ISLAMABAD:
On Thursday, officials moved to counter what they described as a “misleading narrative” surrounding Islamabad’s decision to partner with the Peace Board, emphasizing that the move does not and could not lead to the deployment of Pakistani troops to Gaza under any agreement aimed at disarming Hamas.
Pakistan formally joined the Peace Board, along with 20 other countries, at a signing ceremony held in Davos on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in the presence of US President Donald Trump.
But the move drew criticism and objections from opposition parties, which warned of the possible implications of joining the US-led body.
However, officials involved in the background discussions insisted that the confusion had been deliberately created by merging the Peace Board, a political and diplomatic forum, with a hypothetical International Stabilization Force (ISF), which, they noted, does not exist and would require an entirely separate mandate if it were ever proposed.
They stressed that Pakistan’s position on troop deployment is categorical and non-negotiable. No Pakistani forces will be sent to Gaza under any FSI or similar framework, particularly for coercive military tasks. Officials said this position had been clearly communicated during consultations and remains unchanged.
According to officials, the Peace Board is designed as a diplomatic platform to facilitate the coordination of humanitarian access, reconstruction and civil protection in Gaza, and should not be mischaracterized as a military mechanism.
Any future discussions on security arrangements, they added, would remain outside the scope of the balance of payments and would be subject to separate political, legal and constitutional processes.
The officials also rejected claims that participation in the Peace Board undermines or bypasses the United Nations, arguing that such claims ignore how multilateral diplomacy works. They argued that the UN remains the central legal and institutional framework for conflict resolution, while complementary forums operate to build political consensus and coordinate implementation.
In this regard, officials noted that the Gaza peace plan supported by the Peace Board has formal international legal backing following approval by the UN Security Council in a 13-0 vote, contradicting suggestions that the initiative lacks legitimacy.
Pakistan’s commitment, the officials said, is based on three non-negotiable principles: unhindered humanitarian assistance to Palestinians without political conditions; the ability to undertake reconstruction without the risk of new Israeli military action; and the safety and security of Palestinian civilians as a fundamental priority and not a secondary consideration.
They emphasized that Pakistan’s policy towards Palestine reflects long-standing continuity rather than tactical positioning. Islamabad continues to support the establishment of a contiguous, independent Palestinian state on the pre-1967 borders, with Al-Quds Al-Sharif as its capital, and officials said no multilateral commitment would dilute that stance.
Responding to criticism that Pakistan should avoid platforms where Israel is present, officials described the argument as strategically flawed. They noted that Israel’s participation in international forums, including within the UN system, has never prevented Pakistan from advancing its principled positions through diplomacy.
Officials argued that the absence of such forums would only allow others to shape narratives and outcomes without questioning them, often presenting contested proposals as international consensus and marginalizing Palestinian concerns. They said participation should not be confused with endorsement, but rather seen as a means to retain influence and leverage.
They also highlighted that Pakistan’s partnership with the Peace Board places it within a diverse, inter-regional group of countries from Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America, challenging claims that the forum represents a narrow or exclusively Western initiative.
Regarding reports of a proposed $1 billion contribution tied to the Gaza framework, officials clarified that any financial commitment is voluntary and does not imply military, operational or political alignment beyond humanitarian and reconstruction goals.
The officials further emphasized that the decision was made through established constitutional channels and was formally approved at the highest political level, ruling out suggestions of institutional independent work.
