Gaza reconstruction hinges on multinational security force as Israel and Hamas remain divided over sequencing

International troops are moving closer to deployment in Gaza as the United States attempts to implement the most difficult phase of its postwar plan for the territory, with Uganda, Morocco and Kazakhstan among the countries offering personnel for a multinational stabilization force. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz told the Security Council that troops and support personnel from partner governments are now scheduled to arrive, although deployment has progressed more slowly than Washington hoped. The force is intended to secure areas vacated by Israeli troops, support Palestinian police, protect humanitarian operations and help oversee the demilitarization process required under the Gaza roadmap. The central obstacle remains unresolved, however, because Hamas has accepted a phased arrangement linking weapons decommissioning with Israeli withdrawal, while Israel insists meaningful disarmament must occur before its forces pull back.

The deployment would mark one of the most significant changes in Gaza’s security structure since the war triggered by the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Rather than leaving Israeli troops or Hamas responsible for security across the territory, the plan envisions a temporary international force operating alongside a newly trained Palestinian police service and a technocratic Palestinian administration. Its success could determine whether Gaza moves toward reconstruction and civilian governance or remains trapped in a prolonged cycle of military operations, displacement and political deadlock.

Uganda, Morocco and Kazakhstan are among countries preparing personnel for Gaza stabilization force

Washington says several governments have now offered troops or other military personnel for the International Stabilization Force, commonly referred to as the ISF. Waltz told the Security Council that Uganda, Morocco and Kazakhstan had offered thousands of personnel, while earlier commitments also involved Indonesia, Kosovo and Albania.

Uganda has taken one of the clearest formal steps by securing parliamentary approval for a possible deployment. President Yoweri Museveni’s government agreed to participate after Trump administration representatives sought Kampala’s support, drawing on Uganda’s extensive experience with multinational missions in Somalia, South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Ugandan officials have discussed contributing around 1,200 troops, while Morocco has previously indicated it could contribute several hundred personnel. Other participating countries have offered combinations of troops, medics, military planners and logistical specialists, although final numbers could change as deployment arrangements are completed.

The long-term target is considerably larger. U.S. Army Major General Jasper Jeffers, who commands the force, previously outlined plans for an ISF of around 20,000 personnel supported by approximately 12,000 newly trained Palestinian police officers.

International force would secure areas vacated by Israel and help train Palestinian police

The stabilization force is intended to perform several functions rather than operate as a conventional occupation army. Its responsibilities include securing territory during Israeli withdrawals, protecting civilians and aid operations, supporting ceasefire monitoring and helping Palestinian authorities establish functioning policing institutions.

Egypt and Jordan are expected to play major roles in police training, while the international troops would initially operate in designated sectors rather than immediately deploying across the entire Gaza Strip. Earlier plans called for beginning in southern Gaza around Rafah before expanding sector by sector as conditions permit.

That phased structure is designed to prevent a security vacuum. If Israeli forces withdraw before Palestinian institutions or international troops are prepared to assume responsibility, armed groups could potentially regain control of vacated areas or humanitarian conditions could deteriorate further.

The force would also provide security for reconstruction and aid activity. Gaza’s infrastructure has been devastated by years of fighting, and rebuilding homes, hospitals, water systems, roads and power networks will require a security environment stable enough for international agencies, contractors and donors to operate.

Hamas has accepted roadmap but disarmament remains the central unresolved issue

The latest diplomatic momentum followed Hamas and other Palestinian factions accepting a roadmap under which they would transfer weapons to Palestinian-controlled storage and eventually relinquish governing authority in Gaza. Board of Peace officials have described that acceptance as a significant breakthrough after months of stalled negotiations.

Under the roadmap, heavy weapons, military production sites, tunnels and weapons depots would be dismantled or placed under the authority of the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza. That body is intended to serve as a technocratic Palestinian administration during the transitional period.

Hamas has avoided portraying the process as unconditional surrender. Its position is that weapons decommissioning and Israeli withdrawal should take place in linked stages, with each side completing obligations as verified progress occurs on the ground.

The group has also insisted that weapons should remain under Palestinian authority rather than being surrendered directly to Israel or foreign forces. That distinction has become politically important because Hamas wants to portray the arrangement as part of a negotiated transition rather than capitulation.

Israel insists Hamas must disarm before reconstruction and major troop withdrawal

Israel’s interpretation remains substantially different. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly argued that Hamas must undergo genuine disarmament before Israel makes major withdrawals or allows full-scale reconstruction to begin.

Israeli officials say leaving armed Hamas units intact while withdrawing troops would recreate the security conditions that existed before the October 2023 attacks. Israel therefore wants verification that weapons, tunnels and military infrastructure have been neutralized before relinquishing control of additional territory.

The disagreement is fundamentally about sequencing rather than the broad objective. Both the U.S. roadmap and Israeli policy envision a Gaza where Hamas no longer operates as an armed governing force, but Washington’s plan links demilitarization and withdrawal through staged reciprocal steps.

Russia has criticized Israel for resisting that reciprocal approach, arguing at the Security Council that both Hamas disarmament and Israeli withdrawal should proceed together. That disagreement shows why an international force may become central to bridging the security gap between the two sides.

US-backed Board of Peace has become central institution overseeing Gaza transition

The Gaza plan is being managed through Trump’s Board of Peace, an international body established to coordinate the territory’s transition, security and reconstruction. The U.N. Security Council recognized the board’s temporary Gaza role and authorized deployment of the International Stabilization Force through 2027.

The board includes a mixture of U.S. officials, international political figures and participating states. Trump chairs the organization, while figures including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Steve Witkoff, Tony Blair and Jared Kushner have held senior roles in its structure.

More than two dozen governments have joined, including several Middle Eastern states with direct interests in Gaza’s future. Egypt, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and Turkey are among the regional participants, while other major governments have declined membership.

Critics argue that the structure gives Washington disproportionate influence over Gaza’s political future and does not provide Palestinians with sufficient representation. Supporters say it creates a practical mechanism for coordinating security, financing and reconstruction in a territory where earlier diplomatic efforts repeatedly failed.

UN officials warn ceasefire remains fragile despite progress on political roadmap

The prospect of international deployment does not mean Gaza has reached stable peace. U.N. officials told the Security Council that Israeli airstrikes, drone attacks and ground operations continue despite the ceasefire, while humanitarian conditions remain severe.

Israeli strikes killed additional Palestinians on August 28, according to hospital officials, underscoring the distance between diplomatic negotiations and conditions on the ground. Israel says its military continues to act against immediate militant threats, while Palestinian officials and ceasefire mediators argue repeated strikes risk undermining the transition.

Nickolay Mladenov, the senior official overseeing implementation of the Gaza plan, has warned that continuing violence could destroy the opportunity to move from ceasefire management to permanent political arrangements. He has argued that the alternative to implementing the roadmap is another cycle of war in an already devastated territory.

The U.N. has similarly emphasized that implementation must eventually support Palestinian self-determination and a political process addressing the wider Israeli-Palestinian conflict rather than simply creating a new security structure in Gaza.

Reconstruction cannot begin at full scale until security arrangements are credible

The economic stakes surrounding the stabilization force are enormous. Estimates for rebuilding Gaza run into tens of billions of dollars, with extensive damage to housing, hospitals, schools, roads, sanitation networks and electricity infrastructure.

The Board of Peace has already established a multibillion-dollar reconstruction fund, but international donors and private contractors are unlikely to commit resources at the necessary scale while fighting continues or political authority remains uncertain.

Security therefore becomes directly tied to reconstruction. A functioning international force could make it possible for humanitarian organizations and infrastructure companies to operate with lower risk while providing donors with greater confidence that rebuilt facilities will not immediately be destroyed in another conflict.

The National Committee for the Administration of Gaza would eventually assume greater responsibility for civilian governance, while the Palestinian police force expands its presence. International troops are intended to remain temporary rather than become Gaza’s permanent security authority.

Gaza force could become major test of multinational peacekeeping outside traditional UN command

The ISF is unusual because it has U.N. Security Council authorization but is not structured as a conventional United Nations peacekeeping force. Operational command rests under U.S. leadership through Major General Jeffers, with participating governments supplying personnel and support.

That structure gives Washington greater operational control but also places more responsibility on the United States and partner countries if the mission encounters resistance, casualties or disputes over rules of engagement.

Foreign troops could face substantial risks in an environment containing unexploded ordnance, armed factions, destroyed infrastructure and intense political hostility. Governments contributing troops will therefore need clear legal agreements defining when their forces can use weapons and how disputes involving Israeli or Palestinian actors will be handled.

Uganda has already said a status-of-forces agreement would be required before its troops deploy, highlighting the legal complexity involved in transforming political commitments into an operational security mission.

Success of troop deployment could determine whether Gaza moves toward reconstruction or renewed war

The arrival of international forces would represent tangible movement from ceasefire diplomacy toward implementation. For months, the Gaza plan has been held back by disagreement over whether Hamas should disarm first or Israel should begin withdrawing before weapons are fully removed.

The stabilization force is intended to create a third option by allowing neutral or outside troops to enter areas as both processes move forward. If successful, that arrangement could reduce Israel’s concern that vacated territory will immediately return to Hamas control while giving Palestinians evidence that Israeli withdrawal is actually occurring.

Failure would carry equally large consequences. If the international troops cannot deploy safely, Hamas refuses verified demilitarization or Israel refuses reciprocal withdrawals, reconstruction could remain frozen and the ceasefire could gradually collapse.

The next phase will therefore depend less on additional political declarations than on events inside Gaza itself. Troop arrivals, verified weapons decommissioning, Israeli redeployment and the establishment of Palestinian civilian administration will provide the clearest evidence of whether the plan is becoming a functioning transition or remains primarily a diplomatic framework.

Key takeaways from the planned international troop deployment to Gaza

• U.S. officials say international troops and personnel are now scheduled to begin arriving in Gaza under the International Stabilization Force plan.
• Uganda, Morocco and Kazakhstan are among the governments offering personnel, with several other countries providing troops, medics or military planners.
• The long-term plan envisions approximately 20,000 international personnel and 12,000 newly trained Palestinian police officers.
• The stabilization force would secure areas vacated by Israel, protect humanitarian operations and support the transition toward Palestinian civilian policing.
• Hamas and other Palestinian factions have accepted a roadmap involving weapons decommissioning and transfer of governing authority to a technocratic administration.
• Israel supports Hamas disarmament but insists meaningful demilitarization must occur before major Israeli withdrawals and full-scale reconstruction begin.
• The U.S.-backed roadmap instead links Hamas disarmament and Israeli withdrawal through phased, verified steps implemented sector by sector.
• Gaza’s transitional civilian administration would be handled by the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza rather than Hamas.
• U.N. officials warn the ceasefire remains fragile as Israeli strikes continue and humanitarian conditions remain severe across the territory.
• Successful deployment could unlock reconstruction funding and reduce the risk of renewed war, while failure could leave Gaza in prolonged military and political limbo.