Pakistan’s decision to join United States President Donald Trump’s newly announced “Board of Peace for Gaza” has triggered a wave of domestic criticism, with opposition leaders, former diplomats and political commentators questioning both the intent and the implications of Islamabad’s move. Critics argue that the government may have underestimated the political and moral costs of aligning itself so closely with a US-led initiative that they say sidelines Palestinian self-rule and weakens established international institutions.
On Wednesday, Pakistan formally confirmed that it had accepted Trump’s invitation to become part of the body tasked with overseeing a post-war settlement and reconstruction process in Gaza. The initiative, according to Washington, is aimed at ending the conflict and creating what Trump has described as a durable framework for peace. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif was invited to participate in the board, which the US says will play a central role in stabilisation, governance and rebuilding efforts in the territory.
While the government presented the decision as a constructive step toward peace, the announcement immediately drew sharp reactions across Pakistan’s political spectrum. Many critics warned that the move risked placing Pakistan on the wrong side of a deeply sensitive international issue and could undermine its long-standing stance on Palestinian rights.
Senate opposition leader Allama Raja Nasir Abbas described the decision as morally indefensible and strategically flawed. In a post on X, he argued that the very structure of the initiative undermines the principle of Palestinian self-determination by transferring authority over Gaza’s future to external actors rather than its own people.
He said the plan was deeply problematic from the outset, portraying it as an externally imposed arrangement for post-war Gaza that effectively strips Palestinians of their right to govern themselves. By placing control over reconstruction, security and political oversight in the hands of outside powers, Abbas warned, the initiative bears the hallmarks of a neo-colonial project, adding that such arrangements often extend far beyond temporary administration.
Similar concerns were raised by Mustafa Nawaz Khokhar, a leader of Tehreek-i-Tahafuz-i-Ayeen-i-Pakistan, who criticised the government for joining the board without consulting parliament or seeking broader political consensus. He said the decision reflected a lack of transparency and accountability on an issue of profound national and international importance.
Khokhar argued that the so-called Board of Peace appears designed to create a parallel structure that bypasses the United Nations. Quoting the board’s stated aim of being more “nimble and effective” than existing institutions, he warned that its charter grants Trump sweeping authority to advance his personal and US strategic agenda, without adequate safeguards to prevent unilateral or one-sided outcomes.
Former ambassador to the United States, the United Kingdom and the United Nations, Maleeha Lodhi, also weighed in, calling Pakistan’s participation an unwise move. In a post on X, she said the government had failed to recognise that Trump’s objective in inviting countries to join the board was to secure international legitimacy for actions that would largely be unilateral in nature.
Lodhi added that the board’s mandate appeared far broader than Gaza alone, extending into wider global conflict management, which, in her view, was another strong reason for Pakistan to stay out. By joining, she warned, Islamabad risked endorsing a framework that could dilute multilateral decision-making and marginalise the UN.
Author and journalist Zahid Hussain echoed these concerns, arguing that Pakistan had acted hastily. Speaking to Dawn, he said Islamabad should have waited to observe how other countries responded before committing itself. By joining early, he warned, Pakistan risked becoming entangled in what he described as Trump’s adventurism and a governance structure that could erode the authority of the United Nations and the broader international order. He questioned whether the move was driven by principle or by a desire to remain in Washington’s good graces.
In response to the criticism, Pakistan’s Foreign Office said the government hoped the board would help secure a permanent ceasefire, expand humanitarian assistance and accelerate reconstruction in Gaza. It emphasised that any political process must ultimately lead to Palestinian self-determination through a credible and time-bound framework in line with UN resolutions, resulting in an independent and sovereign Palestinian state based on pre-1967 borders with Jerusalem as its capital.
The Board of Peace initiative has been extended to several countries. India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Russian President Vladimir Putin have also received invitations, though both countries are yet to announce a final decision on participation.
