THE recent protests organised by the Palestine Solidarity Committee in Bangladesh reflect a deep moral and political clarity that resonates with the conscience of the Bangladeshis. At a time when Gaza continues to suffer unprecedented destruction, displacement, and collective punishment, the PSC’s rejection of Bangladesh’s possible involvement in a proposed Gaza International Stabilisation Force is not only justified, but it is necessary.
The so-called International Stabilisation Force, as currently envisioned, is not a peacekeeping or humanitarian mission in any genuine sense. Rather, it is a security mechanism designed primarily to serve Israeli strategic interests under the language of ‘stabilisation’ and ‘demilitarisation’. Its core objective is clear: to disarm Palestinian resistance forces in Gaza under the pretext of ensuring Israeli security, thereby eliminating the very means through which Palestinians resist occupation, siege, and apartheid.
Force without Palestinians
ONE of the most alarming aspects of the proposed International Stabilisation Force is that it was developed without consultation with any Palestinian political actors or representative bodies. Neither Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, nor broader Palestinian civil society was meaningfully involved. This exclusion alone exposes the initiative for what it is: a top-down, imperial project imposed on an occupied people.
The ‘comprehensive plan’ promoted during Donald Trump’s political campaign, and echoed in subsequent policy discussions, reflects a long-standing pattern of US imperial hegemony. Decisions about Palestinian land, security, governance, and resistance are once again being made in Washington, Tel Aviv, and allied capitals, not in Gaza or Ramallah. Any security arrangement that excludes Palestinians while claiming to act in their interest is fundamentally illegitimate.
The International Stabilisation Force’s mandate reportedly includes training a new Palestinian police force that would not be accountable to Hamas or the Palestinian Authority, cooperating closely with Israel and Egypt, maintaining border security, securing humanitarian corridors, and enforcing the ‘demilitarisation’ of Gaza. In practice, this means creating a locally recruited force whose primary role would be to police Palestinians on behalf of external powers. History, from Iraq to Afghanistan, shows that such arrangements collapse into repression, dependency, and resistance.
Why Bangladesh must not participate
BANGLADESH’S strength on the global stage has long rested on moral consistency: opposition to colonialism, support for self-determination, and solidarity with oppressed peoples. Joining an international stabilisation force whose explicit or implicit mission is to neutralise Palestinian resistance would represent a profound betrayal of these principles.
Palestinian resistance, regardless of how one evaluates its tactics, emerges from decades of occupation, blockade, dispossession, and denial of political rights. To participate in a force aimed at disarming Gaza while the occupation continues, settlements expand, and accountability remains absent is to side with power against justice.
The PSC protests correctly warn that Bangladeshi soldiers should never be placed in a position where they are expected to suppress an occupied population in coordination with its occupier. Such a role would not only stain Bangladesh’s international standing but also contradict the country’s own liberation history.
Irony and pro-Israel objections
ADDING a layer of irony to this debate are recent statements by Moshe Phillips, national president of Americans For A Safe Israel, who criticised Bangladesh as fundamentally unfit to participate in any Gaza stabilisation force due to its ‘lack of neutrality.’ Phillips argues that Bangladesh’s consistent pro-Palestinian positions — its non-recognition of Israel, trade restrictions, voting record at the UN, and legal accusations against Israel — disqualify it from peacekeeping.
In effect, a leading pro-Israel advocate is openly stating that Bangladesh should be excluded because it refuses to abandon its principled stance on Palestinian rights. From one perspective, this critique exposes the true nature of the International Stabilisation Force: neutrality is defined not as adherence to international law or human rights, but as acceptance of Israeli narratives and security priorities.
If neutrality means ignoring occupation, apartheid, and collective punishment, then Bangladesh should proudly reject such a definition. The fact that pro-Israel organisations are warning Washington against Bangladeshi participation only reinforces the PSC’s argument: Bangladesh should not offer unsolicited assistance to a project that is structurally biased and morally compromised.
Human rights, selective morality, and pressure politics
BANGLADESH has also been targeted by repeated US human rights reports that portray the country in a consistently negative light. While no state is beyond criticism, these reports often function as political instruments—used selectively to pressure governments that do not align with US strategic interests. The same moral scrutiny is rarely applied with equal force to Israel, despite overwhelming documentation of war crimes and violations in Gaza.
This pattern should concern Bangladesh deeply. Human rights discourse, when weaponised, becomes a gateway for interference in internal affairs, coercive diplomacy, and conditional engagement. Participation in the International Stabilisation Force could further entangle Bangladesh in a framework where its sovereignty and policy independence are compromised.
Call for vigilance, principle
THE PSC protests articulate a simple but powerful message: Bangladesh must stand with the oppressed, not police them. The people of Bangladesh have consistently supported Palestinian rights because they recognise a familiar struggle — for dignity, freedom, and self-determination.
True peace in Gaza cannot be imposed by foreign forces cooperating with an occupying power. It cannot emerge from demilitarisation without de-occupation or security without justice. Any initiative that ignores these realities is not stabilization — it is pacification.
Bangladesh should therefore make its position unequivocally clear: it will not participate in any force designed to dismantle Palestinian resistance while leaving the structures of oppression intact. In doing so, Bangladesh would not be acting irresponsibly or ideologically but in line with international law, historical experience, and its own national values.
At this critical moment, vigilance is not optional. It is a duty.
Nazifa Jannat is a journalism student at Syracuse University.
