The Optimism Gap: US Celebrates while Region Seethes

There is a profound “optimism gap” between the corridors of the United Nations in New York and the streets of the Middle East following Monday’s vote on the Gaza resolution. On one side, the United States is celebrating a “historic” diplomatic victory. President Donald Trump and Ambassador Mike Waltz have hailed the passage of the US-drafted plan as the dawn of a “prosperous and secure” era, complete with a new “Board of Peace” to oversee reconstruction. On the other side, the region is seething with rejection, as both Israel and Hamas have vowed to defy the core tenets of the agreement.
This gap stems from the US reliance on a theoretical framework that ignores local realities. The resolution’s “pathway to statehood” is celebrated in Washington as a balanced political solution. In Jerusalem, however, it is viewed as a threat. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s public rebuke of the plan was swift and uncompromising, reiterating his opposition to a Palestinian state. The US optimism assumes that Israel can be brought around, but the Israeli leadership shows no sign of budging.
Similarly, the US celebrates the “International Stabilization Force” as the tool to “dismantle Hamas’ grip.” In Gaza, this is viewed as an act of war. Hamas’s statement calling the plan “international guardianship” and vowing “will not disarm” is a promise of continued violence. The US optimism ignores the fact that disarmament in the face of resistance is not a policy; it is a battle. The celebration in New York contrasts sharply with the preparations for confrontation in the tunnels of Gaza.
The abstentions of Russia and China at the Security Council reflect a more somber, perhaps realistic, assessment of the situation. By refusing to vote “yes,” they distanced themselves from the American jubilation. Russian Ambassador Vasily Nebenzya’s warning about ceding “complete control” to the US suggests that Moscow sees the plan not as a historic breakthrough, but as a dangerous overreach. They see the gap between the resolution’s promises and the region’s rejection.
Ultimately, the optimism gap highlights the limits of American influence. The US can draft a resolution, twist arms to prevent a veto, and pass a plan based on its own President’s vision. But it cannot legislate the consent of the warring parties. As the US prepares to implement its 20-point plan, it faces the daunting task of bridging the chasm between its own diplomatic celebration and the angry, rejectionist reality on the ground.