Will the ISF Remain Just a Concept on Paper Rather Than a Force on the Ground?
Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan (fourth from left) with his counterparts from Arab and Muslim-majority countries in the Istanbul summit on the 3rd of November.
For many Palestinians, October 10th felt like a breath of relief, the moment their ongoing nightmare might finally end. The ceasefire between Israel and Hamas offered a glimmer of peace, accompanied by a twenty-point peace plan devised by the White House, detailing the initiatives needed to take immediate effect to ensure the end of the attacks.
Yet, as the dust just seemed to begin to settle, the plan’s implementation seemed to have been uneven. Reports of Israeli delays in hostage exchanges, reductions in humanitarian aid, and renewed military activity in Gaza have cast serious doubt over the durability of the truce.
One of the most ambitious, but arguably utopian, provisions of the peace plan is the creation of the International Stabilization Force (ISF). Conceived as a multinational peacekeeping mission to be deployed in Gaza, the ISF would, as the United States mentions, be developed “in coordination with Arab partners” as a long-term internal security solution for the exclave. However, there is no clear roadmap for how Arab states would be engaged, nor how such a force would be structured, funded or commanded. Thus, the process will be a lengthy one in a moment in which timing is the essence.
Diplomatic Advancements
Regarding the matter, several top diplomats from Arab and Muslim countries met in Istanbul on November the 3rd to discuss a potential UN Security Council mandate for creating the International Stabilization Force. However, one of the main concerns regarding the feasibility of the ISF remains: Is Israel committed to upholding the ceasefire? Many participants expressed uncertainty, questioning whether Israel remains genuinely committed to the ceasefire, noting that without a sustained halt to hostilities, deploying an international force could place peacekeepers directly in harm’s way.
Where do the Concerned Countries Stand on the Issue?
Turkey, first and foremost, holds a crucial role, as it was the first Muslim-majority state to have recognized the state of Israel in 1949, as well as an adamant voice in convincing Hamas to accept Trump’s peace plan. However, the long history of diplomatic relations with Israel has deteriorated rapidly in the last two years, largely due to Erdogan’s repeated criticism of Israel’s actions during the war. The president, in an attempt to demonstrate his commitment to peace, announced Turkey’s involvement in the formation of the International Stabilization Force. A decision quickly rejected by Israeli officials, who declared that they would “not accept any Turkish involvement” in the force.
More concerningly, other main regional players appear less committed to the cause. King Abdullah announced that Jordan will not deploy troops to Gaza, despite being one of the two countries, alongside Egypt, cited in Trump’s peace plan as an experienced regional partner whose support is vital. The UAE officials have mentioned they will not engage any further in the stabilization force efforts until they see a clear framework being formulated. These positions illustrate the political sensitivity of the stabilization point of the peace plan. Without clear and binding regional commitments, the ISF risks remaining a concept on paper rather than a force on the ground.
Towards a Peacekeeping Mandate
It is thus increasingly clear that a UN Security Council mandate is the key to persuading most countries to send their troops on the ground, in Gaza, in search of long-lasting peace. So what has the UN done so far? Last week, in New York, discussions began on a draft UN Security Council resolution that would formally authorize the ISF.
Under the current proposal, the purpose of the stabilization force would be to demilitarize Gaza and oversee the phased withdrawal of the Israeli troops, the IDF. It would operate under the guidance of an international body known as the “Board of Peace”, chaired by President Donald Trump. The envisioned mandate is set to expire in 2027, with a possibility of extension. However, one main issue remains: will there be enough support from the Security Council for the draft to pass? Nine out of the 15 members will need to vote in favour, and all five permanent members, which include Russia and China, would have to abstain from a veto.
Beyond Security: the Question of Statehood
Many analysts have acknowledged the fact that most Arab states view the possibility of deploying soldiers in the exclave contingent on a credible pathway to Palestinian statehood. There is growing concern over possible mandate spillovers of giving the ISF a governance role in Gaza, a role which many regionally concerned states wish to remain a separate responsibility to be solved by a Palestinian technocratic committee working in conjunction with a reformed Palestinian Authority.
Thus, amid a fundamental lack of trust between the Arab and Islamic countries involved and Israel, and with an unclear mandate of the ISF, the mission’s creation remains a diplomatic minefield. Without mutual confidence, even the best-intentioned initiative risks becoming in the end unfeasible, a tool for stalling and shifting the political discourse away from the true issue.
Sonia Ionita is a 3rd year bachelor student at Bocconi University, studying International Government.
