By Ghulam Haider Shaikh
Former U.S. President Donald Trump’s latest statement that “Israel should not halt its attacks unless Hamas relinquishes control of Gaza” reflects not diplomacy, but a dangerous endorsement of unilateral aggression. His words reveal once again the deeply flawed and biased worldview that has long shaped Washington’s Middle East policy, a view that equates military dominance with peace and occupation with stability.
The call for Hamas to surrender Gaza under the shadow of Israeli bombardment is not a peace proposal; it is a coercive demand that legitimizes violence and undermines every principle of international law. Gaza today is not a battlefield; it is a humanitarian graveyard. Thousands of civilians, including women and children, have perished, and yet Trump’s rhetoric reduces this tragedy to a political bargaining chip. Such statements embolden Israel’s hardline policies, encouraging further bloodshed rather than genuine negotiation.
Trump’s assertion also exposes the duplicity in Western political narratives. When Ukraine resists occupation, it is celebrated as heroism; when Palestinians do the same, it is branded as terrorism. This hypocrisy has eroded the moral standing of global powers that claim to champion human rights and democracy. The world can no longer ignore how such double standards fuel resentment and perpetuate instability across the Muslim world.
Moreover, Trump’s remarks come at a time when the United States could have played a pivotal role in de-escalating the crisis by calling for a ceasefire and supporting humanitarian aid. Instead, the insistence on Gaza’s “surrender” aligns perfectly with Israel’s long-standing strategy to dismantle Palestinian resistance and erase any prospects for statehood. The so-called “peace through strength” doctrine is, in reality, peace through subjugation, a notion that history has repeatedly proven unsustainable.
The path to lasting peace in the Middle East does not lie in rewarding aggression or punishing resistance. True peace will emerge only when justice, equality, and sovereignty are guaranteed to all,not just to the powerful. Trump’s comments, far from fostering reconciliation, reinforce the perception that Western policy remains an obstacle to any genuine resolution.
Until leaders recognize that peace cannot be built on the ruins of Gaza, every such statement will only deepen the wounds of a region already scarred by decades of occupation and betrayal.
Pause on PTI Committee Exit
The decision by the Chairman Senate to halt proceedings on the resignations of PTI members from parliamentary committees has added a new dimension to Pakistan’s evolving political scenario. While the move may seem procedural on the surface, it carries significant political implications, especially at a time when polarization in the upper house has reached unprecedented levels.
For months, the political environment has been charged with accusations and counteraccusations. PTI’s decision to withdraw from Senate committees was initially seen as a form of protest against what it described as institutional bias and lack of fair representation. However, the Chairman’s decision to delay or suspend the acceptance of those resignations indicates an attempt to restore balance within parliamentary functions. It suggests that the leadership recognizes the risks of further weakening the legislative process through political boycotts.
In a parliamentary democracy, committees play a crucial role in oversight, legislation, and accountability. Their disruption not only hampers governance but also denies the public the benefits of collective decision-making. The Senate Chairman’s restraint, therefore, may be interpreted as a gesture aimed at preserving institutional continuity. Yet, critics argue that such pauses often serve as temporary political maneuvers rather than genuine attempts at reconciliation.
The PTI leadership must now decide whether to continue its politics of withdrawal or re-engage within constitutional forums. True democratic strength lies not in abandonment but in participation, where disagreements are resolved through debate rather than disengagement. PTI’s earlier decision to resign en masse from the National and Provincial Assemblies after its removal from power reflected a lack of political foresight and understanding, as it only weakened the party’s parliamentary presence and handed the political narrative to its rivals. Repeating the same approach in the Senate would serve no constructive purpose and could further isolate the party from institutional dialogue. Likewise, the Chairman Senate must ensure his actions are guided by impartiality rather than political convenience, preserving the upper house as a space for representation and not retaliation.
Pakistan’s parliamentary system already suffers from mistrust and fragmentation. Every effort to stabilize its functioning, however small, must be viewed as a step toward maturity. The Chairman’s intervention, if truly motivated by a desire to protect institutional integrity, deserves cautious appreciation. But this pause will only matter if it leads to genuine dialogue, not another round of political brinkmanship.
Leave a Reply