Islamabad, Pakistan, which presided over the UN Security Council on Monday and voted in favor of a United States-authored resolution that established a transitional administration and an International Stabilization Force (ISF) in Gaza, had an ostensibly contradictory response.
Asim Iftikhar Ahmed, Pakistan’s permanent representative to the UN, thanked the US for tabling the resolution and voted in its favour. He added that Pakistan was not entirely satisfied with the outcome and that the final text did not contain any “critical suggestions” from Pakistan.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
Though the resolution promises a “credible pathway” to Palestinian statehood, Ahmed, in his comments to the council, said it did not spell that path out, and did not clarify the role of the UN, a proposed Board of Peace (BoP) to oversee Gaza’s governance, or the mandate of the ISF.
“Those are all crucial factors that affect the success of this endeavor. We earnestly hope that further details in coming weeks will provide the much-needed clarity on these issues”, he said.
The US president’s 20-point ceasefire plan, which served as the basis for the UN resolution, had already been approved by the nation in September. And while several other Arab and Muslim countries have also cautiously supported the resolution, Pakistan, with the largest army among them, is widely expected to play a key role in the ISF.
According to analysts, Islamabad will need to navigate a careful tightrope walk as it grapples with questions at home regarding a potential military deployment in Gaza as a result of the resolution’s support and the suggestions that Pakistan still has questions it needs to address.
“The US playbook is clear and has a pro-Israel tilt. However, Salman Bashir, the former Pakistani foreign secretary, said to Al Jazeera, “We need to acknowledge that this is the best option that we have.” “After the sufferings inflicted on the people of Gaza, we did not have any option but to go along”.
Pakistan’s rising geopolitical worth
In recent weeks, Pakistan’s top leaders have engaged in hectic diplomacy with key Middle Eastern partners.
King Abdullah II of Jordan traveled to Islamabad over the weekend to meet with the army chief Asim Munir and prime minister Shehbaz Sharif. Munir had earlier travelled to Amman in October, as well as to Cairo in Egypt.
In the wake of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, Pakistan has traditionally had close ties with Gulf states. These ties have grown even stronger. Pakistan has long called for “Palestinian self-determination and the establishment of a sovereign, independent and contiguous State of Palestine based on pre-1967 borders with al-Quds al-Sharif]Jerusalem] as its capital”.
Pakistan, the only Muslim country in the region with nuclear weapons, has recently come under increasing scrutiny from both the United States and significant Arab allies.
In September, Pakistan signed a Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement (SMDA) with Saudi Arabia, days after Israel had struck Doha, the Qatari capital. The formal signing ceremony of the Gaza ceasefire agreement was held in Cairo in October, along with Trump, Field Marshal Munir, and a number of other world leaders. Sharif lavished Trump with praise on the occasion.
By that time, Trump had already referred to Munir as his “favorite field marshal.” Following a brief escalation with India in May, during which Pakistan said it shot down Indian jets, Munir met Trump in the Oval Office in June, an unprecedented visit for a serving Pakistani military chief who is not head of state.
Munir and Sharif made another trip to Washington in the late fall. The prime minister and army chief met Trump and promoted potential investment opportunities, including Pakistan’s rare earth minerals.
Pakistan’s government is currently considering joining the ISF. Though the government has not made any decision, senior officials have publicly commented favourably about the idea. On October 28, Pakistan’s defense minister Khawaja Asif stated, “I think it will be a matter of pride for us,” adding that “I think it will be a matter of pride.” “We will be proud to do it”.
Some analysts cautioned that’s easier said than done.
Palestine is an emotive issue in Pakistan, which does not recognise Israel. Any suggestion of military cohesion with Israeli forces or even de facto recognition of Israel is still politically fraught because the national passport specifically states that it is prohibited from using it for travel to Israel.
That makes the prospect of troop deployment to Gaza a highly sensitive subject for politicians and the military alike.
Government keeps cards close to chest
Officially, the government hasn’t disclosed its position on joining the ISF.
Even while describing any participation in the force as a cause for pride,  , Defence Minister Asif said the government would consult parliament and other institutions before making any decision.
I don’t want to preempt anything, he said, adding that the government will decide after the process is completed.
In a weekly press briefing earlier this month, Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Tahir Andrabi said the question of Pakistan’s contribution would be decided “after consultation at the highest level”.
“The decision will be made as and when necessary.” Certain level of leadership has stated that the decision will be taken with the advice of the government”, he said.
No response was sent to Asif, the defense minister, Attaullah Tarar, the minister of information, the Inter-Services Public Relations, the military’s media outlet, Al Jazeera.
Legal, operational ambiguities
Some retired senior officers claim that Pakistan won’t make a decision behind closed doors.
Muhammad Saeed, a three-star general who served as Chief of General Staff until his 2023 retirement, said he expects the terms of reference and rules of engagement for any ISF deployment to be debated in public forums, including Pakistan’s National Security Council and parliament.
No government can possibly keep it under wraps because this is such a sensitive subject that it needs to be debated publicly. So once the ISF structure becomes clear, I am certain that Pakistani decision-making will be very inclusive and the public will know about the details”, he told Al Jazeera.
According to Kamran Bokhari, senior director at the Washington, DC, New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy’s (NLP) senior director, both countries’ mutual defense agreements meant that Pakistani troops in Gaza would likely represent both. He, however, added that Pakistan would likely have participated in the ISF even without the Saudi pact.
Experts contend that the UN resolution’s lack of specifics about the ISF and Gaza’s leadership is still a hindrance.
Several countries on the council said the resolution left key elements ambiguous, including the composition, structure and terms of reference for both the BoP and the ISF. China, which abstained, also described the text as “vague and unclear” in key areas.
The resolution asks for the Gaza Strip to be “demilitarised” and for the “permanent decommissioning of weapons from non-state armed groups”, a demand that Hamas has rejected.
Palestinians and resistance groups oppose the resolution, which Hamas claimed violated Palestinian rights and attempted to impose an international trusteeship over Gaza.
So far, the US has sent nearly 200 personnel, including a general, to establish a Civil-Military Coordination Center (CMCC) near Gaza on Israeli territory. The ISF will coordinate humanitarian aid and serve as its main location.
US-based media outlet Politico reported last month that Pakistan, Azerbaijan and Indonesia – all Muslim-majority states – were among the top contenders to supply troops for the ISF.
The United Arab Emirates, which recognized Israel during Trump’s first administration and signed the Abraham Accords in 2020, has stated that it won’t participate until the legal framework is clear.
King Abdullah of Jordan also warned that without a clear mandate for the ISF, it would be difficult to make the plan succeed.
Costs, incentives, and the historical significance of Pakistan
Bokhari argued Pakistan has limited options, adding that many of its close allies are “deeply committed” to the initiative and have sought Islamabad’s participation.
According to him, Pakistan’s economic and financial problems require it to “repair” its military in order to win the support of Islamabad’s Gulf allies. “We have to assume that the current civilian-military leadership is aware of the domestic political risks”.
Others credit Pakistan’s long involvement with UN peacekeeping. As of September 2025, UN figures show Pakistan has contributed more than 2, 600 personnel to UN missions, just below Indonesia’s 2, 700, ranking Pakistan sixth overall.
Pakistan has “extensive experience of providing support in conflict zones in the past,” according to Qamar Cheema, executive director of the Islamabad-based Sanober Institute.
Pakistan currently faces security challenges on both its borders – with India to its east and Taliban-ruled Afghanistan to the west. However, because there may not be enough troops needed in Gaza, Cheema said, “because various countries are also sending troops,” it may not need to cut troops from its eastern or western borders.
Saeed, the retired general, said Pakistan’s historic position on Palestine remained intact and that its prior peacekeeping experience meant that its troops were well-equipped to help the ISF.
“Pakistan has one of the most rewarding experiences with the UN in terms of peacekeeping and peace enforcement. We have a sizeable force, with a variety of experience in maintaining peace and order”, he said.
The former general said, “The hope is that we can help bring humanitarian aid to Gaza and implement the UN resolution.”
Domestic political risks and the Israeli factor
Despite those assertions, many Pakistanis question the viability or political acceptability of collaborating with or supporting Israeli forces.
Bashir, the former foreign secretary, acknowledged the risks and said the demand that Hamas deweaponise made the ISF “a difficult mission”.
He continued, “Realism requires that we accept a less than ideal solution.”
Bokhari of New Lines Institute said stakeholders often sort out details “on the go” in the early stages of such missions.
There is no way for Pakistan or any other participating country to avoid coordinating with Israel, he said.
Saeed, however, disagreed. He claimed that the ISF would likely be a coalition with one partner that would coordinate any negotiations with Israeli forces, leaving Pakistani troops without any direct contact with Israel.
“There are other countries potentially part of ISF who have relations with Israel. They will likely assume the position of commandant in the ISF, and not Pakistan, he said. He added Pakistan’s involvement – if it happens – would be narrowly focused on maintaining the ceasefire and protecting Palestinian lives.
However, retired three-star general Omar Mahmood Hayat warned that any operational ties to Israel “will stoke domestic backlash and erode public trust.”
Hayat said Pakistan has no diplomatic ties with Israel “for principled reasons” and that blurring that line, even citing humanitarian considerations, would invite domestic confusion and controversy.
Source: Aljazeera
Leave a Reply