World Has Become Partner in Killing of Gazans

This writeup examines how global inaction, diplomatic protection, and delayed humanitarian mechanisms have contributed to the ongoing crisis in Gaza. It questions whether the world, intentionally or by default, has become a passive partner in the tragedy.

The war in Gaza is not unfolding in isolation. It is taking place within a global system where major powers supply weapons, veto ceasefire resolutions, and delay the creation of any independent administrative or security mechanism for Gaza.

This does not mean every nation is actively supporting the killings, but the combination of strategic silence, diplomatic protection, and ineffective humanitarian enforcement creates the impression that the world, by action or inaction, has become a partner in allowing the destruction to continue.

The United States and several European governments remain Israel’s principal military and diplomatic supporters. Arms transfers, intelligence sharing, and repeated vetoes at the UN Security Council have blocked ceasefire initiatives or international investigations.

Although discussions were held about a transitional authority or peacekeeping force for post-conflict Gaza, no structure has been implemented. As a result, Israel continues to control borders, airspace, and aid oversight.

Humanitarian aid pledges from international donors rarely translate into consistent delivery. Bureaucratic inspections, restricted crossings, and lack of secure corridors delay supplies.

Arab and Muslim governments issue statements but refrain from economic sanctions, diplomatic withdrawal, or coordinated action through the OIC or Arab League. Their responses remain political, not operational.

However, describing the entire world as a partner overlooks visible resistance. Countries such as South Africa, Brazil, Ireland, Spain, and Norway have openly condemned Israeli actions. South Africa has taken Israel to the International Court of Justice on genocide charges. Humanitarian agencies — UNRWA, WHO, Red Cross, Médecins Sans Frontières — continue to work despite operational hazards and loss of staff.

Public resistance is also significant, with widespread protests across Europe, the U.S., and Muslim-majority countries, including from Jewish and academic groups. Some regional states like Qatar, Egypt, and Jordan provide aid or mediate negotiations, although within limited parameters.

Therefore, global behavior reflects neither full complicity nor decisive opposition. It is a landscape of selective engagement, geopolitical caution, and lack of enforcement. The failure is not of words, but of action.

 

India and Pakistan: Identify Common Enemy

There is a harsh reality often ignored — the people of India and Pakistan have suffered more from poverty, disasters, and neglect rather than from each other’s armies. Yet hawks continue to see the other side of the border as the greatest threat. Generations have grown up believing that patriotism means suspicion, that strength lies in weapons, and that peace is weakness. But what if the real enemy has never worn a uniform or carried a flag?

Both nations spend billions of dollars on arms, missiles, and surveillance — while hospitals run short of beds and medicines, schools crumble, and farmers take their own lives under the weight of debt. A mother in Karachi and a mother in Kanpur worry about the same things: a child’s future, safe drinking water, a stable income, a life with dignity. Yet both are told that the biggest danger lies across the border, not within their own streets.

The real enemies are hunger, illiteracy, unemployment, floods, droughts, and corruption. These enemies do not need visas; they cross borders every day. Floodwaters destroy homes in Sindh and Assam alike. Farmers in Punjab — on both sides — pray for rains and fair prices. Youth in Lahore and Lucknow struggle to find jobs despite degrees. These shared pains are louder than the slogans of hate, if only we choose to listen.

Yes, history has been bitter. Wars have been fought, lives have been lost, and wounds run deep. But must our children inherit this hostility as their only legacy? Are we destined to repeat the same mistakes simply because we are too proud to change?

Imagine a different rivalry — not of tanks and missiles, but of innovation, literacy rates, clean energy, technology, and exports. Imagine India and Pakistan competing to eliminate poverty faster, to educate every child, to heal the sick, to build green economies, to lead the world in science and discovery. That is a kind of competition the world would welcome — and our people desperately need.

True strength is not measured by how many enemies we can defeat, but by how many lives we can uplift. A strong nation is not one that frightens others, but one that gives its citizens hope.

India and Pakistan do not need to become military superpowers. They have the potential to become economic and human development giants — if only they identify their real enemy.

 

Trump’s Belligerence Toward Venezuela

US Representative Ro Khanna has called for urgent congressional action to prevent “another endless, regime-change war,” following reports that President Donald Trump is considering military strikes against Venezuela. Khanna warned such actions would be “blatantly unconstitutional,” emphasizing that no president has the authority to launch attacks without Congress’ approval.

Reports from the Miami Herald claimed the Trump administration has decided to strike Venezuelan military installations, while the Wall Street Journal reported that potential targets—mainly military facilities allegedly used for drug smuggling—have been identified, though Trump has not made a final decision. According to unnamed officials, the goal of these strikes would be to pressure Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to step down.

While the White House denies any finalized plans, Trump said aboard Air Force One that he believes he has the authority to act without congressional approval. Last week, he suggested land strikes could follow recent unauthorized and deadly attacks on boats in waters near Central and South America.

Despite growing concerns about a possible unauthorized military escalation, only a handful of lawmakers have voiced strong opposition. Senators Tim Kaine, Rand Paul, and Adam Schiff have backed a resolution to block Trump from launching strikes without congressional authorization. Other lawmakers, including Bernie Sanders and Ruben Gallego, have condemned Trump’s aggressive posture.

Sanders argued Trump is “illegally threatening war with Venezuela,” stressing that only Congress has the constitutional power to declare war. Public opposition is also evident; Dylan Williams from the Center for International Policy noted that most Americans oppose forcibly overthrowing Venezuela’s government.

Williams urged citizens to contact their senators and support S.J.Res.90, a resolution to block unauthorized military action. In the House, a similar resolution led by Rep. Jason Crow has gained over 30 cosponsors. Representative Joe Neguse, who supports the measure, said Trump “does not have the legal authority to launch military strikes inside Venezuela without specific authorization by Congress,” calling any unilateral action reckless and unconstitutional.

Neguse added that the American public does not want another endless war and that constitutional norms require congressional deliberation—period.

PSX benchmark index closes almost flat despite volatility

Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) experienced volatility throughout the week amid border tensions with Afghanistan, declining initially before rebounding sharply by 4,900 points in the final session following positive news of a potential ceasefire. It ultimately closed at 161,632 points, down 1% during the week.

Average daily traded volumes contracted by 14.7%WoW to 1,564 million shares despite roll over week as investors remained cautious.

The key highlight was the decision by State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) to maintain the policy rate at 11%, broadly in line with expectations.

Pakistan-Afghanistan negotiations in Istanbul concluded with a truce under certain conditions, easing geopolitical tensions.

Meanwhile, authorities assured the IMF of additional PKR200 billion in revenue measures if 1HFY26 tax targets fall short.

In the T-Bill auction, the SBP raised PPR1.0 trillion, with yields falling 11bps on 1-month paper but rising 10bps on 12-month tenor.

Foreign exchange reserves held by SBP declined by US$16 million to US$14.5 billion as of October 24, 2025.

AKD Securities foresees the momentum in the benchmark index to continue given successful staff-level agreement of the IMF’s second review, minimal flood impact and improved credit ratings by global agencies amid falling fixed income yields.

Investors’ sentiments are expected to further improve on the likelihood of foreign portfolio and direct investment flows, driven by improved relations with the United States and Saudi Arabia.

This outlook is supported by the lack of alternative investment avenues and the attractive valuation of local equities.

Top picks of AKD Securities include MEBL, MCB, HBL, OGDC, PPL, PSO, FFC, ENGROH, LUCK, DGKC, FCCL, SYS and INDU.

 

Why Pak-Afghan Conflict Remains Unresolved?

The conflict between Pakistan and Afghanistan remains unresolved because it is rooted in a mix of historical disputes, mutual mistrust, and competing security interests that have persisted for decades. Despite cultural, religious, and economic linkages, both nations continue to view each other with suspicion rather than cooperation.

At the heart of the problem lies the Durand Line, drawn by the British in 1893 and inherited by Pakistan after independence. Afghanistan has never formally recognized it as an international border, claiming it divides the Pashtun population. Pakistan, however, considers the frontier legally settled. This disagreement has become a symbol of deeper political and ethnic tensions.

The Pashtun question adds another layer of complexity. The tribes on both sides share linguistic and familial ties, but political narratives have often turned these affinities into instruments of rivalry. Pakistan fears Afghan nationalism could spill over its borders, while Kabul perceives Pakistan’s involvement as interference in its internal affairs.

Security concerns have long overshadowed diplomacy. Since the Soviet invasion of 1979, Pakistan has played a key role in Afghan affairs, hosting millions of refugees and supporting various political factions. Yet, both sides accuse each other of harboring hostile groups — Pakistan blames Afghanistan for sheltering the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), while Kabul accuses Islamabad of backing insurgents. This cycle of allegations has eroded trust.

The Taliban’s return to power in 2021 initially raised hopes for stability, but their refusal to recognize the Durand Line and restrain TTP activities has renewed friction. Meanwhile, regional players — including India, Iran, China, and the United States — continue to shape dynamics that complicate bilateral understanding.

For lasting peace, both countries must shift from blame to dialogue, strengthen border management, and build economic interdependence through trade and connectivity. The Pak-Afghan relationship should not remain hostage to history; instead, it should evolve into a partnership anchored in mutual respect and regional stability.

Only through sustained diplomacy, trust-building, and shared development goals can Pakistan and Afghanistan transform a troubled past into a cooperative future.

 

 

No One Is Talking About Gaza

The world seems to have forgotten Gaza. The much-trumpeted ceasefire was never peace—it was merely a pause, a calculated silence that allowed Israel to continue its assault under softer headlines. Killings, raids, and blockades persist, but the outrage has vanished. Western media, once overflowing with images of destruction, now devotes its front pages to Trump’s political theatrics and market gossip. This apathy is not accidental; it reflects selective morality and political convenience. When Ukraine suffers, it’s front-page news; when Gaza bleeds, it disappears. The ceasefire was not an end to violence but a rebranding of it—acceptable to Western capitals and ignored by global media. Gaza remains trapped between occupation and silence, its tragedy erased by those who claim to defend human rights.

When the so-called Gaza ceasefire was announced, the world sighed in relief. On October 16, 2026, I wrote “Gaza: Ceasefire Brings Pause, Not Peace.” Sadly, that assessment has proved accurate. What was projected as a humanitarian breakthrough has merely given Israel a quieter stage to continue its aggression—less visible, but equally lethal.

Killings, arrests, and systematic strangulation of Gaza’s population have not stopped. Reports by independent observers describe continued night raids, targeted assassinations, and a tightening blockade that deprives millions of food, medicine, and fuel. Yet, the international community acts as if peace has returned. It hasn’t. What returned is complacency—disguised as relief.

The Western media, once saturated with vivid images of destruction, has conveniently moved on. Its focus has shifted to Trump’s political drama, Wall Street turbulence, and AI-driven optimism. The suffering of Gaza has simply fallen off the editorial map. This silence is not a lapse; it is a choice. It reflects a hierarchy of human lives—a moral framework where victims matter only if their suffering fits Western narratives.

The tragedy is not only Israel’s continued impunity but also the media’s complicity in erasing it. The same outlets that once counted every missile strike now seem allergic to truth when it no longer serves their political comfort. When Ukraine bleeds, headlines multiply; when Gaza starves, the world looks away.

This selective blindness reveals a deeper sickness in global conscience. Human rights, it appears, are not universal—they are conditional, determined by who the victim is and who the perpetrator happens to be. Western capitals that preach democracy and humanitarian values have reduced Palestine to a talking point, not a principle.

Silence is not neutrality; it is endorsement. Every unreported killing, every censored image, every muted appeal strengthens the aggressor’s hand. Israel understands this perfectly. A quiet Gaza allows it to deepen occupation policies without scrutiny. And the world, addicted to short attention spans, gives it exactly that space.

International organizations remain trapped between bureaucratic inertia and political pressure. The so-called peace architects, who engineered the fragile ceasefire, have vanished from the scene. For them, “mission accomplished” meant restoring calm, not justice.

The truth is harsh: Gaza has been abandoned again—this time not under bombs, but under silence. Western media’s shift of focus from genocide to gossip exposes the moral decay of an information system guided by profit and politics, not by conscience.

Until the world admits that a ceasefire without accountability is merely an intermission between massacres, Gaza will remain a scar on the world’s conscience—a living reminder of how easily human suffering can be ignored when it is politically inconvenient.

 

 

 

 

Billionaires vs. Mamdani: Democracy for Sale

The billionaire class is spending millions to block Zohran Mamdani’s rise — not because he threatens New York City’s stability, but because he threatens their supremacy. Mamdani’s agenda of taxing the ultra-rich to fund housing, public transit, and child care strikes at the heart of a system that lets the few profit while the many struggle. His opponents — hedge-fund moguls, property tycoons, and Wall Street donors — are pouring unprecedented sums into super PACs to drown out a movement built on ordinary citizens.

This isn’t about protecting the economy; it’s about protecting privilege. The same billionaires who hoard wealth offshore suddenly claim to care about fiscal discipline. Their fear is ideological — that Mamdani’s victory will prove that grassroots politics can defeat corporate cash. They see democracy not as a marketplace of ideas, but as an asset they can buy, trade, and hedge against.

By weaponizing money to silence dissenting voices, they expose the fragility of American democracy. A candidate advocating fairness is branded a threat, while those funding inequality are hailed as “defenders of growth.” The irony is suffocating.

Mamdani’s campaign is more than a local contest — it’s a referendum on whether voters or billionaires rule America. Every dollar spent against him is a vote against equality, against the idea that power should serve the people, not purchase them. If billionaires succeed in crushing his candidacy, it will not be a victory for democracy — it will be its price tag.