Pakistan’s decision to join the Board of Peace (BoP) for Gaza has sparked intense debate domestically, but it must be viewed through the lens of Pakistan’s unparalleled experience in peacekeeping and security oversight. While critics decry the move as sitting alongside Israel and compromising decades of principled support for Palestine, a closer examination reveals a strategic opportunity for Islamabad to safeguard the lives and livelihoods of 2.3 million Gazans.
The BoP is not a traditional UN initiative. It is a technocratic, executive-led body dominated by Western powers, Israel, and key regional actors. It oversees reconstruction funds, governs infrastructure projects, and controls the International Stabilization Force (ISF). Its mandate, while ostensibly humanitarian, risks sidelining Palestinian political voices.
For Pakistan, refusing to engage would leave Gaza’s fate entirely in the hands of pro-Israel actors. Here, Pakistan’s track record in UN peacekeeping and international security becomes a decisive asset. Our military and civilian experts have decades of experience in supervising post-conflict zones, monitoring security forces, and ensuring aid is distributed transparently. By participating in the BoP, Pakistan can prevent the ISF from becoming a proxy of Israeli control and can ensure reconstruction funds reach civilians rather than serving as instruments of political coercion.
Moreover, Pakistan’s position alongside Turkey and Qatar creates a unique channel of influence. Both countries maintain direct lines of communication with Hamas, acknowledging the reality on the ground. Pakistan’s involvement strengthens this coalition, allowing these middle powers to act as custodians of Palestinian welfare, ensuring that no decision is made in isolation from those who live under occupation.
Critics argue that joining the BoP compromises Pakistan’s moral stance. Yet, moral high ground without action leaves Gaza at the mercy of those who have long undermined its sovereignty. Engagement, even in a flawed structure, gives Pakistan a voice and a veto of sorts—a chance to translate principle into practical protection for the people of Gaza.
In a world where powers dictate the rules of reconstruction, Pakistan’s choice is clear: it cannot afford to remain a spectator. By staying in the room, Islamabad ensures that the spirit of justice, protection, and human security guides the decisions shaping Gaza’s future. Pakistan is not legitimizing occupation; it is asserting its role as a responsible Muslim power capable of safeguarding its historical commitments to Palestine while navigating the realities of global geopolitics.
