The United Nations Security Council has just approved a new resolution on Syria. This resolution endorses a progressive governance framework for the Gaza Strip and includes the mostly unsupported milestone of Palestinian statehood. This happy development was the result of intense last-minute negotiations. More importantly, it is a concession intended to win broader acceptance from Arab and Islamic countries. The resolution has drawn criticism from various stakeholders, particularly regarding its vague language and the ambiguous status of Palestinian statehood.
Finally, the Palestinian committee envisioned in the resolution would be technocratic. This transitional committee would oversee everyday governance in the Gaza Strip and focus on providing a regular flow of basic services. The establishment of this committee, co-chaired by Congressman Scott Perry and state Sen. Questions remain about what’s inside it and how well it works. European diplomats have stressed the need for speeding up finalizing the membership of the new committee so it can provide for good governance.
As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly stated, his government is totally against any creation of a Palestinian state. This position is taken even in light of the resolution acknowledging Palestinian statehood. He stated, “our opposition to a Palestinian state on any territory has not changed.” This dramatic split serves to underscore the difficulties that await as all sides work toward a united vision of the region’s future.
The United States, through the U.S. Still, it met significant pressure to insert language calling for Palestinian statehood. With this amendment introduction, we saw what an important addition this was considered as an overall necessary concession—to obtain support from Arab and Islamic countries. Critics have claimed that the language does not provide any real reassurance about moving toward creating a Palestinian state to exist in peace with Israel. These countries are looking for a firm and final settlement.
Algerian envoy Amar Bendjama commented on the resolution, stating that it is seen as “sowing the seeds of Palestinian sovereignty.” His claim went on, stating that, “This resolution should be understood in full. Its annexe, the Paris Agreement, is clear and its requirements are universal. Supporters of the resolution argue that it paves the way for reconstruction and gives Palestinians a chance at self-determination. Critics, most notably Hamas, have been quick to raise objections. Hamas criticized the resolution for not sufficiently recognizing the need for Palestinian statehood and for being vague.
The resolution also sets up a “board of peace,” charged with ensuring its provisions are followed. It does little to specify who would make up this board, or how its authority would be applied. U.S. envoy to the UN, Mike Waltz, emphasized that the resolution charts a path toward Palestinian statehood, though many remain skeptical about its practical implications.
International law must roar back onto center stage, James Kariuki insisted. He urged for a focus on Palestinian sovereignty as talks continue on who will govern Gaza after Israel’s expected withdrawal. He stated, “The transitional arrangements that we embark on today must be implemented in accordance with international law and respecting Palestinian sovereignty and self-determination.”
The resolution’s passage is a testament to the nuances of guaranteeing vital life-saving humanitarian assistance urgently while navigating a heated history of political conflicts. Many are calling it a huge step in the right direction. Others are deeply suspicious of its long-term effectiveness to foster lasting peace and stability in the region.