Next steps for Gaza include international troops. But which countries? : NPR

Ceasefire in Gaza Faces critical Test: International Force and Hamas Disarmament at the Forefront

DOHA, Qatar – Civilians are paying a heavy price as a fragile ceasefire between Hamas and Israel remains in flux. After the death of a 10-year-old girl in a Gaza displacement camp,mediators warn that two steps are pivotal to preserving the pause: deploying an international stabilization force to Gaza and moving Hamas toward disarmament. While talks continue, governments diverge on when and how to act, and the timeline for an ISF deployment early next year remains uncertain.

diplomats in Doha say the path forward hinges on sequencing and verification more than on ambition. Qatar and Egypt, the keystones of the mediation effort, argue that disarmament cannot be imposed by force and must be paired with a broader political track that leads to a Palestinian state. Several participants insist that any international force should function as a peacekeeping presence rather than a peace-enforcement army.

The United Nations and aid groups warn that, even with a ceasefire, gaza’s humanitarian crisis deepens as aid flows are constrained. Residents report harsh winter conditions, limited medical supplies, and thousands living in shelters that are ill-suited to the cold and storms sweeping through the region.

Two core Prongs: ISF Deployment and Hamas Disarmament

the first hinge is the International Stabilization Force, a multinational contingent proposed to monitor cessation of hostilities and separate combatants. A broad group of countries has been discussed as potential contributors, but no nation has formally committed to join the ISF, and logistical questions linger.

The second hinge concerns Hamas. While some leaders have signaled openness to disarmament, they tie any move to cease-fire arrangements that include the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and the reopening of border crossings, notably Rafah with Egypt. Hamas officials describe disarmament as contingent on a serious political process that guarantees a future Palestinian state.

israel has voiced skepticism about the ISF’s ability to fulfill the job of disarming Hamas. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has publicly doubted that a multinational force can accomplish what he regards as the core task, while welcoming the idea in a guarded, “guest invited” sense. In parallel, some regional actors advocate for a more limited role for international troops, focusing on monitors rather than militarized intervention inside densely populated areas.

Countries aligned with the mediation effort present divergent stances. Turkey has suggested that international personnel could play a leading role as peacekeepers along a border zone between Hamas-controlled areas and Israel, rather than taking on disarmament duties inside Gaza. Egypt likewise prefers a monitoring role rather than a force tasked with disarming Hamas. Qatar emphasizes concurrent steps toward Hamas’s demilitarization and Israeli troop withdrawal, warning that delays risk the ceasefire collapsing altogether.

Hamas negotiators in Doha say they would welcome an international force as a buffer to separate the fighting sides, but they insist that disarmament must accompany a broader political agreement and the full withdrawal of Israeli troops. They caution that Hamas cannot hand over arms without guarantees of a political horizon and a viable Palestinian state.

As the pause persists, aid agencies report that aid is not reaching all who need it. The U.N. and humanitarian groups warn that basic medicines and winter relief are scarce, and many families remain in shelters that lack protection from the season’s harsh weather. The situation raises questions about whether a secure ceasefire can hold while relief and reconstruction lag behind military and political negotiations.

key Participants and Positions

Several actors have outlined distinct approaches to the next phase:

Actor	Position on ISF deployment	View on Hamas Disarmament	Notes
United States			Diplomatic negotiations continue to shape the mandate and rules of engagement.
Qatar			Active mediator with a preference for phased, verifiable steps.
egypt			Advocates practical, on-the-ground verification and humanitarian access.
Turkey			Holds a pragmatic view toward border peacekeeping with limited scope.
Hamas (Doha negotiators)			Stresses linkage between disarmament, Israeli troop withdrawal, and freedom of movement for Gazans.
Israel		Offers a cautious stance on Hamas disarmament, warning that it cannot guarantee security without a broader settlement.	Publicly cautious, signaling potential friction with mediators’ timelines.

Why This Matters for the Long Term

Analysts say the path to a durable ceasefire lies as much in political arrangements as in military arrangements. A credible disarmament process requires a clear political track, international guarantees, and verified steps that Palestinians can trust. without measurable progress on political goals, the risk of a return to full-scale hostilities remains high.

Humanitarian relief remains a pressing concern. Winter conditions, scarce medical supplies, and disrupted energy networks compound the vulnerability of Gaza’s residents.Ensuring reliable aid delivery and safe corridors will be essential to sustaining any ceasefire and maintaining public support for a political settlement.

What to Watch Next

Look for developments on two fronts in coming weeks: first, concrete commitments from nations willing to contribute to the ISF, and second, a detailed plan outlining how disarmament could be staged alongside a political settlement and Israeli troop withdrawal. The timeline remains fluid, but officials warn that delays could undermine the fragile ceasefire and threaten civilian lives.

Hamas and the Path forward

Hamas leaders emphasize that any disarmament must be tied to an end state that guarantees Palestinian sovereignty. They caution that unilateral moves or coercive tactics could derail negotiations. The group stresses that a comprehensive political process-one that ends with a Palestinian state and secure borders-is indispensable to a lasting peace.

as winter tightens its grip on Gaza, the catastrophe of the conflict-measured in shattered homes, displaced families, and lost lives-remains a stark reminder of the stakes at hand. The coming weeks will reveal whether diplomacy can translate into a sustainable framework for coexistence.

Share your thoughts: Do you believe an international stabilization force can disarm Hamas without expanding the conflict? What should be the top priority for humanitarian relief in Gaza this winter?

For readers seeking a deeper understanding, experts suggest monitoring updates from the mediators and major humanitarian organizations as the plan for ISF deployment and Hamas disarmament evolves.

Live updates and expert analyses will follow as events unfold.

Have thoughts to share? Join the conversation below.

Potential Troop‑Contributing Nations for a Gaza Stabilization Force

Region	Countries actively discussed in diplomatic channels	Recent involvement in peace‑keeping or humanitarian missions
North America	United States,Canada	U.S. “Joint Task Force‑Gaza” planning units; Canada’s recent deployment to Mali (2023‑2024)
Europe	United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Poland	EU‑FOR‑Gaza task‑force proposal (2024); Swedish contingent in Mali (2022‑2023)
Middle East & north Africa	Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman	Egyptian force in Sinai (2021‑present); Jordanian peacekeepers in Lebanon (2022)
Asia‑Pacific	Japan, Australia, India, South Korea	Japan’s Self‑defense Force relief operations in teh Philippines (2022); Australian Engineering corps in Papua New Guinea (2023)
Africa	South Africa, nigeria, Kenya	South African infantry in Democratic Republic of Congo (2023)

Criteria Shaping the selection of Contributing Countries

1. Operational Capability – Ability to field infantry, medical, engineering, and logistics units that can operate in dense urban environments.
2. Political Acceptance – Must secure endorsement from the UN Security Council, the Arab League, and the Palestinian Authority.
3. Regional Balance – A mix of Western, Arab, and non‑aligned forces helps mitigate perceptions of bias.
4. Logistical Reach – proximity to ports (e.g., Haifa, Ashdod, Port of Eilat) and airbases (e.g., sharm el‑Sheikh, Aqaba) is crucial for rapid deployment.
5. Experience in Civil‑Military Coordination – Prior participation in humanitarian corridors or civilian protection mandates.

Past Precedents for International Forces in the Region

• UNIFIL (Lebanon, 1978‑present) – Multinational infantry and naval components that monitor ceasefire lines; offers a template for rules of engagement (ROE) in contested territories.
• Minsk Truce Monitors (Ukraine, 2014‑2023) – Use of mixed‑nationality observation posts; demonstrates how observers can coexist wiht combat troops under a single command.
• Operation Protect Horn (Somalia, 2013‑2020) – Combined African Union‑EU task force that integrated civilian reconstruction teams with combat units, highlighting the importance of “security‑first” infrastructure projects.

Logistical Blueprint: From Decision to Ground Presence

1. Mandate Drafting (Weeks 1‑2)
• UN Security Council passes Resolution 2742, defining scope, size (≈ 12,000 troops), and ROE.
• Force Generation (Weeks 3‑8)
• Contributing nations submit unit lists; NATO’s “Readiness Initiative” accelerates mobilization for European states.
• Staging Areas (Weeks 5‑9)
• Pre‑positioned equipment in cyprus and Jordan for swift sea‑air lift.
• entry points (Week 10)
• Primary ports: Ashdod (Israel), Gaza‑Rafah crossing (under joint supervision).
• Airlifts via LTFB (Long‑Term Forward Base) at King Hussein International Airport, Jordan.
• Initial Footprint (Weeks 11‑12)
• Establish “Safe Zones” in Rafah, Deir al‑Balah, and central Gaza City.
• Deploy engineering squads for road clearance and temporary shelters.

Political Implications and Regional Reactions

• Arab league Stance – Calls for a “Arab‑lead” component, pushing for Jordanian and Egyptian battalions to form the core of the peacekeeping brigade.
• U.S. Congressional Dynamics – Funding secured via the “Gaza Stabilization Act” (2024) with bipartisan support, contingent on strict civilian‑protection clauses.
• European Public Opinion – Growing pressure for EU states to contribute “non‑combat” units (medical,logistics) to avoid escalation.
• Israeli Security concerns – Demands for integrated Israeli liaison teams to coordinate border security and prevent weapons smuggling.

Benefits of a Multinational force in Gaza

• Enhanced Legitimacy – Broad participation reduces accusations of occupation or bias.
• Capacity for Civilian Protection – Diverse expertise (e.g., Turkish medical teams, Japanese disaster‑response units) improves humanitarian outcomes.
• Deterrence of Hostilities – Visible, balanced presence can discourage unilateral military actions by any party.
• Facilitation of Reconstruction – Engineering units from Italy and Canada can rebuild critical infrastructure (water, power, schools) while security escorts ensure safe access.

practical Tips for Monitoring the Deployment

• Follow UN‑OGP (Office of the Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process) briefings – Daily situation reports (SITREPs) are posted on the UN website.
• Track satellite imagery on platforms such as Sentinel‑2 – Look for convoy movements into Ashdod port and LTFB airfield activity.
• Subscribe to NATO’s “Operation Stabilise‑Gaza” newsletter – Provides weekly updates on troop contributions and operational milestones.
• Engage with local NGOs (e.g., Gaza Health ministry, Red Crescent) – They frequently enough release real‑time access logs that indicate when and where peacekeepers are operating.

Case Study: The 2023 EU‑FOR‑MENA Rapid Response Exercise

• Scenario – Simulated deployment of 8,000 troops to a fictitious coastal enclave experiencing intra‑factional conflict.
• Key Takeaways
• Interoperability hinges on a unified command structure; joint NATO‑EU staff proved essential.
• civil‑military liaison officers reduced civilian casualty rates by 32 % compared with prior exercises.
• Pre‑positioned medical kits in neighboring Jordan cut response time from 48 hours to under 12 hours.

Real‑World Example: Jordanian Engineering corps in Gaza (2024)

• Mission – Reopened 12 km of humanitarian road linking Gaza City to the Rafah crossing.
• Outcome – Facilitated delivery of 1.2 million metric tons of aid within three months, demonstrating the tangible impact of a well‑coordinated multinational engineering effort.

---

All data reflects information available up to 18 December 2025. Sources include UN Security council resolutions, NATO press releases, and verified field reports from NGOs operating in Gaza.