Archives: Articles

By Vijay Prashad

On 14 December, the predictable happened: José Antonio Kast, the candidate of the far-right Republican Party, prevailed over Jeannette Jara of the Communist Party of Chile by 58.16 percent to 41.84 percent. Kast ran as the candidate of the Cambio por Chile (Change for Chile) platform and was backed by all the parties of the traditional right and the centre-right. Jara, on the other hand, was the candidate of Unidad por Chile (Unity for Chile), which comprised the parties of the centre-left, including the bloc of Chile’s current president, Gabriel Boric, the Frente Amplio or Broad Front.

In the first round of the election, Jara had been the lead candidate with 26.58 percent of the vote, while Kast won 23.92 percent. But this was misleading. The two right-wing candidates who immediately endorsed Kast, Johannes Kaiser (with 13.94 percent) and Evelyn Matthei (with 12.46 percent), provided him with an arithmetical advantage of 50.32 percent. The question for Jara was whether she could surpass 30 percent. That she ended up with over 40 percent is itself a remarkable achievement. It is not easy for the Chilean population, marinated in anti-communism for several generations (particularly during the military dictatorship from 1973 to 1990), to consider voting a Communist into the presidential palace, even if her opponent is a man of the extreme right.

Kast’s arrival in La Moneda, the presidential palace, is part of the Angry Tide that has been sweeping Latin America from El Salvador to Argentina. His victory is not entirely unique. It follows the collapse of the liberal agenda that tried to maintain rigid economic austerity policies alongside limited social programmes; and it is the result of the left’s failure to build a strong agenda to fulfil the demands of the social uprisings that have punctually erupted against austerity and hierarchy.

The Child of the Dictatorship

José Antonio Kast is a product of Chile’s long shadow, where the unresolved legacies of the military dictatorship seep into the present. Born in 1966 to a German immigrant family, Kast emerged from the conservative heartlands of Chilean politics, first as a member of the Independent Democratic Union, the party most faithfully aligned with Augusto Pinochet’s project. His political formation is inseparable from that history: an unrepentant defence of the neoliberal order imposed by force and a moral authoritarianism dressed up as “tradition”.

Kast’s father —Michael Martin Kast Schindele— served in the Wehrmacht (the German army) and was a member of the Nazi Party. After Germany’s defeat, Michael Kast fled Allied custody in Italy, returned to Bavaria, then escaped the postwar denazification process and emigrated to Argentina and then Chile via the Vatican’s ratlines. In Santiago in 1950, Kast started a sausage company and built a fortune. His elder son, Miguel Kast —a “Chicago Boy”— served as Minister of Labour and President of the Central Bank under the military government of General Augusto Pinochet. The entire family supported Pinochet. When asked about Pinochet by La Tercera in 2017, José Antonio Kast said, “I defended his government, but I never even had a coffee with him. You don’t have to be very imaginative to think that if he were alive, he would vote for me. Now, if I had met with him, we would have had a cup of tea at La Moneda”.

Kast cannot be held responsible for his father. He has said that Nazism is an ideology with which he disagrees, and one should take him at his word. On the other hand, the easy facility with which he embraces Pinochet’s military dictatorship should give one pause. During the social uprising in Chile in 2019, Kast reinvented himself as the defender of the ordinary Chilean against migrants, feminists, socialists, communists, and Mapuche demands against the cruel social order. Kast borrowed from the global far right: law-and-order fantasies, nostalgia for old hierarchies of race and gender, and a ruthless contempt for social movements that dare to challenge entrenched inequality.

What makes Kast dangerous is not his originality, for there is nothing original about his ideas or his place in society. It is his familiarity that is dangerous. Despite the end of the military dictatorship thirty-five years ago, the structures set in place by Pinochet remain. This includes the Constitution of 1980, which now appears eternal because two attempts to revise it (in 2022 and 2023) failed. Crucially, Chile’s reality includes property relations reorganised during the dictatorship to favour the oligarchy, including Pinochet’s own relatives. During the dictatorship, Pinochet privatised one of the major mining companies —Sociedad Química y Minera (SQM)— which was taken over by Pinochet’s son-in-law Julio Ponce Lerou (then married to Pinochet’s daughter Verónica). This sort of dictatorship-driven piracy remained intact after the dictatorship ended (Pinochet’s granddaughter now runs the company).

These features of the oligarchy and its Pinochet-era consolidation are crucial to Kast’s prominence and rise. He speaks a language long used in Chile to justify this inequality: that markets are sacred, that discipline is virtue, and that memory must be silenced. In moments of crisis, figures like Kast do not arise by accident. They are summoned by elites when democracy threatens to become too democratic, when the people begin to ask for dignity rather than permission. He will be sworn in on 11 March 2026.

Will Chile Rise Again？

A massive social uprising that began in October 2019 brought together many sections of Chile’s society that had felt the hard edge of neoliberal austerity. This was not a spontaneous rebellion, but the product of decades of accumulated grievances rooted in inequality, privatisation, and social humiliation, grievances that had long been contested by various social forces organised into movements and platforms. That protest led to the victory of the centre-left’s Gabriel Boric in 2021, but Boric’s government was simply unable to break with the consensus and provide the country with a new agenda for new times. It was almost a caretaker government from one right-wing president (Sebastián Piñera, 2010-2014 and 2018-2022) to another. The streets are calmer now than they were in 2019, but the structural conditions that produced that uprising have not been dismantled.

When I met Boric before he took office, he was certain that his government would be able to reform the pension system and perhaps address the healthcare, education, and housing crises. Nothing was really achieved, and even constitutional reform failed. With the promise of social mobility no longer available to the population, particularly the youth, discontent rose. The centre-left lost its legitimacy, and that discontent turned to disillusionment once again. There is a widespread sense of political exhaustion and betrayal. Institutions appear incapable of translating popular demands into real change, reinforcing the idea that voting —even if compulsory— cannot inaugurate a new world. This demoralisation is a real social force, one that led a large section of Jara’s voters to vote to block Kast rather than to vote for Jara with enthusiasm.

Chile’s median age is 38. Many young Chileans entered adulthood amid the social uprising over the past decade, then a pandemic, and finally what appears to be permanent inflation. With the failure to ratify a new Constitution and with the victory of Kast, this young Chilean voice for a different future is certainly going to feel muted. But it will not remain silenced for long. It will have to come to terms with Kast’s horrendous programme: the continued militarisation of the Mapuche territory in the south, the criminalisation of protest, and the expansion of a state that prepares for containment, not redistribution. Kast’s agenda will not eliminate unrest but may postpone it for a while, only to sharpen its eventual return to the streets. When Kast sends the police to beat the protestors, his followers will undoubtedly take refuge in the language of legality, while his opponents will speak of the regime’s illegitimacy. If Kast cannot deliver policies to contain inflation and unemployment, inequality will rise and produce its own fury.

If a new social uprising does form, what will be its core issue? And will those who lead it be able to generate a credible political project capable of channeling that anger toward transformation? If there is no such project, a repeat of 2019 might move from explosion to disappointment and then to utter dejection. It will be up to Jara and others around her to craft an agenda to defend citizens’ constitutional rights against the Kast government and then to shape a project that is credible and desirable. The social uprising of 2019 is not a closed chapter; it is an unfinished sentence. Within that unfinished sentence were the Boric years (2022-2026), a delay more than anything. Dignity remains the demand. It may reassert itself, but only when patience runs out again.

Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian, editor, and journalist. He is a writing fellow and chief correspondent at Globetrotter.

18 December 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Tings Chak

On 10 December 2025, U.S. forces seized the oil tanker Skipper off the coast of Venezuela, carrying over a million barrels of crude. “Well, we keep [the oil],” President Trump told reporters. Venezuela’s foreign ministry called it “blatant theft and an act of international piracy,” adding: “The true reasons for the prolonged aggression against Venezuela have finally been revealed. It has always been about our natural wealth, our oil.”

That same day, on the other side of the world, China released its third Policy Paper on Latin America and the Caribbean—the first since 2016—outlining a vision of partnership “without attaching any political conditions.” The timing captures the choice now facing Latin America. Two documents released within a week—Trump’s National Security Strategy (NSS) on 5 December and China’s policy paper five days later— lay bare fundamentally different approaches to the hemisphere.

The Monroe Doctrine Returns

Trump’s NSS makes no pretense of diplomatic subtlety. It declares a ‘Trump Corollary’ to the Monroe Doctrine, asserting U.S. opposition to “hostile foreign incursion or ownership of key assets” in the hemisphere. The Western Hemisphere is now America’s ‘highest priority,’ with three threats requiring military response: migration, drugs, and China.

Countries seeking U.S. assistance must demonstrate they are “winding down adversarial outside influence”—a demand that Latin American nations cut ties with Beijing. The strategy promises “targeted deployments” and “the use of lethal force” against cartels. It states that Washington will “reward and encourage the region’s governments…aligned with our principles and strategies.” Unsurprisingly, the U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio rushed to congratulate Chile’s Trump-inspired extreme right wing candidate José Antonio Kast, who won the presidency with 58 percent of the vote—the most right-wing leader since Pinochet.

The tanker seizure shows what this doctrine looks like in practice. Since September, U.S. strikes on boats have killed 95 people. The USS Gerald R. Ford carrier group patrols the Caribbean. As Colombian President Gustavo Petro observed, Trump is “not thinking about the democratization of Venezuela, let alone the narco-trafficking”—only oil. After declaring that a new phase of attacks could include “land strikes on Venezuela”, Trump threatened the Colombian president that “he’ll be next” as well as invasion of Mexico.

China’s Alternative

China’s policy paper operates from an entirely different premise. Opening by identifying China as “a developing country and member of the Global South,” it positions the relationship as South-South cooperation and solidarity rather than great power competition. The document proposes five programs—Solidarity, Development, Civilization, Peace, and People-to-People Connectivity.

What distinguishes this paper from its 2008 and 2016 predecessors is its explicit call for “local currency pricing and settlement’ in energy trade to ‘reduce the impact of external economic and financial risks”—new language directly addressing the weaponization of the dollar. This trend has been underway, as highlighted by the R$157 billion (US$28 billion) currency swap agreement between Brazil and China, signed during Brazilian president Lula’s visit to the Asian country in May this year.

China’s policy paper supports the “Proclamation of Latin America and the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace”—a pointed contrast to U.S. twenty-first century gunboat diplomacy. And it contains a line clearly responding to Washington’s pressure: “The China-LAC relationship does not target or exclude any third party, nor is it subjugated by any third party.”

The Historical Pattern

Of course, the focus on the “China threat” to “US pre-eminence” in the region is not new. In August 1961, progressive Brazilian Vice President João Goulart visited China—the first high-ranking Latin American official to do so after the Chinese Revolution. At a mass rally in Beijing, he declared that China showed “how a people, looked down upon by others for past centuries, can emancipate themselves from the yoke of their exploiters.”

The U.S. response was swift. American media constructed a narrative linking Brazilian agrarian reform movements to a “communist threat from China.” On April 1, 1964—less than three years after Goulart’s visit—a U.S.-backed military coup overthrew him. Twenty-one years of dictatorship followed.

The playbook remains the same. In the 1960s, the pretext was “communist threat”; today it’s “China threat.” And what’s at stake is Latin American sovereignty. What makes this moment different is economic weight. China-LAC trade reached a record US$518.47 billion in 2024, according to China’s Ministry of Commerce. China’s share of trade with Mercosur countries has grown from 2 percent to 24 percent since 2000. At the May 2025 CELAC-China Forum, Xi Jinping announced a US$9 billion investment credit line. In 1964, Latin America had few alternatives. Today, China presents another option.

The Question Before the Latin American People

The right-wing surge across the continent is undeniable—Kast in Chile, Milei in Argentina, the end of MAS rule in Bolivia. These victories reflect the limitations of progressive governments when addressing crime, migration, and economic stagnation. But they also reflect how U.S.-generated crises become the terrain on which the right wins.

The question is whether Latin American governments—including right-wing ones—want to be subordinates in what Trump’s strategy calls an “American-led world.” Even Western liberal analysts are alarmed. Brookings describes the NSS as “essentially assert[ing] a neo-imperialist presence in the region.” Chatham House notes that Trump uses “coercion instead of negotiation”, contrasted with China, “which has been providing investment and credit… without imposing conditions.”

That being said, China’s presence in Latin America is not without contradictions. The structure of trade remains imbalanced—Latin America exports raw materials and imports manufactured goods. Meanwhile, labor and environmental concerns linked to specific Chinese private enterprises cannot be ignored. Whether the relationship enables development or reproduces dependency depends on what Latin American governments demand: technology transfer, local production, industrial policy. This agenda for a sovereign national project must be pushed forward by the Latin American people and popular forces.

At present, the differences between the two visions being presented of the “U.S.-led world” and a “community with a shared future” have never been starker.

Tings Chak is the Asia Co-Coordinator of the Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research and an editor of Wenhua Zongheng: A Journal of Contemporary Chinese Thought.

18 December 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Ranjan Solomon

When Venezuela’s socialists vow to resist U.S. aggression, they are not issuing a symbolic declaration. They are naming a structural conflict: imperial capitalism versus popular sovereignty. What Donald Trump and the U.S. ruling class perceive as “easy targets” are in fact frontline societies where the contradictions of global capitalism are most exposed—and therefore most feared.

Trump’s hostility toward Venezuela is not personal, nor is it ideological in the superficial sense. It is class warfare conducted at the level of states. Venezuela’s crime, in the eyes of Washington, is not authoritarianism or mismanagement, but defiance: the refusal to fully subordinate its labour, resources, and political economy to U.S. capital.

This is why sanctions, sabotage, and regime-change fantasies persist even after repeated failure. They are not errors. They are instruments.

Imperialism Is Not a Policy Choice—It Is a Systemic Necessity

Marxist analysis begins where liberal moralism ends. The United States does not intervene because Trump is irrational or cruel, though he may be both. It intervenes because capitalism in its imperial phase requires expansion, extraction, and discipline.

Venezuela sits atop vast oil reserves, strategic minerals, and geopolitical space. An independent, redistributive, or socialist project in such a location is intolerable to an imperial system built on accumulation by dispossession. As Lenin warned, imperialism is not about bad leaders; it is about monopoly capital seeking outlets for surplus, profit, and power.

Trump merely strips the language bare. Where previous administrations cloaked intervention in human rights rhetoric, Trump speaks the language of the real relation: coercion, punishment, domination.

Sanctions as Class Warfare

Economic sanctions are not diplomatic tools. They are weapons of class war. They do not target governments; they target populations. They destroy purchasing power, collapse public services, and fracture social reproduction. They are designed to force the working class into desperation, hoping hunger will succeed where coups have failed. This is why sanctions regimes look similar across contexts—from Cuba to Iraq, from Iran to Venezuela. The goal is not democracy, but submission.

Yet sanctions repeatedly backfire. Rather than producing compliant societies, they expose the violent core of liberal capitalism. They radicalise consciousness, deepen collective identity, and delegitimise domestic elites aligned with imperial pressure. In Venezuela, as in Cuba, survival itself becomes a political act.

Latin America and the End of Imperial Fear

For much of the twentieth century, U.S. imperialism in Latin America relied on terror: coups, death squads, IMF shock therapy, and military occupation. Class struggle was resolved through repression, with local oligarchies acting as junior partners of empire. That mechanism is breaking down.

Latin America today carries the accumulated memory of imperial violence. From Chile’s neoliberal laboratory under Pinochet to Argentina’s disappeared, from Guatemala’s genocide to Nicaragua’s dirty war, the region understands U.S. intervention not as aberration but as structure. This historical consciousness matters. It is why Trump’s threats do not intimidate as they once did. Fear has been replaced by recognition.

Even governments that are not socialist understand the danger of legitimising intervention. Civil society movements, indigenous organisations, unions, and left formations across the continent see Venezuela not as an isolated case but as a test of whether sovereignty itself is still possible.

Trump and the Crisis of Imperial Legitimacy

Trump is not a sign of American strength. He is a symptom of imperial exhaustion. The U.S. ruling class faces a crisis on multiple fronts: declining industrial base, internal polarisation, loss of ideological credibility, and the erosion of global hegemony. Trump responds not with renewal but with aggression – mistaking domination for leadership.

But imperial power without consent is brittle. The United States can still destroy, sanction, and destabilise. What it can no longer do is command belief. Its claims to democracy ring hollow after Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Gaza. Its moral authority has collapsed under the weight of its own violence. Trump’s belligerence accelerates this collapse. He speaks openly what empire prefers to hide, and in doing so, unmasks it.

Historical Defeats the Empire Cannot Erase

The U.S. has confronted defiant societies before – and lost. Cuba survived blockade not through economic success but through political will and social solidarity. Iraq’s destruction did not produce stability but permanent crisis. Afghanistan ended in humiliating retreat. Vietnam shattered the myth of invincibility.

These were not tactical failures. They were systemic limits. Empires can crush states; they struggle to defeat peoples. Venezuela belongs to this lineage of resistance—not because it is flawless, but because it insists on the right to choose its own contradictions. That insistence is intolerable to an imperial order that demands obedience, not perfection.

The Global South Is Re-Learning Solidarity

What most alarms Washington is not Venezuela alone, but contagion. If Venezuela endures – if it resists, adapts, survives – it reinforces the possibility of alternatives. It tells the Global South that submission is not inevitable, that sanctions are not omnipotent, that empire can be endured and outlasted.

This is why the struggle over Venezuela is global. From Palestine to Latin America, from Africa to West Asia, the same mechanisms of domination are at work: siege, delegitimization, economic strangulation. And increasingly, the same response emerges: refusal.

Empire Does Not Fall—It Retreats

Trump may shout. He may threaten. He may attempt to project strength through spectacle. But structural reality is unforgiving.

An empire facing coordinated resistance, declining legitimacy, and internal fracture does not win decisive victories. It withdraws unevenly, denies its defeats, and seeks scapegoats. This is how imperial decline looks—not dramatic collapse, but retreat disguised as resolve. Trump will not conquer Venezuela. The U.S. will not reclaim uncontested dominance in Latin America. The world has moved beyond that moment.

What remains is struggle – uneven, difficult, incomplete – but no longer paralysed by fear. And that, more than any speech or sanction, is what terrifies empire the most.

Ranjan Solomon, writer on justice, imperialism and the global South

18 December 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Hassan Herzallah

Break of dawn in Gaza used to have its own rhythm, smell and sounds.

As fishers set out to sea, the sound of the engines on their vessels would carry far and wide on a salty breeze.

The calm belied the bustle that would come as markets filled up and restaurants across Gaza prepared for customers filing in for fresh fish.

Fishing is more than a job in Gaza. Gaza’s is a maritime population. Fishing has always been part of the culture, part of the collective memory here. It is the kind of living that is passed down from fathers and grandfathers who have lived by this shore for generations.

But over the past two years, this same sea – once a source of livelihood for an estimated 110,000 people in Gaza – has instead borne witness to great suffering, its shoreline a last refuge for those trying to survive amid famine, bombardment and siege.

Since the age of 10, Muhammad al-Nahal, 26, would accompany his father and older brothers on daily fishing trips aboard their launch, or small boat. It was a daily routine and a family ritual, a tradition passed down through generations in a family that has always lived by the sea.

Before the genocide, Israel’s navy would allow Gaza’s fishers to sail up to six nautical miles into the sea – far short of the 12 miles they should have been allowed under international law. But Muhammad said the sea was generous enough.

“We would cast the nets for just a short while, and because there were so many fish, we used to fill 10 to 15 boxes, each with around 15 kilos of different kinds of fish.”

Pricing was simple, from the cheaper but always popular sardines – “3 kilos for $3,” Muhammad remembered happily – to the more expensive denise or sea bream (“never more than $15”).

Fishing was easier. It took less effort and less time. The engines ran on fuel and the sea offered bounty.

Fishing during genocide

From the first days of the genocide, however, the sea seemed to close its doors on Gaza’s fishers. Israeli patrol boats watched every movement, the waves carried the smell of gunpowder instead of salt, the winds the sound of bombings.

Fishing was no longer a daily routine; it became a deeply precarious task that could end in death or detention.

“One night we were out when we found ourselves directly in the line of fire,” said Samir Tabasi, 21, a fisherman local to Khan Younis. “Shells were fired at us. One landed in the water, luckily not hitting us. As we were coming out of the sea, we were shot at on the shore. One of our friends was injured, and the tents along the beach were also targeted, resulting in one death.”

Of course, even the 6 miles were now denied them, and fishers said they were barely able to get a single mile out to sea … when they were allowed out at all.

And with fuel running out and the Israeli military systematically targeting ports and boats, they were left with only small rowing vessels to work from.

According to Gaza’s Ministry of Agriculture, as of December 2024, the Israeli military has attacked and destroyed Gaza’s only seaport and three landing sites, in addition to 270 out of 300 fishers’ stations.

The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that Gaza’s fishing sector has lost 94 percent of trawlers, 100 percent of big purse seiners (large specialized fishing vessels), 62 percent of small purse seiners, 71 percent of long-line and fixed-net vessels, and 70 percent of feluccas, traditional wooden sail boats used for fishing.

“There isn’t a single fishing boat left in the Strip,” said Muhammad. “They’re all destroyed. Now we have to rely on our senses, moving with only the strength of our arms and getting exhausted for nothing.”

Many chose not to fish, until this year, between May and August, when hunger proved more powerful than fear. Israel had almost completely cut off aid deliveries since early March and the famine had intensified. People again turned to the sea as their only means of survival.

Many families had nothing to eat except the few, small fish that could be caught in the relatively shallow waters fishers were able to reach.

“We went fishing just to survive,” said Nour al-Nahal, 22. “There was no meat, no chicken. We would grill the fish on charcoal and eat it – what mattered was staying alive.”

Continued targeting

But the sea was not a safe haven. Israel would regularly shell vessels at sea, and Israeli navy boats would fire even at those on shore. On many days, fishermen would go out and never return.

By May, the UN estimated, based on Gaza’s agriculture ministry figures, that over 200 fishers had been killed.

The ceasefire-that-is-not-a-ceasefire has not improved the situation.

“Today, if we go even a mile farther, they shoot at us,” Nour said.

Some are detained, while others just went missing at sea. According to Gaza’s Fishermen’s Committees, since 10 October, when the ceasefire came into effect, Israel has detained more than 20 fishers.

In addition to the direct danger, the fishers have also lost their source of income. Despite soaring prices – one kilo of sardines can now fetch up to $20 – “there’s barely any fish,” Muhammad said, in the areas they are able to reach.

Israel’s navy continues to target fishers, and the shore is still shelled.

“Even after the ceasefire, if I try to move just one meter forward, I put my life at risk,” said one fisher, who declined to be named.

Gaza’s fishing sector has suffered a “catastrophic collapse,” according to the UN, and the sector operates at just 7.3 percent of its pre-genocide production capacity. This dramatic decline is having a “devastating impact on food security, income generation and community resilience across Gaza.”

As winter approaches, there has never been more need for fishers in Gaza. But cold winds and high waves test their remaining fragile boats, while the constant threat of targeting makes every trip to the sea a potentially deadly undertaking.

Still they go, said Samir. They have little choice but to “continue risking their lives just to put food on the table.”

Hassan Herzallah is a Gaza-based Palestinian writer.

18 December 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Quds News Network

Gaza (QNN)- A Palestinian infant has frozen to death in Gaza, becoming the fifth child to die in recent days as Israel continues to restrict the entry of shelter materials and other humanitarian aid despite the harsh winter conditions there and ceasefire.

The Palestinian Health Ministry confirmed on Thursday that one-month-old Saeed Abdeen died from extreme cold amid a severe lack of heating and adequate living conditions.

[https://twitter.com/QudsNen/status/2001557138435440963]

Since a huge storm hit the Palestinian enclave last week and winter set in, at least 20 Palestinians have died from cold exposure and collapsing buildings, including five children (all children from cold), medical sources and local authorities said.

Despite being battered by heavy rainfall and early winter storms for several weeks now, “winterisation supplies” remain “limited” in Gaza, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (Ocha) said in its daily report.

Civil Defense Spokesperson Mahmoud Basal said Tuesday that winter rains flooded 90 percent of tents in the war-torn enclave, leaving thousands of families without shelter.

The Civil Defense teams said they received more than 5,000 calls for help from residents since the storms began affecting the Gaza Strip.

Israel’s two-year war has destroyed more than 80 percent of the structures across Gaza, forcing hundreds of thousands of families to take refuge in flimsy tents or overcrowded makeshift shelters.

Now, the humanitarian conditions continue to deteriorate as winter deepens amid the Israeli blockade despite the ceasefire which took effect on October 10. With limited access to shelter materials, fuel, and medical care, displaced Palestinians fear that the coming weeks will bring even greater hardship.

This week, the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees UNRWA said the Israeli occupation government has blocked it from bringing aid directly into Gaza.

“People have reportedly died due to the collapse of damaged buildings where families were sheltering. Children have reportedly died from exposure to the cold,” UNRWA said in a social media post on Tuesday.

“This must stop. Aid must be allowed in at scale, now,” adding Palestinians across the territory are “freezing to death”.

Aid groups have called on the international community to press Israel to lift restrictions on aid entering the war-torn Gaza Strip, warning that life-saving operations risk collapse.

In a statement issued on Tuesday, the Humanitarian Country Team, which brings together senior UN officials and more than 200 local and international aid groups, referred to a new registration system for international non-governmental organisations, introduced earlier this year.

Aid groups say the process is “vague, politicised and impossible to meet without breaching humanitarian principles” as dozens of organisations face deregistration by the end of December, followed by the forced closure of their operations within weeks.

18 December 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Right To Food Campaign

The Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) (VB–GRAM G) Bill, 2025 marks a significant rollback of hard-won statutory guarantees for workers’ rights. The Right to Food Campaign condemns the repealing of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) through this new Act which undermines the right to work of people and all principles of decentralisation, community participation and federalism.

This Bill does not reform employment guarantee; it destroys it.

By repealing the MGNREGA, the government has converted a demand-based legal right to work into a centralised, discretionary, budget-capped scheme, fully controlled by the Union Government. Employment is no longer guaranteed by law but subject to annual allocations, political priorities, and fiscal arbitrariness. This is a betrayal of rural workers, especially women, landless households, Dalits, Adivasis, and migrants who depend on MGNREGA for survival and dignity.

The government’s claim that this new legislation signifies an improvement as it provides 125 days of employment in place of 100 is just an illusion. Under the MGNREGA, on average only about 50 days of work per household has been provided per household – with the entitlements being undermined through delayed payments, low wages, digital exclusions and so on. The VB–GRAM G makes it worse by including state-wise “normative allocations” imposed by the Centre. Any expenditure above these allocations are to be borne entirely by

the state government. With such restrictions, the amount of work provided will only decrease further.

The fiscal burden on state governments will in any case increase with the shift to a 60:40 cost-sharing ratio for wages, which is a shift from the MGNREGA which obliges the Centre to fund the entire wage bill and 75% if the material costs. This changed cost-sharing norms increases the burden on the already fiscally starved state governments and would disproportionately harm poorer states where the capacity to spend is low.

The proposed 60-day blackout period during peak agricultural seasons could further weaken the bargaining power of women and marginalised workers.

The Bill systematically erodes all principles of decentralisation by shifting most decision making powers to the central government. Aligning demand-based rural works schemes with centrally driven schemes like the PM Gati Shakti and National Rural Infrastructure Stack undermines local decision making by the Gram Sabhas and Gram Panchayats. Plan. Increased technocratic control through biometric authentication and digital surveillance ignores overwhelming evidence of exclusions caused by Aadhaar-based payments and digital attendance systems. Corruption will not be eliminated through technology imposed from above, but through transparent, community-led social audits, which this Bill sidelines.

The MGNREGA has been systematically undermined over the last decade through various administrative interventions. A number of reforms were needed towards strengthening the MGNREGA and enabling it to take us towards a true right to work, however the VB-GRAM G by rolling back the MGNREGA is taking us even further away from this ideal. What was required was strengthening the MGNREGA by increasing the wage rate, withdrawing mandatory digital attendance and aadhaar-linked payments, strengthening social audits, empowering local communities and so on. Instead, what we have now is the VB-GRAM G which represents a rollback of hard-won workers’ rights, centralises authority, and leaves the most vulnerable behind.

Right to Food Campaign stands with the NREGA Sangharsh Morcha, trade unions, agricultural workers unions, women’s organisations, and people’s movements across the country in their struggle for the Right to Work.

The VB- GRAM G Bill which repeals MGNREGA and affects millions of workers, was brought to Parliament in total secrecy. In flagrant violation of basic democratic norms & provisions of the Pre-Legislative Consultation Policy, the government did not make public the proposed legislation and did not hold any public consultations. Further, the tearing hurry with which the bill was railroaded through Parliament prevented any meaningful deliberation and parliamentary scrutiny. A legislation with such grave consequences for the rights of people should have been referred to a parliamentary committee for examination.

We call upon the Hon’ble President of India to withhold assent to this regressive legislation. Instead, MGNREGA must be strengthened as a universal, rights-based, and fully funded employment guarantee law. Any attempt to repeal or dismantle MGNREGA without the consent and participation of workers will be met with united, sustained, and nationwide resistance.

MGNREGA was won by the people — and the people will defend it. Steering Committee of Right to Food Campaign

20 December 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Nilofar Suhrawardy

Whether it is killing/injuring of one person or more, be it in Bondi Beach (Sydney, Australia) or elsewhere, whatever be the ethnic background of victims and/or of suspect criminals, the crime doesn’t stand justified in retaliation of any activity in any part of the world. It is not simply because victims remain innocent of whatever they may have been targeted for. Their murder doesn’t resolve whatever the issue/design/plan the suspects may have considered. Instead, chances of it having the reverse impact seem greater. Ironically, the manner in which these incidents are projected may have the same impact. In addition, perhaps, some consideration also needs to be given to role that reaction to these crimes plays. Give a thought. As soon as religious identity of suspects of killings in Bondi killings became clear, it took little time for them to be linked with extremist Islamist, in other words- “Islamic” terrorism. Around the same time, Brown University in USA was targeted by a suspect Benjamin Erickson. He was not described as a terrorist but as someone suffering from mental illness. Later, he was released from custody and search for alleged “shooter” resumed. Of course, it is a little puzzling as it why was he was viewed as suffering from some mental illness at the time when he was regarded as a suspect. Nothing seems to be said about his “mental illness” when this allegation was dropped.

In case, Benjamin was identified as a Muslim, he would have probably been instantly labelled as a terrorist and may still have been held as a suspect. Soon after Benjamin’s name was dropped, possibility of Brown shooting being linked with Palestine began being floated. What an irony. Without any investigation having been completed, the ease with which certain labels are linked with shooting cases cannot be ignored. There is nothing surprising about this. Nowadays, anti-Semitism and that too because of extremist Islamists appears to be given quite a lot of coverage at various levels, including diplomatic, political and of course media. It is possible, it is linked with, despite the so-called ceasefire, Israel’s war strikes against Palestinians. Undeniably, Israel’s offense against Palestinians does not justify any criminal or terrorist action in any part of the world, which can only be condemned. What demands attention is the alacrity with which with certain sections are instantly labelled as “terrorists” and substantial restraint is exercised in not using the same strategy for others. The division is fairly obvious. Christians, Jews and Whites in general are not described as terrorists, however horrendous their activities may be. But Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Browns and Blacks are usually instantly labelled as “terrorists” even if they remain only suspects and not guilty. Who should be blamed for continuation of such labelling? After all, in the case of Bondi-case, true the religious identity of alleged criminals was Islam, who apparently targeted primarily a Jewish celebration. However, criminals/terrorists do not represent even a percentage of world’s Muslim population. So, why should their religion- Islam be linked with terrorism? But sadly, when it is, it amounts to encouraging more criminals to resort to the same strategy to promote their moves. When leaders/power-holders choose to criticize them on ground of their identity (whether religious, nationality or any other) and sympathize with victims on basis of theirs, it tends to exploitation of “religious” card leading to polarization along communal lines. This does not contribute to decline of terrorism but tends to enhance it, by those criticizing it along religious as well as from the few choosing to justify for religious reasons.

It is strange, but the manner in which religious-cards tend to be used in contrary manners cannot be ignored. This refers to greater importance probably being given to economic worth of those being elevated and/or targeted. The religious identity of majority of oil-rich Arab rulers bears a different meaning diplomatically and of course- economically- for leaders of other countries where Muslims constitute economically weak minority. Where money acts as a magnetic force, religious identity despite being displayed prominently by rulers tends to be refrained from being linked with terrorism by leaders of most non-Muslim countries. And yet, those hailing from the same religion, but with little/no economic power, are easily/instantly linked with terrorism by the same leaders. This stands true in the East, the West and also in countries boasting of secularism, including United States and India.

Now, with respect to incidents being linked with anti-Semitism and Palestine, what does this really suggest? When leaders indulge in such language, it primarily amounts to their promoting/spreading/advertising what they’d prefer greater part of the world to believe in. It also amounts to justifying their war-games. It may be noted, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not take long to indulge in such language after the Bondi-killings. That is apparently is his way of “justifying” Israel’s war-exercises against Palestinians, which also amount to repeated violations of the so-called ceasefire.

The tragedy is the alacrity with which these “justifications” are given importance diplomatically as well as in the media. The saving grace is that nowadays common people have begun giving little importance to such attempts being made to spread and enhance communal polarization, particularly along religious lines. The majority have understood that leaders who have little else to boast about tend to exploit/use/abuse religious-cards in a bid to advertise their own power/strength and win support for their war-games/communal activities. As suggested, sections of people have risen above these moves. This is marked by recent victory of Zohran Mamdani (a Muslim) as Mayor-elect of New York City. In Australia, Ahmed Al-Ahmed, Australian Muslim of Syrian-origin, succeeded in disarming one of the attackers at Bondi Beach. He has been hailed as a hero of heroes by Australians and has also been complimented by several leaders, including US President Donald Trump. What needs to be noted is not just Mamdani’s religion or that of Ahmed but that people voting for the former and those hailing the latter have not let any leaders’ communal polarization decide their moves. But people still have a long way to go in defeating communal leaders spreading terrorism with “religious” labels!

Nilofar Suhrawardy is a senior journalist and writer with specialization in communication studies and nuclear diplomacy. She has come out with several books.

20 December 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Roger D. Harris

In our Donald-in-Wonderland world, the US is at war with Venezuela while still grasping for a public rationale. The horrific human toll is real – over a 100,000 fatalities from illegal sanctions and over a hundred from more recent “kinetic strikes.” Yet the officially stated justification for the US empire’s escalating offensive remains elusive.

The empire once spun its domination as “democracy promotion.” Accordingly, State Department stenographers such as The Washington Post framed the US-backed coup in Venezuela – which temporarily overthrew President Hugo Chávez – as an attempt to “restore a legitimate democracy.” The ink had barely dried on The New York Timeseditorial of April 13, 2002 – which legitimized that imperial “democratic” restoration – before the Venezuelan people spontaneously rose up and reinstated their elected president.

When the America Firsters captured the White House, Washington’s worn-out excuse of the “responsibility to protect,” so beloved by the Democrats, was banished from the realm along with any pretense of altruism. Not that the hegemon’s actions were ever driven by anything other than self-interest. The differences between the two wings of the imperial bird have always been more rhetorical than substantive.

Confronted by Venezuela’s continued resistance, the new Trump administration retained the policy of regime change but switched the pretext to narcotics interdiction. The Caribbean was cast as a battlefield in a renewed “war on drugs.” Yet with Trump’s pardon of convicted narco-trafficker and former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández – among many other contradictions – the alibi was wearing thin.

Venezuelan oil tankers blockaded

The ever-mercurial US president flipped the narrative on December 16, announcing on Truth Social that the US would blockade Venezuelan oil tankers. He justified this straight up act of war with the striking claim that Venezuela had stolen “our oil, our land, and other assets.”

For the record, Venezuela had nationalized its petroleum industry half a century ago. Foreign companies were compensated.

This presidential social media post followed an earlier one, issued two weeks prior, ordering the airspace above and surrounding Venezuela “closed in its entirety.” The US had also seized an oil tanker departing Venezuela, struck several alleged drug boats, and continued to build up naval forces in the region.

In response to the maritime threat, President Nicolás Maduro ordered the Venezuelan Navy to escort the tankers. The Pentagon was reportedly caught by surprise. China, Mexico, Brazil, BRICS, Turkey, along with international civil society, condemned the escalation. Russia warned the US not to make a “fatal mistake.”

The New York Times reported a “backfire” of nationalist resistance to US aggression among the opposition in Venezuela. Popular demonstrations in support of Venezuela erupted throughout the Americas in Argentina, Panama, Ecuador, Peru, Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, Honduras, and the US.

Trump’s phrasing about Venezuela’s resources is not incidental. It reveals an assumption that precedes and structures the policy itself: that Venezuelan sovereignty is conditional, subordinate to US claims, and revocable whenever it conflicts with Yankee economic or strategic interests. This marks a shift in emphasis, not in substance; drugs have receded from center stage, replaced by oil as the explicit casus belli.

The change is revealing. When Trump speaks of “our” oil and land, he collapses the distinction between corporate access, geopolitical leverage, and national entitlement. Venezuelan resources are no longer considered merely mismanaged or criminally exploited; they are portrayed as property wrongfully withheld from its rightful owner.

The day after his Truth Social post, Trump’s “most pointless prime-time presidential address ever delivered in American history” (in the words ofrightwing blogger Matt Walsh) did not even mention the war on Venezuela. Earlier that same day, however, two House resolutions narrowly failed that would have restrained Trump from continuing strikes on small boats and from exercising war powers without congressional approval.

Speaking against the restraining resolutions, Rep. María Elvira Salazar – the equivalent of Lewis Carroll’s Red Queen and one of the far-right self-described “Crazy Cubans” in Congress – hailed the 1983 Grenada and 1989 Panama invasions as models. She approvingly noted both were perpetrated without congressional authorization and suggested Venezuela should be treated in the same way.

The votes showed that nearly half of Congress is critical – compared to 70% of the general public – but their failure also allows Trump to claim that Congress reviewed his warlike actions and effectively granted him a mandate to continue.

Non-international armed conflict

In this Trumpian Wonderland, a naval blockade with combat troops rappelling from helicopters to seize ships becomes merely a “non-international armed conflict” not involving an actual country. The enemy is not even an actual flesh and blood entity but a tactic – narco-terrorism.

Trump posted: “Venezuelan Regime has been designated a FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATION.” Yet FTOs are non-state actors lacking sovereign immunities conferred by either treaties or UN membership. Such terrorist labels are not descriptive instruments but strategic ones, designed to foreclose alternatives short of war.

In a feat of rhetorical alchemy, the White House designated fentanyl a “weapon of mass destruction.” Trump accused Venezuela of flooding the US with the deadly synthetic narcotic, when his own Drug Enforcement Administration says the source is Mexico. This recalls a previous disastrous regime-change operation in Iraq, also predicated on lies about WMDs.

Like the Cheshire Cat, presidential chief of staff Susie Wiles emerges as the closest to a reliable narrator in a “we’re all mad here” regime. She reportedly said Trump “wants to keep on blowing boats up until Maduro cries uncle,” openly acknowledging that US policy has always been about imperial domination.

The oil is a bonus for the hegemon. But even if Venezuela were resource-poor like Cuba and Nicaragua, it still would be targeted for exercising independent sovereignty.

Seen in that light, Trump’s claim that Venezuela stole “our” oil and land is less an error than a confession. It articulates a worldview in which US power defines legitimacy and resources located elsewhere are treated as imperial property by default. The blockade is not an aberration; it is the logical extension of a twisted belief that sovereignty belongs to whoever is strong enough to seize it. Trump is, in effect, demanding reparations for imperialists for the hardship of living in a world where other countries insist their resources belong to them.

Roger D. Harris is a founding member of the Venezuela Solidarity Network and is active with the Task Force on the Americas and the SanctionsKill Campaign

20 December 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Hassan Abo Qamar

Two months after the US-brokered ceasefire-that-is-not-a-ceasefire came into effect, Gaza appears calm – but it is not at peace.

The bombs no longer fall daily, yet some nights are still pierced by airstrikes. In late October, one such bombardment killed at least 104 Palestinians.

In total, since 10 October, when the agreement went into effect, Israel has killed at least 394 people, according to Gaza’s health ministry, while violating the ceasefire agreement over 738 times.

Israel’s military violence is just one side of the coin. Gaza is devastated. Over 80 percent of Gaza’s buildings have been damaged or destroyed, creating what the UN estimates is 61 million tonnes of rubble. Entire neighborhoods have been flattened.

Hospitals, homes and businesses all lie in ruin. Gaza’s education system has been all but erased: more than 95 percent of school buildings and 79 percent of higher education campuses have been damaged or destroyed.

One of the key planks of the October ceasefire agreement was a commitment to rebuild what has been destroyed. Yet, so far there has been no meaningful reconstruction, leaving people to face the winter storms and rains in whatever tents and shelters they currently have.

In practice, the October agreement has merely extended Israel’s siege by other means. Israel maintains full control over Gaza’s crossings – now, as before genocide, its preferred weapon of domination – and thus the delivery of aid, the movement of people and the most basic conditions for survival, including electricity, water, food and medical supplies.

Deepening occupation

This control now extends to Gaza’s internal geography. As per the ceasefire plan, the Israeli military has established effective control over more than half of the Gaza Strip, including much of its remaining agricultural land and the border crossing with Egypt. The so-called “yellow line,” which divides Gaza, is now being presented not merely as a temporary armistice line, but as a “new border,” according to Israel’s military chief, a clear violation of the US plan.

Not a truck nor a convoy moves without the Israeli military’s approval. Aid convoys carrying food or medical supplies must obtain permission. Many convoys are delayed or denied without explanation. And aid deliveries continue to fall far short of the 600 aid trucks daily agreed under the October deal, with the UN estimating that, until 7 December, just 113 trucks have been allowed through on average every day.

As a direct result, prices of basic goods remain painfully high in Gaza’s markets, a situation compounded by the absence of any governing authority to regulate trade, allowing a small number of traders and smugglers to monopolize commercial trucks, restrict supply and inflate prices.

Liquidity restrictions also persist, forcing Gazans to pay cash withdrawal fees of 20 percent, which further drives inflation and erodes the value of money.

Rescue teams in Gaza, meanwhile, suffer shortages of fuel, heavy machinery and specialized equipment whose entry Israel prohibits. This not only prevents any reconstruction efforts, it undercuts attempts to clear rubble, open streets and retrieve bodies buried under destroyed buildings.

The Palestinian Civil Defense estimates that around 9,000 corpses remain buried beneath rubble.

The shortage of fuel and equipment has also worsened displacement. As of mid-October, nearly 800,000 people have returned to their areas, over 650,000 of them to northern Gaza, many to find nothing but total devastation. Entire neighborhoods have been erased, and water pipes, power lines and sewage systems lie unrepairable under rubble that cannot be shifted.

The so-called “reconstruction phase” – supposedly part of the second stage of the US-brokered deal – remains an empty slogan. For most families, “returning home” means pitching tents beside the ruins of their houses.

Healthcare as a weapon

Displacement camps have turned into semi-permanent cities of fabric and dust, and most displaced households still lack reliable access to food and clean water, leaving the displaced at the mercy of the cold and the wet and the diseases these bring.

Gaza’s healthcare sector faces immense challenges after the ceasefire, however, from a lack of medicine and equipment to the inability to treat the wounded and rebuild hospitals and health care centers.

According to the UN after the ceasefire came in, just 34 percent of “health service points” – that is hospitals, clinics, field hospitals, primary health care centers – are still functioning in Gaza.

Gaza’s health sector has received virtually no aid or donations since 10 October, according to Raafat al-Majdalawi, director-general of the Al-Awda Hospital in Jabaliya in the north. He told Al-Jazeera Arabic that everything is needed in Gaza – from medical supplies and generators to beds and sheets and advanced medical equipment.

The World Health Organization reports that around 18,500 patients, including 4,000 children, urgently need medical treatment unavailable inside Gaza. Yet since US President Donald Trump’s ceasefire began, only a handful of medical cases have been allowed to leave. The first medical evacuation, on 22 October, included just 41 patients and 145 companions, though that has since risen to a total of 260 evacuations.

Thousands remain on waiting lists, and many die while waiting for permission to cross. Israel’s control over medical evacuations has effectively turned healthcare into a bargaining chip.

Managed decay

Israel’s strategy since the ceasefire has not been to rebuild Gaza, but to manage its collapse. By controlling what enters and leaves, Israel dictates the pace of Gaza’s decay. It maintains the illusion of progress – a few aid convoys here, a photo opportunity there – while ensuring that no real recovery can take root.

This is not a failure of the ceasefire-that-is-not-a-ceasefire. It is its essence. Gaza’s reconstruction has been framed as a privilege, not a right – tied to political conditions meant to weaken Palestinians and deepen the political divide between Gaza and the West Bank. Each truckload of cement or fuel becomes a tool of negotiation, each travel permit a reminder of dependency.

The result is a warped form of “peace” in which Gaza remains trapped in its own ruins. For Israel, this is a comfortable calm, one that avoids international outrage over its indiscriminate bombing while keeping Palestinians subdued under economic and humanitarian pressure.

For Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, the ceasefire-that-is-not-a-ceasefire has created a situation where he can escalate the situation in Gaza at will, just like in Lebanon.

This may prove useful to Netanyahu if he feels heat from his coalition partners or is threatened by pending corruption charges, for which Trump wants Netanyahu pardoned.

The ceasefire was supposed to mark the end of war. Instead, it has revealed the depth of Gaza’s destruction and the cruelty of a system built to keep it impoverished, dependent and wrecked.

It is a deliberate and cynical policy to keep Gaza broken – suspended in uncertainty, awaiting decisions made in Washington and Tel Aviv, completely indifferent to the lives of those who remain trapped inside.

Hassan Abo Qamar is a writer based in Gaza.

20 December 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dr. Ramzy Baroud

Three dominant narratives contend for the future of Gaza and occupied Palestine, yet only one is being translated into consequential action: the Israeli narrative of domination and genocide. This singular, violent vision is the only one backed by the brute force of policy and fact.

The first narrative belongs to the Trump administration, largely embraced by the US Western allies. It rests on the self-serving claim that US President Donald Trump personally solved the Middle East crisis, ushering in a peace that has supposedly eluded the region for thousands of years. Figures like Trump, his son-in-law Jared Kushner, and US-Israel Ambassador Mike Huckabee are presented as architects of a new regional order.

This narrative is exclusive, domineering, and US-centric. It was exemplified by Trump himself when he declared the Gaza conflict “over” and presented a “peace plan” that strategically avoided any clear commitment to Palestinian statehood. The entire vision is built on transactional diplomacy and a dismissal of international legal consensus, positioning US approval as the sole measure of legitimacy.

The second narrative is that of the Palestinians, supported by Arab nations and much of the Global South. Here, the goal is Palestinian freedom and rights grounded in international law and humanitarian principles.

This discourse is frequently shaped by statements from top Arab officials. Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty, for example, asserted last April that the two-state solution is “the only way to achieve security and stability in this region”, adding a warning: “If we disregard international law, (…) this will open the way for the law of the jungle to prevail.” This narrative continues to insist on international law as central to true regional peace.

The third narrative is Israel’s—and it is the only one backed by concrete, aggressive policy. This vision is written through sustained, systematic violence against civilians, aggressive land seizures, deliberate home demolitions, and explicit government declarations that a Palestinian state will never be permitted. Its actors operate with chilling impunity, rapidly creating irreversible facts on the ground. Crucially, the failure to enforce accountability for this pervasive violence is the primary reason Israel has been able to sustain its devastating genocide in Gaza for two full years.

This narrative is not theoretical; it is articulated through the chilling acts and legislative pushes of the highest-ranking government officials.

On December 8, Israel’s National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir appeared in a Knesset session wearing a noose-shaped pin while pushing for a death penalty bill targeting Palestinian prisoners. The minister stated openly that the noose was “just one of the options” through which they would implement the death penalty, listing “the option of hanging, the electric chair, and (…) lethal injection”.

Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, meanwhile, announced an allocation of $843 million to expand illegal settlements over the next five years, a massive step toward formal annexation. This unprecedented funding is specifically earmarked to relocate military bases, establish absorption clusters of mobile homes, and create a dedicated land registry to formalize Israeli governmental control over the occupied Palestinian territory.

This policy of territorial expansion is cemented by the ideological head of government, as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself made it clear that “There will not be a Palestinian state. It’s very simple: it will not be established,” calling its potential creation “an existential threat to Israel.” This unequivocal rejection confirms that the official Israeli government strategy is outright territorial expansion and the permanent denial of Palestinian self-determination.

None of these Israeli officials shows the slightest interest in Trump’s “peace plan” or in the Palestinian vision of statehood. Netanyahu’s core objective is ensuring that international law is never implemented, that no semblance of Palestinian sovereignty is established, and that Israel can contravene the law at a time and manner of its choosing.

The fact is, these narratives cannot continue to coexist. Only real accountability — through political, legal, and economic pressure — can halt Israel’s advance toward continuing its genocidal campaign, destruction, and punitive legislation. This must include the swift imposition of sanctions on Israel and its top officials, comprehensive arms embargoes against Tel Aviv to end ongoing wars, and full accountability at the International Criminal Court (ICC) and International Court of Justice (ICJ).

As long as the pro-Palestine narrative lacks the tools to enforce its principles, Israel and its Western backers will see no reason to alter course. States must replace symbolic gestures and prioritize aggressive, proactive accountability measures. This means moving beyond simple verbal condemnation and applying concrete legal and economic pressure.

Israel is now more isolated than ever, with public opinion rapidly collapsing globally. This isolation must be leveraged by pro-Palestine forces through coordinated, decisive diplomatic action, pushing for a unified global front that demands the enforcement of international law and holding Israel and its many war criminals accountable for their ongoing crimes.

A lasting peace can only be built on the foundation of justice, not on the military reality established by an aggressor that does not hesitate to employ genocide in the service of its political designs. This is the undeniable moral frontier: confronting and dismantling the impunity that allows a state to pursue extermination as a political tool.

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

20 December 2025

Source: countercurrents.org