Islamabad – They live under the sky without safety, under a roof that could disappear in a single airstrike. They have papers that have their names but do not give them freedom. They exist without a homeland to pin them. For Palestinians, the idea of permanence feels like an illusion. Every sunrise brings the fear that the little things they have could disappear, and every night is hidden by the uncertainty of displacement.
In this fragile landscape, Israel’s far-right finance minister, Bezarel Smotrich, has acquired more than 3,000 housing units in the long, stepped E1 settlement project, a series of occupied land designed to link Jerusalem to the illegal Mar Admim settlement. Smotrich claims that the plan “fills the ideas of the Palestinian state,” calling it “the highest Zionism.” For the Palestinians, it is another wound to their hometown, a concrete face of the so-called “great Israel,” which the Palestinian Foreign Ministry describes as an act of genocide, displacement and annexation. International observers warn that E1 will split the West Bank into two and destroy hopes in the neighbouring states that will link East Jerusalem to Bethlehem and Ramallah.
From Islamabad, the reply turned out to be a smash stone of steel. In a statement this August, Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry strongly condemned and rejected the design of Israel’s right to occupation. The statement was direct: “such a move” said “constituently constitutes a serious violation of international law,” indicating “a complete light emptying to all international efforts aimed at achieving lasting peace and stability in the region.” It urged the world to reject such provocative concepts with decisive actions rather than cautious words before they could stick to the constant facts on earth.
This clarity of the voice is not born out of recent rage. It is rooted in the foundations of Pakistan’s foreign policy. In December 1947, before Pakistan finished its first year of independence, Quaid-e-azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah condemned the UN program to divide Palestine as “unjust and cruel.” Speaking to BBC’s Robert Stimson, he declared that “Muslims on the subcontinent have been forced to condemn the UN’s unfair and cruel decisions on the division of Palestine in the strongest possible way,” and pledged to continue supporting Palestinian support for the Arab cause in every way.” For Jinnah, Palestine was not a distant conflict. It was a test of the conscience of the Muslim world.
The tests returned and dressed in the language of urban development, but have the same design that Jinna warned: the confiscation was repackaged as advancement. Pakistan’s attitude has remained stable for decades. Supporting the two state solutions at the border before June 1967, Al-Quds Al-Sharif supports the right to return as a free Palestinian capital and of all Palestinians who have been evicted from their homes. In the case of Islamabad, there is no room for half the measures until these rights are fully protected and justice is done – no handshakes or normalization.
The E1 payment plan is not a zoning dispute. Breaking the territorial backbone of future Palestinian states is a deliberate lever. That’s why the UN, the European Union, and human rights groups are all warning about irreversible consequences. That is also why Pakistan stood as one of the clearest voices of opposition, whether it was the United Nations or within an organisation of Islamic cooperation.
Even if some Arab countries normalized relations under Abraham’s agreement, Pakistan was separated. This was not stubbornness, but loyalty to principles. The logic is clear. Just as Kashmir’s reconciliation is not imposed without the will of the people, Palestine peace cannot leave its people without the nation. Justice must shape the terminology, not convenience.
A statement printed on every Pakistani passport – “This passport is valid for all countries of the world except Israel” – is not merely a diplomatic clarification, but a written pledge. These words are part of the travel document of all Pakistani citizens and serve as an open declaration that Pakistan and its people stand firm in the cause of Palestinian freedom. Pakistan remains in line with Palestine in its national identity, foreign policy and public sentiment, and is a symbolic yet powerful attitude, reflecting its opposition to Israeli occupation.
At the global stage, Pakistan was behind a resolution calling for the protection of Israeli settlements illegal, supporting UN Security Council resolution 2334, and for the protection of Palestinians living under occupation. But it also understands that a statement alone cannot prevent concreteness and steel. Islamabad is seeking actual action, including sanctions, embargoes and legal action under international law, to stop bulldozers before erasing Palestine from the map.
But the world hesitates. The US refuses to protect Israel from accountability. Europe opposes settlements while deepening trade. The United Nations will pass resolutions, but will not send forces to implement them. This paralysis brings life to the rhetoric of the “Great Israel” that spreads projects like E1 and drives them.
For Pakistan, such inaction is not merely a diplomatic failure. It is a betrayal of the principles the UN Charter claims to defend. If the world cannot stop a reconciliation plan that openly declares the burial of a Palestinian state, the international order is not merely worn out, it is failing.
Still, Islamabad’s position remains stable. It is the same vow that Jinna made in 1947, conveyed like a fire through years of alliances and changes in war. It has become a very part of Pakistan’s soul. The belief that sovereignty without justice is an empty prize, and that peace without dignity is not at all peace.
Until the bulldozers were silent, until the dust of exiles settled in the free Palestinian courtyard, Pakistan held where Jinna once stood steady under pressure, not moved by the winds of the pass, and kept a promise that would never rise due to the Burgain.