As the international community grapples with the implementation of U.S. President Donald Trump’s 20-point Gaza Peace Plan, adopted by the UN Security Council via Resolution 2803 on November 17, 2025, attention has turned to the proposed International Stabilization Force (ISF) tasked with securing the war-torn region.
The force, envisioned as a multinational contingent primarily from Muslim countries, aims to train Palestinian police, oversee reconstruction, and facilitate the disarmament of Hamas – a key pillar of the plan’s second phase.
However, experts and regional stakeholders are divided on the feasibility of disarming Hamas and whether the mission could serve as a trap for participating Muslim nations, potentially entangling them in Israel’s security framework or a direct clash with Hamas.
There are also massive objections inside these countries that are willing to send their troops to Gaza. Mostly, these countries have internal rifts and challenges, and they are tackling them amid political chaos or turmoil.
The plan, released by Trump on September 29, 2025, calls for a “Board of Peace” to govern Gaza as a transitional authority, alongside the ISF to ensure long-term internal security.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been actively recruiting over 70 countries, emphasizing that the force would operate under a UN mandate and consist exclusively of Muslim troops to gain acceptance from all parties. Countries like Pakistan, Indonesia have emerged as pivotal, with Rubio noting Islamabad’s offer to consider participation, stating, “We’re very grateful to Pakistan for their offer or at least their offer to consider being a part of it.” Ethiopia has also been approached for troop contributions. The U.S. anticipates deployment in early 2026, but Rubio admits more details on the mandate are needed before firm commitments.
How Feasible Is Disarming Hamas?
Disarming Hamas remains the plan’s most contentious element, described by analysts as “perhaps the greatest challenge. Hamas officials have outright rejected disarmament, calling it “not negotiable,” which could prolong the conflict and hinder Gaza’s recovery.
There are even risks of a major collision between Hamas and the Peace forces because if they protect the US and Israeli interests, then the clash is inevitable.
Experts highlight the difficulty: Hamas is deeply embedded in Gaza’s society, with an estimated arsenal built through smuggling and local production. A Foreign Policy analysis notes that any disarmament effort would likely require involvement from Qatar and Turkey, Hamas’s key backers, but even then, full compliance is unlikely without a viable political alternative. However, there are experts who believes that Hamas “will not disarm itself,” and the only path forward is replacing it with a governance structure that demonstrates better outcomes for Palestinians. Historical parallels, such as failed disarmament efforts in other conflicts, underscore the risks, with some predicting the process could take two to three years.
From Palestinian perspectives, disarmament is viewed sceptically. Hamas’s refusal has led to calls for a tough choice; reconstruction cannot proceed while the group retains power.
A Trap for Muslim Countries?
Critics from Arab and Muslim nations express wariness, viewing the ISF as a potential trap that could draw their forces into enforcing Israeli interests. The “Yellow Line” demarcation, which confines Gazans to 36% of the Strip, has raised alarms about permanent Israeli control over the rest.
In Pakistan, the proposal has sparked domestic debate. While Rubio praises Pakistan’s potential role as “key” to the force, local analyses warn of a “Gaza trap” amid public protests and economic priorities.
Turkey has been excluded from recruitment forums due to its Hamas ties, and Netanyahu has drawn a “red line” against Turkish troops.
As Netanyahu prepares to meet Trump on December 29, the ISF’s fate hangs in the balance. Progress is stalled, with Israel insisting on disarmament before reconstruction, while the U.S. pushes forward amid ceasefire violations. For Muslim nations, the decision to join could bolster regional stability – or expose them to accusations of complicity in a fraught occupation.
