In the wake of a fragile truce reached in Sharm El-Sheikh earlier this month, the significance of Turkey’s proposed involvement in an international monitoring and stabilisation force in Gaza has come into sharp focus. Turkey, having been selected as one of the guarantor states alongside other regional players, swiftly declared its readiness to dispatch personnel to support the restoration of Palestinian governance. Yet, Israel’s leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, has publicly dismissed the idea of Turkish participation under the U.S.–led framework, signalling a profound divergence between the two countries’ post-war aims.

For Ankara, the proposed deployment represents a chance to assert its long-standing support for Palestinian self-rule and to play a central role in shaping Gaza’s future. Turkey views its involvement as critical to ensuring that full Palestinian governance is restored, rather than allowing an ambiguous interim status in which Israeli dominance might persist. Experts suggest that Turkey will not accept being sidelined, and see Israel’s rejection as a breach of the seriousness of the initial deal.

From Jerusalem’s standpoint, however, Turkey’s role is deeply problematic. Israel regards Turkey as a politically unpredictable power whose alliance with the United States and membership in NATO endow it with leverage that could rival Iran’s regional sway. Israeli officials appear to fear that Turkish participation would open the door to rival regional influence in Gaza, challenging their vision of a post-war arrangement in which Israel retains secure control and Israel’s security considerations dominate.

The standoff raises questions not only about the future of the cease-fire arrangement itself, but also about wider regional implications. If Turkey refuses to accept a marginalised role, then a confrontation with Israel over the shape of Gaza’s reconstruction and governance appears almost inevitable. Meanwhile, Israel’s insistence on excluding Ankara threatens to expose how fragile the guarantor framework really is, and may force the United States into a more active mediating role if the truce is to endure.

Turkey, for its part, has signalled that it is determined to maintain a strategic role in Gaza and will resist any attempt to curtail its participation. But whether it has the diplomatic leverage to override Israel’s objections remains unclear. For Palestinians watching closely, the outcome of this clash between Jerusalem and Ankara may turn out to be a decisive factor in whether the peace agreement can deliver a genuine change in governance, or whether Israel will succeed in consolidating a reality of control under the guise of stabilisation.