The United Nations Security Council has endorsed a plan proposed by US President Donald Trump aimed at stabilizing Gaza. This initiative includes establishing a transitional authority and an International Stabilization Force (ISF) to ensure security and support demilitarization efforts in the region. However, the militant group Hamas has rejected both the UNSC resolution and the proposed force, indicating its unwillingness to disarm or relinquish its governing authority over Gaza.
As discussions evolve, the composition of the ISF and troop contributions remain contentious issues. Notably, Israel has blocked the participation of certain countries, particularly Turkey. Despite this, Turkey has expressed its readiness to contribute approximately 2,000 personnel, including land forces and specialists in engineering and logistics. However, Ankara has stipulated that the creation of the ISF must include guarantees for a lasting cease-fire.
Turkey’s potential involvement illustrates a significant diplomatic divide. The nation has consistently criticized Israel, particularly during the recent conflict in Gaza, while Israel cites President Erdoğan’s ties to Hamas as a primary concern. Despite this, excluding Turkey could create challenges, as it plays a crucial role in the cease-fire agreement and previously participated in the Sharm el-Sheikh Peace Summit in October.
The ongoing debate is not merely about Turkey’s inclusion in the ISF, but rather how Ankara can contribute without disrupting the delicate political balance. While Turkey possesses impressive peacekeeping credentials from various international missions, Israel’s opposition stems from political distrust rather than Turkey’s operational capabilities.
Egypt, which has had a historically tense relationship with Turkey, may also influence the discussions regarding Turkish involvement. Similarly, the United Arab Emirates might express reservations, although it currently lacks an intention to deploy troops itself.
Immediate needs in Gaza center on engineering support, including the clearance of unexploded ordnance and restoration of essential services. Turkish military units have expertise in these areas, although the Egyptian military shares similar capabilities. Turkey’s military experience could bolster its case for involvement, yet political dynamics may still hinder its participation.
Turkey’s close ties to Hamas could be a critical asset in this context. Recent reports suggest Turkish officials are engaged in sensitive negotiations regarding Hamas fighters, a role that could help ensure the cease-fire’s stability and facilitate disarmament discussions.
A US-led Civil-Military Coordination Center (CMCC) established in southern Israel is emerging as a key element for coordinating post-conflict efforts. The CMCC is responsible for managing aid flows and logistical support under the cease-fire plan. Turkey appears well-positioned to participate in this framework, potentially alleviating some of Israel’s concerns about Turkish boots on the ground.
Possible contributions from Turkey could include the training and vetting of Palestinian police forces in coordination with the CMCC, as well as engineering support and explosive ordnance disposal operations under UN auspices. These activities could address critical needs while minimizing political friction.
In light of President Trump’s positive relations with Erdoğan, it is likely that the US administration will seek a way to address Israeli concerns and facilitate Turkey’s role in the ISF. Even without a direct military presence in Gaza, Turkey is eager to play a supportive role in shaping policy and contributing to the reconstruction efforts.
Ultimately, it is essential for both Turkey and Israel to focus on collaborative approaches, working alongside the United States to define Turkey’s role in advancing the objectives of the ISF and contributing to a sustainable peace in Gaza.
