Gaza Troop Deployment: Uganda Commits 1,200 Personnel

Uganda and Burundi are discussing the possible deployment of troops to Gaza as part of a proposed international security force backed by US President Donald Trump, adding momentum to efforts to support the territory’s fragile ceasefire. Uganda has already committed personnel to the mission, while Burundi is weighing whether to join after military representatives held discussions in Israel.

The proposed force is intended to help monitor the ceasefire, support security arrangements, train Palestinian police and facilitate Humanitarian Aid. But its formation remains incomplete. The planned force is expected to number about 20,000 personnel, while commitments announced so far are significantly below that target.

The diplomatic challenge is equally substantial. The ceasefire in Gaza has stalled over disagreements about an Israeli military withdrawal and Hamas’ disarmament. Those unresolved issues could determine whether an international force can actually enter and operate in the territory.

Uganda moves closer to Gaza deployment

A Board of Peace official said Ugandan officials joined a Burundian military delegation during a visit to Israel last week to discuss the proposed Gaza mission. Uganda is further ahead in the process, having finalised details of its participation after its parliament approved a troop contribution this month.

A Ugandan military officer familiar with the preparations said personnel were being selected for the potential deployment. The country has committed around 1,200 troops, making it one of the larger publicly reported contributions to the proposed force.

Uganda’s participation is notable because a deployment to Gaza would place its soldiers in an unusually complex environment. The force would be expected to support a ceasefire while operating in territory affected by a long-running conflict and during a politically sensitive transition involving Israel, Hamas and a proposed Palestinian administration.

Burundi signals interest but has not finalised its role

Burundi has not yet made a final commitment. A Burundian military official said a delegation led by senior military officers travelled to Israel and indicated that Burundi appeared interested in joining the mission.

A Board of Peace official similarly said Burundian representatives had expressed interest after discussions with the initiative. However, important details remain unresolved, including how many troops Burundi could provide and the precise responsibilities they might undertake.

The absence of a formal commitment means Burundi should not yet be counted as a confirmed contributor on the same basis as countries that have already pledged personnel. Its eventual decision could nevertheless be significant because it would expand the African participation in the proposed force.

Uganda and Burundi also bring substantial peacekeeping experience. Both countries have deployed forces for extended periods in Somalia as part of an African Union mission fighting al-Shabab, the al-Qaida-linked extremist group.

Paul D. Williams, director of the security policy studies programme at The George Washington University, said that experience could be relevant to the Gaza mission. He also argued that the winding down of the Somalia operation could encourage both countries to seek continued financial and material support for their militaries.

Who has committed troops to the proposed Gaza force?

The emerging force has attracted commitments from several countries, although the numbers remain far below the planned strength of approximately 20,000 personnel.

Morocco has committed up to 500 personnel, while Kosovo, Kazakhstan and Albania together have committed around 80. Indonesia had previously indicated that it was preparing to contribute as many as 8,000 troops, potentially making it the largest contributor, but placed the plan on hold after the United States and Israel attacked Iran.

The gap between the planned force and confirmed commitments is therefore substantial. Until more countries contribute personnel, the force could struggle to carry out the broad range of responsibilities envisioned for it.

What would the international force do in Gaza?

The proposed International Stabilisation Force is part of a wider US-backed framework for Gaza. Under the plan, Hamas would disarm and Israeli forces would withdraw from the territory. An incoming technocratic committee would administer areas of Gaza, while the international force would provide security support.

Its proposed responsibilities extend beyond conventional peacekeeping. The force would monitor the ceasefire, train Palestinian police, assist with security and help protect humanitarian aid operations.

US Maj. Gen. Jasper Jeffers is expected to lead the 20,000-strong force. Its effectiveness, however, would depend on more than military manpower. A clear mandate, agreement on rules of engagement, coordination with local authorities and acceptance by the main parties to the conflict would all be critical.

That is why the unresolved political questions surrounding the ceasefire are as important as the troop numbers.

Israel and Hamas remain divided over the core agreement

The Gaza ceasefire took effect last October, but implementation has stalled over disagreements concerning Israel’s withdrawal and Hamas’ disarmament.

Trump’s proposed framework calls for Hamas to disarm while Israel withdraws its forces. The international force would then support security arrangements in areas transferred to a new Palestinian administration.

Hamas has agreed to the new US deal, according to the supplied account. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, however, has rejected the proposed withdrawal terms.

Netanyahu has said Israel will not withdraw from the roughly 60 per cent of Gaza it controls until Hamas has been completely disarmed. That position creates a fundamental obstacle because the international force is designed to operate as part of a broader transition that includes an Israeli pullback.

The disagreement means that even if additional countries agree to provide troops, deployment could remain difficult without a political breakthrough.

US diplomacy has yet to close the gap

Washington has continued diplomatic efforts to move the ceasefire process forward. Earlier this month, a US delegation held lengthy discussions with Hamas leadership before meeting Netanyahu.

The US team included negotiator Jared Kushner. However, Israeli officials did not offer a concrete commitment to the withdrawal arrangement after the discussions.

This leaves the proposed international force in an unusual position. Planning and troop-generation efforts are continuing even though the political framework required for a full deployment has not been settled.

For countries considering sending soldiers, that uncertainty matters. Governments need to know what their troops will be asked to do, who will command them, what rules they will operate under and what happens if the ceasefire collapses.

Why African peacekeeping experience matters

Uganda and Burundi’s history of military deployments in Somalia gives them experience in international security operations. Their forces have spent years operating alongside regional and international partners against al-Shabab.

That background could be useful in Gaza, where an international contingent would need to coordinate with multiple actors and operate under challenging security conditions.

At the same time, Gaza would present a different set of risks. The proposed force would not simply be confronting an armed extremist organisation. It would be entering an environment shaped by an unresolved conflict, competing political claims and disagreements over the future Governance of the territory.

The success of the mission would therefore depend on whether participating countries receive a mandate broad enough to perform their duties but clear enough to avoid becoming directly involved in political or military disputes.

The troop shortfall is a major test for the plan

A 20,000-person force requires a substantial international commitment. The currently reported contributions fall well short of that figure, making recruitment one of the central challenges for the Board of Peace initiative.

The possible addition of Burundi would help, but the country has not yet announced a final troop commitment. Uganda’s 1,200 personnel represent progress, yet the scale of the proposed mission means that several more countries would need to make meaningful contributions.

Indonesia’s decision to put its proposed 8,000-person deployment on hold also illustrates how quickly regional events can disrupt planning. A force intended for Gaza is being assembled while the wider Middle East remains highly unstable.

What could happen next?

The next stage will depend on two parallel tracks: building the force and resolving the political disputes that would allow it to operate.

On the military side, Uganda’s selection of personnel suggests that preparations are moving beyond diplomatic discussions. Burundi’s decision will be closely watched because its participation could increase the African contribution and provide additional peacekeeping capacity.

On the political side, the key question remains whether Israel and Hamas can bridge their differences over disarmament and withdrawal. Without agreement on those issues, an international force could face uncertainty over where it should deploy and what authority it would have.

The proposed Gaza peace force therefore remains a work in progress. Uganda’s commitment and Burundi’s interest show that international participation is being assembled, but the mission is still far from the 20,000-person target and lacks a fully settled political environment.

For the plan to become operational, troop contributions will have to be matched by a workable ceasefire arrangement, clear command structures and agreement on Gaza’s security and governance. Until those pieces come together, the discussions involving Uganda and Burundi represent important preparation rather than proof that a full international force is ready to enter Gaza.