In a landmark development for Middle East peacekeeping efforts, three additional nations have formally committed to joining the International Stabilization Force (ISF) in Gaza, substantially expanding the multinational coalition tasked with maintaining stability during the delicate Phase II ceasefire implementation. Morocco and Albania have officially pledged troops to the mission, while Greek participation has been confirmed through Israeli media channels, creating a diverse alliance that spans continents and cultures.
These announcements, strategically timed to follow Indonesia's groundbreaking commitment as the ISF's inaugural member, set the stage for Thursday's Board of Peace summit in Washington, where the Trump administration hopes to solidify international support for its Gaza stabilization strategy. The rapid succession of pledges suggests a coordinated diplomatic push designed to build momentum and demonstrate broad-based backing for the controversial peacekeeping initiative.
Indonesia's deployment timeline establishes the operational framework for the entire force. According to detailed reporting from the Associated Press, the world's largest Muslim-majority nation will initiate its commitment in April with an advance contingent of approximately 1,000 soldiers, subsequently ramping up to a full deployment of 8,000 personnel by June. These numbers, significantly higher than initial media speculation, underscore Jakarta's ambition to lead by example and position itself as a major player in Middle East diplomacy.
The Indonesian military has already launched the complex process of selecting and vetting candidates for this challenging assignment. However, officials have inserted a crucial caveat: deployment remains conditional on ground conditions in Gaza. Should the security environment prove unsuitable or if the mission appears likely to involve direct confrontation with Hamas, Indonesia reserves the right to delay its peacekeepers' arrival. This prudent stipulation reflects both the political sensitivities facing President Prabowo Subianto's government and the harsh realities of peacekeeping in active conflict zones.
Morocco's decision to participate carries particular weight in Arab diplomatic circles. Since normalizing relations with Israel through the Abraham Accords in December 2020, the North African kingdom has meticulously cultivated robust defense cooperation with Jerusalem while preserving its influential voice within the Arab League and Islamic Cooperation Organization. This unique positioning makes Rabat an invaluable bridge-builder in the ISF, capable of lending legitimacy to the mission among skeptical Arab populations while maintaining operational credibility with Israeli authorities.
Defense analysts note that Morocco's military, with its extensive counterterrorism experience in the Sahel and sophisticated equipment purchased from both Western and Israeli suppliers, brings significant capabilities to the Gaza mission. Reports from mid-January suggested Morocco would join Indonesia as one of the two largest troop contributors, though specific numbers remain closely held. The kingdom's participation also represents a strategic calculation that active engagement in Gaza stabilization aligns with its broader ambitions to serve as a regional security hub and reliable Western partner.
Albania's commitment, while more modest in scale, injects a crucial NATO perspective into the ISF. As a member of the Atlantic Alliance with a proven track record in international peacekeeping operations, Albania offers valuable experience with Western military doctrine and interoperability standards. The Balkan nation's participation signals that European support for Gaza stabilization extends beyond the traditional great powers, potentially encouraging other medium-sized NATO members to consider contributions.
Tirana's involvement also carries symbolic importance. As a Muslim-majority country with deep ties to both the West and the Islamic world, Albania demonstrates that support for the ISF transcends civilizational divides. Its soldiers' presence in Gaza alongside Indonesian and Moroccan troops could help counter narratives that the mission represents a Western or anti-Muslim agenda.
Greek participation, confirmed by KAN News, adds another Mediterranean dimension to the evolving coalition. Athens brings decades of peacekeeping experience from the Balkans, sophisticated naval capabilities for maritime security, and a nuanced understanding of regional dynamics. Greece's historically balanced relationships with Israel and Arab states position it as a potential honest broker, while its NATO membership ensures seamless coordination with Western logistical and intelligence support structures.
The ISF concept has percolated through diplomatic channels for months, with numerous countries floated as potential contributors. Early speculation centered on regional powers like the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey, alongside traditional peacekeeping nations such as Italy and Azerbaijan. Pakistan's potential involvement was also discussed, given its large Muslim population and extensive peacekeeping experience with the United Nations.
However, Indonesia stands alone in converting promises into concrete deployment plans, making it the de facto anchor tenant of the entire operation. The recent cascade of commitments from Morocco, Albania, and Greece may finally create the critical mass needed to transform the ISF from a theoretical construct into an operational reality. Diplomatic observers suggest that these public pledges could trigger a domino effect, pressuring other hesitant nations to formalize their own commitments or risk appearing disengaged from one of the region's most pressing crises.
The strategic rationale behind the ISF's composition becomes clearer upon closer examination. By recruiting heavily from Muslim-majority nations while including European members, planners have created a deliberately balanced force structure designed to maximize political legitimacy and operational flexibility. This diversity should enable the ISF to navigate Gaza's complex religious and cultural landscape more effectively than a traditionally Western-dominated peacekeeping mission.
President Prabowo Subianto's scheduled attendance at the February 19 Board of Peace summit in Washington highlights Indonesia's central diplomatic role. The summit, convened by the Trump administration, aims to lock in international commitments for Gaza's reconstruction and long-term stabilization. For Jakarta, leadership of the ISF provides valuable leverage in its increasingly assertive foreign policy, positioning Indonesia as a indispensable partner for Washington while burnishing its credentials as a champion of Muslim interests on the global stage.
The force's operational mandate has been carefully circumscribed to avoid mission creep and political pitfalls. ISF commanders and participating governments have consistently emphasized that peacekeepers will not proactively disarm Hamas or engage in offensive combat operations against militant groups. This restraint reflects hard-learned lessons from previous interventions where overly ambitious mandates transformed peacekeepers into targets.
Instead, the ISF will focus on monitoring ceasefire lines, verifying compliance with agreed terms, securing humanitarian corridors, and potentially managing border crossing points. These tasks, while less glamorous than forced disarmament, are absolutely essential for creating conditions conducive to political dialogue and reconstruction. By separating warring parties and ensuring the flow of humanitarian aid, the ISF can gradually build trust and create space for Palestinian political actors to address Gaza's governance challenges.
Nevertheless, formidable obstacles remain. Gaza's infrastructure lies in ruins after months of intense conflict, complicating everything from force protection to logistical support. The territory's dense urban environment, tunnel networks, and history of insurgency pose significant tactical challenges. The relationship between ISF peacekeepers and existing Palestinian security structures remains undefined, as does the crucial question of coordination mechanisms with Israeli forces.
Rules of engagement represent another potential flashpoint. Peacekeepers must have clear authority to defend themselves and fulfill their mandate, but overly permissive rules could trigger escalation. Similarly, questions of funding, duration, and exit strategy remain unresolved, though the Trump administration's personal investment suggests Washington will provide substantial financial and political backing.
The experience of previous peacekeeping missions in complex environments like Lebanon, Bosnia, or Somalia offers cautionary tales. Success requires genuine local consent, robust political support from major powers, clear and achievable objectives, and the flexibility to adapt as circumstances evolve. The ISF's diverse composition could prove either a strength, offering multiple channels for dialogue, or a weakness if national contingents pursue divergent interpretations of their mandate.
The Trump administration's decision to champion the ISF model reflects its broader diplomatic philosophy of building "coalitions of the willing" rather than seeking universal consensus through the United Nations. This approach has enabled rapid progress and secured commitments from key regional players, but it also raises questions about long-term legitimacy and sustainability. Critics argue that operations outside traditional UN frameworks lack the institutional knowledge, legal clarity, and multinational buy-in necessary for enduring success.
Supporters counter that traditional UN peacekeeping has proven too slow and bureaucratic for Gaza's urgent needs, and that the ISF's innovative structure offers the best hope for stabilizing the territory. They point to the unprecedented combination of Muslim-majority nations and Western allies as evidence that the mission can bridge divides that have paralyzed previous peace efforts.
As military planners from four continents work through countless logistical details, the political significance of these commitments cannot be overstated. The willingness of Morocco, Albania, and Greece to join Indonesia demonstrates a growing international consensus that Gaza's stabilization requires active, on-the-ground engagement rather than distant diplomatic pronouncements. Whether this consensus can be translated into effective peacekeeping operations remains the critical question.
With the Washington summit approaching, diplomatic attention will focus on which additional nations might step forward. Reports suggest that the United Arab Emirates, which normalized relations with Israel through the Abraham Accords, is seriously considering a contribution. Egypt, as Gaza's neighbor and a traditional power broker, faces pressure to participate despite its complicated relationship with Hamas. European powers like France and Germany are watching closely, potentially waiting to see initial deployments before committing their own forces.
The success of Phase II of the ceasefire—and potentially the broader prospects for Israeli-Palestinian peace—may well depend on the ISF's effectiveness. If peacekeepers can establish a stable environment, facilitate humanitarian relief, and build confidence among wary populations, they could create the foundation for a more comprehensive political resolution. If they fail, Gaza risks sliding back into chaos, with devastating consequences for its inhabitants and renewed threats to regional stability.
For now, the announcements from Rabat, Tirana, and Athens represent a cautious but meaningful step forward. They transform the ISF from an Indonesian-led initiative into a genuinely multinational endeavor, increasing its legitimacy, capabilities, and chances of success. As President Prabowo prepares for his Washington debut, he carries with him not just Indonesia's hopes, but those of a growing coalition determined to bring stability to one of the world's most troubled territories.