Can Pakistan’s Stock Market Euphoria Last?

The Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) has turned into a theater of euphoria. In recent months, the KSE-100 has scaled historic highs, luring investors with the promise of easy gains and signaling a newfound confidence in the economy. The question now is not whether the rally has been spectacular, but whether it can last.

Several factors support the bulls. The State Bank’s shift toward monetary easing has reduced borrowing costs, drawing investors away from fixed income and into equities. Lower interest rates traditionally inflate valuations, and Pakistan is no exception. Add to this the IMF’s continued engagement and incremental fiscal discipline, and the picture looks markedly better than just two years ago when fears of default loomed large. International credit agencies have upgraded Pakistan’s outlook, further feeding optimism.

Sectors like banking, energy, and cement — heavyweights in the index — have reported improved earnings, lending substance to the rally. Market psychology is also playing its part; momentum has a way of sustaining itself, as more investors join in, driven by fear of missing out.

But euphoria has a habit of blinding participants to lurking dangers. Pakistan’s political fragility remains the most potent risk. A sudden shift in the governing coalition, renewed street agitation, or policy U-turns could shake investor confidence overnight. Likewise, the country’s external account remains precarious; a spike in oil prices or weakening of the rupee could unravel the fragile stability. Inflation, though easing, is hardly conquered, and any resurgence would force the central bank back into tightening mode.

Overvaluation is another trap. After such a steep run, some stocks now trade at stretched multiples. Unless earnings growth matches expectations, disappointment could trigger a sell-off. And with global financial markets on edge over interest rate uncertainty and geopolitical flare-ups, Pakistan is hardly insulated from external shocks.

Trump’s Gaza Plan: A Critical Evaluation

US President Donald Trump has recently unveiled Gaza proposal aiming at an immediate cessation of large-scale hostilities, swift hostage returns, and an internationally supervised transitional mechanism for aid and reconstruction. The plan’s clarity of purpose and rapid timeline respond to urgent humanitarian imperatives and reflect the international community’s appetite to halt suffering quickly. Yet clarity is not the same as feasibility.

The plan conditions major concessions — disarmament, handover of local administration, and the release of hostages within days — on compliance by an armed movement embedded in a densely populated territory. Observers warn that such hard deadlines may be operationally impractical and risk provoking standoffs rather than negotiated de-escalation.

Legitimacy is another central issue. The initiative was advanced by external actors and endorsed publicly by several regional capitals and Israel, but it was not the product of inclusive negotiation with the full range of Palestinian stakeholders. That gap raises questions about local ownership, representation, and the long-term acceptability of an externally driven transitional authority.

Equally important are enforcement and verification. The plan sketches mechanisms for aid flow and prisoner exchanges but leaves underdefined who will verify disarmament, guarantee security guarantees, or arbitrate disputes if steps stall. Without robust, impartial monitoring and contingent incentives, incremental breaches could quickly unravel fragile progress.

Finally, the proposal’s political balance matters. Supporters argue it prioritizes an end to violence and rapid relief; critics say it privileges immediate security outcomes over parallel political guarantees that address grievances and political rights.

A genuinely neutral approach would pair urgent humanitarian measures with credible, rights-based pathways for political resolution and accountability.

Recommendation: recast the plan as phased and conditional — immediate, verified humanitarian pauses; monitored hostage-prisoner exchanges; a time-bound international oversight role with clear benchmarks; and a parallel roadmap for political rights and reconstruction commitments.

Only by combining urgency with inclusivity and impartial verification can any proposal hope to deliver sustainable stability rather than a temporary reprieve.

Ultimately, durable peace will require compromises by all parties, sustained regional cooperation, and transparent international oversight to maintain trust and mechanisms for accountability.

Understanding Netanyahu’s Resistance to Palestinian Statehood Recognition

The question of Palestinian statehood continues to dominate debates at the United Nations, where an increasing number of countries have formally recognized Palestine. However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu remains firmly opposed. His resistance is not only political but also rooted in a complex intersection of security concerns, territorial disputes, and domestic dynamics.

From a security perspective, Israel under Netanyahu argues that recognition of a Palestinian state could pose serious risks. The Israeli leadership contends that without robust guarantees, such recognition might empower militant groups, potentially turning Palestinian territory into a base for armed activity against Israel. This framing allows Netanyahu to position statehood recognition as a matter of national defense rather than political compromise.

A second dimension involves the status of land and settlements. Over the years, Israeli settlements in the West Bank have expanded significantly. International recognition of Palestine would cast these settlements in an unequivocally illegal light under international law, creating new diplomatic and legal challenges for Israel. For Netanyahu, resisting recognition is tied directly to maintaining territorial control and avoiding pressures to dismantle or freeze settlement activity.

Domestic politics also play a decisive role. Netanyahu’s governing coalitions have often included right-wing and religious nationalist parties that categorically reject Palestinian statehood. Within this political framework, any concession toward recognition could destabilize his government. Thus, opposition to statehood is not only ideological but also a strategy of political survival.

Finally, Netanyahu’s regional strategy favors normalization with Arab states without linking it directly to Palestinian aspirations. The Abraham Accords exemplify this approach, where Israel advanced ties with Gulf states while leaving the Palestinian issue unresolved. Recognition of Palestine at the UN challenges this strategy by reasserting the centrality of the Palestinian question in Middle Eastern politics.

Netanyahu’s opposition to Palestinian statehood recognition can be understood as the convergence of security considerations, settlement policies, domestic political imperatives, and regional strategy. It reflects Israel’s broader attempt to manage the Palestinian question on its own terms, rather than through international forums.

 

Warning for Gold Investors

Don’t be panicked but keep close watch on the commodity market, especially gold. The precious metal has rallied more than 10% this month, but took a breather after reaching another record early Tuesday, last trading day of the month. The prospect of an imminent United States government shutdown added to the metal’s appeal as a safe haven investment. Vice President JD Vance pinned the blame for the potential shutdown on the Democrats one day before federal funding is set to lapse. Meanwhile, federal agencies are preparing plans that call for temporary furloughs but not permanent mass firings.

Trump-Netanyahu Peace Plan: Ceasefire or Trap

The Trump–Netanyahu meeting in New York was staged as a diplomatic triumph. Cameras clicked, statements flowed, and a so-called historic deal was announced. Israel has formally endorsed Trump’s 20-point Gaza peace plan, but beneath the fanfare lies a script written as much for domestic politics as for genuine peace.

At the heart of the plan are four pillars: 1) an immediate ceasefire if accepted, 2) release of hostages within 72 hours, 3) a phased Israeli withdrawal, and 4) disarmament of Hamas. On paper, this sounds like a path out of a devastating war. In reality, it looks more like an ultimatum dressed as diplomacy.

The governance structure proposed is even more telling. Gaza would not return to the Palestinians in any meaningful sense but be handed over to a technocratic committee under international oversight. A “Board of Peace” chaired by Trump—flanked by international figures like Tony Blair—would supervise the transition. Hamas, the very power broker in Gaza, is not only excluded but delegitimized entirely. This is less a peace plan than a regime-change blueprint.

The Trump–Netanyahu warning was clear, Hamas must accept the plan “the easy way,” or Israel—with full American backing—will impose “the hard way.” This is not mediation; it is coercion.

For Netanyahu, who faces political vulnerability at home, US cover for renewed aggression is a golden ticket. For Trump, the deal enhances his image as a global dealmaker ahead of a bruising election cycle.

Yet the glaring omission remains Palestinian statehood. By skirting this fundamental issue, the plan buys short-term tactical gains but undermines any sustainable settlement.

Arab capitals, from Cairo to Doha, understand that without Hamas’ consent, the blueprint collapses under its own weight. No technocratic committee or international board can govern Gaza in defiance of its most powerful actor.

Trump and Netanyahu call this peace. In truth, it is a gamble - either Hamas yields, or Gaza is marched toward another round of bloodshed under international applause.

Far from solving the conflict, the deal risks deepening it. A plan that sidelines one side while empowering the other is not peace—it is merely the pause before the storm.

Global Sumud Flotilla approaching Gaza

According to media reports, an international aid flotilla is approaching the Gaza Strip in a bid to break an Israeli blockade on the Palestinian enclave.

“We are 570 kilometers (307.7 nautical miles) away from reaching Gaza,” the International Committee for Breaking the Siege on Gaza said on X.

Tony La Piccirella, an Italian activist from the Global Sumud Flotilla, said in a video statement that they will reach on Tuesday the point that Madleen and Handala aid ships had been intercepted by Israeli naval forces in previous attempts to lift the Israeli siege and deliver humanitarian aid.

On July 26, Israeli naval forces intercepted the Handala aid ship as it neared Gaza’s shores and escorted it to Ashdod Port. The vessel had reached about 70 nautical miles from Gaza, surpassing the distance covered by the Madleen, which made it 110 miles before it had been stopped.

A group of activists joined the Global Sumud Flotilla from the Mediterranean on Monday, and two more boats are joining from the Greek Cypriot Administration and Turkey. The biggest ship of the flotilla will set sail on Tuesday with 100 on board, the activist said.

La Piccirella said in addition to Italian and Spanish navy vessels that provide protection for the flotilla, three more countries are considering sending more military vessels, without revealing the names of these countries.

“So, it's getting bigger. And it's not about us, about the Global Sumud Flotilla. It's like a movement with hundreds of people at sea and millions of people on land, and it's not stoppable until the siege is broken,” he said.

The Global Sumud Flotilla, made up of about 50 ships, set sail earlier this month to break Israel’s blockade on Gaza and deliver humanitarian aid, particularly medical supplies, to the war-ravaged enclave.

Since March 02, Israel has fully closed Gaza’s crossings, blocking food and aid convoys and deepening famine conditions in the enclave.

The Israeli army has killed over 66,000 Palestinians, most of them women and children, in Gaza since October 2023. The relentless bombardment has rendered the enclave uninhabitable and led to starvation and the spread of diseases.

 

 

Israel’s Obsession with Iran: Supremacy, Not Survival

Israel presents its confrontation with Iran as a fight for survival. It propagates Tehran seeks its destruction, and therefore preemptive action is necessary. Yet behind this rhetoric lies a harder reality—Israel’s true concern is not annihilation but the erosion of its strategic supremacy.

At the center of this tension is Iran’s nuclear program. Israel is the Middle East’s only nuclear power, though it never admits it officially. For decades it has enjoyed this monopoly as the ultimate insurance policy.

Iran, even without a bomb, is branded an existential menace. What alarms Tel Aviv is not that Tehran would attack with nuclear weapons, but that a nuclear-capable Iran would undermine Israel’s unrivaled leverage. In other words, it is not fear of destruction, but fear of parity.

The second driver is Iran’s support for resistance groups. Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza—these are not armies that can topple Israel, but they have repeatedly punctured its aura of invincibility. Each rocket barrage, each fortified position along the border, is viewed in Tel Aviv as an extension of Iranian influence, shrinking Israel’s space for unchecked action.

Ideology intensifies the clash. Iran refuses to recognize Israel, while Israeli leaders—from Netanyahu onward—frame Tehran as the new Nazi Germany. This absolutist narrative forecloses compromise and justifies covert assassinations, cyber sabotage, airstrikes in Syria, and endless lobbying for harsher sanctions.

The deeper layer is geopolitical. Among Middle Eastern states, only Iran possesses the population, resources, and regional reach to contest Israel’s dominance. Neutralizing Tehran means securing Israel’s role as the region’s undisputed military power—backed by Washington, tolerated by Arab monarchies, and free to redraw the political map to its liking.

Israel’s Iran obsession is not about survival. It is about ensuring that no other state can balance its power. By disguising this pursuit of supremacy as self-defense, Israel sustains a cycle of hostility that makes genuine peace impossible.

The world buys the existential threat narrative, but the truth is starker - Israel seeks not containment of Iran, but its permanent crippling.