Comments made by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Friday have highlighted the ongoing uncertainty regarding Pakistan’s potential involvement in the proposed International Stabilisation Force (ISF) for Gaza. While addressing the media, Rubio expressed Washington’s gratitude to Pakistan for contemplating participation in the force. However, he emphasized that the US still owes “them a few more answers before we can ask anybody to firmly commit.”
That clarification is important, particularly when speculation has outpaced facts. Rubio clarified that “the next step” involves announcing “the border of peace…the Palestinian technocratic group”, enabling stakeholders to “firm up the stabilisation force, including details on financing, rules of engagement, and their role in demilitarisation…”. To put it differently: from Washington’s perspective, the plan is incomplete. Prior to Rubio’s statement, the Foreign Office of Pakistan had indicated that a decision on participation in the ISF for Gaza has not yet been made. Last month, Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar stated that Pakistan was prepared to contribute troops to a Gaza peace force. However, he also made it clear that Islamabad would not be involved in efforts to disarm Hamas.
It is that distinction which goes to the heart of what sort of mission the ISF is ultimately meant to fulfill. The misunderstanding originates from September, when US President Donald Trump announced a peace plan for Gaza that included the deployment of troops from countries with a Muslim majority during a transitional ‘stabilisation’ phase. The UN Security Council endorsed a US-drafted resolution in November that supported Trump’s plan, which included the deployment of the ISF. However, it is still uncertain whether the proposed force would function as a UN peacekeeping mission or as a peace-enforcing entity. The difference is essential. Many Muslim countries would find a UN peacekeeping mission with a clear ceasefire mandate and UN oversight acceptable, especially as it would guarantee an end to the genocide that has been occurring for over two years. A peace-enforcing mission aimed at disarming Hamas represents a completely different situation. That is exactly the reason why numerous Muslim nations have called for clarification. Should the ISF’s mandate involve confronting or disarming Hamas, the majority of Muslim states have already signaled their unwillingness to take part. Hopefully, Pakistan’s inclusion in the ISF will ultimately hinge on the force’s mandate.
Even though there are reports indicating that Pakistan has already agreed to send troops, Rubio’s statements clarify that no final decision has been made. Observers also point out that, considering the magnitude of the atrocities perpetrated by Israel against the defenseless Palestinians in the last two years, no Muslim nation would be prepared to go against the desires of the Palestinian people. It is significant that Russia and China refrained from voting on the UN Security Council resolution supporting the plan, citing worries about the lack of Palestinian involvement in the force and the unclear role of the UN in Gaza’s future. Many people share these concerns. Any stabilisation force that excludes Palestinians or is seen as doing Israel’s dirty work would be politically unacceptable throughout the Muslim world. No government would take the risk of angering its own population by taking part in such a mission. This clarifies why, up to this point, none of the Muslim countries that were part of Trump’s previous conversations have unequivocally endorsed the plan. Pakistan’s position should be understood in light of its longstanding, principled stance on Palestine, which includes a refusal to recognize Israel. It is correct for observers to contend that Islamabad will avoid the error of deploying its troops if such an action contradicts the desires of the Palestinian people. Until there is complete clarity on the ISF’s mandate, engagement rules, and the UN’s role, Pakistan’s cautious approach is both understandable and necessary.