Hochul endorses Mamdani for New York City mayor

New York Governor, Kathy Hochul on Sunday formally endorsed New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee, in the general election this November.

She announced her endorsement in a New York Times op-ed Sunday evening, stressing the importance of working together with the city’s mayor.

“The question of who will be the next mayor is one I take extremely seriously and to which I have devoted a great deal of thought,” the more moderate Democrat wrote in the piece. “Tonight I am endorsing Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani.”

Mamdani, a democratic socialist, won the Democratic nomination earlier this summer, but some party leaders have withheld their endorsements, citing concerns that some of his policy views could lean too far to the left.

But recent polls show Mamdani with a commanding lead in the race over his opponents. Even in head-to-head match-ups with each opponent, Mamdani takes the lead, according to recent polls.

Hochul said she arrived at her decision after having “frank conversations” with Mamdani over the past few months.

“We’ve had our disagreements. But in our conversations, I heard a leader who shares my commitment to a New York where children can grow up safe in their neighborhoods and where opportunity is within reach for every family. I heard a leader who is focused on making New York City affordable — a goal I enthusiastically support.”

She said she raised concerns about ensuring the New York City Police Department (NYPD) have “every resource to keep our streets and subways safe.”

“I urged him to ensure that there is strong leadership at the helm of the NYPD — and he agreed,” she wrote.

Hochul said she also raised the issue of antisemitism with the Democratic candidate, and they discussed “the need to combat” its rise “urgently and unequivocally.”

“I’ve been glad to see him meet with Jewish leaders across the city, listening and addressing their concerns directly. I look forward to working together to make sure New Yorkers of all faiths feel safe and welcome in New York City,” Hochul wrote.

She also said she emphasized the importance of attracting businesses to New York so it remains the “center of the global economy.”

Hochul talked about the importance of making life affordable in New York and said she “needed to know the next mayor would not be someone who would surrender one inch to Donald Trump.”

“I didn’t leave my conversations with him aligned on every issue. But I am confident that he has the courage, urgency and optimism New York City needs to lead it through the challenges of this moment.”

Hochul acknowledged she and Mamdani are “unlikely allies” but said New Yorkers deserve political leaders not focused on “grievances or grudges” but instead ready “to fight like hell.”

“Zohran and I don’t see eye to eye on everything, and I don’t expect us to. I will always reserve the right to disagree honestly and to argue passionately. But I also believe that New York State and New York City are at their best when we stand together against those who attempt to tear us apart,” she wrote.

“For all these reasons, I am endorsing Zohran Mamdani in the upcoming election for mayor. And I look forward to working with him to ensure that New York City’s best days lie ahead.”

Mamdani said he was thankful for the backing. “I’m grateful for the Governor’s support in unifying our party, her resolve in standing up to Trump, and her focus on making New York affordable. I look forward to the great work we will accomplish together,” he posted on social media. “Our movement is only growing stronger.”

 

 

Israeli Strike on Qatar: A Wake-Up Call for Arab Monarchs

Israel’s brazen airstrike on Qatari soil has torn away the mask of “normalization” and exposed the contempt Tel Aviv holds for Arab sovereignty. The attack, which targeted a Hamas delegation attending US-brokered ceasefire talks, killed five members and a Qatari security officer. The leadership survived, but the message was clear: no Arab capital is beyond Israel’s reach.

This was not just an attack on Hamas. It was a violation of Qatar’s sovereignty, a slap in the face to Washington — Qatar’s supposed ally — and a provocation to the entire Arab world. For decades Israel has bombed Lebanon, Gaza, and Syria. Now, by striking Qatar — a state known for mediation and humanitarian diplomacy — Israel has crossed a new line.

The strike also shatters illusions about normalization. The Abraham Accords were sold as pathways to peace. Instead, they emboldened Israel, eroded Arab leverage, and exposed the region to even greater danger.

Qatar, which refused to normalize, now stands vindicated. Its independent stance — grounded in mediation, relief, and dignity — contrasts starkly with the silence of others.

The global reaction revealed Israel’s growing isolation. In a rare consensus, the UN Security Council, including the US, condemned the strike. Yet reports suggest coordination between Israeli forces and US Central Command, underscoring Washington’s duplicity.

Far from intimidating Qatar, Israel has only amplified its role. Qatar is now preparing an emergency Arab-Islamic summit, with expectations of real measures — joint diplomatic pressure, trade and tech restrictions, and united action in global forums. The UAE’s ban on Israel from a defense expo and Iran’s confirmed participation point to a rising front of solidarity.

Israel intended to project dominance but instead exposed desperation. It is failing in Gaza, where over 64,000 Palestinians have been killed without breaking Hamas, and it stumbled in June’s 12-day war with Iran. The Qatar strike is less about strength than about masking repeated defeats.

For Arabs, this must be the breaking point. Silence has only invited more aggression. The attack on Qatar is not just another outrage — it is the wake-up call the Arab world can no longer afford to ignore.

Japan juggling crises on all fronts

Japan is juggling crises on all fronts: a political vacuum after Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba's resignation, bond yields at 1999 highs, inflation outpacing wages, a shrinking population, and stagnant growth. All this as Tokyo strains under a shaky trade deal with Washington while looking nervously over at China's repetitive threats to seize Taiwan.

Three op-eds this week look closely at the nation's issues, and the steps the government could take to improve matters.

First, William Pesek focuses on the soaring government bond yields in a country with a debt-to-gross domestic product ratio of around 260%. While acknowledging yields are rising globally, he is worried that the political winds in Tokyo are blowing toward budget-busting tax cuts or extra government spending.

"On any list of economies testing fiscal fate, Japan deserves a place at the very top as it flirts with ill-timed fiscal loosening. As the so-called bond vigilantes pounce from New York to Paris to London, Tokyo must be extremely careful," Pesek writes.

"To escape 1999, Japan needs bold steps to revive its animal spirits, not a fresh debt surge that triggers the next bond crisis."

Next up, Krishna Srinivasan, director of the Asia and Pacific Department at the International Monetary Fund, says that it is imperative that market confidence in Japan is anchored by sound and credible macroeconomic policies.

Perhaps aimed at whoever becomes the next prime minister, Srinivasan argues that any fiscal support should be targeted, with the aim of helping the most vulnerable segments of the population, and, more importantly, temporary, until inflation eases.

"Generalized subsidies and tax cuts do not fit these principles as they benefit the rich and poor alike, are difficult to roll back, and will constrain resources that will be needed to respond to the mounting costs of natural disaster and aging. They could also add to inflationary pressures," he writes.

Finally, a Nikkei editorial says that Japan risks losing its international standing should it return to the kind of rapid turnover of prime ministers it has seen in the past, and calls for a "steadfast leader."

"The Ishiba administration should not be remembered in the future as a prelude to an age of political confusion in Japan. The country has entered an era forested with many parties in the political mix, but no mechanism for forging agreements between them is in sight," the editorial board writes.

"Ruling and opposition parties must understand that Japan is standing at a key juncture -- whether the nation can rebuild its democracy or not depends on them."

Courtesy: Nikkei Asia

Who is the true representative of Palestinians?

For more than 700 days Israel has been undertaking land and air attacks on Gaza enclave and killed more than 65,000 people, mostly women and children. The strip has been reduced to rubbles, with the destruction of infrastructure. In the latest UN resolution the two state formula has been endorsed, with minus Hamas involvement.

There is no denying to the fact that Hamas has been in virtual control of Gaza for nearly two decades. There is a suggestion to resolve Palestine issue without any role of Hamas, what so ever. It may be a wish of Israel, but do the ground realities support this?

Ironically Palestinians are represented by different bodies in different contexts:

Internationally (Diplomatic Representation)

Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO):

Recognized by the United Nations and over 130 countries as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. The PLO holds Palestine’s seat at the UN as a “non-member observer state.”

Within Occupied Palestinian Territories

Palestinian Authority (PA):
Established under the 1993 Oslo Accords, the PA governs parts of the West Bank. Its leadership is dominated by Fatah, a major faction of the PLO. President Mahmoud Abbas is both head of the PA and chairman of the PLO.

Hamas:
An Islamist movement that controls the Gaza strip since 2007, after winning the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections and subsequent conflict with Fatah. Hamas is not part of the PLO, and it does not support Oslo-style negotiations with Israel.

In Exile

Millions of Palestinians live outside the West Bank and Gaza, especially in Jordan, Lebanon, and elsewhere. They are formally represented by the PLO, but many feel underrepresented due to internal divisions.

United States

The US recognizes the PLO as the representative of Palestinians, but relations are tense. It does not recognize Hamas and designates it as a terrorist organization. Washington supports the PA (West Bank-based) but pressures it to cooperate on security with Israel.

European Union (EU)

The EU deals mainly with the PA/ PLO. Like the US, the EU also labels Hamas a terrorist group. Provides large amounts of financial aid to the PA for governance and humanitarian work.

Arab League and Arab States

Mostly Arabs recognize the PLO as the representative of the Palestinians. Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and UAE work with the PA and sometimes mediate between Fatah and Hamas. Qatar and Turkey maintain ties with Hamas, provide financial aid to Gaza, and give political space to its leadership.

Iran and Allies

This group strongly back Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) militarily and financially. Iran does not consider the PA effective against Israel and instead supports “resistance” factions. Hezbollah of Lebanon also aligns with Hamas and PIJ.

Russia and China

Both the leading super powers recognize the PLO/ PA officially, but also engage with Hamas as part of broader Middle East diplomacy, positioning themselves as mediators.

Let us explore how Hamas has attained popularity?

Hamas’s rise in popularity among Palestinians is rooted in a mix of social, religious, political, and resistance factors. Here’s a breakdown of how it became a powerful force:

Origins and Religious Roots

Founded in 1987, during the First Intifada (uprising against Israeli occupation), Hamas emerged from the Muslim Brotherhood network in Gaza, which already had credibility through mosques, schools, and charities. It gained early support by combining Islamic identity with nationalist resistance, offering an alternative to the more secular PLO/ Fatah.

Resistance against Israel

Hamas distinguished itself by armed resistance (rockets, suicide bombings, tunnels), presenting itself as uncompromising in the face of Israeli occupation. Many Palestinians saw Hamas as more effective in confronting Israel than the PA, which was engaged in negotiations that delivered little tangible progress. After the Second Intifada (2000–2005), Hamas gained credibility as the symbol of defiance, while the PA lost legitimacy due to corruption and security coordination with Israel.

Social Services & Grassroots Work

Hamas built extensive charitable networks that include schools, clinics, food distribution, orphan support and relief for families of prisoners and martyrs. These welfare programs won the loyalty of poorer Palestinians, especially in refugee camps and Gaza, where the PA and international aid were seen as insufficient.

Political Legitimacy through Elections

In 2006 Palestinian Legislative Elections, Hamas (running under the banner Change and Reform) won a majority of seats, defeating Fatah. Its victory was attributed to: 1) frustration with Fatah’s corruption and inefficiency, 2) Hamas’s reputation for integrity and discipline and above all 3) its hardline stance against Israel.

Regional and International Support

Iran, Qatar, and Turkey provided financial, political, and military backing that allowed Hamas to sustain governance in Gaza despite Israeli blockades. Egypt, while wary of Hamas, also engaged with it as a key player in Gaza.

Gaza Takeover (2007)

After a violent split with Fatah, Hamas seized control of Gaza Strip in 2007. Despite isolation and blockade, Hamas positioned itself as the de facto authority, further cementing its influence among Palestinians in Gaza.

Symbol of Resistance rather Compromise

Many Palestinians perceive the PA/ Fatah as compromised, weak, or too close to Israel and the United states. Hamas, despite the hardships in Gaza, is seen as authentic, incorruptible, and willing to sacrifice. Each confrontation with Israel (wars in 2008–09, 2012, 2014, 2021, and 2023–25) often boosts Hamas’s popularity, as it frames survival itself as victory. Hamas attained popularity by blending religion, resistance, social welfare, and political credibility at a time when the PA and Fatah were seen as corrupt and ineffective.

Let us also examine how its popularity differs between Gaza, the West Bank, and the Palestinian diaspora?

Gaza Strip

Hamas has emerged the strongest since beginning of its rule in Gaza in 2007.

The reasons for support include governance, security, and basic services despite blockade. The group has emerged as defender against Israel during repeated wars. Many people view Hamas as less corrupt as compared to Fatah.

The factors marring it popularity are said to be hardships from blockade, unemployment, and war destruction, at times fueling resentment. Some Gazans criticize Hamas’s authoritarian style and restrictions on freedoms. Despite suffering, many still rally behind Hamas in times of conflict with Israel.

West Bank

Hamas support is significant, but less than in Gaza. The reasons for support include: 1) frustration with the Palestinian Authority (PA) and its security coordination with Israel and 2) younger generation sees Hamas as more authentic and uncompromising. The challenges it faces include: 1) West Bank being under tight Israeli control and PA crackdowns, limits Hamas’s political space, and 2) fear of violence or arrest reduces open activism.

During escalations in Gaza, Hamas’s popularity spikes in the West Bank as people see them standing up against Israel.

Palestinian Diaspora

Support for Hamas is found mainly in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and the Gulf states as many refugees feel abandoned by the PA/ PLO, but Hamas keeps the “right of return” alive in its rhetoric. Hamas runs charities and schools in refugee camps (especially in Lebanon).

In Jordan, support is cautious, since the government fears Islamist influence.

In Lebanon, Hamas has networks in Palestinian refugee camps but competes with other factions.

In Gulf/ Turkey elite diaspora often back Hamas politically and financially.

Palestinian Citizens of Israel

Hamas has limited direct influence, since it is outlawed by Israel. Some Palestinians in Israel admire its stance against occupation, but most are engaged in civil rights struggles through legal political parties.

Keeping all these narratives in mind, it may be said that eliminating Hamas or bringing peace in the occupied territories or even creation of an independent Palestine will not be sustainable.  

UN overwhelmingly endorses two state solution

According to Reuters, the United Nations General Assembly on Friday overwhelmingly voted to endorse a declaration outlining "tangible, time bound, and irreversible steps" towards a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians ahead of a meeting of world leaders.

The seven page declaration was the result of an international conference at the UN in July - hosted by Saudi Arabia and France - on the decades-long conflict. The United States and Israel boycotted the event.

A resolution endorsing the declaration received 142 votes in favor and 10 against, while 12 countries abstained.

The vote comes ahead of a meeting of world leaders on September 22 - on the sidelines of the high level UN General Assembly - where Britain and others are expected to formally recognize a Palestinian state.

The declaration endorsed by the 193-member General Assembly condemned the attacks against Israel by Palestinian militants Hamas on October 07, 2023, which triggered the war in Gaza.

It also condemned the attacks by Israel against civilians and civilian infrastructure in Gaza, siege and starvation, "which have resulted in a devastating humanitarian catastrophe and protection crisis."

"For the first time today, the United Nations adopted a text condemning it for its crimes and calling for its surrender and disarmament," he said in an X post.

The resolution was supported by all Gulf Arab states. Israel and the United States voted against it, along with Argentina, Hungary, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay and Tonga.

The declaration endorsed by the resolution says the war in Gaza "must end now" and support the deployment of a temporary international stabilization mission mandated by the UN Security Council.

The United States described the vote as "yet another misguided and ill-timed publicity stunt" that undermined serious diplomatic efforts to end the conflict. "Make no mistake, this resolution is a gift to Hamas," US diplomat Morgan Ortagus told the General Assembly.

"Far from promoting peace, the conference has already prolonged the war, emboldened Hamas and harmed the prospects of peace in both short and long term."

Israel, which has long criticized the U.N. for not condemning Hamas by name for the October 7 attacks, dismissed the declaration as one-sided and described the vote as theater.

"The only beneficiary is Hamas …When terrorists are the ones cheering, you are not advancing peace; you are advancing terror," Israel's UN Ambassador Danny Danon said.

 

 

 

 

 

PSX benchmark index closes flat despite volatility

Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) remained volatile during this past week. The benchmark index closed at 154,440 points on Friday, September 12, 2025, up 162 points or 0.11%WoW. Market participation remained strong with average daily traded volume increasing by 2.2%WoW to 1,092 million shares, from 1,068 million shares a week ago.

The week opened on a strong note supported by sustained momentum from better than expected corporate results and Chinese President’s commitment to accelerate CPEC 2.0 implementation. However, momentum eased later in the week as investors’ sentiment turned cautious ahead of the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) meeting scheduled for September 15, 2025 amid ongoing floods.

In the latest PIB auction, yields declined by 11bps and 7bps to 12.04% and 12.38% for the 10, and 15 year tenors, while the 2-year paper yield rose by 11bps to 11.20%.

Workers’ remittances for August 2025 were reported at US$3.1 billion, up 7%YoY.

Auto sector witnessed a surge in volumes in August 2025 to 15,712 units, up 35%YoY, largely attributed to 62%YoY increase in lower segment passenger cars sales.

Foreign exchange reserves held by the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) increased by US$34 million to US$14.3 billion as of September 05, 2025. PKR appreciated by 0.04%YoY to close at PkR281.55/US$.

Other major news flow during the week included: 1) ADB and AIIB agreed to provide guarantees to help Pakistan issue US$250 million Panda bonds, 2) FBR unveiled plan to lift tax to GDP ratio to 18%, 3) Exports to US declined 13%YoY in August 2025, 4) Pakistan and China sealed US$601 million agriculture JVs, and 5) Government expressed intentions to abolish cross subsidies and peak rates in industrial power tariffs.

Leasing Companies, Tobacco, and Engineering were amongst the top performing sectors, while Jute, Property, and Vanaspati & Allied industries remained laggards.

Major selling was recorded by foreigners and other organizations with a net sell of US$12.1 million and US$3.7mn, respectively. Major buying was recorded by Companies with a net buy of US$11.9 million.

Top performing scrips of the week were: LOTCHEM, PAKT, MUGHAL, AVN, and LCI, while laggards included: BOP, NATF, JVDC, AGL, and AICL.

According to AKD Securities, PSX is expected to remain positive in the coming weeks, with the upcoming IMF review and any developments over circular debt.

The benchmark index is anticipated to sustain its upward trajectory, with a target of 165,215 points by end December 2025. The market is primarily driven by strong earnings in Fertilizers, sustained ROEs in Banks, and improving cash flows of E&Ps and OMCs, benefiting from falling interest rates and economic stability.

Top picks of the brokerage house include: OGDC, PPL, PSO, FFC, ENGROH, MCB, LUCK, DGKC, FCCL, INDU, and SYS.

Is Israel attacking countries under the US supervision?

With each passing day and the precision with which Israel attacked Qatar, Iran, Syria, Iraq and other countries, a question is getting louder, is Israel attacking countries under the US supervision?

It is a very important and sensitive question. Based on the strategic relationships between United States and Israel the probability just can’t be ruled out.

Here are the reasons that support the perception:

Military Support:

Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of the US foreign military aid, running into billions of dollars annually. Much of Israel’s military technology, intelligence systems, and weapons are supplied by the US.

Operational Coordination:

While not every Israeli attack is directly supervised by the US, Washington is usually informed in advance of major military operations—especially those with regional consequences like strikes in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, or beyond.

Political Cover:

The US provides Israel with diplomatic protection, especially at the UN Security Council, often vetoing resolutions that condemn Israeli actions. This gives Israel confidence that it can continue operations without facing strong international consequences.

Shared Intelligence:

The CIA, Pentagon, and Israeli intelligence frequently share intelligence. In many cases, Israeli attacks—particularly on Iran linked targets—are planned with at least some level of US awareness, if not outright coordination.

Recent Pattern:

Analysts often describe Israeli military actions as being carried out with a “green light” from Washington, even if the US doesn’t control the tactical execution.

The US may not be giving step-by-step battlefield orders, Israel’s ongoing military actions—especially in Gaza—are effectively carried out under US strategic supervision and protection, both militarily and diplomatically.

Let us explore the incidents where US involvement was direct (like supplying bombs during Gaza wars, or joint planning against Iran), to show how this collaboration works.

Let us identify the situations where the US involvement was direct or so close that it’s hard to separate support from supervision:

1. Gaza Wars (2008–09, 2014, 2021, 2023–25)

Weapons Supply:

During heavy Israeli bombardments of Gaza, the US quickly replenished Israel’s stock of precision-guided bombs, artillery shells, and Iron Dome interceptors. For example, in 2014 and again in 2021, Washington quietly authorized emergency transfers of munitions while battles were still ongoing.

Political Cover:

At the UN, the US vetoed multiple ceasefire resolutions, allowing Israel to continue operations.

Supervision Aspect:

Without US weapons and diplomatic shields, Israel could not have sustained these long campaigns.

2. Lebanon and Hezbollah (2006 and beyond)

2006 War:

Israel’s month-long war with Hezbollah relied on US-supplied bunker-buster bombs and real-time intelligence from American surveillance assets.

Joint Planning:

US and Israeli militaries regularly war-game scenarios of a “multi-front” war with Hezbollah, meaning Israel’s current strategy is partly drawn up with Pentagon input.

3. Operations against Iran

Nuclear Program Attacks:

The famous Stuxnet cyberattack (2009–10) on Iran’s Natanz facility was a joint CIA-Mossad operation.

Targeted Killings:

Israel’s assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists were carried out with US intelligence support, according to multiple reports.

Air Strikes in Syria:

Israeli strikes on Iranian convoys and depots in Syria often used US intelligence and were coordinated to avoid clashing with US troops stationed nearby.

Present Gaza War

Direct Weapons Pipeline:

US cargo planes flew precision bombs, tank shells, and artillery rounds directly to Israel while civilian casualties mounted in Gaza.

White House Green Light:

Leaks from Pentagon officials revealed Israel was asked to pause or minimize strikes, but not ordered to stop.

Embedded Coordination:

US military officers reportedly worked inside Israeli command centers to coordinate targeting and logistics — an unusually deep level of involvement.

Ongoing Strategic Framework

US and Israel have joint operations rooms for real-time intelligence sharing.

Israel’s most advanced fighter jets (F-35s) are co-produced with US technology, and software updates pass through Pentagon systems — meaning the US can monitor their use.

Israel does not fight wars in isolation; every major military campaign has US fingerprints, whether in weapons, intelligence, or diplomatic protection.

Bottom line:

While Israel pulls the trigger, the US is the one who supplies the gun, reloads it, and shields Israel from the world’s outrage. That is why many analysts argue Israeli attacks are effectively conducted under US supervision.