Archives: Articles

By Dr Ram Puniyani

Communal violence has been the bane of Indian politics. It also forms the base of communal politics which aims to divide the society along the lines of religion. The foundations of this hate were laid by the British, who pursued the policy of ‘divide and rule’. To begin with this was done by using the communal view of history. This was developed in parallel and opposite directions by Muslim league on one side and Hindu Mahasabha-RSS on the other. This led to the genesis and growth of Communal violence. Adding on to history gradually other emotive issues were added up to intensify the hate against the ‘other’ community. Violence started going up, leading to the pre-partition violence of horrific proportions.

After the partition tragedy this ‘Hate other’ kept occurring at the regular repetitive cycle. The pre-partition violence had very different dynamics and both the communities were equally involved. In the post partition scenario, with major elements of Muslim communalism having emigrated to Pakistan, the violence went on becoming anti Muslim violence in the main. The hate against Muslim community started shooting up gradually and started becoming more rooted in the social common sense.

The hate manufactured in RSS Shakhas through stories of great Hindu Kings and evil Muslim kings apart from other issues leading to hate, propagated through schools and media run by it zoomed up after 1977, when Lal Krihna Advni as Information and Broadcasting Minister ensured that news agencies become infiltrated by the people with communal mindset. With Modi becoming Chief Minister of Gujarat, the Corporate close to Modi started buying the major news portals, converting Indian media into Godi media. This was supplemented by the social media, BJP IT cell.

The dog whistles and direct insinuations against Muslim community and later Christian community began right from top, the Prime minister and started percolating down and getting a strong place in social thinking. Modi very cleverly coined the Hate slogans, like those having more wives and children, they can be identified by their clothes, smashan (Cremation Ground);Kabristan (Graveyard), and many like this became prevalent due to the word-of-mouth propaganda and these became fodder for social media.

The shrewd formulations went on a logical worsening spiral. The hate against minorities is worsening by the day. Newer formulations are now coming up to the extent of giving calls to Hindus to keep arms as Hindus are in danger.

An important book showing the coining and spreading of Hate came from Swati Chaturvedi, ‘I was a Troll’. In an intense peep into the World of IT cell she brought to our notice how a number of youths are employed to spread hate through social media.

Book ‘The Hindi pop’ by Kunal Purohit is an eye opener. In his path breaking investigation, which is presented in this important book H-Pop. He, through the ground level work unraveled the popular pop singers and found that communal content is the central theme of their songs, which became popular due to its attractive music. Through the analysis of major pop singers, Purohit “…examines pop music, poetry, and influencer culture respectively. H-Pop works on multiple levels: an anthropological deep dive into the world of Hindutva pop,…investigative journalism about their (singers) links with the BJP and other Hindutva organizations, and academic analysis of the role of music, poetry, and pop culture in stoking violence.” And “ wider weaponization of pop culture by the Hindutva ecosystem: leaders of the ruling party openly make hate speeches and drive hate rallies, school textbooks peddle Hindutva history as fact, mainstream Bollywood movies peddle Hindutva propaganda,”

Pooja Prasanna (News Minute) in her video “Communal Color from Kerala Right wing to Hindutva pop” based on a research by her colleague tells us that in Kerala many Hindus in in late night chat rooms (11.30 pm) onwards call for possessing arms to combat the threat of Muslims. To be in contact with local RSS shakha for protection. They call Muslims as a threat and a ticking bomb, they also recall derogatory Bulli bai and Sullibai (internet auction of Muslim women) social media insults to Muslim women.

What is adding up to all this is the flood of Bollywood films, like Kashmir Files, Kerala Story, Bengal files and what have. Incidentally Kashmir files was recommended by RSS Chief Bhagwat and PM Modi.

In his much advertised lectures in Vigyan Bhavan in August 2025, Bhagwat had sugar coated his divisive agenda very cleverly when he stated that “A Hindu is one who believes in following their own path without demeaning others’ beliefs and respects others’ faith without disrespecting them. Those who follow this tradition and culture are Hindus…”As he stated this all the above; processes of intolerance for Muslims and Hate against them has been fully operational

This is also manifested in what is going on in Assam. Hemant Biswa Sarma is out to implement the disenfranchisement and torture of Bengalis speaking Muslims, As Bhagwat is looking the other way and probably smiling for the enhancement of his Hindu Rashtra agenda. Harsh Mander in his Scroll article points out, Himanta Sarma said “I would urge Assamese to learn from Israel. In the Middle East that country is surrounded by Muslim fundamentalists. With Iran and Iraq as neighbors, Israel with a small population has become an impregnable society…” and Suvendu Adhikari, BJP leader of West Bengal asserts that Sabka Saath sabka Vikas (With everybody, everybody’s development)should be given up.

Where are we heading with Sarma portraying Assamese Muslims of Bengali origin as the dangerous “other”, the “infiltrator”, the enemy that threatens the future of the people to whom Assam rightfully (and exclusively) belongs. This is a profound shift transforming an ethno-nationalist movement to a stridently communal one, targeting only people of Bengali origin of Muslim identity. He has gone so far as to direct the Foreigners’ Tribunals to drop all cases of Hindu Bangladeshis who entered Assam until 2014, and pursue cases only against Muslims.

 As BJP has taken firm grip on power, through whatever means, the likes of Himanta Sarma and Suvendu Adhikari are becoming bolder in their pronouncements, while Bhagwat makes all the efforts to present his core agenda, in a language which sounds palatable. Modi has been leading in giving the most divisive statements. Now more mechanisms are coming into operation as the seeds of hatred sowed by RSS and nurtured through various mechanisms are coming to fruition.

15 September 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Charles Andrews 

New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani held a rally with Bernie Sanders on Sept. 6, 2025. Mamdani took questions from the audience. One woman asked, “Could I ask how you’re going to protect this city from the National Guard coming in?”

Mamdani began his reply with a blunt, accurate observation: “The first thing is we have to prepare for the inevitability of that deployment. We cannot try and convince ourselves that because something is illegal, Donald Trump will not do it. We have to be prepared and we have to be clear eyed.”

How should we prepare? Mamdani’s answer was 100 percent legalism: “We saw in California, the mayor of LA [Karen Bass], the Attorney General of the state [Rob Bonta] and the governor [Gavin Newsom] work together to fight back against the White House’s deployment of the National Guard. They filed a lawsuit. A federal judge [Charles Breyer] just recently found in their favor that the deployment of the National Guard was illegal.” Mamdani boasted that as mayor he, unlike Andrew Cuomo, would file a similar lawsuit by “working together with [attorney general] Tish James and [governor] Kathy Hochul to fight back against the deployment.”

Trump sent National Guard troops into Los Angeles back at the beginning of June. Mamdani did not mention that the court ruling came months later.

Nor did Mamdani say a word about what the working class in Los Angeles did to fight ICE and the Guard. They organized groups to watch for the goons and spread the word. Dozens, sometimes hundreds, of people rushed to surround troops. More than once, squads gave up and left, sometimes in vehicles damaged by the protesters. “We’ve been out all day, from 10 a.m. to 11 p.m.—this is our city and we are fighting back against ICE. …We’re out here to support the ones who’ve disappeared—and if things go down, we’re here to protect those facing off with the police.” A protester wounded by a metal projectile was treated on the spot by a comrade. Night after night, youth launched car and bike caravans—horns blaring, engines roaring—keeping up morale and creating movement even as the police tried to scatter the crowds.

Mamdani did not urge his New York supporters to do any of these things.

It did not take long for events to expose the futility of Mamdani’s top-down, within-the-system approach. Only two days after his September 6 rally, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that immigration raids in Los Angeles can continue, quashing a lower court order that had barred agents from making stops without “reasonable suspicion.”

Mamdani is a social democrat, a long-time member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). He is devoted to pressing and cajoling Democratic officials for baby steps of reform. The role of working people in his eyes is to campaign and vote for him.

DSA’s reformism and its electoral concentration are directly opposite to communists’ doing all they can to wage class struggle and to build a communist party, the indispensable organization for victory over capitalism. You can vote for Mamdani if it makes you feel better, but if you ever get the opportunity, you might ask him: shouldn’t workers organize watch groups and networks that confront ICE and the Guard on the ground?

Charles Andrews is the author of The Hollow Colossus and other books.

15 September 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor 

Occupied Palestinian territory– Israel’s large-scale military assault on Gaza City, marked by repeated and systematic bombardment of historic neighbourhoods, houses of worship, libraries, museums, archives, cemeteries, ancient homes, old markets, and the surrounding urban fabric, threatens to erase what remains of the city’s tangible and intangible heritage in its entirety. 

This destruction forms part of a declared policy to eliminate Gaza and forcibly displace its residents, constituting a flagrant attack on cultural property protected under international humanitarian law and the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property. 
Such actions demand urgent intervention from UNESCO and state parties to halt the devastation, document the damage, secure restoration, ensure accountability, and prevent Gaza from being turned into a land stripped of memory and identity.

This assault goes far beyond killing thousands of civilians and destroying their homes. It deliberately targets historical, archaeological, religious, and cultural sites in Gaza,especially in Gaza City,as part of an ongoing colonial-settler strategy aimed at erasing the material and spiritual symbols of the Palestinian people. The result is an irreparable loss of collective memory that has shaped Palestinian identity for centuries.

By 18 August 2025, UNESCO had already documented and assessed damage to 110 sites across Gaza since 7 October 2023. These included 13 religious sites, 77 buildings of historical or artistic importance, three repositories of movable cultural property, nine monuments, one museum, and seven other archaeological sites. The extent of the destruction illustrates the systematic targeting of Palestinian heritage and the looming threat of its complete erasure.

The escalating Israeli military campaign, ongoing for more than a month with the objective of seizing Gaza City and displacing its residents, marks an additional step towards completing the wholesale destruction of Gaza’s landmarks, including its historical and archaeological areas. This destruction is irreversible.

The attacks permanently extinguish any chance of restoring damaged sites and instead move toward the erasure of even those not yet harmed. Israel’s approach of levelling entire areas, through the use of booby-trapped vehicles, aerial and artillery bombardment, as well as bulldozers and heavy machinery, ensures that the destruction is deliberate and total.

Gaza’s Old City, rich with historic homes, ancient landmarks such as the Great Omari Mosque and the Church of Saint Porphyrius, as well as old markets, Ottoman and Mamluk-era buildings, is now at imminent risk of complete destruction under relentless bombardment and the expected expansion of ground operations.

Several of these sites have already suffered severe damage: the Omari Mosque has lost much of its structure, the Church of Saint Porphyrius has been damaged, and old markets and neighbourhoods have sustained heavy destruction. Any further targeting will erase them entirely, eliminating any possibility of future restoration.

Past Israeli air and artillery strikes have already destroyed or damaged a large part of Gaza’s Old City, including 146 historic homes, in addition to mosques, churches, markets, and schools. The archaeological site of Anthedon Harbour, Gaza’s ancient port, dating back to the 8th century BCE and listed on UNESCO’s Tentative World Heritage List, was destroyed, as was the historic Beit al-Saqqa in Gaza’s Shuja’iyya neighbourhood, a 400-year-old site.

Other heritage landmarks, such as Tell Umm Amer (the Monastery of Saint Hilarion) dating back to the 4th century CE, have been severely affected by bombardment and bulldozing operations. UNESCO has placed this site on its List of World Heritage in Danger, granting it enhanced protection under the Hague Convention. The destruction signals a catastrophic loss of irreplaceable cultural treasures, further highlighting the breadth of Israel’s campaign against Palestine’s diverse heritage.

Israel’s relentless targeting of Gaza’s cultural heritage, seen as a guardian of identity and collective memory, forms part of the broader crime of genocide being carried out against Palestinians. It is a systematic effort to uproot and erase their connection to their land and history.

International humanitarian law absolutely prohibits the deliberate targeting of cultural and religious sites that are not legitimate military objectives. Such protection is a cornerstone of international custom, codified in the 1954 Hague Convention and its 1999 Second Protocol. Targeting and destroying cultural heritage sites constitutes a war crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, a direct violation of the Hague Convention, and today represents a central dimension of the genocide being perpetrated against Palestinians—used as a tool to erase their identity and collective memory alongside mass killing, forced displacement, and widespread destruction.

The cultural and historical sites of Gaza form an integral part of world heritage. They belong not only to Palestinians but to humanity as a whole. Their destruction requires urgent action by the international community and its specialised agencies to safeguard this cultural heritage and hold Israel accountable for its violations, which amount to international crimes under international criminal law.

Continued destruction of these landmarks not only means the loss of stone and material heritage but also the erasure of Palestinian identity and the severing of their ties to history and civilisation. This is a systematic assault on collective memory and on the right of future generations to preserve their cultural and human legacy.

The United Nations and UNESCO must act immediately to protect cultural property in Gaza, placing threatened sites under emergency international protection. The Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court should include these crimes within its ongoing investigation into the situation in Palestine.

States—individually and collectively—must fulfil their legal obligations by taking immediate steps to halt the genocide in Gaza in all its forms. They must adopt effective measures to protect Palestinian civilians, ensure Israel’s compliance with international law and International Court of Justice rulings, and guarantee accountability for its crimes. Arrest warrants already issued by the ICC against Israel’s Prime Minister and former Defence Minister must be executed at the first opportunity, with further warrants issued and enforced to bring perpetrators before international justice.

The international community must also impose accountability through national and international courts, economic, diplomatic, and military sanctions on Israel, including a ban on arms sales and dual-use goods, suspension of political, financial, and military cooperation, freezing of assets of those responsible, travel bans, and suspension of trade agreements that provide Israel with benefits enabling it to sustain its crimes.

Immediate action is required to address the root causes of the Palestinian people’s suffering and oppression over the past 77 years. This includes guaranteeing their right to live in freedom and dignity, ensuring self-determination in line with international law, ending Israel’s illegal occupation and settlement enterprise, dismantling its apartheid system, withdrawing completely from the occupied Palestinian territory of 1967, lifting the unlawful blockade on Gaza, holding perpetrators accountable, and guaranteeing victims’ rights to justice and reparation.

Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor is a Geneva-based independent organization with regional offices across the MENA region and Europe

15 September 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Quds News Network

Gaza (QNN)- Gaza’s health system is collapsing under Israel’s siege and targeting. Doctors are now forced to amputate the limbs of patients and wounded civilians because antibiotics and essential medicines are no longer available.

Dr. Munir al-Boursh, Director of Gaza’s Health Ministry, said the crisis has reached the “point of no return.” He explained that infections resistant to antibiotics are spreading quickly. “The wounded in Gaza are not only killed by bullets and bombs. Microbes now destroy their bodies. Doctors have no option left but amputation,” he warned in a post on X.

Al-Bursh described heartbreaking daily scenes. “Has medicine become amputation?” he asked. Doctors must decide whether to amputate the leg or arm of a child, youth, or wounded civilian—or let them die.

He said Israel’s blockade on medical supplies has turned Gaza into a zone of preventable tragedies. “The occupation did not stop at bombings. It deprived patients of basic medicines. Their bodies no longer respond to treatment,” he added.

Al-Boursh said the last 24 hours saw the heaviest Israeli bombardment targeting homes, hospitals, schools, and even tents for displaced families. “Children and women were killed. Food, water, and medicine are gone. A complete health genocide is unfolding before the world,” he said.

According to the ministry, Israel’s “Gideon Carts 2” operation on August 13 killed 1,891 Palestinians, including 482 children, 174 women, and 75 elderly people. Women, children, and the elderly made up 38% of the victims.

Since March 2, Israel has closed all crossings into Gaza. No medicine or humanitarian aid enters freely, even as trucks pile up at the borders. When aid is allowed in, it is very limited and fails to meet the needs of Gaza’s starving and sick.

The Health Ministry confirmed Saturday that 64,803 Palestinians have been killed and 164,264 wounded since October 7, 2023.

Blood Shortages Add to Crisis

The ministry also reported a dangerous shortage in blood supplies. Gaza hospitals need more than 350 units daily, but banks are running dry.

Community donation drives have nearly stopped because famine and malnutrition leave people too weak to donate. This was the last source of extra blood, and it has now collapsed.

The Health Ministry issued an urgent appeal for medicines, blood units, and medical equipment. It warned that without immediate international intervention, more patients will face amputations and many more will die.

15 September 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor

Geneva – The European Union (EU) continues to evade its international obligations regarding the grave crimes committed by Israel in the Gaza Strip, proposing only selective and fragmented measures that fail to utilise its real leverage tools against Israel and do nothing to halt the ongoing genocide for over 23 months.

The measures proposed by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen are symbolic and superficial, lacking seriousness and firmness, and amounting to a maneuver around the EU’s legal obligations under international law.

Von der Leyen, during her State of the Union address before the European Parliament in Strasbourg, proposed:
    •    A partial suspension of the trade chapter in the EU-Israel Association Agreement.
    •    Halting direct financial payments to the Israeli government and its official institutions.
    •    Imposing sanctions on far-right Israeli ministers and extremist settlers.
    •    Establishing a donor group for Palestine with a dedicated mechanism for the reconstruction of Gaza.

These proposals are nothing more than political window dressing, while the EU continues to ignore substantive measures required under international law, such as:
    •    A full suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement.
    •    Halting all forms of military cooperation, including arms exports and imports.
    •    Imposing binding sanctions on Israeli institutions and officials implicated in atrocities in Gaza.

The EU bears direct legal obligations to provide reparations to victims, given its political, economic, and military support for Israel, as well as its role in shielding Israeli violations from accountability. Establishing a donor group does not absolve the EU of these responsibilities, as both the Union and individual member states remain legally liable for their actions and omissions.

Less than two months ago, the EU merely “monitored Israel’s compliance” with a recent agreement aimed at improving humanitarian aid access to Gaza, a deal that Israel has failed to implement. Instead, the situation has deteriorated to the point where famine has been officially declared, yet the EU has taken no meaningful follow-up action.

By limiting its measures to symbolic steps, the EU is effectively granting Israel impunity, thereby enabling its continued crimes. Euro-Mediterranean Monitor thus calls on the EU to adopt decisive actions proportionate to the catastrophic humanitarian situation in Gaza, including:
    •    Imposing comprehensive sanctions on Israeli officials and institutions.
    •    Suspending all cooperation agreements, foremost among them the EU-Israel Association Agreement.
    •    Enforcing a complete arms embargo and banning exports of dual-use technologies.
    •    Prohibiting settlement products from entering EU markets.
    •    Suspending Schengen visa privileges for implicated Israeli officials.
    •    Freezing all technical and logistical support that directly or indirectly facilitates violations.

Euro-Med Monitor also urges the EU to activate all available legal and political mechanisms within its framework to hold Israel accountable, including:
    •    Exercising universal jurisdiction to prosecute individuals involved in international crimes.
    •    Supporting the International Criminal Court (ICC) in issuing and enforcing arrest warrants against Israeli officials.
    •    Ending the illegal occupation, dismantling the settler-colonial and apartheid regime, lifting the unlawful blockade on Gaza, and upholding the Palestinian right to self-determination, return, and reparations.

Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor is a Geneva-based independent organization with regional offices across the MENA region and Europe

11 September 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Chris Hedges

The genocide in Gaza has exposed the weaponization of the Holocaust as a vehicle not to prevent genocide, but to perpetuate it, not to examine the past, but to manipulate the present.

Nearly all Holocaust scholars, who see in any criticism of Israel a betrayal of the Holocaust, have refused to condemn the genocide in Gaza. Not one of the institutions dedicated to researching and commemorating the Holocaust have drawn the obvious historical parallels or decried the mass slaughter of Palestinians.

Holocaust scholars, with a handful of exceptions, have exposed their true purpose, which is not to examine the dark side of human nature, the frightening propensity we all have to commit evil, but to sanctify Jews as eternal victims and absolve the ethnonationalist state of Israel of the crimes of settler colonialism, apartheid and genocide.

The hijacking of the Holocaust, the failure to defend Palestinian victims because they are Palestinian, has imploded the moral authority of Holocaust studies and Holocaust memorials. They have been exposed as a vehicles not to prevent genocide but to perpetrate it, not to explore the past, but manipulate the present.

Any tepid recognition that the Holocaust may not be the exclusive property of Israel and its Zionist supporters is swiftly shut down. The Holocaust Museum LA deleted an Instagram post that read: “NEVER AGAIN” CAN’T ONLY MEAN NEVER AGAIN FOR JEWS” after a backlash. In the hands of Zionists, “never again” means precisely that, never again only for Jews.

Aimé Césaire, in “Discourse on Colonialism,” writes that Hitler seemed exceptionally cruel only because he presided over “the humiliation of the white man,” applying to Europe the “colonialist procedures which until then had been reserved exclusively for the Arabs of Algeria, the coolies of India and the nègres d’Afrique.”

It was this distortion of the Holocaust as unique that troubled Primo Levi, who was imprisoned in Auschwitz from 1944 to 1945 and wrote “Survival in Auschwitz.” He was a fierce critic of the apartheid state of Israel and its treatment of the Palestinians. He saw the Shoah as “an inexhaustible source of evil” that “is perpetuated as hatred in the survivors, and springs up in a thousand ways, against the very will of all, as a thirst for revenge, as moral breakdown, as negation, as weariness, as resignation.”

He deplored “Manichaeanism,” those who “shun nuance and complexity” and who “reduce the river of human events to conflicts, and conflicts to duals, us and them.” He warned that the “network of human relationships inside the concentration camps was not simple: It could not be reduced to two blocs, victims and persecutors.” The enemy, he knew, “was outside but also inside.”

Levi writes about Mordechai Chaim Rumkowski, a Jewish collaborator who ruled the Lodz ghetto. Rumkowski, known as “King Chaim,” turned the ghetto into a slave labor camp which enriched the Nazis and himself. He deported opponents to death camps. He raped and molested girls and women. He demanded unquestioned obedience and embodied the evil of his oppressors. For Levi, he was an example of what many of us, under similar circumstances, are capable of becoming.

“We are all mirrored in Rumkowski, his ambiguity is ours, it is our second nature, we hybrids molded from clay and spirit,” Levi wrote in “The Drowned and the Saved.” “[H]is fever is ours, the fever of our Western civilization that ‘descends into hell with trumpets and drums,’ and its miserable adornments are the distorting image of our symbols of social prestige.”

“Like Rumkowski, we too are so dazzled by power and prestige as to forget our essential fragility,” Levi adds. “[W]illingly or not, we come to terms with power, forgetting that we are all in the ghetto, that the ghetto is walled in, that outside the ghetto reign the lords of death and that close by the train is waiting.”

These bitter lessons of the Holocaust, which warn that the line between the victim and victimizer is razor thin, that we can all become willing executioners, that there is nothing intrinsically moral about being Jewish or a survivor of the Holocaust, are what Zionists seek to deny. Levi, for this reason, was persona non grata in Israel.

Holocaust studies, which exploded in the 1970s and were epitomized by the deification of the Holocaust survivor and fervent Zionist Elie Wiesel — literary critic Alfred Kazin called him a “Jesus of the Holocaust” — have now surrendered any claim to championing universal truths. These Holocaust scholars use a benchmark evil, as Norman Finkelstein points out, “not as a moral compass but rather as an ideological club.” The mantra “Do not compare,” Finkelstein writes, “is the mantra of moral blackmailers.”

Zionists find in the Holocaust and the Jewish state a sense of purpose and meaning, as well as a cloying moral superiority. After the 1967 war, when Israel seized Gaza and the West Bank, Israel, as Nathan Glazer approvingly observed, became “the religion of the American Jews.”

Holocaust studies are based on the fallacy that unique suffering confers unique entitlement. This was always the purpose of what Finkelstein calls “The Holocaust Industry.”

“Jewish suffering is depicted as ineffable, uncommunicable, and yet always to be proclaimed,” writes the European historian Charles Maier in “The Unmasterable Past: History, Holocaust, and German National Identity.” “It is intensely private, not to be diluted, but simultaneously public so that gentile society will confirm the crimes. A very peculiar suffering must be enshrined in public sites: Holocaust museums, memory gardens, deportation sites, dedicated not as Jewish but civic memorials. But what is the role of a museum in a country, such as the United States, far from the site of the Holocaust? … Under what circumstances can a private sorrow serve simultaneously as public grief? And if genocide is certified as a public sorrow, then must we not accept the credentials of other particular sorrows too? Do Armenians and Cambodians also have a right to publicly funded holocaust museums? And do we need memorials to Seventh Day Adventists and homosexuals for their persecution at the hands of the Third Reich?”

Any crime Israel carries out in the name of its survival — its “right to exist” — is justified in the name of this uniqueness. There are no limits. The world is black and white, a never-ending battle against Nazism, which is protean depending on who Israel targets. To challenge this bloodlust is to be an anti-Semite facilitating another genocide of Jews.

This simplistic formula not only serves the interests of Israel, but also the interests of colonial powers that carried out their own genocides, ones they seek to obscure. What was the annihilation of Native Americans by European settlers, the Armenians by Turks, the Indians in the Bengal famine by the British or the Soviet-orchestrated famine in the Ukraine? What was the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Is Manifest Destiny any different from the Nazis’ embrace of the concept of Lebensraum? These too were holocausts, fueled by the same dehumanization and bloodlusts.

The sacralization of the Nazi Holocaust offers a bizarre quid pro quo. Arming and funding the state of Israel, preventing U.N. resolutions and sanctions from being adopted to condemn its crimes, and demonizing Palestinians and their supporters, is proof of atonement and support for Jews. Israel, in return, absolves the West of its indifference to the plight of Jews during the Holocaust, and Germany for perpetrating it.

Germany uses this unholy alliance to separate Nazism from the rest of German history, including the genocide German colonists carried out against the Nama and Herero in German South-West Africa, now Namibia.

“[S]uch magic,” Israeli historian and genocide scholar Raz Segal writes, “legitimizes racism against Palestinians at the very moment that Israel perpetrates genocide against them. The idea of Holocaust uniqueness thus reproduces rather than challenges the exclusionary nationalism and settler colonialism that led to the Holocaust.”

Segal, the director of the program in Holocaust and Genocide Studies at Stockton University in New Jersey, wrote an article on Gaza on Oct. 13, 2023 — six days after the incursion by Hamas and other Palestinian fighters into Israel — titled: “A Textbook Case of Genocide.” This denunciation from an Israeli Holocaust scholar, whose family members perished in the Holocaust, was a very lonely stance.

Segal saw in the Israeli government’s immediate demand that Palestinians evacuate the north of Gaza, and the blood-curdling demonization of the Palestinians by Israeli officials — the defense minister said Israel was “fighting human animals” — the stench of genocide.

“The whole idea about prevention and ‘never again’ is that — as we teach our students — there are red flags that once we notice them, we’re supposed to work in order to stop the process that could escalate to genocide,” Segal said when I interviewed him, “even if it’s not genocidal yet.”

You can watch my interview with Segal here.

“Holocaust studies as a field might be dead, which is not necessarily a bad thing,” he continued. “If indeed Holocaust studies is intertwined from the beginning with the ideology of global Holocaust memory, maybe it’s good that we won’t have Holocaust studies anymore. And maybe it will open the door for even more interesting and important research on the Holocaust as history, as real history.”

Segal paid for his courage and his honesty. The offer to lead the University of Minnesota’s Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies — which has issued no condemnation of the genocide — was revoked.

Nearly two years into the genocide, the International Association of Genocide Scholars finally issued a statement saying that Israel’s conduct meets the legal definition set out in the U.N. Convention on Genocide.

But the vast majority of Holocaust scholars remain mute, endlessly condemning the atrocities committed by Hamas while ignoring those committed by Israel. They were mute when South Africa argued before the International Court of Justice that Israel was committing genocide. They were mute when Amnesty International published a report in December 2024 accusing Israel of genocide.

“How many Palestinian students apply to graduate programmes in Holocaust and Genocide Studies around the world? Usually none. How many Palestinian scholars identify themselves as scholars in this field? They, too, can be counted on one hand,” Segal writes in a co-authored article in the Journal of Genocide Research.

Genocide is coded in the DNA of Western imperialism. Palestine has made this clear. The genocide is the next stage in what the anthropologist Arjun Appadurai calls “a vast worldwide Malthusian correction” that is “geared to preparing the world for the winners of globalization, minus the inconvenient noise of its losers.”

The funding and arming of Israel by the United States and European nations as it carries out genocide has imploded the post-World War II international legal order. It no longer has credibility. The West cannot lecture anyone now about democracy, human rights or the supposed virtues of Western civilization.

“At the same time that Gaza induces vertigo, a feeling of chaos and emptiness, it becomes for countless powerless people the essential condition of political and ethical consciousness in the twenty-first century — just as the First World War was for a generation in the West,” Pankaj Mishra writes in “The World After Gaza.”

The ability to peddle the fiction that the Nazi Holocaust is unique, or that Jews are uniquely entitled, has ended. The genocide presages a new world order, one where Europe and the United States, along with their proxy Israel, are pariahs. Gaza has illuminated a dark truth — barbarism and Western civilization are inseparable.

Chris Hedges worked for nearly two decades as a foreign correspondent for The New York Times, National Public Radio and other news organizations in Latin America, the Middle East and the Balkans. 

10 September 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dr Maisa Al Masri 

“This is a message to the entire Middle East,” Israeli Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana said after the Israeli airstrike that targeted Hamas leaders in the heart of Qatar’s capital, Doha.

Ohana’s statement is more than a reaction to a military operation—it is a declared strategic message, signaling to the region, and primarily the Gulf, that Israel, partnered with Washington, now controls the decision-making process in the Middle East.

His remarks are an explicit and direct threat, reflective of the new deterrence doctrine adopted by Tel Aviv: no red lines, no geographic immunity, and no Western allies beyond Israeli dictates. In simple terms, anyone who disagrees with Israel becomes a legitimate target—even in the heart of a friendly capital that hosts the largest American military base.

This leads to a dangerous conclusion: Israel no longer sees the Gulf states as partners in stability but, rather, as “open arenas for fiery messages.” Washington is not only silent but complicit, mocking the Arabs.

Naked Dominance

The Israeli attack in the Gulf marks the beginning of a new era of naked dominance. This was not a traditional security operation, but a pivotal turning point in the rules of regional engagement—one that publicly embarrassed Qatar both on the Arab stage and internationally.

Israel has now placed itself in a new circle—no longer concealing its intentions—where bombing and military strikes erase distinctions between political geography and the theater of operations. More dangerously, the heart of the Gulf is exposed to Tel Aviv’s fire. Who can challenge it?

The strike was not an intelligence leak or a covert operation, but a direct airstrike in an area teeming with embassies, schools, and residential neighborhoods, in a country that is both a major Washington ally and a pillar of American security in the Middle East.

The message is clear: No one is above attack—no state, no sovereignty, no partnership.

The US administration, led by Donald Trump, issued a series of conflicting statements regarding its prior knowledge of the operation. Whether it knew and supported it, knew and remained silent, knew too late, or did not know at all, the outcome remains the same: American cover withdrawn, Gulf confidence eroded, billions lost. The US Embassy in Doha merely urged caution for American citizens, while the White House oscillated between “regret over the location” and “understanding the goal of eliminating terrorism.”

Contrary to appearances, Gulf capitals received the opposite message: Your security is not a priority, and your sovereignty does not guarantee a clear position from Washington. The key questions now: Why Qatar? Why now? Why strike Qatar and not Turkey, or Iran? The Hamas leaders were fresh from Istanbul, suggesting Tel Aviv’s choice of target was far from arbitrary.

Tel Aviv did not strike Istanbul, despite the leaders’ recent presence, indicating a deep political calculation. Turkey, with its military, political, and international complexity, is no playground for Israeli aggression; there are red lines even Tel Aviv won’t cross. The risk of Turkish military response, internal upheaval during an election season, and delicate NATO dynamics rendered Turkey “operationally closed” even to Israel’s most radical decision-makers. But when the targets left Istanbul for Doha, the calculus shifted.

Qatar and Arab Grey Zones

In Israeli security minds, Qatar—like other threatened Arab states—is merely an intermediate grey area: not neutral, not quite an enemy, a potentially shocking target at low cost. Arab decision-makers must recognize this.

From Tel Aviv’s perspective, Qatar is juggling contradictory roles, managing mediation, funding aid, and hosting parties that anger Israel—without any real deterrent umbrella. No international consideration could prevent a surgical strike executed within hours. Simply hosting an American base does not immunize Doha; indeed, it may even tempt Tel Aviv, proving that regional decision-making is no longer Washington’s alone but Tel Aviv’s as well.

Israel needed a platform to deliver its biggest message since the Gaza war. In the silence of its strongest ally, it chose the weakest link.

Let’s pause on Ohana’s statement: “a message to the Middle East.” This is no slip of the tongue but a strategic doctrine for future decisions. Israel is telling every country in the region: whoever harbors Hamas, or even engages in dialogue, could be next.

If the Arab states fail to take a firm political stand, the Doha precedent will echo elsewhere. It may not be Hamas mediation at issue, but the concepts of neutrality, balance, and dialogue with parties disapproved of by Tel Aviv, which could become sufficient cause for attack—a punishment policy.

Existential Questions for Arab Capitals

This moment poses existential questions: If Qatar—Washington’s closest Gulf partner—is bombed in broad daylight, after Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza, should other capitals await their turn? Iraq? Riyadh? Abu Dhabi? Kuwait? Does the American umbrella truly protect, or only when interests align with Israel?

What is the point of hosting American bases if they do not prevent airspace violations?

The Doha event pushes the region to a crossroads: continue the status quo of dependency and mediation, attempt the unlikely feat of building independent air defenses, or seek alternative alliances (Ankara, Beijing, Moscow, Tehran?) and establish red lines Tel Aviv cannot cross.

Now Qatar faces difficult choices: Will it withdraw from Hamas mediation? Demand real security guarantees? Move toward symbolic deterrence or unconventional partnerships? Or pay the price of protection yet again?

Beware: A war of wills has begun. The Israeli airstrike in Doha was not just a blow to Hamas but a direct attack on Gulf sovereignty and regional prestige, undermining international law and the alleged strategic partnership with America.

This is the dawn of a new era, where Israel and Washington declare that regional security is no longer an Arab decision. The question remains: Will the Arabs awaken before Ohana’s message reaches other capitals?

Perhaps.

Dr Maisa Al Masri is a political writer based in Amman, Jordan.

11 September 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark

It’s all part of a stratagem, bleak and brutal.  With Palestinian recognition being promised by France, the UK, Canada and Australia at the 80^th session of the United Nations General Assembly, Israeli aggression is becoming more brazen and panicked.  Time must be bought on one vital front: creating a Greater Israel, involving the annexation of Gaza and extinguishing, as far as possible, the power of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.  What follows from this is the termination of Palestinian statehood altogether, including its political representatives. 

Israel’s efforts have, for that purpose, focused on killing Hamas militants at enormous cost to Palestinian civilians while also attempting to eradicate the diplomatic presence of the organisation.  The attack on a building in Doha, Qatar on September 9 was a case in point.  The intention of the attack by the IDF, involving 15 Israeli fighter jets and an unspecified number of drones, was killing senior Hamas officials involved in discussing a ceasefire proposal advanced by US President Donald Trump.  Were it to be accepted, that proposal would see the release of all Israeli hostages (dead and alive) in exchange for Palestinian prisoners, followed by a ceasefire of 60 days duration and ongoing negotiations towards an agreement concluding the war.  Qatar had been putting pressure on Hamas to accept the proposal.

While Hamas personnel were killed, such senior negotiators as Khalil al-Hayya (who lost his son), Zaher Jabarin, and Khaled Mashal, were spared.  Seven perished in the strike, with Qatar losing two security officers.  Yet again, Israel’s military action demonstrated a reading of international law that tilts towards anarchical self-assurance, indifferent to any sovereignty that is not its own.  As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reasoned, Qatar was hosting terrorists. “I say to Qatar and all nations who harbour terrorists, you either expel them or you bring them to justice.  Because you don’t, we will.”

Israeli officials, in keeping with an established, somewhat jaundiced view of international relations, advanced a novel, unhinged reading of the attack on Qatari soil.  Israeli Ambassador to the US, Yechiel Leiter, offered his dash of drivel by suggesting that this would “actually advance the efforts for a ceasefire and peace.”  And as for the Hamas leaders, “if we didn’t get them this time, we’ll get them the next time.”

A condemnation of Netanyahu’s comments followed from Qatar’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which described them as a “shameful attempt … to justify the cowardly attack that targeted Qatari territory, as well as the explicit threats of future violations of state sovereignty.”

Qatar’s Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani, undoubtedly stung that his country’s modernised military had failed to protect the capital, drew the obvious conclusion.  The strike had been motivated by Israel’s desire to eliminate “any chance of peace” in Gaza, and effectively sealed the fate of the Israeli hostages still being held in the Strip.  “Everything in the meeting is very well known to the Israelis and the Americans.  It’s not something that we are hiding.”

He also demanded some “collective response” to the attack.  “There is a response that will happen from the region.  This response is currently under consultation and discussion with other partners in the region,” he explained to CNN.  What that will look like is by no means clear, given the temperamental nature of relations between the various Gulf states.  Al Jazeera’s Charles Stratford reports that a legal committee is being pooled to consider “all legal avenues to have Netanyahu tried for breaking international law.”

Even Israel’s least conditional sponsor felt that things had gone too far. “I’m not thrilled by it,” stated Trump as he arrived at a restaurant in Washington.  “It’s not a good situation but I will say this: We want the hostages back, but we’re not thrilled about the way it went down today.”  He went further, saying he was “very unhappy about it, very unhappy about every aspect.”  The President had every reason to harbour such sentiments, given the value of US-Qatar relations and the hosting of US forces at Al-Udeid, the largest US airbase in the Middle East.  If Doha can be attacked with impunity, an American military presence becomes less impressive.  This was a point Iran’s state-run Press TV found too delicious to avoid.  “Did you know,” went the network’s post on X, “that Qatar hosts one of the US’s biggest military bases in the Persian Gulf, with many air defense systems present, yet none of the American THAAD systems fired a single shot to defend Qatar against the Israel invasion?”

The Israeli PM’s list of legal woes is further reason time is being bought.  Israel’s strikes across the Middle East this year have been efforts to keep war in the spotlight, peace suspended, and Netanyahu out of jail.  The war in Gaza, the attacks on the Houthis in Yemen, the strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities or the targeting of Syria, have all become matters of personal self-interest and prolongation. Were there a serious risk of pacific calm breaking out, if only momentarily, Netanyahu would have to face something he fails to take seriously: the force of the law.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.

11 September 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Pon.Chandran

What is the ideological background of Ibrahim Traore, the Head of Burkina Faso, the African Country?

Ibrahim Traoré’s ideological background is characterized by a mix of nationalism, pan-Africanism, and anti-imperialist views. He is a strong verbal opponent of neocolonialism and Western domination, and has worked to increase Burkina Faso’s economic self-sufficiency, notably through the nationalization of gold mines.

During his time as a student at the University of Ouagadougou, he was a member of the Marxist National Association of Students of Burkina Faso (ANEB). He is often compared to Thomas Sankara, a former revolutionary leader of the country, due to his similar anti-imperialist stance, military background, and focus on national self-determination.

What are the policies which he implemented since he assumed the Power?

Since assuming power, Ibrahim Traoré has implemented a number of policies that reflect his nationalist, anti-imperialist, and pan-Africanist ideology. These policies can be broadly categorized into economic, foreign, and domestic/security initiatives.

Economic Policies:

• Economic Self-Reliance: Traoré’s government has focused on achieving economic independence and reducing reliance on foreign aid and institutions. This includes rejecting loans from organizations like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank.
• Natiolnalization of Gold Mines: A cornerstone of his economic policy has been the nationalization of gold mines.The government has taken control of the country’s gold mining industry, which is a key economic sector. This move is aimed at ensuring that the profits from Burkina Faso’s natural resources benefit its own people and are used to fund national development projects, such as infrastructure, education, and healthcare.
• Debt Repayment: Traoré’s government has announced that it has cleared Burkina Faso’s external debt, attributing this to sound financial management and increased earnings from resources like gold.
• Agricultural Development: The government has prioritized agricultural sovereignty, with efforts to boost production through the distribution of tractors, farming equipment, and improved seeds. This has reportedly led to increased yields in crops like tomatoes, millet, and rice.
• Industrialization: Traoré has also supported the development of local industries, including the establishment of new processing plants for tomatoes and cotton.

Foreign and Diplomatic Policies:

• Distancing from France and the West: Traoré has taken a strong stance against former colonial power France. His government has expelled French troops and ended military cooperation agreements with France. French media outlets have also been suspended. This is a clear move to break away from what he and his supporters view as neocolonial influence.
• Strengthening Ties with Russia and Other Nations: In line with his anti-Western position, Traoré has cultivated closer relationships with other countries, particularly Russia. He has referred to Russia as a “strategic ally” and has sought arms and military training from Moscow to assist in the fight against insurgents. He has also explored diplomatic contacts with other countries like Iran and Venezuela.
• Alliance of Sahel States (AES): Burkina Faso, along with neighboring Mali and Niger (both also under military rule), has formed the Alliance of Sahel States (AES). This alliance is a “collective defense and mutual assistance” pact aimed at addressing security challenges in the region and countering pressure from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).

Domestic and Security Policies:

• Security Focus: Traoré came to power on the promise of improving the security situation and fighting a persistent jihadist insurgency. His government has adopted a military-first approach, rejecting negotiations with militants.
• “Homeland Defense Volunteers” (VDP): The government has massively expanded the recruitment of state-backed civilian militias known as the Volunteers for the Defense of the Homeland (VDP) to assist the military in counter-insurgency operations.
• Authoritarian Consolidation: Critics have noted an increase in pro-government propaganda and a crackdown on dissent. Traoré’s government has been accused of human rights abuses and has taken steps to consolidate power, including extending his mandate for an additional five years, while also allowing him to contest the next presidential elections.
• Anti-LGBTQ+ Legislation: The government has introduced a law that criminalizes homosexuality, with punishments including prison sentences and fines. This move is presented as a measure to protect “cultural values.”

He is being eulogised a s Che of Africa. How appropriate it is?

The comparison of Ibrahim Traoré to Che Guevara is a powerful and popular one, particularly among young people in Africa and the African diaspora. It’s a symbolic title that reflects a certain set of beliefs and aspirations. However, its appropriateness is a complex issue, with both strong arguments in its favor and significant counter-arguments.

Arguments for the Comparison

Those who refer to Traoré as the “Che of Africa” often point to a series of parallels and shared ideological ground:

• Anti-Imperialist and Anti-Neocolonial Stance: Like Guevara, who fought against U.S. imperialism in Latin America, Traoré has positioned himself as a fierce opponent of Western, and particularly French, influence in Africa. He has expelled French troops, suspended French media outlets, and openly criticized neocolonial systems, a stance that resonates deeply across the continent.
• Nationalism and Self-Reliance: Guevara was a key figure in the Cuban Revolution’s push for self-sufficiency and socialist development. Similarly, Traoré’s policies—such as the nationalization of gold mines, rejection of IMF loans, and focus on agricultural and industrial self-reliance—are seen as direct and practical steps to reclaim national sovereignty and economic destiny.
• Youthful, Charismatic, and Revolutionary Image: Both figures came to power at a young age and cultivated a charismatic image. Traoré’s simple military attire and direct, unscripted speeches project an image of an authentic, no-nonsense leader dedicated to his people, much like the iconic image of Guevara. This populist appeal has made him a hero for many young Africans who are disillusioned with traditional, often corrupt, political elites.
• Emphasis on Military Action and Counter-Insurgency: Both Guevara and Traoré are military leaders who rose through the ranks in armed conflict. Traoré’s main stated goal is to defeat the jihadist insurgency in Burkina Faso, a fight he has framed as a revolutionary struggle for the nation’s survival and a rejection of Western military partnerships that he sees as ineffective.

Counter-Arguments and Criticisms

While the “Che” label has powerful symbolic resonance, critics argue that it is an oversimplification and, in some ways, misleading:

• Authoritarianism and Human Rights Concerns: A significant criticism is that the comparison overlooks Traoré’s authoritarian methods. Critics, including human rights organizations, point to a crackdown on dissent, suppression of free speech, and alleged human rights abuses by his forces, including extrajudicial killings. Guevara’s own record on human rights during the Cuban Revolution is also a subject of historical debate and criticism.
• Lack of a Clear, Developed Ideology: While Traoré has a clear anti-Western stance, his ideology is not as comprehensively defined or as deeply rooted in a specific political philosophy as Guevara’s Marxism. Traoré’s policies are often described as more pragmatic and nationalist than strictly socialist or communist, and his alliances with countries like Russia are seen by some as a shift from one foreign power to another, rather than a true break from external influence.
• Fragile Security Situation: The most significant and concrete criticism is that Traoré’s government has so far failed to deliver on its primary promise: to improve security. Despite his military background and a massive recruitment of civilian militias, the jihadist insurgency has reportedly worsened in some areas since he took power.The government controls less than half of the country, and the number of internally displaced people continues to grow. This stands in contrast to the relative success of the Cuban Revolution in consolidating power.
• Consolidation of Power, Not Revolution: Some observers argue that Traoré’s actions, such as extending his mandate for five years without elections, are less about a popular revolution and more about the consolidation of personal power. The focus on a single, charismatic leader can undermine the development of strong, democratic institutions, a pattern that has often led to instability in post-colonial Africa.

In conclusion, the appropriateness of the “Che of Africa” title depends on the perspective. For his supporters and many young Africans, the label is a powerful symbol of defiance, patriotism, and the hope for a new, self-reliant Africa free from foreign domination. They see him as a bold leader willing to challenge the status quo. However, from a critical standpoint, the comparison is problematic because it glosses over his authoritarian tendencies, the worsening security situation, and the potential for his government to become another in a long line of military regimes that have failed to bring lasting stability and democracy to the continent.

Being an ardent Muslim himself, what are his visions about the Polity of the Islamic world?

Ibrahim Traoré’s vision and policies regarding the Islamic world and the broader polity are not defined by a narrow, religious-centric agenda, but are instead deeply integrated into his overarching nationalist and pan-Africanist ideology.While he is a Muslim himself, his public statements and actions suggest that his priority is the unity and sovereignty of Burkina Faso and Africa, rather than the promotion of a specific Islamic political project.

Here are some key aspects of his approach:

• Religious Unity as a National Security Imperative: Traoré has consistently emphasized the importance of inter-religious harmony, particularly between Muslims and Christians, who make up the two largest religious groups in Burkina Faso. He has publicly warned that religious division is a tool of “the West” and colonial powers to weaken and destabilize African nations. He has made it clear that those who try to sow discord along religious lines will face harsh punishment. This stance is a direct response to the jihadist insurgency, which often targets Christians and seeks to incite religious conflict.
• Rejection of Foreign Religious Influence: A notable example of his policy is his government’s rejection of a proposal from Saudi Arabia to fund the construction of 200 mosques in Burkina Faso. Traoré stated that the country already had a sufficient number of mosques and that the funds would be better spent on education, healthcare, and infrastructure. This decision highlights his focus on national development and self-reliance over accepting foreign aid, even if it comes in a religious context. It also suggests a resistance to the influence of specific strains of Islam that may be promoted by foreign powers.
• Pragmatic Alliances over Ideological ones: While he has cultivated closer ties with Russia, Iran, and other nations, his alliances appear to be based on pragmatic interests, primarily for security and economic assistance, rather than a shared Islamic vision. His public remarks and diplomatic engagements focus on strategic cooperation and mutual benefit, not on building a “Muslim bloc.”
• Anti-Imperialism as a Core Principle: His anti-imperialist stance is the central pillar of his foreign policy, which he sees as a shared struggle for all African nations, regardless of their religious makeup. He views the fight against Western exploitation and the quest for African sovereignty as a common cause that transcends religious boundaries. This is evident in his efforts to build the Alliance of Sahel States with Mali and Niger, both of which are also under military rule and share his anti-Western outlook.
• Focus on Internal Stability and Counter-Terrorism: The primary goal of Traoré’s government is to defeat the jihadist insurgency, which is composed of extremist groups that claim to be acting in the name of Islam but are widely condemned by Burkinabé society. His policies, such as the recruitment of civilian militias and a no-negotiation policy with militants, are driven by a security-first agenda to restore state control over the country.

In summary, Ibrahim Traoré’s “vision for the polity of the Islamic world” is not about a specific religious or political project. Instead, it is a vision of a sovereign, united, and self-sufficient Africa where religious differences are not exploited for division. His policies, including the rejection of foreign-funded mosques and the focus on inter-religious harmony, underscore his belief that national strength and stability come from unity and independence, not from external religious or political agendas.

It is rumoured that Ibrahim Traore would face the fate ofGadafi of Lebanon or Saddam Hussain of Iraq very soon by the Western Powers?

The rumors and speculation that Ibrahim Traoré could face a fate similar to Muammar Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein are part of a broader discourse surrounding his rise to power and his strong anti-Western stance. This perspective is not based on concrete, verified plans by Western powers, but rather on a historical pattern of Western intervention in countries whose leaders challenge their interests.

Here’s a breakdown of the arguments and context surrounding this rumor:

The Basis for the Rumors

• Anti-Western Rhetoric and Actions: Traoré has been highly vocal in his criticism of France and other Western powers. He has expelled French military forces, ended a key military pact with France, and has actively sought new partners, most notably Russia. This public and decisive break from a traditional Western ally is seen as a direct challenge to the geopolitical order in the Sahel, a region of significant strategic interest for countries like France and the United States.
• Nationalization of Resources: Like Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein, Traoré has taken steps to assert national control over key resources, particularly the gold mining industry. This policy of “resource nationalism” is often viewed by Western powers and multinational corporations as a threat to their economic interests. The nationalization of assets can create a direct conflict with powerful business and political lobbies.
• Parallels to Gaddafi: The comparison to Gaddafi is particularly potent. Gaddafi was a pan-Africanist who also sought to create a unified African currency (the gold dinar) and challenged the Western-dominated financial system.He was ultimately overthrown and killed in a NATO-backed intervention. Supporters of Traoré see his actions as a modern-day continuation of this pan-Africanist struggle, and they fear that the West will not tolerate a similar challenge to its influence.
• The “Saddam Hussein” Analogy: The comparison to Saddam Hussein is more about the pretext for intervention. Saddam was demonized by the West and his regime was ultimately toppled based on controversial claims of possessing weapons of mass destruction. The argument is that if the West felt it necessary to intervene in a country based on a flimsy pretext, they could find a way to justify an intervention in Burkina Faso if Traoré’s government proves to be too disruptive.
• Coups and Instability: Traoré himself has claimed to have foiled multiple coup attempts, and his government has accused neighboring countries like Côte d’Ivoire of backing these plots. While these claims are difficult to verify independently, they highlight the intense internal and external pressures facing his regime. Critics of the West often interpret these coup attempts as being covertly supported by foreign powers to destabilize governments that are not aligned with their interests.

Counterpoints and Reality Check

While these rumors are widespread, it is important to consider the differences between Traoré’s situation and that of Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein:

• Scale and Geopolitical Significance: Burkina Faso, while strategically important in the Sahel, does not have the same global significance as Libya (a major oil producer) or Iraq (a key player in Middle Eastern oil politics). A full-scale Western military intervention in Burkina Faso is far less likely than it was in those countries.
• Western Priorities: The primary Western concern in the Sahel has been the fight against jihadist insurgency. While Western powers are wary of Traoré’s pro-Russian alignment, their immediate goal is often to prevent the region from becoming a safe haven for terrorist groups. A military intervention to remove Traoré could potentially worsen the security situation and create further instability.
• Shift in Global Dynamics: The geopolitical landscape has changed since the interventions in Libya and Iraq. The global community is now more fractured, with a rising China and a resurgent Russia. A direct Western military intervention would be far more controversial and would likely face significant opposition from countries aligned with Russia and China, as well as from the African Union.
• Focus on Subtler Influence: Rather than a direct military intervention, Western powers are more likely to use other tools to exert pressure. These include economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, support for opposition groups (both civilian and military), and public relations campaigns to delegitimize the regime. The constant rumors of foiled coups may be a part of this psychological and political warfare.

In conclusion, the rumor that Ibrahim Traoré will face the fate of Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein is a powerful symbolic expression of the fears and anti-imperialist sentiments prevalent in Burkina Faso and parts of Africa. While a direct, large-scale Western military intervention seems improbable given the current geopolitical context, the underlying tensions—over resource control, geopolitical alliances, and national sovereignty—are very real. Traoré’s government will likely continue to face significant pressure, both overt and covert, from Western powers, but it is more likely to take the form of economic and political maneuvering than a full-scale military campaign.

Can Ibrahim Traore be described as a Nationalist or a National Socialist?

Based on the available information, Ibrahim Traoré can be described as a Nationalist and a Pan-Africanist. The term “National Socialist” is not used in the provided context to describe his ideology.

His political views and actions are consistently characterized by:

• Nationalism: He is described as a nationalist who advocates for the protection of national interests against external interference and emphasizes self-determination. His policies, such as the nationalization of gold mines, are seen as attempts to reclaim national sovereignty and economic destiny.
• Anti-Imperialism/Anti-Westernism: A central tenet of his ideology is a strong opposition to neocolonialism and Western influence, particularly from France. His government has expelled French troops and suspended French media outlets, and he has spoken out against what he calls “imperialistic pressure.”
• Pan-Africanism: Traoré’s actions and rhetoric have been seen to resonate with and inspire a broader Pan-African movement. He has formed an alliance with neighboring countries Mali and Niger and is seen by some as a symbol of African dignity and resistance against foreign domination.
• Other Influences: He was a member of the Marxist National Association of Students of Burkina Faso (ANEB) during his university years, and some commentators see his policies as influenced by Marxism and pan-Africanism.However, his ideology is also described as pragmatic and a blend of military pragmatism with a focus on stability.

The provided sources do not describe him as a “National Socialist,” a term historically associated with the Nazi Party in Germany. The sources instead repeatedly use terms like “nationalist,” “pan-Africanist,” “anti-imperialist,” and “anti-Western.”

Whether Traore’s friendly stance with Russia and China trigger the Opposition from the West?

Yes, Ibrahim Traoré’s friendly stance with Russia and China has triggered significant opposition and concern from Western powers. This is a central element of the current geopolitical tension surrounding Burkina Faso and the Sahel region.

Here’s why and how this opposition is manifesting:

Why the West is Opposed

• Geopolitical Competition: Western nations, particularly France and the United States, see the growing influence of Russia and China in Africa as a direct challenge to their own strategic interests. The Sahel, in particular, is a key front in this new geopolitical competition. Russia, through military and security partnerships, is seen as using anti-Western sentiment to expand its influence and destabilize a region vital to Europe’s southern flank. China’s growing economic footprint, often through loans and infrastructure projects under the Belt and Road Initiative, is also viewed with suspicion as a form of “debt-trap diplomacy.”
• Security Concerns: Western governments argue that Russia’s presence, particularly through military contractors like the Wagner Group (now rebranded and under direct Kremlin control), is a destabilizing force. They claim that these groups exploit natural resources, commit human rights abuses, and undermine democratic institutions. The West has long been involved in counter-terrorism efforts in the Sahel, and they view a pro-Russian military government as a threat to these operations and regional stability.
• Undermining Democracy: The military coups in Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger have all been followed by a pivot away from the West and toward Russia. Western powers often frame these coups as an attack on democratic governance. They argue that Russia provides military and political support to authoritarian regimes, thereby undermining the rule of law and human rights in the region.
• Loss of Influence: Traoré’s government has been explicit in its rejection of France’s traditional role in the country.This includes expelling French troops, ending military cooperation agreements, and even suspending French media. This loss of influence, both militarily and diplomatically, is a major source of frustration for France and its allies.

How the West’s Opposition is Manifesting

• Diplomatic Condemnation and Isolation: The U.S. and the European Union have repeatedly condemned the military coup that brought Traoré to power and have called for a swift return to a civilian-led, constitutional government. They have also expressed concern over Burkina Faso’s military and security partnerships with Russia.
• Sanctions and Aid Cuts: While there are no comprehensive U.S. sanctions specifically on Burkina Faso, the country has been suspended from various Western-led initiatives. For example, the U.S. has cut some of its security and development assistance.
• Information Warfare: There is a well-documented information war being waged in the region, with pro-Russian and pro-Traoré narratives often spreading on social media. Western governments and think tanks have pointed to a significant increase in Russian-linked disinformation campaigns aimed at stirring up anti-French and anti-Western sentiment in Burkina Faso and other Sahel nations.
• Supporting Regional Pressure: The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), a regional bloc, has taken a hard line against the military governments in Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger. While the Western powers are not directly involved in ECOWAS’s actions, they have generally supported the bloc’s efforts to pressure the juntas.
• Shifting Alliances: The West is attempting to counter Russia and China’s influence by building new, more “equal” partnerships with other African nations and by focusing on long-term development and trade as an alternative to military support.

In summary, Traoré’s pivot toward Russia and China is seen by the West not just as a policy choice but as a direct challenge to its influence and a threat to regional stability. This has triggered a response that includes diplomatic pressure, sanctions, and a public relations campaign aimed at discrediting Traoré and his allies while simultaneously trying to mend relationships with other African nations.

Pon.Chandran is a Human Rights Activist, Life Member of PUCL, Coimbatore.

11 September 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Ranjan Solomon

“Power does not part with power voluntarily; it does so only under pressure”

Nepal finds itself in the throes of yet another political earthquake. The Himalayan nation, often romanticized for its mountains and serene landscapes, is today a cauldron of anger, disillusionment, and restless youth. The spark this time was seemingly small: a government decree banning popular social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. Authorities defended the move as a temporary “regulation” to curb misinformation. But for millions of Nepalis – especially the young -social media was not only a tool of communication but also a lifeline to the wider world and a vehicle of accountability. To them, the ban symbolized a government intent on silencing voices rather than addressing grievances (AP News, 2025).

Within hours, protests erupted in Kathmandu and quickly spread to other cities. The rallies drew strength from Gen Z, Nepal’s restless generation, long frustrated by unemployment, corruption, and the suffocating grip of political elites. Their slogans, painted on walls and shouted in the streets, went beyond the demand to lift the ban. They called for the resignation of Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli and, more fundamentally, for an end to a system that has failed to deliver either stability or prosperity (Washington Post, 2025).

The Flashpoint and Its Fallout

The government’s response was brutal. Security forces fired on crowds, killing at least 19 protesters and injuring hundreds (Reuters, 2025a). The images that flooded back into the country—ironically via Virtual Private Network (VPNs) and underground networks circumventing the ban – showed young demonstrators drenched in blood, running through tear gas, carrying the wounded on makeshift stretchers. The public fury intensified. Protesters torched the Parliament building, vandalized government offices, and targeted the private homes of political leaders (India Times, 2025).

Tourists, too, were caught up in the chaos: hotels were burned, flights to Kathmandu were diverted, and a nationwide curfew imposed (Times of India, 2025). What had begun as a movement about digital rights escalated into the biggest anti-government uprising Nepal has seen in over a decade. Oli, a veteran politician and repeat prime minister, found his position untenable and resigned, leaving behind a dangerous political vacuum (Wall Street Journal), 2025.

The Deeper Grievances

The unrest has roots far deeper than a social media ban. Protesters consistently spoke of corruption, nepotism, and the arrogance of leaders who treat the state as private property. Ordinary Nepalis point to the lavish lifestyles of politicians, the unending scandals of kickbacks and favouritism, and the daily struggles of citizens to find jobs or affordable services (AP News, 2025).

Youth frustration has been building for years. Nepal’s unemployment rate officially hovers around 11 percent, but among the young it is estimated to be closer to 20 percent or more. Each year, tens of thousands leave to work abroad, sending back remittances that make up nearly a quarter of the national GDP. Migration has become both an economic necessity and an escape route from political paralysis. Those who remain face a sense of exclusion and betrayal.

“Social media was the last place where we felt we had some power,” one 22-year-old protester told reporters. “They tried to take even that away from us. That’s why the streets exploded” (Associated News), 2025.

The death toll has mounted and the numbers been revised upwards to about 30. Injuries are over 1,000 now; many have already been discharged, while others remain hospitalized.

The parliament building (and associated infrastructure) has reportedly been almost entirely destroyed by fire. 

Other public/private buildings (media headquarters, political party offices, etc.) continue to be assessed; many remain damaged. 

Current Security Measures

Curfews / prohibitory orders remain in effect in Kathmandu and other affected areas, at least till Thursday morning. Soldier patrols and checkpoints are stronger. Security forces are detaining people accused of violent acts (arson / looting). What Nepal needs is not more law and order. It needs long term and just political solutions.

A History of Instability

Nepal’s democratic experiment has been fragile since its inception. The abolition of the monarchy in 2008 raised hopes of a new era, but instead, the country has cycled through governments with dizzying speed. Fourteen different administrations have taken office in the past 17 years, few completing a full term (Reuters, 2025b). Coalition collapses, floor crossings, and political betrayals have become the norm.

The Communist Party of Nepal (UML), Oli’s own faction, has alternated between dominance and internal schisms. The opposition Nepali Congress, meanwhile, has often been too divided to present a credible alternative. This pattern has left citizens with little faith in their representatives. Institutions—from the judiciary to the anti-corruption watchdogs—are viewed as compromised or ineffective.

Against this backdrop, the current protests represent both continuity and rupture. Continuity, because instability is nothing new in Nepal. Rupture, because this time the movement is youth-driven, decentralized, and less beholden to traditional party structures.

Short-Term Prognosis: Vacuum and Militarization

The immediate future looks fragile. Oli’s resignation has created a political vacuum with no clear successor. Protesters are unlikely to accept a simple reshuffle of elites, and the ruling class appears unable – or unwilling—to make concessions beyond the prime minister’s departure.

Curfews remain in place across several cities. The army, already deployed in support of police, could take a larger role if the unrest continues. Analysts warn of the risk of militarization, a scenario that would not only deepen the democratic crisis but also revive painful memories of Nepal’s civil war, which ended only in 2006 (Washington Post, 2025).

Medium-Term Prognosis: Reform or Restoration?

In the medium term, there is talk of an interim government led by technocrats or a cross-party coalition with youth representatives. Such arrangements could provide breathing space, but their feasibility remains uncertain. Nepal’s traditional parties are deeply resistant to sharing power with outsiders.

The likelier scenario is a cycle of negotiations between elites, resulting in yet another short-lived coalition that offers cosmetic reforms while leaving the structures of corruption intact (WSJ, 2025). If that happens, the protests may subside for now—but discontent will fester, returning with even greater force.

Long-Term Prognosis: Renewal or Repetition

The deeper question is whether the current movement can transform into long-term change. There is hope. The protests have mobilized a generation, introducing new voices into the political sphere. If harnessed, this energy could pave the way for democratic renewal, with greater accountability and citizen participation.

But there are also serious risks. Entrenched elites have repeatedly demonstrated their capacity to absorb crises and reassert control. Without structural reforms—such as strengthening anti-corruption bodies, guaranteeing media freedoms, and reforming electoral laws—the movement could be co-opted or crushed (Reuters, 2025a). The long-term outcome will hinge on whether Nepal’s youth can translate their anger into sustained political organization, and whether institutions can adapt to a society that is no longer content with empty promises.

A Region-Wide Pattern

Nepal’s turmoil also resonates with regional dynamics. South Asia has recently seen similar youth-led uprisings—from Sri Lanka’s “Aragalaya” in 2022, which toppled a president, to student protests in Bangladesh earlier this year. These movements reveal a generational impatience with corrupt elites and a demand for dignity and livelihood. Whether Nepal joins Sri Lanka in forcing systemic change—or slips back into cycles of unrest like Bangladesh – remains to be seen. Other countries in the region may want to learn some hard lessons about the potency of peoples’ power. 

A Society at a Crossroads

Nepal today stands at a crossroads. The resignation of a prime minister is not the end of the crisis but its beginning. The question is whether this moment will be remembered as just another episode in Nepal’s long history of instability, or as the turning point when a new generation seized the political stage.

For now, the streets remain restive, the young remain defiant, and the old order struggles to reassert itself. The outcome is uncertain – but one truth is clear: Nepal’s future will be determined not by its tired elites, but by the courage and persistence of its youth.

Nepal needs stronger democratization efforts to address ongoing challenges like widespread corruption, political dysfunction, and social inequality, which fuel public frustration and undermine faith in the democratic system. The protests, particularly by Generation Z, highlight deep-seated issues with underdeveloped democratic institutions, rampant nepotism, and a lack of responsiveness from political elites. 

While Nepal has transitioned to a Federal Democratic Republic, achieving true democratic consolidation requires strengthening the rule of law, fostering political accountability, promoting inclusive participation, and addressing the lingering impacts of its feudal past to ensure political stability and equitable growth. 

The protesters and Government have accepted former chief justice Sushila Karki for the post of the interim prime minister of the country amid until fresh elections are held.  Karki will hold the position until fresh elections are held. It remains to be seen if she can restore governance and bring about functionality that meets the urgent challenges to deconstruct Nepal from an awful period of misgovernance and corruption. Most importantly, can this happen without the interference of powers from across the border? India’s Hindutva machinery has shown an inclination for a long while to convert Nepal into a Hindu Kingdom.

Nepal’s peaceful transition to a just, peaceful, and archetypal democratic state requires autonomous decisions and processes. Interference from States in the region with vested interests will create further chaos and retard the search for a new and viable form of government, particular to the aspirations of Nepalese society.

Ranjan Solomon is a political commentator, human rights defender, and argues that Nepal must be allowed to craft a political solution without any external interference that is potentially negative.

11 September 2025

Source: countercurrents.org