Perception is a broad term that defines the amass of individual experiences, sensory input, and cognitive processes that shape our understanding of the world around us, while perspectives belong to a more narrow and subjective point of view based on personal beliefs, biases, and limited information that derives from the perception. It is important to understand the distinction between perception and perspective to truly appreciate the impact of perception in shaping our understanding of the world. Our perception is influenced by various factors, including our sensory experiences, cultural backgrounds, and personal beliefs. Moreover, perception can be created to influence the perspectives of individuals. This is why perception beats perspectives every time. Unlike perception, perspectives are inherently limited by our individual biases, beliefs, and information extracted from biased mediums. While perspectives can offer valuable insights, they are constrained by our personal experiences and knowledge, on the other hand, perception encompasses the understanding of the mindset of the masses that shapes their thoughts, beliefs, and experiences through mainstream media, social media media, and especially, the voice of political leaders. When Pakistani Air Force shot down the MiG-21 Bison Group and captured Captain Abhinandan Varthaman VrC, who was an Indian Air Force fighter pilot in a retaliatory airstrike in Jammu and Kashmir, people were excited and raised slogans in favor of the military and its Chief. Then, the perspective of people held that Pakistan can beat India militarily with scarce resources. Ulmas has always been an example of War at Badr on such occasions that war can be won without necessarily military strength and technology. This event fueled the positive image of the military. The celebration lost its importance once the military establishment decided to get themselves free from politics. The leadership of the PTI got upset as their sole strength was that institution at that time and started dragging them into politics by calling neutrals alike animals, campaigning the very institution that had so far supported them once the party realized that, without that support, he would lose its government. Then their fears become reality. A massive campaign was initiated against the then COAS and his core team members of his institution, indulging in his political involvement in government affairs, while asking secret meeting at the Presidential house to him for supporting him bringing back to the government. In his rallies, Khan blames all of the obstacles on the growth of the government to the military establishment, shifting his political campaign from two dominant parties PML (N) and PPP to the military establishment, damaging the institution's repute to that extent, from where it might take time for the institution to recover their repute. One can not deny the fact that there is only one perfect government structure. America grew because of its democratic rule, China grew under the ambit of the communist regime, and India under the fascist regime. Since the establishment of Pakistan, the country has struggled to impose a democratic regime in the country, but the installment of the dictatorship through a military coup impedes the process. Though the champions of democratic leaders have never devolved powers to local government bodies, there are very rare chances for any common people to climb to the top of the federal government, emerging from the grassroots level to the top hierarchy of the government. This led to providing political power to the few members of the political elite. Then in 2018, a Hybrid governance system was introduced. This system could be successful if the priority of the government is based on good governance. Yet, the focus was eliminating the opponents by using state institutions. For instance, blackmailed the Chairmen of NAB for his alleged harassment video to pursue cases against opponents, used IB for stealing elections in Sialkot, and used ANF to register a fake case of 10kg Heroine against Rana Sanaullah e.t.c. The perception formed that the military establishment is behind on every insidious move, eliciting anger from the supporters of the two dominant parties. In 2024, the same victim parties came to power with the perception of another hybrid regime. After the PTI leaders targeted military installment, attacked police with a petrol bomb, and threatened the election secretary, the same institutions responded by arresting their supporters, and registering numerous cases, paving the way for two dominant powers to come back to rule the government, though the PTI had massive support from the people at that particular period. All stakeholders that form a hybrid government must give each other space in those domains that become contentious issues among them, including foreign policy. The system could work, if it provides relief to the destitute people, reduces the fiscal deficit, increases their foreign reserves, which are expected to reach $9 billion, a massive gain that was $ 2 billion in February, resolves industrial issues, and eliminates malpractices in the government institutions, while providing civil rights to the people that guarantees our constitution e.t.c. In a nutshell, unless the political leaders are willing to devolve powers to the common man, maintaining a political-elite captured state, the success of the hybrid model could potentially have extensive benefits for the country and those countries facing similar challenges, such as Egypt, Venezuela, Myanmar, etc. By improving the quality of life of the common man, this model could gain popularity at the international level. If successful, this model could set an example for positive change in regions where military dominance has been a deemed hindrance to progress, Pakistan could serve as a role model for other countries facing similar challenges. In addition to it, it will regain repute to the military establishment. Then, a new perception would be created that this model could work and beat perspectives

Palestine and Israel have engaged in a territorial tug-of-war for over seven decades with no end. Once again, the issue has gained traction as Hamas, a Palestinian freedom fighter group, led a surprise attack against Israel, leaving several dead behind; the counterattack by Israel was far greater in magnitude and inflicted disproportionate harm. The unfolding situation in the Middle East has ushered into an episode of misery and horror, as many have been killed while many others are trapped in besieged Gaza territory with no access to basic amenities. While the attack by Hamas may have caught some off guard, unaddressed grievances, pent-up anger, and feelings of alienation can easily escalate into aggression. Therefore, it is pertinent to address the root causes of conflict and work towards lasting solutions that effectively cater to all parties' concerns. The current situation warrants an unbiased genesis of this protracted problem and a critical appraisal of the peace-making efforts as to why peace remains elusive in the region. Genesis of the problem: The conflict has its roots in the 90s, the colonial era when the Palestinian territory was under the place Palestine under administration of Great Britain as the Mandatory Power under the Mandates System adopted by the League. Under British rule, the event that demanded ample attention was the signing of the Balfour Declaration, a document stealthily signed between then Britain's foreign secretary Arthur James Balfour and the British zionist movement head known as Baron Rothschild to allow infiltration of the Jews in a bid to create their separate homeland on the Palestinian Territory to escape persecution. The notorious document initially paved the way for the Israeli settlers as immigrants but gradually led to the mushrooming of Jewish settlements to the extent that it invited confrontation from the indigenous people. In 1948, the state of Israel appeared on the map of the world and, in its nascent stage, engaged in the first arab Israeli war, resulting in the displacement of 750,000 Palestinians. This massive Jewish onslaught against Palestinians, also known as Nakba, was the first clash between both factions, dividing the territory into three zones: the state of Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. This first war and its congruent territorial changes set the stage for future escalations, and the 1956 Suez Canal crisis was one of its manifestations. Later, in 1967, Israel was once again at loggerheads with its arab counterparts, starting the six days war; in its aftermath, Israel gained control over large swathes of territory over the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan; and the Golan Heights from Syria. In 1973, two arab countries, Egypt and Syria, formed a united front against Israel to recede the lost territory, initiating the Youm Kippur War. Likewise, the Palestinian struggle and their longing for self-government is marked by two other important events known as intifadas: the first intifada from 1987-1993 and the second intifada from 2000-2005, uprisings that were monumental in recording Palestinian protests against Jewish atrocities. While there were no major wars after 2000, frequent violent outbursts were common in Gaza. The failed attempts at creating peace: The cycle of peace negotiations between Palestine and Israel has been plagued with inefficiencies, incomplete arbitrations, mistrust, and unfair peace agreements. Although there was no shortage of peace-creating efforts, a plausible solution is yet to be agreed upon, as both sides have distinctive views on what peace entailed for them. It won't be faulty to say that both parties shared one commonality, which was to chalk out a viable path to peace, and the very first effort exerted to achieve this culminated in the form of the Oslo Accords, signed between the Palestine Liberation Army leader Yasser Arafat and the Israel prime minister Yitzhak Rabin under auspices of American President Bill Clinton on 1998. The Oslo Accords marked the birth of the Palestinian Authority, whose mandate was to overlook administrative issues of Gaza and the West Bank under its purview. Initially, the negotiations were touted as a diplomatic breakthrough, rightly so, as it ended a political and diplomatic impasse between both warring factions caused by the first intifada, but a critical analysis reveals disturbing details. The Oslo Accords miserably failed to address core issues: illegal Jewish settlements, the status of Jerusalem, the return of Palestinian 1948 refugees, and the issue of the disputed territory. To add insult to injury, the Oslo Accords skillfully dodged the question of independent Palestine in theory and practice. Many Palestinians believe that Israel has used the Oslo Accords to justify its expansion of illegal settlements in the West Bank. As the Oslo Accords slowly broke down, Israel tripled its settlement building. Between 1993 and 2000, the Israeli population in the West Bank reached its fastest pace of growth ever, according to Dror Etkes, an Israeli peace campaigner. After the Oslo Accords, other peace-making efforts started, and the Camp David summit is one of those. President Bill Clinton convened the summit to provide a platform that would serve as a tower for both countries on which they could build peaceful communities. Ehud Barak represented Israel as president and Yasser Arafat as PLO chairman; the talks failed due to several reasons: the mistrust and ambivalence of Palestinian leadership towards Israel, coupled with Ehud's dictatorial posture, the negotiations were vague, and lack of details hinted at a lack of preparations by American as well malice of Israeli leadership and lack of consensus on the status of Jerusalem and refugees. The failure of the summit and escalating conflicts, the second intifada erupted after the summit due to a provocative visit of the Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to al Aqsa mosque, did not hinder both parties from searching for peace, and the 2002 arab peace initiative was launched. It was endorsed by the arab countries at the arab summit held in Beirut; the agenda discussed the complete withdrawal of Israel from territories occupied since 1967, the acceptance of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, and the agreement to a fair solution to the refugee problem that resonated with the Un resolution 194 and also international law principles. The arab peace initiative garnered support from Palestinians as it was on lines similar to two-state solutions, but like other fair and square deals, this arrangement fell victim to Israel's bad faith and malicious intent and is yet to be implemented. In the same vein, the four parties devised another peace-making formula: the USA, the EU, the UN, and Russia. The agreement resembled the Oslo Accords, with two complementary clauses. First, it was to be 'performance-based,' with Israelis and Palestinians simultaneously taking specified steps to restore confidence. Second, it outlined the ultimate destination of a two-state solution – although the Roadmap did not guarantee that that destination would be reached, nor did it say who was responsible for ensuring the process's success.The peace deal was acceptable until the Israeli prime minister stripped it of the key points crucial for creating and sustaining peace; the architects of this deal never questioned this daring act. Subsequently, the deal's future was apprehensible and never concluded for good. Similarly, two other models of third-party negotiations that are worth mentioning are the Geneva Accord and the Annapolis Convention; both were initiated under the tutelage of the United States serving premiers, but all in vain as both were materialized due to differences on sides and steadfast support of the united states towards Israel at the expense fairness and justice. The preponderance of the third-party negotiations suggests one thing loud and clear: the USA never provided a level playing field in exchanging views and options to both parties in conflict. Rather, it sidelined Israel to make Palestinian representatives amenable to their demands.Israel's flawed approach to peace also trumped the Kerry negotiations as the peace talk centered on confidencebuilding measures leading to the release of Palestinian prisoners in four tranches; however, Israel did not fulfill its commitment, fueling Palestinian claims of Jewish apartheid. Lastly, Palestinians rejected the notorious deal of the century, the brainchild of former US President Donald Trump. This deal was faced with resolute opposition for all the right reasons, as it nullified the two-state solution, the elixir that could heal the bleeding Palestine. Upon close and impartial analysis, it becomes evident that Israel is reluctant to treat Palestinians as equal partners in peace. Furthermore, the unwavering support of the United States for Israel has tilted the balance and hindered the creation of a just peace. Striding towards peace; assessing the viability of the two-state solution: In the past, both countries' experiment with creating peace failed miserably. That created space and viability for implementing the most agreed-upon formula- the two-state solution. It aims to allocate the right of self-determination to the Palestinians and enjoy its associated benefits, including political independence, economic prosperity, national security, and freedom of movement. A two-state solution envisions a peaceful coexistence of Israel and Palestine, with both nations agreeing to negotiate and resolve fundamental issues. The security of both states is equally important, and their people would live in freedom and dignity with better prospects for future generations. Regional and international support is crucial for the successful implementation of this solution. A well-defined border separating the two states from each other and neighboring countries is essential for the sovereignty of each state over its territory and resources. Negotiations will determine Jerusalem as the capital of both nations. The right of return for Palestinian refugees should be respected and protected, and the means and practical application of this right should be negotiated. A two-state solution will allow Palestine and Israel to negotiate on equal terms, with support from the international community. Reviving negotiations within a two-state solution framework will incentivize both nations to achieve peace and security. The twostate solution proposes that Israel and Palestine should coexist peacefully and securely, with both nations agreeing to negotiate and agree on fundamental issues. Once resolved, the two states can become two neighboring nations in the Middle East. Both states' security is equally important, and people in each state should live with freedom and dignity, with better prospects for future generations. A two-state solution has a better chance of fulfilling the aspirations of both peoples and is more likely to be implemented with regional and international support. Ideally, a two-state solution should include an agreement on a border that separates the two states from each other and their neighboring countries, such as Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon. The border should define the territory of each state and enable their sovereignty over their resources while respecting their neighbors' sovereignty and resources. Also, there should be an agreement on Jerusalem being the capital of Palestine and Israel, and negotiations will determine its governance. Finally, there should be an agreement to respect Palestinian refugees' right to return. The right is undeniable, and it should be protected and respected.The means and practical application of this right will be negotiated. A two-state solution will enable Palestine and Israel to negotiate on equal terms with the support of the region and the international community, leading to peace and security for both nations. Therefore, both sides should strive to revive negotiations within a two-state solution framework. Due to its efficacy in solving the longstanding core issues, it has the international community's backing. Additionally, it is in tandem with the arab peace initiative and harmonious with the 181 UN partition resolution. According to diplomatic wisdom, the two-state solution is the most feasible solution to achieve lasting peace, stability, and equal rights for the people of Israel and Palestine. Its success largely depends on its prompt implementation. Conclusion: The ongoing devastation in the region is a clarion call for peace implementation, as no piece of land holds more value and worth than human lives. The Israel -Palestine issue not only disrupts the regional security calculus, but its reverberations can be felt across the globe. The onus lies on the international community; primarily, the United Nations should assist in implementing peace creation as it embodies international legitimacy and order. Both countries should reach a concession on peace to create a workable and pragmatic framework to ensure development sustainability and prosperity. The IsraelPalestine conflict has already claimed the lives of so many innocent people and killed the dreams of youth. Hopelessness is rampant in the region, and apportioning blame won't do any good. It's time to prioritize genuine dialogue, mutual respect, and equitable solutions for both sides. Only by working together can lasting and sustainable peace be achieved between these two nations. Ultimately, leaders on both sides must exercise prudence, recognizing that violence only begets more violence and that a peaceful resolution is the only path to sustainable peace.

Rape is a social justice issue, not a women’s issue

Every society has its own inherent or evolving moral values. Sometimes, these moral values are linked with the religious standards or cultural sentiments of the society. Surprisingly, many societies have no benchmark for practicing moral behavior. Many societies excel at criticizing the culture of other societies when they lack a very clear understanding of their moral values. This is the main reason why values that were once considered vital are disregarded now. The shift in values in religious-biased moral grounds of the K.S., with the building of ultra-conservative to secular society led the to compromise on some of its religious values to bring economic growth and prosperity, and to become a most modern and attractive place in the world. However, such transitions often face obstacles, hurdles, and backlash from within their people. Yet, the transition seems to be functioning smoothly and has received positive feedback from people across the world, including the Neom project. Similarly, the Western Society, which claims the Champion of Human Rights, has been facing criticism from its very own people. Since it has made righteous actions of Israelis of self-defense, in which they have killed thousands of people, including innocent children and women. Without a shadow of a doubt, such actions came under the ambit of a war crime. Knowingly, Hamas's actions amounted to self-defense as their piece of land has been under control by the Israeli government through building fences all around Gaza and taking over administrative control. Similarly, human rights champions have chosen a path that has changed the trajectory of moral values as they used to highlight to differentiate them from developing countries. It is a moral value, neither a threat nor a dominant strategy, that led Muslim nations to surrender their claim to the Muslim Unity, especially members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), in fear of restrained relationship with those countries that have strong economic ties. In a nutshell, the concept of nation-state has been prevalent in international relationships, in which each state has to ensure to protect its interests. Violation of Human rights has become a tool to malign their alienated countries and justify their military actions as the US and UK have done in Iraq.

Rape is a social justice issue, not a women’s issue Introduction : “Rape is a symptom of the problem.” The problem is the constant devaluation of women. Are we not all complicit in disparaging women, in not believing them? -bell hooks The above statement by a famous feminist, Bell hooks invites us to rethink rape, not as an isolated problem but a part of the problem that spans across socio-cultural domains ,the behaviors that underpin sexual violence, such as gender inequality and dominance, and systemic patriarchy. Rape Is a sexual assault perpetrated against both genders but targeting women largely owing to which it is wrongly viewed as women’s issue. This myopic view of rape also holds women responsible for both its prevention and eradication , largely discounting the role of society. Framing rape as individual-level incidents between perpetrators and their victims lead to skewed perceptions, secondary victimization and also place the survivor under undue scrutiny more than the sexual offender. Contrarily , rape is a social justice issue that has overarching effects on both women and the society .Social justice refers to “the fair allocation of human rights, protections, opportunities, obligations, and social benefits,” then social justice also requires “addressing social and economic inequalities and seeking to eliminate discrimination and oppression. According to this approach , rape is a human right violation and a social injustice where all humans regardless of gender are affected and costs paid by the victim impact the society in the longer run. To begin with ,men’s sexual violence against women and girls has been framed above all as an issue of gender in-justice.. Additionally ,rape is fundamentally linked to power and inequality. Men’s violence both maintains, and is the expression of, men’s power over women and children. Moreover, such sexual violence has profound ethical and political ramifications, acting as a major obstacle to gender equality. It threatens women's autonomy, limits their freedom of movement, undermines their self-esteem, and jeopardizes their everyday safety. Beyond these immediate harms, it also restricts women's sexual and reproductive freedoms and diminishes their ability to engage in political decision-making and public life. Increasingly, this issue is being approached from a human rights perspective, recognizing that violence against women is a violation of their fundamental human rights.Thus , this heinous crime is responsible of stripping away women of their basic right to privacy and freedom that undermines their individual agency by impacting their growth in psychological , social , political and economic areas of life Therefore ,the reformatory efforts should be directed at seeing rape as an issue of justice, impacting all genders and subsequently garnering efforts and responses not only from women. The article deals with problematizing the gendered framing of rape, convincing that rape is a social injustice, and talks about an all-inclusive emancipatory effort to curtail this menace where seeking an alliance with men is at the heart of it. Problematizing the gendered framing of rape : In her book, Framing the Rape Victim: Gender and Agency Reconsidered, Carine M. Mardorossian argues ,that viewing rape through the gendered lens has led to the marginalization of the sexual violence .The gendered framing of the rape, impacts perceptions, solutions, and scope of the problem. The broader issue of rape is reduced to women only problem , often blaming them for provoking or indirectly triggering rape by eroding the gendered expectation rooted in patriarchal norms that dictate how they should dress, behave, or interact with others. Therefore, when rapes occur, the labels can be used to undermine their credibility of the victims , reinforcing the idea that they are responsible for their victimization rather than viewing it as a problem of social and systemic injustices such as in motorway gang rape case , according to a senior law enforcement official the victim partly bore the responsibility for the tragedy she encountered. Additionally this leads to stereotypical victim blaming, where the rape victim is accused of being promiscuous , wearing provocative clothes or absence of carrying harm reduction items. The labeling is a manifestation of a mental bias known as fundamental attribution error, where the internal characteristics are highlighted and external factors are causally ignored. This stereotypical victimization of rape survivors leads not only to primary victimization but also to secondary victimization that discredits the victim rather than offering support. Furthermore, the limited focus is placed on the preparator not only reinforces the predator-like behavior but also gives impunity based on gender, concertizing the rape culture enforced by power imbalance due to patriarchy. Thus , misogyny perpetuates the rape culture by objectification and dehumanization of women as observed in the case of Mukhtaran Mai ,where the jirga woefully weaponized rape as form of retribution. Reframing the issue: traditional paradigm vs social justice paradigm In the traditional approach, rape often is viewed as a stand alone issue and in individual-specific context. The perpetrator's identity is not made visible and the reforms mostly are transactional, also it does not challenge the existing oppressional system and cultural practices that contribute to this grave oppression. On the contrary, the social justice paradigm views rape as both an individual and societal context allows transparency of the preparator's identity allowed and requires reforms at the sociocultural and structural level, the social justice paradigm views rape as gender injustice waged against women that have a debilitating effect on their mental, social and emotional wellbeing. It violates basic human rights such as freedom of choice and right to consent Additionally, rape is inextricably linked with power dynamics as it is seen as a tool to assert dominance of men over the weaker ones. This also perpetuates the strategic use of rape known as rape mobilization that serves the agenda of patriarchal society and hegemonic masculinity. Likewise, rape also nullifies the gender equality agenda, as it devoid women of their reproductive choices, negatively impacts their health, and hinders their participation in political decision-making. The rape survivors find it difficult to engage in prochoice behaviors as the trauma feeds on and they face difficulties in being a healthy citizen of a nation. Prevention of rape through the lens of social justice : The focus of rape prevention according to the social justice approach is to dismantle the patriarchal norms and challenge the power imbalance created between both due to gender hierarchy that places men at the top giving them a permit to exploit the weaker sex. It also preaches women's empowerment in the social, political, and economic domains to upgrade their societal status. Likewise, the social construction of masculinity needs to be revamped as Raewan Connell's multifaceted theories have highlighted the concept of multiple masculinities, the hierarchy of masculinities, and the existence of hegemonic masculinity contribute to gender inequality in society, making way for sexual violence. A famous psychiatrist, James Gilligan suggests measures include addressing the psychological and social root causes of this problem, he calls for challenging gender norms and systemic gender biases. He preaches advocacy and awareness to promote respect and consent such as Providing gender sensitivity training for all members of society, especially in schools, workplaces, and public institutions. He also encourages the promotion of gender equality and strengthening support systems for survivors, including access to counseling, legal assistance, and medical care. The community engagement in violence prevention and implementing early intervention measures, Gilligan’s approach aims for a profound transformation in societal attitudes and structures to reduce and prevent Rape and other gender-based violence. Moreover, Challenging rape culture, and busting rape myths are crucial in ending this menace, A rape culture doesn’t command men to rape, but it does make rape inviting, and it reduces the likelihood rapists will be identified, arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and punished. Also, bystander interventionist programs should be introduced to inhibit sexual violence. Therefore, according to the social justice approach to rape an amalgamation of both individual and societal level reforms is needed to prevent rape . Conclusion : In a nutshell, framing rape as only women’s problem is a traditional, outdated, and exclusivist thinking that should be challenged .According to the Social Justice paradigm, the issue of rape needs to be observed in a border societal and systemic context to eradicate this moral wrongdoing. This approach rightfully shifts the focus of the problem from the victim to the deep-seated root causes furthered by society and culture.