The November 2025 UN Security Council vote approving a U.S.-drafted “stabilization” plan for Gaza is being sold as the long-awaited turning point toward peace. It promises reconstruction, new governance structures, foreign oversight, and eventually – with enough diplomatic creativity – a “credible pathway” toward “Palestinian” statehood.

But diplomacy that ignores reality is not peacebuilding; it is wishful thinking dressed in respectable language.

For Israel, the logic of the plan contains a fatal flaw: it initiates Phase Two (reconstruction, normalization, political arrangements) before there is full compliance with Phase One (complete disarmament of Hamas and other terrorist factions). The result is not stability but a dangerous illusion – one that hands Hamas time, legitimacy, and diplomatic cover.

At its core, this moment tests Israel’s ability to think clearly and relationally: to understand both the rational consequences of the plan and the shifting commitments of its closest ally, the United States.

This post will briefly examine the risks Israel now faces – including Washington’s willingness to sell stealth fighters to Saudi Arabia, America’s softening on disarmament requirements, and the growing threat of Hezbollah’s rearmament – and why reason, not rhetoric, must prevail.

The Illusion of Progress: Diplomacy That Lets Hamas Terrorists Off the Hook

On 18 November 2025, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 2803, a central piece of President Trump’s 20-point Gaza plan. It includes:

1. A transitional “Board of Peace” (BoP) to guide reconstruction.

2. An International Stabilization Force (ISF) mandated to oversee demilitarization and the “permanent decommissioning of weapons.”

3. A “credible pathway” to Palestinian self-determination.

The problem? Hamas rejects the core premise.

Hamas leaders have publicly refused to disarm, rejecting the ISF as partisan and claiming its disarmament function “strips the force of neutrality.” Meanwhile, 100–200 Hamas terrorists remain entrenched in tunnels beneath Rafah, refusing to surrender, even in exchange for exile and are ready to fight to the death.

This alone should have halted any move towards Phase Two of the Gaza Plan. Yet Western diplomats continue acting as though paperwork can accomplish what force of arms has not.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has repeatedly warned that: “This area will be demilitarized and Hamas will be disarmed – either the easy way or the hard way.” Defense officials have already made clear that if the ISF fails: “Gaza will be demilitarized down to the last tunnel … by the IDF”, if necessary.

The contradiction is glaring: an international plan demands disarmament, but the primary player, Hamas, refuses and the international community simply looks the other way.

Weak and Counterproductive Regional Actors Undermine the Plan

1. Arab States Want Peacekeeping – Not Peace-Enforcement

Fourteen Arab states supported the resolution, but none offered troops to enforce it – except Turkey. Jordan’s King Abdullah made the situation painfully clear a month ago: “What is the mandate of security forces inside Gaza? … [W]e hope it is peacekeeping, because if it’s peace-enforcing, nobody will want to touch that.” A stabilization force that cannot enforce anything is not a stabilization force. It is a symbolic presence – a political ornament.

Turkey even offered to supply 2,000 troops – a stunning irony given Ankara’s support for Hamas – but Israel rejected the proposal outright: “There will be no Turkish boots on the ground”, although it is willing to accept some Turkish involvement through humanitarian aid.

2. Turkey and Qatar Maneuver to Protect Hamas

Turkey and Qatar, both long-time supporters of Hamas, are working to secure influential roles in Gaza’s future. Such involvement is not “neutral.” Their strategic interest is clear: preserve Hamas as a political entity. 

Israel’s relations with Turkey are, at best, unstable and Jerusalam views Turkey as a quasi-enemy state – if such a term can be used. It openly allows Hamas to operate an office in Istanbul, using it as a base from which political, media, and even terror-related activities are carried out.  But, Turkey also has ideological and geopolitcal motives, that are part of its broader regional strategy, which looks towards re-establishing the Ottoman Empire, only modernized by Islamic politics of the 21st century. Allowing it to become part of the ISF would provide a level for Ankara to exert influence over “Palestinian” politics and limit Israel’s freedom of action.

But, more problematic is the apparent disconnect between Israel and the United States regarding the role of Turkey in the reconstruction/rehabilitation of Gaza. Washington views Turkey as a strategic partner, with influential and resource capability. Jerusalem, on the other hand, takes a more pragmatic approach, viewing events and partnerships in the Middle East from an existential security point of view, not as a potential real-estate transaction. In this regard, Israel’s concern is that the U.S. fails to see and to understand the threat to Israel’s strategic interests posed by Turkey. For an excellent discussion of the present dynamics between Israel and Turkey, see Jonathan Spyer’s article that appeared this week in Middle East Forum.

3. Saudi Arabia’s New Leverage: Normalization for Statehood, Not Security

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) told President Trump that Riyadh wants to join the Abraham Accords – but only on the condition Israel accepts a clear path to a Palestinian state. Reports indicate MBS privately pushed for a final-status agreement within five years, including full statehood. Prime Minister Netanyahu has warned unequivocally that such a state in the geographic heart of Israel would be an existential threat.

Saudi priorities are clearly emphasized: “Palestinian” statehood takes precedence over Hamas disarmament. This provides Hamas with significant diplomatic oxygen.

Washington’s Troubling Drift: Security Guarantees in Question
In addition to the apparent disconnect between Jerusalem and Washington concerning Turkey’s involvement and presence in Gaza, as mentioned above, two additional developments reveal a concerning shift in U.S. policy, raising questions about Washington’s long-standing commitment to Israel’s security.

1. U.S. Willingness to Sell F-35 Stealth Fighters to Saudi Arabia

The U.S. has agreed to sell Saudi Arabia dozens of F-35 fighter jets as part of a massive trillion-dollar deal on energy, AI, minerals, and defense. Israel’s defense establishment immediately warned that this sale risks eroding Israel’s regional air superiority – the foundation of its deterrence.

This isn’t theoretical. Israel’s qualitative military edge (QME) is not a preference; it is American law: Arms Export Control Act, 22 U.S.C. §2776(h). Approving such a sale without making Saudi normalization with Israel a condition signals something uncomfortable: The U.S. appears willing to compromise the security of its closest ally for regional leverage and commercial benefit. This is a relational injury, not just a strategic one. A friend who strengthens your enemy forces you to rethink the nature of your relationship.

2. U.S. Softening on Phase One (Disarmament)

The original 20-point plan insisted that disarmament was non-negotiable. But Washington is now signaling openness to postponing Gaza’s demilitarization, if not to acquiesce in its failure to disarm at all. This reverses the order of the plan’s logic – and undermines the very foundation of desired peace in the region. Reconstruction without disarmament is the rebuilding of a fortress.

As noted in the Jerusalem Post: “Hamas is rebuilding control despite the ceasefire, raising doubts over Gaza’s future and the 20-point plan”. With the repeated ceasefire violations by Hamas, it is only a matter of time before the entire ceasefire will collapse. Major international reporting and policy analysts warn that the present ceasefire is a tactical break, not a durable fix, unless the ISF is empowered to enforce disarmament, not to act solely as “peacekeepers”. We’ve seen what the U.N.’s “peacekeepers” failed to do and we do not need a repeat performance. But, we should also take heed of King Abdullah’s statement that peace-keeping, not peace-enforcement, will be acceptable to Middle East nations. This is where intention needs to be put into practice, failing which, we are simply biding time until another flare-up occurs, igniting and involving not only the Middle East, but the international community as well. And while the U.S. is considering the value of Middle East real estate, and the desire to move negotiations along, events north of Israel must not be ignored.

The Hezbollah Factor: A Parallel Threat That Cannot Be Ignored

As the world fixates on Gaza, Hezbollah has been rapidly rearming in the north. Iranian resupply chains are active again. missile stockpiles have grown. Fortifications expand by the week. If Hamas remains armed in the south and Hezbollah strengthens in the north, Israel faces an intolerable two-front strategic chokehold. No rational nation would accept such a scenario.

Relational Wisdom: When Trust Is Strained

In human affairs – and in geopolitics – trust is built on consistency. When consistency breaks down, trust erodes. Proverbs 18:19 teaches: “A brother offended is harder to win back than a fortified city.” That statement should speak for itself.

Israel increasingly senses that the U.S. is willing to trade Israel’s security for diplomatic gains and economic incentives. Such actions wound not only the logic of the relationship but its emotional foundation. In Israeli discourse, a common refrain has long been heard: “We have no one to rely upon except our Father in Heaven.”Allies matter, but alliances that ignore reality and the needs of its partners can become liabilities.

The High-Stakes Choice: Containment or Empowerment?
The world faces a decisive crossroads. If reconstruction proceeds without verifiable disarmament, the consequences are entirely predictable:
Hamas survives.
Hamas rebuilds.
Hamas regains legitimacy.
Hezbollah accelerates its buildup.
Iran celebrates.
Israel walks into its most dangerous strategic configuration in decades.
This would be Hamas’s greatest victory since its founding.

If, however, the U.S., Israel, and the Gulf states tie every dollar and every step of reconstruction to complete, verifiable disarmament, then true stability, although for a season, becomes a potential reality.

Reason demands it.
History confirms it.
Relationships depend on it.
Peace without security is not peace.
Reconstruction without disarmament is not reconstruction.
A ceasefire without enforcement is not a solution – it is an illusion.

Unless the international community drives Phase One to completion, the “stabilization” of Gaza will become not a foundation for peace, but a dangerous pause – punctuated by repeated Hamas ceasefire violations – a pause that widens, rather than resolves, the region’s deepest fault lines.

And miles away, across the Big Muddy, there is the person to be sworn in as the next Mayor of New York City, who believes that, holding a meeting in a synagogue where Jewish people are encouraged to make aliyah – to immigrate to Israel, is against international law! What will be next? No right to pray outside of a church or synagogue?

As was stated a number of years back – The times they are a changin’.

Enough said.

We are about to begin a new week. May it be a blessing and a joy for you, as you remember:

Bless, be blessed and be a blessing.

Marvin