Gaza Peace Board: Challenges and prospects

2026-01-29 - 00:01

WHAT will Trump’s Peace Board achieve that the United Nations has failed to deliver? In a world changing by the moment, this question carries exceptional weight. History shows that the world has never remained static. The two World Wars—especially the Second—reshaped global order and gave rise to the UN-centred system dominated by power blocs. The Cold War, a consequence of this division, played out largely on our own soil. Its end produced a unipolar world that endured for nearly three decades. Today, that order is once again fragmenting and we are witnessing the consequences of this transformation in real time. One may argue that since a Third World War has not occurred, the world should not be changing so drastically. Yet global transformations do not wait for formal declarations of war. The process continues regardless of our doubts. Donald Trump’s policies are part of this momentum. The key question is not whether the world is changing, but what Trump intends to achieve within this changing order. Some argue that Trump acts primarily under the influence of the Zionist lobby, advancing Israeli objectives. Others believe he is determined to preserve American global dominance at all costs. These explanations are not mutually exclusive. However, they overlook a larger reality: the emergence of a new multipolar world. Two forces define this reality—Russia and China. Among them, China’s rise is the most transformative, reshaping global power equations. In effect, we are living through a new kind of global conflict, one fought not with armies alone but through influence, economics and strategic positioning. This raises a troubling question: do Muslims have any meaningful share in this new world order, as China or Europe appears to have? The honest answer is unsettling. After the Cold War, the United States enjoyed unrivalled dominance. While many powers responded by consolidating their own strength—China most successfully—the Muslim world failed to formulate a collective strategy. China’s rise now explains Trump’s aggressive posture toward regions as diverse as Venezuela and Greenland. The Peace Board itself is a product of this broader American strategy. Ideally, the Islamic world should have learned from Cold War devastation and positioned itself for the future. Instead, it remained entangled in internal conflicts, external pressures and self-inflicted weaknesses. As a result, the new global division includes no Muslim-led bloc with independent strategic weight. Until such a bloc emerges, the Muslim world must still navigate existing power structures. The pressing question is: which path is it choosing? The visible trend suggests alignment with Donald Trump. Given Trump’s close ties to Zionist interests, this alignment appears to lead toward the eventual recognition of Israel under American dominance. This debate is alive within Pakistan as well. Religious parties have opposed Pakistan’s participation in the Peace Board. In response, noted jurist Dr. Mushtaq Ahmad has posed a provocative question. Pakistani politics has long accused certain leaders of serving Zionist interests. In today’s context, he asks: who truly qualifies as a Zionist agent? This question deserves reflection, but it should not distract from a more strategic concern: how can Muslims protect themselves in a transformed world? Recent developments suggest that although the Muslim world lacks China’s global clout, it is cautiously pursuing a strategy aimed at minimizing damage and preserving long-term interests. In this effort, Pakistan occupies a central position—an opportunity that should not be underestimated. Pakistan’s importance was reinforced by the May confrontation, in which it achieved strategic superiority over India with divine support. This enhanced stature explains why Trump assigns Pakistan unusual significance. The dilemma Pakistan faces is critical: should it leverage this position to safeguard Muslim interests or confront the United States outright and invite consequences that could harm both itself and the wider Muslim world? This is the defining challenge of the present moment. After consultation, Pakistan and key Muslim States have chosen a pragmatic course. A defence understanding between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia forms the first pillar of this strategy, with Turkiye’s potential involvement adding meaningful strength. Iran’s interest in joining further reflects the gravity of the moment. Whether through new platforms like the Peace Board or established international forums, Pakistan and the Muslim world are engaging with emerging strategic coherence. Disengagement is not an option. Absence from the Peace Board would effectively leave Gaza and Palestine to the mercy of others. Participation, therefore, must be judged strategically rather than emotionally. Leaders such as Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, Field Marshal Asim Munir, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan appear to have opted for a path where potential gains outweigh risks. Their approach is not a rejection of established principles but an attempt to explore new avenues where old institutions—like the United Nations—have failed to deliver justice. Allama Iqbal’s words remain instructive: (To fear the new and cling to the old— This is the hardest trial in a nation’s life) If the rationale behind joining the Gaza Peace Board still seems unclear, this verse offers the clearest possible explanation. —This writer is former advisor to the President of Pakistan, author & mass media theorist. (farooq.adilbhuta@gmail,com)