian people".
He characterises the resolution as serving Trump's agenda of reinforcing the Gaza-West Bank split, "demonstrating Palestinians as unqualified to obtain their independent state".
The resolution's requirement for "close consultation and cooperation" with Egypt and Israel in deploying the international force acknowledges regional realities whilst potentially constraining the force's independence.
Shaheen notes the danger of treating Gaza as "a rebellious territory" subject to suppression and consciousness reshaping by local militias collaborating with Israel, a scenario that could transform international peacekeepers into parties to internal Palestinian conflict.
Political analyst Shaheen argues that the resolution represents "a death sentence for the two-state solution," as Russia's representative suggested, despite vague references to a Palestinian political future contingent upon meeting international conditions.
He advocates for a comprehensive national strategy involving dialogue amongst all factions and civil society components, the formation of a consensus government or technocratic committee to administer Gaza, and unified approaches to the Palestinian struggle.
This article is published in collaboration with Egab