Pakistan Defence Minister Khawaja Asif’s call for the United States or Turkey to “kidnap” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu marks a new low in diplomatic discourse, revealing more about Pakistan’s own contradictions than any principled stand on Gaza. Framed as moral outrage, the statement sounds less like a defence of humanity and more like political theatre tailored for domestic consumption and ideological signalling.

Asif’s hyperbolic description of Netanyahu as the “worst criminal of humanity in 4,000–5,000 years” collapses history into rhetoric. Such absolutist language may inflame emotions, but it weakens credibility. Genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity are serious legal categories, adjudicated by courts, not television studios. Demanding extrajudicial abduction while invoking “humanity” is a striking logical contradiction.

Equally telling is Pakistan’s selective amnesia. This is the same government that recently nominated Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, yet now appears to suggest that Washington should act as the global sheriff of moral justice. Anchor Hamid Mir’s visible discomfort—cutting to a break to avoid the Trump implication—underlined how reckless Asif’s remarks were, even by Pakistan’s own media standards.

The broader geopolitical context further exposes the hollowness of the posturing. Pakistan has never recognised Israel, aligns rhetorically with Iran, and presents itself as a champion of the Palestinian cause. Yet Israel’s ambassador to India has openly expressed deep concern over links between Hamas and Pakistan-based terror groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba, firmly rejecting any Pakistani military role in Gaza. This rejection punctures Islamabad’s claim to moral authority in the conflict.

Ultimately, Asif’s remarks are not about Palestinians; they are about narrative positioning. By replacing diplomacy with incendiary soundbites, Pakistan risks reinforcing its image as a state long on outrage but short on credibility. Moral advocacy, if it is to be taken seriously, cannot coexist with calls for kidnapping, selective outrage, and denial of one’s own uncomfortable record.

Pakistan Defence Minister Khawaja Asif’s call for the United States or Turkey to “kidnap” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu marks a new low in diplomatic discourse, revealing more about Pakistan’s own contradictions than any principled stand on Gaza. Framed as moral outrage, the statement sounds less like a defence of humanity and more like political theatre tailored for domestic consumption and ideological signalling.

Asif’s hyperbolic description of Netanyahu as the “worst criminal of humanity in 4,000–5,000 years” collapses history into rhetoric. Such absolutist language may inflame emotions, but it weakens credibility. Genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity are serious legal categories, adjudicated by courts, not television studios. Demanding extrajudicial abduction while invoking “humanity” is a striking logical contradiction.

Equally telling is Pakistan’s selective amnesia. This is the same government that recently nominated Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, yet now appears to suggest that Washington should act as the global sheriff of moral justice. Anchor Hamid Mir’s visible discomfort—cutting to a break to avoid the Trump implication—underlined how reckless Asif’s remarks were, even by Pakistan’s own media standards.

The broader geopolitical context further exposes the hollowness of the posturing. Pakistan has never recognised Israel, aligns rhetorically with Iran, and presents itself as a champion of the Palestinian cause. Yet Israel’s ambassador to India has openly expressed deep concern over links between Hamas and Pakistan-based terror groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba, firmly rejecting any Pakistani military role in Gaza. This rejection punctures Islamabad’s claim to moral authority in the conflict.

Ultimately, Asif’s remarks are not about Palestinians; they are about narrative positioning. By replacing diplomacy with incendiary soundbites, Pakistan risks reinforcing its image as a state long on outrage but short on credibility. Moral advocacy, if it is to be taken seriously, cannot coexist with calls for kidnapping, selective outrage, and denial of one’s own uncomfortable record.