The launch of the 20-point peace plan of the Trump administration in Gaza was bound to be full of challenges, with its ambitions and the highly polarized situation in the region. However, in an environment of profound distrust, the message relayed by the Foreign Minister of Pakistan, Ishaq Dar, puts forward a procedural hurdle that strikes at the very heart of the document’s legitimacy. The claim made by Dar that the published final plan was “changed and altered” to be different from the one the regional partners had gone through is not only a political gambit; it is a serious charge of compromised diplomatic integrity.
A Crisis of Confidence, Not Just Content
The key to any peace agreement, especially one that is intended to solve a conflict as intractable as that in Gaza, lies in mutual trust and the integrity of the procedure involved in drafting it. The viability of the American-led project was based on the demonstration of a united front, which incorporates regional powers, whose collaboration is most crucial in the implementation, whether in security guarantees or in economic reconstruction coordination.
In case the end text is not consistent with the negotiated terms, as Foreign Minister Dar asserts, it would be indicative of a significant lack of consistency in the US mediation role. This contradiction instantly puts the content of the document and the validity of the whole process into question. When a major regional actor such as Pakistan, whose buy-in was paramount to provide multilateral support to the initiative, claims publicly that the end product fails to meet their perception, the momentum for peace stalls.
Implications for Regional Buy-in
The main flaw of the 20-point proposal was that it was created without the high-level consultation with the Palestinian side. In order to overcome this, the plan depended on the rapid approval of its major Arab and regional partners. These approvals were to give political cover and the logistical assistance needed to translate the plan on paper to reality.
The revelation of Dar threatens this delicate alliance. It compels other supporting countries to silently wonder whether they were making their choices based on false assumptions. If the material alterations relate to critical security provisions, such as the formation and mandate of the proposed International Stabilization Force (ISF), or the specific terms of demilitarization, the regional partners who were to be relied upon for ground support may now feel their security interests were unilaterally reshaped. This leads to a climate of extreme reservations wherein the requisite commitments, like financial investment or troop utilization, are most probably to be withheld until the provenance of the document can be determined.
The Path to Procedural Transparency
The way out is through openness, not obstinacy. To make the 20-point plan viable, the US administration has to address the discrepancy mentioned by Pakistan immediately. It is not just a problem of policy; it is a question of integrity in diplomatic relations.
An enduring peace cannot be established on a vague document or a bedrock of regional skepticism. If the international community, including those nations initially inclined to support the plan, cannot be certain that the document they endorsed is the same one being enforced, the likelihood of a successful transition in Gaza drops precipitously. It is time to halt the diplomatic campaign, reveal the supposed changes, and initiate an authentically inclusive process, one in which all stakeholders, such as regional allies and, more importantly, the Palestinians, can trust the text they read.
