The Shifting Landscape of Western Public Opinion on Israel
It has been two years since the Hamas attack on Israel, which resulted in the deaths of approximately 1,200 people. In that time, public opinion in the West has undergone a significant transformation, moving from a position of strong sympathy for Israel to one of increasing antagonism. This shift is not solely due to Israel’s disproportionate use of force—responsible for over 66,000 Palestinian casualties—but also because of its aggressive lobbying efforts aimed at silencing critics.
From university students at prestigious institutions like Harvard and Yale to legal professionals handling cases at the International Court of Justice, Israel has made it clear that it will not tolerate dissenting voices. This has led to a growing perception that free speech and international law are under threat.
The Political Consequences of Public Disapproval
Despite continued support from key Western governments, the sharp decline in public approval of Israeli actions has made maintaining this alliance increasingly difficult. This was evident in the recent United Nations Security Council vote on a ceasefire in Gaza, held on September 18th. Proposed by ten non-permanent members, including Pakistan, the resolution was opposed only by the United States. Following this, several countries, such as Australia, Canada, France, and the United Kingdom, took the unprecedented step of formally recognizing Palestine.
In addition, large-scale protests have become common in Western cities, with many citizens openly questioning Israel’s actions. Social media platforms have even seen discussions suggesting that Israel might be responsible for the death of a prominent American right-wing YouTuber, Charlie Kirk. These developments have left Israel and its supporters in a state of alarm.
Trump’s Peace Plan: A Controversial Proposal
Amidst this backdrop, President Trump introduced a 20-point “peace plan” aimed at ending the conflict in Gaza. However, the plan has been met with skepticism. If the U.S. truly wanted to end the war, would it continue to veto UN Security Council resolutions calling for a ceasefire? Would it maintain its support for Israel by providing billions in arms and aid?
To a logical observer, the answer would be no. Yet, Trump presented his plan as having the blessing of key Arab and Muslim nations, including Pakistan. This contradicted Pakistan’s long-standing position on Palestine, as highlighted in a widely shared video by Pakistan’s UN Representative, Ambassador Asim Iftikhar.
The most contentious aspects of the plan included an ultimatum for Hamas to release hostages within 72 hours or face severe consequences, while Israel faced no immediate obligation to withdraw from Gaza. Instead, Israel could do so gradually. Additionally, the plan allowed Trump and Tony Blair to oversee the establishment of a Palestinian state, undermining the Palestinians’ right to self-determination.
The Reaction to Trump’s Plan
This has led many to label the plan as a “surrender document,” not just by political opponents but also by analysts who previously praised the current government’s diplomatic efforts. The plan has sparked widespread criticism, with many questioning why Pakistan would endorse such a proposal.
Pakistan’s Diplomatic Gains
Pakistan’s diplomatic standing has seen some improvement following its military operations against India. Success on the battlefield was quickly translated into diplomatic victories. Even Indian journalists and YouTubers acknowledged Pakistan’s improved relations with the U.S. and China.
The defense pact with Saudi Arabia further solidified Pakistan’s position, especially after a meeting between Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Iran’s Ali Larijani in Riyadh. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian also welcomed the agreement, citing its potential to strengthen ties among Muslim nations.
A Divided Response
Meanwhile, President Trump criticized the UN during his address, lamenting the lack of support he received. Prime Minister Netanyahu, on the other hand, condemned the recognition of a Palestinian state by several Western countries, leading to a walkout from the assembly.
Given the clear tendency of Israel and the U.S. to bypass international law, it seemed unlikely that eight Muslim countries would trust Trump to broker peace. Despite this, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif endorsed the plan enthusiastically, while Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar initially defended it before attempting to backtrack.
The Current Situation
As of now, Hamas has responded positively to Trump’s plan but has refused to disarm until Israel fully withdraws from Gaza and the West Bank. They also insist that control of Gaza should be handed to Palestinian technocrats, not Tony Blair. These conditions are reasonable, though the plan still raises concerns.
Trump initially encouraged a halt to bombing, but Israel did not comply. According to Palestinian reports, the bombing intensified, including attacks on a center for the blind.
The Question of Peace
These events raise critical questions: Is Israel genuinely interested in peace? If not, does the U.S. have the will to enforce it? These are questions that Pakistan’s officials must consider when engaging in future peace talks with the U.S. on the Palestinian issue.
