As the world turns its gaze toward the upcoming Gaza peace moot scheduled in Sharm el-Sheikh, anticipation mixes with skepticism. Delegations from more than 25 nations, including Egypt, Qatar, Indonesia, Pakistan, and the United States, are expected to participate. The summit’s stated goal is to chart a post-war roadmap for Gaza: one that ensures reconstruction, stability, and long-term governance. Yet, beneath the diplomatic smiles lies a deeper unease. Will this summit bring justice, or simply repackage occupation in the language of peace?
While Egypt positions itself as a mediator and the United States attempts to portray itself as a peace broker, many in the Muslim world view this as an exercise in image management. For Gazans who have endured months of devastation, the word “peace” feels hollow when their children are still being buried beneath rubble.
The International Stabilization Force: A New Guardian or Another Overseer?
Central to the summit’s agenda is the proposed International Stabilization Force (ISF). It is a multinational security body meant to take charge of Gaza once Israeli troops withdraw. According to policy outlines discussed at the Council on Foreign Relations, the ISF would be composed of troops from Muslim-majority countries such as Egypt, Indonesia, and Turkey, supported logistically by the U.S. and possibly NATO allies.
Its mission is to oversee security, prevent rearmament, and assist in rebuilding civilian police institutions. Yet this concept immediately triggers questions of legitimacy and control. Who will the ISF answer to, whether it be the United Nations, the Arab League, or Washington? And will it protect Gazans or impose an externally dictated order?
Critics warn that such a force could serve as a buffer between Israel and Gaza rather than a guarantor of Palestinian sovereignty. A security expert quoted, “If the ISF’s mandate comes from Western powers, it may enforce stability at the cost of freedom.”
Gaza’s Sovereignty Between Protection and Control
The idea of international troops in Gaza is not new. Similar arrangements in Lebanon and Bosnia offered mixed results when peacekeeping often turned into passive observation, and local populations remained powerless. For Gazans, the fear is that the ISF might become an instrument to monitor them rather than protect them.
While Israel seeks guarantees that Hamas will not regain control, Palestinians demand something far simpler: the right to self-govern without occupation or military oversight. Many analysts argue that unless the ISF’s command structure includes Palestinian representation, it risks deepening mistrust.
Furthermore, there are legal and ethical dilemmas. If Israeli forces withdraw but still control Gaza’s airspace and borders through the ISF, can Gaza truly be called free? The world has seen this model before, which is an illusion of autonomy wrapped in the language of international cooperation.
The Politics Behind Peace: Competing Interests
Every participating nation arrives with its own agenda. For example, Egypt, leading the ISF, offers regional prestige. For Qatar and Indonesia, participation reinforces solidarity with Palestinians. For the United States, it is a strategic opportunity to maintain influence over the post-war narrative. Yet, for Gaza, each external interest risks turning the strip into a geopolitical chessboard.
Observers note that the absence of any confirmed Israeli participation in the summit is telling. It suggests that while plans are made for Gaza’s future, the voices of those who live there remain marginalized. Without Gazan and broader Palestinian leadership at the table, the summit risks becoming an exercise in deciding the fate of a people without their consent.
Reconstruction and Responsibility: The Road Ahead
Rebuilding Gaza will require an estimated $70 billion, according to updated UN and World Bank figures. Roads, hospitals, power grids, and schools must be reconstructed almost from scratch. The ISF, if deployed, will play a role in securing aid routes and ensuring humanitarian access, but security alone will not heal Gaza. Without justice, accountability, and economic sovereignty, reconstruction will be little more than rebuilding the cage.
Experts emphasize that any real peace must involve lifting the blockade, restoring trade access, and giving Palestinians control over their borders and ports. Without these measures, even billions in reconstruction funds will fail to bring lasting stability.
The Moral Imperative
The peace summit in Egypt and the proposed International Stabilization Force are being presented as symbols of hope. However, hope without accountability is fragile. If the world truly wants to guard Gaza’s future, it must begin by addressing the root cause of its suffering, which is occupation, displacement, and systemic denial of human rights.
True peace cannot be imposed, but it must be built on justice. For Gazans, peace is not about foreign soldiers on their streets. It’s about waking up without fear, owning their land, and rebuilding their lives with dignity. The question that remains is whether the world will finally allow them that chance.
