The Sharm el-Sheikh Gaza summit, held in October, was marked by confident proclamations that peace had finally been secured in the Middle East. Former US president Donald Trump was being praised in some circles as a visionary architect of a new regional order. Yet, from the outset, sceptical observers pointed out that the so-called Gaza peace plan was fundamentally flawed, heavily skewed towards Israeli interests and disconnected from the realities on the ground.
Those concerns have now proved well-founded. Implementation of the Trump plan — formally endorsed by the UN Security Council last month — is turning out to be far more complicated than its supporters anticipated. A central problem is the growing reluctance of several Arab and Muslim countries, many of which initially endorsed the framework, to contribute troops to the proposed international stabilisation force for Gaza. These states, including Pakistan, are reassessing their commitments after realising the plan requires them to forcibly seize and neutralise Hamas’s weapons — a task fraught with political, military, and moral complications.
Pakistan’s hesitation was made clear on Saturday when Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar stated bluntly that confronting and disarming Hamas was “not our job”. Similarly, Egypt’s visiting foreign minister emphasised that any mandate involving Muslim troops should be limited to monitoring the ceasefire rather than enforcing Israeli security demands.
This shift is not limited to Pakistan. A recent Washington Post report indicates that several key Muslim-majority countries are getting cold feet about the Gaza deployment, particularly over the expectation that they would have to confront Hamas on Israel’s behalf. Indonesia and Azerbaijan — both potential contributors to the force — are reportedly reconsidering their commitments. Mr Dar even noted that his Indonesian counterpart had “expressed his reservations”, stressing the need for clearly defined terms of reference before any participation could be finalised.
These developments reveal that many Muslim states, in their rush to support Trump’s initiative, overlooked the fine print. From day one, the plan included the demilitarisation of Gaza, effectively requiring Muslim troops to disarm Palestinian resistance groups. Only now does it appear to have dawned on these governments that such a role would be seen domestically and internationally as assisting Israel’s military objectives. Even the most pro-Western Muslim states would struggle to justify such an action to their citizens, especially when Israel’s devastating campaign in Gaza is widely viewed as a continuing genocide, albeit at a slower pace.
Given this context, no Muslim-majority country wants to be seen facilitating a US–Israeli agenda in Gaza. The reality is that Muslim troops should not be involved in disarming Hamas or enforcing Israeli control — tasks that would undermine their legitimacy and inflame public opinion at home.
Pakistan and other supporters of the Trump-backed plan must therefore reconsider their positions. Any initiative that prioritises Israeli security goals over Palestinian rights, lacks a clear roadmap for an independent Palestinian state, ignores the end of occupation, and fails to hold Israel accountable for the atrocities in Gaza should not receive support from the Arab and Muslim world.
Shafaqna Pakistan
pakistan.shafaqna.com
Note: Shafaqna do not endorse the views expressed in the aticle