Peacekeepers With No Senders

Updated: 2025.10.13 8D ago 2 sources
The plan hinges on an international force to secure Gaza, but the likely troop contributors aren’t there: Egypt and Jordan won’t go in, and Europeans are unlikely to police tunnels and alleyways. Without willing boots, demilitarisation and phased Israeli withdrawal become unenforceable promises. Peace terms that lack an executable security spine are performative, not practical. — It forces peace proposals to confront who will actually enforce them, shifting debate from slogans to the hard logistics of post‑war security.

Sources

What will the Gaza deal unleash?
Reuel Marc Gerecht 2025.10.13 86% relevant
The article argues Trump’s 'international stabilisation force' for Gaza is a 'worthy recommendation best staffed by others' and, if deployed, would face bleeding harassment and function like a 'typical UN peacekeeping mission: basically useless.' It details why likely contributors (U.S., Gulf states, Egypt, Jordan, EU, PA) won’t patrol while Hamas remains—directly echoing the idea that there are no credible senders for such a force.
Will extremists wreck the Gaza deal?
David Patrikarakos 2025.10.05 100% relevant
The article notes Egypt’s historical scars, Jordan’s domestic risks, and European reluctance—leaving the proposed 'international stabilisation force' without realistic contributors.
← Back to All Ideas