Arab and Muslim states are being courted to bankroll – and legitimize – a foreign force tasked with dismantling Palestinian resistance under the guise of peacekeeping.
The Cradle
Far from a neutral effort to restore calm, the move signals a calculated escalation in the US-Israeli campaign to crush Palestinian resistance under the pretext of post-war reconstruction.
According to US officials, this second phase of US President Donald Trump's so-called peace initiative will coincide with the release of hostages and a fragile, US-engineered ceasefire.
“A tremendous deal of quiet scheming is currently taking place behind the curtain for phase two of the peace deal,” White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt shared with reporters on 11 December, saying, “Our goal is to establish a lasting peace.”
But if past US-brokered arrangements are anything to go by, this “peace” is unlikely to mean justice. Details emerging from the Israeli press suggest the ISF plan is being finalized by military leaders who will meet in Germany to determine the force's rules of engagement – and which resistance groups must be neutralized.
Disarming resistance, not the occupation
The first cracks in the plan are already visible. Disagreements between Washington and Tel Aviv have surfaced, not over whether to disarm Hamas, but when and how. Tel Aviv insists that all resistance groups must surrender their weapons before the ISF lands in Gaza. Washington, facing regional blowback and a collapsing image as a neutral broker, is attempting a more phased approach.
Dr Ghulam Ali, a researcher and author based in Taiwan, tells The Cradle:
“How can the US hit the nail on the head while keeping the flow of weapons to Israel steady and unwavering? Reducing Hamas's influence is unlikely to lead to a sustainable peace. Only applying pressure to Israel will be effective.”
He contends that the west would ultimately be incapable of restraining Israel's actions, as it has become increasingly apparent that each western peace initiative has resulted in Israel's further integration into the region.
Dr James M. Dorsey, a journalist and scholar from Singapore, stated on a recent Radio Islam talk show that Trump is concerned that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is obstructing US diplomatic initiatives to resolve the Gaza conflict.
The divergence came to a head following Israel's assassination of Hamas commander Raed Saad – a killing that drew rare frustration from the White House, with US officials conveying a “stern private message” to Netanyahu that the move breached the ceasefire framework the Trump administration had helped broker.
Netanyahu's hardline refusal to ease military pressure on Gaza and Lebanon has delayed a scheduled meeting between the two leaders until January.
The disarmament debate has also exposed a wider fault line within the Axis of Resistance and its western-aligned adversaries. Qatar, Egypt, and Turkiye – all central to ceasefire negotiations – have resisted US pressure to support a military deployment before Israel halts its violations and allows humanitarian relief.
Netanyahu, however, is pushing to deploy the ISF as a tool to dismantle Hamas entirely. Meanwhile, Washington’s envoy to Syria, Tom Barrack, concedes that disarming Hezbollah is “not reasonable.”
Buying complicity, not consensus
Arab and Muslim-majority states remain wary. Public opinion across the region strongly favors Palestinian resistance, making direct military involvement in Gaza politically toxic. Yet Washington is betting on transactional diplomacy to sway its allies.
The UAE, for instance, may finance the ISF without contributing troops – a workaround to avoid domestic backlash while maintaining its alignment with Tel Aviv.
Pakistan’s position is equally ambivalent. While its foreign office denies any formal decision to join the ISF, analysts suggest that Pakistan’s military is likely to comply with US directives. As Imtiaz Gul, a Pakistani defense analyst and executive director of the Center for Research and Security Studies (CRSS), tells The Cradle:
"The primary strategy and goals of the ISF regarding the disarmament of Hamas are to neutralize and ultimately eradicate Hamas, along with other resistance factions. The primary objective is not disarmament but rather the neutralization and eradication of resistance in the region with the support of Israel and its allied Muslim nations."
Gul further emphasizes that Netanyahu has consistently characterized Hamas as an existential threat to Israel, affirming that its elimination is vital for the security of Tel Aviv. The main objective of the ISF is the complete elimination of Hamas, a goal that will be explicitly supported by the nations collaborating in the US–Israel joint operation in Gaza.
Peacekeeping or power projection?
Pakistan, Indonesia, Azerbaijan, Turkiye, and Egypt have expressed interest in participating in the proposed stabilization force for Gaza. The mandate of the ISF remains ambiguous; therefore, no country has so far officially announced joining the international force.
Last week, Tahir Andrabi, a spokesperson of the Pakistan foreign office, said that Islamabad has not decided yet whether it will take part in the proposed ISF for Gaza. He said that talks about Gaza are part of greater diplomatic efforts and are not an official proposal. Pakistan supports efforts to stabilize Gaza, but any decisions about foreign involvement will be in line with its policy, he added.
Dr Ali tells The Cradle that he believes that the Pakistani military would make every effort to comply with Washington's directives:
“The military has the backing of religious factions, and if the US truly had a mind to convince Pakistan to send troops, those same religious factions would be the first to step up and sing the praises of such a move. The army chief, perched on shaky ground, is unable to go against the US.”
Gul, though optimistic about Pakistan's joining the ISF interprets Islamabad's decision to align with the ISF as a mutually beneficial arrangement between the US and Pakistan.
”The US will refrain from intervening in Pakistan's existing hybrid governance structure in return for Pakistan's endorsement of US initiatives on Gaza and the possible facilitation of the Abraham Accord,” he asserts.
Pakistan’s dilemma
Asim Munir, Pakistan's powerful field marshal, who has recently consolidated unprecedented authority to serve as the head of all three branches of the defense apparatus, is expected to meet President Trump in the forthcoming weeks to discuss the deployment in Gaza.
Although the Pakistani Foreign Office denied Munir's visit to Washington and provided only a vague statement regarding Islamabad's intention to join the ISF, analysts contend that by banning a radical religious organization and granting lifelong legal immunity, General Munir has signaled the possibility of undertaking more significant actions.
“The military leadership appears to be politically stable, as prominent political entities such as the PPP [Pakistan's People Party] and PML-N [Pakistan Muslim League (N)] endorse the current regime, while they may provide some concessions to former Pakistani prime minister Imran Khan and his senior colleagues in exchange for their silence regarding deployment matters,” Gul reveals.
He adds that historically, the military establishment has leveraged right-wing pressure groups and political parties in Pakistan, while Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) and its incarcerated leader, Khan, now present minimal opposition due to ongoing administrative and legal obstacles. Furthermore, he said, Pakistan is recognized as the second-largest contributor to UN peacekeeping forces worldwide.
Outsourcing the occupation
The establishment of the ISF has emerged as a crucial component of peace efforts in West Asia following conflicts in Gaza and southern Lebanon.
The UN Security Council endorsed the creation of the ISF through Resolution 2803 last month, aiming to transition security control from the Israeli army to local authorities. However, the clause concerning disarming entrenched groups like Hamas and Hezbollah requires a complex strategy that integrates military action with political motivations.
The ISF, functioning under US Central Command (CENTCOM), is designed as a global peacekeeping body focused on Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration (DDR). Over 70 nations have been invited to participate, with a preference for troops from Arab and Muslim countries to enhance “legitimacy.”
US officials assert that the ISF is authorized to use force if disarmament negotiations fail, which causes many participating Muslim countries to hesitate because of potential backlash from pro-Palestinian constituents.
Dismantling Hamas and preventing the reconstruction of resistance infrastructure present serious challenges – and Hamas remains clear that any disarmament discussion is contingent upon the establishment of a Palestinian state.
No comments:
Post a Comment