Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar of Pakistan has indeed said that the version of Trump’s Gaza peace plan released by the U.S. does not fully match the one Pakistan submitted or negotiated, and that some of Pakistan’s suggestions are missing. Pakistan made amendments to the original U.S. proposal, without changing core or fundamental parts, and these amendments were sent to Washington. According to Dar, the draft version released by the U.S. is “not the one we had sent” and does not include all of Pakistan’s proposals. Pakistan wants missing elements to be included, especially those related to a ceasefire and stop to the bloodshed, unhindered flow of humanitarian aid and ending forced displacement. Trump’s ‘Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict’, announced on Sep 29, entails that Gaza will be a deradicalised terror-free zone that does not pose a threat to its neighbors and will be redeveloped.
It looks as if Pakistan is not rejecting the peace plan entirely; rather it is saying the version made public is incomplete from their perspective. By saying “this is not our document”, Pakistan is signaling that there is room for negotiation, modifications, or possibly further clarifications before full agreement. It emphasizes that Pakistan wants its core concerns that include ceasefire, humanitarian access, protection of civilians, and no forced displacement all to be clearly incorporated. Stopping Israel’s attempts to annex the West Bank, and ensuring Israel’s complete withdrawal from Palestinian territories were also included in it.
In fact, Trump’s Gaza peace plan is highly controversial, and it’s being debated globally for several reasons. The most important flaw in the plan is that it leaves Jerusalem which is Palestinians capital under Israeli sovereignty; it does not return East Jerusalem to Palestinians. It talks about “freedom of worship” but not Palestinian sovereignty in Al-Quds. It is likely to stripping them of their right to a real state. Moreover, the plan does not restore pre-1967 borders. Instead, it accepts Israeli security control around Gaza and keeps Israel’s hold on settlements and most of the West Bank. Palestinians are offered governance in Gaza under a transitional “Board of Peace” and eventual self-administration, but not the full sovereign state. The plan is about demilitarization, reconstruction, and security guarantees and not about political sovereignty. The plan bypasses long-standing international consensus as UN resolutions and the Arab Peace Initiative all call for a two-state solution on 1967 lines with East Jerusalem as the capital. Here Trump’s plan breaks with this consensus, aligning instead with Israel’s territorial claims.
Not only this, the plan risks legitimizing occupation and displacement. Settlement blocs in the West Bank are effectively legitimized, instead of dismantled. Earlier drafts from Trump allies even floated ideas of relocating Palestinians out of Gaza whom Pakistan and other many countries strongly rejected that. Palestinians fear is right that the plan could normalize permanent occupation rather than end it as this has happened many times earlier. Every time a “peace initiative” comes without addressing core rights, it ends up entrenching occupation instead of ending it. Oslo Accords in 1993 cannot be forgotten in this regard when Palestinians accepted a staged process, hoping it would lead to a sovereign state within 5 years. Instead that Israel expanded settlements, retained control over borders, water, and security. The “temporary” military occupation became more permanent. At another time in 2005, Israel withdrew settlers and soldiers from inside Gaza, which was portrayed as ending occupation. In 2020, President Trump’s Deal of the Century offered Palestinians limited autonomy over fragmented land, while Israel annexed settlements and kept Jerusalem. Palestinians rejected it, seeing it as legitimizing permanent Israeli control under the guise of peace.
The current Gaza plan promises reconstruction and aid only if Palestinians accept disarmament, international oversight, and exclusion of groups like Hamas. The controversy is that Trump’s plan looks more like an Israeli-friendly security arrangement than a balanced roadmap for peace. It promises redevelopment for Gaza but only if Palestinians surrender core political demands. In this way, every plan conditions Palestinian statehood on Israel’s “security needs,” but never conditions Israel’s recognition or settlement expansion on Palestinian rights. Promises of future sovereignty often dissolve into indefinite “temporary” arrangements. Now there are many questions in line. Will Hamas military commanders agree with its political leaders in other countries? Would Netanyahu fully dispose his army from Gaza?
Based on both history and Netanyahu’s own statements, it looks highly unlikely. Believing in absolute full control, Netanyahu opposed Ariel Sharon’s withdrawal of Israeli settlers and soldiers from inside Gaza in 2005. He argued it would lead to “terror bases” and insisted Israel should keep military pressure. So even under Trump’s plan, Netanyahu would most likely maintain indirect occupation as fewer boots on the ground, but still controlling Gaza’s borders, skies, and future.
In the last two days news scenario reflects that though Pakistan cautiously welcomed “peace efforts” but stressed that their core conditions like 1967 borders and East Jerusalem must be met. Pakistan emphasizes reconstruction with sovereignty and peace with justice. When Trump unveiled the plan in January 2020, Pakistan’s Foreign Office issued a cautious but clear rejection. Pakistan stressed that peace could not come through unilateral proposals that ignored Palestinian aspirations.
Would Pakistan send Gaza its military and Arab countries their money in near future? What will be Hamas’ demands in negotiations? Trump and Netanyahu both emphasized that if Hamas resists, the U.S. will support renewed Israeli military action. Once Hamas hands over the hostages, there may be nothing practical to stop Israel from reneging except international pressure, which history shows is usually weak.
Being associated with a plan that many Palestinians and Arab states view with suspicion could damage Pakistan’s reputation as a staunch supporter of Palestinian rights, if the plan fails to deliver. If promises are broken e.g. Israel does not withdraw, or conditions are not met, Pakistan may face diplomatic backlash. If asked to send troops for a stabilization force without a proper agreement between Hamas and Netanyahu, it could embroil Pakistan in conflict or expose its forces to risk. USA might demand Pakistan take tougher positions on groups like Hamas or even adjust its policies toward Iran, Afghanistan, or China. While the Pakistani government cautiously welcomed Trump’s Gaza peace plan, the domestic reaction has been overwhelmingly hostile, with politicians, journalists, and activists calling it a biased deal that surrenders Palestinian rights. Economic incentives may only come if Pakistan complies with U.S. strategic interests in the region. This would not be wrong to say that it may secure U.S. investments and Gulf alignment but risks betraying its historical position on Palestine and being seen as enabling “Greater Israel.”
