Archives: Articles

By Norman G. Finkelstein

I devote a chapter of my forthcoming book, Gaza’s Gravediggers, to the point that describing the situation in Gaza as a “war” rather than a “genocide” egregiously distorts what is happening there. In a postscript to this chapter, reprinted below, I comment on the new UN report that found Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.

In September 2025, the Independent International Commission of Inquiry released a new report in which it found that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza.[1] It reached this conclusion after extensively documenting (from UN sources and respected human rights organizations) that Israel had willfully committed acts defined by Article II of the 1948 Genocide Convention—Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group—“with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.”[2] The report explicitly addressed Israel’s contention that it was engaged in a “war of self-defense” against Hamas.[3] It found that, on the contrary, if not this or that “discrete” or “individual” incident but, instead, the “totality” or “overall factual situation” of the Israeli assault was scrutinized[4]—the absolute number of Gazans, and proportion of civilians versus combatants, killed and injured; [5] the systematic targeting of civilians along evacuation routes and in safe zones;[6] the systematic targeting of homes, vital infrastructure, and healthcare facilities (as well as medical personnel);[7] the systematic denial of basic necessities (food, water, fuel, electricity, medicine) to the civilian population and use of “starvation as a method of warfare”;[8] the systematic targeting of children, including “toddlers,” in the head and chest,[9] as well as the targeting of Gaza’s only IVF (in vitro fertilization) clinic;[10] the systematic targeting of cultural, educational, and religious sites;[11] the systematic resort to sexual and gender-based violence, including “many cases of rape”;[12] etc.—then it was impossible to reconcile the “overall factual situation” with a defensive “war” against Hamas. The report thus eschewed the terminology of the laws of war. There was, for example, no mention of “disproportionate” attacks anywhere in it. A disproportionate attack presupposes that a legitimate military site was targeted but an excessive number of civilians were killed. The report found, however, that, overwhelmingly, it was Gaza’s civilian population and infrastructure that was targeted. Indeed, the massive death and destruction was proportionate to Israel’s genocidal goal. Further to this point, the report only occasionally paused to examine an Israeli claim that it was targeting Hamas in this or that attack:[13] in the grand scheme of things, beside the magnitude of death and destruction visited on Gaza, the lethal incidents in which a Hamas militant might have been present amounted to a trifle and an irrelevance.[14] The report’s upshot was that the quantity (gross numbers) and quality (selection of targets) of the Israeli attack couldn’t be squared with the paradigm of a war: “[T]here was no military necessity to justify the pattern of conduct.”[15] It was palpably not Hamas but the entirety of Gaza’s population that was being targeted; indeed, the “war” aspect of the hostilities was, all told, a fiction.[16] The body of this chapter expounded that the laws of war and genocide frameworks are mutually antithetical. The Commission’s latest report confirmed this: as it concluded that Israel was committing a genocide in Gaza, it dispensed with the language and investigative modus operandi of a “war” situation.

To clinch its case that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza, the Commission had to demonstrate not only that Israel willfully committed acts listed in Article II of the Convention, but also that the “intent” behind Israel’s commission of these acts was to physically destroy the Gazan population. The report found that from right after 7 October forward, senior Israeli officials repeatedly uttered genocidal statements;[17] that the Israeli security forces dispatched to Gaza understood these to be genocidal orders, weren’t subject to “any genuine investigations or prosecutions” for committing acts prohibited by the Convention, and that, on the contrary, Israeli officials were “encouraging , permitting and authorizing such criminal behavior to continue”;[18] that Israel’s genocidal intent could reasonably be inferred from the quantity and quality of the criminal acts committed by Israeli forces.[19] The report thus concludes that “Israeli political and military leaders possess the specific intent to commit genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, based on their statements and the pattern of conduct of those under their command since 7 October 2023.”[20] A slightly more nuanced analysis would perhaps read like this:

Israel intentionally committed acts that perforce resulted in the destruction of the Gazan population. The inevitable massive death and destruction that Israel visited on Gaza traced back to primal vengeance, [21] Israel’s perceived need to restore the Arab world’s fear of it, [22] and its determination to “solve” the Gaza Question once and for all—an historical opportunity long coveted and then miraculously gifted on 7 October, that Israel was dead-set on exploiting, come what may, to the hilt. The genocide commenced immediately after Hamas’s attack—the initial public statements by senior Israeli officials perfectly, indeed eerily, foreshadowed what would unfold in the next two years—but it was necessarily calibrated to take account of the response abroad. If Israel didn’t outright nuke Gaza, that’s because, functioning as Israel must within the constraints, albeit feeble, imposed by the vicissitudes of international public opinion, it couldn’t. But even as Israel’s overarching objective was not to annihilate but rather to ethnically cleanse Gazans, [23] it was also prepared to kill off as many civilians and pulverize as much infrastructure as was politically feasible in order to “persuade” the population to leave or “persuade” the international community to take it in. This is not idle speculation, it’s a fait accompli: Israel has already committed genocide in Gaza. Absent external political constraints, and if Gazans prove unwilling or unable to leave, then Israel, its leadership as well as Israeli Jewish society en masse—this was a national project—won’t recoil at totally annihilating Gaza’s population. Far from it. If need be, Israel won’t just be “intent to destroy, in whole or in part,” Gaza’s population, it will be positively gleeful and relish the prospect. Whereas Heinrich Himmler, cognizant at some level of his criminality, feigned anguish in his infamous Posen speech at the onerous burden placed by History on the shoulders of Germany to rid the world of the Jews, Israeli security forces danced the hora and then flaunted their foul deeds on social media. It was the giddiness of a child, magnifying glass in hand, burning ants.

__________________________________________________________

1 Legal Analysis of the Conduct of Israel in Gaza Pursuant to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Conference Room Paper of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel (16 September 2025, A/HRC/60/CRP.3;  https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/sessions-regular/session60/advance-version/a-hrc-60-crp-3.pdf).

2 The Commission did not find evidence of a fifth act defined by Article II of “forcibly transferring children of the group to another group” (Legal Analysis, para. 16).

3 Ibid., para. 177.

4 Ibid., paras. 144, 158, 160, 254.

5 Ibid., paras. 180-86; see also ibid., paras. 48, 50. A classified Israeli intelligence report found that 83 percent of Gazans killed were civilians (ibid., paras. 21, 180).

6 Ibid., para. 182; see also ibid., paras. 49, 58-59.

7 Ibid., paras. 187, 204-8; see also ibid., paras. 87-90, 93-106. A military expert stated that “Israel is dropping [more bombs] in less than a week than what the United States was dropping in Afghanistan in a year, in a much smaller, much more densely populated area” (ibid., para. 22).

8 Ibid., paras. 190-203; see also ibid., paras. 48, 85-86, 96, 100, 104, 110-126. The report noted that “The denial of entry for special infant milk, resulting in the starvation of new-born and young infants, is especially powerful evidence of an intention to destroy the population” (ibid., para. 190).

9 Ibid., 214-19; see also ibid., paras. 28, 30, 32, 46, 56 (“toddlers” at paras. 28, 215). The report observed that “The targeting of children is relevant to infer the genocidal intent of the Israeli authorities because … the extensive and deliberate targeting of Palestinian children shows that the military operations were not conducted solely to defeat Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups, nor can they legitimately contribute to the other stated goals of defending the state of Israel and securing the release of Israeli hostages (ibid., para. 218). On a related note, the Commissioner General of UNRWA stated that “10 children lost one or both legs in the war every day,” and another UN organization reported that “Gaza is home to the largest cohort of child amputees in modern history” (ibid., paras. 53, 214).

10 Ibid., para. 207; see also ibid., paras. 57, 79, 151-54.

11 Ibid., paras. 188-89; see also ibid., paras. 91-92, 146.

12 Ibid., paras. 209-213; see also ibid., paras. 65-71 (“many cases” at para. 66), 73, 80. The report states that “the nature and scale of these acts [of sexual and gender-based violence] do not support and cannot justify Israel’s claims that its military operations were conducted in self-defense, to defeat Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups, or to secure the release of Israeli hostages” (ibid., para. 212).

13 Ibid., paras. 35-44, 95, 103, 118, 185. Incidentally, in just one single instance did the Israeli alibi hold up, if only in part.

14 Israel’s critics fixated on to its use of AI to liquidate alleged Hamas militants as they returned home, killing many family members. See Yuval Abraham, “‘Lavender’: The AI machine directing Israel’s bombing in Gaza,” +972 Magazine (3 April 2024). But this too was largely an irrelevance and a distraction: long before AI came along, Israel routinely killed many civilians as it targeted alleged Hamas militants in densely populated civilian neighborhoods; of the more than 200,000 Gazan homes damaged or destroyed since 7 October, it’s implausible that AI was implicated in more than a tiny fraction of the attacks; harping on the use of AI to track down alleged Hamas militants obscured the crux that, overwhelmingly, Israel wasn’t even targeting Hamas but instead the entire civilian population. The criminality wasn’t that Israel committed disproportionate attacks, in which an excessive number of civilians were killed when targeting Hamas, but that it was committing genocide as it targeted not Hamas but the Gazan people.

15 Legal Analysis, para. 179.

16 One indicative juxtaposition is that, during the period March-August 2025, 50 Israelis versus 12,000 Gazans, 11,000 of them civilians, were killed. A global ratio of 1:240 or combatant ratio of 1:20 betokens at minimum a slaughter or extermination not a war. The figure of Hamas militants killed can itself be misleading: most of them almost certainly died not on the battlefield but alongside Gazan civilians in the course of Israel’s genocidal assault. For the numerical data, see International Crisis Group, The World’s Shame in Gaza (2 September 2025), and ACLED (Armed Conflict Location and Event Data), “Gaza after Two Years” (17 September 2025).

17 Legal Analysis, paras. 221-33; see also paras. 162-176.

18 Ibid., paras. 163, 184, 232, 237, 242.

19 “Considering the evidence in totality, the Commission has found that Israeli authorities were aware of the high probability that their military operations, the imposition of a total siege, including the blocking of humanitarian aid in Gaza, and the destruction of housing and of health systems and facilities would lead to the physical destruction of Palestinians, in whole or in part in Gaza. Importantly, in relation to the blocking of humanitarian aid, Israeli authorities were put on notice by the International Court of Justice, the Security Council and various human rights experts and groups. . . . The Commission therefore finds that Israeli authorities knowingly and deliberately inflicted such conditions of life to bring about the destruction of Palestinians in Gaza”; “[T]he Commission finds that genocidal intent was the only reasonable inference that could be drawn based on the pattern of conduct of the Israeli authorities” (ibid., paras. 144, 220).

20 Ibid., para. 238.

21 “[V]engeance is a great value. There is vengeance for what they did to us. . . . [I]n 100 years they will know that you don’t mess with the Jews”—senior Israeli security forces officer (ibid, para. 173).

22 “The fact that 50,000 have already been killed in Gaza is necessary and required for future generations. . . . They need a Nakba from time to time to feel the price”—head of Israel’s Military Intelligence (ibid., para. 175).

23 The report mistakenly infers that Israel’s intention was to “trap Palestinians in Gaza, creating such conditions that would prohibit them from escaping and ultimately lead to their destruction” (ibid., para. 201).

Norman G. Finkelstein received his PhD from the Princeton University Politics Department in 1987.

24 September 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Rima Najjar

I. Introduction: The Mirage of Statehood, the Echo of Oslo, and the Sovereign Framework of Palestinian Demands

In the wake of Macron’s renewed calls for a two-state solution — echoed by Saudi Arabia and a coalition of Western states — Palestinian liberation is once again being reduced to a diplomatic choreography of betrayal, deferral, and self-serving rhetoric. This framework is not neutral. It is a pacifying slogan, a liquidationist architecture that erases the totality of Palestinian demands. The thesis of this essay is clear: the two-state “solution” is not a solution. It is a mechanism of suppression — designed to fragment, defer, and ultimately dissolve the revolutionary imperative of Palestinian self-determination in their own homeland.

What is unfolding now is not a rupture with Zionist domination — it is a repetition: the same colonial logic, the same diplomatic choreography, the same refusal to honor Palestinian inalienable rights. The current discourse carries an eerie echo of Oslo — not in its promises, but in its betrayals. The “past” here is not simply the 1993 accords, but the broader architecture of managed containment: a history in which Palestinian demands are diluted and domesticated through international frameworks that privilege colonial permanence over indigenous restoration. These frameworks do not merely misunderstand Palestinian aspirations — they are designed to suppress them. They treat the settler as permanent, the refugee as negotiable, and the homeland as divisible.

Edward Said understood this clearly. In his 1993 essay The Morning After, he called Oslo a “Palestinian Versailles” — a catastrophic concession that legitimized occupation, erased the diaspora, and deferred the right of return. He warned that the agreement transformed resistance into “terror” and colonization into “coordination.” Said’s refusal was not just political — it was epistemic. He saw Oslo as a betrayal of narrative sovereignty, a surrender not only of land but of meaning. Yet even as he sounded the alarm, others celebrated the accords as a diplomatic breakthrough. History repeats itself: the machinery of deception is reactivated, and once again, some mistake containment for peace.

Macron’s motivations are layered. Geopolitically, he seeks a counterweight to U.S. support for Israel’s war in Gaza, positioning France as a moral broker in a fractured global order. Domestically, he responds to surging public anger across Europe, where support for Israel has plummeted to historic lows. The Paris Peace Forum’s “Call for the Two-State Solution” frames the proposal as a humanitarian gesture and a bid to restore the Palestinian Authority in Gaza. But this restoration is not sovereignty — it is containment.

Several EU countries have joined Macron’s initiative — France, the UK, Belgium, Portugal, Luxembourg, Malta — alongside Australia and Canada. But the fractures are visible: Germany, Italy, Greece, and the Netherlands have refused to sign on, citing concerns about premature recognition and geopolitical fallout. Beyond Europe, Iran has denounced the initiative as a distraction from the war and a ploy to rehabilitate the PA without dismantling Zionist occupation. Russia remains noncommittal, emphasizing the need for Palestinian unity before any framework can be endorsed. China, while formally endorsing the two-state idea, cautions against proposals that intensify fragmentation or ignore the humanitarian toll. The result is a fragmented chorus of recognition — more symbolic than structural, more performative than transformative, and deeply misaligned with the revolutionary demands of Palestinian liberation.

Against this backdrop, Palestinian demands remain clear, coherent, and inalienable:

• The right of return for all refugees, as enshrined in UN Resolution 194
• The right to full sovereignty over historic Palestine — not a fragmented pseudo-state
• The right to resist occupation and colonization, including the dismantling of settlements and the apartheid wall
• The right to representation — not through compromised bodies like the PA, but through unified, grassroots, and diasporic voices
• The right to memory and narrative sovereignty, refusing erasure and distortion

These are not negotiable. They are not contingent. They are not subject to diplomatic choreography. They are the infrastructure of justice — and any proposal that ignores them is not a peace plan, but a blueprint for continued dispossession.

II. The Deceptive Architecture of the Two-State Proposal

The two-state proposal, as currently propagated by Macron and echoed by select Western and Arab states, is not a blueprint for justice — it is a rhetorical device designed to pacify, defer, and obscure. Its architecture is deceptive not because it lacks detail, but because its vagueness is strategic. It offers the illusion of statehood while preserving the infrastructure of Zionist domination.

• Slogan vs. Substance: The phrase “حل الدولتين” circulates as a tranquilizing slogan, not a political solution. It promises peace while entrenching occupation. It functions as a diplomatic sedative, soothing international conscience without altering material conditions.
• Macron’s Framing: Macron’s proposal centers on disarmament, security coordination, and the restoration of the Palestinian Authority in Gaza. But these are not steps toward sovereignty; they are mechanisms of containment. The PA is not empowered; it is subcontracted. Its role is not to negotiate liberation but to manage suppression: policing its own people, coordinating with the occupier, and administering fragments of territory without borders, airspace, or movement. This is not representation — it is colonial choreography. 
   
  The absence of unified Palestinian voice is not incidental; it is engineered. Meanwhile, the resistance — elected into governance in 2006 — was not defeated but removed through external intervention. The U.S. and its allies refused to honor the democratic outcome, imposing sanctions and backing internal fragmentation. In doing so, they redefined legitimacy as compliance. The resistance, despite siege and isolation, remains the only actor grounded in popular mandate and committed to liberation. Its exclusion from diplomatic frameworks is not a failure of representation — it is a strategy of suppression.
• Strategic Vagueness: The absence of defined borders is not an oversight — it is a feature. It enables Israel to expand settlements, annex land, and redraw maps while claiming to support “peace.” This ambiguity is not limited to the proposal — it is embedded in Israel’s own geography. The Israeli entity has never declared its borders, allowing it to operate as a fluid colonial project: expanding when convenient, retracting when strategic, and denying reciprocity. The two-state framework mirrors this logic, offering Palestinians a phantom state while preserving Israeli mobility, impunity, and cartographic control. Vagueness is not a flaw — it is the diplomatic architecture of apartheid.
• Colonial Continuity: The wall, the checkpoints, the settlements — none are addressed in the proposal. These are not temporary obstacles; they are permanent fixtures of Zionist control. The two-state framework treats them as negotiable, when they are in fact non-negotiable instruments of apartheid.
• International Diplomatic Theatre: The proposal is not designed to meet Palestinian demands — it is designed to restore Western credibility. Palestinian demands are clear, consistent, and rooted in both lived resistance and international law: the dismantling of settlements, the lifting of the siege on Gaza, the right of return for refugees, the end of military occupation, and the recognition of full sovereignty over historic Palestine. This last demand is juridically grounded — affirmed by UN Resolution 3236 and upheld by the International Court of Justice as an erga omnes obligation — that is, a duty owed by all states to the international community as a whole, enforceable even in the absence of direct injury.”

III. From Oslo to Macron — The Evolution of Diplomatic Containment

The two-state proposal is not a rupture — it is a refinement of the existing colonial architecture. It does not dismantle the machinery of occupation; it rebrands it. By partitioning Palestine into fragments and labeling the arrangement as peace, the proposal preserves settler sovereignty while offering diplomatic cover to its enablers.

From Oslo to Macron, the diplomatic apparatus has evolved not to resolve the conflict, but to manage its optics. Each iteration retools the language of peace to preserve the infrastructure of domination. The choreography shifts, but the logic remains: defer core demands, empower compromised actors, suppress resistance, and reframe colonization as coordination.

• Oslo’s Inception: The 1993 Oslo Accords introduced the architecture of deferral. It recognized the Palestinian Authority as a provisional administrator, not a sovereign entity. It postponed final status issues — borders, refugees, Jerusalem — while enabling Israel to expand settlements and entrench control. Oslo did not initiate peace; it institutionalized asymmetry.
• The Buffer Apparatus: Oslo subcontracted Palestinian governance to the PA, transforming it into a buffer between the occupier and the occupied. This apparatus was not designed to represent Palestinian will — it was designed to absorb resistance, manage dissent, and coordinate security with Israel. It was containment disguised as autonomy.
• Post-2006 Erasure: When the resistance was elected into governance, the diplomatic framework did not adapt — it retaliated. The U.S. and its allies imposed sanctions, backed internal fragmentation, and redefined legitimacy as compliance. The electoral mandate was erased, and the buffer apparatus was preserved.
• Division as Tactic: The two-state framework divides Palestinians geographically (Gaza vs. West Bank), politically (PA vs. Hamas), and existentially (citizen vs. refugee). These divisions are not incidental — they are strategic. They fragment the national body, isolate resistance, and prevent unified representation. Fragmentation is not a symptom — it is a tactic of control.
• Diaspora Erased: From Shatila to Santiago, the global Palestinian community is excluded from the “state” narrative. The two-state framework treats the diaspora as irrelevant, despite its central role in sustaining memory, mobilization, and mandate. Statelessness is not resolved — it is ignored. The proposal offers no return, no representation, no recognition.
• Macron’s Reanimation: Macron’s proposal does not depart from Oslo — it reanimates it. It centers on disarmament, security coordination, and the restoration of the PA in Gaza. It offers no borders, no control over airspace, no guarantees of return. It excludes the resistance, retools the buffer, and performs concern without confronting colonization.
• Legal Choreography: Even appeals to international law are choreographed. While Palestinian self-determination is affirmed in UN resolutions and ICJ opinions, international law itself is a Western production — drafted to manage decolonization without dismantling global hierarchies. Its selective application suppresses resistance while legitimizing occupation.

This evolution is not accidental — it is strategic. Each diplomatic gesture refines the machinery of deferral. The language of peace becomes a technology of control. The two-state proposal is not a solution — it is the latest iteration of containment.

IV. Israeli Opposition — A Strategic Performance

Israel’s rejection of Macron’s two-state proposal is not a contradiction — it is a continuation. It does not stem from fear of Palestinian empowerment, but from the strategic calculus of fragmentation. The proposal, as designed, poses no threat to Zionist control. Its rejection is not principled — it is performative.

• Why Oppose Macron’s Deal? Israel opposes the proposal not because it grants Palestinians sovereignty, but because it reactivates a diplomatic framework that implies negotiation. In rejecting it, Israel deepens the fragmentation of Palestinian representation, delegitimizes international mediation, and reasserts its unilateralism. The goal is not to prevent peace — it is to prevent parity.
• The Logic of Control: Once the PA abandoned the demand for full sovereignty, Israel saw no need to entertain negotiations. The subcontracted governance model serves Israeli interests: it outsources control, deflects accountability, and suppresses resistance. Negotiation becomes unnecessary when containment is already achieved.
• Rejection as Leverage: By opposing the proposal, Israel positions itself as the aggrieved party — claiming that even the most diluted frameworks are too generous. This rhetorical posture allows it to demand further concessions, redefine security, and expand settlements under the guise of self-defense. Rejection becomes a tool of escalation. But this opposition is not reactive — it is strategic. It aligns with Israel’s openly declared vision of a “Greater Israel,” which includes permanent control over the West Bank, annexation of settlement blocs, and the denial of Palestinian sovereignty. The rejection of Macron’s proposal is not a refusal of peace — it is a refusal of partition. It signals that the era of negotiation is over, and that the Zionist project now seeks territorial maximalism without diplomatic constraint. In this context, rejection is not a breakdown — it is a declaration: that the land is not to be shared, and that containment will proceed without consent.
• Normalization Without Negotiation: Israel no longer needs the two-state proposal to secure international legitimacy. Through normalization agreements, economic partnerships, and strategic alliances, it bypasses the Palestinian question entirely. Macron’s proposal reintroduces a framework Israel has already outgrown — one that implies accountability, borders, and recognition.
• The Spectacle of Refusal: Israeli opposition is not a refusal of colonial logic — it is a refusal to share the stage. The proposal, even in its vagueness, gestures toward diplomacy. Israel prefers domination without dialogue. Its rejection is not a retreat — it is a declaration: that Greater Israel is not negotiable, and containment will not be co-authored.

V. The Rhetoric of Peace as a Technology of Control

Peace, in the architecture of international diplomacy, is not a destination, it is a device. It functions not to resolve injustice but to regulate its visibility. The rhetoric of peace is deployed to manage perception, suppress resistance, and reframe colonization as coordination. It is not neutral. It is a technology of control.

Western actors invoke peace to perform moral authority while evading accountability. They speak of “calm,” “restraint,” and “de-escalation” only when Palestinians resist. The language is asymmetrical: occupation is never named, apartheid is never condemned, and Zionist violence is treated as security. Peace becomes a euphemism for pacification.

This rhetoric is not accidental — it is strategic. It allows diplomats to condemn violence without confronting its source. It enables the media to report “clashes” without naming the colonizer. It permits humanitarian organizations to deliver aid while avoiding the politics of siege. Peace, in this context, is not a moral imperative, it is a discursive shield.

The two-state proposal is saturated with this rhetoric. It promises “coexistence” without dismantling the wall, “security” without ending the blockade, and “statehood” without sovereignty. It offers Palestinians a future without return, borders, or representation. It retools the language of liberation into the grammar of containment.

Even the appeals to international law are choreographed. The right to self-determination is affirmed in resolutions and court opinions but never enforced. The law is cited to condemn resistance, not occupation. It is invoked to regulate Palestinian conduct, not Israeli expansion. This selective application reveals its function: to legitimize diplomacy while suppressing liberation.

Peace, as deployed by Macron and his allies, is not a horizon, it is a trap. It is designed to defer justice, obscure power, and restore Western credibility. It is not the opposite of war — it is the continuation of colonization by rhetorical means.

VI. The Archive of Refusal — Naming What the Proposal Erases

To understand the two-state proposal, one must read not only its text but its omissions. What it does not name, it does not intend to address. Its architecture is built on erasure: of history, of suffering, of resistance. It offers a future without memory, a state without return, a peace without justice.

It erases the Nakba — not as a historical rupture but as a living wound. It does not mention the dispossession of 1948, the destruction of villages, the exile of millions. It treats the refugee as a humanitarian subject, not a political agent. The right of return is not deferred; it is denied.

It erases Gaza — not as a territory but as a testimony. The siege is not named, the bombings are not condemned, the resistance is not acknowledged. Gaza becomes a site of humanitarian concern, not colonial violence. Its suffering is instrumentalized to justify intervention, not liberation.

It erases the resistance — not as a military force but as a political will. The elected mandate of Hamas in 2006 is ignored, the popular support is dismissed, the ideological clarity is vilified. Resistance is framed as extremism, while occupation is framed as security. The proposal does not negotiate — it selects its interlocutors based on compliance.

It erases the diaspora — not as a scattered population but as a global archive of memory and mobilization. The millions in exile are not consulted, not represented, not returned. Their testimony is excluded from the diplomatic record. Their longing is treated as nostalgia, not as a juridical claim.

The two-state proposal does not seek resolution — it seeks erasure. To accept its terms is to participate in the deletion of Palestinian history, agency, and futurity.

Section VII: Comparative Refusals and Revolutionary Precedents

The refusal of partition is not a rhetorical flourish — it is a historical imperative. Palestine’s rejection of the two-state illusion is not an anomaly, but a continuation of revolutionary clarity shared across liberation movements. To accept a framework that leaves half a people in exile and half a homeland under occupation is not compromise — it is consent to erasure.

Would Algeria have accepted a “two-state” compromise that preserved French settler rule over Algiers while relegating native sovereignty to the margins? Would China have negotiated its liberation by conceding its heartland to colonial administration and calling it peace? These are not speculative provocations. They are mirrors held up to the machinery of consent.

Palestine is not Gaza plus West Bank. It is not a cartographic remainder. It is a homeland — dispossessed, unpartitioned, and unyielding. To reduce it to fragments is to participate in the very fantasy the archive refuses.

As Ghassan Kanafani wrote, “The only land Palestinians can claim is the land of revolution.” This is not metaphor — it is method. It is the architecture of justice, not the opposite of peace. Revolution, in this context, is not so much a call to arms as it is a refusal to forget, a refusal to negotiate dignity, a refusal to render testimony into diplomacy.

VIII. Conclusion: Toward a Liberated Vocabulary and Palestine

To reject the two-state proposal is not to reject peace, it is to reject pacification. It is to refuse a framework built on erasure, asymmetry, and containment. This refusal is not nihilistic — it is ethical. It insists that any future worth building must begin with truth, justice, and return.

Refusal is not the absence of vision — it is its precondition. It clears the ground of deceptive scaffolding so that liberation can be imagined without compromise. It names what diplomacy obscures: that sovereignty cannot coexist with siege, that representation cannot be subcontracted, and that peace cannot be built atop apartheid.

A liberated vocabulary begins with refusal. It names occupation as apartheid, siege as warfare, and resistance as political will. It does not sanitize violence with euphemism. It does not defer justice with process. It does not confuse containment with sovereignty. It speaks from the archive of struggle, not the choreography of diplomacy.

The architecture of return begins with the restoration of memory. It affirms the Nakba not as a past event but as a present structure. It centers the refugee not as a humanitarian subject but as a political agent. It reclaims Gaza not as a crisis zone but as a site of resistance. It recognizes the diaspora not as dispersion but as mobilization.

This vocabulary is not invented, it is remembered. It lives in the chants of return, the testimonies of survivors, the maps drawn in exile. It is inscribed in the rubble of erased villages, the silence of censored histories, the persistence of mobilized diasporas. It is not a lexicon of policy — it is a language of liberation.

To move toward Palestine is to restore this language. To speak of sovereignty without subcontracting, of return without condition, of justice without deferral. It is to reject the deceptive architecture of the two-state proposal and to build, instead, a framework rooted in memory, mandate, and refusal.

Palestine does not need a proposal — it needs recognition. Not of its fragments, but of its wholeness. Not of its containment, but of its horizon. Not of its erasure, but of its voice.

Note: First published in Medium

Rima Najjar is a Palestinian whose father’s side of the family comes from the forcibly depopulated village of Lifta on the western outskirts of Jerusalem and whose mother’s side of the family is from Ijzim, south of Haifa. She is an activist, researcher, and retired professor of English literature, Al-Quds University, occupied West Bank.

24 September 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Azmat Ali

The UN Human Rights experts concluded that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza. Days earlier, the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly endorsed Palestinian statehood, with 142 nations in favour. Together, these developments deliver a verdict: the world now formally recognises both the destruction of Gaza as genocidal and the denial of Palestinian sovereignty as untenable. What remains in doubt is whether the institutions that made these declarations have the will — or the power — to act.

Gaza’s devastation

For more than seven decades, Palestinians have endured dispossession, occupation, and repeated military assaults. Since 7 October 2023, the scale of destruction has been intensified. Nearly 65,000 people have been killed, entire neighbourhoods reduced to rubble, hospitals dismantled, and water and sanitation systems destroyed. Gaza today is not a battlefield but a place deliberately stripped of the conditions needed for survival.

The devastation is measured not only in bombings but in hunger. In August 2025, famine — the gravest category of food insecurity — was officially declared. More than half a million Palestinians are now on the brink of starvation, with another million facing emergency conditions. Famine in Gaza is not a natural disaster but a “man-made” outcome of deliberate policy.

Genocide in legal terms

International law defines genocide as acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. Legal and academic voices describe Gaza in precisely these terms. The International Association of Genocide Scholars has concluded that Israel’s actions meet the criteria of the 1948 UN Genocide Convention, citing the systematic destruction of healthcare, education, and humanitarian infrastructure; the killing of thousands of children; and repeated rhetoric by Israeli leaders to “flatten Gaza.” Within Israel itself, B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights have echoed these conclusions, with Amnesty International reinforcing them.

The International Court of Justice, in a case filed by South Africa, has already ordered Israel to implement provisional measures to prevent genocidal acts and ensure humanitarian access. Israel has ignored these rulings, dismissing them as politically motivated. Yet genocidal intent can be inferred from systematic destruction, starvation, forced displacement, and the rhetoric of leaders. Finance Minister, Bezalel Smotrich’s claim that “Gaza will be totally destroyed” is not mere bluster in legal terms but probative evidence of intent.

Escalating beyond Gaza

Israel insists its campaign is an act of self-defence against Hamas and rejects the jurisdiction of both the ICC and ICJ. Yet the evidence points to a campaign extending far beyond Hamas targets. Entire communities have been erased, food and medicine obstructed, and civilian infrastructure dismantled.

The conflict has also extended outside Gaza’s borders. On 9 September 2025, Israeli warplanes struck Hamas officials in Doha, killing aides and provoking outrage across the Gulf. Qatar accused Israel of violating its sovereignty. Critics warn these attacks are extrajudicial executions that risk sparking wider regional conflicts.

Law without enforcement and Legitimacy without power

International law derives its authority not from lofty declarations but from the willingness of states to uphold it. If genocide can be formally named yet ignored, then the very idea of a rules-based order collapses.

The General Assembly’s vote reflects the opposite dilemma: overwhelming legitimacy, but no power to enforce. Recognition of Palestine at this level does not halt bombardments, dismantle settlements, or lift the blockade. What it does achieve is to further isolate Israel as it is already shrinking its allies.The Security Council role remains pivotal in re-enforcing the concrete action. Law without enforcement and legitimacy without power reveal the fracture at the heart of the rule-based system.

For the Global South, this week is confirmation of what many have long argued: international law is applied selectively, shielding the powerful while disciplining the weak. For the West, especially the United States and its allies, it represents a crisis of credibility. How can Washington defend a rules-based order in Ukraine while undermining it in Palestine? How can Europe condemn Russian aggression under international law while enabling Israel’s bombardment in Gaza?

The long shadow of precedent

Genocide declaration does not fade away. Bosnia and Rwanda remain case studies in how failure to act on early warnings haunts international legitimacy. The finding on Gaza would cast a similar shadow. Future courts, historians, and diplomatic debates will return to this moment as the point at which the world knew — and chose whether to act or to look away.

The General Assembly’s resolution is more than symbolic. It cements Palestine’s status in the global imagination as a legitimate state-in-waiting. Even if recognition is not yet universal, the momentum is irreversible. With Ireland, Spain, and Norway already granting recognition in May, powerful European countries and others are likely to follow that would enable Palestine’s claim to shift from political demand to near-global consensus.

Consequences for Israel — and beyond

For Israel, these developments mean not only intensifying diplomatic isolation but growing legal jeopardy. The genocide finding strengthens the case at the ICJ and increases pressure on the ICC to prosecute. States that continue supplying arms to Israel now face heightened risk of complicity. The reputational cost of association with a state accused of genocide will only grow heavier.

Beyond Israel, the implications reach the credibility of the multilateral system itself. If institutions cannot act on their own findings, their authority will be fatally undermined. Such erosion of trust will embolden authoritarian regimes worldwide, destabilising an already fractured order.

What comes next?

The immediate outcome of this week would not be an end to bombardment or the instant birth of a Palestinian state. The deeper outcome is a reckoning: states can no longer hide behind neutrality or silence. They must choose between upholding the principles drafted after World War II or abandoning them to expediency.

For Palestinians, the genocide declaration and the General Assembly’s vote together create a historical record that cannot be erased. Whatever the realities on the ground, the world has registered its verdict. For Israel and its allies, this is a warning: the legal and moral costs of continuing the campaign are mounting, and history will not absolve indifference.

The breaking point

Ultimately, this week is about more than Gaza or Palestine. It is about whether international law still carries force. If the genocide finding and the New York Declaration are left to gather dust, they will expose the hollowness of the world system. If they spark concrete action — prosecutions, sanctions, recognition, or peacekeeping — they could mark the beginning of an irreversible shift.

The true outcome lies not in the declarations themselves but in how the world responds. What is beyond dispute is that Palestinians are enduring one of the gravest humanitarian catastrophes of our time. The question now is whether the world still has the will to act or continue to ignore international law and human dignity.

This week has made one truth undeniable: silence is no longer an option.

Azmat Ali is a student at the School of Language, Literature and Culture Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.

24 September 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Drop Site Daily

Israeli forces kill at least 29 people across Gaza since dawn, including 25 in Gaza City, according to Al Jazeera, while 38 killed and 190 injured Palestinians arrive at Gaza’s hospitals over the past 24 hours. Israel continues its assault on Gaza City, as health services collapse after bombing destroys the Jordanian field hospital and the only remaining children’s hospital. Both President Donald Trump and Hamas leadership indicate that they have drafted plans for an end to the genocide. Trump bails out Argentina’s economy after its peso collapses under the leadership of Javier Milei. France, Belgium, Monaco, Luxembourg, Malta, and Andorra recognized Palestine as a state on Monday at the United Nations, bringing the number of member states to recognize Palestine to 156 out of 193. Iran warns it may scrap its International Atomic Energy Agency cooperation deal if snapback sanctions are put in place.

The Genocide in Gaza

• At least 29 people have been killed by Israeli forces across Gaza since dawn, including 25 in Gaza City, medical sources told Al Jazeera.
• In Gaza City, the health care system continues to collapse, with another hospital shutting down—the Jordanian Field Hospital in Tel al-Hawa. On Monday, al-Rantisi Children’s Hospital, the only pediatric facility in northern Gaza, and an eye hospital also ceased operations. The Jordanian army said it is relocating its field hospital to Khan Younis for the first time since October 7, 2023, noting it had never evacuated even during the war’s early bombardment.
• Israeli occupation vehicles are advancing into Gaza City’s Tel al-Hawa neighborhood, journalist Abdel Qader Sabbah reports, where explosive-laden robots are being detonated and shelter centers are being forcibly evacuated under threat of bombing. Residents describe a prevailing state of fear and panic.
• Israel threatened military action against the Global Sumud Flotilla, falsely claiming that it is “organized by Hamas” and “intended to serve Hamas,” and vowing to prevent it from reaching Gaza. Activists were instructed to dock in Ashkelon and hand over aid for Israeli-controlled delivery, as Israel maintains a naval blockade of Gaza that has been in place since 2007. Past flotillas, including the 2010 Mavi Marmara mission, were intercepted by force, resulting in ten deaths. Trump envoy Tom Barrack admitted in an interview with The National News’ Hadley Gamble that Israel struck Global Sumud Flotilla ships in Tunisia earlier this month, citing it as part of a broader pattern of attacks on the region.

Ceasefire Negotiations

• Trump will present Arab and Muslim leaders on Tuesday with U.S. principles for ending the Gaza genocide, in what officials describe to Axios as Washington’s most detailed proposal yet. The plan calls for the release of captives, an Israeli withdrawal, post-war governance in Gaza without Hamas, and Arab states contributing troops and funding for a transitional period, with Indonesia already offering soldiers. Arab officials said they view the proposal as an American plan requiring their input, and some signaled openness to sending forces if the Palestinian Authority is included and the process advances toward statehood, according to Axios.
• Hamas drafted a proposal offering the release of ten captives and two U.S. bodies in exchange for a two-month ceasefire, Saudi channel Al Arabiya reported, with American guarantees to uphold the truce and allow humanitarian aid. Senior Hamas officials told Asharq Al-Awsat that a new initiative is underway and that clarity may emerge within about ten days, with several Arab states involved at the UN in efforts to secure Israeli withdrawal from residential areas. Israel’s N12 reported that Hamas leaders in Qatar drafted a letter to Trump seeking a personal guarantee the ceasefire would hold, but the letter has not yet been signed or sent. Drop Site News has not independently verified these reports.

U.S. News

• The Trump administration is preparing a bailout for Argentina as President Javier Milei faces a collapsing peso and political setbacks, with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent saying Monday that Washington is ready to use tools from central bank swaps to peso purchases. The move briefly eased pressure on Argentine bonds and currency, as Milei—already dependent on a $20 billion IMF package—seeks U.S. backing to steady markets before October’s congressional elections. Investors have been pulling out since Milei’s September 7 local election defeat, a loss that sharpened concerns he may lack the congressional support to advance his agenda.
• President Trump signed an executive order officially designating Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization, citing what the order calls the group’s “coordinated efforts to obstruct enforcement of Federal laws through armed standoffs, organized riots, violent assaults on law enforcement, and routine doxing of political figures and activists.” Antifa is not an organization.
• The United States is considering sanctions as soon as this week against the entire International Criminal Court, six sources told Reuters, a move that could jeopardize the court’s day-to-day operations. The potential retaliation comes in response to the ICC’s investigations into suspected Israeli war crimes.
• Trump special envoy Tom Barrack, who faced backlash in August for telling Lebanese journalists to “act civilized,” today described ordinary Iranians as “thoughtful, civilized, and educated.” He said Iran’s regime was “manipulative,” adding that Israel may have to strike the country directly again, possibly with U.S. involvement. Barrack, the administration’s Special Envoy on Syria and Hezbollah disarmament, also said Hezbollah has “zero” incentive to disarm “when Israel is attacking everybody.”
• Former FTC Chair Lina Khan warns that today’s high economic concentration makes it easier for a president with authoritarian tendencies to control critics and censor dissent. With five firms dominating U.S. media markets, she notes, censorship is far simpler than if dozens of companies competed.
• The White House says it has received a letter from Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro but calls it “full of lies,” with Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt asserting that the administration’s stance remains unchanged and continues to view Maduro as an “illegitimate leader.” The letter, from September 6, proposed direct talks with envoy Richard Grenell.
• Big Pharma is bracing for a “patent cliff,” with exclusive rights for nearly 200 top-selling drugs set to expire by 2030, amounting to $236B in lost revenue, according to The Lever. Rather than investing in new research, major firms are buying smaller companies and their patents, fueling consolidation that regulators warn could raise prices, stifle innovation, and increase the risk of drug shortages.

International News

• France, Belgium, Monaco, Luxembourg, Malta, and Andorra recognized Palestine on Monday, bringing the total number of UN member states acknowledging Palestine to 156 out of 193, or over 81%. The move follows recognition by the UK, Canada, Australia, and Portugal.
• Iran warns it will scrap its International Atomic Energy Agency cooperation deal if UN sanctions are reimposed, with Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi telling reporters in New York that snapback by the UK, France, and Germany would invalidate the agreement. He said Tehran would respond and seek new conditions with the agency, and stressed the moment is one to choose “cooperation or confrontation.”
• At the UN General Assembly in New York, Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa called for U.S. sanctions to be lifted, saying they punish ordinary Syrians, and urged a “new chapter” with Washington. He told retired U.S. General and former CIA Director David Petraeus that Syria has moved from the battlefield to the “theater of dialogue,” highlighting the country’s skilled workforce and urging the U.S. to seize the moment for diplomacy.
• Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas publicly condemned Hamas’s October 7 attack for the first time at the UN General Assembly, saying the PA “condemn[s] the occupation’s crimes just as we condemn the killing and capture of civilians as Hamas did,” while offering Hebrew New Year greetings and praising Palestinian steadfastness. He outlined a comprehensive reform agenda to improve governance, including financial and education reforms and a single social welfare system, which is now undergoing an international audit.
• Airports in Norway and Denmark were shut down for hours after multiple large drones entered restricted airspace, in what Denmark called the “most serious attack so far” on the country’s critical infrastructure. The drones reportedly flew over airports in Oslo and Copenhagen for several hours, causing shutdowns and massive flight disruptions for several hours before escaping without being intercepted. Though no one claimed responsibility, officials linked the incident to Russia’s hybrid tactics in northern Europe, echoing recent drone and aircraft intrusions in Poland, Romania, and Estonia.
• The Afghan Taliban again rejected President Trump’s demand that the U.S. be allowed to take back Bagram air base, saying that Afghanistan will not surrender “even an inch” of its territory. Bagram, abandoned during the 2021 U.S. withdrawal, has been under Taliban control since, but has recently drawn the attention of Trump and other U.S. officials who have discussed it as a possible counterterrorism asset, as well as forward base to surveil Chinese nuclear assets. Taliban officials cited the Doha Agreement, under which Washington pledged not to threaten Afghanistan’s independence, and warned that any attempt to retake Bagram would be seen as a violation.
• Italy’s state-owned channel TG3 opened its newscast with a statement of solidarity with the September 22 nationwide general strike for Gaza, condemning the “daily massacre of civilians, health workers, and journalists, and mass deportations carried out by the Israeli government.” The move marks a sharp break from the pro-Israel stance of Italy’s right-wing ruling coalition. Italy’s government oversees the public broadcaster RAI and has resisted EU measures targeting Israel.
• France is circulating a draft proposal for an “International Stabilization Mission” to replace Israeli forces in Gaza and oversee Hamas’s disarmament, according to the Times of Israel. The UN-mandated, regionally led force would be funded by Gulf donors, with Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar as preferred participants. The plan envisions an initial phase of ceasefire monitoring and humanitarian access, followed by transferring security to the Palestinian Authority, reconstruction, and elections, while stressing that dismantling Hamas is a “core element.”
• Indonesia’s President Prabowo Subianto told the UN two-state conference that Jakarta is ready to send troops to help secure Gaza after the war, reaffirming an offer first made last year. Indonesia remains the only country to make such a pledge publicly, while Arab states have hinted at joining the International Stabilization Mission backed by France but insist on a role for the Palestinian Authority that Israel rejects.

More from Drop Site

• Drop Site’s Sharif Abdel Kouddous appeared on Democracy Now! Tuesday to talk about the pardon of Egyptian-British activist Alaa Abd El-Fattah by Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi. El-Fattah, a human rights activist, was freed from prison after spending most of the past 12 years in prison. He was imprisoned in 2014 for protesting without permission. El-Sisi also freed five other prisoners.

Programming note: We have switched our WhatsApp group to a WhatsApp channel, which is far superior. You can sign up here to get updates from us on WhatsApp.

If you want to continue getting this newsletter, you don’t have to do anything. But if this is too much—we do try to be mindful of your inbox—you can unsubscribe from this newsletter while continuing to get the rest of our reporting. Just go into your account here at this link, scroll down, and toggle the button next to “Drop Site Daily” to the off setting. It looks like this:

23 September 2025

Source: dropsitenews.com

By M K Bhadrakumar

India found itself in an uncomfortable situation like a cat on a hot roof at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation event in Tianjin, China, with the Western media hyping up its unlikely role in a troika with Russia and China to chariot the world order toward a brave new era of multipolarity. 

The plain truth is, the real obsession of the Western media was to vilify the US President Donald Trump for having “lost” India by caricaturing a three-way Moscow-Delhi-Beijing partnership as an attempt to conspire against the United States. The target was Trump’s insecure ego, and the intention was to call out his punitive trade tariffs that caused mayhem in the US-Indian relationship. Prime Minister Narendra Modi savoured momentarily in Tianjin the role of a key player at the high table, which plays well before his domestic audience of hardcore nationalists, but a confrontation with the US was the last thing on his mind.

In Tianjin, Modi took a hour-long limo ride in Putin’s custom-made armoured vehicle that created a misperception that the two strongmen were up to something really sinister and big. The extravagant display of “Russia collusion” Modi could have done without. 

To be fair to Putin, he later made ample amends (after Modi returned to Delhi) to make sure Trump was not put out. In front of camera, when asked about an acerbic aside by Trump in a Truth Social post on September 3 wondering whether Putin was “conspiring against the United States of America,” Putin gave this extraordinary explanation: 

“The President of the United States has a sense of humour. It is clear, and everyone is well aware of it. I get along very well with him. We are on a first name basis.

“I can tell you and I hope he will hear me, too: as strange as it may appear, but during these four days, during the most diverse talks in informal and formal settings, no one has ever expressed any negative judgment about the current US administration.

“Second, all of my dialogue partners without exception – I want to emphasise this – all of them were supportive of the meeting in Anchorage. Every single one of them. And all of them expressed hope that the position of President Trump and the position of Russia and other participants in the negotiations will put an end to the armed conflict. I am saying this in all seriousness without irony. 

“Since I am saying this publicly, the whole world will see it and hear it, and this is the best guarantee that I am telling the truth. Why? Because the people whom I have spoken with for four days will hear it, and they will definitely say, “Yes, this is true.” I would have never said this if it were not so, because then I would have put myself in an awkward position in front of my friends, allies and strategic partners. Everything was exactly the way I said it.” 

Modi has something to learn from Putin. But instead, no sooner than Modi returned to Delhi, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar had lined up the most hawkish anti-Russia gang of European politicians to consort with in an ostentatious display of distancing from the Russia-India-China troika. 

In the entire collective West, there is no country today to beat Germany in its hostility toward Russia. All the pent-up hatred toward Russia for inflicting the crushing defeat on Nazi Germany that has been lying dormant for decades in the German subconscious mind has welled up in the most recent years. 

The German Chancellor Friedrich Merz recently said Putin “might be one of the worst war criminals of our era. That is now plain to see. We must be clear on how to deal with war criminals. There is no room for leniency.” 

Merz whose family was associated with Hitler’s Nazi party, has been repeatedly flagging that a war between Germany and Russia is inevitable. He is threatening to hand over long-range Taurus missiles to Ukrainian military to hit deep inside Russia. 

But all this anti-Russian record of Germany didn’t deter Jaishankar from inviting Merz’s foreign minister Johann Wadephul to come to India on a 3-day visit on Monday. Wadephul promptly seized the opportunity to rubbish both Russia and China. He was particularly harsh on China during his joint press conference with Jaishankar. 

Wadephul said in Jaishankar’s presence, “We agree with India and many other countries that we need to defend the international rules-based order, and that we also have to defend it against China. At least that is our clear analysis… But we also see China as a systemic rival. We don’t want that rivalry. We increasingly note that the number of areas is increasing where China has chosen this approach.” 

Wadephul flouted protocol norms and violated diplomatic decorum by making such harsh remarks from Indian soil so soon after Modi and Xi decided to stop viewing each other as adversaries and instead work in partnership. But the curious part was Jaishankar didn’t seem to mind and Modi indeed received the outspoken German diplomat. 

The sequence of events suggest that Delhi is in panic that Modi went overboard in Tianjin. Trump’s close aide Peter Navarro actually used a crude metaphor that Modi “got into bed” with Putin and Xi in Tianjin. Apparently, the poisoned arrow went home. 

Meanwhile, Trump continues to pile pressure on Modi to terminate oil trade with Russia and has threatened that a third and fourth tranche of secondary level tariffs could be expected. He is also putting pressure on the European Union to move in tandem to bring India down on its knees. 

Possibly, Wadephul carried some terse message from Brussels. At any rate, after receiving Wadephul, Modi made a joint 3-way call with the President of the European Council Antonio Costa and President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen on Sep 4 Thursday to emphasise his government’s neutrality in the Ukraine conflict. 

Jaishankar himself called his Ukrainian counterpart Andrii Sybih also to discuss “our bilateral cooperation as well as the Ukraine conflict.” 

Dumping the “Tianjin spirit” so soon is a huge loss of face for India. But the blowback from the West unnerves the government. The point is, the future is still being written. The Global South whose mantle of leadership India claims is also watching. Governments in Asia, Europe and elsewhere still have choices to make, and those will be shaped by India’s actions as much as China’s. 

Why is India’s diplomacy so clumsy-footed? In medical parlance, such clumsiness and foot drop could actually be a nerve condition. So it could be in the practice of strategic autonomy where nerves of steel are required. Modi government freely interprets national interests to suit the exigencies of politics. And it takes ambivalent attitudes without conviction or due deliberation that are unsustainable over a period of time. 

The Indian policymakers do not seem to have the foggiest idea where exactly the country’s long-term interests lie at the present  juncture when  an epochal transition is under way in the world order, as five centuries of western hegemony are drawing to a close. The great lesson of history for us is that resolve brings peace and order, and vacillation invites chaos and conflict.

Former Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar, who played key role in beginning India’s systemic dealings in Afghanistan in 1994, and in handling Mujahideen.

21 September 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By T Navin

Recently, demonstrations were witnessed in both Australia and the United Kingdom targeting Indian immigrants. In Australia, a coordinated “March for Australia” protest took place on 31 August 2025 across Sydney, Melbourne, and Brisbane. While the rallies were presented as a stand against “mass immigration,” flyers and social media posts explicitly singled out Indians, with one claiming, “More Indians in five years than Greeks and Italians in 100.” Members of the Indian Australian community reported feeling targeted by the fast-growing anti-immigrant groups, sharing experiences of abusive comments and a heightened sense of insecurity in workplaces and public spaces. Protesters argued that the rapid influx of Indians was driving up housing prices, overwhelming hospitals and schools, and straining public transport. They claimed that Indian professionals were accepting lower wages and thereby displacing local workers, while accusing the federal government of favouring corporate interests by “importing workers” to suppress wages. Beyond economic complaints, many marchers warned of an erosion of “traditional Australian values,” framing Indian immigration as a cultural threat.

Similarly, on 7 September 2025, the United Kingdom witnessed massive anti-immigration demonstrations under the banner “Unite the Kingdom”, led by far-right groups. Though framed as a broader protest against immigration, many participants targeted people of South Asian descent—particularly Indians—some of whom were reportedly chased through the streets. Demonstrators made inflammatory statements about boycotting Indian snacks such as onion bhajis and warned that Indian culture had become too deeply woven into British life. Protesters claimed immigrants were taking scarce housing, welfare benefits, and jobs, while online posts accused South Asian communities of failing to integrate. Some even suggested that unchecked immigration would irreversibly change the character of British cities and erode “British culture.”

While such protests capture headlines and emotions, they are not supported by evidence. A substantial body of research from economists, historians, and novelists paints a different picture—one in which migration is not a threat but a source of resilience, innovation, and justice. In Good Economics for Hard Times, Nobel laureates Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo dismantle the myth that migrants depress wages or steal jobs. “The idea that migrants take jobs away from natives is not supported by the data,” they write, citing rigorous studies across multiple countries that show immigrants often fill labour shortages, drive economic growth, and bring dynamism to ageing societies. Isabel Wilkerson’s The Warmth of Other Suns chronicles the Great Migration of African Americans within the United States, illustrating how internal migrants were met with suspicion despite their contributions—a reminder that resentment toward upwardly mobile minorities is a recurring theme in history. Mohsin Hamid’s novel Exit West explores the emotional and existential dimensions of migration, portraying migrants not as invaders but as fellow humans seeking survival and dignity.

Other scholars reinforce this perspective. Steven Gold’s Immigration and the American Dream highlights how immigrants frequently become entrepreneurs, job creators, and cultural bridges. Indian immigrants in the UK and Australia exemplify this reality by running businesses, working in healthcare, and contributing to technology and academia. The Age of Migration by Stephen Castles, Hein de Haas, and Mark J. Miller frames migration as a structural feature of globalization—not a temporary crisis but a permanent and necessary part of modern economies. Anti-Indian demonstrations, the authors argue, misdirect public anger toward individuals while ignoring the systemic economic forces driving global mobility. Suketu Mehta’s This Land Is Our Land: An Immigrant’s Manifesto adds a moral dimension, describing migration as a form of justice and historical reckoning: “They are here because you were there,” he writes, arguing that resistance to migrants from former colonies overlooks the lingering consequences of colonial exploitation.

Indian immigrants themselves present strong arguments to counter these protests. They emphasize their economic contribution, noting that Indians fill critical skill gaps in healthcare, engineering, IT, education, and other sectors where domestic labour cannot meet demand. Far from being a burden, Indians pay taxes, start businesses, and create jobs—often contributing more to economic growth than they draw in social benefits. Many establish small enterprises, from restaurants and grocery stores to tech start-ups, that stimulate local economies. Their migration is based on merit and regulation, not circumvention of the law. Indian migration to Australia and the UK is heavily skills- and education-based, with applicants meeting strict visa criteria. Community leaders stress that Indians are not “taking jobs” illegally but coming through government-designed systems that actively recruit talent. They also highlight demographic realities: both Australia and the UK have ageing populations, and Indian migrants help balance demographics, sustain pension systems, and maintain essential services.

Beyond economics, Indian communities point to their record of social integration and cultural contribution. They participate in civic life, respect law and order, and enrich the cultural landscape with food, festivals, music, and art—ironically illustrated by UK protesters buying Indian snacks during the rallies against immigration. Indian representatives frame the targeting of their community as a violation of human dignity and anti-racist principles, arguing that singling out one ethnic group fuels hate crimes and undermines democratic values of equality and inclusion. Finally, they stress the two-way relationship migration strengthens. Large Indian student and professional communities deepen trade, education, and technological partnerships, benefiting both India and host nations. Personal narratives of long working hours, self-funded education, and responsible citizenship further reinforce the reality that Indian immigrants are contributors, not takers, in their adopted societies.

The recent protests in Australia and the UK may be loud, but they rest on fear rather than fact. Economic research, historical experience, and lived realities all show that Indian immigrants strengthen rather than weaken their host countries. They fill vital skill gaps, support ageing societies, create businesses, and enrich culture—outcomes that benefit everyone. As scholars like Banerjee, Wilkerson, Hamid, Gold, Castles, and Mehta remind us, migration is not a crisis but a cornerstone of modern economies and human progress. The challenge lies not in stopping migration but in nurturing understanding and inclusion, ensuring that fear does not override the shared benefits of a more interconnected world.

T Navin is an independent writer 

21 September 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Prof. Junaid S. Ahmad

The decline of American hegemony has elites celebrating “new alliances.” But a NATO of the East is no liberation — it’s just another racket for the ruling class.

————–

Saudi royals, Pakistan’s military, and India’s rulers all use insecurity as theater. Their alliances protect elites, not the people — and replicate the very empire they denounce.

—

Gaza is burning. Children are being buried beneath rubble, hospitals are starved of fuel, and the world watches in horror as one of the most grotesque spectacles of militarism in our time unfolds. And what are the region’s so-called leaders doing in response? Are they building ties to stop the slaughter, to end occupation, to insist that the future of their peoples be one of peace and dignity? No. Saudi princes are signing new defense pacts. Pakistan’s generals are salivating over the prestige of protecting Riyadh. India’s rulers are fretting about their oil flows and plotting new hedges with Washington and Moscow. While Gaza bleeds, the ruling classes of South Asia and the Gulf are cashing in, as though war were not tragedy but opportunity.

What we are witnessing is not a sober recalibration of alliances for the sake of stability. It is an arms bazaar dressed up as geopolitics, a grotesque theater of insecurity in which monarchs, kleptocrats, and demagogues strut across the stage proclaiming themselves protectors while the real project is simpler: entrenching their power, guarding their palaces, and deepening the militarization that immiserates their own people.

The Saudi–Pakistan Pact: A Marriage of Insecurity

The recent defense treaty between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan has been treated in mainstream commentary as a pragmatic step in the shifting sands of global power. But there is nothing pragmatic — much less noble — about one of the world’s most repressive monarchies formalizing its long-cultivated ties with one of the world’s most bloated military establishments. This pact is not about safeguarding people; it is about safeguarding regimes.

Saudi Arabia, long dependent on U.S. protection, is hedging its bets. Pakistan, perpetually in crisis but always armed to the teeth, is only too eager to provide. The symbolism is clear: Riyadh and Islamabad are making their relationship public, with Pakistan stepping forward as the new shield of the kingdom. What this really means is that Saudi oil wealth and Pakistani military might are fusing in a pact that offers their citizens nothing but more militarization.

It is worth remembering that these ties are not new. Saudi Arabia bankrolled Pakistan’s nuclear program decades ago, on the implicit understanding that, if needed, the weapons could be shared. The cozy bond between the House of Saud and the generals is as old as the Cold War, when both countries served as loyal subcontractors for Washington’s empire — funneling arms and money to Afghan mujahideen in the 1980s while their own societies were hollowed out by authoritarianism and austerity. Today’s defense pact is simply the latest iteration of a partnership that has always prioritized regime security over human security.

America’s Fingerprints

Of course, none of this makes sense without reckoning with the elephant in the room: the United States. For nearly eighty years, Washington has been the guarantor of Gulf monarchies. The famous 1945 meeting between Roosevelt and Ibn Saud inaugurated a simple bargain: the U.S. would protect the House of Saud, and the House of Saud would keep the oil flowing. Every bullet fired, every dissident jailed, every bomb dropped on Yemen carries American fingerprints.

Even Pakistan’s role as Saudi Arabia’s hired gun is a legacy of U.S. designs. During the Cold War, Washington encouraged Islamabad to cultivate its role as a regional military power, a counterweight to India, and a convenient proxy in Afghanistan. The Pakistani generals learned their lesson well: military dependency on Washington could always be leveraged into domestic political dominance at home. The result is the garrison state we see today, where the army is both kingmaker and king.

The irony is rich: after decades of relying on U.S. patronage, Riyadh and Islamabad now posture as independent actors striking a new alliance. In truth, they are merely replicating the American model. They are not rejecting U.S. hegemony; they are mimicking it. An “Eastern NATO” in which Pakistan plays enforcer for Saudi Arabia, with China lurking as supplier and Russia nodding along in approval, is no alternative to Western imperialism. It is its mirror image.

India’s Calculus: Oil, Rivalry, and Opportunism

If Pakistan is eager to play bodyguard for Riyadh, India is equally eager to wring geopolitical advantage from the shifting balance. New Delhi’s rulers — who never miss a chance to wrap themselves in the mantle of anti-colonialism while deepening ties with Washington — see Saudi Arabia’s tilt toward Islamabad as a threat. Their nightmare scenario is one in which Gulf oil, upon which India is heavily dependent, becomes entangled in the India–Pakistan rivalry.

India’s likely response is twofold: lean harder on Russia for oil and arms, and cultivate Washington as a hedge. The irony is that while Prime Minister Modi talks endlessly of sovereignty, India remains locked in a game of dependency: dependent on Gulf energy, dependent on Russian weapons, dependent on American markets and diplomatic cover. The “world’s largest democracy” has become adept at hedging, but hedging is not liberation. It is simply another word for opportunism.

Multipolarity Without Justice

This is the great illusion of the current moment: that a so-called multipolar order will inherently be more just than American unipolarity. It will not. When Saudi princes, Pakistani generals, and Indian demagogues talk of multipolarity, they are not envisioning a world of peace, equality, or democracy. They are envisioning a world in which they, too, can act with impunity — buying weapons from China instead of the U.S., striking oil deals with Russia instead of Europe, but always keeping their people in chains.

The tragedy is that this is being sold as progress. Commentators celebrate Saudi Arabia’s diversification as though breaking free from Washington’s orbit were itself emancipatory. But diversification of arms dealers is not liberation. A kingdom armed by Beijing instead of Washington is still a kingdom. A Pakistan serving as Riyadh’s praetorian guard is still a garrison state. An India balancing Moscow and Washington while brutalizing Kashmiris is still a carceral democracy. Multipolarity without justice is simply more poles for the same circus tent of empire.

Militarism as Addiction

The rulers of these states are addicts. Saudi royals are addicted to foreign arms to protect their gilded palaces. Pakistani generals are addicted to their status as defenders of the nation, which conveniently doubles as defenders of their own privileges. Indian rulers are addicted to the performance of strength, forever seeking new allies to shore up their domestic authoritarianism. And the United States — the great pusher in this global narcotics ring — keeps the supply flowing, even as new dealers like China and Russia muscle in on the territory.

Like any addict, these rulers will sacrifice everything for their next hit. Social welfare, public health, workers’ rights, democratic freedoms — all are thrown into the furnace of militarization. The result is grotesque: vast arsenals alongside starving populations, nuclear weapons alongside collapsing healthcare systems, lavish palaces alongside slums without electricity.

The Road Not Taken

But what if the response to Gaza, to U.S. decline, to global insecurity, were different? What if instead of diversifying arms suppliers, these states diversified solidarity? What if instead of building new military alliances, they built new social alliances — binding themselves not by contracts for weapons but by commitments to justice, healthcare, education, and peace?

This is not naïve idealism. It is the only realistic alternative to endless war. Imagine a Saudi Arabia that used its oil wealth not to import missiles but to fund schools from Sana’a to Gaza. Imagine a Pakistan whose generals traded their uniforms for civilian governance and poured their budget into clean water rather than nuclear arsenals. Imagine an India that measured its strength not in warships but in its ability to eradicate poverty. Such a vision is dismissed as utopian, yet the real utopia is the belief that more weapons will bring peace.

The Deadly Joke

The bitter humor of it all is that while rulers congratulate themselves on clever hedges and multipolar maneuvering, their people are not fooled. Everyone knows the new Saudi–Pakistan pact is not about protecting the average Saudi or Pakistani. Everyone knows India’s frantic balancing act is not about securing the average Indian family’s fuel supply. These are games played by elites whose primary fear is not invasion from abroad but uprising from below.

The rulers fear their own people more than they fear each other. That is why they cling to weapons, to alliances, to defense treaties written in the blood of innocents. Militarism is not a shield against foreign enemies; it is a cudgel against domestic democracy.

Conclusion: Not Another NATO

The lesson of NATO has been clear for decades: militarized alliances entrench hegemony, fuel wars, and serve ruling classes. The response to NATO’s decline should not be an “Eastern NATO” or a “NATO of the Global South.” It should be something radically different: cooperation without militarism, alliances without domination, relationships rooted in peace and social justice rather than guns and oil.

Gaza today is the most searing reminder of what militarism produces: rubble, corpses, trauma. For Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and India to respond to this moment with new defense pacts and strategic hedges is not just cynical; it is obscene. If they truly wish to break free from the West’s suffocating grip, they must do more than swap weapons dealers. They must reject militarism itself.

Until then, the princes, generals, and demagogues will keep cashing in — and their people, like Gaza today, will keep bleeding.

Prof. Junaid S. Ahmad teaches Law, Religion, and Global Politics and is the Director of the Center for the Study of Islam and Decolonization (CSID), Islamabad, Pakistan.

21 September 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Habib Siddiqui

In October 1973, Arab oil producers led by Saudi Arabia imposed an oil embargo on the United States and other nations backing Israel during the Yom Kippur War. That bold move triggered a global energy crisis and helped bring about a ceasefire. It was a rare moment of Arab assertiveness on the world stage.

Fast forward to today: Israel’s relentless bombardment of Gaza has killed more than 65,000 people—mostly women and children—according to humanitarian sources. A recent UN commission has even accused Israel of committing genocide. Yet, the Arab response has been largely symbolic. Statements of condemnation, calls for restraint, and summits filled with rhetoric have replaced meaningful action. The contrast with 1973 could not be starker.

Since that pivotal year, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries—Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Oman—have spent close to half a trillion dollars on Western weapons. According to estimates from the SIPRI Arms Transfers Database:

• Saudi Arabia: $150–200+ billion
• UAE: $50–80+ billion
• Qatar: $30–50+ billion
• Kuwait: $20–30+ billion
• Bahrain & Oman: $10–20+ billion (combined)

Yet, despite this massive investment, not a single GCC country has fired a weapon at Israel since 1973. The only direct military involvement by a Gulf state was a small Saudi contingent in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War—before the GCC even existed.

Meanwhile, Israel has not hesitated to strike targets in GCC countries. In September 2025, Israeli warplanes bombed a location in Doha, Qatar, targeting Hamas leaders and killing several Qatari citizens. This brazen act exposed the vulnerability of even the most well-armed Arab states and the hollowness of their strategic alliances.

So why do GCC countries continue to spend billions on weapons they never use against the region’s most aggressive actor? The answer lies in the geopolitical narrative shaped by Western powers. The USA and its allies have long portrayed Iran, Iraq, and other Shi’a-majority nations as the primary threats to Gulf stability. Western arms sales are marketed not just as tools of defense but as symbols of prestige and political alignment.

Citizens are rarely told that these contracts often include restrictions on how and where the weapons can be used—especially against Israel. Using Western-supplied arms against Israel would likely trigger sanctions, loss of military support, and diplomatic fallout. GCC leaders are reminded of Iran’s fate since the fall of the Shah in 1979—a cautionary tale of defiance punished by isolation.

Even more troubling is the lack of protection these alliances offer. The United States, which maintains military bases across the Gulf, did not warn Qatari leaders about the impending Israeli strike in Doha. The so-called safety net proved worthless. The U.S. response was muted, and no action was taken against Israel. The message was clear: when Israel attacks, even America’s closest Arab allies are left exposed.

President Joe Biden has openly called Israel a “God-send” for the United States. He once remarked that if Israel didn’t exist, America would have to invent it. President Donald Trump is even more unabashed in his support for Israel. His daughter Ivanka converted to Judaism, and his son-in-law Jared Kushner—a deeply connected Orthodox Jewish real estate mogul—played a central role in shaping Trump’s Middle East policy. Trump’s designation of Qatar as a Major Non-NATO Ally in 2022 did little to shield it from Israeli aggression. Qatari officials were informed of the airstrike only ten minutes after it occurred.

So what good are trillions of dollars in weapons if GCC countries won’t defend their own sovereignty, let alone protect Palestinians from Israeli aggression? Qatar didn’t retaliate. Instead, it convened a summit in Doha to discuss the attack.

The result? A familiar spectacle of unity and impotence.

Leaders from the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), joined by representatives from Indonesia to Senegal, gathered in Doha to express solidarity. The summit concluded with a strongly worded communique condemning Israel and reaffirming support for Qatar. But beyond the rhetoric, there were no sanctions, no diplomatic breaks, no economic pressure—just words.

It was a stark reminder that 0 + 0 + 0 + … + 0 still equals 0.

At the summit, Gulf leaders called on the United States to rein in Israel. Jasem Mohamed al-Budaiwi, Secretary General of the GCC, urged Washington to use its “leverage and influence” to stop Israeli aggression. But such appeals are increasingly disconnected from reality. Trump’s recent comment—“it’s up to Israel what it does in Gaza”—underscored the futility of expecting restraint from Washington.

Hours after the summit ended, Israeli forces launched a new ground offensive in Gaza City, undeterred by regional condemnation.

When will Arab leaders learn that they cannot rely on a fox to guard a henhouse? Appeasing and paying protection money to those who enable mass murder is not diplomacy—it’s complicity.

The Doha summit laid bare the limits of Arab diplomacy. Despite their oil wealth, modern infrastructure, and global investments, Gulf states have failed to convert economic power into political leverage. This impotence is not just a failure of strategy—it reflects a deeper structural weakness. Without the will or ability to challenge U.S. policy or impose costs on Israel, Arab states are left issuing statements that carry little weight.

As the humanitarian crisis in Gaza deepens and international outrage grows, the Arab world faces a moment of reckoning. Will it continue to rely on symbolic gestures and appeals to Western powers? Or will it rediscover the assertiveness it once wielded in 1973?

For now, the answer seems clear. The communique from Doha may have expressed solidarity—but it did nothing to stop the bombs from falling.

Habib Siddiqui is a peace and human rights activist.

21 September 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dr Marwan Asmar

The current Israeli military onslaught on Gaza is so fierce that hundreds of thousands of Palestinian have already left the downtrodden city. It is a ramshackle place that is once again becoming a ghost town of debris as once-plush residential towers are now beaten down by Israeli bombs with the stench of gun-powder and sick human flesh that lies hidden below the rubble.

Israel’s latest attempt to invade Gaza City started on 16 September, 2025 and since then it has been bombing the once-dazzling urban conurbation from the air, land, and sea, causing widespread destruction and significant civilian casualties, whilst creating yet another mad wave of displacement to the south of the Strip.

Figures of forced displacement are not precise but the city a, conglomerate of 1.3 million people, has been reduced by much less. The Israeli army likes to boost of its handiwork. After the first week of ariel bombardment, it said 40 percent of the population has left, and today it says that 450,000 people have gone. The Gaza Media Office puts the number at only 270,000.

Despite the Israeli leaflets dropped from the air telling people to leave Palestinian sources still say that around 900,000 are staying put. Many say they are not going anywhere because of the limited space down in the south, and the fact it costs $3000 dollars to get down there, something which they don’t have.

One put it bluntly and callously, accepting fate as it comes. “Since, we are going to die anyway through Israeli bombs, it’s better to die here,” he added. The acceptance of fate however may be related to the fact that some of the people may have moved up to 20 times since the war started on Gaza soon after 7 October, 2023.  

Last Thursday, World Health Organization (WHO) chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said that the Israeli assault, currently centred on Gaza City, is “driving new waves of displacement, forcing traumatised families into an ever-shrinking area unfit for human dignity”.

“The injured and people with disabilities cannot move to safety, which puts their lives in grave danger,” Tedros said. “We call for an immediate end to these inhumane conditions. “We call for an immediate end to these inhumane conditions. We call for a ceasefire.”

Case stories of thick swarves of displaced people speak of hellish conditions as they can be seen on the Al Rasheed Road connecting the north of the Gaza Strip to its southern side. If people can afford they can use transport but many, including whole families of men, women and children  are moving on foot, hungry, with no water and many collapsing on the road as some have been moving for hours on end. For night rest, they make do with resting their limbs, again with no food on the sides of the road.

The social media have been rife with stories about forcibly displaced Palestinians on the road. Many of them say they don’t know where they are going, although the end of the road is to Al Mowasi, an area to the southwest of Khan Younis and which the Israeli has designated as a “safe” place but which it keeps bombing from the air whenever it feels like it.

One elderly man called Abu Nader Siam, walks slowly holding a cane in his right hand with his wife, Zakia Siam, at his left.  He is exhausted as reported in the UN News.

“I come from the Tal al-Hawa neighborhood in Gaza City. They [Israelis] have left no house or neighbourhood except to bomb it,” he said. “The shelling continues, and they have dropped leaflets ordering us to evacuate. We walked for six hours because we couldn’t find a car or any transportation.”

Zakia Siam spoke about their non-stop journey after the shelling reduced their house to rubble. “We went to the Shujaiya neighbourhood, and then we were displaced to the Sha’af neighbourhood in Gaza City before it was bombed,” his wife said. 

“Afterwards, we went to the seashore west of Gaza City and my husband and I stayed there for two nights without a tent. We sat on the sidewalk next to the tents and hid next to one of them, then continued walking.”

Another civilian, Mrs. Um Shadi al-Ashkar, carried a bag of belongings as she headed for southern Gaza.  “There is death, shelling, bombing and destruction of houses (in Gaza City),” she said.

“Even if they had dropped leaflets, if there had been no shelling, no one would have left Gaza City, they would have stayed in their homes. But there is death and devastation.”

The fight for Gaza city is in full-swing. The Israeli army knows what its up against, adding it could take months, or even up to a year to completely take over the city from Palestinian resistance groups. Meanwhile, they know the city is a Hamas stronghold which they can’t railroad through their tanks. That is why for the time being they put the ground invasion on hold and bombing the city from the air and sea.

Dr Marwan Asmar is a writer from Amman, Jordan and blogs at crossfirearabia.com

21 September 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Quds News Network

Gaza (QNN)- The last remaining lifelines for civilians in Gaza City, including shelters and aid crossings, are collapsing as Israel intensifies its assault, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) has warned, amid plans to occupy the city and forcibly displace more than one million residents.

In five days, 11 UNRWA shelters housing 11,000 people were hit by Israel, OCHA said. More than one million people have been displaced since Israel broke the March ceasefire, including 200,000 in the last month and 56,000 since Sunday alone, OCHA added.

Aid agencies are delivering wheat flour, food parcels, and nearly 560,000 meals daily, but OCHA confirmed that Israel of “systematically blocking” efforts, citing Israel’s closure of the Zikim crossing in northen Gaza and bans on certain food items.

“Opportunities to support starving people are being systematically blocked. Every week, new restrictions are imposed,” the agency said.

The World Health Organization (WHO) also warned that Gaza’s hospitals are on the “brink of collapse”.

On Thursday, WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said that the Israeli assault, currently centred on Gaza City, is “driving new waves of displacement, forcing traumatised families into an ever-shrinking area unfit for human dignity”.

“The injured and people with disabilities cannot move to safety, which puts their lives in grave danger,” Tedros said. “We call for an immediate end to these inhumane conditions. We call for a ceasefire.”

According to reports, only two hospitals in the enclave’s largest city, al-Shifa and al-Ahli, remain partially functional.

What Is Happening in Gaza City?

Hundreds of Palestinians are being forcibly displaced each day by Israel’s ongoing, indiscriminate bombing of Gaza City, which is killing dozens of civilians daily.

Families are fleeing south, following Israeli threats to head to the so-called ‘safe zone’ of al-Mawasi, an area that is overcrowded and has been repeatedly targeted by Israeli forces.

According to local sources on the ground, Gaza City is being systematically emptied, building by building, family by family.

Sources added that Israeli forces have intensified their attacks on Gaza City, destroying dozens of residential buildings and shelters.

Gaza’s Government Media Office said on Sunday Israel has carried out “systematic bombing of towers, residential buildings, schools and civilian institutions with the aim of extermination and forced displacement” as its offensive on Gaza City continues.

“While it claims to be targeting the resistance, the field realities prove beyond doubt that the occupation deliberately and according to a clear methodology bombs schools, mosques, hospitals and medical centres, destroys towers and residential buildings, destroys displaced persons’ tents, and targets the headquarters of various institutions including international institutions working in the humanitarian field,” it said in a statement.

Civil Defense spokesperson Mahmoud Basal said, “What is falling on Gaza is not just missiles, but barrels of fire and destructive volcanic lava that burn the land and everything on it.”

This comes amid Israeli plans to occupy Gaza City and ethnically cleansing the northern city of its residents by forcibly displacing them.

Heavy bombardment pounded the city, and forces began moving in from the outskirts after weeks of deadly strikes.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed the launch of “a powerful operation in Gaza” that began on Tuesday, dubbed Gideon’s Chariots 2.

The deadly assault on Gaza City was met with celebration in Israel, as Defense Minister Israel Katz said that “Gaza [City] is burning.”

The offensive began the same day that independent experts commissioned by the United Nations Human Rights Council confirmed that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.

“Cataclysmic”

The United Nations said the offensive has forced hundreds of Palestinians south, deepening an already catastrophic humanitarian crisis.

Olga Cherevko, spokesperson for the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, said that conditions are “nothing short of cataclysmic”.

“There is a constant stream of people making their way from the north, with many walking the 22km [14 miles] to the al-Mawasi ‘humanitarian zone’ – as labelled by Israel – on foot,” she said.

“The hygiene conditions are so dire that, of course, they lead to a massive spread of diseases, skin rashes and all sorts of public health crises.”

Rooted to Their Land

Despite repeated Israeli forced displacement threats and relentless bombardment, Gaza’s Government Media Office confirmed on Tuesday that more than one million Palestinians in the north of the enclave remain “rooted” to their land.

The Office said out of 1.3 million people in Gaza City and towns to its north, about 190,000 have fled to the south while 15,000 returned to the north due to the dire conditions in the areas that the Israeli military had designated as “safe zones”.

The local authorities noted that Israel has been regularly attacking Rafah and al-Mawasi near Khan Younis, where it told people to flee.

“These areas completely lack the basic necessities of life, with no hospitals, no infrastructure, and no essential services such as water, food, shelter, electricity or education, making living there almost impossible,” the Office said in a statement.

This area amounts to no more than 12 percent of the total area of the Gaza Strip, it added, noting Israeli occupation is “trying to forcibly confine over 1.7 million people within this limited space, as part of a broader plan to establish what are effectively ‘concentration camps.’”

“This is part of a systematic policy of forced displacement aimed at emptying northern Gaza and Gaza City of their residents, a clear war crime and a crime against humanity, in blatant violation of international law and international humanitarian law.”

19 September 2025

Source: countercurrents.org