Palestinian reactions were divided after the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 2803, drafted by the US, calling for an international force in Gaza to "stabilise" the territory and protect civilians.
The resolution, supported by 13 members with Russia and China abstaining, endorses a US-proposed plan to end the war and establishes mechanisms for a temporary international force under a unified command, empowered to use "all necessary measures" in accordance with international law.
The resolution tasks the international force with securing border areas, monitoring disarmament in Gaza, protecting civilians, and coordinating with relevant states to secure humanitarian corridors.
Officials of the State of Palestine welcomed the Security Council resolution, urging immediate action to restore normalcy, protect Gaza's people, prevent displacement, withdraw occupying forces, facilitate reconstruction, and stop annexation undermining the two-state solution, as per the Palestinian news agency WAFA.
However, Hamas described the resolution as "insufficient for Palestinian demands". It rejected clauses regarding the deployment of an international force, arguing that aiming to disarm Palestinian factions makes the force a party to the conflict.
Hamas officials further insisted that the international presence be limited to UN-supervised buffer zones along the border, coordinated with Palestinian institutions and without Israeli involvement.
Similarly, the Islamic Jihad movement opposed the resolution, warning that any force disarming the resistance would become a partner in implementing the Israeli agenda.
"We reject the US solution adopted by the Security Council, as it constitutes an international trusteeship over the Gaza Strip, rejected by all components of our people and their forces," the movement said in a press statement.
Islamic Jihad emphasised that the resolution separates Gaza from other Palestinian territories and undermines Palestinians’ right to self-determination, including the right to resist occupation, which they claim is guaranteed under international law.
Political division and regional stakes
Palestinian analysts note that Palestinian internal politics and regional dynamics remain highly divided.
"The confusion highlights the lack of a clear Palestinian strategy. The leadership, whether in Ramallah or Gaza, frequently resorts to rhetoric without concrete plans. This causes regional countries to be uncertain of how to respond and hesitant to take a unified stance," Esmat Mansour, a Ramallah-based analyst, said to The New Arab.
Akram Atallah, a Palestinian political analyst from Gaza, noted to TNA that Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front reject the resolution, while the Palestinian Authority and Fatah have welcomed it.
He said that post-war governance and disarmament are key issues, linking reconstruction and prisoner exchanges to factional compliance.
He added that the resolution's success depends on Hamas disarming and Israel entirely withdrawing, warning that other parties are likely to obstruct implementation and slow negotiations.
"The US resolution constitutes an occupation under international legitimacy. If enacted, it would place Gaza under the authority of a so-called 'Peace Council' led by Donald Trump and his international allies, effectively bypassing the UN Security Council and established multilateral oversight," Hani al-Masri, a Ramallah-based political analyst, told TNA.
"Under this arrangement, the proposed stabilisation force would not simply act as a neutral peacekeeping body protecting civilians, but would have broad powers to enforce security, manage administrative functions, and intervene in day-to-day governance, making it the de facto authority on the ground rather than an impartial international force," he said.
"Palestinians would have only a limited, consultative role, with no real sovereignty or ability to make decisions, turning Gaza into a territory controlled externally rather than a community with agency over its own future," al-Masri added.
Hope, fear, and exhaustion
Meanwhile, within Gaza itself, Palestinians who have survived months of a relentless genocidal war by Israel expressed a mix of fear, exhaustion, and cautious hope.
"We can't believe any news any more. The situation is indescribable. Gaza has no life. We know nothing about the truce or resolutions; we don't even know what happened. Survival is now harder than ever," Abu Mohammed al-Suweirki, 55, who left his destroyed home in al-Tuffah and now lives in a tent in Deir al-Balah, said to TNA.
For others, the resolution offers a sliver of potential relief. Mahmoud Abu Namous, 42, a construction worker in the Shati refugee camp, told TNA that "for me, the Security Council resolution is a step forward. People want to live."
"We hear about a new Gaza in the media, and we hope to see it. We are tired of displacement, of streets filled with debris. If this resolution leads to reconstruction, it could reunite families torn apart by the war," he said.
Mahmoud emphasised the desire for normalcy. "I want to rebuild, live peacefully, and avoid weapons or armed men, as they bring destruction," he said.
He hoped that political decisions could restore order, as escaping this chaos is of the utmost importance.
For her part, Heba al-Sheikh Ali, 34, a displaced Arabic teacher in Deir al-Balah, expressed caution about the presence of international forces.
"We have lost everything: homes, children's education, our future. I fear international forces control us; it seems like a bigger problem than the war. We don't want others to decide our fate, but we want the war to end while preserving our dignity," she remarked to TNA.
"People ask where we'll live and how to survive winter in flooded tents. International forces are welcome if they stop the war and protect civilians. Our children's safety matters most. We're devastated, but hope depends on ending the war and saving lives," she added.
Other residents voiced sharper scepticism. Fatima al-Qudra, 28, a mother of three displaced in Khan Younis, questioned the intentions behind international intervention. "Do they want to help or control us? We've survived bombings, displacement, and hunger, yet now they say they'll 'protect' us. What does that mean? Will our children grow up free, or under new supervision? We need peace, but on our terms, not others," she remarked.