«اهداف مبهم»

در مورد حمایت های جمعیتی با 7 درصد کاهش پشتیبانی از مردان استقرار نیروها در غزه در مقایسه با 68 درصد از ساکنان شهری با 84 درصد در مقایسه با 67 درصد در مناطق روستایی، حمایت قوی‌تری از خود نشان دادند. سیالکوت، قاطعانه مخالف است.

«نقش، رهبری و اهداف ISF مبهم است و به نظر می‌رسد که با چارچوبی تحت رهبری ایالات متحده که فاقد مشروعیت منطقه‌ای گسترده است، هماهنگ است. او گفت که پیوستن به چنین نیرویی خطر درگیری مستقیم پاکستان با جناح های فلسطینی، از جمله حماس، به طور بالقوه بر خلاف میل مردم فلسطین را دارد.

ندیم گفت که پاکستان نه از نظر سیاسی و نه از نظر استراتژیک برای درگیری نظامی در غزه تحت شرایط نامشخص آماده نیست. او افزود: «این نگرانی‌ها بازتاب شرایطی است که در این نظرسنجی برجسته شده است. اتحاد مشترک کشورهای مسلمان به عنوان مهم‌ترین پیش‌شرط برای استقرار ظاهر شد و 64 درصد آن را «مهم» و 35 درصد آن را «بسیار مهم» ارزیابی کردند. تایید سازمان ملل ضروری بود.

تأیید قدرت های بزرگ، از جمله ایالات متحده و چین، در پایین ترین رتبه قرار داشت. Only 47 percent considered it important while 30 percent viewed it as unimportant.

Uncertain framework

Although Pakistan accepted an invitation to join the Board of Peace during a signing ceremony at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, last month, the Gallup poll suggested significant uncertainty. About 39 percent of respondents said they’re unsure about the move.

About 34 percent expressed happiness at Pakistan becoming part of the board while 23 percent were unhappy.

Gilani said this ambivalence likely reflects limited public information about the body’s mandate and the contours of any potential troop deployment.

“I think there is obviously this aspect that if the military force has to be directly in confrontation with Hamas and is used for disarming them, then I think that the public opinion might not remain in favour of it,” he said.

“Public opinion right now operates from a limited information standpoint. But even from that standpoint, it seems to be overall in support.”

Nadeem said he remained sceptical, warning that the timing and political context could make participation appear as an endorsement of actions shaped by “bad-faith actors” rather than an inclusive peace process.

“If the BoP delivers real, tangible benefits for Palestinians, engagement makes sense. Otherwise, it risks becoming symbolic optics rather than a meaningful step toward peace,” she said.

Pakistan’s credibility, Nadeem added, “ultimately depends on principled alignment with peace, justice and Palestinian rights – not just strategic proximity to powerful actors”.

Calculated gamble?

Throughout 2025, Field Marshal Asim Munir, Pakistan’s military chief, emerged as a central figure in the country’s diplomatic manoeuvring.

In June, Munir had a solo White House lunch with Trump, the first time a US president hosted a Pakistani army chief without civilian officials present.

Pakistan also attended a conference organised by the US military’s Central Command in Qatar in December in which representatives from nearly 45 countries discussed the operational framework of a peacekeeping force for Gaza.

Officials have repeatedly stressed no final decision has been made. They say any deployment would require a “transparent, politically neutral mandate focused on humanitarian stabilisation rather than disarmament of Palestinian groups”.

Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar also stated in December that while Pakistan could consider contributing peacekeepers, “disarming Hamas is not our job.”

The prospect of a military deployment has historical parallels, particularly the disputed role of Pakistani soldiers in Jordan during the 1970 Black September crisis. While Pakistan maintains its troops were only training Jordanian forces and did not engage in combat, the episode remains politically sensitive.

Abdul Basit, a former Pakistani diplomat and envoy to India, told Al Jazeera that although the UN established Trump’s BoP specifically for Gaza, Washington appears to view it much more broadly.

“The irony is President Trump is not talking about the state of Palestine. How can a one-sided ceasefire be termed as peace … as Palestinians continue living under Israeli occupation?” he asked.

Basit was unequivocal that Pakistan “should not be part of any exercise that seeks to disarm Palestinians”.

“Armed struggle against foreign occupation is legitimate in international law and in conformity with the UN Charter. If push comes to shove, Pakistan may send its medical and engineering corps. That would go down well with Palestinians,” he said.

Uzair Younus, a partner at The Asia Group, a Washington, DC-based geopolitical consulting firm, said the survey suggested Pakistanis have a pragmatic view.

“The results are not surprising but do show that compared to elites, ordinary citizens do have a more measured perspective on Pakistan’s policy choices,” Younus told Al Jazeera.

The findings offer guidance to the government as it communicates Pakistan’s potential role to stabilise Gaza, likely tied to broader efforts by Middle East powers, he added.

“The regional push is being led by Saudi Arabia and Turkiye, in particular, and so long as Pakistan remains in close coordination with these countries, engagement in the ISF and BoP is unlikely to create major risks for Islamabad,” Younus said.