The U.S. deployment of troops to monitor...

Editor's note: ...a cease-fire in Gaza is not a genuine peace‐mission but rather a new phase of U.S. control in the region, designed to entrench influence and protect Israeli strategic interests. Again, we see British brains and American muscle. It is the same model—Western boots on the ground under the banner of "stabilisation" after war—typically drags into a long-term occupation rather than delivering justice or lasting peace. Instead of U.S. troops, it might make more sense for British forces to step in, since the U.K. has already provided extensive military aid and cooperation to Israel (the British are already fighting in Gaza) regarding Gaza—thus aligning the on-ground presence with the existing support role of Britain rather than introducing a new American phase of involvement. And the reality is there is no "cease fire." And why not UN peacekeepers? Because Israel could care less what the UN does.
________

Can the US military stabilize Palestine after the war?

Washington's decision to put US boots on the ground in Gaza to "monitor" a ceasefire is the oldest con in the American foreign policy playbook: the promise of a "limited" mission that always expands into a quagmire.

By Salman Rafi Sheikh | October 29, 2025

Vietnam began as an advisory role, Iraq as liberation, and Afghanistan as counterterrorism. Each became a decades-long disaster. Now, with Trump threatening to "eliminate" Hamas if it resists total disarmament, the so-called peace mission is already mutating into what it truly is—the opening act of another US-led war in the Middle East.

In the name of humanitarianism

The US owns the peace business, treating peace as one of its most profitable exports, at least rhetorically. This rhetoric of humanitarian intervention—once a Cold War instrument of regime change and later the moral cloak for invasions from Iraq to Libya—remains the backbone of Washington's foreign policy. The business model is simple: wage war to make peace, destroy to "stabilize." This model is quite evident here, drawing massive bipartisan support in the US. The Biden and Trump administrations first extended maximum support to Israel, allowing it to conduct a genocide. The US, if it wanted peace in the region, could have simply enforced it by forcing Israel to stop. The bare minimum it could have done would be to stop providing military support. That, of course, did not happen. The US, in simple words, owned Israel's war. It now wants to own Israel’s peace as well.

"As long as the US defines peace as control and justice as unchallenged compliance, Gaza will not be pacified."

Now, as reports confirm that at least 200 US troops are heading to Israel to "monitor" the Gaza ceasefire, the question writes itself: why US soldiers and not UN peacekeepers? The answer is as blunt as it is familiar: that is because Washington does not share the peace business with anyone else. The US insists on monopolizing the machinery of global order, reserving for itself the right to decide when and how peace begins, who deserves it, and under whose boots it will be enforced. The Gaza-focused deployment, then, is less about supervision and more about supervision's oldest disguise: control.

According to the US Vice President, the US Central Command will set up a "civil-military coordination center" in Israel for logistical and security assistance to help expedite humanitarian aid into Gaza. Basically, this centre will oversee deciding what goes in and what goes out of Gaza going forward. It will decide who is observing and who is violating the ceasefire. Any real or pseudo "disturbance" within Gaza—which is very much possible due to limited aid and the presence of multiple competing groups—observed by this centre will be an invitation for its "limited" mission to become unlimited. Last week, Trump made a blunt claim that provides a clear glimpse of what is to follow. He insisted that the US will "force" Hamas to disarm and demilitarize. If, however, the group resists, the US will use all means, including military force and violence.

Even where Hamas is not relevant, Trump said that even Gaza's reconstruction is going to be "dangerous and difficult"—yet another justification for the US military's prolonged deployment and active role in the peace and reconstruction business. More specifically, US control of reconstruction is meant to prevent any other external actors, such as China, from playing any role. Reconstruction of Gaza is less about rebuilding; it is mainly about being in control of the political, economic, and ideological order that follows the war. Any role for China, which can certainly help rebuild Gaza quite quickly and efficiently, would also mean a showcase of Chinese soft power. For the US, it would ultimately be a peace dividend built not on US military might but on Chinese money and engineering.

Peace for war

But is the US deployment really about peace and rebuilding, or about managing the next phase of occupation under a new banner? The so-called ceasefire has not resolved the question of Palestine; it has merely paused the violence. Israel's long-standing claim to the entire territory of historic Palestine remains unfulfilled, as does its ideological project of a "Greater Israel" built on permanent control. For the Palestinians, the war may have razed their homes, but not their political will. They are not leaving, nor surrendering and consenting to life inside a fenced ruin renamed "peace."

Please go to New Eastern Outlook to continue reading.

________

Ceasefire? Really?

Israel's repeated ceasefire violations are part of its strategy to keep waging war on Gaza

Those beach front properties in Gaza that are planned need to be staked out:

Jared Kushner returns to forefront of Trump's Middle East diplomacy with Gaza ceasefire deal