Pakistan's Gaza gamble

On Nov 17, the UNSC adopted a resolution endorsing President Donald Trump's Gaza peace plan. The resolution approves the establishment of 'Board of Peace' headed by Trump, the deployment of an International Stabilization Force (ISF) and a temporary governance structure for Gaza. The vote was 13 in favour, with China and Russia abstaining. The resolution aims to create a framework for disarmament, protection of civilians and humanitarian access, while gradually paving the way for Palestinian self-rule.

Pakistan's support for the resolution marked a significant and calculated diplomatic move. Islamabad voted in favour while emphasising that any stabilisation effort must respect Palestinian sovereignty and prioritise civilian protection. Pakistan's UN envoy described the vote as a step toward protecting innocent lives, ensuring humanitarian access and Palestinian self-governance. The vote also reflects Pakistan's broader foreign policy approach, which balances principled support for Palestine with a willingness to engage in international initiatives aimed at de-escalating conflict.

Pakistan underscored that the ISF's mandate should be temporary and transparent. It advocated for a mechanism that ensures accountability and maintains Palestinian involvement in governance decisions. This approach signals Islamabad's intent to contribute responsibly to a complex peace and stabilisation effort while avoiding overreach or the appearance of unilateral influence. Pakistan's stance also highlights the country's increasing willingness to step into high-profile diplomatic initiatives, asserting itself as a regional and international actor rather than a passive observer.

A notable element of the vote was Pakistan's rare divergence from China. Beijing abstained, citing concerns over the resolution's lack of clarity on governance structures and the ultimate fate of Palestinian self-rule. Beijing argued that the Board of Peace did not provide sufficient guarantees for Palestinian authority in the post-transition period. Pakistan's affirmative vote, in contrast, reflected a judgment that the resolution, despite its imperfections, was a necessary step toward de-escalation and humanitarian relief. This divergence underscores a nuanced recalibration in Pakistan's foreign policy, signalling that while Pakistan values its partnerships, it is willing to act independently when global circumstances demand it.

The ISF mandate itself presents both opportunities and challenges. Its deployment is intended to secure civilian areas, facilitate humanitarian aid and oversee the disarmament of non-state actors. At the same time, the mission is inherently risky: operating in Gaza requires navigating entrenched local political dynamics, ensuring cooperation among diverse armed groups, and avoiding actions that could be interpreted as partiality. Pakistan's decision to vote in favour suggests an awareness of these challenges but also a willingness to take measured risks.

Whether or not Pakistan will commit troops to ISF depends on domestic considerations, potential political backlash and the operational complexities of the ISF mandate.

The vote also reflects a broader geopolitical reality: global stabilisation efforts in conflict zones like Gaza are rarely straightforward. They require balancing moral imperatives, political alliances and operational realities. Pakistan's approach demonstrates an attempt to navigate this terrain carefully, supporting action while advocating safeguards and emphasising Palestinian participation.

Pakistan's support for the resolution highlights both opportunity and risk. By voting in favour while China abstained, Pakistan showcased diplomatic independence and constructive engagement in international conflict resolution. Joining the ISF or otherwise participating in stabilisation efforts will be a delicate undertaking, but the country appears ready to assume this calculated risk. Pakistan's stance reflects a proactive, measured and principled approach that seeks to combine moral responsibility with strategic foresight.