Gaza Peace Board: A Peace Initiative or a New hi Global Power Struggle?
The inaugural session of the Gaza Peace Board in Washington has created ripples across the geopolitical landscape. On the surface, the meeting aimed at peace in Gaza, but in reality, it encapsulates the complex interplay of global powers, the United Nations, Israel’s strategic calculations, the Muslim world’s stance, and the delicate balance among major international blocs.
During the session, President Donald Trump warmly embraced the Pakistani Prime Minister and engaged in friendly, cordial conversation. This was not mere protocol—it was a diplomatic signal highlighting Pakistan as a crucial player in upcoming international negotiations. Pakistan’s strategic position—close to China via CPEC and allied with the United States—positions it as a pivotal actor in the emerging global blocs.
The Board emphasized that it is not a parallel body to the UN but intends to cooperate with it. Peace was framed not only through human rights but also via the lenses of security and stability, closely aligned with Israeli security priorities. The inclusion of Western allies and Turkey’s potential peace force added both diplomatic and military dimensions to the forum.
Israel’s approach remains cautious and strategic. It will only accept the Board’s recommendations if they do not threaten its security, weaken Hamas and Palestinian resistance, or restrict Israel’s strategic freedom. Thus, Israel plans to leverage the Board for legal and diplomatic cover rather than genuine peace.
The U.S. objective is clear: to exercise direct influence over the Gaza peace process, provide Israel with legal protection, and limit Chinese and Russian influence. This likely explains why the Board’s recommendations may be formally submitted to the UN General Assembly and Security Council, giving them international legitimacy while countering opposing narratives.
Global reactions vary: China labeled the initiative as unilateral and stressed UN-led resolution; Russia called parallel structures a threat to the international system; Iran described it as a pro-Israel plan aimed at weakening Palestinian resistance. Turkey’s potential peace force signals ambitions to lead within the Muslim world and expand regional influence.
The United Kingdom has not formally joined the Board and maintains a cautious, UN-centric stance, emphasizing humanitarian aid, ceasefire, and a two-state solution.
Pakistan and the broader Muslim world show a spectrum of positions. Pakistan firmly supports Palestinian self-determination and seeks to ensure the Board does not weaken the Palestinian stance. Arab nations are divided: Gulf states cooperate with the U.S. while balancing domestic pressures; Egypt and Jordan support peace but with reservations; Qatar and others align more closely with Palestinian positions.
The upcoming UN session is likely to be highly contentious, with the world potentially divided into three blocs: Block 1—U.S. and allies supporting the Board; Block 2—China, Russia, and Global South opposing it; Block 3—UK, EU, and certain Arab countries acting as mediators. Pakistan will emerge as a key swing state, balancing influence between the two dominant blocs.
The Gaza Peace Board session is not merely about Palestine—it marks the beginning of a new global power contest. The real question is no longer whether the Board will bring peace but which power’s version of peace will prevail, and whether the Palestinian people will be active participants or merely pawns in this geopolitical chessboard.
No comments:
Post a Comment