The Gaza Strip stands at a crucial juncture. Following a fragile cease-fire and Donald Trump’s postconflict framework of 20 points, which proposed an “International Stabilisation Force”, (ISF) has emerged. But one major roadblock has already materialized: Turkey. According to multiple sources, on 9 November 2025 Israel made it clear that Turkish troops would not form part of any force deployed on the ground (RUSI/AA English +3; TASS = +3)
Israeli Government Spokesperson, Shosh Bedrosian made clear in a press briefing: There will be no Turkish troops present Al Arabiya English reported
Foreign Minister Gideon Saar reiterated earlier comments by asserting on 27 October that Israel would not accept Turkish forces operating within Gaza under any US-backed plan. Reuters +2, AP News +2.
Why Turkey was considered — and why Israel opposed it
Turkey has publicly pledged support for Gaza’s stabilisation and reconstruction, citing its regional role, humanitarian engagement history, military capability, and regional influence. Analysts note that Ankara could contribute both civilian and security assets within ISF framework. RUSI analysts speculated about such potential benefits.
Israel views Turkey as a red-line. According to Israeli government logic, Turkey’s relationship to militant groups such as Hamas, its rhetoric during wartime and previous diplomatic strains–particularly over the 2010 flotilla incident–were all concerns for them. Saar argued that due to Turkey’s hostile approach toward Israel its forces could not enter Gaza. Reuters/Agence-Verlag
Strategic Implications
Israel’s Security Veto: By insisting only countries it finds acceptable are allowed to contribute troops or arms for the International Stabilization Forces, Israel holds a significant say in shaping post-war forces. US officials such as Marco Rubio have reiterated this condition repeatedly.
Turkey’s regional influence is under threat: being excluded from Gaza’s stabilisation effort reduces Ankara’s ambitions in the Middle East while diminishing its operational role during this high-visibility mission.
Discord over International Security Force: Controversy over which countries may contribute and on what terms risks delaying its deployment at a time when Gaza remains fragile and urgently needs order, reconstruction, and governance.
The Guardian. +1
What to Watch Out For A comprehensive look at the ISF contributor list will reveal how Israel, the US and other stakeholders balance legitimacy, capability and acceptance by Israeli stakeholders.
Turkey could respond by adopting non-military roles (humanitarian aid and reconstruction) in Gaza or attempting to challenge exclusion diplomatically.
On-the-ground implications: Without Turkish participation, the force may depend more heavily on Egypt, UAE or other Arab states for support; this could alter timelines, resources and political dynamics surrounding reconstruction and governance in Gaza.
Future Israeli-Turkish relations will largely depend on how tensions over Gaza, aid flows and regional positioning develop over time.
Israel’s decision to reject Turkish troops from Gaza marks an important early step in its efforts to stabilize the enclave after years of conflict. For Turkey, this may mean tempering ambitions or seeking alternative roles; for Israel and the US alike, however, this signifies an emphasis on aligning international force deployments with Israeli security priorities as Gaza transitions from wartime to postwar phase – both their composition and legitimacy being equally as essential in that transition process.