From peacekeeper to pariah: How Asim Munir sabotaged Trump’s Gaza plan by embracing Hamas | Explained

Pakistan avoided sending troops to Gaza for a US-backed peacekeeping force after Israel rejected its involvement due to ties with Hamas and extremist groups. This exit exposed Pakistan’s ongoing reliance on militant proxies, raising doubts about its credibility.

Did our AI summary help?

Pakistan has quietly sidestepped what was shaping up to be a politically explosive demand from Washington, but not because of deft diplomacy or principled restraint. Instead, it appears to have wriggled out after once again exposing the contradictions at the heart of its foreign and security policy. As the United States pushed for an international peacekeeping force in Gaza, Pakistan found itself trapped between pleasing Donald Trump and managing domestic outrage, Islamist sentiment, and the military’s long-standing patronage of extremist groups.

The outcome has been telling. Israel has now made it clear that it does not want the Pakistan Army anywhere near Gaza, citing Islamabad’s deepening links with Hamas and Pakistan-based terror outfits. For Pakistan’s military leadership, this rejection has come as a convenient escape route from an uncomfortable commitment. At the same time, it has reinforced global doubts about Pakistan’s credibility as a security partner and highlighted the double game being played by Army chief Asim Munir.

How Pakistan landed itself in trouble

The United States has been working on the idea of an International Stabilisation Force for Gaza to oversee reconstruction and economic recovery after the war. Washington approached several Muslim-majority countries, including Pakistan, to contribute troops. This placed Munir in a bind. Public opinion in Pakistan remains hostile to the US, and sending troops to Gaza under an American-led framework would have triggered backlash from Islamist groups and the military’s own support base. Refusing outright, however, risked straining ties with Trump at a time when Munir has been seeking closer engagement in Washington.

Instead of distancing itself from militant networks, Pakistan doubled down on familiar tactics. Islamabad hosted Naji Zaheer, described as a special representative of Hamas leader Khaled Mashal, at a Lashkar-e-Taiba camp in Gujranwala. Zaheer was the chief guest and was seen interacting with operatives linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed. Videos from the gathering showed chants of “Naara-e-Takbeer” and “Allahu Akbar” as he was introduced. Reports say he also met LeT commander Rashid Ali Sandhu at the event organised by the Pakistan Markazi Muslim League, the political front of LeT.

According to reports cited by News18, “It is a clear message to the world that Pakistan will host every global jihadist actor. This was an institutional push and not accidental presence. It is an example of how Pakistan-based groups provide logistical, ideological, and political support to international extremist groups.”

This outreach was not symbolic theatre alone but part of a growing Hamas–Lashkar nexus encouraged under Munir’s watch. Zaheer’s earlier meetings with Jaish-e-Mohammed leaders, his appearances at Islamist conferences in Karachi, and his access to Pakistani institutions point to coordination rather than coincidence. These interactions have taken place even as Pakistan publicly claims to be distancing itself from global jihadist movements to avoid renewed scrutiny by watchdogs such as the FATF.

Israel draws a clear line

These developments have had direct consequences. Israel has now rejected any role for the Pakistan Army in Gaza. Israel’s ambassador to India, Reuven Azar, told NDTV that his country is uncomfortable with Pakistan’s involvement because of its growing ties with Hamas and Pakistan-based terror groups. He said countries cooperate only with those they trust and with whom they have proper diplomatic relations, adding, “This is not the situation right now.”

For Pakistan, Israel’s rejection has provided a face-saving exit. Munir is expected to travel to the United States in the coming weeks, where he will meet Trump for the third time in six months. New Delhi is watching these interactions closely, particularly in light of Pakistan’s attempts to position itself as a mediator abroad while enabling extremist networks at home.

Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar had earlier said Islamabad could consider peacekeeping duties, but added that “disarming Hamas is not our responsibility.” The statement underlined Pakistan’s refusal to confront groups it has historically nurtured, even when those ties undermine its international standing.

What experts are saying

Indian experts have been blunt. Lt General DP Pandey (Retd) told India Today, “What can Hamas teach Pakistan and its proxies? How to get its own people destroyed and killed? Pakistan has already mastered the art.”

Senior Supreme Court advocate Mahesh Jethmalani said, “So much for grand talks of ‘Pakistan Army boots on the ground’ in Gaza. Turns out the boots didn’t go anywhere. The terrorists came to Pakistan instead. Hamas terrorist Naji Zaheer turns up as chief guest at a Lashkar-e-Taiba terror camp in Gujranwala. The question answers itself.”

Others argue the move was aimed at domestic optics. Political scientist Ayesha Siddiqa told The Print that the engagement was largely symbolic and intended to rebuild the army’s image after Gaza-related anger inside Pakistan. She described it as an image-building exercise rather than a strategic shift.

What the ISF plan involves

Under Trump’s Gaza plan, the International Stabilisation Force would include troops from Muslim nations and be led by a US two-star general. While the US has set up a headquarters in Israel to coordinate reconstruction, Washington has insisted there will be no American troops on the ground. Countries invited to discussions in Qatar included Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, the UAE, Indonesia, and others. Turkey was notably excluded.

In the end, Pakistan’s escape from Gaza duty has come at a cost. The Hamas outreach that helped Islamabad avoid sending troops has once again exposed its reliance on extremist proxies as a tool of policy. Far from emerging as a responsible stakeholder, Pakistan has reinforced why trust in its military role remains scarce, and why its claims of reform continue to ring hollow for both India and the wider international community.