war
“Death to the IDF”: A Chant Becomes a Global Reckoning
Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : What began as a defiant chant by a single British artist at Glastonbury has erupted into a global phenomenon—a symbolic battle cry that has echoed across continents. “Death to the IDF,” shouted from the stage by Bobby Vylan of the punk-rap duo Bob Vylan, is no longer just a slogan. It is a collective cry of the oppressed, a reflection of unspeakable suffering, and a moral indictment of what is increasingly seen around the world as one of the most brutal and morally bankrupt military forces in modern history: the Israel Defense Forces.
The chant, delivered live on BBC’s broadcast from Glastonbury 2025, was not a slip or a shock tactic—it was a deliberate, explosive act of protest against the unfolding humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza and the West Bank. The reaction was immediate and deeply divided. The Israeli embassy in London called it “grotesque incitement.” The BBC apologized. Glastonbury’s organizers condemned the act. UK Health Secretary Wes Streeting, while denouncing the chant as appalling, said what few Western officials dare to utter publicly: “Get your own house in order.” He referred directly to the unchecked settler violence in the West Bank and the increasing brutality of Israel’s military operations. In one stroke, the moral lens was inverted—not on the protestor but on the perpetrators of the suffering.
Within hours, the chant had gone viral. From the streets of London and Berlin to the campuses of UCLA and Columbia, it was repeated, amplified, reinterpreted. In Johannesburg, banners bearing the phrase were raised next to Mandela’s warning that freedom is incomplete without the freedom of Palestinians. In Malaysia and Indonesia, it became a mainstay of anti-apartheid rallies. In Istanbul, it was sung from balconies during blackout protests. No PR campaign, no government declaration, no diplomatic silence could now erase it. What was once taboo was now mainstream—a visceral condemnation of what Israel has done and continues to do in Gaza and the West Bank under the silent complicity of the so-called civilized world.
And the rage behind the chant is not rhetorical. It is rooted in numbers that defy imagination. Since October 7, 2023, more than 38,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza. Over 14,000 of them were children. Thousands more remain under rubble. UNICEF reports that 9 out of 10 children in Gaza are acutely malnourished. According to WHO, 74% of Gaza’s hospitals are either completely destroyed or inoperable. The Red Crescent reports that over 300 paramedics have been killed in targeted strikes. The few surviving doctors speak of makeshift surgeries without anesthesia, of children screaming in agony as their limbs are amputated on cold concrete. One UN physician stationed in Rafah wrote in her dispatch: “This is not war. This is organized, mechanical, bureaucratized death.”
A young nurse from Médecins Sans Frontières wrote, “I have treated babies with phosphorous burns so deep I can see their bones glowing. I’ve seen a child still clinging to the leg of their dead mother, surrounded by debris, unaware that the mother is gone. We do not treat patients. We grieve for them while we try to save them.” These words are not exaggerations. They are real, raw testaments of horror. “Death to the IDF” is not a celebration of violence. It is a lament, a howl of anguish, a demand for the world to open its eyes.
And yet, instead of listening, the West is choosing repression. Donald Trump, now in his second term, ordered the revocation of Bob Vylan’s U.S. visa, calling the slogan “terrorist rhetoric.” But censorship only gave the chant more fuel. Protests erupted in front of U.S. consulates from Paris to Sao Paulo. Demonstrators carried signs that read: “You banned the voice. Not the truth.” Even progressive Jewish voices began to echo the sentiment—not as anti-Semitism, but as anti-militarism. “We will not let our identity be weaponized to protect genocide,” read one statement from a New York synagogue.
Israeli officials continue to invoke their mythology—that the IDF is the “most moral army in the world.” But the evidence now overwhelms the narrative. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and B’Tselem have all documented war crimes. The use of white phosphorus in civilian zones. The targeting of journalists. The siege of entire hospital networks. The starvation of refugee populations. And while Netanyahu claims this is all in the name of security, millions of people now see it for what it is: apartheid enforced by cluster bombs, domination enforced by siege, religion used to sanctify slaughter.
Israeli commentator Yehoshua Pfeffer, writing in defense of Israel, called the current moment a sacred process. He compared Israel’s suffering and response to the flowering of Aharon’s staff, a symbol of divine blessing and continuity. But what is blossoming in Gaza is not fruit—it is charred flesh. What is flowering is not hope—it is funerals. To argue that this slaughter is part of a divine process is to desecrate every teaching of justice, mercy, and humanity. While Pfeffer invokes scripture, Palestinian families dig through rubble to find the limbs of their children.
There is also a striking historical hypocrisy that the global south and Muslim world can no longer ignore. When Serbia constructed ethnic concentration camps in Bosnia and slaughtered thousands of Muslims, it was the United States under Bill Clinton—alongside NATO—that intervened militarily to stop the genocide and dismantle Yugoslavia. But now, when Israel is doing the same, with U.S.-supplied weapons, the very same West remains silent. Their eyes are closed. Their ears are stopped. Their hearts have ceased to beat. There is no urgent summit, no red line, no NATO intervention. The same global community that once promised “Never Again” now provides the funding, logistics, and diplomatic immunity that enables genocide in real time.
Not a single world power—be it the United States, China, Russia, the European Union, or the OIC—has moved decisively to stop Israel. The Muslim world, shamefully fractured, remains content issuing hollow condemnations. Worse, some of its own governments have joined hands with Israel and the U.S. to target Iran instead of standing by the children of Gaza. In doing so, they are no different from the tyrants they once condemned. They have failed. Morally. Spiritually. Historically.
The United Nations, meanwhile, has turned into a factory of eloquent failure. Its general secretaries and humanitarian envoys deliver beautiful speeches, full of metaphors and moral anguish, but they remain utterly toothless. Every ceasefire call ends in more bombs. Every resolution ends in more rubble. The normalization of death is the new global policy. The normalization of slaughter is a new political strategy. If this continues, then ethnic cleansing, starvation, and concentration camps will not only be accepted—they will be imitated elsewhere.
The psychological toll of this horror is now global. People with even a fragment of humanity are losing sleep, losing sanity, feeling helpless, disoriented, convulsed by the cruelty they witness. But there is one man who can stop it all—Donald J. Trump. He has the leverage, the influence, and the geopolitical weight. With a single phone call, with a single declaration, he could force Israel into ceasefire. But he has not. And in his inaction, he has become morally complicit. The world will remember that he could have stopped the genocide—and did not. That he could have saved children—and chose silence. If this slaughter continues, history will not honor him as a peace-bringer. It will record him as a facilitator of bloodshed.
And the Muslim nations that continue to fund Israel indirectly, that remain passive while their own faith is defiled and their brothers and sisters massacred, will share in that legacy of shame—not only in this world, but in the hereafter. They will not escape the moral consequences of their silence.
It is the sound of the world’s moral compass spinning wildly in search of true north. It is the voice of the end of our conscience, echoing across Gaza’s broken streets. It is the stitching of bullet-ripped bones under candlelight in overcrowded clinics. It is the bleeding of infants in the arms of paramedics who haven’t slept for days. And it is also the dark shadow that now hangs over the leadership of the entire world—from the United States to Europe, from the United Nations to the Muslim world. Because they have all become complicit in this crime. Israel may be the one pulling the trigger, but all those who fund, defend, and shield it are part of the killing.
If justice cannot be delivered to the people of Palestine today, if those children buried under the rubble of Rafah cannot find justice in this era of humanity, then rest assured—justice will come. It may come not now, not next year, not even in this generation. But justice delayed is not justice denied. Be it in 50 years, or 500, the reckoning will come. Because blood has memory. Suffering writes history. And silence, too, leaves a legacy.
Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : The war in the Middle East has now moved far beyond the battlefield. What initially appeared as a regional military confrontation has evolved into a systemic global crisis—one that is tightening its grip not only on governments and markets, but on ordinary people struggling to sustain daily life. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz, combined with targeted disruption of oil infrastructure, has triggered a cascading breakdown across energy supply chains, aviation networks, and tourism-dependent economies. The world is no longer merely watching a war; it is experiencing its economic consequences in real time.
At the center of this unfolding crisis lies the global jet fuel market—a sector often overlooked in geopolitical analysis, yet one that sustains the arteries of globalization. Prior to the conflict, global jet fuel demand had recovered strongly, reaching approximately 107 billion gallons annually in 2024, with projections climbing to nearly 7.2 million barrels per day by early 2026. This demand was supported by a finely balanced supply network spanning North America, Asia, and the Middle East. Today, that balance has been violently disrupted.
The Middle East, which typically contributes around 20% of global jet fuel supply, has seen a dramatic collapse in its effective output. War-related damage to refineries, combined with the strategic closure of the Strait of Hormuz, has removed an estimated 320,000 tons of jet fuel per day from global circulation. At the same time, approximately 3 million barrels per day of refining capacity across the الخليج region has either been shut down or rendered inoperable. This is not a marginal disruption—it is a structural shock to the global energy system.
Jet fuel prices have responded accordingly. Within weeks, prices surged from approximately $85–90 per barrel to well above $200, representing one of the sharpest increases in modern energy market history. For the aviation industry, where fuel accounts for up to one-third of operating costs, this is nothing short of catastrophic. Airlines are no longer operating in a demand-driven environment; they are navigating a survival crisis defined by cost pressures and supply scarcity.
The impact is most visible in Europe, where the aviation sector—and by extension, the tourism economy—is deeply exposed. Europe imports roughly 25–30% of its jet fuel from the Persian Gulf. With supply lines disrupted, airlines have begun aggressive capacity cuts. Major carriers have canceled thousands of flights ahead of the critical summer season. Lufthansa alone has reportedly removed tens of thousands of flights from its schedule, while other carriers are grounding aircraft, optimizing routes, and operating only essential services.
This contraction strikes at the heart of Europe’s economic model. Tourism is not a peripheral sector; it is a foundational pillar. The continent generates between $600 and $700 billion annually from tourism, supporting millions of jobs and contributing significantly to GDP in countries such as Spain, Italy, France, and Greece. This entire ecosystem depends on affordable, reliable air travel. Without it, hotels remain empty, restaurants lose customers, and entire regional economies begin to contract.
The crisis is not confined to Europe. In Asia-Pacific, where airlines depend heavily on Middle Eastern fuel flows, the situation is even more acute. Carriers have entered emergency operational modes, securing limited fuel supplies and preparing for prolonged disruption. Even in the United States—buffered by its status as a major producer—airlines face massive financial strain. Leading carriers have warned of billions of dollars in additional fuel costs, threatening profitability and forcing difficult operational decisions.
What makes this crisis particularly dangerous is its compounding nature. Aviation is not only about passenger mobility; it is a critical component of global trade. High-value goods, pharmaceuticals, and time-sensitive cargo depend on air freight. As flight capacity shrinks, supply chains tighten, prices rise, and inflationary pressures intensify. Indeed, energy analysts have already warned that this crisis could add nearly 0.8% to global inflation—an alarming figure in an already fragile economic environment.
Meanwhile, the maritime dimension of the conflict is adding further instability. The Strait of Hormuz, through which nearly one-fifth of the world’s oil supply normally passes, has become a contested zone. Tankers are being intercepted, diverted, and in some cases seized. Insurance costs have soared, discouraging shipping companies from entering the region. Even where fuel is available, the ability to transport it safely has become uncertain.
China’s position offers a temporary buffer but not immunity. With substantial strategic reserves and a diversified energy portfolio, including large-scale investments in renewable energy, China can withstand short-term shocks. However, as the world’s manufacturing hub, any prolonged disruption will inevitably impact its output. A slowdown in Chinese production would have global consequences, affecting supply chains and economic growth worldwide.
This brings into focus a critical strategic question: what is the underlying objective of this disruption? One interpretation—gaining increasing traction—is that the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is not merely a byproduct of conflict, but a strategic lever. By constraining Middle Eastern supply, global demand is redirected toward alternative producers, most notably the United States. Over the past decade, the U.S. has transformed into a leading exporter of oil and liquefied natural gas. In a constrained market, its leverage increases significantly.
For Iran, the situation presents a profound strategic dilemma. Maintaining the closure of the Strait exerts pressure on adversaries but simultaneously inflicts economic pain on the wider world. Reopening the waterway, on the other hand, could reposition Iran as a stabilizing force while exposing the broader dynamics at play. It would restore global supply flows, ease economic pressures, and potentially shift international opinion.
From a strategic standpoint, reopening Hormuz could neutralize the leverage derived from disruption. It would deny the United States to exploit scarcity and would reestablish a degree of economic normalcy. More importantly, it would demonstrate that stability—not disruption—is the stronger strategic position in an interconnected global system.
The world today is facing more than an energy crisis. It is confronting the fragility of a system built on uninterrupted flows—of fuel, goods, people, and capital. When one critical node collapses, the effects ripple outward, disrupting industries and livelihoods across continents.
If the current trajectory continues, the consequences will be severe. Aviation networks may contract further, tourism economies could enter recession, and global trade may slow significantly. Inflationary pressures will rise, and economic uncertainty will deepen. What began as a regional conflict risks becoming a global economic turning point.
The solution lies not in escalation, but in recalibration. Restoring the free flow of energy through critical waterways, stabilizing supply chains, and reengaging in meaningful diplomacy are essential steps. The alternative is a prolonged period of economic disruption with far-reaching consequences.
The Strait of Hormuz is no longer just a geographic chokepoint. It has become the pivot on which the global economy now turns.
There is No Way to Peace, Peace is the Way
Akhtar Hussain Sandhu
Chicago (USA)
Iran-US War and Islamabad peace facilitation prompt me to recall the famous quotes of Abraham Johannes Muste, a US-based civil rights and anti-nuclear-weapons activist. To him, nothing can lead to peace, but peace, in fact, facilitates a positive change in relations therefore, not circumstances or ways, but ‘peace’ itself proves a nucleus of attention in the crisis-packed situation in a society or world. Social scientists usually count the factors and circumstances leading to peace in a conflict at the societal and international level, but A. J. Muste believes that ‘peace’ is the greatest force that attracts rival protagonists to create understanding and end conflict. A. J. Muste opposed World War I and the US-Vietnam War and also opposed nuclear weaponry. He worked zealously and nonviolently for labor rights and civil liberties in the United States. The US-Israel led war against Iran on 28 February 2026 caused a catastrophic results and the continuous bombing destroyed Iran’s civil infrastructure, and approximately 180 schoolgirls were killed in an aerial attack. It was condemned by the masses in the US and other countries. Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz as a war tactic, which created a global oil crisis, and all countries’ economies experienced an overnight major setback. The US President changed his initial war objectives and focused on the reopening of the Hormuz because multiple nations were bashing the US President for his unethical war mongering ambition, which caused the energy crisis. US President Donald Trump first decided to isolate the US from this dangerous drive and declared that the affected countries should send their troops to open this sea route for their vessels, but in April 2026, he issued a furious statement that if Iran did not open the Strait of Hormuz, it would be eliminated from the earth. It caused panic in the world because this message meant a nuclear attack on Iran. If it happened, any power could justify the use of nuclear weapons against the rival country, and the world could be an unsafe and hellish place. It could also convince every country, including Iran, to have nuclear weapons in future because having nuclear weaponry was to be left as the only option to survive against a rival nuclear power. However, Pakistan, China, Russia, Egypt, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, enjoying cordial relations with the US and Iran, ultimately brought a truce of two weeks, and both countries consented to dialogue in Islamabad on 10 April. Army Chief Gen. Asim Munir, PM Mian Shahbaz Sharif, and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar from Pakistan played a pivotal role in the ongoing parleys between the rival leaders. The ceasefire created an environment in which both camps claimed victory, and both seemed busy proving their military strength and muscles, but despite all, they are heading towards peace through dialogue. Threatening Statements by the US President even before a day before the negotiations is an evidence that the agreement (if it is concluded) would be presented as Iran’s surrender before the US might. A. J. Muste quotes that not circumstances, but ‘peace’ itself pushed the rival forces away from the battlefield. Once, a reporter questioned his presence as a protest in front of the White House: ” Can you change the White House? A. J. Muste replied. ‘I don’t do this to change the country. I do this so the country would not change me.’ The ruling elite always use the name of ‘state’ to change the people as it desires, but the state’s predilections change with the passage of time; therefore, to curb the citizens proves havoc for the social fabric. Dissatisfied masses can hardly produce a beneficial human resource that truly serves a nation. A. J. Must says that the problem after a war is that the victor shows the fight has brought a bright future, and war has paid the nation a lot. In their perception, the war was a new form of reform that would ensure prosperity and psychological pride for the people. Iran and the USA have both been claiming victories and asserting that the conflict has brought blessings. Both countries closed their eyes to the human sufferings and loss of innocent lives, wealth, economy, infrastructure, and hatred generated against each other. Peace proved its importance and motivated them to approach the neutral countries for a ceasefire, which means the war had crippled both the rivals to the extent that they were unable to talk even of ‘peace’, which shows the weakness and impotency of the so-called victors. A. J. Muste opines that no big power in the war accepts itself as an aggressor; instead, it is always the rival that is the aggressor.’ However, I think that every fighting country thinks of itself as a big force, therefore both become ‘big powers’ under their own justifications. Look at the arguments of the US and Iran that have been justifying their righteousness and aggression toward the rival according to their own national narratives. None of them is ready to accept any lapse on the side. Perhaps it happens amid internal and external threats to the political leadership, who twist events and arguments to secure their political position and national morale. This is another form of stress and aggression against peace, humanity, and righteousness. For example, many US military and other officials refused to attack Iran who must be consulted about their current thinking on their decision. A. J. Muste says that peace is impossible if people are only concerned with peace. A war is an outcome of different ways of life. If people desire to attack war, they have to attack that way of life.’ A. J. Muste here can be disagreed because way of life is always different, which does not mean to be in a battlefield all the time. I think he wants to say that if people dislike war, they should change their vision to one of living in societies with divergent ways of life. This quote reflects Muste’s desire that prosperity and civil liberties can change society, and by this, war maneuvering can be suffocated. AJ Must was a member of the Fellowship of Reconciliation in the US, which struggled against war hysteria and the violation of civil liberties and for labor rights. He delivered lectures in different universities on the nonviolent struggle for rights. He joined the Montgomery Bus Boycott, led by Martin Luther King, Jr., in 1955. A. J. Muste’s struggle is still admired by Americans and Europeans because he worked selflessly for humanity, peace, and the dignity of all races.
Writer is a US-based Historian & Colmunist
9 April 2026
war
PM Shehbaz, Starmer Hold Key Call on Regional Security UK Backs Pakistan’s Peace Initiatives and Ceasefire Efforts
Prime Minister’s Office
Media Wing
ISLAMABAD: 10 April 2026.
Prime Minister’s Telephone Call with Prime Minister Keir Starmer of the United Kingdom
Prime Minister Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif received a telephone call from Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, His Excellency Keir Starmer, this evening.
Prime Minister Starmer deeply appreciated Pakistan’s effective diplomatic efforts in facilitating the U.S.-Iran ceasefire, and the resumption of dialogue. He felicitated Prime Minister Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif on hosting the peace negotiations in Islamabad and offered his best wishes for the success of this endeavor.
Reaffirming Pakistan’s sincere commitment to regional peace and stability, Prime Minister Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif welcomed the joint statement issued by key European and international leaders, including Prime Minister Starmer, endorsing Pakistan’s peace initiatives.
Both leaders emphasized the importance of ensuring that the ceasefire remains in place and creates the necessary conditions for lasting peace and stability in the region.
The two leaders agreed to work together to lend fresh impetus to the longstanding friendly ties between Pakistan and the United Kingdom, across all spheres of mutual interest.
The Prime Minister reiterated his cordial invitation to Prime Minister Starmer to undertake an official visit to Pakistan.
Navruz & Timur’s Empire: A Kaleidoscope of Cultures Blooms at Uzbekistan’s University of Journalism
How Iran War Is Grounding the World Economy
Trump’s Shadow War Against China
-
Europe News1 year agoChaos and unproven theories surround Tates’ release from Romania
-
American News1 year agoTrump expands exemptions from Canada and Mexico tariffs
-
American News1 year agoTrump Expels Zelensky from the White House
-
Pakistan News10 months agoComprehensive Analysis Report-The Faranian National Conference on Maritime Affairs-By Kashif Firaz Ahmed
-
American News1 year agoZelensky bruised but upbeat after diplomatic whirlwind
-
Art & Culture1 year agoThe Indian film showing the bride’s ‘humiliation’ in arranged marriage
-
Pakistan News1 year agoCan Pakistan be a Hard State?
-
Entertainment1 year agoChampions Trophy: Pakistan aim to defend coveted title as historic tournament kicks off today