Archives: Articles

By Alfred W. McCoy

In his novel The Autumn of the Patriarch, which is eerily evocative of our current political plight, Gabriel Garcia Marquez described how a Latin American autocrat “discovered in the course of his uncountable years that a lie is more comfortable than doubt, more useful than love, more lasting than truth, [and] became convinced … that the only livable life was one of show.”

In amassing unchecked power spiced with unimaginable cruelty, that fictional dictator extinguished any flicker of opposition in his imaginary Caribbean country, reducing its elite to a craven set of courtiers. Even though he butchered opponents, plundered the treasury, raped the young, and reduced his nation to penury, “lettered politicians and dauntless adulators… proclaimed him the corrector of earthquakes, eclipses, leap years and other errors of God.” When his slavishly loyal defense minister somehow displeased him, the autocrat had him served up, in full-dress uniform laden with military medals, on a silver platter with a pine-nut garnish to a table full of courtiers, forcing them to dutifully consume their slice of the cooked cadaver.

That macabre banquet presaged a recent luncheon President Donald J. Trump hosted at the White House for this nation’s top tech executives, which became a symphony of shameless sycophancy. Billionaire Bill Gates praised the president’s “incredible leadership,” while Apple CEO Tim Cook said it was “incredible to be among… you and the first lady” before thanking him “for helping American companies around the world.” Other executives there celebrated him for having “unleashed American innovation and creativity… making it possible for America to win” again and making this “the most exciting time in America, ever.” As Trump served up the corpse of American democracy, those tech courtiers, like so many of this country’s elites, downed their slice of the cadaver with ill-concealed gusto.

With Congress compliant, the Supreme Court complicit, and media corporations compromised, President Trump’s vision for America and its place in the world has become the nation’s destiny. Since the inauguration for his second term in office in January 2025, he has launched a radical “America first” foreign policy that seems primed to accelerate the decline of Washington’s international influence and, more seriously and much less obviously, degrade (if not destroy) the liberal international order that the U.S. has sustained since the end of World War II. Largely ignored by a media overwhelmed by daily outrages from the Oval Office, that initiative has some truly serious implications for America’s role in the world.

Trump’s Geopolitical Vision

Amid a torrent of confusing, often contradictory foreign policy pronouncements pouring out of the White House, the design of the president’s dubious geopolitical strategy has taken shape with surprising, even stunning speed. Instead of maintaining longstanding security alliances like NATO, Trump seems to prefer a globe divided into three major regional blocs, each headed by an empowered autocrat like himself — with Russia dominating its European periphery, China paramount in Asia, and the United States controlling North and much of South America (and Greenland).

Reflecting what Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth called a “loathing of European freeloading” and Vice President JD Vance’s complaint that Europe has abandoned “our shared democratic values,” President Trump is pursuing this tri-continental strategy at the expense of the traditional transatlantic alliance embodied in NATO that has been the foundation for U.S. foreign policy since the start of the Cold War.

Admittedly, Trump’s reach for complete control over North America does lend a certain geopolitical logic to his otherwise quixotic overtures to claim Greenland, reclaim the Panama Canal, and make Canada the 51st state. In Trump’s vision of fortress America, the country’s more compact defense perimeter would encompass the entire Arctic, including Greenland, march down the mid-Atlantic with an anchor at the Panama Canal, and encompass the entire Pacific. Not only does such a strategy carry the high cost of alienating once-close allies Canada and Mexico, but every one of its key components comes laden with a potential for serious conflict, particularly the administration’s plans for the Pacific, which run headlong into China’s ongoing maritime expansion.

Demolishing the Liberal International Order

At a broader level, President Trump’s foreign policy represents a forceful repudiation of the three key attributes of the “liberal international order” that has marked U.S. global hegemony since the end of World War II in 1945: alliances like NATO that treated allies as peer powers, free trade without tariff barriers, and an ironclad assurance of inviolable sovereignty for all nations, large and small. In a matter of months, Trump has crippled NATO by expressing doubt about its critical mutual-defense clause, imposed an escalating roster of punitive tariffs antithetical to free trade, and threatened to expropriate several sovereign states and territories.

Not only is his ongoing demolition of Washington’s world order inflicting a good deal of pain on much of the globe — from Africans and Asians denied the U.S. Agency for International Development’s life-saving medicines (and potentially suffering 14 million deaths) to Eastern Europeans threatened by Russia’s relentless advance — but it also undercuts America’s future position on a post-Trumpian planet. His successor could, of course, try to reconcile with Canada and Mexico, placate an insulted Panamanian leadership, and even repair relations with NATO. But the president’s ongoing demolition of Washington’s world system is guaranteed to do lasting, long-term damage to the country’s international standing in ways that have so far eluded even informed observers.

To grasp the full extent of the harm Trump is inflicting on America’s place on this planet, it’s important to understand that Washington’s “liberal international order” is nothing more than the latest iteration of the “world order” that every global hegemon has created as part of its apparatus of power since the fifteenth century. To understand our own present and future, it’s necessary to explore the nature of those world orders — how they formed, how they functioned, and what their survival and destruction tell us about America’s declining imperial power.

For the past 500 years, every succeeding global hegemon — Spain, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and the United States — has not only amassed wealth and military strength but also used that extraordinary power to propagate a world order that often transcended its narrow national interests. And once the inevitable imperial decline set in, a fading global hegemon often found that its world order could serve as a diplomatic safety net, extending its international influence for years, even decades beyond its moment of imperial glory.

While even the most powerful of history’s empires eventually fall, such world orders entwine themselves in the cultures, commerce, and values of countless societies. They influence the languages people speak, the laws that order their lives, and the ways that so many millions of us work, worship, and even play. World orders might be much less visible than the grandeur of great empires, but they have always proven both more pervasive and more persistent.

By structuring relations among nations and influencing the cultures of the peoples who live in them, world orders can outlast even the powerful empires that created them. Indeed, some 90 empires, major and minor, have come and gone since the start of the age of exploration in the fifteenth century. In those same 500 years, however, there have been just four major world orders — the Iberian age after 1494; the British imperial era that began in 1815; the Soviet system that lasted from 1945 to 1991; and Washington’s liberal international order, launched in 1945, that might, based on present developments, reach its own end somewhere around 2030.

Successful global empires driven by the hard power of guns and money have also required the soft power of cultural and ideological suasion embodied in a world order. Spain’s bloody conquest of Latin America soon segued into three centuries of colonial rule, softened by Catholic conversion, the spread of the Spanish language as a lingua franca, and that continent’s integration into a growing global economy. Once permanent mints were established in Mexico City, Lima, and Potosí during the seventeenth century, Spanish galleons would carry millions of minted silver coins — worth eight reales and thus known as “pieces of eight” — across the globe for nearly three centuries, creating the world’s first common currency and making those silver coins the medium of exchange for everyone from African traders to Virginia planters.

During its century of global hegemony from 1820 to 1920, though it seldom hesitated to use military power when needed, Great Britain would also prove the exemplar par excellence of soft power, espousing an enticing political culture of fair play and free markets that it propagated through the Anglican church, the English language, an enticing literature, authoritative mass media like the global Reuters news service and the British Broadcasting Corporation, and its virtual creation of modern athletics (including cricket, football/soccer, tennis, rugby, and rowing). On a higher plane of principle, Britain’s protracted anti-slavery campaign throughout much of the nineteenth century invested its global hegemony with a certain moral authority.

Similarly, the raw power of U.S. military and economic dominance after 1945 was softened by the appeal of Hollywood films, civic organizations like Rotary International, and popular sports like basketball and baseball. Just as Britain battled the slave trade for nearly a century, so Washington’s advocacy of human rights lent legitimacy to its world order. While Spain espoused Catholicism, and Britain an Anglophone ethos of rights, the United States, at the dawn of its global dominion, courted allies through soft-power programs that promoted democracy, the international rule of law, and economic development.

Such world orders are not the mere imaginings of historians trying, decades or centuries later, to impose their own logic on a chaotic past. In each era, the dominant power of the day worked to reorder its world for generations to come through formal agreements — with the Treaty of Tordesillas dividing much of the globe between Spain and Portugal in 1494; the 1815 Congress of Vienna (convened to resolve the Napoleonic wars) launching a full century of British global dominion; the San Francisco Conference in 1945 drafting the U.N. charter and so beginning Washington’s liberal international order; and the Moscow meeting in 1957 assembling 64 communist parties at the Kremlin for a shared commitment to socialist struggle and putting the Soviet Union atop its own global order.

Just as the British imperial system was far more pervasive than its Iberian predecessor, so Washington’s world order went beyond both of them and the Soviet Russian system, too, to become deeply embedded on an essentially global scale. While the 1815 Congress of Vienna was an ephemeral gathering of two dozen diplomats whose influence faded within a decade or two, the San Francisco conference of 1945 formed the United Nations, which now has 193 member states with broad international responsibilities. By the start of the twenty-first century, moreover, there were nearly 40,000 “U.N.-recognized international nongovernmental organizations” like the Catholic Relief Services, operating “in the remotest corners of the globe.”

But the similarities were perhaps more important. Note as well that both victorious powers, Great Britain and the United States, used those peace conferences to launch world orders that militated successfully against major wars among the great powers, with the pax Britannica lasting nearly a century (1815-1914) and the pax Americana persisting for 80 years and still counting.

Empires Fade but World Orders Persist

If world orders are so pervasive and persistent, why don’t they last forever? Each transition from one to the next has occurred when a massively destructive cataclysm has coincided with major social or political change. The rise of the Iberian age of exploration was preceded by a century of epidemics, known as the Black Death, which killed 60% of the populations of Europe and China, devastating their respective worlds. Similarly, the British imperial era emerged when the ravages of the Napoleonic Wars in Europe coincided with the dynamism of the industrial revolution launched in England, unleashing the power of coal-fired steam energy and formal colonial rule to change the face of the globe.

After the unprecedented devastation of World War II, Washington’s leadership in rebuilding and reordering a damaged planet established the current liberal international order. By the middle decades of our present century, if not before, global warming caused by fossil-fuel emissions will likely equal or surpass those earlier catastrophes on a universal scale of “disaster magnitude,” with the potential to precipitate the eclipse of Washington’s world order. Compounding the damage, President Trump’s sustained, systematic attack on America’s “liberal international order” — its alliances, free trade, and institutions like the U.N. — is only serving to accelerate the decline of a system that has served the world and this country reasonably well since 1945.

After the Fall

Even if the empire that created it suffers a complete collapse, a deeply rooted world order can usually survive that fall, while serving as a kind of diplomatic safety net for a fading power. The Iberian empires had lost their preeminence by the seventeenth century, but even today Latin America is deeply Catholic and Spanish remains the main language for much of the continent.

Understanding its limits as a small island nation with a vast global empire, Great Britain conducted a relatively careful imperial retreat that enfolded former colonies into the British Commonwealth, preserved the City of London’s financial clout, retained international influence as Washington’s strategic partner, and maintained its global cultural authority through civil institutions (the Anglican Communion, the British Broadcasting Corporation, and leading universities). Today, a full 50 years after the end of its empire, Great Britain still plays a role in world affairs far beyond its small size as a nation of just 70 million people living in a country no bigger than the state of Oregon.

Even though it’s been 35 years since the Soviet empire collapsed with spectacular speed, testifying eloquently to the crude coercion and economic exploitation that lay at its heart, Moscow still maintains considerable diplomatic influence across much of the old Soviet sphere in Eurasia.

Without Donald Trump’s systemic subversion of the liberal international order and its chief creation, the United Nations, the United States might have retained sufficient international influence to lead the world toward a shared governance of a global commons on a planet whose environment is sorely threatened — its seas depleted, water evaporating, storms raging, heat waves soaring, and its Arctic wildly warming. Instead, the United States has fully ceded leadership of the campaign against climate change to China, while not only denying its reality but blocking the development of alternative energy projects critical not only for the planet but for America’s global competitiveness. While China is already leading the world in efficient electric vehicles and low-cost solar and wind power, Trump’s America remains firmly wedded to an economy based on high-cost carbon energy that will, in the fullness of time, render its output grossly overpriced, its industries uncompetitive, and the planet a disaster zone.

Back in 2011, six years before Trump first entered the Oval Office, political scientist G. John Ikenberry argued that, while the U.S. ability to shape world politics would decline as its raw power retreated, its “liberal international order will survive and thrive,” including its emphasis on multilateral governance, open markets, free global trade, human rights, and respect for sovereignty. With Trump having essentially demolished the U.S. Agency for International Development’s global humanitarian work and sent a “wrecking ball” toward the United Nations, while condemning it in a recent speech to its General Assembly — “I ended seven wars … and never even received a phone call from the United Nations” — it would be difficult to make such a sanguine argument today.

Instead, Mark Twain’s classic futuristic assessment of American world power seems more appropriate. “It was impossible to save the Great Republic. It was rotten to the heart. Lust for conquest had long ago done its work,” he wrote in an imagined history of this country from a far-off future. “Trampling upon the helpless abroad,” he added, “had taught her, by a natural process, to endure with apathy the like at home.” After watching the U.S. occupation of the Philippines in 1898 descend into a bloodstained pacification program replete with torture and atrocities, Twain suggested that empire abroad would, sooner or later, bring autocracy at home — an insight Trump confirms with his every tweet, every speech, every executive order.

Whether the United States will emulate Britain in a managed global retreat with minimal domestic damage or fulfill Mark Twain’s dismal vision by continuing to attack its own world order, diminishing if not destroying its legacy, is something for future historians to decide. For now, listening to Trump’s recent rant at the U.N. complaining about a stalled escalator and condemning climate-change science as a “green scam” and “the greatest con job ever perpetrated,” ordinary Americans should have received a clear sign that their president’s autocratic aspirations are subverting their country’s claims to world leadership, both now and in the future.

Alfred W. McCoy, a TomDispatch regular, is the Harrington professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

6 October 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Thomas Suárez

In perfect unplanned poetry, the evening before a nation-wide strike in solidarity with Gaza brought business-as-usual in Italy to a halt, Palestine’s Amwaj Choir kicked off a seven-city tour of the country with a packed concert in Milan.

The tour was supposed to have taken place three months earlier, but was thwarted by the many flight cancellations during Israel’s attacks on Iran. This second attempt nearly failed as well: barely had the Choir successfully crossed the Allenby Bridge into Jordan when a Jordanian secretly crossing to deliver food to Gaza killed two Israeli occupation soldiers who discovered him, before he himself was killed — and the Bridge closed. 

As with any artistic or academic endeavor for Palestinians in Palestine, the tour’s incredibly complex and expensive organizing challenges are imposed by Israel for one reason only: the musicians are not Jewish. The logic is straight-forward: Zionism requires genocide; genocide requires the total dehumanization of its victims; and dehumanization demands the denial of any achievement by any member of the targeted group. Israel’s incessant crippling of Palestinian academic and cultural life is not the side effect of apartheid and siege — it is a key purpose of the apartheid and siege.

The Amwaj Choir (Amwaj is Arabic for “waves”) was established in 2015 as an independent educational and artistic program whose young musicians come from Bethlehem, including its refugee camps and rural areas, and Hebron, both the old and new city. It is led by a team of French and Palestinian educators, offering high-quality music tuition through an intensive pedagogical program based on collective singing. Its social vision is inclusive — gender equality, non-affiliation to any social, religious, or political context, and a focus on cultural exchanges and intercultural dialogue. This vision stands in stark contrast to normalization projects such as Barenboim’s West-East Divan orchestra, that serve Israel by cynically reframing apartheid and genocide as a matter of Palestinians and Israelis getting along with each other.

The main work on the choir’s tour was the “Dalia Suite”, an adaptation of the opera Dalia, composed by Roxanna Panufnik with a libretto by Jessica Duchen. This shorter version replaces the orchestra with piano (Ramzi Shomali) and percussion (Maen Ghoul). The title role (Jude Abueisheh) is a young refugee adapting to life in the UK, separated from her mother and negotiating the xenophobia and resentment, as well as the love, of her new community.

Before the opera itself begins, its unsettled atmosphere is set by Yves Balmer’s Pollens: Musique d’exils, a demanding work handing the Choir vocal and ensemble challenges right from the start. Under conductor and vocal coach Mathilde Vittu, the choir deftly handled its soft, exposed alternating half-step motif, remaining impressively on-pitch without the support of any instrument. Over this eerie, almost hypnotic murmur, extremely tricky “interruptions” were so effective — successful — as to visibly unnerve audience members. 

A sense of exile established, Dalia then followed seamlessly. Panufnik’s music blends the musical worlds of Dalia’s home with those of her adoptive home — for example, what might be called her leitmotif, “Dalia’s Song”, is based on the Syrian folk song Hal Asmar Ellon.

The second part of the Milan concert brought a variety of short works under two Palestinian conductors, Lina Shweiki and Rimah Natsheh. These included Biglietti di Viaggio (“travel tickets”) by Tala Abuomar, Rimah Natsheh, and Lina Shweiki, on a poem by Samih Al-Qasim. Written in the first person, the speaker, knowing of her impending murder, tells her assassin that after her murder he will find a travel ticket among her belongings, and describes the journeys that it must take him. Allusions to the Gaza of today are even more direct in I have no Address by Ahmed Muin: “…Children sleep beneath the rubble / But we are not afraid of your bombs. / The sun will rise and the darkness will fade…”

The Choir’s ambitious tour repertoire included, for example, a performance of Mozart’s Lacrimosa in Florence, with orchestra. Nor was it limited to formal concert venues: members of the Amwaj Choir joined a vigil for Gaza held every evening at the Milan cathedral, singing Bella Ciao.

In Modena, the Choir is greeted by UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese [Photo: Fares S. Mansour]

On the 5th of October, three days after their final concert, the Choir crossed back over the Allenby Bridge and safely reached their homes in Bethlehem and Hebron. For the Jewish settlers in Bethlehem and Hebron who steal their land and attack them with impunity, the trip would have been an easy three-and-a-half hour flight from Venice to Tel Aviv, safer, vastly more predictable and less expensive.

In part in the spirit of “full disclosure”, but mainly to demonstrate that this report on the Choir is rooted in a solid view of the organization since its beginning: This writer is a long-time friend and former colleague of the two extraordinary individuals who founded it a decade ago, Mathilde Vittu and Michele Cantoni. To learn more about, and to support this unique Palestinian educational /artistic project, visit amwajchoir.org.

Thomas Suárez is the author, most recently, of Palestine Mapped / from the river to the sea in early geographic thought (Interlink, 2025)

6 October 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dr Zahra Mohebi-Pourkan

Abstract

 The systematic destruction of healthcare infrastructure in conflict zones represents one of the most severe humanitarian crises in modern warfare. This article examines the medical consequences of intensive bombing campaigns in the Gaza Strip through immediate, medium-term, and long-term frameworks, drawing on recent data from the World Health Organization (WHO), peer-reviewed studies, and humanitarian reports. The second part explores destructive bombing patterns elsewhere, revealing alarming commonalities in the targeting of medical facilities and the resulting public health catastrophes. As physicians witnessing these events unfold, we document not only the clinical effects of this violence but also the structural collapse of healthcare systems, which will take generations to rebuild.

1. Introduction

Practicing medicine in conflict zones presents unique challenges that test the very foundations of medical ethics and humanitarian principles. This is especially evident in the Gaza Strip, which has experienced one of the most intense bombing campaigns in history, with over 12,000 bombs, ranging from 150 kg to 1000 kg, dropped on this densely populated area. As physicians, we are trained to prioritize life above all else, yet we now observe the deliberate targeting of the very institutions and personnel dedicated to preserving life. This article examines the medical consequences of these bombings through a temporal lens—immediate, medium-term, and long-term—while contextualizing Gaza’s experience within broader global patterns of healthcare destruction in conflict zones.

2. Gaza: Immediate Medical Consequences (First Weeks)

2.1 Traumatic Injury Patterns

The immediate medical consequences of the bombing campaign in Gaza illustrate the devastating impact of modern explosive weapons on the human body. Physicians on the ground have reported complex injury patterns, including multiple fractures, peripheral nerve injuries, traumatic brain injuries, severe burns, and spinal cord injuries. These cases of polytrauma often involve combinations of injuries that are extremely difficult to treat, even in advanced trauma centers, let alone in facilities that are already compromised due to the ongoing attacks. The scale of these injuries is staggering: as of October 2025, over 167,300 people have been injured, with nearly 42,000 sustaining life-changing injuries, including more than 5,000 amputations. These numbers represent not just statistics, but generations of Palestinians who will endure permanent disabilities, which will have profound implications for their quality of life and the potential for societal recovery.

2.2 Hospital Overload and Emergency Care Collapse

Gaza’s healthcare system, which was already fragile before the current escalation, has been overwhelmed by mass casualty incidents occurring at an average of eight per day. Hospitals such as Al-Shifa and Al-Ahli are operating at nearly 300% over capacity, facing a constant influx of complex trauma injuries that would challenge even the world’s most advanced medical centers. The destruction of 94% of hospitals has created a dire situation where the remaining facilities must manage not only the daily flow of new traumatic injuries but also the routine medical needs of the population.

3. Gaza: Medium-Term Public Health Crisis (Months)

3.1 Disease Outbreaks and Environmental Health

In the medium term, the destruction of water and sanitation infrastructure has created conditions conducive to the transmission of epidemic diseases. Physicians are reporting a rise in respiratory illnesses as families, deprived of basic supplies, are forced to burn plastic and cardboard for cooking and heating, releasing toxic fumes into overcrowded shelters. Dr. Khalil Al-Daqran, spokesperson for the Ministry of Health in Gaza, confirms that the use of plastics in clay kilns is contributing to the spread of pneumonia and asthma among the displaced population. The water supply system has been significantly damaged or rendered unusable, resulting in a catastrophic impact on hygiene and sanitary conditions. Without access to clean water, people are compelled to use contaminated sources, leading to the spread of waterborne diseases such as cholera, dysentery, and typhoid—conditions that were rarely seen in Gaza before the current escalation.

3.2 Maternal and Child Health Deterioration

The reproductive health crisis represents another critical dimension of the medium-term public health emergency. The UN reproductive health agency (UNFPA) estimates that 55,000 pregnant women are trapped in Gaza, facing displacement, bombardment, severe hunger, and malnutrition. Approximately 130 babies are born daily in these harsh conditions, with more than a quarter delivered by Caesarean section under increasingly precarious circumstances. Tragically, estimates indicate that every week in Gaza, at least 15 women give birth outside of healthcare facilities without skilled assistance, and around one in five newborns are born premature or with low birth weight. James Elder from UNICEF described the situation at Al Aqsa and Nasser hospitals: “We are witnessing large numbers of mothers with newborns in hospital corridors; the hospitals are simply overwhelmed due to the devastation of the healthcare system.”

3.3 Disruption of Chronic Disease Management

The conflict has severely disrupted care for patients with non-communicable diseases (NCDs), which affect approximately 40% of Gaza’s population. A recent cross-sectional survey of 968 patients with NCDs found that adherence to regular follow-ups decreased from 96.7% before the war to 40.7% during the conflict. Satisfaction with primary healthcare dropped from 92.9% to 57.3%, reflecting a systemic deterioration in the management of chronic diseases under bombardment. Medication unavailability or high costs were the most frequently reported reasons for non-compliance during the war, cited by 42.7% and 18.1% of respondents, respectively. Nearly one in five participants went without medication for their chronic conditions for two or more consecutive months, leading to guaranteed future complications and increased mortality from manageable diseases.

4 Gaza: Long-Term Healthcare System Collapse (Years)

4.1 Destruction of Healthcare Infrastructure

The systematic dismantling of Gaza’s healthcare system has been described by some scholars as “healthocide,” referring to intentional attacks on medical facilities, health workers, and infrastructure aimed at undermining civilian resilience and denying access to care. According to documentation from the World Health Organization (WHO), 94% of hospitals in Gaza have been damaged or destroyed, and all facilities lack basic medical supplies, electricity, and clean water. The scale of the assaults on healthcare is unprecedented; in 2024 alone, there were 940 attacks on healthcare facilities in Gaza, accounting for approximately one-quarter of all such attacks worldwide, despite Gaza making up only 0.03% of the global population. The rehabilitation sector has suffered particularly severe damage, with less than one-third of pre-conflict rehabilitation services still operational, and many of these are at risk of imminent closure. This crisis comes at a time when nearly 42,000 people in Gaza are living with life-changing injuries that require comprehensive rehabilitation services. The destruction of WHO’s main warehouse in Deir Al-Balah in July 2025 further compromised the medical response capacity. Concurrently, reports from the Ministry of Health indicate that 52% of essential medications and 68% of medical disposables are out of stock.

4.2 Rehabilitation Crisis and Disability

The crisis of amputations will have lasting effects on Gaza’s population. With over 5,000 individuals facing amputations and severe injuries to their arms, legs, and spinal cords, the need for prosthetic services and rehabilitation far exceeds the current capacity. These life-altering injuries account for one-quarter of all reported injuries, making physical disability a pervasive issue in Gazan society for decades to come. The WHO has emphasized the urgent need for prosthetics and assistive devices, stating that more than 15,000 individuals, including 3,800 children, require specialized treatment outside of Gaza. The term “healthocide” accurately captures the systematic destruction of rehabilitation capabilities while creating massive need, ensuring that long-term disability will be inevitable for thousands.

4.3 Mental Health and Psychosocial Impact

The psychological trauma inflicted on the population of Gaza represents another critical aspect of the long-term medical consequences. Dr. Peeperkorn from the WHO noted that “survivors struggle with trauma and loss, often facing daily survival challenges, while psychosocial referral services remain scarce.” The mental health impacts extend beyond direct victims to the healthcare workers themselves, who operate under constant threat of bombardment while witnessing their patients suffer and die from otherwise treatable conditions. A study of patients with non-communicable diseases revealed that 92.8% rated their pre-war quality of life as excellent or good, while 81.3% reported that their quality of life during the war had declined to poor. This drastic decline in subjective well-being reflects the compounded trauma of displacement, injury, loss of family members, and the destruction of homes and communities—all occurring while basic survival needs remain unmet.

5 Comparative Global Analysis: Impacts of Bombing on Healthcare Globally

5.1 Ukraine: Attacks on Healthcare and Rehabilitation Needs

The systematic targeting of healthcare infrastructure is not unique to Gaza, although the scale and intensity there are unprecedented. In Ukraine, the World Health Organization (WHO) has documented over 2,254 attacks on healthcare facilities since the full-scale war began three years ago. These attacks continue almost daily, with 42 recorded in 2025 alone, resulting in 12 injuries and three deaths among healthcare workers and patients. The rehabilitation crisis in Ukraine mirrors some aspects of the situation in Gaza, although on a different scale. The Ministry of Health estimates that by mid-2024, approximately 100,000 amputations had been performed due to the war, creating a massive demand for trauma care and rehabilitation services. WHO reports a severe shortage of trauma specialists, prosthetics, and rehabilitation services, emphasizing that “healing is often a matter of time but can also be a matter of opportunity.”

5.2 The “Healthocide” Pattern Across Conflict Zones

The term “healthocide” describes the calculated targeting of medical facilities, healthcare workers, and infrastructure across multiple conflict zones. This pattern is evident not only in Gaza but also in Sudan, where over 70% of hospitals have closed amidst ongoing fighting that disrupts water and power supplies to medical facilities. In Yemen, a decade of conflict has led to the gradual collapse of healthcare, with some hospitals shutting down due to a lack of fuel or security threats. What distinguishes the current situation in Gaza is the systematic destruction of healthcare. As noted by Leonard Rubenstein and Feroze Sidhwa, “over the past 20 months, Israel, fully backed by the United States, has abandoned any pretense of respecting the protections enjoyed by hospitals under international law.” The population-adjusted rate of injury to healthcare workers was 46 times higher, the rate of killings of healthcare workers was 143 times higher, and the rate of incidents obstructing access to healthcare facilities was 250 times higher in Gaza than in Ukraine.

5.3 Common Challenges and Systemic Implications

Across conflict zones, several common challenges emerge following bombing campaigns: prioritizing trauma care over other health needs, disrupting chronic disease management, the emergence of communicable disease outbreaks due to damaged water and sanitation systems, and creating long-term disability crises due to inadequate rehabilitation services. These patterns reveal the systematic nature of modern conflicts and their impact on health systems. The humanitarian system itself is overwhelmed and “not fit for purpose,” according to Paul Spiegel, a humanitarian health expert at Johns Hopkins University. The number of humanitarian emergencies has reached unprecedented levels, stretching the capacity of responding organizations beyond their limits. Spiegel notes that the system must “operationalize the concept of centrality of protection, integrate affected persons into national health systems, remake leadership and coordination, and make interventions efficient, effective, and sustainable.”

6 Conclusion and Recommendations

The medical consequences of bombing campaigns extend far beyond immediate trauma; they encompass medium-term public health crises and long-term healthcare system collapse. As physicians, we witness these impacts not as abstract statistics but as the daily reality for our patients and colleagues in conflict zones. The situation in Gaza represents an unprecedented escalation in the targeting of healthcare, but it follows patterns observed in Ukraine, Sudan, Yemen, and other conflict areas. We recommend:

1. Immediate protection of healthcare facilities and personnel through enhanced adherence to international humanitarian law.

2. Restoration of medical neutrality as a fundamental principle in conflict zones.

3. Investment in rehabilitation services to address the long-term disability needs created by these conflicts.

4. Strengthening of humanitarian systems to respond more effectively to complex emergencies.

5. Establishing accountability mechanisms for attacks on healthcare, including documentation and prosecution of war crimes.

A thorough examination of bombings from a medical perspective reveals that the health impacts extend beyond immediate casualties to encompass generational trauma, disability, and systemic collapse. As physicians, we have a professional and ethical obligation to document these impacts, advocate for the protection of healthcare, and work toward solutions that prioritize human health over military objectives. The future of medical care in conflict zones—and the lives of millions who depend on it—hangs in the balance.

Dr Zahra Mohebi-Pourkani is a general practitioner and family doctor who manages a government clinic in Kerman province, Iran. Alongside her medical practice, she writes about topics related to medicine and politics, medicine and society, and medicine and development.

6 October 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Rima Najjar

The flotilla, though intercepted, continues to sail: in memory, in mobilization, and in the refusal to be silenced

Author’s Note

This essay traces the October 2025 mobilizations — the mass demonstrations that erupted and surged across Madrid, Rome, Berlin, Paris, and London following Israel’s interception of the Global Sumud Flotilla and Minister Ben Gvir’s public accusation of the activists involved as “terrorists.” Each city’s response builds on its own history of pro-Palestine and anti-zionist activism: migrant-led coalitions, legal defense campaigns, and cultural resistance. Though slow, these inroads have become sustained. The mobilizations mark a shift from symbolic protest to strategic refusal, where memory and infrastructure confront Zionism as state doctrine.

I. Introduction

“The moment Israel definitively lost Europe was when Minister Ben Gvir stood before the detained passengers of the Flotilla and branded them ‘terrorists.’ Europe erupted in a rage from which there is no return.”

— Sani Meo, Facebook

The weekend of October 4, 2025, marked a political rupture. In response to Israel’s interception of the Global Sumud Flotilla — a humanitarian convoy bound for Gaza — tens of thousands mobilized across Europe in a coordinated wave of outrage. The detention of activists from 44 countries in international waters was a catalyst, but it was Israeli Minister Itamar Ben Gvir’s public accusation that the passengers were “terrorists” that detonated long-simmering tensions. However, to dismiss these demonstrations as mere reactions to a single event would be to misunderstand them entirely. They represented the latest, most potent articulation of a deep and enduring infrastructure of resistance: a strategic indictment built on years of organizing against Israeli apartheid, Zionist militarism, and the global normalization of Jewish supremacy as state doctrine.

From Madrid to Marseille, Berlin to Birmingham, these mobilizations affirmed a collective commitment not only to Palestinian liberation but also to confronting a central contradiction in European politics: governments that symbolically condemn civilian casualties abroad simultaneously criminalize meaningful solidarity at home. This bifurcation is structural, designed to ensure that support for Palestine remains a permissible symbol but never becomes a threat to trade, arms, or diplomatic alignment.

This activist foothold, evident in the major cities of Madrid, Paris, Berlin, London, Amsterdam, and Rome, did not emerge overnight. It is the product of decades of groundwork, rooted in migrant solidarity networks, anti-colonial movements, and leftist student organizing. Through early opposition to the Oslo Accords, mass protests during the 2008–2009 Gaza War, and the persistent work of community centers, legal defense networks, and boycott campaigns, these movements have chipped away at the normalization of Israeli impunity. What appeared to be a sudden awakening was, in fact, a culmination — the moment when years of testimony, memory, and strategic refusal coalesced into a visible rupture.

The stark silence in the United States that same weekend, despite the presence of American citizens on the flotilla, underscores the precarity of this kind of dissent and throws Europe’s assertive response into sharper relief. In the face of intense repression and criminalization, European pro-Palestine and anti-Zionist activism is gaining ground not as a fleeting spectacle, but as a resilient political infrastructure. The ground is shifting. The detained flotilla has become a node of transnational testimony, and the archive of resistance is expanding.

— –

II. Spain

The weekend of Oct 4, 2025: Over 70,000 people marched in Barcelona, with parallel actions erupting in Madrid and Valencia. The scale and coordination of these demonstrations reflect a long-standing tradition of pro-Palestine activism in Spain, rooted in the country’s post-Franco democratic transition.

The mobilizations did not emerge from a vacuum. They are the latest expression of a decades-long infrastructure of solidarity, built through student coalitions, migrant-led organizing, and postcolonial memory work. From the anti-Iraq War protests of 2003 to the cultural boycotts of Israeli institutions in the 2010s, Spanish cities have served as key nodes in the European pro-Palestine landscape. Barcelona’s municipal government, for instance, suspended institutional ties with Israel in 2023, citing apartheid conditions — a move shaped by years of pressure from local BDS chapters and migrant coalitions. Madrid’s activist networks have long foregrounded the intersection of Palestinian liberation with anti-fascist and anti-austerity struggles, linking the siege of Gaza to the carceral logics of Spain’s own border regime.

The presence of Spanish parliamentarians aboard the Global Sumud Flotilla was not anomalous — it was the result of sustained lobbying, cultural work, and testimonial amplification. Activists like Jaldía Abubakra — who would later join a segment of the Global Sumud Flotilla’s journey — have not only resisted criminalization but have helped shape the language of solidarity itself, insisting on the right to name zionism as a structure of violence and to treat Palestine not as a humanitarian crisis but as a political cause. The demonstrations of October 4, 2025 — massive, coordinated, and defiant — are testament to this slow, strategic buildup. They mark not just a rupture, but a reckoning: the moment when symbolic solidarity gave way to infrastructural refusal.

Yet these ethical stances are routinely contradicted by state practice. Repression of antizionist and pro-Palestine activism is not incidental; it is structural. In 2024, Palestinian activist Jaldía Abubakra and organizer Miriam Ojeda were summoned before Spain’s National Court after the far-right party VOX accused them of “glorifying terrorism” for statements made during a solidarity conference in the Spanish Congress. While Ojeda’s case was dismissed, Abubakra remains under investigation — a move widely condemned as lawfare, designed to chill dissent and isolate Palestinian voices.

The flotilla, carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza, included 47 Spanish passengers, among them doctors, journalists, and members of parliament. When Israeli forces intercepted the vessel in international waters and detained the passengers, outrage erupted across Spain. Civil society groups, including Solidaridad con Palestina and Red Solidaria contra la Ocupación de Palestina, demanded diplomatic accountability, while opposition parties called for sanctions. The incident catalyzed renewed mobilization, with protesters citing the flotilla’s seizure as emblematic of both Israeli impunity and Spanish governmental passivity.

On October 4, 2025, Spanish police responded to mass mobilizations in Barcelona and Madrid by deploying riot units and detaining several organizers from Solidaridad con Palestina. The Interior Ministry later named the group in a press release, accusing it of “inciting unrest” — a rhetorical maneuver that echoes the language used to criminalize Abubakra and others. These actions are enabled by Spain’s still-active “Gag Law” (Ley Mordaza), which grants police broad powers to penalize protest and restrict the dissemination of images of law enforcement.

In this context, the criminalization of activists like Abubakra signals more than censorship; it marks a judicial turn toward political disciplining, where solidarity is tolerated only when it is symbolic, and punished when it is strategic. Spain’s dual posture — ethical abroad, punitive at home — reveals the limits of European liberalism when confronted with sustained, intersectional resistance.

— –

III. Italy

On the same weekend, Italy witnessed one of the largest coordinated pro-Palestine mobilizations in its recent history, with over two million people participating in strikes and demonstrations across more than 100 cities — from Palermo to Turin, Milan to Rome. The protests, organized under the banner Blocchiamo tutto (“Let’s block everything”), were catalyzed by Israel’s interception of the Global Sumud Flotilla, which included 47 Italian activists and four opposition parliamentarians. The flotilla, carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza, was boarded in international waters by Israeli forces; the Italians were detained and later deported, prompting widespread outrage. In response, dockworkers shut down ports in Livorno, Genoa, Trieste, and Venice, echoing historic refusals to load arms for Israel in 2014. Highways were blocked near Pisa, Bologna, and Milan, and over 80,000 marched through Milan alone, waving Palestinian flags and chanting “Free Palestine, Stop the War Machine.”

Despite the scale of dissent, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni dismissed the mobilizations as opportunistic, suggesting strikers were exploiting the moment for a “long weekend.” Her government has refused to recognize Palestinian statehood unless Hamas is excluded from governance and Israeli hostages are released — a conditional stance that contrasts sharply with the unconditional recognition adopted by Spain, Ireland, and other EU states. Meloni’s coalition partner, Matteo Salvini, denounced the strike as “illegal chaos” and called for punitive measures against unions. Yet the protests have forced a reckoning: polling shows broad public support for the flotilla activists, and EU officials suggest that mounting domestic pressure could push Italy to endorse trade sanctions against Israel over human rights violations.

This contradiction — between public solidarity and governmental alignment with Israel — has deep historical roots. Italy’s pro-Palestine activism emerged from post-1968 leftist networks, labor unions, and anti-imperialist brigades that hosted PLO representatives and sent medical teams to Lebanon and Gaza. Today, groups like Assopace Palestina, Rete dei Comunisti, and the Palestinian Student Movement continue that legacy, often facing repression. In 2023, Sapienza University students were violently dispersed for protesting an Israeli ambassador’s visit; in 2024, the Ministry of Interior investigated leftist organizations for “subversive propaganda.” The criminalization of dockworker unions in 2025 — accused of obstructing national infrastructure — marks a securitization of labor solidarity.

Amid this landscape, UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese remains a pivotal figure. An Italian jurist and international law expert, Albanese has consistently condemned Israel’s actions in Gaza as violations of international law and apartheid. Her reports have been cited by Italian activists and unions to legitimize calls for sanctions and boycott. Though Meloni’s government has distanced itself from Albanese’s findings, her voice continues to galvanize civil society. In recent weeks, banners reading “Albanese is right” have appeared at protests, and her work has been featured in teach-ins across Italian universities.

Italy’s pro-Palestine mobilizations this weekend did not erupt spontaneously — they are the culmination of decades of infrastructural resistance. From the post-1968 brigades to the dockworker militancy of 2014, Italian solidarity has long operated at the intersection of labor, law, and internationalism. The mobilizations of October 2025 — massive, militant, and multisectoral — mark a strategic escalation. They are not merely symbolic; they are infrastructural refusals that disrupt ports, highways, and the rhetorical monopoly of the state. Italy’s rupture, like Spain’s, is not a break from history — it is its continuation.

— –

IV. France

This same weekend, tens of thousands across France mobilized in solidarity with Palestine, with major demonstrations in Paris, Marseille, Lyon, and Toulouse. In Paris, over 60,000 gathered at Place de la République, where chants of “Palestine vivra, Palestine vaincra” echoed through the square. The mobilizations were catalyzed in part by Israel’s interception of the Global Sumud Flotilla, which included 38 French passengers — among them doctors, journalists, and members of the Union Juive Française pour la Paix (UJFP). The flotilla’s seizure in international waters and the detention of French nationals sparked outrage: opposition parties demanded diplomatic accountability, and civil society groups accused the Macron government of “complicity through silence.” Activist Olivia Zémor, president of CAPJPO-EuroPalestine, who helped coordinate the French delegation, called the incident “a test of France’s moral sovereignty.”

France’s pro-Palestine activism is deeply rooted in postcolonial and anti-racist organizing. Since the 1970s, groups like Comité Palestine, UJFP, and Collectif 69 have foregrounded testimonial advocacy, linking Palestinian liberation to struggles against French imperialism and police violence. In 2009, France became one of the first European countries to criminalize BDS activism, with courts prosecuting activists under anti-discrimination laws. This repression intensified in 2020, when Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin attempted to ban pro-Palestine demonstrations following Israel’s annexation threats. In 2023, student organizers at Sciences Po Paris faced disciplinary hearings for hosting teach-ins on zionism and settler colonialism. And in 2024, the government dissolved Collectif Palestine Vaincra, citing “incitement to hatred” — a move condemned by Amnesty International as politically motivated.

Despite this repressive climate, French activists continue to force institutional rupture. In 2025, the city councils of Saint-Denis, Ivry-sur-Seine, and Montreuil passed resolutions declaring themselves “apartheid-free zones,” committing to boycott companies complicit in Israeli occupation. The Confédération Générale du Travail (CGT), France’s largest labor union, endorsed the Global Sumud Flotilla and called for an arms embargo. Cultural institutions like the Institut du Monde Arabe have hosted Palestinian artists and filmmakers censored elsewhere in Europe, while student assemblies at the University of Grenoble and Toulouse have voted to sever academic ties with Israeli institutions.

France’s contradiction is stark: while President Emmanuel Macron has condemned Israeli strikes on civilian infrastructure and called for humanitarian access to Gaza, his government continues to criminalize antizionist speech and suppress mobilization. This bifurcation — ethical abroad, punitive at home — reflects a broader tension between France’s republican universalism and its colonial legacy.

France’s mobilizations on this weekend in October are not an anomaly — they are the latest expression of a long and defiant trajectory of pro-Palestine activism. From the migrant-led coalitions of the 1970s to the post-Charlie Hebdo anti-racist alliances, French solidarity with Palestine has been forged in the crucible of postcolonial reckoning and urban resistance. The mobilizations of October 2025 are not reactive — they are the culmination of years of groundwork, where testimony, memory, and refusal have coalesced into rupture.

— –

V. United Kingdom

This same weekend, tens of thousands across the UK mobilized in solidarity with Palestine, with major demonstrations in London, Manchester, Glasgow, and Birmingham. In London, over 100,000 gathered in Trafalgar Square and along Whitehall, where chants of “From the river to the sea” were met with heavy police presence and surveillance drones. The mobilizations were intensified by Israel’s interception of the Global Sumud Flotilla, which included 29 British passengers — among them doctors, trade unionists, and members of Parliament. The flotilla’s seizure in international waters and the detention of British nationals sparked outrage: Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), Friends of Al-Aqsa, and Jewish Voice for Labour issued joint statements demanding diplomatic action, while Labour MPs like Zarah Sultana and Apsana Begum condemned the government’s silence. The Foreign Office’s tepid response — expressing “concern” but refusing to censure Israel — was widely criticized as a betrayal of British citizens and international law.

The UK’s pro-Palestine activism is rooted in decades of anti-imperialist and anti-racist organizing. From the 1982 protests against Israel’s invasion of Lebanon to the 2009 mobilizations during Operation Cast Lead, British civil society has consistently foregrounded Palestinian testimony. Groups like PSC, Stop the War Coalition, and War on Want have built enduring coalitions across labor, student, and faith communities. In 2014, the National Union of Students endorsed BDS, and in 2021, the University and College Union (UCU) reaffirmed its support for academic boycott. Yet repression has escalated: in 2023, the UK government passed the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill, designed to ban public institutions from boycotting Israeli goods — a move condemned by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch as an attack on ethical procurement.

In 2024, police arrested student organizers at SOAS and the University of Manchester for “unauthorized protest,” and the Charity Commission launched investigations into Muslim-led organizations accused of “political bias.” The government’s Prevent strategy — nominally aimed at countering extremism — has been used to surveil and discipline pro-Palestine educators and students, with whistleblowers revealing that schoolchildren were questioned for wearing keffiyehs or expressing solidarity online.

Despite this repressive apparatus, UK activists continue to achieve tangible victories. In 2025, the Trades Union Congress (TUC) passed a resolution calling for an arms embargo on Israel and endorsing the Global Sumud Flotilla. Local councils in Tower Hamlets, Lambeth, and Glasgow passed motions condemning Israeli apartheid and committing to divestment. Cultural institutions like the Palestine Film Festival and Shubbak have foregrounded censored voices, while grassroots campaigns have pressured retailers to drop contracts with companies complicit in settlement infrastructure.

The UK’s contradiction is sharp: while Foreign Secretary David Lammy has condemned civilian casualties in Gaza and called for humanitarian access, his government continues to criminalize antizionist speech and suppress mobilization. This bifurcation — ethical abroad, punitive at home — mirrors the colonial logic that underpins British foreign policy: solidarity is permitted only when it is symbolic, and punished when it is strategic.

Yet activists persist. By foregrounding testimony, obstructing complicity, and refusing erasure, they are not merely protesting — they are reconfiguring Britain’s political terrain.

— –

VI. Germany

This same weekend, tens of thousands across Germany mobilized in solidarity with Palestine, with major demonstrations in Berlin, Hamburg, Frankfurt, and Cologne. In Berlin, over 50,000 gathered at Alexander Platz, where chants of “Freiheit für Palästina” and “zionismus ist kein Schutzschild” echoed through the square. The mobilizations were catalyzed by Israel’s interception of the Global Sumud Flotilla, which included 26 German passengers — among them doctors, legal scholars, and members of Jewish Bund and Palästina Spricht. The flotilla’s seizure in international waters and the detention of German nationals sparked outrage: Die Linke and members of the Green Party demanded diplomatic accountability, while civil society groups accused the Scholz government of “moral cowardice.” Jewish Bund organizer Judith Bernstein, who helped coordinate the German delegation, called the incident “a test of Germany’s post-Holocaust ethics.”

Germany’s pro-Palestine activism is shaped by a complex terrain of memory, repression, and testimonial resistance. Since the 1970s, migrant-led coalitions — particularly from Turkish, Arab, and Kurdish communities — have foregrounded Palestine as a site of anti-imperialist struggle. Groups like Palästina Spricht, Jüdische Stimme für gerechten Frieden, and BIPoC Berlin have built infrastructures of resistance through teach-ins, cultural festivals, and archival initiatives. Yet repression has intensified: in 2020, Berlin police banned Nakba Day demonstrations, citing “security concerns.” In 2023, the Bundestag reaffirmed its 2019 resolution equating BDS with antisemitism, despite widespread criticism from Jewish and human rights organizations. In 2024, Palestinian-German journalist Hebh Jamal was barred from speaking at a university panel, and in 2025, the Interior Ministry launched investigations into migrant-led organizations accused of “delegitimizing Israel.”

Germany’s repression of Palestinian solidarity activism has particularly targeted figures associated with Samidoun, a prisoner solidarity network banned in Germany for alleged ties to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). Among the most emblematic cases is that of Charlotte Kates, an American lawyer and international coordinator of Samidoun, and Khaled Barakat, a Palestinian writer and political organizer. Both have been barred from entering Germany and the broader European Union due to their affiliations and public statements.

Despite this repressive climate, German activists continue to force institutional rupture. In 2025, the city councils of Neukölln and Kreuzberg passed resolutions condemning Israeli apartheid and committing to boycott companies complicit in settlement infrastructure. Jewish Bund and Jüdische Stimme have foregrounded post-Holocaust ethics to challenge the state’s weaponization of memory, insisting that “Never Again” must include Palestinians. Cultural institutions like Oyoun and the Maxim Gorki Theater have hosted censored Palestinian voices, while archival projects like the Nakba Archive Berlin have documented intergenerational testimony from displaced families. Student assemblies at Humboldt and Freie Universität have voted to sever academic ties with Israeli institutions, despite administrative pushback.

Germany’s contradiction is acute: while Chancellor Olaf Scholz has condemned civilian casualties in Gaza and called for humanitarian access, his government continues to criminalize antizionist speech and suppress mobilization. This bifurcation — ethical abroad, punitive at home — is rooted in Germany’s post-Holocaust identity politics, where support for Israel is treated as moral obligation, and Palestinian solidarity as historical transgression. In this context, the criminalization of groups like Palästina Spricht and the silence surrounding the flotilla’s seizure signal a state logic that tolerates solidarity only when it is abstract, and punishes it when it is embodied.

Yet activists persist.

— –

VII. The Netherlands

On October 4, Amsterdam erupted — not in chaos, but in clarity. An estimated 250,000 demonstrators flooded Museumplein and its surrounding streets, forming a crimson tide of dissent against the Dutch government’s complicity in Israeli violence. Dressed in red to mark the “red line” they say has been crossed, protesters carried placards reading “No peace without justice,” “Your silence is violence,” and “Ashamed of the government.” The chants — “Free Palestine,” “Stop the genocide,” — echoed through PC Hooftstraat, where luxury storefronts stood in mute contrast to the moral urgency outside.

This was the third “Red Line” protest in six months, following earlier mass mobilizations in The Hague. But October 4 marked a turning point: not just in scale, but in tone. Families with children, elders in red scarves, students with hand-painted signs — all converged to demand rupture. The Netherlands, long a staunch supporter of Israel, now faced internal fracture. Jewish groups joined the protest, rejecting the conflation of Zionism with Jewish identity. Protesters invoked the Gaza Sumud Flotilla, intercepted days earlier, and demanded the release of Dutch detainees held in Israel’s Ketziot Prison.

The timing was strategic. Less than four weeks before national elections, the crowd pressed for policy — not platitudes. Foreign Minister David van Weel, under pressure from both the Supreme Court and public opinion, signaled a shift: travel bans on far-right Israeli ministers, a proposed halt to settlement-produced imports, and hesitation over F-35 fighter jet parts. But the demonstrators were not appeased. As one protester declared, “We’re here because our government refuses to draw a red line. So we’ll draw it for them.”

The Netherlands did not simply host a protest. It staged a reckoning.

The Netherlands has long styled itself as a bastion of liberal democracy and resistance. Its underground press and partisan networks during World War II are held up as emblems of moral courage. The Dutch resistance sheltered Jews, sabotaged Nazi infrastructure, and defied occupation. But this legacy, invoked often in national mythmaking, has not extended to Palestine.

Since 1948, successive Dutch governments have offered near-unconditional support to Israel — militarily, diplomatically, and economically. The Hague, home to the International Criminal Court, has paradoxically shielded Israeli officials from prosecution while prosecuting Palestinian resistance as terrorism. Dutch arms exports have included components for Israeli drones and F-35 fighter jets used in Gaza. In 2021, the Netherlands cut funding to Palestinian NGOs based on unsubstantiated Israeli claims of “terrorist ties” — a move later condemned by EU legal experts.

Dutch universities have partnered with Israeli institutions involved in settlement expansion and surveillance technologies. Protesters demanding divestment have faced disciplinary action, police violence, and media vilification. In 2023, the University of Amsterdam suspended students for staging a sit-in against Elbit Systems, an Israeli weapons manufacturer. The repression was swift, but the resistance persisted.

What October 4 revealed is not a rupture from Dutch history, but a confrontation with its contradictions. The same country that celebrates Anne Frank has criminalized Palestinian solidarity. The same government that funds Holocaust education has refused to name the Nakba. The crowd on Museumplein did not forget this. They carried signs that read “From Amsterdam to Gaza: Never Again Means Now.”

The Netherlands is not neutral. It is a site of contestation—between myth and memory, complicity and clarity. And on October 4, the crowd chose clarity. The demonstration was organized by a coalition of groups including The Rights Forum, DocP (Dutch Coalition for Palestine), Palestine House, Students for Justice in Palestine NL, and Jewish Voice for Peace Netherlands. Their coordination was not just logistical—it was ideological. They refused euphemism, rejected false equivalence, and demanded rupture. As their joint statement declared: “We do not protest for balance. We protest for liberation.”

— –

VIII. Synthesis: From Local Refusals to Transnational Testimony

The mobilizations of October 4, 2025 are not isolated eruptions — they are coordinated refusals, rooted in decades of infrastructural resistance. From Barcelona’s migrant coalitions to Milan’s dockworker strikes, Paris’s municipal boycotts to Berlin’s archival insurgencies, London’s union-led divestments to Rome’s legal indictments, each city carries its own historical burdens and strategic capacities. And yet, a shared grammar emerges: solidarity that refuses to be symbolic, testimony that refuses erasure, and mobilization that refuses to be criminalized.

The Global Sumud Flotilla’s interception has become a flashpoint, its passengers a chorus of transnational indictment. The flotilla did not merely carry aid; it carried memory, strategy, and refusal. Its seizure in international waters exposed the impunity of Israeli militarism and the complicity of European governments. But it also activated a network of resistance that had been building quietly, persistently, across borders and generations.

These demonstrations were not reactive — they were the latest articulation of a global movement that treats Palestine not as a humanitarian crisis but as a political cause. They foreground the right to name zionism as a structure of violence, to confront Jewish supremacy as state doctrine, and to demand Palestinian liberation not as charity but as justice. They expose the bifurcation of liberal democracies: ethical abroad, punitive at home. And they insist that solidarity must be infrastructural — not permitted when abstract, but defended when embodied.

Across Europe, activists are redrawing the ethical map. They are building testimonial archives, disrupting trade routes, severing institutional ties, and foregrounding censored voices. They are not merely protesting, they are reconfiguring the terrain of possibility. The flotilla, though intercepted, continues to sail: in memory, in mobilization, and in the refusal to be silenced.

Note: First published in Medium

____________________
Rima Najjar is a Palestinian whose father’s side of the family comes from the forcibly depopulated village of Lifta on the western outskirts of Jerusalem and whose mother’s side of the family is from Ijzim, south of Haifa.

6 October 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Quds News Network

Gaza (QNN)- The Government Media Office in Gaza has released a harrowing two-year report detailing the scale of Israel’s ongoing genocide in the Strip. The document marks 730 consecutive days of mass killing, starvation, and forced displacement that have left almost all of Gaza in ruins.

According to the report, more than 76,600 Palestinians are dead or missing since the start of Israel’s genocide on October 7, 2023. Over 20,000 of them are children. At least 12,500 women have been killed, alongside 1,670 medical workers and 254 journalists. The report says 2,700 families were completely annihilated, while another 6,000 lost nearly every member.

Israeli forces have dropped more than 200,000 tons of explosives on Gaza, flattening homes, hospitals, and schools. About 90% of the Strip lies in ruins, and two million people are now displaced.

Hospitals have been bombed repeatedly. Thirty-eight hospitals and 96 clinics no longer function. 197 ambulances and 61 rescue vehicles were directly targeted. The health system, once strained, has completely collapsed. Thousands of patients with cancer, kidney failure, and chronic diseases have died after Israel blocked medical evacuations and destroyed infrastructure.

Hunger has become a weapon as Israel has closed all Gaza crossings for 220 days, blocking over 120,000 aid trucks. At least 460 people have died of starvation, including 154 children. The report warns that 650,000 children face death from hunger and malnutrition and more than 22,000 patients need treatment abroad but are denied travel.

The education sector is in ruins with ninety-five percent of schools damaged, and 165 universities and schools completely destroyed. More than 13,500 students and 830 teachers have been killed, according to the report.

Religious sites have also been wiped out. Israel has destroyed 835 mosques, three churches, and 40 cemeteries. The report says Israeli forces desecrated graves, stealing 2,450 bodies and digging seven mass graves inside hospitals.

Infrastructure across Gaza has collapsed. 725 water wells and over 5,000 kilometers of power lines were destroyed. Israel’s bombing of freshwater projects caused 9,400 deaths, mostly children. The Strip has been left without safe water, electricity, or sewage systems.

The report lists total direct losses of $70 billion across 15 key sectors, with $28 billion in housing destruction alone. Nearly 268,000 housing units were completely leveled, leaving over 288,000 families homeless.

Gaza’s agriculture and fishing sectors no longer exist as over 94% of farmland and all fishing facilities have been destroyed, plunging the population into deeper starvation.

6 October 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Ismail Al Sharif

“I don’t admit that a wrong was done to the Native Americans in America or the Blacks in Australia. Rather, stronger peoples of a higher standard than the rest of the world came and took their place… That’s the way of life” – Churchill.

Last 26 August, US ambassador to Turkey—and President Trump’s special envoy to Lebanon—went up to the press conference podium following the US delegation’s meeting with Lebanese President Michel Aoun. In a familiar scene repeated in world capitals, journalists in the crowded room rushed to ask their questions simultaneously, all seeking direct answers from the ambassador.

This time, however, the ambassador confronted the Arab journalists addressing them with a tone of arrogance filled with contempt. He said: “The moment things turn into chaos, as if you were behaving like animals, we will leave immediately. Behave in a civilized manner; this is the essence of the problem in this region.” He then reiterated: “Please remain calm… The moment things devolve into animal-like chaos, we will withdraw immediately.”

His remarks sparked a wave of anger and condemnation. The Lebanese Journalists Syndicate demanded an official apology, while the Lebanese presidency issued a statement expressing its rejection of these offensive remarks. Ambassador Tom Barrack was later forced to backtrack, acknowledging his use of the term “animal” was inappropriate.

But Barrack is merely a recurring example of a colonialism that has not changed. He reminds us of Leopold II, King of Belgium, who displayed Africans as exhibits in humiliating human zoos. He is no different from the ex-Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Galant, the war criminal who called Palestinians “human animals.”

He is a natural extension of a deeply-rooted colonial mentality, embodied in the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which divided the Ottoman Empire’s legacy as spoils of war, or the Berlin Conference, when Bismarck distributed the African continent as gifts among the European colonial powers. The bitter truth is that colonialism’s view of us has never changed.

In the past, they labeled us as barbarians and savages and described our peoples as backward and our races as inferior. These old colonial terms evolved, cloaked in glittering and attractive slogans such as sustainable development, good governance, spreading democracy, protecting human rights, promoting reform, fighting terrorism, and establishing peace. But the essence and ultimate goal remained the same: Plundering our wealth and tightening control over our peoples.

In the Belgian Congo under Leopold II, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, rubber-mining companies imposed mandatory production quotas on African villages, and anyone who failed to meet the required quota had their hands amputated as punishment.  Today, the same scene is being repeated in different forms: A million Iraqi children being killed to control oil under the false pretext of “weapons of mass destruction.”

In Gaza, the most heinous crimes of modern genocide are being committed to plunder gas resources, simply because Hamas dares to challenge Western hegemony and refuses to submit to it.

Barrack represents the naked face of colonialism, without embellishment or falsification; he is the blunt and frank expression of the Western view of us. In an interview with National News on 22 September, he stated with shocking clarity: “We don’t trust any of you; our interests are incompatible. The term ‘ally’ is inaccurate in describing our relationship with you, but our relationship with Israel is completely different; it is an exceptional and emotional relationship. As for peace, it is just an illusion that will never be achieved. Might makes right, and I personally oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state.”

In a subsequent statement to Al Jazeera, Barrack went further, saying with disdain: “There is no such thing as the Middle East; it is just a collection of scattered tribes and villages.” As for the countries you claim exist, they were created by the British and the French.”

Barrack’s statements may have been intentional and deliberate, aiming to reveal the true face of the colonial project, as part of an American strategy to pressure the Arabs in the context of redrawing the map of the region. Perhaps the deeper goal behind this rhetoric is to implant concepts of backwardness, impotence, and division deep within our collective consciousness, so that we internalize and believe in them, and thus act accordingly, making it easier for colonial powers to subjugate us and impose their control over us.

The late intellectual Edward Said expressed this truth profoundly when he said: “The most dangerous form of domination is not direct military occupation, but rather internalizing and believing the stereotype that the colonizer paints about us.” From this perspective, every word Barrack utters is not merely a passing blunder or a spontaneous slip of the tongue, but rather a clear embodiment of a deeply rooted colonial mentality that views Arabs, Muslims, and all other oppressed peoples of the earth as inferior and worthless to Westerners.

Similarly, the late intellectual, thinker and activist Frantz Fanon, and one of the prominent pioneers of anti-colonial thought, emphasized that true and most dangerous colonialism begins when we view ourselves through the eyes of the colonizer. Therefore, the first and fundamental step on the path to true liberation is to reject these imposed terms, which seek to define our inferior status and portray us as nations of lesser value and civilization than others.

We are not merely the “Middle East,” the “Third World,” or the “developing countries,” as they like to classify us. We are an ancient nation with deep roots in history. We are the bearers of one of the greatest and oldest human civilizations, the Arab-Islamic civilization, with our authentic and deeply-rooted identity, our immortal Arabic language, our deeply-rooted culture, and our history spanning thousands of years. We have made sublime civilizational contributions to the progress of humanity as a whole, and we are a beacon that has illuminated the paths of science, thought, knowledge, and enlightenment for the world.

This article by Ismail Al Sharif was originally written in Arabic for the Addustour daily and translated for crossfirearabia.com.

5 October 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dr. Mahboob A. Khawaja

Are We, the People, at the end of a world of wars or at the end of an age of reason, peace and accountability? The preposterous 20 points ‘Gaza Peace Plan’ is a paper plan, a recipe of cataclysmic process unfolding in historic but complex hybrid culture of politics. Decades earlier, George W. Bush called Ariel Sharon  a “ man of peace”, the known killer of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon and his “Road Map” to peace between Israel and Palestine. Time and history are repeating dreadful cruelties  and pursuit of unbridled ambitions and power for fame and fortune – a plan full of absurdities and contradictions.  Both Trump and Netanyahu  care for greed and glory, not peace or people or laws. Somehow, they dream of a Nobel Peace Prize to come from somewhere. Professor Norman Finkelstein (Al-Jazeera interview:10/4/25), is correct: “Trump and Netanyahu are using genocide to make peace and it is not going to work.” A rational peace plan should have engaged both parties to the conflict in Gaza and other parts of Palestine. President Trump claims credit as the chairman of the authority( to be formed) to supervise its implementation. The plan has no logical framework to end the war, the release of hostages, resumption of law and order, restoration of the supplies of essentials of life, foods, medicine, functional service infrastructures and accountability for the crimes against humanity and genocide in Gaza. Conflicting interpretations and contrasts appear inherent as PM Netanyahu clarified, IDF will stay in Gaza and President Trump assumes the end of war, Palestinians will stay in Gaza and it will be free of Israeli occupation. If the Arab-Muslim leaders  were intelligent and responsible  and had the capacity to challenge the unwarranted outcome, simply not to wait and watch the multiple humanitarian tragedies unfolding without an end. Their complicity and failure helped Israel and the US to continue the war and destroy all forms of life and future for the 2.5 million people of Gaza. Would the future generations curse them or cure them?

The Arab-Muslim Leaders live in Abyss

Do people and nations learn from critical challenges and misfortunes of time? The oil discovery propelled fake economic prosperity and the Arabian gulf region and masses fell victims to consumerism and its aftermath.  Often people and nations go astray, galvanized by economic prosperity. Western opportunists encouraged authoritarianism and militarization to produce tyrants from systematic tyranny across the region.  Islam transformed the Arabs from an age of ignorance and tribalism unto ‘One Ummah’ – a Nation of moral and intellectual characteristics to influence the 16^th century European Renaissance of knowledge, scientific discoveries, medicine and human development– as one of the leading forces Arab thinkers and intellectual influenced European thinking hubs, intellectual cultures and scientific -technological advancements. The Arab culture lost all those values when they left Islamic heritage and adapted to copy-cat foreign traditions of materialism and superficial oil-led happiness.

Gaza and the West Bank are obliterated by Israeli war over 23 months of continuous bombardments of civilian infrastructures. If the leading Arab leaders had capacity and moral-intellectual foresight, they should have challenged the insanity of war and protected the innocent masses of Gaza. But they look for escape from reality under the US military shield. If Israel is not stopped, soon the leading oil exporting Arab states could fly Israeli-American flags for a change.

The Peace Plan has No Peace but Continued Occupation and War

The Trump-Netanyahu’s 20 Points Peace Plan mocks common sense and negates on-going bombardments and prevalent truth of deaths and destruction across Gaza. The UN or any other legitimate international body is not part of the supervision  or surety of its implementation. Hamas and PLO leaders are gone and most Arab-Muslim leaders are in moral and intellectual disarray and dead conscious. There is no international humanitarian law, no UN Security Council and no other global mechanism of conflict resolution to make Israel-the US abide by its obligations within the international systems of governance. When cold blooded massacres are a daily event, foods and medicines are blocked and starvation becomes a weapon to dehumanize mankind, no conscientious leaders dare to stop the insanity as if Palestinians are not normal human beings. Are the people of Gaza and Palestine for trades-in to the Arab-Muslim leaders? All of the UNO’s Charter, Geneva Conventions and the Universal Declarations of Human Rights appear in books just in dry ink and meaningless words. Please see: “Israel Lost the War and America Betrayed Humanity in Gaza.” https://www.uncommonthought.com/mtblog/archives/2024/05/15/israel-lost-the-war-and-america-betrayed-humanity-in-gaza.php

Insane Leaders Bomb the Living Earth that Sustains Life and Humanity

Israel so far, has dropped more than 70,000 ton of bombs on Gaza- more insane than what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War 2. The earth is living and spins at 1670 km per hour and orbits the Sun at 107,000 km per hour. Imagine, if this spinning fails, what consequences could occur to the living beings on Earth. Think again, about the average distance of earth from moon is 93 million miles -the distance of Moon from Earth is currently 384,821 km equivalent to 0.002572 Astronomical Units. Earth is a “trust” to mankind for its existence, sustenance of life, survival, progress and future-making. The Earth exists and floats without any pillars in a capsule by the Will of God, so, “Fear God Who created life and death.” Is human intelligence still intact to understand this reality? Wherever there is trust, there is accountability. All human beings are accountable for their actions. The Divine warning (The Quran: 7: 56), warns: Do no mischief on the Earth after it hath been set in order, but call on God with fear and longing in hearts; For the Mercy of God is always near to those who do good.

The Divine Message (Quran:40:64), clarifies:

It is God Who made for you the Earth as a resting place and the sky as a canopy; And has given you shape and made your shapes beautiful, And has provided for your Sustenance, of things pure and good; Such is God your Lord. So Glory to God, The Lord of the Worlds.

The Jewish people (progeny of Jacob), followers of Moses  were warned  and prohibited of killing of innocent people as enshrined in the Ten Commandments (Torah):

‘Thou shalt not kill’ (Exod. 20:13; also Deut. 5:17). Jewish law views the shedding of innocent blood very seriously, and lists murder as one of three sins (along with idolatry and sexual immorality), that fall under the category of yehareg ve’al ya’avor – meaning “One should let himself be killed rather than violate it.

Dr. Mahboob A. Khawaja specializes in international affairs-global security, peace and conflict resolution and has spent several academic years across the Russian-Ukrainian and Central Asian regions knowing the people, diverse cultures of thinking and political governance and a keen interest in Islamic-Western comparative cultures and civilizations.

5 October 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Rima Najjar

Hamas’s Conditional Acceptance Disrupts the U.S.-Israeli Containment Strategy

Author’s Note

This essay argues that Hamas’s conditional acceptance of the Trump administration’s Gaza peace proposal represents a strategic reconfiguration of its political identity, not a retreat, but a recalibration. By leveraging the language of international law and regional consensus, Hamas disrupts the U.S.-Israeli policy of containment and exposes the underlying asymmetry of a diplomatic process that demands Palestinian capitulation while enabling Israeli impunity. The analysis traces Hamas’s evolution from a purely militant organization to a savvy diplomatic actor, demonstrating how its response exploits the contradictions within the U.S.-Israeli alliance. Finally, the essay explores the regional ramifications of this move, particularly for Lebanon’s Hezbollah, where the perceived success or failure of Hamas’s diplomatic gambit could determine the future of the “axis of resistance.” This act of conditional refusal transforms Hamas from a subject of coercion into an agent of strategic disruption, challenging the very spectacle of U.S.-led diplomacy in the region and reasserting resistance as a force of regional recalibration.

— –

I. Introduction

In a region where every gesture is freighted with existential stakes, Hamas’s partial acceptance of Trump’s 20-point proposal marks a moment of calculated diplomacy that disrupts the spectacle of U.S.-Israeli diplomacy — a performance designed to orchestrate a managed surrender rather than achieve a just peace. Far from capitulation, the move signals a strategic pivot — one that reframes Hamas not merely as a militant actor but as a negotiator capable of leveraging international law, regional consensus, and symbolic restraint.

II. From Armed Resistance to Political Legitimacy

Founded in 1987 during the First Intifada, Hamas emerged from the Muslim Brotherhood’s social infrastructure in Gaza, positioning itself as an Islamist alternative to the secular Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Its early charter rejected any compromise with Israel and embraced armed struggle as the sole path to liberation. This uncompromising stance earned Hamas both grassroots support and international isolation.

Yet even in its early years, Hamas demonstrated a capacity for strategic recalibration. During the 1990s, while opposing the Oslo Accords, it began participating in municipal elections and cultivating a parallel governance structure through charitable networks. This duality — resistance and service — laid the groundwork for its political ascent.

That trajectory deepened in 2017, when Hamas issued a revised political document that removed language previously deemed antisemitic — not in the Western European sense rooted in racialized exclusion and genocidal ideology, but in a cultural-religious framework shaped by centuries of theological contestation and colonial experience. This revision reframed Hamas’s opposition as directed not against Judaism as a faith, but against Zionism as a settler-colonial project that instrumentalizes religious narratives to justify territorial dispossession. Yet this ideological recalibration is often flattened in Western discourse, which continues to cast Hamas as a monolithic militant entity — not to mention its designation as a terrorist organization by a small subset of Western-aligned states—including the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom and all 27 member states of the European Union—as well as by the European Union, which, while not a state, has adopted similar classifications through Council-level sanctions.

This label, deployed as a tool of diplomatic exclusion, forecloses engagement with Hamas’s evolving political posture and reinforces a securitized lens that privileges Israeli strategic narratives over Palestinian testimonial sovereignty (the ethical right to narrate one’s experience without external reframing). It functions less as a legal classification than as a rhetorical weapon, one that delegitimizes any form of resistance while elevating Israeli state violence as self-defense. In this framework, Hamas’s charter revision, its engagement with international law, and its overtures toward regional consensus are rendered invisible, dismissed as tactical ploys rather than substantive shifts.

Even strategic analyses that acknowledge Hamas’s deterrence logic — such as those by Israeli scholar Daniel Sobelman — operate within frameworks that abstract Palestinian resistance into metrics of military leverage. Sobelman’s work on asymmetric deterrence offers valuable insight into Hamas’s evolving posture, but his positionality as a former Israeli intelligence officer embedded in Zionist institutions must be critically contextualized. His voice is amplified in Western academic and policy circles, while Palestinian scholars like Omar Barghouti, whose work on BDS foregrounds nonviolent resistance and international law, are systematically vilified and excluded. To counter this asymmetry in ways of knowing, it is essential to pair strategic readings with testimonial accounts from Palestinian and Arab intellectual traditions. Scholars such as Lama Abu-Odeh and Fawwaz Traboulsi emphasize the ethical and historical dimensions of resistance, framing Hamas not merely as a security threat but as a political actor embedded in a decolonial tradition. Juxtaposing these perspectives restores narrative sovereignty and affirms the necessity of reading Hamas’s diplomacy through both strategic and ethical lenses.
 
 With its evolving political identity established, Hamas’s engagement with Trump’s proposal emerges as a strategic continuation — not a deviation.

III. Hamas’s Diplomatic Engagement with Trump’s Proposal

Despite its pariah status in the West, the movement has steadily expanded its diplomatic footprint, engaging with regional powers like Qatar, Turkey, and Iran, and more recently with Russia and China. These relationships have served multiple purposes: securing humanitarian aid, legitimizing its governance in Gaza, and positioning itself as a stakeholder in regional stability.

Hamas’s diplomatic turn accelerated in the aftermath of the October 7 attacks. According to Hamas Political Bureau, it conducted over 130 diplomatic meetings in 2024 — nearly five times its previous annual average. These included engagements with 23 countries and numerous non-state actors, insisting on the fact that it is both a militant movement and a negotiator.

The movement’s rhetoric continues to foreground international laws and resolutions — not as a newfound concession, but as a longstanding framework through which it contests occupation, siege, and displacement. By invoking these norms in its response to Trump’s proposal, Hamas reasserts its position within globally recognized legal discourse, even as it refuses to abandon its resistance credentials.

In contrast, Israel’s continued defiance of international law, its repeated violations of UN resolutions, its refusal to comply with ICJ rulings, and its systematic targeting of civilian infrastructure, positions it outside the legal order entirely. What more dramatic indictment is needed than its public shredding of the UN Charter, broadcast live to an international audience that watches, condemns, and ultimately enables?

This extralegal posture reverberates through the current negotiations, where Israel enters not as a state bound by law, but as a sovereign exception to it — i.e.,where legal norms are suspended to consolidate state power. The very premise of dialogue is distorted: demands for ceasefire, humanitarian access, or accountability are reframed as concessions rather than obligations. Palestinian negotiators, civil society actors, and international legal advocates find themselves pleading for adherence to norms that Israel has already voided. The result is not negotiation but coercion — an asymmetrical theater in which law is invoked only to be suspended, and where the architecture of impunity is mistaken for diplomacy.
 
 This legal and diplomatic positioning by Hamas exposes the fundamental pitfalls and contradictions within the U.S.-Israeli approach, which relies on brinkmanship and bad faith.

IV. The Pitfalls: Trump’s Brinkmanship and Netanyahu’s Contradictions

1. Trump’s Brinkmanship

President Trump’s framing of the Gaza proposal — delivered with the threat that “all HELL, like no one has ever seen before” would follow Hamas’s rejection — is emblematic of his coercive, zero-sum approach to diplomacy. The tweet did not respond to an actual rejection; rather, it preemptively cast refusal as illegitimate, foreclosing dissent before it could be voiced. This ultimatum, couched in apocalyptic language, reveals a strategy less concerned with negotiation than with domination. But coercion cannot substitute for consensus, especially when the proposal itself is riddled with ambiguities and lacks enforceable guarantees.

Hamas’s partial acceptance, articulated in its official statement titled Important Statement on Hamas’ Response to U.S. President Trump’s Proposal, exposes the fragility of Trump’s timeline. The movement’s insistence on clarification, its rejection of the economic framework, and its call for national consensus before any technocratic transition all signal a refusal to be boxed into a binary of compliance or annihilation. By invoking international law and regional consultation, Hamas reframes the proposal not as a peace offer but as a pressure tactic — one that demands resistance through diplomatic engagement rather than military escalation.

Trump’s claim that “every country has signed on” is contradicted by the cautious responses of key regional actors. Egypt and Qatar have emphasized the need for Palestinian unity and a sustainable ceasefire, while Jordan and Turkey have expressed concern over the plan’s unilateralism. Hamas’s engagement with these mediators — rather than direct submission to Trump’s terms — reveals the hollowness of the claim and the performative nature of the ultimatum.

2. Israel’s Negotiation Deceptions and Strategic Dissonance
 Israel’s endorsement of Trump’s proposal is undermined by its actions on the ground. While Netanyahu publicly supports the plan, the Israeli military continues its operations in Gaza, including targeted assassinations and the destruction of civilian infrastructure. These actions contradict the spirit of the proposal, which ostensibly calls for a phased withdrawal and the release of hostages.

Moreover, Israel has refused to commit to the full terms outlined in the plan, particularly those involving the transfer of Gaza’s administration to a Palestinian technocratic body. Netanyahu’s government has issued statements suggesting that any such transition must be vetted by Israeli security agencies — a move that effectively nullifies Palestinian sovereignty and reasserts Israeli control under the guise of coordination.

This strategic dissonance reveals a deeper fissure between the U.S. and Israel. While Trump seeks a legacy-defining peace accord, Netanyahu appears more invested in preserving Israel’s military leverage and domestic political capital. His maneuvering reflects a familiar pattern: endorsing peace frameworks for international optics while sabotaging their implementation through on-the-ground escalation and bureaucratic obstruction.

Hamas, recognizing this duplicity, has chosen to engage with regional and international mediators rather than rely solely on U.S.-Israeli channels. Its response to Trump’s proposal — conditional, consultative, and grounded in international law — exploits the contradictions within the alliance and repositions Hamas as a diplomatic actor navigating asymmetrical terrain with strategic precision.

V. What Hamas’s Agreement Means for Lebanon
 The ultimate success of Hamas’s diplomatic gambit will be measured not only in Gaza but in its ripple effects across the region, with Lebanon serving as the most immediate and volatile barometer, where Hezbollah’s posture is tethered to Hamas’s resistance credentials and regional standing.

Crucially, Hamas did not agree to disarm. Instead, it deferred the question, insisting that any decision regarding weapons must emerge from a “comprehensive national stance” and align with “relevant international laws and resolutions.” Senior official Mousa Abu Marzouk clarified that Hamas would only hand over its weapons to a future Palestinian state — not to Israel, not to the U.S., and not to any externally imposed authority.

This rhetorical precision is strategic: Hamas is acutely aware that even the optics of disarmament, however deferred or symbolic, risk undermining Hezbollah’s claim to be the region’s last uncompromised axis of resistance. In resistance politics, symbolism is strategy. The mere suggestion that Hamas might relinquish arms threatens to isolate Hezbollah as an outlier — no longer part of a unified front, but a relic of a fading paradigm. In this context, Lebanon becomes a mirror: not of Gaza’s liberation, but of its containment. The transition in Gaza, framed as peace, may in fact signal the managed pacification of resistance — an outcome Lebanon is pressured to emulate or resist.

Yet the stakes are not unilateral. If the agreement is perceived as surrender — an externally imposed framework that dissolves Hamas’s authority without securing Palestinian sovereignty — it could trigger backlash across Lebanon’s political spectrum. Hezbollah, which has long positioned itself as a strategic partner to Hamas in a united front against Israeli expansionism, would seize the moment to reaffirm that negotiation is capitulation, that resistance remains the only viable path. This alliance is not symbolic — it is infrastructural, forged through joint operations, shared intelligence, and a common understanding that Israel’s military doctrine treats Gaza and Lebanon as interchangeable theaters of containment. A perceived weakening of Hamas’s resistance posture would embolden Hezbollah’s military stance, justify cross-border escalation, and silence reformist factions calling for de-escalation and political restructuring. The outcome hinges on whether Hamas can maintain its resistance credentials while navigating the diplomatic terrain — a balancing act that Lebanon is not merely watching, but absorbing into its own strategic calculus.
 
 VI. Conclusion
 In conclusion, Hamas’s conditional refusal has disrupted the diplomatic script in ways armed resistance alone could not. By accepting the frame of negotiation while rejecting its coercive content — its asymmetrical terms, deferred sovereignty, and juridical traps — Hamas has exposed the hollow core of a peace process never designed to deliver sovereignty. The spectacle has been broken. No longer shielded by diplomatic theater, the world must now witness not a managed surrender, but a real, messy, and strategically fraught political struggle — one whose outcome will redefine the balance of power and the meaning of resistance in the Middle East for years to come.

Note: First published in Medium

____________________
Rima Najjar is a Palestinian whose father’s side of the family comes from the forcibly depopulated village of Lifta on the western outskirts of Jerusalem and whose mother’s side of the family is from Ijzim, south of Haifa.

5 October 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Quds News Network

Gaza (QNN)- Several international activists deported from the occupation state of Israel after joining a Gaza aid flotilla have revealed details about mistreatment by Israeli forces of young climate campaigner Greta Thunberg.

The 137 deportees landed in Istanbul on Saturday, including 36 Turkish nationals and activists from the United States, Italy, Malaysia, Kuwait, Switzerland, Tunisia, Libya, Jordan, and other countries, Turkish officials confirmed.

Turkish journalist and flotilla participant Ersin Celik told local media he witnessed Israeli forces torture Greta Thunberg. He said she was “dragged on the ground” and “forced to kiss the Israeli flag.”

[https://twitter.com/QudsNen/status/1974486467758960798]

[https://twitter.com/QudsNen/status/1974485692802609503]

Malaysian activist Hazwani Helmi and American participant Windfield Beaver gave similar accounts at Istanbul Airport. They said Thunberg was shoved and paraded with the flag.

“It was a disaster. They treated us like animals,” Helmi said. Detainees were denied food, clean water, and medication. Beaver added that Thunberg was “treated terribly” and “used as propaganda,” recalling how she was pushed into a room as National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir entered.

Italian journalist Lorenzo Agostino said, “Greta Thunberg, a brave woman, is only 22 years old. She was humiliated, wrapped in an Israeli flag, and exhibited like a trophy.”

Other activists reported severe mistreatment. Turkish TV presenter Ikbal Gurpinar said, “They treated us like dogs. They left us hungry for three days. We had to drink from the toilet… It was a terribly hot day, and we were all roasting.” She added the ordeal gave her “a better understanding of Gaza.”

Turkish activist Aycin Kantoglu described bloodstained prison walls and messages left by previous detainees. “We saw mothers writing their children’s names on the walls. We actually experienced a little bit of what Palestinians go through,” she said.

Italy’s Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani confirmed that 26 Italians had been deported, while 15 remained in Israeli custody awaiting expulsion. Italian MP Arturo Scotto, who joined the flotilla, told reporters, “Those who were acting legally were the people aboard those boats; those who acted illegally were those who prevented them from reaching Gaza.”

Adalah, a rights group, reported detainees were forced to kneel with zip-tied hands for hours, denied medication, and blocked from speaking with lawyers.

Israel has faced mounting international criticism for the flotilla raid, which saw its navy intercept around 40 boats carrying aid to Gaza and detain more than 450 people. The operation highlights the illegality of Israel’s blockade, which has trapped Gaza’s 2.3 million residents amid ongoing genocide.

Launched in late August, the flotilla was the latest international attempt to break Israel’s siege and deliver aid to Palestinians.

Hundreds of Global Sumud Flotilla Activists Remain Detained by Israeli Forces

Around 450 activists from the Gaza-bound Global Sumud Flotilla remain in Israeli detention after Israeli forces boarded their aid boats, abducted them, and forcibly taken them to Israel for deportation.

On Friday, four Italian activists detained on board the Global Sumud Flotilla were deported after they were forcibly taken to Israel.

Israel’s Foreign Ministry said procedures were under way to send all remaining participants to other countries.

Some 450 activists are in Israeli detention, including Swedish campaigner Greta Thunberg.

This week, Israeli forces “illegally intercepted” 42 civilian vessels and arrested about 500 activists from the Global Sumud Flotilla.

The boats were carrying “humanitarian aid, volunteers, and the determination to break Israel’s illegal siege on Gaza”, the group said.

According to US outlet CBS News, citing American intelligence officials briefed on the matter, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu directly approved an illegal drone attack on two boats from the Global Sumud Flotilla docked in Tunisia.

Israeli forces launched drones from a submarine and dropped incendiary devices onto the boats, which were moored outside Tunisian port Sidi Bou Said, causing a fire.

No one was killed or injured in the attacks, which targeted a Portuguese-flagged vessel and a British-flagged vessel in separate incidents on September 8 and 9.

The use of incendiary weapons against civilian populations or objects is prohibited in all circumstances under international humanitarian law and the law of armed conflict.

Israel has a long history of intercepting and attacking flotillas bound for the Gaza Strip, particularly since it imposed a blockade on the enclave in 2007.

5 October 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Quds News Network

Gaza (QNN)- The Gaza Strip has been under relentless Israeli attacks, with dozens killed and designated safe zones targeted, despite US President Donald Trump claiming that Israel had “temporarily stopped the bombing.”

What We Know?

Hamas submitted on Friday its response to Trump’s Gaza plan to end the two-year genocide, agreeing to release all Israeli captives. The group said it is ready to “immediately enter negotiations through mediators to discuss the details” of the exchange.

Trump welcomed the Hamas response, and wrote on his Truth Social site that he believes the Palestinian group is “ready for a lasting PEACE”.

In a major announcement, he also said that “Israel must immediately stop the bombing of Gaza” so that the captives could be released.

World leaders also welcomed the group’s response and called on Israel to stop the genocide immediately.

Early on Saturday, Trump also said he appreciated that Israel had “temporarily stopped the bombing” to give a “chance” to the deal to be completed.

Israeli Claims of Reducing Assault

Unconfirmed reports from Israel’s Army Radio also claim Israel has instructed the military to reduce Gaza operations to a “minimum”, following Trump’s order, and only “carry out defensive actions” in Gaza.

“The practical implication: the operation to conquer [Gaza City] has been blocked – and halted for now,” Army Radio’s military correspondent, Doron Kadosh, said in a post on X.

Israel Continues to Pound Gaza

However, local sources and residents reported that since Trump’s order to stop the bombing, there has been relentless and indiscriminate Israeli bombardment across the Gaza Strip.

According to medical sources, Israeli attacks across Gaza have killed at least 70 Palestinians in the past 24 hours.

In the Israeli-designated so-called “safe zones” in southern Gaza, where people are ordered to flee by the Israeli military, the sound of relentless heavy artillery and fighter jets filled the night.

At least 47 of the victims killed in bombardments and air strikes on Saturday were in the famine-struck Gaza City, where the Israeli forces have been pressing an offensive in recent weeks, forcing some one million residents to flee to the overcrowded south amid plans to occupy the city.

Hamas said in a statement that the ongoing attacks on the enclave proved that Israel was continuing its “horrific crimes and massacres” on Palestinians.

According to a statement published by Gaza’s Government Media Office late last night, since dawn on Saturday, Israeli forces have launched over 93 air and artillery strikes across Gaza, hitting densely populated areas filled with civilians and displaced families.

5 October 2025

Source: countercurrents.org