In the long arc of nations choosing where to plant their flags in other people's conflicts, Uganda and Burundi now stand at a consequential threshold — weighing whether to send their soldiers into Gaza as part of a proposed international stabilization force that remains more aspiration than reality. Uganda's parliament has already said yes, committing roughly 1,200 personnel; Burundi is listening carefully but has not yet spoken. The force, envisioned at 20,000 strong under American command, is meant to hold a ceasefire that neither Hamas nor Israel has fully embraced — and the gap between wha
Uganda, Burundi explore Gaza troop deployment under Trump's stabilization plan
Potential deployment involves military personnel to an active conflict zone; Uganda and Burundi have demonstrated willingness to accept high casualty rates in previous peacekeeping operations.
Willing to tolerate high casualties without withdrawing
Mark
Why would Uganda and Burundi send troops to Gaza when the ceasefire itself is already breaking down?
Mimi
Because the ceasefire breaking down doesn't mean the mission disappears—it means the mission becomes more urgent, at least in theory. And for both countries, there's a financial reality: their peacekeeping operations in Somalia are winding down, which means the funding and military support that came with those deployments will dry up. Gaza offers a way to keep that pipeline open.
Mark
But doesn't that make the troops expendable? If it's really about money rather than the mission itself?
Mimi
Not expendable, but perhaps less protected by genuine strategic commitment. Uganda and Burundi have shown they can absorb casualties without pulling out—that's actually why they're attractive to planners. But yes, there's a tension between being valued for your willingness to stay and being valued for the mission itself.
Mark
Netanyahu rejected the deal. So what exactly are these troops deploying into?
Mimi
That's the question no one can answer yet. The force is supposed to move in after Israeli withdrawal, but Netanyahu says there's no withdrawal until Hamas is completely disarmed. So you have a force designed for a scenario that may never materialize.
Mark
How many troops are we actually talking about?
Mimi
Uganda alone is committing 1,200. Morocco 500. Everyone else combined is under 100. They need 20,000. Indonesia was going to send 8,000 but pulled back. So you're looking at maybe 2,000 troops on the ground right now, with a plan for ten times that.
Mark
What does Uganda get out of this?
Mimi
That's the part no one will say publicly. Military funding, equipment, training—probably. But the details are being kept quiet because it's politically sensitive. You don't want it to look like countries are being paid to take on risk in someone else's conflict.
Mark
And if the ceasefire collapses entirely before these troops arrive?
Mimi
Then you have soldiers deployed to a war zone under a mandate that no longer exists. That's the real gamble.
O Pulso
- A proposed 20,000-strong stabilization force for Gaza remains dramatically undersubscribed, with current commitments from all nations combined falling far short of the target.
- Uganda has secured parliamentary approval and is actively selecting troops, while Burundi's senior military officers returned from Israel with interest but no formal commitment.
- The political foundation beneath the force is cracking — Hamas has accepted the framework, but Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu refuses to withdraw from the 60 percent of Gaza under Israeli control until Hamas fully disarms.
- Indonesia's pledge of 8,000 troops — the largest single contribution — was suspended after U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran, leaving the force's viability in serious doubt.
- Both African nations are driven by more than principle: as their Somalia peacekeeping mission winds down, a U.S.-backed Gaza deployment offers a critical new source of military funding and equipment.
- The terms of compensation — financial, material, or otherwise — remain unresolved and shielded behind closed doors, underscoring how politically charged every dimension of this mission remains.
In the long arc of nations choosing where to plant their flags in other people's conflicts, Uganda and Burundi now stand at a consequential threshold — weighing whether to send their soldiers into Gaza as part of a proposed international stabilization force that remains more aspiration than reality. Uganda's parliament has already said yes, committing roughly 1,200 personnel; Burundi is listening carefully but has not yet spoken. The force, envisioned at 20,000 strong under American command, is meant to hold a ceasefire that neither Hamas nor Israel has fully embraced — and the gap between what is promised and what is needed reveals how fragile the architecture of peace can be.
Military delegations from Uganda and Burundi traveled to Israel last week to explore joining President Trump's proposed international stabilization force for Gaza — a multinational security effort designed to shore up a ceasefire that has been stalled for months. Uganda has moved furthest along: parliament approved participation this month, and officials are now finalizing the details of a roughly 1,200-person deployment. Burundi remains in earlier discussions, with three senior officers having led the delegation to Israel and expressing genuine interest, though no formal decision has been made.
The force, if fully assembled, would reach 20,000 troops under U.S. Major General Jasper Jeffers, tasked with monitoring the ceasefire, training Palestinian police, and securing aid delivery to civilians. The reality, however, is sobering. Morocco has pledged 500 troops; Kosovo, Kazakhstan, and Albania together have committed around 80. Indonesia's offer of 8,000 — the largest single pledge — was suspended following U.S. and Israeli military action against Iran. The gap between ambition and commitment is wide.
The political landscape is equally unstable. Trump announced a deal requiring Hamas to disarm and Israel to withdraw, with a technocratic committee assuming administrative control. Hamas has accepted the framework. Netanyahu has not, insisting Israel will hold its position across roughly 60 percent of Gaza until disarmament is complete — a condition that has frozen progress even after Jared Kushner led a U.S. delegation to press both sides.
For Uganda and Burundi, the calculus mixes principle with pragmatism. Both nations carry real peacekeeping experience from long deployments in Somalia against al-Shabab, and both leaderships have shown a willingness to absorb casualties without retreating. But as that Somalia mission winds down, a new deployment backed by U.S. resources offers a practical lifeline — funding, equipment, and continued relevance. What exactly either country would receive in return remains unresolved and largely undisclosed. Uganda moves forward with approval in hand; Burundi deliberates. The stabilization force Trump envisioned waits, still far from complete.
Military delegations from Uganda and Burundi traveled to Israel last week to explore what could become one of the most ambitious international peacekeeping deployments in recent memory. The discussions centered on committing troops to Gaza as part of President Trump's envisioned stabilization force—a multinational security apparatus designed to undergird a fragile ceasefire that has stalled since October.
Uganda has already moved furthest down this path. Parliament approved the country's participation this month, and officials say the nation is now finalizing the specifics of its commitment. Uganda plans to deploy approximately 1,200 personnel. Burundi, by contrast, remains in earlier stages. A Burundian military official confirmed that three senior officers led the delegation to Israel and that the country appears genuinely interested in joining, though nothing has been formally decided. A Board of Peace official—speaking anonymously because discussions with potential troop contributors remain sensitive—said the delegations shared substantial knowledge and that Burundian representatives expressed clear interest in the mission.
The international force, if fully assembled, would number around 20,000 troops and be commanded by U.S. Major General Jasper Jeffers. Its mandate would be to monitor the ceasefire, train Palestinian police, and ensure aid reaches civilians in Gaza. But the numbers tell a story of ambition outpacing commitment. Morocco has pledged up to 500 troops. Kosovo, Kazakhstan, and Albania combined have committed roughly 80. Indonesia initially offered 8,000—by far the largest single contribution—but suspended that pledge after U.S. and Israeli military action against Iran. Current commitments fall dramatically short of the 20,000-person target.
The underlying political picture remains fractured. Last month, Trump announced a deal requiring Hamas to disarm and Israel to withdraw from Gaza, with the stabilization force taking over security responsibilities in areas administered by a new technocratic committee. Hamas has accepted the framework. Netanyahu has not. The Israeli Prime Minister insists Israel will not leave the roughly 60 percent of Gaza it currently controls until Hamas is completely disarmed—a condition that has effectively frozen negotiations even after a U.S. delegation led by negotiator Jared Kushner pressed both sides in recent weeks.
Why would Uganda and Burundi commit troops to such uncertain terrain? Both nations bring genuine peacekeeping credentials. They have maintained long-term deployments in Somalia as part of an African Union force fighting the al-Qaida-linked al-Shabab militant group. Paul Williams, director of security policy studies at George Washington University, notes that both countries' leadership has demonstrated a willingness to absorb significant casualties without withdrawing from missions. But there is also a practical calculus at work. As the Somalia mission winds down, Uganda and Burundi face pressure to find new sources of military funding and equipment. A Gaza deployment backed by U.S. resources offers a concrete answer to that need. A Ugandan military officer confirmed that troops are already being selected for potential deployment, though the officer could not speak publicly about the process.
What Uganda and Burundi might receive in return—whether financial compensation, military aid, or equipment—remains unclear. Neither country's military spokesperson responded to requests for comment. The negotiations themselves are being conducted in careful language and behind closed doors, a reflection of how politically sensitive the Gaza question remains across the region and globally. For now, Uganda moves forward with parliamentary approval in hand. Burundi watches and considers. And the stabilization force that Trump imagined remains substantially incomplete, waiting for more nations to decide whether the mission, and the incentives attached to it, justify the risk.
Citações Notáveis
We shared significant knowledge with one another, and the Burundi representatives expressed interest in our mission— Board of Peace official
Israel will not withdraw from any of the roughly 60% of the territory it controls in Gaza until Hamas has been completely disarmed— Netanyahu's stated position
Quer a matéria completa?
Leia o original em AP News ↗
War & Conflict