Ankara’s stance underscores the broad diplomatic tug-of-war shaping post-war planning in Gaza. While the United States and its allies have advanced a plan for an international force as part of a broader cease-fire framework, the specifics of the force’s mandate remain deeply contentious. Key partners have yet to agree on whether the force would be empowered to collect arms from Hamas or focus on monitoring and stabilization tasks.

Egypt and Qatar, among others, have endorsed Turkey’s argument that separating forces on the ground should take precedence, arguing that only once calm is more firmly entrenched can disarmament or political transitions be realistically pursued. Such sequencing, they contend, is necessary to avoid renewed hostilities in a territory marked by two years of violence.

The internal debate also reflects broader geopolitical tensions. Israel has expressed strong reservations about Turkish participation in any future force, citing security concerns and Ankara’s vocal criticism of Israeli military operations. Israeli officials have indicated they would oppose roles for Turkish troops, even as the United States pushes to include a diverse roster of contributors to the international effort.

The discord comes as countries such as Pakistan and Indonesia have signaled interest in contributing personnel to a stabilization mission — conditions permitting — but have also balked at mandates that include direct intervention in Hamas’s armaments. Those states — along with Turkey — emphasize that any force’s role must be clearly defined and tied to broader United Nations authorization.

For now, high-level talks continue behind the scenes. Mediators are racing against a backdrop of ongoing cease-fire violations, humanitarian challenges, and pressure from both Israeli and Palestinian factions to shape post-conflict arrangements that can withstand the region’s long history of mistrust and volatility.