The NEW YORK TIMES report transmitted below considers a fundamental problem regarding the "mission" of the hypothetical "International Stabilization Force" proposed by the "Trump peace plan": Is this force intended to protect the victims of the genocide from its perpetrators or to protect the perpetrators of the genocide from its victims?
It was reported yesterday that Vice President JD Vance, in Jerusalem to confer with his "Israeli friends", assured his friends that only countries acceptable to Israel would be permitted to participate in the "International Stabilization Force", thereby confirming, unsurprisingly, that the Israeli/American objective for such a force would be to assist the perpetrators of the genocide in continuing their occupation and oppression of the victims of the genocide.
In these circumstances, one may hope that no country will agree to participate in such a force.
NOTE: While this report is generally fair and constructive, I choked on the reference to to "the roughly half of Gaza that Israel has ceded so far."
In an article published in 2010 (www.counterpunch.org/2010/12/03/new-language-for-middle-east-peace) which remains highly relevant and which I hope that my distinguished recipients will also read, I wrote: "The words which people use, often unconsciously, can have a critical impact upon the thoughts and attitudes of those who speak and write, as well as those who listen and read. Dangerously misleading terminology remains a major obstacle to Israeli-Palestinian peace.... Commentators on all sides speak of Israel's 'ceding' territory occupied in 1967 to the Palestinians. The word suggests a transfer of land by its legitimate owner. Unless there are reciprocal exchanges of territory in a final peace agreement, the issue of Israel 'ceding' territory to Palestine does not arise. Israel can withdraw from occupied Palestinian territory or hand over administrative control of such territory, but to 'cede' property one must first possess legal title to it. Israel can no more cede title to occupied Palestinian lands than a squatter can cede title to an apartment which he has illegally occupied. In reality, it is Israel which continues to insist that Palestine cede to Israel indisputably Palestinian lands forming part of the meager 22% remnant of historical Palestine which Israel did not conquer until 1967."
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/21/world/middleeast/gaza-ceasefire-international-security-force-hamas.html
Nations Hesitate to Send Troops to Gaza, Fearing Clashes With Hamas
The Trump peace plan calls for an international security force in the Gaza Strip, but countries that might send troops are wary of danger, an unclear mission and being seen as occupiers.
By Adam RasgonMichael D. ShearDavid M. HalbfingerAaron Boxerman and Natan Odenheimer
Adam Rasgon, David Halbfinger, Aaron Boxerman and Natan Odenheimer reported from Jerusalem. Michael Shear reported from London.
The fragile cease-fire in Gaza that came into force last week rests on some key assumptions: that Hamas militants give up their weapons and that an international troop presence keep the peace as Israel withdraws its military from the enclave.
But the countries that might make up that force are skittish about committing soldiers who could potentially come into direct conflict with Hamas while it is still an armed group, diplomats and other people familiar with the deliberations say.
President Trump’s 20-point plan, which led to an Israel-Hamas cease-fire and an exchange of hostages for prisoners and detainees, envisioned the immediate deployment of a “temporary International Stabilization Force” in Gaza. The idea was for the international corps to secure areas where Israeli troops have withdrawn, prevent munitions from entering the territory, facilitate the distribution of aid and train a Palestinian police force.
The creation and deployment of an international force in Gaza could determine whether the current cease-fire has a chance to evolve into a lasting agreement, and whether Israelis and Palestinians move toward the broader aim of a durable peace.
Diplomats and other officials from several countries who are familiar with the situation say there has been little progress on when the force might be assembled because of confusion over the force’s mission, which appears to be the most serious stumbling block.
Representatives from several countries seen as likely participants have said privately that they will not commit troops until there is more clarity about what the force will be expected to do once it arrives in Gaza, according to two diplomats briefed on the discussions in recent days.
Their main concern is that their troops should not be expected to fight Hamas militants, some of whom remain heavily armed, on Israel’s behalf. For several of the countries, that prospect alone would be reason enough to back out, the officials said.
Some of the countries have also indicated in private discussions that they do not want their troops to be in the centers of Gaza’s cities, because of the danger posed there by Hamas and its tunnel networks, according to discussions with people familiar with the talks.
All of the people spoke on condition of anonymity, and insisted that the reluctant countries not be identified, to discuss the sensitive discussions.
An eruption of violence in Gaza on Sunday underscored those concerns. An attack by Palestinian militants in Israeli-held territory killed two Israeli soldiers, according to the Israeli military. Israel responded with a punishing bombardment of what it described as Hamas installations, which killed 45 Palestinians, according to Gaza health officials, who do not distinguish between civilian and combatant casualties.
Under the Biden administration, preliminary efforts were made to form a force including personnel from Indonesia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Italy, according to Jamie Rubin, who served as an adviser to Antony J. Blinken, the secretary of state at the time, and helped develop a plan for postwar governance in Gaza.
Recent discussions have included Indonesia, Egypt, Turkey and Azerbaijan, according to two diplomats.
Mediators who negotiated the current cease-fire are eager to get an international force into Gaza quickly to stabilize the area before Hamas consolidates its power in the roughly half of Gaza that Israel has ceded so far.
A Turkish government statement stated that President Recep Tayyip Erdogan had said Turkey would join a task force that it described as overseeing the cease-fire. It was unclear whether he was referring directly to the stabilization force. Some in Israel’s leadership are likely to be skeptical about Turkey playing a leading role in Gaza given that Mr. Erdogan has repeatedly condemned Israel during the past two years.
President Prabowo Subianto of Indonesia said during a speech at the United Nations last month that his country was ready to deploy 20,000 or more troops to “help secure peace in Gaza” and other war zones.
Uncertainty about who would be responsible for security in Gaza could leave parts of the enclave without any military presence to counter Hamas for weeks, if not months. The situation has produced some difficult contradictions as diplomats try to move forward with plans for the region.
Without such a force and government, diplomats said, Gaza could be left with Hamas as the only governing authority. Moreover, Israel’s military is unlikely to withdraw further — a key inducement for Hamas to accept the Trump plan — until an international force is ready to take its place.
Much depends, however, on whether Hamas gives up its weapons — which its leaders have been reluctant to do thus far.
Asked about how Hamas would disarm, Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump’s son-in-law and one of the architects of the cease-fire told CBS’s 60 Minutes last week: “So in order for that to occur, we need to create the international stabilization force and then the international stabilization force needs to create a local Palestinian government.”
Analysts say Arab states would be unlikely to deploy soldiers in Gaza if they feared they could be drawn into clashes with armed Hamas gunmen resisting their presence, and also if their participation was not connected to a pathway to Palestinian statehood — which Israel’s government opposes.
“Getting militarily involved in Gaza is politically risky for Arab countries,” said Ghaith al-Omari, an expert on Palestinian affairs and a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a Middle East-focused think tank in Washington. “They don’t want to come in and be seen as doing Israel’s dirty work. So they need a Palestinian invitation and the U.N. Security Council mandate.”
He added, “They also don’t want their contribution to be merely coming to secure a cease-fire that doesn’t lead to ending the Israeli occupation.”
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has suggested that Israel would act to disarm Hamas “the hard way” if the Palestinian militants refused to do so on their own.
The idea of an international peacekeeping force in Gaza has been under discussion since soon after Hamas attacked on Oct. 7, 2023, and Israel began its two-year military response. Various proposals from France, the United States and others have suggested that such a force would be needed quickly after the fighting between Israel and Hamas ended.
Discussions are also underway about the establishment of a separate, Palestinian police force that might operate in the urban areas of Gaza.
The Palestinian Authority, which runs a large police force in the West Bank, would seem a natural candidate, except for the opposition of Israel. Mr. Netanyahu, who has long sought to prevent both the West Bank and Gaza from winding up under the control of the same Palestinian entity, has firmly rejected any meaningful involvement of the authority in Gaza. When his cabinet outlined its terms for ending the war in August, it included an explicit statement that the Palestinian Authority would not govern Gaza.
And even Palestinian officials say that the authority’s reassertion of control in Gaza — from which it was ejected by Hamas in a 2007 civil war — would likely require careful planning and further training for its security forces.
Mohammad Mustafa, the Palestinian Authority’s prime minister, told reporters on Thursday that Egypt and Jordan were providing training to some of the authority’s officers and that the authority would “gradually operate” in Gaza after the war.
But asked when that might happen, he did not provide a timeline.
“War did stop but a lot of arrangements still are not in place,” Mr. Mustafa conceded at a news conference in the West Bank city of Ramallah, “on governance, on security, on logistics.”
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Whitbeck Blog" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to whitbeck-blog+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/whitbeck-blog/56561d0e-558f-4e05-a5d3-47f75a722f63%40gmail.com.