Pakistan’s recent foreign policy moves regarding the war in Gaza illustrate a complex attempt to satisfy divergent pressures aligning diplomatically with major powers while reaffirming its long-standing ideological commitment to Palestinian rights and the sanctity of Al-Quds (Jerusalem). In doing so, Islamabad is trying to navigate a diplomatic tightrope between strategic engagement with the U.S. and global actors, and domestic and historical commitments to the Palestinian cause.
Endorsing Trump’s 20-Point Gaza Peace Plan:
In late 2025, Pakistan publicly welcomed the U.S.-backed 20-point Gaza peace plan, unveiled by President Donald Trump at the White House. The plan proposes a ceasefire, release of hostages, transitional governance in Gaza, and reconstruction efforts that has been backed by Israel, several Arab and Muslim countries, and affirmed by the U.N. Security Council under Resolution 2803 as stated by Al-Jazeera.
According to local and international reporting, Pakistan’s prime minister expressed support for this initiative framing it as a pathway toward ending the conflict and achieving long-term peace in the region. According to Dawn, This public endorsement indicates Islamabad’s willingness to remain engaged in international diplomatic efforts aimed at stabilising Gaza and ending large-scale violence.
Joining the “Board of Peace” but Rejecting Abraham Accords and ISF Participation:
Following this endorsement, Pakistan agreed to join the “Board of Peace”, an advisory and coordination body established as part of Trump’s peace architecture, alongside several other Muslim-majority countries.
However, Pakistan’s Foreign Office has been careful to clarify that this decision:
Does not imply participation in the Abraham Accords agreements normalising relations between Israel and some Arab states, from which Pakistan has expressly distanced itself.
Does not involve sending Pakistani troops to the conflict zone or joining the International Stabilisation Force (ISF) i.e a proposed multi-national security component envisaged under the peace plan’s second phase with intentions of destroying the Palestinain identity.
The government has emphasised that its participation in the Board of Peace is intended to help consolidate and sustain the ceasefire, support post-conflict reconstruction, and promote a just and lasting peace based on the Palestinian right to self-determination, rather than military involvement or diplomatic recognition of Israel.
Domestic Pushback and Contradictions:
This dual posture has not been without controversy inside Pakistan. Several political bodies have criticised the government’s decision:
The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provincial assembly passed a resolution rejecting Pakistan’s participation in the Board of Peace, calling it inconsistent with Pakistan’s historical stance on Palestine and potentially harmful to the Palestinian right to self-determination.
Opposition parties, including Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan, have condemned the decision, warning that joining the Board could dilute Pakistan’s principled position and alleging that such moves should be subject to wider political consultation.
These reactions reflect a broader unease among political and religious constituencies that Pakistan’s endorsement of an international peace plan perceived by some as heavily influenced by U.S. and Israeli interests may not sufficiently protect core Palestinian objectives or respect the will of Palestinian representatives themselves.
Ideology, Religion, and Public Sentiment:
A significant factor shaping Pakistan’s approach is the ideological and religious importance of the Palestinian issue, and particularly Al-Quds (Jerusalem), within its national ethos. Pakistan’s official policy has consistently affirmed that it does not recognise Israel, supports the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on pre-1967 borders, and advocates for East Jerusalem (Al-Quds) as its capital.
For many in Pakistan’s populace, the idea of association with any mechanism that could be construed as normalising the conflict or involving indirect cooperation with powers aligned with Israel evokes deep emotional and religious sensitivities. The mainstream view emphasises principled support for Palestinian self-determination, rejection of occupation, and safeguarding the sanctity of Masjid al-Aqsa in Jerusalem a site with immense religious significance for Muslims. This social and religious context makes Pakistan’s refusal to join the ISF and the Abraham Accords politically resonant, even as it participates in broader diplomatic engagements.
The Diplomatic Balancing Act:
Pakistan’s behavior illustrates a classic diplomatic balancing act: seeking to remain engaged in international peace frameworks while avoiding commitments that might alienate its domestic audience or be perceived as compromising its ideological commitments. By joining the Board of Peace, Islamabad signals a willingness to participate in multilateral efforts aimed at stabilisation, humanitarian support, and ceasing hostilities. Yet its choice to categorically reject both Abraham Accords participation and military involvement through the ISF highlights a clear boundary anchored in ideology, public perception, and historical policy.
At the same time, this dual approach can generate perceptions of inconsistency an effort to please both international partners and domestic constituencies. It showcases Pakistan’s attempt to engage constructively with global diplomacy without stepping into territory that could trigger internal political backlash or contradict deeply held positions on Palestinian rights and the holiest sites in Islam.
