Showing posts with label diplomacy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label diplomacy. Show all posts

Who Rules the World When No One Is Wise? The Ethical Vacuum Behind the U.S.–China Rivalry

 It began with that awkward handshake — Trump smiling too wide, Xi standing still. I watched it on my laptop one evening while the ceiling fan in Karachi hummed and the city lights flickered after another power cut.

In Munich, my daughter Fareha texted that they were keeping the heating low again. Baby Salar was asleep in his cot wearing a wool cap, though it was only October. She joked, “Baba, we live like monks with a mortgage.”

The handshake was supposed to calm markets. But what it really showed was a planet run by men who mistake showmanship for wisdom.

Maybe Fareha is right. Maybe we are governed by algorithms, not adults.


When the Courts End at the Border

Inside countries we still pretend there are limits — laws, courts, the idea of justice. But between nations, no such thing exists. There is no referee, no father to say “enough.”

Trade wars, sanctions, embargoes — they are modern words for the oldest game of domination. A few months ago, I overheard a trader in Bolton Market muttering over shipping rates as if reciting a prayer. His profit depended on how two distant men smiled in Seoul.

That is what global order means now: one leader’s tantrum, another’s patience, and a shopkeeper in Karachi forced to double his prices overnight.


The Moral Decay of Superpowers

Both Washington and Beijing talk about values. Both really mean leverage.

The United States has turned friendship into an investment — expendable when returns fall. Kissinger once said it was dangerous to be America’s enemy but fatal to be its friend. China, on the other hand, wraps power in the language of national humiliation and revenge. Two empires, two myths, one absence of conscience.

Trump’s tariffs and Xi’s stillness were not opposites; they were reflections in the same mirror. Power without empathy.

My son-in-law in Munich recently learned his firm would cut hours again because components from Shenzhen were delayed. One email from a supplier in Guangdong meant one less grocery trip that month. The empires never notice such arithmetic.


Chimpanzees With AI

A reader wrote to me, “We are still on chimpanzee level.” I think he’s right. We have built machines that can imitate wisdom but not practice it.

China speaks of the “century of rejuvenation.” America chants about “freedom.” Both confuse destiny with dominance. And the rest of us, the middle nations, translate their ambitions into inflation and anxiety.

When Fareha told me they now measure baby formula by the scoop, it struck me how grand politics becomes intimate pain. That is globalization in 2025 — a sleepless mother counting grams, a father watching the news half a world away.


The Century of Nobody’s Father

There was once a time when people believed in some moral North — the UN, human rights, a code larger than markets. Now it feels like those ideas have been sold for short-term gain. Institutions talk, missiles fly, currencies tremble.

When no one is wise, the market becomes God. Countries behave like corporations; citizens become data points. Artificial intelligence will only amplify the noise.

We are clever, not kind. Fast, not wise.

And yet, hope lingers in small places. In Salar’s laugh when Fareha video-calls from Munich. In Karachi’s evening breeze after the first rain. Maybe his generation will rebuild what ours has squandered — a sense of restraint, a touch of humility, a moral language larger than GDP.

Until then, we live in the century of nobody’s father.

When Data Becomes a Weapon: How Israel Turned Cybersecurity into Diplomacy


From Pegasus to cyber exports, explore how digital tools became foreign policy.


It started quietly. A few engineers, a few intelligence officers, a few lines of code. Two decades later, Israel built something that reshaped not just warfare—but diplomacy itself. What began as a defensive cyber program to protect against terror threats became a full-scale foreign policy instrument. Today, data is Israel’s new weapon.

The Blueprint of a Cyber Powerhouse

Israel saw cyberspace as a battlefield long before most countries did. Back in 2010, its leadership set a simple but bold goal: become one of the top five global cybersecurity powers. By 2018, it ranked just behind the United States.

This was not an accident. The strategy was deliberate, linking the military-intelligence complex to the private tech industry. The legendary IDF Unit 8200—often called Israel’s NSA—became the heart of this machine. Veterans from 8200 didn’t just guard the nation’s networks; they left to found start-ups like Check Point and NSO Group. That pipeline blurred the line between soldier and entrepreneur, between war room and boardroom.

Cyber tools tested in real operations against Iran, Hamas, or Hezbollah were later sold abroad as “security solutions.” Israel became known for offensive cyber capabilities, with operations like Stuxnet—the worm that crippled Iranian nuclear centrifuges—serving as proof of concept. Cyber innovation, in other words, had a battlefield pedigree.

Pegasus: When Surveillance Becomes Diplomacy

Nothing illustrates that better than Pegasus, the spyware built by NSO Group. It can slip into a phone without a click, harvest messages, activate microphones, and report everything back—undetected. NSO insists it sells Pegasus only to governments fighting crime and terrorism. But reality has been far messier.

Investigations have shown it used against journalists, opposition figures, lawyers, and human rights activists from Mexico to Morocco. Even the inner circle of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi—murdered in 2018—was reportedly targeted. That revelation shattered NSO’s credibility and revealed how surveillance had turned into power politics.

When the Israeli Defense Ministry licenses such software for export, it doesn’t just approve a business deal. It exercises foreign policy.

Cyber Exports as Bargaining Chips

Pegasus was not only profitable—it was diplomatic currency.

  • Mexico and Panama, early buyers, soon softened their UN votes toward Israel.

  • India, after a $2 billion defense and cyber deal, shifted to back Israel at the UN Economic and Social Council in 2019.

  • The Abraham Accords—which normalized relations with the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco—came with cyber technology sweeteners. Nearly every signatory gained access to Pegasus or similar Israeli tech.

These were not coincidences. Cyber exports had become strategic incentives, a quiet way of buying goodwill, shaping alliances, and gathering influence without sending troops.

By 2023, Israel and its new Arab partners signed a joint cybersecurity pact, institutionalizing what had already been happening behind closed doors—sharing data, intelligence, and tools of surveillance. The Middle East, once a theater of tanks and airstrikes, was entering a new era of soft power through spyware.

The Global Backlash

But digital diplomacy has consequences. The Pegasus Papers—a 2021 media consortium investigation—sparked outrage. Suddenly, the same companies Israel had partnered with in Silicon Valley were accusing its firms of undermining privacy and democracy.

The fallout was swift:

  1. Washington blacklisted NSO Group, effectively cutting it off from US suppliers.

  2. Apple and Meta sued NSO for exploiting their systems.

  3. Israel’s own Defense Ministry shrank its export list, trimming eligible buyers from 102 to just 37 nations.

It was an overdue reckoning. The myth of “neutral technology” had collapsed.

The New Face of Power

Israel’s rise as a cyber superpower offers a paradox. Its digital mastery protects its people but also extends state influence in opaque ways. Pegasus made intelligence as tradable as oil or arms. And unlike tanks, spyware leaves no smoke trails.

The uncomfortable truth? In today’s diplomacy, code is currency, and data is ammunition.

Israel may have pioneered this model—but it won’t be the last to weaponize it.

Pakistan’s Medal for Israel’s Favorite General

 


Pakistan has long claimed the moral high ground on Palestine. Its leaders thunder in speeches about Gaza, condemn Israeli bombs as genocide, and call themselves defenders of the oppressed. Yet, a quiet ceremony in Islamabad has pulled the curtain back on a contradiction too sharp to ignore.

The government awarded a prestigious military medal to a U.S. general described by critics as “Israel’s favorite.” This is the same officer who built his reputation on close security ties with Tel Aviv, and who was involved in shaping America’s military support for Israel. To many, he stands as a symbol of the very war machine that has ravaged Gaza.

A Strange Choice in a Time of Bloodshed

The timing makes it sting even more. As the images of destruction from Rafah and Khan Younis still burn across television screens, Pakistan’s act feels like betrayal. Critics, such as Fatima Bhutto writing in Zeteo, did not mince words. To honor a man so tied to what she called Israel’s “holocaust of Gaza” is “beyond absurd.”

Ordinary Pakistanis are left asking: whose side are we on? The ceremony was no minor event. Medals in Pakistan’s military culture are not decorative trinkets. They are markers of trust, recognition, and respect. To place that honor around the neck of an American general linked to Israel’s campaigns is to send a message far louder than the speeches about Palestinian suffering.

Realpolitik or Hypocrisy?

Defenders of the move argue that Pakistan cannot afford to isolate itself from Washington. The military relies on American defense networks. The economy remains fragile and foreign policy requires careful balancing. In that logic, awarding a medal is a diplomatic gesture, not a moral endorsement.

But there is a cost. Symbols matter. If Pakistan calls Israel’s war a genocide, then rewarding a general tied to it weakens every word. It turns outrage into theatre, and solidarity into empty ritual. This is how credibility erodes: not through enemies, but through the contradictions of one’s own choices.

A Mirror for the Future

History is full of moments when states said one thing and did another. But at this point, the contradiction is too visible. Social media has made sure of that. Images of Gaza’s ruins sit next to photos of smiling generals receiving medals in Islamabad. The two pictures clash, and the clash tells its own story.

Maybe the medal was a small gesture in the game of diplomacy. Maybe it was meant to keep doors open in Washington. But for Palestinians in Gaza, it feels like another knife in the back. For Pakistanis who believed their country stood firm on principle, it feels like humiliation.

And perhaps that is the hardest truth: the medal may shine in the ceremony, but in memory, it will look tarnished.

A Land Divided, A Hope Denied: The Two-State Illusion and the Stubborn Weight of History

A land that resists exile

France will recognize Palestine in September. The UK may follow. And Israel, as always, stands defiant. Not just against its enemies, but now against its own allies. It refused to send a delegate to the two-state summit in New York. Said it would play into Hamas’s hands.



But what are the alternatives? Antonio Guterres asked the question that too many leaders duck.

“A one-state reality where Palestinians are denied equal rights and forced to live under perpetual occupation and inequality? Or a one-state reality where Palestinians are expelled from their land? That is not peace.”

There it is. The silence between recognition and rockets. Between the rubble of Gaza and the marble floors of diplomacy. Between a people longing for sovereignty, and a state that insists security means domination.

Gaza has seen conquerors come and go

Oliver McTernan knows this terrain better than most. As a mediator with Forward Thinking, he's spent decades listening to both sides. What he said was sobering.

“Alexander the Great occupied Gaza for three years. Then he gave up. Napoleon lasted two weeks. The one thing about the people of Gaza—they are resilient. They love their land. And they will not leave it.”

That’s not strategy. That’s identity.
That’s not a political position. That’s home.

McTernan recalled a conversation with a senior Palestinian official in Ramallah. A man who, even at the highest levels of government, had never been to Jerusalem. Not once in his life. That is the invisible border of occupation. Not just physical, but psychological. A generation raised behind concrete and checkpoints, forbidden from their own holy city.

A history forgotten, a future denied

What if the real problem is forgetfulness? McTernan thinks many decision-makers are treating this as if history began on October 7. But Gaza is not a blank slate. The occupation didn’t start with Hamas. The pain did not begin with the latest war.

“We’ve had 80 years of a cycle of violence. Nine wars since Israel’s founding. Six major peace conferences. None have delivered.”

He’s not wrong. The two-state solution feels more like a prayer than a plan. But he still believes it’s the only democratic path left. Not through negotiations, but through pressure.

“The international community must say it plainly: the occupation has to end. Israel must recognize a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders.”

It sounds simple. It is not.

Rabbis, resistance, and the soul of Israel

Despite the gloom, McTernan sees glimmers of hope in unlikely places. Senior rabbis, some from the Orthodox tradition, are quietly advocating for coexistence. They invoke the teachings of Maimonides, who believed the Messiah would return only when Jews, Christians, and Muslims shared the land in peace.

“They believe the future may begin with two states, but could one day become a confederation.”

Do they have political power? Not enough yet. But in Israel, faith still shapes politics. If these rabbis can reach their communities, things could change.

Meanwhile, other rabbis—aligned with extremist politicians—push in the opposite direction. It’s a tug-of-war between the soul of Judaism and the machinery of nationalism.

On the Palestinian side, a missed chance

McTernan also spoke about what could have been. A European-backed project once brought together Palestinian politicians, businessmen, and students to map their shared aspirations. Despite factionalism, they agreed on one thing:

“Ninety percent of their suffering is rooted in occupation.”

And yet, the world squandered a critical moment. In 2006, when elections brought Hamas to power, the international community recoiled. Instead of engaging a nascent democratic experiment, they punished it.

“Had we supported the outcome of that election, we might not be facing the catastrophe we are witnessing in Gaza today.”

That line stays with you. It stings because it’s not hypothetical. It happened. A door was open, and we slammed it shut.

Conclusion: Not everything broken stays broken

We are told over and over that Israelis and Palestinians cannot live together. That hate is too deep, wounds too old. But who decided that? Who profits from that despair?

“Things don’t have to be the way they are today,” McTernan said. “This idea that they can’t live together must be challenged—and it can be.”

Maybe it’s not peace that’s impossible. Maybe it’s imagination that’s missing.

Key Quotes from the Interview:

  • Antonio Guterres: “There is no security in occupation.”

  • Oliver McTernan: “The people of Gaza are extraordinarily resilient. They love their land. And they will not leave it.”

  • On failed negotiations: “Six peace conferences in 80 years—and still, nothing has delivered.”

  • On religious leaders: “Senior rabbis believe Muslims, Christians, and Jews can share the land. It’s a theological foundation for peace.”

  • On 2006 elections: “If we had supported that democratic result, Gaza might look very different today.”

Why Cities from Jakarta to New York are Slowly Disappearing Beneath Our Feet: The Sinking Reality of Karachi

 I remember watching the ground crack in a neighboring urban block and wondering if the earth itself was tired of holding our weight. The bl...