EDITORIAL: Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar’s assurance that any Pakistani contingent assigned to the International Stabilisation Force (ISF) in Gaza would not be involved in disarming Hamas finally offers a clearer picture of the limits Pakistan is prepared to observe in any prospective ISF deployment.
Such clarity, however, should have been established from the outset, given the sensitivity of the theatre, the political and military implications of operating so close to Israel — a state Pakistan does not recognise — and the depth of public sentiment surrounding the issue at home.
That need was further underscored by the Gaza Peace Plan itself, which completely marginalised Palestinian interests and involvement in the peace process while aligning conspicuously with Israeli objectives, making any potential role in a force as contentious as the ISF an inherently delicate undertaking for Pakistan.
One is therefore left questioning why the government rushed to signal its willingness to contribute troops to the ISF when the force’s mandate and terms of reference were still largely unsettled. The Gaza Peace Plan and the UN Security Council resolution pertaining to it passed last month show that the ISF was conceived as a grouping drawn from Muslim-majority states, tasked with supporting and training Palestinian police forces and helping to secure the swift movement of goods needed to rebuild Gaza. But the ISF’s mandate didn’t end there.
The same resolution also cast it as a long-term internal security solution for the enclave, responsible for “demilitarising” Gaza, strongly suggesting that it was expected to remove weapons from Hamas, which promptly refused to disarm immediately after the vote.
It comes as little surprise that Washington is now struggling to advance a central pillar of the Gaza Peace Plan, as countries that had once indicated willingness to join the ISF are now edging away. Their hesitation is rooted in entirely valid fears that their personnel could be drawn into coercive action against Palestinians, something that would be politically and morally untenable for any Muslim-majority nation. Anger towards Israel also remains high because the Zionist entity continues on its murderous path, killing over 350 Palestinians in Gaza and persisting in its violent campaign in the occupied West Bank.
With Defence Minister Khawaja Asif openly urging Muslim states to reassess their backing of the Gaza Peace Plan and questioning Israel’s commitment to any credible peace effort, there now seems to be realisation within the country’s political leadership that they may have misjudged the risks inherent in aligning too quickly with such a controversial framework.
There is also a strong view that this was less a misjudgment and more an eagerness by the leadership to curry favour with a capricious US president, projecting alignment with his vision, while underestimating the complexities involved in committing troops to the ISF, especially if such engagement fails to secure lasting peace, advance the goal of Palestinian statehood or ends up serving Israeli interests over those of the hapless Palestinians.
It goes without saying that tackling a matter as sensitive, complex and emotionally charged as this calls for vision, foresight and sagacity, and not simply the impulse to ingratiate oneself with powerful nations, as that is not how a responsible and principled foreign policy is conducted. The rulers must realise that foreign policy should be anchored in careful judgment and the broader national good.
Even now, if there is any inclination towards committing troops to the ISF among the upper echelons, they must ensure that such a step is only taken if it is guaranteed that our forces would serve strictly in a peacekeeping capacity, that there is a clear vision for a viable Palestinian state and that our own national interests remain fully protected.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025