NYN | News
The UN Security Council voted on Monday in favor of a U.S. draft resolution supporting President Donald Trump’s plan for Gaza, which includes deploying an international force in the Strip and disarming resistance factions.
The resolution received the backing of a majority of Council members, while China and Russia abstained, amid deep division over its content and its political and security implications for the Palestinian and regional situation.
In its first official response, Hamas expressed its categorical rejection of the resolution, asserting that it does not meet the political and humanitarian demands and rights of the Palestinian people, especially in the Gaza Strip, and considering it a clear bias toward the current U.S.–Israeli vision.
The movement said the resolution comes at a time when the brutal genocide and unprecedented crimes committed by the Israeli army in Gaza continue to have devastating humanitarian consequences, making the resolution’s disregard of these facts an “insistence on ignoring Palestinian suffering.”
Hamas added that the resolution imposes an international guardianship mechanism on the Gaza Strip, which is absolutely rejected by the Palestinian people, their forces, and factions. It considered the step an attempt to separate the Strip from the rest of the Palestinian geography and impose new political realities that contradict legitimate national rights.
The movement affirmed that the resolution deprives Palestinians of their right to self-determination and the establishment of their independent state with Jerusalem as its capital, and that the attempt to strip the resistance of its weapons ignores the fact that resisting occupation is a legitimate right guaranteed by international laws and conventions.
Hamas stressed that the resistance’s weapons are tied to the continued Israeli occupation of Palestinian land, and that any discussion related to this issue must remain “an internal national matter” linked to a comprehensive political process that guarantees ending the occupation and establishing the Palestinian state.
The movement criticized granting the international force authority to carry out tasks inside the Gaza Strip, including disarming the resistance, considering such a mandate one that “strips the force of neutrality and turns it into a direct party to the conflict.”
It stated that any international force should limit its presence to the borders, for the purposes of separating forces and monitoring the ceasefire only.
Hamas also demanded that all international forces operate under full UN supervision and in exclusive coordination with official Palestinian institutions, without any role or guardianship for the Israeli entity.
It stressed the need for these forces to focus solely on ensuring the flow of humanitarian aid and not be transformed into a security authority pursuing the people or the resistance.
The movement affirmed that humanitarian aid and the opening of crossings are fundamental rights for the residents of Gaza and cannot remain hostage to “politicization, blackmail, and complex procedures.”
It called for confronting the escalating humanitarian catastrophe in the Strip by expediting the opening of crossings and mobilizing all resources through the United Nations and its agencies, foremost among them UNRWA.
Hamas concluded its statement by urging the international community and the Security Council to adopt decisions that achieve justice for Gaza and the Palestinian cause, ensure an actual halt to the genocide, initiate reconstruction, end the occupation, and enable the Palestinian people to exercise their right to self-determination and establish their independent state with Jerusalem as its capital.
