NEARLY a month after the Gaza ceasefire took effect, and despite sustained violations by Israel, international focus has now shifted to the mechanics of the proposed multinational stabilisation force for the occupied Palestinian territory. The issue has reached the UN Security Council, while US President Donald Trump has said he expects the force to be in Gaza “very soon”. Yet many unanswered questions remain about the role of this force. For one, Israel wants minimal UN oversight, though most of the international community — including the states that will reportedly contribute troops — insist on a UN mandate. Secondly, the US resolution submitted to the UNSC reportedly calls for “demilitarising the Gaza Strip”, which is a euphemism for disarming Hamas and other Palestinian resistance groups. Given that Hamas has not committed to disarming, will this set the troops of the stabilisation force on a collision course with Palestinian factions?

As Pakistan is involved in discussions at the UN, and is also among the countries that may contribute troops, there must be absolute clarity about the mandate of the International Stabilisation Force. There should be no compromise on the demand for a UN mandate; only a force endorsed by the multilateral body, and acceptable to the Palestinians, will have the moral legitimacy to be in Gaza. Moreover, the language about demilitarisation of Gaza is even more contentious. If ISF peacekeepers go into the Strip, their primary mission should be to protect Palestinian civilians from Israel, to ensure that requisite aid reaches the devastated region, and that the process of rebuilding can begin. If the US and Israel use Muslim forces to bring Hamas and other Palestinian groups to heel, then it would be a grave mistake to commit troops to this mission. Therefore, a transparent mandate is required from the UNSC, while the matter must also be debated in parliament before Pakistan makes any commitments.

Published in Dawn, November 8th, 2025