On November 16, 2025, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told his cabinet that Israel's opposition to a Palestinian state "in any territory west of the Jordan River" remained "firm and unchanged," hours before the UN Security Council was scheduled to vote on a U.S.-drafted resolution that would authorize an International Stabilization Force (ISF) for Gaza while leaving open a "credible pathway" to Palestinian statehood. The timing was deliberate: Netanyahu's statement served as a preemptive rejection of language Washington had inserted under pressure from prospective troop contributors and Arab partners, who demanded a political horizon in exchange for boots on the ground.
The vote crystallizes a structural clash that goes beyond the usual Council arithmetic. The U.S. draft attempts to sequence security-first stabilization—demilitarization, an international force, governance reforms—with a conditional, benchmark-linked promise of statehood. Netanyahu's categorical rejection, backed by far-right coalition partners threatening to leave the government, makes Israeli consent to any sovereignty language unlikely. Meanwhile, Russia, China, and several Arab states have floated alternative texts demanding stronger statehood guarantees upfront, while Hamas and other Palestinian factions reject an externally imposed ISF as biased toward Israeli security priorities. The question isn't merely whether the resolution passes, but whether an international force can operate without host consent or a political endpoint both sides accept.
Washington's balancing act and Jerusalem's red line
The U.S. text emerged from weeks of negotiation with potential troop contributors—including Indonesia, which has publicly floated sending up to 20,000 troops—and Arab states who insisted that any mandate must include explicit reference to Palestinian self-determination. The result is language acknowledging a "credible pathway" to statehood, conditioned on Palestinian Authority reforms and reconstruction benchmarks. For Washington, this phrasing holds together a fragile coalition: Arab partners get symbolic affirmation; troop contributors get a political rationale beyond force protection; Israel is shielded by the word "credible," which leaves implementation timelines and criteria undefined.
Netanyahu cannot accept even that formulation. His coalition relies on far-right ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, who equate any statehood language with rewarding Hamas. Ben-Gvir publicly threatened to leave the coalition if the draft passed with sovereignty references intact. A government collapse would trigger elections ahead of the latest possible date in October 2026, a prospect Netanyahu views as existential. In cabinet, the prime minister was unambiguous: "Gaza will be demilitarised and Hamas will be disarmed, the easy way or the hard way," he said, framing the issue as one of permanent control rather than interim stabilization. This is not tactical posturing but doctrinal clarity: Israel's strategic establishment views any sovereign Palestinian entity west of the Jordan as a security threat that eventually becomes "a larger Hamas-run state on Israel's borders."
The mismatch is structural. Washington needs political cover to deploy an ISF; Jerusalem needs to foreclose statehood to preserve coalition and doctrine. The U.S. text tries to split the difference with conditionality, but conditionality requires Israeli buy-in to eventually meet the conditions. Netanyahu's statement forecloses that possibility, shifting the resolution from a negotiated framework to an imposed mandate—a shift the Council historically struggles to enforce.
Members are reading: Why the ISF risks becoming an interposition force managing violence rather than ending it, and what troop contributors actually demand.
Humanitarian stakes and fragmented futures
The urgency is undeniable. Two years of war have left Gaza devastated; local health authorities report more than 69,000 Palestinians killed since October 7, 2023, when Israeli tallies recorded approximately 1,200 deaths in the Hamas-led attacks. Famine conditions persist despite sporadic aid deliveries, and mass displacement has rendered reconstruction a generational challenge. Resolution 2735 acknowledged this catastrophe and called for a phased end to hostilities, but implementation stalled on the same disputes now embedded in the ISF draft: who disarms first, who governs, and under what political horizon.
Sequencing security before sovereignty may fail not because the logic is flawed in principle, but because it requires political legitimacy that external mandates cannot manufacture. The Palestinian Authority, whose reforms the U.S. text conditions statehood upon, faces a profound legitimacy crisis; its last elections were in 2006, and the Fatah-Hamas split remains unresolved. Conditioning statehood on PA reform assumes the PA can be reformed into a governing authority Palestinians accept—a premise contested by events on the ground. Meanwhile, Gaza's territorial fragmentation deepens: buffer zones, restricted areas, and undefined governance zones create a patchwork that stabilization forces may entrench rather than resolve. If the ISF deploys without a time-bound political process, it risks codifying a protracted limbo in which civilians remain dependent on humanitarian aid flows and external security guarantees, neither fully at war nor transitioning to sustainable peace.
The resolution's fate hinges less on abstract principle than on concrete amendments and vote dynamics. Watch whether Arab members press for stronger statehood language in final negotiations, whether Russia or China table rival texts that split the vote, and whether troop contributors quietly condition their deployment on clearer political benchmarks. The broader ceasefire framework Trump's administration has promoted depends on translating temporary halts into durable arrangements, but durable arrangements require consent—and consent remains the missing variable in a resolution designed to impose order rather than negotiate it.
Subscribe to our free newsletter to unlock direct links to all sources used in this article.
We believe you deserve to verify everything we write. That's why we meticulously document every source.
