ISLAMABAD:
Officials took steps Thursday to counter what they described as a “misleading narrative” surrounding Islamabad’s decision to join the Peace Council, emphasizing that the move does not involve, nor could it lead to, the deployment of Pakistani troops to Gaza as part of an arrangement to disarm Hamas.
Pakistan officially joined the Peace Council, alongside around 20 other countries, during a signing ceremony organized 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, who warned of the potential implications of joining the U.S.-led body.
However, officials insisted during background discussions that confusion had been deliberately created by conflating the Peace Council, 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 the ISF or similar framework, including for coercive military tasks. Officials said this position was clearly communicated during consultations and remained unchanged.
According to officials, the Peace Council is designed as a diplomatic platform to facilitate the coordination of humanitarian access, reconstruction and the protection of civilians in Gaza, and should not be mischaracterized as a military mechanism.
Any future discussions on security arrangements, they added, would fall outside the scope of the BoP and would be subject to separate political, legal and constitutional processes.
The officials also rejected claims that participation in the Peace Council undermines or circumvents 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 function to build political consensus and coordinate implementation.
In this regard, the officials stressed that the Gaza peace plan that underpins the Peace Council has formal international legal support after being approved by the UN Security Council by 13 votes to 0, contradicting suggestions that the initiative lacks legitimacy.
Pakistan’s commitment, the officials said, is anchored in three non-negotiable principles: unfettered humanitarian assistance to the Palestinians, without political conditionalities; the ability to undertake reconstruction without risking further Israeli military action; and the security and protection of Palestinian civilians as a key priority rather than a secondary consideration.
They stressed that Pakistan’s policy towards Palestine reflects long-standing continuity rather than tactical positioning. Islamabad continues to support the creation of a contiguous, independent Palestinian state on the pre-1967 borders, with Al-Quds Al-Sharif as its capital, and officials have said no multilateral engagement would dilute that position.
Responding to criticism that Pakistan should avoid platforms where Israel has a presence, officials called the argument strategically flawed. They noted that Israel’s participation in international forums, including within the United Nations system, has never stopped 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 challenge, often presenting contested proposals as international consensus while marginalizing Palestinian concerns. In their view, participation should not be confused with approval, but rather seen as a means of maintaining influence and influence.
They also stressed that Pakistan’s association with the Peace Council places it among a diverse and cross-regional group of countries from Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America, disputing claims that the forum represents a narrow or exclusively Western initiative.
Regarding reports of a proposed $1 billion contribution linked 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 objectives.
Officials further stressed that the decision was taken through established constitutional channels and formally approved at the highest political level, rejecting suggestions for independent institutional collaboration.
