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.

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: 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.

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. "

A Turning Point in the Yemen Conflict: U.S. Airstrikes Halt, Regional Repercussions, and Yemen’s Continued Alignment with Gaza

A Turning Point in the Yemen Conflict: U.S. Airstrikes Halt, Regional Repercussions, and Yemen’s Continued Alignment with Gaza

    Tuesday, May 06, 2025   No comments

Media Review of Current Events:

In a surprising and consequential move, U.S. President Donald Trump announced the cessation of American airstrikes on Yemen. This development marks a significant shift in U.S. policy in the region and has prompted strong reactions from multiple stakeholders—particularly Israel, whose leadership was caught off guard. The halt comes amid Omani-brokered negotiations and is framed within a broader narrative of de-escalation, albeit with complex undercurrents of continued resistance from Yemen’s Ansar Allah (Houthi) movement against Israeli aggression in Gaza.

The U.S. Halt of Airstrikes and Omani Mediation

Trump’s announcement came during a joint press conference with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, where he claimed that Yemeni forces had made a verbal commitment to cease attacks on ships in the Red Sea. Despite the absence of a formal agreement, the Trump administration interpreted this as a positive development and ordered the U.S. military to stand down. Defense officials confirmed that the military had received instructions to halt operations the previous evening.

This breakthrough was facilitated by Oman, a regional actor known for its neutral diplomatic posture and history of mediating between the U.S. and Yemen. The Omani Foreign Ministry confirmed its successful efforts in brokering a ceasefire agreement that ensures the safety of maritime routes, particularly in the strategic Bab al-Mandeb and Red Sea corridors. Oman praised both sides for their constructive approach and expressed hope that the de-escalation would pave the way for further regional stability.

 "Trump announces the end of the U.S. bombing campaign on Yemen, likely due to disappointing results and high costs" – Politico

The Yemeni Perspective: A Tactical Pause, Not a Strategic Retreat

Yemeni officials, including top political leaders such as Mohammed Ali al-Houthi and Mahdi al-Mashat, responded to Trump’s announcement with guarded optimism but clarified that their resistance remains rooted in principle. Al-Houthi underscored that Yemeni military operations were primarily acts of solidarity with Gaza, undertaken in response to American and Israeli aggression. He described the U.S. halt as a potential tactical victory that "disconnects American support from Israel" and called it a setback for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

A senior member of Ansarullah movement Mohammed Abdul Salam: We did not submit any requests to the Americans, but rather we received messages via our brothers in the Sultanate of Oman.

Echoing this, al-Mashat issued a stern warning to Israel, asserting that Yemen’s support for Gaza would not waver and that retaliation for Israeli attacks on Yemeni infrastructure—including airports and power stations—would be “earth-shaking.” His remarks came after an Israeli airstrike on Sana’a and amid heightened tensions between Yemen and the Israeli military.

Member of the Supreme Political Council in Yemen, Mohammad al-Bukhaiti: "We tell the Americans, the British, and the Zionists that our military operations in support of Gaza will continue, no matter the sacrifices. The Zionists have crossed red lines and must await Yemen's response."

Israeli Shock and Strategic Isolation

The Israeli reaction to the U.S. decision was one of astonishment and concern. According to reports from Israeli media outlets such as Channel 14 and Channel 12, the political establishment in Tel Aviv was blindsided by Trump’s announcement. Analysts suggested that this shift could signify a broader American intention to disengage from direct involvement in regional conflicts, particularly those perceived as primarily serving Israeli strategic interests.

Israeli commentators interpreted the decision as a symbolic abandonment. Channel 12’s Amichai Segal remarked that the move sent a clear message to the region: "Target Israel if you must, but leave us [the U.S.] out of it." This sentiment highlighted fears of growing Israeli isolation in the face of coordinated regional hostility, particularly as Yemen declared it would not relent in targeting Israeli assets.

Moreover, uncertainty lingers in Israel regarding whether the ceasefire includes an implicit U.S. endorsement—or at least tolerance—of Yemeni attacks on Israel, even if American assets are no longer directly involved. Analysts warned that such ambiguity could embolden Iran and its allies, including the Houthis, to escalate attacks against Israeli interests.

Israeli Media:  The United States started bombing Yemen in March, in order to force the Houthis to stop their attacks on Israel. Instead, they started attacking American ships too. Now, suddenly Trump has made peace with them, without involving Israel, throwing away the original intention of the campaign. 

A Conditional Truce and the Resilient Yemeni Stance

While the agreement is framed by the U.S. and Oman as a de-escalatory measure, Yemeni officials have insisted it does not alter their fundamental position. Yemeni Information Minister Dhaifallah al-Shami emphasized in a televised interview that the conflict with the U.S. was merely a consequence of American intervention on behalf of Israel. If the U.S. withdraws, he explained, Yemen would logically stop targeting American ships—but their conflict with Israel remains unchanged.

Al-Shami’s statements clarified that Yemeni attacks on maritime targets began as a response to U.S. airstrikes, not as an independent escalation. With the U.S. potentially stepping away, Yemeni focus may shift entirely back to Israeli targets. He characterized the U.S. decision as a retreat and reaffirmed that Yemeni resistance is fundamentally aimed at countering Israeli aggression and supporting Palestinians in Gaza.

A Shifting Regional Equation

These developments reflect a shifting balance in the Middle East. The U.S. decision to pause airstrikes in Yemen, facilitated by Omani diplomacy, is a notable step toward de-escalation in one arena of conflict. However, the underlying tensions remain, particularly due to Yemen’s unwavering support for Gaza and its framing of the conflict as a broader resistance against what they see as Zionist aggression.

For Israel, the move signifies a strategic recalibration by its closest ally—one that may force Tel Aviv to confront its adversaries with less external military backing than before. For Yemen, the truce with the U.S. is tactical, not strategic; the commitment to Gaza and opposition to what they see as Israeli aggression remain resolute. As the region braces for possible new escalations, the ramifications of this agreement could reverberate far beyond the Red Sea.