The inaugural meeting of the Board of Peace in Washington unfolded with grandeur but little clarity, leaving more questions than answers about its true purpose. While the gathering drew representatives from nearly fifty nations, the most significant outcome for Pakistan was the announcement that it would not be among the five states contributing troops to the proposed International Stabilisation Force (ISF) in Gaza. This decision, rooted in prudence, spared Pakistan from entanglement in a mission whose mandate remains vague and whose implications could prove deeply problematic.

Beyond this, the meeting was dominated by lofty rhetoric about “peace” and pledges of billions of dollars for Gaza’s reconstruction. Yet the promises remain uncertain, as Israel continues to control access to the territory and has already signaled that no rebuilding will occur until Gaza is demilitarised. This condition effectively places Palestinian resistance groups, particularly Hamas, at the center of contention, raising doubts about whether the initiative is genuinely aimed at humanitarian relief or at advancing Israeli strategic interests.

The ISF itself is to be led by an American general, with Indonesia committing around 8,000 troops. Jakarta has been careful to stress that its participation is strictly humanitarian, with no combat role envisioned. This distinction is crucial, as any confrontation with Palestinian fighters would be politically untenable in Indonesia and across the wider Muslim world. The insistence by Washington and Tel Aviv that Hamas must be disarmed underscores the risk that the force could be drawn into roles far beyond humanitarian assistance, potentially undermining its credibility and alienating Muslim populations.

Pakistan’s refusal to contribute troops reflects sound judgment. The ISF and the Board of Peace remain experimental constructs without a clear framework, and the possibility of being drawn into operations that pit Muslim forces against Palestinians is a red flag that cannot be ignored. Reports that the United States intends to construct a large base in Gaza only deepen suspicions. Without transparency, such a facility would be perceived as an extension of American influence and a covert means of supporting Israel’s occupation.

Optimism was on display in Washington, but Palestinians remain skeptical. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has already declared that reconstruction will not proceed until Gaza is demilitarised, effectively granting Israel an invisible veto over the process. This reality casts doubt on whether the Board of Peace can deliver meaningful change or whether it will simply reinforce existing power dynamics.

President Donald Trump assured participants that “we will help Gaza,” but Palestinians have yet to see tangible relief. Since last October’s ceasefire, Israel has continued its military operations, with hundreds killed and tens of thousands more casualties reported. The toll of violence has surpassed 72,000, according to some estimates, underscoring the urgency of genuine humanitarian intervention. Yet the Washington meeting offered no concrete commitments to halt Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank, which a recent UN report described as resembling ethnic cleansing.

While Muslim states, including Pakistan and Indonesia, voiced support for Palestinian rights, the absence of firm guarantees from Washington leaves the initiative hollow. Without clarity on the ISF’s mandate and without assurances that Palestinian sovereignty will be respected, expecting the Board of Peace to chart a path toward liberation is unrealistic. For now, the spectacle of Washington’s gathering has overshadowed substance, leaving Palestinians doubtful and the world questioning whether this experiment can deliver more than rhetoric.