US elections: Gaza War is for Biden what Covid-19 was for Trump

US elections: Gaza War is for Biden what Covid-19 was for Trump

    Monday, May 13, 2024   No comments

If Trump lost the 2020 elections because of Covid-19, Biden may lose it because of his support for actions that are producing a genocide in Gaza.

In late May 2020, Trump was sliding down in the polls. His advisors told him it was covid-19 and his handling of it. Reportedly, Trump reacted with anger, how could something that he had nothing to do with, derail his chances of winning a second term.

Biden is in a similar situation, he is behind in key states, and he is behind because he is losing young American voters who are protesting what they see as a genocidal war in Gaza. Unlike the pandemic, which Trump claimed he had nothing to do with it, Biden chose to deal with the war they way he did, and he will face the consequences of that choice this November. Biden's handlers seem to recognize the need for him to change direction, however, Biden is personally unmoved by the plight of Gazan civilians being exterminated by bombs and famine, and soon as the weather heats up, disease.

According to the New York Times’s data, if November was last week, Biden would lose the election.

Media Review: New York Times answers the question, why do American students choose Aljazeera?

Media Review: New York Times answers the question, why do American students choose Aljazeera?

    Monday, May 13, 2024   No comments

The New York Times, which has been attacked for its biased reporting on the war in Gaza, and who instructs its journalists about which words to use, is now providing some answers as to why young Americans, especially students, are using other media outlets, like  Aljazeera to learn about what is happening in Palestine. 

Although Aljazeera is a major alternative media outlet, its connection to the State of Qatar, make its influence limited, opening the door to new media sources, like Quds News Network (an English channel) and Palestine Online (an Arabic channel),  that rely on social media platforms, like Telegram, to broadcast globally.

The paper argues that in light of the student movement in American universities to stop the Israeli war on Gaza, the reluctance of new generations in the United States to follow major Western media outlets has emerged, and their skepticism about their faithfulness in conveying the truth of what is happening.

The New York Times followed this trend among student protesters who recently held sit-ins at dozens of American universities, to shed light on their objections to the Western media, and at the same time their interest in the Aljazeera network, which has become their main source of information regarding the war on Gaza.

“Aljazeera is my go-to place for reliable storytelling,” says Nick Wilson, a student at Cornell University.

The newspaper explains that the protesting students expressed their dissatisfaction with the traditional American media’s coverage of the war, including the New York Times itself, CNN, the Atlantic, and others.

NYT explains that despite the widespread coverage of the war by these networks, students believe that they do not hold Israel responsible - to a sufficient extent - for the killing of Palestinians and do not verify the validity of what Israeli officials say, and that their coverage of student protests focused too much on anti-Semitism in universities instead From Islamophobia.

Related to Aljazeera being in the news, confirming the connection between governments and media outlets, the Israeli government banned a number of media outlets including Aljazeera.

The NYT noted that Israel's recent closure of Aljazeera's offices has strengthened the network's standing in the hearts of the protesting American students.

Benjamin Netanyahu's government closed Aljazeera's offices on May 5, a decision that was widely condemned by international press unions and human rights organizations as an attack on press freedom and an attempt to silence Aljazeera because of its coverage of the war.

Reactions continued denouncing the Israeli government's decision to close Aljazeera's offices in Israel, amid confirmation that the decision aims to silence Al Jazeera because of its coverage of the war on Gaza.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed its regret at the Israeli Cabinet’s decision to close the Aljazeera office.

While the Commission stressed that freedom of expression is a basic human right, it urged Israel to rescind its decision, stressing that free and independent media are necessary to ensure transparency and accountability.

For his part, the UN rapporteur on the right to housing said that Israel's decision to close Aljazeera once again denies its claims that it is a democratic state, describing the decision as "the reaction of a terrified regime that fears freedom."

Reporters Without Borders also strongly condemned the Israeli government's unanimous vote to stop the work of Aljazeera in Israel.

The organization said in her account on the “X” platform that what she described as the blatantly repressive legislation to stop the work of Aljazeera aims to silence it because of its coverage of the war on Gaza.

It pointed out that the move indicates unacceptable censorship against the last media outlets that can report events in Gaza.

The international organization also called for the repeal of the law passed by the Israeli Parliament banning foreign media broadcasts in Israel, primarily targeting Aljazeera.

Media Review: Biden declaration that “Full” Rafah invasion means no US arms to Israel from this point forward, essentially confirming US complicity in attacks on other urban areas in Gaza

Media Review: Biden declaration that “Full” Rafah invasion means no US arms to Israel from this point forward, essentially confirming US complicity in attacks on other urban areas in Gaza

    Thursday, May 09, 2024   No comments

US President Joe Biden claimed on 8 May that his government will not support or provide weapons for an expanded Israeli assault on Gaza’s southernmost city of Rafah. He appears to confirm reports that Washington had recently paused the delivery of 2,000 to 500-lb bombs to Israel last week over concerns about a wide-scale Israeli operation in Rafah.  

The announcement comes just a day after the Israeli military seized the city’s border crossing with Egypt.  “I’ve made it clear to Bibi (Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu) and the war cabinet: They’re not going to get our support if they go [into] these population centers,” Biden told CNN. 

When asked if US weapons have been used to kill civilians, Biden said: “Civilians have been killed in Gaza as a consequence of those bombs and other ways in which [Israel] goes after population centers… I made it clear that if they go into Rafah… I’m not supplying the weapons that have been used historically to deal with Rafah, to deal with the cities, to deal with that problem.” 

Biden said that Israel has “not yet” crossed the “red line” regarding conduct in Gaza but that it was close to doing so. The Biden administration has already approved over 100 US arms sales to Israel since the start of the war and has been continuously supplying ammunition to the Israeli state.

Reacting to Biden’s statements, some Palestinians rejected his “fictitious red-line”.  The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine said that Biden is “a war criminal and his criminal administration must be tried before international courts, just like the Zionist war criminals.” The Palestinian group said that “Biden’s recent statements confirm that his administration is directly involved in the war on Gaza and in managing field operations with the entity, and that it can stop the war with the blink of an eye… The recent American criticism of the Zionist regime, and its decision to suspend sending a bomb shipment, are mere formalities that will not stop the aggression or the ongoing war of extermination against our people… Such statements are also merely anesthetizing messages to American public opinion that is angry at the American administration’s policy and its unlimited support for the entity.”

Media Review; François Burga: Zionism is a racist ideology, two models for apossible solution--Algerian or South African model

Media Review; François Burga: Zionism is a racist ideology, two models for apossible solution--Algerian or South African model

    Tuesday, May 07, 2024   No comments

This weeks media review focus on a conversation with the French intellectual and Middle East Studies expert, François Borga. In this summary of the interview with Aljazeera, we highlight some of his insight about the ongoing war on Gaza and the future of the conflict in general.

French academic and researcher François Borga said that October 7 helped a large number of southern countries, including South Africa, Ireland and Spain to some extent, demonstrate an awareness that all measures indicate is irreversible.

The professor of political science and researcher at the French National Authority for Scientific Research in the city of Aix-en-Provence, southeastern France, added, “The Zionist ideology, as adopted by the current ruling elite, and also by the majority of Netanyahu’s opponents, is a racist sectarian ideology very similar to the ideology of Netanyahu.” ISIS, which does not allow any form of coexistence.”

He considered - in his interview with Al Jazeera Net - that Israel has never sought peace, but only for land, by all means, even illegal ones, and Israeli leaders have received blind support in this matter from their Western partners.

He explained that last October 7 “launched a process that means that Israel may not be able to continue with impunity to follow such shortcuts with regard to international law, or basic humanitarian principles.”

How to understand the West’s financing of the Israeli war on Gaza in exchange for protests from Western people and youth against this war?

On the international scene, the position of Western governments is certainly irrational in light of their well-understood economic and political interests in the medium and long term, but unfortunately it is still almost consistent with their “following” the direction of their voters.

"It is necessary to understand that the weakness of popular support for the Palestinian cause results from changing positions within the two main political families in France: the right and the left... The right rejects various expressions of decolonization, and as for the left, its stated reluctance to support the Palestinian resistance is based on the fact that since 2006, when Hamas came to power, the resistance leadership has come to be considered “Islamist.”"

Can the two-state solution, which America opposed at the United Nations, lead to empowering the Palestinian people with their right to self-determination and resolving the Palestinian issue?

There are currently two ways out of the crisis that resulted from the establishment of Israel in 1948 and its current expansion, either to exit “according to the example of South Africa," [alsoo mentioned by the American thinker and Jewish historian, Norman Finkelstein] which implies that, whatever the institutional form, two states or one state, there will be a reconciliation between the political imagination, ambitions, and agendas of the Israeli and Palestinian parties. 

However, everything indicates that the Israeli side, more clearly, is doing its utmost to prevent the emergence of such a perspective, because Zionism, as an ideology and as adopted by the current ruling elite, and also by the majority of Netanyahu’s opponents, is a racist sectarian ideology, very similar to the ideology of ISIS, which does not It allows any form of coexistence.

Then there remains the other exit door, and it may be of the “Rhodesian” or “Algerian” type, meaning that it will force the departure of one of the two communities or strict control over it. This is the option that Israel has exercised with impunity since its establishment, as it has never sought peace, but only To the ground by all means, even illegal ones, and the Israeli leaders were blindly supported in this matter by their Western partners.

However, last October 7 launched a process that means that Israel may not be able to continue with impunity to take such shortcuts with regard to international law or basic humanitarian principles.

  

The foreign ministers of Iran and Egypt discuss developments in the region and efforts to stop the genocide in the Gaza Strip

The foreign ministers of Iran and Egypt discuss developments in the region and efforts to stop the genocide in the Gaza Strip

    Saturday, May 04, 2024   No comments

Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Hassan Shoukry and Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian affirmed their countries' complete rejection of the Israeli occupation's ground military operations in Rafah.

During their meeting in Gambia, on the sidelines of the Islamic Summit Conference, the two sides discussed the latest developments in the region, especially the situation in Palestine and the Gaza Strip, and the current efforts to stop the crimes of the occupying entity against the Palestinian people, in addition to discussing the latest developments in their efforts to improve bilateral relations.

 In this context, Amir Abdullahian thanked Egypt for its efforts to stop the genocide in the Gaza Strip, reiterated his country’s readiness to send humanitarian aid, and called on Cairo to facilitate matters in this area.

 The Iranian minister also appreciated Egypt's condemnation of the Israeli aggression against the Iranian consulate in Syria. The exchange of delegations between religious institutions in Iran and Egypt was considered beneficial for bilateral relations, based on the agreement of the presidents of the two countries.

 In turn, Shoukry hoped that the ongoing political efforts within the framework of the negotiations would lead to stopping the war and realizing the rights of the Palestinian people, reiterating his condemnation of Israel’s targeting of the Iranian consulate in Syria.

 Shoukry also welcomed the implementation of an agreement between the presidents of Iran and Egypt to exchange delegations between religious institutions, stressing Al-Azhar’s determination to engage in dialogue between sects and strengthen popular and tourism relations.

 He pointed out that his country "attaches great importance to dialogue and continuing contacts with Iran, considering the two countries are great civilizations."

 In conclusion, the two ministers expressed their hope that holding the Islamic Cooperation Summit in Gambia will strengthen the solidarity and unity of the Islamic world in supporting the Palestinian people and resolving the region’s issues and problems.

The meeting was conformed by Egyptian Foriegn Ministry spokesperson who released a statement saying,

Sameh Shoukry meets with his Iranian counterpart, Amir Abdollahian, on the sidelines of the activities of the 15th session of the Islamic Summit Conference...The two sides touched upon the most important topics on the summit’s agenda, most notably the ongoing war in Gaza and ways to end the war and alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people.

Media Review: “What is worse: Israel’s lies about Gaza or amplifying these lies by supporters?”

Media Review: “What is worse: Israel’s lies about Gaza or amplifying these lies by supporters?”

    Friday, May 03, 2024   No comments

To close this week, our media review highlights an article in UK media that focused on a theme our readers should be quite familiar--the fake stories that were amplified by political leaders and Western media about the war on Gaza are many. The problem has been the lack of retractions by the media, a mere tweet often appears to be enough, in the view of their editors and publishers, to absolve them of any responsibility for the injuries and harm (including deaths in a couple of cases), they have caused.

We begin today's media tour with an article published by Mehdi Hassan in the British newspaper The Guardian, entitled "What is worse, Israel's lies about Gaza or its Western backers who are repeating them?"

Hassan begins his article by quoting an Italian proverb that says, “If a man deceives me once, it is not my fault, but it is my fault if he deceives me twice.”

Mehdi Hassan says, “Since the horrific attack that occurred on October 7, the far-right Israeli government and its army have deceived Western politicians and journalists, not once, not twice, but several times.”

He adds that there are many lies and distortions that must be traced, including “the story of the forty children who were beheaded by Hamas,” which “did not happen.”

Hassan recalls that, in his opinion, there was no hideout under Al-Shifa Hospital, and the list hanging on the wall of Al-Rantisi Hospital did not display the names of those detained by Hamas, but rather just the days of the week in Arabic.

Hassan asks about those atrocities that the Israeli forces denied committing - out loud - and then revealed that they were responsible, according to the writer, who considered that there are “examples of this, such as the flour massacre in February, the bombing of the refugee convoy last October, and the attack White phosphorus in southern Lebanon in October as well.

But Hassan believes, according to him, that “there is no Israeli lie more harmful, destructive and deadly than the one that claimed that UNRWA and its employees had colluded with Hamas and participated in the attack on October 7.”

He comments on the question, “Why was this the most harmful lie?” Then he answers: “You have helped deepen a devastating and ongoing man-made famine inside the Gaza Strip.”

As a result, Mahdi says, 16 donor countries, including the United States, the main funder of UNRWA, suspended about $450 million in aid provided to the agency.

He added that "Israel starved the people of Gaza," criticizing "the fools who helped it justify this."

Hassan explains that the parties funding the Israeli file against UNRWA were warned that it contained only “false and unproven allegations,” but - according to Hassan - they trusted Israel.

The author continues by saying that many countries have resumed their funding to UNRWA, including the German government, which is the agency’s second largest source of funding, after an independent review of UNRWA’s work concluded that the agency’s work “remains pivotal in providing life-saving humanitarian assistance and basic social services.”

Hassan confirms that the independent review stated that Israel has not yet provided evidence to support these allegations, so it was, once again, “a lie from Israel.”

The writer says that, worst of all, is the statement made by Anthony Blinken, the Democratic Secretary of State, on January 29, when he admitted that “the United States did not have the ability to investigate the allegations itself.” Despite this, Washington went ahead Describing the unverified Israeli allegations as “highly credible.”

He added, "Blinken has not yet apologized for his false claim or even retracted it."

Media Review: A college professor who protested the Vietnam War in 1968 compares her experiences with the anti-genocide protests currently happening at Columbia University

Media Review: A college professor who protested the Vietnam War in 1968 compares her experiences with the anti-genocide protests currently happening at Columbia University

    Sunday, April 28, 2024   No comments

MICHEL MARTIN, NPR HOST:

Demonstrations are still going on at more than a dozen universities across the country where students are calling for an end to the Israel-Hamas war, and they say they want their schools to divest in companies that do business with Israel. The epicenter of these demonstrations is Columbia University, where images of police arresting students brought back powerful memories of another protest there.

MARTIN: In 1968, Eleanor Raskin was a student at Columbia and took part in demonstrations against the Vietnam War there. Raskin, now Eleanor Stein, now teaches law and human rights at the State University of New York, and she's with us now to talk about whether she sees parallels between then and now. Good morning. Thanks so much for joining us.

ELEANOR STEIN: It's a pleasure.

MARTIN: If you would just remind us, for people who weren't there or don't remember, about the demonstrations in 1968 - what started it, and what happened?

STEIN: It's hard to conjure up what that moment was for our country. It was a moment of real crisis. But the issues at Colombia, there were two, really, that were critical, basically a war research body. The Institute for Defense Analysis had a contract with Colombia, which could have meant participation in military research for the war. The second issue was that Colombia was in the process of building a new gym. And they were building it in Morningside Park, one of the few green spaces in Harlem. And we felt that it couldn't be business as usual, that the university itself was engaging in an indefensible takeover of Harlem land and an indefensible participation and complicity with the Vietnam War effort. And students felt so strongly about this. We felt that whatever the risks, whatever the outcomes, we should demand that the university take action.

MARTIN: So what did you do?

STEIN: Well, first, I went to the rally. And then, at the rally, people decided to go into a classroom building, Hamilton Hall, and kind of have a sit-in. And then we decided to stay and to kind of barricade the doors. I ended up going into another classroom building, Fayerweather Hall, where I lived for five days, and I was arrested there. So actually, we were much more disruptive in terms of the functioning of the university. We were blocking access to classroom buildings. Whereas today, there's - none of that has been going on.

listen/read full interview

 

Qatar's threat to abandon mediation between Hamas and Israel opens the door for an increased role for Iran and Turkey

Qatar's threat to abandon mediation between Hamas and Israel opens the door for an increased role for Iran and Turkey

    Sunday, April 21, 2024   No comments

With Qatar announcing its intention to re-evaluate the mediation role it plays between Hamas and Israel and the US pressure on Qatar to force it to coerce Hamas to accept the deal of face terrorism charges for its fund transferred to Hamas, other states opened their door to Hamas political leaders.

After Iran's official reception of Palestinian leaders, now Turkish leaders formally welcomed the head of Hamas in Ankara.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's reception of the head of the political bureau of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), Ismail Haniyeh, on Saturday sparked the anger of Israeli politicians and newspapers.

 It also signals an end or a diminished roles for Qatar and Egypt in any future negotiations to not only end the war, but also to arrange for post war Gaza and Palestine. It also reveals new realignments and emerging future coalitions in the new Middle East, after Jordan participated in the first direct military confrontation between Iran and Israel--as noted by some observers.

Andreas Craig, an expert on Middle East affairs at King's College in London, pointed out that Doha played a "decisive role" in concluding the truce last November, and it is "dissatisfied that everyone, especially Israel, does not acknowledge this."

However, in his opinion, it is unlikely that it will “withdraw from mediation efforts” after it “took control of the relationship” with Hamas, and he said that Qatar is “indispensable” in mediation efforts.

Qatar has become the main communication channel with Hamas, which has maintained its political office in Doha since 2012.

On the other hand, Dorsey believes that “if Qatar withdraws from the talks, it will be subject to more pressure to expel Hamas from its lands.”

The expert wondered if the political office moved to Iran: “To whom will the Americans and Israelis turn to reach Hamas?”

Unlike Jordan, which admitted to shooting down Iran's missile heading to targets in Israel, Turkey, despite it being a member of NATO, came strong in refuting any insinuation that it participated in the interception of the missiles. 

The Anti-Disinformation Center of the Turkish Presidency’s Communications Department said in a statement on Saturday evening that the allegations in this regard “do not reflect reality.”

The statement pointed out that the allegations related to the radar base in Koracik, which were circulated following Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s meeting with the head of the Hamas Political Bureau, Ismail Haniyeh, on Saturday, had previously been denied by the Anti-Disinformation Center.

The statement stressed that “the allegations are baseless, and were deliberately put forward for circulation again.”

“Information taken from the radar system in Koracek is only shared with Allies within the framework of NATO procedures,” the statement read.

He stressed that “it is not possible to share this information with countries that are not NATO allies, such as Israel.”

He added: “Turkey has always stood by the just cause of our Palestinian brothers and will continue to do so in all circumstances,” and stressed the need not to pay attention to “misinformation campaigns.”

New York Times tells its journalists which words to use when covering the war on Gaza

New York Times tells its journalists which words to use when covering the war on Gaza

    Tuesday, April 16, 2024   No comments

According to a leaked memo, The New York Times restricts its journalists from covering the war on Gaza. The New York Times has instructed journalists covering the Israeli war on the Gaza Strip to restrict the use of the terms “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing,” and to avoid using the phrase “occupied territories” when describing the Palestinian territories, according to a copy of an internal memo obtained by The Intercept. American.

According to the site, the New York Times memo also directs journalists not to use the word Palestine except in very rare cases, and to stay away from the term “refugee camps” to describe the places to which Palestinians have historically been displaced within the Gaza Strip, who fled from other parts of Palestine during the Arab-Israeli wars. Previous.

It is noteworthy that the United Nations recognizes the areas to which Palestinians were displaced as camps housing hundreds of thousands of registered refugees.

The memo, written by New York Times Standards Editor Susan Wesling, international editor Philip Ban, and others, provides guidance on some of the terms and other issues that have imposed themselves on the scene since the start of the Israeli war on the Gaza Strip last October.

While the document is presented as a blueprint for maintaining journalistic principles of objectivity when dealing with the war on Gaza, several New York Times journalists told The Intercept that some of its contents provide evidence of the newspaper adopting the Israeli narrative.

The website quoted a source in the New York Times newsroom - who requested anonymity for fear of being held accountable - saying that the matter “seems professional and logical if you do not have knowledge of the historical context of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, but if you do know, it will be clear how much it identifies with the Israeli narrative.” ".

The Intercept noted that the guidelines were first distributed to New York Times journalists last November, and were updated regularly over the following months.

On March 14, demonstrators supporting the Palestinian cause stormed the building of the New York Times newspaper in protest against its bias towards Israel in the ongoing war on the Gaza Strip. This is the second storming, as pro-Palestinian demonstrators had previously occupied the newspaper’s lobby on November 11, demanding an immediate cessation. Because of the Israeli aggression on Gaza, they accused the newspaper of bias towards Israel in its coverage of the war on the Gaza Strip.

The deliberate use of key words and adjectives by Western media, and all media outlets for that matter, is and established fact. 

The language used by the media became a reflexive way of describing the events. CNN consistently describes the Oct. 7 attack as "brutal" and "terrorist, but uses no adjectives to describe Israel's retaliation, for example.

Western media will add the adjective “brutal” when talking about Hamas’ attack on Oct. 7, but will use “war in Gaza” without attributing who is waging the war and what kind of war it is, which is brutal, destructive, and genocidal according to NGOs, many governments’ officials, and the International Court of Justice.

During the same time period, Western media used the phrase "Hamas' brutal" at least 554,000 times; whereas the "war in Gaza" was mentioned 33,900,000 times without any adjectives or qualifications despite the heavy loss of life and structures--a war that was described by independent observers, including the same media outlets who use this biased language, as unprecedented in the number and size of weapons dropped in the densely populated area just in in the first three weeks.

...

News media platforms’ use of guidelines, algorithms of sort, to create an acceptable narrative for their audience, financiers, shareholders, or governments is no secret nor is it practiced by limited, marginal media platforms. Journalism is a profession that teaches people who work in the field how to use words the same way a soldier is trained to use weapons.

Many people who believe in the need for free press to inform the public thought that the best model is the creation of media platforms that are not beholden to anyone. They thought a structure where a media outlet is guaranteed funding from the government with full and complete editorial independence is the way to go. This is the model of the British BBC and the American NPR. However, a close examination of the editorial policies and practices would reveal that even this model is still controlled by politics, ideology, or leadership still. The recent revelation about NPR is a good lesson in understanding the synergy between politics and journalism. Here is some reporting about the struggles inthe NPR organization.

 

In the letter published on Free Press, NPR’s senior business editor Uri Berliner claimed Americans no longer trust NPR – which is partly publicly funded – because of its lack of “viewpoint diversity” and its embrace of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

Berliner wrote that “an open-minded spirit no longer exists within NPR, and now, predictably, we don’t have an audience that reflects America”. He acknowledged that NPR’s audience had always tilted left, but was now no longer able to make any claim to ideological neutrality.

In the piece on Free Press, a site run by Bari Weiss, a former opinion editor at the New York Times, Berliner noted that in 2011 the public broadcaster’s audience identified as 26% conservative, 23% as middle of the road and 37% liberal. Last year it identified as 11% very or somewhat conservative, 21% as middle of the road, and 67% very or somewhat liberal.

 

Media review: Is Iran's first retaliatory attack on Israel really a failure?

Media review: Is Iran's first retaliatory attack on Israel really a failure?

    Monday, April 15, 2024   No comments

The French newspaper "Le Figaro" argues that the effectiveness of the "Dahiya Doctrine" had already ended, after the Iranian attack, which targeted "Israel."

The “Dahiya Doctrine” is an Israeli military strategy adopted by the occupation in all its wars, since 2006, and takes its name from the systematic destruction of the southern suburb of Beirut during the July 2006 aggression. It includes the use of firepower disproportionate to the source of the threat, and leveling the entire infrastructure to the ground. With the aim of making the popular incubator pay the price for the choices of the resistance leadership, and turning it against them.

The newspaper saw that “the image of the state, which cannot be touched, and which commands respect because it intimidates others,” in turn, after the attack on “Israel,” was hanging by a thread.

The French newspaper said, "After Hamas's direct attack on Israel, on October 7, and for the second time in less than one year, more of Israel's enemies are crossing the difficult borders, ignoring the potential consequences, and this time it is Iran's turn."

The newspaper noted that “Tel Aviv woke up groggy on Sunday morning,” and that millions of Israelis spent a sleepless night, due to the impact of Iranian weapons explosions.

"Le Figaro" confirmed that the Israelis are not naive, and that their confidence in their government was basically limited, and that for them the matter is more important than launching 200 missiles from Iranian territory towards "Israel."

The newspaper pointed out that "Israel" and the Americans must quickly return to the land, instead of continuing to blindly believe in their invincible ability, noting that "Western branches in the Middle East are in danger."

"Le Figaro" confirmed that "Israel's security" has never been threatened to this extent since "its establishment in 1948, and its strong support from the United States."

In a comment carrying a sarcastic tone against the head of the occupation government, Benjamin Netanyahu, the newspaper saw that he believed that he would emerge as the “new Goliath” that the entire region fears after October 7, despite the hostility of the world, including the White House itself, But he is now "the person who was in power when Iran fearlessly struck Israel for the first time."

The newspaper reminded that, regardless of even its nuclear program, Iran is the first military power in the Gulf, and its army is one of the strongest armies in the region, in terms of human resources and weapons, with 350,000 soldiers and 350,000 reserve soldiers.

She saw that while Iran has traditionally been criticized for the weakness of its army, the slap directed at “Israel” has completely reshuffled the cards, stressing that this is an absolute success for Tehran, and it is right to consider it as such, and that Tel Aviv is afraid and that there is a reason for that.

The newspaper stressed that Iran clearly demonstrated its ability, by making this attack a large-scale test of the worst that could happen, stressing that “the unpleasant truth is clear: since the beginning of the rumors about its possible intervention, Iran has not shown any weakness, but on the contrary, "She showed incredible strength."

The newspaper said that the Iranian attack represented a tremendous strategic success in all respects, and that “Israel” is no longer the only one that is deeply afraid of Iran, but there are Western and Arab capitals that completely understood the message.

The newspaper confirmed that the world with Biden is worse than before, and that his weakness has led to the liberation of the regimes most hostile to his global hegemony, adding that it is not certain that the return of Donald Trump now will change anything.

The newspaper concluded by saying: “In less than five years, Russia, China, and now Iran have proven that the West is on the brink of abyss every day, starting with Israel. We need to think about the matter and sound the alarm.”

...

In a related context, the British newspaper “Financial Times” saw that the fear in Washington is that “Israel” will continue to act according to its own perception of the threat, and launch a major attack on Iran, believing that the United States will eventually join the war, and perhaps defeat Iran on its behalf. .

The newspaper stressed that any such calculation would be fraught with risks for “Israel,” as waging a broader war with Iran could drag the United States into the battle, but this test of the United States’ commitment to “Israel” may quickly bring that commitment to the breaking point. .

The newspaper pointed out that, in light of the tense discussions in Washington regarding what this “strict” commitment entails, there is another question that is often unstated, which is: “Is Israel still a strategic asset to the United States, or has it become a strategic burden on it?” ".

The newspaper confirmed that after Washington’s support for “Israel” in Gaza caused damage to the image of the United States in many parts of the world, and the complexity it led to in its efforts to mobilize support against Russia and China, the greatest concern today is that Israeli actions will drag Washington into the ground. To another war in the Middle East.

The newspaper stated that Biden is also paying a domestic political price, as he loses support among young voters, noting that this is not a trivial consideration, especially if it is interrupted with the fact that Benjamin Netanyahu is close to Donald Trump, so that these matters together increase the White House’s reservations towards the government. Israeli.

The newspaper warned that while Iran is being portrayed in Washington as one of four members of the “axis of adversaries,” which also includes Russia, China, and North Korea, for Iran to have the upper hand over “Israel” will mean that this axis will gain more strength and confidence.

The newspaper concluded with certainty that if there is no “game theory” expert in the White House who can balance all these competing data, the United States will need luck, as well as judgment, to reach the other side of this crisis without getting involved in another war.

Iran retaliates: Israel's miscalculation allowed Iran to sideline US and attack Israel at the same time

Iran retaliates: Israel's miscalculation allowed Iran to sideline US and attack Israel at the same time

    Saturday, April 13, 2024   No comments

It may take time before the world learns that Biden's angry 30-minute call with Israel's pm, Netanyahu, two weeks ago, was not really triggered by Israel armed forces killing aid workers, for Israel had already killed more than 250 aids workers in Gaza before this event, but it was about the attack on the Iranian diplomatic facility in Syria. The next few days and months will reveal how costly Israel’s miscalculation was and that would explain Biden's anger.

Biden's anger was not motivated by his respect for Iran's or Syria's sovereignty, of course. It is motivated by the fact that no other State, ever, had deliberately attacked diplomatic facilities even when two states were at war. This global consensus is enshrined in several treaties and protocols. So, for the State of Israel to be the first to attack a diplomatic facility, violating two sovereignties in one strike, other states were put in a very difficult position, and that opened a window for Iran to re-assert its sovereignty and claim self-defense, the same international principle that has been used by Israel to destroy Gaza and kill more than 41,000 of its people after Hamas launched its own attack on October 7, 2023.

So, on Saturday evening, Iran launched its expected attack on Israel, in response to the bombing of its consulate in the Syrian capital, Damascus, in early April, by launching dozens of drones and missiles into Israel.

Israeli army spokesman Daniel Hagari said that the army and air force are prepared for the expected Iranian threats, he said.

He added that the army will try to prevent the Iranian drones from reaching Israel, and will deal with them as soon as they arrive, "but we warn that the defense will not be 100%."

ABC quoted a senior American official as saying that he believes Iran will launch between 400 and 500 drones and missiles at Israel.

CNN also reported that an Israeli military official reported that he expected Iran to launch additional waves of drones over time.

This American news network also said that President Joe Biden has now met with his national security team in the White House Situations Room.

 Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel will protect itself from any threat, and that it will do so calmly and with determination, he said.

Netanyahu added, "Israel is strong, its army is strong, its people are strong, and whoever harms us, we harm him," stressing that "Israel is prepared for any direct targeting from Iran."

He continued by saying, "Our defense systems are deployed, and we are prepared for any scenario, whether in defense or attack."

  

Media review: Israel arresting and assassianting family members of Hamas political leaders including chidlren

Media review: Israel arresting and assassianting family members of Hamas political leaders including chidlren

    Thursday, April 11, 2024   No comments

Three of the sons of the head of the political bureau of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), Ismail Haniyeh, and several of his grandchildren were assassinated, on Wednesday, in an Israeli raid on a civilian car in the Beach Camp in Gaza City, north of the Strip.

Aljazeera journalist, Ismail Al-Ghoul, reported that the “martyrs, who were at least 5, fell while they were traveling in a car to perform family ties and congratulate residents on the occasion of Eid Al-Fitr.”

He pointed out that the toll is temporary and is likely to rise because a larger number of people were on board the targeted car.

The head of the Political Bureau of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), Ismail Haniyeh, received the news, while visiting the wounded in Gaza, with patience and composure. The moment he heard the news, he said, “May God make it easy for them.”

Haniyeh insisted on continuing his visits to the wounded after receiving the news.

In his first comment on the assassination, he said in an interview with Aljazeera: “I thank God for this honor with which he bestowed upon us the martyrdom of my three sons and some grandchildren... With this pain and blood, we create hopes, a future, and freedom for our people, our cause, and our nation.”

He added, "The occupation believes that by targeting the sons of leaders, it will break the resolve of our people. We tell them that this blood will only make us more steadfast in our principles and adherence to our land."

 The assassiantion took place after Israel arrested Hanieh' sister just lastr week. 

The Israeli police and the Shin Bet said in a joint statement that their forces, along with border guard reinforcements, carried out a security operation dubbed “Early Sunrise,” during which they arrested a relative of the Hamas leader who lives in the town of Tel Sheva, east of the city of Beersheba.

The statement added that she was arrested on suspicion of having made contact with leaders and activists in the Hamas movement and inciting to carry out "terrorist operations" in Israel.

Sabah Abdel Salam Haniyeh (57 years old) lives with her family in Tel Sheva, a few kilometers east of the city of Beersheba.

 

 

Why does it take the killing of non-Gazans for the West to see war crimes?

Why does it take the killing of non-Gazans for the West to see war crimes?

    Wednesday, April 03, 2024   No comments

Politico reported that the US and other Western governments were “outraged” by the “devastating” attack that killed 7 workers from the World Central Kitchen, just another a war crime. Ironically, these governments do not seem to be outraged by the fact that these seven aid workers were killed because they were in Gaza feeding 2 million people starved by a war that is enabled by them. 33,000 civilians killed in Gaza, 70% of whom are children and women, did not cause outrage to summoned Israel diplomats. But this incident does.

The news outlet reported that

 "Israel’s strike against aid workers trying to get food to residents in Gaza reverberated across Washington on Tuesday, particularly resonating because of the American death and the connections the group’s founder — José Andrés — has to the capital. Administration officials lashed out at new levels, and Israel was left struggling for damage control."

Western media provided extensive coverage as if these are the only seven uninvolved civilians killed by Israelis strikes in the past 6 months. 

Has US threat to force Qatar to expel Hamas out of Doha collapsed the Ceasefire negotiations?

Has US threat to force Qatar to expel Hamas out of Doha collapsed the Ceasefire negotiations?

    Sunday, March 31, 2024   No comments

Although the US has warned the leaders of Qatar as early as October that they will need to reconsider the presence of the leaders of Hamas in Doha, the US wanted to use their presence there to strike deals that it wanted. However, with the negotiations for a ceasefire going nowhere, the US administrations wanted to leverage Qatar hosting of Hamas leaders to force them to accept a proposal the Biden administration formulated. 

CNN reported recently that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken “delivered a stern message to Qatar earlier this month: Tell Hamas that they must deliver on a hostage and ceasefire deal that would halt the war in Gaza or risk getting kicked out of the Qatari capital of Doha.” That threat appears to have failed to achieve its goal and worse, it may have backfired.

First, Hamas leaders are now saying that there is no negotiation because their last counteroffer was not responded to by Israel in a way that will allow them to go on negotiating. Hamas and other Palestinian factions insist that there will be a deal only when a permanent ceasefire is approved and guaranteed by the mediators, when aid is delivered to all the people in Gaza, and when Israel forces leave Gaza, when people who lost their homes are sheltered. 

Second, Hamas and other Palestinian resistance leaders took the threat of being kicked out of Doha, the same way they way forced out Turkey, and offered a demonstration of what will happen if they are forced out of Doha: they will settle in Iran. Iran seems to be willing to not only host Hamas leaders, but to host them in a formal manner—something no other host nation has done for Hamas since their days in Syria pre-2012.

Just after the conclusion of the Persian new year celebrations, leaders of Hamas and Islamic Jihad were received by the highest officials of the Iranian government, including a couple meetings with the supreme leader. The message is clear: you can kick us out of Qatar and when you do, we will find home in a country that recognizes us as official representatives of the Palestinian peoples. That means, if Israel or the US wants to negotiate with Hamas, they will have to find someone else other than Qatar or Egypt to mediate. China and Russia willingness to receive Hamas leaders as official representatives of the Palestinian people make Iran's move less problematic.

Based on events on the ground, Hamas leaders having to leave another country to find refuge in Iran will only make Arab countries, like Qatar and Jordan look week. The daily denotations that are growing by the day in Jordan are a good indication of this trend.

Pro-Palestinian protesters in Jordan, March 30, 2024.

Norman Finkelstein: Israel is facing an existential crisis and South Africa offers a model for a one-state

Norman Finkelstein: Israel is facing an existential crisis and South Africa offers a model for a one-state

    Sunday, March 31, 2024   No comments

The American Jewish historian, Norman Finkelstein, argues that “Israel” is facing an existential crisis for the first time since its establishment, and suggests that South Africa offers a model for a one-state solution for one people of different backgrounds.

The American Jewish thinker and historian who opposes the Israeli occupation policy, Norman Finkelstein, said that “Israel” has obstructed all political solutions in its war on the Gaza Strip. In a symposium held with students at Princeton University, Finkelstein said: “At the current stage at least, we have reached the end of any kind of diplomacy to resolve the conflict,” adding that “talk about a two-state solution seems absolutely ridiculous, and there is no diplomatic solution.” appears in the horizon".

 He pointed out that "Israel is determined to impose a military victory and will not back down from that goal."  Finkelstein explained, “On the other hand, the Secretary-General of Hezbollah said it explicitly, that he will not accept a military defeat for Hamas, and that this will not happen,” adding that “these two goals are not reconcilable, either victorious or defeated.”

Finkelstein believed that "at the level of the Arab and Islamic worlds, a conclusion has been reached that living with Israel is impossible," adding that according to the Arab and Islamic worlds, it is "moronic and must go. For this reason, there is no political solution on the horizon in the short term."

 He pointed out that "Israel is facing, for the first time in its history, a crisis of existence and legitimacy," pointing out that "its main opponent in this regard is South Africa, the country that is confronting it at the International Court of Justice and presenting itself as a model for a one-state solution for one people."

 As for the United States, “the American Democratic Party is facing a crisis with its broad popular base that objects to Israel’s crimes, and the party’s leadership can no longer ignore that base,” according to Finkelstein.

 He continued by saying: "I was shocked and astonished by US Senator Chuck Schumer's speech last week. Senator Schumer has always been fanatical about Israel, and he was the one who called for the economic strangling of Gaza."

 The American writer pointed out that “Senator Schumer, along with New Jersey Senator Menendez, were at the forefront of those opposing the deal with Iran,” explaining that “he served as the official spokesman for the Israeli government in our country.”

 He considered that "Schumer's statements critical of Israel are beyond expectations."

Finkelstein's talk and comments were published on YouTube.

It must be noted that the two-state solution is promoted as the only solution, which is now becoming very hard to realize, when other examples from around the world point to other alternatives. One of these examples mentioned here is the South Africa example. For years the apartheid regime created systems that dehumanized the people of South Africa. The oppression was built in part on the false idea that Africans are incapable of building and running a democracy. All that was proved wrong: Africans overthrew the racist regime but did not purge South Africa of white people. The preserved South Africa as one country for all.

Other examples of single-state solutions to conflict zones are in the Middle East region and they were in part promoted and engineered by Western governments and their regional allies. The Lebanese example is just on the other side of the border: After 15 years of civil war, Christians and Muslims settled to live, still in tension, but in peace, thanks to a power-sharing system that allows Christians, Shia Muslims, and Sunni Muslims to create a calibrated power sharing system to preserve the national unity of Lebanon.

After the US invaded Iraq, the constitution and institutions that were produced under the authority of the occupying forces of the United States, produced a power sharing structure that allows the Kurdish people, the Sunni Muslims, and the Shia majority to live in relative peace. It is worth noting that the current president, then a senator, Biden, promoted the idea of breaking up Iraq—a tri-state solution if you will.

If the South African, Lebanese, and Iraq models of a single-state solution whereby different peoples, separated by religion or ethnicity, can coexist and govern through power sharing structures, why would a single-state solution that would allow Jews, Christians, and Muslims to live in peace through some sort of power-sharing formular be impractical? And how would a two-state solution solve the problem of the non-Jews, nearly 30% of the population who are Christian and Muslim, who would end up in Israel under any border configuration, should the two state-solution come into existence?

As the world community is forced to address this 75-year old conflict, there is much to be learned not only from the moral force that compelled South Africa to stand against genocide, but to offer a practical example of many peoples in one nation living in relative peace despite the cruelty of the past.

Demonstrations in Morocco are escalating and demanding an end to the siege, starvation, and killing of civlians in Gaza by Israel's armed forces

Demonstrations in Morocco are escalating and demanding an end to the siege, starvation, and killing of civlians in Gaza by Israel's armed forces

    Saturday, March 30, 2024   No comments

Demonstrations and marches in support of Gaza continue in dozens of Moroccan cities, as demonstrators demand an end to the siege, starvation, and killing practiced by the Israeli occupation against the residents of the Gaza Strip for nearly 6 months.

During the solidarity march called for by a number of local non-governmental bodies, including the Moroccan Authority for Supporting the Nation’s Issues, on Friday evening, the participants denounced the continued Israeli aggression against Gaza, which they described as “contrary to all human rights and international standards.”

According to a statement by the Moroccan Authority for Supporting the Nation's Issues, the demonstrators demanded that the government stop normalization with Israel once and for all, denouncing international silence and complicity, and Arab and Islamic failure to support Palestine.

The demonstrators considered that "Israel's challenge to all humanitarian laws and standards, in light of Western support for it," is unacceptable, and demanded that the residents of Gaza be protected and that "Israel" be prevented from displacing them from the Strip. They stressed that the Rabat march is considered a continuation of the activities in support of Gaza, in parallel with the occasion of commemorating “Land Day.”

The statement added that participants in the marches raised Palestinian flags and chanted solidarity slogans in support of Gaza, such as “The people want to liberate Palestine,” “Palestine is a trust... and normalization is treason,” “We are going to Jerusalem... martyrs in the millions,” and “Despite the bombing and siege. “Free Gaza will not collapse” and others.

They called for immediate and urgent intervention and pressure to stop the war, open the crossings, and lift the siege on the Palestinians.

It should be noted that calls are continuing to organize new protests in various regions in the context of support and support for Palestine, the resistance and Gaza, in the context of the protest activities witnessed by the Moroccan street since the beginning of the Al-Aqsa flood on October 7, 2023.

The statement of the “Moroccan Authority for Supporting the Nation’s Issues” pointed out that 100 demonstrations in support of Palestine were organized in 52 Moroccan cities, explaining that “more than 100 demonstrations were organized on Friday, in 52 cities, in support of Gaza, which presents honorable images of steadfastness and struggle,” according to the statement of the authority. .

The statement also indicated that marches and demonstrations spread across dozens of cities and regions in Morocco, most notably in Tangier, Sidi Yahya, Kenitra, El Jadida, Tetouan, Beni Mellal, Chefchaouen, Chaouen, Azrou, Casablanca and Agadir.

Today, Saturday, marks the anniversary of “Land Day,” when Israel occupied vast areas of Arab population’s lands in 1976.

Palestinians everywhere in the world commemorate “Land Day,” which falls on March 30 of each year, by launching several activities in solidarity and support for Palestine and the cause.

This year's anniversary comes amid the escalation of the Israeli war on the Gaza Strip since last October 7, and the escalation of the settlement attack in the West Bank.

It is noteworthy that tens of thousands of Moroccans demonstrated last February in the main roads of the capital, Rabat, in rejection of the Israeli genocide against the people of the Gaza Strip, demanding an end to the normalization of relations between Morocco and “Israel.”

The demonstrators raised banners in front of the Parliament building in the center of the capital, reading: “Stop the massacre,” “Normalization is treason,” and “No embassy, no ambassador.” They also set fire to the Israeli flag.

  

Another US government employeee resigning in protest of gaza War: "Why I’m resigning from the State Department"

Another US government employeee resigning in protest of gaza War: "Why I’m resigning from the State Department"

    Wednesday, March 27, 2024   No comments

Another US government employeee resigning in protest of gaza War: "Why I’m resigning from the State Department", the State Department employee, Annelle Sheline, PhD,  wrote on CNN.

For the past year, I worked for the office devoted to promoting human rights in the Middle East. I believe strongly in the mission and in the important work of that office. However, as a representative of a government that is directly enabling what the International Court of Justice has said could plausibly be a genocide in Gaza, such work has become almost impossible. Unable to serve an administration that enables such atrocities, I have decided to resign from my position at the Department of State.

...

President Joe Biden himself indirectly admits that Israel is not protecting Palestinian civilians from harm. Under pressure from some congressional Democrats, the administration issued a new policy to ensure that foreign military transfers don’t violate relevant domestic and international laws.

...

She also invoked another employee of US government, Aaron Bushnell, US Navy Pilot, who committed the most extreme act of protest, setting oneself on fire.

I am haunted by the final social media post of Aaron Bushnell, the 25-year-old US Air Force serviceman who self-immolated in front of the Israeli Embassy in Washington on February 25: “Many of us like to ask ourselves, ‘What would I do if I was alive during slavery? Or the Jim Crow South? Or apartheid? What would I do if my country was committing genocide?’ The answer is, you’re doing it. Right now.”

I can no longer continue what I was doing. I hope that my resignation can contribute to the many efforts to push the administration to withdraw support for Israel’s war, for the sake of the 2 million Palestinians whose lives are at risk and for the sake of America’s moral standing in the world.

In October, another State Department official in the bureau that oversees arms transfers, Josh Paul, resigned this week in protest of the Biden administration’s decision to continue sending weapons and ammunition to Israel as it lays siege to Gaza in its war with Hamas.

With US refrained from using its veto this time, 14 UNSC members adopted a resolution calling for a cease fire in Gaza

With US refrained from using its veto this time, 14 UNSC members adopted a resolution calling for a cease fire in Gaza

    Monday, March 25, 2024   No comments

None of the UNSC P5 member States used their NO vote; that is all it took.

For the first time, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution calling for a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, more than 5 months after the Israeli war, as the United States - the main supporter of Tel Aviv - refrained from using its veto this time.

The resolution presented by non-permanent members of the Security Council calls for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, stressing the urgent need to increase aid and demanding the removal of all obstacles to its delivery.

Algeria's representative to the United Nations, Ammar Ben Jama, said that the adoption of the resolution is a message to the people of Gaza that the international community feels their pain and has not abandoned them.

He continued, saying, "We want Palestine to become a full and sovereign member of the United Nations."

The adoption of the resolution came after the Council failed to pass an amendment to the draft by adding the phrase “permanent ceasefire.”

UN Secretary-General António Guterres said a failure to implement the resolution would be “unforgivable.”

“The Security Council just approved a long-awaited resolution on Gaza, demanding an immediate ceasefire, and the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages.

This resolution must be implemented. Failure would be unforgivable,” Guterres wrote on X.

Last Friday, Russia and China used their veto power to drop a US draft resolution calling for a ceasefire “in the framework of a deal to release the hostages,” a formulation that the Arab countries, Moscow, and Beijing described as “politicized and ambiguous.”

The United States has previously systematically opposed the term “ceasefire” in United Nations resolutions, and has obstructed 3 texts in this context, since the beginning of the war.

UN Security Council rejects US draft resolution on War in Gaza

UN Security Council rejects US draft resolution on War in Gaza

    Friday, March 22, 2024   No comments

 Algeria, the country that proposed an earlier UNSC resolution to stop the war on Gaza, rejected the US-drafted resolution. It was joined by both China and Russia, whose vetoes sunk the US resolution.

Amar Bendjama, Algeria’s ambassador to the UN, said the text was inadequate and failed to address the immense suffering endured by the Palestinians. “Those who believe that the Israeli occupying power will choose to uphold its international legal obligations are mistaken,” he told the council. “They must abandon this fiction.”

Last February, it objected to the use of the term “immediate” in the draft resolution submitted by Algeria.

Since blocking the Algerian draft resolution, which calls for an "immediate humanitarian ceasefire" in Gaza at the end of last February, US officials have been negotiating an alternative text that focuses on supporting diplomatic efforts on the ground for a six-week truce in exchange for the release of the hostages.

The Secretary-General of the United Nations, António Guterres, said that children, women and men are “living an endless nightmare,” stressing that there is no effective way to distribute aid without a ceasefire.

US rejection of three previous UNSC resolutions made some members skeptical and worried that US intentions have been thus far about shielding Israel and not about stopping the bloodshed. They want to see a clean resolution that orders an immediate cease fire and the unhindered delivery of food, water, medicine, and shelter to end the starvation of civilians in Gaza. Other issues can be addressed in separate resolutions.

China insists on an immediate and unconditional ceasefire not linked to the release of the captives

China's Permanent Representative to the Security Council, Zhang Jun, said: "We voted against the American draft resolution because it does not request an immediate ceasefire, even though the Secretary-General used Article 99 of the Charter for that purpose," adding that "the Council wasted a long time and did not request a ceasefire." Fire after."

The Chinese delegate believed that “the American draft resolution is ambiguous and does not meet the aspirations of the international community,” and that it is “unbalanced because it does not explicitly oppose the attack on Rafah,” and “it does not warn of the dire consequences that could result from such an attack.”

He continued: "The Council now has before it a clear draft resolution requesting an immediate ceasefire, and China supports it," expressing his hope "that it will gain the support of member states," because it "requests an end to the conflict and the immediate release of the hostages."

The Chinese delegate also indicated that “China rejects the accusations of America and Britain” related to its positions, considering that “if the United States is serious about a ceasefire, it should support this draft resolution.”

Zhang Jun, China's permanent representative to the UN, offered further explanation about China's voting position and relevant considerations after the vote.

Zhang said that more than 160 days have passed since the outbreak of the Gaza conflict. In the face of this human tragedy in which more than 32,000 innocent civilians have lost their lives and has left millions suffering from famine, the most urgent action to be taken by the Council is to promote an immediate, unconditional, and sustained ceasefire, which is the universal call of the international community. But the Council has dragged its feet and wasted too much time in this regard, Zhang said.

The envoy added that the US has always evaded and dodged the most essential issue, which is a ceasefire. The final text remains ambiguous and does not call for an immediate ceasefire, nor does it even provide an answer to the question of realizing a ceasefire in the short term. This is a clear deviation from the consensus of the Council members and falls far short of the expectations of the international community. 

"An immediate ceasefire is a fundamental prerequisite for saving lives, expanding humanitarian access, and preventing further conflict. The US draft, on the contrary, sets up preconditions for a ceasefire, which is no different from giving a green light to continued killings, and thus unacceptable," Zhang noted.

Moscow said that the American draft resolution does not call for a ceasefire in Gaza.. Talk about that is a hoax

The Russian Deputy Representative to the United Nations, Dmitry Polyansky, confirmed that the American draft resolution on the situation in the Gaza Strip does not include any call for a ceasefire.

Polyansky stated that the draft resolution "does not include any call for a ceasefire, as previous drafts did not include. Rather, only a philosophical statement appeared there about its importance, while linking it to the release of prisoners."

 The Russian diplomat believed that talk about the United States including a ceasefire in Gaza in the draft resolution for the first time is “just an American trick.”

In addition, “there is practically a green light for an Israeli military operation in Rafah, while attention should be focused mainly on praising the United States’ own efforts on the ground,” according to Polyansky.

He added, "This is not what humanitarian agencies need," stressing that "no philosophy will be useful in the absence of a direct demand for a ceasefire."

Polyansky pointed out, "We should not give in to Washington's attempts to present the hope as if it were a real thing, as the United States is still not interested in a real ceasefire, and is doing everything in its power not to prevent its closest ally in the Middle East from abusing the Palestinians."

History of the American veto to protect Israel

The United States’ position on UN Security Council resolutions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is consistent with its historical use of the veto to prevent any resolutions criticizing Israel, or calling for the establishment of a Palestinian state.

The United States, Israel's main backer, had previously used its veto power in the Security Council to prevent the international body from calling for an immediate ceasefire in the Palestinian territories.

Since 1945, one of the five permanent members of the Council - the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France - has used its veto to stop 36 draft Security Council resolutions related to Israel and Palestine before. Of these decisions, the United States objected to 34 decisions, while Russia and China objected to two of them.

Security Council resolutions after October 7

The US veto blocked the resolution issued on October 18, 2023, which had demanded a “humanitarian truce” and Israel’s cancellation of its evacuation order in northern Gaza.

The US representative to the United Nations said, “Resolutions are important... but the actions we take must be based on facts on the ground and support direct diplomacy that can save lives,” according to what Reuters reported.

On February 20, the United States used its veto power again to stop another draft resolution in the Security Council, blocking a demand for an immediate ceasefire on humanitarian grounds.

13 members of the Council voted in favor of the text drafted by Algeria, while Britain abstained from voting.

This is the third American veto against a draft resolution since the start of the fighting in Gaza.

The draft resolution drafted by Algeria and objected to by the United States did not link the ceasefire to the release of the hostages, but rather demanded this separately.

Washington has opposed the use of the word ceasefire in any UN action on the war between Israel and Hamas, but the American text uses language that President Joe Biden said he used last week in a phone conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

This is the second time since October 7 that Washington has proposed issuing a Security Council resolution on Gaza. Russia and China had used their veto power to stop its first attempt.

In December, more than three-quarters of the 193-member UN General Assembly voted to demand an immediate ceasefire on humanitarian grounds. General Assembly resolutions are not binding, but they reflect a global consensus on critical matters—More than 150 countries thinking that the war in Gaza should be stopped immediately to address the starvation and killing of civilians leave the US position quite exposed. Only 10 countries voted against this UNGA resolution. The global consensus, if it continues to be opposed by the US alone, will eventually degrade US standing in the world.