EDITORIAL: The passage of the US-sponsored Security Council resolution endorsing President Donald Trump’s Gaza peace plan marks yet another deeply troubling moment in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. By creating a “Board of Peace” chaired by Trump himself and mandating the deployment of an International Stabilisation Force (ISF) shaped largely around American strategic preferences, the resolution firmly imprints US priorities on Gaza’s future. This raises serious questions about the mandate, neutrality, and legitimacy of the arrangement, particularly when the very people most affected, the Palestinians, remain largely marginalised.
Under the resolution, Israeli forces are to withdraw from Gaza in phases, but only “based on standards, milestones, and timeframes linked to demilitarisation.” In practice, this places Israel in the extraordinary position of determining whether the conditions for its own withdrawal have been met. At the same time, the ISF is tasked with disarming Hamas and other Palestinian resistance groups, which means it is not to function as a neutral, UN-mandated peacekeeping force. In fact, it is required to operate “in consultation with Egypt and Israel” — a formulation that virtually guarantees Israel the dominant voice. No wonder, Israel has warmly welcomed the resolution. For Muslim-majority states considering contributing troops to the ISF, these provisions create a potentially precarious situation.
Operating under a mandate that is neither neutral nor grounded in established UN peacekeeping principles could entangle their forces in political objectives they do not share. The expectation is that they disarm Palestinian groups while Israel retains de facto veto power over the timing and extent of its own withdrawal, or even its non-withdrawal. Without firm safeguards, participation in the ISF may end up legitimising an arrangement that undermines the Palestinian people’s legitimate struggle against occupation.
Pakistan’s vote in favour of the resolution reflects these concerns. Explaining his country’s position, Ambassador Asim Iftikhar Ahmad stressed that the plan must translate into real and measurable progress toward Palestinian statehood. His emphasis on “no annexation and no forced displacement,” and call for a “credible and time-bound process” toward establishing a viable Palestinian state, echo widespread concerns that the resolution lacks a clear, enforceable pathway to the two-state solution, establishing interim arrangements that could become permanent.
Russia and China, though refraining from vetoing the measure to avoid disrupting the ceasefire, identified its major flaws. Moscow’s envoy noted that the plan evoked “colonial practices” reminiscent of the British Mandate, in which Palestinian voices were sidelined. China, likewise, criticised the proposed governance mechanisms for post-war Gaza, observing that “Palestine is barely visible in it.” Predictably, Hamas has rejected the plan, arguing that it entrenches restrictions on Palestinian self-determination and creates an international force whose mission includes the forcible disarmament of Palestinian groups. While expressing readiness to hand over administrative control to a Palestinian governing authority, Hamas insists it cannot accept “a framework that paves the way for field arrangements imposed outside the Palestinian national will.”
It is, therefore, imperative that Pakistan and other states contemplating participation in the ISF secure clear assurances that they will have no role in disarmament unless Israel fully withdraws from Gaza. Without such guarantees, the ISF risks functioning as an auxiliary arm of Israeli policy rather than as a guardian of peace, reconstruction, and Palestinian dignity.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Comments
Comments are closed for this article.