On September 24, 2025, a select group of leaders from Muslim-majority countries — including Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif — met with U.S. President Donald Trump on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly to tackle the most urgent problem of our time: how to end the Gaza catastrophe and lay the foundations for a stable, humane post-war order. That gathering, imperfect but purposeful, is exactly the kind of high-level, cross-regional diplomacy the world needs now.
First, the meeting changed the conversation from paralysis to proposition. For months the international debate has been dominated by accusation and escalation; this session pivoted to narrow, achievable objectives — securing the release of hostages, stopping the bloodshed, and sketching out how Gaza can be governed and rebuilt once hostilities end. Turning rhetoric into specific goals is the only way to translate global concern into concrete relief for civilians trapped in the fighting.
Second, the meeting’s inclusivity matters. Bringing together leaders from Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Indonesia, the UAE and Pakistan sent a clear signal: the future of Gaza is not a problem for any single power to decide, but a regional responsibility that demands regional buy-in. Pakistan’s participation — with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar present in New York — underscores that concern about Gaza transcends geography and politics and that Islamabad wants to be part of a solution, not merely a spectator. That regional legitimacy will be essential for any plan to succeed on the ground.
Third, the proposed principles circulated at the meeting — ending hostilities quickly, prioritizing the release and safe return of hostages, and ensuring post-war governance that does not empower the perpetrators of violence — are realistic guardrails. Excluding an armed group that launched horrific attacks from future administrative control is not an exercise in punishment; it is a practical safeguard to prevent a repeat of violence and to create space for responsible governance, humanitarian access, and reconstruction. Framing the immediate objective this way helps build consensus among stakeholders who otherwise disagree on broader political questions.
Fourth, the creative idea to involve Arab and Muslim countries in security and reconstruction tasks — from contributing stabilization forces to committing funds for rebuilding — flips the narrative on its head. Rather than external occupation or open-ended foreign intervention, a regional role means ownership, accountability, and cultural sensitivity. It also eases tensions by distributing responsibility: Arab and Muslim partners helping to secure a transition can reassure local populations while allowing Israel to withdraw in an ordered manner that reduces the risk of renewed confrontation. That Washington would encourage such regional contributions points to a practical diplomacy that recognizes local legitimacy as a necessary ingredient for durable peace.
Finally, the diplomatic tone coming out of the meeting was promising. Leaders described the talks as substantive and — importantly — “fruitful.” When rivals and uneasy partners can depart a room agreeing on shared principles, the international community gains leverage to press for immediate humanitarian steps and to shape the contours of reconstruction before chaos fills the vacuum. Momentum is everything in diplomacy; this meeting created it.
Of course, meetings are only the start. Promises must be followed by transparent timelines, guarantees for civilian protection, clear mechanisms for hostage negotiation, and robust, monitored channels for reconstruction funding. Pakistan, like other partners, should insist on international oversight mechanisms that ensure aid reaches civilians and does not indirectly fuel further instability. Likewise, any stabilization force must operate under clear international law and with a mandate focused on civilian protection, de-mining, and infrastructure restoration.
But let us not underplay what a window of opportunity looks like: a high-level alignment of interests, a practical set of objectives, and a willingness from regional actors to assume responsibility. In a conflict that has ground down institutions and human lives, even pragmatic, incremental progress is worth pursuing energetically. The UNGA meeting offered a roadmap — imperfect and provisional, but real — for turning catastrophic inertia into coordinated action.
If governments now convert that roadmap into a sequenced plan — hostage negotiations and humanitarian pauses, followed by a monitored Israeli withdrawal, regional stabilization forces, and a transparent reconstruction fund — the international community will have done what it should: put human welfare and durable order ahead of grandstanding. For civilians in Gaza, that change would be nothing short of lifesaving. For regional stability, it could be transformative.
In short: diplomacy won the day at the UN margins. The task now is to translate the meeting’s promise into implementation — and to do it quickly, ethically, and with an eye to long-term political reconciliation. The leaders who showed up in New York proved one thing: when states choose responsibility over rancor, even the most intractable problems become negotiable. That optimistic realism is exactly what the region needs now.