By S.M. Inam
A spokesperson for Hamas, Dr Khaled Qaddoumi, has said that the outlines of a proposed “Gaza peace board” remain indistinct, even as he voiced satisfaction with Pakistan’s involvement. Speaking at the Karachi Press Club, Qaddoumi struck a tone that was at once cautious and hopeful — cautious about the absence of concrete detail, hopeful about the prospect of a broader diplomatic push at a time when Gaza’s suffering has become both relentless and numbing. The ambiguity surrounding the initiative is telling. Diplomatic forums, contact groups and emergency summits have proliferated over the course of the Gaza war, yet few have translated into sustained change on the ground.
Proposals are floated, welcomed in principle and then absorbed into the inertia of geopolitics. The suggestion of a “peace board” hints at structure and continuity, but until its mandate, membership and leverage are clarified, it risks becoming another well-intentioned but ineffectual mechanism. Meanwhile, the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza grinds on. For more than two years, the territory has endured sustained bombardment, repeated ground incursions and the constriction of an already fragile economy. Entire districts have been reduced to dust. Hospitals operate beyond capacity or not at all. Schools have been transformed into shelters; shelters into targets; and ordinary civilian life into a daily calculation of risk.
Reports by United Nations agencies and international human rights organizations consistently indicate that women and children account for a significant share of the casualties. Access to clean water, electricity and medical supplies remains precarious, leaving aid agencies to warn of a protracted emergency with generational consequences. The war has long since ceased to be a matter of military maneuver alone. It has become a test of the international system’s capacity — or willingness — to enforce its own principles. Supporters of Israel argue that the state is acting within its right to self-defence after facing grave security threats. Critics counter that the scale and intensity of the response have imposed collective punishment on a civilian population already living under blockade.
The steady flow of arms and diplomatic backing from the United States and several European governments has drawn particular scrutiny. Detractors say such support undermines calls for restraint and accountability; defenders insist that Israel’s security cannot be compromised in a volatile region. What is beyond dispute is that Gaza’s civilians continue to bear the heaviest burden. It is against this bleak backdrop that Pakistan’s potential role acquires significance. Since independence, Islamabad has maintained formal support for Palestinian self-determination. At the United Nations and other multilateral forums, successive governments — regardless of ideological stripe — have reiterated backing for a two-state solution grounded in international law.
The Palestinian question has functioned as a rare constant in Pakistan’s foreign policy, reinforced by public opinion that overwhelmingly sympathizes with the plight of Palestinians. Qaddoumi’s expression of confidence in Pakistan reflects this history. It also carries an implicit expectation: that Islamabad will move beyond declaratory diplomacy and invest political capital in shaping whatever forum emerges. If the proposed peace board, reportedly set to convene in mid-February, crystallizes into a credible platform, Pakistan could press for an immediate and sustained ceasefire, the unimpeded flow of humanitarian aid and a revived political process that addresses not only the symptoms but the structural roots of the conflict.
Yet it would be naïve to overstate the leverage available. The asymmetry between Israel and the Palestinians, underwritten by entrenched alliances and military imbalance, constrains the room for maneuver. Regional powers pursue their own calculations, often shaped as much by domestic considerations as by solidarity. The fragmentation of Palestinian politics further complicates representation and negotiation. Any initiative that seeks to stabilize Gaza must navigate not only the immediate cessation of hostilities but the longer arc of occupation, security guarantees and political recognition. For Pakistan, the task is therefore delicate. Moral clarity — the insistence on civilian protection, adherence to international humanitarian law and the right of Palestinians to self-determination — has been consistent.
Translating that clarity into diplomatic efficacy requires coalition-building and sustained engagement. Islamabad would need to coordinate with other states in the Global South, engage cautiously but pragmatically with Western capitals and maintain dialogue with regional actors whose cooperation is indispensable for humanitarian access and reconstruction. There is also a domestic dimension. Public demonstrations, parliamentary resolutions and official statements reflect deep-seated solidarity with Gaza. That sentiment can energize diplomatic initiatives, but it can also constrain flexibility. Effective mediation demands not only conviction but patience and a willingness to work incrementally, even when progress appears halting. The proposed peace board, if it materializes with a defined mandate, could provide a forum for precisely that incrementalism.
(The writer is a former government officer and a senior analyst on national and international affairs, can be reached at inam@metro-morning.com)
