Which countries have committed personnel?
Israel has officially approved the legal framework required to deploy an international security force into specific sectors of Gaza, a move aligned with a broader US-backed ceasefire initiative. While this approval marks a procedural milestone, significant uncertainty persists regarding the final composition and operational scope of the mission.
Five nations have formally declared their intention to contribute troops to what is being termed the International Stabilization Force: Indonesia, Morocco, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, and Albania. In parallel developments, Egypt and Jordan have separately committed resources to assist in training Palestinian police forces, aiming to bolster local security capacity.
Morocco has advanced its commitment by signing a more detailed agreement that encompasses military officers, gendarmerie personnel, police units, and the establishment of a field hospital. The latest Israeli announcement highlighted an initial mission comprising approximately 200 members from friendly nations, specifically naming Uganda and Morocco. However, Uganda was not part of the original five contributors, indicating that diplomatic discussions with additional countries are ongoing.
Despite these declarations, the definitive roster of participating nations, the precise troop numbers allocated to each country, and the confirmed deployment dates remain unconfirmed. The final list is subject to change as negotiations continue between Washington, Jerusalem, and the contributing states.
What is the force supposed to do?
The stated mandate for this international presence focuses on protecting civilians, facilitating humanitarian operations, supporting border security, and assisting in the training of Palestinian police. A core component of the mission involves helping to establish a transitional Palestinian administration to manage civil affairs.
Under the wider framework governing this effort, the disarmament of Hamas and other armed groups is intended to occur alongside a staged Israeli withdrawal. United Nations reporting has emphasized that these two processes must proceed in parallel for the plan to maintain credibility and avoid creating a security vacuum.
However, the mere approval of the force does not legally compel Israel to withdraw from territory it currently controls.
Could it stop further Israeli expansion?
The initial mission is projected to deploy exclusively in areas currently outside of direct Israeli control. Crucially, every participating contingent must receive separate approval from Israel before entering Gaza, a requirement that inherently limits the force’s autonomy and reach.
Israel currently exercises effective control over an estimated 64% of Gaza and has publicly stated its intention to expand this area to approximately 70%. The vast majority of Gaza’s population is concentrated in a narrow coastal zone, where many residents live in tents or damaged buildings.
Unless the mission can operate within Israeli-controlled areas and a clear withdrawal timetable is established, its presence alone does not prevent Gaza from becoming permanently divided.
Why a binding withdrawal plan matters
The mandate must also include limits on permanent buffer zones and independent oversight of violations by all parties involved.
The balance of the mandate is critical. A force focused primarily on disarming Palestinian groups without equally enforceable obligations for Israeli withdrawal risks removing armed power from one side while leaving the other side’s territorial control unchanged.
Furthermore, Israel’s authority to approve each national contingent raises questions regarding the force’s independence. A genuine international peacekeeping operation should follow its legal mandate rather than adhering to the political demands of any single party. Without these structural guarantees, the mission risks becoming a tool for managing occupation rather than ending it.
What does international law say?
The International Court of Justice has ruled that Israel is not entitled to sovereignty over any part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory due to its ongoing occupation. The court also concluded that security concerns cannot override the prohibition against acquiring territory through force.
This legal precedent does not classify every temporary military position as annexation, but the danger arises when control becomes permanent, territory is treated as sovereign Israeli land, or Palestinians are blocked from returning. Fragmenting Gaza in a way that prevents Palestinian self-determination also constitutes a violation of international norms.
The decisive test is not simply whether foreign troops enter Gaza, but whether their arrival leads to an Israeli withdrawal and the restoration of Palestinian civilian authority. The legal framework must ensure that the presence of international forces does not legitimize the retention of territory acquired through military means.
Peacekeeping or management of occupation?
The countries contributing troops must decide whether they are entering Gaza to protect Palestinians and facilitate self-determination, or merely to guard the limited territory Israel is prepared to leave outside its direct control.
If the force operates only in shrinking pockets of territory while Israel expands its control, the mission risks becoming a mechanism for managing a fragmented occupation rather than a step toward peace.
The ultimate success of this framework hinges on whether it can transition from a theoretical possibility to an operational reality that restores Palestinian authority. Until a binding withdrawal plan is enacted and enforced, the international force remains vulnerable to being co-opted into a system that manages division rather than resolving the underlying conflict.