The announcement of President Donald Trump’s 20-point Gaza peace proposal has drawn sharp international attention, particularly over one controversial element involving Pakistan’s reported offer to contribute soldiers to the new International Stabilisation Force.

According to emerging reports, Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff, General Asim Munir, has allegedly indicated financial terms for troop deployment, sparking a wave of criticism over claims that the country is monetising peacekeeping participation.

The broader proposal, unveiled by Washington as part of a new Middle East peace framework, aims to establish immediate calm and stabilisation following months of destructive conflict in Gaza. Central to the plan is the creation of a temporary International Stabilisation Force (ISF), which would deploy swiftly to provide security and humanitarian oversight.

Its duties include training and supervising vetted Palestinian police units, securing Gaza’s border crossings with support from Israel and Egypt, and preventing renewed arms smuggling through underground routes and maritime access points.

In addition, the ISF would coordinate closely with regional governments and aid agencies to facilitate the free and safe movement of goods and supplies vital to reconstruction and civilian welfare. President 

Trump emphasised that the initiative is designed to rebuild trust, promote economic recovery, and create the conditions for a long-term political settlement.

The peace structure specifically excludes a direct American military presence, stressing that regional ownership of the peacekeeping effort is critical to local legitimacy and long-term sustainability.

Within this context, Pakistan’s alleged offer has provoked widespread debate. Reports circulating in regional media claim that General Munir proposed participation based on financial compensation—reportedly suggesting that Israel or international donors pay a fee for each deployed Pakistani soldier. 

Critics within Pakistan argue that this represents a severe departure from the country’s traditional proportional peacekeeping role under United Nations command, where contributions are based on collective global mandates rather than direct bilateral payments.

Opposition figures and human rights activists within Pakistan have raised alarm about the ethical implications of such an approach. They warn that monetising troop participation undermines national dignity and risks turning the Pakistan Army into a mercenary force for hire.

Defenders of the proposal, however, contend that Pakistan’s significant financial constraints and its long-standing expertise in UN peacekeeping operations justify the request for logistical funding. They maintain that the funds would cover deployment expenses, risk allowances, and rehabilitation of equipment, rather than serve as profits.

Analysts note that if confirmed, the deal could mark a new and untested precedent in international crisis management—placing regional militaries under quasi-commercial terms of engagement. Such an arrangement could appeal to both Washington and Tel Aviv, as it would allow stabilisation efforts without direct Western intervention.

Nonetheless, it simultaneously poses diplomatic risks for Islamabad, particularly among domestic audiences and Muslim-majority allies wary of any overt cooperation with Israel.

The Israeli government has not officially responded to rumours of General Munir’s financial terms, though some security officials have privately acknowledged that a multinational Arab-led presence would be preferable to Israeli occupation or direct international enforcement. Egyptian channels are reportedly examining potential coordination mechanisms, with Amman and Abu Dhabi also approached to contribute limited contingents to the force.

Meanwhile, the United Nations has remained cautious, citing legal and operational uncertainties surrounding any international deployment outside a formal UN mandate. Experts warn that without UN oversight, the ISF could fragment into competing agendas, further complicating Gaza’s fragile security architecture.

For Pakistan, the matter touches not only economic leverage but also identity, as it must balance diplomatic engagement with moral consistency in line with public sentiment towards the Palestinian cause.

If the reports of financial bargaining are substantiated, Islamabad would face significant reputational fallout. Yet if handled transparently within a multilateral framework, Pakistan could still play a constructive role in regional peacekeeping, offering trained personnel with decades of operational experience.

The coming weeks will likely determine whether this episode deepens Pakistan’s international isolation or recasts its position as a pragmatic contributor to Middle Eastern stability.

Based On Mirror Now Video Report