Into the rubble: the uneasy birth of an international force in Gaza
There is a curious kind of quiet in Gaza these days — not the ordinary soft hush of a city at dawn, but the brittle silence of a place still listening for the next blast.
Amid that silence, Washington has begun to sketch out a new and highly sensitive idea: an international stabilization force to help secure Gaza after months of war and devastation. The plan — part of a broader 20-point reconstruction and security framework championed by the U.S. president — is not a full-scale occupation. Rather, American officials say the United States would provide a support role: up to 200 troops to backstop the multinational effort, and a handful of liaison teams on the ground to help build the operation.
“What we’re trying to do first is simply stabilize,” one senior U.S. adviser told reporters, speaking on condition of anonymity. “We’re constructing the international stabilization force — carefully, deliberately, in concert with regional partners.”
Who might join, and why it matters
The list of potential contributors reads like an improbable diplomatic hall of mirrors: Indonesia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Qatar and Azerbaijan have been named in conversations, according to advisers involved. Each offers a different kind of legitimacy and leverage — Islamic-majority Indonesia with moral weight in the Muslim world; Egypt with its border and long history in Gaza affairs; Qatar as an interlocutor with Hamas; and the UAE and Azerbaijan as emerging players in Middle East peace diplomacy.
There are practical reasons for an international force: Gaza is roughly 365 square kilometres and home to about 2.3 million people packed into one of the most densely populated strips on Earth. After months of fighting that shattered neighbourhoods, hospitals and infrastructure, the territory is a knot of humanitarian, security and political hazards — unexploded ordnance, collapsed buildings, fractured local governance and the persistent presence of armed groups.
“This isn’t an abstract mission,” said Dr. Leila Mansour, a scholar of conflict stabilization. “Stabilization in urban warfare means demining, restoring safe corridors, ensuring aid delivery, and creating credible local security structures. That takes a mix of police, engineers and logistics specialists — and it takes time.”
Who’s already there
- Up to two dozen U.S. personnel are reported to be in the region now in coordination and oversight roles.
- The United States has indicated willingness to provide up to 200 troops in support roles (not for front-line deployment inside Gaza).
- Discussions are ongoing with several regional states about troop and civilian contributions.
On the streets: fear, hope and the hard geometry of safe zones
In Shujaiya, the eastern neighbourhood of Gaza City where entire blocks are pockmarked with outlines of collapsed apartments, people speak in short, cautious bursts.
“We sleep in shifts,” said Samira, 36, who lost her home and now lives with extended family in a half-cleared courtyard. “When rockets sound we don’t run to the streets. We run to the darkest corner of the house and pray. If there is a safe area, I will go there — but is it really safe?”
U.S. advisers and others have floated the idea of safe zones — protected pockets where civilians could shelter and basic services be restored. The thought is straightforward; the reality is fiendishly complex. Where do you set such zones without shaping new frontlines? Who administers them? And how do you prevent them from being penetrated by militants or weapon caches?
Officials insist that any stabilization will not involve forced displacement. “No one will be made to leave Gaza,” an adviser said. “We’re looking at restoring and rebuilding in areas where Hamas militants are no longer present — step by step.”
The hostage gambit and the thin line of the truce
Any stabilization plan is tethered to the delicate, painful work of accounting for hostages and the dead. Under the ceasefire arrangement that saw the return of some prisoners and hostages, the maths have been brutal: nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners were released in exchange for the return of roughly 20 living Israeli hostages since the deal began, while the issue of deceased hostages remains unresolved.
Hamas has handed over several bodies — amid claims it cannot retrieve more without heavy equipment and in the face of hazardous conditions beneath mountains of rubble. Israel’s defence officialdom has warned that if the deal is not honoured, military action could resume.
“If Hamas refuses to comply with the agreement, we will act,” said a statement from an Israeli defence office in combative terms that underscore how fragile the lull is.
Meanwhile families on both sides await news with a steady, awful patience.
“My son’s room is still the same,” said Miriam, a woman in southern Israel whose son was taken on October 7. “We open his closet and for a moment we are still home. But the days are stretching into something else — a test of whether words mean anything.”
Humanitarian alarms: crossings, supplies and a looming reconstruction mountain
Humanitarian officials have pressed for the reopening of crossings, especially Rafah, the door between Gaza and Egypt that bypasses Israel’s territory. The UN has repeatedly warned that Gaza’s civilian population faces catastrophe: hospitals lacking anaesthetics, families without shelter, and the spectre of famine that UN agencies have invoked.
“The test is that we have children fed, that we have anaesthetics in the hospitals for people getting treatment, that we have tents over people’s heads,” a senior UN humanitarian official said after urging immediate opening of border points.
Rebuilding will demand not only construction crews but hundreds of millions — perhaps billions — of dollars, alongside political guarantees. President Trump and other international partners have spoken of investments, but even eager financiers will want security guarantees and a clear governance picture. At the heart of that picture is a non-starter for Israel and the U.S.: Hamas disarmament. Hamas, for its part, refuses to give up its weapons or role altogether, insisting it will remain part of Gaza’s political equation.
Why the world should care — and what you can ask
This is not only a local story. It is a test of whether international cooperation can be marshalled in a way that protects civilians, holds combatants to account, and prevents chronic cycles of violence. It raises questions about the responsibilities of regional powers, the limits of military solutions, and the ethics of rebuilding societies that remain politically contested.
What, then, would you demand if the world asked you to vote on rebuilding Gaza? Accountability? Guarantees of human rights? A plan to dismantle militias? Or an insistence that aid remain unconditional and driven by needs?
These are not rhetorical niceties. They are the knots that diplomats will have to untie while families in Gaza count days by the sound of generators and the length of queues for water. The stabilization force, however modest in its early U.S. contribution, may be the first thread in untangling a future that feels, for now, painfully uncertain.
“We need a horizon,” said Dr. Mansour. “It might be small and cautious, but people need to see that there is a plan beyond rubble and rhetoric — otherwise, the silence will only grow heavier.”
