Months after the United Nations Security Council endorsed a comprehensive framework to end Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza, Israel’s security cabinet approved a highly restricted pilot project to allow foreign security forces into a narrow area of the devastated territory.
Israeli media reported on Sunday that the so-called International Stabilization Force (ISF), part of US President Donald Trump’s 20-point “peace plan”, will include 200 members from countries including Morocco and Uganda who will be deployed to a designated “test” area in the southern city of Rafah.
While international officials have welcomed the move, analysts describe the limited deployment as a calculated diplomatic gesture with little practical effect that comes as the U.S.-backed peace process has largely stalled and as Israel’s deadly attacks continue.
Rather than a genuine transition to peace, they argue, the move is a political maneuver designed to deflect American pressure ahead of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Washington this week, while entrenching the geographic fragmentation of the Gaza Strip.
“Netanyahu will go to Washington to say ‘no’ to broader demands for withdrawal” from the Strip, says Wissam Afifa, a Gaza-based political analyst. “Instead, it offers this alternative: ‘Take this little appetizer, take this minor achievement, and play within this highly restricted space.'”
Reduced forces and ‘rubber batons’
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that the original plan called for the deployment of 500 Moroccan troops to a refugee camp in the city. The drastic reduction to just 200 soldiers may indicate that Israel’s political and security cabinet has decided to divide the deployment into even smaller, tightly controlled stages.
The force will operate in full coordination with the Israeli army. According to Israeli media outlet Ynet, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir was the only cabinet member to vote against the measure, arguing that the Palestinian group Hamas had not fulfilled its commitment to disarm and insisting that “the solution in Gaza is to encourage migration.”
Israeli media also reported that the government maintains that the Israeli military will maintain control of the “Yellow Line” – a unilaterally imposed border that effectively places up to 70 percent of the Gaza Strip under strict Israeli control – and that no withdrawal will occur until Hamas has completely disarmed.
The original framework supported by United Nations Security Council Resolution 2803 called for the deployment of an international force alongside a transitional Palestinian administration.
Earlier this month, Hamas announced that it would dissolve its government in Gaza and hand over power to a new Palestinian technocratic ruling authority called the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG).
Analysts said Hamas’ move was likely designed to put pressure on Israel and demonstrate the group’s commitment to managing governance and enabling reconstruction of the territory.
The pilot program also foresees the entry of the NCAG to oversee civil affairs in Gaza. However, according to Haaretz, the Palestinian police accompanying them will be stripped of firearms and will only be allowed to carry “rubber batons and Taser guns.”
Meanwhile, preparations on the ground appear to be moving forward to accommodate this new security architecture. Israeli Army Radio recently broadcast a video showing a military base under construction in the southern “Gaza envelope,” near the Karem Abu Salem (Kerem Shalom) crossing.
The station reported that the sprawling facility is being built specifically to house incoming multinational forces prior to their deployment.
Despite the severe Israeli restrictions, Nickolay Mladenov, senior representative of the Peace Board, welcomed the Israeli cabinet’s decision and praised it as a “critical part of the agreed framework to stabilize Gaza, support demilitarization and enable the transition to an effective Palestinian transitional administration.”
A ‘sweetener’ for Washington
To understand the timing and motivation behind the decision, experts pointed to the diplomatic stalemate surrounding the US-brokered peace initiative. Trump’s plan envisioned a gradual approach, complemented by the handover of Gaza to a technocratic committee. However, this framework has been bogged down by Israel’s refusal to link a ceasefire to the broader political situation and its rejection of a gradual withdrawal.
Afifa said the “failure” of the US administration’s flagship initiative had left her “embarrassed” as the project Trump repeatedly highlighted as “a great achievement, turned out to be zero.”
With Netanyahu heading to Washington, the Israeli prime minister desperately needed a result, Afifa said. The cabinet decision, hurriedly approved by telephone vote during a Knesset recess to avoid internal coalition fractures, provides exactly that, he added.
Mamoun Abu Amer, an expert on Israeli affairs, echoed this assessment. He viewed the hasty Cabinet vote as an attempt to pre-empt American pressure and present an image of compliance to Trump, while fundamentally altering the core terms of the deal to fit Israel’s long-term security strategy.
Abu Amer also said that Israel has effectively upended Resolution 2803 through selective and highly conditional implementation.
“This is a reverse process,” Abu Amer said. The original text implied that the NCAG would enter Gaza, the ISF would deploy and the Israeli army would withdraw to new lines to allow stabilization. Instead, Israel demands unilateral disarmament first, while keeping the embattled technocratic committee within an Israeli security framework.
Abu Amer also suggested that the requirement that the Palestinian police force only carry rubber batons and Taser guns reflects a premeditated Israeli strategy to strip the Palestinian administration of genuine law enforcement capabilities, reducing it to subcontractors managing municipal decay in a completely devastated environment under strict military occupation.
NCAG itself seemed to reject this Israeli paradigm. In a recent statement, the committee declared that it would only assume responsibility for Gaza after the UN Security Council approved the deployment of force and, crucially, a full Israeli military withdrawal.
‘False witnesses’
The spatial realities of the Israeli plan reveal a strategy of deep fragmentation and long-term control, experts said, pointing to the cabinet’s decision to explicitly restrict the ISF and technocrats to operating strictly outside the “Yellow Line.”
Afifa warned that transforming a small area of Rafah into an “experimental bubble” subverts the idea of Gaza as a single, contiguous territorial entity.
“This raises a huge question about the fate of two million people,” he said. “If this entire project is reduced to a few thousand people selected according to Israeli criteria, it means a tacit agreement by the international community to leave two million Gazans in the grip of a catastrophic humanitarian crisis while Israel claims to be implementing a peace plan.”
This also carries significant diplomatic risks for participating nations. Israeli media reported on the cabinet decision stipulating that contributors to the ISF must be nations that have peace agreements with Israel and do not take legal action against it in international forums.
“It is not wise for an Arab country like Morocco to be a party to help Netanyahu implement his political agenda,” Abu Amer said, mainly participating nations that reject the altered Israeli formula and insist on a complete withdrawal.
Failure to do so, he warned, would reduce foreign troops to mere security buffers, acting as “false witnesses” to the continuation of the occupation and the destruction of Palestinian society.
