Before Pakistan commits troops to Gaza as part of a proposed International Stabilization Force, it is seeking categorical assurances from Washington that any deployment would be strictly peacekeeping in nature rather than an operation aimed at disarming Hamas. The distinction, drawn firmly by officials in Islamabad, is neither technical nor rhetorical. It touches the core of how Pakistan defines its international obligations, its military doctrine and the boundaries imposed by domestic political realities. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif is expected to attend the inaugural formal meeting of President Donald Trump’s Board of Peace in Washington, alongside delegations from at least 20 countries.
Trump, who will chair the session, is anticipated to outline a multi-billion dollar reconstruction framework for Gaza and to present plans for a UN-authorized stabilization force for the Palestinian territory. Yet for Islamabad, the symbolism of participation is secondary to the substance of mandate. Before any decision is taken, clarity is required: under whose authority would the force operate, what rules of engagement would apply, and where would command ultimately reside? Senior government sources indicate that the prime minister intends to seek precise answers to these questions. One aide has been explicit: Pakistan is prepared to send troops, but only within the framework of a peace mission.
Any involvement in disarming Hamas, he stressed, would be “out of the question”. Such language reflects not obstinacy but calculation. In matters of overseas deployment, especially in a theatre as volatile as Gaza, ambiguity can carry consequences measured not in diplomatic discomfort but in lives. Pakistan’s position on Palestine has long been anchored in support for a settlement consistent with United Nations resolutions. Successive governments have framed their stance within international law, emphasizing the right of Palestinians to self-determination and a just peace. To join a mission perceived as coercive or partisan would complicate that narrative. Public opinion in Pakistan remains deeply engaged with the Palestinian cause; any appearance of alignment with an operation that shifts from stabilization to enforcement could provoke domestic unease.
Last month, Foreign Office spokesperson Tahir Andrabi reiterated that Pakistan would remain engaged with international initiatives aimed at peace and security in Gaza, leading to a durable solution in line with UN resolutions. The wording was deliberate. Engagement does not imply acquiescence to every operational dimension. It signals openness to diplomacy while preserving room for scrutiny. Islamabad appears intent on ensuring that a stabilization force does not morph into an instrument of political engineering. President Trump’s 20-point Gaza plan reportedly envisions a force drawn largely from Muslim-majority countries to oversee a transitional phase of reconstruction and economic recovery. Washington has been urging Islamabad to participate, citing Pakistan’s professional military and long record of service in multinational missions.
Few countries can match Pakistan’s scale of contribution to UN peacekeeping operations, where its troops have operated under clearly defined mandates and structured chains of command. That experience is an asset. It is also a benchmark. Past deployments have functioned within established UN frameworks, where the legal basis, command hierarchy and rules of engagement were codified. The apprehension in Islamabad appears to stem from uncertainty about whether the proposed stabilization force would adhere to comparable standards. Some governments have already reacted cautiously to the creation of the Board of Peace, wary that it might evolve into a parallel mechanism rather than operate squarely within the UN system.
For a country that has consistently emphasized multilateral legitimacy, institutional architecture is not an afterthought. A UN-authorized mission confined to monitoring a ceasefire, facilitating humanitarian access and supporting reconstruction would align with Pakistan’s diplomatic posture and military tradition. It would also resonate with its stated commitment to play a constructive role in conflict resolution. A force tasked explicitly with disarming Hamas, by contrast, would draw Pakistani troops into the internal political and military calculus of Gaza. That would represent a fundamentally different undertaking, with implications extending well beyond the immediate theatre. Operational feasibility adds another layer of complexity. One source suggested that Pakistan could deploy several thousand troops at relatively short notice, but only once their role was precisely delineated.
Such a deployment would entail logistical planning, force protection arrangements and coordination with other contributing states. In a densely populated and politically charged environment like Gaza, blurred mandates can quickly lead to escalation. Soldiers trained for peacekeeping must not find themselves inadvertently transformed into combatants in a conflict not of their making. Diplomatically, Prime Minister Shehbaz’s anticipated interactions with President Trump — whether on the margins of the meeting or subsequently at the White House — will be scrutinized for signals of alignment or divergence. Islamabad has supported the establishment of the Board of Peace in principle, reflecting a willingness to explore new diplomatic mechanisms for resolving protracted conflicts.
However, endorsement of a forum does not amount to a blank cheque for every operational proposal it produces. The broader calculus is delicate. Pakistan seeks to maintain functional and constructive relations with the United States while preserving its long-articulated position on Palestine. It must also consider perceptions across the Muslim world, where the framing of any mission in Gaza will be closely examined. A contribution defined clearly as peacekeeping could reinforce Pakistan’s image as a responsible multilateral actor. Participation in a mission perceived as coercive could complicate that standing. Ultimately, the decision will hinge on definitions and guarantees.
If the International Stabilization Force is structured within a recognized UN mandate, with transparent authority and limited objectives, Pakistan’s involvement would be consistent with its diplomatic narrative and institutional experience. If the mission extends into coercive disarmament, the political and strategic costs may well outweigh the diplomatic benefits. In the days ahead, Islamabad will seek clarity in Washington. Its message, for now, remains measured but firm: it stands ready to contribute to peace in Gaza, but it will not be drawn into prosecuting a conflict under the ambiguous banner of stabilization.
#Pakistan #Gaza #InternationalStabilizationForce #Peacekeeping #UNMandate #ShehbazSharif #DonaldTrump #MiddleEastDiplomacy #Hamas #ForeignPolicy #MultilateralEngagement #HumanitarianMission #ConflictResolution #UNPeacekeeping #PakistanMilitary #DiplomaticPosture #MuslimWorldRelations #OperationalClarity #RulesOfEngagement #ConstructiveRole
