By: Fern Sidman

In a rapidly shifting diplomatic landscape following the fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, the United States has circulated a draft resolution calling for the deployment of an International Stabilization Force (ISF) to oversee security and reconstruction efforts in the Gaza Strip — a move that, according to a report on Tuesday in The Algemeiner, has ignited both cautious optimism and deep unease among regional stakeholders.

The proposal, introduced to members of the United Nations Security Council on Monday, outlines a multinational peacekeeping mission tasked with restoring order, securing Gaza’s borders, and ensuring the demilitarization of the enclave under the terms of President Donald Trump’s post-war peace plan.

The draft resolution, details of which were first reported by several media outlets and confirmed by The Algemeiner, envisions an international force with a two-year initial mandate, to be extended as needed through 2027. The ISF would assume broad administrative and security authority in Gaza, including the destruction of terrorist infrastructure, the dismantling of Hamas’s armed brigades, and the prevention of future weapons smuggling or tunnel construction.

Troop deployments, according to diplomatic sources cited in The Algemeiner report, could begin as early as January — an ambitious timeline reflecting Washington’s determination to move swiftly from military conflict to international oversight.

Yet the proposal has already encountered friction, as Turkey, one of the region’s most assertive powers and a long-time backer of Hamas, seeks a central role in Gaza’s reconstruction and governance. Israeli officials and Western analysts alike have warned that Ankara’s involvement could undermine the very goals of demilitarization and stability the mission is meant to achieve.

Under the U.S. draft resolution, the ISF would be composed of military contingents from multiple nations, working in coordination with the Board of Peace — an international supervisory body envisioned in Trump’s plan — to oversee the transition from wartime administration to self-governance.

The draft specifies that the force would “stabilize the security environment in Gaza by ensuring the process of demilitarizing the enclave, including the destruction and prevention of rebuilding of military, terror, and offensive infrastructure, as well as the permanent decommissioning of weapons from non-state armed groups.”

As The Algemeiner reported, this clause places the onus squarely on the ISF to complete what Israel began during its months-long campaign against Hamas: the full dismantlement of the Islamist terror organization’s military wing.

The resolution also charges the ISF with protecting civilians, maintaining humanitarian corridors, and securing the enclave’s sensitive borders with both Israel and Egypt — a monumental task, given the density of Gaza’s population and the extent of its devastation.

According to the information provided in The Algemeiner report, the U.S. has been consulting closely with regional partners on the composition of the ISF, including Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. However, Turkey’s demand to play a “central role” in post-war Gaza has set off alarm bells in Jerusalem.

Ankara, which hosts senior Hamas operatives and has long served as one of the group’s diplomatic patrons, has made clear it views Gaza’s reconstruction as a “Muslim responsibility” — one in which it expects to take the lead.

At a press conference in Istanbul on Tuesday, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan called for the creation of a Palestinian-led authority to govern Gaza under international supervision, declaring: “Our principle is that Palestinians should govern the Palestinians and ensure their own security. The international community should support this in the best possible way — diplomatically, institutionally, and economically.”

While Fidan framed his remarks in the language of sovereignty and solidarity, Israeli and Western intelligence officials cited by The Algemeiner see a more troubling subtext. “Turkey’s involvement in any post-war administration would provide Hamas with political cover and logistical oxygen,” one senior Israeli security official warned. “It would mean, in effect, allowing the fox back into the henhouse.”

Fidan’s comments came during a high-profile summit of seven Muslim-majority nations — Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Jordan, Pakistan, and Indonesia — dubbed the “Guarantor Countries” under Trump’s Gaza peace framework.

As The Algemeiner report noted, the meeting’s purpose was to coordinate regional input on post-war governance and reconstruction efforts. Yet the composition of the group — which includes both U.S. allies and states with historic ties to Hamas — has raised questions about whether its agenda aligns with Washington’s security priorities.

During the summit, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, a long-time enemy of Israel who has labeled the Jewish state a “terrorist entity,” reiterated his belief that Muslim nations must play a “leading role” in shaping Gaza’s future. “We have reached an extremely critical stage,” Erdoğan declared. “Nobody wants to see genocide resume in Gaza.”

But The Algemeiner reported that Erdoğan’s remarks were overshadowed by revelations that, just days before the summit, Foreign Minister Fidan had met privately in Ankara with Hamas senior negotiator Khalil al-Hayya and several members of the group’s political bureau. Following the meeting, Fidan told Turkish state media that Hamas was “ready to hand over Gaza to a committee of Palestinians” — a statement widely viewed in Israel as an attempt to legitimize Hamas’s continued influence under another guise.

The Trump administration’s plan — which Israel has endorsed — explicitly excludes Hamas from any future governing role in Gaza, stipulating that the enclave be administered by a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee under international oversight.

Nonetheless, Hamas has repeatedly rejected demands for disarmament, insisting that it will retain its weapons and security control during an “interim period.”

As The Algemeiner report observed, the current ceasefire, while largely holding, has left Gaza effectively partitioned: Israel controls approximately 53 percent of the territory, primarily in the north and along key corridors, while Hamas maintains dominance over the remaining 47 percent, home to the majority of Gaza’s civilian population.

Reports cited by The Algemeiner indicate that since the ceasefire took effect, Hamas has launched a brutal internal crackdown on rivals and dissenters, including public executions and torture. At the same time, four Israel-backed militias have emerged in southern Gaza, pledging to cooperate with the ISF once deployed — but vowing to resist any presence from Turkey, Qatar, or Iran, each of which has long supported Hamas financially and militarily.

Under Trump’s framework, the Palestinian Authority (PA) could eventually assume administrative control of Gaza following internal reforms and international supervision. Yet, as The Algemeiner report pointed out, Israel has strongly opposed reinstating the PA without sweeping structural changes, citing decades of corruption and its notorious “pay-for-slay” policy that rewards terrorists and their families.

Israeli officials have insisted that neither Hamas nor the current PA leadership can be entrusted with Gaza’s future, emphasizing instead the need for a new generation of Palestinian technocrats — vetted by the international community — to manage reconstruction and governance.

“The international community must learn from history,” one senior Israeli diplomat told The Algemeiner. “We cannot again fund institutions that glorify violence or pay salaries to murderers. If Gaza is to be rebuilt, it must be built on a foundation of accountability and peace.”

For Washington, the ISF proposal represents an attempt to balance competing imperatives: ensuring Israel’s security, containing Hamas, and avoiding the perception of a prolonged Western occupation. Yet, as The Algemeiner report noted, the plan’s success will hinge on the credibility and neutrality of its participants — a delicate calculus in a region defined by overlapping allegiances and rivalries.

Analysts quoted in The Algemeiner report warn that if Turkey succeeds in embedding itself within the ISF or the broader reconstruction framework, it could wield disproportionate influence over Gaza’s political evolution, steering it toward Islamist revival rather than stabilization.

“Turkey’s posture toward Hamas has never been ambiguous,” a former U.S. diplomat told The Algemeiner. “Its inclusion in Gaza’s reconstruction would not be peacekeeping — it would be state-sponsored subversion of the entire peace process.”

As the United Nations prepares to debate the U.S. resolution, the future of Gaza hangs in a precarious balance. The Trump administration’s plan — ambitious, multifaceted, and fraught with geopolitical risk — offers a blueprint for rebuilding a shattered territory, but also exposes the fissures within the international coalition meant to carry it out.

For Israel, the objective remains unchanged: Hamas must be fully disarmed, Gaza must be demilitarized, and no state or non-state actor sympathetic to terrorism can play a role in the enclave’s governance. For Washington, the challenge lies in securing a broad-based coalition capable of enforcing those principles — without reigniting the very conflict it seeks to end.

As The Algemeiner report noted, “The battle for Gaza’s future will not be fought with rockets or tanks, but with diplomacy, oversight, and the unyielding test of trust. And in that battle, the difference between peace and renewed war may well depend on who is allowed to hold the keys to Gaza’s reconstruction.”