Despite the UN Security Council passing a US-drafted resolution that essentially supports President Donald Trump’s “peace plan” for Gaza, it is unlikely to bring long-term peace to the occupied territories due to the document’s ambiguity and Palestinian opposition to many of its claimed goals. Furthermore, nations like Pakistan that are thinking about sending troops to the global stabilization force that the Trumpian plan envisions need to be clear about its purpose. Although it has been accepted by the UNSC, the idea is largely American. For instance, the ISF will operate in “consultation” with Egypt and Israel rather than as a UN peacekeeping force. Furthermore, there is ambiguity in the terminology regarding a route to Palestinian statehood.
However, the Israeli prime minister has reiterated his determination to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state. It is necessary to find out how the proponents of this proposal and the resolution’s framers intend to resolve these conflicting viewpoints. Pakistan backed the US resolution, while China and Russia abstained. In the meantime, Hamas has questioned the ISF’s neutrality and criticized the resolution. Although the US ambassador to the UN has stated that the ISF will “support a region free from Hamas’ grip,” the resolution asks for the ISF to demilitarize Gaza. These declarations make it quite evident that foreign forces will be sent to Gaza in order to confront and disarm Hamas.
As a result, Pakistan and other Muslim nations that are allegedly thinking about sending troops for the operation need to know exactly what is expected of them. Disarmament should be carried out “through a negotiated political process,” according to Pakistan’s ambassador to the UN, who also noted that further clarification was required about every facet of the proposal. Pakistan shouldn’t commit soldiers without this clarity and without parliamentary discussion. We cannot participate in an Israeli-American drill aimed at disarming Palestinian resistance groups in order to support the occupation.
However, the commitment of troops can be taken into consideration if the ISF’s declared goals are to aid in Gaza’s reconstruction and rehabilitation and, above all, to shield Palestinians from Israel’s brutal attacks, which persist despite the “ceasefire.” Rather than merely supporting the American idea, it would have been far preferable for the UN to take the initiative in this peacekeeping effort. We must not hold our breath, even while it is hoped that Gaza’s protracted horror is finished and that the Palestinians as a whole can resume their path to a sovereign state. Israel’s lack of commitment to peace and its long standing disdain for Palestinian life are the primary causes of pessimism. We should soon be able to determine whether the effort is sincere or if the recently approved plan by the UN is merely another smokescreen that would bolster the occupation, this time with support from Arabs and Muslims and international sanctions.

ReplyForwardAdd reaction