Podcast Summary: The Lawfare Podcast

Episode: Lawfare Daily: The New U.N. Security Council Resolution on Trump’s Gaza Peace Plan

Guests: Ambassador Jeffrey Feltman, Joel Braunold

Host: Scott R. Anderson

Date: November 21, 2025

Overview

This episode unpacks the historic and controversial U.N. Security Council Resolution 2803, which, for the first time, gives international endorsement to President Trump’s highly debated “Gaza Peace Plan.” Host Scott R. Anderson is joined by Ambassador Jeffrey Feltman (Brookings Institution, former U.N. Under Secretary General) and Joel Braunold (Managing Director, S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace) to examine the resolution’s creation, political ramifications, legal impact, and the divergent perspectives of regional powers and local actors.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. The Unique and Bizarre Nature of Resolution 2803

• Amb. Feltman underscores just how unusual this Security Council resolution is:
  • “It's a bizarre resolution. It's unlike any resolution that I've ever seen.” (04:40)
  • Instead of the usual specifics, the Council effectively gives the U.S. a “blank check” to move forward with the Trump plan for Gaza, with few details on force composition, legality, or accountability.
• The driving factors for the U.S. going to the U.N. included:
  • Burden sharing and cost distribution, international legitimacy for an International Stabilization Force (ISF), and providing Security Council “cover” for participant nations.

2. Negotiation Dynamics and Legal Oddities

• Negotiations involved careful wordsmithing; contentious points included the lack of clear Chapter 7 authorization typically required for enforcement missions.
  • “I would have thought countries like the UAE would have said... tell us explicitly chapter seven… But… the plan itself is vague… the Security Council said, go ahead.” (07:15–08:39)
• The final text compels humanitarian and reconstruction involvement yet offers only minimal oversight or reporting back to the Council, creating a “tenuous” relationship with the U.N. system.

3. Symbolic vs. Operational Impact

• Joel Braunold emphasizes the legal heft of the resolution:
  • “No UN Security Council resolution is just symbolic, right? It has legal weight, even if it's weird. Much to the chagrin of much of the international human rights and accountability community who are outraged by this resolution.” (09:25)
• For participant countries—especially regional powers like the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, and Pakistan—the resolution was necessary for legal and political protection if sending troops or providing funds.
• For the PA (Palestinian Authority), this was a tactical move to remain relevant amid regional shifts.

4. Arab & PLO Endorsement: Why Did They Sign On?

• The PLO’s support was pivotal in tilting Arab and global acquiescence;
  • “It was the PLO office in New York coming out and supporting this resolution that got Algeria on board… it also contributed… to the Chinese and Russians deciding to abstain rather than veto.” (12:25)
• Joel Braunold dissects why the Palestinians went along:
  • Facing political isolation, they strategically sided with a plan endorsed by the region, aiming to appear “the positive actors” in contrast to Hamas’s rejection, and to regain favor in Washington and with Gulf backers.

5. Palestinian Authority’s Calculated Gamble

• The PA shifted from “moral authority” to political pragmatism, banking on U.S. involvement as a restraining force:
  • “If we’re endorsing this and Hamas is opposing it… we look like we are the positive actors and the region will endorse us and Hamas are the negative actors.” (13:31)
• However, text ambiguity—e.g., who counts as a “Palestinian from the Strip” in the new governance—leaves open questions and risks for the PA’s real role (18:36).

6. The U.N. Role: Superficial Endorsement, Not Operational Authority

• The Board of Peace and the ISF are not U.N. entities, lack UN funding, and are only loosely subject to biannual reporting requirements.
  • “These are not UN entities authorized by the Security Council. They're not reliant on UN funding, and all they have to do is give a report every six months.” (20:55)
• The Board of Peace will likely oversee humanitarian coordination, perhaps even UN agencies, but with little direct U.N. leverage.

7. Israeli and Regional Response: From Outrage to Rationalization

• Israel’s standpoint: deep suspicion of U.N. involvement, but acceptance due to U.S. steering and guarantees that exclude the PA from direct control in Gaza.
  • Israeli red lines: “no Ramallah”—that is, no overt PA return to Gaza.
• Regional dynamic has shifted “from Israeli integration to Israeli restraint”:
  • “They see this as a restraining of Israeli action in the region rather than its integration.” (23:20)

8. Who Will Govern: Composition of the Board of Peace

• Leadership remains opaque—President Trump is identified as chair, with Tony Blair a likely deputy. Membership may span senior leaders from Turkey, Qatar, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and possibly others (37:44).
• Trump’s role may even extend past his presidency:
  • “It did not say President Donald J. Trump would be the chair. It said that Donald J. Trump would be the chair. So is this a post presidency as well?” (37:55)
• Execution will depend on regional actors’ buy-in, funding commitments, and a still-black-box plan for “disarmament,” particularly of Hamas (50:13).

9. Security Force (ISF): Structure, Challenge, and Danger

• The ISF will not be a traditional U.N. peace force, but rather a multinational, possibly ad hoc deployment authorized by the resolution but without robust international law or clear operational guidelines.
• Likely contributors: Indonesia (offering 20,000 troops), Pakistan, but not Turkey (banned by Israel).
• Main challenge: “If Israel couldn't demilitarize Hamas… how would the ISF be able to… without some kind of agreement with Hamas?” (48:02–50:13)

10. What Next? Reforms, Risks, and Precedents

• For the PA: Must undertake major reforms—ending controversial prisoner payments, fixing education and media “incitement,” and committing to elections—to remain relevant and to unlock regional and U.S. support (53:18).
• Risks: Fragile ceasefire threatened by any breakdown; regional “restraint” could give way to renewed conflict if the ISF or Board of Peace fail to implement and mediate effectively.
  • “If the Board of Peace and the International Stabilization Force… don’t get started... we’re going to be back to war.” (56:44)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Amb. Feltman:

  • “I've never seen a resolution like this... blank check to the Trump administration.” (04:40)
  • “I don't see the UN Security Council having the tools to enforce strict application... in general.” (31:22)
  • “I hope there is more going on in terms of implementation ... than is apparent to me from the outside.” (56:44)

• Joel Braunold:

  • “No UN Security Council resolution is just symbolic, right? It has legal weight, even if it's weird.” (09:25)
  • “The entire thing is a fudge, right? It's a fudge to try and move this thing forward and allow each side to claim its own victory speeches.” (45:08)
  • “If we don’t want to see a return to just utter violence, we’re going to need to hope that this gamble works and work towards it. And… President Trump, through this Board of Peace, takes on this mantle to do it.” (64:00)

Timestamps for Important Segments

• UNSC Resolution’s “Blank Check” & Process: 04:40–08:39
• Regional & PLO Endorsement Dynamics: 12:25–13:31
• PA’s Calculus & Gaza Governance Details: 13:31–18:36
• Ambiguities of UN Role & Reporting: 20:55–23:20
• Regional & Israeli Response: 23:20–29:25
• Board of Peace Composition & Trump’s Role: 37:44–44:41
• ISF Structure/Hamas Disarmament Issues: 48:02–53:01
• Reform Conditions for PA & Risks: 53:18–55:44
• Comparative Precedents & Warnings: 56:44–58:05
• Palestinian Strategic Shift & Two-State Revival: 58:05–64:00

Takeaways & Looking Ahead

• The resolution marks an unprecedented move: a U.N.-endorsed, U.S.-driven, regionally coordinated experiment in handover from conflict to stabilization in Gaza, but with ambiguous legality, structure, and ultimate accountability.
• The episode identifies major opportunities—restraining extremism, delivering humanitarian aid, and perhaps reviving the two-state vision—but also profound risks from ambiguity, delayed reforms, and entrenched distrust.
• The critical test will be whether regional and local actors can navigate the resolution’s vagueness to deliver real stability and reform, or whether the “fudge” will simply defer the next cycle of violence.

Summary compiled by ChatGPT, based on the Lawfare Podcast transcript from November 21, 2025.