Hamas at the Crossroads: Kill or Get Killed

In the brutal theatre of Gaza, Hamas finds itself at a historic crossroads — a reality starkly defined by the dictum kill or get killed. For Israel, the stated objective is clear ‑ the complete dismantling of Hamas as a governing and military force. For Hamas, survival has become both a military necessity and a political imperative.

Israel’s relentless strikes — from Gaza City to Doha — have made it clear that Hamas leaders are no longer safe even beyond their borders. The military offensive inside Gaza has decimated infrastructure, uprooted nearly the entire population, and left Hamas struggling to function as a governing body. Yet, paradoxically, the group continues to resist, proving its resilience through urban warfare, tunnel networks, and the strategic use of hostages in negotiations.

The problem is existential. Unlike traditional political movements that can retreat, regroup, and return, Hamas has been pushed into a corner where capitulation could mean extinction. Its leverage now rests on asymmetric warfare, regional mediation, and the hostage card. Without these, it risks becoming irrelevant — or annihilated.

This survivalist posture comes at a staggering cost. Gaza’s civilian population bears the brunt of the war, facing famine, displacement, and death. While Israel insists that Hamas hides behind civilians, Hamas’s very survival strategy ensures that Gaza remains both its shield and its Achilles’ heel. The humanitarian catastrophe threatens to erode what local legitimacy the group once enjoyed, even as international outrage grows against Israel’s disproportionate use of force.

The irony is bitter ‑ the more Israel tries to crush Hamas militarily, the more the group leans into its identity as an armed resistance movement rather than a governing authority. Each decapitation strike on its leadership risks splintering Hamas into more radical, less controllable factions. Far from erasing Hamas, this “kill or get killed” dynamic could entrench the cycle of violence for another generation.

The only path out of this trap lies not in military annihilation but in political imagination. Without a viable political horizon for Palestinians, attempts to eradicate Hamas will only create new versions of it. As things stand today, Hamas is not simply fighting a war — it is fighting for its very existence. And in that existential battle, Gaza’s civilians are paying the highest price.

 

Significance of Saudi Arabia-Pakistan defence pact

The Saudi Arabia-Pakistan defence pact is not just a military arrangement—it is a strategic partnership that underpins Pakistan’s economic security and Saudi Arabia’s military security. For Pakistan, it guarantees vital financial and diplomatic backing; for Saudi Arabia, it provides trusted military support and, indirectly, a nuclear-armed ally. Together, it represents one of the strongest security relationships in the Muslim world.

The Saudi Arabia- Pakistan defence pact carries deep strategic, political, and economic significance for both countries and the wider region. Its importance can be seen from multiple angles:

Strategic and Security Dimension

Mutual Security Guarantee:

Pakistan has historically provided military training, expertise, and manpower to Saudi Arabia, reinforcing the Kingdom’s defence at times of regional tension. In return, Saudi Arabia has been a security partner for Pakistan in times of external pressure.

Balancing Iran’s Influence:

For Saudi Arabia, Pakistan’s military cooperation is part of a broader strategy to counterbalance Iran in the Gulf and beyond. For Pakistan, it ensures strong backing from the Kingdom while maintaining a delicate balance in its own relations with Iran.

Nuclear Umbrella:

Although not formalized, Pakistan’s nuclear capability is sometimes seen as a potential backstop for Saudi security in case of existential threats, making the defence relationship symbolically powerful.

Military Cooperation

Training and Deployment:

Thousands of Pakistani military personnel have served in Saudi Arabia over the decades, providing training to Saudi forces. Even today, a contingent of Pakistani troops is stationed there for defence cooperation.

Arms and Defence Technology:

Pakistan has supplied small arms, ammunition, and defence equipment to Saudi Arabia. Joint ventures in defence production are under discussion.

Counterterrorism and Intelligence Sharing:

Both states have collaborated closely in intelligence sharing, counterterrorism operations, and combating extremist networks that threaten regional stability.

Economic and Political Significance

Financial Lifeline for Pakistan:

Saudi Arabia has been one of Pakistan’s most consistent financial supporters—providing oil on deferred payments, direct loans, and balance-of-payments support. The defence pact strengthens this bond by ensuring Pakistan’s military commitment in return.

Diplomatic Support:

Saudi Arabia often champions Pakistan’s stance on international platforms, including on Kashmir and economic cooperation within the OIC. Pakistan reciprocates by supporting Saudi positions on regional security and Islamic solidarity.

Regional and Global Context

Gulf Security:

Saudi Arabia views Pakistan as a reliable partner in securing the Gulf, especially in moments of instability.

Islamic Military Alliance:

Pakistan plays a central role in the Saudi-led Islamic Military Counter Terrorism Coalition (IMCTC), with former Pakistani Army Chief Gen. Raheel Sharif appointed as its first commander.

US–China Factor:

The pact also gives Saudi Arabia an alternative to over-reliance on Western defence support, while Pakistan uses it to diversify its security partnerships alongside China.

Symbolic and Religious Aspect

Custodianship of Holy Places:

Pakistan attaches special reverence to Saudi Arabia as the custodian of Islam’s holiest sites, and defence cooperation is also framed as protecting the sanctity of the Two Holy Mosques.

Soft Power and Legitimacy:

The pact signals unity of two major Muslim powers—Saudi Arabia with its economic and religious clout, and Pakistan with its military strength and nuclear capability.

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan sign defence pact

According to Reuters, Saudi Arabia and nuclear-armed Pakistan have signed a formal mutual defense pact on Wednesday, in a move that significantly strengthens a decades-long security partnership amid heightened regional tensions.

The enhanced defense ties come as Gulf Arab states grow increasingly wary about the reliability of the United States as their longstanding security guarantor. Israel's attack on Qatar last week heightened those concerns.

"This agreement is a culmination of years of discussions. This is not a response to specific countries or specific events but an institutionalization of longstanding and deep cooperation between our two countries," a senior Saudi official told Reuters when asked about its timing.

Israel's attempt to kill the political leaders of Hamas with airstrikes on Doha, while they were discussing a ceasefire proposal that Qatar is helping to mediate, infuriated Arab countries.

The pact could shift the strategic calculus in a complex region. Allies of Washington, Gulf monarchies have sought to stabilize ties with both Iran and Israel to resolve longstanding security concerns.

But the Gaza war has upended the region and Gulf state Qatar has been subjected to direct hits twice in a year, once by Iran and once by Israel.

The senior Saudi official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, acknowledged the need to balance relations with Pakistan's rival, India, also a nuclear power.

"Our relationship with India is more robust than it has ever been. We will continue to grow this relationship and seek to contribute to regional peace whichever way we can."

Asked whether Pakistan would be obliged to provide Saudi Arabia with a nuclear umbrella under the pact, the official said, "This is a comprehensive defensive agreement that encompasses all military means."

Pakistani state television showed Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the kingdom's de facto ruler, embracing after signing the agreement. In attendance was Pakistan's army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, regarded as the country's most powerful person.

"This agreement, which reflects the shared commitment of both nations to enhance their security and to achieving security and peace in the region and the world, aims to develop aspects of defense cooperation between the two countries and strengthen joint deterrence against any aggression. The agreement states that any aggression against either country shall be considered an aggression against both," a statement from the Pakistani prime minister's office said.

Gaza is burning or being burnt by Israel

Over the last few days the western media has been propagating an Israeli headline, “Gaza is burning”. On the contrary it should have been, “Gaza being burnt by Israel”. The Israeli troops are moving deeper into the enclave's main city. The number of soldiers is rising with each passing day as IDF believe that up to 3,000 Hamas combatants are still in the city.

Please allow us to say that Gaza is not merely a battlefield; it is a society in flames. Over two years of intensive military operations, territorial encirclement, and an all-but-complete blockade have produced a cascade of death, displacement, and institutional collapse.

The question of agency — whether Gaza “is burning” as an accident of war or because a party intends and effects its devastation — is not rhetorical. Evidence from humanitarian agencies, human-rights groups, and UN investigators points clearly to a campaign of force and policy by Israel that has produced, and continues to produce, catastrophic civilian destruction and deprivation.

The multiple UN and humanitarian reports document mass casualties, widespread displacement and the conditions of famine and disease now ravaging Gaza. The UN’s humanitarian coordination office describes Gaza City — home to nearly a million people who have nowhere safe to go — as facing daily bombardment and “compromised access to means of survival.”

The WHO’s public-health analysis confirms the lethal public-health consequences: rising malnutrition and deaths from starvation and disease, with hundreds of children already dead from malnutrition and famine conditions confirmed in parts of Gaza.

These outcomes are not incidental side effects of a narrowly targeted counterterror operation. Human-rights organizations have documented patterns of attacks that repeatedly hit schools, hospitals, shelters, and entire neighborhoods — precisely the civilian infrastructure that normally offers protection in war.

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have catalogued repeated strikes on schools and hospitals, extensive razing of towns, and the use of siege tactics that cut off food, fuel, and medical supplies — measures they say amount to unlawful collective punishment and, in Amnesty’s assessment, further evidence of genocidal intent.

An independent UN commission of inquiry has concluded that actions by Israeli authorities and forces meet the threshold of genocide, citing acts that include killing, causing severe bodily and mental harm, and imposing conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction.

That finding is explosive in normative terms because it reframes the humanitarian crisis as one driven not only by military necessity claims but by a pattern of conduct that international law treats as among the gravest crimes.

Three interlocking dynamics matter. First, operational doctrine: tactics emphasizing area bombardment, extensive use of heavy munitions in dense urban areas, and commands for mass civilian displacement dramatically increase civilian death and infrastructure destruction. Second, blockade and siege: restricting entry of food, fuel, water, and medicines turns even partial destruction into sustained catastrophe by preventing recovery and medical care. Third, accountability failures: continued supply of weapons and limited enforcement of international humanitarian law incentives have, critics argue, reduced the political and legal costs of tactics that imperil civilians.

The human consequences are immediate and wrenching. Schools that once sheltered displaced families are being struck; hospitals struggle to operate without fuel and supplies; entire neighborhoods have been razed to foundations; and children face not only the trauma of violence but death from malnutrition and preventable disease.

If civilian protection were the operational imperative, the combination of precise targeting, unfettered humanitarian corridors, and a halt to displacement orders would reduce civilian suffering. Instead, the combination of intense urban combat, orders pushing mass displacement within a sealed territory, and the impediment of essential supplies has produced conditions that human-rights experts interpret as deliberate or recklessly indifferent to civilian life. That is the core of the charge that Gaza is being “burnt” by Israeli policy and force.

Bipartisan US Bill: A Turning Point for Pakistan’s Democracy

The introduction of the Pakistan Freedom and Accountability Act in the US Congress marks a watershed moment in Pakistan’s struggle for democracy. At a time when voices for justice are being silenced and political prisoners remain behind bars, Washington’s move signals that the world is watching — and willing to act.

Spearheaded by Congressman Bill Huizenga and co-led by Democrat Sydney Kamlager-Dove, the bipartisan measure draws rare unity across America’s political divide. By invoking the Global Magnitsky Act, it targets Pakistani officials — past or present — complicit in human rights abuses, corruption, or suppression of free elections. The message is unambiguous: no official, no matter how powerful, is beyond accountability.

This bill does more than threaten sanctions. It reaffirms America’s commitment to Pakistan’s people, not its ruling elites. It echoes House Resolution 901, which passed with overwhelming support earlier this year, and builds pressure on Islamabad to restore democratic norms, rule of law, and freedom of expression.

The statements from lawmakers underscore its intent. Huizenga declared that the US will not sit idle as abuses mount. Kamlager-Dove stressed that defending democracy must remain central to US policy. Democrat Julie Johnson warned that those who undermine free elections will face consequences on the global stage.

Equally significant is the role of the Pakistani diaspora. Advocacy groups such as the Pakistan-American Public Affairs Committee and First Pakistan Global pushed tirelessly for this legislation.

Their efforts transformed grassroots frustration into congressional action. As Dr Malik Usman noted, the bill embodies Haqeeqi Azadi — real freedom — standing shoulder-to-shoulder with 250 million Pakistanis in demanding justice and the release of political prisoners, including former Prime Minister Imran Khan.

The legislation’s bipartisan nature and alignment with earlier resolutions suggest strong momentum in Congress. More importantly, it places Pakistan’s ruling establishment under unprecedented international scrutiny.

For decades, authoritarian practices in Pakistan thrived under the shield of strategic alliances. That era may be ending.

With this bill, the US draws a clear line ‑ friendship with Pakistan does not mean indulgence of its oppressors. It means solidarity with its people, their rights, and their democratic aspirations.

Doha Summit: Strong Words No Action

Israel’s brazen airstrike on Doha on September 09 is not just an attack on Qatar—it is an assault on the dignity and sovereignty of the entire Arab and Muslim world. Targeting a Hamas delegation engaged in US-backed ceasefire talks, Israel killed five members and a Qatari officer, proving it is willing to bomb peace itself.

At the emergency Arab-Islamic summit in Doha, Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani condemned the strike as “blatant, treacherous, cowardly aggression.”

Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian called it “a blatant act of terrorism,” warning that no Arab or Muslim nation is safe from Israel’s ambitions.

Iraq’s Prime Minister urged a shift “from condemnation to coordinated action.”

Malaysia’s Anwar Ibrahim blasted the hollowness of repeated declarations.

Turkey’s Erdogan accused Israel of embodying “a terrorist mentality,” and Jordan’s King Abdullah II warned of unending expansionism.

Even the UN Security Council unanimously condemned the strike—an unprecedented rebuke.

Yet evidence suggests coordination between Israel and US Central Command, exposing Washington’s double game ‑ publicly criticizing Israel while enabling its wars across Gaza, Syria, Lebanon—and now Qatar.

This aggression also reflects Benjamin Netanyahu’s desperation. His failure to crush Hamas, coupled with corruption trials and political infighting, has made perpetual war his only survival strategy.

With over 65,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza—including 21,000 children—Israel measures success in death tolls, not strategic gains.

Striking Qatar, host to the largest US base in the region, signals Israel’s broader “Greater Israel” ambitions—regional dominance with American cover.

Five years after the Abraham Accords, it is clear normalization did not moderate Israel. It emboldened Tel Aviv to trample sovereignty with impunity.

By striking Qatar, Israel has crossed every red line, daring Arab states to move beyond words.

The time for statements is over. Arab and Muslim nations must cut ties, enforce boycotts, and present a unified front. Anything less will ensure Israel dictates the Middle East’s future in blood and fire—while the Arab world watches silently from the sidelines.

Arab Islamic Summit in Qatar: A Defining Moment against Israeli Aggression

The Arab-Islamic summit opening in Doha today is not just another diplomatic gathering; it is a response to Israel’s reckless assault on Qatar, an attack that shook the region and shattered the myth of security in the Gulf.

By targeting Hamas negotiators on Qatari soil, Israel crossed a dangerous red line — one that exposes its contempt for international law and its readiness to export its genocidal campaign in Gaza far beyond Palestinian borders.

Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani has been unequivocal, Israel’s crimes will not derail Doha’s mediation with Egypt and the United States, but the world must abandon its double standards. Israel has enjoyed decades of impunity, yet its aggression is destabilizing the entire Middle East.

Pakistan, co-sponsoring the summit, has taken a principled stand. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s participation underscores Islamabad’s solidarity with both Qatar and Palestine.

For Pakistan, this summit is also a message, aggression against one Muslim state is an attack on all.

Israel’s strike killed five Hamas members and a young Qatari officer — none senior leaders — proving the attack was less about strategy and more about provocation.

By violating Qatar’s sovereignty, Israel has inflamed the Muslim world, forcing Arab and Islamic leaders to move beyond rhetoric.

The summit will debate a resolution on Israeli aggression, but what matters more is whether the 57-member OIC and the 22-member Arab League can translate words into action. Iran has already urged the creation of a “joint operations room” of Islamic states, signaling growing impatience with empty condemnations.

Israel’s war is no longer limited to Gaza; its bombs now fall on Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and even Iran. The illusion of Gulf immunity has crumbled. States like Qatar may now be compelled to seek new security arrangements — perhaps even pressing Washington for more than just weapons sales.

Doha’s summit could be a turning point. If Arab and Islamic leaders muster unity and resolve, they can make Israel’s expansionist project costlier than ever. If not, the cycle of impunity will continue — with Palestinians and the wider region paying the price.