“The World Has Betrayed Palestine!” and Venezuela

By Kening Zhang | December 4th, 2025

On November 17, local time, thirteen green votes lit up in the United Nations Security Council chamber, pushing forward a text titled the “Gaza Peace Resolution.” The abstentions from China and Russia did not change the outcome: the resolution passed.

Many Middle East analysts believe that this vote resembled a geopolitical “transaction.” The United States further consolidated its dominance in the region, Israel tightened its de facto control over Gaza, and Palestine—whose people have struggled for statehood for more than half a century—was once again pushed to the margins. The political future of the Palestinian nation suffered a profound setback under the weight of international compromise.

Photo: Donald Trump

I. The Resolution: Palestinian Sovereignty Undermined by U.S.–Israeli Influence

Presented as a framework to “end conflict and promote peace,” the resolution is widely viewed as a UN-endorsed version of the Gaza governance plan previously proposed by the United States. Its core design systematically limits Palestinian autonomy.

1. A “Peace Committee” That Replaces Palestinian Self-Governance

The resolution establishes a “Peace Committee” with an international legal status resembling that of a transitional governing authority, with a mandate lasting until the end of December 2027. According to multiple media reports on the draft text, the committee would be chaired by U.S. President Donald Trump.

This body—led entirely by non-Palestinians—would possess the authority to supervise reforms of the Palestinian Authority, determine the flow of Gaza’s reconstruction funds, and set governance guidelines. In effect, this places crucial Palestinian domestic affairs directly under U.S.–Israeli influence. The idea that the Palestinian Authority would “take back control of Gaza” simply means it would operate under the policy framework defined by the committee—one heavily shaped by Washington and Tel Aviv.

2. A “Statehood Promise” So Vague It Undermines Palestinian Aspirations

The resolution’s so-called “commitment to statehood” is expressed only in vague terms: after reforms within the Palestinian Authority and progress in Gaza’s reconstruction, conditions may “eventually create” opportunities for Palestinian self-determination and statehood.

The word “may” pushes the already fragile dream of statehood further into the distance. The resolution offers no timeline, no territorial definition, no obligations for Israeli withdrawal. In the language of international law, such wording is typically seen as an “expression of intent,” lacking enforceability or concrete mechanisms.

Meanwhile, Israel faces no accountability in the resolution for the tens of thousands of civilian deaths in Gaza. Instead, clauses calling for cooperation between Israel and an “international stabilization force” effectively allow Israel to maintain its security control over Gaza’s borders.

3. The “International Stabilization Force” and Its Questioned Neutrality

The temporary international stabilization force, operating under the Peace Committee’s command, is not granted any explicit authority to restrain Israeli military actions. Israel has repeatedly opened fire along the Gaza boundary, killing civilians, yet such incidents fall outside the force’s oversight.

Even the United Arab Emirates—a U.S. ally—publicly stated it would not join the mission because the framework lacked clarity. This only deepened widespread skepticism about the force’s neutrality.

II. The International Community: Complicity Through Collective Compromise

Many commentators view the Security Council vote as a collective concession by the international community under U.S. and Israeli pressure. The thirteen affirmative votes reflect a diplomatic calculus shaped by bilateral relations, geopolitical dependencies, and strategic hesitations.

China and Russia expressed reservations through abstention, but their decision did not halt the resolution’s passage—further highlighting Washington’s influence at the United Nations.

The Arab states faced even greater dilemmas. Concerns about the Peace Committee overriding Palestinian decision-making were recorded, but the region lacked the united stance it historically displayed. The UAE’s opposition ultimately stood alone. Once champions of Palestinian sovereignty, Arab governments—amid geopolitical realignments and economic pressures—now struggle to mobilize meaningful collective action.

The UN’s Paradoxical Role

The institution meant to uphold global justice failed to address the most urgent humanitarian needs of Palestinians. The tens of thousands killed in Gaza and the hundreds of thousands wounded were not incorporated into any accountability framework. Israel’s freezing of Palestinian funds and restrictions on humanitarian aid were not mentioned.

As a result, many observers question whether the resolution truly reflects the UN Charter’s foundational principle: the right of peoples to self-determination.

III. Collapse of the Resistance: Hamas Excluded from the Political Process

The resolution is also widely viewed as a major blow to Palestinian resistance movements. Hamas—once a central actor in Gaza’s governance and negotiations with Israel—has been completely excluded from the transitional framework. The demand for Gaza’s “demilitarization,” combined with the Peace Committee’s dominant role, effectively forces Hamas to abandon armed resistance while erasing its political presence in Gaza.

Although Hamas participated in multiple ceasefire negotiations with Israel, it consistently demanded two non-negotiable conditions: Israeli withdrawal and a clear path to statehood. Yet both demands were omitted from the U.S.–Israeli-led resolution. No withdrawal timeline. No defined roadmap to statehood. Not even basic recognition of Hamas as a political force.

More troubling is the internal Palestinian split: under strong U.S.–Israeli pressure, the Palestinian Authority has increasingly distanced itself from the resistance. Its acceptance of “reform under the oversight of the Peace Committee” leaves many Palestinians feeling that decades of resistance—paid for in blood—have been bargained away by their own leadership. Hamas and other resistance factions now stand as isolated actors abandoned by much of the international community.

According to Gaza’s Ministry of Health, more than 300 Palestinians were killed by Israeli fire between the ceasefire in October and the end of November. Israel justified the killings by claiming victims had “crossed the yellow line” and posed a threat. The yellow line continues to shift eastward, shrinking Gaza’s living space and accelerating its “West Bank-ization”: a nominal ceasefire but with continued military dominance.

IV. Expanding Hegemony: From Gaza to Latin America

Many scholars of international relations argue that U.S.–Israeli actions in Gaza are not isolated events but part of a broader global strategic posture.

As the Security Council adopted the Gaza resolution, the United States launched “Operation Spear of the South” in the Caribbean, deploying the USS Ford aircraft carrier, 15,000 personnel, 10 F-35 fighters, and multiple guided-missile destroyers—one of the largest regional deployments in decades. U.S. Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll declared that American forces were ready for action at any moment. President Trump openly expressed hostility toward Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, refusing to rule out military intervention.

Though geographically distant, the Middle East and Latin America show strikingly similar U.S. strategies: invoking “security” and “peace” to justify military pressure and political interference. In the Middle East, Washington consolidates control over key energy routes while shaping Gaza’s governance through dependent institutions.In Latin America, it invokes “counter-narcotics” to undermine the Maduro government, weaken anti-U.S. alliances, and reassert dominance over its geopolitical “backyard.”

Israel, too, is expanding its regional influence. Analysts warn that it may attempt to replicate the “Gaza model” in Syria or Lebanon—empowering pro-U.S. local actors while suppressing resistance movements—in an effort to reshape the political landscape of the Middle East.

Conclusion: The World Owes Palestine Justice

When the Security Council’s gavel fell, Palestine’s dream of statehood was forced yet again into retreat. The “victory” of Israel and the United States marked a profound defeat for global justice; the UN’s concessions revealed the limits of multilateral institutions; the silence of many Arab governments exposed the crisis of regional solidarity.

Palestinians are not struggling for a form of limited survival granted by external powers. They are struggling for a sovereign state with defined borders, and for the right to determine their own future—rights that should be fundamental to any nation.

In the current global order, however, these most basic aspirations are continually pushed aside. The world may have betrayed Palestine today, but history will remember:

a people fighting for freedom and dignity cannot be silenced by hegemonic power.

When a so-called “peace resolution” becomes a tool of domination, when “international justice” is reduced to symbolism, we must remain vigilant:

Today, Palestine is the victim. Tomorrow, it may be many more small nations whose destinies are sacrificed.