There is eminent sense in the Iranian demand for a nuclear-free Middle East. Speaking in Manila on Friday, Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said most countries in the Middle East felt "insecure" because Israel possessed nuclear arms, besides other weapons of mass destruction.
He pleaded that Israel be made to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty. His plea is, of course, a cry in the wilderness, because one is struck by the dichotomy in American and EU attitudes toward the question of nuclear weapons in the Middle East.
The two have joined hands to put pressure on Iran to give up its modest nuclear programme. There are differences, of course, in shades with regard to the American and EU approaches to the issue.
The Americans would like the European three - Britain, France and Germany (since they are on speaking terms with Iran) - to bring the issue to the Security Council. Once there, the Americans would be able to have the right kind of resolution passed against Iran. The European three want to adopt a more conciliatory approach.
Nevertheless, the two share the common goal of subjecting Iran to pressure on the nuclear question. In contrast, neither the US nor the EU bothers to take note of Israel's nuclear arsenal.
Tel Aviv itself has maintained what has been described as "strategic ambiguity" in the matter, but it is confirmed that Israel has a minimum of 200 nuclear weapons. Aware that it is the sole possessor of nuclear weapons and other WMDs in the region, Israel has used its military power to bully and attack all its neighbours.
There is no neighbour against which Israel has not committed aggression. This is in addition to its continued occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in violation of UN resolutions and the Oslo peace accord.
Yet neither the US nor the EU has bothered to look at this aspect of the situation. Patronizing Israel while lambasting and pressuring Iran to give up its nuclear plans shows lack of consistency and moral principle in the US-EU approach to the issue.
Ending corporal punishment
The Sindh education ministry's ban on corporal punishment in schools in the province should prove a welcome piece of news for both children and parents. All too often one hears about children being subjected to degrading, often violent, physical punishment for minor faults, such as not learning lessons or being inattentive in class.
Indeed, corporal punishment meted out in schools, is one of the primary reasons behind the increasing number of children who run away from home. It is also a sign of an inadequate educational system where the frustrations of teachers find an outlet in dangerous actions that could leave life-long physical and psychological scars on the students.
One hopes that the government implements the ban without any delay, charging school inspection teams with the task of maintaining a strict check on all educational institutions in the province and reporting errant teachers to the authorities for appropriate action.
However, a more formidable task before the government remains the ending of corporal punishment in the various madressahs that fall outside the ambit of the formal education system.
Specially notorious for starving their pupils and keeping them in chains, besides administering other forms of punishments that sometimes includes sexual abuse, the religious men running these seminaries must be made accountable for their misdeeds.
Given the current restrictive atmosphere in these institutions, it comes as no surprise that the madressahs are ideal breeding grounds for jihadis who band together to pose a serious threat to the peace and the public order of their own country as well as that of other countries.
Not only are the young students indoctrinated in extremist political and religious ideology, they are left practically devoid of normal human sensibilities and impulses as a result of merciless beatings they have received throughout their formative years at the hands of their so-called teachers.
One does not know the outcome of a proposed parliamentary bill for ending corporal punishment. But perhaps, now is the time to take up the issue in right earnest, and with a sense of urgency that is called for.