Peacekeepers or Politicalpawns?
Indonesia recently announced it is preparing up to 8,000 troops for an international 'peacekeeping' deployment to Gaza, a move presented by some as a humanitarian gesture. This commitment arrives amidst a broader U.S. proposal for a 'Board of Peace' and 'International Security Force' (ISF), framed as essential for post-conflict reconstruction. On the surface, it appears to be a multinational
effort to stabilize a devastated region. Yet, this isn't Indonesia's first rodeo; it is a top-10 contributor to UN peacekeeping missions, notably in Lebanon. However, that experience came with clear UN mandates and UN funding. This proposed ISF operates outside the UN's established frameworks, leading to concerns that Indonesia will bear the financial cost and that its forces could unwittingly
become embroiled in policing a population that views them suspiciously. The Center of Economic and Law Studies in Jakarta openly questions whether these troops would inadvertently support Israeli military objectives, drawing parallels to how 'peacekeeping' forces in other conflicts often end up legitimizing an imposed order rather than ensuring genuine peace. This arrangement bears a striking
resemblance to post-2003 Iraq, where a 'Multi-National Force' nominally aimed at stability ultimately served to solidify a Western-aligned government while facing a constant insurgency. The AP story itself notes the ambiguity of the ISF's mandate – to 'support vetted Palestinian police' and 'secure border areas' with Israel and Egypt, essentially acting as an auxiliary security arm for existing