THOUGH the UN Security Council has passed a US-drafted resolution that basically endorses President Donald Trump’s ‘peace plan’ for Gaza, the document’s ambiguities, and Palestinian objections to many of its stated aims, means that it is unlikely to bring long-term peace to the occupied territories. Moreover, those countries — including Pakistan — that are considering contributing troops to the international stabilisation force that the Trumpian scheme envisages, must be clear on its mandate. While the UNSC has approved it, it is very much an American plan.

For example, the ISF will not act as a UN peacekeeping force; it will work in ‘consultation’ with Israel and Egypt. Moreover, the language about a path to Palestinian statehood is ambiguous. On the other hand, the Israeli prime minister has reaffirmed his commitment to blocking a Palestinian state. The framers of this resolution, and the supporters of this plan, must be asked how they expect to reconcile these divergent positions. China and Russia abstained while Pakistan supported the US resolution. Hamas, meanwhile, has been critical of the resolution, while questioning the ISF’s neutrality.

Click to see more

The resolution calls for the ISF to demilitarise Gaza, while the US ambassador to the UN has said the ISF will “support a region free from Hamas’ grip”. These statements clearly indicate that foreign troops will be deployed in Gaza to engage and disarm Hamas. Pakistan, and other Muslim states that are reportedly considering troops for the mission, must therefore be clear about what is expected of them. Pakistan’s ambassador to the UN has said that disarmament should be carried out “through a negotiated political process”, while also observing that further clarity was needed about all aspects of the plan.

Without this clarity, and without debate in parliament, Pakistan should not commit troops. We must not partake in an Israeli-American exercise to disarm Palestinian resistance movements and help perpetuate the occupation. However, if the stated purpose of the ISF is to facilitate Gaza’s reconstruction and rehabilitation, and most importantly, to protect Palestinians from Israel’s savage assaults, which continue despite the ‘ceasefire’, then the contribution of troops can be considered.

It would have been much better for the UN to have taken the lead in this peacekeeping mission, instead of simply endorsing the American plan. While it is hoped that Gaza’s long nightmare is over, and the Palestinians in general can restart their journey towards a sovereign state, we must not hold our breath. The main reason for pessimism is Israel’s lack of commitment to peace, and its historical disregard for Palestinian lives. We should know quite soon whether the effort is genuine, or the plan just endorsed by the UN is another smokescreen that will strengthen the occupation, this time with international sanction, and Arab and Muslim buy-in.

Published in Dawn, November 19th, 2025