Although a veto by Russia could have sabotaged Trump’s plan for Gaza to get the mandate of the United Nations, Russia chose to abstain, along with China, resulting in the passing of the resolution. The UNSC resolution, drafted by the US and adopted by the UNSC, will authorize the International Stabilization Force (ISF) to manage Gaza’s security and an international transition body will govern Gaza for the time being. Whether this arrangement is in line with the provisions of earlier UN resolutions concerning Palestine is debatable.

It is quite ironic that the same UNSC that adopted Trump’s plan for Gaza in the form of the recent resolution failed to even establish a ceasefire during almost two years of Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza, amid repeated attempts by the majority of its member states. The United States blatantly disregarded all such moves, proving that its veto serves as Israel’s shield, repeatedly bludgeoning international law. Therefore, the adoption of a dubious resolution is a testament to the rubber-stamp character of the United Nations. Despite the ambiguities the said resolution carries, widespread support for it was witnessed even from Muslim countries. This was not a manifestation of trust and acceptance of what Trump envisions for Gaza along with Netanyahu, but a realization of the helplessness of the whole world in the face of Zionist aggression.

Pakistan also voted in favor of the resolution as it has been a part of consultations around the plan put forth by President Donald Trump. The reasons for this vote, or the votes by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Egypt, Jordan, Indonesia, and Türkiye are manifold. The first and foremost is the realization that the genocide needs to stop at any cost. The merciless massacre of Palestinians in Gaza cannot be endured anymore, and the prime objective for all the states concerned with the conflict is the cessation of Israel’s carnage at any cost.

Over the past two years, Israel has demonstrated that, except for Iran, no Muslim state in the Middle East possesses either the intent or capacity to respond militarily to its aggression. Enabled by the American armament and facilitated by the Zionist lobby around the world, Israel has operated with complete impunity. Thus, the only practical course left is the use of Washington’s diplomatic leverage to bring Israel to the negotiation table and save the remaining people of Gaza from the Israeli-imposed starvation and systematic ethnic cleansing.

Finally, there is rarely any chance that any of the states acquiescing to the proposal affords to offend the United States. There is no doubt that it has been the United States and the United States only that has enabled Israel to orchestrate a live-televised genocide. It has sabotaged all diplomatic attempts to hold Israel accountable and made it clear that it stands by Israel in whatever the Zionist polity perpetrates. Therefore, it is the only state that can keep Israel from committing aggression against other regional states. The apology and assurance to Qatar by Netanyahu after Doha was bombed by Israel, is a reassuring example of the United States’ enduring clout. Thus, any proposal by the only state that has leverage over Israel could not be contested.

Even as the guns fall silent after the plan’s adoption, unease lingers among the states that supported it. It also leaves so many questions unaddressed and creates exploitable spaces for Israel. But the most important factor is that it very unjustly tilts in Israel’s favor against the Palestinians. The US Ambassador to the UN Mike Waltz thanked UNSC members by stating that “the adoption of the resolution represents another significant step toward a stable and prosperous Gaza and an environment in which Israel could live securely.” However, it is a proven point that in the Zionist parlance, a prosperous and stable Gaza has meant a Gaza cleansed of its own people. Whether the leaders around the Muslim states care enough for the future of Palestinians or not, the people of these states are quite sensitive to the events in Gaza and other Occupied Palestinian territories. The worst has been accepted and even if this does not bring peace to Gaza, it will not only be the United States castigated for its role, but also the leadership of the states that became a part of the process.

Finally, Pakistan’s possible participation in the ISF demands utmost caution. The issue touches not only public sentiment but the ideological foundations of the state itself. Islamabad cannot afford to lend its forces to any mission that risks becoming an instrument of imperial or Zionist ambitions. It must, therefore, articulate clear conditions for participation and adhere to them strictly.