GAZA STABILIZATION PLAN SEEKS AFRICAN TROOPS AS CEASEFIRE QUESTIONS PERSIST

Developing story: Deployment terms and final troop commitments remained unresolved at the time of drafting.

Military officials from Uganda and Burundi visited Israel last week to discuss possible deployments to Gaza, according to officials cited by the Associated Press, as the U.S.-backed ceasefire plan struggles to move from framework to implementation. The proposed International Stabilization Force is intended to monitor the ceasefire, help secure aid delivery and support the training of Palestinian police in areas administered by a technocratic committee. The talks show that Washington and its partners are still trying to assemble the security architecture needed to turn a fragile ceasefire into a durable postwar arrangement.

The force remains far short of the 20,000 personnel envisioned under President Donald Trump’s plan. Uganda has committed about 1,200 personnel, while Morocco has pledged up to 500 and smaller commitments have been discussed by other countries. Burundi has expressed interest but has not finalized an agreement. Indonesia, which had previously discussed sending a much larger contingent, has put its plan on hold. The gap between the force envisioned and the force assembled is significant because stabilization missions depend on numbers, rules of engagement, logistics and political legitimacy.

Uganda’s participation has advanced further than Burundi’s. A Board of Peace official told the Associated Press that Uganda’s parliament had approved participation and that officials were finalizing details. The delegation’s visit to Israel suggests that practical issues are being discussed, including deployment terms, command arrangements, security guarantees and coordination with Israeli forces. Burundi’s interest is more preliminary, but even exploratory talks show that planners are looking beyond traditional Western or Arab contributors for personnel willing to enter a highly sensitive and dangerous environment.

The political obstacles are as serious as the military ones. Israel has said it will not withdraw from territory it controls until Hamas is fully disarmed. Hamas has resisted terms that would remove its military power without a broader political settlement. Palestinians are likely to judge any foreign force by whether it protects civilians, enables reconstruction and respects Palestinian governance, or whether it appears to enforce Israeli and U.S. priorities. Without broad acceptance, an international force could become another target in Gaza rather than a stabilizing presence.

The ceasefire has reduced the scale of combat but has not ended violence. Reuters reported that Israeli airstrikes in Gaza on Sunday killed at least two people, including a four-year-old boy, according to Palestinian health officials. Israel says its strikes target Hamas and other militants seeking to rebuild capabilities. Hamas accuses Israel of violating the ceasefire and undermining the U.S. plan. Those continuing attacks demonstrate why the stabilization force is being discussed, but they also make deployment harder. Troops sent into Gaza would enter a space where the ceasefire is contested and enforcement authority remains uncertain.

The proposed mission would need a clear mandate. Monitoring a ceasefire is different from disarming militants, policing neighbourhoods, guarding aid convoys or separating combatants. Each function carries different risk and requires different legal authority. If foreign troops are asked only to observe, they may be unable to prevent violence. If they are asked to enforce disarmament or confront armed groups, they may become combatants. The U.S.-backed plan must therefore define what the force can do, who commands it, and how it coordinates with Israel, Palestinian authorities and humanitarian agencies.

African troop contributors may bring experience from peacekeeping operations, but Gaza is not a conventional peacekeeping environment. There is no fully settled political agreement, no uncontested host authority and no clear separation between armed groups and civilian areas. Urban density, unexploded ordnance, damaged infrastructure and public anger over the war all increase risk. Uganda and Burundi would also face domestic political questions about why their soldiers should deploy to Gaza, what protections they would receive, and how long the mission would last.

The United States has an interest in assembling a force that is not seen as an American occupation or an Israeli extension. Recruiting troops from Africa, the Middle East and other regions could broaden legitimacy, but legitimacy will depend more on the mandate and conduct than on geography alone. If the force is perceived as enabling reconstruction and protecting civilians, it may gain space to operate. If it is perceived as enforcing an imposed order while political grievances remain unresolved, it could face resistance from multiple sides.

Israel’s calculations are also central. A stabilization force could allow Israel to reduce direct responsibility for parts of Gaza while maintaining security interests. But Israeli leaders will not accept a force they believe restricts military freedom against Hamas. That tension makes negotiations difficult. Troop contributors will want assurances that Israel will not conduct operations that endanger their personnel or undermine their mission. Palestinians will want assurances that the force is not merely an administrative layer over continued Israeli control.

The latest talks show movement but not completion. Uganda’s role appears closer to finalization, Burundi’s remains under discussion, and the overall force is still far below the planned size. The unresolved issues are the same ones that have slowed the broader ceasefire plan: Israeli withdrawal, Hamas disarmament, Palestinian governance, aid access and security authority. Until those questions are answered, troop pledges may help build a framework, but they cannot by themselves stabilize Gaza. Fact-check date: August 24, 2026. Article type: News. Sources: Associated Press; Reuters. Developing note: Deployment terms and final troop commitments remained unresolved at the time of drafting.