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.
- Lack of Legitimacy: