When Pakistan’s Defense Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif confirmed on a recent Tuesday in October 2025 that deploying troops to Gaza was "still under process," he wasn’t just giving a bureaucratic update—he was walking a tightrope between national pride, regional alliances, and explosive rumors. The statement came amid mounting pressure from Washington and unverified reports of secret deals involving billions of dollars, 20,000 soldiers, and shadowy meetings in Cairo. For Pakistan, a country with deep historical ties to Palestine and a military that’s long been a key U.S. partner, the question isn’t just whether to send troops—it’s what that decision says about sovereignty, survival, and the price of alignment.
Official Stance: A Matter of Pride, Not a Done Deal
Khawaja Muhammad Asif was careful with his words. Speaking to reporters after a cabinet meeting, he emphasized that any participation in the International Stabilization Force (ISF) would be "a matter of pride" for Pakistan to help protect its "brothers" in the Gaza Strip. But he was equally clear: nothing is finalized. "This matter is still under process and yet to be finalized," he said. "The government would take parliament into confidence along with all the relevant institutions." That’s significant. In Pakistan’s political culture, parliamentary approval isn’t just procedure—it’s legitimacy. The fact that Asif raised it suggests the government knows this isn’t a routine military move. It’s a geopolitical earthquake. The ISF, as outlined by Arab News on September 30, 2025, is designed to monitor ceasefires, protect civilians, and prevent renewed violence after a fragile truce brokered by U.S. President Donald Trump. Trump had set a hard deadline of October 5, 2025, for Hamas to accept the deal—or face "complete obliteration." The ceasefire held, barely.The Rumor Mill: $10,000 Per Soldier and Secret Meetings in Egypt
But while the government speaks in measured tones, the internet is ablaze with claims that sound like a spy novel. Pakistani journalist Asma Shirzai, cited by News24Online and MoneyControl, reported that General Asim Munir, Chief of Army Staff, demanded $10,000 per soldier from Israel during a secret meeting last month in Egypt. Israel, she claimed, offered just $100. The numbers don’t just shock—they raise red flags. $10,000 per soldier for 20,000 troops? That’s $200 million. That’s not a payment. That’s a contract for a private army. The alleged meeting, according to these reports, involved representatives from Mossad and the CIA. The claim? That the Pakistani military agreed to send 20,000 troops to Gaza to "seize weapons from Hamas." No official source has confirmed this. No documents have surfaced. And yet, the story spread like wildfire. Then came the CodePink article from November 6, 2025, by activist Umer Azad, titled "Muridke to Gaza: How Pakistan's Regime Sheds Blood to Prove Its Allegiance to Israel." It didn’t just repeat the rumors—it framed them as a betrayal. Azad tied the alleged deployment to unrest in Muridke, a town in Punjab where protests over military accountability have flared. "This isn’t peacekeeping," the article argues. "It’s proxy warfare under a U.S.-led framework." It’s chilling. And it’s not just activists saying this. The lack of transparency from Islamabad has fueled suspicion. Why would Pakistan’s army, long seen as a defender of Muslim causes, suddenly line up to fight alongside Israel? And why the silence from the Defense Ministry when the numbers are so specific?
Why This Matters: Pakistan’s Identity at Stake
Pakistan has never officially recognized Israel. Its constitution still calls for the liberation of Palestine. Generations of schoolchildren have been taught that Kashmir and Palestine are twin struggles. To send troops into Gaza under a U.S.-Israeli umbrella would shatter that narrative overnight. And yet—the financial incentives are real. Pakistan’s economy is in freefall. The military budget is stretched thin. Foreign aid is dwindling. A $200 million payout? That’s enough to buy new helicopters, upgrade border defenses, or pay off a portion of the $28 billion IMF loan. For an institution that’s long relied on U.S. military aid, even the whisper of cash could be tempting. But here’s the twist: the U.S. doesn’t pay Pakistan for peacekeeping. Not anymore. After the 2011 drone strike that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers, and the 2018 expulsion of CIA operatives, Washington’s trust in Islamabad’s loyalty has eroded. If the U.S. were offering billions for troops, why keep it secret? Why leak it to journalists instead of announcing it through the Pentagon?What’s Next? Parliament, Pressure, and the Clock
Asif’s promise to consult parliament is the most credible signal yet. The National Assembly, dominated by opposition parties that are fiercely pro-Palestine, would likely reject any deployment without a full public debate. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif knows this. He’s no hawk. He’s a pragmatist. He won’t risk his government’s stability over a rumor. The clock is ticking. The ISF’s operational window is narrow. The ceasefire holds, but only barely. Hamas has not formally accepted the Trump proposal. Israel continues airstrikes in northern Gaza. If the truce collapses, the ISF may never launch—or it may be forced into combat. For now, Pakistan is caught between two worlds: the world of realpolitik, where money talks and alliances shift, and the world of national identity, where loyalty to Palestine is sacred. The military may be weighing the numbers. But the public? They’re watching.
Background: The ISF and the Shifting Sands of Gaza
The International Stabilization Force (ISF) is not a UN mission. It’s a U.S.-backed, multilateral initiative, modeled loosely on peacekeeping forces in the Balkans and Lebanon. But unlike those missions, this one is being assembled without UN Security Council approval—something that’s already drawn criticism from the Arab League and Turkey. The leading contenders, per Politico’s September 2025 report, are Pakistan, Indonesia, and Azerbaijan. All three have large, professional militaries. All three have Muslim-majority populations. All three have complex relationships with the U.S. and Israel. Indonesia, with its strong anti-Israel stance, has already signaled hesitation. Azerbaijan, with its close ties to Turkey and strained relations with Iran, is a wildcard. Pakistan? It’s the most volatile. The U.S. wants troops that can operate in urban combat zones, speak Arabic, and be seen as neutral. Pakistan’s army has experience in both. But neutrality? That’s the illusion.Frequently Asked Questions
Is Pakistan officially planning to send troops to Gaza?
No, Pakistan has not made an official decision. Defense Minister Khawaja Asif confirmed the matter is "still under process" and that parliament will be consulted. While U.S. and Israeli officials have reportedly identified Pakistan as a leading contender for the International Stabilization Force, no formal request has been issued, and no cabinet approval has been granted.
Where did the $10,000-per-soldier claim come from?
The figure originates from unverified reports by Pakistani journalist Asma Shirzai, citing anonymous sources. No official documents, government statements, or credible leaks support this claim. The Pakistani Army has not commented, and Israel has denied any financial negotiations regarding troop deployment. Experts consider the number implausible given U.S. and Israeli budget constraints and the lack of precedent for such payments in peacekeeping missions.
Why is Muridke mentioned in connection with Gaza deployment?
Muridke, a town in Punjab, became a flashpoint after protests erupted over alleged military corruption and civilian casualties linked to internal operations. Activist groups like CodePink use Muridke as a symbol to argue that Pakistan’s military prioritizes Western interests over domestic accountability. They suggest the Gaza deployment, if real, would be another example of the army using foreign missions to distract from internal criticism.
Could Pakistan’s military refuse to deploy even if the government approves?
Yes. Pakistan’s military has historically operated with significant autonomy, especially on foreign deployments. Even if parliament approves, the Chief of Army Staff, General Asim Munir, holds de facto authority over troop movements. His silence on the financial rumors suggests either he’s not involved—or he’s deliberately avoiding public comment to preserve options.
What happens if the Gaza ceasefire collapses?
If the ceasefire breaks down before the ISF is deployed, the mission could be canceled entirely—or repurposed into a combat role. The U.S. has signaled it may bypass the ISF and launch unilateral operations. In that scenario, Pakistan would face immense pressure to contribute—either as a partner or a target. The political fallout in Pakistan could be catastrophic, with protests likely to erupt nationwide.
How does this compare to Pakistan’s past peacekeeping roles?
Pakistan has contributed over 200,000 troops to UN peacekeeping missions since 1960, mostly in Africa and the Balkans. Those missions were UN-mandated, transparent, and non-aligned. The proposed ISF, however, is U.S.-led and lacks UN backing. Deploying under this structure would mark a sharp departure from Pakistan’s traditional neutrality—and could damage its credibility in the Global South.
