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.

Israel Used Fabricated 3D Tunnel Visuals to Justify Gaza Bombardments, Investigation Finds

Israel Used Fabricated 3D Tunnel Visuals to Justify Gaza Bombardments, Investigation Finds

    Monday, October 13, 2025   No comments

A recent journalistic investigation has revealed that the Israeli government, under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, presented misleading and fabricated 3D visualizations of Hamas tunnels as authentic intelligence to justify its military operations in Gaza. According to the report—published by Spanish news outlet laSexta—the Israeli military reused identical digital models to depict underground networks beneath multiple civilian sites, including hospitals and schools, despite claiming each represented unique, verified threats.

Fabricated Evidence Presented as Intelligence

The investigation found that some of the widely circulated animations were not produced by Israeli intelligence at all. Instead, they were sourced from publicly available online assets—including a 3D model originally created by a Scottish maritime museum to illustrate a ship repair workshop. These generic graphics were then repurposed and disseminated by Israeli military spokespeople as if they were classified intelligence products demonstrating Hamas’s use of civilian infrastructure for military purposes.

Notably, an Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) spokesperson did acknowledge on several occasions that the visuals were “illustrations only,” stating: “This is just an illustration—I repeat, we will not share the real images we have in our possession.” However, such disclaimers were often absent or downplayed in initial media briefings, leading international audiences and news organizations to treat the visuals as credible evidence.

Broader Pattern of Misrepresentation

The report further alleges that Israel employed similar deceptive visual tactics beyond Gaza. Comparable 3D recreations were reportedly used to depict alleged underground facilities in Syria, Lebanon, and Iran—countries that subsequently experienced Israeli airstrikes. This suggests a broader strategic use of digital fabrication to shape public perception and legitimize military action.

Significance and Implications

The use of falsified or misleading visual evidence carries profound ethical, legal, and geopolitical consequences. By presenting generic or repurposed animations as verified intelligence, Israeli authorities may have influenced international opinion and policy decisions during a conflict that has resulted in massive civilian casualties and widespread destruction in Gaza.

Critics argue that such tactics undermine transparency in wartime communication and erode trust in official narratives. Moreover, if these visuals were used to justify strikes on protected civilian sites—such as hospitals and schools—they could raise serious concerns under international humanitarian law, which prohibits attacks on non-military targets unless there is clear, verified evidence of their military use.

The revelations also highlight the growing role of digital media in modern warfare—not only as a tool for documentation but also as a vector for propaganda and manipulation. In an era where visual content can rapidly shape global narratives, distinguishing between evidence and illustration becomes a critical safeguard against misinformation.

This investigation underscores the urgent need for independent verification of wartime claims, especially when they rely heavily on digital reconstructions. While Israel maintains that Hamas embeds military infrastructure within civilian areas—a claim supported by some prior evidence—the deliberate use of fabricated or recycled visuals to bolster that argument risks discrediting legitimate concerns and deepening skepticism about official justifications for military force. As scrutiny over the conduct of the Gaza war intensifies, this report adds a troubling dimension to debates over accountability, truth, and the ethics of information in conflict.

Israeli Airstrike in Doha Sparks Global Condemnation and Regional Upheaval

Israeli Airstrike in Doha Sparks Global Condemnation and Regional Upheaval

    Wednesday, September 10, 2025   No comments

DOHA, QATAR – In a dramatic and unprecedented escalation that has sent shockwaves across the Middle East and the world, Israel launched a military strike on the capital of Qatar yesterday, targeting and killing senior leaders of the Palestinian militant group Hamas. The attack, which violated the airspace of multiple sovereign nations, has been universally condemned as a severe breach of international law and has critically damaged diplomatic efforts to end the war in Gaza, potentially signaling a major realignment of global power in the region.

The operation, codenamed "Summit of Fire" by the Israeli military, saw warplanes travel approximately 1,800 kilometers to reach Doha. According to reports from Arab media outlets, the Israeli Air Force breached the airspace of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Syria to reach its target. Once over the Qatari capital, the jets fired missiles at a residential compound housing members of Hamas's political bureau, who were in the country for talks. A Qatari security official was also reported killed in the attack.

The timing of the strike is seen by many observers as highly significant. It came just one day after the US President publicly issued a new proposal for a Gaza ceasefire deal, urging Hamas to accept it or "face consequences." With top Hamas leadership gathered in Doha—a key mediator throughout the conflict—to discuss the very proposal, the Israeli attack has led to widespread accusations that the diplomatic effort was a trap designed to eliminate the group's leadership in one fell swoop.

"This, as many observers noted, suggested that it might have been a trap to kill all Hamas top leadership, and that destroys US credibility as an honest broker of deals for peace," a point echoed by numerous diplomatic sources. The incident has placed the United States in a deeply awkward position, raising serious questions about its foreknowledge and role in the event.

Further intensifying the crisis is the glaring question of the massive US military presence in Qatar. Al-Udeid Air Base, the largest US military installation in the Middle East, houses advanced defense systems. The failure of these systems to intercept the Israeli aircraft or to provide Qatar with an early warning has sparked a crisis of confidence in Doha.

"The US not to use those defense resources to defend Qatar or at least warn it, suggests that US presence in Qatar is useless and does not provide any protection to Qatar," a consensus view emerging in the region. This perception was seemingly acknowledged by the US administration itself, with the President announcing he had ordered the State Department to finalize a new strategic defense deal with Qatar, an move interpreted as damage control for a severely weakened alliance.

The strategic ramifications are immediate. Global powers Russia and China were swift and forceful in their condemnation. They warned of a dangerous escalation and accused Israel of deliberately sabotaging peace negotiations. Analysts suggest that Qatar, now questioning the value of its US security umbrella, may rapidly pivot towards Moscow and Beijing for advanced defense systems, a move that would fundamentally alter the security architecture of the Gulf and could spell the end of the US military footprint in Qatar.

The attack also strains relations within the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), which promises collective security to its members. By violating the airspace of fellow GCC member Saudi Arabia to attack another member state, Israel has placed these US-allied nations in a difficult position, forcing them to confront a blatant violation of their sovereignty.

Global Outcry and Condemnation

The international response was swift and severe:

• United Nations: Secretary-General António Guterres condemned the attack "without ambiguity," calling it a "flagrant violation of the sovereignty of Qatar" and a blow to mediation efforts.

• Russia: Its foreign ministry stated the attack aimed to "undermine international efforts to reach a peaceful settlement in the Middle East."

• China: Expressed "strong dissatisfaction with the deliberate sabotage of the Gaza ceasefire negotiations" and urged major countries to play a "constructive role in easing regional tensions."

• European Union: Denounced the strike as a "violation of international law" and a "serious threat that could further escalate violence in the region."

• Turkey: President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan decried the "reckless Netanyahu government" for its actions.

• Organization of Islamic Cooperation: Denounced the aggression "in the strongest terms."

Qatar issued a furious statement, vowing it "would not tolerate this reckless Israeli behavior" and emphasizing that the "criminal assault is a violation of all international laws and a serious threat to the security and safety of Qataris and residents."

The strike marks a dangerous new chapter in the Gaza conflict, moving the battlefield into the heart of a mediator's capital and risking a much broader regional war. It has not only targeted Hamas leadership but has also severely damaged America's standing as a security partner and honest broker, potentially creating a vacuum that rivals Russia and China are poised to fill.

  

Media Review: "As Israel Starves and Kills Thousands in Gaza, It Destroys Itself", Haaretz

Media Review: "As Israel Starves and Kills Thousands in Gaza, It Destroys Itself", Haaretz

    Monday, August 04, 2025   No comments

In a powerful and scathing op-ed published by Haaretz, Israeli writer Iris Leal delivers a searing critique of her country’s actions in the Gaza Strip, warning that the atrocities being committed there are not only devastating to Palestinians but are also dragging Israel into a profound moral, political, and diplomatic abyss. Leal’s article, titled "As Israel Kills and Starves Thousands in Gaza, It Destroys Itself in the Process", lays bare the human cost of the war and the devastating implications for Israel’s future.

A Nation’s Self-Destruction

Leal argues that Israel is systematically isolating itself from the global community. The bridges that once connected it to the democratic world are being “torn down one by one.” She emphasizes that anyone associated with the decision-making apparatus of the war—be it political leaders, military commanders, or intelligence heads—is now becoming increasingly aware that international travel may pose legal and personal risks due to accusations of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

At the center of her warning is the staggering humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in Gaza. According to credible international reports cited by Leal, including data from UNICEF and The Washington Post, over 60,000 Palestinians have been killed, among them at least 18,500 children. Many of these children were killed in their sleep, while playing, or even before they learned to walk. The death toll reflects not incidental wartime casualties but a consistent pattern of destruction that Leal unequivocally describes as a "war of extermination."

Starvation as a Weapon

One of the most damning parts of Leal’s argument is Israel’s alleged use of starvation as a weapon of war. She writes that the Netanyahu government knowingly allowed infants to face starvation by failing to ensure the delivery of infant formula and basic humanitarian aid. Hospitals—already bombed or rendered dysfunctional—are unable to operate, and medical personnel themselves are suffering from hunger and exhaustion.

Even worse, Leal suggests that these outcomes were not unintended side effects, but foreseen and tolerated, under the assumption that the international community would remain silent or impotent in the face of such horrors. The Israeli leadership, in her view, has wagered that the deliberate starvation and killing of children would not result in meaningful diplomatic consequences—a gamble that, she implies, is both immoral and catastrophically shortsighted.

A Crisis of Legitimacy

Leal’s article ends by posing a deeply uncomfortable question to the Israeli public and the global community: Are the people leading Israel today—its ministers, generals, intelligence chiefs—morally and legally fit to make decisions on behalf of the nation? Given the scale of the violence and its apparent intentionality, she contends that these individuals are likely complicit in war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and potentially genocide.

The underlying message is clear: Israel is not just committing atrocities—it is losing its moral compass and destroying the very foundations of its legitimacy in the eyes of the world and its own citizens.

A Global Atrocity in Real Time

Leal’s voice is a rare and courageous one within a landscape that often suppresses internal dissent. Her article should serve as a wake-up call, not only to Israelis but to anyone who believes in the principles of human rights and international law. The reality in Gaza today—of mass death, child starvation, and humanitarian collapse—is not abstract. It is a documented and unfolding catastrophe that demands accountability.

What makes this atrocity even more chilling is the premeditation behind it. When a state with one of the most advanced militaries in the world deliberately withholds aid, targets civilian infrastructure, and tolerates the mass death of children, it cannot be brushed off as a tragic byproduct of war. This is systematic, intentional policy—and it represents the moral failure of a nation’s leadership. 

Meanwhile, the international community’s response remains fragmented, weak, and in some cases complicit. Leal rightly questions whether Israel’s leaders will face consequences, but the more urgent question is: Will the world act before even more lives are lost?

Silence, in this context, is not neutrality—it is complicity. As Leal poignantly concludes, Israel may believe it is winning a war, but in reality, it is tearing itself apart, sacrificing not just the lives of its enemies, but its own soul and standing in the world.

---

Sources: Haaretz, UNICEF, The Washington Post.
Link to original article: Haaretz Opinion - Aug 4, 2025

The Just War Legacy: Why How a Nation Fights Matters More Than Winning

The Just War Legacy: Why How a Nation Fights Matters More Than Winning

    Monday, June 30, 2025   No comments

Vctory in war cannot be defined solely by military triumph or territorial gain. It is judged by the means through which that victory was achieved. A war can be won on the battlefield, yet leave behind a legacy of shame, trauma, and ethical collapse that haunts a nation for generations. In contrast, a nation that loses a war but conducts itself with honor, restraint, and respect for the law secures something far more enduring than military success: it secures its future moral standing, both in the eyes of its own people and in the judgment of history.

Conflict is not just an event; it is a story that nations tell themselves and that future generations will remember. The narrative of a war—the record of what was done, how it was done, and why—is essential not just for historical accuracy, but for national identity. Documenting wars honestly, particularly through the lens of customary international law and ethics, is crucial to understanding whether a nation acted with integrity or surrendered to its worst instincts.

This is why narrative matters. It gives voice to victims, records the crimes of aggressors, and shines a light on the choices made during the darkest hours. It becomes the memory a nation must live with, and the standard against which its future behavior is measured.

Throughout human history, warfare has been a constant, but so too has been the effort to place limits on its conduct. From ancient codes of honor to the Geneva Conventions, societies have always understood that even in war, there must be rules. Customary international law—principles such as the protection of civilians, the prohibition of unnecessary suffering, and the humane treatment of prisoners—exists to maintain a minimum standard of decency in an otherwise brutal domain.

These rules are not optional ideals. They are legal and moral guardrails that prevent conflict from degenerating into pure savagery. They uphold human dignity, restrain the impulse toward cruelty, and serve as the foundation for any claim to justice or legitimacy in wartime.

A nation that wins a war through the use of illegal, unethical, or treacherous practices may achieve temporary dominance, but it builds its success on a foundation of rot. War crimes, targeted civilian killings, use of banned weapons, or deliberate acts of disproportionate violence may produce a battlefield advantage—but they do so at the cost of a nation’s soul.

History has consistently shown that military victory does not equate to moral victory. Nations that commit atrocities may silence critics in the short term, but they cannot silence history. They are forever stained by their methods. And eventually, their own people—especially future generations—will inherit not pride, but shame.

Conversely, those who fight honorably—even when outmatched—leave behind a legacy of courage and principle. The world remembers the resistance of the few against tyranny and injustice far more reverently than the conquests of the powerful through cruelty. A nation that respects the laws of war, even in defeat, preserves its humanity. It teaches its children not just to survive, but to live with values worth defending. War fought in accordance with ethical and legal norms affirms a nation’s commitment to civilization itself. And even when such wars are lost, the values upheld in their conduct endure. They are the seeds from which future peace and justice can grow.

In today’s world—where weapons of mass destruction can annihilate entire cities and technological warfare can kill with the push of a button—the temptation to ignore ethical constraints is greater than ever. But the ability to destroy does not justify destruction. With such power comes even greater responsibility to act within the bounds of law and morality. The increased lethality and destrcivenes of of weapons is matched by the increased tension around the world: 

As of mid-2025, the global landscape is marked by a surge in armed conflicts and the rising specter of new wars. In Eastern Europe, the war in Ukraine continues into its fourth year, devastating cities, crippling infrastructure, and causing hundreds of thousands of casualties. In Southwest Asia, the Gaza war has escalated into a humanitarian disaster, with tens of thousands of civilians—many of them children—killed amid siege tactics and indiscriminate bombings. Adding to the regional instability, a 12-day war between the United States, Israel, and Iran recently erupted, involving aerial bombardments, cyberattacks, and targeted assassinations, including the killing of unarmed Iranian scientists. In Africa, civil wars in Sudan, conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the insurgency across the Sahel region continue to displace millions. Myanmar's civil war grinds on with no resolution, while tensions in the South China Sea and the standoff between China and Taiwan raise alarm over a potential future war—possibly within the next two years. One of the most alarming developments occurred in South Asia in early May, when India and Pakistan (two nuclear armed nations) engaged in a four-day military exchange, marking the fiercest cross-border violence since 1971. Prompted by a deadly terrorist attack in Kashmir on April 22 that killed 26 civilians, India launched “Operation Sindoor” on May 7—conducting strikes on militant sites inside Pakistan and Pakistan‑administered Kashmir. Pakistan retaliated with drone, missile, artillery strikes, and shelling that hit civilian areas, including a Sikh temple and schools, and downed several Indian jets. Both nations suffered civilian and military casualties—dozens killed on each side. Despite the stop of cross border strikes, the conflict between the two countries is unresolved conflicts. The decades long tension between North Korea and South Korea sustain a volatile global climate where peace remains fragile and temporary while nation-states are investing more in weapons of mass killing. All this make war a lived reality for millions of people around the world, and the only restraining factor that might minimize the harm is a collective commitment to norms and ethics of war; not more rhetoric for starting and fighting wars. 

We live in a time when nations that commit atrocities still attempt to justify their actions as righteous. This very behavior is itself a tacit admission: that the only wars truly justifiable are those fought justly. If a cause is moral, its conduct must be moral. If the methods are indefensible, no amount of rhetoric can redeem them. War is not just a contest of arms; it is a test of character. A nation is not judged solely by whether it wins or loses a war, but by how it fights it. In the long arc of history, justice, law, and honor matter more than military success. Nations that uphold these principles secure more than territory—they secure legitimacy, dignity, and the loyalty of future generations. Victory achieved at the expense of humanity is no victory at all. Only those who fight with integrity, who respect the laws of war, and who honor the rights of even their enemies, can claim to have won anything worth keeping.

US officials sat face to face with the person US government designated a "terrorist"

US officials sat face to face with the person US government designated a "terrorist"

    Friday, December 20, 2024   No comments

US officials sat face to face with the person US government designated a "terrorist" and offered $10 million bounty for his arrest. Realizing the awkwardness of the moment, the administration announced later that it will cancel the reward for Jolani’s arrest.

In what must be a bizarre turn of events, US government officials set face to face with a man they allocated $10 million for information leading to determining his whereabouts, after designating him as a "terrorist" in 2017. 

State department still confirmed that the reward money is still valid, at a time when members of the State Department reportedly sat with Jolani. 

This development raises questions about the designation "terrorist", and now about what it takes for one to be removed from the list, which apparently is leading an armed rebellion that overthrows a regime.

US Assistant Secretary of State Barbara Leaf announced, following a meeting with representatives of Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham, that Ahmed al-Sharaa (al-Jolani) is committed to not allowing terrorist groups to operate in Syria in a way that threatens the United States and neighboring countries.

According to news reports, US State Department delegation discussed with the commander-in-chief of the new administration in Syria, Ahmed al-Sharaa, on Friday, lifting sanctions on the Syrian people. The two sides also discussed removing Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham from the terrorist lists.

Is this what self-defense looks like?

Is this what self-defense looks like?

    Wednesday, September 25, 2024   No comments

 France's Macron to Israel: stop killing babies

If these are the images and characterization of what Israeli "self-defense" looks like, then what basis is there to condemn other "self-defenses"?

If Israel can kill babies and women, starve two million people, throw injured persons off rooftops, kills medical doctors and aid workers, sexually abuse Palestinian prisoners, and torture detained Palestinians, then what basis is there to condemn others if they do it?

Media Review: The Impossible Defeat.. Why Did 2,700 Israeli Assassinations Fail to Make Israel Secure?

Media Review: The Impossible Defeat.. Why Did 2,700 Israeli Assassinations Fail to Make Israel Secure?

    Thursday, August 01, 2024   No comments

Israel often claims that it carries out assassinations to ensure Israel's security. Since its founding in 1948, Israel has carried out more assassinations than any other nation-state during the same time period. What has this strategy achieve and why? 

Many observers and experts in global affairs think that assassinations are not a strategy and should not be adopted instead of a national strategy that is necessary for nation-building. A national project cannot be dependent on one or a handful of leaders. If a state-actor relies on assassinations to secure itself, then it cements its status as a renegade entity while fostering the image of the people whose leaders it assassinates as people with legitimate claims. Israel's increased rate of assassination after achieving a stalemate at best with the Palestinians in this recent war erodes its image as a normal nation-state, which defeats the purpose: national security. Aljazeera TV provided some insight into the history and outcomes of Israel's assassinations. 

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.

The United States, alone, again, blocking a UNSC resolution backed by more than 100 countries calling for a stop to the War on Gaza

The United States, alone, again, blocking a UNSC resolution backed by more than 100 countries calling for a stop to the War on Gaza

    Friday, December 08, 2023   No comments

Not a single country among the current members of the United Nations Security Council sided with the United States to vote against the resolution calling for the end of violence in Gaza on humanitarian grounds. 

The support for the resolution was unprecedented, with more than 100 countries out of 193 sponsoring the resolution.

The resolution was introduced when the UN Secretary General invoked the rarely used Chapter 99 of the UN Charter. Guterres invoked Article 99, which says the secretary-general may inform the council of matters he believes threaten international peace and security. Nonetheless, the US government vetoed the resolution. 

The UK, this time, too, found another reason to abstain from taking a stand. The UK government justified its abstention by the need to condemn Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack as an act of terrorism. During a similar UNSC vote that included language that condemned Hamas, the UK still refused to support the resolution. 

_

_

Powerful countries who habitually abuse their power will always find excuses and justifications for the abuses.

The isolation of the United States in the world community is indicative of the loss of credibility, something that is very hard to recover from at a time when the US and its allies are struggling to find support to counter Russia and China.

Indonesian Foreign Minister: We will pursue "Israel" in the International Court of Justice

Indonesian Foreign Minister: We will pursue "Israel" in the International Court of Justice

    Tuesday, November 28, 2023   No comments

Indonesian Foreign Minister, Retno Marsudi, asked today, Tuesday, whether what the Israeli occupation is committing in the Gaza Strip is acceptable from the standpoint of international law, stressing that the international community has “double standards.”

During the United Nations General Assembly meeting on Palestine, Marsudi said that Indonesia would pursue "Israel" legally in the International Court of Justice.

The Indonesian Foreign Minister stressed that the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories must end, and also called on the international community for equal treatment to build peace and justice.

I stand before the #UNGA #ESS10 on Palestine (26/10), not only as the Foreign Minister of Indonesia 🇮🇩, but also as a woman, a mother, a grandmother… and to defend justice & humanity

I plead… stop the killing, protect the civilians, let in the humanitarian assistance to #Gaza pic.twitter.com/IBOm4whXoQ

— Menteri Luar Negeri Republik Indonesia (@Menlu_RI) October 26, 2023

She added: "We need a permanent ceasefire, unhindered humanitarian aid, standing for justice, and the resumption of the peace process and the political process."

Marsudi pointed out that Indonesia cannot stand idly by "to see thousands of innocent women and children killed, and to see homes, schools and hospitals razed to the ground and turned into rubble."

I spoke at the General Assembly meeting at UNHQ today (28/11) on Palestine.

Indonesia cannot stand still to see thousands of death of innocent women & children. Indonesia cannot stand still to see homes, schools & hospitals being flattened to rubbles. pic.twitter.com/8ftFp6BTLi

— Menteri Luar Negeri Republik Indonesia (@Menlu_RI) November 28, 2023

media review: Is India being pressured by the West using the human rights claims?

media review: Is India being pressured by the West using the human rights claims?

    Sunday, September 24, 2023   No comments

India and Canada are in a diplomatic crisis at this point, and now made more intense with the US government declaring its support for Canada and reportedly providing the Canadian government with intelligence about the assassination case. Indian media reacted to the US involvement. Like the Guadian newspaper three years ago, Indian media started to produce the list of assassinations undertaken by the US government in other sovereign nations and on official of sovereign nation states.  

The Tribune asked: Look who’s talking, US reveals its bias, double standards:

BACKING Canada’s efforts to vilify India over allegations of its involvement in the killing of pro-Khalistan terror accused Hardeep Singh Nijjar, the US — that inveterate global policeman — has stated that no country can get any ‘special exemption’ for such actions. US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan has said: ‘We will defend our basic principles and consult closely with allies like Canada as they pursue their law enforcement and diplomatic process.’ But has India sought any exemption, special or otherwise? Obviously not. New Delhi has not only rejected Canadian PM Justin Trudeau’s claims as ‘absurd’ and ‘motivated’ but also asked Ottawa to share relevant evidence, if any. There’s a bigger question: Does the US have the moral authority to grant such an exemption, even if unsolicited, considering its own unenviable history of adventurism in foreign lands? The answer is again an emphatic no.

 

Ukrainian president said he will not talk to Russia until Putin is gone; meet his likely successor—Medvedev?

Ukrainian president said he will not talk to Russia until Putin is gone; meet his likely successor—Medvedev?

    Thursday, June 01, 2023   No comments

Medvedev, a lawyer and former president of Russia, just labeled the Kiev regime a terror entity and said that it must be exterminated because they act as terrorists, and described the attacks on Russia by drones as a “terrorist act”.

The Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council, DmitryMedvedev, said that the Ukrainian regime is behaving like a terrorist, adding that terrorists must be eliminated.

Medvedev's remarks came during his visit to a military training center in the Volgograd region, today, Thursday.

Medvedev described the Ukrainian drone attacks on Russia as a "terrorist act".

He explained, “This is not a military action,” pointing out that it is a type of weapon that cannot harm military installations.

And the deputy head of the Russian Security Council added: “It is clear to everyone that this is a terrorist attack. It does not comply with the rules of war. Its purpose is to harm the civilian population only, because the drones used cannot cause damage to military installations.

He added, "the Kiev regime must be exterminated because it is a hornet's nest, otherwise it will pose a constant threat," noting that terrorist attacks must be responded to as harshly as possible.

On Tuesday, the Russian Ministry of Defense announced that the Kiev regime launched a terrorist attack with drones on facilities in the city of Moscow.

In its statement, the ministry indicated that 8 drones participated in the attack on Moscow, and all of them were shot down by the Pantsir-S air defense system.

The Russian defense also confirmed that 3 drones were shot down in Moscow through the use of electronic warfare means, which caused the drones to lose control and deviate from their targets.

The role of the UN and the UNSC in preventing conflict

The role of the UN and the UNSC in preventing conflict

    Saturday, April 01, 2023   No comments

The role of the UN and the UNSC in preventing conflict is non-existent because of its lack of independence from Western hegemony.

UN spokesperson Farhan Haq was asked if the US military presence in Syria is illegal. Listen and watch his answer.

Substitute the questions about Syria with same questions about the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and you get your answers why the world is not up in arms against the Russian military intervention in Ukraine. Only the West is, but it was the West that made such actions acceptable.

UNSC failed to get Nord Stream blast international independent investigative commission

UNSC failed to get Nord Stream blast international independent investigative commission

    Monday, March 27, 2023   No comments

The UNSC, which literally stands for the United Nations Security Council, and whose mission “is to maintain international peace and security;” failed to adopt a resolution that “would have established an international independent investigative commission into the September 2022 “acts of sabotage” committed on the Nord Stream gas pipeline in the Baltic Sea.”

The vote, or lack thereof as was the case this time, shows how politicized this UN body has become. If the attack on an asset established to transact trade between a number of nation-states is not of concern to the UN body charged with maintaining peace and security, then what is?

The politics of power and control are not limited to the halls of the UN. The media, too, is deep in the business of writing narratives that are highly political and less informative. This screen capture shows how some of these media outlets reported about the vote: “Russia fails at UN to get Nord Stream blast inquiry” when the fact is clear: the UNSC failed to get Nord Stream blast inquiry.

It is because of media bias and the ineptitude of the UNSC that countries are invaded, peoples exploited, and resources and pillaged by the rich and powerful.

Abe's memoirs after his assassination: I met Putin despite Washington's objection...and rejected sanctions against Moscow

Abe's memoirs after his assassination: I met Putin despite Washington's objection...and rejected sanctions against Moscow

    Saturday, February 11, 2023   No comments

The memoirs of the late Japanese Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, were issued seven months after his assassination, and revealed that his visit to Russia in 2016 angered the then US President, Barack Obama.

Abe said in his memoirs: “When I visited the United States in 2016 to participate in the Nuclear Security Summit, I told Obama that I would meet Russian President Vladimir Putin in Sochi in May, and soon signs of discontent appeared on his face, and he answered me angrily: If I was in your place, when you did that."

He added, "I visited Sochi, and met Putin, despite Washington's objection."

Abe also pointed out that Obama's position stems from the United States' desire to keep intensifying the efforts of the Group of Seven countries, collectively, on the issue of pressure on Moscow, following the annexation of Crimea to the Russian Federation.

Abe mentioned in his memoirs that Obama's sudden proposal, during the "G7" summit in Brussels in 2014, to impose sanctions against Russia, due to differences over Ukraine and the accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation, sparked reactions and reservations by some European countries. Like France, which was planning to export amphibious ships to Russia, and Germany, which relies mainly on Russian gas.

Abe confirmed that "Obama was strict in raising the issue of sanctions" against Russia, and he distributed himself, surprisingly and contrary to diplomatic norms, the list of sanctions to the participants in the summit, although this list was not passed to experts, for study before it was presented.

Abe said that German Chancellor Angela Merkel asked him about Tokyo's position on sanctions, and he replied, "Japan will not participate in sanctions against Russia, because that would strain negotiations between the two countries, but we can issue a document of condemnation in the form of criticism."

He pointed out that Merkel suggested that everyone issue a statement condemning Russia, and leave the discussion of sanctions at the administrative level of each country, as it deems appropriate.

Abe noted that "everyone felt relieved," because the issue of sanctions against Russia was not agreed upon among the countries of the group, and it was adopted to issue a statement, collectively condemning Russia, instead of sanctions.

Likewise, Abe touched in his memoirs on the peace treaty between Moscow and Tokyo in 2018, and considered that it was not "considered a concession by Tokyo," because according to the joint Soviet-Japanese declaration on October 19, 1956, the Soviet Union pledged at the time to return Shikotan Island, and many The uninhabited islands adjacent to the Lesser Kuril Mountain Range, to Japan, upon the conclusion of a final peace treaty, between the two countries.

He described Japan's demand to Russia to return all the islands of the southern part of the Kuril Islands at once as illogical, and means that these islands will never return to Japan.

It is noteworthy that Abe's memoirs include 18 press interviews, in a question and answer format, for a total of 36 hours. It was not published before due to its very sensitive nature, and it was put up for sale in Japan this week.

It is reported that Abe (67 years old) was subjected to an armed attack on July 8, 2022 while he was giving a speech at an election event in the city of Nara, in the west of the country, where he was shot with a gun from behind, after which he was transferred to the hospital, and died of his wounds.

What is the prospect of negotiation with Russia after Merkel's recognition? The erosion of Western credibility

What is the prospect of negotiation with Russia after Merkel's recognition? The erosion of Western credibility

    Tuesday, December 13, 2022   No comments

Former German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, in an interview with the German newspaper "Zeit" recently, considered the Minsk agreement of 2014 as an attempt to give Ukraine enough time to prepare for war against Russia. She expressed doubt that the then NATO countries could have done everything they are doing now to help Ukraine.

The Minsk Agreement is a series of international agreements signed between 2014 and 2015 by the Tripartite Contact Group on Ukraine, which consists of Ukraine, Russia and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, mediated by the leaders of France and Germany, with the aim of ending the war in the Donbas region of Ukraine.

China reacted to the Merkel's revelation by issuing statements contending that the "Real intention behind Minsk agreements further destroys credibility of the West".

China's international media outlet, GT, which is aimed at communicating Chinese point of view to the West concluded that "They were just a stopgap to buy time for Ukraine and the West, and Western countries have never put real effort into resolving the differences with Russia over the Ukraine crisis."

The daily added:

What the former German leader stated tears down the last remaining bit of the "friendly" mask some Western countries put on with Russia. In the eyes of some Western countries, Russia is just a diplomatic and political "alien." Moreover, under the influence of Washington, some view Moscow as a so-called threat due to its huge military power and political system that does not meet the "Western standard." As a result, these countries have never stopped suppressing Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Merkel's confession about the Minsk agreements also showed that some Western countries, particularly the US, do not honor contractual obligations at all. They can go back on their words so easily. 

After Merkel's statements, Putin said that her statements were "disappointing," pointing out that "trust at the present time is almost non-existent, but after Merkel's statements it became unclear how to negotiate."

He explained that "it turned out that no one intended to implement the Minsk agreements," according to the recent German statements, and the statements of former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, stressing, "Only we were working sincerely."

 

Likewise, Putin considered Merkel's remarks to mean that "we were right to initiate the special military operation."

The Russian president said, "We are ready and open to negotiation, but the statements prompt us to think about guarantees and confidence-building measures," adding that "there is no general military mobilization, but rather some formations that can be replaced."

It is noteworthy that Merkel said, earlier, that she does not see a reason for her participation in the settlement of the Ukrainian crisis, and stressed that it "will be resolved through negotiations one day."

This came in response to a question put to her by the German newspaper "Zeit" about the possibility of resolving the Ukrainian crisis, noting that "all conflicts end at the negotiating table."

Merkel indicated that her previous attempts to settle the crisis between Russia and Ukraine "were aimed at preventing a clash between the two countries," pointing out that "the failure of these attempts does not mean that they were wrong."

Other Russian officials are now less motivated to negotiate any deals with Ukraine. Russian Senator Olga Kovidetti commented on Merkel's statements by saying: "The geopolitical collusion of Britain and the United States and their obedient vassal Ukraine on the deliberate delay in implementing the Minsk agreements with the aim of preparing Ukraine for conflict with Russia undermines the credibility of any subsequent negotiations and any agreements with these personalities Western politics.”

In turn, the State Duma Speaker said that Merkel's confession holds Germany and France, the guarantors of the Minsk Agreement, responsible for what is happening in Ukraine, morally and materially.

Even some European leaders were taken aback by Merkel’s revelations. Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic expressed his surprise at the statements of former German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The Serbian president said that these are statements that change the position on what happened in Ukraine since 2014, adding that former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko previously indicated that they never intended to implement the agreements.

This European position is not limited to the Minsk Agreement. Rather, it is a repeat of what happened with the nuclear agreement with Iran. When US withdrew from the agreement, which was backed by the UNSC, European states essentially joined the US, in practice, and denied Iran all the rights given to it by the terms of the agreement.