Qamar Bashir

A day after Hamas’ unprecedented attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, I penned an article titled “Hamas Stunted Israel,” in which I warned that the Israeli response would be robust, devastating, and exemplary. I predicted that once the conflict began, it would not subside quickly. For Israel, a full-scale assault on Hamas would significantly endanger Palestinian civilians, leading to a global backlash against civilian casualties. This conflict was likely to escalate into multiple fronts, involving Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah, and even Israel’s own Arab citizens. Given the historical context of the Palestine-Israel conflict, the impotence and vulnerabilities of the Muslim world, their dependence on the USA, and some knowledge of Middle Eastern politics, this outcome seemed inevitable.

Ironically, while three of the five major superpowers support Israel in its military actions, resulting in indiscriminate violence against Palestinians, the remaining superpowers issue rhetoric and call for a permanent ceasefire without applying any tangible pressure through kinetic, economic, trade, or investment measures.

This has emboldened Israel to continue its pursuit of Palestinians and those supporting or facilitating them, particularly in the Middle East but also globally, with total impunity. Amid this crisis, global attention has shifted to a fundamental question that could reshape international dynamics: “Who will be the next President of the USA?”

Kamala Harris and Donald Trump have notably different approaches to the Israel-Gaza conflict and the broader West Bank situation, yet the ultimate outcomes might appear similar. Kamala Harris supports Israel’s right to self-defense, particularly in response to the Hamas attacks on October 7, 2023, which resulted in significant Israeli civilian casualties. She also acknowledges the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and has called for a ceasefire, emphasizing that how Israel conducts its defense is crucial. Despite increasing calls from progressive factions, Harris has not proposed conditioning U.S. military aid to Israel. She remains committed to working towards a two-state solution that ensures self-determination for both Israelis and Palestinians.

However, the fate of this stance may mirror the situation in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJ&K), where India has integrated the disputed territory with mainland India, effectively imprisoning its 12 million residents and stripping them of basic rights. The outcome for IIOJ&K and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may thus become historical examples of larger powers overpowering and subsuming smaller, weaker entities, leading to their eventual marginalization and extinction.

Donald Trump is even more clear and determined to end Palestine from the world map offering near-unconditional support for Israel in its killing spree, without providing any solution no matter how trivial and impractical.

When he was the president his record spoke for itself. He moved the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, recognized Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights, and withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal, actions that showcased his alignment with Israeli right-wing policies. He even criticized Harris as being anti-Israel, positioning himself as the stronger defender of Israel without any notable concerns for Palestinian humanitarian issues. One thing is common in both of them, neither has shown a willingness to leverage U.S. influence to pressure Israel into stopping the ongoing military operations in Gaza.

The other two superpowers, China and Russia, which have positioned themselves as maintaining independent stances on global conflicts, advocate for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but do so without exerting significant influence. China, while supporting Palestinian statehood in international forums, also aims to build economic ties with both Israel and Palestine, balancing its interests in the region.

Russia’s position is somewhat similar to China’s in that it supports a two-state solution and has historically maintained a relationship with both Israel and the Palestinian territories. Russia has also been involved in peace negotiations and has sought to position itself as a mediator in the conflict but again without having any appetite for kinetic, economic or financial commitments.

The European Union is a strong proponent of a negotiated two-state solution and has been critical of actions that it views as undermining the prospects for peace, such as settlement expansion in the West Bank. The EU provides substantial humanitarian aid to the Palestinians and supports diplomatic efforts to achieve a peaceful resolution.

India, though not a declared superpower, has for the past few years mustered sizable and impressive international clout. Surprisingly, India has traditionally supported the Palestinian cause and advocates for a two-state solution. However, in recent years, India has also developed closer ties with Israel, particularly in areas like defense and technology, reflecting a balancing act between its historical support for Palestine and its growing relationship with Israel.

Countries like Turkey and Iran have their own distinct positions. Turkey has generally supported the Palestinians and has been critical of Israeli policies, while Iran is a strong supporter of Palestinian resistance groups and is critical of Israel, reflecting its broader regional strategies.

Regardless of who wins the most powerful position on the world stage, or whatsoever it is the position taken by other super powers and important countries, Israel is likely to remain unaffected and shielding from any aggressive and kinetic or financial response and will continue to pursue complete annihilation of palestine population.

We have witnessed the futility of the United Nations and the toothlessness of the International Court of Justice. Resolutions passed by the UN and verdicts issued by the ICJ have been blatantly disregarded by Israel with total impunity, once again making it abundantly clear that without the backing of the United States, UN resolutions and ICJ rulings hold little value or consequence for aggressive parties, such as India in the case of Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJ&K), and Israel in the Israel-Palestine conflict in the Middle East.”

Meanwhile, Palestinians are left to weigh their chances of survival under either Trump or Harris. Their hopes are rapidly fading in the complete darkness that has engulfed them. With the international community largely silent and the UN and ICJ completely blunted, the beleaguered and helpless Palestinian civilians find themselves with no one to turn to but Allah, the Almighty.

Qamar Bashir

Former Press Secretary to the President

Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France

Former MD, SRBC, CEO, ATV

Dr. Muhammad Akram zaheer

The relationship between China and North Korea is deeply intricate, shaped by a combination of historical ties, shared ideological foundations and strategic imperatives. The stability of the Korean Peninsula is a critical concern for Beijing, given its geographical proximity and the far-reaching security implications of any instability in the region. For China, the Korean Peninsula’s stability is not only about maintaining regional peace but also about preserving its influence in Northeast Asia.At the heart of China’s policy towards North Korea is the imperative to prevent a nuclear conflict. A nuclear war on the peninsula would have catastrophic consequences for all parties involved, including China. Such a conflict could lead to massive destruction, severe regional destabilization and a humanitarian disaster, all of which would be detrimental to Beijing’s economic and security interests. A nuclear exchange would likely draw in other powers, particularly the United States and its allies, heightening tensions between China and the West and further complicating the global security landscape.However, Beijing faces the additional challenge of ensuring that North Korea, despite its belligerence and defiance of international norms, does not collapse. The implosion of the North Korean regime would likely result in a flood of refugees crossing the Chinese border, creating significant economic and humanitarian challenges for China. Such a scenario would also risk the unification of the Korean Peninsula under a government aligned with the United States, potentially bringing American military forces closer to China’s borders. For these reasons, regime collapse in Pyongyang is viewed as a threat to China’s strategic interests.

China’s approach to North Korea is thus one of delicate balancing. On one hand, Beijing must curb Pyongyang’s provocative actions, particularly its nuclear ambitions, which have drawn widespread international condemnation and sanctions. On the other hand, China must continue to offer substantial economic and diplomatic support to ensure the regime’s survival. This support comes in the form of trade, food aid and energy supplies, all of which help sustain the North Korean economy and prevent the humanitarian crisis that could follow regime collapse.Diplomatically, China has often acted as a mediator between North Korea and the international community, particularly in the Six-Party Talks aimed at denuclearizing the peninsula. Although Beijing has supported some international sanctions against Pyongyang, it has also advocated for dialogue and engagement, wary of isolating North Korea entirely. This underscores China’s preference for stability over confrontation.At present, the divergent needs of North Korea and China shape their respective strategies and foreign policy agendas, revealing a complex and occasionally conflicting relationship between the two countries. North Korea, economically isolated and severely strained by international sanctions, finds itself in dire need of financial assistance, economic relief and humanitarian aid. The regime in Pyongyang remains heavily dependent on external support to sustain its economy, manage food shortages and provide essential services to its population. Given its geopolitical isolation, China remains one of North Korea’s few avenues for economic and diplomatic assistance.On the other hand, China’s current strategic priorities lie beyond simply supporting its North Korean neighbor. Beijing’s foremost concern is to revitalize its own faltering economy, which has encountered significant challenges in recent years. To this end, China is keen to attract U.S. investment and strengthen economic relations with major global players, particularly the United States. This economic cooperation is vital for ensuring China’s long-term growth and stability, especially as it navigates complex trade tensions and a shifting global economic landscape. Additionally, China recognizes the importance of cultivating stronger ties with South Korea, a key U.S. ally in the region. Beijing views improved relations with Seoul as a stepping stone towards stabilizing its relationship with Washington and reducing tensions on the Korean Peninsula.A more stable relationship with South Korea, in China’s view, could pave the way for progress on the broader issue of denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula. Beijing has long held a vested interest in preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons in its immediate neighborhood, understanding that North Korea’s nuclear ambitions pose a direct threat to regional stability. A peaceful and denuclearized Korean Peninsula better serves China’s geopolitical interests, as continued tensions only heighten the risk of military conflict and destabilization.However, North Korea’s actions present a significant challenge to China’s strategic goals. Pyongyang’s frequent threats, missile tests and provocative behavior fuel regional insecurity and contribute to an arms race, prompting both South Korea and Japan to bolster their defense capabilities. Furthermore, these actions trigger a stronger U.S. military presence in the region, as Washington intensifies its security commitments to its East Asian allies. For China, this increased U.S. military presence is undesirable, as it threatens to undermine Beijing’s influence and security in the region.

In this context, Beijing finds itself in a delicate balancing act. While it seeks to maintain its historical ties with North Korea, it must also navigate the complexities of its broader strategic interests, which include stabilizing its relationship with the United States and ensuring regional security. What China does not need is for North Korea to exacerbate tensions by making threats, conducting missile tests, or escalating the regional arms race. Such actions are counterproductive to Beijing’s objectives and complicate its efforts to foster a more stable and cooperative regional environment.