Israel's security cabinet approved the legal framework for a 200-member International Stabilization Force (ISF) to enter Gaza, drawn from countries with peace agreements with Israel such as Uganda and Morocco, operating in areas outside Israeli military control [1][7][22]. The deployment is part of Trump's 20-point peace plan, which includes a Board of Peace overseeing the security force [7]. Board of Peace Director-General Nickolay Mladenov welcomed the decision, calling it "a critical part of the agreed framework for stabilising Gaza, supporting demilitarisation, and enabling the transition to effective Palestinian transitional administration" [1][2][7]. Egypt urged the United States to expedite the deployment, with Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty pressing for accelerated ISF entry and full humanitarian aid delivery [27].
The force's scope is narrowly defined. Israeli officials stipulated that the ISF will operate outside the "Yellow Line" that places an estimated 64 to 70 percent of Gaza under Israeli control, in full coordination with the Israeli military, with each entry approved individually by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Yisrael Katz, and Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar [14][22][9]. The original plan has been reduced to a small pilot project near Rafah, securing a humanitarian zone outside Hamas control [29][13]. Israel maintains a strict red line that no further military withdrawal will occur until Hamas is fully disarmed [13]. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, Defense Minister Katz, and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir stated there are no plans to withdraw from occupied areas in Gaza, Lebanon, or Syria [9].
Ben-Gvir cast the sole cabinet vote against the ISF proposal, arguing that Hamas's failure to disarm invalidates the plan and that "the solution in Gaza is to encourage migration" [14][22][35][13]. Analysts and Palestinian civil society organizations framed the limited deployment as a calculated maneuver. Gaza-based political analyst Wissam Afifa said "Netanyahu is going to Washington to say 'no' to the broader demands of withdrawal," arguing the limited force deflects from Israel's refusal to withdraw while leaving two million Gazans in a catastrophic humanitarian crisis [14]. Expert on Israeli affairs Mamoun Abu Amer called the process "inverted," stating Israel has turned UN Security Council Resolution 2803 "upside down" through selective implementation [14]. The Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights denounced Resolution 2803 as creating an illegal joint US-Israeli occupation and a violation of the Palestinian right to self-determination [31]. The American Society of International Law raised foundational questions about the Security Council's authority to re-engineer governance in occupied territory without Palestinian consent [32]. Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert denounced the pilot scheme as a potential "concentration camp" [29].
Hamas stated it has no objection to international forces provided they act strictly as a buffer force along the border with no role in Palestinian internal affairs. Hamas spokesperson Bassem Naim said the movement would accept forces "provided they act as a buffer force between the two sides along the border and have no role in interfering in Palestinian internal affairs, whether civil, security, or political" [23]. Hamas leader Osama Hamdan reiterated the rejection of any external guardianship, stating any international force must be limited to border duties to prevent Israeli aggression [25].
Palestinian governance remains deadlocked. Despite Hamas's announced dissolution of its civil administration, daily life in Gaza continues under the same Hamas-run institutions, and the technocratic committee meant to replace it remains stuck in Cairo [30]. Bir Zeit University lecturer Ghassan Khatib said nothing has changed on the ground because neither the US nor Israel is enthusiastic about Hamas's step, and the Palestinian Authority cannot step in because Israel and the US prevent it [30]. Palestinian researcher Jihad Harb said the only realistic options are allowing Hamas to retain control or a gradual transition to the Palestinian Authority, which Netanyahu rejects [24].
Netanyahu departed for Washington for his first meeting with Trump since the Iran war began, their eighth meeting since Trump's return to office, traveling despite an outstanding ICC arrest warrant against him for alleged crimes against humanity in Gaza [5][6][20]. Netanyahu called the visit "a great privilege, but it is also a great responsibility" and said discussions would cover all agenda issues, "first and foremost Iran" [5][6]. International relations expert Yonatan Freeman of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem said the visit's primary aim is "to show the world, to show Iran, and also even Lebanon and others as well specifically, that there is no break or any kind of major disagreement between the United States and Israel" [5].
Trump described Netanyahu as a "very difficult guy" and previously unleashed profanity-laced tirades against him during ceasefire negotiations [5][13]. Trump acknowledged having "some disagreements with Netanyahu regarding Iran" and said the US is having "good talks" with Iran [15]. Der Spiegel reported that Netanyahu has sought to draw the US deeper into confrontation with Iran, wanting to continue strikes until Iran's nuclear capabilities are destroyed, while Trump wants to give negotiations a chance and reopen the Strait of Hormuz [8]. Israeli officials reportedly fear a US-Iran deal that would allow economic reconstruction and nuclear weapons development [10]. Trump claimed that without the United States and his decision to bomb Iran's nuclear weapons, Israel would no longer exist [34]. Trump has demanded that Israel withdraw its military from occupied territories in Syria, southern Lebanon, and Gaza under the signed ceasefire agreements, a demand Netanyahu's government is simultaneously resisting [9].
Senior Israeli ministers' insistence on no further withdrawal is seen partly as an appeal to Netanyahu's right-wing electoral base ahead of October 27 elections [9]. Political scientist Denis Charbit of the Open University of Israel argued that Netanyahu's assertive military posture, including a West Bank crackdown, is designed to project strength ahead of elections, even at the risk of provoking a more violent Palestinian response [18]. Just Security raised US congressional oversight questions about funding the Board of Peace, citing the lack of a track record, potential conflicts of interest due to Trump's personal control, and the legal basis for its immunities [33].
On the Lebanon track, the US State Department announced that Israel and Lebanon will hold the next round of US-mediated talks in Rome from August 4 to 6, focusing on full implementation of the framework agreement including border issues and pilot-zone expansion [6][16]. The State Department cited "significant momentum" from the pilot zone launch and Lebanese President Joseph Aoun's meeting with Trump [16]. President Aoun stated Lebanon will not accept Israel's continued violation of the agreement, accusing Israel of destroying homes and bulldozing villages [3]. The Lebanese army said Israeli forces are obstructing the pilot zone withdrawal process [19]. Hezbollah rejected the agreement outright and is not participating in the Rome talks [16]. Bard College professor Ziad Abu Rish described the deal as "lop-sided," saying it "defers to Israel's preferences" and "reframed the issue in Lebanon from Israeli aggression to one of Hezbollah's presence" [19].
Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei conditioned any US-Iran peace agreement on "the preservation of Lebanon's territorial integrity, and the absolute, unconditional termination of the Zionist regime's aggression," framing defense of Hezbollah as a strategic mandate [19]. Indonesia suspended its planned ISF troop commitment, with Defense Minister Sjafrie Sjamsoeddin citing the lack of implementation guidelines and the sidelining of the Board of Peace amid the US-Iran conflict [28]. Muhammad Zulfikar Rakhmat of the Centre for Economic and Law Studies in Jakarta said domestic skepticism about the Board of Peace's effectiveness and economic pressures also influenced the decision [28].
Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa stated Syria is pursuing a security agreement with Israel that could lead to comprehensive peace without compromising Syria's claim to the Golan Heights, and is working to enlist international pressure on Israel toward a more balanced policy [11][21]. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, during a visit to Syria, called Israeli violations of the 1974 Disengagement of Forces Agreement "unacceptable" and demanded they stop [11]. King Abdullah II of Jordan said countries will refuse to send troops for peace enforcement in Gaza and will only support peacekeeping alongside local Palestinian police, while Queen Rania criticized the international community's two-year failure to stop the war and praised Trump for pressuring Israel into a ceasefire [26].
The Rome talks on the Israel-Lebanon framework are scheduled for August 4 to 6 [6][16]. Netanyahu's meeting with Trump is underway in Washington, with Iran and the implementation of the Gaza ceasefire plan at the center of the agenda [5][13][17].