Introduction

With the Gaza conflict entering its third year, US President Donald Trump’s “Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict” , a 20-point roadmap, has reignited global discussion on Palestine’s future. While both Israel and Hamas have agreed to an immediate ceasefire and prisoner exchange, the second, more ambitious part, a long-term peace framework and deployment of an International Stabilisation Force (ISF), faces deep geopolitical and operational challenges. The ISF, envisioned as a temporary yet long-term internal security mechanism under a “Board of Peace” chaired by Trump, is supposed to oversee “terror-free areas” handed over from Israel’s Defence Forces (IDF). But historical evidence from Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Iraq shows why such an effort may fail before it even begins.

What is the International Stabilisation Force (ISF)?

1. Temporary but long-term mechanism: The ISF is designed to act as a “temporary” yet enduring internal security arrangement, forming part of a larger apolitical Palestinian committee.
2. Trump’s oversight: It would be supervised by a “Board of Peace” chaired by Trump, tasked with ensuring security transition in Gaza.
3. Mandate confusion: The ISF’s deployment is proposed “immediately” after Israeli Defence Forces withdraw from designated “terror-free zones.”
4. Not UN-mandated: Unlike traditional UN peacekeeping forces, the ISF would lack international legitimacy and neutrality, as it is not under the UN Security Council’s (UNSC) authorisation.

Why is the ISF Not Comparable to UN Peacekeeping?

1. Absence of neutrality: International peacekeeping has always required UN-mandated neutrality; the ISF, dominated by US and allied interests, lacks this legitimacy.
2. Hostility in the region: Due to Arab hostility towards the US and Israel’s disregard for UN mandates, any non-UN force would face rejection from regional actors.
3. UN precedent: Since 2004, UNSC resolutions have repeatedly called for peacekeeping only under UN authority, especially within occupied Palestinian territories until a two-state solution is achieved.
4. Contradiction with global norms: Past experiences, from NATO’s ISAF in Afghanistan to multinational forces in Lebanon, show that non-UN interventions invite political opposition and legitimacy crises.

Why is Implementation Difficult in Palestine?

1. Israel’s selective compliance: Israel has historically undermined UN peacekeeping mandates (e.g., UNIFIL in Lebanon) and is unlikely to cooperate fully with an externally led force.
2. Hamas’ rejection of disarmament: Hamas has refused to disarm without Israel’s full withdrawal, a non-negotiable precondition.
3. Political vacuum: There are no strong Palestinian institutions capable of ensuring political control and governance in post-conflict Gaza.
4. UNSC resolutions ignored: While resolutions call for a two-state solution and prohibit occupation, Israel’s actions, including settlements and security zones, contravene these commitments.
5. Lack of Arab consensus: Arab states remain divided on participation in any force seen as legitimising Israeli occupation.

What Lessons Do Historical Precedents Offer?

1. Afghanistan (2001–2021): The NATO-led ISAF mission initially succeeded in stabilising Kabul but failed to create self-sustaining security institutions; the Taliban returned to power in 2021.
2. Lebanon (1982–2000): The Multinational Force (MNF), dominated by the US and UK, withdrew amid heavy local opposition and attacks, transferring responsibility to the UN’s UNIFIL.
3. Iraq (post-2003): The absence of a UN framework led to severe legitimacy deficits, insurgency, and long-term instability.
4. These precedents underscore that external interventions without inclusive local ownership often end in strategic failure.

What Are the Broader Challenges in Trump’s Plan?

1. Contradictory goals: Trump’s plan envisions Israel’s partial withdrawal but simultaneously retains security control, an inherent contradiction.
2. Palestinian exclusion: The proposal does not recognise any Palestinian political institutions or grant them meaningful authority.
3. Legal limitations: Without UNSC authorisation, the ISF would lack the legal basis to operate or enforce peace.
4. Regional optics: Arab and Islamic states would perceive this as another Western attempt to militarise peace under the guise of “stabilisation.”

Conclusion

Trump’s proposed International Stabilisation Force may appear bold on paper, but it suffers from a crisis of legitimacy, political trust, and historical amnesia. Without a UN mandate, regional consensus, or Palestinian participation, the plan risks deepening divisions rather than healing them. As history shows, no external force can impose peace where sovereignty and justice remain unresolved.

PYQ Relevance

[UPSC 2024] ‘Terrorism has become a significant threat to global peace and security.’ Evaluate the effectiveness of the United Nations Security Council’s Counter Terrorism Committee (CTC) and its associated bodies in addressing and mitigating this threat at the international level.

Linkage: Trump’s proposed International Stabilisation Force (ISF), lacking a UN mandate, underscores the limits of ad-hoc coalitions in tackling terrorism, contrasting with the UNSC-CTC’s institutional approach to coordinated, legitimate counter-terrorism efforts. It highlights the need for UN-backed, multilateral mechanisms over unilateral interventions for sustainable global peace.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now