Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

America's role in monitoring the Gaza peace deal

https://www.commondef.com/2025/10/what-y...-ceasefire

"Roughly 200 American troops will be deployed to Israel not to fight, but to support and monitor the fragile truce...

...According to U.S. officials, these troops will help staff a “civil-military coordination center” in Israel, tasked with facilitating humanitarian aid into Gaza, oversight of logistics and security support, and ensuring the ceasefire’s terms are upheld.

In short, the center will be the linchpin in making sure promises translate into action.

Crucially, these American forces will not cross into Gaza itself. “No American troops will be sent into Gaza,” one official emphasized...

...Yet many questions remain unanswered: how will Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza proceed? Will Hamas truly disarm? Who will govern Gaza once fighting stops?...

..the Americans are expected to embed closely with partner nation forces, including those from Egypt, Qatar, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates.

...Critics might question whether 200 troops are sufficient to hold the line, especially with no boots in Gaza itself.

But consider how this approach protects U.S. servicemembers while preserving influence. It allows American forces to remain behind the scenes as orchestrators, not occupiers...

I believe that the 200 Americans are already there and the coordination center is already set up.

So it sounds like the actual International Stabilization Force troops inside the Gaza areas that Israel pulls back from will be Egyptian, Turkish, Qatari and from the UAE. The Americans will be back at headquarters in Israel. I expect that those regional countries are hurredly getting ready to deploy as we speak.

If Israel breaks the peace agreement, the US will jerk on their leash.

If Hamas keeps fighting and refuses to disarm, the ISF can slap them around with the ever present threat of America letting Israel off the leash.

(The danger I see with that is the possibility that the ISF turns into protective shields for Hamas, and all these countries threaten war if Israel harms any of their soldiers.)

Palestinians returning to Northern Gaza find nothing but ruins and rubble..Thank you Israel.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Ux-s1Ra_OGE

https://www.google.com/search?q=northern...Li6MU,st:0

(Oct 12, 2025 10:55 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]Palestinians returning to Northern Gaza find nothing but ruins and rubble..Thank you Israel.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Ux-s1Ra_OGE

https://www.google.com/search?q=northern...Li6MU,st:0

I've seen the like "ancient toppled buildings" from the satellite view for the last five months. But of course it dates back to well before I ever started checking in on it.

Thank Hamas for that.

(Oct 12, 2025 11:42 PM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]

(Oct 12, 2025 10:55 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]Palestinians returning to Northern Gaza find nothing but ruins and rubble..Thank you Israel.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Ux-s1Ra_OGE

https://www.google.com/search?q=northern...Li6MU,st:0

I've seen the like "ancient toppled buildings" from the satellite view for the last five months. But of course it dates back to well before I ever started checking in on it.

https://www.google.com/search?q=gaza+cit...UBSgc,st:0

---

Quote:Thank Hamas for that.

Uh no..I'm blaming the assholes who actually did it. That's how morality works.

(Oct 12, 2025 10:55 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]Palestinians returning to Northern Gaza find nothing but ruins and rubble..Thank you Israel.

Gaza started a war with Israel. Many/most of the people of Gaza cheered the war and their glorious attack on Israel.

Israel fought back.

Hamas hid behind the people of Gaza and refused to surrender. Israel actually tried to minimize casualties, both Gazan and their own, by issuing evacuation warnings, then blasting crap out of the evacuated areas. This resulted in most people (including Hamas fighters) having to move repeatedly, as Israel blasted new areas.

If Hamas tried to stand and fight, Israel killed them. Forced to flee repeatedly, and having to pass through Israeli army checkpoints, they were forced to leave their rockets and heavier weaponry, and most of their ammunition and small arms, behind.

The increasing devastation could have stopped any time, but the price was unconditional Hamas surrender. But Hamas refused to surrender. Their remaining hope was that terrorist sympathizers, including the US democratic party, would come to their rescue and stop Israel while something remained of their little kingdom.

Reminiscent of Hitler in his bunker dreaming he could make a seperate peace with the Americans and British, who would join his remaining Nazis to fight Russia.

Trump has offered Hamas a chance to survive, even if they lose control of Gaza. Israel is probably satisfied that even if Hamas maintains a shadow presence in Gaza, they will be more like an organized crime gang than a combat effective army.

Meanwhile the US, Egypt and the fabulously wealthy Gulf Arabs will control relief supplies and rebuilding. Which will probably motivate most of the population to cooperate with them rather than Hamas, who after all, had brought all this disaster down on them.

Yaz, eloquently explained "how morality works."

I know for a fact that according to the Geneva Convention nations even at so-called "war" are no longer allowed to get away with bombing civilian sites and murdering them in cold blood. They're called "war crimes" for a reason. Israel spent two years doing exactly that, even trying to starve the citizens of Gaza to death with a year long siege. All of this to supposedly get their hostages back. It didn't work. It only made Hamas more obstinate. Now that a diplomatic solution has been reached, this meaningless carnage will not be forgotten. The blood of 67,800 dead men, women, children, and babies will be on the hands of Israel's government forever. And the whole world knows it now and history will remember it.

The Geneva Conventions prohibit using civilians or protected persons as human shields to shield military objectives or operations. This is a war crime, and it applies to both "active" shielding (placing civilians near military targets) and "passive" shielding (placing military targets in civilian areas). International humanitarian law (IHL) also forbids using the movement of civilians to make areas immune from attack or to shield military operations. 

According to the laws of war, attackers can target enemies using human shields, but are still bound by the rules of distinction and proportionality.
- Google AI

Israel gave repeated and ample notice of military targets, allowing civilians to evacuate. Hamas routinely intimidated civilians into to remaining as human shields.

And repeating Hamas propaganda, and expressing a vendetta against Israel over the largest attack on Jews since the Holocaust, is why you have no moral credibility.

What are the implications of labelling civilians as human shields?

"This label can be used by a warring party to “relax the repertoire of violence that is permitted to be used in that area”, said Gordon, who teaches international law at Queen Mary University of London.

The presence of human shields does not render a site immune from attack. While they are protected people according to the laws of war, the military assets they shield can still be legitimately targeted.

If they die, the responsibility for their death is placed on those who use them as human shields, rather than on those who kill them. Therefore, “in an area where there are only human shields and combatants, more lethal violence can be used”, Gordon said.

The limits are drawn by the principles of distinction and proportionality: An army has the duty to target only the enemy, even if this means facing greater risks to minimise civilian casualties; and to weigh the military value of each attack against the civilian casualties that are likely to result from it.

Non-combatant civilians even if used as human shields are entitled to protection, experts say.

Marc Weller, chair of international law and international constitutional studies at the University of Cambridge, said that if 1,000 people were sheltering at a site that was proven to hide a Hamas presence, Israel would have to send soldiers in to only hit the enemy assets (principle of distinction). If it instead opted to bomb the compound from the air, it must be able to prove the existence of enemy assets and to argue that the “incidental” loss of life was proportionate to the military advantage gained (principle of proportionality).

Issuing an evacuation order to 1.1 million people and then considering an entire population as a legitimate target also contravenes the same principles. “Knocking on a building [to ask its residents to evacuate] may be reasonable, but telling a million people that they all have to get out because you are bombing everything is unreasonable,” the Cambridge professor told Al Jazeera.

“Israel cannot discharge its obligation of distinction by wishing the civilians away. This places the burden of protection on victims, rather than attackers.”

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/1...rm-in-gaza