Saturday, 25 October 2025 09:10
Abstract
A fragile ceasefire in the Gaza Strip is being underpinned by two parallel and contentious international efforts: a political agreement among Palestinian factions to install a temporary technocratic administration, and the planning for a multinational stabilisation force facing immediate diplomatic hurdles over troop composition. The United States is actively monitoring the truce with surveillance drones, underscoring Washington’s deep involvement and its desire for independent oversight of the complex transition.
Historical Context
- Hamas and Fatah were long-time rival Palestinian political factions.
- The US military previously flew MQ-9 Reaper drones over Gaza.
- Drones previously assisted Israeli forces in locating hostages.
- US Vice President JD Vance suggested Turkey could play a constructive role.
- The current agreement is part of a broader US-backed ceasefire plan.
Recent Findings
- Factions agreed to transfer Gaza administration to a temporary technocratic committee.
- The International Stabilisation Force (ISF) is envisioned as 5,000-strong.
- Israel firmly rejected any Turkish military involvement in Gaza.
- The US military began operating surveillance drones over the Gaza Strip.
- The Civil-Military Coordination Center includes approximately 200 US military personnel.
The Cairo Consensus on Civilian Rule
Major Palestinian political factions, including the long-time rival groups Hamas and Fatah, have agreed to a significant political step for the post-war administration of Gaza5,10,11. Following a meeting in Cairo, the groups announced an agreement to transfer the administration of the Gaza Strip to a temporary committee composed of independent technocrats5,7,9. This committee’s mandate is to manage the territory’s daily affairs and essential services5,7. The technocrats are expected to operate in cooperation with Arab nations and international institutions5,9. This agreement is part of the second phase of a broader US-backed ceasefire plan5. However, the joint statement did not specify the individuals who would serve on the proposed committee9,14. The formation of the committee is anticipated to require approval from the United States before it can take shape9. While Hamas has indicated a willingness to relinquish administrative control, the militant group has maintained its firm opposition to any demand for it to disarm7. The factions also agreed to work towards unifying a common position and revitalising the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people5,9,10.
A Stabilisation Force and the Turkish Question
Concurrently with the political negotiations, plans are advancing for an International Stabilisation Force (ISF) intended to secure the territory during the transitional period20,24. The ISF is envisioned as a 5,000-strong multinational force tasked with disarming Hamas and securing the transitional Palestinian government15,20. The force is also expected to develop and train a new Palestinian police force for long-term internal security22. A key diplomatic friction point has emerged over the composition of the force, specifically the potential involvement of Turkey15,20. Turkey has offered to contribute troops to the ISF, but Israel has made its strong objection to Turkish participation clear15,24. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office firmly rejected any Turkish military involvement in Gaza20,24. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio supported this position, stating that the nationality of the multinational force must be acceptable to Israel15. This stance contrasts with an earlier comment from US Vice President JD Vance, who had suggested Turkey could play a “constructive role” in the stabilisation efforts20. Amid the diplomatic dispute, reports have suggested that Indonesia and Azerbaijan may be considered to lead the stabilisation force21. The US-led plan for the ISF calls for it to be composed of Arab and international partners, and it is not intended to be a United Nations-led peacekeeping operation20,24.
American Eyes in the Sky
The United States military has begun operating surveillance drones over the Gaza Strip to independently monitor the fragile ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas6,8,12. The drone flights are being conducted with the consent of Israel and are intended to monitor ground activity and ensure compliance with the truce terms8,14. This surveillance operation is part of a broader US effort to support a Civil-Military Coordination Center (CMCC) established in southern Israel8,13,23. The CMCC, which includes approximately 200 US military personnel, is designed to facilitate the flow of humanitarian, logistical, and security assistance from international partners into Gaza13,23. The deployment of US drones for independent monitoring suggests a desire by Washington to obtain an assessment of the situation separate from Israeli sources12. A former US ambassador to Israel described the drone surveillance as a “very intrusive version of US monitoring” on a front where Israel perceives an active threat8,12. The US military had previously flown MQ-9 Reaper drones over Gaza to assist Israeli forces in locating hostages8.
Conclusion
The post-conflict landscape in Gaza is being shaped by a series of delicate and interconnected diplomatic manoeuvres, all revolving around the US-brokered peace plan16,18. The Palestinian factions’ agreement to a technocratic administration represents a crucial, if tentative, step toward a unified civilian governance structure, though the enduring question of Hamas’s disarmament remains a significant obstacle7,9. Simultaneously, the planning for the International Stabilisation Force is immediately complicated by Israel’s firm rejection of Turkish participation, highlighting the deep political mistrust that persists among regional actors15,24. The presence of US surveillance drones, operating with Israeli consent but providing Washington with independent oversight, underscores the high-stakes nature of the ceasefire and the international community’s profound commitment to preventing a collapse of the truce8,12. The success of the entire transition hinges on whether these disparate security and political elements can be successfully integrated into a coherent, long-term framework for the devastated territory18.