Third-party security guarantees from the United States or other actors could potentially enable Israeli withdrawal by addressing security concerns that currently prevent implementation progress. Explicit commitments to intervene if agreements are violated might provide assurances that Israel requires for territorial withdrawal.
The American security guarantee to Israel represents a long-standing bilateral commitment that could be leveraged for peace implementation. Enhanced guarantees specifically addressing Gaza implementation scenarios might convince Israeli decision makers that withdrawal does not create unacceptable vulnerability. This approach transforms implementation from purely bilateral Israeli-Palestinian issue to guaranteed international arrangement.
However, security guarantees face credibility questions about whether third parties would actually intervene in crisis situations. Historical experiences with international commitments not honored create skepticism about guarantee reliability. Building credible guarantees requires not merely promises but demonstrable capability and will to act.
The deployment of international stabilization forces itself represents a form of security guarantee by physically interposing peacekeepers between parties. Force presence provides tangible evidence of commitment rather than merely verbal assurances. However, this approach requires resolving current obstacles to force deployment including composition disputes and mandate questions.
Security guarantee credibility depends partly on domestic political support within guarantor nations. American security commitments require congressional backing and public acceptance of potential military engagement. Building such support demands explaining guarantee rationale and convincing skeptical publics that implementation success serves American interests justifying security commitment risks.