Netanyahu Asserts Control Over International Force Composition
In a significant assertion of sovereignty that could shape the future of Gaza and broader Middle Eastern stability, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared on Sunday that Israel would exercise ultimate authority in determining which nations can participate in a proposed international peacekeeping force for Gaza. This pronouncement comes as part of U.S. President Donald Trump’s 20-point peace plan, marking a critical juncture in efforts to stabilize the war-torn Palestinian enclave.
“We are in control of our security, and we have also made it clear regarding international forces that Israel will determine which forces are unacceptable to us,” Netanyahu told his cabinet, adding that the United States has accepted this position as expressed by its senior representatives.
The Geopolitical Chess Game
The composition of this international force has emerged as a delicate diplomatic challenge, requiring a balance between Israeli security concerns, Arab willingness to participate, and international legitimacy. While the Trump administration has categorically ruled out deploying American soldiers to Gaza, the force is expected to draw from a diverse coalition including Egypt, Indonesia, and Gulf Arab countries.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, during his recent visit to Israel aimed at shoring up the fragile two-week-old ceasefire, emphasized that the force must consist of “countries that Israel’s comfortable with.” This formulation effectively grants Israel veto power over participating nations, a position that could complicate international consensus-building efforts.
The Turkish Question: A Diplomatic Flashpoint
Netanyahu’s most pointed objection appears directed at Turkey, once a close Israeli ally but now among its fiercest critics. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has repeatedly condemned Israel’s military operations in Gaza, leading to a dramatic deterioration in bilateral relations. Last week, Netanyahu hinted strongly at his opposition to any Turkish security presence in Gaza, a stance that reflects both historical tensions and contemporary political realities.
The exclusion of Turkey—a NATO member with significant regional influence and military capabilities—from a potential peacekeeping mission illustrates how the Gaza conflict has redrawn traditional alliance structures in the Middle East. It also raises questions about whether a peacekeeping force perceived as biased toward Israeli interests can gain acceptance among Palestinians and the broader Arab world.
The Hamas Challenge: Disarmament Without Commitment
Perhaps the most formidable obstacle to implementing any peacekeeping arrangement is Hamas itself. The Palestinian militant group, which has governed Gaza since 2007 and launched the October 7, 2023 attack that triggered the current war, has conspicuously failed to commit to disarmament—a prerequisite that both Israel and the United States consider non-negotiable.
Since the ceasefire took effect two weeks ago, Hamas has not retreated into peaceful governance. Instead, it has embarked on a violent crackdown against rival factions testing its authority, demonstrating that it remains unwilling to relinquish its military capabilities or monopoly on power. This reality creates a paradox: how can an international force maintain peace when the dominant local actor refuses to disarm and continues using violence to maintain control?
Rubio acknowledged this complexity, stating that Gaza’s future governance “still needs to be worked out among Israel and partner nations but could not include Hamas.” This formulation leaves critical questions unanswered: Who would govern Gaza if Hamas is excluded? How would such a transition occur? And what role, if any, would the Palestinian Authority play?
The Sovereignty Assertion: Israel’s Independent Stance
Netanyahu’s statement also contained a pointed rejoinder to suggestions that Israel operates under American direction. “We are an independent country,” he declared, rejecting “the notion that the American administration controls me and dictates Israel’s security policy.” Instead, he characterized the relationship as a “partnership.”
This framing serves multiple domestic and international purposes. Domestically, it addresses critics who accuse Netanyahu of subordinating Israeli interests to American preferences. Internationally, it signals to both allies and adversaries that Israel will not accept security arrangements it deems inadequate, regardless of diplomatic pressure.
However, this assertion of independence exists in tension with Israel’s deep dependence on American military, diplomatic, and financial support. The United States provides approximately $3.8 billion in annual military aid to Israel and has consistently shielded it from adverse United Nations Security Council resolutions. This interdependence suggests that the “partnership” Netanyahu describes involves complex negotiations rather than unilateral Israeli decision-making.
Singapore’s Strategic Interest in Gaza Stability
While geographically distant from the Middle East, Singapore has substantial stakes in the resolution of the Gaza conflict and the success of any peacekeeping arrangement. These interests operate across multiple dimensions: economic, diplomatic, security, and humanitarian.
Economic Connectivity and Maritime Security
Singapore’s economy depends fundamentally on open sea lanes and stable global trade routes. The ongoing Gaza conflict has contributed to broader regional instability that affects critical maritime chokepoints, including the Suez Canal and the Strait of Hormuz. Any escalation that disrupts shipping through these passages directly impacts Singapore’s port operations, oil imports, and trade flows.
The conflict has also contributed to global energy price volatility, affecting Singapore’s role as a petroleum refining and trading hub. While the recent ceasefire has helped stabilize oil markets, the lack of a durable resolution keeps risk premiums elevated, creating uncertainty for businesses operating in Singapore’s energy sector.
Precedent for International Law and Peacekeeping
As a small nation that has consistently championed rules-based international order, Singapore watches carefully how peacekeeping mandates are structured and implemented. The Gaza situation presents several concerning precedents:
Unilateral Veto Power: If Israel’s effective veto over force composition becomes normalized, it could undermine the principle that international peacekeeping requires consent from all parties to a conflict, not just the stronger party. This could set precedents applicable to other conflicts where smaller nations might find themselves subject to peacekeeping arrangements dictated by more powerful neighbors.
Legitimacy and Effectiveness: A peacekeeping force perceived as serving primarily one party’s interests may lack the legitimacy necessary for success. Singapore has long argued that international interventions require broad multilateral support and clear mandates. The Gaza force, shaped predominantly by Israeli and American preferences, tests whether such arrangements can achieve lasting peace.
Non-Interference and Sovereignty: Singapore’s foundational principle of non-interference in other nations’ internal affairs exists in tension with evolving norms around international peacekeeping and humanitarian intervention. How the international community navigates Gaza’s governance transition could influence debates about sovereignty and intervention that affect all small states.
Regional Diplomatic Balance
Singapore maintains carefully calibrated relationships across the Middle East, engaging with Israel, Arab states, and Iran within a framework of pragmatic neutrality. The city-state has trade relationships with Israel in technology and defense sectors, while Arab nations represent crucial energy suppliers and investment partners.
The Gaza conflict tests this balance. Singapore must navigate between:
- Supporting legitimate Israeli security concerns while recognizing Palestinian rights to self-determination
- Maintaining economic relationships with Gulf states that are increasingly critical of Israeli policies
- Upholding international humanitarian law principles while avoiding alignment with either camp in polarized debates
The international force proposal creates specific diplomatic challenges for Singapore. If approached to contribute personnel or support—as a respected neutral party with peacekeeping experience—Singapore would face difficult calculations about whether participation would enhance or compromise its regional relationships.
The Indonesian Factor
Indonesia’s potential participation in the Gaza peacekeeping force carries particular significance for Singapore. As Southeast Asia’s largest nation and most populous Muslim-majority country, Indonesia’s involvement would provide regional representation and Islamic legitimacy to the force.
However, Indonesia does not maintain diplomatic relations with Israel, having consistently supported Palestinian statehood. Its participation would require either implicit acceptance of Israeli conditions or an arrangement that preserves Indonesian principles while meeting Israeli security requirements—a difficult balance that could offer lessons for other non-aligned nations.
For Singapore, Indonesian involvement would create a bridge between regional interests and Middle Eastern dynamics, potentially offering channels for ASEAN perspectives in a conflict traditionally dominated by Western and Middle Eastern actors. It could also strengthen the principle that peacekeeping forces should reflect diverse international participation rather than coalitions of exclusively aligned nations.
Humanitarian Dimensions and Muslim Community Sensitivities
Singapore’s Muslim minority, comprising about 15% of the population, follows developments in Gaza with deep concern. While Singapore’s multi-religious society has remained harmonious, the government recognizes the emotional resonance of Palestinian suffering within the Muslim community.
The humanitarian crisis in Gaza—with widespread destruction, civilian casualties, and displacement—creates moral imperatives that transcend geopolitical calculations. Singapore has consistently advocated for humanitarian access and civilian protection, principles that align with international law regardless of one’s position on the broader conflict.
Any peacekeeping arrangement must prioritize humanitarian objectives: ensuring aid delivery, protecting civilians, facilitating reconstruction, and creating conditions for displaced Palestinians to return safely. If the international force is structured primarily around Israeli security concerns without adequate attention to Palestinian humanitarian needs, it may perpetuate grievances rather than resolve them.
The Path Forward: Unresolved Questions
As U.S. officials work toward a possible U.N. Security Council resolution or international agreement to authorize the multinational force, with discussions scheduled in Qatar, several critical questions remain unanswered:
Mandate and Authority: Will the force have robust peacekeeping powers, including the authority to prevent violence from any party, or will it serve primarily to prevent attacks against Israel? The scope of the mandate will determine its legitimacy and effectiveness.
Command Structure: Who will command the force? A U.N. structure would provide international legitimacy but may be unacceptable to Israel. A coalition command might be more acceptable to Israel but less legitimate in Palestinian and Arab eyes.
Duration and Exit Strategy: How long will the force remain, and under what conditions would it withdraw? Without clear parameters, peacekeeping missions can become indefinite occupations.
Governance Transition: Perhaps most crucially, who will govern Gaza during and after the force’s deployment? Without Palestinian leadership that commands both legitimacy and Israeli acceptance—a seemingly impossible combination—no peacekeeping arrangement can succeed.
Reconstruction and Investment: The Trump administration seeks Arab financial contributions for Gaza’s reconstruction. However, Gulf states may be reluctant to invest in infrastructure that remains under Israeli security control or that could be destroyed in future conflicts.
Conclusion: Implications for Small States and Global Order
Netanyahu’s assertion of veto power over the Gaza peacekeeping force represents more than a tactical maneuver in Middle Eastern diplomacy. It reflects broader tensions in contemporary international relations between sovereignty and collective security, between power politics and rules-based order.
For Singapore, these dynamics carry lessons and warnings. The principle that peacekeeping arrangements should serve all parties’ legitimate interests—not just the strongest party’s preferences—remains vital for small nations’ security in an uncertain world. The Gaza situation demonstrates how difficult it is to maintain this principle when power asymmetries are vast and when domestic political pressures override diplomatic flexibility.
As the international community works toward stabilizing Gaza, Singapore’s interests lie in outcomes that strengthen rather than undermine international law, that demonstrate peacekeeping can work through inclusive multilateralism rather than imposed arrangements, and that show even the most intractable conflicts can find resolution through patient diplomacy rather than indefinite military control.
The success or failure of the Gaza peacekeeping force will reverberate far beyond the Middle East, shaping expectations about how the international community manages conflicts, protects civilians, and balances sovereignty with security in an increasingly fragmented global order. For Singapore, watching carefully and advocating for principled approaches serves both immediate national interests and the broader vision of a rules-based international system that protects all nations, regardless of size.