Archives: Articles

By Yader Lanuza

After the Trump administration illegally kidnapped the legitimate president of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, on January 3rd, 2026, we saw two distinct and divergent responses from Venezuelans. On the one hand, the Venezuelan diaspora, especially in the United States, celebrated President Maduro’s kidnapping and bombing of their birth country. They congregated in small gatherings the weekend of the abduction, including in Miami. These celebrations, alongside videos online, were widely disseminated in corporate and social media for a US-based (and broader Western) audience, all broadcasting the same message: Venezuelans support President Maduro’s abduction. On the other hand, inside Venezuela, for weeks after the illegal abduction, citizens engaged in (almost) daily and massive demonstrations to condemn the attack that killed and wounded over 100 people. These protests have not been shared by US corporate media and have been suppressed in US-aligned social media; thus, a US audience is not privy to the substantial support for Chavismo and President Maduro.

The US propaganda assault plays a large part in generating these two opposing reactions regarding President Maduro’s abduction among Venezuelans, outside (celebration), especially among the US-based diaspora, compared to inside (condemnation) Venezuela. The US propaganda assault refers to the US’s (or its aligned entities’) deployment of its vast ideological apparatus (White House communications, corporate media, academia, social media, NGOs and international organizations) to impose narratives about Venezuela, especially its economic and political conditions, that undermine the Bolivarian Revolution to justify US intervention. The US propaganda assault shapes how Venezuelans make sense of their experiences in and – for those who left – out of Venezuela, generating more support for the illegal kidnapping of President Maduro among those living abroad compared to those living inside Venezuela, where the propaganda assault faces reality and a stronger counteroffensive, undermining its effectiveness.

The Venezuelan Diaspora

In general, Venezuelans in the United States are more likely to support the illegal kidnapping of President Maduro because of their adherence and susceptibility to US-deployed narratives about the Bolivarian Revolution, often linked to their socioeconomic background in Venezuela.

Venezuelans in the United States, as a group, “have higher rates of educational attainment than either native- or overall foreign-born populations” and they are, on average, more educated than their compatriots in Venezuela. Because education is a common marker of socioeconomic status, the Venezuelan diaspora tends to be more socioeconomically advantaged than compatriots who stayed in Venezuela. Moreover, some members of Venezuela’s upper-class and elites migrated to the US after Chavez came to power in 1999, as they are the most vociferous opponents to his political project, a socialism of the 21st century. Thus, middle- and upper-class (and elite) segments of Venezuelan society are overrepresented in the Venezuelan diaspora in the United States. These individuals led comfortable lives in Venezuela until US economic attacks induced economic deterioration and emigration; they carry all of the disappointment, anger, hurt, and resentment associated with economic difficulties – or reduced advantaged among the upper-class and elites – and subsequent displacement.

Venezuelans with middle and upper-classes backgrounds – and especially elites – tend to adhere most closely to a US-centric neoliberal and imperial worldview, a prevalent perspective among more advantaged individuals all over Latin America. Two dimensions of this worldview are imperative. First, the state should be subordinated to capital. Secondly, the US’ unruly “rules-based order” – with its related economic, political, and cultural dimensions – should have hegemony over the world, especially the Western Hemisphere. According to this worldview, US neoliberal imperial hegemony is morally superior to other arrangements; thus, US intervention in foreign nation-states to maintain its hegemony is justified. More advantaged, usually light-skinned sectors of Latin America, including in Venezuela, see themselves as part of a US-aligned cosmopolitan milieu, whose perspective they enforce, often violently, in their countries of birth.

US Propaganda for a Receptive Venezuelan Diaspora

The New York Times, the most powerful and effective mouthpiece of US empire’s propaganda, recently acknowledged that US economic and financial attacks “crushed the Venezuelan economy and led to a humanitarian crisis.” As the US destroyed the Venezuelan economy and created a humanitarian crisis, it deployed (and continues to deploy) a propaganda assault that minimizes or outright obscures the role that US attacks have played in the economic devastation and political troubles in Venezuela. The propaganda assault shifts blame away from the US government onto Chavismo’s leadership, suggesting that the economic duress in Venezuela was primarily – or even exclusively – a result of “mismanagement and corruption” endemic to socialism, in general, and Chavismo, in particular, led by its “narcotrafficker” leader, Nicolas Maduro. For instance, the claim that Maduro is a narcotrafficker who heads the non-existent Cartel de los Soles was taken as fact in the most recent Rubio hearings about Venezuela, even though the US government itself has jettisoned this accusation from the “legal” proceedings against President Maduo, a tacit admission that it is false. The fact that corporate media knew about the military attacks ahead of time and refused to publish or sound the alarm is perhaps the best evidence that they are a complicit player in the assault against Venezuela.

The neoliberal imperial worldview is a crucial part of the propaganda assault against the Bolivarian Revolution, as it dictates the parameters, including premises and assumptions, that structure debates about Venezuela, including the legitimate role of the US in its affairs. For instance, at the referenced Rubio hearings, questioning from most senators relied on the premise that the US has the right to intervene in Venezuela’s internal affairs and kidnap its sitting president, a blatant violation of international law. Stunningly, though not surprisingly, some congressmen reprimanded Rubio for not going further and targeting other high-profile Chavista leaders and installing opposition figure Machado as president, demands only conceivable under a neoliberal imperial worldview. The parameters of the debate that the US propaganda assault delimits is found in most debates about Venezuela, regardless of its interlocutors.

Moreover, when the Bolivarian Revolution defends itself against US attacks, including limiting US influence through opposition proxies, it is labeled “authoritarian.” For example, the US propaganda assault paints US-funded guarimberos as “political prisoners.” These criminals destroyed public and private property, including schools and killed Venezuelans and targeted Chavistas, including by burning them alive in an attempt to dislodge the Bolivarian Revolution from power. When the Chavista government jailed these “political prisoners,” the US propaganda assault accused the Bolivarian Revolution of authoritarianism, noting that these actions are proof that President Maduro (and Chavez before him) is a dictator. The US propaganda assault does not acknowledge the heinous crimes these guarimberos committed. Due to Chavismo’s alleged authoritarianism, a neoliberal imperial worldview demands that the United States has a duty to intervene in order to “liberate” the allegedly “oppressed” people to clear the way for foreign capital with its subservient “democracy,” a “common sense” solution to its hardships.

The more privileged segment of the Venezuelan society diaspora, who strongly adhere to a neoliberal imperial worldview, is exposed to nothing but anti-Chavismo narratives in the United States. Notably, the US propaganda assault politicizes some members of the diaspora to such a degree that the “MAGAzolano” emerges as a political actor: Venezuelans who ardently support Trump, even though Trump is attacking their country, killing their compatriots with illegal military incursions, and making life unbearable for Venezuelan immigrants through oppressive immigration enforcement and the deportation regime in the US. Although the MAGAzolano is often found among more privileged Venezuelans – who tend to be light-skinned descendants of European immigrants who consider themselves White – they are not limited to this group.

Economic difficulties and subsequent emigration, refracted through a US propaganda assault, including a neoliberal imperial world view, feeds and deepens these middle-class, upper-class, and elite Venezuelans’ disappointment, anger, hurt, and resentment about their situation, thereby hardening their views against Chavismo, including blaming of Maduro for their personal difficulties. Consequently, these Venezuelan in the diaspora to celebrate the military attack that led to Maduro’s illegal abduction.

Chavismo finds most support among working-class Venezuelans. For this reason, working class Venezuelans are the primary target of the US propaganda assault. For instance, when Chavistas appear in corporate media, Chavismo is presented as a failed boogeyman. One corporate media report, which featured a Chavismo-supporting family who lost a son to the US military attack, describes the socialist Bolivarian Revolution as “faded,” and “handicapped by corruption cronyism, and incompetence and” – wait for it, at the end of the list – “US-led sanctions.” Notably, the story articulates the lofty aims of the Bolivarian revolution that Chavez started but only to highlight its failures.

Due to the absence of forceful and consistent counternarratives in corporate-owned legacy and social media against US propaganda, arguments against Chavismo – largely unopposed – gain ground. Consequently, support for Chavismo weakens among this segment of the population in the US. Moreover, the propaganda assault is coupled with incentives to sing an anti-Maduro tune in the US, especially in co-ethnic communities like Miami, a hotbed of anti-socialist sentiment. In these locales, employment and other opportunities may vanish if one articulates support the Bolivarian revolution. Furthermore, legalization incentives decrease articulating support for President Maduro, as a pathway to legalization might be more likely if one argues political persecution by the Chavista government. Thus, the US propaganda assault and material incentives undermine support for Chavismo, even among its followers. At the very least, every anti-Chavismo story in the press – in the absence of counternarratives – sows doubt, leading these working-class individuals who support the Bolivarian Revolution in the diaspora to ask: Is it true?

The Limits of the US Propaganda Assault Inside Venezuela

Condemnation for President Maduro’s illegal kidnapping is stronger and more visible inside Venezuela, largely because Chavismo is the strongest political movement inside the country, because these Venezuelans had to deal with bombs landing on their heads, and because the US propaganda assault encounters reality and a stronger narrative counteroffensive.

Chavismo is the strongest social movement in Venezuela. Since Chavez came to power, Chavismo has won most of the over 30 elections Venezuela has held at different levels of governance. They control all of the levers of power and enjoy the most mobilized base compared to other political movements, including the fractured political right. Notably Chavismo has empowered communes, which strengthen support for Chavismo on the ground. For instance, in November 2025, a national election took place so that communes could vote to prioritize projects whose support is provided by the federal government. The PSUV (Socialist Party) is the largest and most organized political organization in the country. Central to the US propaganda assault is to refuse to acknowledge, attempt to obscure, or outright deny this fact. While US propaganda buries this fact from a US-based (and Western) audience, including the Venezuelan diaspora, it cannot disguise it from Venezuelans inside the country, who sees – with their own eyes – Chavismo mobilized on the streets, thereby undermining the US propaganda assault’s effectiveness.

Notably, the military attack against Venezuela generated a “rally-behind-the-flag” effect. The aggression against Venezuela affected all of its citizens, regardless of political ideology, leading Chavistas and non-Chavistas alike to condemn the intervention. For instance, bombs landed on La Boyera, a historically stronghold for the opposition, destroying homes and harming individuals. The attack also destroyed a medical warehouse that stored supplies for dialysis patients in La Guaira and damaged a research center in Miranda state. [In a show of solidarity, the Brazilian government donated medical supplies to help these patients.] Venezuelans of all political stripes are dealing with the psychological and emotional toll of Trump’s attack.

Among Venezuelans inside Venezuela, there is no confusion as to who bombed them and who defended them, heightening patriotism in defense of their sovereignty. Because Chavismo is in charge of the government, it emerged as the unequivocal defender of Venezuela sovereignty, generating sympathy (or quelling animosity), if not support, among some detractors. Maria Corina Machado’s gifting of her Nobel “peace” medal to Trump as a sign of gratitude for bombing Venezuela highlighted a contrast between those who support (extreme right-wing opposition) and those who reject (Chavismo) the US military attacks, defining the latter as the protector of the Venezuelan people. Importantly, the rally-behind-the-flag effect reveals why propaganda assault was launched first, as it undermines and diffuses patriotic cohesion by concealing the US as the unequivocal aggressor. It is not surprising that some non-Chavistas have joined the demonstrations condemning the illegal attack. Having experienced the attack first-hand, they are not eager to stand in a town square and celebrate bombs raining down on them and the killing of their compatriots and neighbors.

Inside Venezuela, Chavismo supporters offer counternarratives to the US propaganda assault. Social media, state-sponsored media, and the pulpit of the presidency – among other avenues – is deployed to help people understand the US assault and what the Bolivarian Revolution is doing about it. For example, these outlets point out that the US attacked to steal their natural resources, not for democracy or any other excuse. Importantly, they debunk a range of narratives that attempt to divide and, therefore, weaken Chavismo (see below). They highlight how the extreme right-wing opposition has called for US military intervention and how they have celebrated the bombing of their compatriots; in doing so, they highlight how un-patriotic these right-wing sectors are and how little they care for the Venezuelan population. Importantly, they highlight the importance of socialist principles to understand and resist this attack, and how a deepening of socialism is the only answer to US pressure.

The US Propaganda Assault Doubles Down

After the military aggression, the US propaganda assault against the Bolivarian Revolution has jumped into hyperdrive to generate division and weaken Chavismo in an effort to dislodge the socialist project from controlling the Venezuelan government. The US propaganda assault continues to try to break Chavismo, targeting Delcy Rodriguez, the Vice President who is now in charge in President Maduro’s absence, Jorge Rodriguez, the head of the assembly (and Delcy’s brother), and, most importantly, Diosdado Cabello, the interior Minister. These narratives include:

“Chavistas did not fight back against the US attack; they are weak.” “The ‘capture’ was an exacting, clean, and without resistance.” “The abduction is legal.” “Traitors collaborated with the US; Chavismo is ready to collapse from within.” “Delcy and her brother betrayed Maduro; Chavismo is fractured.” “Delcy is an opportunist ready to give up her Chavista roots for power.” “Delcy has expensive taste; she is a hypocrite and not committed to the Bolivarian revolution.” “Diosdado Cabello is the real motor behind Chavismo; Delcy must be weary of him.” “Diosdado Cabello betrayed Maduro.” “Diosdado is a narcoterrorist.” “Chavista leadership has abandoned the Bolivarian revolution.” “Trump runs the United States.” “Delcy is subservient to Trump and CIA.” “Chavista leaders have millions in offshore banks; they are not real socialists.”

One of these narratives – “Delcy is a narcotrafficker.” – is a rehashing of US accusations against Maduro. The Bolivarian Revolution’s resistance to these nefarious narratives is also working overtime, undermining the attacks’ effectiveness, providing almost instantaneous rebuttals. Many of these US propaganda narratives have been thoroughly debunked. But new ones emerge, and old ones recycled, almost on a daily basis. As Vijay Prashad notes: “Every single Western corporate newspaper has run a story on how the Venezuelan leadership made a deal with US to hand over Maduro.” The evidence? Boogeyman “anonymous sources,” who almost always turn out to be US intelligence campaigns that feed corporate media the narrative the US wants to impose. The corporate media, for their part, does little to investigate and corroborate the anonymous sources’ claim; they just print them without proof or verification, acting as a propaganda arm of the US government. Note that as the Chavismo leadership negotiates with the US, the latter is engaged in a ferocious propaganda assault to undermine the Bolivarian government.

Finally, Venezuelans abroad try to silence support for Maduro by arguing that those who did not experience the economic hardships that they experienced do not have a right to speak. As a rebuttal, those inside the country argue that Venezuelans who left during the most difficult times as a result of the US financial attacks did not experience the subsequent economic upward swing that Chavismo engineered, despite US-imposed crippling sanctions. Venezuela has experienced continued economic growth from 2020-2025, which is one of the primary reasons the United States used the military to encircle and attack it; the Bolivarian Revolution was outmaneuvering US economic sanctions. Those who stayed in Venezuela experienced, firsthand, economic recovery, however slow, a reality that cannot be denied to those who experienced it.

A Note on the Imperial Left: The Reach of the US Propaganda Assault

US propaganda assault deploys narratives to undermine the Bolivarian Revolution which face few counternarratives in the United States, including among self-professed “progressives,” “leftists,” or “democratic socialists.” One of the most despicable arguments that emerges out of this group, which I refer to as the “imperial left,” is the ever self-serving “both-sideism” claim. It states that both of the following claims are true: Maduro – and Chavismo more generally – is “corrupt” and “authoritarian” and “mismanaged” the economy and the US carried out an illegal attack and abduction against Venezuela and its leader. These imperial leftists reject both Chavismo and the United States’ actions, thereby projecting a seemingly “neutral,” “objective,” and “unbiased” perspective.

Although “both-sideism” appears as a “neutral,” “unbiased,” and “objective” stance, it is actually in alignment with US aggression against the Bolivarian Revolution. This narrative creates a moral equivalence between the victim (Venezuela and its Bolivarian revolution) and its aggressor (the United States) that render them both objectionable, which undermines support for Chavismo and, consequently, demobilizes anti-imperial resistance inside the US and strengthens Venezuelan diaspora support for the illegal kidnapping of President Maduro. Notably, for this “equivalence” to work, imperial leftists accept narratives deployed by the US government, including that Chavismo’s mismanagement, corruption, and authoritarianism is primarily responsible for Venezuela’s economic duress, ignoring actual evidence. In doing so, “both-sideism” legitimizes US government claims and, consequently, its purported reasoning for intervention. For the imperial left, self-defense under imperial aggression is dictatorship; concessions forced under imperial attacks exemplify lack of revolutionary commitment, and neutralization of US proxies reveal authoritarianism. If not a perfect socialist utopia, the imperial left is more than happy to join right-wing forces against revolutionary governments working towards socialism, including in Latin America. All they accomplish is undermining solidarity and resistance against imperial aggression.

Will the Real Venezuelan Please Stand Up!

By highlighting Venezuelans abroad who celebrated the January 3rd military attack against their birth country, the US propaganda assault seeks to impose the narrative that all Venezuelans support the illegal kidnapping of President Maduro. To do so, it obscures Venezuelans inside and outside the country who disagree. Even outside of Venezuelan, however, opposition to the illegal kidnapping of President Maduro is alive and well – and ignored by US corporate media. For instance, in a demonstration in Paris, France a Venezuelan migrant raised her voice and spoke thus:

I lived in Venezuela until 2017 and had to leave – not because I wanted to, but because of the economic sanctions the US imposes against my country for the fact that Venezuela dared to nationalize its resources, including oil. But corporate media will not tell you this; its propaganda – along with the far-right extremist elements of the Venezuelan opposition – want you to believe that Venezuela is a failure. But this is not true. Venezuela is a country that, despite imperialist sanctions, endures. When are we going to believe Yanquí propaganda? It’s time to stop legitimizing narratives that justify invasions. History is on our side.

Although ignored, voices like these rings out all over the world, despite having a difficult time finding a public platform for dissemination. Inside Venezuela, these voices are loud and find themselves in every nook and cranny of the national territory, which make them hard to ignore or obscure.

US violence against Venezuelans is intentionally obscured by the US propaganda assault, but it inevitably becomes apparent, often in the midst of dire circumstances, especially in the United States. At the end of one of Maduro kidnapping celebrations, for instance, ICE agents showed up and detained some Venezuelans. One of those individuals captured articulates the reality that the propaganda assault conceals. He says: “We were only celebrating Maduro’s capture. And they brought us here [to an ICE detention center]. Its’ unjust. Now that I am in this condition, I don’t know who the bad guy is. I thought Maduro was the dictator, but it is Donald Trump who has jailed us.”

Chavismo is Alive and Continues Fighting

The analyst Diego Sequera describes the successful US military aggression that led to the kidnapping of President Maduro as a “sugar-high victory,” suggesting it is momentary and fleeting. Right now, the Trump administration and the extreme right-wing opposition is overcome with glee, expecting the abduction to signal the beginning of the end of Chavismo. However, events subsequent to the abduction call for a different interpretation. Chavismo endures. In the aftermath of the attacks, Venezuelan institutions held their ground, with Chavismo controlling all levers of power. Organizational capacity is strong. For instance, buildings destroyed by the attack were rapidly renovated, highlighting how the Bolivarian Revolution’s primary goals are to serve all Venezuelans. Moreover, due to the limited sanction relief, economic growth under the leadership of Delcy Rodriguez may generate more sympathy for Chavismo among skeptics and deepen commitment for the Bolivarian Revolution among its supporters. As it stands, approval for Rodriguez is high.

The US propaganda assault will continue to try splinter Venezuelan society, including sowing divisions between those who live inside and outside the country. This propaganda assault obscures the fact the military attack was a violation of Venezuelan sovereignty, not just aggression against the Bolivarian Revolution, a point the Bolivarian Revolution makes over and over again. Chavismo is absorbing the attack as a singular moment of vulnerability; it is re-grouping, re-organizing, and now re-energized, as it has done time and time again after each illegal, immoral, unjust US attack over its history. The fact that the Bolivarian Revolution did not crumble after the kidnapping of its president, as many other societies have done after a US strike, reveals the Bolivarian Revolution’s strength. The time ahead is full of uncertainty, sometimes necessitating temporary changes and strategic deceleration and/or concessions – as Chavez once said in a previous moment of political vulnerability – “por ahora” (for now). But the process continues. As the movement’s chant reminds us, “Chavez Vive! La Lucha Sigue!” For Chavistas, the Bolivarian Revolution está en marcha (marches on). There is never a final defeat or a final victory. Just temporary battles won or lost on the path towards a different world. Chavismo is now a structural feature of Venezuelan society, part of its DNA. Whatever happens in the days, something is assured: Chavismo is here to stay – working, building, organizing to unite Venezuelans, which the US propaganda assault has divided, and building, slowly, towards its next leap forward.

Yader Lanuza is an assistant professor of sociology at University of California, Santa Barbara,

23 February 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Hugh Curran

It seems clear that Israeli proponents of conflict in the Middle East, as well as supporters in the US media and politics, are determined to take America to war with Iran. This observation was forcefully stated by the global affairs analyst, Patrick Henningsen, who recently returned from Iran.

The causes of the protests are not necessarily related to the present regime itself but with economic conditions, including an inflation rate of 42% in December, 2025 while food prices rose by 72% and medical costs increased by 50%. The Iranian Rial has suffered sharp depreciation due to poor fiscal policies and mismanagement, but numerous sanctions have also taken a serious toll on Iran’s economy and its people.

Israel and the U.S. claim that Iran “poses an existential threat and therefore must give up its ballistic missile program, even though this is its primary deterrent”. President Trump has renewed a claim that Iran is not to be allowed to have nuclear weapons, despite Iran authorities claiming they are not planning on such a program which is acknowledged by U.S. intelligence assessments.

An additional justification for war is that thousands of protestors were injured or killed in recent demonstrations in Iran. Mai Sato, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Iran has cited “around 5000 deaths” while the “Human Rights Activists News Agency” states that there were 7,015 deaths. The Iran state media reports that 3117 died, including over 100 officers. Others report a “spiral of disinformation”, promoted by supporters of the former Shah’s son, Reza Pahlavi, who have grossly inflated the numbers.

Former CIA director, Mike Pompeo was quoted in the Jerusalem Post as saying that “every [Israeli] Mossad agent walks beside them [Iranian demonstrators] with Mossad encouraging the anti-regime protestors: “Go out together into the streets. The time has come, “Mossad operatives are with the protestors “not only from a distance. We are with [them] in the field.”

Other extreme conservative views that have gained recent attention include those of Sen. Lindsey Graham: “The best answer to all the problems created by Iran is regime change and for the people to take the place of the ayatollah. I don’t believe they’re in the streets to build more nuclear weapons, they’re in the streets to have a better life.” He said that the United States must “meet the moment,” and that the Iranian regime is” at their weakest point since 1979.”

Regarding the risk of Iranian response to a U.S. strike, Graham said, “Could our soldiers be hit in the region? Absolutely they could. Can Iran respond if we have an all-out attack? Absolutely they can. I think the risk associated with that is far less than the risk associated with blinking and pulling the plug and not helping the people as you promised.”

Israel’s Netanyahu has been, for some time, promoting conflict with Iran and is, once again, attempting to persuade American leaders to engage in an attack in order to bring about regime change in the Islamic Republic.

A writer for Israel’s Haaretz News has warned that the U.S. ”is approaching the precipice without articulating a vision as to what will follow …[and is] plunging toward a large-scale war against the Islamic Republic of Iran”

Iran is receiving support from China which has become dependent upon the 1.5 million barrels of oil being shipped daily. Henningsen noted that “Iran possesses advanced missile technology, including newer hypersonic generations not yet deployed, improved targeting systems capable of hitting moving naval targets, proprietary guidance systems, and Chinese-assisted navigation technology”. Despite these defenses, “it’s… clear that the Neocons and Israeli operatives in US media and politics seem determined to take America,…to war.” And this, in spite of the dire consequences, which are likely to be devastating, not only to Iran but also to Israel itself.

Former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Chas Freeman, observes in an on-line interview, that “to be hated means that one does hateful things” and Israel’s leaders are behaving badly”.He noted that what Netanyahu means by peace is pacification [of Arab nations]. It is delusional and [shows] a complete lack of understanding of one’s enemies”. Ambassador Freeman observes that: “Israel is an apartheid state and is enabling dictatorial decisions that are not the “will of the people”. The leaders believe in their own propaganda, but they are not hated because they are Jews but because of their behavior in the destruction of Gaza as well as their targeted assassinations.

Hugh Curran teaches in Peace & Reconciliation Studies at the University of Maine

23 February 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Hassan Abo Qamar

On 30 November 2025, I attended my first university lecture at the Islamic University of Gaza.

The lecture should have taken place at the university’s main campus in Gaza City, but since the Israeli army has largely reduced it to rubble, the university rented a wedding venue in Nuseirat to serve as a makeshift lecture hall.

The university has also rented another wedding venue in Khan Younis and repaired the less damaged buildings in its Gaza City campus to maintain as much as possible the educational process on campus, though only for first-year students enrolled in a handful of specializations, including various branches of engineering.

“The best available right now”

I walked to the Nuseirat wedding venue, as it is the closest to my home, and arrived at the hall 10 minutes late, something I regretted. I found around 300 students – all engineering students from 14 different fields, including mechanical, electrical and industrial engineering – crammed into the space.

Long rows of white plastic chairs were packed so tightly that one had to walk sideways to pass between them.

The number of chairs was fewer than the number of students, and many of the students were forced to sit on the raised platform usually reserved for the bride and groom, balancing their notebooks on their laps.

There were no desks, no proper educational tools – just a projector screen and a professor delivering his lecture without the basic elements that make understanding possible.

Not only would a limited number of courses be taught on-site – such as calculus and physics for engineering students – but the hall was also allocated to female students from 9 am to 12 pm, and to male students from 12 pm to 4 pm, schedules that were delivered to students through WhatsApp groups.

When I arrived, the professor of engineering was already speaking from the front of the hall about the importance of attending lectures and the challenges facing the faculty of engineering, stressing that the university was trying to account for the educational loss caused by the Israeli genocide.

He stood holding a microphone, his voice cutting in and out, mostly due to a technical issue.

In a moment of silence, he finished his talk and said calmly, “I know this isn’t the hall you imagined. But it’s the best available right now. So we’ll start again with what we have. I’m glad to see you here after everything we’ve been through, and I wish you a successful university journey.”

An unusual silence filled the hall – not because we were comfortable (we weren’t) – but because his words were the first moment of honesty in a scene that felt unreal.

The day continued, and we studied three subjects in the same hall: engineering fundamentals, calculus and general physics.

In most lectures, we couldn’t write anything down – there were no desks, no clear view of the screen and no sound that reached us intelligibly.

During the break, which lasted no more than 15 minutes between the calculus and general physics lectures, there was no cafeteria or space to rest.

We stayed seated where we were, talking quietly and waiting for the final lecture to begin.

No solace

I began asking students about their thoughts and whether they would continue attending in person, but many had already decided to rely on online lectures until conditions improve.

Despite the difficulty of accessing electricity and the internet, and despite poor comprehension – as most online lectures consist of old, non-interactive recordings from four or five years ago – most students felt this option was less harsh than attending in person.

The dilemma isn’t only location, though. I contacted one of my high school classmates, Mahmoud Wishah, who is a medical student at the Islamic University.

Medicine is only taught at the main university location on the Gaza City campus.

But the destruction Israel has inflicted on the university’s buildings is beyond imagination, Wishah said, leaving the university without many of its essential facilities.

Only three buildings are partially functional, of which only the first floors of each are intact, he said. One is for administrative work, and the second is under renovation to receive students.

“The third [building] is for medicine and engineering, containing four classrooms – two for each faculty,” he said. “The medical classrooms are supposed to hold 50 to 60 students at most, but on the first day, around 250 students attended.”

The rest of the buildings have been completely destroyed.

“Even though the teaching staff is excellent,” Wishah said, “they cannot make up for the loss: There is no library to study in, no common areas or cafeterias to foster relationships among peers.”

Wishah also pointed out that there are “no laboratories for practical courses,” an issue that forced the Islamic University to postpone core subjects for first-year students – like histology and biology, which require observing embryos and live tissues – to later years because they cannot currently be implemented.

Many students have already left because there was no space, Wishah said, and students who end up sitting at the back cannot hear the professor clearly or see what the projector displays.

A second obstacle is the cost of transportation. Not only do students have to pay taxi drivers in cash, but they also have to find change.

Much of the cash in Gaza has been in circulation since October 2023, making it often worn-out and hard to obtain.

“Transportation is extremely difficult,” he said, “but I need in-person classes because I can’t grasp the online lectures.”

Another obstacle is affording university tuition. Even before the genocide, many families struggled to pay university tuition.

Today, after two years of blockade, displacement and losing almost everything, the idea that students could fund their own education seems impossible.

Many of the recently graduated high school students are unable to afford to continue their postgraduate studies.

The Islamic University provides a one-semester tuition waiver for all faculties except medicine, while Al-Azhar University offers no waivers at all.

The costs of books, notebooks and transportation have skyrocketed, and no solutions or initiatives have been introduced to address this crisis.

Even those students who managed to attend this semester are unsure whether they can continue next semester.

In recent weeks, attendance at the Nuseirat location has dropped to just 10 or 15 students – a sharp decrease from the 250-300 who attended the first lecture.

An obligation

Global attention often focuses on food aid and temporary ceasefires, which are, of course, necessary. But they are not enough or as important as education to rebuild Gaza, which must be seen as part of the humanitarian response, not an optional choice postponed to “post-crisis” times.

Education for Palestinians – and the preparation of a generation capable of rebuilding Gaza after the genocide – is an obligation for Palestinian institutions and international institutions.

Education is a necessity for survival and for building a possible future despite all the challenges and destruction the Israeli occupation has visited upon the Gaza Strip.

Hassan Abo Qamar is a writer based in Gaza.

23 February 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Laala Bechetoula

THEY HAVE FINALLY SAID IT OUT LOUD

For decades, whenever we pointed to the map of “Greater Israel” — stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates, encompassing not only Palestine but vast parts of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia — we were dismissed as conspiracy theorists, as paranoid, as antisemitic.

That era is over.

On February 20, 2026, Mike Huckabee — the official United States Ambassador to Israel, appointed by Donald Trump, a man who speaks with the authority of the world’s most powerful nation — sat down with journalist Tucker Carlson and confessed.

Carlson asked him about the biblical passage in which God promises Abraham’s descendants the land “from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates.” Huckabee did not deny it. He did not retreat. He did not hedge.

He answered with chilling calm: “It would be fine if they took it all.”

Let us translate what he said. The American ambassador just told the world that it is “fine” — indeed, that it would be “a good thing” — for Israel to conquer and annex Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.

This is not a conspiracy theory. This is a recorded, broadcast, undeniable confession from the highest levels of the U.S. government.

THE MAP THEY NO LONGER DENY

The map Huckabee and Carlson discussed is not new. It is the same map Netanyahu carries in his pocket, the same map Smotrich has displayed in the Knesset — the same Smotrich who, upon hearing Huckabee’s words, responded publicly: “I ❤️ Huckabee.” No ambiguity. No subtext. Pure confirmation.

This so-called “Promised Land” includes: all of historical Palestine; the entire territory of Jordan; Lebanon, up to the Litani River; Syria, including the occupied Golan Heights; vast parts of Egypt (Sinai and the Nile Delta); Iraq, to the Euphrates River; and northwestern Saudi Arabia.

When Huckabee later attempted to walk back his statement, the contradiction was glaring. The first statement revealed the intent; the second was merely a diplomatic maneuver. The word, like a bullet once fired, does not return.

HUCKABEE IS NOT ALONE: THE TRIUMVIRATE THAT RUNS AMERICA

Some will claim Huckabee speaks only for himself. They are lying.

On September 15, 2025, at the City of David in occupied Jerusalem, Huckabee stood beside Netanyahu and Secretary of State Marco Rubio and delivered a sermon, not a diplomatic address: “4000 years ago, here in this city, on Mount Moriah, God chose His people… The people were the Jewish people. The place was Israel.”

On August 12, 2025, Netanyahu openly declared his commitment to the “Greater Israel” vision on i24NEWS. When presented with a pendant depicting the map from the Nile to the Euphrates, he responded: “Very much.” Huckabee’s February 2026 statement is simply the American echo of Netanyahu’s August 2025 declaration.

THE INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE: RARE UNITY — AND WESTERN SILENCE

Within hours, a joint statement from more than 14 countries — including Türkiye, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and the UAE — along with the OIC (57 member states), the Arab League (22 members), and the GCC (6 members), declared unequivocally:

“ISRAEL HAS NO SOVEREIGNTY WHATSOEVER OVER THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY OR ANY OTHER OCCUPIED ARAB LANDS.”

Saudi Arabia condemned the statements as “extremist rhetoric.” Jordan described them as “absurd and provocative statements” amounting to “an assault on the sovereignty of the countries of the region.” Egypt rejected the remarks as a “blatant violation” of diplomatic norms.

And Washington? The White House did not respond. The State Department did not respond. The only official American voice was a single Embassy spokesperson in Jerusalem, who murmured that the remarks had been “taken out of context.”

Fourteen nations spoke. Fifty-seven member states of the OIC spoke. The world’s most powerful government said nothing.

And Europe? Also silent. No statement from Brussels. No rebuke from Paris or Berlin or London.

Silence, in diplomacy, is not neutrality. It is consent.

CHINA, RUSSIA, INDIA: THE GLOBAL SOUTH CALCULUS

China does not need to speak. It watches, records, and waits. Every silence from Washington is filed away in Beijing as evidence for a future it is already preparing.

Russia does not condemn. It amplifies. Every American contradiction is Russian oxygen.

India is the most explosive fracture of all. Prime Minister Modi arrives in Tel Aviv on February 25 — two days from now — to embrace Netanyahu, the man the ICC has indicted for war crimes. Meanwhile, in the streets of New Delhi, Mumbai, and Pune, hundreds of thousands of Indians — a country of 200 million Muslims and a civilization with a century-long tradition of solidarity with Palestine, from Gandhi to Nehru — are demanding Modi cancel his visit. Some were arrested. The government of the world’s largest democracy is suppressing its own people to maintain its alliance with a state condemned by the ICJ. Modi speaks. His people speak louder.

THE JEWS WHO SAY: NOT IN OUR NAME

J Street said it clearly when Huckabee was nominated: what is happening today is “a world that no one in our parents’ and grandparents’ time would recognize.” The overwhelming majority of Jewish Americans did not vote for this ambassador. They are being spoken for without their consent.

Jewish Voice for Peace occupied Grand Central Terminal with t-shirts reading “Not in our name” — and was subsequently labeled a “hate group” by the ADL. An ADL employee quit in protest, saying: “Those were Jewish people we were defaming.”

The ADL defamed Jews for opposing genocide. This sentence should stop the world.

A FINAL IRONY

After the interview, Tucker Carlson — the man who offered Huckabee the platform to say what American diplomacy had never said out loud — was briefly detained by Israeli airport authorities before being released. Even the useful voices are controlled, monitored, disposable.

THE FINAL INDICTMENT

To Western Media: The silence of your studios this week — when fourteen nations condemned and you said nothing — is the loudest thing you have ever broadcast.

To the International Community: America uses its veto every time. Now you know why. Those running American policy genuinely believe Israel is entitled to everything. And they no longer bother to hide it.

To World Jewry: You are not being protected. You are being used.

To Evangelical Christians: Huckabee’s vision is not Christian. It is Constantinian — the fusion of cross and sword, the sanctification of power. And it has led, inexorably, to genocide.

To Benjamin Netanyahu: History will not remember you as a visionary. It will remember you as the man who destroyed Gaza, starved children, bombed hospitals, and justified the unjustifiable.

To Mike Huckabee: “It would be fine if they took it all.” Say that to the mothers of Gaza. The stones cry out, yes. But the bones of the dead cry louder.

To the White House: You chose silence. That silence has been heard in Cairo, in Amman, in Beirut, in Baghdad, in Riyadh. Your silence was your statement.

THE AGE OF DE-WESTERNIZATION

As Algerian scholar Amir Nour writes in “The Monstrosity of Our Century” (Clarity Press, 2026):

“What we are witnessing today is not merely a ‘political conflict,’ but a historic turning point marking the collapse of Western hegemony that has dominated the world for three centuries. I call this transformation the dawn of a new era — the Age of De-Westernization — in which power is being redistributed, universal values are being rewritten, and moral balances are being redefined.”

Huckabee’s confession — and Washington’s silence in response — will be remembered as one of the funeral bells of Western hegemony.

THE MIRROR AND THE CHOICE

Nour also writes: “Palestine is not merely the cause of an oppressed and occupied people; it is the mirror of the world’s conscience.”

Huckabee has spoken. Netanyahu has declared. Smotrich has confirmed. The Arab and Islamic world has responded. The White House has chosen silence.

Now it is your turn.

WHAT WILL YOU SAY?

The age of Western impunity is not ending because the world has become more just. It is ending because the world has become more awake. And an awake world is the one thing empires cannot survive.

Sources: Anadolu Ajansı, U.S. Embassy Jerusalem, Jordan Times, Clarity Press, The Jerusalem Post, The Hill, J Street, CNN, Jewish Voice for Peace.

Laala Bechetoula is an independent Algerian writer and analyst.

23 February 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By T Navin

Over the past decade, India has witnessed a troubling intensification of communal polarization. Incidents of vigilante violence, religious profiling, moral policing, economic boycotts, and digitally amplified misinformation have strained the country’s secular and constitutional fabric. Mob attacks on minorities, identity-based harassment in marketplaces and festivals, and attempts to regulate personal freedoms in the name of culture have created an atmosphere where intimidation often appears normalized. In many such moments, the response of the larger majority community was marked by silence — sometimes born of fear, sometimes complicity, sometimes quiet disagreement but reluctance to intervene.

Yet in early 2026, a noticeable shift began to take shape. Across geographically and politically diverse states — Uttarakhand, Rajasthan, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Telangana, and Kerala — ordinary citizens from the Hindu majority increasingly stepped forward to confront hate, defend those targeted, and assert values of coexistence. These responses were not orchestrated by political parties or large organizations. They emerged organically — from gym owners, park visitors, customers, community elders, social media users, and neighbourhood residents. What connects these disparate events is a growing unwillingness to allow intimidation to masquerade as cultural guardianship.

In Kotdwar, Uttarakhand, on January 26, 2026, gym owner Deepak Kumar intervened when a group claiming affiliation with Bajrang Dal harassed an elderly Muslim shopkeeper, Wakeel Ahmed, objecting to the use of the word “Baba” in his shop’s name. The confrontation could easily have passed as yet another localized act of intimidation. Instead, Deepak publicly declared himself “Mohammad Deepak,” asserting that identity cannot be monopolized and that shared humanity supersedes sectarian labeling. The act was simple yet profound. He faced immediate backlash — boycott calls, threats, and a decline in gym memberships. But the video of his intervention spread rapidly online. Citizens from across the country expressed support. Lawyers volunteered legal assistance. Political representatives visited in solidarity. The phrase “Mohammad Deepak” became shorthand for moral courage within the majority community. It suggested that silence is not inevitable and that intervention, even when costly, can inspire a wider ripple of resistance.

A similar dynamic unfolded in Jaipur on Valentine’s Day 2026. Alleged members of Bajrang Dal entered a public park carrying sticks and demanding identification from couples, claiming to defend cultural values. Moral policing of this sort has often thrived on the compliance of bystanders. This time, however, the script changed. Park visitors challenged the vigilantes, questioned their authority, and demanded to know under what law they were enforcing such checks. Faced with collective resistance rather than passive spectatorship, the group retreated. Videos of the confrontation circulated widely, sparking conversations about personal liberty, the right to public space, and the limits of cultural policing. The episode demonstrated that intimidation depends on acquiescence — and when that acquiescence collapses, the authority of vigilante actors weakens.

In South 24 Parganas, West Bengal, three Muslim meat traders were brutally assaulted after being labelled “Bangladeshi” in a dispute infused with religious slurs. The incident revealed how easily economic competition or local disagreements can be communalized through profiling and rumour. Yet the aftermath reflected a different trajectory. Local majority members publicly condemned the attack. Protests were organized that cut across religious lines. Social media amplified calls for justice rather than circulating inflammatory narratives. This solidarity did not erase the violence, but it diminished the perception of impunity that often emboldens such acts. It signalled that religious identity would not automatically determine public sympathy.

In Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, tensions during a Durga temple procession escalated into stone-pelting and property damage affecting Muslim neighbourhoods. Rather than deepening polarization, several majority community leaders advocated restraint and fairness. They criticized what they termed divisive “bulldozer politics” and urged authorities to conduct impartial investigations. Interfaith dialogues were convened. Public statements emphasized shared civic belonging over retaliatory narratives. The emphasis shifted from assigning collective guilt to preserving civic peace. The insistence on procedural fairness reflected an emerging awareness that justice must not be communalized.

One of the most striking episodes occurred during Telangana’s Medaram Jatara festival. A Muslim street vendor, Shaik Shaiksha Vali from Kurnool, was harassed by YouTubers who accused him of conducting “food jihad.” They questioned his hygiene, demanded his Aadhaar card, and forced him to eat his own buns on camera to “prove” their safety. Despite vending peacefully for over a decade, the incident was sensationalized online. The public reaction, however, disrupted that narrative. Long-time customers, local residents, influencers, and ordinary social media users rallied in support. Videos surfaced of people deliberately purchasing and eating his buns in solidarity. Financial assistance was extended. Messages emphasized that commerce, food, and livelihood cannot be reduced to religious conspiracy. The attempt to inject sectarian hostility into a cultural festival was met with collective refusal. What could have become another flashpoint instead became a reaffirmation of everyday coexistence.

In Kerala, the release of the trailer for The Kerala Story 2: Goes Beyond triggered controversy over a scene depicting forced beef consumption in a conversion narrative. Rather than responding solely with outrage, many Keralites — including large segments of the Hindu majority — responded with humour and cultural assertion. Memes, reels, and posts celebrating beef with parotta went viral. People shared images of communal meals with playful captions. Symbolic beef festivals were planned not as acts of provocation but as affirmations of Kerala’s shared culinary heritage across religions. Even tourism messaging adopted light irony. Humour became a tool of resistance, undermining attempts to portray plural practices as coercive. Instead of internalizing divisive framing, citizens reclaimed cultural normalcy.

Across these varied contexts, five interlinked lessons – five Cs emerge. First, courage disrupts the inertia of silence. When one individual publicly challenges intimidation, it signals to others that dissent is possible. Fear thrives on perceived isolation; visible solidarity erodes that isolation. Second, complicity has limits. When injustice becomes overt, humiliating, or widely visible, especially through viral exposure, passive observers may reach a tipping point. Third, collective conscience remains resilient. Despite sustained polarization, everyday interdependence — shared markets, festivals, workplaces — promotes lived experiences of harmony that resist abstract demonization. When propaganda contradicts lived reality, moral instincts resurface. Fourth, community solidarity diminishes impunity. Extremist actors often rely on assumptions of silent majority approval, public condemnation strips away that shield. Finally, constitutional values gain renewed life when citizens enact them. Equality, liberty, and fraternity are not merely textual commitments; they become tangible when people defend a vendor’s dignity, a couple’s freedom, or a neighbour’s safety.

This emerging solidarity does not suggest that communal tensions have disappeared. Structural challenges remain: the need for consistent law enforcement against hate speech and vigilante violence, greater media responsibility in framing incidents, and civic education that reinforces constitutional ethics. Digital ecosystems continue to amplify misinformation at speed. Political polarization persists. Yet the events of early 2026 indicate that communal hate no longer moves unchallenged in many spaces. It increasingly encounters resistance from within the majority community itself.

That shift alters the moral equation. When solidarity crosses religious lines and originates from those not directly targeted, it weakens narratives of inevitable polarization. It demonstrates that pluralism in India is not merely a constitutional aspiration or nostalgic memory, but a living practice defended in markets, parks, festivals, and online spaces. If sustained and amplified, these localized acts of courage may signal not just episodic resistance but a deeper recalibration — a reassertion that unity is not imposed from above but enacted from below, one intervention, one gesture, one shared meal at a time.

T Navin is an independent writer

22 February 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dr. Ghassan Shahrour

The Epstein case has been dissected endlessly — the names, the networks, the island, the conspiracy theories. The world has memorized the scandal. Yet almost no one can name the journalist whose work reopened the case, or the survivors and families whose courage made justice possible. This silence is not a coincidence. It is a cultural failure — a fourth betrayal that leaves children everywhere more vulnerable.

The first three betrayals are well known: institutions that protected a predator, a legal system that misled victims, and a society that tolerated the abuse of children when wealth and power were involved. But the fourth betrayal is quieter and more corrosive. It is the public’s fascination with scandal over justice, and the media’s willingness to feed that appetite. It is the collective choice to glorify the powerful figures orbiting the case while ignoring the people who fought for truth.

This imbalance is visible in every metric of public attention. Searches for the “Epstein list” surged globally, while searches for Julie K. Brown — the investigative journalist whose reporting exposed the illegal 2008 plea deal — barely registered. Headlines celebrated the spectacle of elite names, but gave only passing mention to the year‑long investigation that located victims, reconstructed evidence, and forced the justice system to act. Even after a federal judge ruled that prosecutors had violated the victims’ rights, the story remained framed around the scandal, not the accountability.

This is not simply a media problem. It is a cultural distortion. Scandal is easy to consume; justice is hard to sustain. Scandal entertains; justice demands responsibility. Scandal centers the abuser; justice centers the abused. When society rewards the spectacle, it sends a dangerous message: that the labor of protecting children is less worthy of attention than the crimes committed against them.

But the fourth betrayal extends beyond journalism. It also erases the courage of survivors and their families — the people who refused silence even when institutions failed them. Many of Epstein’s victims came forward as teenagers, without legal support, without public sympathy, and often against the wishes of adults who feared retaliation. Some families stood by their daughters with extraordinary strength, encouraging them to speak, to testify, to reclaim their dignity. Their courage is not a footnote; it is the foundation of every step toward justice.

Research consistently shows that when survivors see others speak out, they are more likely to report abuse. When families support their children, disclosure becomes possible. When society honors these acts of courage, future victims gain the confidence to defend themselves. Yet in the global conversation about Epstein, these voices were overshadowed by the gravitational pull of scandal. The very people who made justice possible were pushed to the margins of public memory.

This is where public media must be held to account. Any outlet that treats child exploitation as entertainment — that prioritizes clicks over truth, spectacle over justice, scandal over survivors — participates in the fourth betrayal. When media institutions fail to highlight the protectors, they weaken the ecosystem that future victims depend on. They do not merely misinform the public; they jeopardize the rights and safety of children.

From the my perspective of human security, this is not merely a story about a crime or a scandal, but about whether our culture chooses to protect children or protect power.

If we want a world where children are safer, we must rebalance the ethics of attention. We must honor the journalist who pursued the truth when institutions retreated. We must recognize the survivors who spoke when silence was safer. We must celebrate the families who stood with their children against power. Justice is not only a legal process; it is a cultural choice. And the next child who suffers will depend on whether we choose scandal — or choose to stand with those who defend them.

Dr. Ghassan Shahrour, Coordinator of Arab Human Security Network, is a medical doctor, prolific writer, and human rights advocate specializing in health, disability, disarmament, and human security.

22 February 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Prof. Junaid S. Ahmad

It takes a special kind of sentence to stain a legacy. LeBron James found one: “I’ve heard nothing but great things” about Israel — uttered while Gaza burns, while civilian bodies are counted in the tens of thousands, while entire neighborhoods have been erased and families are digging loved ones from rubble.

“Noth­ing but great things.”

That is not ignorance. That is moral anesthesia.

For more than a decade, LeBron insisted that silence is complicity. He scolded America when it deserved scolding. He condemned Trump. He wore Black Lives Matter on his chest. He made it clear that he was not just a basketball player but a citizen with a conscience. He rejected “shut up and dribble.” He told the world that greatness demands courage.

Fine. But courage is not a domestic product.

When the violence moved beyond U.S. borders — when Gaza became a graveyard broadcast in real time — the volume dropped. Then, worse than silence, came praise. Not cautious language. Not a plea for peace. Praise. “Nothing but great things.”

That phrase lands like applause at a funeral.

No one is asking LeBron to deliver a graduate seminar in Middle East history. The question is simpler: how does a self-declared champion of the oppressed offer unqualified admiration to a state conducting one of the most devastating military campaigns of the 21st century? This is not a matter of “complexity.” It is a matter of clarity. Children under rubble are not complex. Bombed hospitals are not nuanced.

The GOAT debate ends here — not because politics should decide basketball, but because LeBron insisted that morality is part of greatness. You cannot demand to be measured like Muhammad Ali and then flinch when sacrifice is required. Ali’s legend rests not only on jabs and footwork but on the willingness to lose everything for what he believed. LeBron wants the halo without the heat.

His activism has been loud when safe and cautious when costly. Speaking against racism in America carried risk, yes — but it also aligned with league messaging and corporate branding. Speaking forcefully against Israeli state violence would risk sponsors, partnerships, global markets. And so we get “nothing but great things.”

Imagine the moral equivalent. Imagine a celebrity in 1855 saying he had heard “nothing but great things” about the plantations. Imagine a superstar in 1955 praising segregation for its “order.” The issue is not historical equivalence; it is moral blindness — complimenting the powerful while the powerless are crushed beneath them.

And LeBron is not alone in this elegant cowardice.

Stephen Curry’s reported venture-capital ties to Israeli tech companies raise an obvious question: when your money touches an ecosystem deeply tied to military and surveillance systems, are you really neutral? Money is real. Where you invest it helps build real systems in the real world. Investment is not innocent. Divestment would cost him nothing compared to what civilians are paying. If silence is complicity, profit can be too.

Then there is Steve Kerr. His father, Malcolm Kerr, was assassinated in Beirut while serving as president of the American University of Beirut. Kerr understands political violence in the most personal way imaginable. That should make him exquisitely sensitive to every family shattered by bombs and bullets.

Instead, there is restraint. Caution. Silence.

Some argue that because Kerr’s father was assassinated in the Middle East, he must “understand” Israel’s security posture. But let’s be clear about something uncomfortable: if we are talking about assassination as a tactic, Israel has turned it into a refined instrument of statecraft. Decades of targeted killings — scientists, leaders, officials — carried out across borders with precision and frequency. Drone strikes. Covert operations. Car bombs. Snipers. The record is long and publicly acknowledged. If assassination has a world champion in modern geopolitics, Israel is in the finals every year.

So the framing that Kerr should instinctively sympathize with Israel because of assassination misses the point. If anything, his personal tragedy should make him recoil at the normalization of state-sanctioned killing, not fall silent before it.

The NBA loves to market itself as progressive. Slogans on courts. Statements before games. Social justice packaged between commercials. But justice is not a limited-time promotion. It either applies universally or it becomes merchandise.

LeBron James will retire as one of the most gifted athletes ever to touch a basketball. That is secure. But moral greatness is not measured in championships. It is measured in whether principles survive contact with power.

He once said silence is complicity. He was right.

And history has a longer memory than any scoreboard.

When the lights fade and the banners hang, it will not ask how high he jumped — only where he stood.

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

22 February 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dr. Ranjan Solomon

“We cannot fight for our rights and our history as well as future until we are armed with weapons of criticism and dedicated consciousness.” – Edward Said

Hamas has expressed conditional openness to an international peacekeeping force (or “Internal Security Force”) in Gaza, but with major caveats that directly challenge the “external control” model favoured by the US and Israel.

Hamas has firmly rejected foreign interference in the territory’s “internal affairs” and opposes any international guardianship or mandate that includes disarming its fighters.

While agreeing to a technocratic committee for civil administration, Hamas is pushing to integrate its roughly 10,000-strong existing police force into the new security structure.

Despite ceasefire agreements, Hamas has been quietly reasserting its grip by placing loyalists in key administrative and security roles.

In short, Hamas appears willing to accept a foreign presence that acts as a buffer against Israel, but rejects any external force that replaces its control or disarms its personnel. It aims to retain its, or its affiliates’, role in the future—even under a nominally “independent” or “technocratic” governance framework. Hamas has asserted that any discussions on Gaza must begin with a total halt to Israeli “aggression”. Israel, in direct contrast, insists that Hamas disarm as a precondition for the commencement of reconstruction.

Hamas Wants Peacekeeping—For and By Palestinians

Hamas spokesperson Qassem stated unequivocally:
“We want peacekeeping forces that monitor the ceasefire, ensure its implementation, and act as a buffer between the occupation army and our people in the Gaza Strip, without interfering in Gaza’s internal affairs.”

Trump’s “Board of Peace” (BOP), by contrast, is portrayed as a mechanism to colonise, exploit, and profit from Gaza. The very composition of the Board and the roles assigned to key actors obscure what critics argue is its real intent: the gradual corporatisation of Gaza.

The long-term plan is for the ISF to comprise 20,000 international soldiers and to train and support 12,000 local Palestinian police officers. Hamas has made its position clear: training Palestinian police within a national framework is acceptable if it is aimed at maintaining internal security and addressing instability created by occupation and militias. Any deviation from this principle, however, is likely to be non-negotiable.

Five countries have committed to providing troops to the ISF: Indonesia, Morocco, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, and Albania. Egypt and Jordan have committed to training Palestinian police officers, fulfilling training and logistical needs. Indonesia is expected to serve as deputy commander, with a significant troop commitment of around 8,000 personnel.

Despite these arrangements, analysts question the very foundations of the BOP. The proposal has been met with scepticism and indifference, with many countries expressing concern that it could overlap with or undermine the role of the United Nations. European Council President Antonio Costa has stated that the EU has serious doubts about key elements of the Board, including its scope, governance, and compatibility with the UN Charter.

Moreover, the BOP’s 11-page charter—comprising eight chapters and 13 articles—does not mention Gaza even once. This omission raises serious questions about the sincerity of US intent, suggesting that it may be acting in alignment with Israeli strategic interests and, critics argue, even private interests linked to Trump.

The plan’s second phase calls for the complete disarmament of Hamas and the destruction of its underground tunnel network—a core Israeli demand. While the Board of Peace seeks to fundamentally reshape Gaza in ways that benefit Israel, its success hinges on the implementation of disarmament and the establishment of a stable security force. If the vision is to transform Gaza into a European-style “Riviera”, it is likely to remain a non-starter.

At a recent summit, it was declared that “the war is over” and that “peace is possible”.

The Myth of “War Is Over”

Such declarations reflect an ongoing debate about the sustainability of agreements brokered by the Trump administration. While President Trump has repeatedly announced the end of conflicts—particularly in the Middle East—these claims have often been met with scepticism, continued violence, or only partial implementation.

On October 13, 2025, during a visit to Israel and Egypt, Trump declared the war in the Middle East over, citing a ceasefire, hostage releases, and the supposed disarmament of Hamas. However, reports indicated that Israeli troops remained in more than half of Gaza. By early 2026, analysts continued to describe the ceasefire as fragile, with ongoing violence rendering such declarations premature.

Critics view these announcements as “deal-making narratives” rather than definitive resolutions. In most cases, the underlying causes of conflict remain unresolved, while sporadic violence and diplomatic tensions persist. As such, claims of peace in Gaza appear overstated and premature.

Donald Trump’s Announcements and Unrealised Claims

As of early 2026, despite Trump’s claims of brokering lasting peace, the situation in Gaza remains volatile, with continued reports of strikes and ceasefire violations. While the October 2025 ceasefire reduced the intensity of violence, it has not led to a comprehensive peace.

A brief assessment of the situation as of February 2026 reveals a fragile ceasefire that critics describe as little more than a temporary pause rather than a durable truce. Israeli strikes and violations continue, resulting in casualties and heightened tensions. At the same time, the humanitarian crisis has worsened, with thousands displaced, widespread destruction of infrastructure, and limited access to aid. Despite official claims of improvement, reports from the ground indicate a far more chaotic and violent reality.

The hard truth is that the US administration appears to have a limited understanding of Palestinian realities and remains unwilling to acknowledge this gap. The ceasefire, critics argue, risks becoming a theatrical exercise that masks deeper strategic objectives.

Minimum Conditions for a Just and Lasting Settlement

A just and lasting settlement for Palestine requires several foundational conditions to be met. These include a permanent ceasefire accompanied by the full withdrawal of Israeli forces, the return of all hostages, and the disarmament of Hamas, potentially alongside amnesty for those willing to commit to peaceful coexistence.

Equally important is political reorganisation, including the reunification of Gaza and the West Bank under a reformed Palestinian Authority or a transitional technocratic administration capable of ensuring accountable governance. A durable solution also depends on ending Israeli occupation, dismantling illegal settlements in the West Bank, and lifting the blockade on Gaza.

International recognition of a sovereign Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital, remains central to achieving self-determination. In parallel, sustainable peace requires security guarantees for both Palestinians and Israelis, supported by broader regional normalisation contingent on resolving the Palestinian question.

Finally, addressing the Palestinian refugee crisis through a just and negotiated settlement, in accordance with international law, is indispensable to any meaningful and lasting peace.

The international community, including the United Nations, continues to support a two-state solution based on these principles as the most viable path to ending the conflict.

Dr. Ranjan Solomon has worked in social justice movements since he was 19 years of age.

22 February 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Jessica Corbett

President Donald Trump’s “summary executions continue,” Princeton University visiting professor Kenneth Roth said early Saturday after the US military announced its 43rd bombing of boaters whom the administration claimed were smuggling drugs.

Sharing a 16-second clip of the strike on social media, US Southern Command said late Friday that “Joint Task Force Southern Spear conducted a lethal kinetic strike on a vessel operated by designated terrorist organizations. Intelligence confirmed the vessel was transiting along known narco-trafficking routes in the eastern Pacific and was engaged in narco-trafficking operations. Three male narco-terrorists were killed during this action. No US military forces were harmed.”

Roth, the former longtime director of Human Rights Watch, noted that “the strike raised the death toll in Trump’s campaign against people accused of drug smuggling at sea to at least 147—each a murder.” Some tallies put the death toll at 148 or 149.

Since Trump started bombing boats in September, critics have condemned the strikes as “war crimes, murder, or both.” The administration has tried to justify the operation by arguing that it is in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels in Latin America, including Venezuela—whose president, Nicolás Maduro, was abducted by US forces last month and subsequently pleaded not guilty to narco-terrorism charges in a federal court in New York.

Various human rights advocates and legal experts, including Democrats and even some Republicans in Congress, have rejected that argument. However, both the GOP-controlled Senate and House of Representatives have declined to pass recent war powers resolutions intended to stop Trump’s boat bombings.

“Three more people have been killed. This is murder. Demand Congress take action against these strikes now!” Amnesty International USA said on social media Saturday, sharing a form constituents can use to contact their representatives.

Multiple journalists highlighted that in this case, and others, the targeted boat appeared to be stationary when the US bombed it.

[https://twitter.com/DavidClinchNews/status/2025033934375960669]

The Friday bombing came after the US Department of Defense announced that it had killed 11 people on three boats in the Caribbean Sea and the eastern Pacific late Monday.

“The US military has carried out strikes every three or four days since the new leader of the Southern Command, Gen. Francis L. Donovan of the Marine Corps, took over last month after the previous commander, Adm. Alvin Holsey, abruptly retired,” the New York Times reported. “Defense Department and congressional officials said Adm. Holsey had expressed concerns about the strikes.”

Jessica Corbett is a senior editor and staff writer for Common Dreams.

22 February 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Vikas Parashram Meshram

In the Sajjangarh block of Banswara district, located at the southern tip of Rajasthan, lies a small village called Ghoti ki Todi. Kamladevi Bhagora, a 43-year-old woman from this village, has done something that has become an exemplary inspiration—not just for her own village, but for women across many others. A mother of three sons from a farming family, this ordinary woman fought for her land, her rights, and her dreams with remarkable courage—and she won.

Kamladevi’s childhood was spent in the fields. She learned the art of sowing seeds, growing crops, watering, and harvesting from the very courtyard of her home. From a young age, her hands formed a deep bond with the soil. But one thing she had always observed was this: in the fields, her mother worked just as hard as her father, yet decision-making power remained in the hands of men. What to plant, how much to sell, where to spend money—all of this was decided according to the wishes of men. Women contributed their labor but had no say. This social imbalance stayed in young Kamladevi’s mind like an unanswered question—one she would later strive to answer.

Kamladevi’s life began to take a new turn when she joined Vaagdhara, an organization working in the tribal regions of Rajasthan on women’s empowerment, organic agriculture, and community rights. Through her association with Vaagdhara, she formed Mahila Saksham Samuh (Women’s Empowerment Groups) and Gram Swaraj Samuh (Village Self-Governance Groups) across seven neighboring villages. The Mahila Saksham Samuh brought together 140 women, while the Gram Swaraj Samuh included 140 members—both women and men. These groups aimed to increase villagers’ participation—especially women’s—in gram panchayat affairs. Through them, Kamladevi began addressing issues such as women’s rights, land ownership, and sustainable agriculture, emerging as a powerful grassroots leader.

Vaagdhara provided her with in-depth training on land rights, organic farming, and women’s participation in the Panchayati Raj system. Through capacity-building workshops and field visits, her understanding and vision expanded considerably. She realized that meaningful change is impossible unless women farmers become aware of their rights.

When Kamladevi began discussing sustainable organic agriculture with women farmers, she encountered a challenge. They listened and understood—but hesitated to act. Reflecting on this, she realized the absence of a relatable role model. Without a living example, shifting from chemical to organic farming felt too risky.

Determined to change this, Kamladevi resolved: “If I want to show others the way, I must walk it myself first.”

She farms approximately 4 bighas of land with her family and began practicing sustainable organic agriculture on 3 bighas. Without waiting for expensive inputs, she used what was available at home. With 2 cows and 8 goats, she prepared compost from cow dung and used traditional bio-pesticides like Dashparni and Neemastra. She eliminated dependence on chemical fertilizers and pesticides entirely.

Her main crops included indigenous varieties of maize and tur (pigeon pea), along with vegetables such as brinjal, tomatoes, bottle gourd, okra, and onions for household use. She paid special attention to preserving local seed varieties, saving seeds from each harvest for the next season. This reduced costs and ensured resilience to local climatic conditions. Her farm became a living example for the village. Women who had once hesitated began to see that organic farming works—lower costs and better-quality produce gradually built trust.

Kamladevi also strengthened her household economy through goat rearing. Between 2021 and 2025, she earned a total of ₹1,02,500 by selling goats. This demonstrated how integrating animal husbandry with farming can significantly improve a family’s financial stability. Cow dung became compost; goats became income—an integrated system that ensured resilience.

Through her groups, she encouraged women to attend panchayat meetings and claim their legal rights: rights to land, participation, and access to government schemes. Gradually, women’s voices grew stronger, and they began to speak up and participate in decision-making.

Seed Banks: The Foundation for the Future

Kamladevi’s vision extended further. She recognized that preserving local seeds reduces costs and safeguards agricultural heritage. She has been working to establish community seed banks, enabling farmers to share seeds, preserve indigenous varieties, and reduce dependence on market-bought seeds. Though seemingly small, this initiative has far-reaching implications for food sovereignty and sustainability.

A Wave of Inspiration: Light Reaches Over 200 Women

Today, Kamladevi has inspired more than 200 women farmers across seven villages to adopt organic farming. These women now prepare bio-fertilizers, use local seeds, and are moving away from chemical agriculture.

Surekha Dama, a member of the Mahila Saksham Samuh, shares: “Adopting organic farming has been very beneficial—it has reduced our household expenses. All of this is because of Kamla. She boosted my confidence and gave me the opportunity to voice my opinions. Earlier, we just worked; now our views are heard.”

Surekha’s words echo across hundreds of lives transformed by Kamladevi’s leadership. When one woman rises and uplifts others, an entire community begins to change.

The Mark of a True Leader

Kamladevi’s greatest strength lies in her example. She did not merely speak—she acted. Her farming practices, animal husbandry, and community organizing all stand as proof of her leadership. While Vaagdhara’s training shaped her perspective, the courage to act came from within. She has shown that lack of resources is not a barrier to transformation—when there is determination, the path emerges.

Vikas Parashram Meshram is a journalist
Email: vikasmeshram04@gmail.com

20 February 2026

Source: countercurrents.org