Sunday, August 24, 2025

Pakistan lake formed by mountain mudslide threatens 'catastrophic' floods

Reuters
Sat, August 23, 2025 


A man sits on a wooden table along a flooded street after the rain, in Hyderabad

People wade through a flooded street as they carry a woman towards the hospital, in Hyderabad

Aftermath of a storm that caused heavy rains and flooding in Qadir Nagar area in Buner

People wade through a flooded street after the rain, in Hyderabad

Aftermath of a storm that caused heavy rains and flooding in Qadir Nagar area in Buner

PESHAWAR, Pakistan (Reuters) -A 7-km (4-mile) lake in northern Pakistan, created by a mountain mudslide, is threatening to burst and unleash potentially "catastrophic" floods downstream, officials warned on Saturday.

The mud flow descended into the main Ghizer River channel and blocked it completely on Friday, creating the lake in Gilgit Baltistan province, the National Disaster Management Authority said.

The blockage created a "dam-like structure" that poses a significant threat of bursting, it said in a situation report by its provincial office.

The new lake "can cause a catastrophic flood", said Zakir Hussain, director general of the Provincial Disaster Management Authority.

Four downstream districts - Ghizer, Gilgit, Astore and Diamer - face a serious threat, he told Reuters.

Ghizer is north of the mountain districts in northwest Pakistan where floods triggered by the worst of this year's monsoon rains and cloudbursts have killed nearly 400 people since August 15.

A video shared by the national authority on a WhatsApp group where it issues statements shows black mud sliding down the mountain before landing in the river. Reuters could not independently verify the video, which an official at the authority said was shot by residents.

Similar mud flows landed in the river from different mountainsides, said provincial government spokesperson Faizullah Faraq.

A shepherd on higher ground, the first to spot the mud flow crashing down, alerted villagers and local authorities, he said. As a result of the warning, he said, nearly 200 people in dozens of scattered houses tucked in the mountainsides and the river's surroundings were rescued.

The lake has started discharging water, meaning the threat of a burst is receding, but flash floods in downstream districts cannot be ruled out until the lake is completely cleared, Faraq said.

The communities downstream have been directed to stay on high alert and vacate areas along the river, he said.

Floods across Pakistan have killed 785 since the monsoon started in late June, the national authority said, warning of two more rain spells by September 10.

(Reporting by Mushtaq Ali in Peshawar; Writing by Asif Shahzad; Editing by William Mallard)


200 people rescued after glacial burst in Gilgit-Baltistan’s Ghizer:  Rescue 1122

Jamil Nagri | Imtiaz Ali Taj
Published August 22, 2025
DAWN

Rescue 1122 personnel carry out a rescue operation after a glacier burst in Gilgit-Baltistan blocked the Ghizer River, Aug 22. — Rescue 1122

This picture shows a a glacier burst in Gilgit-Baltistan’s Ghizer district blocking the Ghizer River, Aug 22. — Photo via Jamil Nagri


At least 200 people were rescued after a glacier burst in Gilgit-Baltistan blocked the Ghizer River, threatening the downstream areas, Rescue 1122 said on Friday.

A glacial burst, or glacial lake outburst flood (Glof), refers to an outburst of water from a glacial lake which could lead to severe flooding downstream, effectively blocking or overwhelming rivers in its path. Pakistan is home to over 13,032 glaciers, the largest reservoir of glaciers outside of the polar regions. However, experts have warned that about 10,000 glaciers in Chitral and GB have been reported to be receding due to climate change–induced temperature rise.

A statement from Rescue 1122 said, “200 people have been rescued from flood-affected areas and have been shifted to Ghizer’s Yangal and Samal areas.”

“Several people have been traumatised after [their] houses were destroyed. Medical assistance is being provided to the affected people,” it added.

In another statement issued earlier today, Rescue 1122 said, “A terrible incident of glacier outburst has taken place at Tildas and Rawshan villages in Gupis valley late at night, causing widespread destruction in the downstream.”

“The Ghizer River has been completely blocked for several hours, which has increased the risks for downstream areas with a possibility of high-level flooding in the river,” it added.

The statement said that the rescue personnel had been kept on alert on the orders of the Rescue 1122 director general and the Rescue 1122 District Emergency Officer Engineer Tahir Shah. Rescue 1122 also urged people living near the river to take timely precautionary measures and move to safe places.

GB Secretary Fida Hussain said that no casualties were reported and all the affected people were safe.

“The flood swept away everything in the downstream areas in Talidas and Rawshan villages,” he said, adding that 40 people, who were stranded, had been rescued.

He added that local volunteers were the first to rescue people from the floodwaters, after which Pakistan Army helicopters joined the operation.

“The high temperature caused a burst of the lake, and ultimately high flooding occurred in the Sado nullah on Wednesday night.

“Some shepherds informed the local community about the flood. People in dangerous areas were immediately shifted to other areas,” he said.

According to the locals, 80 per cent of the village has been washed away. A local named Abdul Wahid said, “Some shepherds, who were living near the glacier, had informed people living in the downstream areas through mobile communication about the flood and urged them to evacuate.”

The local administration said that the Ghizer River, after remaining blocked for eight hours, started spilling over the flood debris.

GB government spokesperson Faizullah Faraq said that a rescue operation was initiated to evacuate the stranded people in the areas. He said, “The flow of the Ghizer River has remained blocked for many hours, but it poses a threat to low-lying areas if it bursts.”

Ghulam Muhammad, GB Minister for Law, Parliamentary Affairs and Tourism, said, “The flood, which occurred due to the bursting of the lake, completely destroyed 70 houses, while the river water is standing due to the flood debris, but the level is rising.”

He said that if the flow of the river water is not restored, hundreds of large houses will be submerged in the water. “The process of flooding in the drain due to the bursting of the lake has been ongoing since 10pm.”

Muhammad further said that the river spread three to four kilometres in length due to the standing water.

“Some people are still trapped, for whom an army helicopter has been sent to rescue them. Hopefully, the trapped people will also be rescued,” he added.


Rescue 1122 personnel carry out a rescue operation after a glacier burst in Gilgit-Baltistan blocked the Ghizer River, Aug 22. — Rescue 1122

GB Chief Minister Haji Gulbar Khan issued orders to the GB home secretary and GB Disa­ster Manage­ment Aut­h­ority director general to immediately rescue the people trapped in the flood.

The CM said, “All available resources will be utilised to rescue the precious human lives and help will be sought from the Pakistan Army.”

He also directed the Gilgit and Ghizer police officials and the concerned departments to ensure safety measures in the settlements adjacent to the river.

Meanwhile, Senator Sherry Rehman highlighted that not a single life was lost during the glacial outburst due to the functional early warning system.

“This is living proof of why Pakistan must urgently scale alert systems, local response teams and community training nationwide,” she wrote in a post on X.


Special Assistant to CM on Information Eman Shah said that authorities have started initial relief and rescue activities. “Steps are being taken to shift people from Ghizer River downstream areas to safer places in fear of the temporary lake formed in Ghizer bursting,” he said.

Earlier this month, a Glof from the Shishper Glacier tore through Hassanabad Nullah, swee­ping away part of the Karakoram Highway and destroying public and private properties.

A glacier burst in Bagrot Valley caused the death of one person on Aug 1, while his father was injured, according to the regional government’s spokesperson.



GB lake formed by glacial outburst ‘poses no danger’: govt

August 24, 2025
DAWN


A lake formed by the recent glacial outburst in Gilgit-Baltistan’s (GB) Ghizer district has reduced to 40 feet and poses no danger to nearby settlements, the regional government spokesperson said.

A glacial lake outburst flood (Glof) refers to a rush of water from a glacial lake which could lead to severe flooding downstream. A Glof occurred on early Friday morning in the Talidas village of Gupis Valley, with at least 200 people being evacuated safely thanks to a shepherd’s warning.

“For now, there is no danger from the lake,” said a statement by GB government spokesperson Faizullah Faraq. The lake had earlier threatened the downstream areas of Ghizer, Gilgit and Diamer.

As the Glof wreaked havoc downstream, 330 households comprising over 3,000 individuals had become internally displaced persons (IDPs) due to the incident, according to Israruddin Israr, Human Rights Commission of Pakistan’s GB coordinator.

The number of IDPs in this incident is the second-largest since the 2010 Attabad disaster, Israr noted. The residents of Talidas had been shifted to a tent settlement, Faraq said yesterday, acknowledging that the early warning system was not active in Ghizer.

Relief operations were underway for the affected residents, with GB Chief Secretary Abrar Ahmed Mirza supervising the efforts on the site, Faraq said today.

The spokesperson further said that three shepherds who “saved 300 human lives” through their prompt alerts have been invited by the Prime Minister’s Secretariat.

“We have been told by the PM Secretariat to send the three shepherds to Islamabad. It seems that [Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif] will meet the shepherds and encourage them,” Faraq added.

One of them was Wasiyat Khan from Rawshan village, who was near the glacier and used his mobile phone to alert the community about the impending flood.



Three shepherds who had made efforts to prevent loss of lives by warning about a Glof in GB’s Ghizer are set to leave for Islamabad on PM Office’s invitation, on Aug 24, 2025. — via Imtiaz Ali Taj

“It is also necessary to encourage Nasir, who saved about half a dozen human lives in Ghizer’s Daen [village]. Ali Ahmed, who saved the lives of about 50 volunteers in Gojal Valley’s Gulmit town, is also indispensable,” Faraq said.

Faraq told Dawn.com that the shepherds had to depart for Islamabad via flight today, but it was cancelled due to bad weather. Subsequently, they were set to travel to the federal capital by road.

GB CM Haji Gulbar Khan has also announced a cash reward for the shepherd who warned about the flood.

Locals complained that hundreds who had been rendered homeless after the Glof incident in Talidas were facing difficulties in accessing basic necessities.

In a statement, GB Disaster Management Authority (GBDMA) Director General Zakir Hussain said standard operating procedures had been prepared for releasing water from the artificial lake while keeping the local population and infrastructure safe.

The “comprehensive” SOPs were prepared by a technical team that visited the site on August 23 in view of the potential hazards posed by the lake.

According to the administration, work on an alternative route for the temporary restoration of Gilgit-Shandur Road in the area was underway and traffic was expected to resume in the next 48 hours.

While the National Highway Authority (NHA) has mobilised heavy machinery for the route’s permanent restoration, it is subject to the stabilisation of the mud in the area, which is being continuously monitored.

Former GB chief minister Hafeezur Rehman, in a statement, has expressed reservations about the Glof-II project for early warning systems, installed by the United Nations Development Programme across GB for Rs10 billion.

He alleged these funds were misused and demanded an investigation into the system’s failure.

“This project was under the federal climate change ministry, and we had suggested involving the local community. However, these funds were misused,” Rehman claimed.

Noting that the installation of early warning systems in areas without electricity and other facilities was not feasible, the former CM suggested providing satellite phones to the locals. “It is a sustainable, low-cost, manual system that is more effective than the installation of billion-rupee equipment, he contended.
Another Glof alert amid fresh rain spell

Meanwhile, a fresh rain spell started in scattered areas across GB today, creating fear of more disasters among vulnerable communities of further Glofs.

According to the district administration, Astore Valley Road has been blocked after landslides. People in affected areas faced difficulties as roads, water channels, and irrigation channels remained disconnected at multiple locations.

The K2 road in Shigar, important roads in Ghanche, Chipursan Valley and Misgar Road in Hunza, and other flood-affected roads in Ghizer remained disconnected.

Affected people in flood-hit areas also faced issues with the drinking water supply systems, while agriculture and crops were badly affected due to the unavailability of irrigation water.

The Pakistan Meteorological Department (PMD) has issued an alert about an increased risk of Glof, flash floods and landslides in vulnerable glaciated regions of GB and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

It noted that a wet spell is likely to prevail from August 23 and can affect GB and KP. Scattered rain and thunderstorms, with isolated heavy falls, are expected in the two regions during this period.

The PMD advised the public to remain alert and take necessary measures to avoid any untoward situation.

The Gilgit-Shandur road and other link roads in Ghizer remained blocked, with people also facing challenges in accessing other areas.

With increasing Glof and cloudburst events in GB, people became more conscious, and fear prevails among residents.

Zulfiqar Ali, a Gilgit resident, is scared of even light rain. He said people have become uncertain as GB has never experienced such disasters before.

Additional input from Imtiaz Ali Taj
\
\

Hard knocks
MISOGYNISTIC MEDIA

Muna Khan 
Published August 24, 2025
DAWN
The writer is a journalism instructor.

THERE’S a lot that is wrong with the media but let’s take a moment to be grateful for the English press not having a sordid tabloid side to it. I’ve heard about acts like inappropriate images of Benazir Bhutto and Nusrat Bhutto being thrown from planes which, I’m told, weren’t widely reported in the English press. The Urdu press is another beast, and now social media is the new tabloid magazine. I’m grateful this paper’s website calls out all forms of misogyny against celebrities and politicians, but of course we have a long way to go.

Misogyny is so deeply ingrained that I’m always surprised when I hear women spew hatred at Malala Yousufzai, Sharmeen Obaid and Maryam Nawaz — this axis seems to get under everyone’s skin. Patriarchy has no gender as the feminist bell hooks [sic] wrote.

Tabloid culture is alive and well and flying the flag high for misogyny in the West. I was reminded of this while watching the newly released two episodes of The Twisted Tale of Amanda Knox. You may remember the story of the American student charged with the sexual assault and murder of her roommate Meredith Kercher in Italy in 2007.

She was convicted in 2007 and then acquitted in 2011 as was her boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito. They were retried in 2011 and convicted again before being acquitted by the supreme court a year later.


What is ‘reclaiming your story’ about?

Sollecito did not garner the kind of media frenzy Amanda did because — you guessed it — misogyny. Tabloids had a field day calling her ‘Foxy Knoxy’ and painting her as a sexual deviant. I watched the two episodes because I was curious as to why this story was being dredged up again. Hasn’t it all been written, televised, pod-casted, Vlogged, already?

It turns out that Amanda Knox is behind this project and wants to reclaim her story. She is one of the producers as is Monica Lewinsky, the former White House intern who nearly brought down Bill Clinton’s presidency. She too has been the subject of many documentaries and wants to reclaim her narrative, ie, recreate her ‘brand’.

What happens to other people’s perspective when you are reclaiming your story? Is it fair to Meredith and her family; is Amanda profiting from this terrible thing that happened to Kercher and also her? And, what is this ‘reclaiming your story’ about? I keep seeing this all over social media with influencer types telling you to change your narrative. Is it helpful — ie, stop playing the victim — or could it send you down a harmful path where you stay in a state of victimhood, unable to break a cycle of negativity?

Since I began teaching at university-level almost nine years ago, I’ve noticed two things: one, it’s someone else’s fault I’m late, unable to do the assignment, not interested in being here, etc. The second is the inability to apologise, which ties into holding oneself accountable. This, unfortunately, isn’t limited to students. A driver banging into your car will not say sorry, nor will the restaurant who serves you unhygienic food, and you can forget about that Vlogger selling you lies. You have to demand apologies now and you may not get them.

To return to Amanda Knox’s new show — she has every right to tell her story because she has always maintained her innocence and wants to clear her name. We learn as much about her naivete as we do about the Italian justice system’s desperation to pin the blame on someone, as well as how media framing can drive narratives. Per­ha­­ps the most brutal lesson was that ul­­timately Am­­anda had the money to make this TV ser­ies which I’m gues­s­ing Kercher’s fa­­mily did not. Justice is not blind.

Reclaiming your narrative is a powerful tool in the context of marginalised voices whose stories rarely get told. I don’t really care that rich white women, wronged by their systems, are using it to set the record straight, but it is upsetting that theirs are the only stories that get the airtime they do. There’s a renewed interest in JFK Jr who is the subject of a documentary and docudrama, 26 years after his death.

Has Hollywood run out of stories? I know we love to depict women as damsels in distress but every now and again we try to break that mould.

Whose stories get told in Pakistan and whose voices are suppressed? Your first thought will likely go towards political parties currently out of favour. Let me remind you how when they were in power, they repressed voices. When they return — and we know they will shamelessly bend the knee — they will repress again. I’d love to see the cycle break but I doubt it will so I channel my energy watching bad TV shows. So you don’t have to.

X: LeadingLady

Published in Dawn, August 24th, 2025

Token feminism in development
Published August 22, 2025 
DAWN


WOMEN in Pakistan constitute 48.5 per cent of the population but face systemic disadvantages in education, healthcare and economic participation. To realise the country’s full potential, increa­sing women’s economic participation is critical.

Pakistan hit rock bottom in the World Economic Forum’s 2025 Global Gender Gap Index out of 148 countries, with 56.7pc gender parity; it has closed only 2.3pc of the gap since 2006. It ranks below Sudan, Chad, Iran, Guinea and Congo. In South Asia, Bangladesh holds the 24th position, demonstrating a far more favourable gender equality landscape. This is the second year in a row that Pakistan’s gender parity score has declined.

This alone is a damning indictment of the little progress made — despite millions being poured into gender equality initiatives by international development agencies. However, the deeper problem is not lack of funding, but the misuse of a noble narrative to justify wasteful development programming. It should lead to deep introspection about why gender equality efforts keep failing.

Take, for example, the Asian Development Bank’s (ADB) initiative with Pakistan’s National Transmission and Despatch Company to increase female participation in technical and leadership roles.

A $182,000 technical assistance grant — part of the broader Power Transmission Enhance­ment Investment Programme — was awarded to support ‘gender mainstreaming’ through drafting a workplace gender policy, training 20pc of female staff and auditing an internship programme. This reads more like an HR department’s annual plan than a serious development intervention. Any functional organisation with a competent HR team can perform such tasks.

So why is our ailing power sector the testing ground for gender experiments scripted in distant multilateral offices?

The broader problem is a development culture that rewards symbolism over substance.

This is not an isolated case. ADB partnered with the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) to develop a Wo­­men Entrepreneurs Finance Code under a Wom­en-Inclusive Financial Sector Development Prog­ramme funded through a $5.5m grant and $150m loan.

In June 2025, another $350m loan was app­ro­ved to support women’s access to finance and provide credit to women-led micro SMEs. The code, launched with fanfare, is merely a declaration of intent to close financing gaps by designating a leader to monitor data and introduce targets.

While gender-responsive finance is a valid policy goal, was this multimillion-dollar donor intervention truly necessary when the SBP already has the legal mandate, institutional capacity and technical expertise to design such policies? Or is this just donor funding chasing headlines, not solutions?

Has the central bank run out of ideas to promote financial inclusion, which it championed until a decade ago when the Economist Intelligence Unit rated Pakistan’s microfinance regulatory framework the best in the world in 2010 and 2011, and the third best in 2013 and 2014? Either way, such supply-driven initiatives only weaken state institutions.

ADB has been involved in Pakistan’s financial sector since 2000, when it launched a $150m microfinance sector development programme to provide financial services to the poor, especially women. The World Bank is also actively involved in gender empowerment projects, focusing on education, economic participation and access to fin­ance.

In March this year, the World Bank approved a $102m loan to enhance access to microcredit and support the resilience of the microfinance sector. ADB and World Bank have extended loans for the same purpose for over 25 years. Similarly, bilateral donors continue to fund gender empowerment initiatives. The UK’s FCDO-owned Karandaaz also invests in profitable banks and established corporates to increase access to SME finance, including for women entrepreneurs.

This unneeded donor exuberance in Pakistan’s most profitable financial sector underscores a lack of interest in addressing core development challenges. These initiatives mainly advance the careers and networks of donor staff, consultants and local counterparts. There is clearly a problem when aid becomes a lucrative industry. It absolves the government of its responsibility to work for the welfare of its citizens. This aid addiction — fostered by international donors — has contributed to institutional decay, economic stagnation and insurmountable debt.

In fact, the actual outcomes of donor programmes implemented over the past decades show deteriorating trends. Pakistan’s credit-to-GDP ratio fell from 27pc in 2008 to 9pc in 2024 — the lowest among emerging countries. Credit remains concentrated in large corporates, with nearly 70pc allocated to manufacturing.

This reflects banks’ disconnect from the broader economy as well as the ineffectiveness of SBP regulation and donor involvement in the financial sector. More troubling is the steady decline in SMEs’ access to finance; their share of total private sector credit dropped from 17pc in the mid-2000s to just 6pc in 2024. The number of SME borrowers also declined from 185,000 in 2007 to 172,000 in 2024. Most financing is directed towards medium enterprises.

The broader problem is a development culture that rewards symbolism over substance. Pakistan’s addiction to foreign aid has fostered a policy environment where any externally funded programme is welcomed without scrutiny. Frivolous projects are designed to please donors, not solve real problems, reflecting waste and abuse. Whether in foreign-funded tax reforms, energy sector financial sustainability projects, or gender mainstreaming campaigns, the pattern is consistent: poor design, poor results.

Tragically, these projects are celebrated with MoUs, photo-ops, and social media hype, while the women they claim to empower remain invisible. This isn’t just inefficient — it’s unethical. Tokenism empowers donor staff, consultants and policymakers, not women; it reduces gender equality to a funding checkbox. Worse, they hide behind bizarre buzzwords like ‘gender-responsive climate finance’ or ‘gender-transformative value chains’ — jargon-masking emptiness.

We must not confuse real gender empowerment with bureaucratic parody. Genuine change means women’s access to education and healthcare, legal rights (especially inheritance), protection from violence, and more women in the workforce — not elite seminars, lavish launches, or pricey consultants churning out reports that nobody reads. Pakistan needs genuine reforms, not donor-driven theatre. And it is time we start calling out the phoney feminism that masquerades as development.

The writer is the author of The Shady Economics of International Aid. He is a former senior adviser of the IMF and ex-chief economist of the SBP.

dr.saeedahmed1@hotmail.com

Published in Dawn, August 22nd, 2025


Olympic champion Imane Khelif denies ‘malicious’ claims of retirement


Reuters
Published August 21, 2025


Olympic boxing champion Imane Khelif has denied claims made by her former manager that she has retired from the sport, saying she is still training regularly.

Algerian Khelif and Taiwan’s Lin Yu-ting were in the spotlight at the Paris Games last year over their eligibility after they had been disqualified from the 2023 World Championships by the IBA, which said sex chromosome tests had ruled them ineligible.

However, they competed in the women’s category in Paris after being cleared by the International Olympic Committee, with both winning gold medals in their weight classes.

Khelif has not competed since her win in Paris.

In an interview with French newspaper Nice-Matin on Wednesday, Khelif’s former manager Nasser Yesfah said she had “left the world of boxing”.

In a follow-up interview with the same newspaper hours later, Yesfah clarified he was only referring to Khelif’s boxing commitments in the city of Nice, where she was previously part of the Nice Azur club.

Khelif criticised Yesfah’s comments in a post on Facebook on Wednesday.

“It is based solely on statements made by a person who no longer represents me in any way, and whom I consider to have betrayed my trust and my country with his false and malicious statements,” Khelif wrote.

“I have never announced my retirement from boxing. I remain committed to my sporting career, training regularly and maintaining my physical fitness between Algeria and Qatar in preparation for upcoming events.

“The publication of such rumours is intended solely to disrupt and damage my sporting and professional career.”

Khelif had been due to compete in a World Boxing tournament in the Netherlands in June, but opted to skip it shortly after the governing body initially announced its plans to introduce sex testing for all boxers in its competitions.

World Boxing president Boris van der Vorst later apologised after Khelif was named in their announcement on mandatory sex testing, saying her privacy should have been protected.

Khelif, 26, has repeatedly said she was born a woman and has a long history in female boxing competitions. In March, she said she would defend her title at the 2028 Los Angeles Games.
As India ties sour, Trump tries to balance Pakistan bonhomie: WaPo

A Correspondent 
Published August 21, 2025
DAWN


WASHINGTON: The White House has signalled a balancing act in South Asia, saying President Donald Trump wants to shrink the US trade deficit with India, while offering to work with Pakistan to develop what he has described as its “massive oil reserves.”

An article in the Washington Post described America’s recent thaw with Islamabad as unexpected, amid a sharp deterioration in relations with New Delhi.

When Trump won reelection in November, many in Pakistan braced for a rough ride. In his first term, he had openly favoured India, castigating Pakistan for “deceit” and sheltering “terrorists”.

Yet six months into his second term — and after the most serious India Pakistan flareup in decades — the tables appear to have turned.


Trade spats and a personal falling out with Narendra Modi have pushed US India ties into crisis, while Pakistan has edged into Washington’s good books, WaPo noted.

In August, a frustrated Trump criticised India’s oil purchases from Russia, slapping 50pc tarrifs on New Delhi and launching a fierce rebuke: “I don’t care what India does with Russia. They can take their dead economies down together, for all I care.”

Islamabad secured a 19pc tariff rate — low by regional standards, and far beneath the 50pc levy slapped on India.

Trump has also boasted of joint plans to explore Pakistan’s oil, while Pakistani officials have pitched cryptocurrency ventures and access to rare minerals.

Behind the scenes, Islamabad has hired Javelin Advisors, led by longtime Trump associates George A Sorial and Keith Schiller, and cultivated family networks.

World Liberty Financial, a crypto firm backed by the Trump family, signed a letter of intent with Pakistan’s Crypto Council in April; the visiting US delegation included Zachary Witkoff, son of real estate developer Steve Witkoff, now Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East.

But some former officials worry that Pakistan’s leadership has been blinded by its recent successes and is not attuned to the risks. “Flattery is not a strategy — it’s not long-term,” warned Maleeha Lodhi, a former Pakistani ambassador to the United States.

According to WaPo, the army, widely viewed as Pakistan’s ultimate power broker, took charge of the outreach, dispatching Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi to Washington during inauguration week to soothe Congress.

Still, there are ambitions in Islamabad to lock in gains — notably access to American defence kit from attack helicopters to naval hardware. “We can’t go back to the golden years of the 1950s,” said former ambassador Masood Khan, “but we can build a paradigm that benefits both the United States and Pakistan.”

Published in Dawn, August 21st, 2025


Shared future

August 23, 2025
DAWN


AT a time when significant geopolitical shifts are affecting ties between nations, it is reassuring that China has expressed its desire to stand by Pakistan, and further develop their deep, multifaceted relationship.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s recent visit, under the umbrella of the Pakistan-China Strategic Dialogue, reiterated Beijing’s commitment to improving bilateral ties. Mr Wang had earlier travelled to India and Afghanistan, stating that the South Asian states are China’s “natural partners”.

It is significant that China’s top diplomat emphasised that Islamabad was the “most important stop” on the three-nation tour. During his meeting with Pakistan’s top civil and military leaders, Wang Yi principally discussed economic and security issues, while observing that Pakistan and China have a “shared future”.

The message from China seems clear: Beijing does not want antagonistic relationships with any of its South Asian neighbours, and values a cooperative approach to addressing disputes. For example, Mr Wang reassured his Indian hosts that Beijing is committed to improving ties with New Delhi “despite setbacks”. He also told the Taliban-led Afghan regime that it needed to act against terrorist groups, while offering greater economic cooperation, including expanding CPEC to Afghanistan. Islamabad, too, was part of the discussions in Kabul, under the framework of the trilateral Pakistan-Afghanistan-China dialogue.

With the US displaying unpredictable behaviour under President Donald Trump’s watch, states around the world are hedging their bets, and updating their foreign policies accordingly. Perhaps this is one of the factors prompting India to improve ties with China, as New Delhi’s relations with the US experience turbulence. Regardless of external triggers, an integrated, prosperous and peaceful South Asia is desirable for all, and China could be the main catalyst that brings the region’s states closer.

As for bilateral relations, ties between Islamabad and Beijing — covering geopolitics, economics and defence links — should be deepened. China is a time-tested partner and friend of Pakistan, and has stood by it in difficult times, while China has also acknowledged that Pakistan has supported it “at key junctures”.

Irritants in the way of greater cooperation must be addressed. For example, Wang Yi publicly noted in Islamabad that Beijing expects Pakistan to protect Chinese citizens and projects in this country. Terrorist groups and hostile actors cannot be allowed to damage bilateral ties by harming Chinese interests in Pakistan.

Also, some states, such as the US, have said openly that they do not view Pakistan-China collaboration positively. This presents a diplomatic quandary for Pakistan, especially in light of its improving ties with the US. Islamabad must balance its ties with both states; better relations with America should not come at the cost of economic and defence cooperation with China.

Published in Dawn, August 23rd, 2025


A big test ahead

Muhammad Amir Rana 
Published August 24, 2025 
DAWN
The writer is a security analyst.

SINO-Pak relations initially evolved within a geo-economic framework after the launch of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

However, over time, security considerations have increasingly overshadowed economics, leaving the relationship struggling between the two domains. On the other hand, Pakistan-US relations have historically been strategic and security-centric, but today, they also face the challenge of balancing security with geo-economic priorities.

Ultimately, the real test lies with Pakistan’s establishment — whether it chooses to prioritise geo-economics or maintain deeper, security-centred strategic ties with both global powers. Nevertheless, these options will inevitably come with conditions attached.

Apparently, China’s foremost concern remains security. At the same time, the US emphasises the economic dimension, framing its engagement as both an opportunity for financial advantage and a means to elevate Pakistan’s political profile, particularly in the context of the changing politics of South and West Asia. Pakistan’s geography is undoubtedly a strategic asset, complemented by its aspiration to project itself at a level comparable, if not equal to, India’s military, strategic and political stature, at least in a sustainable sense.

Two perspectives emerge in this regard. One holds that maintaining strong ties with both China and the US can help Pakistan achieve this status. The other, less popular but arguably more pragmatic, view contends that without ensuring political stability and sustained economic growth at home, such ambitions will remain elusive.

Maintaining an exclusive relationship with both China and the US is a delicate task.

However, maintaining an exclusive relationship with both is delicate, especially when there is a contrast in the approach towards and expectations from each other. The phrase ‘de-securitisation of bilateral relationship between the US and Pakistan’ is echoing in Islamabad. But, it remains unclear whether the two nations, which have maintained close security-related ties for over 75 years, will suddenly shift the paradigm, especially when other avenues for cooperation are limited in scope.

Indeed, Pakistan scored a significant boost when it secured a deal with the US on 19 per cent tariffs, opening the door to the expansion of its exports with reduced competition. For much of the past two decades, however, Pakistan’s trade relationship with Washington has been marked by a structural imbalance; the US imports more from Pakistan than it exports, leaving an annual deficit that has averaged between $2 billion to $3bn.

Lower tariffs mean Pakistan must recalibrate its trade strategies. On the surface, its recent negotiations for textile concessions and the decision to import, according to reports, a billion dollars’ worth of US crude oil appear to be tactical measures to ease the strain. Similarly, discussions on crypto cooperation and energy resources exploration carry a futuristic tone, holding some potential to generate political capital and sustain bilateral confidence.

Nevertheless, neither country can detach itself from the broader framework of security cooperation, whether in counterterrorism or regional stability. Washington’s decision to designate the Majeed Brigade of the Balochistan Liberation Army a foreign terrorist organisation — Islamabad’s long-standing demand — reflects an unusual convergence of interests in this sphere.

Yet, a serious test for Pakistan could arise if Washington, in tandem with Saudi Arabia, presses it to endorse the Abraham Accords. Such a move would almost certainly come with binding conditions, foremost among them a recalibration of Pakistan’s Iran policy. Within this context, Balochistan assumes added significance, not only for its role in regional geopolitics but also for the allure of its untapped rare earth mineral reserves.

Outside these contexts, if the US genuinely seeks to de-hyphenate security from its relationship with Pakistan, the question remains: how can this be achieved while engaging primarily with Pakistan’s defence establishment, which by its very nature prioritises security? Successive civilian governments have attempted to reframe their ties with Washington on non-security grounds.

The last serious effort came under the PPP government after 2008, when, in the aftermath of Benazir Bhutto’s assassination, the party mistakenly thought that it could alter the trajectory of bilateral relations. The attempt backfired. The Kerry-Lugar Bill, which was supposed to broaden cooperation beyond security, instead became a flashpoint, straining US-Pakistan ties and unsettling the civil-military balance at home.

Another perspective available in the geopolitical domain is that the developments of 2025 do not represent a pivot away from India but a diversification of Washington’s approach to South Asia.

For Pakistan, the opportunity is unprecedented: a chance to reduce overreliance on China, broaden its partnerships, and restore a measure of strategic balance. Yet history warns of how often such openings have been squandered by short-term thinking, institutional fragility and shifting global priorities. The test lies not in the signing of agreements but in their consistent implementation.

If Islamabad can deliver reforms and Washington sustains its commitments, the deal may indeed evolve into a long-term framework of cooperation. If not, it risks becoming just another episode in the long and uneasy history of Pakistan-US relations, full of grand announcements, followed by quiet disappointments.

Pakistan’s establishment does not see any major challenge in balancing its close ties with China while exploring new avenues with the US. It’s also not overly worried about growing China-India ties, knowing their relationship has never been truly strategic and remains uncertain in the near future. Pakistan’s confidence is anchored in its robust defence partnership with China and remains largely intact, even in scenarios where Beijing and New Delhi might coordinate strategies to outmanoeuvre US President Donald Trump.

Chinese diplomacy, however, tends to be far less vocal than Washington’s, and is often conveyed through understated gestures. The Chinese foreign minister’s recent visit to Islamabad centred on security, CPEC and new initiatives. Significantly, just a day earlier, he had been in Kabul for a trilateral security meeting.

Media reports suggest that while China and Afghanistan have advanced discussions on joining the BRI, momentum to extend CPEC into Afghanistan has cooled. The Taliban, meanwhile, appears eager to cultivate an exclusive relationship with Beijing, independent of Pakistani influence, and China has agreed to connect Afghanistan through Central Asia via direct links. This is a signal that Rawalpindi and Islamabad would do well to interpret with care.

Published in Dawn, August 24th, 2025
SMOKERS’ CORNER: THE MYTH OF POPULIST UPRISINGS

 August 24, 2025 
DAWN/EOS

Populists and their supporters often claim they are ‘fighting against the elites.’ In at least three major cases, this so-called ‘fight’ was fought on the streets and caused serious damage to government and state properties.

These include the January 6, 2021 attack by Donald Trump’s supporters on the Capitol Building in Washington DC; the February 8, 2022 attack on the National Congress Palace and the Supreme Court building in Brazil’s capital Brasília by supporters of Jair Bolsonaro; and the May 9, 2023 attacks on government and military facilities in Pakistan by supporters and leaders of Imran Khan’s party.

Two presidents (Trump and Bolsonaro) had lost re-election bids, and one former prime minister (Khan) had been arrested on corruption charges a year after he was ousted as PM through a no-confidence vote in the parliament. All three lamented that certain political and state elites had conspired to oust them.

After their ouster, they were accused of inciting their supporters to create havoc by striking against the ‘elites’ who had allegedly engineered their exit. Trump managed to dodge his accusers and return to the White House in 2024. But Khan has been in jail for over two years now, serving two prison sentences and facing additional cases.

He’s been barred from contesting elections for at least five years. Bolsonaro is under house arrest and facing a trial in which he can serve a 20 year (or more) prison sentence. He cannot contest an election till 2030.

From Washington DC and Brasília to Islamabad, populist uprisings have been framed as revolts of the people against ‘corrupt elites.’ In truth, these were clashes between rival elites, each cloaking its power struggle in the language of mass resistance

Trump’s survival in this regard — and his somewhat miraculous return to power — was mostly due to the manner in which his opponents understood his defeat in 2020. Despite Trump’s victory in 2016, they continued to comprehend Western democracy as being a self-correcting system that had course-corrected itself when Trump lost his re-election bid in 2020. To them, he was likely to slip into oblivion. They saw Trump’s first term (2016-2020) as a temporary bout of madness within American democracy. This was a naive analysis.

According to social physiologists J.P. Forgas and W.D. Crano, after populists acquire power, the movements that carried them into power may continue unabated, driven mostly by the ‘tribal’ allegiances and moral fervour of their followers.

Populist leaders who manage to get into power are aware of this. That’s why their rhetoric and actions don’t really change even when they become presidents or prime ministers. They want the movements to survive. Seeing themselves as ‘outsiders’, they are never able to feel secure in power. They keep their movements going so they can fall back on them if and when they’re ousted.

Since the movements that carry the populists to power remain active, they (the movements) become willing conduits of the reactive narratives of the ousted populists. The movements provide the populists foot soldiers for their ‘fight’ against the ‘corrupt elites’ that had ousted them. Trump, Bolsonaro and Khan all believed that the riots that they allegedly triggered would compel nervous state elites to restore them.

However, once the riots were brought under control, the state and the new governments in Brazil and Pakistan became aware of the role populist movements can play even after the core leaders of the movements had fallen. Therefore, in Brazil and Pakistan, such movements began being systematically dismantled, whereas Trump’s movement (‘Make America Great Again’) was allowed to regroup and regenerate itself.

All three movements discussed here claimed to be anti-elite. To Trump, the elites were the ‘deep state’, ‘establishmentarian politicians’ and ‘liberals’ (especially in the Democratic Party), and moderates within his own Republican Party. To Bolsonaro, mainstream leftist parties, secularists and the Supreme Court were the ‘evil elites.’ To Khan, ‘corrupt’ mainstream parties, ‘khooni liberals’ [murderous liberals] and, later, some Supreme Court judges and the military, were the detested elites.

In Brazil and Pakistan, those supporting Bolsonaro and Khan saw the February 2022 and May 2023 violence as ‘middle class uprisings’ against ruling elites, whereas in the US, those who were ransacking the Capitol Building believed a ‘people’s revolution’ was underway.

However, in the early 1990s, the American historian Christopher Lasch had explained populism as “the revolt of the elites.” The American anthropologist Arjun Appadurai expanded Lasch’s observation by writing that, if the 20th century was an era of ‘the revolt of the masses’, the 21st century has been the era of the ‘revolt of the elites.’

Such observations bother populists and their supporters. They like to be identified as the ‘masses’ or at least as a significant part of the masses. They really aren’t — considering that the term masses is usually identified with social and economic segments that are below the upper and the middle classes.

As a term, ‘masses’ was refigured by the middle classes in Europe and the US during the height of the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century to mean the millions of people who began thronging urban centres to work in the ever-growing number of factories and lived in cramped conditions (slums). The ‘masses’ were not involved in the populist uprisings discussed here. Those who were at the forefront of the uprisings were what Appadurai calls the “new elite”, which was battling the established elites for political power.

When populists succeed in becoming presidents and prime ministers, an ‘alternative elite’ begins to take shape. It is largely given momentum by those wealthy businesspeople and sections of the middle classes that have developed tense social and political disagreements with other sections of the business and middle classes.

Modern-day populism is a fight between elites. So, during the three uprisings we’ve discussed here, when an alternative elite lost power, its leaders and supporters poured out not to ‘save democracy’, or carry on some noble mission. They rioted to save the power that their section of the elite had managed to grab, but then had lost.

Published in Dawn, EOS, August 24th, 2025




WHY THE TWO-STATE SOLUTION IS DEAD


Ejaz Haider explains why this idea was always a red herring in the face of recalcitrant Zionism, violent apartheid and engineered Palestinian bantustans and why the improbable — a single, just state — may be Palestine’s only future
Published August 24, 2025
EOS/DAWN

“As I told thee before, I am subject to a tyrant, a sorcerer, that by his cunning hath cheated me of the island.” — Caliban, Act III, Sc II, The Tempest by William Shakespeare


As the Zionist genocide in Gaza and the West Bank continues apace, the cadaver of a two-state solution is again being revived, with chants of “cumi [arise]” by the very colonial powers that are responsible for and complicit in the murderous violence that has raged in Palestine for almost a century.

That is bad enough. What’s worse is that the Arab countries are in cahoots with them in this project.


On July 29, British Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, spoke at the UN Two-State Solution conference on Gaza and the recognition of a Palestinian State. The irony of what he said is only surpassed by the perversity of the Balfour Declaration, which he invoked to press for a two-state solution:

“One hundred and eight years ago, my predecessor as British Foreign Secretary, Arthur Balfour, signed the declaration that bears his name. It helped lay the foundations for a homeland for the Jewish people. And Britain can be proud of that. Our support for Israel, its right to exist and the security of its people is steadfast. However, the Balfour declaration came with the solemn promise ‘that nothing shall be done, nothing which may prejudice the civil and religious rights’ of the Palestinian people as well.”

My purpose here is simple, though its treatment can be anything but undemanding: the seeds of violence sowed by Britain and its allies in Palestine during World War I, and which Lammy, himself of colonial heritage from British Guiana (now Guyana), is proud of, demands a rejection of what happened, not an endorsement of it.

The two-state solution, a red-herring at the best of times, cannot atone for the original sin, which demands not just saying peccavi but overturning Britain’s “proud” moment 108 years ago — though it must be said that Britain was not the only culprit. (Space does not allow detailing how another, now forgotten, Zionist, Nahum Sokolow, was assigned by English aristocrat and politician Mark Sykes, to get an undertaking from the French on changes to the Sykes-Picot Pact and support for the establishment of a Zionist entity. Sokolow got what is now called the Jules Cambon letter, which didn’t even mention the existing communities like the Balfour letter does.)

As the Zionist genocide in occupied Palestine rages on, complicit Western and Arab powers have resurrected the idea of the two-state solution, suggesting recognition of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Ejaz Haider explains why this idea was always a red herring in the face of recalcitrant Zionism, violent apartheid and engineered Palestinian bantustans and why the improbable — a single, just state — may be Palestine’s only future

To this end, I propose to give the reader a glimpse of how a new world was imposed on Palestinians and why a two-state solution, even when presented with sincerity, ignores or is unaware of the fact that the Zionist “control system” of Palestine has already turned that land into a single, apartheid state. There’s no space in that hegemonic control for two states. But let’s begin at the beginning.

THE TRAVESTY OF 67 WORDS

On November 2, 1917, Britain’s Foreign Secretary, Arthur James Balfour, wrote a letter to Lionel Walter Rothschild, a Zionist figurehead of the British Jewish community. “His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of the object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country [emphasis added].”

Despite Balfour’s caveat about “existing non-Jewish communities”, Britain, along with other colonial powers, had already engineered a mandate in favour of Jewish colonisation of Palestine. In Palestinian academic Edward Said’s words, it was a promise “made by a European power… about a non-European territory… in a flat disregard of both the presence and wishes of the native majority resident in that territory.

The Zionists knew this. In his infamous essay, ‘The Iron Wall’, Vladimir Jabotinsky, father of the hardline Revisionist Zionist Movement, wrote that there was not a single instance in history “of any colonisation being carried on with the consent of the native population. There is no such precedent.”

His political foe, David Ben-Gurion, leader of the so-called Zionist Left, agreed: “There is no solution to the question of relations between Arabs and Jews… And we must recognise this situation… We as a nation want this country to be ours; the Arabs, as a nation, want this country to be theirs.”

The only way the improbable could work is for the international community to reject Zionism and its privileges, for the colonial powers to confess to the original sin and for a state grounded in the “[nullification of] all Jewish racial and colonial privileges”, a process that “decolonises the country in order to grant equal rights to all.”

In other words, the clash was structurally set-up and for that reason was inevitable. Citing the body of literature would take up the entire space here but let me make two points: neither Jabotinsky nor Ben-Gurion or Chaim Weizman — president of the Zionist Organisation since 1920 — refer, even in passing, to the possibility of a Palestinian state alongside the Zionist entity.

Israeli historian Benny Morris notes that Ben-Gurion saw the Partition plan as a stepping stone to Palestinian expulsion: “With compulsory transfer, we [would] have a vast area [for settlement]. I support compulsory transfer. I don’t see anything immoral in it.” Weizmann, the Zionist entity’s first president, likened the Palestinians to “the rocks of Judea, as obstacles that had to be cleared on a difficult path.”

At the root of it was terra nullius [nobody’s land], a concept controversially applied by colonial powers to occupy other peoples’ lands. But since no land was actually unoccupied, the native needed to be disappeared from the narrative.

In an article for the Yale Journal of International Law, titled ‘The Colonial Order Prevails in Palestine: The Right to Self-Determination from a Third World Approach to International Law’, Tina Al-khersan and Azadeh Shahshahani write: “To support colonial projects across the world, legal frameworks emerged to justify colonisers’ violent land acquisition. One foundational principle of these frameworks was terra nullius… As terra nullius positioned lands as empty, the first person to use the land became its owner. In practice, however, the definition of terra nullius was adopted and expanded upon by the Europeans to justify colonisation.”

The late English historian Patrick Wolfe argued in his 2006 essay ‘Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of Native’, that the “logic of elimination” is central to the settler-colonial project and has “typically [required employing] the organising grammar of race.” The process, according to Al-khersan and Shahshahani, “aims to destroy indigenous societies while simultaneously establishing the colonial society on the acquired land.”

In such a universe, the power of who lords over others is absolute. Robinson Crusoe’s island becomes a metaphor for terra nullius and Crusoe’s story, of the boy from York, becomes that of resilience, tilling the soil and surviving with determination and ingenuity. But we realise that the island is not entirely uninhabited, or he would not have saved the native, whom he names Friday, from the cannibals, the uncivilised eaters of humans.

When Crusoe is rescued by a passing ship, he returns to England, having amassed a lot of wealth from his Brazilian plantation and slave trade. Friday returns with him, his man Friday, loyal and obedient, having been civilised, much like Lammy, but also without his own language and identity.

It is in this vein that Europe set out to civilise the natives, occupy their lands, divide them and, to our present purpose, solve Europe’s “Jewish Question.” Balfour’s proviso that the Jewish state must not violate the rights of existing non-Jewish communities was contradictory to the very idea of creating a Jewish state without the consent of Palestinians.

Imagine the German foreign minister Richard von Kühlmann deciding in November 1917 that, after exterminating thousands of Nama and Herero peoples in the previous decade [in present-day Namibia], Germany would settle them in England on the condition that the rights of the existing non-Nama-Herero in England would not be violated.

Now imagine that, after 108 years of violence and genocide of the white English by Nama-Herero, the current German foreign minister Johann Wadephul were to stand behind a podium at the UN and invoke Germany’s letter as the basis for a two-state solution. I doubt the English, including Lammy, would be amused by such an assertion.



Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, stands under a portrait of Theodore Herzl, the father of modern Zionism, as he reads Israel’s declaration of independence in Tel Aviv on May 14, 1948: Ben-Gurion saw the Partition plan as a stepping stone to Palestinian expulsion | Reuters


THE TWO-STATE CHIMERA

There are three categories of two-state solutionists. The first involves states mouthing this mantra since Oslo I (1993) and Oslo II (1995). These states, notably the United States and its Western European allies, while talking about a two-state solution have done everything to bury it effectively. They have armed the Zionist state-entity, branded Palestinian resistance as terrorism, supported or ignored illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Israel’s policy of sabotaging a two-state solution and vetoed any attempt by other UN member states to recognise Palestine as a state

The second category comprise peace activists within Israel who, while firmly grounded in their Zionism, believe that Palestinians should have a state in order for the Zionist entity to live in peace. There are shades of opinion within this broader category which can’t be detailed here. Briefly, they believe that the Zionist entity must exist with a separation wall (physical and metaphorical) and maintain its military and economic supremacy. Such a deal could be guaranteed by the Arab states normalising with the Zionist entity and helping the nominal Palestinian administrative state to survive.

The third camp comprises of millions around the world, honest folks, who think that the Zionist entity should be forced to live peacefully with the Palestinians because such an outcome is the only practical solution. They empathise with the Palestinians and want the genocidal violence to end.

The common denominator in these categories, intentions aside, is the acceptance of the existence of the Zionist entity. It’s like King Lear telling Kent that “The bow is bent and drawn; make from the shaft” — the deed has been done and cannot be undone. This acceptance of imperial fait accompli is the central impediment to a solution, which must begin by rejecting Zionism.

Several scholars, including Jewish-Israeli ones, have noted the ground reality of Zionist control. Writing in the October 23, 2003 issue of The New York Review, the late Professor Tony Judt begins thus: “The Middle East peace process is finished. It did not die: it was killed.” Judt, like most scholars, is not particularly concerned about the idea of a “Jewish” state itself but argued that it is “a characteristically late-nineteenth-century separatist project” foisted on a different world. Israel is an anachronism. If Judt were alive today, he would have seen how alive 19th century anachronism is, expressed through the 21st century tools of violence, a genocide unfolding on cameras and in real time.

Haim Hanegbi, a Palestinian Jewish journalist and co-founder of Matzpen, a dissident, anti-Zionist organisation, in an interview to Haaretz, a somewhat progressive newspaper in the Zionist entity, said, “Everyone with eyes to see and ears to hear has to understand that only a binational partnership can save us.”

Daniel Gavron, in his 2004 book The Other Side of Despair, has two chapters important to our discussion here: ‘The Impossible Solution’ and ‘The Improbable Solution.’ The first details how intricately the current Zionist entity is tied up with the West Bank. Among other details, he quotes Meron Benvenisti, a former deputy mayor of Jerusalem, and architect Eyal Weizman to show how impossible the two-state solution is.

Even under the Oslo Agreements, “Israel retains control of the water under the ground of the West Bank and the air above it”. And Eyal Weizman notes, that “the system of bypass roads, bridges and tunnels linking the Jewish settlements to each other and to Israel, makes it almost impossible to detach the West Bank from Israel.”

Gavron then moves to “the improbable solution” with a quote from Sherlock Holmes: “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” According to Gavron, “Having reached the conclusion that the territory between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River must be shared but cannot be sensibly partitioned, we are left with only one alternative: Israeli-Palestinian coexistence in one nation.”

American political scientist Virginia Tilley has studied the problem in great detail and presented the case in her 2005 book, The One State Solution. She lays out, systematically, the intricate problems that attend the two-state solution and presents her argument through elimination.

On the settlement grid, Tilley shows, as others have done too, that the grid’s very design, “in terms of its density and territorial dispersion”, is meant “to make the occupation irreversible, by fragmenting the territory of the potential Palestinian state and making the removal of the settlements impossible.” She was writing in 2005. In the past two decades, settlements have not only mushroomed, they have become even more intricate.

More recently, in his 2019 book Paradigm Lost: From Two-State Solution to One-State Reality, political scientist Ian Lustick has made a detailed case against the two-state solution. In doing that, he has listed the many initiatives and formulae that have sought to create a viable Palestinian state, none of which has worked, and most of which were shot down by the Zionist entity.

As I have noted in this space before, the Oslo Agreements, on which the entire idea of a two-state solution rests, never envisaged a sovereign Palestinian state. This was the crux of Israeli PM Yitzhak Rabin’s speech at the Knesset, 29 days before he was assassinated. Today, the Zionist entity’s forces operate openly and arbitrarily even in Area A which, under the Oslo Agreements, is the sole administrative domain of the so-called Palestinian Authority and constitutes merely 18 per cent of the West Bank.

Most illegal settlements are in Area C, which comprises 60 per cent of the West Bank and is under the full civil and military control of the Zionist entity. It was to be transferred, hypothetically, to the Palestinian Authority under the Oslo Agreements, but that transfer has never happened. Why? Because it was never meant to happen.

Settlements were and are part of the Zionist entity’s politico-military policy. According to the American Jewish Israel Policy Forum (IPF), “In allowing and encouraging the establishment of Jewish communities in the West Bank, a disputed territory over which Israel does not exercise [legal] sovereignty, the Israeli government’s initial priority was security. By placing Israeli civilians in certain areas to solidify Israel’s control, Israel sought to ensure that the territory’s political future would be consistent with the country’s perceived security needs.”

The situation has since changed. The IPF says: “Over time, messianic Religious Zionist ideology developed as a significant driver of the settlement movement, based on the notion of a religious imperative for Jews to settle the entire Land of Israel. Settlements established as part of this religious movement were often placed in regions with a large Palestinian population, in order to secure Jewish dominance over the territory, prevent a Palestinian state, and secure the entire West Bank for Israel [emphasis added].”

The reality is that settler activity did not become messianic “over time.” It was messianic from the get go. Rabbi Avraham Kook saw the 1967 War as a sign of messianic redemption. Religious Zionists still refer to his speech, which mesmerised them. The 2016 documentary The Settlers by Shimon Dotan unpacks the history of the settler movement and how the settlers consider it their sacred duty to purge the land of Palestinians and occupy Eretz Yisrael [Greater Israel].

Just last week, Bezalel Smotrich, a far right minister of the Zionist entity, showed a map and spoke of a plan to build a settlement that would effectively cut off the West Bank from East Jerusalem. He told the media that it would thwart the idea of a Palestinian state, “because there is nothing to recognise and no one to recognise.”

Smotrich is not alone in rejecting the idea of a Palestinian state. On August 12, the Zionist entity’s right-wing prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, a war criminal against whom the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants, spoke to i24, a tv channel in the Zionist entity, and told the interviewer that he is “very attached” to the vision of a “Greater Israel.” The map depicting that entity includes all of Lebanon and Jordan, parts of Syria and even Saudi Arabia. The interview prompted the Saudi Foreign Ministry to issue a statement of condemnation.

Let me now come to Edward Said. Initially a proponent of a two-state solution, Said came round to the reality on the ground. In his book The End of the Peace Process, he wrote: “No negotiations are better than endless concessions that simply prolong the Israeli occupation… with Palestinian consent.”

In two essays, ‘Israel-Palestine: The Third Way’ (1998) and ‘The Only Alternative’ (2001), Said laid down his paradigm for a one-state solution: a secular, democratic state, grounded in the idea of citizenship, not nationalisms. His second essay refers to South Africa, then under the African National Congress (ANC), struggling “to complete the task of bringing equality and social justice to this still-divided and economically troubled country.” He called the end of apartheid the greatest human achievement in recorded history.

Said also spurned armed resistance. He thought, despite his great intellect and insight, that Zionists could be turned around by appealing to justice and the notion of right and wrong. In that he was misplaced.

Armed resistance is an imperative his student, Joseph Massad, Professor of Modern Arab Politics and Intellectual History at Columbia University, understands clearly. On October 8, a day after Hamas’ military attack on the Zionist entity’s outposts, he wrote: “[A]s the ongoing war between the Israeli colonial army and the indigenous Palestinian resistance has only just begun, the days to come will surely be crucial in determining if this is the start of the Palestinian War of Liberation or yet another battle in the interminable struggle between the coloniser and the colonised.”

Dozens of displaced Palestinians walk along a road in Jabalia, Gaza on January 18, 2025: settlements were and are part of the Zionist entity’s politico-military policy | AFP



FROM THE IMPOSSIBLE TO THE IMPROBABLE


So, if the two-state solution is impossible, what does the improbable look like, especially if the right wing Religious Zionists also want one state by exterminating and expelling the internal refugees and the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, two of the three categories of Palestinians that live outside the Zionist entity?

Massad has a clear perspective on it. In an essay for the Middle East Eye on July 29, 2020, titled ‘Israel Prefers a One-state Solution that Protects its Colonial Privileges’, he argues that there are three different arrangements for the one-state solution: the white supremacist state; the post-apartheid, South-African-style one-state solution; and Zionists’ one-state solution.

Supporters of Israel, argues Massad, fear all three one-state arrangements. The supremacist state will be difficult to justify and could open the Zionist entity to international sanctions. “Algeria-Kenya-Zimbabwe solution,” says Massad, “most of all because it would lose the Jewish colonists all their colonial and racial privileges by making them equal to the natives.” The post-apartheid South African-style, one-state solution is their compromise, “as it seems to be the only one of the three that can safeguard Jewish supremacist privilege without international sanctions.”

The only way the improbable could work is for the international community to reject Zionism and its privileges, for the colonial powers to confess to the original sin and for a state grounded in the “[nullification of] all Jewish racial and colonial privileges”, a process that “decolonises the country in order to grant equal rights to all.”

Is the improbable possible? Yes and no. Yes, if the Zionist entity’s isolation is complete, an entity left marooned; no, because that doesn’t seem possible, both because the colonial mindset persists in the West and the colonised subjugation remains the defining feature of Palestine’s Arab neighbours. Their riches notwithstanding, they remain beholden to the very states that put the dog in the Middle East well.

Elham Fakhro’s 2024 book The Abraham Accords discusses in detail the perspective of the new generation of leaders in the Gulf states and why they remain so eager to normalise with the Zionist entity, despite the limits of that normalisation.



EPILOGUE


Ariella Aisha Azouley is an Algerian Arab Jew and professor of Modern Culture and Media at Brown University. In one chapter of her book The Jewellers of the Ummah: A Potential History of the Jewish Muslim World, she writes a letter to Palestinian writer Ghassan Kanafani after reading his novella Returning to Haifa.

Azouley creates Tama [‘pure’ in Hebrew and the equivalent of Saffiya in Kanafani’s story]. Tama is the daughter of Dov, Said and Saffiya’s renamed son Khuldun, who was left behind during the Nakba and was taken in by Miriam and her husband, the Jewish couple who didn’t want the child killed. When Said and Saffiya return to their apartment in Haifa, they meet Dov, serving in the Zionist army. Even though Dov knows he is Palestinian, he prefers to exercise the arrogant confidence of Zionists and refuses to recognise Saffiya and Said as his parents.

But Azoulay’s central theme is Miriam, not the Khuldun/Dov contrapuntal. Miriam is like Azouley, who names Dov’s daughter Tama so one day Tama/Saffiya would own Saffiya. This, Azouley believes, would break the vicious cycle: “We had been deprived of the memory of women like her [Miriam]; the Zionist state needed us bereft of our histories so that we could be raised as the children of colonisers and mature into colonisers themselves.”

Azoulay tells Kanafani, assassinated by the Mossad in Beirut in 1972 along with his 17-year-old niece, that the return has already begun with Tama/Saffiya, “breaking the Zionist spell over my body, over the land…”

Has it? I doubt Kanafani would agree. As he wrote in Returning to Haifa:

“I mean your presence here, in this house, our house, Saffiya’s and my house, is another matter. We only came to take a look at things, our things. Maybe you can understand that.”
She said quickly: “I understand, but…”
Then he lost his composure. “Yes, but! This terrible, deadly, enduring ‘but’…’”
At the heart of this darkness is this “but”. Unless this “but” is addressed, Palestine, like Caliban, will remain subjugated and locked in violence. The island’s problem is Prospero.

The writer is a journalist interested in security and foreign policies.
X: @ejazhaider


Published in Dawn, EOS, August 24th, 2025