Gaza and the Security Subcontractors: Why Pakistan Is Being Courted Again. Dr Shabir Choudhry,

 Gaza and the Security Subcontractors: Why Pakistan Is Being Courted Again.

Dr Shabir Choudhry, 20 December 2025, London.

The reported statement by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, thanking Pakistan for its “openness” to considering a role in a proposed International Stabilisation Force for Gaza, reveals far more about Washington’s geopolitical instincts than about any genuine concern for Palestinian welfare.

This is not diplomacy rooted in history, morality, or justice. It is diplomacy driven by expediency.

Gaza today is not a neutral conflict zone in need of peacekeepers. It is a devastated, besieged territory emerging from a campaign that has destroyed homes, hospitals, universities, and tens of thousands of civilian lives. Any so-called stabilisation force will not be entering a post-conflict environment shaped by consent, but an occupied landscape defined by trauma, anger, and unresolved injustice.

In this context, Pakistan’s name surfaces not because of its moral standing on Palestine, but because of its long-established role as a security subcontractor for great powers.

A troubled historical memory

For Palestinians, history matters. And Pakistan’s historical record is not neutral.

During the events of Black September in Jordan in 1970, thousands of Palestinians were killed by Jordanian forces. People have not forgotten that on Jordon’s request, Pakistani troops were sent under the command of Brigadier Zia-ul-Haq, later Pakistan’s military ruler, to deal with the unrest.

I am sure that episode remains deeply etched in Palestinian and Arab memory as a moment when Muslim solidarity gave way to regime survival and geopolitical alignment.

This history alone should caution against presenting Pakistan as a benevolent stabilising force in Gaza.

Proxy wars and the credibility problem

Pakistan’s foreign and security policy since independence has a history of relying on:

• proxy warfare,
• ideological mobilisation,
• and the instrumental use of non-state actors.
• 
  

From Kashmir to Afghanistan, this approach has left behind instability rather than peace. A state that has struggled to disentangle itself from militancy at home and abroad lacks the credibility to act as a neutral guarantor of civilian protection in one of the most politically charged conflicts on earth.

Gaza is not a UN peacekeeping mission in a post-colonial state. It is a theatre of occupation, resistance, and international hypocrisy. In view of that, Pakistan should stay out of this hotspot, as it will not add to the credibility of Pakistan; if anything, it can cause some serious problems for the country that is surrounded by many problems.

Why Washington still looks to Islamabad

If Pakistan’s record is so problematic, why does Washington still court it?

The answer is simple: control.

Pakistan offers:

• a disciplined military,
• economic dependency,
• diplomatic pliability,
• and long experience in executing externally designed security agendas.

From the Cold War to the “War on Terror,” Pakistan has repeatedly been positioned as a frontline state — not because its causes were just, but because its leadership was compliant.

Gaza now risks becoming the next chapter in this long and storied tale.

Policing the victims

Any international force that enters Gaza without Palestinian consent will inevitably be perceived not as a protector, but as an enforcer — tasked less with safeguarding civilians and more with containing resistance and stabilising Israel’s security environment.

If Pakistan participates, it will not be seen as defending Palestinian rights, but as policing Palestinian suffering.

This would fatally undermine Pakistan’s own moral claims on Kashmir, where it insists on the ‘right of self-determination’ while potentially helping suppress it elsewhere.

The larger pattern

Marco Rubio’s statement is therefore not an endorsement of Pakistan; it is a reminder of how Muslim states are selectively engaged to manage Muslim crises — not to resolve them.

Palestine does not need another stabilisation force imposed from above. It needs:

• an end to occupation,
• accountability for war crimes,
• and recognition of Palestinian political agency.

Anything less is not peacekeeping — it is damage control.

And Pakistan, once again, is being invited not to stand with the oppressed, but to serve the architects of an unjust order. END.

Dr Shabir Choudhry is a London-based political analyst, author, and expert on South Asian affairs, with a focus on Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Kashmir.