Combined images of ( From R to L) Minister of Foreign Affairs Badr Abdelatty and his Jordanian counterpart Ayman Safadi.
In a phone call on Monday, the two ministers stressed the need for the text to consolidate the ceasefire and enable the proposed International Stabilization Force (ISF) to carry out its mandate.
They said the resolution must guarantee security for the Palestinian people and create conditions for reviving the political process, according to a statement from Egypt’s Foreign Ministry.
They also reviewed joint efforts to advance the Sharm El-Sheikh Peace Agreement and reaffirmed the importance of implementing all components of the plan announced at the Sharm El-Sheikh Peace Summit—including its political, humanitarian, and development tracks—as a roadmap toward Palestinian self-determination and the establishment of an independent state on the 4 June 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital.
Abdelatty briefed Safadi on preparations for the International Conference on Early Recovery and Reconstruction of Gaza, saying broad regional and international backing will be needed to ensure the reconstruction plan is implemented effectively and to ease the humanitarian crisis in the Strip.
Both ministers underscored Egypt and Jordan’s commitment to close coordination in pursuit of a just and comprehensive peace, and to efforts aimed at stabilising the region.
US–Russia split shapes UN debate
Ongoing deliberations at the Security Council have become a focal point of regional diplomacy as member states negotiate the contours of a unified draft resolution aimed at stabilising Gaza.
The debate is unfolding amid duelling texts submitted by the United States and Russia that reflect sharply different visions for Gaza’s post-war security and governance.
The US draft seeks to immediately establish a UN-mandated International Stabilization Force with a minimum two-year mandate and wide-ranging security tasks, including safeguarding humanitarian corridors, overseeing the demilitarisation of armed groups, and supporting a technocratic administrative structure referred to as the Board of Peace.
Russia’s counter-proposal offers a more incremental approach. It removes the Board of Peace, avoids fixed timelines for the ISF, and instead requests the UN Secretary-General to present options for such a force rather than establishing one outright.
Moscow’s text places heavier emphasis on a sustainable cessation of hostilities and a broader consultative process, themes echoed by Arab states concerned about externally imposed governance arrangements and the marginalization of Palestinian institutions.
Talks within the Council centre on three pillars: monitoring the ceasefire, authorising the proposed ISF, and defining Gaza’s post-conflict security arrangements.
Several member states are pushing for an independently verifiable mechanism to monitor compliance by all parties, arguing that without robust verification, the ceasefire could unravel amid lingering distrust and ongoing military pressure. Egypt has stressed that sustained humanitarian access also depends on such oversight.
Dispute over the ISF
One of the most contentious elements remains the design and mandate of the ISF. Under current proposals, the force would secure key humanitarian routes, protect civilians, support the restoration of essential services, and help create conditions for reconstruction.
Egypt and Jordan have consistently maintained that any such force must operate strictly under a UN mandate, respect Palestinian sovereignty, and avoid arrangements that sideline the Palestinian Authority or allow external actors to exercise de facto control over the Strip.
The Security Council is likewise grappling with the broader architecture of Gaza’s future security sector, including the restructuring of local institutions, coordination with the Palestinian Authority, and preventing unilateral attempts to alter conditions on the ground, whether through forced displacement, buffer zones, or prolonged military deployment.
The outcome of the Council’s negotiations is expected to shape not only the immediate ceasefire but also Gaza’s governance, reconstruction prospects, and the future of Palestinian national institutions.
The aim is to prevent a recurrence of violations, ensure sustained humanitarian access, and provide credible, third-party reporting. Egypt has stressed that without a robust verification mechanism, the ceasefire risks collapsing under the weight of mutual distrust and ongoing military pressure.
Short link: