TODAY’S PAPER | March 12, 2026 | EPAPER

Most Pakistanis back Gaza mission, but only with UN and Muslim alliance approval

Gallup survey finds strong support tied to conditions, with caution over risks and preference for legitimacy


Web Desk February 10, 2026 2 min read
Boys walk past the rubble of destroyed buildings in the Jabalia camp for Palestinian refugees in the northern Gaza Strip. Photo: AFP

Nearly three-quarters of Pakistanis surveyed support sending Pakistani troops to Gaza as part of a peace-monitoring mission involving Muslim countries, but only under strict conditions, according to a new national survey by Gallup Pakistan.

The poll, conducted between Jan. 15 and Feb. 3, 2026, surveyed 1,600 people using Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviews. Gallup said the margin of error is about ±2–3% at a 95% confidence level. This means that if 73% supported troop deployment, the “true” figure could range between 70% and 76%.

Public engagement with Gaza remains high. About 54% of respondents said they actively follow developments related to Palestine and Gaza. Views on post-ceasefire conditions were mixed, with 43% saying food and security had improved to some extent, while 26% said there was no change.

On deploying Pakistani forces to Gaza, 73% expressed support, including 55% who said they strongly support the idea. Support was higher among men at 78% compared with 68% among women. Urban backing stood at 84%, while 67% of rural respondents supported the proposal.

Read: Muslim bloc warns Israel against West Bank annexation

women. Urban backing stood at 84%, while 67% of rural respondents supported the proposal.

Among supporters, 64% said deployment should be under a joint alliance of Muslim countries, 60% said it should follow a formal request from Palestinian leadership, and 57% said it should have United Nations approval. Endorsement by major powers ranked lowest, with 47% citing approval from the United States or China as important, pointing to a preference for Muslim and UN-based legitimacy.

Concerns over risks were mixed. About 27% believed there would be a high risk to Pakistani soldiers’ lives, while 32% said the risk would be low. On financial costs, 26% expected high risks and 30% assessed them as low. Only 20% said such a mission could draw Pakistan into a wider war.

Read more: PM Shehbaz to attend Trump-led Board of Peace meeting in Washington

Views on how Pakistan should respond also varied. About 44% said military action is necessary, while 33% favoured diplomacy and humanitarian aid. Another 7% said Pakistan should stay out of the issue altogether.

On Pakistan’s participation in the Gaza “Board of Peace,” formed under the initiative and control of US President Donald Trump, 34% said they were happy with Pakistan’s inclusion, 23% were unhappy, and 39% were unsure. Gallup said this suggests limited public familiarity with the board’s mandate or doubts about its effectiveness.

Gallup concluded that sympathy for Gaza remains strong and that there is broad support for a Pakistani role, including military involvement, as long as it is legitimate, multilateral, and anchored in Muslim and UN institutions. At the same time, significant backing for diplomacy and humanitarian aid shows continued public caution.

COMMENTS (2)

Realist | 1 month ago | Reply Only 1 600 people do not represent the majority of the country. It is unprofessional to attribute it to Most Pakistanis ...This only exposes the ones who have dictated you to publish this news
Afrose Afridi | 1 month ago | Reply I have yet to meet a Pakistani who wants Pakistani troops in Palestine. Let s talk about the sample size and methodology. How did you pick the phone numbers to call. Were they general public or ruling elite. Was the sample truly random and does the sample size power is enough to reflect Pakistan s consensus on this topic. Answer is no. So why was it published. It s a CIA funded news paper. Go fool some one else.
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ