The deployment plan of the "Stability Force" in Gaza has stumbled amid increasing uncertainty about its missions.

Washington – Saeed Arikat 

The American plan to deploy an "International Stabilization Force" in the Gaza Strip, as outlined in President Donald Trump's initiative for a ceasefire, is experiencing a series of setbacks as several countries that had initially shown willingness to participate are now withdrawing. According to a report published by the Washington Post, efforts to form this force remain stuck in the consultation phase without any tangible progress, amid a lack of a clear vision regarding the nature of the tasks that will be assigned to it.

The newspaper quoted an American official as saying: "Commitments are still under consideration. No country is willing to send troops until it clearly understands what is required of them." This position reflects the extent of the political and practical ambiguity surrounding the mission of the force, amid numerous indications that countries fear the stabilization force could become embroiled in an armed conflict within the sector, rather than being a peacekeeping force aimed at restoring stability.

International Hesitation and Concerns of Confrontation

The report clarifies that the primary concern for the countries likely to contribute troops to the mission is the potential conflict between the role of the force and the ground reality, especially if its members are asked to use force against Palestinians. Indonesia had previously announced its readiness to send 20,000 soldiers before retracting and clarifying that the number represents its total capabilities in peacekeeping forces. An official in the Indonesian Foreign Ministry stated that his country might send only 1,200 soldiers, acknowledging that "many officers are very hesitant" due to fears of being drawn into direct confrontation.

Azerbaijan has linked its participation to a complete halt of Israeli military operations, which remains elusive amid ongoing attacks. In the same context, Pakistan confirmed that it would not be part of any mission aimed at disarming Hamas, considering that this "is not the role of the Pakistani army," as stated by its Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar.

Complete Arab Absence from the Initiative

Although the original American plan mentioned coordination with "Arab and international partners," no Arab country has shown willingness to send troops. Diplomats believe that this reluctance reflects an Arab awareness of the sensitivity of the situation and the dangers of sending forces amid ongoing occupation, and the absence of a comprehensive political framework that ensures the force will not become a tool for a security management that serves the interests of one party.

Stalemate in Implementing the Security Council Resolution

Meanwhile, Security Council Resolution 2803, which calls for placing Gaza under the administration of a "Peace Council" headed by Trump, is experiencing clear stagnation. Since the issuance of the resolution, no practical steps have been announced to form the council or define its structure, indicating political and legal obstacles that have beset the project since its inception.

Ongoing Occupation and Ground Reality Contradicting the Idea of Stability

On the ground, the Israeli army continues to control more than half of the Gaza Strip, alongside conducting operations and attacks that have resulted in the deaths of more than 350 Palestinians since the announcement of the supposed ceasefire. Amid this, the American administration is promoting a reconstruction plan limited to areas under Israeli control, raising widespread concerns about an attempt to entrench a long-term divisive reality.

Analysts believe that the failure of efforts is due to the absence of a comprehensive political framework preceding any field action. A stabilization force cannot operate effectively in an environment devoid of political agreement, where military operations continue, and where there is ongoing occupation. Without a clear vision, any force will remain susceptible to failure or to being used to impose unilateral arrangements.

Experts also point out that the Indonesian and Pakistani reservations reflect an increasing awareness that the force could practically become a tool for imposing security arrangements that serve Israel more than they serve to protect civilians, placing the participating countries in a politically sensitive position before their peoples and the international community.

In the humanitarian context, observers note that Israel's continued obstruction of the entry of essential aid, particularly medicines and medical supplies, undermines any talk of "stability." The deteriorating health conditions and the collapse of infrastructure make any security initiative meaningless if it is not preceded by a genuine addressing of urgent humanitarian needs. This contradiction between political rhetoric and humanitarian reality deepens doubts about international intentions and the possibility of success for any stabilization force.

The difficulties in forming the "International Stabilization Force" reveal the extent of the contradiction between political ambition and ground reality in Gaza. The initiative appears to be beset by fundamental complexities: the absence of international consensus, the hesitance of countries, the ongoing occupation, and the escalating humanitarian disaster. In the absence of a clear vision for the post-war phase, any international force seems