By Ghulam Haider Shaikh
The statement by Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Ali Amin Gandapur, rejecting the so-called two-state formula presented under the guise of peace plans, is more than a political declaration; it reflects the deep mistrust and frustration that has surrounded the Palestinian issue for decades. His words resonate with a broad sentiment across the Muslim world, that peace cannot be built upon illusions or imposed solutions designed to protect aggression rather than deliver justice.
The two-state formula, once touted as the cornerstone of Middle Eastern peace, has long been exposed as an empty slogan. For years, Israel has systematically undermined the very foundation of this idea by expanding settlements, seizing Palestinian land, and tightening its occupation of Jerusalem. Each act has chipped away at the possibility of a viable Palestinian state, leaving behind fragmented territories that resemble isolated enclaves rather than the framework of sovereignty. In such a situation, continuing to preach the two-state solution is not a plan for peace but a smokescreen for prolonging occupation.
Gandapur’s outright rejection of this formula is timely because it highlights the growing realization that the international community has failed to ensure justice. While Western powers speak of peace, their actions betray a double standard. They rush to condemn resistance while ignoring the root cause of violence: Israel’s illegal occupation and apartheid policies. By clinging to a failed formula, they merely sustain the status quo, where Palestinians remain trapped in a cycle of displacement, siege, and dispossession.
True peace cannot emerge from frameworks designed to appease the aggressor. It requires recognition of Palestinian rights, accountability for Israeli violations, and an end to the blockade and occupation. Any plan that denies Palestinians genuine sovereignty, control over their resources, and dignity is not a peace plan but a political maneuver to pacify international opinion.
Ali Amin Gandapur’s stance serves as a reminder that Pakistan, like many other nations, cannot accept hollow solutions. The Palestinian struggle is not for symbolic statehood under occupation but for real independence. If the world is sincere about peace, it must abandon the failed two-state rhetoric and support a just resolution based on equality, justice, and freedom. Anything less will only deepen mistrust and prolong one of the greatest injustices of our time.
Committee over Custodian
The recent decision to transfer all discretionary powers of the Speaker to the Finance Committee raises pressing questions about the direction in which parliamentary democracy in Pakistan is heading. Traditionally, the Speaker of the House holds a neutral yet pivotal role in ensuring parliamentary business runs smoothly. The Speaker’s discretionary powers are not merely ceremonial; they are essential in maintaining order, safeguarding the rights of members, and facilitating fair debate.
By transferring these powers to the Finance Committee, the balance of responsibility shifts from a single accountable authority to a group that is more politically inclined and far less impartial in its operations. But what are the reasons behind this drastic change? Why was it deemed necessary to curtail the Speaker’s influence—an office designed to serve as a stabilizing force above political divides? More importantly, will such a move genuinely serve the interests of the country and strengthen the role of Parliament, or will it weaken both by politicizing critical decision-making?
Supporters of this shift may argue that the Finance Committee, representing a broader spectrum of political voices, ensures greater inclusivity in decision-making. They may claim that concentrating power in one individual, however neutral, carries risks of bias or misuse. However, critics point out that committees are inherently political, driven by party agendas and bargaining. Unlike the Speaker, who is expected to maintain impartiality, the Finance Committee is not insulated from political pressures. This raises fears that parliamentary proceedings will become hostage to short-term political calculations rather than guided by fairness and neutrality.
The Speaker’s office has historically acted as a safeguard, ensuring that even heated debates remain within parliamentary decorum. Stripping it of authority risks reducing the Speaker to a ceremonial figure and tilting the institutional balance. Pakistan’s democratic system already suffers from public distrust; decisions that appear to undermine neutrality in governance may only deepen cynicism.
Ultimately, the question remains: is this transfer of powers a step toward strengthening democracy, or is it an ill-considered move that may compromise the very principles Parliament is meant to uphold? The answer will depend on how responsibly these new powers are exercised in the days ahead.
Leave a Reply