Europe News
EU Founded for Peace, Now Engaged in War
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 : Ursula von der Leyen recently announced, following the London summit, that the European Union would unveil a “comprehensive rearmament plan for Europe on March 6.” She emphasized the urgency of increasing military investments in order to “prepare for the worst.” However, this announcement has sparked significant skepticism and criticism. Many Europeans question the source of the funding for such a militarization effort, wondering if their remaining resources will be stripped away.
For years, the European Union has been portrayed as a beacon of prosperity and peace. Yet, critics argue that fear has consistently been used as a tool to push citizens into supporting harmful policies. Increasingly, Europeans perceive that the real threat does not come from Moscow, Ukraine, the USA, or China, but as the vice president of the United States, J.D. Vance, recently echoed the true threat comes from within Western institutions, not from external adversaries, specifically from Brussels, where leaders like Ursula von der Leyen, Emmanuel Macron, and Olaf Scholz are accused of manipulating narratives to sustain the war in Ukraine.
European project, originally built on the promise of peace, now seems to be leading the continent toward war. The European Union, rather than securing the future, seems to be digging the grave of Europe itself. Klaus Schwab’s infamous quote, “You will own nothing and be happy,” is now being interpreted as a grim prophecy rather than a utopian vision.
The skepticism extends to concerns about political rhetoric. Many see the discourse surrounding figures like Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as exaggerated, questioning the credibility of those who label him a “hero.” Detractors argue that European leaders could have just as easily fabricated a threat from extraterrestrials, highlighting what they see as the absurdity of the current narrative. The focus, they claim, should not be on an external aggressor but rather on the internal decisions that have led to economic hardship and political instability across the continent.
A significant segment of European public opinion believes that Russia has not provoked the EU, NATO, or France, but rather that European leaders are pushing for a prolonged confrontation with a nuclear power that possesses 5,000 warheads. Critics warn that such reckless policies could lead Europe into another catastrophic conflict—just as the continent was at the center of two world wars in the past century. Calls for rearmament are met with sarcasm, as some Europeans express mock enthusiasm about facing Russia alongside Sweden, questioning the feasibility and necessity of such a move.
Public concern is growing over Ursula von der Leyen’s authority and the legitimacy of the decisions she is making on behalf of European nations. Detractors argue that these actions undermine national sovereignty and democracy, concentrating power in Brussels while stripping individual nations of their ability to determine their own paths. The criticism does not stop at von der Leyen; Macron, Scholz, and other European leaders are also being accused of leading the continent down a destructive path.
The argument is that the push for increased military spending diverts crucial funds away from essential public services, environmental sustainability, and social welfare programs. Instead, these resources are being funneled into a “cannon fodder project” that benefits the wealthy elite at the expense of the general population. The war means according to them, raising taxes, which could lead to public outrage, cutting social benefits, further impoverishing struggling families and printing more money, causing hyperinflation and economic collapse.
Analysts who have studied European opinion trends note a significant shift in public sentiment. Many now believe that the war is unwinnable and that Russia holds the key to both prolonging and ending the conflict at its discretion. There is a growing recognition that continuing down the current path will only lead to further instability, economic hardship, and a potential escalation that could have devastating consequences for Europe.
With Europe already facing challenges from extremist threats and economic struggles, adding a military confrontation with Russia and increasing dependence on U.S. foreign policy could spell disaster for the continent. Critics argue that unless European citizens wake up and demand accountability from their leaders, they will be dragged into a war with catastrophic consequences.
Ultimately, the core of the argument is that European leaders are not safeguarding the interests of their people. Instead, they are prioritizing a militaristic agenda that serves political and financial elites. As tensions continue to rise, the question remains: Will European citizens take control of their future, or will they allow themselves to be led into another devastating conflict?
There is growing resentment toward European leadership, with some comparing the current EU to a “Fourth Reich” that seeks to impose its will on member nations. Rather than serving the interests of its people, the EU’s current trajectory appears to be one of decay, defeat, and disintegration. Instead of focusing on the prosperity and well-being of its citizens, the Union is investing in military escalation. But this time, the people will not be deceived. The resistance against this war is growing.
After nine years, European public, analysts and thinkers seem to have reached the same conclusion that former U.S. President Donald Trump did regarding military preparedness. However, financing a military expansion while already supporting a costly war is problematic. Money does not fall from the sky, and diverting funds means making painful cuts elsewhere. The challenge now is whether European leaders will dare to increase taxes without triggering a backlash from an already frustrated population.
This growing frustration among European citizens mirrors sentiments expressed by former U.S. President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly criticized NATO and questioned its role in global conflicts. Many Europeans now share Trump’s perspective that NATO initiated the war under false pretenses, framing it as an act of aggression. As public discourse shifts, more people in Europe are aligning with the idea that the conflict is not in their best interests but rather serves as a means to further impoverish ordinary citizens while enriching the powerful.
Europe News
UK Labels Israel “Genocidal” and Bans Its Products
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 world stands at a critical juncture in its relationship with Israel. For decades, the international community has watched as Palestinians have been systematically displaced, their homes destroyed, and their rights violated under the guise of security concerns. The recent announcement by the United Kingdom government to impose comprehensive sanctions on Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank represents a watershed moment—one that challenges the long-standing impunity with which Israel has operated. These measures are not merely diplomatic gestures but essential tools for justice, peace, and the preservation of human dignity.
Ironically it was the UK which spearheaded the foundation of Israel in 1948, and was instrumental in ethnically cleansing 750,000 Palestinians from their homes in Majdal Ashkelan to establish the state of Israel. These Palestinians were forcibly removed, placed in prison camps, and eventually dumped into the Gaza Strip, where they have been permanently warehoused under siege conditions.
However, as repentance of its past crimes, the encouraging British government’s decision to ban imports from illegal Israeli settlements, impose strict arms export controls, and sanction individuals involved in settler violence represents a courageous stand for international law, is a step in the right direction.. These settlements are unequivocally illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits an occupying power from transferring parts of its own civilian population into territory it occupies. For too long, the international community has paid lip service to this principle while allowing Israel to continue its expansion unabated.
Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband’s characterization of settler activities as “ethnic cleansing” is not hyperbole but an accurate description of reality. When Israeli settlers, often with state protection, systematically drive Palestinian communities from their land through violence, intimidation, and the destruction of homes and olive groves, this is ethnic cleansing by any reasonable definition. The UK’s sanctions send a clear message: such practices have consequences, and the era of impunity is ending.
Israel’s reaction to the UK sanctions has been telling. President Herzog and Prime Minister Netanyahu have condemned the measures, claiming that sanctions are not the solution and that dialogue is the only path forward. Yet this appeal to dialogue is fundamentally disingenuous when Israel itself has consistently rejected dialogue in favor of military action. The same government that has flattened Gaza, destroyed southern Lebanon, occupied the Golan Heights, and continues to expand settlements in the West Bank cannot credibly lecture others about the virtues of peaceful negotiation.
The Israeli government’s countermeasures—closing the British consulate in Jerusalem, expelling UK representatives from coordination centers, and denying entry to British officials—reveal a government more interested in retaliation than reconciliation. This is the behavior of a state that believes it can act with complete impunity, that international law applies to others but not to itself. The irony of Israel’s position becomes even more apparent when considering its enthusiastic support for US sanctions against Iran. If sanctions are illegitimate when applied to Israel, why are they legitimate when applied to others?
What makes the current moment particularly significant is the growing global consensus around the need to hold Israel accountable. Canada and France have already implemented matching bans on settlement trade, and other nations are expected to follow. This is not a fringe movement but a mainstream diplomatic position grounded in international law and basic human rights principles.
The United States, Israel’s most steadfast ally, is increasingly isolated in its unconditional support. The proposed congressional resolution declaring that the United States will not aid Israel or enter into wars on its behalf represents a significant shift in American public sentiment. Even within the US, there is growing recognition that uncritical support for Israel has damaged American interests, destabilized the Middle East, and put the United States on the wrong side of history.
The call for boycott has extended beyond governments to include religious authorities and civil society organizations. Christian leaders, including Archbishop J. Black, have called for boycott of Israeli products, drawing parallels to the successful international campaign against apartheid South Africa. Their position is rooted not in anti-Semitism but in a profound commitment to justice—the recognition that any system built on racial or religious supremacy must be dismantled.
The boycott movement has practical implications. Consumers are being urged to check labels and avoid products from Israeli settlements, which are often sold under supermarket own brands or other disguises. Items ranging from fruits and vegetables to beauty products, diamonds, and plastic goods should be scrutinized for Israeli origins. The economic impact of such boycotts, if sustained, could be substantial—UK trade with Israel amounts to approximately $1.6 billion annually.
The UK’s leadership in this matter provides an opportunity for Muslim countries to take decisive action. While individual boycotts have existed in some Muslim nations, coordinated government-level sanctions would send an even stronger message. Islamic countries should follow the British example by imposing comprehensive bans on Israeli products, regardless of how they are branded or marketed. They should also consider severing diplomatic, economic, and cultural ties with Israel until it complies with international law.
This is not about targeting Jewish people—a charge that Israeli leaders cynically weaponize to deflect legitimate criticism. It is about opposing a state that has institutionalized discrimination, collective punishment, and territorial expansion. The vast majority of pro-Palestinian advocates, whether Muslim, Christian, Jewish, or secular, are motivated by a commitment to human rights, not by prejudice.
No discussion of Israel’s accountability would be complete without addressing the United States’ role as its primary enabler. For decades, the US has provided Israel with billions of dollars in annual aid, diplomatic cover at the United Nations, and military support that has been used to commit atrocities against Palestinians. This relationship has not only facilitated Israeli aggression but has also undermined US credibility in the Middle East and the global South.
The American people, who are hardworking, peace-loving, and committed to justice, must pressure their representatives to end this unconditional support. Individual Americans can participate in boycotts, campaign for congressional action, and raise their voices in solidarity with Palestinians. The Israeli government’s increasingly extreme rhetoric, including calls for a “greater Israel” from the Nile to the Euphrates, should alarm all Americans who value stability and international law.
The South African anti-apartheid movement demonstrated that sustained international pressure can bring about change. Sanctions, boycotts, and diplomatic isolation were instrumental in forcing the apartheid regime to negotiate an end to its discriminatory system. The same strategy can and must be applied to Israel.
Making Israel a pariah state serves multiple purposes. First, it strips away the illusion that Israel’s actions are legitimate, forcing the Israeli public to confront the reality of their government’s policies. Second, it creates tangible consequences for continued occupation and settlement expansion. Third, it signals to the world that the era of unconditional tolerance for Israeli atrocities is over.
The UK’s sanctions against Israeli settlements are not an act of hostility but an expression of hope—hope that international law can be restored, hope that justice can prevail over might, hope that the Palestinian people will finally receive the recognition and rights they have been denied for three generations.
Justice for Palestinians is not about choosing sides in a conflict; it is about upholding fundamental principles of human dignity, equality, and the rule of law. Israel must now confront the fact that its political establishment has become a pariah in the community of nations. The question is not whether Israel will change—it is whether the world will have the courage to demand that change. History will judge us all by our response to this defining moment. The time for action is now, and the world must recognize Palestine as a state and ensure its borders are protected. Only through collective action can we ensure that justice, truth, and humanity prevail.
Europe News
Ahmadiyya Muslim Community distance organisation from “Ahmadi Religion of Light and Peace” After Media Confusion
After the UK based religious group ‘The Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light” was raided by police, with nine arrests for modern slavery and child marriage, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has issued a formal statement distancing itself from the organisation.
Due to the similarity in name, what followed was a wave of public confusion triggered by recent media reports.
A clarification statement issued by the UK president of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, Mr Rafiq Hayat, explains that the organisations are entirely unrelated and asked media outlets to ensure this distinction is made clear in all future reporting — including previously published online material.

The Community has proposed a standard clarification line for journalists: “The Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light is a separate organisation and is not associated with the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community that has a historical presence in the UK and whose members are known as Ahmadis.”
Whilst the BBC has already issued a clarification, this statement encourages other media outlets to also do so, suggesting that both friends and stakeholders of the community as well as members of the community have been confused by the media coverage.
The Ahmadiyya Community which has been established in the UK since 1913 and built London’s first mosque in 1926 which is still functioning, have long established themselves as a Muslim sect which abides by the motto “Love for All, Hatred for None.”
Europe News
World Famous French International Agricultural Show Started in Paris
Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY):- The World Famous International Agricultural Show has showcased various agricultural sectors. Paris will play host to three complementary exhibitions: the Paris International Agricultural Show (SIA), the Agricultural Technologies and Solutions Exhibition (SIA’PRO), and the Concours Général Agricole.

The 2026 Paris International Agricultural Show opened its doors with a call to support the agricultural sector, with a particular focus on the bovine sector.
Among the highlights, the final of the Ovinpiades des Jeunes Bergers — the Young Shepherds’ Competition — and the opening of the Concours Général Agricole. Côte d’Ivoire is this year’s guest of honour, showcasing its agricultural innovations. Visitors around the world can explore new spaces such as AGRI’CULTURE, featuring screenings, live performances and a themed bookshop. A varied programme of activities for children and a fishmongers’ competition further enrich the event.

French President Emmanuel Macron attended the opening day and inauguration of the 62nd International Agricultural Fair (Salon de l’Agriculture).
The launch of the Year of Pastoralism at the Grand Ring and the most prestigious Concours Général Agricole wine competition, featuring 100% blind tastings. Côte d’Ivoire, the guest country, celebrates its key sectors: cocoa, coffee, forestry and innovation, through a vibrant and immersive pavilion. On the new additions front, the AGRI’LIBRAIRIE in the AGRI’CULTURE pavilion offers over 800 titles and author meet-and-greet sessions. Today’s programme includes the Texel breed competition, herbal infusion workshops, and Gargantua demonstrations and tastings. Behind the scenes, preparations are underway for SIA’PRO, with professional networking sessions.

The horses and donkeys featuring shows, demonstrations, a pop-up pony club and a special performance by the Cadre Noir. Today’s highlights include a live cooking show with Redouane Bougheraba and Top Chef winner Quentin Mauro, as well as the official launch of Terres de Jim. New this year: guided tours for visually impaired visitors and the opening of SIA’PRO, the professional trade show dedicated to agricultural technologies and solutions. The 3rd GAIA hackathon also kicks off, focusing on AI and agroecology. Finally, the Maison des Vétos invites families to discover careers in animal health.

Women in agriculture as part of the International Year of Women Farmers, featuring testimonials and discussions on their role and ongoing inequalities. A major highlight is the exceptional Cadre Noir de Saumur gala on the Grand Ring, followed by a signing session. Entertainment includes a first-ever classical concert at the CGA restaurant, the official crowning of Miss and Mister Agri, and tastings at the Pacific Village. Pastoralism also takes center stage with the immersive “Transhumance 360°” exhibition. Finally, the Vendée brioche makes its experimental debut at the Concours Général Agricole.
At this exhibition Pakistani Ambassador Madam Mumtaz Zahra Baloch also visited and represented Pakistan at the Ministerial Session on the sidelines of the exposition. During the visit, Ambassador Baloch held constructive exchanges with farmers, innovators, and industry leaders to explore new avenues for cooperation between Pakistan and France in modern agriculture and sustainable agri-technology.
This year, the Paris International Agricultural Show is marked by crises due to climate disasters, trade tensions and unstable incomes, as well as animal disease outbreaks, which have led to there being no cows or poultry at this edition.
Photos @ Imran Y. CHOUDHRY
-
Sports3 months agoSouth Korea’s Yoo Useong Steps Onto the Global Strongman Stage as World Strongman Federation Professional Athlete
-
Art & Culture1 year agoA Survey of Mata-E-Zeest
-
Europe News2 years agoChaos and unproven theories surround Tates’ release from Romania
-
American News2 years agoTrump expands exemptions from Canada and Mexico tariffs
-
American News2 years agoTrump Expels Zelensky from the White House
-
Art & Culture2 years agoWill Snow White be a ‘victim of its moment’? How the Disney remake became 2025’s most divisive film
-
Entertainment2 years agoChampions Trophy: Pakistan aim to defend coveted title as historic tournament kicks off today
-
Pakistan News1 year agoComprehensive Analysis Report-The Faranian National Conference on Maritime Affairs-By Kashif Firaz Ahmed
