By Zohaib Ahmed | The New World Disorder | 9th October 2025
📍 “BLESSED ARE THE PEACEMAKERS!” — Trump, announcing what he calls an “Everlasting Peace.”
“All of the Hostages will be released very soon, and Israel will withdraw their Troops to an agreed upon line as the first steps toward a Strong, Durable, and Everlasting Peace.”
— Donald J. Trump, announcing Phase One
“We continue to say that the occupation must abide by what was agreed upon, and we call on the mediators to work to oblige it.”
— Hamas spokesman Hazem Qassem, accusing Israel of delay tactics
These statements define the surface of the deal. They sound clear and optimistic. But the real structure lies underneath — in the conditions, in what remains unsaid, and in how power moves behind the curtain.
What Was Finally Agreed
Egyptian sources describe the deal as containing three core elements:
-
A complete ceasefire.
-
Israel’s gradual withdrawal from 70 percent of Gaza.
-
A simultaneous prisoner and hostage exchange.
Hamas says the handover of hostages will begin according to “field conditions.”
Enforcement will rest on Arab and Islamic guarantor states, who must monitor and ensure compliance.
From what I see, this is not just about peace, but about control. Israel is being offered a managed exit, while regional states are being tied into a web of responsibility. The structure ensures that if the agreement falters, blame will not fall on one side alone. It will spread, and that diffusion is the point.
Israel accepts limited retreat in exchange for legitimacy. Hamas accepts oversight in exchange for survival. The guarantors accept responsibility in exchange for political capital. It is a deal built to distribute risk more than to secure peace.
The “First Phase” as Political Shelter
Calling the deal “Phase One” gives Israel a safe zone. It allows room to delay, reinterpret, or limit implementation without declaring failure.
Prime Minister Netanyahu’s insistence that the agreement requires cabinet approval is deliberate. It turns delay into a legal matter, not a diplomatic breakdown. On the other side, Hamas accuses Israel of playing with “dates, lists, and procedures.” Both sides are right. Whoever controls the timeline controls the narrative.
In geopolitics, time is a weapon. If you set the pace, you shape reality. Israel has done this before. Every ceasefire in Gaza since 2009 followed this same pattern: early optimism, selective withdrawal, and eventual freeze. The language of “technical constraints” has always been the cover story.
By keeping implementation in phases, Israel buys flexibility. It can satisfy international mediators while preserving operational control. What looks like compliance is often calibration.
Hamas’ Pivot to a Contractual Actor
For the first time, Hamas is acting less like a resistance group and more like a political entity bound by global accountability. Its language is cautious. It emphasizes obligations, mutual enforcement, and the duty of mediators to ensure Israel complies.
This signals a new phase in Hamas’ strategy. It is trying to embed itself within the diplomatic order, not outside it. By sharing enforcement responsibility with guarantors, Hamas protects itself from isolation. If Israel defaults, blame will extend to those guarantors.
This shift is tactical. It repositions Hamas as a party that follows rules, not one that breaks them. It wants to be seen as a regional stakeholder. But there is risk. If reconstruction and aid are controlled by outside donors, Gaza could move from occupation to economic dependence.
For every dollar pledged in “rebuilding Gaza,” there will be a condition attached. Every project will have a contract. Power will return through the backdoor — through funding, materials, and oversight.
The Guarantor Trap
The deal gives Arab and Islamic states a central role as guarantors. That sounds like partnership, but it is a trap.
If Israel violates the deal, these states will face public pressure to act. They will have to criticize Israel or risk appearing complicit. They will also carry part of the financial burden of reconstruction and security.
This arrangement forces regional governments to shoulder a problem they cannot fully control. It also gives Israel diplomatic cover. Instead of being the single accountable party, it becomes one player among many.
This model has been used before. In Yemen, Libya, and Sudan, regional guarantors ended up paying for peace they could not enforce. The same risk now faces Egypt, Qatar, and Jordan. The political cost of failure will fall on them.
For Israel, that is a strategic victory. The more regional actors you involve, the less isolated you become. Responsibility becomes shared, and shared responsibility often means no responsibility.
Israel’s Built-In Advantage
The structure of this deal mirrors Israel’s previous negotiation playbook. Every clause includes an exit route.
Technical justifications can delay troop withdrawal. Security concerns can justify continued control of borders and airspace. Hostage exchanges can be used to pause progress. Israel keeps the ability to stop implementation at any stage without officially breaking the deal.
On paper, Gaza may look autonomous. In practice, control will remain fragmented. Border crossings, airspace, and maritime access will likely stay under Israeli supervision “for security coordination.”
This is what I call a ceasefire facade — peace in appearance, control in substance. Agreements that lack strict enforcement mechanisms become tools of management, not liberation.
Unless guarantor states are willing to impose real costs on violations, Israel will retain the upper hand. It will determine what counts as “security,” how long withdrawal takes, and what parts of Gaza remain restricted.
Pakistan’s Strategic Distance
Pakistan’s earlier refusal to join as a guarantor now looks like a wise move. By staying out of the enforcement web, Islamabad has kept both its moral clarity and its diplomatic flexibility.
Pakistan is not bound by the deal’s logistics or legal obligations. That means it cannot be blamed for non-compliance by either side. It can instead play the role of supporter — pushing for Palestinian reconstruction, calling for accountability, and maintaining an independent voice.
In foreign policy, distance can be a form of power. By not being trapped in the enforcement net, Pakistan can speak freely. It can support Palestine without being forced to defend a deal built on fragile compromises.
This decision also protects Pakistan’s position in global financial systems. Reconstruction funds will flow through international channels that often carry political expectations. Staying outside that circle allows Islamabad to choose its level of engagement.
What Comes Next
The next phase will test everyone involved.
Israel will push the limits of what it can delay.
Guarantor states will face pressure from both public opinion and Western partners.
Aid and reconstruction contracts will become tools of influence.
Palestinian groups will demand unity and recognition.
Each move will expose how much of this deal is real and how much is theater.
The cameras will soon turn away, but that is when the real test begins. The measure of this ceasefire will not be in the ceremonies, but in what happens in silence — when no one is watching, and when words are no longer enough.
The Final Word:
The ceasefire is now law. The deal has been signed. Lives will be spared, but the occupation remains. It is a pause, not peace. It offers hope, but also risk.
Pakistan’s decision to stay out of the guarantor framework is no act of hesitation. It is clarity. It reflects a foreign policy built on principle and prudence. We have moral ground, national interest, and public sentiment aligned on one front: until Palestinians themselves agree, and until credible guarantees for their security and political sovereignty exist, Pakistan will not bind itself to any irreversible commitment.
If the guarantors prove capable, if real legal mechanisms emerge, Pakistan can reassess. But for now, our line is clear: we will support humanitarian relief, uphold political autonomy, and reject any role that contradicts our people’s will.
Most states inside this framework are already tied to Israel. Their intelligence links, arms trade, and energy partnerships define the new regional map. Even those not formally aligned are connected through the India–Middle East–Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), which competes directly with China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). That is why Pakistan stands outside, not as an outlier, but as a counterweight.
Only two Muslim countries remain beyond this structure: Pakistan and Indonesia. Both reject diplomatic relations with Israel. But Indonesia’s position is shifting. Its leadership has quietly discussed the Abraham Accords with Washington. Jakarta’s recent offer of 20,000 troops for Gaza “stabilization” reflects a move toward inclusion in the emerging security system.
Pakistan has chosen a different path. It refused to join because the deal offers no framework against Israeli violations. The record is consistent — Israel has broken every ceasefire and agreement it has ever signed. If that happens again, Pakistan must not be caught inside the fallout.
Islamabad also made its stance clear: Tony Blair cannot be accepted as a guarantor or overseer. His past roles in Iraq and Libya brought destruction, not peace.
Pakistan’s position stands on firm moral and strategic ground.
-
It does not recognize Israel, and that is a permanent doctrine.
-
It insists that any administrative or political solution must include Palestinian self-determination.
-
It will not endorse any plan that serves American or Israeli regional interests at the expense of Arab independence.
Israel’s ongoing siege, starvation policies, and civilian bombings in Gaza are not accidental. They reflect a colonial mindset. Accepting a deal shaped by Trump, Netanyahu, or Blair would mean abandoning the principles Pakistan has upheld for decades.
The countries that normalized relations with Israel could not restrain it. Their influence stopped at symbolic air drops. If they failed, Pakistan’s inclusion would change nothing.
Even worse, some Gulf states have already begun building “post-Hamas” security structures on the ground. One state is reportedly funding the “Yasser Abu Shabab Militia Project” in coordination with Israel — an effort to stabilize occupation under a new label.
There are no talks between Pakistan and Israel. There are no secret normalization plans. That file is closed. After the new Saudi–Pakistan defense agreement and the changed Middle Eastern landscape of 2025, there is no such opening.
Yes, Pakistan once had clear conditions: a lasting solution for Kashmir, an independent Palestinian state, war crime accountability for Netanyahu, and nuclear parity for Saudi Arabia. None of that happened. The board has shifted.
Today, Trump speaks only of a “supervisory committee” to ensure implementation. That has nothing to do with recognition. Anyone claiming Pakistan is normalizing ties with Israel is either misled or malicious. The leadership and the people remain among Israel’s strongest critics, not out of ideology, but because of its documented war crimes and illegal occupation.
As a strategic foresight analyst, I view Netanyahu’s “Greater Israel” map as the clearest sign that this ceasefire will collapse. It follows a familiar pattern: redraw the mental map first, then the physical one. Every negotiation, every truce, becomes a tactical pause, not a shift in policy.
What we are witnessing is the blueprint of economic domination — control over water, energy, and trade routes where instability itself becomes a tool of governance.
The Western dilemma is equally transparent. Washington and Brussels will protest, but their divided reactions normalize Israeli expansion and erode the credibility of international mediation.
No matter how ambitious the reconstruction frameworks look, they will crumble the moment they clash with Israel’s long-term territorial goals. This is not peace. It is a pause before the next storm.
To understand this logic, you must return to 1923, to Ze’ev Jabotinsky’s essay The Iron Wall. It laid the ideological foundation for Zionist expansion. It argued that Palestinians would never accept colonization voluntarily, so Jewish settlement must advance behind an “iron wall” of military power that cannot be breached. Only after crushing resistance, he wrote, could negotiations begin.
That essay still defines Israel’s political DNA. It is not history. It is strategy. The Iron Wall means domination through force, protected by Western guarantees. It is Realpolitik at its rawest — create facts on the ground, then negotiate when the enemy is too weak to resist.
This is not an abstract philosophy. It is a colonial-economic system, first shielded by Britain, now by the United States. The hypocrisy is constant: the West preaches peace while financing the wall that blocks it.
The danger ahead is structural. Every “peace framework,” every “reconstruction plan,” every “normalization initiative” will collapse because it stands on that same Iron Wall. The logic demands endless control. It cannot coexist with sovereignty.
But 2025 is not 1923. The Arab world is no longer isolated. Iran, a politically awakened Muslim public, and multipolar powers like China and Russia now stand behind the resistance. The Iron Wall may stand for a time, but it will ultimately fall under the same weight it was built to suppress.
The deal may have ended the bombing, but it has not ended the war. It has only changed its form — from airstrikes to agreements, from soldiers to signatures.
Comments
Post a Comment