The Peacekeeping Mirage
THE CLAIM: Al Jazeera's report highlights a perceived willingness in Pakistan to contribute troops to a Gaza peacekeeping mission, provided it operates under a UN mandate and involves an 'alliance of Muslim countries'. This positions the public's desire to act as a potential stabilizing force, aligning with international norms for conflict resolution. THE EVIDENCE: The article cites a survey
indicating significant public support. However, specific details of this survey, beyond its top-level findings, are not provided. The notion of a UN-sanctioned force is presented as a prerequisite for Pakistani involvement, as is the participation of Muslim-majority nations. This reflects a desire to avoid unilateral action and to operate within a perceived legitimate framework. THE
CONTRADICTIONS: The premise of 'peacekeeping' in Gaza, as elsewhere, rests on the existence of a peace to keep. With ongoing occupation, blockade, and military operations by a nuclear-armed state against a largely dispossessed population, the term 'peacekeeping' requires scrutiny. Since the 1948 Nakba, which saw over 750,000 Palestinians expelled and 500+ villages destroyed, UN resolutions often
serve more as documentation of unmet demands than as foundations for lasting peace. In this context, a 'peacekeeping' force risks becoming a component of managing the occupation rather than ending it. THE NETWORK: The call for a 'UN-backed' force, while seemingly benign, fits a pattern. The UN, particularly its Security Council, is often paralyzed by veto powers held by permanent members, notably