Global Solidarity March to Gaza: A Historic Civilian Mobilization to Break the Siege

Global Solidarity March to Gaza: A Historic Civilian Mobilization to Break the Siege

    Wednesday, June 11, 2025   No comments

June 2025 – In an unprecedented act of international solidarity, over 4,000 individuals from more than 80 countries have launched a global march to Gaza, aiming to reach the besieged Palestinian territory on foot via Egypt’s Rafah border crossing. The initiative, titled “The Global March to Gaza,” is being organized by a coalition of international trade unions, human rights groups, and solidarity movements in response to what they describe as a “man-made humanitarian catastrophe” in Gaza, under Israeli siege since October 2023.

About a year ago, Republican politicians suggested that American citizens who are protesting the genocide in Gaza be sent to Gaza; it would seem some are doing just that now.

A Humanitarian Crisis in Focus

Led by the International Coalition Against Israeli Occupation, the march is a civilian response to the rapidly deteriorating situation in Gaza, where over two million residents face famine, medical shortages, and a near-total blockade. The organizers cite starvation being used as a weapon and the systematic targeting of civilians, especially children, as central motivations for this extraordinary mobilization.

Thousands of aid trucks, loaded with food, medicine, and fuel, have been stalled at the Rafah border for months. The marchers aim to physically escort and pressure for their immediate entry.

International Participation and Civil Mobilization

The march is uniquely global and grassroots. Delegations include European parliamentarians and civil society representatives from across Africa, Asia, the Americas, and Europe. The “March to Gaza” has drawn support not only from Arab and Muslim communities but also from diverse backgrounds—doctors, lawyers, students, and humanitarian activists, many of whom are personally financing their participation.

Groups such as the Catalan alternative union (IAC), Irish human rights activists, and legal advocates like German lawyer Melanie Schweizer emphasize the peaceful and volunteer-based nature of the march. According to spokesperson Karen Moynihan of the Irish group, this is “a civilian cry against genocide,” calling for an end to complicity by silence.

Objectives of the March

The organizers have laid out five primary goals:

• Stop the Genocide: Pressure the international community to halt ongoing Israeli violations against Palestinians, particularly the deliberate starvation of civilians.
• Immediate Humanitarian Access: Demand the entry of urgent aid through Rafah without restrictions, emphasizing the thousands of trucks already waiting at the border.

• End the Siege: Advocate for the unconditional lifting of the Israeli blockade, enabling sustainable access to essentials like water, food, fuel, and medicine.
• International Accountability: Urge global institutions to hold Israel accountable for violations of international law, and condemn governments that remain passive or complicit.
• Empower Civil Society: Amplify the voices of global civil society as a force of peaceful resistance, drawing inspiration from historical solidarity movements and emphasizing non-violent civilian action.

Path to Gaza: A Difficult but Symbolic Route

Participants began arriving in Cairo in early June, ahead of a final push towards Gaza. The “Caravan of Steadfastness,” a land convoy from Algeria and Tunisia, is scheduled to merge with the larger group in Egypt’s northern Sinai region. From the city of Al-Arish, the coalition will begin its march on foot to the Rafah crossing, where they plan to stage a peaceful sit-in until aid is allowed in.

Organizers acknowledge the challenges of marching through desert terrain but insist it pales in comparison to the suffering endured by Gazans over the past 20 months.

A Message of Peace and Global Conscience

The march is deliberately unaffiliated with any government, military force, or political party. It is presented as a civilian-led, peaceful protest meant to convey the global demand for justice, humanity, and dignity for Palestinians.

“This is not just a march to Gaza,” said organizer Saif Abu Khashk. “It is a march for humanity itself.”

As international attention turns toward Rafah, the Global March to Gaza represents a striking moment in modern civil action—where borders, languages, and politics are set aside in the name of urgent humanitarian relief and moral accountability. Whether or not it succeeds in breaking the blockade, the march has already sent a clear message: the world is watching, and civil society is rising.

Current Events: The Power Equation--How Will the Trump-Musk Feud End?

Current Events: The Power Equation--How Will the Trump-Musk Feud End?

    Friday, June 06, 2025   No comments

What began as a bitter personal feud between President Donald Trump and tech magnate Elon Musk has quickly morphed into a confrontation with global implications—threatening to entangle questions of national security, economic stability, and international diplomacy. Though initially dismissed as a clash of egos between two dominant figures, the tensions have intensified to a degree that now prompts serious concern among U.S. allies and adversaries alike.

The dispute escalated sharply this week when Musk, using his platform X (formerly Twitter), alleged that President Trump was implicated in the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. “It’s time for the big reveal—Trump’s name is in the Epstein files. That’s why they were never released,” Musk declared, igniting a firestorm. President Trump responded through Truth Social, calling Musk “crazy” and revealing that he had already removed him from a key advisory role. Trump further threatened to strip Musk of billions of dollars in government contracts, stating that ending federal support for Musk's ventures was “the easiest way to save billions in our budget.”

This rhetoric has not remained confined to social media. Steve Bannon, former White House strategist and a key voice in Trump’s inner circle, has urged the president to invoke the Defense Production Act—a national security statute dating to the Korean War—to seize control of SpaceX. On his War Room Live broadcast, Bannon pushed even further, calling for Musk to be deported and for his security clearance to be revoked. Such measures, if enacted, would be extraordinary, signaling a dramatic break between the U.S. government and one of its most prominent innovators.

As the domestic battle rages, the international dimension has quietly taken shape. In Moscow, Dmitry Novikov, deputy chairman of the Russian Duma's Foreign Affairs Committee, floated the possibility of Russia offering political asylum to Musk, much like it did for Edward Snowden in 2013. Though Novikov conceded that Musk likely does not need such protection—“he’s playing a different game”—the mere suggestion functions as a geopolitical provocation. It signals that Russia is willing to exploit internal American fractures for symbolic gain, and perhaps more.

Musk’s global footprint makes this more than idle speculation. Born in South Africa, with business interests spanning Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, Musk is no ordinary corporate figure. He operates in a rare sphere where technological influence intersects with statecraft. His companies—Tesla, SpaceX, Starlink, Neuralink—are deeply embedded in America’s energy, communications, defense, and aerospace sectors. Many of these ventures rely on government contracts and federal subsidies. Disrupting these relationships would reverberate far beyond Washington.

The economic fallout of such a rupture could be immense. SpaceX alone holds essential contracts with NASA and the Department of Defense, from satellite launches to lunar exploration. Tesla, meanwhile, is central to the Biden-era green energy transition—an agenda now in jeopardy under Trump’s second administration. If those contracts were terminated, the effects would ripple through markets, private-sector innovation, and U.S. strategic infrastructure.

But perhaps the most dangerous consequence of this feud is the vacuum it may create on the international stage. Should Musk begin to align himself with governments antagonistic to the U.S., whether out of necessity or opportunism, it could lead to a new axis of technological power. Russia has already expressed interest, and China—long at odds with American tech dominance—could seize the opportunity to court Musk with offers of collaboration, capital, or simply sanctuary. South Africa, maintaining a neutral stance in global alignments, could also become a fallback base for Musk’s operations. Such realignments would raise urgent questions about the control of technologies that are now foundational to global security, including satellite communications, AI, and space exploration.

At a time when private technology firms rival states in influence, the deterioration of the U.S.-Musk relationship is more than a political feud—it is a tectonic shift. This is not merely about bruised pride or policy disputes. It is about the architecture of global power in the 21st century. If President Trump moves to isolate Musk, and if Musk finds favor in foreign capitals eager to undermine U.S. dominance, the outcome may not just redefine American tech policy. It may redraw the very lines of geopolitical influence for years to come.

In the end, despite the drama, threats, and theatrical confrontations, the feud between Donald Trump and Elon Musk is unlikely to result in a true rupture. Beneath the public insults and political posturing lies a shared worldview: both men believe in power—its acquisition, its preservation, and its proximity. They do not operate according to principles of right and wrong, but rather by calculations of strength, leverage, and access. Each understands that respect is accorded not by virtue, but by dominance.

This shared logic of power will ultimately draw them back into alignment. Trump, now sitting in the Oval Office for a second time, controls the machinery of the state, including its vast financial and legal apparatus. And Musk, for all his defiance, knows that the U.S. government still has the absolute ability to disrupt, seize, or dismantle the very infrastructure that supports his empire. All it would take is one plausible accusation tied to national security or financial misconduct to put his operations at risk.

Both men are too ambitious—and too dependent on each other’s resources—to let their rivalry spin out of control. They will do the math, weigh the cost, and reach a truce. Because in the end, neither of them believes in serving anything higher than power itself. And as long as they both worship at that altar, they are bound to meet again—if not as allies, then as co-conspirators in the preservation of their own influence. Assuming Musk and Trump eventually come to their senses, the feud might fade as nothing more than a brief power play between two ego-driven figures. 

However, if they don’t come to their senses—and that remains a real possibility, given the corrosive nature of hubris, a social affliction that often consumes those who overestimate their own importance—the clash is likely to escalate. What began as a public sparring match could spiral into one of the messiest, most theatrical battles in recent memory. Equal parts spectacle and ego war, it would be a uniquely modern showdown: fueled by platforms, followers, and the conviction that neither man can afford to lose. If forced to place a bet, one should bet on hubris. It has always been the silent architect of downfall for those who see power as the only measure of success—or failure.

USA, again, alone, vetoes Gaza ceasefire resolution

USA, again, alone, vetoes Gaza ceasefire resolution

    Wednesday, June 04, 2025   No comments

A draft resolution calling for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza failed to pass in the UN Security Council on Wednesday after the United States, again, cast its veto – blocking the initiative backed by all ten elected members of the Council.

The text, co-sponsored by Algeria, Denmark, Greece, Guyana, Pakistan, Panama, the Republic of Korea, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, and Somalia – collectively known as the E-10 – received 14 votes in favour, with the US casting the lone vote against.

As one of the council’s five permanent members, the US holds veto power – a negative vote that automatically blocks any resolution from going forward.

Had it been adopted, the draft would have demanded “an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire in Gaza” to be respected by all parties.US has opposed all UNSC resulutions that could have brought an end to the carnage in Gaza.

 Russia’s UN envoy, Vasily Nebenzya, made it clear during a Security Council session: the world can now see who genuinely wants peace, and who continues to exploit global crises for geopolitical games.

His statement came in response to the United States vetoing yet another resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.

   

Media Review: Nuclear Talks Enter Critical Phase as Iran Holds Firm on Sovereignty

Media Review: Nuclear Talks Enter Critical Phase as Iran Holds Firm on Sovereignty

    Wednesday, June 04, 2025   No comments

Recent statements from both U.S. and Iranian leaders indicate that nuclear negotiations have reached a decisive turning point. The talks now stand at a crossroads: they will either collapse or move into a technical phase aimed at working out implementation details, following what appears to be the establishment of a preliminary framework for an agreement.

A central point that has emerged is that any potential deal will not deny Iran the right to enrich uranium on its own soil. This position has been echoed in the latest remarks by top officials on both sides. Iran’s Supreme Leader has reinforced this stance, emphasizing that uranium enrichment is a matter of national sovereignty and national security. He also issued a fatwa prohibiting the development or possession of nuclear weapons, underscoring Iran’s declared commitment to peaceful nuclear energy.

These red lines—especially the right to enrichment—are seen as non-negotiable, rooted in Iran’s lack of trust toward the West based on previous experiences. As a result, any viable deal will likely have to respect these boundaries to move forward.

Iran's leader provides the reasoning behind Iran's right to Uranium enrichment 

“Now, in the nuclear industry, there is one key point that functions like the master key: Uranium enrichment.

Our enemies have fixated on this enrichment—they’ve put their finger exactly on this. A vast nuclear industry, without the ability to enrich uranium, is essentially useless. Why? Because for our power plants, we’d have to stretch out our hand and ask others for fuel.

It’s like having oil in your country but being forbidden from building refineries or producing gasoline—you have crude oil, but you have to buy gasoline from someone else. And that country might sell it to you at whatever price they wish—or they might just refuse altogether, making up an excuse. That’s how they behave.

Even if we had 100 nuclear reactors, without enrichment, they’d be useless—because nuclear power plants require fuel. If we can’t produce that fuel ourselves, we’d have to go begging to the US, and they might set dozens of conditions just to give us fuel.

We already experienced this in the 2000s, when we needed 20% enriched uranium. The US president at the time sent 2 heads of state—so-called friends—to act as intermediaries and told us: ‘Give us part of your 3.5% enriched uranium, and we’ll give you the 20% fuel you need.’ Our officials agreed, and an exchange was planned.

I said the exchange must be done like this: They bring the 20% enriched fuel to Bandar Abbas, we test it to ensure it’s genuine, and then we hand over the 3.5% in return. When they saw that we were serious and insistent on inspecting the 20% fuel first, they backed out of the deal and broke their promise.

Meanwhile, amid all this political back-and-forth, our scientists produced the 20% enriched uranium domestically, right here inside this country. 

... 

Iran is a strong nation, an independent nation. Our nuclear industry is one of the most advanced in the world, and we employ thousands of scientists, researchers, and other workers. Should we give all of this up? Should we make all of them jobless? Are we insane?

You [United States] have nuclear capabilities. You have atomic bombs. You possess devastating weapons. 

What right do you have to question whether the Iranian nation should have nuclear enrichment or not, or a nuclear industry or not? We are a sovereign nation, we have the right to decide our own future. It has nothing to do with you. This is the principle of our independence.

The latest American proposal is 100% against our doctrine and against our positions.

From here on, I pledge to the Iranian nation, with the help of God, we will strengthen our national power as much as we can."

  

After the statement by the Iranian leader, the foreign minister, Abbas Araqchi, issued his own declaration on X:

"There is a reason why only a few nations master the ability to fuel nuclear reactors. Apart from significant financial resources and political vision, it requires a solid industrial base and a technological-academic complex that can produce necessary human resources and know-how. Iran has paid dearly for these capabilities, and there is no scenario in which we will give up on the patriots who made our dream come true. To reiterate: No enrichment, no deal. No nuclear wrapons, we have a deal."

Media Review: Human Rights, Selective Outrage, and the Politics of Condemnation

Media Review: Human Rights, Selective Outrage, and the Politics of Condemnation

    Monday, May 26, 2025   No comments

In the realm of global politics, the language of morality is often wielded not as a principle, but as a weapon—selectively applied, conveniently ignored. Nowhere is this hypocrisy more glaring than in the recent reactions of Western leaders to the wars in Ukraine and Gaza. When Russia retaliated against a Ukrainian drone assault by launching strikes that killed 12 people, leaders like U.S. President Donald Trump were quick to label Vladimir Putin as “absolutely crazy” and a “killer.” Yet, just days later, Israel launched a brutal airstrike on a school in Gaza sheltering displaced families, killing at least 54 Palestinians—mostly children—and silence or cautious equivocation followed. In fact, these same leaders continue to fund, arm, and diplomatically shield Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a man already indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes. This double standard reveals a painful truth: in the eyes of Western powers, not all human lives are equal, and not all victims are mourned.

The facts are indisputable. According to reports from Al Jazeera, the BBC, and eyewitness accounts, Israeli airstrikes targeted the Fahmi al-Jargawi school in Gaza City, killing dozens, many of whom were burnt beyond recognition. These were not militants or combatants; they were civilians—babies and children asleep in makeshift shelters after fleeing other bombardments. Just days earlier, another Israeli strike obliterated the home of Palestinian doctor Alaa Al-Najjar, killing all nine of her children. She was saving other lives in a hospital while her own were buried in rubble. The loss was not just personal—it was emblematic of a systemic campaign of destruction. As the Arabic-language article poignantly described, “this is not a story of one family, it is the recurring scene of Gaza.”

Meanwhile, when Russia responded to a coordinated assault involving 96 drones launched by Ukraine toward Moscow, killing 12 civilians in a retaliatory strike, the condemnation from Western capitals was swift and categorical. Putin was called irrational, genocidal, and in Trump’s words, “absolutely CRAZY.” While no act of violence against civilians can be morally justified, the disparity in the global reaction is stark. What makes the death of 12 Ukrainians worthy of universal outrage and sanctions, while the burning of 36 Palestinian children in their sleep barely moves the needle of Western conscience?

The answer lies not in law or logic, but in power and politics. Israel is a key ally of the United States and other Western nations. It receives billions in annual military aid, enjoys diplomatic protection at the United Nations, and is portrayed as a bastion of democracy in a volatile region. Russia, by contrast, is a geopolitical rival. Condemning its actions aligns with the strategic and ideological interests of the West. But in elevating political allegiance over human dignity, Western leaders have exposed the hollowness of their professed values.

The roots of this selective empathy is found in supremacism. As Israeli journalist Gideon Levy notes, the Israeli public is conditioned to view Palestinians not as humans, but as threats—mere shadows on a moral map that excludes them. This dehumanization enables the normalization of mass death, the obliteration of entire neighborhoods, and the bombing of hospitals and schools. Western complicity compounds this tragedy by offering political and military support without meaningful accountability. When the victims are viewed as less than human, their deaths demand no justice.

The implications are devastating—not just for Gaza, but for the moral credibility of the West itself. If the universal declaration of human rights only applies to those within a favored political camp, then it is not universal at all. If war crimes are condemned in Moscow but ignored in Tel Aviv, then the West is not defending international law—it is manipulating it. And if leaders like Netanyahu are embraced while others are vilified for similar or lesser acts, then the claim to moral leadership rings hollow.

In Gaza, as one article lamented, people no longer wait for justice from the world. “We write, we witness, we record,” it says, “so that if we die today, history will know who killed us—and why no one trembled.” It is a chilling testament to the abandonment of an entire people, not just by their occupiers, but by the global community that claims to uphold their rights.

Justice cannot be selective. Empathy cannot be conditional. If Western leaders are to retain even a shred of moral authority, they must confront their own hypocrisy. The lives of Palestinian children matter as much as those in Kyiv. War crimes are war crimes, whether committed by an adversary or an ally. And silence, when the bombs fall on schools and hospitals, is not neutrality—it is complicity.

China, Pakistan agree with Kabul to expand CPEC to Afghanistan

China, Pakistan agree with Kabul to expand CPEC to Afghanistan

    Wednesday, May 21, 2025   No comments

Pakistan, China, and Afghanistan agreed in a trilateral meeting in Beijing to formally extend the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) to Afghanistan, strengthening regional connectivity under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

The foreign ministers emphasized deeper cooperation in trade, infrastructure, and security, reaffirming their commitment to counterterrorism and regional stability. 

The next trilateral meeting will be held in Kabul. The talks took place during Deputy PM Ishaq Dar’s visit to China, which also addressed the recent Pakistan-India tensions and reaffirmed the strong China-Pakistan partnership.

Israeli soldiers fired at foreign diplomats visiting west bank, Palestine

Israeli soldiers fired at foreign diplomats visiting west bank, Palestine

    Wednesday, May 21, 2025   No comments

Approximately one hour ago, Israeli soldiers fired at foreign diplomats from European and Arab states who were touring Jenin in the West Bank, Palestine.

The IDF has released an official statement on the incident, claiming that the delegation 'deviated from the approved route,' leading soldiers to fire 'warning shots.' 

The delegation reportedly included 35 ambassadors, consuls, and diplomats from the European Union, the United Kingdom, Egypt, Jordan, China, Russia, Japan, and others.

Italy has summoned the Israeli ambassador due to the event, and soon after, France has also summoned the Israeli ambassador for an explanation.

EU foreign policy chief states, 'Any threats to the lives of diplomats are unacceptable,' in response to the attack on diplomats by Israel in Jenin.

EU foreign policy chief states, 'Any threats to the lives of diplomats are unacceptable,' in response to the attack on diplomats by Israel in Jenin.

 

 

media review: Israeli General Sparks Political Firestorm with Condemnation of Gaza War Tactics

media review: Israeli General Sparks Political Firestorm with Condemnation of Gaza War Tactics

    Tuesday, May 20, 2025   No comments

In a rare and explosive critique from within Israel’s military and political establishment, retired general and former deputy chief of staff Yair Golan has ignited controversy by denouncing the government’s conduct in its war on Gaza. In a radio interview Tuesday, Golan declared, “A sane state does not wage war on civilians, does not kill children as a hobby, and does not aim to displace populations.” His remarks, which questioned the strategic rationale and morality of Israel’s ongoing military campaign, provoked a fierce backlash across the Israeli political spectrum.

Golan, now head of the left-wing Democratic Party, is no stranger to criticism. But this time, even his military credentials were not enough to shield him from a torrent of attacks by leaders of right-wing, religious, and centrist parties alike. Critics portrayed him as a traitor, accusing him of undermining the army and aiding Israel’s enemies. Political rivals, including those opposed to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, appeared eager to exploit the controversy for political gain, leaving Golan largely isolated.

Despite the outcry, Golan stood firm. He reiterated that the war, now in its eighth month, has shifted from a military campaign to a political tool used to preserve the current government’s grip on power. Referring to the latest phase of the conflict as “Operation Chariots of Gideon,” Golan argued that the main military objectives had already been achieved by mid-2024 with the degradation of Hamas’s military capabilities. He accused the government of prolonging the conflict for political reasons rather than national security.

“Israel hasn’t eliminated Hamas, hasn’t militarily or politically defeated them, and hasn’t recovered the hostages,” Golan noted. “The war’s objectives have been confused and contradictory from the beginning. Our priority must be returning all hostages home. That’s the essence of our solidarity as a people.”

His comments gained further resonance as the international community, including the UK, France, and Canada, issued stern warnings about Israel’s conduct in Gaza. The U.S. has also signaled growing unease. Golan warned that Israel risks becoming a “pariah state” akin to apartheid-era South Africa if it continues down its current path. He invoked the Jewish historical experience, saying it is unacceptable for a people with a legacy of persecution and genocide to adopt “morally indefensible policies.”

Golan’s stand, while earning him few allies in the Knesset, has been lauded by some as an act of moral courage. Known for his principled stances, he refused to walk back his statements despite the political storm. “We already tried Gantz’s way—flattering Netanyahu, Ben Gvir, and Smotrich. It failed,” he said. He added, “This war is the embodiment of Ben Gvir and Smotrich’s delusions. If we allow them to realize their vision, Israel will be a fractured state.”

Calling for an end to the war, the return of hostages, and a restoration of democratic values, Golan concluded with a stark contrast between Israel’s military and its leadership: “The Israeli soldiers are heroes. The ministers are corrupt. The army is moral, the people are righteous, and the government is rotten.”

As the war grinds on and internal dissent grows louder, Golan’s words have injected a jolt of urgency into Israel’s political debate. Whether his challenge will influence policy or public opinion remains to be seen, but it has undeniably shattered taboos about criticizing the war from within the ranks of Israel’s own elite.

Joint Statement by the United Kingdom, France, and Canada on Israel's actions in Gaza

Joint Statement by the United Kingdom, France, and Canada on Israel's actions in Gaza

    Monday, May 19, 2025   No comments

 Joint Statement by the United Kingdom, France, and Canada on Israel's actions in Gaza

"We will not stand by while the Netanyahu Government pursues these egregious actions. If Israel does not cease the renewed military offensive and lift its restrictions on humanitarian aid, we will take further concrete actions in response. We oppose any attempt to expand settlements in the West Bank. Israel must halt settlements which are illegal and undermine the viability of a Palestinian state and the security of both Israelis and Palestinians. We will not hesitate to take further action, including targeted sanctions. "

Media review: What if Iranians, Americans and Arabs made uranium together?

Media review: What if Iranians, Americans and Arabs made uranium together?

    Saturday, May 17, 2025   No comments

 President Donald Trump, still touring the Middle East, keeps saying how “very happy” he’d be if he could make a deal with Iran. Iran, meanwhile, needs such a deal to avoid being bombed by Israel and strangled economically by the resumption of United Nations sanctions later this year.

If reports out of Tehran are correct, those pressures may have motivated Iranian leaders to come up with an unconventional idea that deserves a hearing: They want to work with their enemies, not against them, to build Iran’s nuclear programme.

Their brainstorm envisions a kind of joint venture among Iranians, Saudis and Emiratis, as well as private investors including US companies. This new consortium would enrich uranium, a fissile material that can be used to generate electricity or make medical isotopes – and to build nuclear bombs. Because Iranians, Arabs, Americans and others would be working together, it would be easy to verify that this atomic programme remains civilian rather than military.

At first blush, the idea seems outlandish. How could mortal enemies (Tehran’s theocracy is based in large part on wishing death to America as well as Israel) collaborate around the very material that has brought them to the brink of war?

At second glance, though, the notion’s sheer audacity – let’s call it chutzpah – may be exactly what these nuclear negotiations need to get unstuck.

AN ELEGANT IDEA

In a way, the Iranian proposal reminds me of the European Coal and Steel Community, set up in 1951 by six founding nations and led by France and Germany, who had fought three bitter wars in one lifetime and struggled to imagine each other as anything other than enemies.

To prevent a fourth war, French statesmen such as Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman proposed joint custody over the raw materials of warfare – at the time, coal and steel. And German leaders such as Konrad Adenauer, eager to reconcile with their neighbours, agreed. Against all odds, this ECSC would blossom into what is today the European Union.

Continue reading the article >>