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 : When I lived in Pakistan, homelessness was largely perceived as a problem confined to the developing world—a symptom of poverty, conflicts, and weak governance. The idea that a resource-rich country like the United States could face a similar crisis seemed unimaginable. Yet, after nearly a year of living here, I have come to realize that homelessness is neither a “third-world problem” nor a rare phenomenon. It is a deep-rooted crisis at the heart of the world’s wealthiest nation, silently transforming its social and urban landscape.
President Donald Trump, already grappling with significant domestic and international challenges—including wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, tensions between Pakistan and India, and his claims of having helped defuse multiple global conflicts—has placed homelessness among his top priorities. From Los Angeles to New York City, the evidence is striking: small tents line sidewalks, makeshift shelters occupy public spaces, and families live beneath bridges or in their cars. What might once have been viewed as isolated instances has become a widespread humanitarian emergency.
Trump views homelessness as central to his broader plan to restore America’s global image, improve the aesthetics of its cities, and ensure public safety. However, addressing the problem is not simply a matter of clearing streets. It requires an in-depth understanding of the underlying causes and a comprehensive strategy to rehabilitate individuals rather than merely displace them.
Globally, homelessness reflects the deep inequalities that persist despite immense progress in science, technology, and wealth creation. According to the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat), between 1.6 billion and 3 billion people lack adequate housing, while over 330 million face absolute homelessness—living entirely without shelter. More than 1.1 billion live in slums or informal settlements, a figure that has grown by 130 million since 2015. This is not a challenge unique to poor nations; it spans continents and economies, from conflict-torn regions to affluent capitals.
In places like Syria, Yemen, and Sudan, homelessness has surged due to war, displacement, and collapsing infrastructure. Nigeria, for example, is home to 24.4 million homeless people—about 13% of its population—driven by poverty, rapid urbanization, and a lack of affordable housing. In Syria, 6.56 million people have been rendered homeless after years of conflict, making it one of the largest displacement crises in modern history. While such figures are expected in fragile states, the growing presence of homelessness in wealthy economies like the U.S., the U.K., and Germany underscores a deeper global failure.
In the United States, homelessness has reached record levels. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) reported 771,480 Americans experiencing homelessness on a single night in 2024—the highest figure ever recorded. This equals 23 people per 10,000 residents living in shelters, vehicles, or unsheltered conditions. States like California and New York remain epicenters of the crisis: California reports 187,084 homeless individuals (48 per 10,000), while New York faces an even higher rate, with 158,019 people homeless (81 per 10,000). In Hawaii, the crisis is worsening, with homelessness nearly doubling between 2019 and 2024, rising from 44 to 80 people per 10,000 residents.
The drivers behind this emergency are complex and interconnected. A severe shortage of affordable housing remains at its core, compounded by rising rents, inflation, and stagnating wages. For many middle- and lower-income families, securing stable housing has become impossible. Mental health challenges and lack of access to treatment exacerbate the issue, as do natural disasters and public health crises that displace thousands of families. In some cases, even full-time employment fails to guarantee a roof over one’s head, revealing how deeply structural this crisis has become.
Europe faces its own escalating challenges, demonstrating that homelessness is not limited by geography or wealth. Across the European Union and United Kingdom, over one million people sleep without adequate shelter every night. In France, there are 333,000 homeless people—about 30.7 per 10,000 residents. Germany reports 263,000 homeless individuals (25.8 per 10,000), while the UK faces around 400,000 homeless, including over 309,000 in England alone. As in the U.S., the crisis is fueled by soaring housing costs, insufficient welfare systems, migration pressures, and underfunded public housing initiatives. According to the European Federation of National Organisations Working with the Homeless (FEANTSA), the lack of affordable housing combined with inadequate social support structures has left governments unprepared to meet growing demands.
Yet some nations have proven that homelessness is neither inevitable nor unsolvable. Japan offers an exceptional example of effective intervention. As of 2024, the country recorded just 2,820 homeless individuals nationwide, translating to two per 100,000 people—one of the lowest rates in the developed world. Japan’s success lies in comprehensive, long-term strategies that integrate permanent housing solutions, job placement programs, mental health care, and social reintegration services. Its model demonstrates that with structured governance and well-funded social policies, the cycle of homelessness can be broken.
Against this global backdrop, President Trump’s administration has unveiled an ambitious strategy to address homelessness in America. His plan prioritizes clearing unsafe encampments, expanding affordable housing projects, and partnering with private developers to accelerate construction. Additionally, his administration emphasizes rehabilitation, including mental health support, job training, and pathways to employment, alongside tighter immigration controls, arguing that undocumented migration adds pressure on limited public resources.
However, experts caution that enforcement alone cannot resolve the crisis. Removing tents and shelters from city streets may improve appearances temporarily but fails to address the structural causes of homelessness. Long-term solutions require a multi-pronged approach: investing in affordable housing, strengthening mental health infrastructure, reforming wage and rent policies, and equipping individuals with the tools to achieve stability. Without these measures, efforts risk displacing vulnerable populations rather than rehabilitating them.
The issue is no longer confined to impoverished regions or war-torn societies; homelessness has emerged as a global challenge that transcends borders, economies, and ideologies. For the United States, Trump’s war on homelessness represents both a political commitment and a moral responsibility. Success will depend on whether the country can transition from short-term optics to comprehensive policies that prioritize dignity, opportunity, and inclusivity.
America possesses the resources, innovation, and leadership to combat this crisis effectively. What is needed is a national consensus that homelessness is not a reflection of personal failure but a consequence of systemic gaps. By embracing compassion and collaboration, the U.S. can ensure a future where every citizen has access to safe, secure, and dignified housing—a future where the wealthiest nation on Earth leads not just by economic power but by its ability to care for its most vulnerable.

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 : In early 2025, President Donald Trump unveiled one of the most controversial and shocking proposals in modern Middle Eastern history: a plan to forcibly relocate nearly two million Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank to neighboring Arab countries and turn Gaza into what he called the “Riviera of the Middle East.” Standing alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump described this plan as an “opportunity” for Palestinians to live elsewhere while Israel would retain full control of Gaza, the West Bank, and Jerusalem. Netanyahu strongly endorsed the vision, calling it “free choice” for Palestinians, but global human rights organizations and numerous governments immediately recognized it for what it truly was—a blueprint for mass displacement and the erasure of Palestinian identity. Arab nations, including Jordan and Egypt, rejected the plan outright, calling it “unrealistic, immoral, and illegal,” while international observers compared it to historical examples of ethnic cleansing and warned that implementing such a policy would constitute a grave violation of international law.
The proposal became a political fault line that deepened existing divisions while simultaneously fueling the already volatile situation on the ground. When Palestinians refused to leave their ancestral homes, Israel intensified its military operations in Gaza and parts of the West Bank. As the offensive escalated, the human toll became catastrophic. Verified figures from multiple independent sources, including the United Nations and major news agencies, confirm that more than 60,000 Palestinians have been killed so far, with tens of thousands more wounded or permanently disabled. Among them are thousands of children whose lives were cut short and countless families torn apart. Hospitals, schools, and residential neighborhoods have been reduced to rubble, leaving survivors without shelter, medical care, or hope for stability. Gaza, already one of the most densely populated areas in the world, now faces near-total devastation. The destruction of its infrastructure has created a humanitarian catastrophe, with shortages of food, clean water, and electricity, alongside widespread starvation and disease. Despite growing international pressure, Israel continues its operations largely with impunity, confident of Washington’s unwavering political and financial backing.
What makes this moment profoundly alarming is not just the scale of destruction but the alignment of global powers enabling it. Netanyahu’s government views this offensive as a historical opportunity to annex and expand illegal settlements across Gaza and the West Bank, effectively erasing the possibility of a future Palestinian state. Israel’s finance minister Bezalel Smotrich has openly stated that the approval of settlement construction in the sensitive E1 corridor, east of Jerusalem, will “bury forever the idea of Palestinian statehood.” This controversial settlement project, covering nearly 12 square kilometers, would split the West Bank into disconnected northern and southern zones, making territorial continuity impossible. Despite this blatant defiance of international law, Israel secured silent complicity from the U.S. administration, which has refused to intervene and continues to provide military aid and diplomatic cover.
But while Trump’s administration appears satisfied that elements of its relocation vision are unfolding, the global backlash has been unprecedented. In a rare show of unity, twenty-one countries, including Australia, the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Italy, Spain, and Sweden, issued a joint statement condemning Israel’s settlement plans and declaring them a “flagrant violation of international law.” These nations further demanded that Israel halt construction immediately and allow unrestricted humanitarian access into Gaza. Australia, in particular, emerged as a surprising leader among Western countries. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s government not only condemned Israel’s actions but also announced conditional recognition of a Palestinian state, joining a growing coalition of nations willing to defy U.S. and Israeli pressure. In an even bolder move, Canberra canceled the visa of far-right Israeli lawmaker Simcha Rothman, citing inflammatory remarks, which triggered retaliatory action from Israel, including revoking the residency visas of Australian diplomats assigned to the Palestinian Authority. Despite Netanyahu’s personal attacks labeling Albanese “weak” and accusing him of “betraying Israel,” the Australian government stood firm, underscoring its commitment to humanitarian principles over political expediency.
Equally significant has been the role of European countries, many of which have quietly broken away from Washington’s long-standing alignment with Israeli policy. The joint condemnation of settlement expansion, combined with growing calls for an arms embargo, represents a notable shift in Western diplomacy. These nations have prioritized international law and human rights over geopolitical convenience, risking trade disruptions, diplomatic backlash, and influence from powerful pro-Israel lobbies. Their recognition of Palestinian statehood and coordination of humanitarian aid pipelines mark a decisive moment in global politics: a willingness to prioritize justice over fear.
However, what remains most heartbreaking is the near-total silence from many Muslim-majority countries. While Jordan and Egypt firmly rejected Trump’s relocation plan and proposed alternative reconstruction frameworks, the broader Muslim world has offered little beyond statements of sympathy. Despite representing nearly two billion people and controlling immense financial, political, and energy resources, these governments have largely avoided taking tangible steps such as imposing economic sanctions, severing trade, withdrawing ambassadors, or leveraging international forums to isolate Israel diplomatically. For Palestinians under siege, this silence has become a source of profound disillusionment. They have watched as Christian-majority nations like Australia, Ireland, Spain, and Norway have risked their alliances and economic interests to condemn Israel’s actions, while many Muslim capitals have remained passive spectators to the destruction of Gaza.
The hypocrisy deepens when viewed against the backdrop of global public opinion. Massive protests have erupted across Europe, North America, and Latin America, with millions marching to demand an end to Israeli attacks and calling for justice for Palestinians. Social media movements amplifying calls for boycott, divestment, and sanctions have gained unprecedented traction, putting increasing pressure on Western governments. Yet, Muslim leaders—despite being historically viewed as guardians of Palestinian rights—have avoided leveraging their collective influence on the global stage, citing domestic instability, economic vulnerability, or geopolitical alliances. This silence has left Palestinians feeling politically abandoned, not only by their adversaries but by their own supposed allies.
The figures paint an undeniable picture. Over two million people in Gaza remain trapped in what experts describe as the world’s largest open-air prison. More than 60,000 are dead, hundreds of thousands wounded, and over 80% of Gaza’s population displaced. Entire families have been wiped out. The Israeli E1 settlement plan threatens to divide the West Bank permanently, effectively eliminating the possibility of a contiguous Palestinian state. The combined impact of military aggression, illegal land annexations, forced displacement proposals, and blockade-induced starvation amounts to what international rights groups describe as collective punishment on an unprecedented scale.
And yet, amidst this tragedy, glimmers of hope remain. Australia’s bold defiance and the growing list of nations recognizing Palestine represent cracks in the seemingly unshakable wall of impunity Israel has enjoyed for decades. The collective action of 21 countries in challenging illegal settlements shows that alliances are shifting, even if slowly. These countries have demonstrated that moral courage can coexist with diplomacy and that choosing humanity over expediency carries weight on the international stage.
Still, history will not only remember the oppressors and the victims but also those who stood silent when their voices were most needed. While Netanyahu pursues his vision of territorial expansion and Trump celebrates the partial implementation of his relocation plan, the burden of conscience now rests on the global community. The lesson is painfully simple: neutrality in the face of oppression always favors the oppressor. The failure of powerful Muslim states to mobilize meaningful resistance has left an indelible scar on the collective identity of the Muslim world and a haunting question for generations to come: when Gaza cried for help, why was the silence louder than the bombs?
The Gaza crisis has transcended borders, religions, and political ideologies. It is no longer about negotiations between two adversaries; it is about humanity’s willingness to defend the right to exist, the right to dignity, and the right to justice. Every government, every institution, and every individual faces a choice between complicity and courage. History will record the nations that risked alliances, economic interests, and political capital to uphold international law, and it will equally remember those that turned away. As images of starving children, destroyed neighborhoods, and grieving families continue to emerge, the call to conscience grows louder.
The time to act is now. The responsibility does not rest solely on the shoulders of Palestinians or their immediate neighbors—it belongs to the entire world. The struggle in Gaza is not a local issue; it is a global moral reckoning. A future built on dispossession and death cannot bring security or peace to anyone, not Israelis, not Palestinians, not the wider world. Justice must rise above power, and humanity must triumph over indifference, or else the Gaza tragedy will be remembered not only for its suffering but for the silence that allowed it to happen.

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 watched closely as two of the most powerful leaders, U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, met in Anchorage, Alaska, in a summit that carried the potential to alter the trajectory of one of the deadliest conflicts in Europe since World War II. Flying in from Moscow, Putin was received with a red-carpet welcome at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, where U.S. military aircraft flew overhead in a symbolic display of American strength. The meeting, lasting nearly three hours, was billed by both leaders as “productive,” though the absence of concrete commitments or immediate breakthroughs has left the future of peace in Ukraine uncertain.
From the outset, the talks were historic. Not since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 had a U.S. president sat down face-to-face with Putin. For Trump, the stakes were personal and political. He has repeatedly claimed credit for halting or preventing six major wars during his political career—citing his involvement in easing tensions between India and Pakistan, preventing escalation between Thailand and Cambodia, and defusing what could have been a catastrophic war between Israel and Iran. His record also includes brokering a ceasefire between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which earned him endorsements for the Nobel Peace Prize from leaders in both countries. Trump has made it clear: if he can secure even a significant step toward ending the Russia-Ukraine war, he believes he would be deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize.
Yet, despite the symbolism, the Alaska summit produced no agreement to resolve or pause Moscow’s war in Ukraine. Trump himself admitted, “There’s no deal until there’s a deal,” while adding that “many, many points” had been agreed upon, with “a couple of big ones” still unresolved. The “Pursuing Peace” backdrop behind the two leaders sent an optimistic message, but the details remained elusive. The Ukrainian leadership, notably absent from the meeting, has made it clear they will not concede territory or accept a settlement that legitimizes Russia’s control over nearly a fifth of their land. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has also called for a U.S.-backed security guarantee, making any unilateral U.S.-Russia arrangement politically unviable without Kyiv’s buy-in.
This is where Trump’s approach diverged sharply from European and Ukrainian expectations. By engaging directly with Putin without the presence or consent of Ukraine or European allies, Trump assumed a mediating role that risked alienating key stakeholders. In his own words, he was “not here to negotiate for Ukraine” but to “get them at a table.” However, replacing one major party in a conflict with an external power—even one as influential as the United States—has rarely produced lasting peace without eventual multilateral engagement.
Putin, for his part, called the meeting a “reference point” for restoring pragmatic U.S.-Russia relations and insisted that the “root causes” of the conflict must be addressed for any long-term settlement. This language, familiar to anyone following the war, underscores Moscow’s unwillingness to agree to a ceasefire without substantial concessions. As the leaders spoke, the war raged on: air raid alerts blared across eastern Ukraine, and Russian governors in Rostov and Bryansk reported Ukrainian drone attacks. The optics of diplomacy were starkly undercut by the reality of ongoing violence.
For Europe, the meeting was an unsettling reminder that its security could be negotiated over without its direct involvement. European leaders, aligned with Zelenskiy in their opposition to any premature freeze of the conflict, were quick to express skepticism. Czech Foreign Minister Jan Lipavsky welcomed Trump’s efforts but doubted Putin’s sincerity, noting that Russian forces had continued attacking Ukraine even as the summit took place. The fear in European capitals is that Trump might seek a “quick fix” deal that sacrifices Ukraine’s territorial integrity for the sake of ending hostilities on paper.
Still, there is a pragmatic argument to be made for not dismissing the Alaska talks outright. If any understanding between Trump and Putin could lead to a verifiable ceasefire, guarantee Ukraine’s security, and offer Europe a stable security framework, it would be worth exploring. This would require Kyiv and European governments to set aside political pride and assess the proposals based on merit rather than the process by which they were reached. Given the deep divisions between Trump and Europe on other issues—including Gaza, where Europe has taken a markedly different stance from Washington—the temptation to reject any Trump-brokered deal is strong. Yet peace, if achievable, should transcend personal and political grievances.
Trump’s diplomatic résumé is as polarizing as it is unusual. While some credit him with preventing conflicts, others argue that his domestic policies—on immigration, healthcare, and U.S.-Canada relations—undermine his credibility as a global peacemaker. His handling of the Gaza conflict, where critics accuse him of enabling Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s military campaign, has drawn condemnation from much of the international community. In Gaza, thousands have been killed, with civilians—including children and the elderly—bearing the brunt of the violence. The region has been turned into what many describe as an “open prison” and a “death trap.”
If Trump were to use the same leverage he claims to have over Netanyahu to halt the Gaza war, his Nobel Peace Prize prospects would be significantly enhanced. Without that, his candidacy will remain a point of fierce debate. Nevertheless, the Alaska summit shows that Trump is willing to insert himself into high-stakes global conflicts, even at the risk of bypassing traditional diplomatic channels.
The reality, however, is that the Alaska meeting has so far delivered little tangible progress. No ceasefire, no formal commitments, and no agreed-upon next steps toward a trilateral summit involving Zelenskiy. Ukraine’s opposition figures, such as lawmaker Oleksiy Honcharenko, have already characterized the outcome as a win for Putin, arguing that the talks have simply bought Moscow more time. Without concrete deliverables, the meeting risks being remembered more for its optics than its outcomes.
That said, the possibility remains for Europe and Ukraine to engage later, should any framework emerge from Trump-Putin discussions that could realistically lead to peace. In such a scenario, setting aside ego and geopolitical point-scoring in favor of pragmatic diplomacy could save countless lives. The stakes are monumental—not only for Ukraine and Europe but for the credibility of international conflict resolution in an era when wars seem increasingly resistant to traditional diplomacy.
In the end, the Alaska summit may be less about the immediate cessation of hostilities and more about testing the waters for a new phase in the U.S.-Russia relationship. Whether this phase leads to a genuine peace process or simply becomes another chapter in the long list of failed mediation attempts will depend on whether all relevant parties—Ukraine, Europe, the U.S., and Russia—can find common ground. For now, the war grinds on, and the window for diplomacy remains precariously narrow.