Gaza has endured relentless destruction and profound human suffering, with civilians bearing the overwhelming toll of a war that has exacted unimaginable loss. As the world grapples with stabilising the enclave and moving beyond open conflict, attention has turned to the proposed International Stabilisation Force— a multinational force meant to safeguard a fragile ceasefire, protect civilians, enable humanitarian access, and support reconstruction. Yet the contours of this mission remain deeply contested. The fundamental question for Muslim nations and for Pakistan in particular is not just whether to participate, but how— and under what mandate. For Islamabad and like‑minded capitals, the answer must be clear: participation should be strictly in a peacekeeping capacity, not as a mechanism of peace enforcement. The difference is foundational— shaping legitimacy, trust, and the possibility of sustainable peace in Gaza. (Pakistan Today)
The ISF is a centerpiece of the peace framework agreed upon in a U.S.‑brokered plan designed to end hostilities and chart a path forward in Gaza. In November 2025, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution that authorises the ISF under a transitional Board of Peace tasked with supporting governance and security in the enclave. The resolution received broad support from Arab and Muslim states, although it also includes language on demilitarisation and the creation of a Palestinian technocratic team to oversee daily affairs. (The United Nations in Palestine)
However, ambiguities persist about who will command the force, how rules of engagement will be defined, and most critically, whether the mission will be empowered to enforce disarmament or otherwise impose security outcomes beyond civilian protection. These questions echo across capitals from Jakarta to Islamabad, with many governments expressing willingness to contribute troops— but only under a clear peacekeeping mandate that shields their forces from involvement in combat operations or external coercion. (The Times of Israel)
For Muslim nations, these distinctions are not merely technical. Peacekeeping— rooted in impartial protection, consent, and non‑coercion— aligns with longstanding international norms and the ethical imperative to safeguard civilians in conflict zones. Peace enforcement— which implies using force to compel compliance or disarm local actors— risks alienating the very communities the ISF seeks to protect and undermines the legitimacy of the mission. Such distinctions are central to how people in Gaza, the wider Arab world, and Muslim populations globally perceive international intervention.
Pakistan’s stance on this question illustrates the careful calibration required. Islamabad has signalled its openness to participating in the ISF— a position welcomed by US officials, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio stating that Washington is “very grateful” for Pakistan’s willingness to at least consider contributing to the stabilisation force. He also emphasised that more clarity is needed on the force’s mandate, rules of engagement, and operational structure before any formal troop commitments are made. (Geo News)
If the ISF is to be more than a foreign presence with a flag and rifles, it must embody the values it claims to uphold: legitimacy, neutrality, and a steadfast commitment to civilian safety. For Muslim nations and for Pakistan, insisting that the ISF be configured as a peacekeeping force, not a peace enforcement apparatus, is not just strategic— it is a moral imperative aligned with the aspirations of the people of Gaza and the broader principle of justice in international engagement.
Yet Pakistani officials have been unequivocal on one key point: they are not ready to disarm Hamas or play a peace enforcement role. Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Muhammad Ishaq Dar has repeatedly stressed that disarmament of Palestinian factions is not the role of foreign troops, but should be left to Palestinian law enforcement under an internationally recognized framework. Pakistan’s interest is in peacekeeping, not peace enforcement. (Middle East Monitor)
This distinction reflects both ethical concerns and realpolitik. Pakistan’s populace overwhelmingly identifies with the Palestinian cause, and any involvement that could be construed as coercive or siding with one party against another— especially in a conflict as politically charged as Gaza— would spark domestic criticism and possibly political backlash. At the same time, Islamabad carries a deep historical legacy of participating successfully in UN peacekeeping missions around the world. Its forces have been deployed in volatile areas precisely because of their reputation for restraint, civilian protection, and commitment to humanitarian principles. (Al Jazeera)
Beyond Pakistan, other Muslim-majority countries considering involvement in the ISF are wrestling with similar questions. Indonesia, for example, has announced plans to train peacekeeping troops for Gaza but faces internal debate about the risks of being seen as aligning with enforcement tasks, especially regarding disarmament. (South China Morning Post) Egypt, Qatar, and others have pressed for a political roadmap that prioritises Palestinian agency and local ownership of security arrangements, highlighting the need for the mission’s legitimacy to be anchored in consent and neutrality. (The National)
The Palestinian perspective also underscores this tension. Resistance factions and political groups in Gaza have expressed strong opposition to any proposal that appears to cede control over internal security to an international force, arguing that it undermines self‑determination and externalises governance. They insist that humanitarian efforts and security must be coordinated through competent Palestinian institutions under UN oversight, free from mechanisms that could be perceived as imposing foreign authority. (Anadolu Ajansı)
“Muslim nations must engage in Gaza as peacekeepers, not enforcers, ensuring civilian protection, legitimacy, and respect for Palestinian agency — the ISF’s mandate must reflect this distinction.”
This is not a minor semantic point— it is the ethical anchor of any credible stabilisation mission. Peacekeeping, properly mandated, focuses on protecting civilians, monitoring ceasefires, facilitating humanitarian relief, and supporting local capacity building. Peace enforcement— characterised by coercive authority or involvement in local political disputes— risks transforming neutral peacekeepers into combatants or de facto occupiers in the eyes of the local population. The resulting loss of trust can imperil both the mission and the very civilians it seeks to safeguard.
Pakistan’s insistence on a strictly peacekeeping role underscores its commitment to these principles, aligning with international norms that govern legitimate peace operations. This stance maintains the dignity and agency of the Palestinian people while enabling external support for reconstruction and security without coercion. It also helps protect Pakistan’s domestic political cohesion, ensuring that public sentiment— strongly supportive of Palestinian rights— is not fractured by perceptions of external coercion or undue involvement in enforcement actions.
As the ISF’s structure and mandate continue to be negotiated among participating states and international institutions, such principled clarity is essential. A peacekeeping mission rooted in consent, civilian protection, and respect for Palestinian autonomy offers the best prospect for genuine stabilisation— not only in halting immediate violence, but in enabling a sustainable and just transition beyond conflict.
If the ISF is to be more than a foreign presence with a flag and rifles, it must embody the values it claims to uphold: legitimacy, neutrality, and a steadfast commitment to civilian safety. For Muslim nations and for Pakistan, insisting that the ISF be configured as a peacekeeping force, not a peace enforcement apparatus, is not just strategic— it is a moral imperative aligned with the aspirations of the people of Gaza and the broader principle of justice in international engagement.
