By: Fern Sidman

The United States is reportedly leading a series of high-level, sensitive diplomatic talks aimed at forming an international peacekeeping force for the Gaza Strip, an initiative designed to stabilize the region following the devastating Israel–Hamas war. The plan—still in its formative stage—has been quietly circulating among U.S. allies in the Middle East and beyond, and Washington expects to present a detailed proposal to Israel within weeks.

The envisioned International Stabilization Force, to be overseen by U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), would represent one of the most ambitious post-conflict initiatives attempted in Gaza in decades. As reported by Israel National News on Thursday, the proposed force would include a Palestinian-manned police unit, trained and vetted under American, Egyptian, and Jordanian supervision, as well as troops from Arab and Muslim nations deemed acceptable to both Jerusalem and Washington.

Sources cited in the Israel National News report confirm that Indonesia, Azerbaijan, Egypt, and Turkey have expressed willingness to contribute personnel. While discussions remain preliminary, the very concept of such a force signals Washington’s intention to transition Gaza from active combat toward an internationally managed stabilization phase—one that could pave the way for broader regional normalization.

Yet, the proposal also risks running into serious friction with Israel, whose leadership has made clear that no foreign troops will be deployed in Gaza without its explicit consent, and that any postwar arrangements must first ensure the complete return of Israeli hostages and the elimination of Hamas’s military infrastructure.

As Israel National News reported, the emerging proposal for the International Stabilization Force is part of an evolving U.S.-led framework that aims to prevent a security vacuum in Gaza while avoiding a full-scale Israeli reoccupation. The plan’s architects envision a hybrid model—part peacekeeping mission, part transitional governance mechanism—that would combine Arab participation with American oversight.

According to diplomatic officials who spoke to Israel National News, the U.S. envisions a phased structure: an initial deployment of peacekeeping units to oversee key humanitarian corridors and infrastructure restoration, followed by the establishment of a “Peace Council”, a provisional administrative body composed of vetted Palestinian technocrats and regional representatives.

Turkey, in particular, has taken an active role in advocating for this arrangement. Officials in Ankara’s Ministry of Defense told Israel National News that Turkey was among the initiators of the ceasefire agreement currently in place between Israel and Hamas. They claim Turkey is engaged in “continuous consultations” with both diplomatic and military partners to ensure the agreement’s implementation and to prepare for the subsequent stabilization phase.

Under this envisioned sequence, the second phase of the ceasefire would include deployment of an international peacekeeping force, a further withdrawal of IDF troops from the Gaza Strip; and creation of the transitional Peace Council, designed to manage civil affairs, reconstruction, and security coordination.

But Israel’s position remains firmly cautious, emphasizing that it will not advance to phase two until its humanitarian and security demands are met in full—including the return of all hostage bodies and the release of two foreign civilians still held by Hamas.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reiterated Israel’s stance earlier this week, underscoring that any postwar arrangement must serve Israel’s security interests and that Israel will reserve the right to veto participation by any foreign forces it deems “unacceptable.”

“Israel will determine which forces are unacceptable to it,” Netanyahu said, in comments reported by Israel National News. “This is agreed upon with the United States.”

While the Prime Minister’s remarks did not single out any country by name, Israel National News and several regional analysts interpreted them as a clear signal to Turkey, whose involvement remains deeply controversial in Jerusalem. Despite Ankara’s recent attempts to rebrand itself as a mediator, its longstanding support for Hamas and President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s inflammatory rhetoric against Israel have left Israeli policymakers deeply skeptical.

As the Israel National News report observed, Israeli officials fear that the inclusion of Turkish troops—or forces from any state perceived as sympathetic to Hamas—could compromise the neutrality and credibility of the proposed international contingent.

Behind closed doors, Israeli security experts have also expressed concerns that the proposed Palestinian-manned police unit could evolve into a new armed force under foreign influence, potentially undermining the IDF’s counterterrorism operations and jeopardizing Israel’s freedom of action in the Gaza theater.

The Trump administration’s push for a multinational stabilization force reflects growing concern that Gaza could descend into chaos if left ungoverned after the cessation of major hostilities. U.S. officials cited in the Israel National News report argue that without a coordinated peacekeeping structure, Gaza risks becoming a breeding ground for extremist factions—an outcome Washington and its allies view as unacceptable.

By incorporating Arab and Muslim nations into the peacekeeping architecture, U.S. officials hope to lend regional legitimacy to the initiative and reduce perceptions of Western occupation. Egypt and Jordan, both longstanding security partners of Israel, are expected to play pivotal roles in training and vetting the Palestinian police contingent.

However, diplomats told Israel National News that the logistical and political complexities of deploying such a force remain immense. The question of command authority—whether it would rest under CENTCOM, the United Nations, or a coalition framework—has not yet been settled. Moreover, securing agreement from all participating countries on rules of engagement, intelligence coordination, and the handling of potential clashes with residual Hamas operatives presents formidable challenges.

Turkey’s enthusiasm for the stabilization plan highlights its bid to reclaim diplomatic influence in the Middle East following years of strained relations with both Israel and the United States. As the Israel National News report noted, Ankara’s defense ministry has publicly confirmed ongoing consultations with “relevant parties” on establishing the Gaza task force and ensuring the success of the ceasefire framework.

Yet, Turkey’s credibility as a peacekeeping partner is tenuous. President Erdoğan has repeatedly accused Israel of “war crimes” and referred to Hamas as “freedom fighters,” remarks that have alienated Israeli and Western officials alike.

“Turkey wants to be seen as a regional power broker,” one Israeli analyst told Israel National News. “But it cannot play mediator while it continues to justify Hamas’s actions. Israel will never allow Turkish troops to patrol Gaza.”

For Washington, the initiative represents a delicate balancing act—seeking to advance a durable postwar order without alienating Israel, its closest regional ally. As the Israel National News report emphasized, U.S. officials are treading carefully to ensure that Israeli sovereignty and security concerns are fully addressed before any proposal is finalized.

Privately, American diplomats acknowledge that Israeli approval is indispensable—not only for operational success but for the plan’s political legitimacy. “There will be no deployment without Israeli consent,” one U.S. official told Israel National News. “This is not about imposing a solution but creating one that Israel can live with.”

Still, the plan faces skepticism within Israel’s security establishment, which remains wary of international forces operating along its borders. The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL)—widely criticized in Israel for failing to prevent Hezbollah’s buildup in southern Lebanon—is cited by officials as a cautionary example of ineffective oversight.

The coming weeks are expected to be critical. U.S. diplomats are reportedly finalizing a comprehensive proposal to present to the Israeli government, complete with timelines, force composition, and governance mechanisms. Israel National News reported that consultations are ongoing with both regional capitals and European partners to refine the plan before it is formally introduced.

Whether this ambitious initiative can overcome political mistrust and logistical hurdles remains uncertain. For now, Israel continues to insist that its priorities are clear and non-negotiable: the safe return of its citizens and the dismantling of Hamas’s terror apparatus.

Israeli officials have stressed to Israel National News that only after these objectives are achieved can discussions about Gaza’s future governance begin in earnest.

In the words of one senior Israeli source quoted in the Israel National News report: “Israel will not trade security for diplomacy. Not again. Not after October 7. Any plan for Gaza’s future must begin and end with the safety of the Jewish state.”

As Washington readies its proposal and regional powers maneuver for influence, the struggle over Gaza’s postwar fate is entering a decisive phase—one that may well determine the balance of power, and peace, across the Middle East for years to come.