The issues, which have been proposed by Donald Trump regarding a durable peace in Gaza and the application of an international stabilisation force and a potential road to a sovereign Palestinian state, have been supported by the UN Security Council.

The resolution passed by a vote of 13-0, and the abstentions of China and Russia plotted a “new direction in the Middle East of the Israelis and the Palestinians and all people of the region in general,” US envoy to the UN, Mike Waltz, informed the council chamber.

The references to an independent Palestine were the cost that the US had to pay to secure the support of the Arab and Islamic world, which is likely to supply peacekeepers to an international stabilisation force (ISF).

But just before the UN vote, the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, reiterated that his government remains firmly opposed to the establishment of a Palestinian state, which posed the question of whether Israel will permit a rollout of the UN proposals.

Following the vote, Hamas denied what it termed as a forced international guardianship mechanism and demanded not disarm.

According to the supporters of the resolution, it would result in the immediate lifting of the remaining curbs on aid flow into Gaza, the establishment of an international stabilisation force that would fill the vacuum created by military withdrawal among the Israelis, and efforts towards reconstruction and a possible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood.

The mention of Palestinian statehood was an added concession to a first US draft that made no such mention. The wording is, however, vague and conditional, where it is promised that when the Palestinian Authority is reformed, and rebuilding of Gaza is in progress, then the conditions might come together to allow a credible pathway leading to Palestinian self-determination and statehood.

The language was not only inadequate for the firm dedication to construction of Palestinian state alongside Israel desired by Arab and Islamic states, but also European council members, however, in their post vote speeches, delegates of these countries indicated that they were willing to accept the compromise in the name of extending the current truce and immediate action to feed and protect the 2.2 million Palestinians in Gaza.

James Kariuki, the chargé d’affaires of the UK, said, “the transitional arrangements that we are taking today should be done in line with international law and in line with Palestinian sovereignty and self-determination.”

“We had added what we felt to be necessary modifications in order to make the text balanced and wholesome. The Algerian envoy, Amar Bendjama, who was present in place of the Arab bloc,” said some of those proposals were incorporated and made it clear that he regarded it as planting the seeds of Palestinian sovereignty.

Algeria has just resolved to vote in support of this text, a text which we support in its essence, in its essential purpose, which consists in the preservation of the ceasefire and in the establishment of conditions which would permit the Palestinian people to enjoy their incalculable rights to self-determination and statehood.

Bendjama highlighted the annex to the resolution, which he claimed covered the Palestinian rights. It is necessary to read this resolution as a whole. It has an annexe, which is a part of it, and it must adhere to it by all parties. It makes it very clear that there was no annexation, no occupation, no forced displacement.

Although it has been mentioned that the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, had reluctantly agreed to the wording of the resolution during his talks with Washington, he reversed after an enraged reaction among the extreme right wing of his ruling party. On Sunday, the prime minister reported that the opposition to a Palestinian state on any territory has not been altered.

The resolution was a demonstration of concerted action of the UN over Gaza, 2 years after diplomatic action became stalemate, and at least 71,000 Palestinians have been killed, not to mention that the concerted action of the UN has been accused of genocide by a UN commission of inquiry and human rights bodies.

The cost of having a resolution passed, with Russia and China being the ones abstaining and not vetoing but using vague language, left many things unclear.

It provides general supervisory authority to a board of peace, which is chaired by Trump, but of unspecified membership. The board must answer to the UN, yet it is not submissive to the desires of either the UN or the Palestinian Authority. It also entails the establishment of a Palestinian technocratic committee, which is expected to handle the daily administration of the Gaza Strip and provision of services, yet it is not very clear who would participate.

The ISF mandate has the power to disarm and dismantle armed sites in Gaza, such as Hamas, but it is by no means obvious that the would-be troop donors would accept the effort to fight Hamas. Sending peacekeepers has yet to be committed in any country.

After the vote, Hamas again stated that it will not disarm, which might pit the militant group against the international force mandated in the resolution.

Hamas said in its statement that the resolution adopted an international guardianship mechanism on the Gaza Strip, which is denied by our people and their factions.

Reform of the Palestinian Authority, which is the precondition for stepping towards a sovereign Palestinian state, has been dim.

European diplomats quoted that they indicated that it was also urgent that the names of the Palestinian technocratic committee to provide services be agreed upon as soon as possible.

Trump rejoiced over the vote, calling it a moment of true Historic proportions in a social media post and saying that the members of the Board, and more thrilling announcements, will come in the coming weeks.