PURPOSE BEFORE PRODUCTIVITY -THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION STARBIZ SATURDAY MAY 9

Dear Captains,

Most organisations are not failing because of poor strategy. They are failing because people are busy, but not contributing in the way that matters most.

Our first role as leaders is to remove uncertainty. We either clarify the confusion our people experience and move the organisation forward, or we allow them to become victims of guesswork and misalignment. We do this by presenting a clear and identifiable goal, a future state that people can understand and desire, and by generating within them the willingness to follow.

As such, setting goals and expectations, and making them meaningful, is the cornerstone of leadership. Every CEO, leader, and manager spends considerable time setting and explaining goals to their teams. Yet, both research and practice show one consistent reality: goals and expectations are often misunderstood.

The truth is, even the most brilliant CEOs struggle with the “illusion of transparency”, the belief that because a goal is clear in their mind, it is equally clear to everyone else.

Therefore, goal setting alone is not enough. It must be accompanied by asking the right question. These two acts are inseparable if we are serious about avoiding this illusion.

But what is the right question to ask?

This brings us to the focus of the article. What is the one question every employee must be able to answer, clearly and correctly, every single day they come to work?

It is not about what they like or want to do. It is not about what they feel like doing. It may not even be what is written in their job description. And it is certainly not what they plan to eat for lunch.

It is this: What is my contribution to the organisation? And more importantly: How can I make that contribution as effectively as possible?

When contribution is unclear, effort is wasted.

As such, every employee must know the answers to these questions clearly and own them. This is goal alignment in action. It is how we avoid miscommunication and turn expectations into real, effective execution. Because when people do not know what is to be done, they default to what they want or like to do, which may not be what the organisation needs.

Knowing the answers helps remove uncertainty. It embeds the goals into how people plan and solve problems. If they cannot connect these goals to their daily plans, the problems they solve, and the opportunities they pursue, their work becomes disconnected from what should be done.

To know what and how they can best contribute, employees must agree on three things: where we are now, where we want to be by a given time, and what is to be done to get there. Knowing where we are defines reality. Knowing where we want to go defines what good looks like. Most importantly, being clear about what is to be done defines what the situation demands.

What the situation demands requires flexibility, adaptability, and a clear understanding of the results that must be achieved. That is why it may not always be what is written in the job description.

Job descriptions are static. Contribution is dynamic. This requires judgement, maturity, and ownership.

Once an employee is clear about how best they can contribute, only then do planning tools begin to make sense. Without clarity of contribution, these tools become mechanical checklists. They become efficiently ineffective: busy, but going nowhere. With clarity, they become instruments of sound judgement.

Take 5W1H:

What → Why → Who → Where → When → How

WHAT
Clarity of contribution defines what work should be done. An employee may have ten tasks on hand. Without clarity, they may choose what is easiest, most urgent, or most visible. With clarity, they prioritise what contributes most to the organisation’s goals. They stop asking, “What do I want to do?” and start asking, “What must be done?”

WHY
Knowing how best to contribute clarifies why the work matters. When employees understand how their work contributes to the bigger goal, they are more focused and committed. They are not just completing tasks, but working towards meaningful outcomes. Without this, work becomes routine. With it, work becomes purposeful.

WHO
Clarity of contribution helps employees decide who to work with. In sales, this means engaging customers who contribute most to results, even if they are tougher to manage, rather than spending time with easier, friendlier customers who bring less value. The focus shifts from comfort and habit to contribution.

WHERE
Knowing how best to contribute guides where an employee should be. An employee may have the option to work from home. But the real question is not preference, it is contribution. If the task requires deep individual work, working from home may be appropriate. If alignment or collaboration is needed, being in the office may be better. If the role requires understanding customers, then being on the ground becomes necessary. The decision is not based on preference, but on where one can contribute best.

WHEN
Knowing how best to contribute sharpens judgement on timing. Some tasks require immediate action, while others require careful timing. Employees who understand contribution know when to act, when to wait, and when to escalate. They do not just meet deadlines. They move faster when contribution demands it and act at the right time to create the best outcome.

HOW
This brings us back to the most important question: How can I make the best contribution? When this is clear, the other questions, what, why, who, where, and when, naturally fall into place.

Dear Captains,

We must make it a habit to ask our employees this most important question:

“What is your contribution, and how are you ensuring it is the best possible one?”

Our leaders and managers must be trained not just to ask, but to calibrate the response. When answers are unclear or incorrect, we must view it as a coaching opportunity, reconnecting their efforts to the organisation’s immediate needs. Realignment is not about correction; it is about restoring the line of sight between their daily work and our collective success.

Do this, and you will see your people stay on track and your organisation perform better, because you have helped remove uncertainty and guided them to contribute in the best way possible.

Leadership is not just about having a vision. It is about the disciplined task of ensuring that the vision is clearly understood by the people doing the work.

For previous StarBiz articles go here - https://letusaddvalue.blogspot.com/2026/04/social-contract-in-companies-today.html

THE LEADER OF A PEOPLE IS THEIR SERVANT

 

I would first like to commend and thank His Royal Highness Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah for reminding Malaysians of the famous quote that “no man can get rich in politics unless he’s a crook.” Regardless of whether one agrees fully with the statement or not, it opens an important moral discussion about political leadership, power, wealth, and responsibility.

For Muslims, perhaps this is also a good moment for us to reflect on the lives of the greatest political leaders in Muslim history: the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and the first four caliphs, Saidina Abu Bakr, Saidina Umar, Saidina Uthman, and Saidina Ali.

What is interesting is that many of them did not begin as poor men seeking power to improve their lives. The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ had economic dignity through trade and through his marriage to Khadijah, a successful and respected businesswoman. Saidina Abu Bakr was a respected merchant. Saidina Umar came from a strong Quraysh family and was involved in trade. Saidina Uthman was among the wealthiest businessmen in Makkah. Even Saidina Ali, though not known for great wealth, came from noble lineage and lived a life associated with dignity, knowledge, and simplicity.

Yet once leadership came to them, power did not become a path toward personal enrichment.

In fact, one notices a remarkable pattern among the greatest early Muslim leaders. Many of them started life with far more wealth, comfort, and material standing than what they possessed at the end of their lives. Leadership did not make them richer. Leadership made them spend. Much of their wealth, energy, and resources were used for society, the poor, the nation, and the religion.

The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ passed away leaving behind very few material possessions. What he truly left behind was not wealth, palaces, or luxury, but a civilizational legacy that transformed humanity. Saidina Abu Bakr spent much of his wealth supporting Islam, freeing slaves, and serving society. Saidina Umar ruled one of the largest empires in the world at the time, yet lived with extraordinary modesty and deep fear of misusing public wealth. Saidina Uthman used enormous amounts of personal wealth for the ummah, public good, and the needs of society. Saidina Ali became known not for riches, but for justice, humility, sacrifice, and knowledge.

There seems to be an important lesson here. The greatest Muslim political leaders often began relatively well-off, yet by the end of their leadership and lives, many lived modestly and possessed far less materially than when they started. Their wealth flowed outward toward society rather than inward toward themselves.

The point here is not that Islam rejects wealth. Islam does not reject success, business, or prosperity. In fact, many early Muslim leaders were successful individuals before leadership.

The deeper lesson is this: leadership in Islam was never meant to be a money-making business for oneself, family, and cronies.

Power was seen as an amanah. Leadership was a responsibility before Allah and society. Wealth was to serve the people, not the other way around.

Perhaps this is something Muslim societies, including Malaysia, should reflect upon carefully.

Today, many political leaders speak about defending Islam, protecting Muslims, fighting for the ummah, or championing religion. Such words are important. But words alone are never enough.

Those who wish to lead in the name of Islam must also be willing to emulate the moral burden carried by the Prophet ﷺ and the first four caliphs. They must be willing to embrace accountability, sacrifice, simplicity, humility, and service. Before gallantly proclaiming that one is fighting for Islam or protecting Muslims, one must first be willing to choose a modest and responsible life.

As voters and citizens, perhaps we too must learn to judge leadership not merely by slogans and speeches, but by character, sacrifice, conduct, priorities, and lifestyle. We must ask whether our leaders truly embody the spirit of amanah shown by the earliest leaders of Islam.

As the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ reminded us:

“The leader of a people is their servant.”

Peace.

Anas Zubedy

 

SINAR HARIAN HARI INI - PERLUKAH IRAN BERHENTI BERUNDING

 

Dengan tamatnya tempoh gencatan senjata pada Isnin, 20 April 2026, Iran kini berada di persimpangan jalan untuk menilai semula strateginya. Tanggapan bahawa diplomasi mampu meredakan ketegangan antara Tehran dan Washington semakin sukar dipertahankan. Malah, meneruskan meja rundingan mungkin sekadar satu pembaziran masa buat Iran.

Walaupun diplomasi sering dilihat sebagai langkah rasional untuk mengelakkan konflik, tidak semua rundingan dijalankan atas dasar kejujuran. Sering kali, ia hanyalah taktik untuk membeli masa, menjaga imej politik, atau mengelak daripada kelihatan lemah di mata dunia.

Berikut adalah faktor utama mengapa Iran perlu mempersoalkan keberkesanan diplomasi ini:

1. Dilema Kuasa Besar: Pantang Kelihatan Lemah

Masalah utama berakar umbi dalam realiti politik Amerika Syarikat (AS). Sebagai kuasa besar yang kini dicabar oleh kebangkitan China, AS tidak boleh membiarkan imejnya tercalar dengan kelihatan tunduk kepada Iran. Sebarang perjanjian yang dilihat memberi ruang kepada Iran akan dianggap sebagai tanda kejatuhan pengaruh global AS. Maka, rundingan bukanlah bermatlamat mencari kompromi sejati, sebaliknya hanya untuk mengekalkan persepsi dominasi di mata pengundi domestik dan sekutu antarabangsa.

2. Halangan Struktur: Agenda Israel

Faktor kedua yang lebih kritikal ialah pengaruh Israel. Secara struktural dan sejarah, Israel tidak berminat dengan keamanan mutlak jika ia menyekat matlamat strategik jangka panjang mereka:

• Realiti Demografi: Untuk kekal sebagai negara majoriti Yahudi, Israel tidak akan menerima kepulangan jutaan pelarian Palestin kerana ini akan menggugat imbangan kuasa politik mereka.
• Realiti Wilayah (Matlamat "Greater Israel"): Keamanan memerlukan sempadan yang tetap dan diiktiraf. Namun, bagi sebuah negara yang ingin terus meluaskan wilayah, sempadan tetap adalah satu kekangan. Israel melihat fleksibiliti sempadan sebagai satu keperluan strategi.

Oleh kerana dasar luar AS di Timur Tengah sangat terikat dengan kepentingan Israel, Washington tidak akan mampu mendesak satu pelan keamanan yang tidak dipersetujui oleh Tel Aviv.

3. Corak Sabotaj Diplomasi yang Konsisten

Terdapat corak yang jelas: setiap kali rundingan mula menunjukkan kemajuan (seperti melalui perantaraan Oman atau Pakistan), ia akan diganggu oleh provokasi atau serangan ketenteraan. Bagi Iran, ini membuktikan bahawa diplomasi akan sentiasa digagalkan sebaik sahaja ia mula membuahkan hasil. Ketidakstabilan sengaja dikekalkan sebagai alat untuk menghalang penyelesaian muktamad.

4. Ketidakstabilan Sebagai Strategi

Jika keamanan menstabilkan sempadan, dan sempadan yang stabil menyekat peluasan wilayah, maka ketidakstabilan menjadi senjata yang berguna. Konflik yang berterusan mengekalkan situasi dalam keadaan cair (fluid), sekali gus memberi ruang untuk tindakan ketenteraan pada bila-bila masa.

Ketegangan di pelbagai barisan hadapan—dari Lubnan ke Syria hingga ke Iran—bukanlah satu kebetulan. Ia adalah sebahagian daripada rancangan permainan Zionis yang tidak akan berakhir selagi matlamat "Greater Israel" belum tercapai.

Kesimpulan: Konflik Sebagai Pilihan Terakhir

Rekod sejarah menunjukkan bahawa AS hanya akan benar-benar berusaha menamatkan permusuhan apabila mereka berhadapan dengan jumlah korban yang besar (kepulangan askar dalam beg mayat).

Untuk memaksa perubahan drastik dalam dasar Washington, Iran mungkin terpaksa beralih daripada sekadar tekanan ekonomi—seperti gangguan di Selat Hormuz—kepada sasaran aset bernilai tinggi, termasuk kapal pengangkut pesawat Tentera Laut AS.

Walaupun Iran telah mempamerkan kawalan diri yang tinggi selama ini dengan hanya mensasarkan pangkalan tentera tanpa korban jiwa yang besar, dinamika ini akan berubah jika tentera darat Amerika terlibat secara langsung. Untuk memecahkan kebuntuan politik di Washington, Iran mungkin perlu melangkaui had kesabaran mereka sebelum ini.

Harapannya, jika konflik ini memuncak, ia akan berlaku dengan pantas bagi meminimumkan kehilangan nyawa dan menghentikan keupayaan Israel untuk terus mencetuskan huru-hara, sekali gus membolehkan ekonomi global kembali pulih.

Salam.

Anas Zubedy

https://www.sinarharian.com.my/article/778233/khas/pendapat/perlukah-iran-henti-berunding

 

WHICH IS MORE DANGEROUS: A WATER FESTIVAL OR HYPOCRISY?

 

We are once again caught in a familiar debate. On one side, leaders and groups speak of cultural sensitivity, protecting Islam, and staying true to Malay values. On the other, we hear arguments regarding tourism, economics, and the necessity of keeping Malaysia open and competitive.

All of this over a water festival.

Personally, I see this as just another distraction. Politicians from both sides seek to occupy our minds so we might forget what they are truly guilty of: hypocrisy and lying.

Let us be clear. Cultural sensitivity matters. Respecting Islam matters. Respecting the values and traditions of this country matters. These are not small things, and they should never be dismissed lightly. But we must also ask a more critical question: WHAT IS TRULY MORE DANGEROUS TO OUR NATION?

Is it a public event that may or may not align perfectly with our cultural expectations? Or is it the quiet normalization of hypocrisy and lying within our systems, our institutions, and our leadership?

We speak loudly about what is appropriate in public spaces, yet we are often far less vocal about dishonesty, corruption, and the misuse of power. We debate what is visible, but tolerate what is far more damaging beneath the surface. It is right to be culturally sensitive and right to pursue economic growth. However, we must be careful not to focus our sensitivity only on what is "political fuel"—the issues that rouse the voter base - while neglecting the moral integrity that truly shapes the strength and future of this country.

Let us be sensitive to hypocrisy. Let us be sensitive to lying. Let us be sensitive to the everyday struggles of Malaysians who deserve honesty, fairness, and dignity. And to those who heroically defend the merits of the water festival: be even louder in standing against hypocrisy first.

These moral failings are far more dangerous than any festival or any economic benefit lost by its cancellation.

Regarding Islamic values, the Qur’an is firm. It speaks of the munafiqun with a severity that should make us pause. While disbelief is clear and visible, hypocrisy is more dangerous because it hides behind the appearance of righteousness while undermining the truth from within.

The Qur’an warns:

“Indeed, the hypocrites will be in the lowest depths of the Fire — and never will you find for them a helper.” (Surah An-Nisa, 4:145)

And again:

“O you who have believed, why do you say what you do not do? Great is hatred in the sight of Allah that you say what you do not do.” (Surah As-Saff, 61:2–3)

This is not a peripheral issue; it is a foundational one. If we truly want to be culturally sensitive, and if we truly want this country to live up to Qur’anic values, then integrity must come first.

No to hypocrisy. No to lying.

Peace,

Anas Zubedy 

Kuala Lumpur

 

IS ISLAM JUDAISM’S BEST FRIEND?

 

History is rarely simple. But on this question, the pattern is clear.

Across centuries and civilisations, Jewish communities have often experienced some of their greatest periods of dignity, security, and prosperity under Muslim rule. This is not a slogan. It is a historical observation.

To understand this, we return to a defining moment.

A Conquest Without Bloodshed

In 637 CE, Caliph ʿUmar ibn al-Khattab entered Jerusalem. This was no ordinary conquest. There was no massacre, no looting, and no forced conversion. Trusting his reputation for justice, the Christian Patriarch Sophronius handed over the keys of the city to him personally.

ʿUmar arrived with humility, taking turns with his servant to ride their only mount. When the time for prayer came during his visit to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the Patriarch invited him to pray inside.

ʿUmar declined.

He feared that future Muslims might use his action as a justification to convert the church into a mosque. Instead, he prayed at an open space just outside the church.

Later, a mosque was built on that spot, now known as the Mosque of Umar, while the Church of the Holy Sepulchre remains a Christian place of worship to this day.

This was not symbolic restraint. It was deliberate leadership. Justice must protect the “Other” as firmly as it protects oneself.

The Restoration of a Forgotten People

As ʿUmar walked through the city, he noticed the absence of the Jewish people. They had been expelled centuries earlier by the Romans and later by Byzantine rulers.

This contradicted the Islamic worldview, which recognises earlier prophetic communities and their right to live and worship.

ʿUmar acted. He helped clean the neglected Temple Mount and invited Jewish families to return. After more than 500 years, synagogues reopened and the community was restored.

This was not tolerance. It was restoration.

A Qur’anic Framework in Practice

ʿUmar’s actions were not improvised. They were grounded in the Qur’an.

He was guided by the command to uphold justice and return trusts (Qur’an 4:58), to protect places of worship including churches and synagogues (Qur’an 22:40), and to recognise diversity as part of a divine design that calls people to compete in doing good (Qur’an 5:48).

The Covenant of Madinah: A Blueprint for Coexistence

This approach began earlier with the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ in Madinah. The Covenant of Madinah established a shared political community between Muslims, Jews, and others, while preserving religious freedom.

It declared:

“The Jews of Banu Awf are one community with the believers. To the Jews their religion, and to the Muslims their religion.”

This was a social contract based on mutual responsibility and collective security.

It reflected Qur’anic principles: do not let hatred lead to injustice (Qur’an 5:8), there is no compulsion in religion (Qur’an 2:256), and cooperation must be based on righteousness, not aggression (Qur’an 5:2).

Jews were not outsiders. They were recognised members of society.

Al-Andalus: A Golden Age

In Muslim Spain, this framework reached its peak. For nearly 700 years, Jewish communities flourished.

Hasdai ibn Shaprut rose to high office. Maimonides wrote his works in Arabic within this environment.

Jewish communities lived openly, governed their affairs, and contributed to science, medicine, and trade. They paid jizyah and in return received protection and the freedom to thrive.

The Ottoman Empire: A Sanctuary

In 1492, when Jews were expelled from Spain, many went to the Ottoman Empire. Sultan Bayezid II welcomed them, reportedly criticising Spain for weakening itself while strengthening his empire.

Jewish communities rebuilt their lives. They established schools, printing presses, and commercial networks. They practiced their faith openly and managed their internal affairs with stability that was rare in Europe at the time.

The Modern Middle East: Echoes of Coexistence

Until the 20th century, Jewish communities remained deeply rooted across the Muslim world.

Even today, this has not completely disappeared.

In Iran, Jewish communities continue to live, worship, and maintain official recognition, including parliamentary representation. Their synagogues remain active and protected.

In Morocco, Jewish heritage is preserved and recognised as part of national identity. Synagogues are restored, and figures like André Azoulay serve at the highest levels of leadership.

In Iraq, although the Jewish population has largely declined, their historical role in shaping Baghdad’s economy and culture, through figures like Sassoon Eskell, remains significant.

These are not isolated cases. They reflect a broader pattern.

Jewish life in Muslim lands has not been inherently problematic. Where governance is stable and grounded in principle, Jewish communities have lived, worshipped, and maintained their identity, with their places of worship protected.

The Verdict of History

The pattern is consistent.

Jewish communities have often been safest and most able to flourish when Muslims were united, confident, and guided by their principles.

From Madinah to Jerusalem, from Cordoba to Istanbul, when Muslims led with justice, others lived with dignity.

A Call to Righteous Partnership

To Jewish communities who oppose the current Zionist regime and its actions: reconnect and work with Muslims and all people of conscience.

What we are witnessing today is not strength. It is political and moral recklessness that risks becoming self-destructive.

History is clear. Systems built on sustained injustice do not last. When they collapse, they often harm not only those responsible, but entire communities, including those who opposed the injustice.

That is the danger.

If injustice continues, anger will again be misdirected toward an entire people. This has happened before. It must not happen again.

Those who care about the long-term future of Jewish communities must reject extremist forms of Zionism and return to a path of justice, humility, and coexistence.

The Qur’an as Our Compass

The Qur’an commands justice, even against one’s own bias (Qur’an 5:8). It calls for cooperation in righteousness, not aggression (Qur’an 5:2). It directs toward what is upright and just (Qur’an 17:9), and teaches that evil is overcome not with more evil, but with what is better (Qur’an 41:34).

The Path Forward – Muslim Unity Equals Jewish Safety

History is clear: the safety of Jewish communities has often been linked to the strength and unity of the Muslim world.

This is not superiority. It is responsibility.

When Muslims are divided and disconnected from their principles, instability follows. When they are grounded and united, they create conditions where all faiths can live with dignity.

The path forward is simple in principle, difficult in practice.

Return to the Qur’an as a lived system. Rebuild unity. Rebuild strength. Rebuild leadership.

Not for dominance. Not for revenge.

For justice.

Closing

Islam has been, and can be again, a civilisational force that protects and stabilises.

History already shows the difference between division and unity.

If we want a world where all communities live without fear, Muslims must rise with discipline, unity, and justice to build a system where all, including Jewish communities, can live with dignity.

Justice, when applied consistently, does not divide. It protects.

Peace, anas zubedy

Note: This is a shortened and tightened version of an article I wrote last year.

 

KING CHARLES: A LESSON IN SAYING MUCH, SOFTLY

There are speeches, and then there are speeches that carry history, wit, and quiet power in a few well-chosen lines.

Listening to King Charles III’s recent remarks in the United States, I found myself thinking: the speechwriters behind this are brilliant. Who are they? I would like to have coffee chats with them.

In a short span, the speech managed to do what many long addresses fail to achieve. It was witty, lightly yet very effectively sarcastic, and disarmingly humorous. Yet beneath the humour sat layers of meaning.

With a gentle turn of phrase, it reminded America that its 250 to 300 years of history is, in the grand arc of things, a relatively recent chapter when set against Britain’s long past. Not stated bluntly, but implied with elegance.

Then came the clever reversal. A playful line suggesting that without the British, Americans might be speaking French. A subtle, almost cheeky response to Donald Trump’s earlier remark that without America, Europe would be speaking German. Not confrontational, not defensive. Just… refined.

Even the anecdote about the Prime Minister being caught without clothes, followed by the reminder that there should be no secrets between partners, carried more than humour. It was a message, wrapped in a smile.

This is diplomacy at its finest. Not loud. Not aggressive. But layered, intelligent, and deeply aware of history, relationships, and timing.

Class, after all, is not about what you say loudly. It is about what you can say softly, and still be heard.

Perhaps there is a lesson here. A reminder that true influence is not built on being brash or loud, but on mastery of tone, timing, and message. In many ways, this is what soft power looks like when it is done well.

And if anything, it also suggests something more sobering. That in recent times, America may have drifted from this kind of refinement. Soft power is not asserted. It is earned. And it is sustained not by force, but by the ability to speak with grace, wit, and quiet confidence.

Peace,
anas

WHY ARE AMERICA AND TRUMP TAKING DISPROPORTIONATE BLAME?

 

We are not just witnessing a conflict. We are witnessing a distortion of focus.

Today, much of the blame for the escalation with Iran is directed at the United States and at Donald Trump. His actions are analysed. His decisions are criticised. His name dominates the narrative.

But the real question we should be asking is simple and direct.

Why is America being blamed disproportionately, when Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu have been among the most consistent and forceful drivers of this confrontation?

For years, Israel has pushed for a hardline stance against Iran. This has been a sustained position, not a reaction. The pressure for escalation did not begin with Trump. It has been building over time, with clear intent and direction.

At the same time, it is important to remember that previous American presidents, across parties and administrations, faced similar pressures and chose restraint. They said no. They held their ground.

Trump did not. He blinked. He gave in at a critical moment.

But that does not make him the central or sole figure in this story. It makes him part of a larger chain of decisions, influences, and pressures. Netanyahu and Israel play the central role. Not Trump. Not America. And definitely not Americans.

Yet look at how the narrative is being shaped today.

Trump stands at the centre. America carries a disproportionate share of the blame. Meanwhile, Israel’s role, and Netanyahu’s long-standing position, are given far less attention than they deserve. Almost forgotten. This is not by chance; it is deliberate, planned, and orchestrated.

This imbalance is not a minor issue. It affects how people understand cause, responsibility, and accountability.

And this is where it becomes even more important to pause and reflect.

For decades, we have seen how narratives are constructed against those labelled as adversaries of the West or of Israel. Countries like Iran have long argued that they are judged through selective framing. Whether one agrees or not, the pattern is familiar: amplify certain actions, minimise others, simplify the storyline, and repeat it until it becomes accepted truth.

Today, that same pattern appears to be turning towards America.

The United States, and particularly Trump, are now being framed in a similarly narrow way. The complexity is reduced. The broader set of actors fades into the background. One face carries the story.

So we must ask: who shapes these narratives, and why are they being shaped this way?

This is not about defending Trump. It is about recognising that the tools of narrative control, once used primarily against perceived external enemies, can just as easily be applied to anyone when it suits a broader agenda.

If we are to be fair, then at the very least, the blame must be equal. When we criticise Trump, Netanyahu must be named alongside him. When we question America’s role, we must question Israel’s role with the same intensity.

Otherwise, we are not being objective. We are being selective. We are not being fair.

And selective narratives are how misinformation takes shape today. Not by fabricating facts, but by deciding which facts to emphasise and which to downplay.

If we continue to blame America disproportionately while sidelining Israel and Netanyahu, we are not getting closer to the truth. We are moving further away from it.

And this is where Americans, especially, need to be careful.

America and Americans today must ask themselves a serious question. When pushed to the brink, when things really get difficult, will the media, networks, and voices that shape world opinion work for you or for Israel? Who is in control of these narratives?

If it is the Zionists, are you comfortable having an ally that will throw you under the bus once things get too difficult? Or should you place America first?

Peace, anas zubedy

Top of Form

Bottom of Form