By: Dr. Sabir Abu Maryam
Secretary General, Palestine Foundation Pakistan
(Palestine Foundation Information Center), Recently, Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Ishaq Dar, addressed a United Nations meeting, stating that Pakistan will not recognize the Abraham Accords. Along with this, he reiterated Pakistan’s historic stance that Israel must retreat to the 1967 borders and an independent Palestinian state should be established with Al-Quds as its capital. Furthermore, referencing former U.S. President Trump’s recent statements regarding Pakistan and other Muslim nations recognizing the Abraham Accords, he firmly stated that Pakistan will not become a part of these accords. He also emphasized the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination.
The explicit rejection of the Abraham Accords and the advocacy for the Palestinian right to self-determination by Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Ishaq Dar, at the recent high-level UN meeting is undoubtedly a bold and commendable step. Openly condemning Zionist ambitions and unilateral agreements that sideline Palestinian rights at an international forum reflects Pakistan’s traditional, principled stance, for which he deserves congratulations. However, alongside this important diplomatic development, there are a few fundamental and key points that urgently require the attention of the Foreign Minister and the ruling authorities.
During his speech, the Foreign Minister insisted on a two-state solution and the creation of an independent Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders. Here, it is crucial to understand that accepting a two-state solution actually amounts to a deviation from the historic and uncompromising policy established by the founder of Pakistan, Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah.
Quaid-e-Azam explicitly declared Israel an aggressor and an illegitimate state, advocating for the Palestinian right of ownership over the entire land of Palestine. Baselining the policy on the 1967 borders implies granting legal recognition to the Zionist state’s existence on the 78% of Palestinian land that was forcefully occupied prior to that (in 1948), which directly contradicts Pakistan’s principled and ideological stance.
While the Foreign Minister spoke about the Palestinians’ right to self-determination, the mention of the Palestinian refugees’ “Right of Return” was missing from this narrative. This is the core complication and diplomatic weakness that needs to be addressed. Merely discussing the right to self-determination remains incomplete as long as the return of millions of exiled Palestinians to their ancestral lands is not ensured.
UN Resolution 194 explicitly recognizes the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and receive compensation. Therefore, instead of limiting its diplomacy strictly to self-determination, Pakistani diplomacy must make the Right of Return under Resolution 194 a foundational pillar of its narrative.
Pakistan needs to move past its current hesitation on the international stage and adopt an unambiguous, strong position. The two-state solution must be completely rejected because it is practically dead and serves only to cause permanent damage to the Palestinian cause.
Pakistan should adopt the stance that all Palestinian refugees must be brought back to their homes, followed by a free and fair referendum (self-determination) across the entire land of Palestine (from the river to the sea), allowing all its original inhabitants to decide their own future.
While Ishaq Dar’s condemnation of the Abraham Accords is a good starting point, the need of the hour is to reshape our foreign policy according to the principles of Quaid-e-Azam—championing complete justice and historical truth rather than settling for half-hearted solutions.
For a long time, it has been observed in Pakistan that debates around recognizing Israel are deliberately triggered. In response, government circles, the Foreign Office, experts, and former diplomats appear on media platforms to declare that Pakistan will not recognize Israel until an independent Palestinian state is established.
The question is: which state? They refer to one based on the 1967 borders, which means leaving a mere 22% for Palestine and conceding the remaining 78% to Israel. Such statements clearly create ambiguity, suggesting that the government is attempting to alter the unwavering policy of the founder of Pakistan, Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Continuously stating “until an independent Palestinian state is established” implies that we are talking about two states—one Palestine and one Israel.
If Israel is so indispensable to everyone, then it should end its occupation of Palestine and be relocated to islands like Greenland, bringing Zionists from all over the world to establish a state named Israel there, so that Pakistan and the rest of the world can recognize it. The issue here is that Palestine was occupied first, a state was built on top of an existing state, and now the world is asked to recognize Israel.
Quaid-e-Azam took a principled stance that left no room for “ifs” and “buts.” It is imperative that the Government of Pakistan, the Foreign Office, and the ruling authorities walk the path shown by the founder of Pakistan and strictly avoid any form of ideological deviation.
