ARTICLES OF THE DAY

May 22, 2021

TOM FOWDY, RUSSIA TODAY ................................................................................................................................ 2

REVD FRANK GELLI, RUSSIA TODAY ....................................................................................................................... 4

SYED SIKANDER MEHDI, DAWN ............................................................................................................................. 6

AARON DAVID MILLER, FOREIGN AFFAIRS ............................................................................................................. 8

STEVEN A. COOK, CFR .......................................................................................................................................... 10

ARZAN TARAPORE, SOUTH ASIAN VOICES ........................................................................................................... 12

SANA MALIK, EXPRESS TRIBUNE .......................................................................................................................... 15

M ZIAUDDIN, EXPRESS TRIBUNE .......................................................................................................................... 17

HASSAN KHAN, DAILY TIMES ............................................................................................................................... 19

China’s humanitarian intervention in Gaza may be motivated by its
PR war with the US – but that doesn’t mean it isn’t welcome
Tom Fowdy, Russia Today
eijing’s more
B
conciliatory approach
to the mire that is Israel-
Palestine relations may be
based in self-interest, but
unequivocal American support
for Israel hasn’t brought peace,
so why not try something new?
Israel and Hamas have agreed a
ceasefire, bringing an end to
just over a week of sporadic
violence which has seen
hundreds of civilians in Gaza
killed. The United States was
quick to celebrate the news,
with Joe Biden making an
announcement which appeared
to take credit for the outcome.
He again offered full American
support to Israel, avoided any
condemnation and vowed
immediately to sell weapons to
Tel Aviv in order to replenish
the Iron Dome defence system.
It did not strike the tone of a
peacemaker, although he stated
he sought equality for Israelis
and Palestinians alike, there
was very little to actually
suggest this.
Meanwhile, China responded to
the news of the ceasefire by
immediately announcing the
supply of emergency
humanitarian aid to Gaza, a
striking contrast from the US
military centric approach. This
begs the question; who has
shown true leadership in this
situation? Whilst China is of
course not a frontline player in
the Arab-Israeli dispute, it has a
position that some might
describe as more responsible
and pragmatic than the United
States. Beijing of course is not
anti-Israel, but nonetheless
recognizes the Palestinian state
and believes in a two-state
solution to the conflict. As the
exchanges took place, China
sponsored several UN security
council resolutions calling for a
ceasefire, backed by the rest of
the council but ultimately
blocked by the US, who has
long vetoed all Israel-related
content at the forum. Today,
China also said it was willing to
hold negotiations between both
parties.
While China’s position on the
matter has not changed, Beijing
has been especially pro-active
on the Israel-Gaza issue. This
may be a product of its
increasingly tense relationship
with the United States. Beijing
has essentially been locked in a
public-relations war with
Washington for some time. So,
while America has sought to
tarnish China’s international
image with issues such as the
Uighur situation in Xinjiang,
China was quick to highlight
the perceived double standards
of America in its unequivocal
support for Israel on the
situation in Gaza. In this case,
China’s more pressing role on
the conflict may have been
motivated both by a desire to
set an example against the
United States and build greater
affinity with Muslims.
In this case, beyond the specific
dispute with the US, is China’s
approach to the region better
placed to achieve results and
peace than Washington? In
contrast to America’s brazen
and unconditional backing of
Israel, Beijing has long floated
a “best of all worlds” approach
to diplomacy in the Middle
East. That is a diplomacy which
facilitates and balances
everyone, including long-
standing adversaries such as
Israel and Iran. This is premised
on China’s foreign-policy
tradition of non-interference
and mutual respect for
sovereignty. This makes
Beijing’s approach more
benevolent than Washington’s,
which has a long-seated history
of war, regime change and
chaos, but is it on the other hand
more effective? Such an
approach is inevitably stand-off
in nature and may mean China
“lacks teeth” in striving not to
upset any particular player.
For example, despite being
harsher on Israel than the US,
Beijing was nonetheless fearful
of overtly upsetting Tel Aviv
throughout this conflict. As an
advanced innovative economy,
Israel remains a very important
financial and technology
market for China. Several days
ago, CGTN posted a video
presentation on America’s
support for Israel which was
strongly criticized by their
embassy in China as anti-
Semitic. CGTN withdrew the
video, illustrating Beijing’s
unwillingness to take serious
risks in its relationship with
Israel to intervene in the
situation or change the status
quo. As the balancing act takes
priority, and as China does not
of course have the same
military and power stake in the
region as America, it may be
more conciliatory, balanced
and tolerable, but it is more
rhetorical than material in
nature.
Yet, one cannot say China’s
growing role in the region is
unwelcome, or that a Middle
East that is dominated
completely by the US is in any
way favourable. Biden claims
success here but what exactly
has he done? A reset of the
same status quo that has never
failed to break out into frequent
violence is not progress, it’s
just arrested development. The
White House otherwise retains
all the disruptive challenges to
the US-Israel relationship
imposed by Trump, which
exacerbated this situation in the
first place, meaning it’s only a
matter of time, be it in the next
five or 10 years at most, that
this scenario inevitably repeats
itself and will do so until there
is real change. In this case,
China’s calls and push for
peace in the Middle East is a
welcome development, even if
it is only coming from
grievances instilled by
Washington. More players and
more accountability in the
region are a welcome remedy,
but one shouldn’t expect
Beijing to get its hands too dirty
yet.
 Gaza’s children have learned to hate Jews – but it didn’t have to be
that way
Revd Frank Gelli, Russia Today
F
or some Palestinian
children Al-Yahud, or
‘The Jew,’ has become
the bogeyman adults use to
scare them into obedience. But
sadly, the missiles and bombs
dropped on those children by
the Jewish State, are no
fairytale.
“Frank, pray for our poor
Palestine.” A sorrowful
message from Gaza. Friend
Ahmad tells me of the
hardships, no, the horrors of his
family’s life under a constant
hail of Israeli bombs and
missiles. Ali, his youngest
child, shakes with a mixture of
fear and fury. “Al-Yahud will
get you!” an uncle teases him
when he is naughty. A sensitive
and impressionable child, Ali
runs to tell his dad: “Why
should they want to kill me? I
am only a little boy…”
I befriended Ahmad several
years ago in Cairo. He was
training as a dentist. An
impecunious student, I treated
him to meals at al-Fishawi
restaurant, near the main
bazaar, while trying to practice
my rudimentary Arabic. We
chatted about the Middle East
and the world’s problems.
Naturally, he disliked the
Israelis but also admired their
cleverness: “Al-Yahud are so
very smart,” he’d repeat, “Look
at the way they got America to
feed off their hand!” But I never
heard Ahmad utter words of
real hatred for his people’s
oppressors. Not in his nature, I
guess. He later returned to Gaza
to start his practice. Until I got
his recent texts I thought he had
forgotten me.
Little Ali has seen his
neighbours’ homes ruined or
flattened by deathly fire from
the sky and his schoolmates
made homeless – many killed
or wounded. “He now hates all
al-Yahud,” says his father.
“And so do all the kids here.”
They now hate the Israelis with
infinite hatred. Ahmad, though
a good Muslim and a proud
Palestinian, doesn’t feel that is
a good thing: “It is terrible
when a child grows up with that
kind of venom in his heart.
What can we do?” Albert
Camus believed that every
person can access a zone of
influence, good or bad. It is a
matter of activating the good
part, to stop the bloodshed, but
that wouldn’t be realistic in
Gaza under the ferocious IDF
onslaught. Fighting back is the
only option.
The father of Hannibal, the
famous Carthaginian general
and statesman, had brought him
up from infancy to hate the
Roman race. Hannibal won epic
battles against his enemies and
got as far as the gates of Rome,
but fate was not on his side. He
let victory slip through his
fingers and eventually Scipio
crushed him at Zama, in what is
now Tunisia. He spent the rest
of his life as a desperate,
wandering exile. To avoid
capture by the vengeful
Romans, he committed suicide.
For Hannibal, the unfortunate
hero, hatred did not pay off.
A sage wrote that the suffering
of innocent children is an
argument against God. That is
possible but not in this case. It
isn’t the Divinity who is
unleashing drones and missiles
on the Gaza kids. It is a power
that is human, all too human –
the Israeli Army. It is not God
who is morally or spiritually
responsible. It is human beings.
The Israeli military have a
choice not to do this evil but
choose to do it. Let us be fair to
the Creator and not impute to
him a wickedness which is
essentially human.
This is not a Manichean point.
To paraphrase Gertrude Stein,
“a child is a child is a child is a
child.” Ordinary Israelis are
human, let’s never forget that.
Their kids are vulnerable and
can suffer too. However, to date
in this latest conflict, 61
Palestinian children have been
killed by IDF strikes, and many
more wounded. I have also read
of two Israeli children being
killed by Hamas rockets. One
single dead child is too many,
of course. Still, the balance
appears chillingly
disproportionate.
Gaza’s children have been
targeted before, in subtler,
perhaps more cruel ways than
bombs. Back in 2010, IDF
commandos took over boats of
a flotilla meant to deliver
humanitarian aid to the
blockaded city. Israel
demanded that the ships be
taken to port and searched for
banned goods. The flotilla's
cargo included kids' toys, jam,
chocolate and dried fruits. Were
the Israelis afraid they could be
turned into Kassam rockets? It
was collective punishment and
one of the meanest sorts.
Because it was aimed at
innocent children. To stop them
from enjoying themselves like
children anywhere do. What
could be nastier than that? I
remember dreaming at the time
that Israeli kids would feel
compassion and send gifts of
toys to their Palestinian
counterparts. It would have
been wonderful! Vain hope,
alas.
The Greek philosopher
Empedocles conceived of
reality as governed by two
fundamental forces, Love and
Strife. The elements of the
cosmos are combined or united
by Love and separated or
fragmented by Strife, also
called Hatred. The two
principles war against each
other. Love sometimes reigns
supreme, until Hatred proves
stronger. In the Golden Age,
Love is completely triumphant,
then Hatred hits back and
conquers. The battle is
everlasting.
Looking at the Holy Land, it
seems that the forces of darkest
hatred are in the ascendant.
Love doesn’t give up so easily,
though. My dear little Ali, you
and the suffering children of
Palestine, don’t despair. I
promise you, in the end Love
shall overcome!
Revd Frank Gelli, an Anglican
priest, activist, and cultural
critic. He has read philosophy
and theology at London and
Oxford Universities, served in
parishes in London and also as
a chaplain to the Church of St
Nicholas, British Embassy,
Ankara, Turkey. He has
published several books on
spiritual subjects available on
Amazon, and lectured on
religious/interfaith dialogue at
many academic conferences in
the UK, the United States,
Switzerland, Qatar, Iran, and
Italy.
 Sakharov & the Soviet state
Syed Sikander Mehdi, Dawn
A
NDREI Dmitrievich
Sakharov, whose 100th
birth anniversary was
celebrated yesterday, had
struggled especially during the
last 20 years of his life to save
the Soviet state from itself.
However, the state never paid
any attention to his concerns for
the future of the Soviet Union.
Instead, it questioned his
patriotism, and went ahead to
harass him and persecute him.
The state had no idea of the
price it would pay by not
listening to him. The Soviet
state collapsed like a house of
cards on Dec 31, 1991. In its
place, 15 independent,
sovereign states emerged.
The Soviet state is no more, and
it can’t be reassembled. Had it
listened to Sakharov, it might
have avoided the calamity it
had to suffer later. Russian
President Vladimir Putin
regards the dissolution of the
Soviet state as the greatest
geopolitical catastrophe of the
20th century, and the realisation
is now widespread that the
disaster was invited by the
Soviet state itself, and not by
Sakharov.
Sakharov was one of the
greatest champions of peace,
freedom and human rights in
the last century. He wanted to
sign up for service in the Soviet
armed forces, when the
Germans invaded his country
on June 22, 1941. He was 20
and had just completed his third
year in physics at Moscow
University. However, he was
already the most brilliant
student in the memory of his
faculty and treated as a national
asset. He was exempted from
military duty. He therefore
continued his studies,
graduated in 1942, served as an
engineer in a military factory
during the remaining war years,
and obtained the equivalent of a
PhD degree in 1947. The next
year, he joined the top secret
nuclear weapon programme of
the Soviet Union.
The next two decades or so
were, indeed, a period of
content for the young nuclear
physicist. When the Soviet
Union tested its first fusion-
based device on Aug 12, 1953,
Sakharov was widely
acknowledged as the father of
the Soviet hydrogen bomb. The
same year, he received his DSc
degree; he became the youngest
person to be elected to the
Soviet Academy of Sciences;
and received the first of his
three Hero of Socialist Labour
titles — the Soviet Union’s
highest civilian award for
heroic and distinguished
achievements.
Sakharov could have devoted
the rest of his life serving his
country as a highly valued
military scientist or as a
theoretical physicist of
international eminence or as a
powerful pillar in the Soviet
corridors of power. However,
increasingly aware of the
consequences of a nuclear war
between the Soviet Union and
the United States, and the
irrelevance of expensive
nuclear tests by the Soviet
Union, he became
uncomfortable. From the late
1960s on, he expressed his
reservations regarding the
expansion of the Soviet nuclear
programme and the focus and
direction of Soviet sciences. In
due course, he became more
fierce and aggressive in
criticising the Soviet state. He
demanded fundamental
reforms, including general
liberalisation, an end to
political victimisation, full-
fledged rights for all Soviet
citizens, freedom of
information and press, basic
economic reforms and
democratic elections
While Sakharov’s popularity
soared, the state wasn’t
amused. It sprang into action,
removed Sakharov
unceremoniously from his
prestigious position and job. It
stripped him of the awards and
titles given to him by the state.
It didn’t permit him to travel to
Oslo to personally receive the
Nobel Peace Prize in 1975. A
media campaign was
unleashed, and Sakharov was
accused of being unpatriotic
and an agent of the West. His
family members were also
victimised.
The state became more
vindictive, when Sakharov
condemned the Soviet military
intervention in Afghanistan and
participated in a demonstration
against Soviet Afghan policy.
On Jan 22, 1980, he was
arrested. Later, he was taken to
the Volga city of Gorky in the
Siberian region, where he spent
almost seven years in internal
exile.
It was after his death on Dec 14,
1989, that Sakharov was
accorded full honours. He was
buried in Vostryakovskoye
Cemetery, Moscow’s largest.
His funeral was attended by the
Soviet president Mikhail
Gorbachev, top party brass,
academicians, scientists, and
thousands of common people. not over. His life and struggle
Later, in the afternoon, tens of will remain relevant for any
thousands of mourners struggle anywhere against
gathered at the Luzhniki unfreedoms and state tyrannies.
Stadium to join on the
memorial service.
The writer is the former
While history gratefully
chairperson of the
acknowledges the contribution
International Relations,
of Sakharov to the movement
Department at the University of
for peace, justice, democracy
Karachi, and a peace scholar.
and human rights, his mission is
 Israel and Hamas Need Each Other
Aaron David Miller, Foreign Affairs
W ar, like politics,
makes for strange
bedfellows. Israel is
currently preparing for a
potentially dramatic faceoff
with Hamas. Over the past
week, the group has launched
rockets into Israel, and it has
called for a million man march
this weekend along the Israeli-
Gaza border to mark the
anniversary of last year’s
March of Return. The protests
may either fizzle or spark an
intensified round of conflict.
Whatever happens though, it
will not undermine the curious,
co-dependent relationship that
has evolved between Hamas
and the Israeli government,
especially under Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
These two key Middle East
actors despise yet depend on
one another.
Israel and Hamas are unlikely
partners. They call for each
other’s destruction and have
been through three major
military confrontations, most
recently in 2014. Nevertheless,
these two sworn enemies have
long cooperated out of practical
necessity. On certain issues—
including managing their
conflict through Egypt and
preventing the Palestinian
Authority from reunifying
Gaza and the West Bank—their
objectives even align. Although
neither wants to admit it, Israel
and Hamas need each other.
THE ODD COUPLE
For as long as Hamas has
existed, it has maintained a
strangely functional
relationship with Israel. In the
1970s, even before Hamas was
founded, Israel believed that
Palestinian Islamist groups
could serve as a useful
counterweight to Fatah, the
more secular, revolutionary,
and (at the time) violent
political party that dominated
the Palestine Liberation
Organization (PLO). In order to
undermine Fatah, Israel
allowed these groups, including
the forerunners of Hamas, a fair
amount of freedom to organize
in Gaza. In 1979, Israel even
officially recognized an Islamic
charity created by Ahmad
Yassin, one of the co-founders
of Hamas. Within five years,
Yassin would be arrested for
weapons smuggling, and the
Israelis would eventually
assassinate him in March 2004
in an effort to stop Hamas
terrorist attacks.
In the 1970s, Gaza’s Islamists
needed Israel’s acquiescence in
order to grow. But since 1987,
when Hamas was founded as an
independent organization, the
group’s ideological legitimacy
has rested on its claim to be
waging an existential struggle
with the Jewish state. This
paradox has continued into the
present day, with the added
irony that Hamas, which has
governed the Gaza Strip since
2007, is heavily dependent for
its survival on Israel and Egypt.
The Israelis in the main and
Egyptians decide whether to
permit deliveries of Qatari cash
to Gazans, how much
electricity to provide to the
local power grid, and how far
Gazan fishermen can travel
from shore; in short, they
determine what is allowed in—
and who is permitted to travel
to and from—the area.
Hamas uses its arsenal of
rockets both to maintain its
domestic image of armed
struggle against Israel and as
leverage to compel Israel to
make periodic economic
concessions. By using
controlled escalation, the group
seeks to remind Israel that Gaza
will remain a threat unless
Israel meets some of its
demands, including
infrastructure development,
prisoner releases, and a
meaningful relaxation of Israeli
restrictions on the movement of
goods and people in and out of
Gaza. Hamas, however, is
walking a fine line: it wants to
pressure Israel without
triggering a massive Israeli
response. The group, that is,
must both fight with Israel and
cooperate with it. And for
Israel, the bitter reality is that
despite Hamas’s terrorism and
efforts to radicalize
Palestinians, the group is the
least bad alternative for running
Gaza. The result is the current
dynamic—accommodation
mixed with confrontation.
BEST FIENDS
From time to time, Israel and
Hamas appear to be interested
in a more long-term
arrangement. In May 2018, for
instance, Israeli intelligence
briefed the country’s political
leadership that Hamas,
confronted with the
deteriorating economic
conditions in Gaza, was open to
agreeing to a years’ long
ceasefire in exchange for an
easing of the Israeli blockade, a
release of Hamas prisoners, and
infrastructure development.
And earlier this week, reports
emerged that Israel, working
through Egypt, was offering
concessions in exchange for a
guarantee that Hamas would
prevent its demonstrations this
weekend from becoming
violent.
That both sides periodically
attempt such agreements shows
that Israel and Hamas realize
that total victory over the other
is unlikely, or at least
unacceptably costly. Hamas
knows that it needs Israel’s de
facto acceptance to ensure its
control over Gaza and defuse
popular anger over the terrible
conditions on the ground; it also
knows that it cannot defeat the
Israeli military and that it must
maintain good relations with
Egypt, which controls the
critically important crossing at
Rafah and is now working
closely with Israel to try to
preempt an escalation. Israel,
particularly under Netanyahu,
has for its part proved highly
risk-averse. Netanyahu does
not want a major ground
operation in Gaza like the one
in 2014, especially now, only
weeks before an Israeli
elections. And Israel has no
desire to reoccupy Gaza, from makes that impossible. And this
which it withdrew in 2005. split serves Netanyahu well.
The Palestinian national
Yet the two sides’ failure to
movement now looks like
agree to a lasting deal shows
Noah’s Ark: there are two of
that both, in their own way,
everything—two statelets, two
benefit from the status quo. For
security services, two systems
Netanyahu, Hamas is probably
of government, and two visions
the least bad option in Gaza.
of what a future Palestinian
The Israelis worry about
state should be. For Netanyahu,
Hamas’ ties to Iran and its
Hamas is a hedge against a
capacity to launch rockets into
united Palestinian movement
Israel (last Monday, for
focused on serious negotiation
instance, a rocket launched
to reach a two-state solution.
from Gaza destroyed a house
Hamas, meanwhile, is biding its
north of Tel Aviv). But Israel
time for an opportunity to take
has few good options. An
over the PLO. Neither wants to
Israeli reoccupation of Gaza
strengthen PA President
would be too costly, and the
Mahmoud Abbas. Indeed, both
Egyptians are not about to
Netanyahu and Hamas would
assume responsibility for the
prefer the current situation—a
area. Destroying Hamas,
de facto three-state reality—to
meanwhile, would create a
a two-state solution.
vacuum that could be filled by
even more dangerous jihadist WITH OR WITHOUT YOU
groups, including affiliates of
The Hamas-led protests this
the Islamic State (ISIS) now
weekend may or may not
operating in Egypt’s Sinai
provoke a new round of
Peninsula. Hamas is also
escalation with Israel. But even
useful—it provides an easy
a serious blow-up is unlikely to
target for Israeli propaganda,
change much. During the 2014
but it is also a group that Israel
Israeli-Hamas war, nearly 2000
knows it can negotiate with,
Palestinians were killed,
whether through Egypt, the
including 1200 civilians. The
UN, or perhaps (on occasion)
long-term impact on Israel’s
directly.
relations with Hamas, however,
In theory, the Israelis could was minimal. Far from creating
push for the more moderate a transformative moment, the
Palestinian Authority (PA), events of this weekend,
dominated by Fatah, to return to whatever they turn out to be,
Gaza, from which it was ousted will be more likely to mark yet
by Hamas’ coup in 2007. another bloody phase in a
(Perhaps under a different conflict between two parties
Israeli government, it would.) who seemingly can’t live with
But the split of the Palestinians each other—or without each
between Hamas in Gaza and the other, either.
Fatah-led PA in the West Bank
 How Evictions in Jerusalem Led to Israeli-Palestinian Violence
hat’s driving the
W their families owned in
recent tensions in
East Jerusalem?
Why did they escalate so
sharply?
Trouble has been brewing in
Jerusalem for the past month. A
combination of Arab attacks on
Israeli Jews in the city;
restrictions the police placed on
Palestinians attempting to
gather near Damascus Gate—a
main entryway into the Old
City—during the Muslim holy
month of Ramadan; and a
march through the city by a
group called Lehava, whose
supporters chanted “death to
the Arabs,” all contributed to
the tension that has spread
across Israel. In isolation, each
of these incidents was not
unusual; however, they came at
the same time as Israel’s courts
paved the way for the evictions
of six Palestinian families from
a neighborhood in East
Jerusalem called Sheikh Jarrah,
and for Jewish families to move
into those homes.
Israeli authorities emphasize
that the situation in Sheikh
Jarrah is a private real-estate
dispute. That is accurate, but it
only explains part of the story.
Pro-Israel organizations have
sought to change the
demographics of East
Jerusalem—which is
predominantly Arab—for many
years, taking their cues from
successive Israeli governments
that emphasized Israel’s right to
build within its own capital.
Israeli law permits Jews to
reclaim property that they or
Steven A. Cook, CFR
Jerusalem prior to the division
of the city after Israel’s
establishment in 1948,
provided that they can prove
ownership of the land. For their
part, Palestinians cannot claim
rights to property they once
owned in Jerusalem or other
parts of Israel.
At the same time that
demonstrations were taking
place in Sheikh Jarrah, Israeli
security forces confronted
Palestinian civilians on May
6—which was Laylat al-Qadr,
the most important night of
Ramadan, commemorating
when the Quran was revealed to
the Prophet Mohammed. Close
to three hundred Palestinians
and two dozen Israeli police
officers were injured in street
battles that culminated in
clashes at the Noble Sanctuary,
known to Jews and Israel’s
supporters as the Temple
Mount and the holiest site in
Judaism. It is also where al-
Aqsa Mosque, the third-holiest
location in Islam, and the Dome
of the Rock are located.
The Israeli Supreme Court was
scheduled to take up the
question of evictions in Sheikh
Jarrah on May 10 but decided to
postpone the ruling until early
June because it coincided with
Jerusalem Day, a holiday in
Israel to celebrate the
reunification of the city after
the Six-Day War. It typically
features a parade of flag-
waving Israelis through the
city, including its Arab
neighborhoods. This year, the
march took place as scheduled
despite the escalation of
violence.
What role has the Supreme
Court played in previous
eviction cases?
Overall, there is a pattern of
Israeli courts permitting the
evictions of Palestinians from
their homes based on Jewish
claims of ownership prior to
Israel’s creation. In the Sheikh
Jarrah case, the evictions are
based on the claim that the
residents have not paid rent to
the owner of the properties,
now an Israeli
nongovernmental organization
called Nahalat Shimon. Sheikh
Jarrah is an area that Jews refer
to as Shimon Hatzadik; it was a
predominantly, but not
exclusively, Jewish
neighborhood before the 1948
Arab-Israeli War, which led to
Israel’s establishment and the
division of Jerusalem. The
properties in question are
located in the sector of the city
that was under Jordanian
control after the 1948 war.
Because Israel’s courts have
found that evictions are
consistent with Israeli law, the
government asserts that the
Jewish residents are within
their rights to displace the
Palestinians who have not paid
rent and thus have lost their
status as “protected tenants.”
Yet, most countries do not
recognize Israel’s sovereignty
in East Jerusalem; they and the
Palestinians claim that the
evictions violate international
law.
What is U.S. policy on
evicting Palestinians in the
West Bank to make way for
settlers?
Most recent U.S. presidents
have been reluctant to take on
the issue of Israeli settlements
directly, preferring to call them
complications that are
unhelpful to peace and a two-
state solution to the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict. The
exceptions are President
George H.W. Bush, who sought
to halt loan guarantees to Israel
if it continued to build
settlements, and President
Barack Obama, who pressured
Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu into
pausing settlement building.
Despite these efforts, neither
they nor President Joe Biden
(so far) have been willing to
take punitive actions against the
Israeli government to bring the
settlement project, and Israel’s
creeping annexation, to an end.
How might this situation
affect Israel’s progress on the
Arab-Israeli détente?
As expected, Israel’s neighbors
have condemned its actions,
especially the confrontation
between police and Palestinians
at Jerusalem’s holy site.
Officials from Egypt, Qatar,
Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the
United Arab Emirates have all
issued formal statements of
concern or condemnation. Yet,
all of these countries have ties
to Israel, though in the cases of
Saudi Arabia and Qatar, these
relations are not formalized. To
varying degrees, all Arab
countries have an interest in
continuing diplomatic,
commercial, and security
cooperation with Israel.
 India-China Strategic Competition and the Costs of the Ladakh
Crisis
Arzan Tarapore, South Asian Voices
T
he Ladakh crisis is not
over yet.
Disengagement from
front-line positions, begun with
fanfare in February, has since
stalled. Chinese troops remain
encamped in several positions
on previously Indian-controlled
territory and talks to dislodge
them have been fruitless. Quite
apart from the fait accompli on
the ground, Ladakh will
reverberate for years because of
its effect on India’s strategic
competition with China. As I
argue in a recently-published
paper, the crisis has exacted
unequal strategic costs on the
two sides. China has escaped
with relatively minor costs. It
was probably most concerned
by the political cost of
continued deterioration in
relations with India – costs that
were more threatened than
realized, and mostly reduced
with disengagement.
In contrast, the cost for India
will come in the form of a
weaker strategic posture
against China. This is
somewhat paradoxical, because
India’s immediate response
was to heavily reinforce its
force posture on the Line of
Actual Control (LAC) and
rebalance its Army to manage
threats from China. But in the
longer term, this rebalancing –
for relatively minor strategic
gain – will come at the expense
of India’s military
modernization and its maritime
expansion thousands of miles
away in the Indian Ocean –
which will prove far more
consequential in India’s
strategic competition with
China.
Reacting to the Immediate
Threat
With the crisis still underway,
the Indian Army has made
tangible and permanent
commitments to reorient to the
threat from China, rather than
its traditional foe, Pakistan. It
will retain a heavier permanent
military presence in Ladakh
than before the crisis – just as
its presence in other remote
mountainous outposts like
Siachen and Kargil evolved
from urgent reinforcements to
permanent encampments.
This has already proven to be a
costly exercise. Budget
documents reveal that, in 2020,
the Indian Army and Air Force
made unplanned expenditures,
for stores and other consumable
expenses, of over INR 68
billion (approximately USD
952 million), and unplanned
capital outlays, for construction
works and other equipment, of
over INR 141 billion
(approximately USD 1.97
billion). The military is unlikely
to get more resources.
Compared to 2020 spending
levels, the military’s 2021-22
capital expenditure budget –
money spent on equipment and
infrastructure – is virtually flat.
The Army’s rebalancing goes
further than the LAC. In
December 2020, the Indian
Army ordered one of the three
Strike Corps facing Pakistan to
prepare for a new operational
role – launching offensive
strikes across the LAC in
Ladakh. This a rational
response to India’s evolving
threat environment – planning
against Pakistan still attracts a
disproportionate share of
Indian military resources. But
even with the Army’s
rebalance, 22 divisions still face
Pakistan, while only 14 face
China (and 2 are held in a
national reserve).
The conversion will represent a
very significant erosion in
India’s already-slim local
quantitative advantage over
Pakistan. Indian military
strategy relies centrally on the
threat of a punishing offensive
against Pakistan. So, the
elimination of a large portion of
those strike forces may portend
a long-overdue rethinking of
Indian strategy towards
Pakistan – a tacit recognition by
the Army that its conventional
deterrent against Pakistan was
either not necessary or not
effective. In that context the
Ladakh crisis is a necessary
catalyst to promote strategic
adaptation, to focus more on the
China threat.
Deferring Modernization and
Maritime Expansion
However, the manner of that
adaptation risks leaving India in
a worse position in its long-
term strategic competition with
China. Indian strategists have
recognized that building
strength in the Indian Ocean
would be an important pillar of
competition with China. But
strategy requires tradeoffs –
especially given the military’s
acute resource shortages. Now
that blood has been shed on the
LAC, the renewed ground
threat commands far greater
political attention than distant
corners of the Indian Ocean.
Priorities such as general
modernization and maritime
expansion into the Indian
Ocean will likely continue to be
deferred.
Across the military, the urgent
emphasis on operations and
readiness will starve the
military of resources for
modernization. In recent years,
the share of the defense budget
spent on capital outlays has
shrunk, while the share spent on
pensions has grown. Each of
the three services urgently
requires recapitalization, and
each is allocated less money
than it requests from the
government. But the Navy has
been particularly hard hit,
receiving only 60% of the funds
it requests for modernization.
Alongside modernization, the
Indian military may continue to
defer its maritime expansion,
which it has repeatedly delayed
and scaled down. In fact, the
under-resourced Navy is
struggling to even maintain its
current modest force levels – its
submarine fleet, for example, is
shrinking because it cannot
replace its ageing boats before
they retire. With declining
budgets and dysfunctional
procurement processes, its
ships lack critical capabilities.
Given its capacity constraints,
the Navy has drastically scaled
back its earlier expansion plans.
If India’s maritime expansion
continues to be deferred, it will
quickly lose the capability to
deter or defeat Chinese
coercion in the Indian Ocean
region. The PLA Navy is
rapidly expanding – from 2014
to 2018, it launched new
shipping with more tonnage
than the entire Indian Navy. It
has built its first overseas
military base in Djibouti, and is
positioning itself for port access
in several regional countries,
including India’s neighbors,
Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and
Burma. These expanding
military capabilities and
footprint give China tools to
coerce regional states, and
operational advantages for
warfighting.
The Real Prize
The choice for India is an
invidious one. The threat on the
land border is real and
immediate; and India correctly
judges that its crisis response
will shape the future of the
bilateral relationship. Delhi
cannot afford to be seen, in
Beijing or across the region, to
capitulate. But equally, it
should draw a distinction
between managing the current
crisis and the longer-term
competition. Viewing the entire
competition through the lens of
the disputed border, and
maintaining a corresponding
defense posture, will blind
India to future risks in the
Indian Ocean. Agile statecraft
requires a post-crisis pivot.
Compared to the land border,
swings in the balance of
military power and political
influence in the Indian Ocean
region are more globally
consequential. At the land
border, the difficult terrain and
more even balance of military
force means that each side
could only eke out minor,
strategically modest gains at
best. In contrast, India has
traditionally been the dominant
power in the Indian Ocean
region and stands to cede
significant political influence
and security if it fails to answer
the expansion of Chinese
military power. China,
correspondingly, stands to gain
the ability to secure its critical
sea lines of communication –
thereby eliminating a major
strategic vulnerability – and
potentially decisive leverage in
its strategic competition against
India.
The sheer size and complexity
of the Indian Ocean region
offers China a wide menu of
new options to degrade India’s
influence, threaten its interests,
and pressure it militarily. For
years China has underwritten a
trenchant rival in Pakistan. But
more recently it has also
cultivated security partnerships
in India’s other neighbors, from
Sri Lanka to Bangladesh to
Myanmar. With its burgeoning
port infrastructure and
increasing tempo of naval
operations, China has gained an
unprecedented ability to
encircle India, threatening it in
multiple domains and theatres
simultaneously. Gaining a
competitive advantage in the
Indian Ocean, therefore, is the
real prize – a far more
strategically significant threat
to Indian power than more
heavily militarized and
violence-prone LAC.
New Delhi’s partners, such as
the United States, have sought
to deepen strategic relations
with it on the premise that a
capable and likeminded India
would, of its own volition,
counterbalance China’s
military expansion into the
Indian Ocean. An India that is,
conversely, newly recommitted
to focusing on its land border
with China is less likely to take
on an enlarged security role in
the Indian Ocean.
Partners would doubtless be
encouraged by New Delhi’s
newfound willingness to
deepen cooperation with the
Quad. Since the start of the
Ladakh crisis, India has
welcomed Australia into the
Malabar naval exercise, agreed
to a stand-alone ministerial
meeting, and a leaders’ summit.
These are a strong signal of
India’s political commitment to
working with its partners. But
Quad meetings – and even
novel policy action like the
Quad’s vaccine initiative – are
so far limited to political
signaling only. They do not
themselves add to the Quad’s
ability to deter or counter
Chinese military coercion, and
do not signify a changed Indian
military commitment to the
Indian Ocean.
The Ladakh crisis’ effects are
not predetermined; India has
agency. New Delhi may yet
survey the new strategic reality
and understand the risks of
doubling down on the LAC and
choose instead to direct greater
attention to the Indian Ocean
region. But in terms of tangible
resources and entrenched
organizational preferences,
early indications suggest that a
more heavily militarized and
violence-prone LAC will be the
crisis’ central strategic legacy –
and its effects are largely
negative for India’s
competition with China.
 Social cohesion to counter terrorism, violent extremism
Sana Malik, Express Tribune
n today’s world, terrorism
I
and violent extremism are
complex multi-faceted
issues that transcend national
borders. Unlike terrorism, there
is no universally accepted
definition of violent extremism.
International organisations
such as the UN, the EU and
NATO do not follow a single
definition. The USAID
qualifies violent extremism as
“advocating, engaging in,
preparing or otherwise
supporting ideologically
motivated or justified violence
to further social, economic or
political objectives”, whereas
violent extremism is considered
to be a broader term even if the
two may be used
interchangeably. Simply put,
terrorism is the “use of violence
to create fear for political,
religious or ideological
reasons”. Terror is intentionally
aimed at civilians to achieve the
greatest attainable publicity for
a group, cause or individual.
The phenomena of violent
extremism and terrorism have
been permeating the world
over. The use of violence has a
very profound and direct
impact on humanity, which
means it knows no border,
nationality, or religion. It has
devastating consequences for
its victims whose right to life,
liberty, security, and personal
integrity has been
compromised. This makes it a
human rights issue which not
only has individual cost, but
can also jeopardise
international community,
peace, and security and threaten
socio-economic development.
The work to counter and
combat the threat of violent
extremism and terrorism,
therefore, should be based on
how to integrate all segments of
society.
In order to devise
counterterrorism strategies, it is
important to consider the push
and pull factors of violent
extremism and terrorism to
administer more focused and
meaningful preventive efforts.
Push factors are structural
within the society whilst pull
factors are psychological that
may render individuals to
become more vulnerable to
adopting violent extremist
behaviour. Push factors are
conditions conducive to violent
extremism and terrorism and
the structural context from
which it emerges such as socio-
economic disparities,
marginalisation and
discrimination, poor
governance, violations of
human rights and delays in
conflict resolution, and
radicalisation in prisons.
Whereas, pull factors are
individual motivations and
processes, which transform
ideas and grievances into
violent extremist action such as
individual backgrounds,
collective grievances and
victimisation stemming from
domination, oppression,
subjugation or foreign
intervention, distortion and
misuse of beliefs, political
ideologies, ethnic and cultural
differences, and leadership and
social networks. It is important
to note that none of these
drivers can be considered in
isolation since multiple factors
are involved. Understanding
the root causes of terrorism can
lead to better prevention
policies.
The most important aspect of
preventing extremism is
integration and inclusivity of all
segments. In the US, for
instance, many social rituals
like Halloween are celebrated
throughout the year. Owing to
prevailing cultural norms,
economic opportunities and
equality under law, the US
seems to achieve integration of
people belonging to different
ethnic, religious, and cultural
backgrounds. It doesn’t mean
that there is complete harmony
because social disparities do
exist. As far as immigrants are
concerned, within a generation
or two, Mexican Americans,
Italian Americans, and Iranian
Americans are just Americans
with a single national identity
card and the same rights and
obligations. This is in stark
contrast to immigrants in
Europe who may feel like
second-class citizens, which
may inflame feelings of hatred
and are misguided in their
search for a sense of belonging,
triggering religious, ethnic, and
ideological differences.
In Pakistan’s context, issues of
ethnic diversity unfortunately
caused division instead of
creating harmony. Pakistan is a
country with a unique ethnic
and religious diversity. Though
all citizens are equal under the
law, not all ethnic and religious
identities are given adequate
representation according to the
Constitution which means that
they come into conflict and feel
an imbalance in the society.
Ethnicity has emerged as the
most significant issue in
Pakistan and in creating a
national identity out of diverse
regional, religious, and
linguistic loyalties. Pakistan’s
security landscape thus remains
volatile and complex due to
ethnic tensions coupled with
the web of terrorist and militant
groups present in the country.
These have repercussions not
only for internal linkages but
also give rise to external
conflict with powerful forces in
the region.
Pakistan needs programmes to
address the underlying violence
in communities by moving
beyond the labeling of youths
as victims or perpetrators of
violence to engage them in
peace-building efforts, giving
them ownership of their efforts,
and providing them
opportunities to encourage the
use of music, sport, media and
IT for peace projects that
promote tolerance, conflict
resolution, reconciliation and
interfaith harmony.
Social integration through
targeted educational
programmes is key in the fight
against terrorism. In Pakistan,
the education system is not on a
par with the international
system – a matter of grave
concern. There is a lack of
access to quality education
making young Pakistanis
targets of extremist groups. Net
primary enrollment rates
remain low; there are three
parallel educational systems
(private, public, and
madrassas), resulting in a lack
of equal opportunities for all
students. The education system
suffers due to inadequate
investment from government,
corruption, lack of institutional
capacity, inadequate number of
trained teachers and poor
curriculum. To counter violent
extremism and terrorism, the
government needs to allocate
sufficient budgets for
education, increase private-
public partnerships, introduce
modern subjects in madrassas,
build capacity of teachers,
reform curriculum, improve
teaching aid materials and give
incentives to improve
enrollment and retention.
Another group to consider for
integration is perhaps the
disenfranchised, poor and
unemployed. This is because
those out of jobs and in need of
financial assistance may get
recruited and form potential
militias of political violence.
Poverty can cause resentment
and force many to turn to
violence to express their
outrage towards social
inequality. In the Middle East,
many citizens do not have jobs,
which causes a lower standard
of living. This forces people to
become angry as they lose the
ability to achieve what others
may, creating internal conflict
within certain areas or groups,
making it more likely for
terrorism to occur. When
people are dissatisfied with the
state of their lives and living
standards, they are more likely
to turn to extreme measures or
become ideal candidates for
terrorist organisations to
recruit.
Other factors, which may
marginalise or cause lack of
integration and assimilation in
society can be political factors
such as government repression.
Undemocratic societies cause
people to suffer repression.
Studies show that terrorism has
a strong link with social
injustice propagated at the
hands of governments and
people may resort to violence to
fight against political
wrongdoings. It appears that
terrorism is a global
phenomenon, which transcends
national boundaries and does
not occur in a social vacuum,
that it is caused by interaction
between an individual, society
and the state. Social
disintegration can alienate
individuals and groups so they
may resort to terrorism to
satisfy their grievances. Social
cohesion is required to combat
violent extremism and
terrorism to perpetuate a sense
of ownership in deterring
people from exploring options
and resorting to violent
extremism and terrorism. This,
however, needs to be practised
globally where international
cooperation is sustained and a
universal rights-based approach
is incorporated in building
capacities to leave no one
behind in efforts to counter
terrorism and to promote
peaceful and inclusive
societies.
 Making the system truly democratic
M Ziauddin, Express Tribune
T
he electoral reform
chatter seems to have
disappeared from media
headlines as suddenly as it had
appeared during the run-up to
the last Senate elections. No
one is currently debating the
pros and cons of using the
Electronic Voting Machines
(EVM) in the next general
elections, the number of such
machines needed to cover the
entire voting population, the
number of skilled persons
needed to operate them at
voting points and the total cost
of the entire exercise. Even the
introduction of biometric
system or voting rights to
overseas Pakistanis needs a
thorough national debate.
But even before we debate
these issues, it is equally
important that steps are taken to
ensure the impartiality of state
and government institutions in
the electoral process. It is no
more a state secret that every
general election held since the
1980s has been manipulated by
the state with total impunity.
And after each such general
election the emerging
governments in order to cover
up their democratic weaknesses
had indulged in persecuting the
opposition, even instituting
against them false cases of
treason.
But then, even if the next
general election is held with the
state remaining politically
neutral and the emerging
government focusing more on
governance rather than
covering up its democratic
weaknesses, the result would
still be far from being truly
democratic because the First-
Past-the-Post system (FPTP)
practised in Pakistan does not
translate all votes polled into
true representation. It yields a
parliament and a government
that does not represent a
majority.
According to a study conducted
by FAFEN, the governments so
formed have been
democratically weak as they
have never represented more
than 17% of the registered and
46% of the polled votes. The
current government represents
31% of the polled, 16% of the
registered, and 8% of the total
population.
According to historical analysis
of election results by FAFEN,
53% of all votes polled in GE
2002 did not translate into any
representation, 50% in GE
2008, 52% in GE 2013, and
57% in GE 2018. As a result,
the political parties get seats in
the assemblies disproportionate
to their share of votes. For
example, MMA bagged
2,604,086 votes in GE 2018
with 12 seats in the National
Assembly, while TLP was
polled 2,194,978 votes but with
no seats. The vote per seat ratio
of other political parties in GE
2018 also presents a compelling
case for a more extensive
debate on the change of the
election system.
Alternative and more advanced
representation systems such as
the List Proportional
Representation System may be
considered to ensure that
electoral outcomes translate a
maximum number of votes
polled into representation,
reflecting political diversity. As
many as 89 countries
worldwide now use variations
of PR systems for their
representational efficacy.
The model of elite democracy
requires urgent rethinking
through appropriate measures
that can minimise the use of
money in elections.
Another critical area is
delimitation. The principle of
equally-sized constituencies
must strictly be protected in any
future reforms. There are at
least 81 National Assembly and
92 Provincial Assembly
constituencies that do not fulfil
the legal requirement of +10%
variation in the population. A
comparative assessment of the
electoral constituencies reveals
uneven population across
constituencies. Delimitation
based on an equal number of
voters would be democratically
more appropriate.
Another critical area is voter
registration. Unless the voter
registry is complete, there
cannot be an election that may
be considered entirely fair. As
many as 12.41 million women
continue to be disenfranchised
since these women do not have
national identity cards, a legal
prerequisite for their voter
registration. The actual scale of
under-registration will,
however, be established once
the government notifies the age
disaggregated results of the
population census undertaken
in 2017.
An effort towards reforming the
election system will be
incomplete if it did not address
its inability to yield a
representation of all economic
classes, ethnicities, religious
minorities, and sexes in the
elected houses. Tangible
measures are required enabling
it to transform the political,
ethnic, and religious diversity
in Pakistan into a strength
rather than a source of division
and fragmentation.
 When will America tame Israel?
Hassan Khan, Daily Times
F
or quite a long time, the
Palestinians have been
asking themselves when
the world would attentively
listen to their pleas of being
subjugated to ethnic cleansing
by an apartheid Israeli regime.
That moment of reckoning is
finally here when people across
the world came out to support
them in a singular voice on the
streets and social media.
What was noteworthy this time
was the role played by
prominent global celebrities
who reshaped the opinion in
favour of the Palestinians.
Whether it was the Hadid
sisters, Riz Ahmed, Mark
Ruffalo or The Weeknd; public
perception amongst western
citizens was influenced in an
unprecedented manner. The
Black Lives Matter (BLM)
movement notably provided
much-needed endorsement for
the Palestinians which again
proved impactful in great
proportions.
Apart from this, America’s
leading console/pc gaming
review companies such as IGN
and Gamespot also jumped in to
provide support. Yet the former
had to scale back its support
under immense pressure from
its Israeli subsidiary which is
nothing short of being bullied.
But how much did the big tech
companies and mainstream
western media assist in telling
the truth about the grave
atrocities being committed by
the Israeli military? Perhaps,
little to none given how they
tried to censor voices on their
platforms through subtle means
and played down the gravity of
the situation. For example,
Instagram was limiting the
number of viewerships for
stories highlighting the ground
reality in Gaza and the West
Bank. Moreover, when
international media offices
were deliberately destroyed in
Gaza by the Israel Defense
Forces (IDF), there was
confusion amongst western
journalist community with
some of them not giving it too
much importance despite the
fact that it was a war crime
under the Geneva Conventions.
Though countless journalists
did condemn in their personal
capacity on social media
platforms, it wasn’t really
enough in light of how some
newspapers and TV channels
could have used the opportunity
to take corrective measures
when it came to covering Israel
and Palestine. East Jerusalem-
based Palestinian writer
Mohammed el-Kurd’s iconic
interview with CNN is one such
case where the host failed to be
sympathetic to his
neighbourhood’s plight at the
hands of Israeli security. He
had to counter her with facts
throughout the course which
was supposed to be her primary
responsibility.
How about western
governments? Were they
balanced in their stance or just
playing with words? To answer
this, let’s take a look at the role
by the Biden Administration
over the last two weeks since
America is the leader of the
Free World in true sense. The
initial signalling was in full
support of Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
with terms like ‘Israel has the
right to self-defence’ being
used repeatedly. State
Department spokesperson Ned
Price was adamant in this
regard but was schooled by
reporters who were blunt in
their take on how Palestinian
children were deliberately
targeted and whether the
Palestinians have the same right
to defend themselves. Of
course, Price had no answer and
was flip flopping.
His boss Antony Blinken also
refused to acknowledge the
plight of the people in Gaza and
so did Secretary of Defense
Lloyd Austin III. When it came
to US President Joe Biden, his
stance was more or less similar.
It seemed as if they were tone
deaf and not reading the room
given how the global
perception about the crisis was
drastically changing. Only
when the likes of Senator
Bernie Sanders,
Congresswoman Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez and
Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib
stepped in, did the White House
water down its bizarre take. But
that wasn’t the only reason why
it had to insist on the now-
accepted ceasefire agreement
(in name only) brokered by
Egypt. Globally, key states
such as China, Russia, Turkey
and Pakistan were lobbying
against the Israeli onslaught
and were pretty much
successful especially after
initiating an emergency session
of the UN General Assembly
(UNGA) hours before the
ceasefire occurred.
Pakistan’s Foreign Minister
Shah Mahmood Qureshi, under
Prime Minister Imran Khan’s
directions, played a pivotal role
in pointing out Israel’s
oppressive and shameful
measures. While joining the
Turkish, Palestinian and
Tunisian foreign ministers on
the same aircraft for the historic
trip to New York City, his no
holds barred stance at the
UNGA session remained one of
the key highlights.
Notably, his interview with
CNN’s Bianna Golodryga
became a subject of huge
controversy in American and
Pakistani circles after it was
claimed that he was being
antisemitic when implying that
Israel controls Western media.
After assessing the interview, I
came to the conclusion that the
interview was balanced
although the minister could’ve
avoided using terms like ‘deep
pockets’ since it is considered
an offensive term.
Nevertheless, if the full
interview is taken into
consideration, Foreign Minister
Qureshi was only focusing on
what was being asked
specifically and he did not
condone antisemitism in any
way while publicly stating it
near the end.
In fact, no religion or state
should be singled out in its
entirety and focus should
remain on those elements who
are a blight to their respective
communities. I, for one, am a
strong believer in interfaith
harmony and when talking
about Israel and Palestine, I’ve
remained vocal about the two-
state solution as the road to
lasting peace in the region. But
is the current Israeli regime
serious about it? Absolutely
not.
As for America, it was high-
time for a reality check being
given to the Biden
Administration whose
unflinching support to an
apartheid Israeli regime was
damaging its reputation as an
administration which promised
a foreign policy based on
human rights and justice. If it
wished to set itself apart from
the Trump Administration, it
should not have vetoed the UN
Security Council (UNSC)
thrice just to favour Israel.
Allies should not blindly
support each other and always
make a room for friendly advise
and lessons to learn from.
Hence, as the world’s leading
power, America should avoid
being dictated by fascist
regimes by acting
independently and justly.
Palestine had been ignored for
far too long and its grievances
should be addressed before its
too late. At the time of writing
this piece, Israeli security has
once again attacked
worshippers at the Al-Aqsa
Mosque in Jerusalem which
implies that the ceasefire means
nothing. In real sense,
Netanyahu misused his
authority to protect himself
from being ousted in the next
couple of weeks. Hence, the
systematic genocide and one-
sided onslaught against the
Palestinians is mere politics for
hawkish elements like him.