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 : For decades, a dark cloud has hung over the founding of the State of Israel—one that involves the systematic disappearance of thousands of children from immigrant families, primarily of Yemenite descent. This is the Yemenite Children Affair, a chapter of history so painful that its official records were sealed for seventy years, until 2071. The wound has been reopened by recent remarks attributed to Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who has reportedly admitted that these children were abducted and sold to the United States for medical experimentation. His heartless statement has once again forced the world to revisit a humanitarian tragedy that has haunted thousands of families for more than seven decades.
This renewed attention comes at a time when Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir has repeatedly drawn worldwide criticism for inflammatory public rhetoric. His verified statements calling for “all of Lebanon to burn,” declaring that “for every teardrop of an Israeli mother, a thousand Lebanese mothers need to cry,” and advocating overwhelming military force against Israel’s enemies have been condemned by governments, international organizations, and even political figures within Israel.
Reuters, The Times of Israel, the BBC, CNN, and other international media have extensively reported these remarks. Critics argue that such rhetoric reflects a broader political mindset that has increasingly alarmed much of the international community. Whether one agrees with that assessment or not, the renewed debate surrounding the Yemenite Children Affair has inevitably become part of that larger discussion.
The Yemenite Children Affair is not merely an Israeli controversy. It is a humanitarian tragedy whose consequences continue to devastate families to this day. Between 1948 and 1954, shortly after the establishment of the State of Israel, tens of thousands of Jewish immigrants from Yemen, along with immigrants from Iraq, Morocco, Libya, Tunisia and other Middle Eastern and North African countries, arrived in the new state under extremely difficult conditions. During those years, hundreds—and according to many families and researchers, possibly more than a thousand—babies and toddlers disappeared after being admitted to hospitals or immigration camps.
Parents consistently recounted strikingly similar experiences. They were told that their child had suddenly died, often without ever seeing the body. Many said they received no death certificate, no burial location, and no convincing explanation. Instead of closure, they were left with uncertainty that lasted not months or years, but generations.
Israeli governments established three major commissions of inquiry to investigate the affair. Those commissions generally concluded that the majority of the missing children had died from disease during the difficult conditions prevailing in the early years of the state. They also acknowledged that some cases could not be conclusively resolved because records were incomplete or missing. Many families, however, rejected those conclusions, arguing that the investigations failed to answer fundamental questions and left significant contradictions unresolved.
One of the most controversial aspects of the affair was the decision by the 2001 Kedmi Commission to seal large portions of its evidence until 2071. That extraordinary decision itself became a source of public suspicion. Many asked a simple question: if there was nothing to hide, why should crucial evidence remain inaccessible for seventy years?
Growing public pressure eventually led the Israeli government to reconsider. In 2016, the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee unanimously approved the release of hundreds of thousands of classified documents relating to the affair. Minister Tzachi Hanegbi, appointed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to examine whether the archives should be opened, concluded that the authorities’ handling of the affair “did not reflect the values of the Jewish state.” He also acknowledged that he found it difficult to accept the bureaucratic explanations that had long been offered for many of the disappearances.
The release of documents represented an important step toward transparency, but it did not end the controversy. Instead, it reinforced the determination of many families to continue searching for answers.
In 2021, the Israeli government approved approximately NIS 162 million in compensation for eligible families affected by the affair. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu acknowledged the suffering endured by the families and expressed hope that the compensation would provide at least some measure of recognition. Yet many recipients responded that they had never sought money. What they wanted was truth.
Some family representatives described the compensation as an attempt to close the chapter without fully addressing it. They insisted that financial payments could never replace knowledge of what happened to their children. They demanded access to every remaining document, every available DNA record, every adoption file permitted by law, and every piece of evidence capable of revealing the fate of their loved ones.
That demand is neither political nor ideological. It is profoundly human. Every parent possesses an inalienable right to know what happened to a missing child. If a child died, where is the grave? If a child was adopted, who authorized it? If records exist, why were they hidden? If mistakes were made, why were they never fully acknowledged? These questions transcend nationality, religion and politics.
The recent circulation of the video has once again intensified public debate. Supporters of the video’s interpretation argue that it confirms long-standing allegations surrounding the affair. The renewed attention demonstrates that the issue remains unresolved in the minds of countless families and observers around the world.
Meanwhile, Ben-Gvir’s own recent conduct has further fueled international concern. His call for Lebanon to “burn,” his celebration of controversial legislation introducing the death penalty for certain terrorism offenses tried in military courts—a law widely criticized by opponents as discriminatory because of its practical application—and his repeated inflammatory language toward Palestinians have generated condemnation from governments, human rights organizations and international media. His rhetoric has become, for many critics, symbolic of a political climate that warrants closer scrutiny of unresolved historical controversies.
History teaches an important lesson: societies become stronger, not weaker, when they confront difficult truths honestly. The Yemenite Children Affair deserves precisely such an approach. No democratic society should fear opening archives, encouraging independent historical research, facilitating DNA identification, or allowing families to learn the fate of their loved ones. Transparency strengthens public confidence; secrecy erodes it.
For this reason, the time has come for the international community to assist—not to prejudge, but to establish the fullest possible historical record. An independent commission under United Nations auspices, composed of internationally respected historians, forensic specialists, archivists, legal experts, and human rights professionals, should be invited to examine all available evidence, including previously classified records, adoption files where legally accessible, DNA evidence, and testimony from surviving families and witnesses. Its mandate should not be political. Its mandate should be truth.
If that independent inquiry establishes that individuals or institutions unlawfully removed children from their families or committed other crimes, those findings should also be made public, and accountability should follow in accordance with applicable law. Justice cannot be selective. It must be guided by evidence rather than ideology.
The greatest injustice is not merely that children disappeared. The greatest injustice is that so many parents died never knowing whether their sons or daughters lived or died. Some spent their entire lives waiting for a knock at the door that never came. Others carried photographs of missing children to their graves. Their suffering cannot be measured in financial compensation.
This is why the Yemenite Children Affair remains a burden on the conscience of humanity. Regardless of nationality, religion or political belief, every civilized society should stand with families seeking truth about missing children. That principle is universal.
The search for truth is not an act of hostility toward Israel or toward any nation. It is an act of respect for human dignity. History ultimately belongs not to governments but to the victims, the witnesses, and future generations who deserve an honest account of the past.
Only when every available archive has been opened, every credible lead investigated, every possible DNA match pursued, and every family given the fullest answers that history can provide, will this painful chapter begin to close. Until then, the Yemenite Children Affair will remain not merely a historical controversy, but an unfinished moral obligation owed to every parent who never stopped asking one simple question: What happened to my child?

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 : Israel’s rising confrontation with Turkey has opened a disturbing new chapter in Middle Eastern geopolitics. After its war with Iran and its continuing campaigns against Hezbollah and other regional actors, Israel now appears to be widening its strategic lens toward Ankara. Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett’s warning that “Turkey is the new Iran” was not an isolated slogan; it reflected a growing Israeli security debate that increasingly views Turkey, Qatar, Syria, Hamas, and even Pakistan-linked regional alignments as part of a new strategic challenge to Israeli supremacy.
This raises a central question: how can a tiny state, with a population smaller than many regional cities, speak with such confidence about confronting Iran, Turkey, and even Pakistan? The answer is not conventional military size alone. Israel’s confidence rests on four pillars: its advanced air force, elite intelligence network, U.S. strategic backing, and, above all, its undeclared nuclear arsenal. Together, these have created a state mentality in which Israel does not merely seek security; it seeks regional dominance.
Turkey is not Iran, Lebanon, Gaza, or Syria. It is a major NATO power with a large population, deep military traditions, a growing defense industry, advanced drones, naval reach, missile development, and strategic depth. In any conventional comparison, Turkey is not an easy target. Its manpower, geography, industrial base, and NATO membership make a direct Israeli attempt to “destroy” or subjugate Turkey almost impossible. Turkey has no shared border with Israel, and any major war would require complex operations through Syria, the Mediterranean, or proxy corridors. This is not a battlefield where Israel can easily repeat its air campaigns against weaker or fragmented enemies.
Yet Israel’s confidence comes from a different calculation. It knows that conventional imbalance can be overturned by nuclear deterrence. Israel’s undeclared nuclear capability is the hidden card behind its regional posture. Even if Turkey is stronger in manpower, tanks, drones, ships, and strategic depth, Israel’s nuclear ambiguity gives it a psychological edge. It tells every regional rival: you may hurt Israel, but you cannot safely push Israel to existential panic. This is the dangerous “madness card” — the belief that if Israel feels cornered, it may escalate beyond normal rules.
This creates a frightening asymmetry. Turkey may dominate a conventional confrontation, but Israel may believe that nuclear shadow power gives it the final word. That is why the Turkey-Israel rivalry cannot be judged only by aircraft, tanks, or soldiers. It must be judged by escalation control. Turkey can defeat pressure, but it must avoid giving Israel the pretext to internationalize, nuclearize, or Americanize the conflict.
Many argue that conventional military strength, diplomacy, missile defenses, or asymmetric capabilities can compensate for a nuclear imbalance. Yet the modern strategic record suggests that nuclear weapons remain the ultimate deterrent. Countries that possess a credible nuclear capability are rarely subjected to the kind of existential military pressure faced by states that do not. More importantly, when rival states both possess nuclear weapons, the risk of total war often declines because the consequences become catastrophic for both sides.
The example of India and Pakistan is frequently cited in this context. Before both states became overt nuclear powers, the possibility of large-scale conventional war remained a persistent concern. After nuclearization, despite crises and tensions, leaders on both sides have had to calculate under the shadow of mutually assured destruction. The existence of nuclear weapons has not eliminated conflict, but it has significantly raised the threshold for full-scale war.
A similar argument is made regarding the Korean Peninsula. North Korea’s strategic leverage does not come from economic strength or global influence. Rather, its nuclear capability has created a deterrent that makes direct military action against it far more difficult to contemplate. Whatever one thinks of the regime, its nuclear arsenal has fundamentally altered how other powers approach it.
Viewed through this lens, the debate over Iran becomes even more significant. Supporters of nuclear deterrence argue that if a state lacks a nuclear capability while facing a nuclear-armed adversary, it remains vulnerable to coercion and military pressure. They contend that possession of nuclear weapons by both sides can create a balance that discourages war, whereas a monopoly of nuclear power creates strategic inequality.
For this reason, some analysts believe that the central issue in the Middle East is not simply conventional military superiority but the unequal distribution of nuclear deterrence. As long as one state is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons while its rivals do not, the strategic balance will remain tilted. From this perspective, the debate is less about military hardware and more about whether lasting stability can exist when deterrence is available to some states but denied to others.
Turkey must therefore think carefully about the changing strategic environment around it. The challenge is not merely military competition with Israel but understanding how nuclear deterrence shapes regional behavior, perceptions of risk, and calculations of power. Whether one supports or opposes nuclear proliferation, it is difficult to ignore the argument that nuclear capability has become one of the most powerful guarantees against external coercion in the modern world.
Turkey must read the warning signs carefully. Israel’s strategic culture has shifted from survival to expansion, from deterrence to domination, from defense to preemption. A state that sees itself as divinely entitled to security beyond its borders will always identify new enemies after old ones are weakened. Today Iran is the enemy. Tomorrow Turkey is described as the “new Iran.” After that, Pakistan’s nuclear capability may again be framed as a future threat.
If Israel continues to treat every independent regional power as the next Iran, it may achieve short-term military successes while creating long-term instability across the Middle East. From Ankara’s perspective, the lesson of recent conflicts is that diplomatic appeals, international institutions, and conventional military capabilities alone may not always be viewed as sufficient safeguards against a state that believes it enjoys overwhelming strategic superiority. Turkey’s challenge, therefore, is to develop a level of strategic deterrence—political, economic, technological, military, and diplomatic and nuclear—that convinces any potential adversary that the costs of confrontation would far outweigh any conceivable gains.
History suggests that lasting peace is rarely preserved by goodwill alone; it is preserved when both sides recognize that conflict would be mutually damaging and strategically unwinnable. Only such a credible balance can prevent rivalry from escalating into the next great catastrophe of the Middle East.

Dr.Beruniy Alimov, Tashkent, Uzbekistan

The opening of the joint Uzbek-Turkmen border trade zone “Shavat–Dashoguz” has become one of the most important economic and social developments in Central Asia’s border regions in recent years. Located between the Khorezm region of Uzbekistan and the Dashoguz velayat of Turkmenistan, the project symbolizes not only the strengthening of bilateral economic relations but also the revival of historical, cultural, and human connections between two neighboring nations. The initiative reflects the growing strategic partnership between Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan and demonstrates how border regions can transform into active centers of regional cooperation, entrepreneurship, and people-to-people diplomacy.

The official launch of the trade zone took place in November 2025 with the participation of the President of Uzbekistan, Shavkat Mirziyoyev, and the President of Turkmenistan, Serdar Berdimuhamedow. The participation of both leaders underlined the political significance of the initiative and confirmed the intention of both countries to deepen economic collaboration and improve living standards in border territories.

From an economic perspective, the “Shavat–Dashoguz” zone serves as a strategic platform for expanding bilateral trade and increasing regional connectivity. According to the available materials, the complex occupies six hectares, equally divided between the Uzbek and Turkmen sectors. The trade infrastructure includes 112 open trade rows, 28 specialized shops, and an additional 16 retail outlets located in separate blocks. Such large scale infrastructure creates favorable conditions for small and medium-sized enterprises, allowing entrepreneurs to directly access neighboring markets and establish new commercial partnerships.

One of the most innovative features of the trade zone is the implementation of the “single window” system for public services. This mechanism significantly simplifies customs procedures and document processing, reducing bureaucratic barriers for entrepreneurs and visitors. Administrative offices, customs services, quarantine, phytosanitary, and veterinary departments are integrated within one complex, making border trade more efficient and transparent. The presence of banking services, exchange offices, hotels, medical centers, and large parking facilities further improves the operational environment for traders and visitors.

An especially important aspect of the project is the simplified movement regime introduced for citizens of Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. Residents of both countries can enter the trade zone without obtaining visas, which greatly facilitates mobility and encourages interpersonal communication. This approach transforms the trade zone from a purely economic facility into a social and cultural bridge between neighboring peoples. Experts note that modern border regions increasingly perform not only economic functions but also diplomatic and humanitarian roles, helping to strengthen trust and regional stability.

The local population on both sides of the border has reacted positively to the launch of the project. Residents of the Khorezm region view the trade center as an opportunity to expand entrepreneurship, create jobs, and increase exports. Entrepreneurs emphasize that direct communication with Turkmen partners opens new possibilities for business cooperation and market diversification. Similar sentiments are expressed by residents of Dashoguz velayat, who consider the project a convenient platform for trade, professional networking, and economic exchange.

The border trade zone is also important in terms of regional economic modernization. Contemporary international practice demonstrates that cross-border economic zones often become laboratories for innovation in customs administration, logistics, and regional commerce. The “Shavat–Dashoguz” initiative follows this model by introducing digitalized customs infrastructure and interactive service systems aimed at accelerating business operations. These improvements are particularly relevant in the context of global economic competition, where logistical efficiency and administrative transparency directly influence investment attractiveness.

The project additionally contributes to export diversification. One practical example is the growing export of Khorezm rice to Turkmenistan. Local entrepreneurs note that Turkmenistan has become a promising and logistically convenient market compared to more distant destinations such as Russia or Kazakhstan. Reduced transportation costs and simplified border procedures make regional trade more sustainable and profitable for local producers. This case demonstrates how border trade zones can directly support domestic agricultural and industrial sectors.

Another important development is the opening of a trading platform operated by the Uzbek Republican Commodity Exchange within the border zone. This initiative introduces transparent market mechanisms, reliable payment systems, and competitive pricing models into bilateral trade relations. The use of exchange-based trading can reduce informal economic practices while increasing confidence among entrepreneurs and investors. Moreover, such mechanisms align the project with modern international standards of commercial regulation and financial transparency.

Beyond economics, the “Shavat–Dashoguz” project carries significant symbolic and geopolitical meaning. For centuries, Central Asian societies were historically interconnected through trade routes, cultural exchange, and common traditions. The creation of modern border trade platforms can therefore be interpreted as a continuation of historical regional integration processes adapted to contemporary economic realities. As one analytical text emphasizes, the border bazaar strengthens the “centuries-old friendship” between the two peoples and reflects the strategic vision of both national leaders.

In the broader regional context, the project may also influence future models of cooperation within Central Asia. Over the past decade, regional governments have increasingly prioritized connectivity, transport integration, and economic openness. Successful implementation of the “Shavat–Dashoguz” initiative may encourage similar cross-border projects involving logistics hubs, industrial cooperation zones, and joint tourism initiatives. Such developments could contribute to the gradual formation of a more integrated Central Asian economic space.

At the same time, the long-term effectiveness of the trade zone will depend on several factors. Continuous modernization of infrastructure, maintenance of simplified administrative procedures, and support for local entrepreneurs remain essential. In addition, both governments will need to ensure transparency, security, and sustainable management practices within the zone. Economic integration projects succeed not only through political declarations but also through practical efficiency and the trust of local communities.

In conclusion, the “Shavat–Dashoguz” border trade zone represents far more than a commercial marketplace. It is a strategic economic platform, a symbol of growing Uzbek-Turkmen cooperation, and a practical mechanism for strengthening regional integration. By combining modern infrastructure, simplified trade procedures, and people-centered connectivity, the initiative demonstrates how border regions can evolve into engines of economic growth and diplomatic partnership. If successfully developed in the coming years, the project may become one of the most successful examples of cross-border cooperation in Central Asia and contribute significantly to regional stability, prosperity, and mutual trust.