The fragile cease-fire in Gaza, which took effect last week, relies on critical assumptions: that Hamas militants will disarm, and that an international military presence will maintain peace as Israel withdraws its forces from the enclave.
However, countries considered potential contributors to this force are wary of deploying soldiers. They fear direct confrontation with Hamas, which remains armed, according to diplomats and sources familiar with the discussions.
President Trump’s 20-point peace initiative, which paved the way for an Israel-Hamas cease-fire and an exchange of hostages for prisoners, called for the immediate deployment of a “temporary International Stabilization Force” in Gaza. This international corps was intended to secure areas vacated by Israeli troops, prevent weapons smuggling, facilitate aid distribution, and train a Palestinian police force.
The successful formation and deployment of such a force in Gaza could be pivotal in transforming the current cease-fire into a lasting agreement, potentially moving Israelis and Palestinians closer to a broader, enduring peace.
Diplomats and officials familiar with the situation indicate that progress on assembling this force has been minimal, primarily due to significant confusion regarding its precise mission.
Representatives from several nations expected to participate have privately stated their unwillingness to commit troops until there is greater clarity on the force’s responsibilities once it enters Gaza, as per two diplomats recently briefed on the discussions.
Their primary concern is that their soldiers should not be tasked with fighting heavily armed Hamas militants on behalf of Israel. For several countries, this risk alone is sufficient reason to decline participation, officials revealed.
Some nations have also privately expressed reluctance for their troops to operate within Gaza’s city centers, citing the dangers posed by Hamas and its extensive tunnel networks, according to sources involved in the talks.
All individuals spoke on condition of anonymity, emphasizing the sensitivity of these discussions and requesting that the hesitant countries not be named.
These concerns were dramatically highlighted by a resurgence of violence in Gaza on Sunday. An attack by Palestinian militants in Israeli territory killed two Israeli soldiers. Israel retaliated with a severe bombardment of what it identified as Hamas targets, resulting in the deaths of 45 Palestinians, according to Gaza health officials, who do not differentiate between civilian and combatant casualties.
Under the previous administration, initial efforts were made to create a force comprising personnel from Indonesia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Italy, as reported by Jamie Rubin, a former adviser to Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken, who helped formulate a plan for post-conflict governance in Gaza.
More recent discussions have reportedly included Indonesia, Egypt, Turkey, and Azerbaijan, according to two diplomats.
Mediators involved in the cease-fire negotiations are pushing for a swift deployment of an international force to stabilize Gaza before Hamas can re-establish control in the approximately half of the territory Israel has so far withdrawn from.
A statement from the Turkish government indicated that President Recep Tayyip Erdogan had expressed Turkey’s willingness to join a task force overseeing the cease-fire. It remains unclear whether he specifically meant the stabilization force. Some Israeli leaders are likely to be skeptical of Turkey’s prominent role in Gaza, given Mr. Erdogan’s repeated condemnations of Israel over the past two years.
Last month, during a speech at the United Nations, Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto declared his country’s readiness to deploy 20,000 or more troops to “help secure peace in Gaza” and other conflict zones.
The current uncertainty regarding who will be responsible for security in Gaza could leave parts of the enclave without any military presence to counter Hamas for an extended period. This situation has created challenging dilemmas as diplomats attempt to advance regional plans.
Without such a force and a functioning government, diplomats caution that Hamas could remain Gaza’s sole governing authority. Furthermore, Israel’s military is unlikely to withdraw further – a key incentive for Hamas to accept the Trump plan – until an international force is prepared to take its place.
Ultimately, much hinges on whether Hamas will disarm, a step its leadership has so far been unwilling to take.
When asked about Hamas’s disarmament, Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump’s son-in-law and a key architect of the cease-fire, stated on CBS’s 60 Minutes last week, “So in order for that to occur, we need to create the international stabilization force and then the international stabilization force needs to create a local Palestinian government.”
Analysts suggest that Arab states would likely hesitate to deploy soldiers to Gaza if they feared being drawn into conflicts with armed Hamas operatives resisting their presence. Their participation would also depend on a clear path to Palestinian statehood, a concept currently opposed by Israel’s government.
“Becoming militarily involved in Gaza carries significant political risks for Arab countries,” explained Ghaith al-Omari, a Palestinian affairs expert and senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a Middle East-focused think tank. “They don’t want to be perceived as doing Israel’s bidding. Therefore, they require a Palestinian invitation and a United Nations Security Council mandate.”
He added, “They also wish for their involvement to be more than just securing a cease-fire; it must lead to an end to the Israeli occupation.”
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has indicated that if Palestinian militants refuse to disarm voluntarily, Israel would proceed to disarm Hamas “the hard way.”
The concept of an international peacekeeping force in Gaza has been a recurring discussion point since Hamas’s attack on October 7, 2023, and Israel’s subsequent two-year military response. Various proposals from France, the United States, and other nations have consistently stressed the urgent need for such a force immediately after the cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hamas.
Discussions are also ongoing regarding the establishment of a separate Palestinian police force, which might operate in Gaza’s urban areas.
The Palestinian Authority, which already manages a substantial police force in the West Bank, would seem like a natural choice. However, this is met with opposition from Israel. Mr. Netanyahu has long aimed to prevent both the West Bank and Gaza from falling under the control of the same Palestinian entity and has firmly rejected any significant role for the Authority in Gaza. When his cabinet outlined its terms for ending the war in August, it explicitly stated that the Palestinian Authority would not govern Gaza.
Even Palestinian officials acknowledge that the Authority’s re-establishment of control in Gaza—a territory from which it was expelled by Hamas during a 2007 civil war—would necessitate meticulous planning and additional training for its security forces.
Mohammad Mustafa, the Palestinian Authority’s prime minister, informed reporters on Thursday that Egypt and Jordan are currently training some of the Authority’s officers, and that the Authority intends to “gradually operate” in Gaza post-war.
However, when pressed for a timeline, he did not provide one.
“War did stop, but a lot of arrangements still are not in place,” Mr. Mustafa conceded at a news conference in the West Bank city of Ramallah, specifically referencing challenges “on governance, on security, on logistics.”