A bold move by the UAE has sparked controversy and raised questions about the proposed Gaza stabilisation force. The UAE's decision to not participate in the force, as outlined in a US-drafted resolution, has brought attention to the complex legal and political landscape surrounding this initiative.
The proposed force, intended to disarm Hamas and secure Gaza, faces growing opposition from key players in the region. Israel has already ruled out Turkey's involvement, and Jordan has stated its troops will not join. Azerbaijan, once considered a potential contributor, has also stepped back, citing the need for a full ceasefire.
But here's where it gets controversial... The UAE's senior envoy, Dr. Anwar Gargash, expressed concerns about the lack of a clear legal framework for the force. He emphasized that the UAE would not participate without a defined structure, opting instead to support political peace efforts and continue its humanitarian aid contributions.
Arab states, including Qatar, share these concerns. They advocate for a greater role for a separate Palestinian civilian police force and highlight the complexities of international law, which prohibits foreign troops from entering occupied Palestine without explicit consent.
Jamal Nusseibeh, a Palestinian American co-author of the Palestinian armistice plan, emphasized the critical nature of the force's deployment. He stated, "The force must enforce international law and end the unlawful Israeli occupation, not stabilize it. Its entry into the entire occupied territory, including the West Bank, at Palestine's request, with a clear objective to end the occupation, is essential."
The US draft resolution, however, fails to mention the West Bank, a Palestinian state, or a two-state solution, which Israel opposes. It defines the force's purpose as helping to secure border areas and demilitarize Gaza, with a focus on destroying and preventing the rebuilding of terror infrastructure.
And this is the part most people miss... The force, answerable to a "board of peace" chaired by Donald Trump, would have expansive powers, including the use of "all necessary measures" to achieve its objectives. Arab states worry that this mandate could lead to the force taking on a governance role in Gaza, a task intended for a Palestinian technocratic committee and the reformed Palestinian Authority.
The draft also opens the door to excluding organizations that misuse aid, potentially targeting Unrwa, the lawful distributor of aid according to the international court of justice.
France and Saudi Arabia are pushing for a reference to a Palestinian state in the resolution, with the Saudi crown prince making it a prerequisite for his upcoming visit to the White House.
The UN and the Security Council are notably absent from the draft text, which fails to address their supervisory roles over the force and the resolution's implementation. Funding for the mission, which the US expects Gulf states to largely bear, is also unspecified.
Israel seeks written guarantees from the US regarding its right to re-enter Gaza if it perceives disarmament as insufficient. This proposal was presented to Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, with Kushner in Jerusalem to discuss the ceasefire progress.
As negotiations on the force's mandate continue, the risk of a vacuum in Gaza, potentially strengthening Hamas, looms. The situation remains complex and contentious, with many critical details yet to be resolved.
What are your thoughts on this proposed stabilisation force? Do you think it can achieve its objectives without further complicating the situation in Gaza? Feel free to share your insights and opinions in the comments below!
