Gaza is depicted as facing an unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe resulting from years of blockade and repeated military assaults, culminating in widespread destruction of homes, hospitals, schools, and basic infrastructure. Civilians endure extreme shortages of food, water, electricity, and medical care, with mass displacement into unsafe, overcrowded shelters and looming threats of famine and disease. The health system has collapsed, psychological trauma is pervasive, and there is no safe refuge for the population. The international community is sharply criticized for failing to halt the violence or ensure accountability, with repeated ceasefire efforts blocked and temporary truces seen as insufficient without justice, recognition of Palestinian rights, and an end to occupation.
Against this backdrop, a USA-backed proposal for an International Stabilisation Force has sparked intense debate at the United Nations. Supporters argue it could help protect civilians, manage aid, and oversee reconstruction, but many countries— particularly Arab states, Pakistan, China, and Russia— warn that without a clear political pathway to Palestinian self-determination it risks entrenching occupation under a new framework. Pakistan and its allies emphasize that stabilization cannot merely manage devastation; it must address the root political causes through a permanent ceasefire, unrestricted humanitarian access, full reconstruction, and a credible political process guaranteeing Palestinian rights, dignity, and independence.
This shared sentiment has been strongly echoed by several prominent Muslim and developing countries that view the unfolding crisis in Gaza not simply as a localized conflict zone but rather as a profound moral test for the entire world’s collective conscience. Nations like Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, and numerous Arab states have all expressed significant discomfort with the inherent vagueness of the US draft, particularly its deafening silence on the crucial issues of political accountability and Palestinian statehood. For them, Gaza is not just a pressing humanitarian issue; it stands as a painful symbol of the vast global imbalance of power, a system where the application of international law is consistently selective and where human suffering is all too often filtered and minimized through narrow geopolitical lenses. Islamabad’s alignment with the Arab bloc therefore represents both a vital act of solidarity with the oppressed and a much broader, principled demand for equity and fairness in how critical international crises are consistently managed.
Israel, meanwhile, has simultaneously voiced its own distinct expressions of dissatisfaction, albeit stemming from an entirely different and opposing perspective. Israeli officials have publicly complained that the US proposal dangerously marginalizes their legitimate role in shaping and overseeing the stabilization mission, limiting them primarily to mere humanitarian and logistical coordination rather than granting them a central command position.
Israel fears that any significant reduction of its security influence could gravely compromise its vital security interests, particularly in preventing the potential reemergence of militant activity within Gaza. It has publicly described the initial draft as being inherently “imbalanced,” arguing that it critically fails to adequately recognize the legitimacy of Israel’s pressing security concerns. This profound divergence of views— with Israel urgently seeking greater operational control, the Arab bloc firmly demanding political accountability, and the USA attempting the complex, perhaps impossible, task of satisfying both opposing sides— has left Washington struggling significantly to reconcile fundamentally irreconcilable expectations.
Inside the USA itself, significant skepticism about the plan runs deep across various sectors. Many influential policymakers and respected analysts have publicly questioned the practical feasibility and inherent wisdom of deploying a massive international force into one of the most densely populated, politically complex, and devastated territories anywhere in the world.
The real issue of Palestine, which is the fundamental right to self-determination and statehood, still urgently needs to be justly resolved for any permanent cessation of the continuous problems afflicting the Palestinian people. The Pakistani nation and its people have always steadfastly stood with and consistently raised their voice this. Both the Pakistani civil and military leadership have raised their voice for the Palestinian people on numerous occasions. The entire Pakistani Nation shares a deep and historic association with Palestine and its people, and holds a strong, abiding hope for the just resolution of its true issue.
There are genuine fears that such a large-scale mission could easily become yet another ill-defined, open-ended military commitment with no clear or discernible exit strategy, ominously echoing numerous past international interventions that initially began as simple humanitarian endeavors but tragically morphed into prolonged occupations.
There are also pressing practical and logistical concerns: who, realistically, would fund this enormously expensive mission, who would ultimately command it, and which contributing nations would actually be willing to risk sending their troops into a fragmented landscape where the humanitarian needs are overwhelmingly vast, and where hostilities could realistically reignite at any moment? These complex questions, combined with the substantial political resistance emanating from within the UN, have jointly compelled Washington to significantly revise its initial draft resolution, and it is now actively preparing a second version, informally referred to in diplomatic circles as Revision 2.
Experienced diplomats suggest that this new version will likely involve significant softening of some contentious language and will probably attempt to incorporate some vague references to future political progress, though very few observers realistically expect it to include the kind of truly concrete and legally binding commitments that Pakistan and the broader Arab group are forcefully demanding.
If the new draft fails to meet these fundamental demands, the likelihood of yet another frustrating stalemate— or even a decisive veto from Russia or China— remains extremely high. The upcoming vote, which is anticipated within days, will serve as a crucial test of whether the United States is genuinely willing to accommodate the growing and persistent calls from the Global South for a more inclusive, morally grounded, and just approach to achieving a lasting peace in the region.
For Pakistan, this diplomatic struggle is not solely focused on Gaza; it is also profoundly about reclaiming a vital space in international diplomacy where moral authority and legal principle are justly allowed to matter. Islamabad’s seasoned diplomats have consistently framed their nation’s firm position as being both a strong defense of fundamental Palestinian rights and a broader assertion of the urgent need for genuine multilateralism within the UN system.
The sophisticated chambers of the UN stand in stark and tragic contrast to the bombed-out streets of Gaza. Images of children desperately rummaging through debris for mere scraps of food, families forced to sleep amid the ruins of their homes, and hospitals overflowing with the injured and the dying. These deeply unsettling images, constantly transmitted across the entire world, have effectively galvanized massive public outrage and strongly reinforced the resolve of countries like Pakistan to demand that the UN’s actions must be guided not by political expedience but by uncompromising justice. It is within this profound and tragic chasm that the true and enduring meaning of Pakistan’s principled stance can be best understood.
This entire episode also clearly illustrates a broader, significant transformation in global diplomacy. The traditional dominance of the Security Council’s permanent members is being challenged by influential middle-power states that are now refusing to remain silent spectators to such devastating humanitarian crises. Pakistan’s partnership with the Arab bloc and other non-aligned nations marks a growing assertion of the Global South, which is now demanding that equity and justice must shape all international interventions. Their collective and powerful message is strikingly clear: a lasting peace cannot be simply imposed through superior force.
It has also been suggested that Pakistan may be assigned a humanitarian and logistics assistance role. Of course, every Pakistani wants to help the Gazans. However, at the same time, the primary focus must remain on the establishment of a separate, independent Palestinian state in accordance with the will of its people. Additionally, the ceasefire must be strictly enforced, as Israel has not been adhering to it and continues its attacks.
As developments continue to unfold in Washington and New York, the humanitarian catastrophe continues to worsen. The lack of clean water, the spread of disease, and the trauma of displacement have created conditions that are bordering on a potential genocide. Against this unbearable human reality, the world’s diplomats continue to deliberate endlessly over mere words, commas, and procedural clauses.
Yet, even amid this bureaucratic inertia, Pakistan’s decision to speak out with such moral clarity stands as a poignant reminder that diplomacy, when firmly anchored in a strong conscience, can still potentially serve the greater good of humanity. Regardless of whether its specific demands are ultimately heeded, Islamabad’s firm and principled stance undeniably underscores a truth that can no longer be ignored: no resolution, no stabilization force, and no lasting peace will ever truly hold in Gaza until the international community fully acknowledges and decisively addresses the profound, core injustice at the very heart of its suffering.
The real issue of Palestine, which is the fundamental right to self-determination and statehood, still urgently needs to be justly resolved for any permanent cessation of the continuous problems afflicting the Palestinian people. The Pakistani nation and its people have always steadfastly stood with and consistently raised their voice this. Both the Pakistani civil and military leadership have raised their voice for the Palestinian people on numerous occasions. The entire Pakistani Nation shares a deep and historic association with Palestine and its people, and holds a strong, abiding hope for the just resolution of its true issue.
