As international efforts intensify to shape the day after the Gaza war, Israel is taking a firm position on one of the most sensitive issues: the deployment of foreign or international forces in the Strip. The stance is resolute, grounded in a mix of security calculations, experience, and a political agenda that leaves little doubt about its priorities.
Since the ceasefire deal was reached – including the release of Israeli hostages and the freeing of Palestinian prisoners – Israel has made clear it will reject any foreign presence in Gaza without its approval, asserting that it retains veto power over any potential deployment.
At the start of Sunday’s cabinet meeting, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reaffirmed that position, declaring, “Israel is an independent state, and our security policy is ours alone.” He added, “We have made it clear regarding international forces that Israel will determine which powers are unacceptable to us.”
Netanyahu also responded to what he called “ridiculous claims” that Israel’s security decisions are dictated by Washington or vice versa. “Israel is an independent state, and so is the United States,” he said.
Israel’s government justifies its rejection of foreign troops on deep security grounds. It fears that international forces could restrict the army’s operational freedom if new threats emerge from Gaza. Officials often cite past experiences – most notably the UNIFIL mission in southern Lebanon – which they say failed to deter Hezbollah and instead gave it maneuvering space under international cover, according to Deputy Foreign Minister Sharren Haskel in a previous interview with Alhurra.
But the most contentious issue now concerns the possible participation of Turkey in any regional or international force that might oversee Gaza’s transition.
In an interview with Alhurra, former Israeli ambassador to Ankara Alon Liel said, “Since the end of 2008, relations between Israel and Turkey have been in crisis and never really recovered. There is a deep lack of trust between President Erdoğan and Israel’s leadership. Israel views Erdoğan as a hostile leader, and Turkey today is considered a political adversary.”
Israeli fears about Turkey’s role in Gaza deepen when viewed within the broader regional picture. For Israel, Turkey’s southward expansion – through an actual presence in the Strip – is mirrored by its growing influence in northern Syria, forming, in the eyes of Israel’s security establishment, an alarming strategic arc encircling its borders from two directions, according to an analysis published by the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth.
That fear is compounded by strained political ties and the incendiary rhetoric of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who has openly supported Hamas, compared the Israeli prime minister to “Hitler,” and accused Israel of committing “genocide” in Gaza.
As Turkey signals its readiness to deploy troops if requested, Israeli officials fear that what begins as a humanitarian mission could harden into a lasting foothold – one giving Ankara decisive influence over Gaza’s future, including the power to judge Israel’s compliance with the cease-fire. With Turkey’s grip tightening in Syria and regional dynamics shifting, Israeli analysts warn that the country could soon find itself “flanked by two Turkish wings” – a scenario that Yedioth Ahronoth has described as “a strategic nightmare.”
Still, former ambassador Liel believes Ankara could yet determine its own level of involvement. “If Turkey insists on playing an active role – humanitarian, political, or even military – Washington might exert real pressure on Israel,” he said. “But Turkey could instead focus on expanding its influence elsewhere, such as in Syria.”
As for Turkey’s motives, Liel said they are not purely strategic. “Historically, Turkey has supported the idea of a Palestinian state and has maintained a religious and symbolic connection to this cause for more than 20 years,” he said. “I think its engagement in Gaza now is driven not only by regional ambition but also by an ideological vision – one that explains why Ankara favors Hamas over Fatah.”
Washington, for its part, continues to promote the idea of a multinational force tasked with ensuring stability and facilitating postwar reconstruction. During his recent visit to Tel Aviv, U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance said Turkey could “play a constructive role” in Gaza – but also emphasized that Washington would not impose any arrangement on Israel. The remarks were seen as a balancing act between accommodating regional allies and recognizing Israel’s primacy in its own security decisions.
“The United States – particularly the Trump administration – views Turkey’s role differently,” Liel added. “America appreciates Turkey’s help in securing hostage releases. This was clear from Vice President Vance’s visit and Jared Kushner’s appearance. There is a real divergence between Washington and Jerusalem over Turkey’s role – and Israel has drawn a red line: no Turkey.”
Although the U.S. administration has ruled out deploying American troops in Gaza, reports suggest the possible participation of forces from Egypt, Indonesia, and Gulf states.
According to informed officials, current proposals envision a dual structure: one force securing Gaza’s borders with Israel, and another operating inside the Strip. The plan under discussion includes Palestinian Authority security personnel trained in Egypt and Jordan, working alongside a limited number of international soldiers and under European police supervision.
Several obstacles remain, however – including Israel’s rejection of some potential participants and Hamas’s refusal to disarm, which Israel insists is a prerequisite.
Against this backdrop, Israel’s preferred alternative for Gaza has failed to materialize as planned. Having rejected an international force and ruled out direct civilian administration, Israel bet on a “shadow governance” model that would maintain its security control while keeping it detached from daily management. To that end, it encouraged the formation of a local administration composed of tribal figures unaffiliated with Hamas, operating under Israeli oversight.
That hybrid formula quickly unraveled as events on the ground shifted. The ceasefire allowed Hamas to reassert itself – not only as a surviving force but as an active player in sensitive files such as the recovery of hostages’ remains and the punishment of factions that had cooperated with Israel. The reality on the ground now stands in stark contrast to Israel’s vision for the “day after,” raising questions about its ability to impose its security and political framework in a fluid and resistant environment.
As the shape of that new reality continues to emerge, Turkey is pressing ahead with its bid to join any future “international force” – despite Israeli opposition – while positioning itself to play other roles, particularly in reconstruction, if excluded from military arrangements.
