The role of the International Stabilization Force (ISF) remains doubtful due to its ambiguous mandate and powers. Some people analyze that it can be another force trying to destroy the remains of humanity in Gaza, while others hope it might ensure peacekeeping.

The official language seems to be reassuring order, security, reconstruction, and stabilization. But the real question is what sort of stabilization it is aspiring to and under whose authority?

The new architecture surrounding Gaza’s future represents the most significant external governance blueprint proposed for a territory in years. Although it is presented as a bridge toward recovery, it raises deeper questions about sovereignty, legitimacy, and control.

The Scale of What Is Being Proposed

The stabilization plan reportedly envisions:

• Up to 20,000 international troops
• A program to train 12,000 Palestinian police personnel
• Initial deployment concentrated in Rafah
• Gradual geographic expansion sector by sector

In this backdrop, several countries have signaled troop participation or readiness to contribute security personnel, including Indonesia, Morocco, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, and Albania. Moreover, Egypt and Jordan have been referenced in relation to police training coordination.

This is not a small symbolic observer mission, but a substantial security presence for a territory roughly the size of Detroit.

The numbers alone indicate that this would be one of the most significant foreign security deployments in Gaza’s history.

Why Rafah Matters

The decision to begin in Rafah is not accidental. Rafah is Gaza’s southern gateway, and it controls access to Egypt. It influences humanitarian throughput and is central to trade corridors as well as the movement of goods.

Whoever holds operational control in Rafah influences:

• Reconstruction material flow
• Fuel imports
• Humanitarian distribution
• Commercial reopening

In a territory where reconstruction costs are estimated to exceed $53 billion, control over entry points effectively shapes the speed and nature of rebuilding.

Stabilization beginning at the border is not merely about security but also about economic leverage and how life inside Gaza will be affected.

The Dilemma of the Board of Peace

Parallel to the security force is the formation of a reconstruction governance framework commonly referred to as the “Board of Peace.” The first session was recently convened in the United States.

Its purpose is described as coordinating funding, supervising reconstruction priorities, and structuring administrative transition. On paper, that appears pragmatic, but Gaza requires massive capital and coordinated rebuilding.

When we analyze the past, reconstruction in Gaza has historically been linked to security and compliance conditions. Access to cement, steel, heavy machinery, and dual-use materials has long been subject to restrictions justified under security doctrines by Israel.

If reconstruction funding is tied to demilitarization benchmarks or governance restructuring conditions designed externally, rebuilding becomes conditional rather than sovereign.

This is where the debate shifts from security to political architecture. The people of Palestine want to breathe with safety and security more than ever.

Stabilization vs Sovereignty

Security forces can reduce immediate chaos, deter armed escalation, and protect aid convoys. But security deployment without full Palestinian political authority risks creating a managed environment rather than an empowered one.

The central legitimacy questions are unavoidable:

• Who defines the mandate of the force?
• Under which legal framework will troops operate?
• Who investigates misconduct?
• Who authorizes the use of force?
• What is the timeline for withdrawal?
• What political authority represents Palestinians in this framework?

Without clear answers, stabilization may freeze the genocide for some time rather than resolving it.

A Humanitarian System Becoming a Governance System

Since the conflict escalated, Gaza has increasingly functioned under humanitarian management. UN agencies, NGOs, and emergency distribution networks have sustained basic survival.

That humanitarian framework was never designed to become a long-term governance model.

Yet the introduction of a large multinational security presence, combined with externally supervised reconstruction, risks formalizing a system where Palestinians live under structured oversight rather than self-directed recovery.

The Muslim World’s Dilemma

For Muslim-majority countries signaling participation, the decision is complex.

On one hand:

• Contributing to stabilization can be framed as supporting Palestinian civilians.
• Participation offers diplomatic influence within reconstruction planning.

On the other hand:

• Domestic public opinion in many of these countries remains deeply sympathetic to Palestinian self-determination.
• Being perceived as enforcing externally designed frameworks could damage credibility.

The legitimacy of the stabilization force will depend not only on troop numbers, but on whether Palestinians see it as protection or control.

Reconstruction Cannot Be Security-Only

Rebuilding Gaza is not simply about concrete and policing.

It requires:

• Housing reconstruction at massive scale
• Restoration of power grids
• Rebuilding of water desalination systems
• Revitalization of private-sector employment
• Educational and health system recovery

All of which depend on stable access, political clarity, and local agency.

If reconstruction is conditioned primarily through security compliance metrics rather than civic empowerment, economic dependency could deepen.

The difference between peacekeeping and management lies in who sets the long-term political trajectory.

In a Nutshell

Stabilization can reduce violence for some time but it cannot eradicate the root cause of the issue. Until Israel is completely stopped from genocidal activities in Gaza, the peaceful solution for Palestine is not possible.

If Gaza’s reconstruction and security future are designed primarily in conference rooms outside the territory, even well-funded plans risk reinforcing dependency.

The distinction will define whether the International Stabilization Force becomes a bridge toward sovereignty or an architecture of prolonged oversight.

So, the coming months will determine which path Gaza is placed upon!

Although Gaza is still under a so-called “ceasefire”, nothing about Gaza feels like peace. The bombs are quieter, yet the pressure is heavier. Resultantly, the Rafah border remains a battleground without bullets, shaped by political deals, blocked negotiations, and shifting alliances. In a series of events, every country involved says it wants stability, while none of them agree on what that stability should look like. However, Palestinians are not invited into the rooms where their future is being discussed.

This is the political chessboard of Gaza. In fact, a map of power where every move is made above the heads of the people who live with the consequences.

Israel’s Strategy: Control Without Responsibility

Israel’s long-term goal has become increasingly clear. It is to maintain control over Gaza’s borders, movement, and political structure while avoiding the burden of direct governance. The reopening of the Rafah crossing only for exit, not entry, is part of this design. A one-way gate would encourage Palestinian displacement without Israel having to declare it openly.

Reports published by international outlets reveal proposals that would place Gaza under a new administrative framework that excludes Palestinian political actors and leaves Israel with indirect control.

Inside Israel, political pressure from far-right ministers shapes much of its Gaza policy. They demand harsher restrictions, deeper buffer zones, and tighter control of who enters and exits the strip. The argument is always the same: “security.” The reality is more aligned with demographic engineering and territorial fragmentation.

Egypt’s Red Line: No Resettlement in Sinai

Egypt rejects any attempt to push Palestinians into Sinai. Cairo has repeated this stance publicly and privately, warning that any forced movement of Gazans into Egyptian territory would destabilize the region and undermine Egypt’s sovereignty.

Egyptian officials understand that once Palestinians cross into Sinai in large numbers, they may never return. Egypt refuses to become the “alternative homeland.” This is why the Rafah crossing remains tightly controlled from the Egyptian side as well. Egypt views the crossing as leverage, a card it will not surrender lightly.

Hamas: Squeezed but Not Erased

Two years of war have left Hamas militarily weakened and politically isolated. Large parts of its governance structure were destroyed, and the population it once administered is now scattered across tent camps and ruined cities.

Yet Hamas remains a key player because it holds the hostage file and still commands loyalty among the masses. Attempts by Israel, the U.S., and other regional actors to design Gaza’s political future without Hamas have created a vacuum. There is no clear replacement, no unified Palestinian authority ready to take control, and no roadmap that includes the people who live in Gaza.

The United States: Containing the Conflict, Not Resolving It

The United States frames its Gaza involvement as a humanitarian and diplomatic effort. However, its strategy is aimed at managing the conflict, not ending it.

Washington continues military support to Israel while pushing for a Gaza administration that minimizes Hamas’s influence. The U.S.-backed idea of a “Board of Peace” or international governance model places foreign powers over Palestinian territory, effectively sidelining Palestinian representation.

This contradiction, supporting Israel militarily while calling for humanitarian relief, has shaped U.S. policy since the first days of the war. It has also prevented any long-term political solution from taking shape.

Qatar: The Broker Between Opposites

Qatar plays a unique role on this chessboard. It mediates hostage exchanges, communicates with Hamas, and finances humanitarian operations. Israel criticizes Qatar, yet depends on it. The U.S. works through Qatar despite political discomfort, and Hamas relies on Qatar’s mediation to remain relevant.

In every negotiation since 2023, Qatar has been the only actor able to speak to all sides. Its influence comes not from military power, but from its ability to keep channels open when everyone else closes theirs.

Europe: Loud Words, Quiet Actions

European governments issue statements condemning civilian suffering, demanding accountability, and calling for more aid. However, Europe remains deeply divided.

Countries like Spain, Belgium, and Ireland push for stronger action. Others, including France and Germany, avoid measures that would pressure Israel. The EU’s economic partnerships with Israel remain intact. Security cooperation continues, and statements do not become consequences.

As a result, Europe’s diplomatic voice carries moral weight but limited political impact.

The Broader Arab World: Anger Without Strategy

Arab leaders face enormous public pressure to act for Gaza, but their responses have been largely symbolic. Economic agreements, security deals, and regional partnerships constrain stronger positions.

Saudi Arabia remains cautious as it balances global alliances. The UAE prioritizes economic stability. Jordan manages population pressure and border security. None of these states has presented a unified plan for Gaza’s future. The absence of an Arab strategy leaves the political field open for external powers.

Rafah: A Border Crossing That Reveals Everything

The Rafah crossing is not just a gate, but the clearest symbol of Gaza’s political reality.

• Israel wants it controlled in a way that encourages displacement.
• Egypt refuses to open it for mass entry.
• The U.S. wants a managed framework.
• Qatar uses it as a negotiation point.
• Hamas sees it as a lifeline.

And Palestinians see it as the difference between survival and suffocation. Every decision about Rafah is a political move in this larger chess game.

A Homeland Negotiated Without Its People

Gaza’s political future is being shaped in Washington, Cairo, Tel Aviv, Doha, Brussels, and Riyadh. But neither in Gaza City nor in Rafah. Palestinians have no seat at the table where their homeland is being redesigned.

This is the real tragedy of Gaza’s political crisis. Occupation continues not only through military force, but through diplomatic exclusion. Every foreign plan that excludes Palestinian voices deepens instability and prolongs suffering.

The world cannot speak of stability while silencing the people who live with the consequences.

Until Palestinians are central to decisions about their land, every negotiation, border reopening, governance proposal, or ceasefire will be nothing more than another move in a game they never agreed to play.

The stage is being set for yet another high-profile Middle East handshake, and that could be a significant one. US President Donald Trump has just indicated that he expects a substantial expansion of the Abraham Accords by December 2025. These accords were a deal of normalization between Israel and several Arab states, including the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan, brokered by the United States in 2020.

His primary goal is to bring Saudi Arabia, the region’s heavyweight, into the fold. However, the question remains: will another round of normalization finally deliver justice to Palestinians, or bury their cause under diplomatic theatrics?

A New Chapter in an Old Script

Trump’s remarks at a campaign event this October came with quite confidence. “I think Saudi Arabia will join soon,” he said. “And when Saudi joins, everyone joins.” His prediction echoes the triumphalism of 2020, when the U.S.-brokered Abraham Accords led the UAE and Bahrain to recognize Israel, followed by Morocco and Sudan. Washington called it a “new era of peace.” However, for Palestinians, it marked yet another sidelining of their struggle.

When it comes to Saudi Arabia, it has long positioned itself as the guardian of Muslim interests in Jerusalem. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) has signaled openness to normalization, but only if it comes with what he calls a “credible path” to Palestinian statehood. Riyadh’s diplomats repeat that line in every forum, but the details remain elusive. Will Saudi Arabia really demand binding steps toward ending occupation, or settle for economic incentives and U.S. defense guarantees?

The Cost of Recognition Without Rights

When the Abraham Accords were first signed, Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank were already expanding at a record pace. Gaza remained blockaded by land, air, and sea. Yet none of the normalization signatories demanded measurable progress on Palestinian sovereignty. Instead, trade deals, arms contracts, and security partnerships flourished. Israel gained legitimacy without reform, while Palestinians gained little beyond rhetorical sympathy.

That imbalance is what makes Trump’s new push alarming to many in the region. The Gaza genocide has laid bare the moral bankruptcy of a peace process that ignores Palestinian suffering. To speak of “peace” while Gaza starves and the West Bank land is annexed is to misuse the word entirely.

What Saudi Arabia Could Get in Return?

For Saudi Arabia, normalization with Israel comes with a tempting list of rewards. It could include a U.S.-Saudi defense pact, advanced weapons systems, and civilian nuclear cooperation. These incentives could strengthen MBS’s global standing and accelerate his Vision 2030 ambitions. Yet the domestic and regional risks are profound. Saudi public opinion, according to Arab Barometer surveys, remains firmly opposed to any deal that abandons Palestinian statehood. Even among Gulf allies, the optics of aligning with Israel during Gaza’s devastation are politically explosive.

It is undoubtedly clear that if Riyadh proceeds without clear concessions for Palestinians, it risks forfeiting its moral authority across the Muslim world. On the other hand, demanding real steps, such as halting settlement expansion, lifting the Gaza blockade, or recognizing East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital, would likely stall talks indefinitely. Either way, Trump’s indication looks more like political theater than a realistic roadmap.

Trump’s Calculations

For Trump, the Abraham Accords were the centerpiece of his foreign policy legacy. Reviving them now serves his campaign narrative: the dealmaker who could deliver “peace in the Middle East” while securing American interests. However, this approach once again treats Palestine as a side issue, a problem to be managed, not resolved. The White House’s language of “prosperity” and “stability” continues to mask the reality of occupation, displacement, and collective punishment.

The United States still provides Israel with $3.8 billion in annual military aid and routinely shields it from UN accountability measures. As long as this dynamic persists, any U.S.-brokered normalization will remain inherently unequal and only a peace built on power, not justice.

Regional Dominoes and Diplomatic Illusions

If Saudi Arabia joins, analysts expect smaller Muslim-majority nations, including possibly Oman, Indonesia, or even Malaysia, to face renewed U.S. pressure to follow suit. The logic remains simple as the bigger the coalition, the more isolated Palestine becomes. Each new handshake, each photo-op in front of flags, makes Israel’s occupation appear more “normalized” on the world stage.

Yet, the Arab street tells a different story. From Amman to Kuala Lumpur, protests against Gaza’s siege have reignited solidarity with Palestinians. Even in countries that signed the Accords, public anger has grown. Leaders may sign deals, but the people remember, and hunger for justice still runs deeper than political convenience.

The danger of Trump’s December timeline is that it reframes normalization as progress, even as conditions in Gaza worsen. The UN reports that 93% of Gazans face food insecurity, while thousands remain displaced amid rubble and disease. To speak of diplomatic expansion while famine spreads is not peacemaking but another way of distraction.

True peace cannot emerge from transactional diplomacy. It demands accountability for war crimes, recognition of Palestinian sovereignty, and the dismantling of apartheid structures that define life under occupation. Until those principles guide policy, every new accord will be just another headline masking a humanitarian tragedy.

A Question of Conscience

What kind of peace are we expanding when it rewards power and punishes the powerless? The real peace demands the restoration of peace and equality, and not dominance. Saudi Arabia’s decision and inclination will shape more than its own foreign policy. It will be a defining moment of whether the Arab world chooses moral leadership or political expedience.

For Gaza, the answer cannot come soon enough. The people who have endured war, hunger, and isolation deserve more than photo opportunities and vague promises. They too deserve a peace that finally includes them!