The history of peacekeeping missions in the Middle East is as chequered as it is long. The UN’s first ever deployment came shortly after Israel’s 1948 declaration of independence — and has never left.
The small observer force remains in place, mission incomplete, along with two UN “blue helmet” decades-old deployments along Israel’s borders with Syria and Lebanon. Now the latest grand plan for peace in the region — this time backed by US President Donald Trump — is banking on an international stabilisation force to end the two-year war in Gaza.
The ISF is supposed to offer the assurance Israel needs to withdraw from the strip without creating a vacuum that would allow Hamas to rebuild. But diplomats said few of the details of the force were settled. Its size, mandate and even the nations that will deploy troops are unknown.
“There are so many ways it [Trump’s plan] could go wrong because obviously Hamas are still going to be present in Gaza, and unless you move forward on the stabilisation force and the governance, there’s a risk it all falls apart,” said a western diplomat.
“None of the key parties have worked out what they want — an all bells and whistles UN peacekeeping mission or something much smaller?”
Israel and Hamas have agreed to the first phase of Trump’s 20-point plan — a ceasefire and the release of Israeli hostages held in Gaza in exchange for the release of Palestinian prisoners. But diplomats said that it was the thornier second stage that includes Hamas’s disarmament and Israel’s withdrawal from the strip that would determine the success or failure of Trump’s push for peace.
It is also during this phase that the US president will be looking to Arab and Muslim states to provide troops to the ISF and stump up billions of dollars for Gaza’s reconstruction.
Trump envisages a Palestinian technocratic committee managing the day-to-day running of the strip’s services. It will be overseen by an international supervisory body, dubbed the “board of peace”, which will be chaired by Trump and include former British prime minister Sir Tony Blair, as well as “heads of state”.
Yet, as with the ISF, the role, duties and composition of both bodies are unclear, diplomats said.
“It’s a classic post-conflict sequencing question of who does what when. But these need to be decided in detail sooner rather than later,” said Burcu Ozcelik, a Middle East analyst at Rusi, the London-based think-tank. “It’s a momentous task, it’s going to be very challenging.”
Part of the reason why the details are so vague is because the focus has been on securing the ceasefire and hostage release.
But a second diplomat added that Arab and Muslim states were also concerned that Benjamin Netanyahu had amended the original plan Trump presented to them on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly last month.
These include the Israeli prime minister changing the timelines and positions of Israel’s phased withdrawal, and diminishing the limited role of the Palestinian Authority.
“A lot of people [Arab and Muslim states] want to adjust the edits Netanyahu made to the deal, but they don’t want to do it right now, they want to get the first phase done” said the second diplomat.
On the security front, US officials said Washington was talking to “multiple countries” to contribute to the ISF.
They added that the US military’s Central Command — which Israel and regional states are members of — was preparing to deploy about 200 troops to Israel to help monitor the ceasefire.
But there will be no American troops on the ground in Gaza, the US officials said. Instead, Trump expects Arab and Muslim states, including Qatar, Egypt, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and Indonesia, to provide the bulk of the force, diplomats said.
A Trump administration official said the US would be there to “really just help create the joint control centre in Israel” and then integrate the other security forces deployed in Gaza.
Diplomats said there was a western reluctance to send troops as well as concerns that its soldiers could be perceived as an occupying force.
While Arab and Muslim states have provided troops to UN peacekeeping missions in the past, this will be the first time a predominantly Muslim force has been deployed — and the first time Israel would allow foreign troops into Palestinian territories.
Some states, including Turkey and Indonesia, have stated that they would be willing to contribute troops. But many Arab states are cautious about being viewed as doing Israel’s bidding or being sucked into an insurgency.
Some have set conditions, including the deployment being part of a political framework that creates a credible pathway towards a two-state solution.
France, which has been working with the UK on the details of the force to share with Washington, and Arab states would like it to be a UN-mandated force. But Israel, which is highly critical of the UN, is expected to resist any such move.
Another diplomat said Arab states’ participation would depend on the mandate, what Gaza looks like, and what Hamas requests in terms of disarmament.
“There’s a lot of big question marks on that, then you have the other armed groups as well, including Islamic Jihad and the clans,” the diplomat said.
Hamas is supposed to hand over its weapons but has yet to agree to disarm. Israel’s offensive has severely debilitated its military capability and killed most of its top commanders, but the group has continued to recruit fighters and operate as an insurgent force.
Netanyahu, meanwhile, has insisted that Israel would maintain overall security over the strip. Since Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attack triggered the war, Israel has shown little respect for borders and diplomat arrangements.
It has seized a swath of land in southern Syria beyond a UN-monitored armistice line, and launched regular strikes on Syria’s military since a transitional government took power after the collapse of the Assad regime.
In Lebanon, the UN’s peacekeepers have been caught up in a conflict between Israel and militant group Hizbollah, despite a November ceasefire.
A former US diplomat said Israel’s withdrawal and Hamas’s disarmament represented “the principal risk of a resumed conflict”.
“It’s quite possible that we will see a scenario during the deal’s implementation in which Israel doesn’t feel like Hamas is disarming, then they resume the military strikes,” the diplomat said. “And if Hamas doesn’t feel that Israel is withdrawing, then Hamas won’t disarm.”
Still, the western diplomat said even if the ISF deployed and did “absolutely nothing” it would be harder for either party to resume the conflict, “which is the thing that everyone wants to stop”.
“No one expects that the force would fight Hamas. It would more likely hold the ground, maybe helping with humanitarian assistance, doing ceasefire monitoring,” they said. “It’s not going to be fighting anyone, and it’s not going to be disarming Hamas.”
Additional reporting by Neri Zilber in Tel Aviv
