The proposed International Stabilisation Force (ISF) for Gaza suffers from fundamental political, legal, and operational weaknesses that cast serious doubt on its viability and legitimacy. The reluctance of many invited states to participate, including Azerbaijan and several European and Asian countries, underscores a core problem: the force is widely perceived as lacking international consensus and moral authority.
At the heart of this skepticism is the absence of a clear United Nations mandate. Without UN authorization, the ISF risks being viewed not as a neutral peace-support mechanism but as an externally imposed security arrangement aligned with US and Israeli strategic interests. In a context as politically charged as Gaza, legitimacy is not a procedural detail but the decisive factor determining whether local populations accept or resist foreign troops. A force perceived as enforcing order without addressing occupation, blockade, and accountability would likely exacerbate instability rather than reduce it.
Operationally, the proposal is equally fraught. Deploying up to 10,000 troops into Gaza without a comprehensive political settlement raises questions about rules of engagement, command structure, and exit strategy. If the force operates under US leadership, as suggested, it risks being seen as an extension of Western military power rather than a genuinely multilateral effort. This perception would make troops potential targets and deter further contributions, creating a self-defeating cycle.
Moreover, the ISF appears to prioritize ‘stabilisation’ over justice and reconstruction. Security-first approaches in conflict zones have repeatedly failed when divorced from political solutions, inclusive governance, and respect for local agency. In Gaza, where destruction, displacement, and trauma are immense, stability cannot be imposed militarily while core political grievances remain unresolved.
Finally, the exclusion of key regional actors and the opposition of others, such as Türkiye, highlights the fragmented diplomatic landscape surrounding the initiative. A stabilisation force that lacks regional buy-in and Palestinian consent risks entrenching divisions rather than fostering peace. In its current form, the ISF reflects more the international community’s desire to manage the fallout of the conflict than to address its root causes.
