By Uzma Ehtasham
The announcement of the first Gaza Peace Board meeting in Washington on 19 February has been framed as a diplomatic breakthrough, a moment when the international community, led by the United States under President Donald Trump, might finally begin to chart a way out of one of the most enduring and morally charged conflicts of our time. Pakistan’s expected participation, at either prime ministerial or deputy prime ministerial level, alongside confirmed attendance from Hungary and Romania, lends the gathering an appearance of global engagement. Yet history counsels caution. Middle East diplomacy is littered with conferences that generated headlines, photographs and carefully worded statements, only to fade into irrelevance as realities on the ground remained unchanged or worsened.
What confronts Gaza today is not a policy puzzle awaiting technical refinement but a human catastrophe unfolding in full view of the world. Entire residential districts have been flattened. Hospitals, schools and places of refuge have been repeatedly struck. Tens of thousands of Palestinians are dead, many more wounded, and over a million have been displaced, forced into a relentless cycle of flight, hunger and fear. In such circumstances, talk of long-term “security arrangements” or post-conflict governance models risks sounding detached, even callous, unless it is anchored in an immediate ceasefire and unimpeded humanitarian access. Peace cannot be designed on conference tables while bombs continue to fall.
This is why the political context surrounding the Gaza Peace Board matters as much as its stated objectives. The meeting takes place amid an overwhelming imbalance of power, where one side exercises military, economic and territorial control, and the other lives under siege, occupation and blockade. Any diplomatic initiative that glosses over this asymmetry in favor of neutral-sounding language about restraint and stability is unlikely to gain credibility among Palestinians, or indeed among many in the wider global south who see Gaza as a test case of international double standards. It is against this grim backdrop that the remarks of Hamas leader Khaled Mashal need to be understood rather than reflexively rejected.
His categorical refusal to surrender weapons, accept foreign intervention in Gaza or countenance governance arrangements imposed from outside reflects more than organizational defiance. It expresses a deeply ingrained historical experience. For Palestinians, decades of externally driven plans have often meant loss of land, erosion of rights and the entrenchment of occupation. Foreign oversight, however well intentioned it may be presented, is widely perceived not as a pathway to freedom but as another mechanism of control. Ignoring this sentiment does not weaken it; it entrenches it further. Pakistan’s stance on this issue has been notably consistent and, in an era of shifting alliances and transactional diplomacy, unusually principled.
Islamabad has already stated that it will not participate in any action against Hamas, a position that aligns with its long-held support for Palestinian self-determination and opposition to occupation. This is not a matter of endorsing any particular group but of recognizing a fundamental principle: that the future of Palestine cannot be settled over the heads of Palestinians themselves. For Pakistan, whose own history is rooted in anti-colonial struggle, this principle carries both moral and political weight. The assertion that Palestinians must govern Palestinians is not rhetorical flourish; it is the cornerstone of any sustainable peace. Attempts to impose political outcomes through force or external trusteeship have repeatedly failed, from Iraq to Afghanistan, leaving behind fractured societies and prolonged instability.
Gaza, with its dense population, deep political consciousness and collective trauma, is unlikely to be an exception. Any arrangement that sidelines indigenous political actors, however controversial they may be, will lack legitimacy and invite resistance. Stability imposed from outside is rarely stable at all. For Pakistan, participation in the Gaza Peace Board should therefore be seen not as ceremonial diplomacy but as an opportunity to articulate uncomfortable truths. Peace cannot be achieved by demanding disarmament from an occupied population while leaving the structures of occupation intact. It cannot rest on the fiction that both sides bear equal responsibility in a conflict defined by stark disparities in power.
Moreover, it cannot emerge from frameworks that prioritize regional alignments or geopolitical convenience over justice and accountability. If the Washington meeting is to rise above the level of diplomatic theatre, it must confront the central issue that has defined the conflict for decades: occupation. Without a clear commitment to ending it, and to establishing an independent and sovereign Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, talk of peace will remain abstract. Interim arrangements, economic packages and security guarantees may ease symptoms temporarily, but they do not address the underlying cause. History suggests that postponing justice in the name of pragmatism only ensures that violence will return in more devastating forms.
(The writer is a public health professional, journalist, and possesses expertise in health communication, having keen interest in national and international affairs, can be reached at uzma@metro-morning.com)
#GazaPeace #PalestinianRights #SelfDetermination #MiddleEastDiplomacy #EndOccupation #JusticeForPalestine #HumanitarianAccess #PakistanStandsWithPalestine #PeaceNotTheatre #GlobalSolidarity
