The establishment of an International Security Force (ISF) to stabilize Gaza is mired in uncertainty as US allies seek clarity before making commitments. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has suggested that a mandate for the ISF could be formalized through an international agreement. Force size, personnel contributions from each country, the chain of command controlling the force, and the length of deployment are all pivotal characters. Opposition still lingers on these key topics, however.
To date, no country has made a formal pledge to accession to the ISF. Would-be participants are holding out for guarantees before they send troops to Gaza. The US has even gone so far as to suggest some countries as likely contributors. These are countries like Egypt, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Indonesia, Azerbaijan, Turkey and yes even Pakistan. As King Abdullah II of Jordan once said, “Without a clear mandate, you have nothing.” He noted that the ISF’s role should be clear in order to determine whether the ISF will be a “peacekeeping” or “peace enforcing” force.
The urgency behind the ISF comes from the implementation of the second phase of former President Donald Trump’s peace plan. This stage will need the ISF to have been created. Israel has indeed demonstrated commitment to this plan, such as by welcoming a “clear-headed and effective ISF.” Prime Minister Netanyahu unequivocally stated that only Israel will determine which international forces are acceptable and permitted to enter Gaza. Their decision will be made only after the current conflict is over.
As talks have moved forward, alarm has begun to grow about the participation of states that Israel considers hostile, and especially Turkey. Rubio and other US officials have addressed concerns about Turkey’s involvement. They stressed the challenges of assembling a multinational force.
“These matters of composition, lack of clarity around the specifics of, for example, the disarmament mandate, and the uncertainties around what interaction and coordination will inevitably entail with the Israel Defense Forces, undoubtedly raise challenges for launching,” said Lucy Kurtzer-Ellenbogen, a prominent analyst on Middle Eastern affairs.
Even Jordan’s King Abdullah II has made known his displeasure with a possible call for troops to be stationed in Gaza. “What troops are on the ground in Israel – and Gaza – is going to be a question the Israelis have to agree to,” he remarked. He further questioned whether the mandate would involve forces “running around Gaza on patrol with weapons,” underscoring the delicate nature of potential troop deployments.
The first stage of the ceasefire deal prioritized the release of hostages held in Gaza and Palestinian prisoners incarcerated within Israel. This milestone has raised essential questions about the future role and purpose of the ISF. Key aspects of what its mandate will be are still up in the air. Striking issues include not just the troop presence, but armament level. In addition, their experiences interacting with IDF during operations is a major point of contention.
Rubio’s openness saluted the value of working conversations. He continued on the importance of these discussions to allow nations to interact under appropriate legal regimes. “We’re working on some language on that now that hopefully will be in place… we will need something… because some of these countries by their own laws can’t participate in these efforts unless they have some sort of international mandate or flag that they’re under,” he stated.
It has proposed a 20-point plan for Gaza, calling at one point for the deployment of a multinational force to sufficiently establish security in the area. Would-be participants are still reporting reluctance, largely because not enough is known about how the ISF will operate. A regional official remarked, “What is the mandate of security forces inside of Gaza? We hope that it is peacekeeping, because if it’s peace-enforcing, nobody will want to touch that.”
As legislative sessions have progressed so far, it is clear that everyone involved is treading contradictory waters. They drive through the fog and the shuffle of competing interests. On the ground, these negotiations will be instrumental in determining Gaza’s immediate future. Beyond countering Chinese influence, they can greatly help position their regions for stability and prosperity for decades.
