C

hile’s newly inaugurated president, José Antonio Kast, has reignited debate about the country’s authoritarian past after expressing admiration for former military ruler Augusto Pinochet.

Kast was sworn in on March 11 in Valparaíso after winning December’s presidential runoff with more than 58 percent of the vote — the largest vote total in Chilean electoral history.

The symbolism of his inauguration drew attention even before the ceremony. In an official portrait released weeks earlier, Kast wore a presidential sash bearing a coat of arms not used by Chilean presidents since Pinochet’s rule.

Pinochet governed Chile from 1973 to 1990 after leading the 1973 Chilean coup d’état that overthrew democratically elected president Salvador Allende. His regime was responsible for widespread repression, with more than 3,000 people killed or disappeared and thousands more imprisoned, tortured, or forced into exile.

Kast has long been associated with a sympathetic view of the former dictator. In past campaigns he suggested that Pinochet, if alive, would likely have supported his candidacy. Critics say that admiration is also reflected in his political alliances and cabinet appointments.

Among those named to his government are lawyers who previously defended Pinochet, including Fernando Barros as defense minister and Fernando Rabat as minister of justice and human rights.

Felipe González Mac-Conell, author of Kast: The Chilean Far-Right, says the new president’s political agenda echoes elements of the Pinochet era, including neoliberal economic policies and a strong emphasis on law-and-order measures.

“What has permeated his political project is a vindication of the cultural values and economic model associated with the dictatorship,” he said.

Frustration with politics fuels support

Despite the controversy surrounding Kast’s views, analysts say his electoral success cannot be explained simply by nostalgia for authoritarian rule.

Instead, many voters appear to have supported him out of frustration with Chile’s political system and economic conditions in recent years. The country has experienced rising crime concerns, social unrest and political polarization.

Discontent grew during the presidency of Kast’s predecessor, Gabriel Boric, whose ambitious reform agenda faced political resistance and economic challenges.

Kast capitalized on those frustrations by campaigning on promises of stronger security policies, tighter immigration controls and economic stability. His Republican Party positioned itself as a harder-line alternative to both the left and the traditional conservative establishment.

Jose Alejandro Godoy, a Peruvian political scientist studying democratic backsliding in Latin America, says Kast’s rise reflects a broader regional trend in which voters turn toward strong leadership when they lose faith in traditional politics.

“People feel politics is not improving their lives,” Godoy said. “In that environment, leaders who promise order and decisive action become attractive.”

Similar dynamics have appeared elsewhere in Latin America. In Brazil, former president Jair Bolsonaro openly praised the country’s past military dictatorship, while in Argentina, President Javier Milei has minimized some of the abuses committed during that country’s military rule.

Security versus democratic freedoms

Chile remains deeply divided over the legacy of Pinochet. A 2023 survey by the polling firm Mori Chile found that more than one-third of Chileans believe the 1973 coup that brought the general to power was justified.

Supporters of Kast argue that references to Pinochet reflect admiration for the economic reforms introduced during his rule, which helped transform Chile into one of Latin America’s most market-oriented economies.

Critics, however, warn that glorifying authoritarian figures risks weakening democratic norms and respect for human rights.

“The concern,” Godoy said, “is that societies may begin to trade civil liberties for promises of security and order.”

As Kast begins his presidency, Chile now faces the challenge of addressing public demands for stability while safeguarding the democratic principles that have guided the country since the end of Pinochet’s rule in 1990.

(Source: Aljazeera English)

A

ccording to the Lancet, a respected academic journal, the Gaza Mortality Survey interviewed 2,000 households across 200 sampling locations between December 30, 2024, and January 5, 2025. Researchers documented the status of 9,729 individuals who were members of those households on October 6, 2023, the day before hostilities escalated.

Using stratified cluster sampling and statistical weighting — adjusting for age, gender, governorate of origin and household size — the study produced the following estimates for the first 15 months of the conflict: 75,200 violent deaths (95% confidence interval: 63,600–86,800), Equivalent to 3.4% of Gaza’s pre-war population, 42,200 women, children and older people killed violently, comprising 56.2% of violent deaths and 16,300 non-violent deaths, including 8,540 excess deaths above projected baseline mortality.

By comparison, Gaza’s Ministry of Health reported approximately 49,090 violent deaths over the same period. The Lancet study concludes that the ministry’s figure was about 34.7% below its central estimate.

However, the demographic breakdown — particularly the proportion of women, children and elderly among the dead — closely mirrors MoH reporting. The researchers say this convergence is significant, finding no evidence that official figures were inflated. Instead, they suggest the ministry likely undercounted violent deaths amid the extreme operational pressures of the conflict.

Violent vs. non-violent mortality

The study distinguishes between deaths caused directly by military action and non-violent deaths linked indirectly to the war, such as those resulting from untreated disease, disrupted medical care or other conflict-related conditions.

Researchers estimate 8,540 excess non-violent deaths up to early January 2025. While substantial, that figure is lower than some earlier projections suggesting indirect deaths might outnumber direct fatalities several times over.

The findings indicate that violent deaths were the primary driver of mortality during the period examined. The estimated crude death rate from violence was 33.1 per 1,000 population per year — a level the authors describe as exceptionally high by contemporary conflict standards.

The results broadly align with a 2025 capture-recapture analysis published in The Lancet, which suggested Gaza’s official figures undercounted deaths by roughly 40%. The consistency of findings across different methodologies strengthens confidence in the overall scale of mortality, the authors say.

The survey also estimated that 12,200 people were missing, predominantly men aged 18–64. For their primary calculations, the researchers conservatively treated missing individuals as alive, noting that final mortality totals could shift depending on future clarification of their status.

Methodological challenges in active conflict

With a 97.2% household response rate and detailed supervisory procedures, the Gaza Mortality Survey demonstrates that rigorous mortality surveillance is possible even in an active war zone, the authors argue. They emphasize that their figures are estimates rather than definitive counts and carry statistical margins of uncertainty.

Nonetheless, the evidence suggests that by early January 2025, between three and four percent of Gaza’s population — estimated at roughly 2.2 million before the war — had been killed violently.

Since the survey concluded, humanitarian conditions in Gaza have deteriorated further. Famine was declared in parts of the territory in August 2025, and health infrastructure remains severely compromised.

The long-term health consequences of the conflict — including chronic disease, trauma and disrupted medical care — are likely to extend well beyond the period covered by the study, the authors warn, underscoring the enduring human cost of the war.

(Source: The Lancet)

A

s the global map of recognition shifts, Palestine now stands acknowledged by 157 of the 193 UN member states, following a wave of diplomatic moves in 2025 that included the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, France, Belgium, Portugal, Luxembourg, and Malta. These recognitions, nearly eight decades after the 1948 Nakba, mark a critical moment in the long and uneven pursuit of Palestinian statehood.

From Gaza, where daily life remains under blockade and the air carries the tension of uncertainty, such announcements are followed with cautious observation rather than celebration. Many remember previous moments of symbolic gestures—Oslo, the UN observer status in 2012—each met with brief optimism, then folded back into occupation and control.

Yet, this year feels different in its scale and timing: public outrage in Western capitals has reached an intensity unseen in decades, as mass demonstrations fill streets from London to Rome, Sydney to Toronto, demanding political accountability and an end to complicity. For Palestinians, these shifts signal that the narrative once monopolized by power is being challenged.

Recognition alone will not change the checkpoints, empty shelves, or loss, but it disrupts the silence that has long defined international diplomacy—and from Gaza, that disruption, however delayed, is still seen as a necessary beginning.

Demonstrations are not enough

But what does recognition mean for those outside Palestine who have long stood in solidarity with it? To move beyond the language of diplomacy, I reached out to voices abroad — people who marched, spoken, and acted in support of Palestine from afar.

Hannah, a 59-year-old activist from the UK, reflects on decades of demonstrations for Palestine in her country. “Demonstrations have been going on in the UK for decades. I’m ashamed to say that my understanding of the situation in your country was limited despite this,” she admits.

When asked what motivates her to continue participating, Hannah explains, “I lost faith in the power of demonstrations to impact government decisions after an enormous protest failed to prevent Tony Blair committing the UK to war in Iraq. But in the absence of anything else productive ordinary citizens can do, I join others in the streets. I find marches depressing because people seem to think marching is enough, and conversely, marching doesn’t seem to achieve much. Yet, hearing Palestinian people gain some small comfort from knowing people around the world are marching in their name encourages me to take part.”

She emphasizes her preference is for more targeted protests. “A narrower message, like ‘stop arming Israel,’ seems more relevant in the UK than ‘free Palestine,’ which is obviously desirable but perhaps not immediately achievable—certainly not without first withdrawing arms sales to the occupier,” Hannah adds.

Paul, a 53-year-old author and academic with Irish roots living in England, reflects on decades of demonstrations for Palestine in the UK. “I believe the current wave of demonstrations started very soon after Israel’s response to October 7, but support for Palestinian goals has been ongoing for decades,” he explains. Paul traces public support for Palestine back to the 1990s, during events such as opposition to the Iraq War, when many British and Irish people recognized the moral and political consequences of actions in the Muslim world.

His motivation to participate in demonstrations stems from a deep sense of social justice. “From the very beginning, I wasn’t afraid to express my views. Almost immediately after October 7, I was asked to write a news article in which I tried to present an impartial viewpoint,” Paul recalls. He emphasizes the importance of speaking out despite potential consequences, noting many in Britain fear losing their jobs or facing backlash. Yet he trusted the integrity of institutions enough to be outspoken and to call for peace.

Significant mobilizations

Tess, a 36-year-old activist from the United States, notices, while there have been longstanding protests tied to broader liberation movements, the mobilizations following October 7 were particularly significant. She remembers attending a major protest in Washington, D.C. and highlights the ongoing efforts of her local BDS cooperative grocery store, which has been organizing since 2012, but found renewed energy after October 7.

Her motivation to participate is rooted in a lifelong awareness of government interventions and colonial violence. “Living in the U.S., my life has been marked by witnessing colonialism, and its ultimate expression in Israel’s occupation of Palestine felt especially vivid after October 7,” she explains. Tess emphasizes the responsibility she feels as an American: the weapons used in the conflict are made, sold, and funded in her country, implicating her complicity. Additionally, her background as a farmer deepens her emotional response to the destruction of land, olive trees, and ecosystems in Palestine. She also mourns the destruction of libraries, archives, and cultural artifacts, which represent precious human knowledge and heritage.

Maria, 65, is a criminal defense lawyer from New Zealand. Her professional life has been devoted to standing beside marginalized individuals in court, a guiding principle for her activism for global human rights. She recalls the first large-scale demonstrations for Palestine in New Zealand occurred shortly after October 2023, when images and testimonies from Gaza began circulating widely. In Auckland, thousands marched down Queen Street, representing a broad coalition of young families, long-time activists, Pacific Islander communities, Māori sovereignty advocates, union members, and students. For Maria, this marked a transition from isolated protests to a significant social movement.

Her motivation to participate stems from a commitment to fairness and the principle that all lives matter equally. She draws personal resonance from parallels with the historical dispossession of Māori people in Aotearoa and her Irish heritage, recognizing patterns of structural violence and intergenerational trauma.

Piazza Palestina

Francesca, 30, from Italy, recalls demonstrations for Palestine began a few months after October 2023, though protests had occurred in various forms prior. In Turin, Piazza Castello has been transformed into a symbolic “Piazza Palestina,” with a permanent sit-in where young protesters share information by day and sleep in tents by night—a striking display of commitment and visibility.

Francesca’s sense of solidarity comes from both academic study and following news as well as following Palestinian photographers, journalists, and writers like Francesca Albanese, on Instagram. She also reads books and novels written by Palestinians to better understand their culture, history, and experiences.

Gabrielle, 31, from Australia, recalls major protests in Sydney, particularly at Town Hall, began around October 23, 2023. Her motivation to participate was fueled by feelings of helplessness while doomscrolling through her phone. Attending rallies felt like the minimum she could do in response to the crisis.

Though Gabrielle is not Palestinian, her work in fashion has brought her into contact with Arab and Muslim designers. Hearing their grief made the crisis feel personally close.

Thomas, 62, a mechanical engineer who spent most of his career in the steel industry, lives in Wollongong with his wife and has three children and seven grandchildren. For him, activism is a privilege, but also a moral responsibility.

T

urkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on Thursday welcomed Pope Leo XIV to Türkiye, calling the visit “a very important step that strengthens our common ground” at a time of rising regional instability and global tensions. The pope, on his first foreign trip since taking office, will spend four days in Türkiye before heading to Lebanon.

Pope Leo XIV arrived in Ankara earlier in the day and began his visit by paying respects at Anitkabir, the mausoleum of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, founder of the Republic of Türkiye. He is scheduled to visit several major cities, including Istanbul and Iznik, historically known as Nicaea, a central location in the early Christian Church.

The visit comes at Erdoğan’s official invitation and underscores Türkiye’s stated commitment to fostering dialogue between the Muslim and Christian worlds.

Erdoğan: Visit offers hope for regional and global peace

Speaking alongside the pope at the Presidential Complex in Ankara, Erdoğan emphasized the symbolic importance of the visit.

“I believe the messages to be delivered from Türkiye with Pope Leo XIV will reach both the Turkish-Islamic world and the Christian world, and will strengthen hope for peace around the globe,” he said.

Erdoğan noted that the timing is critical, pointing to ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, the Russia-Ukraine war, and rising global polarization. He said the pope’s voice could make a meaningful contribution to diplomatic efforts, especially regarding peace initiatives between Moscow and Kyiv.

Erdoğan reaffirmed Türkiye’s identity as a country where multiple faiths have coexisted for centuries.

“Mosques, churches, and synagogues stand side by side in Türkiye,” he said, listing landmark sites such as Istanbul’s Hagia Irene Museum and Neve Shalom Synagogue, Trabzon’s Sumela Monastery, and Van’s Akdamar Museum.

He stressed Türkiye’s record in protecting religious heritage, saying nearly 100 churches, monasteries, and places of worship have been restored since his party came to power in 2002, with five more to reopen by year’s end.

Erdoğan repeated Türkiye’s commitment to equality, stating: “Every one of our citizens, regardless of language, religion, sect, or ethnic background, is a first-class citizen of the Republic of Türkiye. We will not allow even a single person to face discrimination.”

The pope’s planned visit to the Directorate of Religious Affairs (Diyanet) and Istanbul’s Sultan Ahmed Mosque was highlighted by Erdoğan as a continuation of efforts to build constructive relations between Muslims and Christians.

Meetings with Turkish officials and religious leaders

Following private and delegation-level talks with Erdoğan, Pope Leo XIV met Safi Arpagus, head of the Diyanet, in a closed-door meeting. He also visited the Vatican Embassy in Ankara.

Erdoğan praised the pope’s strong emphasis on safeguarding the family institution amid social and cultural challenges.
“Regardless of our faith,” he said, “we are all members of one great human family.”

The Turkish president used the occasion to address global intolerance, saying that “intolerance feeds conflict, and conflict feeds division and hatred.” He pointed to rising Islamophobia and xenophobia in the West, describing them as manifestations of a broader cycle of discrimination.

Erdoğan said Türkiye will continue to shoulder regional responsibilities despite “surrounding conflicts, crises, and injustices,” positioning the country as a mediator seeking peace and stability.

‘Our greatest debt to the Palestinian people is justice’

On the ongoing Gaza genocide, Erdoğan delivered one of the strongest messages of the day, saying that humanity’s greatest obligation is “justice” for Palestinians.

He reiterated Türkiye’s support for a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders and expressed appreciation for Pope Leo XIV’s — and previous popes’ — consistent stance on Palestinian rights.

Erdoğan warned that Israeli military actions throughout Gaza, including attacks on churches and mosques, are destroying historical and religious heritage. Among the damaged sites he mentioned was Gaza’s Holy Family Church, administered by the Catholic Church.

He stressed the importance of preserving the historical status quo in East Jerusalem, calling it “critical” to ensuring peace and stability in the region.

Pope Leo XIV’s trip, which will also take him to symbolic sites such as Istanbul and Iznik (Nicaea), is widely seen as an effort to revive interfaith dialogue and reinforce diplomatic bridges at a moment of global uncertainty.

For Türkiye, the visit provides an opportunity to underscore its role as a meeting point of civilizations and a mediator in multiple international crises.

The pope will continue his engagements in Türkiye through Sunday before departing for Lebanon.

(Source: Anadolu Agency)

T

he United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) warned on Tuesday that surging global demand for air conditioning and refrigeration could more than triple by 2050, driving a steep rise in energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions unless countries adopt sustainable cooling measures.

According to UNEP’s Global Cooling Watch Report 2025, cooling currently accounts for an estimated 4.1 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) annually — about 7% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Two-thirds of that figure stems from the electricity needed to power cooling systems, while the rest comes from refrigerant leaks.

If current trends continue, UNEP projects emissions could reach 7.2 billion tons CO₂e by mid-century under a “business-as-usual” pathway. However, a shift toward a “sustainable cooling pathway” could slash emissions by as much as 97%, bringing them close to net zero by 2050 while saving trillions of dollars in energy and infrastructure costs.

“Cooling is both a lifeline and a major climate challenge,” the report states. “It protects people from extreme heat, preserves food and medicine, and underpins productivity — yet it is also a growing source of energy demand and emissions.”

A growing crisis in a warming world

The report emphasizes that the world cannot simply “air condition its way out” of rising temperatures. Global population growth, rapid urbanization, and more frequent extreme heat events are expected to dramatically increase the need for cooling — particularly in low- and middle-income countries in Africa and South and Central Asia.

Without intervention, the global stock of cooling equipment — including air conditioners, refrigerators, and cold storage — could expand from 22 terawatts (TW) in 2022 to 68 TW in 2050. The steepest increases are expected in developing countries, where access to cooling remains limited but temperatures are rising fastest.

At the same time, even high-income regions such as Europe will face sharp growth in cooling demand as extreme heatwaves become more frequent, UNEP warned.

A pathway to sustainable cooling

UNEP’s Sustainable Cooling Pathway proposes a four-step hierarchy: reducing cooling loads through passive building design, using low-energy cooling methods like fans and evaporative systems, maximizing efficiency in cooling technologies, and rapidly phasing down hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerants, which have high global warming potential.

Adopting these measures could reduce the projected 2050 cooling capacity by 41%, from 68 TW to 40 TW. That would cut emissions by 64% compared to business as usual, while saving an estimated US$17 trillion in electricity and grid investment costs between 2025 and 2050.

“Practical and integrated solutions already exist to deliver sustainable, equitable and climate-aligned cooling for all,” UNEP said. “Scaling these measures can deliver deep cuts in emissions, strengthen resilience to extreme heat and unlock trillions of dollars in avoided energy and infrastructure costs.”

The report also calls for passive cooling strategies such as cool roofs, green spaces, and natural ventilation, which can lower indoor temperatures by up to 7°C and reduce energy use by nearly 30%.

Policy progress and gaps

UNEP’s analysis of 192 countries shows growing recognition of cooling as a climate issue but highlights significant policy gaps.

So far, 134 countries have incorporated cooling measures into their national climate plans, and 29 have set specific emission reduction targets for the cooling sector. However, only 54 countries have policies covering all three pillars of sustainable cooling — passive building design, efficiency standards, and refrigerant transition.

The report warns that many developing nations still lack building energy codes or regulations mandating efficient cooling technologies. “Critical implementation gaps remain,” UNEP notes, “particularly in regions where regulatory frameworks lag urgent cooling needs.”

Even as air conditioner sales grow, nearly three billion people are projected to remain without adequate access to cooling by 2050 — a gap that will disproportionately affect women and low-income communities.

G

overnments must strengthen and clarify their commitments to reduce food loss and waste (FLW) if the world is to meet the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal of halving food waste by 2030, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) warned in a new report released Wednesday.

The report, Achieving Food Loss and Waste Reduction: From Targets to Action, finds that while many countries have made progress in measuring and addressing food waste, policy commitments remain fragmented, poorly coordinated, and often lack measurable outcomes.

According to the OECD, most governments have adopted broad national FLW reduction targets, but only a minority have set quantifiable goals with clear baseline years and delivery timelines. About one in four countries does not specify a target year, and most fail to identify a baseline, making it difficult to measure progress or hold stakeholders accountable.

“Countries have stepped up to the challenge, but many are still relying on soft measures and voluntary commitments,” the report says. “More precise, measurable targets — and stronger policy coordination — are urgently needed to turn ambition into action.”

Global food waste remains staggering

Food waste remains a vast and persistent global problem. The OECD notes that the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) first estimated in 2011 that around 30% of all food produced is lost or wasted, and according to the UN Environment Program (UNEP), households alone threw away over 1 billion meals per day in 2022.

The scale of the issue has major social, environmental, and economic implications. Food loss and waste contribute roughly 8–10% of global greenhouse gas emissions, while hundreds of millions of people face food insecurity.

OECD modelling shows that achieving SDG target 12.3 — halving per capita food waste and reducing supply chain losses by 2030 — could cut agricultural emissions by 4% and lift 137 million people out of hunger within the next five years.

Despite this, progress has stalled. The report highlights that few countries have included FLW reduction in their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement, and most rely on awareness campaigns or voluntary industry pacts rather than binding laws or fiscal measures.

Policy layering and weak coordination slow progress

The OECD warns that the proliferation of overlapping initiatives — what it calls “policy layering” — risks undermining effectiveness. Many countries now have five or more separate policy instruments to tackle food loss and waste, yet these are often implemented in isolation and without coordination across ministries or supply chain sectors.

“When strategies multiply without coherence, stakeholders struggle to understand what they are expected to do,” the report cautions.

Household and retail stages receive the strongest policy attention, typically through soft approaches such as public information campaigns and voluntary collaboration initiatives. By contrast, primary production and post-harvest handling — where substantial losses occur — receive far less policy focus.

Governance structures also complicate coordination, with responsibilities spread across ministries for agriculture, environment, and consumer affairs. This fragmentation makes it harder to track outcomes and assess which measures actually work.

Success stories: Japan, France, and Australia

The OECD points to several countries that have developed more coherent, measurable, and effective approaches.

Japan has made food loss measurement mandatory since 2000, carrying out regular sampling across the food processing, retail, and hospitality sectors. This long-term data collection has enabled Japan to set quantifiable targets and monitor private-sector performance.

France has taken a legislative approach, expanding its National Pact to Fight Food Waste to cover more stages of the food chain and more types of businesses, while linking waste reduction to food security and redistribution efforts.

Australia, meanwhile, emphasizes public–private partnerships that allow food industry stakeholders to develop innovative solutions, such as repurposing surplus food and valorizing by-products.

“These examples demonstrate that clear targets, stakeholder engagement, and regular evaluation can drive real progress,” the OECD report says.

O

n November 4, 2025, New Yorkers went to the polls to vote. Zohran Mamdani, a 34-year-old Ugandan native, won against Andrew Cuomo, a seasoned politician whose father and grandfather were prominent New York politicians. Mamdani won with 50.4% of the vote, a margin of almost nine points. He won 30% of the Jewish vote in the city. Mamdani campaigned on the issue of affordability and won by a landslide. This victory is significant for New York, the future of the Democratic Party, and the landscape of American politics.

Mamdani won in the city with the second largest Jewish population after Tel Aviv. This is quite telling. It indicates that Jews no longer support Israel as they used to. At the very least, it is no longer the main issue on which they base their vote. Mamdani has been a fierce critic of Israel. He not only criticized Israel’s behavior, he also marginalized the issue of Israel at the center of American politics.

During the debate, when asked where he would go on his first trip outside the U.S., Mamdani responded that, unlike the other candidates, he would not go anywhere because his mandate would be to take care of the city. He added that, if he wanted to meet with his Jewish constituents, he would meet with them in New York. He said he would visit their synagogues and homes. Basically, he was saying that Israel is a foreign policy issue outside his mayoral mandate. This was a departure from the typical American politician, for whom Israel is treated as a domestic issue.

An unprecedented win

Mamdani’s win in New York sets a precedent. New York is home to billionaires who are ardent Zionists, such as Michael Bloomberg, Rupert Murdoch, and Bill Ackman, among others. If Mamdani could defeat the Zionists in their stronghold, it will encourage others to confront the Zionists elsewhere. The Israel lobby is no longer the deciding factor in elections. This applies to both Democrats and Republicans.

We are starting to see members of Congress criticize Israel’s behavior in Gaza. More importantly, they are addressing the crux of the matter: the special relationship between Israel and the U.S. They are asking questions that, not long ago, were taboo: Why is the relationship with Israel so special? Is Israel really a strategic asset? Why are we spending our taxpayers’ money on Israel? Why? What are the benefits?

Marjorie Taylor Greene has accused Israel of war crimes and genocide. She and Thomas Massie have criticized the Israel lobby’s grip on Congress. They have demanded that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) register as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) so that pro-Israel lobbying would be treated like any other foreign lobbying. During a speaking engagement at Turning Point USA, J.D. Vance was asked about the special relationship with Israel and the usual unconditional support, to which he responded by dismissing it. He said that Israel is a country whose interests align with those of the U.S. at times and diverge at others. Expect an exponential increase in such comments and questions now that Mamdani has won.

Affordability issues for New Yorkers

Additionally, Mamdani’s campaign indicates people’s preferences. Mamdani did not campaign on ideological or foreign policy issues. In fact, when pressed by the Fox News anchor on whether Hamas should disarm, Mamdani said he had no opinion on the matter because he is focused on affordability issues for New Yorkers. Even those who are ideologically opposed to Mamdani agree that policymakers should focus on the American people first. Several figures on the left and right have criticized the U.S. government for funding wars and spending so much on foreign aid instead of focusing on domestic issues.

After September 11, the national debt increased tremendously, from around $5.7 trillion in 2000 to $38 trillion in 2025, according to some sources. The purchasing power of the average American has decreased, and the quality of life has deteriorated. Meanwhile, the gap between the rich and poor is growing wider. People like Musk, Ellison, and Zuckerberg are worth 300 to 400 billion, while the average American can’t make ends meet.

The average American cannot afford rent, send their children to college, or afford healthcare. Mamdani’s win is a wake-up call to the political class, which has become detached from the problems and concerns of ordinary people and focused on attracting the funding and support of big lobbies. AIPAC is probably the most influential of them all.

A transformative event for the Democratic Party

Mamdani’s victory is definitely a transformative event at the heart of the Democratic Party. It is the ultimate defeat for Schumers and Pelosis of the Democratic Party. Mamdani’s victory means the progressive wing has taken over the Democratic Party. More and more candidates with progressive agendas will emerge. Mamdani’s win means the Democratic Party’s audience is primarily progressive.

Mamdani’s win will energize the progressive wing of the Democratic Party and the MAGA wing of the Republican Party. People like Vance, Massie, and Marjorie Taylor Greene will become more influential and vocal, while traditional Republicans like Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio will lose prominence.

Mamdani’s win is transformative for both domestic politics and foreign policy. The American people want the political class to focus more on their day-to-day issues and livelihoods and less on foreign policy and ideological issues. This change in American voters’ preferences is a devastating blow to Israel. Israel cannot exist without American support. Mamdani’s win could be the first page in the last chapter of American support for Israel.

A

majority of Americans believe that all United Nations member states should recognize Palestine as a sovereign nation, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll released this week, as Israel and Hamas consider a possible ceasefire in the nearly two-year-long Gaza genocide.

The nationwide survey, conducted over six days and concluding Monday, found that 58% of respondents support universal recognition of a Palestinian state, while 33% opposed the idea and 9% expressed no opinion. The findings come at a time of mounting humanitarian concerns in Gaza and growing international pressure on Israel.

The poll revealed a sharp partisan divide on the issue. Among Democrats, support for Palestinian recognition was overwhelming, with 78% in favor. In contrast, only 41% of Republicans backed the move, while a narrow majority of 53% opposed it. Independents were more evenly split but leaned toward recognition.

The results suggest a gradual shift in U.S. public opinion, traditionally aligned with Israel, as the war drags on and civilian suffering escalates. Since October 7, 2023, Israel’s genocide has killed more than 62,000 Palestinians and displaced the majority of Gaza’s population, according to local health authorities.

Humanitarian concerns drive support for action

Beyond the question of statehood, the poll found that 65% of Americans believe the U.S. should take action to alleviate starvation in Gaza, a sentiment echoed by recent statements from Western allies including Britain, Canada, and Australia, which have warned of “unimaginable” humanitarian suffering in the enclave. Twenty-eight percent of respondents opposed U.S. intervention to prevent hunger, including 41% of Republicans.

The United Nations human rights office said this week that Israel has not allowed sufficient humanitarian supplies into Gaza to prevent famine.

The survey comes just weeks after Canada, Britain, and France announced their intention to recognize a Palestinian state, adding to Israel’s diplomatic challenges as it faces criticism over its military strategy and settlement expansion. On Wednesday, an Israeli government statement confirmed final approval for a contentious settlement plan cutting across occupied West Bank land sought by Palestinians for a future state.

Israel relies heavily on U.S. military aid and diplomatic backing, and analysts say declining American public support could carry long-term implications for this relationship.

U.S. policy still aligned with Israel—for now

Despite shifting public opinion, the Biden administration has maintained its stance that recognition of a Palestinian state should come through direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, not unilateral moves. Former President Donald Trump and many Republicans continue to prioritize an “America First” foreign policy, favoring cuts to overseas aid programs.

The poll suggests that Americans are increasingly critical of Israel’s conduct in Gaza: 59% said Israel’s military response has been excessive, up from 53% in a similar Reuters/Ipsos survey conducted in February 2024.

The online poll surveyed 4,446 adults across the United States and carries a margin of error of about 2 percentage points.

(Source: Reuters)

o

n March 2, Israel completely closed Gaza’s border crossings, preventing any food or lifesaving supplies from entering. More than four months later starvation and famine have spread throughout Gaza. People fainting and passing out on the street due to lack of food has become common. Most Palestinians in Gaza survive on one “meal” of canned food a day. Finding vegetables and fruits is a luxury – if they are available at all the prices are extremely high.

When I speak to people in Gaza, the stories I hear are heartbreaking. “The hardest I’ve seen since the famine began in Gaza was of two little girls, maybe five years old, each holding a small bag, searching for anything to eat through garbage,” said Samah Zaqout, speaking to me from Gaza. “I was in a car, and I couldn’t get out. Even if I had, how much could I really help? I have nothing to offer, literally there is no food to offer in Gaza. My family is surviving day by day on canned food. That day my family was cooking rice, trying to save what little flour we have for the day after. Even though I’m also caught in this loop of survival, I realized I’m luckier than many, including these two girls and many who succumbed to famine.”

Most of my family is still in Gaza. They tell me that they regularly receive requests for flour from friends and neighbors. They have always helped other families in the past, but this time, they don’t have the luxury of doing so. The flour they give away will not come back, and it cannot be replaced. A 25-kilogram sack of flour (about 55 pounds) costs around $700 in Gaza today. Prices are beyond imagination, and almost no one can afford them.

The world watches as Gaza starves

Gaza is starving while the world watches. No one has done enough to force Israel to allow critical humanitarian supplies in. Israeli officials such as Itamar Ben-Gvir, Bezalel Smotrich, and Miki Zohar have publicly supported the idea of starving Gaza, claiming it will push Hamas to surrender. This is a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions, which are intended to protect civilians from the effects of war and prevent the use of food as a weapon.

In Gaza, Palestinians seem to be an exception to the rules of international law. Some European capitals have called on Israel not to use starvation as a weapon of war. But words without action do nothing to satiate the hunger of Palestinians in Gaza. Under threat of sanctions, Israel reached an agreement with the EU to allow hundreds of aid trucks into Gaza; two weeks later this appears to be another false promise.

Even when food is available, accessing it can be deadly.

On May 7, an Israeli airstrike targeted a local market and two popular restaurants, the Thailandi and  Palmera, in Gaza City, killing 25 Palestinians. Photos emerged of injured Palestinians sitting around tables to eat. Another photo showed blood and broken glasses that appeared to be from a young woman who lost her life in the airstrike; blood-soaked slices of pizza were left on the table.

Death travels too fast in Gaza

On April 28, another Israeli airstrike hit a crowded café at the entrance of the Al-Nuseirat refugee camp, killing and injuring a dozen people. The scene was repeated: Palestinians sitting around a table amid debris, blood, and food and drink leftovers.

On July 1, Israel targeted the popular Baqa cafe in Gaza city, killing 37 Palestinians. Ten days later, the Israeli war machine killed 15 more Palestinians who lined up to get food supplements. Many of the victims in these attacks are children.

Death travels too fast in Gaza, and anyone can be a target, even people trying to get water. On July 13, Israel targeted a group of Palestinians who gathered to get water, killing 13 people, mostly children. The Israeli army said the airstrike was “a mistake” and the missile missed its target.

Israel has also recently targeted food distribution centers, rendering them unable to function. In Gaza City, an Israeli airstrike hit a food distribution center, and the next day, people tried to steal its contents. Is dying of hunger the only option for Palestinians? They have already exhausted all their energy against Israel’s relentless war machine.

A loaf of bread is a dream

The world cannot wait any longer to send humanitarian supplies to Gaza and stop the mass murder. There is no safe place in Gaza, and Palestinians should have better options than dying of starvation or being killed by warplanes.

Over two months ago, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) and the World Food Program (WFP) announced that their stockpiles of aid had depleted. UNRWA accused Israel of deliberately starving people in Gaza. It was clear that Israel’s policy of closing crossings and preventing the delivery of humanitarian supplies to Gaza would lead to this outcome. Yet little has been done by influential countries to end this policy. The number of malnourished children and adults has doubled in recent weeks, further signaling a looming catastrophe.

We are not even talking about meat, vegetables, fruits and clean water supplies. The dream of people in Gaza is to get a loaf of bread. As shocking as it sounds, the urgency of situation in Gaza means that our demands for a ceasefire and for allowing humanitarian supplies should be on the same level.

Muslims across the globe mark the Feast of Sacrifice, or Eid aladha, a four-day feast, which takes place a day after Muslim pilgrims stand on Mount of Arafa in the holy city of Mecca, a ritual that completes the last pillar in their annual pilgrimage.

In the Muslim faith, Eid aladha sees the slaughtering of animals such as sheep, cows, etc. which represents the experience of Prophet Ibrahim sacrificing his son as commanded to him by God in one of his dreams. When Abraham was about to go through with what he saw in his dream, a sheep ascended from the skies saving the son who had completely surrendered to his father’s will.

The Feast of Sacrifice is also a season for celebration. Muslim families gather and visit each other. It is an occasion for helping the poor and needy, whereby the meat of the slaughtered animals is given to those in need, to relatives and friends. The feast is a joyous celebration of family, and a reunion where families gather and social ties are strengthened.

Children wear new clothes and are given money and sweets by their elder family members. It is one of two major Muslim feasts, and, in fact, it is the bigger of the two, and is also known as the “Big Feast (Eid).”

This supposedly joyous celebration is a reminder of a different reality under Israel’s ongoing occupation of Palestine. Family reunions translate into a bitter reminder of separation and checkpoints, where Palestinians, if they are lucky enough to be able to meet in the first place, have to cross checkpoints to meet their loved ones. In the Gaza Strip, which has been under Israeli siege for 15 years, Palestinians are not allowed to travel to the West Bank, except for 400 permits that are given to Palestinians from Gaza who have families in the West Bank.

Israel’s repeated attacks on the Gaza Strip, such as the 2014 attack, serve as reminders of the bitter memory that some 2,200 Palestinians have been killed, including during Eids. My childhood friend Ayman Shokor was killed on the roof of his family house by a random Israeli shell on July 28, 2014, during Eid, and every Eid is just another reminder of this tragic reality. In fact, the first thing that Palestinians do after the Eid prayer is to visit the graves of those killed by Israel and their families, including those in Israeli jails. For many Palestinians, Eid is a reminder of a missing child who no longer shares the same family table.

It is almost impossible for Palestinians living in the West Bank to visit their family members in Israel or Jerusalem. The same applies to the Gaza Strip, where tens of thousands of Palestinians have family members in the West Bank. Having permits to visit family members in Israel for Palestinians from the Gaza Strip is a distant dream. The wish today in Palestine is that Eid passes without a new Israeli military occupation waged against them as the past few years have seen Israel targeting Palestinians during Eid, turning their joy into dismay.

The economic hardships experienced by the Palestinians as a result of the ongoing Israeli occupation serve as another reminder of their grim reality. It makes it almost impossible for the majority of families to buy Eid clothes for their children or slaughter an animal according to tradition. In a place like Gaza, where over one out of 2.3 million Palestinians live below the poverty line, the impact of the siege on celebrating Eid is very vivid. In fact, being able to preserve the meat without it going rotten is a challenge in itself as electricity is out some 12 hours a day.

Giving Palestinians permits during Eid will not end the occupation nor will it make Israel look more tolerant and helpful to the Palestinians. It is Israel that separates the Palestinians during Eid, and the world is increasingly aware of this occupation reality.

The international community should pressure Israel to allow Palestinians, regardless of where they live, to visit their loved ones during Eid without restrictions. Israel should remove all its checkpoints that are meant to remind Palestinians celebrating Eid of their reality under occupation where they lack freedom of movement. Eid is an occasion for Palestinians to get together and they should not be forced to remember their forced separation and the control system that Israel has imposed on them.

Palestinians have the right to celebrate Eid without having to shed tears over those killed or arrested by Israel. Seventy-four years under occupation have made Palestinians become more aware of what they have lost, even more so during Eid. A few days ago, Algeria commemorated its independence from France which took place on June 5, 1962. It is now time for the Palestinians to do the same—free of occupation and fear, and able to celebrate Eid with their loved ones.

On the early morning of February 24, Russia announced a “special military operation” in Ukraine, a move that was described by U.S., European, and other world leaders as a Russian invasion which the Kremlin had no right to carry out. On the same day, thousands of Russian citizens gathered in the squares of major cities chanting anti-war slogans.

The most massive anti-war protest was held in Moscow in Pushkin Square. It was joined by more than 2,000 people, mostly aged between 18 and 30. According to local reporters, around 20-30 people were detained by police. In St. Petersburg, on February 24, there were around 1,000 protesters, and nearly 250 were detained, including a deputy of the “Malaya Okhta” movement, which was founded by the deputy delegates of the district after which it was named. On the same day, the wave of protests swept across other Russian cities and regions including Yekaterinburg, Omsk, and East Siberia.

On Saturday, February 26, people in St. Petersburg and Yekaterinburg took to the streets again. Many chanted “Stop the war” and stated they were ashamed of Putin’s decision. On the same day, in Yekaterinburg, a group of people gathered for a demonstration supporting Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The sit-in was approved by the police.

The Russian police did not react as severely as was expected. Protesters in Yekaterinburg and Moscow said the police officers were more or less polite and did not behave violently. Yet, some brutal reactions by the police were reported by Oleg Dilimbetov, a Kommersant correspondent in St. Petersburg, who said they “grabbed everyone who took out a poster, broke into the chanting crowd, dragging people on the ground, including women.”

There were also anti-war protests in Russia on the Internet. A petition on Change.org, created on Thursday, February 24, demanding an “immediate ceasefire by the Russian armed forces and their withdrawal from the territory of the sovereign state of Ukraine,” gathered nearly 850,000 signatures with 300,000 people singing the petition in the first few hours of its launch. Among the signatories were renowned Russian actors, movie directors, cultural celebrities, politicians, and ordinary Russian citizens.

The nature of Russian anti-war protests

To understand the nature of the anti-war protests in Russia, it is enough to remember the close cultural and ethnic ties between Ukraine and Russia. At least one third of Russians have relatives in Ukraine, according to Levada-center, Russia’s major nongovernmental polling and sociological research organization. Many of those who took to the streets confirmed the same fact: they either had far or close family relationships with people in Ukraine, including the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk regions.

Second, protests in Russia were spontaneous and not organized. No one expected the situation to deteriorate so quickly. According to Andrey Rusakov, the director of the Center of European and Asian Studies at the Ural State University of Economics in Russia, the nature of protests does not have a systematic character.

Behind the 2014 public demonstrations, there were mainly economic reasons and mistrust against the authorities. Many people believed that Russia was organizing protests to distract people’s attention from the financial crisis and the significant drop of the Russian currency. Now, the anti-war protesters are against military action and the loss of human life.

What does Russia want? What do Russians want?

The nature of the Russia-Ukraine conflict in 2014 was different than the one we have today. The annexation of the Crimea, according to the Russian authorities, “was in full accordance with the international law and was without a single drop of blood.”

Today, the scale of the conflict is much larger. It is more than just Russia-Ukraine. While at the very beginning, there were two opposite social groups in Russia – the supporters and opponents of the military operation – now the general public attitude towards the war is negative.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky ended his emotional address to the Russian people, which he made in Russian, by asking, “Do Russians want war?” He stressed that Russians and Ukrainians are different, but that’s not a reason to be enemies.

“Note that I’m talking now [about Donbass] in Russian, but no one in Russia understands what these names, these streets mean to us; these names, these events are alien and unfamiliar to you. This is our land. This is our history. What will you fight for and with whom?” Zelensky added.

Yet, the speech of the Ukrainian president did not have much effect on Russian society. And here is why: Zelensky does not have much authority as a political leader among Russians. A comedic actor in the past, his speech seemed to mimic Putin’s style, something that many Russian users commented on under the video.

Second, Zelensky addressed the Russian people asking them to stop the war, but the decision to start the military operation was made solely by the Russian president, even without informing ministers who work closely with him. Looking back at the Crimea process, many Russians understand there is no going back from the current operation, whether they like it or not. As a result, there is a high degree of uncertainty and lack of information as to what might happen next.

The conflict between the “European” West and the “Russian” East in Ukraine goes back to the early 2000s, long before 2014. The southeast regions of Ukraine are behind the largest portion of the country’s budget but have traditionally been against joining NATO.

The western regions have supported EU integration and tended to stand apart from Russia in every possible way; for example, the national status of the Russian language in the western territories of Ukraine was abolished. Nationalism movements in Ukraine started in the early 2000s, and gradually became more influential among Ukrainian people.

As a result, people in western Ukraine started considering themselves as privileged, while residents in the east essentially provided for the economy but were treated as second-class citizens. This resulted in regular clashes between Ukrainians and the demonization of the country’s eastern parts, including Donetsk and Luhansk. After the annexation of Crimea by Russia, the conflict was further aggravated.

A possible scenario of ending the war today is admitting the “neutral status” of Ukraine, the phrase that has been used by Zelensky in his appeal for negotiations. Russian President Vladimir Putin responded immediately, suggesting a meeting of the two countries’ delegations in Minsk. According to Andrey Rusakov, Russia may also be planning to change the political regime in Ukraine with the assignment of a pro-Russian political figure.

Social media came with a lot of promise. Initially, there was a hope that we may be able to reclaim the public space that traditional, collectivist society had to cede to an increasingly individualist, modern one. But the digital bridges that social media platforms built, made each one of us even more distant, leaving us permanently settling on secluded islands.

In some ways, we parted from ourselves in the process. Today, we write odes to nature, we tweet eulogies to photographers, we sing praises to artists, but hardly ever take the time to live through the delightful experiences delineated in these depictions. The gracious warmth of the sun, the hesitant whispers of the caressing winds, the shy glimmer of the defiant moonlight, almost each and every expression of nature has lost its meaning in “our reality,” eclipsed by the virtual.

The rare instances where we do get a chance to be at one with nature are again taken over by an excruciating impatience to share our experience with our “network.” The obsession with taking the right shot of the ethereal glide of a seagull has taken precedence over absorbing the breathtaking beauty of its carefree flight, clipping our own wings.

Nature has become a mere instrument for our own celebration – a thinly-veiled narcissism. We have lost the ability to be where we presently are. We stay in a state of projection, obsessed with illusive ideations of the “shareability” of a sight, at the cost of appreciation of its subtleties in the present.

Unfortunately, the profound appreciation we crave for, artificial intelligence cannot deliver at its finest mirage. Perversely, more or less, every share on social media brings some form of anxiety. Sometimes it’s from eagerness for more shares. Sometimes it’s a concern about possible reactions. Sometimes it springs from envy, when a friend’s post steals the limelight. It’s like being in the spotlight 24/7.

Perversely, more or less, every share on social media brings some form of anxiety.

As almost all teenagers with access to a smart device use social media, this becomes all the more concerning. According to research, 3 in 4 persons who develop a psychological issue are diagnosed before their 18th birthday.

On the other side of the coin of this bizarre flaunting epidemic lies obnoxious abuse, which social media tends to reward. Anyone is free to say anything, as thoughtless as it might be, about one’s religion, ethnicity, or even appearance, irrespective of the veracity of the contention. The algorithms are sometimes designed to even pick “dislikes” or “angry” reactions as a form of engagement, amplifying the reach of fake, polarizing content.

On the other side of the coin of this bizarre flaunting epidemic lies obnoxious abuse, which social media tends to reward.

A particular form of abuse, “trolling,” is a deliberate attack on a person for maximum “likes” from a specific cluster of users. Much to one’s dismay, a troll could be a 14-year-old anonymous user or a 64-year-old “thinker” who enjoys maintaining a provocative persona. With a bizarre air of righteousness, they could troll someone to prove the superiority of their favorite cartoon character or to establish the inferiority of an ideology that half the world adheres to.

Disrespect, in this appalling virtual world, is a brand; words are a weapon; images are mere toys; and the ability to enrage others is a prized virtue. No wonder, trolling behavior has been found to be correlated with psychopathic tendencies, sadism, and Machiavellianism.

Predictably, instead of constructive engagement and building bridges,  social media have effectively divided people into clusters and subcultures. A person reveling in being celebrated online and drawing consolation from being connected to people around the world is sometimes just networking with the worst of the animal spirits within. They are sinking deeper and deeper into their own cluster, with the outside, diverse world, starting to feel more alien. This becomes a lifestyle eventually and has lifelong effects on a person’s ability to respect differences of opinion and build empathetic relationships.

Social media have contributed to developing an “information superstructure” which is more powerful than the political and judicial institutions of control.

Of course, social media has a potential for good too. It has sometimes shown promise against entrenched power structures in the world. In fact, it has risen as a significant challenge against oppressive states and obscene occupations the world over, sometimes catching them completely off guard.

Nevertheless, social media have contributed to developing an “information superstructure” which is more powerful than the political and judicial institutions of control – noble in name and carriage, but motivated by little other than profits at the base.

At the micro-level, it’s a quagmire, painstakingly developed by “attention engineers” to monetize the adrenaline of unsuspecting users and capitalize on the digital addiction it creates. That benign-sounding “suggested” content may change the course of one’s life, bit by bit, forever – a theme brilliantly covered in the award-winning documentary “The Social Dilemma” featuring a hair-raising, insider account of the nuts and bolts of the Big Tech.

It would take a miracle to go back from how far we have come. But social media companies – motivated by a model aptly described as “surveillance capitalism” by the Harvard professor Shoshana Zuboff – shouldn’t be given a blank check in programming behaviors and reshaping the globe. The world must come together to devise apolitical mechanisms to keep these tech giants in check, focusing foremost on psychological health and well-being at large. On the individual level, relatively active consumption of content, more perceptive interactions, and avoiding being sucked down the rabbit hole of arguing with the ultracrepidarian could be helpful.

In the final analysis, however, it may be said that whether or not we realize it, in this taxing world, every one of us is longing for a break: a deep silence in placid woods somewhere by a river, a moment of heartfelt love and overwhelming appreciation, either from us, or for us – things that social media, at best, can give us only a weak nostalgia for. If Wordsworth were here, he’d perhaps have rather written, “The digital world is too much with us.”

It was five a.m. in Gaza, Monday, May 18, 2021. Five of us were catatonic under our blankets. Five percent battery is left on the only mobile device we had in the house. Five missiles had fallen near my house since dawn. Five times per minute, I begged the ceiling of this room, “Don’t fall on our heads this dawn.” I was filled with regret and ended up looking at the ceiling of my room. I recalled the many times I stuck balloons on it. I wished that my ceiling would understand me and I could ask it to fall on our heads softly, so that it wouldn’t wake up my little sisters and scare them.

It is still five a.m. My mind is awake, but my body is lost. The only sensation is the heat of a fresh tear streaming down my face. Even this sensation is stale because this tear reoccurs regularly as I relive this nightmare for the fifth night. This tear is a reminder that it is time to say goodbye to everyone dear to my heart.

It is time I have to respond forcibly again to the continuous calls of an unwelcome visitor called “death.” Today is the 10th day of the war and I have slept limited hours. I woke up after two hours of sleeping to the sound of a bomb exploding nearby. This has become a daily routine since the first day of the war. I stretch my shoulders with my half-opened eyes, feeling so lucky the pillars of my house are still standing. The small bag where I have collected my ID, certificates, and pictures of my siblings and myself, my kindergarten graduation picture, the first stories I ever wrote, all the letters written by my friends, and 40 shekels I was given this Eid stays close to me, within sight.

Luckily, I can collect these concrete things, but there is no way to collect all the insignificant fights with my younger sisters, the giggles that filled this house, the tears we shed, and the prayers my mom said to make the pillars of my house stand. These warm memories are hidden in the corners of my house, between the empty spaces, and are held tightly in the hearts of everyone here. Like every morning in Gaza, I start my day by counting: I count five souls; I count five minds with an endless number of dreams that have never been fulfilled; I count five mouths that tell stories of evading imminent death for the thousandth time.

My little sister, Malak, 4, clings to my trousers asking me to stand by the bathroom door, to guard her. Shivering in fear, she begs me not to leave the doorway; she begs me not to leave her. This fear is all she knows. She will never know of the everyday luxuries that Gazans cannot afford to experience since the first day of war. My youngest brother, Ahmed, calls out that my sister’s milk has been boiled and is ready. Even a simple cup of milk carries with it the connotation of death in Gaza.

I lost my dad at the age of four; the same age Malak is today. To this day, I do not allow myself to remember the sound of his voice, or his laughter, or even his anger.

I remember the 2004 military operation in Rafah, which most people I know have never even heard about, let alone lived through. I recall sitting in my aunt’s lap, drinking a cup of milk, trying to cover with my gulps the nearby tank shell sounds. My aunt ordered me to cover my ears so I wouldn’t hear my father’s screams as he fought for his life right before my eyes. I lost my dad at the age of four; the same age Malak is today. To this day, I do not allow myself to remember the sound of his voice, or his laughter, or even his anger. The only recollection I have of my father is the murderous scene, and his pain, that I witnessed at four. To this day, I refuse to drink milk.

Many people, even those closest to me, do not understand the pain that I hide behind my eyes, behind my smiles, and my laughs. I have lived with a brutal pain since the age of four. I lost my dad in Operation Rainbow, during a barbaric Israeli assault carried out exclusively against the camp I lived in, Tal al-Sultan.

I have created unforgettable memories with my dearest friends, having forced a smile onto my face to hide the great loss I’ve witnessed all my life. I’ve fooled my teachers, my colleagues, students, and strangers with these forced smiles and hollowed laughs. Behind my face of painted content, I hide the face sculpted by an ugly occupation. I am sorry to all who know me, but I am not sorry to the world. This is the brutal reality of occupation.

I used to spend my day during wars glued to news channels, reading mystery and crime books, tweeting, and making sure my dear ones are still alive.

Sometimes, you can’t afford to speak. Pain is born secretively within us, and sometimes a pain is so big it can only be handled individually. Speaking about it requires bravery.

I used to spend my day during wars glued to news channels, reading mystery and crime books, tweeting, and making sure my dear ones are still alive. It’s evening now. Evening has been the ghost that Gazans fear. The evening collects souls in their homes. But now, the daytime is no different. Bombs drop day and night.

The only difference is the morning is more trusting. “Sahar, don’t forget to wear your abaya before you sleep,” my mother and every mother in Gaza repeats every night. I wear my abaya with my hijab, and put the slippers in a way that makes it easy for us to run away if needed.

It was two a.m. when the Israeli occupation forces shelled Kullab’s family house in Tal al-Sultan camp located in the city of Rafah without any warning, only 20 meters from where I live. The sound of the barrel bombs fire cannot be described in words. I can still hear the ominous sound buzzing in my ears and my mom yelling to us to evacuate immediately. Here in Gaza, we are not being bombed because we are engaging with the enemy or because a rocket was launched over “Israel.” We are bombed and wiped from history simply because we exist in Gaza.

I counted the souls again, wore the backpack, and retreated downstairs in a blink of an eye. We were not alone running in the streets, all of us heading to the unknown. Fortunately, we could see the roads clearly enough because the bombs in the sky gave the illusion of daylight.

After a quarter of an hour of being lost in the chaos, we found a place to stay at a friend’s house. Our eyes did not even blink that night; none of us were able to sleep till the sound of bombs temporarily stopped. Two hours later, we returned to our home. “We shall meet soon, dear friends,” I said.

When I returned back home and turned on my laptop, a barrage of messages flooded my screen and eyes. Sahar, are you okay? Sahar, I heard your name on the radio reporting the latest shelling! Sahar, I’ve been trying to reach your mom since yesterday! Dozens of messages that could be reduced to the same question: are you alive? I was counted dead for more than 10 hours as a result of the misspelling of my last name. I burst into tears and was torn into millions of unseen shadows. I responded to the first message I saw in my inbox: Survivor Number Five.

In recent weeks, Tripoli has seen a steady stream of visits by European officials after the Government of National Unity (GNU) won the confidence of the Libyan parliament to lead the country to elections in late December of this year.

At a time when the new Libyan government is rejoicing in a diplomatic watershed – illustrated by the intense schedule of visits to Tripoli by foreign dignitaries – the need for EU members to boost relations with Libya is already emerging as one of the most acute foreign policy challenges. Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis’ visit to the Libyan capital on April 6, demonstrated the difficulty of this task.

“Let those who tried to question our relations in the past stay back,” said Mitsotakis during his meeting with his Libyan counterpart, Abdel Hamid Dbeibah, who was appointed in February to head the new Government of National Unity bringing together representatives from the west and east of the country for the first time since 2014.

In 2019, Faiz al-Sarraj’s Government of National Accord (GNA), backed by Turkey, had driven General Haftar’s forces out of western Libya. To further the cooperation and in exchange for vital support for the GNA, al-Sarraj signed two memoranda of understanding, “The Security and Military Cooperation” and “Restriction of Marine Jurisdictions,”  with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Istanbul on November 28, 2019.

Mitsotakis asked Tripoli “to cancel the illegal documents presented as agreements between states when they have no legal value.” But days after his short visit, Erdoğan and Dbeibah reaffirmed their commitment to the “Restriction of Marine Jurisdictions” agreement.

This angered some of their neighbors in the Eastern Mediterranean as well as some EU members who were willing “to circumvent the agreement if it cannot be cancelled” as a European diplomat told Le Monde. Erdoğan and Dbeibah also signed numerous agreements following one-on-one and inter-delegation talks.

Italian Foreign Minister Luigi Di Maio said that Italy and the United States have “a common concern about the presence of foreign forces, both Russian and Turkish, in Libya,” meaning that there is a perception of “stronger” cooperation between the two countries on this matter.

Europe has recently shown interest in the upcoming elections in Libya.

During a meeting in Washington on Monday with his U.S. counterpart Antony Blinken, the two officials discussed the importance of the “full implementation of the ceasefire in Libya and the holding of elections [scheduled for December 24] on time.”

Europe has recently shown interest in the upcoming elections in Libya. Last month, the Libyan High National Electoral Commission held a meeting attended by foreign ministers from Italy, Germany, and France. The commission said the ministers “continued to support the commission in carrying out the elections scheduled for December 24 of this year.”

On Tuesday, French Ambassador to Libya, Béatrice Le Fraper du Hellen, signed an agreement with Gerardo Noto, the resident representative of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) in Libya, by which

France pledged to contribute one million euros to support the UNDP project “Promoting Elections for the Libyan People,” bringing the total funds contributed by France to the said project to 1,850,000 euros. This is particularly interesting after France backed General Haftar with military support during his 2019 attempt to take over Tripoli.

In many ways, Libya presents unparalleled benefits to EU members and the ongoing EU diplomatic efforts are proof of Europe’s interest in the political upturn in this neighboring country after a decade of chaos.

Mahmoud Hijazi was the first Palestinian political prisoner to be freed from an Israeli jail on April 17, 1971. On March 22, 2021, he passed away in the West Bank city of Ramallah aged 85. Since his release and deportation to Lebanon at the time, April 17 has been marked as the Palestinian Prisoners’ Day. Despite its immense importance to Palestinians and the fact that more than a million Palestinians have been arrested by Israel since 1967, the issue of Palestinian political prisoners in Israeli jails has not won enough global publicity, and is not adequately reflected in Palestinian politics.

While researching the issue, I was shocked by the immense suffering and torment prisoners and their families have been subjected to throughout the years. Today, many in the West know Bobby Sands, the Irish prisoner who passed away in 1981 while on hunger strike, but few know Marwan Barghouti, a veteran Palestinian prisoner and political leader. Palestinian political prisoners have many stories that the world needs to hear. They might hold the key today to many problems that will impact the course of events in Palestine for years to come.

A few years ago, I had the chance to interview former Palestinian political prisoner Muhammad Abushawish, a neighbor, novelist, and avid cat lover. Abushawish passed away in April 2020 due to illness and health complications resulting from his incarceration in Israeli prisons that lasted a total of 14 years. Abushawish was arrested seven times by the Israeli military; at his first arrest, he was only six years old.

Abushawish’s wish was to bring his jailers and interrogators to account before it was too late. He wrote a novel in Arabic documenting his torture in Israeli prisons titled Before My Tormentor Is Dead. However, he passed away before he could confront his and other Palestinian political prisoners’ tormentors – the least of his tortures involved lighting a match under his genitals.

The story of Abushawish is not different from that of Ahmad Alhaaj, now 87 years old, who was arrested in 1967 by the Israeli military and imprisoned for nearly three years.

The story of Abushawish is not different from that of Ahmad Alhaaj, now 87 years old, who was arrested in 1967 by the Israeli military and imprisoned for nearly three years. While in jail, he was subjected to hanging and torture that made him lose his consciousness. Jokingly, his jailers used to offer him a pair of left socks to use because he was a leftist. Today, Alhaaj is as determined as when he first left to return to his village of Al-Sawafir in what is today Israel – imprisonment has not made him change his mind.

As of March 2021, according to Addameer, a Palestinian prisoner support and human rights association, there are 4,450 Palestinian political prisoners detained by Israel. Of these prisoners, 33 have spent more than 25 years in jail, 543 are serving life sentences, 300 are from Jerusalem, 250 are from the Gaza Strip, 70 hold Israeli citizenship, 140 are child prisoners, 37 are women, and 440 are administrative detainees.

Al-Jabis was arrested in 2018 and sentenced to 11 years in jail. She suffers from third degree burns and is the victim of medical negligence according to her family. Nearly 60% of her body is covered in burns and she has lost two of her fingers. Israel accuses her of attempting to carry out a vehicle-ramming attack.

However, al-Jabis denies the accusation, stating that her car caught fire and when she attempted to get out, Israeli forces at a nearby checkpoint locked the door and prevented her from doing so, causing her serious burns. Along with the issue of female prisoners, administrative detention is one of the most challenging forms of arrest for Palestinians.

Administrative detention is one of the most unjust systems used by Israel against Palestinian prisoners.

Administrative detention is one of the most unjust systems used by Israel against Palestinian prisoners. Having its legal roots in the practices of British colonial rule in Palestine, the Israeli authorities use this law to detain Palestinians without charge or trial for indefinite periods of time. Their detention can be renewed every six months, they are never charged or convicted, and are detained based on “secret evidence.” Some Palestinians have been held in administrative detention for up to 15 years without a single charge.

Palestinian children have not been spared Israeli detention either. The torment of Palestinian children in Israeli jails might sound shocking to many. Malak al-Khatib was only 14 years old when she was arrested in 2015 by Israeli forces as she unknowingly entered a closed Israeli military zone while attempting to pick a wildflower on her way back from school. She served two months in prison before being released.

According to Israeli law, which does not apply to Israelis who live in the West Bank, Palestinians under the age of 16 are considered children. Palestinian children are tried before a kind of military court where they are handed down harsher sentences. These children, just like adults, are detained outside the Palestinian Territories in violation of the Geneva Conventions. Some of them are placed under house arrest by Israeli courts, where their families become their own jailers, fearing having to pay fines if their children leave the house.

In 2015, Ayman Abbasi, a former Palestinian child prisoner, was shot dead in Jerusalem during a peaceful protest against Israeli policies. The Israeli army tried to kidnap his body to use it in future swap deals with the Palestinians. This policy, which has been in place for years, amounts to collective punishment. Mourners tried to smuggle Abbasi’s body, jumping from one wall to another, and managed to bury him before the Israeli forces were able to succeed in their plans. Yet, this meant that his family was not able to bid him a final farewell.

Despite the existence of many tragic stories, some Palestinian prisoners were able to turn their prison cells into schools. There are several examples of Palestinian prisoners who were able to finish their bachelor and master’s degrees while incarcerated. However, several years after its launching, the Israeli Prison Service (IPS) suspended all access to education for Palestinian prisoners. Palestinian prisoner Hilal Jaradat from the West Bank city of Jenin, who was deported to Gaza upon release in 2011, managed to learn 16 different languages while in prison.

The leaders of Pakistan’s main opposition parties gathered and formed the Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) in September 2020, accusing Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan of having a strong connection with the country’s military.

According to the opposition, democracy is under a serious threat if the current government proceeds in its cooperation with the army. Nationwide protests erupted across Pakistan with supporters of the two main opposition parties, Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), protesting against the military establishment’s involvement in politics.

The two main opposition parties have claimed that the country’s army brought Imran Khan into power. On September 16, 2020, a bill was introduced by Khan’s government which punishes anyone who intentionally defames or ridicules Pakistan’s army. The main purpose of the bill is to prevent “hate speech” against the armed forces. According to the opposition, however, this shows how the military establishment in Pakistan is strengthening its grip on power.

The Pakistani opposition had formerly claimed that an excessive number of troops was deployed inside the polling stations during the general elections of 2018. They claimed this showed the army’s powerful support for Imran Khan and that, therefore, the election was rigged.

Imran Khan’s party, Pakistan Movement of Justice (PTI), denied these claims by arguing that the presence of the army was to maintain law and order, and to ensure the transparency of the elections. The military presence, they argued, was only for the peaceful transition of power as general elections in Pakistan never go smoothly, opposition parties always claim that the elections are rigged, the elections are followed by protests, etc.

Military men rising in Pakistan’s bureaucracy

The number of governmental and private institutions run by persons who have a military background has been increasing since Khan was sworn into office. For example, retired Lt. Gen. Asim Saleem Bajwa was appointed by Khan as the chairman of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) authority and Pakistan’s ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Bilal Akbar, is a former three-star general. However, the latter was a reciprocal step as the Saudi ambassador to Pakistan, Nawaf bin Said Al-Malki, is also a former navy officer.

According to the opposition in Pakistan, foreign actors sometimes approach the army directly whenever they are on an official visit and this gesture runs against democracy.

According to the opposition in Pakistan, foreign actors sometimes approach the army directly whenever they are on an official visit and this gesture runs against democracy. However, PTI officials reject these claims by saying that although undoubtedly Pakistan’s army is an integral part of the Pakistani government, it’s an autonomous institution. They claim that the Khan administration has the same sort of relations with the armed forces as with other state institutions.

Pakistan is surrounded by its adversaries, and in particular India, so security is an inevitable part of Pakistan’s foreign policy. Speaking to Al Jazeera, Fawad Chaudhry, Pakistan’s federal minister of science and technology, said, “As far as Pakistan’s border security and territorial integrity are concerned, army and politicians should be on a mutual platform against India’s intentions to create chaos in Pakistan by sabotaging the CPEC project as well as supporting the BLA [Balochistan Liberation Army]. Army officials are strategically experienced and and disciplined in making decisions under alarming situations – there is no harm if the government moves forward with harmony with the military.”

Only 11 years after its independence, in 1958, Pakistan saw its very first military coup.

Pakistan has a decades-long history of army interference in civilian governments. Only 11 years after its independence, in 1958, Pakistan saw its very first military coup. Following this, there were two more coups, in 1977 and 1999. On other occasions, the Pakistani military explicitly ceased the government or enforced martial law.

Although Pakistan was established as a democratic country, in the 73 years since Pakistan emerged on the world map, almost half of this time has been under the rule of military administrations. Undoubtedly, the army has played an effective role in the political history of Pakistan.

Along with the failed coup attempts, the Pakistani army dissolved assemblies and removed civilian leaders from office several times. What is more, whenever martial law was announced in Pakistan, the military always stayed in power for a long period as compared to the democratically elected governments.

Despite long years of military rule, the Pakistani public has embraced army rule more enthusiastically than civilian governments. People love the army-run governments because according to them, Pakistan has developed more under martial law. Nonetheless, army rule is not acceptable for a democratic country as it increases the possibility of a dictatorship or totalitarianism.

Pakistani citizens love the military but there seems to be a wrong correlation between loving the country’s army and supporting a military administration in a democratic country. It is true that Pakistan has experienced economic growth under military governments, and this has helped create a positive image and legitimacy in the eyes of the public. For example, economic growth has always been higher under military rule as opposed to civilian rule.

Yet, certain military reigns overwhelmingly blackened the country’s image such as the results of the military operation carried out in 2004 under General Musharaf. Thereafter Pakistan started facing terrorism threats by Taliban attacks. During that time, the West started labelling Pakistan as a safe haven for terrorism.

When in 1948 Zionist militias invaded the village of Aqer, where my family is originally from, my great-grandfather was one of a few poorly equipped fighters who tried to stop the invading forces. The fighters took up posts at the village school, located nearly a kilometer from the village.

Soon after, and after some resistance, the invading militia took over the school, killing the fighters who remained inside, including my great-grandfather, who was found dead inside the building. My grandfather buried his father in the village graveyard only to become a refugee for the rest of his life in Gaza days later.

A few years later, my uncle Ahmed, named after my great-grandfather, received an unexpected visitor at his Gaza clinic. The visitor was the person who had found my great-grandfather’s body decades ago at the village school. He had kept some of my great-grandfather’s belongings for decades and was looking for my family so as to return them. When he met my uncle, he gave him a pocket watch that had belonged to my great-grandfather and which he had kept for nearly three decades.

He told my uncle the story behind the pocket watch and this story has been passed down orally in my family from generation to generation. The picture of my great-grandfather still hangs on the walls of my extended family’s home in our refugee camp in Gaza.

It was land that pushed my great-grandfather to fight the invading Zionist militias in 1948, although he knew that a few fighters would not be able to stop an invading army. His love of the land and his understanding of the meaning of life with and without it was his sole motivation.

My great-grandfather bled to death defending the village land, of which, ironically, he owned nearly none. He was a peasant, working for rich families which owned much of the village’s land. But for him, his love of the land was unconditional – and this land that he loved and tried to protect was not a mere commodity.

Although in today’s world these documents prove ownership, Palestinian society’s relationship to land goes beyond official papers.

Today, many Palestinians try to prove their ownership of land, which amounted to a total of 13 million dunums in 1947, by presenting documents given to them by the colonial British authorities. What if Palestinians didn’t have these documents? Would it mean that their rights to their land are null and void? Clearly not.

Although in today’s world these documents prove ownership, Palestinian society’s relationship to land goes beyond official papers. The relationship a peasant has with the land is like the relationship between a mother and her children. It is deep and interconnected in a way that a settler-colonial society can never understand.

It was land that pushed Palestinians on March 30, 1976 to protest Israel’s confiscation schemes in the Galilee, with the Israeli forces eventually killing six Palestinians living in Israel and injuring 50 others. Since then, Land Day has been marked on March 30 every year.

In 2018, Land Day took a dramatic turn when a group of Palestinians erected tents at the eastern borders of the Gaza Strip and were joined by hundreds of thousands of refugees from the coastal enclave.

In 2018, Land Day took a dramatic turn when a group of Palestinians erected tents at the eastern borders of the Gaza Strip and were joined by hundreds of thousands of refugees from the coastal enclave. The tent-protest became known as the “Great March of Return” and continued for months at the Gaza fence.

According to the United Nations, since the outbreak of the Great March of Return, 214 Palestinians have been killed, of whom 46 were children, and nearly 36,000 others have been injured. Palestinians, mostly refugees, staged the protest to call for the return to their towns and villages, some of which appear on the horizon as they look east and north of Gaza.

It was land that motived them to start this largely non-violent protest which was met with Israeli fire and snipers. Israel has claimed the lives of hundreds of Palestinians at the Great March of Return, and thousands more lives before and since then. But it is beyond doubt, that Israel has failed to erase the love in the hearts of all Palestinians for their land.

I have seen this love and dedication in my visit to Hawaii in the United States. The Kanaka Maoli, the Native Hawaiians, have a special relationship with the land or, as they call it, Aina. “Aloha ‘Aina,” they declare every day, peace and love to the land. The Kanaka Maoli believe that there are hundreds of thousands of elements in nature, which come together to make the land.

In Hawaii, I was introduced to the notion that a people on their land can’t be homeless, but rather they are houseless. Palestinians, too, relate to this notion of homelessness and houselessness. In fact, this was the exact reason why my great-grandfather fought for a land of which he owned very little and was willing to make the ultimate sacrifice in its defense.

The question that remains unanswered today is when will land in Palestine, which Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish said, “was created for peace but never saw peace,” finally see peace? In the words of Darwish, this land is “what makes life worth living” and despite confiscation and occupation, Palestinians today express their unyielding generational connection to their land by marking Land Day on March 30.

This connection lives on and grows despite all attempts made by Israel to make Palestinians aliens on their own land – be it in Gaza, the West Band, or what is today Israel.

Time has proven that the more Palestinians stay away from their land, the more they become attached to it. That’s why when Palestinian refugees manage to visit Palestine using a passport that allows them to do so, the first thing they do is pick up a grain of sand and bring it back with them.

It is the land that has always connected Palestinians with the notion of home – not walls, not houses, not debris or bricks. For this reason, demolishing Palestinian houses may make Palestinians houseless, but they will never be homeless or landless. Because our home is our land.

On February 5, the judges of the International Criminal Court (ICC) announced their decision that the court holds jurisdiction over war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Palestine. While the court did not elaborate on what steps would follow, it is expected that international criminal investigations will be commenced, and that, potentially, Israelis (and Palestinians) guilty of crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court will be indicted and, hopefully, put on trial.

Understandably, there has been great excitement for this decision amongst human rights advocates and proponents of Palestinian rights, especially because it comes after a long period of foot-dragging on the part of the ICC. People have been disappointed before – the ICC Prosecutor repeatedly refused to investigate the Freedom Flotilla case, where Israeli commandos had forcibly stopped ships with humanitarian supplies headed for Gaza and killed ten persons in international waters.

Instead of examining the case in the context of the ongoing blockade of Gaza by Israel and the many violations inflicted upon the population of that territory, the prosecutor viewed the incident in isolation, and stated that the gravity of the violations did not reach the level required by the ICC Rome Statute.

In late 2019, on the basis of a protracted, nearly five-year-long preliminary investigation, the prosecutor stated she was “satisfied” that war crimes were being committed in Palestine. However, in recognition of the “unique and highly contested legal and factual issues” with regard to Palestine, she requested the court to ascertain whether the ICC did indeed have jurisdiction over Palestine – a move that, in the eyes of many, appeared as an attempt at passing the hot potato. Many feared another disappointment, and have been elated with the recent decision.

There is no question that the decision of the ICC is an extremely positive development. Israel and its allies in the United States and other Western countries go to great pains to present the situation in Palestine as a battle of democracy against “Islamofascist terror,” one that can only be solved by total annihilation of the enemy.

Conversely, many do-gooders in the West perceive Palestine merely as a humanitarian crisis that can be solved by development aid for poor Palestinians, or as one requiring “conflict resolution” interventions where Jews and Arabs hug each other in workshops, and all is well.

When it comes to the treatment of Palestinians, impunity permeates all levels of the Israeli political and military apparatus.

All of these narratives are, of course, false – Palestine is a human rights crisis, which is characterized by impunity for the violators of human rights. Resolution obviously requires a political solution, but eradicating impunity and punishing persons guilty of human rights violations and war crimes must be at the core. It is not only that lasting peace requires justice – justice is in and of itself a vital goal.

Impunity in Israel for human rights violations

When it comes to the treatment of Palestinians, impunity permeates all levels of the Israeli political and military apparatus. From the lowest-ranking soldier in the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) who shoots and kills Palestinians without justification, to the IDF general who orders the bombing of civilian homes, to the political leaders who incite genocide and instruct the building of Israeli colonies on stolen Palestinian land, the chances of being held to account have, up to this point, been practically zero.

A stark example of the situation is the case of Elor Azaria, an IDF soldier who was caught on video executing a wounded, defenseless Palestinian in the city of Hebron. Though international pressure forced the IDF to arrest and try him, thousands of Israelis demonstrated in his support, and Prime Minister Netanyahu and other ministers demanded leniency. He was eventually released after only nine months and became a hero in many quarters of Israeli society, appearing on television as a political consultant in recent elections.

Propaganda about the “only democracy in the Middle East” aside, it is clear that Israel will not hold violators to account. Therefore, it is vital that the ICC take the necessary action to punish offenders. Make no mistake: the Israeli military and political elite is aware of the great dangers international justice poses. Unsurprisingly, Israel is not state party to the ICC, nor is the United States, but 123 countries are. Should the ICC issue indictments, every one of those states would be under a legal obligation to arrest the suspect, making travel to those countries impossible.

Though not stated in so many words, the land that was occupied (and subjected to the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians) by Zionist forces in 1948 is recognized as the sovereign territory of Israel, and is therefore not part of the equation.

High-ranking IDF officers are already issued with a special emergency number, should they be arrested while traveling abroad, and there are special teams of lawyers ready to jump to their defence. That this is all being done proves that Israel sees the writing on the wall. Do not believe the bravado of Netanyahu and others: the prospect of being hauled to court in The Hague keeps them up at night.

The shortcomings of international efforts: the injustice of the “two-state solution”

The decision of the ICC is, therefore, an important, positive step towards addressing impunity in Palestine. At the same time, it is worth pointing out that it has a serious shortcoming, namely that it covers only the portion of Palestine occupied by Israel in 1967, i.e. Gaza and the West Bank (which includes East Jerusalem). The ICC states explicitly that its jurisdiction extends only to those territories, and that it is only able to adjudicate violations that took place there.

Though not stated in so many words, the land that was occupied (and subjected to the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians) by Zionist forces in 1948 is recognized as the sovereign territory of Israel, and is therefore not part of the equation. Even though Palestinians with Israeli citizenship (‘48 Palestinians’) live under a discriminatory regime with similar rights violations as Palestinians in the 1967 lands, and even though Palestinian refugees continue to suffer the violation of their internationally recognized right to return to their homes, those issues are not looked at as relevant.

Of course, as a legal matter, the ICC is correct: the state party to the ICC is the State of Palestine as recognized by the United Nations General Assembly in 2012. Since that state is based on the Oslo framework, its territory can include only the land occupied by Israel in 1967 (a mere 22 percent of historic Palestine).

Indeed, that the right of Palestinians to self-determination is only to be recognized in territory occupied since 1967 (and, so it is suggested, no further) is stated clearly in numerous UN resolutions on the issue, including the one adopted by the General Assembly admitting Palestine as an observer state.

Herein lies the real problem with international efforts on the issue of Palestine: from the get-go, the so-called international community has de facto recognized the ethnic cleansing of 1948 and accepted the state of Israel. By doing so, it has failed to protect the rights of the Palestinian people.

UN General Assembly Resolution 181, the “Partition Resolution,” is a stark example. At the time of the resolution, Palestinians comprised approximately two-thirds of the population of Palestine, and owned approximately 93 percent of the land. Despite these undisputed facts, the UN’s great idea was to split the country and create two states, with Palestinians asked to give over half of the land to Zionist settlers who had recently arrived from Europe.

Though manifestly unjust, this “two-state solution” has been the framework for international intervention in Palestine to this day – indeed, now the Palestinians are expected to settle for even less than the Partition Plan of 1947.

Undeniably some genocides are accorded more importance than others, explaining the wealth of material on the Second World War compared to other genocides. Funding and scholarships are more easily available for activities related to research and dissemination in the context of the most ‘popular’ genocides, and academic conferences tend to set themes and titles alluding more directly to them.

By now, the rational of this bias is widely explained by the following: first, that the Great White-Northern Powers had and have ongoing connections, in terms of family, religion, culture, or otherwise, to the genocide that took place between 1939-1945—it was after all a genocide committed by Europeans on Europeans in Europe.

Second, by the fact that purely charitable actions are rare, and that if the Great White-Northern Powers are to direct time, energy and other resources into halting genocide, they should have vested interests therein.

Third (another way of phrasing the second) that the Bismarckian concept of realpolitik, that is of adopting strategic interests over moral and ideological ones, aptly explains the conduct of the super powers so far, especially in their decisions to intervene (or not to) in countries plagued by genocide.

All of this may also expound the outright neglect of ongoing genocides (currently the Uyghurs in China and Rohingyas in Myanmar) because tackling them more directly wouldn’t benefit the interests of the Great White-Northern Powers. Interfering with the internal affairs of another state by prodding it to stop persecuting its people may make an enemy of it for instance.

The Doctrine of (State) Sovereignty signifies that neither a state, nor an entity, not even an international one may have an upper-hand over a state in ‘telling it what to do’, preventing even the powerful from intervening—often alluded to as the ‘sovereignty problem’. This often likens the international legal system to a toothless tiger.

History has shown that a state must be thoroughly broken, its government quasi absent for another to intervene and set it in order. Moreover reticence over intervention is explained by the fact that pointing fingers at one state may cause it in turn, if comparably powerful, to point fingers back.

For these reasons, attaching the label of genocide on the conduct of a government is treated with caution. Understanding these dynamics at work is not hard if a parallel is drawn with the way people act towards one another in the upkeep of their relationships.

In lieu of affixing the label of ‘genocide’, euphemisms such as ‘cleansing’, ‘ethnic cleansing’, ‘mass killings’, ‘mass atrocity’ are resorted to.

The atrocities in Srebrenica were also denied the label by the UN, despite recognition by the ICTY and ICJ; instead Kofi Annan referred to it as a ‘massacre’. Rewind a few decades, this was equally a disaster for Cambodia where the Khmer Rouge regime, an ally of China, and hence not of the US, was given recognition in the UN General Assembly soon after its horrendous perpetrations between 1975-1979, despite appeals by other governments decrying its actions.

Equally noteworthy is how the label of genocide is never associated with the acts of the United States, and usually with those of its enemy.

The bias of international courts and organisations towards the superpowers, in particular the United States, cannot be denied.

Equally noteworthy is how the label of genocide is never associated with the acts of the United States, and usually with those of its enemy (or the enemy of another superpower), indicative of how biased the perception is of who is ‘evil’ and who is not. Thus all the principal international bodies have by now labelled the perpetrations of the Khmer Rouge regime as genocide, while sparing the United States of all accusations despite their perpetrations in Cambodia when they waged war against neighbouring Vietnam.

A similar approach was adopted in relation to Iraq under the governance of Saddam Hussein, while the US escaped punishment despite perpetrations that led to the killing of civilians in the country.

Without a doubt, many of the criminal and condemnable actions of the superpowers are left unpunished, and the politics of genocide are such that these states continue to exert influence over international decision-making, and indirectly, over international courts of law (ICC, ICJ, ICTY).

The recent elaborate rhetoric on the ‘responsibility (of states or other organisations) to protect (others)’ does not seem to have the intended effect on the superpowers which firstly, are still immune when they operate as perpetrators, and secondly have enough leeway to pick and choose when and where they will intervene in fulfilling their responsibility to protect.

The contrast in the treatment of the uprisings in Libya and Sri Lanka as an illustration of the above, is on point. (The United States’ long-standing animosity towards the Middle East is also all the more evident in this case.) Despite the Sri Lankan government’s assault on the Tamil civilians between 2008-2009, Ban Ki-Moon failed to mobilise the UN, attracting criticism by Amnesty International.

In fact the UN Panel of Experts did not make a recommendation to the ICC to launch an investigation for the mass killings even as ‘no-fire zones’ were turned into ‘free-fire’ ones. In contrast, in the case of Libya, Ban Ki-Moon as well as the High Commissioner for Human Rights condemned the Gaddafi regime within days, and an investigation was quickly carried out by the ICC, including the issuance of arrest warrants for Gaddafi, his son, and brother-in-law.

As to the decision on the intervention in Libya, Obama conveniently played his trump card by evoking the desire of the United States to protect states in need of help, saying: ‘Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.’

As a reminder of the directive power of realpolitik, and that no actions are completely charitable as mentioned above, in the same statement Obama went on to mention America’s strategic interests in intervening in Libya.

He highlighted how war in Libya would drive refugees out into neighbouring countries and put a strain over the fragile transitions in Egypt and Tunisia. (It is doubtful that the strategic interests spelled out would be limited to just that.) Such are the dynamics that summarise the treatment of the label of genocide, and the politics involved therein.

So far the main tactic in avoiding the label of genocide in court settings has been to prove the absence of genocidal intent: this has been done by showing that acts of murder were a ‘war act’ rather than part of a larger programme to get rid of a group, an ethnicity, or a genus. As Samantha Power wrote in A Problem from Hell, promises resonating with the slogan ‘Never Again’ have been made by each incumbent President of the United States, but never held.

In what seemed a surprising move, the Palestinian Authority (PA) president Mahmoud Abbas issued a decree on January 15, announcing that general elections will take place in Palestine this year. The elections, which are the first of their kind in 15 years, will be held on three phases: Palestinian Legislative Elections (PLC) on May 22, 2021; presidential elections on July 31, 2021; and Palestinian National Council (PNC) elections on August 31, 2021.

The move was welcomed by Hamas, Abbas’s main rival. It was a surprise for many Palestinians who have witnessed Palestinian reconciliation talks taking place over the last 14 years in several capitals, including most recently in Istanbul and Cairo, with no tangible results.

The election decree by the PA president raised many questions in terms of its timing and practicality. Is it possible to hold elections in a Palestine under occupation, including Jerusalem, without ending the Palestinian national rift? The answer is “yes” according to the decree, but this plan will likely face many challenges on the ground.

Will Israel Allow Elections in Jerusalem?

Israel, which won a long-awaited U.S. recognition of its sovereignty over Jerusalem, will most likely decline the PA’s request to hold the election there. Israel approved the Palestinian elections in Jerusalem in 2006 under U.S. pressure, which will not be the case this time. In 2006, the U.S. plan was to include Hamas in the political process in an attempt to tame it, which proved unsuccessful – to the contrary, Hamas has grown more stubborn over the years.

The Palestinian elections this year, unlike 2006, will be held according to the list proportional representation system, where voters will choose whole lists of political parties rather than individual candidates in specific electoral districts.

In 2006, the voting system was 50% candidate-based and 50% proportional representation. The reason why both Hamas and Fatah agreed to this system is because it reinforces partisan politics, where the electorate votes for a specific political party, rather than candidates, who might be independent or from the other party.

Hamas is worried it might lose many of the votes it won in 2006 in Gaza, and Fatah is equally worried it might lose many of the votes it won in 2006 in the West Bank.

This system was in favor of Hamas in 2006, where Hamas won nearly 45.4% of the party list votes, and 69.7% of the candidate lists. Hamas is worried it might lose many of the votes it won in 2006 in Gaza, and Fatah is equally worried it might lose many of the votes it won in 2006 in the West Bank. The full proportional representation system is the way out for both groups.

Irony and Obstacles

There have been speculations that both parties, Hamas and Fatah, might run for the election in a single united list. Although it sounds ironic, considering the division and the history of hostility between the two parties, this reveals how they view this election: it is all about managing the division rather than ending it.

Another challenge to these Palestinian elections is how both parties, and other smaller parties, will ensure that the losing party accepts the results of the election. In fact, there is no guarantee that the elections will not be forged considering the environment of security repression which has resulted from 15 years of rift politics where security forces have always had the final say and the upper hand in domestic politics.

The proportional representation system also aims to crush smaller political parties and groups that will not be able to get enough votes to pass the election threshold easily. This translates into reproducing the division and reinforcing Hamas and Fatah as the only political parties in charge of Palestinian politics.

Other smaller political parties, both from the left and right, along with many Palestinians, especially the younger generation, will choose not to vote. Today, many Palestinians no longer believe that their votes in an election under occupation and without solving the political split will matter.

What is the value of an election under occupation? Elections are meant to choose representatives of a system that is supposed to have sovereignty over a territory.

They know too well that their votes will not improve their living conditions and that major political parties have long decided to adapt to division rather than solve it.

Elections or Liberation?

In the first place, what is the value of an election under occupation? Elections are meant to choose representatives of a system that is supposed to have sovereignty over a territory. Palestinians don’t have any sovereignty over their land and resources, and without an Israeli permit, the head of the Palestinian Authority can’t move in and out of the West Bank.

In other words, Palestinians need to focus on liberation and independence rather than having a pseudo-state under occupation that only serves as an excuse for Israel, the occupying power according to international law, to abandon its responsibilities towards the Palestinians. The titles of presidents and members of parliament in the Palestinian context do not count, nor do they make any sense under occupation.

The Abbas decree noted that the Palestinian National Council (PNC) elections, which matter the most, will be held “where possible.” This vaguely worded statement means that the PNC elections, which are supposed to include Palestinians of the diaspora, could be held in a limited number of countries, depending on whether the host countries will allow the elections or not.

An election that does not fully include the Palestinian diaspora is a vote over self-autonomy under occupation. Wasting too much time thinking about statehood under occupation will not serve the Palestinians, and today, what Palestinians need the most is a unified approach to end the Israeli military occupation and a call for full equality.

What Palestinians Need to Do

In fact, calling for equal votes with Jewish-Israelis under the system Israel established between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River would be more pragmatic for the Palestinians than holding elections most probably without Jerusalem and some areas of the West Bank.

This is especially true in light of the current reality of military occupation, which Israeli human rights group B’Tselem described recently as apartheid (whisper: Palestinians have been saying this for a long time). In other words, Palestinians need to address the roots of their reality today, rather than looking for elections that will only serve to reinforce division and give the false impression that they have a sort of statehood and sovereignty under occupation.

The Palestinian elections might take place as planned in May 2021, but a large number of Palestinians will boycott them and a larger number will not be represented in them. Elections that do not include Jerusalem and much of the Palestinian diaspora sound more like municipal elections of self-autonomy under occupation.

Such elections will only deepen the divide among the Palestinians and falsely proclaim before the world that Palestinians have a state and can hold free and fair elections. The only thing that Palestinians have today is Israeli military occupation and any attempt to bypass this truth is misleading.

Norberto Bobbio (1909-2004), the erudite Italian philosopher, noted that the distinction between ideological right and left lies “in the different attitudes that both sides automatically assume towards the idea of inequality.”

Latin America is a region with the highest inequality gap – even higher than Sub-Saharan Africa. For instance, in the report by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), dated December 2019, the richest 10% in Latin America owns 37% of the total wealth, while the poorest 40% owns a mere 13%.

According to the recipient of the Nobel Prize in Economics Joseph Stiglitz this gap is a legacy of the region’s colonial past. At the same time, history has usually placed corrupt leaders in power.

But how can a place like Latin America with such shameful indicators and a notorious legacy of violence and social turmoil experience a surge in the arrival to power of regimes identified as ultraright? Of regimes whose purpose is to defend the privileges of a small portion of the society at the expense of the majority. It seems that the colonial mentality never really left the Andes.

Slightly more than 13 years ago, in November 2007, at the Ibero-American Summit in Santiago, Chile, the President of Colombia Álvaro Uribe, the icon of the continent’s right-wing politics, was the summit’s black sheep when seen alongside his counterparts from Chile (Michelle Bachelet), Brazil (Lula da Silva), Venezuela (Hugo Chávez), Argentina (Cristina Fernández), Ecuador (Rafael Correa), and a handful of other Latin American presidents from the left.

Today, if a picture at the same summit were to be taken, it would be very different. Even though countries like Argentina and recently Bolivia have seen a comeback to power of leftist leaders, nations like Colombia, Brazil, Honduras, Guatemala, Chile, Uruguay, and Paraguay keep moving towards the right.

In countries like Venezuela, Mexico, and Bolivia, where left governments steer the wheel of their democracies, right-wing supporters are in constant watch for any opportunity to seize power in the next elections.

The right-wing Venezuelan opposition seems confident of the support of the hawkish U.S. establishment and doesn’t even consider that a democratic path to regain power is necessary as several pleas have been made for a U.S. military intervention to overthrow President Nicolás Maduro.

The right-wing Venezuelan opposition seems confident of the support of the hawkish U.S. establishment and doesn’t even consider that a democratic path to regain power is necessary.

According to some thinkers, Latin America is conceptualized as “America’s Backyard.” As the United States’ empire faces increasing challenges as a dominant superpower as a result of the rise of China, Russia, and smaller regional powers in Asia, Africa, and Europe that are stepping up their influence worldwide, Latin America seems to be turning into an “Alamo” of U.S. foreign diplomacy.

Right-wing regimes in Colombia, Brazil, Guatemala, and Honduras have some common values with Republicans in Washington, where the Evangelical voters matter the most. Jair Bolsonaro was elected with nearly 58 million votes as the president of Brazil, the most populous country in Latin America.

Evangelical voters, which constitute 30% of Brazil’s population, support the most radical right-wing parties and proved a goldmine for Bolsonaro’s victory.

Evangelical voters are having an ever-growing influence on Central American countries as well. Forty percent of voters in Guatemala, the most populated country in the subcontinent with more than 17 million people, are evangelical Christians; in Honduras, evangelicals account for 32% of voters, in El Salvador 31%, and in Costa Rica around 25%. El Salvador, one of the countries with higher immigration rates from the Middle East and whose president Nayib Bukele is a descendant of Palestinian immigrants, is very obedient to what Washington dictates.

Evangelical voters are having an ever-growing influence on Central American countries as well. Forty percent of voters in Guatemala, the most populated country in the subcontinent with more than 17 million people, are evangelical Christian.

Bukele, who considers himself “not religious” as he stated once on social media, relied on the evangelical vote to win the presidential elections. Bukele even had close contact with Trump’s evangelical pastors and one of his first visits to a foreign country after his inauguration was to Israel, a time-honored tradition of every U.S. president.

Guatemala’s president, Jimmy Morales, a declared Christian Zionist, moved his country’s embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in May 2018. Morales stepped down from the presidency of Guatemala last January 14, 2020, when the elected Alejandro Giammatei, an ultra-conservative politician assumed power after winning the election with 58% of the votes.

But the growing influence of evangelical Zionists is not the only drive for the establishment and solidification of far-right regimes in Latin America. Colombia’s turbulent political past is perpetuated by the current president, Iván Duque, who follows in the tradition of right-wing leaders who claim that “Colombia will become another Venezuela,” if a leftist government is elected.

Even though some voices in the Colombian political spectrum consider Juan Manuel Santos, a former president and a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, a leftist, he undoubtedly belongs to the traditional establishment.

Gustavo Petro, a former leftist guerrilla fighter in the 1970s and 1980s, lost the 2018 presidential elections by nearly two million votes to a candidate most of the country calls “Uribe’s candidate” – a reference to the controversial former Colombian president Álvaro Uribe, who was known to be a close ally of the U.S. and an advocate of neoliberalism and ultraright politics.

Gustavo Petro, proposing a more liberal agenda in the social, environmental, and economic fronts, will probably run again next year, but his past as a militant of a revolutionary guerrilla scares a big portion of Colombia’s population. This fear is exacerbated by the pro-right media in the country, which depicts him as a “new Chávez” or a “communist thug.” As Colombians have fresh memories from the 50-year-long internal conflict with Marxist guerrillas, this profile is not appealing.

Despite cases like Cuba, with 60 years of resistance against the U.S. sanctions, Venezuela and its more than two-decade-long legacy of Chávez, and the strong growing liberal movements in Chile, Argentina, and Mexico, the shadow of old-fashioned colonialism in new clothes is being cast over the region’s shores and mountains more strongly than ever. Operation Condor seems to have found plenty of loyal allies among the people of Latin America.