Pakistan opposition, religious parties slam Shehbaz Sharif’s Gaza Board decision

Pakistan’s largest opposition party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI)—founded by jailed former Prime Minister Imran Khan and currently chaired by Gohar Ali Khan—said in a statement that it does not accept the Pakistani government’s decision to join the Board of Peace.

In its statement, PTI emphasized that decisions of such international significance should be made with full transparency and in consultation with all major political stakeholders.

Even though PTI considers the current parliament illegitimate, it said, the government should have engaged openly within the available parliamentary framework before taking major decisions.

PTI Sen. Syed Ali Zafar criticized the government’s decision, calling its haste “inappropriate and incomprehensible” and noting that it failed to inform parliament on such an important matter.

Naeem said the board represents a system aimed at seizing Palestinian land and resources, and that the American presence in Gaza under the guise of reconstruction is unacceptable.

Ameer-ul Azeem, the general secretary of JIP, told The Media Line that “the party has strongly opposed the formation of the Gaza board and Pakistan’s participation in it,” calling it against national interests.

He warned that “if the board’s activities create difficulties for the people of Gaza, protests and resistance would be launched not only in Pakistan but worldwide.”

One of Pakistan’s oldest and most organized Islamist parties, JIP retains strong street power despite fluctuating electoral fortunes, particularly on issues such as foreign policy and Palestine.

During the Israel-Hamas conflict, the party organized large pro-Hamas rallies across the country, including in Islamabad, while its welfare wing, Alkhidmat Foundation, provided significant humanitarian assistance to Gaza and continues to operate various relief camps across the territory.

Fazl-ur-Rehman, head of Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI), the clerics’ party, also rejected the Gaza board, saying that “any so-called peace board in the presence [of] Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is completely unacceptable.”

In a fiery speech in Pakistan’s parliament, Rehman vehemently rejected Pakistan’s participation and questioned how a so-called peace initiative could include the Israeli prime minister while excluding Palestinians.

He warned against any move to disarm Hamas, accused the United States of leaving Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya in ruins under the guise of peace, and said Palestine was now facing the same fate.

Rehman said Pakistan’s deep moral and religious bond with Palestinians was being undermined by foreign pressure. He questioned why Pakistani passports still bar travel to Israel if Israel’s UN membership is being used to justify engagement. Rehman also accused the government of making major decisions without consulting the parliament or the cabinet, calling it a serious lack of transparency in policymaking.

Defending the government’s decision to join the Board of Peace, Federal Minister for Planning, Development and Reform Ahsan Iqbal told the National Assembly that “staying out would have exposed Pakistan to criticism for diplomatic isolation.”

Iqbal said Pakistan was among eight Muslim countries invited to participate in the board to help safeguard Palestinian rights and advance peace, urging critics to note that key Muslim states, including Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the UAE, Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, and Morocco, were also part of the initiative.

His remarks came amid strong opposition and criticism during a joint parliamentary session.

Analysts warn that the government is likely to face considerable challenges in the coming days regarding its participation in the Board of Peace. There are fears that religious parties could capitalize on strong public sentiment against Israel and in support of Palestine.

If these parties unite on the issue, the government could find itself in a tough spot. With significant street influence and potential support from opposition parties, Pakistan’s religious groups could create a major political challenge to the government’s decision.

Muhammad Shareh Qazi, a Lahore-based foreign policy analyst, told The Media Line that Pakistan views the Board of Peace as an international platform to legitimize and secure global recognition for Palestine and sees it as a way to acknowledge the seriousness of the Israel-Palestine conflict and explore a path toward its resolution.

Qazi said Pakistan believes that participating alongside other Muslim states will strengthen its ability to advocate for the Palestinian cause, unlike past one-sided or limited negotiations that often broke down and led to renewed fighting.

At home, he noted, the government would face opposition from right-wing religious political parties, but any potential backlash would likely remain limited as Pakistan still maintains a policy of not recognizing Israel. That policy would remain in effect even if Pakistan joined the board.

Noureen Akhtar, a policy consultant at the Islamabad Policy Research Institute, told The Media Line, “By joining the Board of Peace, Pakistan has sought to project itself as a responsible international actor that supports humanitarian relief, ceasefire efforts, and Palestinian self-determination while maintaining its clear policy of non-recognition of Israel.”

Akhtar emphasized that “the domestic context cannot be ignored,” noting that Pakistan’s foreign policy operates under intense public scrutiny when Palestine is concerned and that anti-Israel sentiment cuts across party lines.

“The lack of parliamentary consultation has allowed opposition and religious parties to frame the move as elite-driven, externally influenced, and disconnected from popular will,” she said. Looking ahead, she added that “the situation appears to be heading toward controlled damage limitation rather than escalation in policy terms.”

However, Akhtar also observed that “if street power is activated, the pressure may force Islamabad to lower its diplomatic profile on the board, highlighting once again how domestic instability constrains Pakistan’s external maneuvering.”

Sajjad Azhar, a Rawalpindi-based analyst focusing on Pakistan’s governance and political evolution, argued that the opposition parties’ call for debating Pakistan’s decision to join the Board of Peace in parliament was unnecessary.

Azhar said the prime minister holds executive authority over domestic and foreign affairs, similar to the powers of a US president.

Pakistan’s participation in the Gaza peace deal has been in preparation for months through backchannel diplomacy, Azhar noted, a process about which the opposition is fully aware.

He emphasized that the prime minister’s decision was taken with cabinet approval and the backing of the army chief, making it far from unilateral.

Right-wing parties may aim to rally public support on such issues, Azhar added, but the public is increasingly aware of the realities on the ground and no longer views these matters solely in terms of Muslims versus non-Muslims.

Unlike in the past, when such parties acted amid civil-military differences, Azhar said, the leadership is now aligned on Gaza. With key Muslim countries involved, he concluded, the public largely trusts the government and military to manage national security and foreign policy, leaving little room for opposition disruption.

Dr. Muhammad Bilal Iftikhar Khan, a Lahore-based scholar in international relations, noted that “by securing a seat on the Board of Peace, even alongside controversial figures like Prime Minister Netanyahu, the state is following the ‘Kagan doctrine,’ where America acts while secondary powers like Pakistan attempt to negotiate for relevance.”

He emphasized that “this move aims to remain within the ‘liberal house of modernity,’ reflecting the belief that the state’s survival depends on alignment with Washington’s norms.” Khan warned that any fierce rejection by opposition parties signals a profound “divide within the house that the government is dangerously underestimating.”

In addition, he said, “the move reinforces a sense of colonialism, where a Western-led board bypasses traditional institutions like the UN to impose a specific neo-liberal brand of order without domestic consensus.” He emphasized that the government’s exclusion of the parliament supports the opposition’s narrative of a new colonial power, while the ongoing “clash of civilizations” elevates the government’s fight beyond mere politics.

Khan said the split leaves Pakistan in an economic and political paradox: By aligning with the Board of Peace, the government is signaling loyalty to a US-led order it believes can translate into economic relief and international backing, yet the street power of religious and opposition parties turns that choice into a “sovereign risk,” exposing the contradictions of neo-liberal institutionalism on Pakistan’s streets.