Why in the news?

  • Trump’s 20-point comprehensive plan to end the Gaza Conflict (2025) put forward  the concept of International Stabilization Force (ISF) for Gaza.

International Stabilization Force (ISF)

  • Nature and Mandate:
    • To be developed by the United States in coordination with Arab and international partners.
    • Tasked with providing “temporary but long-term internal security” in Gaza.
    • Not a UN-mandated force – operates outside the UN Security Council (UNSC) framework, unlike conventional peacekeeping missions.
    • The UN’s role is limited to humanitarian aid delivery.
  • Function:
    • Demilitarisation Oversight: Set benchmarks for Hamas’s disarmament and IDF’s phased withdrawal.
    • Security Management: Prevent inflow of arms and munitions. Train and equip Palestinian law-enforcement agencies. 
    • Transitional Support: Administer security in “terror-free zones” handed over by Israel.
  • Composition and Partners (Proposed):
    • To comprise multi-national contingents, but composition remains undefined.
    • Possible contributors: select Arab states (Jordan, Egypt, UAE) and non-Arab allies (U.S., U.K., possibly NATO liaison elements).
    • However, no Arab nation has officially agreed to contribute troops.
    • Arab League members have insisted that any deployment must be UN-mandated, not unilateral.
  • Challenges:
    • Lack of Legitimacy:
      • No UN authorisation (Chapter VII) → lacks neutrality and global legitimacy.
      • Risks being seen as a U.S.–Israeli proxy force, undermining credibility among Palestinians and Arab states.
    • Regional Reluctance:
      • Arab governments oppose sending troops without UN cover, fearing domestic backlash and escalation.
      • The Arab League’s Bahrain Declaration (2024) explicitly called for a UN peacekeeping mission, not a U.S.-led one.
    • Political Contradictions:
      • Israel’s position: Retains “security buffer zones” in Gaza → contradicts full transfer to ISF.
      • Hamas’s position: Refuses total disarmament → undermines ISF’s disarmament objective.
      • The Palestinian Authority demands UN oversight instead of U.S. control.
    • Operational Risks:
      • Persistent militant resistance and fragmented armed groups could target ISF troops.
      • Undefined rules of engagement (ROE) and unclear “deconfliction mechanism” between ISF and IDF create risk of direct clashes.
    • Governance Ambiguity:
      • ISF’s accountability is to the Trump-led Board, not an international legal framework → no external audit or oversight.