Truce or Trap? Why the 20-Point Gaza Deal Risks Becoming a Geopolitical Snare for Pakistan?

By Zohaib Ahmed | 30th September 2025

This is blunt, hard-edged, and without euphemism: the White House 20/21-point plan to end the Gaza war is a temporary pragmatic option — but it is also a trap if Muslim guarantors, including Pakistan, fail to read its mechanics, prepare for Israel’s likely backtrack, and insist on enforceable guarantees. From Islamabad’s vantage point, the risks are existential: diplomatic humiliation, domestic political blowback, and the erosion of Pakistan’s moral authority in the Muslim world.

Below I lay out why the design of the plan creates structural traps, why Israel’s history makes compliance unlikely, why Tony Blair must be excluded, how Palestinians must remain center-stage, whether this is “Oslo 2.0,” and what Pakistan must demand — without sugarcoating anything.

Executive Summary — The Two Faces of the Plan

The White House’s 20-point plan offers Gaza a ceasefire, hostage returns, mass prisoner releases, amnesty for Hamas cadres who disarm, massive humanitarian and reconstruction packages, a temporary technocratic Palestinian authority under international supervision, an International Stabilization Force (ISF) of Muslim nations to secure Gaza, and an economic restart (including a special economic zone). Pakistan is part of this architecture — positioned as a guarantor and a potential ISF contributor.

This plan is simultaneously:

A pragmatic option: it buys immediate, life-saving time, returns hostages, opens aid corridors, and promises reconstruction. Palestinians are exhausted and many are willing to accept the respite. Hamas has signalled willingness to demilitarize in principle (contingent on ironclad guarantees), though a formal, public endorsement is still pending.
A trap: it places asymmetric risk on Muslim guarantors while relying on Israeli good faith — despite a decades-long pattern of Israeli backtracking. If Israel breaks the framework, the political, military and reputational burden falls on the Muslim states — Pakistan chief among them.

We must treat both sides of that equation equally: welcome the ceasefire and humanitarian respite, but proceed only with legally binding enforcement, operational clarity, and full Palestinian agency.

Palestinians’ Lens: Humanity First, Not Our Agenda

We must be explicit: Palestinians are exhausted. Families are dying. Food, medicine, shelter — these are immediate. Any policy debate that sidelines that brutal reality is immoral. The first priority must be an immediate ceasefire and unfettered humanitarian access. Nothing else matters if people continue to perish.

Therefore: Pakistan and other Muslim guarantors must insist that the plan is implemented in the best possible way for Palestinians, not as a vehicle for outsiders’ geopolitical tradeoffs. We must support Hamas’s agency: if Hamas accepts the deal after real guarantees, Pakistan should support them; if Hamas rejects it, Pakistan must stand with them regardless. Our role is to protect Palestinian dignity and survival, not to force them into a settlement that feels like capitulation.

1) The 20-Point Plan — Quick, Plain Summary (as discussed here)

Gaza to become a deradicalized, demilitarized zone.
Immediate staged Israeli withdrawal and frozen battle lines during handover.
Hostage returns within 72 hours of Israeli acceptance.
Mass Palestinian prisoner releases in exchange; large-scale amnesty for disarming Hamas members.
Emergency and long-term aid, infrastructure rebuild (water, electricity, hospitals).
Rafah and distribution corridors to be protected and run by neutral agencies (UN, Red Crescent).
Transitional technocratic Palestinian administration under a new “Board of Peace” (Trump chair; other global figures named).
An International Stabilization Force (ISF) — Muslim nations to provide the peace-army.
Special economic zone(s), trade preferences, and a roadmap toward Palestinian reforms and eventual political horizon for statehood.

Those are the operational goals — powerful if implemented fairly. But the devil is in the guarantees and enforcement mechanics (and in who actually chairs the Board of Peace).

2) Why this is the best realistic deal now (the practical case)

Immediate lifesaving: Gaza is starving, hospitals destroyed, and people are dying now. A ceasefire and large humanitarian inflows cannot be postponed on principle.
Palestinian willingness: People on the ground are exhausted; many want an immediate halt to slaughter and relief. Hamas has shown a willingness to demilitarize for the sake of Palestine — conditioned on ironclad guarantees. If Hamas signs and the guarantees are real, this plan gives Gaza breathing room and a real path to return and rebuild.
Muslim ownership: Unlike previous Western-led deals, this places Muslim states — Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, others — in a central operational role. That shifts the political frame: Palestine stops being an exclusively Western project.
Concrete deliverables: Hostage returns, mass prisoner exchanges, rapid reconstruction funding, and international stabilization structure are enforceable things — if enforcement exists.

This is not ideal. It is, however, the most leverageable, immediate, and humanitarian option on the table in 2025.

3) Why it is also a Trap — structural, historical and political reasons

A. Israel’s track record

Israel has repeatedly violated accords, exploited ceasefires to consolidate facts on the ground, and eroded Palestinian gains. The West Bank is a live example: demilitarized in practice, yet daily dispossession continued. History shows Israeli rollback is probable, not hypothetical.

B. Delegated burden, concentrated cost

The plan shifts enforcement burdens to Muslim guarantors while political cover and diplomatic muscle remain with the U.S. and Western actors. If Israel breaches, Muslim states will be held responsible for fixing a problem their endorsement helped create — and many of those states lack the will to confront U.S. pressure.

C. The legitimation problem

The Board of Peace risks turning Gaza’s governance into a Western-dominated reconstruction project. Economic revival can easily become debt-dependency and foreign managerial control — John Perkins-style. That undermines Palestinian sovereignty.

D. Palestinian agency & pre-packaged acceptance

Getting Hamas to accept a deal they didn’t help craft is a recipe for failure. Pressuring Hamas to accept before full deliberation reduces legitimacy and sows domestic resistance — the opposite of durable peace.

E. Symbolic betrayals

Any move that looks like normalizing Israel or softening demands without real Palestinian gains will be read as betrayal by publics across the Muslim world — and will erode Pakistan’s domestic legitimacy if mishandled.

This is a trap in design: if guarantees fail and Muslim guarantors are unprepared, the region’s Muslim states lose credibility and Palestinians lose yet another chapter.

The Core Paradox: Time-Buying vs. Time-Betrayal

Technically, this arrangement is exactly what Pakistan and many in the Muslim world have long wanted on paper: a mechanism to halt the slaughter, return hostages, free detainees, rebuild Gaza, and create a transitional governance structure that could lead to Palestinian self-determination. It buys time. That is the point.

But buying time for whom? For Gaza’s people? For Palestine’s political future? Or for Israel and its backers to defuse global outrage, reregulate optics, and return stronger later? The plan hands initiative to external actors and relies on good faith where good faith has been absent for decades. That asymmetric risk is the trap.

4) Hamas, Palestinians & Why Their View Must Come First

Hamas has signalled willingness to demilitarize if ironclad, enforceable guarantees are provided — not out of weakness but as sacrifice for survival. They asked for permanent guarantees, not temporary palliatives.
Palestinians are exhausted. They want a ceasefire, immediate aid, rebuilding, stability, and a path to dignity. Many are willing to take this plan because it offers immediate relief and a political horizon.
Our role is support, not imposition. Pakistan must amplify Palestinian voices, not impose an external roadmap. If Hamas endorses the plan after due deliberation, Pakistan should support them. If Hamas rejects the plan, Pakistan must still stand with them — politically, diplomatically and morally.

The primary test of legitimacy is Palestinian consent and ownership.

5) Tony Blair — The Red Flag (Must be removed)

This is non-negotiable: Tony Blair’s inclusion in the Board of Peace is poisonous. Why?

Blair’s Iraq legacy and perceived pro-Western bias make him deeply unpopular and delegitimizing to Palestinians and Muslim publics.
His presence signals Western managerial control and will sabotage local buy-in, investment, recruitment of Palestinian technocrats, and public trust.
Practically, Blair’s name will be a rallying point for rejection and derision. Pakistan — and all Muslim guarantors — should demand his immediate exclusion.

Tony Blair as a central overseer is a red flag, not a minor irritation. Blair’s track record — Iraq, alignment with problematic Western policies, perceived bias toward Israeli positions — destroys trust in the transitional framework before it begins. Any plan that gives credence to such figures invites the charge of neo-colonial management. Pakistan should oppose Blair’s role publicly and insist on credible, non-tainted Muslim leadership and genuinely neutral international actors.

If you want Pakistani leadership to be taken seriously, the Board must be free of figures who are seen as architects of regional ruin.

6) Is this Oslo 2.0?

Short answer: It can be — unless enforced differently.

Oslo failed because:

It created interim structures without final guarantees.
It left key issues unresolved while enabling continued occupation through administrative and security mechanisms.
It was dominated by external mediators and lacked enforceable guarantees for Palestinian sovereignty.

This current plan differs tactically — it is more muscular on reconstruction, hostage recovery, and demilitarization pathways. But in strategic essence it risks repeating Oslo’s mistake: building institutions and economic projects that normalize a political status quo without securing sovereignty. If Israel is allowed to maintain security perimeters, if foreign oversight evolves into de facto control, or if Palestinian agency is sidelined, this will be Oslo rebadged.

Oslo succeeded at creating interim institutions while leaving final status unresolved, enabling occupation to continue in practice. This plan improves upon Oslo in three ways: clearer humanitarian deliverables, stronger Muslim state involvement, and a reconstruction-driven economic plan. But if international oversight translates into external control, if security perimeters become permanent, or if Palestinian agency is sidelined, then yes — it will be Oslo rebadged: economic projects without sovereignty.

Treat the Oslo comparison not as hyperbole but as a sober warning: demand real, enforceable mechanisms now — or history repeats.

History Speaks: Why Israel’s Past Behavior Makes This Fragile

We cannot be naïve about pattern recognition. Looking at precedent:

Repeated rollbacks and violations: From ceasefires to Oslo-era understandings, Israel has a documented record of interpreting pauses as windows to consolidate advantages — settlements, administrative control, and security perimeters — then expanding facts on the ground.
Reneging on guarantees: Agreements that required Israeli restraint were often followed by unilateral Israeli measures or slow implementation that hollowed out Palestinian gains.
The West Bank lesson: The West Bank has been largely demilitarized in practice, yet Palestinians endure relentless dispossession, arbitrary detention, and structural violence. Demilitarization alone did not prevent the erosion of rights.

History’s empirical lesson is blunt: don’t bet a people’s future on Israeli good faith. Those who repeatedly betray covenants and moral claims cannot be assumed to honor new ones. In moral terms many of us feel: those who betrayed God’s commandments and betrayed pledges cannot be trusted. Pragmatically: assume rollback, plan for it.

7) Pakistan’s Strategic Stakes & Levers

The Legal-Moral Constraint: Muslim States’ (and Pakistan’s) Binding Expectations

If Israel violates the accord, the legal and moral optics will immediately shift: Muslim guarantors will be expected — domestically and regionally — to act. That’s because their endorsement transforms the deal from a Western plan into a Muslim-backed settlement. If those nations then fail to protect Palestinians when violations occur, they face accusations of betrayal, loss of credibility, and internal political collapse.

But the trap is this: many of those same Muslim states lack the independent capacity or political will to confront Israel when Washington applies pressure. They have financial, political, and security ties to the U.S. and the West. When push comes to shove, will they stand firm or buckle? The risk is obvious: they will be the ones blamed when the façade collapses.

Pakistan’s unique value

Credibility: Pakistan’s domestic politics and moral posture make it a highly credible Muslim guarantor.
Military capability: Pakistan has peacekeeping experience and counterterror expertise to contribute to the ISF, train Palestinian police, and provide operational ballast.
Regional ties: Pakistan’s defense link with Saudi Arabia and relationship with Gulf capitals gives it access to funding and regional clout.
Economic leverage: Islamabad has been actively pitching investment (minerals, trade, energy) during its outreach — transactional carrots that increase bargaining power.

A. Pre-Implementation Red Lines (non-negotiable)

No Israeli command or control over Pakistani troops. Any Pakistani contingent must operate under Muslim-led ISF command with operational autonomy.
Binding legal guarantees. Convert promises into UN Security Council/General Assembly instruments or multilateral treaties with escrowed funding that is released on verifiable milestones.
Independent monitors and sanctions triggers. Create clear metrics for compliance (withdrawal timetables, prisoner releases, aid corridors) and predetermined consequences if violated.
Local Palestinian agency. Ensure Palestinian technicians and leaders are majority members of the transitional admin and empowered to make decisions on reconstruction and governance.
Blair excluded. No Blair; no tainted overseers. Replace with credible Muslim and neutral figures with track records of impartial institution-building.

B. Military & Operational Preparations

Command clarity: Pakistani forces must have clear ROE (rules of engagement) and legal protection — not an ad hoc mandate that can be revoked.
Rapid response capability: Pakistan, jointly with allies, must pre-position diplomatic, legal, and logistic capacity to publicize violations and trigger international sanctions.
Intelligence and verification: Pakistan should insist on robust, independent monitoring infrastructure (satellite, on-ground observers, UN-linked verification) to document breaches in real time.

C. Diplomatic Levers

Gulf coordination: Secure binding Gulf financial and political backing for enforcement — Saudi money plus Pakistani manpower is the leverage.
UN inscription: Move the arrangement into the UN sphere to raise the political and legal cost of unilateral withdrawals or re-occupation.
Domestic mandate: Ensure Pakistani parliamentary oversight and public transparency so any deployment has democratic legitimacy at home.

Binding Gulf financial commitments that are conditional on compliance, not political whim.

If Pakistan does not secure these, it risks being a face to a failed plan.

8) Contingency Playbook — If Israel Breaks the Deal

This is the non-sexy but necessary part: plan for breakout now.

Publicize breaches immediately with independent monitors and satellite proof. Deny Israel the plausibility of “misunderstanding.”
Trigger pre-agreed legal mechanisms (UN, OIC, sanctions clauses, financial freezes) that impose rapid costs on non-compliance.
Deploy ISF capabilities to secure areas handed over from IDF — not as ceremonial guards but with actual perimeter control authority.
Activate diplomatic pressure: Gulf funding withdrawal threats, trade/tariff measures, UN referrals, and international litigation.
Domestic readiness: prepare the Pakistani populace for political costs — brief Parliament, the press, and civil leaders.
If Muslim guarantors freeze or fail at this moment, the trap snaps shut: reputations implode, and Palestinians are abandoned.

If Pakistan fails to prepare these contingencies, the trap is set: Pakistani credibility collapses domestically and regionally, Muslim solidarity is weakened, and Palestinians pay the heaviest price.

9) Political & Moral Calculus for Pakistan

This is not simply a technical exercise; it is a moral and national test. Participation is the maximum responsible engagement Pakistan can offer now — but only if done on Pakistani terms and Palestinian terms. There are two red lines:

Normalization is forbidden — Pakistan will not recognize Israel. This plan is not Abraham Accords 2.0. Anyone spinning it that way is spreading disinformation.
Palestinian agency is mandatory — no imposed governance structures without meaningful Palestinian majority, vetoes and involvement.

If Pakistan can secure enforcement teeth and preserve Palestinian primacy, participation is defensible and necessary. If Pakistan is turned into the public scapegoat for a failed Western plan, then non-participation becomes the lesser evil.

10) Final Verdict — A Fierce Warning

Make no mistake: this plan can save lives now and create a pathway toward Palestinian dignity, but only if Muslim guarantors, led by Pakistan and backed by the Gulf, insist on ironclad, enforceable guarantees, operational autonomy for their forces, Palestinian ownership, exclusion of discredited overseers (Blair), and pre-set sanctions and escrow mechanisms.

Fail on any of those points and we will have done what we have cursed in the past: given the appearance of justice while enabling a slow, managerial occupation. Those who betrayed pledges in the past cannot be assumed to behave differently now — faith in paper promises without enforcement is the beginning of betrayal.

To my fellow countrymen: be pragmatic, not naïve. Support a ceasefire and humanitarian relief. Demand that any Pakistani role be bound by legal guarantees, democratic oversight, and Palestinian consent. Prepare for the hard test that will follow the first breach. If we step into that breach with courage, readiness and clarity, Pakistan can defend Gaza properly. If we step in blind, we will become complicit in the next cycle of injustice.

This is not rhetoric. This is a strategic demand: prepare, bind, and verify, or stay out.

11) Conclusion:

The proposed arrangement serves as a temporary yet pragmatic option, primarily because it buys time for all stakeholders. History shows that Israel has repeatedly violated past accords, and there is little reason to assume long-term compliance here. The real test will begin the moment Israel breaks this framework. At that stage, the responsibility will shift toward the Muslim countries forming the peace force in Gaza. If they fail to anticipate and prepare for such a breach, they risk falling directly into a geopolitical trap that undermines both their credibility and their strategic leverage in the region. Since Pakistan is part of this arrangement, and given our emotions and commitment to the Palestinian cause, it is fair to say Pakistan will have a genuine chance to defend Gaza properly through this agreement—and we are well-equipped to do so.

That said, it remains a matter of speculation: Hamas still has to respond to the agreement. If they feel confident and endorse it, Pakistan should fully support them. If they back out, Pakistan must still stand with them, unwaveringly, as defenders of Palestinian rights and sovereignty

Technically, this arrangement matches what our nation has long demanded: a tangible role in protecting Gaza and safeguarding Palestinian rights. If we accept the burden, it will be one of the hardest strategic and moral tests Pakistan has faced, yet it represents the maximum, responsible engagement we can offer at this moment. Importantly, participation will strengthen civil leverage: our people will gain more power to hold the government accountable and push for concrete measures on the ground. We must remain vigilant, and keep hope alive.

The New World Disorder

Search This Blog