Mr. Hamid Mir’s latest video about Pakistan’s stance on Palestine is a good reminder of how easily complex issues can get twisted for attention. He claims Pakistan’s support for the Two State Solution somehow goes against Quaid-e-Azam’s position. It is a serious accusation and completely wrong. So, what he is really doing is turning a decades old moral principle into cheap controversy for clicks.
Pakistan’s position on Palestine is not some new or confused idea. It is consistent and reflects full support for a free and sovereign Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital, and an end to occupation in all forms.
Thus, it is not about “following foreign agendas”, rather it is about justice and self determination, and also about values Jinnah himself stood for.
Twisting Jinnah for Drama
As Mr. Mir’s favorite tactic is to pull one line from history and build a whole circus around it. He points to Mr. Jinnah’s 1947 letter to President Mr. Truman, where the Quaid criticized the United Nations’ partition plan for Palestine, and then argues that this means Pakistan should reject the Two State Solution today. But this is not what Jinnah said, not even close. He opposed the way the plan was imposed on Arabs without consent, not the idea of Palestinians having their own state.
Moving forward, after 1947 there were the wars of 1948, 1967, and 1973, each reshaping the map and forcing the Muslim world to rethink its approach. The Arab League, the OIC, the UN, even the Palestinians themselves, now support a Two State framework. The PLO accepted it through the Oslo and Camp David accords, and Hamas has even signaled a willingness to work within it. Thus, pretending none of that happened is not idealism, it is ignorance.
Jinnah Was Principled, Not Rigid
Additionally, one thing people forget about Jinnah is that he was flexible when circumstances demanded it. He accepted the 1946 Cabinet Mission Plan, and when conditions changed, he backed out. His politics were guided by principles, but not by stubbornness. Pakistan’s current position on Palestine follows the same logic. The goal is still justice and sovereignty for Palestinians, but only adjusted to today’s reality.
When Mr. Mir claims that supporting a negotiated Two State Solution is somehow a betrayal of Jinnah, it is clear he is not trying to educate anyone, rather he is trying to provoke. So, this is not journalism but performance.
Pakistan’s Stance Is More Moral Than Most Countries
Clearly speaking, Pakistan’s position is not soft. It calls for a Palestinian state based on pre 1967 borders, with Al-Quds Al-Sharif as the capital. It demands an end to settlements, occupation, and blockades. That is more principled than what we see from some Arab governments that have normalized ties with Israel without securing any real relief for Palestinians.
The Two State Solution, if it actually delivers freedom, peace, and dignity for Palestinians, is not against Jinnah’s vision. It is an extension of it, because justice and coexistence were the spirit of his politics.
The Real Problem with Mr. Mir’s Approach
Similarly, Mr. Hamid Mir thrives on outrage. When serious issues do not generate enough heat, he finds a way to make them personal. Instead of explaining Pakistan’s well known and principled stance, he spins it as if the state has sold out. That is not brave journalism but cheap provocation.
Moreover, by ignoring historical context and the evolution of global consensus, Mr. Mir turns a humanitarian cause into a political game. He calls it analysis, but it is closer to performance art, the kind that values attention over accuracy.
It can be said that Pakistan’s foreign policy is not perfect, but on Palestine, it is one of the few consistent moral stands left in the Muslim world.
Also, it is rooted in international law, justice, and empathy, not talk show theatrics.
Justice Over Noise
Thus, the Two State Solution might not be perfect, and whether it works or not depends on its implementation. If it can give Palestinians a real and viable state, and end decades of occupation, it deserves support. That is entirely in line with Jinnah’s sense of justice.
Meanwhile, Mr. Hamid Mir has turned a humanitarian issue into another episode of self promotion. His narrative depends on creating outrage, not understanding among people. He is less interested in Palestine’s freedom than in keeping himself trending.
However, Pakistan’s moral compass has not changed. The country’s voice for Palestine remains one of conscience, and not convenience. Hence, this is something Mr. Hamid Mir’s theatrics cannot distort, no matter how loudly he shouts.
⚠ Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are exclusively those of the author and do not reflect the official stance, policies, or perspectives of the Platform.
