A diagnostic breakdown of Russia and America’s competing UN proposals for Gaza. This analysis exposes how both powers are fighting for control of Gaza’s post-ceasefire architecture while Palestinian agency remains structurally sidelined. A clear look at the geopolitical machinery behind the 2025 UN showdown.
Moscow’s competing resolution on Gaza wasn’t designed to counter Washington’s principles. It was designed to contest Washington’s control.
Trump’s administration rolled out a “Board of Peace” — a transitional governance structure composed of U.S.-aligned nations including Egypt, Jordan, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, Indonesia, and Pakistan. The framework aims to manage Gaza’s security, reconstruction, and border controls.
Russia’s alternative proposal strips away this Board completely, channels decision-making through the UN Secretary-General, and embeds explicit language on Palestinian statehood. Moscow frames this as “balanced.” Translation: America went too far.
Two competing texts with a single goal: shape Gaza’s future in terms the opponent cannot control.
Related Analysis: How can a nation born from oppression become the architect of another’s?
https://medium.com/the-endless-forge/how-can-a-nation-born-from-oppression-become-the-architect-of-anothers-463445e2c522
The Actual Battle: Who Builds the Post-Ceasefire Architecture
Remove the humanitarian rhetoric and diplomatic polish. This is about institutional design.
The American framework:
a peacekeeping force answerable to a Washington-backed committee
reconstruction funding channeled through Gulf alliances
imposed oversight packaged as “temporary governance”
a governance structure Palestinians had no role in creating
The Russian alternative:
a peacekeeping force under UN command
elimination of the American oversight board
Palestinian statehood explicitly referenced
a mechanism Moscow can shape through Security Council veto power
This isn’t a clash of values. This is institutional leverage — the most lasting currency in international relations.
Russia’s approach is deliberately more limited — designed to obstruct American primacy rather than offer a competing vision. This makes it procedurally simpler but fundamentally reactive: Moscow’s strategy depends entirely on blocking what Washington tries to construct. Yet the American framework deserves closer examination — not because Russia’s alternative is superior, but because Washington aims to embed its regional control into structures that will persist long after any ceasefire ends.
Both proposals rest on the same foundation that has shaped this conflict for decades.
If you like to read more, here is the link to Medium.com
THE CORE ISSUE — The Excluded Party
Here’s the dynamic no one wants to acknowledge:
Palestinians represent one of history’s most persistent examples of a people whose political fate is determined almost entirely by outside powers.
This dynamic originated under British colonial rule. Britain systematically disarmed Palestinian society, limited their organizational capacity, and permitted Jewish paramilitary groups to develop into pre-state institutions. It functioned as colonial security policy, not ethnic design — yet it created a power asymmetry that persists today.
The pattern continues:
Israel designates which Palestinian groups constitute “security risks.”
Washington determines which Palestinian leaders qualify as “credible partners.”
Brussels decides which Palestinian institutions merit recognition as “legitimate.”
Regional Arab governments select which factions serve their geopolitical interests.
The United Nations acknowledges Palestinian peoplehood but withholds statehood.
A people held to the standards of a state while denied the tools of statehood.
When Palestinians reject external frameworks, their rejection becomes the crisis. When they establish governance, that governance is deemed illegitimate. When they pursue negotiations, they’re told they lack proper authority. Every avenue circles back to the same external arbiters.
Armed resistance wasn’t aberrant. It was the logical outcome when a population is administered rather than empowered.
Which leaves one unavoidable question: What offense did Palestinians commit beyond inhabiting territory that global powers sought to control?
Why the Current UN Standoff Follows This Pattern
The present Security Council deadlock matters for exactly this reason. This isn’t about peacekeeping philosophy. This is about jurisdictional authority.
Neither Russia nor the United States is proposing pathways to genuine Palestinian self-determination. Both are proposing administrative frameworks designed around their respective geopolitical priorities.
Washington seeks an oversight mechanism it can direct.
Moscow wants a UN process it can manipulate.
Palestinian decision-making authority remains absent from both.
Different architects, identical approach: Gaza’s future determined by external design.
What This Moment Reveals
The current standoff exposes how power actually operates:
Washington is working to reclaim Middle East influence during Trump’s second presidency.
Moscow is using diplomatic obstruction to offset its military setbacks elsewhere.
Beijing is backing any framework that weakens American narrative control.
Arab governments are calculating — observing which way leverage ultimately tilts.
European capitals remain trapped between stated values and strategic dependencies.
Gaza becomes the arena where these tensions manifest.
Should the Security Council remain deadlocked, the stabilization plan fails. Should stabilization fail, the ceasefire breaks down. Should breakdown occur, all parties default to their established patterns — leaving Palestinians in their familiar position:
at the epicenter of the emergency, yet excluded from the room where decisions happen.
TL;DR
Gaza’s future is being shaped by two competing UN resolutions — one American, one Russian. Neither centers Palestinian agency. The U.S. seeks to install a transitional board it can influence; Russia wants the UN to control the stabilization force it can veto. This isn’t a peace process — it’s a jurisdictional contest revealing how global powers design outcomes for Gaza while excluding the people who live there.
Primary: Gaza UN resolution, Russia U.S. Gaza, Gaza ceasefire architecture
Secondary: Palestinian governance, international stabilization force, Board of Peace
Intent: “Why are Russia and the U.S. fighting over Gaza?” “Who controls Gaza after the ceasefire?”
