Islamabad – Pakistani journalist Hamid Mir, while discussing the recent Gaza ceasefire deal on his YouTube channel, claimed that the Two-State Solution (TSS) presented in the Gaza peace plan contradicts Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s position.

His remarks have drawn sharp criticism for distorting Pakistan’s historic and principled stance on Palestine, a stance rooted in justice, sovereignty, and the right to self-determination. Analysts say Mir’s interpretation misrepresents Jinnah’s vision and politicises a humanitarian issue for media attention.

Pakistan’s Historic Position

Pakistan’s stance on Palestine has remained consistent, supporting a sovereign, viable Palestinian state within pre-1967 borders with Al-Quds Al-Sharif as its capital. The TSS is not a Western construct but a globally and regionally endorsed framework, backed by the United Nations, Organization of Islamic Countries, and Arab League.

Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s 1947 letter to the United States President Truman rejected the UN-imposed partition of Palestine, not the concept of Palestinian statehood. Analysts argue that Hamid Mir’s claim omits this key distinction, distorting history for sensational effect.

Over the decades, Arab-Israeli wars in 1948, 1967, and 1973 reshaped the regional landscape, paving the way for the Oslo and Camp David Accords, through which the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), and later even Hamas, signalled readiness to pursue a negotiated two-state framework.

Ceasefire and Humanitarian Context

Mir’s remarks came amid reports that Hamas and the Palestinian leadership approved a ceasefire, marking a major step toward ending the two-year-long Israeli assault that has killed at least 67,211 Palestinians and injured over 169,961 since October 2023.

Meanwhile, 1,139 Israelis were killed in the October 7 attacks, with around 200 people taken captive. As the ceasefire takes hold, tens of thousands of displaced Palestinians are returning to their devastated homes in northern Gaza.

However, Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) have rejected “any foreign guardianship” over Gaza and called for independent investigations into war crimes and genocide committed during the conflict.

Disinformation and Its Impact

Analysts have accused Mir of yellow journalism, saying his claim contradicts both historical reality and Pakistan’s moral position. His attempt to equate Pakistan’s support for the TSS with “blindly following foreign agendas” ignores the evolution of global and regional diplomacy over decades.

“Even Quaid-e-Azam adjusted his political formulas to changing conditions, from accepting to later withdrawing from the 1946 Cabinet Mission Plan. To use selective history to fuel controversy is misleading,” one commentator noted.

This is not the first time Hamid Mir has courted controversy. His sensationalist style has often drawn criticism for amplifying misinformation, including during the Lal Masjid crisis, when exaggerated media narratives fueled public unrest.

Observers warn that in a time when Pakistan is already grappling with widespread disinformation, such clickbait-driven commentary risks inciting division and chaos. By exploiting sensitive foreign policy matters for viewership, journalists like Mir undermine the credibility of responsible media and the country’s collective stance on issues of moral and national significance.

Also See: The Burden of the Truce