Netanyahu’s Gaza Gambit: Can Trump’s International Force Succeed Where Others Failed?
As Israel prepares to transition to a second phase of its Gaza ceasefire, the proposed deployment of a Trump-led international peacekeeping force resurrects a decades-old question: can external intervention finally break the cycle of violence in one of the world’s most intractable conflicts?
The Delicate Architecture of Peace
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s announcement that Israel and Hamas are “very shortly” moving into phase two of their ceasefire agreement marks a potentially significant shift in the Gaza conflict’s trajectory. The trigger for this transition—Hamas returning the remains of Israeli officer Ran Gvili—underscores the deeply personal dimensions of a conflict often reduced to geopolitical abstractions. Yet the proposed second phase, involving Hamas disarmament, Israeli troop withdrawal, and the deployment of an international force, reads like a wishlist of previously failed peace initiatives.
The details of this international force, reportedly to be overseen by a board led by President Donald Trump, remain murky. Historical precedent offers little optimism. From UNIFIL in Lebanon to various observer missions in the Palestinian territories, international forces have struggled to maintain peace between Israel and its adversaries. The question isn’t whether such forces can separate combatants—it’s whether they can address the underlying grievances that fuel the conflict.
Trump’s Unconventional Diplomacy Returns
President Trump’s involvement adds an unpredictable element to an already complex equation. During his previous term, Trump’s Middle East policy oscillated between bold initiatives like the Abraham Accords and controversial moves such as relocating the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. His transactional approach to diplomacy, while sometimes yielding unexpected breakthroughs, has also alienated key stakeholders. The prospect of Trump leading an international board overseeing Gaza raises questions about whether his administration can maintain the delicate balance required for such a mission.
The timeline Netanyahu suggests—implementation by month’s end—appears ambitious given the complexity of disarming Hamas, an organization deeply embedded in Gaza’s social and political fabric. Hamas views its military capabilities as essential to its survival and legitimacy. Previous attempts at disarmament, from the PLO in Lebanon to various militia groups in Iraq, demonstrate that such processes require years, not weeks, and often fail without addressing the political grievances that birthed these armed movements.
The Missing Pieces
Notably absent from Netanyahu’s announcement is any mention of Palestinian political aspirations or Gaza’s humanitarian crisis. The strip remains devastated from repeated conflicts, with its infrastructure in ruins and its population facing severe shortages of basic necessities. Any sustainable peace must address not just security concerns but also the dignity and aspirations of Gaza’s two million residents.
The involvement of regional powers—Egypt, Qatar, Jordan, and potentially Saudi Arabia—will be crucial to any lasting arrangement. These nations have historically played mediating roles and could provide the Arab legitimacy that a Trump-led force might lack. However, their participation isn’t guaranteed, especially given the controversial nature of Trump’s previous Middle East policies.
As Israel and Hamas edge toward this second phase, the international community watches with a mixture of hope and skepticism. The return of fallen soldiers’ remains represents a humanitarian gesture that transcends political divisions. But can this momentum translate into a broader transformation of the Gaza situation? History suggests that without addressing the fundamental questions of Palestinian statehood, Israeli security, and regional integration, even the most well-intentioned international intervention may simply postpone the next round of violence rather than prevent it.
