Archives: Articles

By Rama Sundari

On August 5, 2019, a wound was carved into Kashmir’s history that refuses to heal. In a move carried out without the consent of its people, the region was stripped of its autonomy and statehood -rights enshrined for decades in the Indian Constitution. Since that day, Kashmir has become an open-air prison. Freedoms have been dismantled one by one. Journalists are muzzled, news is blacked out, human rights defenders are jailed, and every independent rights organisation in the valley has been shut down. What passes for democracy are hollow elections -staged performances meant to pacify public anger while masking the suffocation of an entire people.

Six years later, on that same date, grief returned in a different form. This time, the weapon was not soldiers or barbed wire, but ink and paper -a ban on 25 books about Kashmir. Setting aside the truth that banning books is an assault on democracy itself, the question remains: why, specifically, are books on Kashmir being targeted now?

The answer is blunt and undeniable: they want to bury Kashmir’s truth. By crafting false narratives to overwrite its complex and painful history, they strip away every trace of sympathy from the mainland’s conscience if any leftover exists. The horrors before and after August 5, 2019, are to be not only forgotten but justified. It is a calculated attempt to begin anew on a blank page where the past is forbidden to exist.

Since 2021, authentic news from the valley has all but disappeared. With the flow of information choked, the people of Kashmir -and those who care deeply about it -have turned to books as their last refuge. In their pages, they find voices long silenced, truths that cannot be aired on censored television or printed in tightly controlled newspapers. These histories bring Kashmir back into the light, allowing readers to trace its past to understand its troubled present. And it is precisely this illumination that makes such books dangerous to those determined to erase the region’s rich and complex history.

As the state tightens its grip on the internet -criminalising even the mildest social media posts and unleashing organised troll mobs to crush dissent -many young people are walking away from these toxic platforms. They reclaim their time for more meaningful pursuits, turning to writing as one of the few refuges left where truth can still breathe. But now, the government turns its gaze toward writers and their words. It dares to ban books, branding them as enemies of the state -easy to criminalise, convenient to punish. In this war on ideas, the written page becomes a battleground, and every sentence a potential act of defiance.

What the banned books reveal

Every title on the banned list is more than a book -it is a record of truths the authorities would rather bury. They lay bare the centuries-long ordeal of a people crushed under successive rulers since the 16th century. They expose the justice denied to Kashmiris after 1947, unravel the political manoeuvres that birthed Article 370, and explain why the region was left to languish as a disputed territory. Page by page, they document how, in the decades following independence, political freedoms and social rights were dismantled in deliberate, calculated steps.

These books are not merely histories; they are indictments -and that is precisely why they have been silenced. In the shadow of the guns that guard Kashmir, these books open a door to a world of silenced pain -telling stories of youth and women scarred by visible wounds and the deep, invisible traumas that still haunt them. They speak of young men who left home and never returned, their fates sealed in unmarked graves scattered across the valley. They describe the chilling stillness of thoughts held hostage at gunpoint, where even an idea can be a crime. And they paint, with unflinching detail, how the abrogation of Kashmir’s autonomy caged entire people in an open-air prison, with the mountains as silent witnesses.

The voices they tried to erase

One such work Kashmir in Conflict: India, Pakistan and the Unending War, British writer Victoria Schofield traces the region’s complex history -from rule under various powers, to the partition of its territory after independence, to the political manoeuvres surrounding its accession to India. She examines the conditions that led to Kashmir’s special status and offers thoughtful proposals for peace.

This book is vital, carrying truths we can no longer afford to ignore. It unpacks the geopolitics surrounding the Kashmir dispute, examining the long-promised plebiscite and the nature in which it was envisioned by the United Nations -one that would be fair, just, and acceptable to the people of Kashmir.  The solution proposed in the book to resolve the dispute is likely to provoke the ire of those in power.

Prominent poet and writer Ather Zia’s Resisting Disappearance: Military Occupation and Women’s Activism in Kashmir does not offer any political solution to Kashmir. It is instead a powerful documentation of the relentless struggle of Kashmiri women fighting for their husbands and sons who vanished in the air. The book revisits the turbulent 1990s, a period that cemented the grim reality of how Kashmiris came to be treated as “killable bodies.” Drawing on real experiences and collective memories, it presents a deeply human understanding of Kashmir’s suffering. This work chronicles the tireless efforts of the Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons (APDP), capturing both their unyielding activism and their undeterred quest for justice.

On the other hand, Colonizing Kashmir: State-Building under Indian Occupation by Hafsa Kanjwal examines how the centrality of Kashmir in the Indian imagination was carefully manufactured through tourism, cinema, and state propaganda. It shows how the pro-India Prime Minister Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad’s vision of “development” in the post-Independence period became a curse for Kashmiris, masking dispossession and control beneath the language of progress. Armed with irrefutable evidence, the book charts the slow, deliberate transformation of Kashmir into a colony.

Renowned journalist and editor of Kashmir Times, Anuradha Bhasin, in her book A Dismantled State: The Untold Story of Kashmir After Article 370, pieces together the harrowing sequence of events and arrests that unfolded before and after August 5, 2019. She takes the reader into the heart of that suffocating period, when phone lines went dead, the internet vanished, and an entire population was cut off from the outside world -left to endure its darkest hours in enforced silence.

None of these works are fiction -and that is precisely why they are feared. Built on meticulous research, every claim is supported by official records, historical documents, and newspaper archives. In many, the bibliography is longer than the main text. A.G. Noorani’s The Kashmir Dispute – 1947–2012 is a case in point: apart from a brief preface, it is a compilation of letters, treaty documents, and meeting records that lay bare political realities. These books are not opinion pieces; they are evidence files -and that makes them impossible to dismiss.

The Zuban books published Do You Remember Kunan Poshpora? stands as a testament to the courage of women from the twin villages of Kunan and Poshpora, who survived mass rape by military personnels on the fateful night of February 23, 1991. It chronicles their decades-long battle for justice, reignited by the nationwide protests after the 2012 Nirbhaya rape case. Here, memory becomes a weapon -a shield against erasure, a refusal to forget, and a demand for accountability.

The right to read, the right to truth

Every book contains both facts and interpretations. Truth, misconception, and conclusions drawn from pain all depend on the reader’s knowledge, attitude, and perspective. The reader must decide what resonates as truth. For example, Rahul Pandita’s Our Moon Has Blood Clots movingly tells of the suffering endured by Kashmiri Pandits when they were forced to flee. These are undeniable wounds and worth knowing. Yet emotion sometimes veils other truths -such as the violence and trauma faced by Kashmiri Muslims after the Pandits’ displacement. To truly understand any region or period -books from all perspectives must be available. The determination of truth must remain with the reader.

Why this moment demands defiance

What the Indian government has done goes far beyond censorship—it is an assault on democracy itself. By banning books, it drags history into darkness and shows contempt for the wisdom and dignity of its readers. Such acts promote selective narratives that favour the government’s actions, laced with distortions, designed to inflame emotions and serve political ends. They manufacture a hollow patriotism that works like a sedative -dulling reason and numbing critical thought. The clearest example is propaganda films like The Kashmir Files. As the state parades such films, granting them tax exemptions and free screenings as if they were unquestionable truths -it tramples underfoot the books that contain verifiable history.

This is not a policy to debate -it is an outrage to resist. To believe it will stop here is to ignore history. We have already seen that when an undemocratic act takes root in one place, it soon spreads across the nation. Any writing that critically examines government actions will be targeted, just as the bans have already begun -starting with printed newspapers, extending to digital media, and even silencing YouTube screenings.

Banning books is not merely censorship; it is the demolition of history, the silencing of political thought, the erasure of public memory. And of all the weapons a state can wield against its people, this is the most insidious -for when the printed word is killed, the mind is next. Those who will not let books live will not hesitate to come for our dreams. In the struggle to keep books alive, we safeguard the very breath of our freedom.

Rama Sundari is a political commentator

14 August 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Human Rights Watch

• Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s 2024 electoral campaign frequently used hate speech against Muslims and other minorities, inciting discrimination, hostility, and violence.
• Inflammatory speeches, amid a decade of attacks and discrimination against minorities under the Modi administration, have normalized abuses against Muslims, Christians, and others.
• The new Modi government needs to reverse its discriminatory policies, act on violence against minorities, and ensure justice for those affected.

(New York) – Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s 2024 electoral campaign frequently used hate speech against Muslims and other minorities, Human Rights Watch said today. The leadership of Modi’s Hindu majoritarian Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) repeatedly made statements inciting discrimination, hostility, and violence against marginalized groups during his campaign to win his third consecutive term of office, which began on June 9.

Several BJP state governments have demolished Muslims’ homes, businesses, and places of worship without due process and carried out other unlawful practices, which have continued since the election. These demolitions are often carried out as apparent collective punishment against the Muslim community for communal clashes or dissent, and BJP officials have dubbed them “bulldozer justice.” Violence against religious minorities has also continued, with at least 28 reported attacks across the country, resulting in the deaths of 12 Muslim men and a Christian woman.

“Indian Prime Minister Modi and BJP leaders made blatantly false claims in their campaign speeches against Muslims and other minority groups,” said Elaine Pearson, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “These inflammatory speeches, amid a decade of attacks and discrimination against minorities under the Modi administration, have further normalized abuses against Muslims, Christians, and others.”

Human Rights Watch analyzed all 173 campaign speeches by Modi after the election code of conduct took effect on March 16. The code forbids appealing to “communal feelings for securing votes.” In at least 110 speeches, Modi made Islamophobic remarks apparently intended to undermine the political opposition, which he said only promoted Muslim rights, and to foster fear among the majority Hindu community through disinformation. 

Modi has rejected allegations of anti-Muslim bias, pointing to India’s democratic, secular, and diversity standards. In interviews with journalists, he said of his party and its affiliated groups: “We are not against Muslims. That is not our domain.” When asked about anti-Muslim speeches during the campaign, he responded: “The day I start talking about Hindu-Muslim [in politics], I will be unfit for public life. I will not do Hindu-Muslim. That is my resolve.”

However, during the campaign, Modi regularly raised fears among Hindus through false claims that their faith, their places of worship, their wealth, their land, and the safety of girls and women in their community would be under threat from Muslims if the opposition parties came to power. 

He repeatedly described Muslims as “infiltrators” and claimed Muslims had “more children” than other communities, raising the specter that Hindus—about 80 percent of the population—will become a minority in India. 

In a speech on May 14 in Koderma, Jharkhand, Modi said that “the idols of our gods are being destroyed” and that “these infiltrators [Muslims] have threatened the security of our sisters and daughters.” 

In a May 17 speech in Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh, he made false claims that the political opposition would harm the newly opened Ram Temple, controversially built atop a razed historical mosque at Ayodhya. He said that if the opposition alliance came to power, “they will again send Ram Lalla [the Hindu deity Lord Ram] to the tent and they will run a bulldozer over the temple.” 

On May 7, in a speech in Dhar, Madhya Pradesh, he falsely said that the opposition Congress Party “intends to give priority to Muslims even in sports. So, Congress will decide who will make the Indian cricket team on the basis of religion.” 

Since Modi’s BJP government first took office in 2014, its discriminatory policies and anti-Muslim speeches by BJP leaders have incited Hindu nationalist violence. The authorities have failed to take adequate action against those responsible, fostering a culture of impunity that has fueled further abuses. At the same time, the authorities have often acted against victims of the violence and sought to persecute critics of the government through politically motivated prosecutions.

India is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which prohibits “advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.” Government officials and others who effectively wield governmental authority have a duty not to engage in speech advocating discrimination, hostility, or violence toward any individual or social group, Human Rights Watch said. Those in a position of governmental authority should speak out to dissuade others from engaging in discriminatory conduct.

The Modi government’s actions have violated India’s obligations under international human rights law that prohibit discrimination based on race, ethnicity, or religion and require the government to ensure equal protection of the law to everyone. The government is also obligated to protect religious and other minority populations and to fully and fairly prosecute those responsible for discrimination and violence against them, Human Rights Watch said.

“The Indian government’s claims of plurality and being the ‘mother of democracy’ ring hollow in the face of its abusive anti-minority actions,” Pearson said. “The new Modi government needs to reverse its discriminatory policies, act on violence against minorities, and ensure justice for those affected.”

BJP Hate Speech and the Election Commission’s Failure to Address It

Prime Minister Modi repeatedly claimed the opposition political parties intended to “wipe out Hindu faith from the country.” In a May 2 speech in Junagadh, Gujarat, he said: 

Congress [Party] is not contesting these elections for democracy, but it’s fighting these elections against Lord Ram. … I want to ask you, if Lord Ram loses, who wins? … It was similar thinking that led the Mughals to destroy the Ram temple 500 years ago and that led them to raze our Somnath temple.

He said in a campaign speech on May 10, in Mahbubnagar, Telangana: “Congress wants to make Hindus second-class citizens in their own country. Is this why they are calling for vote jihad?” 

Modi falsely claimed that the opposition parties planned to take away benefits guaranteed by the constitution to historically marginalized communities such as Dalits, Adivasis, and other groups, and give them instead to Muslims. He also asserted without basis that if the Congress Party came to power, it would take away the wealth and assets of other communities and redistribute them among Muslims. In a May 7 speech in Dhar, Madhya Pradesh, he said, “If Congress has its way, it would say that the first right to live in India belongs to its vote bank [Muslims]. … Congress will give quota even in government contracts on the basis of religion.”

Modi often implied that Muslims endangered the safety of girls and women in the country and claimed that the interests of Congress and opposition parties were aligned with Pakistan and “terrorists.” 

On May 5, in Dhaurahra, Uttar Pradesh, Modi said the opposition parties constrained the country’s investigative agencies and did not allow them to take action against terrorism: “After all, who are they doing it all for? There’s only one answer: for their vote bank [Muslims] to appease them.” On May 14, in Koderma, Jharkhand, a state governed by an opposition party, he said: 

It has become difficult to follow our faith in Jharkhand today. The idols of our gods are being destroyed. Infiltrators with a jihadi mindset are ganging up and attacking, but the Jharkhand government is looking away and is supporting them from afar. These infiltrators have threatened the security of our sisters and daughters. 

On May 28, in Dumka, Jharkhand, he stated: 

In many areas today, the Adivasi [Indigenous] population is rapidly declining while the number of infiltrators is increasing. Are the infiltrators not occupying Adivasi lands? Have our Adivasi daughters not been targeted by infiltrators? Our daughters’ safety is threatened, is it not? Their lives are in danger, they are being murdered, an Adivasi daughter is burned alive, another Adivasi daughter’s voice is taken away. Who are these people targeting Adivasi daughters?

Several other BJP leaders, including Home Minister Amit Shah, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Adityanath, Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, and the former minister for information and broadcasting, Anurag Thakur, made speeches pitting Hindus against Muslims, fueling hatred and insecurity among the Hindu population.

The BJP also published animated videos vilifying Muslims and spreading disinformation during the campaign. On April 30, the BJP’s official account on Instagram posted a video that reportedly received 1.6 million views before it was taken down. The video claimed that the Congress Party was empowering people from the community that infiltrated India and robbed it of its riches: “Congress Party’s manifesto is nothing but the [Pakistani] Muslim League’s ideology in disguise. If you are a non-Muslim, Congress will snatch your wealth and distribute it to Muslims. Narendra Modi knows of this evil plan. Only he has the strength to stop it.” 

On May 4, the BJP’s official account in Karnataka state posted another anti-Muslim animated video that was also taken down after many users complained that it violated the platform’s hate speech policy. After receiving numerous complaints about the video, on May 7, the Election Commission finally wrote to X, formerly Twitter, where the video was also posted, asking them to take the video down.

After Modi’s speech on April 21 in Banswara, Rajasthan, thousands of voters wrote to the Election Commission and asked it to censure the prime minister for violating the code of conduct by “instigating and aggravating hatred in the Hindus against Muslims.” Ordinary voters and several opposition politicians also submitted written complaints about speeches that Modi and other top BJP leaders had made.

However, the Election Commission failed to take adequate action to respond to these violations, Human Rights Watch said. Despite finding that Modi and others had violated the guidelines, the commission only wrote to the office of the BJP president, without naming the prime minister, and asked that the BJP and its “star campaigners” refrain from making speeches along religious or communal lines. These directions did not deter Modi, who continued to make speeches inciting hate throughout the campaign period. 

The Election Commission defended allegations of bias, saying: “We deliberately decided—this is such a huge nation—that the top two people in both the parties [BJP and Congress] we did not touch. Both party presidents we touched equally.” The Election Commission also sent nearly identical letters to the office of the Congress Party president.

Government Authorities Targeting Muslims Since the Elections

Uttar Pradesh BJP Chief Minister Adityanath, in a campaign speech on May 30 in Himachal Pradesh, made false claims that the opposition Congress party, inspired by the 17th century Mughal emperor Aurangzeb, wanted to impose Sharia, or Islamic law, in the country, and warned that those who follow Aurangzeb’s path will be “buried by bulldozers.” 

On June 15, Madhya Pradesh authorities demolished without due process 11 Muslim houses in the Adivasi-dominated Mandla district, saying they had found beef in their refrigerators, as well as animal hides and skeletal remains of cattle. While the authorities justified the demolitions saying the houses had been illegally built on government land, news reports indicated that 16 other houses in the same neighborhood, which authorities acknowledged were also illegal but where no rumored beef was recovered, remained standing. “We demolished the homes where beef was found and left the others alone for now. … We were taking action against cattle smugglers,” a police official told the Indian Express.

On June 25, protests erupted in Mangolpuri in northwest Delhi after authorities demolished portions of a mosque, claiming it was illegal. The demolition came just five days after authorities razed another historic mosque, Jannatul Firdaus, in Delhi’s Bawana area. The mosque’s caretakers alleged that the authorities demolished it without any prior notice or warning.

In July, BJP governments in Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand states issued directives requiring all food sellers along the route of an annual Hindu pilgrimage to display the names and identities of their owners and employees. The state governments claimed it was to ensure the devotees could make an “informed choice” regarding the food they eat during the pilgrimage keeping in mind their “religious sentiments.”

However, on July 22, the Supreme Court ordered an interim stay on the decision, saying that while it is permissible for authorities to ensure that the pilgrims are served “vegetarian food conforming to their preferences,” compelling owners to display “names and address, also of their staff, can hardly achieve [the] intended objective.” The court added that if the directive is permitted to be enforced, “it will infringe upon the secular character of the Republic of India.”

Recent Attacks Against Religious and Other Minorities

Attacks by Hindu mobs and others against Muslims and other religious minorities have continued since the election campaign period.

On June 7, attackers killed three Muslim men—Saddam Qureshi, 23; Chand Miya Khan, 23; and Guddu Khan, 35—who were transporting cattle in Raipur district, Chhattisgarh state. Family members allege that Hindu vigilantes claiming to be a “cow protection” group killed the men and then threw them off a bridge. Police charges stated that men in three cars chased the Muslim men’s truck for 33 miles and hurled spikes and stones until they forced the truck to stop at a bridge by damaging one of its tires. The three Muslims, terrified, jumped off the bridge and died. 

Local Hindu men in Uttar Pradesh’s Aligarh district on June 18 allegedly beat to death Mohammed Farid, a 35-year-old Muslim man. Police said the Hindu attackers suspected Farid of attempted theft at a Hindu trader’s house. After the police arrested six men for murder, a BJP lawmaker joined local Hindu community members to defend the accused, demanding their release and pressing the police not to take action against others named in the case. Eleven days after the killing, the police filed a case against the deceased, his brother and five others on charges of dacoity (banditry) and sexually assaulting a woman.

On June 22, a local Hindu mob in Chikhodra village in Gujarat allegedly beat to death Salman Vohra, 30, while he attended a cricket match. Local activists alleged that the village chief, the son of the local BJP lawmaker, and his cousin were involved in the killing. The activists have requested that the case be transferred to another jurisdiction to prevent political interference. 

During the Muslim festival of Eid al-Adha in June, Hindu mobs harassed and attacked Muslims, including on suspicions of slaughtering cattle. On June 15, a mob attacked people inside a madrassa, an Islamic school, in Medak, Telangana, alleging that they had slaughtered animals during the Eid celebrations. 

On June 16, members of a “cow protection” group allegedly barged into a Muslim home in Khordha town in Odisha and seized all the family’s meat and their refrigerator, suspecting that they were storing beef. On June 18, in Faridabad, Haryana, vigilantes reportedly attacked a Muslim butcher shop owner and two Hindu men who were there to buy chicken.

On June 19, a Hindu mob in Pakri village in Uttar Pradesh attacked a motor rickshaw driver for carrying meat, saying a particular road could not be used to transport meat. On the same day, a mob attacked a Muslim-owned shop in front of the police in Himachal Pradesh state, after the owner allegedly shared a picture of a buffalo sacrifice on his WhatsApp status. 

During this period, Hindu men were implicated in attacks on Christians, Dalits, and Sikhs in several parts of the country. 

A Decade of BJP Hindu Nationalist Hate Speech

There has been a surge in anti-Muslim hate speech in India since the Modi administration first took office in 2014. 

During the 2014 national election campaign, Modi repeatedly called for the protection of cows, raising the specter of a “pink revolution” by the previous government that he claimed had endangered cows and other cattle to export meat. After coming to power, several BJP leaders made statements that spurred a violent vigilante campaign against beef consumption and those deemed linked to it. 

This led to self-appointed “cow protection” groups springing up across the country, many claiming to be affiliated with militant Hindu groups with ties to the BJP. Between May 2015 and December 2018, at least 44 people—36 of them Muslims—were killed across 12 states. Over that same period, about 280 people were injured in more than 100 incidents across 20 states. The attacks have continued, with several more killed since then.

Following widespread peaceful protests across the country against the government’s discriminatory Citizenship Amendment Act in December 2019, some BJP leaders derided the protesters, or more dangerously called them anti-national and pro-Pakistan. Others led a chant to “shoot the traitors,” inciting violence. Government supporters twice showed up at protest sites with guns to use against protesters. 

On January 30, 2020, a 17-year-old with a gun first threatened protesters outside Jamia Millia Islamia university in Delhi, and then opened fire in the presence of police, injuring a student. Two days later, a man fired two shots in the air near a protest site at Delhi’s Shaheen Bagh.

Since 2014, the BJP has denounced what it has called “love jihad,” a baseless theory claiming that Muslim men lure Hindu women into marriages to convert them to Islam. This has led several states to pass anti-conversion laws, which are used against Muslim men who marry Hindu women. Hindu nationalist groups have beaten Muslim men in interfaith relationships, harassed them, and filed cases under these laws against them.

Leaders from the BJP and affiliated Hindu nationalist groups have made statements that led to numerous mob attacks on churches in the last decade. In many cases, pastors have been beaten, prevented from holding religious meetings, and accused under anti-conversion laws, and churches have been vandalized.

After hundreds of thousands of farmers of various faiths began protesting against the government’s new farm laws in November 2020, senior BJP leaders, their supporters on social media, and pro-government media began blaming the Sikhs. They accused Sikhs of having a “Khalistani” agenda, a reference to a Sikh separatist insurgency in Punjab in the 1980s and 1990s. On February 8, 2021, Modi spoke in parliament, describing people participating in various peaceful protests as “parasites.” 

Punjab’s opposition politicians said that anti-Sikh statements by BJP leaders led to a June 10 attack by two men on a Sikh man, whom they called Khalistani, in Haryana’s Kaithal district. “This is the direct consequence of the politics of hate and polarization of various groups that has come to afflict the country over the past decade,” Punjab’s former deputy chief minister posted on X.

Since 2017, an anti-Rohingya campaign by Hindu nationalist groups who claim that Rohingya Muslim refugees are “terrorists” has incited vigilante-style violence, including arson attacks on the homes of Rohingya in Jammu and Delhi. In 2017, the Indian government called Rohingya refugees a “threat to national security.” 

The BJP minister of state for home affairs said: “As far as we are concerned, they are all illegal immigrants. They have no basis to live here. Anybody who is an illegal migrant will be deported.” In 2018, following a fire in a Rohingya settlement in Delhi that burned at least 50 homes, a leader from the BJP youth wing applauded the action on Twitter, saying: “Well done by our heroes … Yes we burnt the houses of Rohingya terrorists.”

Following the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, Indian authorities contributed to a surge in anti-Muslim hate speech and violence. After authorities announced that they found a large number of coronavirus cases among Muslims who had attended a mass religious congregation in Delhi, some BJP leaders called the meeting a “Talibani crime” and “CoronaTerrorism,” and some mainstream media used the term “CoronaJihad,” with the hashtag going viral on social media. 

Soon, social media and WhatsApp groups were flooded by calls for social and economic boycotts of Muslims. There were numerous physical attacks on Muslims, including volunteers distributing relief material, amid falsehoods accusing them of spreading the virus deliberately.

14 August 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Prof. Junaid S. Ahmad

When the nation’s top general boards a flight to Washington not once, but twice within eight weeks, etiquette has clearly evolved into performance art. Picture Field Marshal Asim Munir—Pakistan’s newly minted five-star wonder, wearing a rank so rare it gathers dust in the history books—striding into Florida and D.C. with the easy grace of a monarch visiting his patron. The honeymoon? It’s not merely blooming; it’s a choreographed waltz, complete with matching smiles and carefully chosen photo backdrops.

This is not the casual diplomacy of “we should catch up sometime.” This is courtship, wrapped in starched fabric, stitched with nuclear thread.

Act I: Dinner, Diplomacy, and a Nobel Nomination

The first act unfolded in the famed Cabinet Room of the White House on a hot June afternoon. The U.S. President—yes, *that* one—shares a private lunch with Munir, the first such tête-à-tête in fifteen years. It had all the trappings of a diplomatic breakthrough, until the Field Marshal casually nominated his host for the Nobel Peace Prize. In the annals of foreign policy theatre, this was a rare flourish—equal parts flattery, opportunism, and political fan fiction.

This wasn’t just a power lunch; it was a scene straight out of a buddy-comedy script: “One serves salad, the other serves strategic compliance.” Everyone leaves the room convinced they are indispensable to the other’s future.

And then, barely six weeks later, Munir was back on a plane to the U.S.—not for a holiday or a conference, but for the next act in a drama that was starting to look like a touring production. This time, the backdrop was Tampa, home to CENTCOM headquarters, where he attended the retirement of one commander and the installation of another. Handshakes were exchanged with the earnestness of a man auditioning for “Most Reliable Ally,” while the Pakistani diaspora was treated to a sales pitch: invest in Pakistan, return to your roots, believe in the motherland.

From the outside, it looked like diplomacy. From the inside, it felt like déjà vu—repeated lines, the same stage, just a change of set dressing.

Act II: Nuclear Blackmail in the Sunshine State

But Tampa wasn’t where the fireworks happened. That was reserved for Florida’s softer shores, where Munir delivered what might be the most theatrical line of his career: “If we’re going down, we’ll take half the world with us.” Not whispered in a strategy session, not jotted in a private memo—said loudly, in public, on U.S. soil.

For anyone unsure, he made the point twice. Turning to India’s dams on the Indus, he promised their destruction with “ten missiles,” adding with unshakable confidence, “We have no shortage of missiles, Alhamdulillah.” In that moment, religious invocation met nuclear threat, a hybrid genre few had dared to attempt.

And then came the analogy that will follow him like a catchy but unfortunate jingle: India, he said, is a Ferrari speeding down a highway; Pakistan is a gravel-laden dump truck. The Ferrari might be sleeker, but if the dump truck collides, the Ferrari is finished. Somewhere in the crowd, a speechwriter surely high-fived himself. Somewhere else, a diplomat buried their face in their hands.

For Indian officials, this was more than rhetoric—it was a grotesque performance of irresponsibility. For Washington, it was theatre: a nuclear monologue delivered on borrowed stages, meant as much for the domestic audience back home as for any foreign listener.

Act III: Washington’s Quiet Checklist

Of course, the theatre is only the front stage. Behind the curtain, Washington’s script for Islamabad is less about applause and more about assignments.

First, Munir must play the role of fraternal defender of Iran in public, while keeping Balochistan primed for covert operations should Tehran become the next battlefield. In this drama, “brotherhood” is a costume; the real script is written in the shadows.

Second, he is to serve as the pliant foil to India’s increasingly independent streak. A brief border skirmish earlier this year earned Pakistan unusual praise from Washington—not because of any dazzling military maneuver, but because India has been testing Washington’s patience. From buying Russian oil without a hint of shame to cultivating relationships that make U.S. officials squirm, New Delhi has made clear it won’t be anyone’s obedient junior partner. Munir’s Pakistan, on the other hand, can be relied upon to play its part on cue.

Third, the relationship with China is to be kept on a short leash. Roads, ports, and railways under the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor are permissible; anything resembling strategic intimacy is not. And if the occasional attack in Balochistan derails a few projects? That’s just “geopolitical weather.”

Fourth, the crown jewel of the to-do list: undermine BRICS. The bloc—fast becoming a credible counterweight to Western economic dominance—is a thorn in Washington’s side. Pakistan’s mission, should it choose to accept it (and it has), is to be the polite saboteur: attend summits, offer handshakes, and plant seeds of suspicion between member states. The goal is as old as empire itself—divide, dominate, extract.

In this role, Munir is not just a Field Marshal; he is a geopolitical utility player, capable of being deployed against multiple targets without appearing to lead the attack.

Act IV: The Mirage of Sovereignty

Beneath the ceremonial glow, Pakistan’s military establishment operates as a state within a state—complete with its own business empire. Banks, factories, real estate developments: all part of a self-sustaining ecosystem known to critics as “Milbus.” This parallel economy ensures the military’s autonomy from civilian oversight, making it easier to align with external agendas without the inconvenience of parliamentary debate or public accountability.

When the military’s financial health depends more on its own enterprises than on the state budget, sovereignty becomes flexible. A foreign agenda can be accommodated if it doesn’t disturb the military’s internal balance sheet. And in Munir’s case, the Washington visits are not about asserting Pakistan’s independence—they’re about securing a place in a foreign-designed order, while preserving the domestic status quo.

The public may hear speeches about partnership and mutual respect. But the real currency in this relationship is obedience, dressed in the language of cooperation.

Act V: The Honeymoon’s True Price

Every honeymoon has a bill waiting at the end. In this one, Pakistan gets the optics of importance: a seat at the White House table, flattering remarks from U.S. officials, promises of military cooperation, and the warm embrace of America’s most influential lobbies.

In exchange, Washington gets a reliable middleman in South Asia: a nuclear-armed country willing to apply pressure on Iran, needle India, limit China’s reach, and play spoiler to BRICS. The fact that this arrangement is cloaked in the symbols of national pride—uniforms, medals, diplomatic banquets—only makes it easier to sell at home.

The problem is that honeymoons don’t last. The garland of roses begins to chafe, the music fades, and the partner once flattered finds themselves more bound than embraced. What today is presented as partnership may tomorrow be remembered as the moment sovereignty was traded for prestige.

Curtain Call: The Satrap’s Smile

Field Marshal Asim Munir is not the first Pakistani general to play the role of satrap, and he won’t be the last. But the speed and enthusiasm with which he has embraced it—the two visits in rapid succession, the nuclear grandstanding on foreign soil, the apparent eagerness to carry out Washington’s regional errands—mark him as a particularly willing participant in the arrangement.

Pakistan remains a country of staggering potential: the fifth most populous nation, rich in resources, positioned at the crossroads of Asia, and armed with a formidable nuclear deterrent. And yet, in the current script, it plays a role written elsewhere, its lines approved before they are spoken.

The satrap’s smile is wide, the epaulettes shine under the spotlight, and the applause is warm. But somewhere beyond the ballroom, the music changes. The strings grow taut. And when the tune shifts from waltz to march, the Field Marshal may discover that the honeymoon was never truly about love—it was always about leverage.

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.

14 August 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By David Andersson

It is paradoxical that many advocate for ending wars without acknowledging the root issue of violence. If now is not the time to finally address violence, when will it be? We must name and challenge all its forms—physical, religious, economic, political, psychological, cultural, sexual, and others—because violence in any form is the primary barrier to peace.

Asking for peace without addressing violence is like a homeless person asking for money on the street; it doesn’t get very far. Peace cannot be achieved by ignoring the systemic and pervasive forces that sustain violence. Without addressing the underlying violence, peace remains an empty and unattainable goal.

Violence resolves nothing; it only perpetuates conflict. Diplomatic efforts will falter unless they directly address the role of violence. How can we expect those who profit from or perpetuate violence to be the ones to build peace? We must ask the difficult questions: Who benefits from the promotion of violence? How large is the market for it? Has democracy itself become subject to its sway? Why is honest discussion of violence so rare? In truth, nearly every aspect of human life—directly or indirectly—intersects with violence.

There are many examples of rapid transformation when the roots of violence are addressed. Look at Medellín, Colombia—the country’s second-largest city, nestled in the Aburrá Valley of the Andes. Known as the “City of Eternal Spring” for its year-round climate, Medellín was once infamous for its violence. In just 20 years, it has transformed into a vibrant, innovative city. Its cultural attractions and welcoming atmosphere stand as a testament to the power of change when violence is confronted. Medellín’s transformation wasn’t accidental—it was a strategic, inclusive campaign that combined infrastructure, culture, social policy, and innovation to navigate complex issues around social equity, memory, and safety.

In Mogadishu, Somalia, the effects of years of civil war and militant control began to dissipate after Al-Shabaab militants withdrew in 2011. The city embarked on significant reconstruction, with international collaboration—including with Turkey and the Somali diaspora—to rebuild infrastructure, revitalize public spaces, and boost economic activities. These efforts have contributed to a more stable and safer environment for its residents.

In Jos, Plateau State, Nigeria, recurrent communal violence since 2001 led to the launch of the Jos Forum Inter-communal Dialogue Process in 2013. Spanning 16 months and bringing together diverse communities, this dialogue culminated in the “Declaration of Commitment to Peace,” emphasizing tolerance, respect, and nonviolent conflict resolution. The result has been a more peaceful coexistence among Jos’s varied communities.

These examples show that peace is possible when violence is directly confronted, not ignored. Violent individuals or systems will never deliver peace—they are the obstacle, not the answer. The only path forward is to accept, collectively and without compromise, that violence does not work. Until we reach that understanding, peace will remain out of reach.
First published on 

Pressenza and translated into 

13 August 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By John D. Marks

The Israeli missile that hit Al Jazeera’s tent targeted more than five people; it struck at the principle that the public has a right to know and at the belief that truth should outlive the men and women who report it.

On the night of August 10, 2025, the air over Gaza City hung heavy with dust and the steady thrum of generators. In a modest press tent pitched outside the bomb-scarred shell of al-Shifa Hospital, Al Jazeera’s last reporting team in the city worked with the quiet urgency of people who knew each second could be their last chance to bear witness. Cameras waited on tripods. Laptops glowed on folding tables. There were no sandbags or armed guards, only the visible markings of the press, meant to signal protection under the laws of war.

Al Jazeera, a Qatar-based global news network, has kept a permanent presence in Gaza for years, often reporting from places other international media could not reach. The network has long faced hostility from Israeli officials, who have accused it of bias and threatened to shutter its Jerusalem bureau. Al Jazeera has rejected these accusations, pointing to its record of reporting from all sides of the conflict. During this war, with foreign reporters barred from entering without Israeli military escort, its local Palestinian journalists became one of the few remaining sources of independent, on-the-ground coverage from inside the enclave. Their reports, footage, and interviews were carried not only to millions of viewers across the Arab-speaking world but also by major global outlets.

Inside the tent sat Anas al-Sharif, Mohammed Qreiqeh, Ibrahim Zaher, Mohammed Noufal, and Moamen Aliwa. Minutes later, an Israeli missile struck the tent. The Israeli military admitted targeting the site, alleging al-Sharif was a Hamas cell leader. No independent evidence has confirmed that claim. Al Jazeera stated that this was a targeted assassination.

The blast did more than tear through canvas and steel. It silenced the final independent voices still reporting from Gaza City. When you kill the witness, you kill the story. And when the story dies, accountability dies with it. This was not an isolated tragedy. It was part of a pattern that, measured across the war, has made Gaza the deadliest place on Earth for journalists in the modern record.

The deliberate killing of multiple journalists from a single, reputable newsroom is not without precedent. Each time it happens, it marks a rupture in the global record. In 1975, the Balibo Five were executed in East Timor to prevent them from reporting on Indonesia’s invasion. In 2009, the Maguindanao Massacre claimed 32 reporters in the Philippines, the largest single-day killing of journalists in history, as a warning to all who might challenge local power. In 2012, American correspondent Marie Colvin was killed when Syrian forces shelled a known media center in Homs. In Nazi Germany and under Stalin’s Soviet Union, many journalists were imprisoned, exiled, or executed for defying the state narrative, their deaths folded into broader purges and wartime atrocities. The tent strike in Gaza now stands in this grim lineage, a calculated act to silence witnesses and send a message to the world that there are places you will not be allowed to see.

The Deadliest Conflict for Journalists

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) reports at least 192 journalist deaths since October 7, 2023: 184 Palestinian, 2 Israeli, and 6 Lebanese, as of August 11, 2025. The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) counts at least 195 media workers killed. Gaza’s Government Media Office claims 238, while the Costs of War Project at Brown University documents about 232 through late March 2025. These totals vary depending on whether the counts include foreign correspondents, media support staff, or missing journalists presumed dead.

Even the lowest confirmed total makes this the deadliest conflict for journalists in CPJ’s record, surpassing all others in speed and density of loss. From October 7, 2023, through August 11, 2025, an average of about 8 to 9 journalists per month have been killed, totaling 192 deaths. For comparison, during the entire U.S. war in Iraq, which lasted more than eight years, CPJ recorded 204 journalists and media workers killed. Both figures are from CPJ’s database, using the same definitions for journalists and media workers. Each number is a human being with a family, colleagues, and a record of truths that now stops mid-sentence. The IFJ estimates that more than 10% of Gaza’s entire journalist corps has been killed.

Such a pattern does not happen by accident. The scale and pace of these deaths suggest an intentional effort to remove those who can create an independent record of the war.

Erasing the Record

The first casualty is often the truth. In Gaza, it is the truth tellers. These deaths are not the inevitable byproduct of a chaotic battlefield. They result from deliberate decisions to remove those most capable of documenting events and holding perpetrators to account.

The pattern is well known: Eliminate independent eyes, leaving only the account sanctioned by those in power, seal off the site, and eliminate evidence until only the official version remains. This is not only about shaping opinion in the moment. In war crimes tribunals, journalistic photographs, videos, and testimonies have been used as evidence, making those who capture them a direct threat to impunity. United Nations Special Rapporteur Irene Khan has said that attacks on journalists fit into a global pattern of repression that undermines democracy. In Gaza, this sequence is already well underway.

The press corps’ decimation forms the outer wall of a larger project. Human rights groups warn that this campaign seeks the political and demographic erasure of the 5.4 million Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, with displacement, imprisonment, and disenfranchisement on a mass scale. The methods are familiar: trap communities in “no exit” zones, dismantle life-sustaining infrastructure, close borders, and silence those who can bear witness. History shows that when the heart of a people is targeted, the tremors do not stop at its borders. They move outward, altering the lives of kin and communities far beyond the place where the attack began.

History shows what follows when the witnesses are gone. In the Balkans, in Syria, in Myanmar, the absence of independent eyes allowed perpetrators to dictate the record and insist their version was the only truth.

Why Silencing Comes First

The strike on the al-Shifa tent happened before the last neighborhoods went quiet. In wars where mass displacement or worse is contemplated, silencing independent reporting is often an early operational step. Sarajevo’s television studios were shelled into darkness. In Aleppo, journalists were hunted through the rubble. In Myanmar, reporters documenting the Rohingya crisis were jailed or killed.

The reason rarely changes: Without witnesses, atrocities can be denied, timelines rewritten, and casualty counts reduced to rumor. In that vacuum, truth becomes whatever those in power decide it should be. If those with the cameras are gone, who decides what the rest of us see?

The elimination of journalists is not only about restricting information. It is about shaping the emotional terrain of the conflict. Each killing sends a message to the surviving press that they are not protected and that their work makes them targets. This is psychological warfare, aimed not just at reporters but at the public they serve. When people see that even clearly marked press are attacked, they understand that there is no neutral ground, no shield of visibility.

As more journalists are driven out or silenced, fewer remain to challenge official accounts, leaving entire populations dependent on information filtered through those in power. In Latin America’s “Dirty Wars,” in Sri Lanka’s civil war, and in the Philippines under President Ferdinand Marcos, such tactics were designed to suppress the will to resist by convincing whole communities that their suffering would never be witnessed, much less believed. Gaza’s blackout is not only the removal of documentation; it is the removal of hope that anyone will ever hear the truth.

The United States Is Learning and Exporting the Script

The same blueprint used to silence the press abroad is already finding footholds within U.S. borders. The United States operates over 200 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facilities, many with the regimentation and secrecy of military compounds. Policy proposals from the current administration and its allies call for mass deportations, an executive order to curtail birthright citizenship that is now blocked in court, and expansion of detention capacity on military bases.

Journalists who have investigated ICE activities, including deportation operations, workplace raids, and conditions inside its facilities, have frequently faced barriers. Reporters have been denied access, threatened with legal action, or physically removed while trying to document these operations. Some have been blocked from speaking with detainees, filming at detention sites, or covering ICE enforcement actions in the community. CPJ Executive Director Jodie Ginsberg has said that keeping journalists out keeps the truth out. The language used to justify these restrictions, portraying detainees as criminals, threats, or “invaders,” is identical to that used elsewhere to prepare the ground for repression.

Every time this script is run abroad, it becomes easier to perform at home. This is not hypothetical. At Standing Rock, reporters were arrested and equipment seized. In 2020, journalists covering protests after the murder of George Floyd were injured by rubber bullets, exposed to tear gas, and detained. These incidents limited what the public could see in real time and in some cases allowed authorities to control the only surviving footage or accounts. The method is the same as in other crackdowns: Control the people by controlling what can be seen and said.

The United States is not alone. India has stripped citizenship from Muslims in Assam. Hungary has throttled independent media through legal and regulatory pressure. Egypt detains and silences journalists as a matter of policy. In each case, independent reporting was crippled before mass arrests, disenfranchisement, or expulsions took place. The success of such methods in one state emboldens others to replicate them, creating a cycle in which press repression becomes both normalized and exportable. What is refined in one arena, whether a detention camp, a protest site, or a conflict zone, does not remain there. It is studied, shared, and deployed wherever those in power fear scrutiny.

The Predictable Defenses

When the press is killed or silenced, officials often say that war is dangerous and journalists accept the risks. The Geneva Conventions, however, make clear that journalists are civilians who are entitled to protection and that danger does not permit targeting them. Another common defense is to claim that those killed were militants posing as reporters, a label that, once applied, erases legal protections. In Gaza, no independent body has verified the accusations against Anas al-Sharif or his colleagues.

Some insist that Gaza is unique, avoiding comparisons to other situations where states control movement, limit oversight, and erase populations from public life. Others dismiss historical parallels as exaggeration, ignoring that forced displacement, legal nullification, and the silencing of witnesses have long been precursors to atrocities. When criticism of Israeli policy is labeled antisemitic, governance is conflated with identity, and legitimate scrutiny is deflected.

Jewish journalists and Israeli human rights advocates have also criticized these policies, underscoring that opposition is not rooted in prejudice. The rhetoric that frames such criticism as antisemitic is part of the machinery of repression, conditioning the public to excuse the killings and accept the absence of independent reporting.

The Fight for Witnesses

The missile that hit Al Jazeera’s tent targeted more than five people; it struck at the principle that the public has a right to know and at the belief that truth should outlive the men and women who report it.

If every image, every report, and every interview were filtered through those with something to hide, how would you know what happened? Imagine it is your city where the cameras have gone dark. That a protest you joined, a police raid in your neighborhood, or a natural disaster in your community is unfolding, and the only images that will survive are the ones the authorities approve. Imagine knowing that the people documenting the truth are being hunted, and that without them, your story will vanish into an official silence polished to look like fact.

This is not a thought experiment. The tools and tactics now used against journalists in Gaza, from mass surveillance to targeted suppression, are already here, in our cities, at our borders, in our public spaces. The question is not if they could be turned inward, but when, and against whom.

If Gaza’s press corps can be eliminated so quickly while the world looks away, then no war zone, no protest, and no detention center is safe from the same erasure. That is how it starts. You eliminate independent eyes, leave only the account sanctioned by those in power, and then rewrite the story as if they never existed.

To defend journalists is to defend the archive of truth itself, the evidence from which any hope of justice must be built. Without that record, there is only the official version, changed at will, designed to serve those in power. For Americans who think they are insulated from this logic, the warning is blunt: The systems refined in Gaza do not stay there. They adapt. They travel. They are deployed wherever those in power fear exposure.

You can push back. Support independent and at-risk journalists through organizations like the Committee to Protect Journalists, Reporters Without Borders, or local press freedom funds. Demand that your representatives back enforceable protections for journalists at home and abroad. Share the work of those risking their lives to report from Gaza and other conflict zones. Your advocacy, funding, and amplification are part of the fragile chain that keeps future atrocities from being erased.

The press tent outside al-Shifa was a small, temporary structure. The idea behind its destruction was neither small nor temporary. Unless the witness is defended everywhere, we may find no one left to tell our story when it matters most.

John D. Marks, PhD, PE, is a biomedical engineer and U.S. Army veteran whose years in postwar Europe shaped his understanding of the roots of authoritarianism.

13 August 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dr. Salim Nazzal

There is no doubt that Israel succeeded in blackmailing the West for more than seven decades, by militarizing the concept of anti-Semitism in a way that has managed to silence any voice objecting to Israeli policy. Only a few courageous voices have emerged among Western leaders, such as Charles de Gaulle, Olof Palme.

We have seen how the West moved with maximum speed when Russian forces entered Ukraine, to the point that sanctions on Russia began immediately. But in Gaza, after nearly two years of brutal killing, the official West is still incapable of taking decisions that could stop the massacres.

All this has begun to raise questions in the West that were previously unthinkable, such as the extent of Zionist control over the West, and the absence not only of courage among Western leaders but also of strategic vision.

The truth that most Westerners do not fully grasp is the scale of damage inflicted on the West by its blind support for Israel, and by allowing it to defy all public opinion and mock every international institution that was established to make the world safer.

There is no doubt that supporting Israel has greatly contributed to weakening the West. Its moral authority has eroded severely in the face of the killing of thousands of children in Gaza children who would not have died were it not for Western support.

What is certain is that the West’s talk about human rights has become a thing of the past, for it has lost all credibility.  Moreover the moral collapse of the West is only a prelude to broader collapses, for history teaches us that moral breakdowns usually lead to breakdowns in other areas as well.

Dr. Salim Nazzal is President of the European-Palestinian Cultural Forum

14 August 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark 

It was a sign of someone desperate that his message has failed to take wing and make its way to better lands.  With the strategy of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Gaza Strip sundered and falling over, leaving only a thick butcher’s bill (over 60,000 deaths for starters), extraordinary suffering and humanitarian catastrophe, he thought it wise to confront foreign press outlets on a late Sunday in the hope that the tide might turn away from his exemplary viciousness.  There had been, he moaned like a wounded starlet, a “global campaign of lies” about Israel’s war in Gaza.  In doing so, he merely inflated the arguments against him with boisterous credit and almost irrefutable plausibility.

The conference, which gave “an opportunity to puncture the lies and tell the truth,” involved the following points: Hamas still has thousands of fighters in Gaza; it vowed to repeat what it had done on October 7, 2023; it continued to expound the goal of wishing to destroy Israel even as it subjugated Gazans, stole their precious food, and shot those seeking to move to safe zones, the latter term being itself a monstrosity in the context of this conflict.  Paternally, Netanyahu as the punishing father figure, thought he had deciphered the true desire of those in Gaza, which presumably would not have entailed the killing of Palestinians by the tens of thousands and starving the rest.  Everything could be blamed on a militant organisation he had done so much to praise as a countering force against Fatah in the West Bank.  As things stood now, Gazans seemed to be suffering from a highly developed sense of Stockholm’s syndrome, “begging us, and they’re begging the world: ‘Free us, Free us, and free Gaza from Hamas’.”

With a solid body of mendacity to work with, Netanyahu proceeded to build an edifice of fantasy few others outside Israel could contend with: that the same Israeli forces who starve, kill and maim the civilian populace of the Strip have no wish to impose an occupation but “free it from Hamas terrorists.  The war can end tomorrow if Gaza, or rather if Hamas lays down its arms and releases all the remaining hostages.”  Israeli policy was not one of starving the Palestinians into famine wrecks, skeletal ruin and physiological malfunction.  That hideous criminal pursuit fell to Hamas, apparently responsible for the violent looting of aid trucks and the deliberate creation of “a shortage of supply.”  Fantastically, Netanyahu blamed the United Nations for refusing “to distribute the thousands of trucks that we let into Gaza through the Kerem Shalom crossing,” a delightful complaint given his government’s overt hatred for a body he always wished to be rid of from the occupied territories.  The synapses in Netanyahu-Land seemed frailer than ever, if not altogether snapped.

He then belted out the now familiar five-point vision of the Strip once Hamas is defeated.  This elusive “day after” includes the following objectives: the disarming of Hamas, the freeing of all hostages, the demilitarising of the Gaza Strip, granting Israel “overriding security control”, the creation of a non-Israeli administration that will not “educate its children for terror, doesn’t pay terrorists and doesn’t launch terrorist attacks against Israel.”  Unlike other proposals advanced by France, the UK and Canada, the Palestinian Authority is also excluded from the arrangements, since no Palestinian politician is worth the Israeli PM’s time.  Netanyahu’s idea of a politically viable Palestinian is one manacled to the security regime of other powers.

The stage for the next slaughter is set, namely, the dismantling of “the two remaining Hamas strongholds in Gaza City and the Central Camps. Contrary to false claims, this is the best way to end the war, and the best way to end it speedily.”  Netanyahu feigns a humanitarian streak in stating that the civilian population will be allowed to “leave the combat areas to designated safe zones.”  The process of ethnic cleansing, or simply cleansing of the population, is to simply continue.

Oblivious to Netanyahu’s fortified wall of prejudice is that much of the groundwork for precisely those outcomes he hopes to avoid have already been laid.  Whether it be Hamas or any other militant organisation, the notion of pacifist subordinate figures content with their status in any territory where Israel has the last word on everything is absurdly unrealistic.

Doing everything to make his case even less convincing, Netanyahu then told Israeli journalists after seeing the foreign scribblers off that he had never halted all humanitarian aid to Gaza.  Even the patriotic Times of Israel found this a bit rich, noting that “his government had enacted that policy earlier this year.”  The paper went on to quote the announcement from the premier’s office on March 2: “Prime Minister Netanyahu has decided that, as of this morning, all entry of goods and supplies into the Gaza Strip will cease.” 

Netanyahu also refused to accept the proposition that Gaza’s population was starving. Shortages in supply yes; starvation no.  “If we had wanted starvation, if that had been our policy, 2 million Gazans wouldn’t be living today after 20 months.”  The same could be said about the supreme crime of all: “if we wanted to commit genocide, it would have taken exactly one afternoon.”  A wise head might have told him that few who commit genocide or engineer circumstances of mass murder ever make the intention that obvious.

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

14 August 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Gaza (Quds News Network)- More than 100 aid organizations have accused Israel of weaponizing starvation by blocking life-saving aid from entering Gaza, leaving vast quantities of relief supplies stranded in warehouses while more Palestinians starve.

In a joint statement on Thursday, the groups, including Doctors Without Borders and Oxfam, said that aid trucks have massed on Gaza’s borders amid Israel’s blockade of the famine-stricken territory, and new rules are being used by Israel to deny the entry of food, medicine, water and temporary shelters.

“Despite claims by Israeli authorities that there is no limit on humanitarian aid entering Gaza, most major international NGOs [nongovernmental organisations] have been unable to deliver a single truck of life-saving supplies since 2 March,” the groups said.

“Instead of clearing the growing backlog of goods, Israeli authorities have rejected requests from dozens of NGOs to bring in life-saving goods, citing that these organisations are ‘not authorised to deliver aid’,” the groups added.

Relief organisations that have worked in Gaza for decades are now told by Israel that they are not “authorised” to deliver aid due to new “registration rules”, which include so-called “security” vetting.

Hospitals in Gaza are now without basic supplies as a result, and children, the elderly and those with disabilities are “dying from hunger and preventable”, the statement noted.

The more than 100 relief organisations have called for pressure to be exerted on Israel to end its “weaponisation of aid”, for Israel to end its “bureaucratic obstruction” and for unconditional delivery of life-saving humanitarian aid to Gaza.

Bushra Khalidi, Oxfam policy lead, said her organisation has more than $2.5m worth of humanitarian aid supplies that “have been rejected from entering Gaza by Israel”.

MSF’s emergency coordinator in Gaza, Aitor Zabalgogeazkoa, said the restrictions on aid are part of Israel’s militarised distribution of relief supplies, spearheaded by the controversial US- and Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF).

“The militarised food distribution scheme has weaponised starvation and curated suffering. Distributions at GHF sites have resulted in extreme levels of violence and killings, primarily of young Palestinian men, but also of women and children, who have gone to the sites in the hope of receiving food,” Zabalgogeazkoa said.

At least 859 starving Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces and American mercenaries while seeking food near or at GHF distribution sites since May.

Israel’s Diaspora Minister Amichai Chikli, who had a role in the new rules imposed on aid groups, told the AFP news agency that registration of humanitarian groups could be rejected if Israel deems that its activities deny the democratic character of Israel or ” promote delegitimisation campaigns”, such as the movement to boycott Israel over its war on Gaza.

The joint outcry comes as two out of three famine thresholds for food consumption have been breached across most of Gaza, with acute malnutrition levels in Gaza City confirming aid agencies’ repeated warnings, according to the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC).

“Mounting evidence shows that widespread starvation, malnutrition, and disease are driving a rise in hunger-related deaths,” the IPC assessment maintained.

“The worst-case scenario of Famine is currently playing out in the Gaza Strip.”

UNICEF has warned that Gaza faces a grave risk of famine, with one in three people going days without food.

Over 100 humanitarian organizations, including Amnesty International, Doctors Without Borders (MSF), and Oxfam, warned that “mass starvation” is spreading across Gaza, with their colleagues in the enclave wasting away from hunger.

The World Health Organization (WHO) said Gaza City has been the area “worst-hit” by malnutrition in the Gaza Strip, with nearly one in five children under five there now acutely malnourished.

The World Food Programme (WFP) has warned that thousands of Palestinians in Gaza are “on the verge of catastrophic hunger,” with one in three people in the enclave going days without food.

14 August 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dr Marwan Asmar 

In another heinous move Israel has killed six journalists outside the Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, Sunday. A direct Israeli strike on a “journalist tent” was deliberately made to kill as many media reporters as possible. It was made as a prelude to a full-scale Israeli military invasion of Gaza City that is said to be coming soon.

As openly admitted by the Israeli military, the attack reached their targets killing prominent Al Jazeera journalists Anas Al Sharif and Mohammad Qreiqah and four other reporters.

These also included photojournalists Ibrahim Thaher, Mohammad Nofal and Moamen Eliwa. Later reports showed journalist Mohammad Al Khalidi was also killed.

The latest attacks are described by the press as “a journalists massacre” designed to shut-down the voices of media workers who had been reporting on Israel’s latest starvation policy of the Palestinian population of Gaza now at the end of the Israeli tank, gun, plane, drone for the last 22 months.

The killing was of the journalists was clearly aimed at Al Jazeera who had been covering Israel’s Gaza genocide since it started on 7 October, 2023 till today, covering Israeli destruction of the enclave and the killing and injury of its people.

The killing of the journalists came hours after a press conference held by the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to defend Israel’s latest moves to occupy Gaza city and finally get rid of Hamas which is today far from being realized.

Although, today Israel occupies at least 80 percent of the Gaza Strip, it has come at a great cost for the Israeli army who have lost a great deal of soldiers and machinery, and after 22 months are nowhere near to getting rid of Hamas nor its armed wing the Izz Al Din Al Qassam Brigades.

Regardless of what imagination Netanyahu has about the movement and other Palestinian resistance groups, the latest killings of the journalists, which have continued throughout this genocide, is to smother the voice of media workers about the atrocities Israel is carrying out in Gaza.

But this has not happened. According to the Government Media Office in Gaza, the latest killings mean that the number of journalists that have been targeted by Israel climbs up to 237, the highest figure of journalists killed anywhere in the world, now and in history.

What Netanyahu and his extremist government want is to continue to kill as many of these media workers as possible because they are Gaza’s voice to the world in this Israeli ethnic cleansing for no international journalists have been allowed to enter Gaza, except for the select few and under the strict supervision of the Israeli army. International independent journalists have been clamoring to get into Gaza but these have fell on deaf Israeli ears.

Palestine Chronicle Editor Ramzy Baroud wrote on X: Two more journalists, Anas Al-Sharif and Mohammad Qreiqah have been killed in Gaza. These brilliant young reporters were known for their courage and powerful commitment to the truth.

He added: This is a deliberate war on journalism. The silence and complicity of some corporate media outlets only serve to amplify Israeli propaganda.

But they will fail. The death of Anas, Mohammad and over 230 other journalists will not bury the Palestinian story. Indeed, their sacrifice ensures that their voices – and their truth – will be heard more loudly than before.

The intellectual and moral strength of the Palestinian narrative will not be weakened. Even the mass murder of its fine journalists can’t muffle its voice. Justice will prevail, he ends by saying.

The Al Jazeera news outlet stated the deliberate killing of its journalists by Israel in Gaza is but “a desperate attempt to silence voices ahead of the invasion of Gaza.”

In a strongly-worded statement Al Jazeera added “the responsibility for this attack lies entirely with the Israeli army and government.”

The statement of  the satellite channel underlined that numerous Israeli officials repeatedly incited and called for the targeting of Al-Sharif and his colleagues.

“Anas Al-Sharif was one of the bravest journalists documenting the starvation imposed by the occupying Israeli forces on the people of Gaza. Silencing voices as part of the Gaza invasion plan is a desperate attempt,” Al Jazeera added while calling the act “deliberate” and “despicable”.

The Doha-based channel stated this is an overt and planned attack on media freedom to muzzle the truth and prevent this tragedy from reaching the world. “Telling the truth has become a threat in Israel’s eyes,” it said.

It rejected the claim put out by the Israeli army that Al Sharif was a “Hamas cell leader” and involved in planning rocket attacks on Israel.

The Al Jazeera statement underscored that Al-Sharif had previously stated he had no political affiliations and was simply a journalist committed to reporting the truth objectively.

Condemning Israel’s threats and targeting of journalists, the statement said: “Telling the truth has become a threat in the eyes of Israel, especially in Gaza, where people are fighting hunger.”

It warned that Israel’s crimes going unpunished only encourage more massacres by the occupying force and stressed that the international community must act to prevent that according to Anadolu.

It would be an understatement to say journalists have been the underdog in this Israeli genocide for around 500 of them have been injured during their duty. However, despite the tanks, the drones and the bullets their voices will surely continue to be heard in Palestine.

Dr Marwan Asmar is a writer from Amman.

11 August 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Quds News Network

Gaza (Quds News Network)- On Sunday evening, a targeted and deliberate Israeli strike on a media tent outside Gaza City’s Al-Shifa Hospital killed Al Jazeera journalist Anas Al-Sharif along with five of his colleagues. Al-Sharif was widely known as the voice of Gaza, exposing the Israeli genocide to the world.

For nearly two years, since the onset of Israel’s war on Gaza, Palestinian journalist Anas Jamal Al-Sharif remained a prominent figure in international news coverage, one of the few voices to break through the media blockade, exposing to the world the Israeli starvation policy and atrocities.

Yet that voice, always rising from beneath the rubble, became one the Israeli occupation forces sought to silence. The military repeatedly targeted Al-Sharif with smear campaigns, accusing him of ties to resistance factions, allegations he consistently and firmly denied.

Who’s Anas Al-Sharif?

• Anas Jamal Al-Sharif was born on December 3, 1996, in the Jabalia refugee camp in northern Gaza. He grew up amid Israel’s repeated wars, spending his childhood navigating the crowded alleyways of the camp.
• He was educated in schools run by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) and the Palestinian Ministry of Education. In 2014, he enrolled at Al-Aqsa University to study Radio and Television, graduating in 2018.
• Al-Sharif began his media career as a volunteer with the Shamal Media Network before joining Al Jazeera as a correspondent in Gaza.
• Based in Jabalia and Gaza City amid devastation and Israeli-made famine, he brought to the world’s attention unprecedented scenes: children crying from hunger at night, mothers searching through rubble for food, and school tents turned into shelters for thousands of displaced people enduring cold, insects, and disease.
• To overcome the media blockade, Al-Sharif frequently climbed rooftops of homes and hospitals in search of an internet signal to broadcast his reports. In one broadcast, he described the dire situation: “What pains me most is not only the bombing, but seeing a child fall asleep crying from hunger after not finding a single meal all day.”
• He documented the Israeli military’s repeated and deliberate targeting of UNRWA schools and hospitals, as well as densely populated civilian areas.
  In recognition of his courage in documenting war crimes and his commitment to providing firsthand testimony of Palestinian civilians’ suffering amid bombardment and famine, Amnesty International Australia awarded him the “Human Rights Defender” prize last year.
• Due to the impact of his reporting, the Israeli occupation forces included Al-Sharif among their media targets. Since the outbreak of the ongoing assault, they have repeatedly accused him of affiliation with Hamas in an attempt to justify targeting him, claims he has consistently denied.
• On December 11, 2023, Israeli airstrikes hit Al-Sharif’s family home in Jabalia, killing his father.
• In response to the campaign against him, Al-Sharif stated on social media: “The Israeli army spokesperson has launched a campaign of threats and incitement against me due to my work with Al Jazeera. I am a journalist without political affiliations, and my sole mission is to report the truth from the ground impartially.”
• In July 2023, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Irene Khan, condemned the threats and accusations against Al-Sharif, warning that they placed his life at risk.
• Khan criticized Israel’s labeling of journalists as “terrorists” as baseless and urged the international community to prevent such targeting, emphasizing that the killing and detention of journalists is a tactic to suppress the truth.
• At the end of July, Al Jazeera issued a statement condemning the Israeli military’s incitement against its journalists in Gaza, particularly against Al-Sharif, denouncing ongoing campaigns against its staff since the start of the assault.
• Observers assert that a courageous and vocal journalist like Al-Sharif is intolerable to Israel, especially amid its preparations for a new phase of military operations in Gaza.
• His assassination, alongside his colleagues, coincided with Israel’s plans to occupy Gaza City as part of a plan approved by the Israeli occupation last week.

11 August 2025

Source: countercurrents.org