The formation of the international force in Gaza has stumbled due to security concerns and ambiguity regarding the mission.

Washington – "Jerusalem" dot com - Said Arikat

In light of the fragile calm prevailing in the Gaza Strip after the ceasefire came into effect last week, the task of consolidating this calm appears more complicated than political statements suggest. According to a report published by the "New York Times" on Tuesday about the hesitation of countries to send troops to Gaza "for fear of clashes with Hamas," the foundations of the current ceasefire rely on two main hypotheses: the disarmament of Hamas militants and the deployment of an international peacekeeping force to take over security tasks in areas from which Israeli forces have withdrawn.

However, this plan faces a significant obstacle, as the countries considered candidates to participate in that force have shown clear hesitation in sending their troops to Gaza, fearing direct confrontation with Hamas, which still retains its military capabilities, according to what the newspaper reported from diplomats and individuals familiar with ongoing discussions.

The newspaper clarifies that U.S. President Donald Trump's plan, which included twenty points and led to the truce and the exchange of prisoners and hostages between Israel and Hamas, stipulated the immediate deployment of a "temporary international stabilization force" in Gaza. The goal of this force was to secure the areas from which the Israeli occupation army withdrew, prevent the entry of munitions, facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid, and train a Palestinian police force to manage local security.

The "New York Times" believes that the fate of this force may determine the future of the ceasefire as a whole, and whether it can transform into a permanent peace agreement between Israelis and Palestinians, or whether it will remain just a temporary truce that quickly collapses in the face of escalating tensions.

The ambiguity of the mission hampers the formation of the force

According to diplomats and officials from several countries, no tangible progress has been made in assembling the international force, amid ambiguity surrounding the nature of its mission. This ambiguity is considered, according to the article, "the most dangerous obstacle" to proceeding with its formation. The newspaper quoted representatives of countries viewed as candidates for participation saying they would not commit to sending troops until the mission assigned to them is clearly defined, and whether they would undertake combat tasks or merely maintain security.

The main concern is that these forces may be asked to confront Hamas fighters on behalf of Israel, a possibility that diplomats say could convince many countries to withdraw from participation. Some countries have also expressed concerns in closed discussions about being stationed in city centers within Gaza, given the complex security threat posed by Hamas's network of tunnels, according to what the newspaper reported from sources familiar with the talks.

New clashes reinforce concerns

The "New York Times" confirms that the violence that erupted in Gaza last Sunday reaffirmed the validity of these concerns. The Israeli army announced that an attack by Palestinian militants in Israeli-controlled territories resulted in the deaths of two soldiers, prompting Tel Aviv to respond with what it described as punitive strikes targeting Hamas facilities, resulting in the deaths of 45 Palestinians, according to the Gaza health ministry, which did not distinguish between civilians and fighters.

Regional and international deliberations

The newspaper notes that efforts to form the force are not new, as initial attempts began during the administration of President Joe Biden, which included contacts to recruit personnel from Indonesia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Italy, according to Jamie Rubin, a former advisor to then-Secretary of State Antony Blinken and one of the contributors to the post-war governance plan for Gaza.

In recent months, discussions have expanded to include Indonesia, Egypt, Turkey, and Azerbaijan, according to diplomats. Mediators who facilitated the ceasefire hope that an international force will be sent as soon as possible to stabilize Gaza before Hamas reorganizes in the half of the territory from which Israel has withdrawn so far.

Divergent positions from Ankara and Jakarta

In Ankara, a Turkish government statement indicated that President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan announced his country's readiness to join a task force overseeing the ceasefire. It remains unclear whether he was specifically referring to the proposed "stabilization force." However, the newspaper pointed out that Israel may be wary of a leading Turkish role in Gaza, given Erdoğan's sharp positions against it over the past two years.

Indonesia, on the other hand, has taken a clearer stance, as President Prabowo Subianto stated in a speech before the United Nations General Assembly last month that his country is ready to send 20,000 soldiers or more "to help secure peace in Gaza," and even in other conflict areas around the world.

While international mediators seek to find a formula that preserves the ceasefire and prevents its collapse, it seems that the formation of the international stabilization force faces significant political and security obstacles. Reluctant countries do not wish to engage in confrontation with Hamas, nor to appear as tools for implementing Israeli