Aaron Bushnell: "I will no longer be complicit in genocide… This is what our ruling class has decided will be normal"

Aaron Bushnell: "I will no longer be complicit in genocide… This is what our ruling class has decided will be normal"

    Wednesday, February 25, 2026   No comments

A Sacrifice of Conscience

On February 25, 2024, a Sunday afternoon in Washington, D.C., the ongoing global discourse regarding the war in Gaza was punctuated by a singular, traumatic event. Aaron Bushnell, a 25-year-old active-duty member of the United States Air Force, set himself on fire outside the Israeli Embassy. Livestreaming the act on the platform Twitch, Bushnell shouted, "I will no longer be complicit in genocide," before collapsing. His death hours later at a local hospital transformed him instantly from an anonymous serviceman into a polarizing symbol of dissent, sparking a complex debate regarding moral responsibility, military service, and the human cost of the conflict in West Asia.

The facts of the incident are well-documented through police reports, eyewitness accounts, and the digital footprint Bushnell left behind. Arriving at the embassy shortly after 1:00 p.m., Bushnell doused himself in a flammable liquid and ignited it. As Metropolitan Police Department officers rushed to extinguish the flames, Bushnell repeatedly shouted, "Free Palestine." He was transported to MedStar Washington Hospital Center in critical condition, where he was pronounced dead. The Secret Service and the FBI subsequently opened investigations, classifying the incident as a security breach, while the Air Force launched an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of the serviceman.

Bushnell's final statement, "This is what our ruling class has decided will be normal," served as the thesis of his protest. It was a direct condemnation of the United States' continued military and diplomatic support for Israel amidst the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. By using the term "genocide," Bushnell aligned himself with a specific legal and political argument that had gained traction in international forums, including the International Court of Justice, where South Africa had filed a case alleging Israel was violating the Genocide Convention. For Bushnell, the abstract policy debates occurring in Washington had reached a moral breaking point that he felt compelled to address through extreme physical action.

Prior to the incident, Bushnell was described by colleagues and officials as a dedicated serviceman with no prior disciplinary record. Assigned to the 5th Intelligence Squadron at Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland in Texas, he held a Top Secret security clearance. In the days following his death, the Air Force confirmed his active-duty status but withheld further details pending the investigation. This background added weight to his protest; he was not an outside agitator but an insider within the military apparatus he sought to critique. His action raised difficult questions for the Department of Defense regarding the mental health support available to service members distressed by foreign policy decisions, as well as the boundaries of political expression within the military.

The reaction to Bushnell's death was immediate and deeply divided, reflecting the broader polarization surrounding the Israel-Hamas war. For supporters of the Palestinian cause, Bushnell became a martyr. Vigils were held in cities across the United States, including New York and Los Angeles, as well as internationally in London and Beirut. In these gatherings, participants honored his willingness to sacrifice his life to draw attention to civilian casualties in Gaza. Digital memorials proliferated on social media, where his final words were circulated as a call to conscience. Graffiti bearing his name appeared on government buildings, cementing his status as a folk hero within specific activist circles.

Conversely, government officials and other segments of the public viewed the act through a lens of tragedy and security concern. White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre described the event as "horrific" and expressed condolences to Bushnell's family, while reiterating the administration's policy positions. Security experts analyzed the breach at the embassy as a failure of protocol, leading to heightened security measures at diplomatic missions. Mental health advocates also weighed in, emphasizing the need for intervention and support for individuals experiencing extreme distress, cautioning against the glorification of self-harm as a political tool.

The legacy of Aaron Bushnell is inextricably linked to the historical moment in which it occurred. His protest took place months into a conflict that had already displaced millions of Palestinians and resulted in significant loss of life, sparking widespread protests on American university campuses and in city streets. While civil disobedience is a recognized tradition in American political history, Bushnell's method marked a rare and extreme escalation in the context of modern foreign policy dissent.

The self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell stands as a stark, tragic chapter in the history of protest against the war in Gaza. It forced a confrontation between individual conscience and state policy, highlighting the intensity of feeling the conflict has generated worldwide. While his method of protest remains a subject of profound ethical and safety concern, his final words continue to resonate within the global discourse on human rights and military complicity. The event serves as a somber reminder of the human toll of geopolitical conflicts, not only for those in the war zone but for those who feel morally bound to oppose it from afar.

The UAE's Precarious Balancing Act

The UAE's Precarious Balancing Act

    Friday, January 30, 2026   No comments

Wealth, Power, and the Cost of Ambition

The United Arab Emirates has engineered one of the most remarkable transformations in modern history—morphing from a collection of desert sheikhdoms into a glittering global hub of finance, tourism, and geopolitical influence. Yet beneath the soaring skyscrapers of Dubai and Abu Dhabi lies a more complicated reality: a nation-state where approximately 85% of residents possess no political voice, where foreign policy pivots between great powers with transactional precision, and where regional ambitions increasingly strain alliances once considered unshakable.

The UAE's economic miracle rests upon a demographic paradox. Emirati citizens—ethnic Arabs whose families trace roots to the seven emirates—comprise only 11–15% of the population. The remaining 85–89% are foreign workers, ranging from highly paid Western executives to South Asian laborers who constructed the very towers that define the UAE's skyline. This majority population lives under a kafala (sponsorship) system that legally ties workers to employers, restricts freedom of movement, and denies pathways to citizenship regardless of decades of residence.

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have documented systemic abuses: confiscated passports, wage theft, dangerous working conditions, and barriers to unionization. While recent labor reforms have introduced modest improvements—such as allowing job changes without employer permission—fundamental disenfranchisement remains. Migrant workers cannot vote, run for office, or meaningfully influence laws governing their lives. The state justifies this arrangement as necessary for economic management; critics call it a caste system financed by oil wealth, where prosperity for the few depends on the political silencing of the many.

Playing All Sides: A Foreign Policy of Calculated Ambiguity

The UAE has mastered what some analysts call "hedging diplomacy"—cultivating relationships with rival powers simultaneously to maximize leverage and minimize vulnerability. This approach has yielded significant returns but carries growing risks.

Abu Dhabi positions itself as a steadfast U.S. security partner: hosting American military bases, normalizing relations with Israel through the Abraham Accords, and providing counterterrorism intelligence. Yet it simultaneously deepens ties with Washington's strategic competitors. The UAE has become a favored sanctuary for sanctioned Russian oligarchs, with Dubai's luxury real estate market absorbing billions in assets fleeing Western sanctions after Moscow's 2022 invasion of Ukraine. U.S. intelligence sources have alleged Emirati officials shared identities of American intelligence officers with Russian counterparts—a breach that would constitute a profound betrayal of trust.

With China, the relationship runs deeper still. The UAE hosts Chinese surveillance technology firms, collaborates on artificial intelligence development, and welcomed Huawei's 5G infrastructure despite U.S. security warnings. When Washington conditioned a potential F-35 fighter jet sale on guarantees against Chinese espionage, Abu Dhabi responded by purchasing French Rafale jets—a pointed signal of its refusal to choose sides.

This multi-vector strategy extends to regional conflicts. While publicly aligned with Saudi Arabia in Yemen's civil war, the UAE covertly armed the Southern Transitional Council (STC), a separatist force seeking to fracture Yemen—a direct contradiction of Riyadh's objective to preserve Yemeni unity. Similar patterns emerged in Libya, where UAE-backed forces assaulted Tripoli against UN wishes, and in Sudan, where Western intelligence agencies accuse Abu Dhabi of supplying weapons to the Rapid Support Forces amid a campaign of ethnic cleansing.

The Saudi Rift and America's Reckoning

These contradictions may be reaching a breaking point. In late 2025, Saudi Arabia—long the UAE's senior Gulf partner—issued a stark ultimatum: withdraw all military forces from Yemen and cease support for separatists within 24 hours. Riyadh backed its demand with airstrikes on the port of Mukalla, targeting vessels allegedly carrying Emirati weapons. The move signaled an end to Riyadh's tolerance for Abu Dhabi's parallel agenda in Yemen, which Saudi officials now view as an existential threat to their southern border.

For Washington, the Saudi-UAE rupture presents a dilemma. The UAE remains valuable: a stable platform for U.S. forces, a counterweight to Iranian influence, and an investor in American assets. Yet its simultaneous courtship of Moscow and Beijing, its sanctuary for sanctioned oligarchs and organized crime figures like drug lord Daniel Kinahan, and its destabilizing regional interventions increasingly undermine core U.S. interests.

The Biden administration had grown wary of Emirati duplicity. The Trump administration, while embracing Gulf monarchies rhetorically, also confronted UAE-China technology ties. With geopolitical competition intensifying, American patience for "allies" who hedge against U.S. strategic priorities may be wearing thin—especially as Saudi Arabia, under Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, asserts itself as the undisputed Gulf leader and aligns more closely with Washington's regional framework.

An Empire of Sand?

The UAE's model—concentrating political power among a tiny citizen elite while leveraging hydrocarbon wealth to purchase global influence—has proven remarkably effective for decades. But its sustainability faces mounting pressures: Saudi assertiveness, American strategic recalibration, and the moral contradiction of a "tolerant" society built on systemic disenfranchisement.

The UAE is not an empire in the classical sense. It commands no formal colonies. Yet its strategy—using capital to shape outcomes in Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, and beyond while denying political rights at home—reflects an imperial mindset: that wealth confers the right to reorder weaker states' destinies without accountability.

Whether this model survives depends on choices Abu Dhabi now faces. It can double down on transactional opportunism, risking isolation as great powers demand clearer allegiances. Or it can undertake genuine reforms—extending labor rights, accepting constraints on destabilizing interventions, and choosing strategic clarity over perpetual hedging.

The world has long excused the UAE's contradictions because of its gleaming airports and financial hubs. But as Yemen fractures, Sudan burns, and great-power competition hardens, the luxury of ambiguity may be ending. The UAE built a nation on sand. Its next challenge is proving that sand can bear the weight of empire—or that it ever should have tried.

Saudi-UAE Rift Deepens--A Regional Power Struggle with Global Implications

Saudi-UAE Rift Deepens--A Regional Power Struggle with Global Implications

    Tuesday, December 30, 2025   No comments

A dramatic escalation between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has laid bare the fractures within the once-unified Gulf coalition, revealing a deepening strategic schism over influence in Yemen—and, by extension, the broader Middle East. The latest trigger came on December 30, 2025, when Saudi Arabia launched airstrikes on the Yemeni port of Mukalla, targeting vessels it alleges were carrying weapons from the UAE destined for separatist militias. Simultaneously, Riyadh issued a 24-hour ultimatum demanding the UAE withdraw all military forces from Yemen and cease financial and logistical support to factions operating within the country.

The implications of this confrontation go far beyond Yemen’s fragile borders. They expose the UAE’s increasingly assertive—and often destabilizing—foreign policy, fueled by vast petro-wealth and an ambition to project power disproportionate to its small geographic size and population. More critically, they spotlight the contradictions at the heart of the Emirati state: a gleaming global city built on the backs of a disenfranchised foreign workforce, ruled by a hereditary elite that constitutes just 14% of the population, while the rest—millions of expatriates—are denied basic civil and political rights.

The Yemen Flashpoint

Yemen has long been the proving ground for Gulf rivalries, but the Saudi-UAE split has now reached a breaking point. While both nations ostensibly joined forces in 2015 under the banner of the “Arab Coalition” to restore Yemen’s internationally recognized government, their objectives diverged sharply over time. Saudi Arabia prioritized border security and countering Houthi influence, while the UAE invested heavily in southern separatist groups like the Southern Transitional Council (STC), viewing a fragmented Yemen as strategically advantageous.

Recent developments confirm Saudi Arabia’s worst fears. The STC, with evident Emirati backing, has seized large swaths of land in Hadhramaut and Al-Mahra—governorates adjacent to Saudi territory. Riyadh interprets this not as a local power grab but as a direct threat to its national security. The Saudi Foreign Ministry’s unusually blunt language—calling UAE actions “extremely dangerous” and “incompatible with the foundations of the coalition”—signals a dramatic rupture in bilateral trust.

Yemen’s Presidential Leadership Council, under President Rashad al-Alimi, responded by declaring a 90-day state of emergency, revoking a security agreement with the UAE, and imposing a comprehensive blockade on ports and crossings. These measures underscore the extent to which Emirati interference is now seen as an existential threat to Yemeni sovereignty—even by a government that once welcomed UAE support.

The UAE’s Destabilizing Regional Ambitions

The Yemen crisis is not an isolated case. The UAE has consistently leveraged its financial might to back proxy forces across the region—often in defiance of international law and regional stability:

Sudan: The UAE has been accused by the UN and Western intelligence agencies of supplying weapons to the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), intensifying the brutal civil war that has killed tens of thousands and displaced millions. Abu Dhabi sees the RSF as a counterweight to Islamist and Turkish influence, but its intervention has prolonged and deepened the conflict.

Libya: The UAE openly backed Khalifa Haftar’s Libyan National Army (LNA) in its failed 2019 assault on Tripoli, providing drones, air support, and mercenaries. Its actions contradicted UN arms embargoes and undermined diplomatic efforts to unify the country.

Somalia: Emirati military presence in Berbera and its port investments have fueled tensions with the Somali federal government, which accuses Abu Dhabi of undermining national sovereignty and cultivating separatist sentiment in Somaliland.

This pattern reveals a consistent Emirati strategy: exploit regional chaos to install pliable local actors, secure strategic ports and military bases, and project influence far beyond its borders—all while avoiding democratic accountability at home.

A Domestic System Built on Exclusion

The UAE’s aggressive external posture is mirrored by a deeply hierarchical internal order. Despite hosting over 9 million foreign workers—many of whom have lived and labored in the country for decades—they are systematically denied pathways to citizenship, political representation, or even basic labor protections. Human rights organizations have long documented systemic abuses: wage theft, passport confiscation, unsafe working conditions, and the absence of collective bargaining rights.

Meanwhile, the Emirati citizen elite—roughly 14% of the population—enjoy immense privileges, including state-funded housing, education, and employment guarantees. This de facto caste system is rarely scrutinized due to the UAE’s carefully cultivated image as a modern, tolerant hub. Yet beneath the skyscrapers and luxury malls lies a rigid social contract: obedience in exchange for wealth, with dissent tolerated only when it comes from the palace, never the pavement.

The Danger of Emirati Supremacism

What makes the UAE’s regional behavior particularly alarming is its ideological underpinning. Unlike Iran or Turkey, whose regional ambitions are framed in religious or civilizational terms, the UAE promotes a form of Gulf-centric supremacism: the belief that small, oil-rich monarchies have the right—and duty—to shape the political destiny of larger, poorer nations through coercion, patronage, and covert warfare.

This worldview is not merely opportunistic; it is imperial in spirit. And it thrives in the absence of accountability. While Saudi Arabia, despite its own human rights record, is increasingly aligning with international diplomatic frameworks the UAE remains defiantly opaque, operating through shadowy networks of private military contractors, offshore finance, and media manipulation.

A Turning Point?

The Saudi ultimatum may mark a historic inflection point. For years, Abu Dhabi skillfully played Riyadh and Washington against each other, presenting itself as a reliable counterterrorism partner while quietly undermining Saudi interests in Yemen and beyond. But with Saudi Arabia now asserting red lines and Yemen’s government turning against its former Emirati patrons, the UAE risks diplomatic and strategic isolation.

More importantly, this crisis could force a long-overdue reckoning with the UAE’s role in the region. If the world continues to treat Abu Dhabi as a benign economic hub while ignoring its role in fueling wars in Sudan, Libya, and Yemen, it will only embolden further adventurism. The cruelty of the Emirati model—both at home and abroad—must no longer be excused by its skyscrapers or sovereign wealth funds.

Saudi Arabia’s warning is clear: destabilization has consequences. Whether the UAE heeds it—or doubles down—will determine not just the fate of Yemen, but the future balance of power in the entire Middle East.

Updated: UAE claims it is ending its presence in Yemen

  UPDATE:

 In an official statement released by the United Arab Emirates' Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the UAE expressed "deep regret" over statements made by Saudi Arabia over the Saudi airstrike on Yemen’s Mukalla port, calling for restraint and warning against further escalation between the two Gulf partners. The UAE also rejected claims that the targeted shipment included weapons and denied that it was supplying arms to local factions.

The statement further reads:

"The Ministry affirms that the shipment in question did not contain any weapons, and the vehicles unloaded were not intended for any Yemeni party but were shipped for use by UAE forces operating in Yemen."

US-drafted UNSC Resolution: Why Clarity on a Two-State or One-State Future Is Now an Imperative

US-drafted UNSC Resolution: Why Clarity on a Two-State or One-State Future Is Now an Imperative

    Monday, November 17, 2025   No comments

Western governments routinely condemn what they view as extreme or destabilizing rhetoric in the Israeli-Palestinian arena—especially language asserting Palestinian liberation. Yet these condemnations stand in stark contrast to the words and actions of Israel’s own leaders, who openly work to foreclose every political pathway that would allow Palestinians to exist as a people with rights, sovereignty, and security.

At a moment when Palestinian political identity is questioned by senior Israeli ministers, when settlements continue to expand, and when proposals to forcibly “resettle” Gaza are voiced from within Israel’s governing coalition, Western democracies face a stark choice: either affirm—clearly and publicly—their support for a viable two-state solution, or acknowledge and adopt the only other rights-preserving path, a single democratic state with equal citizenship for all. There are no other defensible options left.

Israel’s Rejection of Palestinian Statehood Has Become Explicit Policy

The latest diplomatic struggle erupted ahead of a crucial UN Security Council vote on a U.S.-drafted resolution regarding post-war Gaza administration. After quiet revisions by Washington inserted language referring to a “credible pathway” to Palestinian statehood, Israel launched an all-out effort to strip the phrase from the text.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made his position unmistakable. Addressing his cabinet, he declared that his opposition to a Palestinian state “has not changed one bit.” Far-right coalition partners went further:

War Minister Israel Katz and Foreign Minister Gideon Saar both vowed that “no Palestinian state will be established.”

 

Itamar Ben-Gvir, a key powerbroker in the coalition, went so far as to dismiss Palestinian identity itself as an “invention.”

 

These statements are not rhetorical flourishes. They align with the expansion of settlements in the West Bank, ongoing displacement of Palestinians, and the continued push from some ministers for the forced removal of Gazans and re-settlement of the Strip by Israelis—policies fundamentally incompatible with any internationally accepted vision for peace.

A UNSC Resolution Exposes the Depth of the Crisis

The U.S. resolution under consideration would authorize:

• a transitional administration in Gaza, and
• a UN-mandated international stabilization force (ISF) supported by eight major regional governments, including Qatar, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Türkiye, Jordan, Pakistan, and Indonesia.

The proposal has satisfied no one. Palestinian factions have urged Algeria to reject it, denouncing the plan as foreign imposition and “another form of occupation.” Meanwhile, Russia submitted a competing resolution that emphasizes stronger guarantees for Palestinian statehood and territorial contiguity.

The internal splits within the Security Council reflect deeper fractures: the international community is attempting to grapple with Israel’s categorical rejection of Palestinian national rights while also navigating Palestinian concerns that external administration may undermine self-determination. 

On the Ground, Violence and Humanitarian Suffering Continue

While high-level diplomacy unfolds, conditions worsen across Palestinian territory.

In the occupied West Bank, Israeli violence and escalating settler attacks have killed seven Palestinians—including six children—within two weeks.

In Gaza, even after a fragile ceasefire, near-daily Israeli strikes since 10 October have killed hundreds. Meanwhile displaced families living in the Mawasi camp struggled through flooded tents after the first winter storm, highlighting the profound humanitarian crisis that persists despite international appeals for protection and aid.

These realities reinforce what Palestinians, human rights organizations, and increasingly international legal experts have long argued: policies that deny meaningful political rights to an entire population inevitably produce cycles of violence, displacement, and humanitarian catastrophe.

The West Cannot Sustain Ambiguity Anymore

For decades, Western governments—particularly the U.S. and EU states—have expressed rhetorical support for a two-state solution even as the material conditions for such a solution were allowed to deteriorate.

Today, Israeli political leaders are not merely undermining the two-state framework; many openly reject it as a matter of principle.

If the two-state solution is impossible, and if permanent occupation or apartheid-like arrangements are morally and legally indefensible, then the only alternative consistent with liberal democratic values is a single democratic state with equal rights for all.

Western governments rarely articulate this basic truth. Instead, they remain caught in a cycle of condemning Palestinian political language while avoiding confrontation with an Israeli leadership dismantling the very foundations of any just peace.

This ambiguity now fuels instability, undermines Western credibility, and leaves Palestinian rights suspended in perpetual limbo.

Two Viable Futures—And Only Two

The world is left with exactly two legitimate pathways that respect Palestinian rights and ensure security for Israelis:

1. A Real, Enforceable Two-State Solution

This would require:

• a sovereign, contiguous Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza;
• an end to settlement expansion and annexation;
• a political horizon backed by international guarantees.

2. A Single Democratic State With Equal Rights

• If Israel continues to rule over the land from the river to the sea, then justice requires equal citizenship, equal legal rights, and equal political representation for all inhabitants—Jewish and Palestinian alike.

Anything else—permanent occupation, fragmented enclaves, demographic engineering, or externally imposed administration—fails every test of legality, morality, and stability.

The Moment of Decision Has Arrived

Israel’s current leadership has made its position clear: no Palestinian state, no political equality, and no credible vision for Palestinian self-determination. Palestinians, meanwhile, continue to endure violence, displacement, and erasure—even as they insist on their right to shape their own political future. The West must now make its own position just as clear. Will it support a two-state solution with real enforcement mechanisms? Or will it support a single democratic state with equal rights?

These are the only two futures that uphold human dignity and comply with international law. Continued ambiguity is not neutrality—it is complicity in a status quo that denies millions of people the right to live freely, securely, and equally in their homeland.

Updated information about the resolution (11/18): UNSCR 2803

Key provisions of resolution 2803:

• Creates a new transitional authority, the so-called “Board of Peace” (BoP).

• A foreign, internationally recognized administrative body with legal international personality, tasked with governing, financing, and restructuring Gaza.

It will be chaired by Donald Trump, with other world leaders joining later.

• Authorizes a Temporary International Stabilization Force (ISF), a multinational force empowered to use “all necessary measures,” UN language for the use of force, to demilitarize Gaza.

The ISF will operate in close coordination with Israel and Egypt.

• Mandates comprehensive disarmament of all Palestinian armed factions: ISF will destroy military infrastructure, prevent reconstruction, permanently remove weapons from service, and enforce demilitarization as a condition for Israeli withdrawal.

• Allows Israel to maintain a surrounding “security perimeter”: Israeli occupation forces remain around Gaza until the ISF certifies that the enclave is free of “renewed terrorist threats.”

• Imposes an internationalized governance structure on Gaza: Daily administration will be run by a non-political, technocratic Palestinian committee, supervised by the US-chaired BoP, not an elected Palestinian authority.

• Gives the BoP control over humanitarian entry and reconstruction: Aid coordination shifts from UN-run mechanisms toward the BoP and its operational bodies.

• Extends the foreign administration until at least 31 December 2027: With the possibility of renewal by the Security Council; regular six-month reports are required.

• Ties Palestinian “statehood” to multiple conditions, including full PA reform, progress on disarmament, implementation of the Trump plan, and BoP-approved reconstruction benchmarks.

• Grants broad privileges and immunities to foreign personnel: Civilian and military actors operating under the BoP/ISF receive legal protections and operational freedom inside Gaza.

Notes:

• Resolution 2803 passed with 13 votes in favor, while Russia and China abstained.

• Algeria, despite public calls by Hamas to reject the resolution, ultimately voted for it and praised US leadership.

• Russia advanced its own counter-draft, then abstained, and afterward stated it “cannot support this decision,” exposing a clear contradiction.

• A broad bloc of Arab and Islamic states (including Qatar, Egypt, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Jordan, Turkiye) supported the US draft.

• Palestinian factions and rights groups unanimously condemned the resolution, calling it a scheme for foreign trusteeship, forced disarmament, and external control over the strip.

Hamas' Reaction to UNSC's Approval of the Plan

Statement by Hamas:

"In response to the UN Security Council's adoption of the US draft resolution on Gaza, the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) affirms the following:

This resolution does not meet the level of our Palestinian people’s political and humanitarian demands and rights, particularly in the Gaza Strip, which for two years endured a brutal genocidal war and unprecedented crimes committed by the terrorist occupation in front of the entire world—the effects and repercussions of which remain ongoing despite the declaration of the war’s end according to President Trump’s plan.

The resolution imposes an international guardianship mechanism on the Gaza Strip, which our people and their factions reject. It also imposes a mechanism to achieve the occupation’s objectives, which it failed to accomplish through its brutal genocide. Furthermore, this resolution detaches the Gaza Strip from the rest of the Palestinian geography and attempts to impose new realities away from our people’s principles and legitimate national rights, thereby depriving our people of their right to self-determination and the establishment of their Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital.

Resisting the occupation by all means is a legitimate right guaranteed by international laws and conventions. The weapons of the resistance are linked to the existence of the occupation, and any discussion of the weapons file must remain an internal national matter connected to a political path that ensures the end of the occupation, the establishment of the state [of Palestine], and self-determination.

Assigning the international force with tasks and roles inside the Gaza Strip, including disarming the resistance, strips it of its neutrality, and turns it into a party to the conflict in favor of the occupation. Any international force, if established, must be deployed only at the borders to separate forces, monitor the ceasefire, and must be fully under UN supervision. It must operate exclusively in coordination with official Palestinian institutions, without the occupation having any role in it, and work to ensure the flow of aid, without being turned into a security authority that pursues our people and their resistance.

Humanitarian aid, relief for the affected, and the opening of crossings are fundamental rights for our people in the Gaza Strip. Aid and relief operations cannot remain subject to politicization, blackmail, and subjugation to complex mechanisms amid the unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe created by the occupation, which requires expediting the opening of crossings and mobilizing all resources to address it through the UN and its agencies, foremost among them UNRWA.

We call on the international community and the Security Council to uphold the international law and humanitarian values, and to adopt resolutions that achieve justice for Gaza and the Palestinian cause, through the actual cessation of the brutal genocidal war on Gaza, reconstruction, ending the occupation, and enabling our people to self-determination and establish their independent state with Jerusalem as its capital."

Change is happening

This development at the UN Security Council—the world’s highest forum for maintaining global peace—comes at a moment when global public sentiment has shifted dramatically in the wake of the Gaza war. Across academia and broader civil society, awareness of the structural dynamics of the conflict has deepened, and calls for an urgent, justice-based resolution—rather than one shaped by political alliances or strategic convenience—are becoming more widespread. Reflecting this shift, the Oxford Union Society voted overwhelmingly, 265–113, to declare that Israel is a “greater threat to regional stability” than Iran, a result emblematic of how public understanding of the conflict has transformed in less than a year.

media review: Hundreds of writers boycott New York Times over Gaza coverage

media review: Hundreds of writers boycott New York Times over Gaza coverage

    Wednesday, October 29, 2025   No comments

As of yesterday Oct. 28, over 150 contributors, and the list is growing, to the New York Times have declared a boycott of its opinion section, accusing the paper of “biased coverage” of Israel’s war on Gaza.

In a joint letter cited by Middle East Eye, the writers said the Times “launders the US and Israel’s lies,” and called for an internal review of anti-Palestinian bias and a US arms embargo on Israel.

“Until the New York Times takes accountability for its biased coverage and commits to truthfully and ethically reporting on the US-Israeli war on Gaza, any putative ‘challenge’… is, in effect, permission to continue this malpractice,” the letter read.

Signatories include Rashida Tlaib, Greta Thunberg, Chelsea Manning, Sally Rooney, Rima Hassan, Elia Suleiman, Viet Thanh Nguyen, and Dave Zirin.

Hasty Peace Summit in Egypt

Hasty Peace Summit in Egypt

    Monday, October 13, 2025   No comments

Diplomatic Showmanship, War Crimes, and the Unresolved Reckoning

In a hastily convened summit in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, world leaders gathered under the banner of peace, hoping to forge a ceasefire agreement that might end the devastating war in Gaza. But beneath the polished veneer of diplomacy, the gathering exposed deep fractures within the international order, and the growing demand for accountability—both legal and political—for the war crimes committed over the past year.

This unexpected summit, held amid growing international outrage over the Gaza conflict, saw major power players—including Turkey, Iraq, Egypt, and the United States—jockey for position, not just to broker a truce, but to shape the post-war reality in the region. Yet, one of the most dramatic developments occurred before the summit even began: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was barred from attending, following coordinated diplomatic pressure from Turkey and Iraq.

Netanyahu Blocked Amid Diplomatic Pushback

According to multiple diplomatic sources cited by Agence France-Presse, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan led efforts to block Netanyahu’s attendance, supported by Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia' Al-Sudani. Erdoğan's plane reportedly circled over the Red Sea awaiting confirmation that Netanyahu would not be present, underscoring the intensity of regional resistance to legitimizing the Israeli leader’s role in any peace process.

The Iraqi delegation went as far as threatening to boycott the summit entirely if Netanyahu were allowed to attend. Cairo, under pressure, ultimately rescinded the invitation. Netanyahu later claimed that his absence was due to Jewish holidays—a statement seen widely as a face-saving maneuver.

This moment marks a significant political humiliation for Netanyahu, who had previously been confirmed by the Egyptian presidency to attend alongside Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. It also signals a shift in the diplomatic atmosphere: leaders once willing to engage Netanyahu now fear the political consequences of being seen as complicit in normalizing his actions during the Gaza campaign.

A Peace Built on Diplomatic Expediency

The Sharm El-Sheikh summit, rushed and reactive, symbolizes a broader crisis in international diplomacy. While it aims to cement a ceasefire, the terms remain vague, the enforcement mechanisms uncertain, and the actors around the table deeply divided on what post-war Gaza should look like.

Earlier this year, reports emerged that the U.S. had floated a controversial plan to install former British Prime Minister Tony Blair as head of an interim administration in Gaza. The plan, which included a multinational force to secure borders and facilitate reconstruction, was met with skepticism. Most recently, President Donald Trump expressed doubts about Blair’s appointment, questioning whether the former prime minister is “acceptable to everyone”—a subtle acknowledgment of Blair's legacy in the region and the broader crisis of legitimacy facing Western interventions.

The Shadow of War Crimes and Political Reckoning

Beneath the surface of diplomatic maneuvering lies the unresolved question of war crimes. The Gaza war, which has resulted in staggering civilian casualties and widespread destruction, has pushed far beyond the bounds of international law. Human rights organizations, UN experts, and even some Western legislators have begun calling for independent investigations into potential war crimes committed by all parties, but particularly by the Israeli military under Netanyahu’s leadership.

While legal accountability through institutions like the International Criminal Court remains politically fraught and unlikely in the short term, political accountability may arrive sooner. Netanyahu’s increasing isolation—evident in his exclusion from this summit—suggests that even long-standing allies are recalibrating their alliances. The symbolism of excluding a wartime leader from a peace summit is powerful: it sends a message that diplomatic immunity is not a given for those accused of gross violations of humanitarian norms.

Looking Ahead: Fragile Peace, Uncertain Justice

The summit in Egypt may temporarily halt the violence, but it does little to address the root causes of the conflict or to lay the groundwork for sustainable peace. With Netanyahu sidelined, the question becomes: who will shape Gaza’s future, and how will justice be served?

If anything, these developments show that multiple centers of power—regional and global—are now moving to reassert control over a crisis that spiraled far beyond its original boundaries. The speed and secrecy with which this summit was arranged are telling: peace is being pursued not through transparent negotiation, but through diplomatic backchannels shaped by geopolitical interests rather than legal principles or the voices of those most affected. 

Still, for those calling for justice and accountability, this moment may be a turning point. Netanyahu’s diplomatic snub could be the beginning of a broader reckoning—not just for him, but for all leaders who believe that military force can be deployed without consequence. The world may be witnessing the birth of a fragile peace—but it is a peace haunted by the specter of unresolved war crimes and the lingering demand for justice.