Archives: Articles

By MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY

Millions of Catholics are mourning the passing of Pope Francis I.

After having courageously pronounced his last words Buona Pasqua (Happy Easter) on Easter Sunday, he blessed the crowd of thousands of people from his balcony.

A powerful message was read on his behalf:

“There can be no peace without freedom of religion,

freedom of thought,

freedom of expression and respect for the views of others.”

From the inception of his Vatican mandate in March 2013, Pope Francis I has been portrayed by the international community as a left-leaning champion of “Liberation Theology” committed to world peace and global poverty alleviation.

But there is “more than meets the eye.”

Prior to his election by the papal conclave, the role of Jorge Mario Bergoglio in Argentina’s “Dirty War” was known and documented.

It was known to the US State Department. It must have been known to one or more of the 115 “Cardinal Electors” of the Papal Conclave which convened at the Sistine Chapel on March 12, 2013.

Needless to say, both the Catholic Hierarchy as well as the international community turned a blind eye.

And the media with some exceptions has over the years remained silent.

Who was Jorge Mario Bergoglio before he became Pope?

Jorge Mario Bergoglio not only supported the military dictatorship, he also played a direct and complicit role in the “Dirty War” (la guerra sucia”) in liaison with the military junta headed by General Jorge Videla, leading to the arrest, imprisonment, torture and disappearance of progressive Catholic priests and laymen who were opposed to Argentina’s military rule.

“While the two priests Francisco Jalics y Orlando Yorio, kidnapped by the death squads in May 1976 were released five months later, after having been tortured, six other people associated within their parish kidnapped as part of the same operation were “disappeared” (desaparecidos).”

In a bitter irony, the two priests sent to the torture chamber were committed to the Theology of Liberation against which Bergoglio at the time was firmly opposed.

Lest we forget, shortly after his investiture in March 2013, Pope Francis was described by the British media of having brought “Liberation Theology into the Vatican”, in the footsteps of Francis of Assisi.

That was a nonsensical statement (“fake news”): In 1976, Bergoglio’s intent (in liaison with the military junta led by General Jorge Videla) was to crush Liberation Theology.

In 2005, human rights lawyer Myriam Bregman filed a criminal suit against Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, accusing him of conspiring with the military junta in the 1976 kidnapping of two Jesuit priests.

Several years later, the survivors of the “Dirty War” openly accused Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio of complicity in the kidnapping of priests Francisco Jalics y Orlando Yorio as well six members of their parish (who were “disappeared”), (El Mundo, 8 November 2010)

All this was known prior to his investiture. Why was it not revealed to the broader public? Catholics around the world are totally unaware of “who Pope Francis I was”, Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

The following article was first written in March 2013 following the election of Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio as Pope Francis I by the Vatican conclave.

—Michel Chossudovsky, April 21, 2025

Pope Francis and the Dirty War

Global Research TV (GRTV) Michel Chossudovsky and James Corbett

Pope Francis and the Dirty War – Michel Chossudovsky on GRTV

“Washington’s Pope”? Who Is Pope Francis? Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Argentina’s “Dirty War”

By Michel Chossudovsky, March 14, 2013

Author’s Note: The following article was published two days after the announcement of the decision of the Papal Conclave convened at the Sistine Chapel on March 12, 2013.

I lived through the first months of Argentina’s military government.

Much of my research goes back to March-June 1976, during my stay in Argentina as Visiting Professor at the Universidad Nacional de Cordoba.

Three years earlier, I lived through the Chilean military coup of September 11, 1973.

Apart from minor corrections, no changes were made to this article. The Appendix on declassified documents was added.

Who Is Jorge Mario Bergoglio?

In 1973, he had been appointed “Provincial” of Argentina for the Society of Jesus.

In this capacity, Bergoglio was the highest ranking Jesuit in Argentina during the military dictatorship led by General Jorge Videla (1976-1983).

He later became bishop and archbishop of Buenos Aires. Pope John Paul II elevated him to the title of cardinal in 2001.

When the military junta relinquished power in 1983, the duly elected president Raúl Alfonsín set up a Truth Commission pertaining to the crimes underlying the “Dirty War” (La Guerra Sucia).

The military junta had been supported covertly by Washington.

U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger played a behind the scenes role in the 1976 military coup.

Kissinger’s top deputy on Latin America, William Rogers, told him two days after the coup that “we’ve got to expect a fair amount of repression, probably a good deal of blood, in Argentina before too long.” … (National Security Archive, March 23, 2006)

“Operation Condor”

Ironically, a major trial opened up in Buenos Aires on March 5, 2013 a week prior to Cardinal Bergoglio’s investiture as Pontiff. The ongoing trial in Buenos Aires is:

“to consider the totality of crimes carried out under Operation Condor, a coordinated campaign by various US-backed Latin American dictatorships in the 1970s and 1980s to hunt down, torture and murder tens of thousands of opponents of those regimes.”

For further details, see Operation Condor: Trial On Latin American Rendition And Assassination Program by Carlos Osorio and Peter Kornbluh, March 10, 2013.

The military junta led by General Jorge Videla (right) was responsible for countless assassinations, including priests and nuns who opposed military rule following the CIA-sponsored March 24, 1976 coup which overthrew the government of Isabel Peron:

“Videla was among the generals convicted of human rights crimes, including “disappearances”, torture, murders and kidnappings. In 1985, Videla was sentenced to life imprisonment at the military prison of Magdalena.”

Wall Street and the Neoliberal Economic Agenda

One of the key appointments of the military junta (on the instructions of Wall Street) was the Minister of Economy, Jose Alfredo Martinez de Hoz, a member of Argentina’s business establishment and a close friend of David Rockefeller.

The neoliberal macro-economic policy package adopted under Martinez de Hoz was a “carbon copy” of that imposed in October 1973 in Chile by the Pinochet dictatorship under advice from the “Chicago Boys”, following the September 11, 1973 coup d’Etat and the assassination of president Salvador Allende.

Wages were immediately frozen by decree. Real purchasing power collapsed by more than 30 percent in the 3 months following the March 24, 1976 military coup. (Author’s estimates, Cordoba, Argentina, July 1976).

The Argentinean population was impoverished.

Henry Kissinger, not to mention the late David Rockefeller, had meetings with the Junta. Under the helm of Minister of Economy Jose Alfredo Martinez de Hoz, central bank monetary policy was largely determined by Wall Street and the IMF.

The currency market was manipulated. The Peso was deliberately overvalued leading to an insurmountable external debt. The entire national economy was precipitated into bankruptcy.

Wall Street and the Catholic Church Hierarchy

Wall Street was firmly behind the military junta which waged “The Dirty War” on its behalf. In turn, the Catholic Church hierarchy played a central role in sustaining the legitimacy of the military junta.

The Order of Jesus –which represented the Conservative yet most influential faction within the Catholic Church, closely associated with Argentina’s economic elites– was firmly behind the military junta, against so-called “Leftists” in the Peronista movement.

“The Dirty War”: Allegations Directed Against Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio

Condemning the military dictatorship (including its human rights violations) was a taboo within the Catholic Church. While the upper echelons of the Church were supportive of the military junta, the grassroots of the Church was firmly opposed to the imposition of military rule.

In 2005, human rights lawyer Myriam Bregman filed a criminal suit against Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, accusing him of conspiring with the military junta in the 1976 kidnapping of two Jesuit priests.

Several years later, the survivors of the “Dirty War” openly accused Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio of complicity in the kidnapping of priests Francisco Jalics y Orlando Yorio as well six members of their parish, (El Mundo, 8 November 2010).

Bergoglio, who at the time was “Provincial” for the Society of Jesus, had ordered the two “Leftist” Jesuit priests and opponents of military rule “to leave their pastoral work” (i.e. they were fired) following divisions within the Society of Jesus regarding the role of the Catholic Church and its relations to the military junta.

While the two priests Francisco Jalics y Orlando Yorio, kidnapped by the death squads in May 1976, were released five months later after having been tortured, six other people associated with their parish kidnapped as part of the same operation were “disappeared” (desaparecidos). These included four teachers associated with the parish and two of their husbands.

Upon his release, Priest Orlando Yorio “accused Bergoglio of effectively handing them over [including six other people] to the death squads … Jalics refused to discuss the complaint after moving into seclusion in a German monastery.” (Associated Press, March 13, 2013, emphasis added),

“During the first trial of leaders of the military junta in 1985, Yorio declared, “I am sure that he himself gave over the list with our names to the Navy.” The two were taken to the notorious Navy School of Mechanics (ESMA) torture center and held for over five months before being drugged and dumped in a town outside the city. (See Bill van Auken, “The Dirty War” Pope, World Socialist Website and Global Research, March 14, 2013

Among those “disappeared” by the death squads were Mónica Candelaria Mignone and María Marta Vázquez Ocampo, respectively daughter of the founder of of the CELS (Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales) Emilio Mignone and daughter of the president of Madres de Plaza de Mayo, Martha Ocampo de Vázquez. (El Periodista Online, March 2013)

María Marta Vásquez, her husband César Lugones (see picture above) and Mónica Candelaria Mignone allegedly “handed over to the death squads” by Jesuit “Provincial” Jorge Mario Bergoglio are among the thousands of “desaparecidos” (disappeared) of Argentina’s “Dirty War”, which was supported covertly by Washington under “Operation Condor.” (See memorialmagro.com.ar)

In the course of the trial initiated in 2005:

“Bergoglio [Pope Francis I] twice invoked his right under Argentine law to refuse to appear in open court, and when he eventually did testify in 2010, his answers were evasive”: “At least two cases directly involved Bergoglio. One examined the torture of two of his Jesuit priests — Orlando Yorio and Francisco Jalics — who were kidnapped in 1976 from the slums where they advocated liberation theology.

Yorio accused Bergoglio of effectively handing them over to the death squads... by declining to tell the regime that he endorsed their work. Jalics refused to discuss it after moving into seclusion in a German monastery.” (Los Angeles Times, April 1, 2005 emphasis added)

The Secret Memorandum

The military government acknowledged in a Secret Memo (see below) that Father Bergoglio had accused the two priests of having established contacts with the guerilleros, and for having disobeyed the orders of the Church hierarchy (Conflictos de obedecencia). It also stated that the Jesuit order had demanded the dissolution of their group and that they had refused to abide by Bergoglio’s instructions.

The document acknowledges that the “arrest” of the two priests, who were taken to the torture and detention center at the Naval School of Mechanics, ESMA, was based on information transmitted by Father Bergoglio to the military authorities. (signed by Mr. Orcoyen) (see below).

While a former member of the priests group had joined the insurgency, there was no evidence of the priests having contacts with the guerrilla movement.

“Holy Communion for the Dictators”

The accusations directed against Bergoglio regarding the two kidnapped Jesuit priests and six members of their parish are but the tip of the iceberg. While Bergoglio was an important figure in the Catholic Church, he was certainly not alone in supporting the military junta.

According to lawyer Myriam Bregman:

“Bergoglio’s own statements proved church officials knew from early on that the junta was torturing and killing its citizens”, and yet publicly endorsed the dictators. “The dictatorship could not have operated this way without this key support,” (Los Angeles Times, April 1, 2005 emphasis added)

The entire Catholic hierarchy was behind the US-sponsored military dictatorship. It is worth recalling that on March 23, 1976, on the eve of the military coup:

“Videla and other plotters received the blessing of the Archbishop of Paraná, Adolfo Tortolo, who also served as vicar of the armed forces. The day of the takeover itself, the military leaders had a lengthy meeting with the leaders of the bishop’s conference. As he emerged from that meeting, Archbishop Tortolo stated that although “the church has its own specific mission . . . there are circumstances in which it cannot refrain from participating even when it is a matter of problems related to the specific order of the state.” He urged Argentinians to “cooperate in a positive way” with the new government.” (The Humanist.org, January 2011, emphasis added)

In an interview conducted with El Sur, General Jorge Videla, who is now [passed away in May 2013] serving a life sentence for crimes against humanity confirmed that:

“He kept the country’s Catholic hierarchy informed about his regime’s policy of “disappearing” political opponents, and thatCatholic leaders offered advice on how to “manage” the policy.

Jorge Videla said he had “many conversations” with Argentina’s primate, Cardinal Raúl Francisco Primatesta, about his regime’s dirty war against left-wing activists. He said there were also conversations with other leading bishops from Argentina’s episcopal conference as well as with the country’s papal nuncio at the time, Pio Laghi.

“They advised us about the manner in which to deal with the situation,” said Videla” (Tom Henningan, Former Argentinian dictator says he told Catholic Church of disappeared, Irish Times, July 24, 2012, emphasis added)

It is worth noting that according to a 1976 statement by Archbishop Adolfo Tortolo, the military would always consult with a member of the Catholic hierarchy in the case of the “arrest” of a grassroots member of the clergy. This statement was made specifically in relation to the two kidnapped Jesuit priests, whose pastoral activities were under the authority of Society of Jesus “provincial” Jorge Mario Bergoglio. (El Periodista Online, March 2013)

In endorsing the military junta, the Catholic hierarchy was complicit in torture and mass killings, an estimated “22,000 dead and disappeared, from 1976 to 1978 … Thousands of additional victims were killed between 1978 and 1983 when the military was forced from power.” (National Security Archive, March 23, 2006)

The Role of the Vatican

The Vatican under Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II played a central role in supporting the Argentinian military junta.

Pio Laghi, the Vatican’s apostolic nuncio to Argentina, admitted “turning a blind eye” to the torture and massacres.

Laghi had personal ties to members of the ruling military junta including General Jorge Videla and Admiral Emilio Eduardo Massera.

Admiral Emilio Massera, in close liaison with his US handlers, was the mastermind of “La Guerra Sucia” (The Dirty War). Under the auspices of the military regime, he established:

“an interrogation and torture centre in the Naval School of Mechanics, ESMA [close to Buenos Aires], … It was a sophisticated, multi-purpose establishment, vital in the military plan to assassinate an estimated 30,000 “enemies of the state”. … Many thousands of ESMA’s inmates, including, for instance, two French nuns, were routinely tortured mercilessly before being killed or dropped from aircraft into the River Plata.

Massera, the most forceful member of the triumvirate, did his best to maintain his links with Washington. He assisted in the development of Plan Cóndor, a collaborative scheme to co-ordinate the terrorism being practised by South American military régimes. (Hugh O’Shaughnessy, Admiral Emilio Massera: Naval officer who took part in the 1976 coup in Argentina and was later jailed for his part in the junta’s crimes, The Independent, November 10, 2010, emphasis added)

Reports confirm that the Vatican’s representative Pio Laghi and Admiral Emilio Massera were friends.

The Catholc Chiurch: Chile versus Argentina

By Junaid S. Ahmad

Across campuses, mosques, and social platforms, a new generation is asking dangerous questions: Why must our foreign policy serve imperial interests? Why is our media allergic to speaking the truth about the occupation?

The generals in Islamabad—ever resplendent in starched uniforms and an exaggerated sense of self-importance—are once again casting furtive glances toward Tel Aviv. Their ambition? To inch closer to the sanctum of global approval, to gain access to the corridors of Zionist power and, perhaps, to be recognized as respectable players in an increasingly transactional world order. For a cadre so obsessed with “strategic depth,” their diplomatic trajectory often resembles not strategy but supplication.

This is not merely a matter of curiosity or engagement. It reflects a deeper pathology: a blend of opportunism, insecurity, and postcolonial mimicry that has long defined Pakistan’s military and bureaucratic elites. The push for normalization with Israel is not grounded in democratic deliberation or national interest. It is a top-down enterprise, cultivated in air-conditioned conference halls, Western think tank circuits, and discreet backchannel rendezvous in Gulf capitals—worlds apart from the lived experiences and moral sentiments of ordinary Pakistanis.

This infatuation isn’t new. It reached farcical proportions during 2019–2020, when parts of the Pakistani media—habitually lethargic in covering domestic injustice, poverty, or state repression—suddenly became animated in their praise of Israeli technology, agriculture, and “shared democratic values.” It felt as if some invisible editorial hand had descended from Mount Herzliya. The usual suspects—retired military officers, neoliberal commentators, and urbane NGO functionaries—rallied to declare normalization not only desirable but inevitable.

In the background, the Abraham Accords were being carefully choreographed by Washington and Tel Aviv, hailed as diplomatic breakthroughs while Arab autocracies were nudged, coaxed, or compelled into smiling photo ops. Yet the crown jewel—the real geostrategic trophy—was always Pakistan: nuclear-armed, Muslim-majority, and governed by elites perpetually craving Western validation.

Into this mix entered Pakistan’s national security establishment with its preferred toolkit: coercion, manipulation, and an increasingly liberal-friendly vocabulary. Selling normalization to a deeply pro-Palestinian public required more than realpolitik. It required a narrative facelift. Enter the urban liberal intelligentsia—those fluent in the language of global capital and moral relativism—tasked with rebranding capitulation as “pragmatism.” Dissent was recast not as a principled position, but as retrograde, anti-Semitic, or hostile to globalization.

This was more than disingenuous—it was insulting to public memory.

Because the Pakistani people had not forgotten. They had not forgotten Gaza, Jenin, or Sheikh Jarrah. They remembered the children buried under rubble, the olive groves torched by settlers, and the suffocating siege that has strangled Palestinian life for decades. No amount of cyber-startups or desalination plants can whitewash the realities of apartheid and occupation.

So when the state attempted to rebrand normalization as a path to modernity, the public called their bluff.

And, to the dismay of Rawalpindi’s brass, Prime Minister Imran Khan refused to play along. Despite being ushered into power with the quiet blessing of the military, Khan demonstrated rare autonomy on the question of Israel. He repeatedly and unequivocally rejected normalization, citing the occupation of Palestinian territories and the moral imperative to support the oppressed.

Khan may not have articulated a comprehensive critique of Zionism or Western imperial structures, but he recognized a red line when he saw one. Under his administration, Pakistan upheld a principled stance: there would be no recognition of Israel so long as Palestinians remained besieged and stateless. In an age of transactional diplomacy, such a position was not only rare—it was radical.

Unsurprisingly, it unsettled more than just Islamabad’s elite. It likely irked Washington, Tel Aviv, Riyadh, and Abu Dhabi—actors with whom Pakistan’s military leadership had been quietly exploring “realignment” and “shared interests.”

What followed bore the hallmarks of a political takedown. Khan was ousted, arrested, and prosecuted in a series of trials that many observers—domestic and international—have likened to kangaroo proceedings. He now languishes in a high-security prison, a facility usually reserved for violent offenders. The official narrative attributes his downfall to legal violations and political unrest. But to anyone reading between the lines, the specter of international pressure—especially from the Zionist-Western axis—is difficult to ignore.

Of course, this wasn’t the military’s first betrayal of the Palestinian cause. That dubious honor belongs to General Zia-ul-Haq, who in 1970 participated in the suppression of the Palestinian resistance during Black September in Jordan. Thousands were killed as Zia, then a relatively obscure officer, assisted the Hashemite monarchy in crushing the PLO. The man who later wrapped himself in the cloak of Islamization was once complicit in the massacre of fellow Muslims—at the behest of Arab autocrats.

That episode was not an anomaly; it was a precedent. Pakistan’s military elite long ago made a Faustian bargain: serve the interests of Gulf monarchs and Western patrons in exchange for dollars, prestige, and insulation from domestic accountability. In that calculus, Palestinian suffering has remained expendable.

Fast forward to the most recent Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) summit on Gaza. One might expect that, in the face of a live-streamed genocide, Pakistan would assert a position of moral clarity. Instead, Islamabad’s delegation treated the summit as if it were a technical seminar. Their standout achievement? Quietly lobbying to remove clauses that would have held Israeli officials accountable for war crimes. A low point, even by the standards of Pakistani diplomacy.

Israel took notice. Media reports from Tel Aviv celebrated Pakistan’s behind-the-scenes efforts. In a room filled with transactional politics, Islamabad appeared determined to outdo them all in moral equivocation.

Meanwhile, the Pakistani public was staging vigils, organizing fundraisers, and marching in solidarity with Palestine. From the streets of Karachi to the hills of Khyber, moral clarity was not only alive—it was surging. And from his prison cell, Imran Khan released a statement through his sister, calling on Muslim-majority nations—especially Pakistan and Turkey—to form protection forces for Gaza and the West Bank. He even proposed a no-fly zone over Gaza, echoing norms of international humanitarian law that the so-called “international community” rarely enforces.

This was not an isolated remark. Khan had made similar appeals before, but this time it resonated more deeply. Why? Because it aligned with a rising public sentiment: that the Pakistani military—rather than suppressing journalists, student unions, and political activists—might one day consider defending actual victims of oppression.

This divergence has now crystallized into a deeper national contradiction.

On one side stand the military, feudal elites, and their liberal apologists—those who see appeasing Tel Aviv and Washington as a strategic imperative. Their pundits dress up normalization in economic and modernist vocabulary, even as Israeli bombs level hospitals. Their intellectuals preach caution, even as children are buried under rubble.

On the other side stand the people: a population that, despite relentless propaganda, remains morally grounded. They reject apartheid. They oppose genocide. And increasingly, they demand action—not just symbolic gestures, but meaningful resistance.

Calls for a volunteer army to defend Palestine may sound utopian to some, but they reflect a growing disillusionment with Pakistan’s security establishment. The question is no longer why the military is silent on Gaza. It’s why it continues to serve everything but the public will—whether in foreign policy or at home.

Because this is not just about Palestine. It is about the soul of Pakistan’s foreign policy. Will it remain scripted in Western capitals and proofread in Tel Aviv? Or will it finally reflect the ethical compass of its own people?

The values at stake—justice, solidarity, dignity, resistance—are not abstract. They were part of Pakistan’s founding narrative, however inconsistently upheld. And for much of the public, they remain non-negotiable.

History will judge. And when it does, it will not be kind to those who stood idle—or complicit—as a genocide unfolded. The military may still dominate the national narrative, but narratives are slippery things. They seep through cracks, they circulate digitally, and they gather force.

Across campuses, mosques, and social platforms, a new generation is asking dangerous questions: Why must our foreign policy serve imperial interests? Why is our media allergic to speaking the truth about the occupation? And why does our military continue to protect elite privilege while the world burns?

The answers are uncomfortable. But they are necessary.

So let the generals continue their overtures to Zionist power. Let the elite dream of tech partnerships and direct flights to Ben-Gurion. But they should know this: the public is not with them. The people are watching. They are remembering. And they are no longer silent.

If that reality unsettles Rawalpindi, so be it. Accountability begins with discomfort. And Pakistan, at long last, may be inching toward both.

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, May 2025, pp. 62-63, 69

Special Report

By Dr. Swee Chai Ang

IN TWO YEARS, I will have spent half a century working as a surgeon for the National Health Service, following my arrival in the United Kingdom as a tiny woman refugee from South-East Asia. I’ve spent nearly as much time, forty-three years, as a doctor with the Palestinians, and they are still undergoing genocide and threatened with ethnic cleansing. In 1982, I returned from my first medical mission to Lebanon and co-founded Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP). I have not looked back since. Helping Palestinians and the British public has defined my career, but it was not an obvious path from my childhood.

I grew up supporting Israel, not knowing that the Palestinian people even existed; they were simply labelled as terrorists. This all changed when I volunteered as a surgeon to the wounded in Lebanon in 1982 with Christian Aid. I was seconded to work in Gaza Hospital in Shatila, a Palestinian refugee camp in Beirut, adjacent to the Sabra neighborhood, during the ceasefire in August.

I spoke to my patients and their loved ones and learned of the ethnic cleansing of 50 percent of the indigenous Palestinians—750,000 persons in 1948. Until then, I had never heard of their Nakba, the catastrophe, during which 78 percent of historic Palestine became Israel and the indigenous population was forced to flee at gunpoint. I share the year of my birth with the Nakba, an entire lifetime without justice for Palestinian refugees.

Many of the ethnically cleansed Palestinians had fled to Shatila refugee camp, one of 12 in Lebanon, during the Nakba. When I met them, they had already been living as refugees for 34 years. In all that time, a third of a century, they had never been allowed to return to their homeland, even though they had a right to do so under international law.

In these camps, entire lives have been lived. They live as refugees, give birth to refugees and many die there as refugees. This third stage became crystal clear in September 1982, a month after I began volunteering there, when thousands of Palestinians were murdered in cold blood in the Sabra and Shatila massacre in a mere three days. I witnessed and survived that massacre with them.

I left Lebanon in November 1982 to give evidence to the Israeli Commission of Inquiry into the role of the Israeli army in Lebanon. I had gone to Lebanon as a surgeon to help patients, as any doctor would, but having seen what I’d seen, I could not stay silent about the sheer inhumanity and brutality of the killing by a pro-Israeli Lebanese Christian militia working under the control of the Israeli army. My eyes were opened in 1982, and everything I have lived through in the subsequent 43 years has only confirmed that realization.

On my return to the UK, I co-founded MAP, which celebrated its 40th anniversary last year. Since then, I have led many medical missions to Lebanon and Gaza. It is telling that MAP even needs to exist. How many other people across the world need a dedicated medical aid organization at all, let alone one that needs to keep running, decade after decade?

The latest onslaught on Gaza, described by the International Court of Justice as a “plausible” genocide, is just one of countless assaults on the Palestinian people. Exile, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, plausible genocide—these are the practices that stick with me, as it would stick with anyone who had spent decades returning over and over to the camps instead of simply hearing regurgitated and misleading narratives peddled in the media.

On exile and ethnic cleansing—seven million Palestinians live in wretched conditions in the 58 UNRWA Palestinian refugee camps scattered all over the Middle East, created in 1949 under the directive of the U.N. Security Council to mitigate the extreme suffering of the refugees of the Nakba. They have not been allowed to exercise their right of return to their homeland. In fact, 70 percent of those in Gaza are refugees from other parts of Palestine.

Since Oct. 8, 2023, Palestinians in Gaza have been ruthlessly murdered by relentless bombings. They were ordered to flee their homes and found themselves in makeshift tents, in the same way that their parents and grandparents were. They were displaced multiple times and bombed even as they fled, as were their homes, leaving them nothing to return to. Food, water, fuel and medicine were blockaded, acts that were described by Western leaders as Israel’s right of self-defense.

By Feb. 3, 2025—sixteen months into the genocide—more than 61,709 Gaza civilians were already confirmed killed. The true figures are much higher when factoring in indirect deaths and people buried beneath the rubble. Children were frozen to death in tents, infectious diseases became rampant, including polio, due to lack of sanitation; 35 out of 36 hospitals have been attacked; 2.1 million persons displaced; 35,055 children made orphans; 1,367 entire families removed from the civil registry; 1,047 health workers killed. The list goes on.

The world watched, breathless, when a fragile ceasefire was reached on Jan. 19, 2025. I watched with tears as half a million Gazans forcefully displaced to southern Gaza left their tents and walked back toward their homes demolished by bombs in northern Gaza. The roads were bulldozed and covered with rubble and debris. And yet, they had survived against the odds, after 15 months of drone attacks, large bombs, starvation and diseases, and they were determined to return to reclaim northern Gaza and to rebuild their lives.

For a short period, President Donald Trump was seen as the “hero” who forced a ceasefire, stopped the bombs and gave hope to the people whose lives were completely shattered. The genocide had stopped. Food trucks were allowed into northern Gaza.

Not quite yet.

Trump swiftly announced his ethnic cleansing plans to send 2 million Gazans into Egypt and Jordan to build the “Gaza Riviera.” This plan may lack shame in its explicitness, but it is by no means novel in its goal to dispossess Palestinians from their land. This has been ongoing since 1948.

And then there is apartheid. Once a word that was hotly contested, but after a slew of reports from basically every major human rights organization, it is now no longer questioned. Now that Israel has escalated its West Bank aggressions in its Operation Iron Wall, the reality of apartheid across the occupied Palestinian territory is once again in the spotlight.

Would refusal to be ethnically cleansed justify the resumption of genocide? What is there to say? Desperate Israeli apologists cling to whatever they can. Ignoring the International Court of Justice’s provisional measures, they point to the word “plausible,” as though this negates the following word: “genocide.” But that sort of spin doesn’t work on doctors like me who have journeyed for years with the Palestinians—it doesn’t matter how misleading media coverage is, there’s no way to spin the condition we’ve seen our patients in, the same wounds now as the ones I first saw in 1982.

And then there is the scale of destruction. All means for human life and survival have been destroyed: hospitals, schools, solar panels, water tanks, farms, orchards, factories as well as homes, all destroyed. And the cessation of bombs does not mean the cessation of aid blockades. Even now, Israel’s restriction of aid is still causing man-made famine, which not only kills by starvation, but also brings diseases to the emaciated bodies of starving Palestinians. All this makes genocidal apologism simply pathetic.

But despite all this, there is an unbreakable spirit. I saw it in Shatila in 1982 when destitute, homeless orphans defiantly raised their hands to make the victory sign in the face of death, and I see it now in Gaza and their friends.

Last year, I was in Lebanon operating on patients who were blown up by Israel’s pager attacks there. Several thousand civilians were injured when their pagers exploded. Their hands were mutilated; one or both eyes blown out; some had multiple shrapnel wounds across their torsos. Some had nasty brain and facial injuries. But despite the similarity of all these cases, one conversation stood out.

I told a patient with a mutilated hand how I felt sad for him. He replied: “Please do not feel sad doctor, I have no regrets suffering these injuries. This is the price I pay for standing with humanity and justice in Gaza.”

Almost 43 painful years have passed since the Sabra and Shatila massacre. But the spirit I saw then had been alive despite that horrific massacre, and it is still alive now. Despite everything, it lives on. The demolition site which Gaza is today will be rebuilt, olive trees replanted, and the laughter of children will be heard once more. A 77-year-old Gazan farmer was arrested and tortured for more than 40 days, his entire farm was demolished, and his animals killed. He has already started to clear the rubble, to replant 2,500 olive trees. The trees will outlive him and be there for his children and for Palestine—forever.

5 March 2025

Source: wrmea.org

As leaders of America’s colleges, universities, and scholarly societies, we speak with one voice against the unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education. We are open to constructive reform and do not oppose legitimate government oversight. However, we must oppose undue government intrusion in the lives of those who learn, live, and work on our campuses. We will always seek effective and fair financial practices, but we must reject the coercive use of public research funding.

America’s system of higher learning is as varied as the goals and dreams of the students it serves. It includes research universities and community colleges; comprehensive universities and liberal arts colleges; public institutions and private ones; freestanding and multi-site campuses. Some institutions are designed for all students, and others are dedicated to serving particular groups. Yet, American institutions of higher learning have in common the essential freedom to determine, on academic grounds, whom to admit and what is taught, how, and by whom. Our colleges and universities share a commitment to serve as centers of open inquiry where, in their pursuit of truth, faculty, students, and staff are free to exchange ideas and opinions across a full range of viewpoints without fear of retribution, censorship, or deportation.

Because of these freedoms, American institutions of higher learning are essential to American prosperity and serve as productive partners with government in promoting the common good. Colleges and universities are engines of opportunity and mobility, anchor institutions that contribute to economic and cultural vitality regionally and in our local communities. They foster creativity and innovation, provide human resources to meet the fast-changing demands of our dynamic workforce, and are themselves major employers. They nurture the scholarly pursuits that ensure America’s leadership in research, and many provide healthcare and other essential services. Most fundamentally, America’s colleges and universities prepare an educated citizenry to sustain our democracy.

The price of abridging the defining freedoms of American higher education will be paid by our students and our society. On behalf of our current and future students, and all who work at and benefit from our institutions, we call for constructive engagement that improves our institutions and serves our republic.

Signed,

• Andrés Acebo, Interim President, New Jersey City University
• Kenneth Adams, President, LaGuardia Community College
• Kimo Ah Yun, President, Marquette University
• Jonathan Alger, President, American University
• Barbara K. Altmann, President, Franklin & Marshall College
• Carmen Twillie Ambar, President, Oberlin College
• Suzanne Ames, President, Peninsula College
• Michelle J. Anderson, President, Brooklyn College
• James J. Annarelli, President, Eckerd College
• Michael D. Anthony, President, Prairie State College
• Joseph E. Aoun, President, Northeastern University
• Virginia “Ginny” Arthur, President, Metro State University
• Roslyn Clark Artis, President, Benedict College
• Cheryl Aschenbach, President, Academic Senate for California Community Colleges
• Valerie Sheares Ashby, President, University of Maryland, Baltimore County
• Michael Avaltroni, President, Fairleigh Dickinson University
• Lynn Babington, President, Chaminade University of Honolulu
• Thomas R. Bailey, President, Teachers College, Columbia University
• Sanda Balaban, Executive Director, Project Pericles
• Andrew W. Barnes, President, Pennsylvania College of Art and Design
• Denise A. Battles, President, SUNY Geneseo
• Ian Baucom, Incoming President, Middlebury College
• Erika D. Beck, President, California State University, Northridge
• Jeff Bellantoni, Interim President, Woodbury University
• Allan Belton, President, Pacific Lutheran University
• Hubert Benitez, President, Saint Peter’s University
• Joanne Berger-Sweeney, President, Trinity College (CT)
• Rebecca M. Bergman, President, Gustavus Adolphus College
• Peter Berkery, Executive Director, Association of University Presses
• Jay M. Bernhardt, President, Emerson College
• Michael A. Bernstein, President, The College of New Jersey
• Joe Bertolino, President, Stockton University
• Audrey Bilger, President, Reed College
• James Birge, President, Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts
• Erik J. Bitterbaum, President, SUNY Cortland
• Mary M. Black, Acting President, Millikin University
• Robert E. Bohrer II, President, Hiram College
• Sarah Bolton, President, Whitman College
• Mary H. Bonderoff, President, SUNY Delhi
• MJ Bosia, Executive Director, International Studies Association
• Leon Botstein, President, Bard College
• Eric Boynton, President, Beloit College
• Vincent Boudreau, President, The City College of the City University of New York
• Lola W. Brabham, President, The Commission on Independent Colleges and Universities
• Corey Bradford, Interim President, Governors State University
• Elizabeth H. Bradley, President, Vassar College
• John C. Bravman, President, Bucknell University
• Frances Bronet, President, Pratt Institute
• Brian Bruess, President, College of Saint Benedict and Saint John’s University
• Joshua C. Brumberg, President, The Graduate Center, CUNY
• Stephanie Bulger, President, Lane Community College
• Andrew Burton-Jones, President, Association for Information Systems (AIS)
• Adam Bush, President, College Unbound
• Alison Byerly, President, Carleton College
• Dara N. Byrne, Dean, Macaulay Honors College
• Wendy Cadge, President and Professor of Sociology, Bryn Mawr College
• Stephen Cady, President, Brite Divinity School
• Christopher Callahan, President, University of the Pacific
• Nancy Cantor, President, Hunter College CUNY
• Alberto Jose Cardelle, President, SUNY Oneonta
• Seamus Carey, President, Iona University
• John Carmichael, President, The Evergreen State College
• Laurie A. Carter, President, Lawrence University
• Brian W. Casey, President, Colgate University
• Sandra Cassady, President, Rockhurst University
• Ana Mari Cauce, Professor and President, University of Washington
• Andrea Chapdelaine, President, Connecticut College
• Julie Chen, Chancellor, University of Massachusetts Lowell
• Thom D. Chesney, President, Southwestern College (NM)
• Sonya Christian, Chancellor, California Community Colleges
• E. LaBrent Chrite, President, Bentley University
• Christina Clark, President, La Roche University
• Frederick W. Clark, President, Bridgewater State University
• Daisy Cocco De Filippis, President, Hostos Community College/CUNY
• Bryan F. Coker, President, Maryville College
• Ronald B. Cole, President, Allegheny College
• Soraya Coley, President, Cal Poly Pomona
• Jennifer Collins, President, Rhodes College
• Michael F. Collins, Chancellor, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School
• John Comerford, President, Otterbein University
• Katie Conboy, President, Saint Mary’s College (IN)
• Marc C. Conner, President, Skidmore College
• Joy Connolly, President, American Council of Learned Societies
• Jane C. Conoley, President, California State University, Long Beach
• Robert A. Coons, President, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
• Melanie Corn, President, Columbus College of Art & Design
• Eugene J. Cornacchia, Interim President, Georgian Court University
• John L. Cox, President, Cape Cod Community College
• La Jerne Terry Cornish, President, Ithaca College
• Grant Cornwell, President, Rollins College
• Jennifer Coyle, President, Pacific University
• Isiaah Crawford, President, University of Puget Sound
• Ann E. Cudd, President, Portland State University
• Lindsay Currie, CEO, Council on Undergraduate Research
• Emily F. Cutrer, Interim President, Sonoma State University
• James M. Danko, President, Butler University
• Camille Davidson, President and Dean, Mitchell Hamline School of Law
• Janine Davidson, President, Metropolitan State University of Denver
• Lisa Fagin Davis, Executive Director, Medieval Academy of America
• Fernando Delgado, President, Lehman College
• Gregory G. Dell’Omo, President, Rider University
• Nora Demleitner, President, St. John’s College
• Rev. John F. Denning, C.S.C., President, Stonehill College
• Kent Devereaux, President, Goucher College
• Mantosh Dewan, President, SUNY Upstate Medical University
• Risa Dickson, President, University of La Verne
• Jim Dlugos, Interim President, Landmark College
• Bethami Dobkin, President, Westminster University
• Peter Donohue, OSA, President, Villanova University
• Susan M. Donovan, President, Bellarmine University
• Tawny Dotson, President, Yuba College
• Rev. Robert A. Dowd, C.S.C., President, University of Notre Dame
• Michael V. Drake, President, University of California System
• Suri Duitch, President, Kingsborough Community College
• Harry Dumay, President, Elms College
• Bonita R. Durand, Interim President, Buffalo State University SUNY
• Raj Echambadi, President, Illinois Institute of Technology
• Pam Eddinger, President, Bunker Hill Community College
• Melanie Ehrlich, President, Epigenetics Society
• Christopher L. Eisgruber, President, Princeton University
• Michael A. Elliott, President, Amherst College
• Margee Ensign, President, The American University in Bulgaria
• Alexander Enyedi, President, SUNY Plattsburgh
• Kristin G. Esterberg, Chancellor, University of Washington Bothell
• Arthur C. Evans, Jr., Chief Executive Officer/Executive Vice President, American Psychological Association
• Marcheta P. Evans, President, St. Catherine University
• Joseph A. Favazza, President, Saint Anselm College
• Jane Fernandes, President, Antioch College
• Roland Fernandes, General Secretary, General Board of Higher Education and Ministry
• Damian J. Fernandez, President, Warren Wilson College
• Amy Ferrer, Executive Director, American Philosophical Association
• David Fike, President, Golden Gate University
• David Fithian, President, Clark University
• John P. Fitzgibbons, S.J., Interim President, University of San Francisco
• Victoria N. Folse, President, Ripon College
• Michael L. Frandsen, President, Wittenberg University
• Jeff Frederick, President, Drury University
• Lisa C. Freeman, President, Northern Illinois University
• Julio Frenk, Chancellor, UCLA
• Ryan Frisinger, Executive Director, International Center of Medieval Art
• John Fry, President, Temple University
• Montserrat Fuentes, President, St. Edward’s University
• Mark A. Fuller, Chancellor, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
• Robert Gaines, Acting President, Pomona College
• Lawrence Galizio, President and CEO, Community College League of California
• James Gandre, President, Manhattan School of Music
• Rev. Michael Garanzini, S.J., President, Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities
• Alan M. Garber, President, Harvard University
• Jay D. Gatrell, President, Eastern Illinois University
• Uttam Gaulee, President, STAR Scholars Network
• Michael H. Gavin, President, Delta College
• Mark D. Gearan, President, Hobart and William Smith Colleges
• Robert Gervasi, President, Mount Saint Mary College
• Melissa Gilliam, President, Boston University
• Howard Gillman, Chancellor, University of California, Irvine
• Jeff Gingerich, President, St. Bonaventure University
• Mark R. Ginsberg, President, Towson University
• Lane A. Glenn, President, Northern Essex Community College
• Cindy Gnadinger, President, Carroll University
• Carole Goldsmith, Chancellor, State Center Community College District
• Jorge G. Gonzalez, President, Kalamazoo College
• Janet L. Gooch, Chancellor, University of Illinois Springfield
• Ellen M. Granberg, President, The George Washington University
• Mary K. Grant, President, Massachusetts College of Art and Design
• Domenico Grasso, Chancellor, University of Michigan-Dearborn
• Jonathan D. Green, President, Susquehanna University
• David A. Greene, President, Colby College
• James J. Greenfield, OSFS, President, DeSales University
• Kate Griffin, Executive Director, American Studies Association
• James Grossman, Executive Director, American Historical Association
• Robert M. Groves, Interim President, Georgetown University
• William R. Groves, Chancellor, Antioch University
• Jeremy Haefner, Chancellor, University of Denver
• Grant Hagiya, President, Claremont School of Theology
• Kevin F. Hallock, President, University of Richmond
• Merodie Hancock, President, Thomas Edison State University
• Robyn Hannigan, President, Ursinus College
• Yoshiko Harden, President, Renton Technical College
• David Harker, Executive Director, Partners for Campus-Community Engagement (PCCE)
• Kathleen E. Harring, President, Muhlenberg College
• Anne F. Harris, President, Grinnell College
• David Harris, President, Union College
• James T. Harris, President, University of San Diego
• Marjorie Hass, President, Council of Independent Colleges
• Susan Hasseler, President, Muskingum University
• Sam Hawgood, Chancellor, University of California San Francisco
• Antoinette Hays, President, Regis College
• Chris Heavey, Interim President, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
• Peggy Heinrich, President, Elgin Community College
• Richard J. Helldobler, President, William Paterson University
• Daniel S. Hendrickson, S.J., President, Creighton University
• Wendy Hensel, President, University of Hawaii
• James Herbert, President, University of New England
• Alejandro (Alex) Hernandez, President, Champlain College
• Chad Hickox, President, Walla Walla Community College
• Doug Hicks, President, Davidson College
• Mary Dana Hinton, President, Hollins University
• Donna Hodge, President, Fitchburg State University
• John L. Hoffman, President, Bemidji State University and Northwest Technical College
• Danielle R. Holley, President, Mount Holyoke College
• Jonathan Holloway, President, Rutgers University
• Robin Holmes-Sullivan, President, Lewis & Clark College
• Ali A. Houshmand, President, Rowan University
• Jessica Howard, President/CEO, Chemeketa Community College
• David C. Howse, President, California College of the Arts
• Lily S. Hsu, President, Laboure College of Healthcare
• Robert H. Huntington, President, Heidelberg University
• Nicole Hurd, President, Lafayette College
• Elaine Ikeda, Executive Director, LEAD California
• Colin Irvine, President, Concordia College
• Wolde-Ab Isaac, Chancellor, Riverside Community College District
• Jiseon Lee Isbara, President, School of the Art Institute of Chicago
• Karim Ismaili, President, Eastern Connecticut State University
• Farnam Jahanian, President, Carnegie Mellon University
• J. Larry Jameson, President, University of Pennsylvania
• Bruce Jarrell, President, University of Maryland, Baltimore
• Paul E. Jarrell, President and CEO, Tillamook Bay Community College
• Lisa Jasinski, President, Associated Colleges of the Midwest
• Julia Jasken, President, McDaniel College
• Jonathan Jefferson, President, Roxbury Community College
• Anthony L. Jenkins, President, Coppin State University
• Garry W. Jenkins, President, Bates College
• Arvid C. Johnson, President, University of St. Francis
• Larry D. Johnson, Jr., President, Stella & Charles Guttman Community College
• Paula A. Johnson, President, Wellesley College
• Rebecca Johnson, Interim President, Linfield University
• Suzanne M. Johnson, President, Green River College
• John E. Jones III, President, Dickinson College
• Robert J. Jones, Chancellor, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
• Katrina Bell Jordan, President, Northeastern Illinois University
• Tuajuanda C. Jordan, President, St. Mary’s College of Maryland
• Cristle Collins Judd, President, Sarah Lawrence College
• David L. Kaufman, President, Capital University
• Colleen Perry Keith, President, Goldey-Beacom College
• Marisa Kelly, President, Suffolk University
• Robert D. Kelly, President, University of Portland
• Pradeep K. Khosla, Chancellor, University of California San Diego
• Julie Johnson Kidd, President, Endeavor Foundation
• Timothy Killeen, President, University of Illinois System
• Walter M. Kimbrough, Interim President, Talladega College
• John B. King Jr., Chancellor, State University of New York (SUNY)
• Emily Kirkpatrick, Executive Director and CEO, National Council of Teachers of English
• Heather Kirkpatrick, President & CEO, Alder Graduate School of Education
• Erica Kohl-Arenas, Faculty Director, Imagining America: Artists and Scholars in Public Life
• Jonathan Koppell, President, Montclair State University
• Sally Kornbluth, President, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
• Julie Kornfeld, President, Kenyon College
• Michael I. Kotlikoff, President, Cornell University
• Paula Krebs, Executive Director, Modern Language Association
• Robert D. Krebs, Interim President, Lake Forest College
• Marvin Krislov, President, Pace University
• Sunil Kumar, President, Tufts University
• Susan Lamb, President, Diablo Valley College
• Lee D. Lambert, Chancellor, Foothill-De Anza Community College District
• Sheila Edwards Lange, Chancellor, University of Washington Tacoma
• Cynthia Larive, Chancellor, University of California, Santa Cruz
• Bobbie Laur, President, Campus Compact
• Frederick M. Lawrence, Secretary and CEO, Phi Beta Kappa Society
• William P. Leahy, SJ, President, Boston College
• Linda M. LeMura, President, Le Moyne College
• James P. Lentini, President, Molloy University
• Richard J. Lessard, President, Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences
• Bethany Letiecq, President, National Council on Family Relations
• Arthur Levine, Interim President, Brandeis University
• Charles G. Lief, President, Naropa University
• Richard P. Lifton, President, The Rockefeller University
• Teik Lim, President, New Jersey Institute of Technology
• James M. Limbaugh, President, West Los Angeles College
• Charles W. Lindsay, President, Elmira College
• Hilary L. Link, President, Drew University
• Lisa A. Lori, President, Marywood University
• Jim Lucchese, President, Berklee College of Music
• Timothy G. Lynch, President, College of Staten Island, CUNY
• Patricia A. Lynott, President, Rockford University
• Richard Lyons, Chancellor, University of California Berkeley
• Heidi Macpherson, President, SUNY Brockport
• John Maduko, President, Connecticut State Community College
• Joanne Mahoney, President, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry
• Lynn Mahoney, President, San Francisco State University
• Daniel Mahony, President, Southern Illinois University
• Barry M. Maloney, President, Worcester State University
• Maud S. Mandel, President, Williams College
• Sarah C. Mangelsdorf, President, University of Rochester
• Christine Mangino, President, Queensborough Community College
• Andrew P. Manion, President, Edgewood College
• Amy Marcus-Newhall, President, Scripps College
• Joseph Marina, SJ, President, The University of Scranton
• Earl F. Martin III, President, Drake University
• Lizbeth Martin, President, Notre Dame de Namur University
• Karol Mason, President, John Jay College of Criminal Justice
• Felix V. Matos-Rodriguez, Chancellor, City University of New York (CUNY)
• David May, President, Bellevue College
• Gary S. May, Chancellor, University of California, Davis
• Anne E. McCall, President, The College of Wooster
• Cheryl McConnell, President, Saint Joseph’s University
• Mark McCormick, President, Middlesex College
• Richard L. McCormick, Interim President, Stony Brook University
• Thayne M. McCulloh, President, Gonzaga University
• Barbara McDonald, President, The College of St. Scholastica
• Michael McDonald, President, Great Lakes Colleges Association
• Cecilia M. McCormick, President, Maryland Institute College of Art
• Lester McCorn, President, Paine College
• C. Andrew McGadney, President, Knox College
• James McGrath, President and Dean, Cooley Law School
• Patricia McGuire, President, Trinity Washington University
• Maurie McInnis, President, Yale University
• Steve McLaughlin, Incoming President, The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art
• Shari McMahan, President, Eastern Washington University
• Elizabeth M. Meade, President, Cedar Crest College
• Marty Meehan, President, University of Massachusetts
• Mojdeh Mehdizadeh, Chancellor, Contra Costa Community College District
• John Meier, CEO, American Mathematical Society
• Mildred A. Mihlon, President, Felician University
• Scott D. Miller, President, Virginia Wesleyan University
• Kristi S. Mindrup, President, Western Illinois University
• Marie Lynn Miranda, Chancellor, University of Illinois Chicago
• Jennifer Mnookin, Chancellor, University of Wisconsin–Madison
• Robert Mohrbacher, President, Centralia College
• Chris Moody, Executive Director, ACPA-College Student Educators International
• Tomas Morales, President, California State University San Bernardino
• Milton Moreland, President, Centre College
• Barbara Jean Morris, President, Prescott College
• Kathryn Morris, President, St. Lawrence University
• John R. Mosby, President, Highline College
• Ross Mugler, Board Chair and Acting President and CEO, Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges
• Juan S. Munoz, Chancellor, University of California Merced\
• David C. Munson Jr., President, Rochester Institute of Technology
• Anthony E. Munroe, President, Borough of Manhattan Community College, CUNY
• Eric Murray, President, Cascadia College
• Kathleen Murray, Acting/Interim President, Hamline University
• Daniel J. Myers, President, Misericordia University
• Lizette Navarette, President, Woodland Community College
• Harriet B. Nembhard, President, Harvey Mudd College
• Frank Neville, President, Millsaps College
• Krista L. Newkirk, President, University of Redlands
• Ellen Neufeldt, President, California State University San Marcos
• Nancy S. Niemi, President, Framingham State University
• Stefanie D. Niles, President, Cottey College
• Cheryl L. Nixon, President, Berea College
• Lara Q. Noah, President, Association of College Honor Societies
• Peter O. Nwosu, President, State University of New York (SUNY), Oswego
• Deborah Obalil, President and Executive Director, Association of Independent Colleges of Art & Design
• Maureen O’Connor, President, Palo Alto University
• Judy Olian, President, Quinnipiac University
• Claire Oliveros, President, Riverside City College
• Meme Omogbai, Executive Director and CEO, College Art Association of America
• Santa J. Ono, President, University of Michigan
• Kirk Ormand, President, Society for Classical Studies
• Douglas B. Palmer, President, Siena Heights University
• Thomas A. Parham, President, California State University-Dominguez Hills
• Micaela S. Parker, Founder and Executive Director, Academic Data Science Alliance
• Robyn Parker, Interim President, Saybrook University
• Marc Parlange, President, University of Rhode Island
• Amy Parsons, President, Colorado State University
• Lynn Pasquerella, President, American Association of Colleges and Universities
• Laurie L. Patton, President, American Academy of Arts and Sciences
• Beth Paul, President, Nazareth University
• Christina Paxson, President, Brown University
• Rob Pearigen, Vice-Chancellor and President, University of the South
• J. Michael Pearson, Executive Director, Mathematical Association of America
• Deidra Peaslee, President, Saint Paul College
• Milagros (Milly) Peña, President, Purchase College, SUNY
• Eduardo M. Peñalver, President, Seattle University
• Steve Perez, President, California State University, Chico
• Ora Pescovitz, President, Oakland University
• Fred P. Pestello, President, Saint Louis University
• Sarah Pfatteicher, Executive Director, Five College Consortium
• Rhonda Phillips, President, Chatham University
• Darryll J. Pines, President, University of Maryland
• Nicola Pitchford, President, Dominican University of California
• Richard Plumb, President, Saint Michael’s College
• Shael Polakow-Suransky, President, Bank Street College of Education
• DeRionne P. Pollard, President, Nevada State University
• Kevin Pollock, President, Central Carolina Technical College
• Andrew David Pomerville, President, Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary
• Thomas Poon, President-Elect, Loyola Marymount University
• Susan Poser, President, Hofstra University
• Patricia A. Prelock, Interim President, University of Vermont
• Robert Prezant, President, Farmingdale State College SUNY
• Paul C. Pribbenow, President, Augsburg University
• Vincent Price, President, Duke University
• Avis Proctor, President, Harper College
• Allison Puff, Co-Interim President and EVP of Academic Affairs, Kansas City Art Institute
• Howard Purcell, President and CEO, New England College of Optometry
• Robert Quinn, Executive Director, Scholars at Risk Network
• Ravi Rajan, President, California Institute of the Arts
• Patricia Ramsey, President, Medgar Evers College (CUNY)
• Sabah Randhawa, President, Western Washington University
• Wendy E. Raymond, President, Haverford College
• Christopher M. Reber, President, Hudson County Community College
• Mark C. Reed, President, Loyola University Chicago
• Andrew Rehfeld, President, Hebrew Union College
• Joseph Reilly, S.T.L., President, Seton Hall University
• Mary Lou Retelle, President, Anna Maria College
• Javier Reyes, Chancellor, University of Massachusetts Amherst
• Wendy Rheault, President and CEO, Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science
• Rosie Rimando-Chareunsap, Chancellor, Seattle Colleges
• Christine M. Riordan, President, Adelphi University
• Britt Rios-Ellis, President, California State University, Stanislaus
• Suzanne M. Rivera, President, Macalester College
• Stacey Robertson, President, Widener University
• Ronald S. Rochon, President, California State University, Fullerton
• Havidán Rodríguez, President, University at Albany
• Christopher F. Roellke, President, Stetson University
• Kimberly R. Rogers, President, Contra Costa College
• Gerard J. Rooney, President, St. John Fisher University
• Laura Ann Rosenbury, President, Barnard College
• Beth Ross, President, Emmanuel College
• Michael S. Roth, President, Wesleyan University
• Vincent Rougeau, President, College of the Holy Cross
• Sue Ott Rowlands, President, Randolph College
• Paulette Granberry Russell, President and CEO, National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education
• James Ryan, President, University of Virginia
• Aaron Sadoff, President, Marian University Wisconsin
• Frank D. Sanchez, President, Manhattanville University
• Cathy Sandeen, President, Cal State East Bay
• Brian Sandoval, President, Univ. of Nevada, Reno
• Terrence Sawyer, President, Loyola University Maryland
• Michael Schill, President, Northwestern University
• Claudia Schippert, Executive Director, American Academy of Religion
• Kurt L. Schmoke, President, University of Baltimore
• Carol Geary Schneider, Acting Executive Director, Civic Learning and Democracy Engagement Coalition
• Karl Scholz, President, University of Oregon
• Claudia Schrader, President, York College, CUNY
• David Scobey, Director, Bringing Theory to Practice
• Sean M. Scott, President and Dean, California Western School of Law
• Zaldwaynaka Scott, President, Chicago State University
• Charles F. Seifert, President, Siena College
• Sanjit Sethi, President and CEO, Minneapolis College of Art and Design
• Claire Shipman, Acting President, Columbia University
• Frank Shushok, Jr., President, Roanoke College
• Susan Rundell Singer, President, St. Olaf College
• Philip J. Sisson, President, Middlesex Community College (MA)
• Darlene Brannigan Smith, Interim President, Frostburg State University
• Dwayne Smith, Interim President, Southern Connecticut State University
• Joianne Smith, President, Oakton  College
• Renee Smith, President, American Association of Philosophy Teachers
• Suzanne Smith, President, SUNY Potsdam
• Valerie Smith, President, Swarthmore College
• Paul Sniegowski, President, Earlham College
• Barbara R. Snyder, President, Association of American Universities
• Stephen Snyder, Interim President, Middlebury College
• Timothy Law Snyder, President, Loyola Marymount University
• Kristen F. Soares, President, Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities (AICCU)
• Rachel Solemsaas, President, North Seattle College
• Mike Sosulski, President, Washington College
• Weymouth Spence, President, Washington Adventist University
• Eric F. Spina, President, University of Dayton
• Stephen Spinelli, President, Babson College
• Terri Standish-Kuon, President and CEO, Independent Colleges of Washington
• G. Gabrielle Starr, President, Pomona College
• Harvey Stenger, President, Binghamton University
• Amy Storey, President, Keuka College
• David M. Stout, President, Brookdale Community College
• Karen A. Stout, President, Achieving the Dream
• Steve K. Stoute, President, Canisius University
• Tom Stritikus, President, Occidental College
• Daniele Struppa, President, Chapman University
• Marcelo Suarez-Orozco, Chancellor, University of Massachusetts Boston
• Julie Sullivan, President, Santa Clara University
• Mickey Sweeney, President, Medieval Association of the Midwest
• Zvi Szafran, President, State University of New York at Canton
• Andrea Kathryn Talentino, President, Augustana College
• Aondover Tarhule, President, Illinois State University
• Glena Temple, President, Dominican University
• Cynthia Teniente-Matson, President, San Jose State University
• Steven J. Tepper. President, Hamilton College
• Kellye Y. Testy, CEO, Association of American Law Schools
• Tania Tetlow, President, Fordham University
• Strom C. Thacker, President, Pitzer College
• Gloria D. Thomas, President, HERS (Higher Education Resource Services)
• Scott L. Thomas, President, Sterling College
• Linda Thompson, President, Westfield State University
• Adela de la Torre, President, San Diego State University
• Omar Torres, President, De Anza College
• Stephen Thorsett, President, Willamette University
• George Timmons, President, Holyoke Community College
• Sylvia Torti, President, College of the Atlantic
• Joel Towers, President, The New School
• Deborah Trautman, President and CEO, American Association of Colleges of Nursing
• Satish K. Tripathi, President, University at Buffalo, SUNY
• James Troha, President, Juniata College
• Kyaw Moe Tun, President, Parami University
• Matthew Turk, President, Toyota Technological Institute at Chicago
• Donald Tuski, President, College for Creative Studies
• Brad Tyndall, President, Central Wyoming College
• LaTanya Tyson, President, Carolina Christian College
• Matthew P. vandenBerg, President, Ohio Wesleyan University
• James Vander Hooven, President, Mount Wachusett Community College
• Rob Vischer, President, University of St. Thomas
• Jeannine Diddle Uzzi, President, Thomas College
• Laura R. Walker, President, Bennington College
• Grace Wang, President, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
• Yolanda Watson Spiva, President, Complete College America
• Phil Weilerstein, President, VentureWell
• Adam Weinberg, President, Denison University
• Steven A. Weiner, President, Menlo College
• Kevin C. Weinman, President, Marist University
• Lamont A. Wells, Executive Director, Network of ELCA Colleges And Universities
• Susan R. Wente, President, Wake Forest University
• Kristina Whalen, President, Foothill College
• Darrell Wheeler, President, SUNY New Paltz
• Michaele Whelan, President, Wheaton College (MA)
• Manya C. Whitaker, Interim President, Colorado College
• Julie A. Manley White, Chancellor and CEO, Pierce College
• Kim A. Wilcox, Chancellor, University of California, Riverside
• Crystal Williams, President, Rhode Island School of Design
• Sarah Willie-LeBreton, President, Smith College
• Ed Wingenbach, President, Hampshire College
• Mitchel L. Winick, President, Monterey College of Law
• Jim Wohlpart, President, Central Washington University
• Luke Wood, President, California State University, Sacramento
• Lynn Perry Wooten, President, Simmons University
• Frank H. Wu, President, Queens College, CUNY
• S. David Wu, President, Baruch College
• Henry T. Yang, Chancellor, University of California, Santa Barbara
• Richard Yao, President, California State University Channel Islands
• Madeline Yates, Executive Director, Transform Mid-Atlantic
• Leocadia I. Zak, President, Agnes Scott College
• Safa R. Zaki, President, Bowdoin College
• Sheahon Zenger, President, Illinois Wesleyan University
• Andy Zink, President, Deep Springs College
• Mark Zupan, President, Alfred University

We continue to accept signatures from current leaders of colleges, universities, and scholarly societies. Last updated at 10:00 a.m. ET on April 28, 2025. Currently, there are 523 signatures.

22 April 2025

Source: aacu.org

By Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai

As reported by various national and international newspapers that during a horrendous and shocking attack on foreign tourists in Pahalgam (Kashmir) on Tuesday April 22, 2025, more than two dozen innocent people, including women were killed. Pahalgam is one of the most scenic tourist places in Kashmir. These attacks are condemnable, no matter who commits them. Terrorism must be condemned in all its shades and manifestations. Terrorism must have no place in any civilized society. A life that indulges in terrorism is not worth living. That must be the shinning creed of today, tomorrow and forever. Can anyone think of anything more ennobling?

Unfortunately, Kashmir has a tragic history of such terrorist attacks. Take the case of the 35 Sikhs who were murdered at Chattisinghpora in Indian occupied Kashmir on March 20, 2000, during the visit of President Bill Clinton to India. Those innocent Sikh victims had done no harm to anyone, had not colluded with anybody. Indeed, Chattisinghpora Sikh massacre was thus unmitigated evil and an earmark of barbarism contemptuous of civilization.

Congressman Edolphus Towns of New York spoke at the United States Congress on June 6, 2006. One can read his whole speech via Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 8] [Page 10183].[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

I quote part of his speech here. He said, “Mr. Speaker, recently, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright wrote a book called The Mighty and the Almighty. The introduction was written by former President Bill Clinton. In his introduction, President Clinton wrote, “During my visit to India in 2000, some Hindu militants decided to vent their outrage by murdering 38 Sikhs in cold blood. If I hadn’t made the trip, the victims would probably still be alive. If I hadn’t made the trip because I feared what militants might do, I couldn’t have done my job as president of the United States.”

It is also worth noting that Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) has been spreading rumors all along and as early as in 1992 that as many as 40 Hindu temples have been destroyed in Kashmir by Muslims. It is simply not true. Consider this brief excerpt from the February 28, 1993, issue of New Delhi-based ‘India Today’. “The evidence that the temples were not demolished or desecrated by the Muslims as claimed by the BJP, but in riot-like situations by bomb and rocket attacks. That is why the figure includes both temples and mosques. If temples were to be singled out, they could easily have been attacked in village after village. In many places such as Lukh bhawan in Anantnag, it is the Muslim who feed the fish in the pond around which stand three temples.”

As a Kashmiri American who comes from an area which is just 30 miles away from Pahalgam, I feel proud to say that Kashmir has a history of tolerance and amity between different religious communities. It has a tradition of moderation and non-violence. Its culture does not generate extremism. Sikhs, Hindus, and Muslims in Kashmir have lived fraternally for centuries. No one can deny the fact – of no small significance – that while the Subcontinent under British rule was and India is now, the scene of recurrent murderous strife, communal riots were unheard of in Kashmir? That unquestionable fact brings out the real character of Kashmir’s heritage. And it was none other than Mahatma Gandhi who said in August 1947 during his visit to Kashmir, “It is really difficult for me to distinguish between a Hindu Kashmiri and a Muslim Kashmiri. You people speak one language and have one culture. While the rest of the country burns in communal fire, I see a ray of hope in Kashmir only…”

Therefore, we demand that the Government of India must permit an independent, impartial and international agency, more preferably the United Nations, to investigate these terrorist attacks in Pahalgam, in identifying, apprehending and punishing the culprits.

Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai

Chairman

World Forum for Peace and Justice

April 22, 2025

For more information please contact,

Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai, Chairman, World Forum for Peace & Justice.

He can be reached at: WhatsApp: 1-202-607-6435 or. gnfai2003@yahoo.com

www.kashmirawarweness.org

By Hua Bin and Mike Whitney

Mike Whitney (MW): What are Trump’s tariffs on China supposed to achieve, and will they succeed?

Hua Bin (HB): I don’t think Trump has a clear idea himself because many of the supposed goals are contradictory and historically he is a shoot-from-the-hip type guy – no deep thinking, always swinging, and never ashamed of his own blatant lies.

That said, he has referred to several objectives:

1. Tariffs as a revenue source to offset his intended tax cuts for the donor class
2. Using tariffs to reshore manufacturing and reindustrialize
3. Tariffs as a way to embargo trade with China
4. Tariffs as a negotiation tool to get concessions from trading partners (to buy more US goods, invest in the US, buy 100-year interest free US Treasuries, purchase US weapons, etc.)

In Trump’s mind, numbers 2, 3 and 4 are all linked to China. China is the main perpetrator of manufacturing job-loss in the US. So, reindustrialization is largely about bringing jobs back from China. Imposing trade sanctions on China—even a full embargo—has long been in the cards as part of the decoupling of the two economies and preparation for an eventual military conflict. In fact, both sides want to reduce or eliminate dependencies on each other, although Trump is much less patient and strategic.

Lastly, I have no doubt that the concessions Trump wants from other trading partners are aimed at reducing their economic ties with China. The goal is to isolate China economically (as explicitly articulated by Bessent and Lutnick). This is essentially what the West did to Russia after the Ukraine war broke out, but Trump is ready to push the schedule ahead on China in the absence of a more credible pretext.

Trump may think he is playing 3D chess, but his plan has not been well-thought out, which is obvious now that China has refused to back down. After stocks, bonds and the Dollar went into free fall, he panicked and rolled back part of his program, which is a clear sign of poor preparation and faulty assumptions. Of course, he didn’t hesitate to help his family and friends profit from the market turmoil through insider trading (similar to the way Hunter Biden used his father’s influence for self-enrichment).

Other indications that his tariff strategy is half-baked, include the laughable math behind the “reciprocal” tariff calculation and the many contradictions of what he was trying to accomplish. For example, why did he choose to humiliate the trading partners who came to negotiate (Trump says, “Kiss my ass”)? If he was serious about enlisting their help to embargo China, how did he expect them to do that without inputs from the largest manufacturing power in the world (China) who controls many of the critical supply chains?

Personally, I would have fired anyone who presented me with such a poorly thought-out business plan. But the US is now a state that is ruled by one man alone, so there’s no accountability and Trump can do whatever he wants.

China Foreign Minister Wang Yi: “We will uphold the basic rules of free trade. We will not bow to power politics or bullying“ video (2 minutes)

Watch on X

.MW: Which country will be hurt more by the tariffs: US or China?

HB: As China has repeatedly said, there are no winners in a trade war. But in the absence of a negotiated settlement, China will likely suffer more short-term pain from loss of the US consumer market. This is going to impact GDP and employment. Clearly, the country needs to stimulate more domestic consumption, which is now more urgent than ever. It also needs to redirect some trade to other countries. There could be deflationary pressures domestically, but China has plenty of ways to fiscally stimulate consumption to mitigate the impact, especially since the state controls the flow of credit via state-owned banks. Longer term, the current trade war will likely pave the way for a complete decoupling between the world’s two economic superpowers (similar to the separation between Russia and the West).

On the US side, the short-term impact means the loss of the Chinese market for its agricultural and energy products (which represent 70% of Chinese imports from the US). Inflation is inevitable. There will be shortages of certain goods for consumers, businesses, and for many US manufacturers that rely on imported parts, components and critical minerals from China for their production (such as machine tools, rare earth, battery, and active pharmaceutical ingredients). The main thing to remember is that China sits at the very top of the global supply chain whereas, the US is at the bottom. So, any disruptions to the supply chain will cascade downward amplifying the damage to the US economy.

Given China’s pole position in many high-tech manufacturing supply chains, these impacts are likely to become long term problems. US businesses will need to invest more in CAPEX to strengthen domestic supply chains, factories, and skilled labor, etc, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars. Unfortunately, these new American industries will face stiff competition in international markets and are unlikely to be profitable for quite some time. Also, there aren’t many corporate executives who will want to invest the capital required to reindustrialize without explicit assurances from the government that their investment will be protected (Trump’s flip-flop on these matters is certainly no help).

In my opinion, the US will find the transition (back to a “country that produces things”) extremely painful and, perhaps, impossible. I suspect that’s why China is taking a hard line and made it clear that it will fight to the end if the US insists on imposing an unfair deal. In short, Trump has no cards vis-a-vis China.

MW: In your opinion, should Trump seek greater economic integration with China or continue along the current path of economic isolation, sanctions and conflict?

HB: There’s no doubt that economic cooperation is mutually beneficial and, frankly, the US could use China’s help to reindustrialize if that is the real goal. And the two economies are complimentary in many ways. The US actually runs a multi-billion surplus with China in services although the Trump regime chose to focus entirely on the trading of merchandise where it runs a structural deficit with most of the world. (Note—In 2024, the U.S. trade deficit with China was approximately $295 billion for goods alone, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. When including both goods and services, the deficit was around $263 billion, as reported by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.) The US exports far more tech, IP, financial services, business services, education, and tourism to China than the other way around. The two economies have many synergies. However, given the current US political consensus to treat China as the new bogeyman, any compromise is highly unlikely. And, even if a deal is struck, I don’t think there’s enough trust on either side to sustain an agreement for very long.

So, an economic and trade divorce is a high-probability outcome, if not immediately, then in the next three to five years. The world is likely to bifurcate into two camps with most nations trying to find a balance between China and the US.

In the long run, I believe that China has the more dynamic of the two economies and will emerge from the current trade war triumphant. In contrast, the US will find it much harder to muddle through while trying to manage plunging markets, a steadily weakening currency, and an ocean of red ink. Of course, the worst option for the United States would be a direct military confrontation with China. As I have explained in earlier articles, the US would undoubtedly lose a war with China which would greatly accelerate the pace of America’s decline. If that were to happen, the post-war international order would be kaput.

*

Michael Whitney is a renowned geopolitical and social analyst based in Washington State. He initiated his career as an independent citizen-journalist in 2002 with a commitment to honest journalism, social justice and World peace.

23 April 2025

Source: globalresearch.ca

Dear Friends

Some of you might know that the BMA cancelled me as opening keynote speaker for the BMA Medical Student Leaders annual meeting on 4 April 2025. This cancellation was accompanied by a smear campaign against me, in which they justified their actions by rehashing my accidentally watching an antisemitic video more  than 10 years ago.  This has now spilled over to the Telegraph publishing a toxic article last week defaming Medical Aid for Palestinians by innuendo.

Of course, the real elephant in the room is my over four decades of wholehearted support for the Palestinians, and I am not going to stop, come what may.

Please read the letter written on my behalf by CAMPAIGN (the Campaign against Misrepresentation in Public Affairs, Information and the News), that spells out clearly what this is all about.

Please open the link below and sign the letter to show your support against silencing me and so many other people who speak up against the historic and ongoing injustice and cruelty against the Palestinians. The genocide and impending ethnic cleansing in Gaza, the apartheid in the West Bank and the exile of 7 million Palestinian refugees for 77 years can only happen by silencing voices who speak up for them and humanise them. The first step to genocide is dehumanisation. Those accusing me of antisemitism and linking me with the Ku Klux Clan know full well I am neither!

Link for reading and signing the CAMPAIGN letter:

https://www.campain.org/open-letter-to-the-bma

Please circulate the letter far and wide.

Every signature sends a message to the Palestinians that we are with them on their painful journey and our support is unwavering. Every signature also sends a message to the silencing machinery that we defy them and will speak up against injustice and misrepresentation.

Thank you and with very best wishes

Swee Ang, Honorary Patron and Co-Founder of Medical Aid for Palestinians

12 April 2025

By Dr. Ramzy Baroud

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s vehement opposition to a Palestinian state aligns perfectly with a long-standing Zionist ideology that has consistently viewed the establishment of a Palestinian state as a direct threat to Israel’s very foundation as a settler colonial project.

Thus, the mere existence of a Palestinian state with clearly defined geographical boundaries would inevitably render the state of Israel, which pointedly remains without internationally recognized borders, a state confined to a fixed physical space.

At a time when Israel continues to occupy significant swathes of Syrian and Lebanese territory and relentlessly pursues its colonial expansion to seize even more land, the notion of Israel genuinely accepting a sovereign Palestinian state is utterly inconceivable.

This reality is not a recent development; it has always been the underlying truth. This, in essence, reveals that the decades-long charade of the “two-state solution” was consistently a mirage, meticulously crafted to peddle illusions to both Palestinians and the broader international community, fostering the false impression that Israel was finally serious about achieving peace.

Therefore, it came as no surprise that Netanyahu reacted with considerable fury to French President Emmanuel Macron’s recent announcement of France’s intention to recognize the state of Palestine next June.

In a phone call with Macron on Tuesday, April 15, Netanyahu predictably resorted to his familiar nonsensical rhetoric, outrageously equating the establishment of a Palestinian state with rewarding “terrorism.”

And, with equal predictability, he trotted out the well-worn and unsubstantiated claims about an Iranian connection. “A Palestinian state established a few minutes away from Israeli cities would become an Iranian stronghold of terrorism,” Netanyahu’s office declared in a statement.

Meanwhile, Macron, with a familiar balancing act, reiterated his commitment to Israeli “security,” while tepidly emphasizing that the suffering in Gaza must come to an end. Of course, in a more just and reasonable world, Macron should have unequivocally stressed that it is Palestinian security, indeed their very existence, that is acutely at stake, and that Israel, through its relentless violence and occupation, constitutes the gravest threat to Palestinian existence and, arguably, to global peace.

Sadly, such a world remains stubbornly out of reach.

Considering Macron’s and France’s unwavering and often obsequious support for Israel throughout the years, particularly since the onset of the Israeli genocide in Gaza, some might cautiously welcome Macron’s statement as a potentially positive shift in policy.

However, it is imperative to caution against any exaggerated optimism, especially at a time when entire Palestinian families in Gaza are being annihilated in the ongoing Israeli genocide as these very words are read. It is an undeniable truth that France, like many other Western governments, has played a significant role in empowering, arming, and justifying Israel’s heinous crimes in Gaza.

For France to genuinely reverse its long-standing position, if indeed that is the current trajectory, it will require far more than symbolic and ultimately empty gestures.

Palestinians are, understandably, weary and disillusioned with symbolic victories, hollow rhetoric, and insincere gestures.

The recent recognitions of the state of Palestine by Ireland, Norway, and Spain in May 2024 did offer a fleeting spark of hope among Palestinians, suggesting a potential, albeit limited, shift in Western sentiment that might exert some pressure on Israel to cease its devastating actions in Gaza.

Unfortunately, this initial and fragile optimism has largely failed to translate into broader and more meaningful European action.

Consequently, Macron’s recent announcement of France’s intention to recognize the state of Palestine in June has been met with a far more subdued and skeptical reaction from Palestinians.

While other European Union countries that have already recognized Palestine often maintain considerably stronger stances against the Israeli occupation, France’s record in this regard is notably weaker.

Furthermore, the very sincerity of France’s stated position is deeply questionable, given its ongoing and concerning suppression of French activists who dare to protest the Israeli actions and advocate for Palestinian rights within France itself.

These attacks, arrests, and the broader crackdown on dissenting political views within France hardly paint the picture of a nation genuinely prepared to completely alter its course on aiding and abetting Israeli crimes.

Moreover, there is a stark and undeniable contrast between the principled positions adopted by Spain, Norway, and Ireland and France’s steadfast backing of Israel’s brutal military campaign in Gaza from its very inception, a support underscored by Macron’s early and highly symbolic visit to Tel Aviv.

Macron was among the first world leaders to arrive in Tel Aviv following the war, while Palestinians in Gaza were already being subjected to the most unspeakable forms of violence imaginable.

During that visit, on October 24, 2023, he unequivocally reiterated, “France stands shoulder to shoulder with Israel. We share your pain, and we reaffirm our unwavering commitment to Israel’s security and its right to defend itself against terrorism.”

This raises a fundamental and critical question: how can France’s belated recognition of a Palestinian state be interpreted as genuine solidarity while it simultaneously remains a significant global supporter of the very entity perpetrating violence against Palestinians?

While any European recognition of Palestine is a welcome, if overdue, step, its true significance is considerably diminished by the near-universal recognition of Palestine within the global majority, particularly across the Global South, originating in the Middle East and steadily expanding worldwide.

The fact that France would be among the last group of countries in the world to formally recognize Palestine (currently, 147 out of 193 United Nations member states have recognized the State of Palestine), speaks volumes about France’s apparent attempt to belatedly align itself with the prevailing global consensus and, perhaps, to whitewash its long history of complicity in Israeli Zionist crimes, as Israel finds itself increasingly isolated and condemned on the international stage.

One can state with considerable confidence that Palestinians, particularly those enduring the unimaginable horrors of the ongoing genocide in Gaza, prioritize an immediate cessation of that genocide and genuine accountability for Israel’s actions far above symbolic acts of recognition that appear primarily aimed at bolstering France’s relevance as a global power player and a long-standing supporter of Israeli war crimes.

Finally, Macron, while reassuring Israel that its security remains paramount for the French government, must be reminded that his continued engagement with Benjamin Netanyahu is, in itself, a potential violation of international law. The Israeli leader is a wanted accused criminal by the International Criminal Court, and it is France’s responsibility, like that of the over 120 signatories to the ICC, to apprehend, not to appease, Netanyahu.

This analysis is not intended to diminish the potential significance of the recognition of Palestine as a reflection of growing global solidarity with the Palestinian people. However, for such recognition to be truly meaningful and impactful, it must emanate from a place of genuine respect and profound concern for the Palestinian people themselves, not from a calculated desire to safeguard the “security” of their tormentors.

Dr. Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle.

21 April 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Countercurrents Collective

The Vatican announced Monday that Pope Francis has died at the age of 88, hours after he appeared at an Easter mass and appealed for an end to Israel’s war on the Gaza Strip.

The pope’s Easter address, read aloud by Archbishop Diego Ravelli, decried the “terrible conflict” in Gaza that “continues to cause death and destruction and to create a dramatic and deplorable humanitarian situation.”

“I appeal to the warring parties: call a cease-fire, release the hostages, and come to the aid of a starving people that aspires to a future of peace!” said the message from the pope, an outspoken opponent of military conflict and war profiteers, climate destruction, and runaway economic inequality.

“In the face of the cruelty of conflicts that involve defenceless civilians and attack schools, hospitals, and humanitarian workers, we cannot allow ourselves to forget that it is not targets that are struck, but persons, each possessed of a soul and human dignity,” the pope’s address continued.

News of Pope Francis’ death came after a bout with double pneumonia left him hospitalized for more than a month. The Vatican did not specify a cause of death in its announcement.

Pope Francis was a true Christian who traversed the path of Jesus in its truest spirit. The whole world will miss his spiritual guidance

Xavier Abu Eid, a political scientist and former adviser to the Palestine Liberation Organization, said Palestinians have lost a dear friend with the death of Francis, whom he described as a staunch defender of their right to self-determination.

“From a diplomatic perspective, he tried to have influence in the region as he did several visits to Arab countries,” Abu Eid told Al Jazeera, adding that the most famous picture of the pontiff was him standing by the Israeli wall that separates Jerusalem from Bethlehem.

“This was an incredible moment for so many people. I was there, and it was not part of the programme. It was his decision to stop by the wall. He just walked peacefully, and all looked how he stood by and prayed in a place that then became a pilgrimage site in Bethlehem,” he said.

“He kept the same position that [Pope] John Paul II had when the wall started to be built, where he said the Holy Land needed bridges and not walls. That was repeated by Pope Francis, who stood heavily for the right of the Palestinian people for self-determination,” he added.

21 April 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Quds News Network

For the vast majority of civilians in Gaza, nighttime brings not rest, but horror—a relentless cycle of fear, pain, and uncertainty.

Nowhere feels safe. Not the remains of their homes, not the makeshift tents, not even the overcrowded displacement camps. As dusk falls over Gaza, people brace for what many describe as the most terrifying hours of the day.

“From 5 p.m. onwards, tank shelling intensifies,” local residents say. By 6 a.m., those who make it through the night wake to the deafening blasts of artillery, often unsure of where the missiles have landed—or who has survived.

Electricity has been cut for more than 18 months, leaving families into total darkness. There is no power, no light—only the sounds of drones, quadcopters, and bombardment.

“Night is like a nightmare,” says Ahmed Abu Saleh, a resident of Al-Maghazi camp. “It’s like we’re living inside a horror movie. Death is everywhere. Attacks, explosions, screams. People being burned alive. We hear it all.”

Before sleeping, Abu Saleh and his wife close the windows—not for privacy, but in fear. “We’re afraid a quadcopter might fly into our home,” he says. “We’ve seen them enter houses here in the camp, terrifying people even more, spying on us.”

His children, he adds, are haunted by the sound of drones. “They sleep next to me and their mother. They’re terrified. Night means bombs. Night means fear.”

Rania Abu Msameh shares a similar dread. “At night, we sleep not knowing whether we’ll wake up alive,” she says. “We all sleep in the same room. That way, we can hold each other, feel the same fear, and try to offer some comfort.”

“We wait for the morning,” she adds. “Because at least in the light, we can see where the strikes are happening. At night, we’re blind. We just hear the bombs, the Apache helicopters, the artillery shelling. The fire grows louder and closer.”

Daily life has narrowed to daylight hours. “We can’t move or do anything at night,” she says. “There’s no power, no safety. So we do everything while it’s still light. When the sun sets, we wait in the dark, helpless.”

For Gaza’s families, the night no longer offers rest—it only deepens the wounds of war.

20 April 2025

Source: countercurrents.org