Thursday, September 17, 2026

Important essays on emergence of Pakistan and its leader Qaid-e-Azam Jinnah by Altaf Parvez

 In the wake of Bangladesh’s mass uprising of 2024, the partition of India in 1947 has re-emerged as a subject of renewed political and historical interest. A range of narratives has surfaced that seeks to frame the 2024 uprising not in continuity with the popular movements of 1971 or 1990, but instead by drawing parallels with the political moment of 1947. Some of these voices go further, presenting the events of 1947 and 2024 as part of a shared historical trajectory and claiming joint authorship of both moments. 

Against this backdrop, the noted researcher Altaf Parvez turns to the past to interrogate how Islamist parties positioned themselves during the creation of Pakistan in 1947.

You can read the 5-part series by individually clicking here:

1.      https://www.thedailystar.net/slow-reads/focus/news/jinnah-vs-madani-the-forgotten-muslim-debate-over-pakistan-4095831 

2.      https://www.thedailystar.net/slow-reads/focus/news/jinnah-vs-maududi-the-forgotten-muslim-debate-over-pakistan-4098801 

3.      https://www.thedailystar.net/slow-reads/focus/news/madani-vs-maududi-the-forgotten-muslim-debate-over-pakistan-4101171 

4.      Political Rivals Of Jinnah | Those who attempted to assassinate Jinnah and called him “Kafir-e-Azam” | The Daily Star

5.      https://www.thedailystar.net/slow-reads/focus/news/jinnah-vs-fazlul-huq-the-forgotten-debate-over-pakistan-4106956 


Licensed Bigotry by Jamal Kanj

 Jewish hatred is real and must be condemned without qualification. But it cannot be fought by propagating hatred against the followers of another religion. Demonizing Muslims does not combat antisemitism; it simply transfers prejudice from one target to another. Sadly, that is precisely the objective of Jewish supremacists who readily invoke antisemitism to shut down debate and weaponize anti-Muslim hatred, redirecting public attention away from Israel’s policies of genocide and dispossession.

At the recent Republican Jewish Coalition’s summit in Las Vegas, Florida congressman Randy Fine told the crowd that the problem was not radical Islamism but “mainstream” Islam. In a separate interview, Fine went further, suggesting some civilizations are simply superior to others. Texas Congressman Brandon Gill referred to a Heritage Foundation poll claiming that 40 percent of American Muslims support Sharia without acknowledging that the poll deliberately left ambiguous what respondents understood by the term, including whether they meant mandatory religious law or private observance. Sharia in the life of a Muslim is not different from the Catholic canon law or the religious laws and practices observant Jews follow in their daily lives: religious frameworks that guide personal conduct and communal life, not systems intended to govern the state.

Hate promoters are clearly gaining ground among an unsuspecting American public, and the timing is what makes this wave distinct. The Institute for Social Policy and Understanding’s Islamophobia Index climbed from 25 in 2022 to 33 in 2025, and Pew Research finds 51 percent of Americans believe Islam is more likely than other faiths to encourage violence, more than double the share six months after 9/11. Within a week of Dr. Abdul El-Sayed’s win in the Michigan Senate Democratic primary, Islamophobic posts naming him jumped nearly 1,900 percent, branding him a jihadist and every Muslim officeholder a trojan horse.

The message is clear: Muslim identity itself, not the candidate’s policy position, is disqualifying. A campaign bankrolled by Israel-first Jewish plutocrats financing pro-Israel lobbies like AIPAC, who spent approximately $30 million to defeat Al Sayed. After that effort failed, the same billionaires and AIPAC jumped horses, pouring money now supporting the Republican candidate, Mike Rogers. The single-issue lobbyists are prepared to back whichever Republican or Democratic candidate is most willing to serve the interests of a foreign nation, not Americans.

What unites these plutocrats is not their faith, or American party system. It is an Israel-first agenda, one that treats American Muslims as a proxy battlefield for a foreign policy argument and by making Islam, not policy, the dividing line.

Follow the money and the microphones, and the same Israel-first commitment shows up institutionally, not just individually. From the multimillion-dollar tax exempt charity led by Jewish-American Steven Emerson who produced a movie in 1994 instigating Muslim hate in America. To the so-called Clarion Fund, a nonprofit founded by Israeli Canadian brothers, who spent more than $17 million, likely tax-deductible funds, to distribute 28 million DVDs of an anti-Muslim film in swing states weeks before the 2008 election. Its partner, the Endowment for Middle East Truth, filled its advisory board with career Islamophobia figures like Daniel Pipes and Frank Gaffney, alongside a former Israeli ambassador to the U.S. And in 2026 there is Ben Shapiro’s fictional Islamophobic movie. These are not civic organizations with one thing in common: promoting Israeli propaganda and inciting Islamophobia.

The countries and communities Fine, Shapiro and Laura Loomer describe as civilizational threats are, for the most part, not at war with the United States, France, or Britain. They are critics, boycotters, and protesters of the Israeli genocide in Gaza and Zionist mob violence in the West Bank. The “enemy” being conjured is those who are resisting an Israeli apartheid occupation, not at war with the U.S. Manufacturing a shared Western-Islamic civilizational conflict is a way of recruiting Americans into Israel’s endless wars by convincing them it is their own (the war on Iran is the latest), and Israel-first American Zionists have every incentive to keep that conflation alive.

This dynamic is not new; it is the domestic cousin of an older ploy, dressed as principled liberalism rather than open hatred. For decades, Bill Maher built a brand insisting that berating Islam was simply standing up for liberal values, that Muslims uniquely threaten free speech and women’s rights in ways no other faith does. Inarguably, fundamentalism exists in every faith. Only one gets singled out as incompatible with modern life, and it is never a coincidence which religion, or which conflict it serves.

Maher turns blind eye when in the 21st century, it is not the “incompatible” Muslim men who recite the morning blessings, Birkot Hashachar: “shelo asani ishah,” thanking God for not making them a woman, or “she-loh asani goy,” for not making them a non-Jew, alongside the blessing for not making them a slave. As if being a woman, non-Jew, or a slave were divine curses rather than victims of human-inflicted ills.

In fact, all of what Islam is accused of as being incompatible with Western culture was adopted from the moral codes of the Old and New Testaments, with few variations. This includes attitudes toward women and slavery. Islam, however, introduced significant changes in the treatment of women, recognizing them as persons with an equal soul and granting them legal and moral rights, including inheritance and choosing who to marry. It also accepted black slaves as full members of the Muslim community, with the same religious standing as non-black Muslims.

This was 1,400 years ago, a revolutionary transformation by any measure, and it was not merely an abstract theory. Khadija, the first woman in the Prophet Muhammad’s life, later his wife, was his employer. Bilal, a formerly enslaved Black African, became Islam’s first muezzin, the person who calls Muslims to prayer five times a day. These were not symbolic gestures; they reflected a profound reordering of social norms at a time when women and enslaved people occupied vastly different positions in Maher’s and Shapiro’s ancestral cultures.

Islamophobia does not stem from Islam being less progressive than the other Abrahamic religions, all of which have their own well-documented histories of intolerance and compatibility challenges. Rather, like the hostility toward Islam voiced by Israel-first figures, it is driven by a Zionist agenda aiming to normalize bigotry against Muslims.

This bigotry lands on real people: American Muslim students told their faith makes them suspect, worshippers who now factor gunmen into their Friday prayers, and where ordinary Jewish Americans whose legitimate fears are being weaponized to license bigotry, their religion conflated with the politics of a state that international courts and human rights organizations have condemned for war crimes and genocide.

Jamal Kanj (jamalkanj.com) is the author of Children of Catastrophe: Journey from a Palestinian Refugee Camp to America, and other books. He writes frequently on Palestine/Arab world issues for various national and international publications.

Osama Bin Laden Won by Nick Turse

 I can still remember the smell. But I’m at a loss to accurately describe it to you. It wasn’t the unmistakable odor of death, although that must have been some tiny part of it. It wasn’t like burning tires or plastic or even metal. It was all that, but it was more.

In the quarter century since, I’ve been all over the world, but I’ve never experienced anything like the smell near the rubble pile at Ground Zero in September 2001. The air was acrid and thick, a swirl of toxins and carcinogens made possible by turning two large, jet-fuel laden planes into cruise missiles and aiming them at gigantic office towers. As it burned, we all inhaled a haze of pulverized cement, glass fibers, asbestos, lead, dioxins, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenyls (better known as PCBs), and whatever else. It remains a part of us still.

The 9/11 attacks — which killed almost 3,000 Americans, toppled New York City’s Twin Towers, wrecked the Pentagon, and took down a plane near Shanksville, Pennsylvania — marked the most devastating intelligence failure in U.S. history and sent the United States into a paroxysm of self-induced catastrophes from which it has never emerged. Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden’s spectacular coordinated assault supercharged what had been a slow-motion imperial decline, trapping the U.S. in a death spiral of ruinous intertwined economic debacles, foreign policy failures, democratic backsliding, authoritarianism, and debilitating wars and military interventions.

Bin Laden’s plan was to trap the U.S. in expensive, foreign quagmire wars that would trigger a domestic economic collapse. It was patterned on the strategy that the local mujahideen, he and other foreign fighters, and the U.S. and its allies had used to defeat the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

Click here to read the full story: Osama Bin Laden Won - CounterPunch.org

Iran War Has Cost U.S. Nearly $40 Billion and Fueled Inflation

The war with Iran has cost the U.S. government around $38 billion and contributed to growing inflation, according to a new analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan agency that provides economic and budget estimates to Congress. 

The estimate, which covers the war’s direct costs through Aug. 1, is in line with the Pentagon’s most recent public accounting from July, when Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told Congress that the war had cost $37.5 billion. A later report from the Defense Department's inspector general determined that conflict cost an estimated $33.4 billion between February 28 and June 30.

But the new CBO analysis finds that the price of the war is continuing to rise, estimating that the government will spend another $2 billion to $3 billion each month the conflict continues. It also notes that the war has significantly depleted U.S. munitions, including air-defense interceptors, potentially reducing the military’s capacity to respond to another major conflict.

Taken together, the reports are a mixed bag for an Administration that has faced mounting questions over the consequences of a war President Donald Trump initially said would be over in a few weeks. Nearly $40 billion is a substantial sum, Democrats say, particularly at a time when the federal government is carrying more than $40 trillion in gross debt and most Americans consider affordability their top issue heading in the midterms. However, the estimate is considerably lower than some early projections of what the conflict could cost, giving the Administration an argument that the direct military price of the war has so far been more limited than some critics had feared.

The bulk of the spending—$21.7 billion—comes from replacing munitions expenditures, the CBO found, including $13.1 billion for missile defense interceptors and $7.3 billion for land-attack cruise missiles. Other costs include repairing or replacing equipment, increased flying hours for air operations and transportation, and increased fuel costs. However, it does not factor in the cost of damage to U.S. bases and facilities in the Middle East.

The separate report from the Defense Department's inspector general, released a day before the CBO’s, estimated the cost of repairing "physical damage from Iranian strikes" to U.S. diplomatic facilities in Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE at approximately $184 million. It also determined that throughout Operation Epic Fury the U.S. military has spent $22.3 billion on munitions and has lost around $3.7 billion in aircraft and equipment, including four destroyed F-15 fighter jets, seven KC-135 tanker aircraft, a dozen damaged or destroyed KC-135 refueling aircraft, and the loss of up to 30 MQ-9 Reaper drones. 

The CBO estimates that replenishing the stockpiles depleted by the war could take five years or longer, suggesting the true cost of the conflict could not be known until the Pentagon spends money to rebuild inventories and restore capabilities that existed before the war. Top Administration officials have repeatedly denied claims of U.S. munitions shortages ahead of the two reports, though the Defense Department urged the defense industry to increase weapons manufacturing last month.

The CBO’s accounting gives members of Congress an independent assessment against which to judge the Trump Administration’s requests to continue funding its military campaign in Iran. As Congress’s nonpartisan fiscal scorekeeper, the CBO’s findings frequently become the benchmark lawmakers use to debate the consequences of tax and spending decisions.  However, the CBO report notes that its own estimates “are subject to considerable uncertainty” because it relied on government databases and public reports as the Defense Department did not respond to the CBO’s requests for information.

Democrats are using the findings to argue that the money could have been better spent easing the cost of living. “Donald Trump and Republicans have spent years telling Americans that we cannot afford to help families here at home, but apparently they can find tens of billions of dollars, and potentially much more, for a reckless war that is leaving Americans to pay the price,” Rep. Brendan Boyle, the ranking member of the House Budget Committee, said in a statement. In March, Boyle asked the agency to examine the costs of military operations and the conflict’s effects on prices at home.

Democrats were expecting the cost estimate to be higher than the CBO reached in its report, in part because they believed it would account for the cost of borrowing to finance the war. The $40 billion figure does not include debt service, or additional interest the government could pay over time. 

As a result, the CBO estimate is not a final accounting. Much of the information needed to assess the military’s expenditures remains classified or undisclosed, and the eventual bill will also depend on decisions still ahead about troop deployments, replenishing weapons, and rebuilding damaged American bases.

Earlier this summer, the White House requested an additional $67.1 billion for the Pentagon, while House Republicans later advanced a spending framework containing roughly $73 billion in additional funding for defense and intelligence as Democrats pushed back, saying that they lack a clear picture of the war’s duration and ultimate requirements.

Outside Washington, the costs are less abstract. The national average price of regular gasoline reached $4.33 a gallon on Tuesday, up from $4.01 a month earlier. Diesel surpassed $6 a gallon, increasing the expense of moving goods across the country. An Energy Department forecast released last Wednesday projected that gasoline would remain near $4 for the rest of the year.

The CBO expects the war to add roughly 0.5 percentage points to inflation in the price index for personal consumption expenditures in the first quarter of 2027, driven largely by higher energy prices resulting from supply disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea. 

Inflation reached an annual rate of 3.4% in August, according to figures released Friday, compared with 2.4% in February.

The pace of the war has ebbed and flowed in recent months, with sporadic bursts of fighting and attacks across the region. Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz remains disrupted, renewed attacks have threatened commercial vessels, and Houthi strikes on Saudi energy infrastructure have complicated efforts to move oil through alternative routes. The uncertainty has helped push oil prices back above $100 a barrel.

Trump has more recently asked Americans to accept higher prices as the cost of preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. His assurances about the duration of that sacrifice, however, have changed. In March, he described the war as a “short-term excursion” that would end “soon.” Last week, speaking at a Republican convention in Dallas, he said the war would end “immediately after” the midterm elections.

Israeli officials leak details of secret US-Israel-Arab military meeting, says report

 Israeli officials have leaked details of a secret meeting between military commanders from the US, Israel and several Arab states in Germany last week to discuss the war launched by Israel and the US against Iran.

The report by former Israeli intelligence officer turned journalist Barak Ravid for Axios said the “private retreat” was organised by the commander of US Central Command (Centcom), Admiral Brad Cooper.

Citing two unnamed Israeli officials, Ravid reported that the meeting was attended by the military chiefs of staff of Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan and Egypt.

It was the first such gathering since the US and Israel went to war with Iran more than six months ago.

None of the regional countries publicly confirmed the meeting, although Centcom acknowledged it, saying in a statement that it "hosted senior military leaders from eight nations during a scheduled conference in Germany.

The statement said: "The leaders discussed opportunities for enhancing security cooperation in the Middle East."

During the meeting, Cooper reportedly told the regional countries that despite Iranian attacks on US bases, Washington would not withdraw its forces from the region.

Iranian strikes have damaged at least 15 US military sites across the region, destroying or damaging hundreds of buildings and pieces of military equipment.

Satellite imagery suggests far more US assets in Middle East hit by Iran than reported
Read More »

US bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Oman and Jordan have been hit, and many rendered unusable.

Satellite analysis by the Washington Post identified damage at 15 separate US sites. Some positions were left close to unusable, while extensive damage to the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain forced Centcom to reroute regional logistics.

The Centcom commander also reportedly said the US has a “plan” to expand ship traffic in the Strait of Hormuz.

An Israeli official speaking to Ravid said Israel's chief of staff, General Eyal Zamir, briefed participants on Israeli military operations in the region.

Israel was moved from the US European Command's area of responsibility to Centcom following the meeting, allowing it to cooperate more directly with regional countries under US military command.

Responding to the news, Andreas Krieg, associate professor at King’s College London, said: “There is a deep-seated suspicion towards Centcom commander Bradley Cooper in Arab capitals in the Gulf as a commander too close to Israel, too hawkish on Iran and constantly presenting the president with military operational options that are strategically disastrous.”

Important essays on emergence of Pakistan and its leader Qaid-e-Azam Jinnah by Altaf Parvez

  In the wake of Bangladesh’s mass uprising of 2024, the partition of India in 1947 has re-emerged as a subject of renewed political and his...