🔗 Share this article

Plans for an international security mission authorized by the UN to demilitarize Hamas in the Gaza Strip are encountering growing opposition after the UAE stated it would not take part due to the absence of a well-defined legal framework.

Increasing Global Concerns

Israel have already excluded Turkish involvement, and Jordan's King Abdullah has declared that Jordanian forces will not join. Azerbaijan, previously considered as a possible contributor, was absent from a planning session in Turkey and indicated it would not contribute unless a complete truce was established.

Emirati officials does not yet see a defined framework for the stability force and under such circumstances will not participate, but will support all diplomatic initiatives towards resolution – and stay at the forefront of humanitarian aid.

Regional Doubts and Juridical Concerns

The Emirati decision, delivered by diplomatic representative Dr Anwar Gargash at a forum in the UAE capital, highlights regional doubts about the provisions of a American-proposed document previously circulated to delegates at the UN in NYC. The draft places an onus on a American-led stabilisation force to be the principal means of imposing order in Gaza after Israeli forces have left the territory.

Regional governments would like expanded responsibilities to be given to a separate local civilian police force. International law would also forbid foreign troops from deploying into occupied Palestinian territories unless there was clear Palestinian consent; without it, the mission could be seen as imposed under UN law, and potentially stabilising an illegal presence.

Local Viewpoints and Calls for Clarity

Jamal Nusseibeh of the Palestinian armistice plan said: “It is essential that the mission be deployed not to reinforce the illegal Israeli occupation, but to uphold international law and end it. The mission will succeed as long as it enters the whole occupied territory, including the West Bank, at the invitation of Palestine, and has a clear goal to conclude the occupation within the context of a independent state of Palestine.”

The draft contains no mention to the West Bank in the US draft resolution, or to a sovereign Palestine, or a two-state solution, a outcome that Israeli leadership opposes.

Ongoing Negotiations and Possible Risks

In-depth negotiations on the stabilisation force mandate, including its leadership structure, started formally on last week in New York, and appear to be lengthy – risking the development of a vacuum in Gaza that may empower Hamas.

The US is suggesting that it lead the mission although it will not have many troops involved on the terrain. It has already in effect assumed command of the distribution of humanitarian aid into the territory from a new logistical hub based in Israel.

Mission Mandate and Administrative Role

The draft American document outlines the purpose of the security mission as “along with the newly trained and vetted law enforcement to help secure border areas, stabilise the safety situation in the region by ensuring the procedure of demilitarising the territory including the destruction and blocking of rebuilding the militant and hostile facilities as well as the lasting decommissioning of arms from non-state armed groups”.

The mission, answerable to a “board of peace” led by Donald Trump, and not to the UN, would be required to use “any required actions” to fulfill its goals.

Regional powers including Qatari officials are also worried that this authority is too expansive, and if Hamas is to disarm, the faction will solely do so to fellow Palestinians, likely in the civilian police force, at a moment that, from the militant viewpoint, signifies the conclusion of occupation.

They also worry the draft mandate spills into giving the mission a governance role in Gaza, a task that was to be reserved for a local expert panel working in cooperation with a restructured local government.

Humanitarian Considerations and Funding Issues

This “interim authority” in Gaza would remain until “the local government has satisfactorily completed its restructuring plan, the approval of which shall be approved to the board of peace”, the proposal states. It also “underscores the importance” of unhindered humanitarian aid in Gaza, including through the UN, the ICRC, and the humanitarian organizations.

Nonetheless, it allows for the removal of “any group determined to have improperly used such assistance”. The wording permits the council barring the UN relief agency, the body that the global judicial body has said is the legal provider of aid.

Global Diplomatic Efforts

France and Saudi Arabia are already pressing for a reference to a Palestinian state to be included in the resolution. The Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, is due in the US presidential residence on 18 November, and Manal Radwan has stated that a reference to a Palestinian state is a requirement.

The PA chair, Mahmoud Abbas, held talks with the French president, Emmanuel Macron, in the French capital on Monday to review the authority's function.

Not the UN nor the 15 strong UNSC are assigned a oversight role over the mission, monitoring the implementation of the resolution, a point mostly overlooked by the proposed document. Nothing is outlined about the funding of this security operation, which, as per the Americans, should be mostly covered by regional nations, with Saudi Arabia taking the lead.

Israeli Demands and Local Developments

Israel is requesting written guarantees from the US that it be permitted to follow the model of Lebanon and retain the authority to re-enter Gaza if it believes disarmament is not occurring at a scale or pace it requires.

The Israeli proposal was presented to the former US advisor, the ex-president's relative, and the US special envoy, Steve Witkoff. The advisor was in Jerusalem on this week to review developments on the truce and Witkoff was scheduled to arrive later the same day.

Just the remains of four of the initial hundreds of Israeli hostages remain unreturned.

Separately, Israeli officials has been proposing that the territory could yet be split in two with reconstruction work starting in the Israel occupied areas of the region. Western diplomats insist that this is no part of the former US administration's proposal.