Dramatic developments in the Middle East aptly illustrate Muhammad Ismail Merathi’s verse: “Yeh do din mein kya majra ho gaya, ke jungle ka jungle hara ho gaya.” (What miracle has occurred in just two days that the entire wilderness has turned green.)
THE speed with which these events have unfolded makes it seem as though a whistle blew and the game began—but in reality the process was far more painful, akin to a woman risking her life to bring a child into the world. How this war began and whether it had any justification or not, is not the issue at this moment. The most urgent challenge before the Muslim world was to end the genocide in Gaza by any means possible.
Different parties had different formulas in mind for ending the war. The inhumane and aggressive Israel sought to annex Gaza. US President Donald Trump, driven by his business instincts, had his own designs for this land, which he expressed from time to time. The third and most critical actor was Hamas, which, owing to regional developments, had found itself increasingly isolated. The United Nations Security Council had failed to stop the bloodshed — the ceasefire resolution was vetoed six times.
Only once, during Pakistan’s tenure as a non-permanent member, did the Council manage to pass a resolution calling for an end to hostilities. That session was presided over by Pakistan’s Foreign Minister — the only such resolution the body could muster, though the goal of a ceasefire still remained distant. The real breakthrough appeared to come during the UN General Assembly session, when the leaders of eight Muslim countries met with U.S. President Donald Trump. Those nations were Pakistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Egypt, Indonesia and Jordan. That meeting proved decisive — yet, what happened before it was equally crucial, for without those prior developments, the meeting itself might never have taken place.
Just before the General Assembly, another significant event reshaped the region: the defence pact between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. This agreement altered the balance of power in the Middle East. Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar remarked that this pact could serve as the foundation of a “Muslim NATO,” since many other Muslim states had already expressed interest in joining. This is no minor development in the quest for an Islamic defence bloc, though its long-term implications belong to the future. For now, its immediate strategic effects deserve attention.
Within Pakistan, public reactions to the Saudi-Pak defence pact were mixed. Debates on social media were often unpleasant. However, when Iran welcomed the agreement and even expressed a desire to participate, all clouds of doubt seemed to clear. The Pakistan–Saudi defence pact became the master key that overturned several grand schemes —including those early plans mentioned at the beginning of this analysis: Israel’s designs to annex Gaza and Trump’s business-oriented proposal to displace Palestinians and redevelop Gaza as a separate entity.
In Surah Aal-e-Imran, the Qur’an declares: “They plotted and Allah also planned — and Allah is the best of planners.” Only God knows best, but it appears that the Pakistan–Saudi defence pact was that very divine countermeasure which upended the enemy’s plans. This agreement became the game-changer that shifted the regional balance of power, compelling decision-makers — including the United States — to take the idea of a ceasefire seriously.
In essence, the Pakistan–Saudi pact laid the groundwork for the twenty-point Trump Peace Formula. When eight key Muslim countries — including Pakistan — began engaging with the United States over the ceasefire, the question arose: Were they acting in isolation or were they also coordinating with Hamas? It was around this time that Ishaq Dar revealed that, through the mediation of another Muslim country, Hamas had conveyed its assurance that it would not derail these peace efforts. This clearly indicated that the Muslim world’s diplomacy was strategic and coordinated, with Hamas’s consultation and consent. Doubts regarding Trump’s twenty-point plan first surfaced when the matter became entangled in Pakistan’s domestic politics. Critics raised objections and the government came under pressure — particularly after it clarified that the published points were not the same as those on which consensus had been reached. At that juncture, several Muslim nations came forward in Pakistan’s support. The next major test came when President Trump issued an ultimatum to Hamas, warning of “unimaginable destruction” if they did not accept the plan by Sunday. Given Trump’s unpredictable nature, fears arose that Gaza’s suffering might intensify — yet Hamas responded with prudence, accepting the peace proposal with minor adjustments. This demonstrated two key facts:
The ceasefire efforts had Hamas’s trust and involvement, with Pakistan playing a pivotal mediatory role. There was one unified peace framework, accepted by all parties, allowing for pragmatic adjustments — as all successful accords must. In this process, Trump and other stakeholders displayed a rare sense of responsibility. Now the key question arises: What is the future of Hamas? Indeed, the entire Palestinian issues — even the dream of independence — depends on this very question.
Point 19 of the peace plan addresses this: It calls for the initiation of negotiations toward the creation of an independent State of Palestine. When read alongside Point 8, which grants amnesty to those who accept the agreement, the picture becomes clear: Palestine is now entering a new phase of political struggle rather than military confrontation. Columnist Khurshid Ahmad Nadeem once wrote wistfully that “If only Palestine had a leader like the Quaid-e-Azam.” By accepting the peace formula, Hamas has opened the path toward that very kind of political leadership and strategic maturity.
—This writer is former advisor to the President of Pakistan, author & mass media theorist.
(farooq.adilbhuta@gmail,com)
