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 Cairo, under pressure, ultimately rescinded the invitation.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.

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.

The Nobel Peace Prize Award is for Politicians, Not Peacemakers

The Nobel Peace Prize Award is for Politicians, Not Peacemakers

    Friday, October 10, 2025   No comments

The announcement of the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize for Venezuelan opposition figure Maria Corina Machado has, once again, ignited a familiar debate. While her courage in facing a repressive regime is undeniable, the language of the Nobel Committee’s citation reveals a profound shift in the prize’s purpose—a shift that has been decades in the making. The award is no longer primarily for those who achieve peace; it is for those who promote a specific Western form of democracy, confirming that the prize has become a tool of ideological propaganda.

The Committee praised Machado for her “tireless work promoting democratic rights for the people of Venezuela and for her struggle to achieve a just and peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy.” Notice the key terms: “democratic rights,” “transition from dictatorship to democracy.” The award is explicitly given for the promotion of a political system, not for the tangible achievement of peace. There is no ceasefire to uphold, no peace treaty she has signed, no war she has ended. The peace she is credited with is entirely hypothetical, residing in a future where her preferred political model is realized.

This exposes a core, unstated dogma of the modern Nobel Committee: peace is seen not as a state in itself, but as a direct and exclusive outcome of Western liberal democracy. Within this framework, any action that advances this model is de facto a peacemaking action, and any system that opposes it is inherently warlike. This ideological litmus test explains the prize’s most peculiar and controversial awards.

The Ghost of Prizes Past: A Pattern of Ideological Promotion

Consider the 2009 award to Barack Obama, just months into his presidency. The Committee lauded his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." Yet, he was a leader of a nation engaged in two active wars. The prize was not for an achieved peace, but for the promise of a return to a multilateral, democratic-values-based world order—a sharp contrast to his predecessor’s foreign policy. It was an award for an attitude, an ideology, not a result.

This pattern illuminates why a figure like Donald Trump, who often positions himself as an anti-interventionist and brokered multiple peace agreements in the Middle East like the Abraham Accords, is anathema to the Committee. If the premise is that true peace is only possible through the spread of Western democracy, then a leader who questions the universality of that model, ends wars through realpolitik rather than democratic evangelism, and is himself labeled "authoritarian" by his critics, cannot be a true peacemaker. His peace is not the "right kind" of peace.

The award to Machado, therefore, serves a dual purpose. It champions a pro-democracy activist in a region long considered a battleground of influence, and it serves as a clear ideological shot across the bow of resurgent populism and nationalism in the West, exemplified by Trump. The message is unambiguous: you cannot be a peace president if your governance strays from the democratic ideal we espouse. No matter how many wars you end, if you do not do so under the banner of liberal democracy, your achievements are invalid.

From Peace to Politics: A Noble Prize Loses Its Way

This redefinition has profound consequences. It sidelines genuine peacemakers who operate outside this political framework. Where is the prize for the tribal elder who negotiates a lasting end to a generations-long conflict based on custom, not constitutions? Where is the recognition for the leader who achieves stability and non-aggression through non-democratic means, sparing their people the chaos of war? Under the Committee's new dogma, they are disqualified. Their peace is an illusion because it lacks the required democratic seal of approval.

The original vision of Alfred Nobel was to honor "the champion of peace," the person who did "the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." This was a vision focused on the condition of peace—the absence of war and the building of fraternity.

The modern Nobel Committee has narrowed this vision dramatically. It now operates on the conviction that democracy is peace, and only through democracy can true peace be achieved. In doing so, the Nobel Peace Prize has transformed from a reward for humanity’s most cherished state into a political instrument for promoting one specific path to it. The award to Maria Corina Machado is not for what she has done for peace, but for whom she opposes and what political future she symbolizes. It is the ultimate confirmation that the prize is no longer for peacemakers; it is for democracy propagandists.

"Gates of hell opening in Gaza"

"Gates of hell opening in Gaza"

    Friday, September 05, 2025   No comments

 Israeli leaders repeat their threats saying that the "Gates of hell opening in Gaza". Defense Minister Israel Katz said on September 5, 2025, on the social platform X that the “gates of hell are opening now” in Gaza—and that they wouldn’t close until Hamas accepted Israel’s conditions for ending the war, particularly the release of hostages and disarmament. He was repeating an earlier statement that he said July 28, 2025, when he warned that if Hamas didn’t release hostages, the "gates of hell will open in Gaza."  The same rhetoric resurfaced in August 2025, when he again threatened that the gates of hell may open unless Hamas agreed to a cease-fire, release hostages, and disarm. 

Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, too, used the same language on February 16, 2025, during remarks with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Netanyahu declared that the "gates of hell" would open in Gaza unless Hamas returned all the hostages. 

As of early September 2025, Israel is intensifying its military offensive to take full control of Gaza City, a campaign that began in August 2025. An Israeli military spokesperson stated that forces control 40% of the city. 

As the war intensifies, more voices of protest in the US are emerging. Reports of US military veterans being arrested or removed from Capitol Hill for protesting US policy related to the conflict in Gaza have appeared in news sources.  Here are some of the reported events:

US Veterans arrested for protesting Gaza war

Senate hearing disruption (September 4, 2025): Two US military veterans, retired Green Beret Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Aguilar and former Army intelligence officer Josephine Guilbeau, were removed and handcuffed after interrupting a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. The two accused the lawmakers of complicity in genocide in Gaza.

FBI arrest of army veteran (September 3, 2025): The FBI arrested former US Army sergeant Bajun "Baji" Mavalwalla II for "conspiracy to impede or injure officers" after he was involved in a protest against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). While not specifically a Gaza protest, some see the charges as a test case for prosecuting dissent under the Trump administration.

Capitol Hill sit-in (July 24, 2024): In a large protest organized by Jewish Voice for Peace, approximately 200 demonstrators were arrested in the Cannon House Office Building after a sit-in against the war in Gaza. It is not specified how many, if any, were veterans. 

Conscientious objector applications (June 23, 2024): Two active members of the US Air Force, Larry Hebert and Juan Bettancourt, have sought to become conscientious objectors due to Washington's support for the Israeli military.

Active-duty hunger strike (January 16, 2025): Senior Airman Larry Hebert went on a hunger strike outside the White House during authorized leave to protest the starvation in Gaza. He was called back to base after nine days.

Aaron Bushnell (February 26, 2024): An active-duty airman, Aaron Bushnell, self-immolated outside the Israeli embassy in Washington, D.C., in protest of the war in Gaza. 

Under military rules, active-duty service members can protest off-duty and out of uniform. However, there are limits on participating in political activities, especially in uniform or on base. 

US army veterans Anthony Aguilar and Josephine Guilbeau were forcibly removed and arrested for disrupting a Senate hearing after denouncing US complicity in Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

Aguilar, a retired Green Beret and whistleblower who worked as a security guard at US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation aid distribution sites in Gaza, has exposed Israeli abuses at the sites.

Media Review: Nationalism, Distrust, and the Specter of Regime Change

Media Review: Nationalism, Distrust, and the Specter of Regime Change

    Wednesday, August 13, 2025   No comments

 

1. Netanyahu’s Overt Call: “Iran for Iranians”

On August 12, 2025, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu released a striking video address aimed directly at the Iranian people. He urged them to “take to the streets”, “demand justice”, and resist “ruling fanatics” in Tehran. Leveraging Iran’s current water crisis—one described as the worst drought in a century—he promised that “Israel’s top water experts will flood into every Iranian city,” offering cutting-edge recycling and desalination technologies once “your country is free.” Netanyahu framed this not merely as political pressure but as a humanitarian overture, rhetorically intertwining water scarcity with political liberation.
His language tugged at historical symbols—the “descendants of Cyrus the Great”—and invoked Zionist forebears: “as our founding father, Theodor Herzl, said... ‘if you will it, a free Iran is not a dream.’” Critics across the region condemned the message as a blatant interference in Iran’s sovereignty and a call for regime change.

2. Expansionist Imagery and the “Greater Israel” Vision

Simultaneously, in an i24 News interview, Netanyahu responded affirmatively when asked if he felt a connection to the concept of “Greater Israel”—a historical extremist vision stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates, enveloping Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. He stated flatly: "Very much." (Note: the Arabic-language Al Jazeera coverage confirmed condemnation by Jordan’s foreign ministry of these remarks, calling them “dangerous provocative escalation” and a violation of sovereignty and international law).  Jordan officially denounced these statements as “absurd illusions” that undermine Arab states and Palestinian rights, and called for international accountability.

3. Mutually Reinforcing Nationalist Narratives

These developments crystallize a deeper pattern of mutual antagonism: just as many in the Arab and Muslim worlds chant “Death to Israel” (often interpreted as opposition to the Zionist regime, not genocide), Israeli leaders—including Netanyahu—express parallel desires for overthrowing nationalist or Islamist regimes, from Iraq and Syria to Iran and potentially Turkey. Israel’s historical role in the fall of Arab nationalist regimes—the Ba’athists in Iraq and Syria, Nasserism in Egypt, Gaddafi in Libya—sets precedent for its current posture toward Iran, adding layers of distrust and ideological competition.

4. Media Narratives vs. Unspoken Realities

Mainstream coverage often frames Israel’s messaging as defensive—justified by existential threats or humanitarian concern. Yet the explicit linkage between Israel’s offer of technology and regime change reveals a more assertive posture: Israel positioning itself not only as a regional power but as a potential kingmaker.

This dynamic echoes past episodes: British and U.S. support for regime change in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan, often under the banner of liberation, but frequently yielding destabilization. Indeed, analysts warn that regime elimination without a constructive transition plan can exacerbate chaos and strengthen hardliners—concerns now surging around Iran.

5. Broader Implications: Ethno-Religious Nationalism and Regional Instability

The mutual calls for regime change are not isolated acts of political posturing — they are rooted in competing nationalist visions that draw their legitimacy from deeply embedded historical, ethnic, and religious narratives. This clash produces a dangerous self-reinforcing cycle that shapes nearly every major crisis in the Middle East.

Israel’s vision:

Israeli statecraft, particularly under Netanyahu, increasingly draws on biblical and historicist narratives to justify a posture of permanent expansion and dominance. This is not merely about securing existing borders; it’s about positioning Israel as the central civilizational power in the region. The appeal to “Greater Israel” ties modern foreign policy directly to ancient territorial claims, allowing nationalist leaders to frame strategic moves as fulfilling a sacred mission rather than a negotiable political agenda. In this worldview, offering water technology to Iranians is not only a humanitarian gesture but also a demonstration of how Israel imagines itself — as a benevolent hegemon to “liberated” peoples, once they accept the dismantling of regimes seen as hostile.

Resistance’s response:

Arab nationalist and Islamist movements see this Israeli narrative as an existential threat — not only to Palestinian sovereignty but to the very idea of Arab or Islamic self-determination. From their perspective, the vision of “Greater Israel” confirms suspicions that Israel’s security discourse masks territorial ambitions stretching across multiple states. This perception reinforces a siege mentality, where even minor concessions to Israel are framed as steps toward regional capitulation. Consequently, slogans like “Death to Israel” — while often clarified by their authors as a rejection of the Zionist regime rather than the Jewish people — are received by Israelis as genocidal, deepening the emotional and political chasm.

Mutual demonization:

Each side interprets the other’s rhetoric in its most maximalist and threatening form. Israeli leaders often portray their regional adversaries as irredeemable aggressors whose regimes must be toppled for peace to be possible. Conversely, Arab and Islamist nationalists cast Israeli policy as inherently expansionist, immune to compromise, and bent on cultural erasure. This mutual framing leaves no space for recognizing reformist or moderate currents on either side. Internal dissent within Iran, for example, is subsumed under the binary of “pro-regime” or “agent of foreign powers,” while dissent within Israel against expansionism is marginalized as naïve or disloyal.

Media as a force multiplier:

Regional and global media ecosystems amplify these narratives by privileging official statements and the most provocative soundbites. Nuanced or dissenting voices rarely receive the same coverage. This selective amplification means that both publics primarily hear confirmation of their worst fears. Israeli audiences see chants and missile parades without context; Arab audiences see maps of an expanded Israel without the debates inside Israel over their feasibility or morality. In effect, media serves as a mirror that reflects back the most polarizing version of reality, hardening nationalist sentiment and making diplomatic de-escalation politically costly for any leader.

The result is a feedback loop: nationalist rhetoric begets reciprocal hostility, which then justifies the next round of escalation. Over time, this pattern entrenches zero-sum thinking, where any gain for one side is assumed to be an irreversible loss for the other.

6. What Comes Next?

With Israel openly signaling support for regime change, and invoking ideological justifications, the region edges closer to escalatory brinkmanship. If Iran responds—either through intensified repression or reprisals—the potential for conflict could spiral. Global actors—especially the U.S., Europe, Russia, and regional powers—must urgently clarify whether they support such overt regime-change diplomacy or seek de-escalation through dialogue and multilateral engagement.

The events of August 12, 2025—Netanyahu’s video appeal and the embrace of “Greater Israel”—are not isolated flashes of rhetoric but crystallize long-standing ideological and geopolitical fault lines. The language of liberation and water aid interwoven with conquest and regime overthrow exemplifies the complex, dangerous entanglement of ethno-religious nationalism, realpolitik, and regional power plays. As each side frames itself as the rightful architect of the region’s future, the real victims may be stability, human rights, and any hope for equitable governance.

Israel’s prime minister’s call for Iranians to overthrow their government mirrors Iran’s rejection of the “Zionist regime,” underscoring two points: first, the deep incompatibility between race-based or religion-based nationalism and genuinely pluralistic societies; second, the role of supremacist ideologies as a driving force behind such nationalist regimes. Zionism—with both its religious dimension (membership in the Jewish faith) and its ethnic dimension (Jewish identity as race or ethnicity)—and Arab or Persian ethnic nationalism, alongside Islamism as a religious form, are locked in a clash that cannot be resolved by one prevailing over the others, but perhaps only by the eventual failure of them all.

  

Media Review: Shifting Public Opinion and Israel’s Media Suppression Amid Gaza’s Devastation

Media Review: Shifting Public Opinion and Israel’s Media Suppression Amid Gaza’s Devastation

    Wednesday, July 30, 2025   No comments

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.

Russia's non-diplomatic response to Ukraine's threat to target world leaders attending Victory Day: our Army doesn’t engage in terrorism like yours

Russia's non-diplomatic response to Ukraine's threat to target world leaders attending Victory Day: our Army doesn’t engage in terrorism like yours

    Saturday, May 10, 2025   No comments

Dmitry Medvedev, the former President and Prime Minister of Russia and current Deputy Chairman of the Security Council, made a public statement in response to Ukrainian officials who reportedly said that Ukraine could not guarantee the safety of foreign leaders visiting Moscow for the Victory Day celebrations.

In his statement, Medvedev used non-diplomatic language aimed at what appears to be Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, referencing drug use and calling him a "typhus-carrying louse." He questioned what Zelenskyy would do if Russia stated it could no longer guarantee the safety of European leaders visiting Kyiv. Medvedev also claimed that the Russian army does not engage in terrorism, in contrast to what he described as "Banderite bastards," referring to Ukrainian nationalists. He ended the message by referencing comments made about the Victory Day parade in Moscow.

Russia's foreign PM, President, and now head of the security systems in Russia, Dmitry Medvedev:

"What would the typhus-carrying louse with a coke-dusted nose do if he were told that our country can no longer “guarantee the safety” of the European leaders who arrived in Kiev today?  Chill out, rat! Unlike the Banderite bastards, our Army doesn’t engage in terrorism. Just remember today, you degenerate, all the crap you said about the Victory Parade in Moscow."

Trump's views on the war in Ukraine posted on social media while Zelenskyy cancels visit to Saudi Arabia; Putin wants to restore trust

Trump's views on the war in Ukraine posted on social media while Zelenskyy cancels visit to Saudi Arabia; Putin wants to restore trust

    Wednesday, February 19, 2025   No comments

 Trump's views on the war in Ukraine posted on social media while Zelenskyy cancels visit to Saudi Arabia; here are some key points from Trump's statement:

• He stated that Zelensky, who “had modest success as a comedian,” could not have won the Ukrainian conflict, but the United States gave him money.
• Called Zelensky a “dictator without elections” and accused him of refusing to hold a vote.
• Stated that without the participation of the United States, Zelensky "will never be able" to negotiate peace with Russia.
• Stated that Zelensky dragged the US into a war that "could not be won."
• Zelensky "played Biden by the book" and now refuses to participate in the elections due to low ratings.
• Accuses Zelensky of wanting to continue the conflict with Russia for financial gain.
• At the same time, he emphasized that while Zelensky is hesitating, his administration is conducting “successful negotiations” with Russia on ending the conflict in Ukraine.

Zelenskyy's reaction shows that he is trying to find some grounding to push back, but is hesitating

We are not surprised when they say that 90% of aid is provided by the US. We understand that the truth is actually a little different. And I would like the Trump team to have more truth, because all this certainly does not have a positive effect on Ukraine.

They are bringing Putin out of isolation, and I think Putin, the Russians, want it very much. In the discussion with them yesterday, there were signals that they are being portrayed as victims. This is something new. I would not like to criticize official US representatives. But this is a war against you. Everyone admits this, even those who are loyal to the Russians. The Secretary of State says that this is a "conflict." This is official, they showed it to me. But this still needs to be verified. This is a softening of their policy.

Given the change of posture in Washington, Zelenskyy is still trying to figure out his next moves; and his first was to cancel his visit to Saudi Arabia, as per this news report:

– Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said he has canceled his planned official visit to Saudi Arabia and indicated that a visit would happen in March instead after Kyiv was excluded from US-Russian talks in Riyadh on Tuesday.

Zelensky said on Monday that he was due to visit Saudi Arabia later this week.

“We were not invited to this Russian-American meeting in Saudi Arabia. It was a surprise for us. I think it was a surprise for many,” Zelensky told a news conference in the Turkish capital Ankara after the US-Russian talks in Riyadh.

“We are completely honest and open. I don’t want any coincidences. That’s why I won’t go to Saudi Arabia,” Zelensky said, adding that he would visit Riyadh on March 10.

Zelensky stressed that he wants the war to end “but we want it to be fair and for no one to decide anything behind our backs.”

He also stressed that “no decisions can be made without Ukraine on how to end the war in Ukraine, and on what terms.”

Meeting Erdogan in Turkiye, which became his destination after he canceled his visit to Saudi Arabia, he heard from the Turkish leader who told him that he supports Trump's proposal for peace because that intersects with Turkiye's plan which was proposed three years ago.

Erdogan: Trump's Ukraine initiative intersects with Türkiye's efforts

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that the diplomatic initiative launched by US President Donald Trump to quickly end the war in Ukraine through negotiations intersects with the policy pursued by Turkey for the past three years.

During a joint press conference with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Ankara on Tuesday, Erdogan recalled previous initiatives by NATO member Turkey, which hosted negotiations between Moscow and Kiev twice in 2022.

Zelensky said that the United States, Ukraine and Europe must participate in the talks on providing security guarantees to Kiev in order to ensure a just peace.

Putin: The goal of talks with Washington in Riyadh is to restore trust

Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that the goal of the talks held by Russia and the United States in Riyadh is to "restore trust between Moscow and Washington," explaining that "it is difficult to resolve many issues, including the Ukrainian crisis, without raising the level of trust."

In statements to reporters, made on Wednesday, a day after the talks in Saudi Arabia, Putin confirmed that the meeting of the two delegations in the Saudi capital "was friendly," as he expressed his "appreciation for the results of the talks between the Russian and American representatives."

Putin added that the Russian delegation confirmed to its American counterpart during the talks that it is "open to joint work," announcing that Russia "will inform its friends in the BRICS group of the results of the Russian-American negotiations."

In the same context, Putin said that Moscow and Washington "have taken the first step to resume work in a variety of areas of common interest," explaining that this "includes the Middle East, taking into account the continued Russian presence in Syria and the Palestinian issue."

He noted that there are "many issues to be resolved, in which both the United States and Russia are involved, despite the fact that we, of course, attach fundamental importance to the situation on the Ukrainian track."

Regarding other issues, "such as the economy, joint work in global energy markets and space," Putin confirmed that they were "a subject of study and discussion during the meeting in Riyadh."

The Russian president also expressed "readiness to return to the negotiating table," stressing that Moscow "has never refused to negotiate on Ukraine, and does not impose anything on anyone."

In this context, Putin revealed that his American counterpart, Donald Trump, told him during the phone conversation they had on February 12, that "the United States proceeds from the fact that the negotiation process will be conducted with the participation of both Russia and Ukraine, and that no one excludes Ukraine from it."

In light of this, Putin considered that what he described as "the hysteria that has afflicted Kiev," due to its absence from the talks between Moscow and Washington in Riyadh, "is out of place."

As for the meeting with Trump, Putin confirmed that "the desire to hold the meeting is mutual between the two presidents," adding: "But I repeat, once again... we must prepare for this meeting, so that there is a result."

Putin expressed his "surprise at the restraint the US president has shown towards his European allies, who are behaving in an inappropriate manner," he said.

“Iran’s Attack on Israel Failed”

“Iran’s Attack on Israel Failed”

    Wednesday, October 02, 2024   No comments

Western media and Western government reactions to Iran’s retaliatory attack on Israel raises serious concerns. Before sharing some of these reactions, some context, then some questions that would drive world community perception of governments' reactions to these developments.

On October 1, Iran struck several military and security sites in Israel in response to Israel’s assassination of Haniyeh, Nasrollah, and Iranian officials. Iran described the attack as “legal, rational and legitimate”.

Israeli leaders said Iran's strike "failed" but also siad that Israel reserves the right to retaliate. Some Western governments said Iran’s attack failed because their armies participated in intercepting the rockets. They also “strongly condemned” the attack by Iran. 

These positions might be convenient at the moment. However, long term, the West might come to regret their reactions and non-reactions to the events of the last weeks and months because their positions expose their disdain to the life and dignity of other peoples, compared to how they avenge the deaths of their own. These are critical moments that require principled response. Few facts will illustrate the problem the West faces.

1. If Iran’s attack failed, why are Western governments condemning it in the strongest terms possible? And did it fail because it did not kill Israeli civilians? Because many of the rockets landed, and they seem to have landed in specific locations, which means if they were aimed at civilian centers they would have landed in civilian centers. Is the West's measure of failure and success determined by the number of civilians killed?

2. Whenever Israel attacks another country and such attacks result in countless deaths of civilians including children and women, the West does not condemn such attacks; instead reaffirms Israel’s right for self-defense. If they believe in a principle of self-defense, Western governments need to answer the questions: Do other peoples and other countries have the right to such self-defense, too?

3. When Israel attacks in self-defense, civilians, including children and women, as acknowledged by France’s president are killed. In fact, in retaliation for the Oct. 7 attack, Israel killed 13 Palestinian children for 1 Israeli death for a total of 16,000 Palestinian chidlren and counting; or 33 Palestinians for 1 Israeli, for a total of 41,000 Gazans and counting. Is this an acceptable formular for self-defense killings?

Answers to these questions are not an exercise in morality speak; answers to these questions can form a practical, sound foundation for ending the cycles of violence.

  

Media Review: What will Hezbollah and Iran do and what might happen in the Middle East after Beirut Attacks?

Media Review: What will Hezbollah and Iran do and what might happen in the Middle East after Beirut Attacks?

    Sunday, September 29, 2024   No comments

In about a week, Israel turned electronic devices into weapons, assassinated military and political leaders, and launched arial bombings in Lebanon injuring thousands and killing hundreds, including the leader of the Lebanese group Hezbollah. Media reports about these unprecedented events vary. Governments’ reactions also vary. A review of how the global media and governments reacted will provide some context. The media review is prefaced by some thoughts about what might happen next, given the current events and given the expressed reactions as reported by media outlets. 

Israeli leaders claim that what they did will usher in a new Middle East. Israel has crossed so many red lines to achieve these stated goals: Destroy Hamas, Hezbollah, and all other affiliated groups. But they don't seem to have an answer for what their plan, long term, is for Palestinians. Instead they seem to focus on Iran. That is where it becomes clear that the current military success is just tactical success and it is not hard to achieve given the superior firepower and military technology the state of Israel enjoys, not to mention the unlimited supply of weapons the US government has provided thus far. However, strategically, this could be seen in the very near future as the moment when Israel forced the Iranian leaders to make a serious strategic shift. Here is why.

Iranian leaders have recently described Israeli leaders' actions as a form of "insanity", for crossing all legal, diplomatic, and ethical boundaries. Given that Israel is believed to have a stockpile of nuclear weapons, in the view of Iranian leaders, such "insane" leaders will not hesitate in using nuclear weapons against Iran. After all, some members of the Israeli government have publicly threatened to use nuclear weapons in Gaza.  If Iran did not take that threat seriously in the past, the recent actions must have changed their nuclear posture. 

Recalling that US assessed in June of this year that Iran was a week to a week and a half from breakout point in developing nuclear weapons capability, if Iran does not respond in the way it responded in the past, attacking with rockets and drones, the US and Israel should worry. Their non-response could mean a muted strategic response, whereby the religious authorities rescind earlier directives not to develop nuclear weapons and issue a new one that would speedup the development of nuclear weapons capabilities, at least for deterrence purposes. Such development would place the world on a path towards catastrophe, not just because of the potential for nuclear incident in the Middle East, but globally given that Russia's president just warned that Russia will change its nuclear posture if Western governments-supplied weapons to Ukraine are used to strike deep inside Russia.

Based on some Iranian media coverage, turning communication devices into discriminate weapons and killing religious figures is a form of nuclear strike without using a nuclear weapon. Some Iranians are now convinced that Israel will use nuclear weapons against their country. This is what will create a strategic shift in the region, not wining a war against non-state actors In Gaza and Lebanon without a plan for a political settlement with the Palestinians.

Media Review: The world mourns 6 dead and ignores 40,000 dead--Haaretz

Media Review: The world mourns 6 dead and ignores 40,000 dead--Haaretz

    Thursday, September 05, 2024   No comments

Israel and the world are mourning the six Israeli detainees who were killed, and their names, photos, life stories and families are making the news, even though they are only the tip of the iceberg of the war in Gaza, and only a small part of its victims. This is how Gideon Levy began his column in Haaretz, saying sarcastically that Hirsch Goldberg Polin and Eden Yerushalmi became celebrities despite their captivity and after their death, just as the world mourned the dead Israeli prisoners, “How could it not be when they were six beautiful young men who went through the hell of captivity before being brutally executed,” Levy added.

Levy was surprised by the astonishing contradiction between the wide coverage of their lives and deaths, and the ignoring of the similar fate of people of their age who are no less innocent, honest and beautiful, and who represent innocent victims on the Palestinian side.

Although the world is shocked by the fate of Gaza, it has never shown similar respect for the Palestinian victims. Neither US President Joe Biden has invited the relatives of the Palestinians who were martyred, even if they hold American citizenship, like the Goldberg and Pullins families, nor has the United States demanded the release of the thousands of kidnapped Palestinians who are being held by Israel without trial.

It is strange that a young Israeli woman killed at the Nova Festival arouses more sympathy and compassion in the world than a teenage refugee from Jabalia, as Levy says, commenting that Israelis are more like “the world.”

They also have names and hopes

If everything has been said about the neglect and concealment of the suffering of the Palestinians in the Israeli public discourse, what has been said is not enough - according to Levy - because the Palestinian killed in Gaza had a face, a name and a life story, and because the 17,000 children killed in the Strip since the beginning of the war also had hopes, dreams and families destroyed by their deaths.

However, the deaths of these people do not matter to the majority of Israelis, and some even rejoice in them, while the world outside Israel views them as horrible victims who have no names or faces, which is astonishing and indicates a loss of humanity, according to the writer.

It is not difficult - as Levy says - to imagine the feelings of the people of Gaza in the face of a world shaken by the deaths of 6 Israeli detainees without any interest in the 40,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza, and without any talk about the non-Israeli detainees.

"What about the hundreds and thousands of Palestinian abductees from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank? What about the administrative detainees who are being held without trial? What about the 'illegal combatants' and innocent workers who were caught and are being held in hellish conditions?" the writer asked.

They too, says Gideon Levy, have anxious families who do not know what has happened to them for the past 10 months. They too are denied visits by the International Committee of the Red Cross, and some of their stories are no less telling than the video of Eden Yerushalmi, which Hamas released this week.

Source: Haaretz

The White House spread false optimism about a cease fire deal for a political reason

The White House spread false optimism about a cease fire deal for a political reason

    Thursday, August 22, 2024   No comments

Israeli military analyst Amos Harel said on Thursday that Washington may have deliberately spread false optimism about the possibility of achieving progress in the prisoner swap negotiations to persuade Iran to postpone its revenge against Israel, noting that Iran and Hezbollah may finally launch their attack after the chances of concluding a deal began to evaporate soon.

In an article published in Haaretz, Harel wrote that it is difficult to know the extent to which Washington is convinced of the possibility of achieving progress in recent weeks, but the end of Secretary of State Anthony Blinken's visit to Israel heralded a new phase in which the chances of concluding a deal have declined, according to him.

He added that despite this, the visit achieved its goal of ensuring that there would be no attack by Iran and Hezbollah with the opening of the Democratic Party conference in Chicago, in his opinion.

He stated that the administration of US President Joe Biden deliberately published optimistic estimates of the possibility of achieving progress, in an attempt to persuade the Iranians not to launch their attack, but this may have backfired on them, as the basic problems have not been resolved and the negotiations are stalled after Washington introduced amendments to the draft deal that serve Israel.

*

Meanwhile, the Ministry of Health in the Gaza Strip announced that the death toll from the Israeli strikes has risen to 40,265 deaths and 93,144 injuries since October 7, 2023.

The ministry monitored in its daily statistical report that the occupation committed 4 massacres against Palestinian families, of which 42 martyrs and 163 injuries arrived at hospitals during the past 24 hours.

The ministry indicated that a number of victims are still under the rubble and on the roads, and ambulance and civil defense crews cannot reach them.

  

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

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

    Saturday, April 13, 2024   No comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  

UN Security Council rejects US draft resolution on War in Gaza

UN Security Council rejects US draft resolution on War in Gaza

    Friday, March 22, 2024   No comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

History of the American veto to protect Israel

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

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

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

Security Council resolutions after October 7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A First: More than 800 Officials from ally nations across the Atlantic have united to publicly criticize their governments over the war on Gaza

A First: More than 800 Officials from ally nations across the Atlantic have united to publicly criticize their governments over the war on Gaza

    Friday, February 02, 2024   No comments

More than 800 officials in the US, the UK and the EU released a public letter of dissent against their governments’ support of Israel in its war in Gaza, The New York Times reported on Friday.

According to current and former officials spearheading or supporting the initiative, the letter marks the first time that officials from ally nations across the Atlantic have united to publicly criticize their governments over the war.

The officials argue that they are speaking up because they, as civil servants, consider that it is their duty to help improve policy and to work in their nations’ interests, and that they are speaking up because they believe their governments need to change direction on the war.

“Our governments’ current policies weaken their moral standing and undermine their ability to stand up for freedom, justice and human rights globally,” The New York Times quoted the letter as saying.

There is a “plausible risk” that their governments’ policies are contributing to “grave violations of international humanitarian law, war crimes and even ethnic cleansing or genocide,” it added.

According to the newspaper, the document protected the identities of signers as they fear reprisal, said one organizer, an official who has worked in the State Department for more than 20 years.

But about 800 current officials have given approval to the letter as it has quietly circulated among employees at the national level in multiple countries, the official was quoted as saying.

The effort reveals the extent to which pro-Israel policies among American, British and European leaders have stirred dissent among civil servants, including many who engage in foreign policies of their governments.

Noting that some 80 of the signers are from American agencies, with the biggest group being from the State Department, one organizer said the governing authority most represented among the signers is the collective EU institutions, followed by the Netherlands and the US.

Al-Azhar Observatory: The Zionist entity and ISIS are two sides of the same coin

Al-Azhar Observatory: The Zionist entity and ISIS are two sides of the same coin

    Wednesday, November 22, 2023   No comments

The Al-Azhar Observatory for Combating Extremism released a note stating that the Zionist entity and the terrorist organization ISIS are “two sides of the same coin.” The Observatory reached this conclusion by comparing the Israeli occupation’s aggression against the Gaza Strip and the terrorist actions of ISIS, as a great similarity between them emerged.

The Sunni religious organization added that the occupation added "a mixture of fascism and Nazism, and produced something uglier than all the terrorist organizations combined, regardless of their names and ideologies."

Al-Azhar Observatory summarized the similarities between the Israeli occupation and the terrorist organization ISIS in the following points:

1- Using religion to achieve political gains: In this context, the Observatory noted that the head of the occupation government, Benjamin Netanyahu, cited biblical texts more than once in justifying the Israeli massacres against innocent men, women and children in the Gaza Strip.

2- Achieving the dream of empire and imperial expansion: Here, Al-Azhar Observatory explained that the ambition of the terrorist organization “ISIS” to build a theocratic state, under the name of reviving the caliphate, is the same dream of the extremist Zionists, regarding establishing the “Greater Kingdom of Israel” or the “Kingdom of David” on the land of occupied Palestine. Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, in addition to part of Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

3- Racism, arrogance, and expanding the circle of racist conflict: In this regard, the Observatory pointed out that racism and the claim of superiority and the possession of rights are among the common features in the literature of ISIS and the occupation, in justifying acts of violence, killing, and assault on others, which distances itself from using methods Similar in resistance and self-defense. He added that the speeches of ISIS and the occupation perpetuate violence and terrorism in the name of religions.

4- Ethnic cleansing and genocide: Al-Azhar Observatory confirmed that there is a strong similarity between the genocidal operations carried out by ISIS members against the Yazidi nationality in Iraq, and the crimes of the occupation in the Gaza Strip, and Palestine in general. According to him, the international handling of the two cases revealed Western double standards.

5- Excessive violence and the use of brutality: With regard to this matter, the Observatory pointed out that the world has not forgotten that ISIS burned the Jordanian pilot Moaz Al-Kasasbeh alive, nor cut off the heads of members, nor blew up people’s heads with firearms and explosive devices.

According to what he continued, the starting point for these actions by ISIS is the book “Managing Savagery,” by “theorist” Abu Bakr Naji, and how to exploit brutality to “terrorize” the organization’s enemies.

The Al-Azhar Observatory stated that this is embodied in our reality with the Zionist entity, which is following the example of ISIS in “management of brutality,” in an even uglier way and with greater firepower, as we see the remains of children in Gaza every day, bodies without heads and organs without bodies, and the remains of entire families. It collects in a handful, or two handfuls, or a bag, or two bags, as well as destroying thousands of homes.

6- The scorched earth strategy: With regard to this point, the Observatory reported that the displacement policy that the Israeli occupation insists on is preceded by the scorched earth strategy.

ISIS used this same policy in Iraq and Syria, as the Al-Azhar Observatory added. He also pointed out that Jaafar Al-Ibrahimi, the Iraqi government’s advisor for infrastructure, told Reuters that “ISIS has caused losses estimated at about $30 billion in Iraqi infrastructure since 2014.”

Al-Ibrahimi continued: “ISIS used a policy of comprehensive destruction of facilities, factories, and buildings, with the intention of causing the greatest economic damage to Iraq.”

7- Disavowing international laws and conventions: According to the Observatory, ISIS continues to repeat that it does not respect international resolutions and does not respect international conventions.

Likewise, the Israeli occupation did not implement United Nations resolutions, did not respond to the calls of the world order, and did not abide by the texts of international laws and conventions. He does not see, hear, or implement all of them, to the point that many writers see him as above international law and UN resolutions, according to the Al-Azhar Observatory.

The subdivision of al-Azhar, the observatory outlines its mission as follow:

Al-Azhar Observatory for Combating Extremism seeks to consolidate the teachings of the true Islamic religion, and to maximize its message based on moderation, moderation, tolerance, and human brotherhood by providing moderate and purposeful content in various languages, emphasizing the universality of Al-Azhar Al-Sharif, and enhancing Egypt’s global position in the field of combating extremism and building societal peace.