Beyond demilitarisation: Inside the UN plan for Gaza's transitional period

The United States has circulated a draft text for a UN Security Council resolution proposing the creation of an international stabilisation force in Gaza. Washington is seeking a mandate of at least two years for this force, with deployment potentially lasting through to the end of 2027. The proposal forms a key element of President Donald Trump’s 20-point plan for achieving a long-term end to the conflict.

According to the draft, the stabilisation force would operate with Israel and Egypt to oversee the demilitarisation of Gaza, including the permanent decommissioning of weapons held by armed groups. It would also be responsible for training and supporting Palestinian police personnel, protecting civilians, securing border areas and facilitating humanitarian corridors to allow the safe delivery of aid. The force would coordinate closely with a future temporary governing body referred to as the Board of Peace, which is intended to administer Gaza during a transitional period.

The American draft has been presented as a basis for negotiation among the 15 members of the Security Council and other international partners. Its success depends not only on reaching agreement on the mandate but also on a number of complex external conditions that go well beyond the text itself. Legal, military and political factors are all contributing to delays in the adoption of a final resolution. Several Arab and Muslim nations that might contribute troops have made it clear that they will only participate once the Council provides a clear and legitimate mandate. The United States hopes that a final text will be agreed within two weeks, although that deadline could easily slip if disputes remain unresolved.

Arab and Muslim countries that are willing to take part in the mission are keen to have a Security Council mandate to justify participation, especially to their domestic audiences. Meanwhile, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, too, has demanded that the international force must operate under UN authority. A related issue concerns the exact nature of the mission. Several governments are reluctant for their troops to be seen as engaging in peace enforcement rather than peacekeeping, as the former implies a more coercive military role. Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan has stated that participation will be difficult if the mission’s objectives or methods contradict the policies of the contributing states.

A second major area of contention involves Israeli military presence and the political future of Gaza. There is disagreement over whether the resolution should set a clear timeline for Israel’s complete withdrawal or link that withdrawal to the disarmament of Hamas. Jordan’s Foreign Minister, Ayman Safadi, has insisted that a timeline is essential, arguing that Israel cannot continue to occupy a large portion of Gaza while claiming to support stability. Many critics contend that the entire debate about a stabilisation force is premature because the broader political framework for Gaza’s future remains undefined. Key questions about whether Gaza will form part of a future Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, or whether it will exist as a semi-autonomous entity, have yet to be resolved.

In a development that could influence this political framework, senior Hamas official Mousa Abu Marzouk told Al Jazeera that Hamas and the Palestinian Authority have reached an agreement to establish a temporary committee that will manage the Gaza Strip on behalf of the PA. According to Abu Marzouk, the committee will be headed by a Palestinian Authority minister and will take responsibility for overseeing the border crossings and security forces within the territory. The arrangement represents a rare instance of coordination between Hamas and the PA, raising hopes that it could help smooth the transition towards a new administrative structure in Gaza if an international stabilisation force is deployed.

Security coordination and the practical implementation of the mandate are also contentious. Some Western diplomats argue that the participation of the United States in a leadership capacity will be essential, since many countries would not agree to join without American involvement to balance and constrain Israeli actions. Jordan has offered to train a vetted Palestinian police force to maintain local order but has ruled out sending troops to Gaza itself. There are still unanswered questions about how this police force would interact with the international stabilisation troops and what responsibilities each would hold. Safadi has made clear that the international force should not be perceived as policing the Palestinian population. Meanwhile, Turkey has signalled a willingness to contribute troops, though Israel has firmly rejected Turkish involvement, citing Ankara’s political support for Hamas.

Meanwhile, many observers argue that the discussion of a stabilisation mission is premature because the first stage of the ceasefire agreement, which was meant to restore humanitarian access and reopen the Rafah crossing, has not been fully implemented. Foreign Minister Fidan has accused Israel of repeatedly violating the truce and of blocking aid deliveries at levels far below what is needed. Germany’s Foreign Minister, Johann Wadephul, has warned that time is running out to prevent Gaza from descending further into chaos and has called for rapid action to fill the current vacuum in security and governance.

Even if the international stabilisation force is eventually established, there remains deep uncertainty about how it will be perceived by the Palestinian population. Many Gazans want international involvement that supports a legitimate Palestinian administration rather than one that replaces it. At the same time, several foreign diplomats argue that without a credible international framework for security and governance, Israel will not take the rebuilding of Gaza seriously. This has created a situation in which the immediate goal of disarming armed groups appears to conflict directly with the longer-term political requirement of achieving Israeli withdrawal and Palestinian self-rule.