The current situation in Gaza is not merely a military conflict but a multidimensional humanitarian crisis, where the destruction of infrastructure, the suspension of health and education systems, the severe shortage of food and medicines, and large-scale internal displacement have paralyzed collective life.
Although the West Bank is also not safe from Israeli actions, the ongoing direct and intense bombing and ground operations in Gaza have turned the loss of human lives into a tragedy. In such circumstances, if through any mechanism an immediate ceasefire and the prompt establishment of peace can be made possible, thereby stopping the brutal killing and bloodshed, thousands of lives could be saved, which could halt the continuation of the genocide of Palestinians. In light of the objective conditions, the Board of Peace under the leadership of US President Donald Trump can be tolerated as such an initiative that may prove to be a ray of hope for Palestinians.
It should also be kept in view that Israel’s recent policies in the West Bank have pushed the conflict into a new phase. The Israeli cabinet has approved a plan to declare Palestinian land as “state land” and register it in its own name, for which dozens of new positions have been created and millions of dollars allocated from 2026 to 2030. Apparently, Israel presents this as an administrative and legal process, but in reality it is the restoration of the land registration process suspended since 1967, through which Area C is gradually being brought under Israeli civil governance. This area comprises approximately 62 percent of the West Bank’s territory and most of its natural resources. Thus, through an extremely cunning maneuver, instead of open war, a strategy of “administrative annexation” is being adopted, which can become a means of altering long-term geographical and demographic realities. This action by Israel is an open violation of international law, particularly United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 2334, as well as the Fourth Geneva Convention.
In this context, the question of the utility of the Gaza Board of Peace becomes even more significant. If, in the West Bank, ground realities are being altered through gradual annexation and legal technicalities, and in Gaza direct military force is being used, then a multinational framework like the Board of Peace, which at least ensures an immediate ceasefire and stabilization, becomes even more indispensable in the context of preventing the loss of human lives. Pakistan’s decision to join this Board, in this context, may not be ideal but appears understandable and logical in view of the situation in Gaza, because Pakistan has historically supported the Palestinian right of self-determination and has consistently highlighted this position at the diplomatic level. Pakistan’s participation in this Board will at least help in raising a voice which, together with other countries, may also prove to be resonant.
However, Indonesia’s participation has taken the form of a bold and challenging development in this entire scenario. The announcement by President Prabowo Subianto’s government of preparations to deploy up to eight thousand troops in the proposed multinational Gaza stabilization force under the Board of Peace is not merely a military decision but is being seen as an attempt to chart a new course in foreign policy direction. This step indicates that Jakarta wishes to move beyond traditional diplomatic statements and play a role in resolving the crisis through timely practical participation. In this context, this decision invites other Muslim and regional countries as well to consider whether they will remain limited to condemnatory resolutions in the face of Israeli atrocities in Gaza or whether they have the courage to participate on the ground in the establishment of peace and stability.
Undoubtedly, this may prove to be a severe test for Indonesia’s “Free and Active” foreign policy, whose ideological foundation is linked to the Bandung Conference and the Djuanda Declaration. In an environment like Gaza, which is complex and militarily and politically volatile like a volcano, military deployment can not only give rise to security risks but can also challenge the diplomatic tradition of neutrality and balance. However, this is precisely the point where diplomacy moves beyond mere principled statements and transforms into practical responsibility. If the establishment of the peace force can ensure an effective ceasefire, protection of civilians, and the uninterrupted delivery of humanitarian aid, then this step, in view of the current humanitarian tragedy, objective conditions, and the demands of the time, can emerge as an active and results-oriented model in international diplomacy.
It is also a fact that the Gaza mission cannot be considered similar to a traditional United Nations-style peace mission. Here, humanitarian requirements and military objectives remain in conflict, and the presence of any external force is viewed, assessed, and responded to vigorously by the parties from different angles. Despite this, a complete vacuum and inaction are in no way acceptable. In such a situation, a peace force established under an organized and clear mandate can at least help, at the immediate level, in stopping bloodshed, providing protection to the civilian population, and creating a secure environment for the initial phase of reconstruction. Therefore, although this decision may become a difficult test for the foreign policies of Indonesia and other potential participating countries, in view of the current humanitarian tragedy the establishment of a peace force appears as an indispensable necessity. However, it should also remain clear that the Gaza Board of Peace can assist in a final political solution but cannot be a complete substitute. The roots of the Palestinian issue are embedded in historical, legal, and geographical factors, whose resolution is not possible without the two-state formula, international guarantees, and genuine sovereignty. If this Board remains limited merely to temporary stabilization and sidelines the question of Palestinian self-determination, its utility will become limited. Similarly, if the process of administrative annexation continues in the West Bank and the international community refrains from giving an effective response, the foundation of any peace initiative will remain weak.
Consequently, the Gaza Board of Peace is at present both an opportunity and a test. It is an opportunity to provide immediate protection to human lives and to save Gaza from being swallowed by Israel. It is also a test that participating countries maintain their principled stance and strategic balance while playing an effective role within a controversial and complex framework; otherwise, Israel will immediately begin to achieve success in advancing its obstinacy and objectives. For Pakistan, it is necessary to use this platform to continue adding its voice in favor of Palestinian self-determination, a permanent ceasefire, and a just political solution. If this balance is maintained, this initiative can prove to be an important development not only for Gaza but also for broader stability in the Middle East, and it may provide Muslim and Arab countries with a time and opportunity to create unity in their ranks so that they possess the power to give a political, diplomatic, and logical response to such aggression in the future.
