What can be learned from the latest conflict between India and Pakistan?
Feelings of relief and hope are sweeping India and Pakistan.
The latest flare-up in hostilities that killed at least 60 people across the two countries has come to a dramatic halt after four days.
Nearly 30 countries including the United States are reported to have been involved in getting the ceasefire agreed.
The administration of US President Donald Trump, which announced the truce, has proposed a new round of talks at a neutral venue to try and end the bitter rivalry.
A dispute over divided Kashmir, India's accusation that Pakistan is backing terrorist attacks inside its territory, and differences over the sharing of river water are all issues that have been festering for decades.
So are both sides at last ready to negotiate?
Presenter: Cyril Vanier
Guests:
Walter Ladwig – Senior lecturer in International Relations at King's College London
Elijah Magnier – Military and political analyst
Shashank Joshi – Defence editor of The Economist newspaper
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Los Angeles unrest: Is Trump allowed to deploy National Guard troops?
United States President Donald Trump has ordered the deployment of 2,000 members of the National Guard to Los Angeles County to quell protests against coordinated immigration raids, bypassing the authority of the governor of California. The extraordinary development came on Saturday, the second day of protests, amid clashes between law enforcement officers and demonstrators in the city. The Los Angeles Police Department said Saturday's demonstrations were peaceful and that 'the day concluded without incident'. But in the two cities south of Los Angeles, Compton and Paramount, street battles broke out between protesters and police who used tear gas and flashbangs to disperse the crowds. Local authorities did not request federal assistance. On the contrary, California Governor Gavin Newsom called Trump's decision to call in National Guard troops 'purposefully inflammatory'. He accused the Trump administration of ordering the deployment 'not because there is a shortage of law enforcement, but because they want a spectacle'. It all started on Friday, when law enforcement officials in full riot gear descended on Los Angeles, rounding up day labourers at a building supply shop. The raids, part of a military-style operation, signalled a step up in the Trump administration's use of force in its crackdown against undocumented immigrants. The arrests were carried out without judicial warrants, according to multiple legal observers and the American Civil Liberties Union. The Department of Homeland Security said more than 100 undocumented immigrants have been arrested in two days of raids across southern California. After word spread through southern Los Angeles of immigration agents arresting people, residents came out to show their outrage, and a police crackdown followed. It is made up of part-time soldiers who can be used at the state and federal levels. Under the authority of state governors, National Guard troops can be deployed to respond to emergencies, such as the COVID pandemic, hurricanes and other natural disasters. It can also be used to tackle social unrest when local police are overwhelmed. During times of war or national emergencies, the federal government can order a deployment for military service – that is, when the National Guard is federalised and serves under the control of the president. The president can federalise, or take control of, the National Guard in very specific cases. The main legal mechanism that a president can use to send military forces is the Insurrection Act to suppress insurrections, rebellions, and civil disorder within the country. If certain conditions are met, the president can send in the National Guard, bypassing the authority of the governor, though that is rare and politically sensitive. Following the breakout of protests in Los Angeles, Trump did not invoke the Insurrection Act, but rather a specific provision of the US Code on Armed Services. It says National Guard troops can be placed under federal command when 'there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority' of the US. But the law also says 'orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors' of the states, making it not clear whether Trump had the legal authority to bypass Newsom. Trump's directive ordering the deployment of troops said 'protests or acts of violence' directly inhibiting the execution of the laws would 'constitute a form of rebellion' against the government. According to Robert Patillo, a civil and human rights lawyer, Trump's order will likely face legal challenges. 'Normally, federal troops are going to be used inside states at the invitation of the governor of that state,' he told Al Jazeera, citing the 1992 riots in Los Angeles, which were put down by federal troops invited by Pete Wilson, then-governor of California. 'But if the governor, such as Gavin Newsom, has not asked for federal troops to come in, and these troops are coming in against his will, then there will be challenges … and this will have to go to the Supreme Court in order to determine who has a legal right to deploy those troops,' Patillo said. In 2020, Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act to respond to the protests that followed the killing by a Minneapolis police officer of George Floyd. Then-Secretary of Defense Mark Esper pushed back, saying active-duty troops in a law enforcement role should be used 'only in the most urgent and dire of situations'. Finally, Trump did not invoke the Insurrection Act and asked governors of several states to deploy their National Guard troops to Washington, DC. Those who refused to send them were allowed to do so. But this time around, Trump has already signalled his unwillingness to hold back on calling in troops. When on the campaign trail in 2023, Trump told supporters in Iowa that he would not be waiting for a governor to be asked to send in troops as during his first term. 'The next time, I'm not waiting,' he said.
Al Jazeera
4 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Democrats wooing Musk after the Trump breakup is US plutocracy at its best
It's official: United States President Donald Trump and the world's richest person, Elon Musk, have broken up. At the end of last month, Musk departed from his post as the head of Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), where he oversaw the mass firing of federal employees and dismantling of various government agencies – all the while benefitting from his own companies' lucrative contracts with the government. Anyway, US 'democracy' has never met a conflict of interest it didn't like. Musk's service at the White House initially appeared to end on an amicable note as Trump praised him for the 'colossal change' he had achieved 'in the old ways of doing business in Washington'. The former head of DOGE in turn thanked the president for the opportunity. But soon after his departure, Musk publicly criticised the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act', a tax and spending bill that Trump is currently obsessed with passing, slamming it as a 'disgusting abomination'. There ensued predictably dramatic social media exchanges between the two right-wing billionaires with Trump pronouncing Musk 'so depressed and so heartbroken' after leaving the White House and offering the additional coherent analysis: ' It's sort of Trump derangement syndrome. We have it with others, too. They leave, and they wake up in the morning, and the glamour's gone. The whole world is different, and they become hostile.' Musk has repeatedly taken credit for Trump's 2024 election victory on account of the gobs of money he donated to the president's campaign and those of other Republican candidates. Now that the relationship is over, Trump has wasted no time in warning Musk that he'll face 'very serious consequences' if he chooses to fund Democratic campaigns in the future. But some Democratic ears, at least, have perked up at the possibility of getting the planet's richest person back on their side – which he abandoned in favour of Trump after having extended support to Democratic former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden. The political switcheroo was hardly extreme. At the end of the day, ideology matters little when you're just in the business of buying power. California Congressman Ro Khanna, for example, recently opined that Democrats should 'be in a dialogue' with Musk in light of their shared opposition to Trump's big beautiful bill. As per Khanna's view, 'we should ultimately be trying to convince [Musk] that the Democratic Party has more of the values that he agrees with.' He went on to list a few of these alleged values: 'A commitment to science funding, a commitment to clean technology, a commitment to seeing international students like him.' Never mind that Musk's main 'value' is a commitment to controlling as much of the earth – not to mention the whole solar system – as he possibly can for the benefit of himself and himself alone. Beyond his mass firing activities while head of DOGE, a brief review of Musk's entrepreneurial track record reveals a total lack of the 'values' that Democrats purport to espouse. Over recent years, reports have abounded of sexual harassment and acute racism at Musk's Tesla car factories. In October 2021, a federal jury in San Francisco ordered Tesla to pay $137m to a Black former employee who claimed he was told to 'go back to Africa' among other abuses suffered at his workplace. Along with violating federal labour laws, Musk as chief executive of Tesla threatened workers over the prospect of unionisation. When the COVID-19 pandemic hit in 2020, he violated local regulations to keep his factories up and running, underscoring a general contempt for human life that, again, should not be a 'value' that anyone aspires to. To be sure, not all Democrats are on board with the proposal to woo Musk back into the Democratic camp – but he may be getting a growing cheering squad. In addition to Khanna's advocacy on his behalf, New York Democratic Congressman Ritchie Torres seems prepared to give Musk his vote as well: 'I'm a believer in redemption, and he is telling the truth about the [big beautiful] legislation.' Anthony Scaramucci, Trump's former White House director of communications, has, meanwhile, suggested that Democrats could 'bring Elon Musk back into the fold as a prodigal son' by foregoing more left-wing policies – as if there's anything truly left-wing about the Democratic Party in the first place. Newsweek's write-up of Scaramucci's comments observed that 'It would be a coup for Democrats if they could court the influence of the world's richest man once more.' It would not, obviously, be a coup for democracy, which is supposed to be rule by the people and not by money. And yet a longstanding bipartisan commitment to plutocracy means the US has never been in danger of true democracy. Instead, billions upon billions of dollars are spent to sustain an electoral charade and ensure that capital remains concentrated in the hands of the few – while Americans continue to literally die of poverty. Now it remains to be seen whether the Trump-Musk breakup will drive Democrats into Musk's arms. But either way, the country's plutocratic values remain rock solid – and that is nothing less than a 'disgusting abomination'. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
Al Jazeera
12 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
‘Clearly an excuse': Does Netanyahu really want Hamas gone?
Israel's war on Gaza rumbles on, even as international condemnation grows. Hamas has expressed that it is ready for a deal to end the war, even offering to turn over the administration of Gaza to a technocratic government. United Nations Security Council members have overwhelmingly voted in favour of a ceasefire, a resolution blocked from passing only by a United States veto. But Israel, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is adamant in its refusal of any agreement that does not include what it calls the 'defeat of Hamas', even if that means endangering the Israeli captives still held in Gaza. 'Hamas is already the weakest it's ever been, and there's nothing they can do that is remotely comparable to what Israel possesses,' writer and researcher on Israel-Palestine and founder of The Fire These Times podcast Elia Ayoub told Al Jazeera. 'There's ample evidence by now that the only reason this genocide is ongoing is because Netanyahu wants it to continue. It's clearly just an excuse to keep the war going.' But why would Netanyahu want the war – which is Israel's longest since 1948, and is causing economic crisis – to continue? One answer is that the war provides a distraction from Netanyahu's own problems. Israel's longest-serving prime minister has well-documented legal troubles; he is being tried for corruption. And, aside from that, should a permanent ceasefire be realised, some analysts believe Israeli society will hold Netanyahu accountable for security shortcomings that led to October 7. 'He's afraid once it's done, eyes will rightfully turn to him over corruption and the failures of October 7,' Diana Buttu, a legal scholar and former adviser to the Palestine Liberation Organization, said. And so, Netanyahu has two main tasks. The first is to prolong the war, allowing him to continue using it as an excuse to avoid accountability. The second is to prevent the breakup of his government, while somehow setting himself up for another successful election, which must happen before October 2026. Netanyahu has been 'reliant upon Hamas throughout the war', Mairav Zonszein, an expert on Israel and Palestine for the International Crisis Group, told Al Jazeera. 'The far right and Netanyahu have consistently used Hamas as an excuse not to negotiate or plan for a day after,' she said. The Israeli refusal to negotiate a final end to the war stands in stark contrast to Hamas's willingness to hand over all captives held in Gaza. Over the last 20 months, much of Hamas's leadership has been killed. Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas's political leader, was assassinated in Tehran on July 31, and Yahya Sinwar, his successor, was killed in Gaza on October 16. Israel is now claiming it killed Sinwar's successor and younger brother, Mohammed, though Hamas has yet to confirm his death. Militarily, analysts say, Hamas is estimated to have lost significant strength. It is still conducting some attacks, but fewer and further between than the ambushes it was able to carry out earlier in the war. In a sign that Hamas perhaps understands that it is no longer in a position to rule Gaza, it has also offered to step down from the administration of the Palestinian territory, which it has controlled since 2006, and hand over to a technocratic government. 'The technocrat offer is not new,' Hamzé Attar, a Luxembourg-based defence analyst from Gaza, said. 'It was on the table since before the invasion of Rafah [which occurred on May 6, 2024]. They want Hamas to give up their arms and give up everything, and Hamas has responded by saying: 'We're stepping aside.'' That has been firmly rejected by Israel, which has not endorsed any vision for post-war Gaza. Instead, over the last nearly 20 months, Israel has killed more than 54,300 Palestinians and wounded more than 124,000 in Gaza, according to the territory's Health Ministry. In addition, Gaza is now 'the hungriest place on Earth', according to the UN, all its inhabitants at risk of famine after Israel strangled aid delivery throughout its war, then completely blocked it from March 2 until May 27. Israel has also turned 70 percent of the enclave into no-go zones. All the while, Israel's bombing of Gaza continues. Discounting the pretext of destroying Hamas and returning the captives, some analysts believe there is a deeper goal: pushing Palestinians out of Gaza. 'Neither Hamas nor the hostages are the targets,' Meron Rappaport, an editor at Local Call, a Hebrew-language news site, said. 'The goal is to push the people of Gaza into very few, small and closed areas where food will be delivered scarcely, hoping that the pressure on them will get them to ask to leave the Strip.' 'Israel is no longer fighting Hamas,' he added. Netanyahu said in late May that Israel would control the entirety of Gaza by the end of its latest offensive, while many foreign officials and experts have warned either directly or implicitly that Israel's actions amount to ethnically cleansing Gaza. A recent report in Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper, cited 82 percent of Jewish Israelis supporting the expulsion of the people in Gaza. To do so would have a historic impact, Buttu said, one that Netanyahu might feel he can portray as protecting Israel from a Palestinian state – something he has repeatedly promised to prevent. 'He recognises he will be the fall guy or the hero,' Buttu said. 'If he is the one who ethnically cleanses Gaza, he becomes the hero.' Until that happens, analysts believe, Palestinians will continue to die at the hands of the Israeli military. Hamas is the pretext and their willingness to negotiate or succumb is of secondary importance. 'Benjamin Netanyahu has no intention of ending this war,' Zonszein said. 'It doesn't matter what Hamas offers. They can offer to return all the hostages or give up governance. 'This war is going to continue until Netanyahu is forced to stop it, and that can only come from Trump.' Additional reporting by Simon Speakman Cordall
