Archives: Articles

By Kurt Cobb

The United States is now engaged in what I am calling “smash-and-grab” diplomacy in Venezuela, and it will perhaps soon do the same in Greenland, a territory of the Kingdom of Denmark. In case you have never heard the term, smash-and-grab refers to robberies undertaken by smashing store windows and/or display cases and taking what is readily available without concern about alarms going off or people on the street or in the store seeing what the robbers are doing. The phrase seems more descriptive than the older one of “gunboat diplomacy” in which, not infrequently, the mere display of force was used rather than actual attacks to obtain concessions from a weaker nation.

The current practitioners of the U.S. form of smash-and-grab diplomacy leave little to the imagination, prefering big displays of violence and simply taking what they want with no pretext that the target country is accepting terms through negotiation. Witness the brazen taking of all exported oil from Venezuela, the proceeds from which are supposedly going to be used “for the benefit of the American people and the Venezuelan people” (whatever that means), according to U.S. President Donald Trump.

Readers certainly know that in the past there have been other more subtle ways that major powers have taken the resources they need for their industries and militaries. For instance, what followed the era of gunboat diplomacy—which more or less ran from the late 19th century through early 20th century—was a era of less direct bullying of weaker countries by major powers. As empires crumbled, newly independent countries were strongly encouraged to install leadership friendly to American and European foreign policy and economic interests—or else! One of the “or else’s” was detailed in a book called Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, written by one of the unofficial emissaries from the United States who carried a message of consequences if the target countries’ leaders did not acquiesce. The author began the book with this:

Economic hit men (EHMs) are highly paid professionals who cheat countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars. They funnel money from the World Bank, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and other foreign “aid” organizations into the coffers of huge corporations and the pockets of a few wealthy families who control the planet’s natural resources. Their tools included fraudulent financial reports, rigged elections, payoffs, extortion, sex, and murder. They play a game as old as empire, but one that has taken on new and terrifying dimensions during this time of globalization.

As weaker countries across the world grew their economies and became more confident in their power, this form of intimidation ceased to be as effective. The rise of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Evo Morales in Bolivia are two examples.

In an age of rising prosperity and the free flow of resources around the world, the waning power of American and European institutions to impose their will did not seem as problematic as it might otherwise have been. But with the return of scarcity of key metals (think: China’s restriction on strategically important metals), energy (think: natural gas in Europe), food (think: China’s purchases of farmland around the world), and water (think: well, all over the globe), expect more countries to engage in some form of smash-and-grab diplomacy as shortages lead to military operations designed to alleviate those shortages and/or prevent future ones.

What the current U.S. administration is doing, though probably unwittingly, is saying the quiet part out loud. As the natural resources that the modern world depends on become more and more scarce, countries will more and more resort to openly violent methods to secure access to those resources.

Smash-and-grab robberies result in losses to the merchants affected and inconvenience and upset for the public. But as such robberies become an instrument of foreign policy over the decades ahead, they will only mean more chaos for everyone.

Of course, world society could arrive at a global “kumbaya” moment and decide to cooperate on dramatically reducing worldwide consumption, first by eliminating waste and then by prioritizing consumption that is essential for a healthy, functioning society. We can wish for this. But nothing in the crumbling international order suggests that it will happen.

Kurt Cobb is a freelance writer and communications consultant who writes frequently about energy and environment. His work has appeared in The Christian Science Monitor, Common Dreams, Le Monde Diplomatique, Oilprice.com, OilVoice, TalkMarkets, Investing.com, Business Insider and many other places.

12 January 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Jose Biomorgi

In complex times, where pain and confusion spread everywhere, silence, discretion, and prudence are the best way to understand any situation and take the best decision. However, understanding that the first casualty in any war is the truth, and regarding the infamous behavior of the mercenaries of the media, who serve to the aggressor’s interests, I decided to write this short article to bring to light what is plain to see, but which they don’t want us to see. The US change regime operation fails in Venezuela. The Bolivarian Revolution hold on to power.

For more than a decade, the Bolivarian Government has been denouncing the aggressions of the US and the entire global system of domination, through the Unilateral Coercive Measures (UCM) applied to Venezuela. These measures have a clear criminal nature, and have caused deep social wounds and structural damage in our country, and we have learned to live with them and overcome them over the years. Proof of this is the almost five years of economic growth that we have reached in Venezuela. However, the cost has been high. Although never as high as losing sovereignty and independence.

The people of Venezuela, noble, brave, stubborn, resilient, and with an infinite sense of patriotism, have consistently denounced the aggression of the United States in all instances, at every level and at every moment. But we have not been intimidated and we are not willing to surrender their sovereignty. We have been denouncing the blockade that US has tried to impose on us, but at the same time, we have been working and moving forward. And that is what the imperialism cannot forgive us for: our ability to overcome adversity.

A brief note that will help us contextualize what I will describe below: Venezuela has had a relationship with the United States for over 120 years and we have built an entire system of technological dependence on this country and its European satellites. This influence even extends beyond that, into the cultural sphere. To mention just one example: in all the South America, the most popular sport is soccer, except in Venezuela. Even in Colombia, which is further north than our country. In our case, the king of sports is baseball, and that is undoubtedly a product of the great influence that the USA exerted on our country throughout the 20th century.

Let’s get down to business. What arguments have we used to denounce the MCUs, and which sectors have they primarily affected?

– The oil sector has undoubtedly been the most affected. Our oil production plummeted from nearly 3 million to 300 thousand barrels in less than five years, a consequence of our inability to purchase parts and components for maintaining our production system, as well as to conduct retrospective exploration studies for enhanced oil recovery, drill new wells to increase production, and a long list of other factors that would fill a book.

– The production of petroleum derivatives dropped to zero during the most difficult times we faced, due to our inability to purchase diluents and catalysts, among other necessities, to be able to refine and produce fuels. We even had our three main refineries (CRP, El Palito, and Puerto La Cruz) shut down at one point. We have been working to reverse this, but at huge cost.

– Our oil tankers, all under siege and sanctions, prevented us from transporting our main source of national wealth, forcing us to look for a complex and costly mechanisms to transport oil, which resulted in significant losses for the nation.

– The electricity sector is another major casualty. Our primary source of electricity generation is hydroelectric power. All of this generation system, as well as the transmission systems, was designed, manufactured, and installed by multinational corporations from the US and Europe, using technologies and equipment developed by them, such as turbines, control systems, transformers, generators, among others. So, we were not able to perform timely preventive and corrective maintenance due to the inability to acquire pieces and parts from these multinational corporations, which significantly dropped down the electricity supply, affecting the quality of life of our people.

– We have repeatedly denounced the impossibility of purchasing medical equipment, as well as parts and components to maintain our medical equipment.

– We also had to find alternatives for acquiring all types of medications, which required adapting our internal regulations to make it possible. We even had to import essential medications that we manufactured previously, such as biological drugs, among others.

– We had to transform our agri-food industry, which has been one of our greatest successes, as we now have independence in this area, although not without paying a very high social cost.

– We denounce the theft of our wealth by the global financial system and the impossibility of using them to acquire basic supplies of our industrial production.

– We have always affirmed our willingness to establish trade relations with all countries, within a framework of mutual respect and recognition, making it clear that any ideological differences we may have should not interfere with trade relations between nations.

I could continue mentioning many things, but this article would become infinitely long.

So, what is happening right now? US is negotiating and defining mechanisms with the Bolivarian Government, for increasing the acquire of Venezuelan crude oil (which they have done during more than 120 years), as well as selling parts and components to us to improve and strengthen our electrical system, exploring investment opportunities in our oil fields with the aim to increase our production, among many other announcements that our authorities will surely do soon.

All of this, of course, without relinquishing our sovereignty and our primary objective at this time, which is the rescue of our brother, President Nicolás Maduro, and our sister, First Lady and Deputy Cilia Flores, a courageous woman and an example of dignity and unwavering principles.

In conclusion, compatriots, let us not be swayed by the pain we feel at this moment. Let us not be blinded by the smoke curtains that the traitorous mercenaries, subservient to the aggressor, are trying to sell us. Let us not be misled by the enemy.

US abducted our President. They cowardly took him and Cilia away in an extraordinary show of force, carried out by the most powerful empire that humanity has ever known. Faced with the repeated failures of the US administrations against the Bolivarian Revolution and the valiant people of Venezuela, they had no other alternative than use the force and the cowardly aggression, employing the most advanced technological warfare systems and weapons.

However, the US administration seems finally understood that the only actor that can guarantee of stability in Venezuela is the Bolivarian Revolution. The only way for US to negotiate is by sitting down with the Bolivarian Government. If US want anything from Venezuela, they have to dialogue with us.

So, dear friends, comrades, and fellow citizens, the question arises: Who is winning this battle? Time will speak.

Let there be no doubt. We will rescue Nicolas and Cilia, and once again, WE WILL PREVAIL.

Jose Biomorgi is Venezuela’s Ambassador to Lebanon and Syria

12 January 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dr. Ashraf Zainabi

When dialogue reaches a dead end, politics rarely stays calm. Narratives harden, positions freeze, small incidents acquire larger meanings, and escalation begins to feel less like an accident and more like a direction. The present moment in U.S.–Iran relations appears to carry many of these features at once.

Big wars are rarely announced. They arrive quietly, through signals that seem disconnected when seen alone but form a clear pattern when viewed together. Russia evacuating its citizens from Iran through specially arranged flights is one such signal. By itself, it proves nothing. But it matters because it comes at a time when several other indicators are moving in the same direction. To understand why escalation now feels closer than before, we must look beyond any single event.

First, diplomacy between the United States and Iran has effectively collapsed. There is no meaningful negotiation channel left that carries trust. Nuclear talks are stalled, indirect messaging is reduced to warnings, and red lines are repeated rather than negotiated. When diplomacy stops producing movement, power politics fills the vacuum. History shows that prolonged diplomatic paralysis often precedes confrontation, not compromise.

Second, Iran is passing through one of its most serious internal crises in decades. Protests, economic pressure, and social anger have placed the state under intense strain. Governments under such pressure tend to behave in one of two ways, either they seek compromise, or they externalise threat. Iran’s leadership has increasingly framed its internal unrest as externally encouraged, especially by the United States and its allies. This framing narrows space for restraint. When a regime begins to see protest and pressure as part of a foreign strategy, escalation becomes easier to justify internally.

Third, U.S. signalling has changed in tone. Washington has moved from managing Iran to openly questioning the durability of the Iranian system. Statements emphasising “support for the Iranian people,” combined with tightened sanctions and military readiness in the region, are read in Tehran not as moral concern but as pressure. Even when intervention is not intended, signalling matters. Perception often drives response more than intent.

Fourth, the military environment around Iran has become denser and more alert. Increased patrols, higher readiness levels among U.S. regional forces, and parallel preparedness by Iran’s own military reduce reaction time. When forces operate closer, faster, and under stress, the risk of miscalculation rises sharply. Escalation does not always begin with a decision; sometimes it begins with an incident.

Fifth, regional actors are behaving as if instability is possible. Russia’s evacuation of citizens must be read in this context. States evacuate civilians not because war is certain, but because they believe conditions could deteriorate rapidly. Such actions reflect risk assessment, not panic. When multiple states quietly prepare for disruption, it signals that escalation is being treated as a serious possibility.

Sixth, Iran occupies a special place in U.S. global strategy. The United States today is not primarily fighting regional adversaries; it is managing competition with Russia and China. In that larger contest, Iran functions as a buffer. Its independence limits how far U.S. influence can move across West and Central Asia. As long as Iran remains intact and resistant, it blocks corridors, complicates alliances, and slows strategic pressure on America’s real challengers.

This makes Iran persistently uncomfortable for Washington, not because it is the strongest enemy, but because it blocks the road.

At the same time, the U.S. has learned that direct wars are costly. Iraq and Afghanistan reshaped American thinking. Large troop deployments, body bags, and long occupations are no longer acceptable at home. The preference now is indirect pressure, sanctions, isolation, internal stress, strategic signalling. Ukraine demonstrates this approach clearly, heavy support, but no boots on ground, and externalised cost.

Iran resists this model more stubbornly than most states. Its geography, energy role, and political posture make it difficult to fold into U.S.-led systems. That resistance ensures pressure never truly eases. Over time, sustained pressure creates moments of instability. Those moments are often when escalation becomes tempting. Does all this mean war is inevitable? No.

But escalation does not require inevitability. It only requires narrowing options. Right now, options are shrinking. Trust is absent. Communication is minimal. Internal pressures are high. Military alertness is rising. External actors are preparing quietly. Narratives on both sides frame the other as unreasonable and dangerous. This is how escalation begins, not with declarations, but with convergence.

The danger is not intention alone. It is misjudgement. Each side may believe the other will step back. Each may believe pressure can be controlled. History suggests such confidence is often misplaced. If escalation occurs, it will not remain confined to Iran and the United States. Buffer states, regions, and ordinary people will bear the cost. Stability, once broken, does not return easily.

The question, therefore, is not only whether U.S.–Iran escalation seems imminent. The deeper question is whether the world is prepared for the consequences if restraint fails.

Dr. Ashraf Zainabi is a teacher and researcher based in Gowhar Pora Chadoora J&K

12 January 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Akbar E. Torbat

The United States, along with its regional proxy Israel and the European Troika, tries to destabilize Iran to rip the country apart. Failing to achieve this purpose during the 12-day war, they now want to use violent protests like the Arab Spring in 2011 to achieve the same objective.

In recent months, the rate of inflation in Iran has been high, ranging from 40% to 50%. The US unilateral economic sanctions have hurt the country’s international trade. As sanctions tightened, Iran’s national currency, the rial, plummeted in value, reaching about half of its original value by late December.

In late December 2025, the reformist government of President Pezeshkian decided to end the subsidized preferred exchange rate for importing essential goods. Furthermore, his government increased the price of energy products, mainly gasoline, which had been at generally very low levels. All of these at once created an economic shock and provided the precondition for protests. The economic crisis and the demonstrations played into the hands of the imperialists, allowing them to fan the flames of the crisis and instigate riots.

Following the collapse of the national currency, the rial, a series of protests began on December 28 in the Tehran Grand Bazaar and in the retail district of central Tehran. Then, the protests spread to some other cities and turned violent against the theocratic regime. On the tenth and eleventh days of the nationwide livelihood protests, merchants in Tehran’s Grand Bazaar, as in previous days, refused to open their shops. Other retail markets, as well as mobile phone and audio-visual equipment shops, also closed in protest.

Taking advantage of these protests, the Western media spread propaganda to destabilize Iran. They propagate Reza Pahlavi’s speeches, the son of the last Shah of Iran, as a candidate to bring back the monarchy in Iran. According to Haaretz, “Israel ran a covert influence operation using fake accounts and AI-generated content to promote Iran’s exiled crown prince Reza Pahlavi and push for restoring the monarchy.”

However, the real intention of the imperialists is to rip the country apart and control its oil, as is being done in Venezuela. They have used all sorts of propaganda in the form of false reports and videos made up by artificial intelligence to aggravate the crisis.

President Donald Trump pledged to support the demonstrators. On January 9, Trump issued a new warning to Iran’s leaders, saying, “You better not start shooting because we’ll start shooting too.” Additionally, Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressed the US’s support for the protesters. Furthermore, Senator Lindsey Graham, Mike Pompeo, the former director of the CIA, Zionist officials, and “Hannah Neumann”, a German member of the European Parliament, have all stated that they stand with the protesters in Iran.

Yet, the Wall Street Journal reported, “President Trump has threatened repeatedly to intervene in the event of a bloody crackdown on Iranian protesters. That has prompted US officials to examine possible strikes on Iranian military sites.”

The Islamic Government’s Response

On January 11, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, the Parliament Head, said Iran recognizes peaceful protests over economic concerns but stands firmly against armed terrorists. “To prevent miscalculation, understand that should you [Trump] take action to attack Iran, both the occupied territories [Israel] and all American military centers, bases, and ships in the region will be legitimate targets,” Qalibaf warned.

Also, on January 9, 2026, after Iran witnessed the largest street demonstration of the people on the twelfth night of the protests, Ali Khamenei, the religious Leader, called the protesters “foreign mercenaries.” He also added about Donald Trump, “If he knows that the arrogant men of the world, such as Pharaoh and Nimrod, Reza Khan and Mohammad Reza [the Shah and his father], were overthrown at the height of their pride, he too will be overthrown.” Furthermore, in a letter to the United Nations Security Council, Amir Saeed Iravani condemned the US government’s illegal actions and its coordination with the Zionist regime to interfere in Iran’s internal affairs and provoke riots and unrest in Iran.

The Western imperialists have instigated some ethnic groups, mostly the Kurds in western Iran, to destabilize the country by violent protests and riots in some cities. The arrest of some Mossad-related agents in various cities, such as Ilam, Tehran, Lorestan, etc., revealed that the Zionist regime has hired villains to provoke riots. These people use the “knock and run” tactic to kill and set on fire public and private properties. According to Tasnim News, with the arrest of some riot leaders in Tehran, it was revealed that they had collaborated with the Kurdish Komoleh rebel group. These people had mostly come to the capital from the western provinces of the country. They were in contact with Komoleh and were receiving sabotage instructions and weapons from them. Some agitators from the ethnic groups were armed with rifles, knives, and Molotov cocktails to kill law enforcement personnel, set on fire banks, mosques, and public properties.

There were widespread terrorist acts, such as attacks on businesses, shops, and stores that were still operating, warehouses, public transportation, government and law enforcement centers, Basij bases, and police stations, carried out in the most severe criminal ways on their agenda.

To control the riots and unrest, the Iranian government cut off the nation from the internet and international telephone calls. Some reports indicate that at least 100 rioters and four security personnel were killed, and 2,200 arrested during the unrest.

Crisis of the National Currency

In the past, Iran’s central bank had adopted a dual exchange rate system, allowing for a lower preferred exchange rate for the import of essential goods. The justification for adopting the preferred rate was to keep the price of some imported essential goods low for consumers; however, a small part of the difference between the preferred rate and the free rate went to the consumer, and the rest went to firms that received the foreign exchange at the preferred rate from the government. These firms had demanded maintaining the preferred rate, as they benefited from this huge source of rent-seeking arrangements. They obtained foreign exchange at the preferred rate for importing essential goods, but in some cases, they used it for other purposes or sold it for higher prices in the free market by employing various manipulation techniques.

In December 2025, the central bank decided to unify the exchange rate, fixing it to bring the rate closer to the free market rate and thereby ending the corruption associated with the preferred exchange rate. By eliminating preferential currency and transferring subsidies directly to the final consumer, the government wants to both maintain the purchasing power of households and increase transparency in the allocation of subsidies.

Consequently, the devaluation immediately affected the price of certain imported goods, which hurt the retailers. The government has instead allocated subsidies to most of the population to compensate for higher prices on certain essential goods. A monthly subsidy of one million Tomans is deposited into the accounts of most households. This credit is given in the form of vouchers for the purchase of 11 specific essential goods. Nonetheless, the rise in the money supply over the past few decades has been the primary cause of inflation in Iran.

The Iranian government should be wary of controlling inflation, particularly the price of food items. The Iranian people must be aware that Israel and its Western culprits intend to partition and destroy Iran, not be fooled by their propaganda, and be prepared to defend the country.

Akbar E. Torbat, Ph.D., is the author of “Politics of Oil and Nuclear Technology in Iran,” Palgrave Macmillan (2020).

12  January 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dr. Bruce Altschuler

It is hard to understand why Donald Trump is so anxious to acquire Greenland even if it takes military force. When he suggested this during his first administration, one of his Cabinet secretaries mused, “You just sit there and be, like, ‘Well, this isn’t real.’” Now, somehow, it is.

Venezuela shows us that, other than a desire for domination, there is no reasonable policy reason for Trump’s military actions. When he first ordered blowing up civilians in speedboats in international waters in the Caribbean, he claimed it was to prevent fentanyl from coming to the United States. After the obvious point that Venezuela produces no fentanyl was made, the justification became cocaine even though it was unlikely that any of these small boats, more than a thousand miles away from the US, contributed to the American drug problem.

Shortly before seizing Maduro, Trump pardoned the former president of Honduras who had just begun a 45-year sentence for his involvement in trafficking more than 400 tons of cocaine to the US. Switching justifications to regime change convinced few as Trump kept the rest of the Maduro regime in power while criticizing opposition leader Maria Machado. As for Trump’s latest justification, seizing “stolen” Venezuelan oil, even the major American oil companies, the supposed victims, seem singularly unenthusiastic.

When Germany occupied Denmark during WWII, the United States temporarily protected Greenland. At the end of the war, it was returned to Danish control but, since then, Denmark has made changes to give Greenlanders greater autonomy including granting the island home rule in 1979.

A major reason many Greenlanders want more control over foreign policy is a 2004 agreement that gave the US permission to upgrade its missile defense system at Thule Air Base which has since been renamed Pituffik Space Base. Inuit, who make up most of Greenland’s population and who had been forcibly removed from the area, sued for the right of return at the European Court of Justice.

Tensions had increased because the US stored nuclear weapons on the island in violation of a Danish ban and without the knowledge of Greenland, a problem worsened by the 1968 crash near Thule of a military airplane carrying four hydrogen bombs. A 2008 referendum calling for increased autonomy for the island passed with a three-quarters majority. It is hardly surprising that despite Trump’s claim that “Greenlanders “want to be with us,” a 2025 Verian poll showed 85% opposed and only 6% in favor.

The 1951 treaty between the US and Denmark allows the building of multiple military bases across Greenland. During the Cold War about a dozen bases, housing some 11,000 troops were built, including the 1959 Project Iceworm, a top-secret city under the ice that would house nuclear missiles. The instability of the ice sheet caused this project to be abandoned in 1966. All of the bases except Pituffik have been closed while the number of American personnel stationed there has been reduced from 6000 to 150.

If there was a real national security threat, the existing treaty would allow the US to increase the number of bases and personnel to whatever it deems necessary, provided it consults with Denmark and Greenland. According to Trump, there is a danger of Russia or China taking over Greenland if the US does not. A week ago he asserted that “Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships,” a claim denied by Danish and Greenland officials who say that since a 2018 attempt by China to build several airports was rejected, “there really has been nothing from the Chinese.” Nor does tracking data show any sign of Chinese or Russian ships or submarines near Greenland.

Instead of Trump’s megalomania and desire for domination, Greenland’s future should be up to its own people. The same poll that showed most Greenlanders opposed a US takeover found that if there was a referendum on independence from Denmark, 56% indicated they would vote in favor versus 28% in opposition. Instead of Trump’s imperialist domination, they should be given the opportunity for self-determination.

Syndicated by Peace Voice.

Dr. Bruce Altschuler is emeritus professor of political science.

16 January 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Peter Schwarz

US President Donald Trump’s persistent threats to take over Greenland have provoked strong reactions in Europe. After Trump repeatedly asserted his claim to the huge island—which belongs to Denmark as an autonomous territory—in recent days and a Danish-American meeting in Washington ended without a resolution, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Germany and France have sent military reinforcements to Greenland.

For the time being, only a few soldiers and ships have been sent to explore further options. The mission is justified by the need to allay Trump’s concerns that Greenland is not sufficiently protected against Russian and Chinese attacks. In fact, it is intended to deter the US from annexing Greenland by force, even though it would offer little resistance to an American military operation.

The US president has justified his claim to Greenland on the grounds of US national security, among other things. “We need Greenland,” he said, “to prevent Russia and China from owning it.” He added threateningly that the takeover could be done “the easy way” or “the hard way.”

The meeting between the foreign ministers of Denmark and Greenland with US Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, which took place in Washington on Wednesday, did not blow up as previously feared, but it also did not bring the parties any closer together. “We have not succeeded in changing the American position. There is a fundamental difference of opinion,” Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen told the press afterwards.

Rasmussen and his Greenlandic colleague Vivian Motzfeldt had made it clear that they are prepared to work closely with the US to turn Greenland into an armed fortress against Russia and China and to exploit the valuable raw materials stored beneath the island and the adjacent Arctic. But the US insists on owning the island itself. A joint working group will discuss further steps.

In Europe, outrage over Trump’s claim to Greenland has reached fever pitch. The media and all established parties are up in arms over his threat to forcibly seize territory from a NATO partner. Seven European heads of government—including Friedrich Merz (Germany), Emmanuel Macron (France), Keir Starmer (Great Britain), Giorgia Meloni (Italy) and Donald Tusk (Poland)—signed a joint statement against Trump’s annexation plans in early January. They emphasise that the island belongs to the Greenlandic people.

What motivates the European leaders is not concern for international law, and certainly not for the Greenlandic people. The same media and leaders who criticise Trump over Greenland have supported and continue to support his numerous other crimes—from the genocide in Gaza to the bombing of Iran and the attempt to forcibly bring about regime change there. They even welcomed the attack on Venezuela and the kidnapping of President Maduro, which clearly violated international law, even though Trump openly boasted that his goal was to steal Venezuelan oil.

Nor do European governments raise any criticism of the destruction of democracy in the US, the terror of the ICE Gestapo, the instrumentalisation of the judiciary, and the unpunished murder of peaceful citizens such as Renée Nicole Good, even though they are otherwise relentless in condemning human rights violations when it comes to Russia or China. Instead, the European governments are competing to flatter the fascist gangster in the White House.

Even with regard to Greenland, the Europeans’ claims are not as clear-cut as they pretend. Although the island belongs to the Kingdom of Denmark under international law, it enjoys a high degree of autonomy. Copenhagen only has a say in foreign policy and defence; the Greenlanders themselves regulate internal affairs. The 2009 Self-Government Act expressly guarantees them the right to self-determination: they can therefore decide for themselves at any time whether they want to remain part of Denmark or not.

Greenland is also not, as is often claimed, part of the European Union. In 1973, it became a member of the European Community (EC), the predecessor of the EU, as part of Denmark, even though 70 percent of Greenlanders had voted against it. After gaining internal autonomy, Greenland held its own referendum in 1982, in which 53 percent voted in favour of withdrawal, which was completed in 1985. Since then, Greenland has only been associated with the EU as an overseas country or territory.

Greenland’s relationship with Denmark, which exploited the island as a colony for over two centuries, is also not as close as the government portrays it to be. Between 1966 and 1991, the Danish government implemented a brutal contraception program on the island to reduce the birth rate. For a quarter of a century, every second woman, including many girls, had an intrauterine device inserted without their knowledge. The Danish government did not apologise for this crime until 2025—six years after Trump first laid claim to Greenland.

Greenland, which has a population of only about 55,000, is dependent on financial support from Denmark. However, at €80 million per year, this support is very modest. It is therefore quite possible that Trump will try to bring Greenland under his control with an “offer they cannot refuse”—a combination of threats, blackmail and incentives. This is likely to be the subject of the negotiations agreed upon by the foreign ministers of Denmark and Greenland with Vance and Rubio.

The Europeans are not concerned with justice and self-determination in Greenland; rather, they fear losing out in the ruthless struggle for raw materials, markets and profits that is once again defining the relationship between the imperialist powers. They fear that Trump will break up NATO before they are strong enough to wage wars on their own. That is why they are rearming on a scale not seen since Hitler, and reintroducing conscription to recruit cannon fodder for the next war.

The conflict over Greenland is a convenient excuse to close political ranks and stifle resistance to rearmament and war. All parties in the Bundestag—from the Left Party to the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD)—are in agreement on the Greenland issue. All three opposition parties stand behind the government.

Left Party leader Jan van Aken demanded: “Not a single millimetre of Greenland will go to the US.” He called on the government to “make it clear who calls the shots.” Trump’s behaviour reminds him of Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, said van Aken: “Everyone criticised it at the time, then turned away and carried on as if nothing had happened.” If there is “no clear statement from Germany, from Friedrich Merz,” said the Left Party leader, the US will continue to do the same.

For Green Party leader Felix Banaszak, this is not enough. He accused the Left Party of talking about US “state terrorism” but failing to answer the question of what “Germany and the European Union actually want to do to survive in a changed world order.” What is needed, he said, is “European sovereignty, European resilience, European strength.” This also includes greater defence capabilities.

For the AfD, which maintains close ties to Trump’s MAGA movement and Vice President Vance, German interests also take precedence in the case of Greenland. Party leader Alice Weidel accused Trump of “violating a basic campaign promise—namely, not to interfere in other countries.” Co-party leader Tino Chrupalla accused Trump of using “Wild West methods.” It is clear, he said, “that the end does not always justify the means.”

No one should be carried away by this war propaganda under the guise of “defending Greenland.” Not only Trump, but also Merz, Macron, Starmer and Meloni are preparing new wars to defend imperialist interests in a world where only the law of the strongest applies.

The answer to Trump’s annexation plans is not European military strength, but the mobilisation of the international working class against war and capitalism. The workers of Europe and the US are allies in this struggle.

16 January 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

15 January 2026 marks the 24th anniversary of the abduction of Palestinian liberation movement leader Ahmad Sa’adat, the General Secretary of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, by the so-called “Palestinian Authority” under its “security coordination” with the Zionist regime. For four years, Sa’adat and his comrades were imprisoned by the PA — and held under U.S., British and Canadian guard — before they were abducted, once again, on 14 March 2006 by the Zionist occupation forces. Since then, Sa’adat and his comrades, leaders of the Palestinian prisoners’ movement, have been held inside the notorious Zionist prisons, and subjected to isolation, torture and medical abuse and neglect. Today, they are among the leadership prisoners threatened with assassination daily inside the occupation prisons.

Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network urges all who stand with Palestine — Palestine solidarity groups and collectives, Palestinian, Arab and Muslim community organizations, anti-imperialist organizations, political parties and liberation movements — to join between 15 and 25 January 2026 in a week of action to free Ahmad Sa’adat and all Palestinian prisoners in Zionist dungeons, in PA jails, and in the prisons of imperialist and reactionary regimes.

The Week of Action to Free Ahmad Sa’adat and all Palestinian Prisoners has been marked annually for nearly 15 years. This year, the dates also coincide with a day of media action on 15-16 January 2026 by the Red Ribbons Campaign/Save Palestinian Prisoners Campaign, which focuses on the struggle to free Palestinians in occupation prisons, including medical workers like Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya, and all imprisoned Palestinians — as well as campaigning to stop the dangerous “execution law” being promulgated by ultra-Zionist, racist “Israeli” national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir. We urge all to participate in this day of media action, as well as activities organized as part of this campaign on 31 January 2026 for the Palestinian prisoners and their liberation.

The call to action is particularly urgent this year. Since 7 October 2023, amid the Al-Aqsa Flood and the ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people, especially in Gaza, at least 87 identified Palestinian prisoners have already been assassinated inside the Zionist jails, either directly under torture or due to deliberate medical neglect and abuse. In almost all cases, the occupation continues to imprison the bodies of the martyrs — in addition to the bodies of hundreds of martyrs held hostage by the Zionist regime. Palestinian prisoners are subjected to a starvation policy, denied family and even legal visits, and subjected to repeated raids and attacks inside the prisons — all under the guise of a “state of emergency” — perpetuated for over two years and renewed only yesterday.

The leadership of the prisoners’ movement, of which Ahmad Sa’adat is a prominent figure, alongside Marwan Barghouti, Abdullah Barghouti, Ahed Abu Ghoulmeh, Anas Jaradat, Hassan Salameh, Abbas al-Sayyed, Ibrahim Hamed, Jamal Abu al-Haija, Muammar Shahrour, Muhannad Shreim, and other leaders of the prisoners’ movement, are particularly targeted for abuse. They have been repeatedly assaulted and beaten by occupation jailers, threatened with assassination, denied medical care, starved, and thrown in isolation. At the same time, Ben-Gvir, who oversees the condition of the prisoners, and the entire Zionist government, are pushing a new “execution law” to legalize the assassination of Palestinian prisoners, particularly those designated as “elite prisoners.” Just two days ago, this bill passed its first reading in the Zionist Knesset. Now, more than ever, we must organize and speak out to save, protect and liberate all Palestinian prisoners — and support these leaders of the Palestinian resistance and liberation movement under attack.

In addition, this anniversary draws attention to the dangerous role of the treacherous so-called “Palestinian Authority,” created by the Oslo accords, and its “security coordination” regime, serving as an agent of the occupation and of imperialist powers, rather than acting to protect and defend the Palestinian people from the genocidal occupation regime. The abduction of Ahmad Sa’adat and his comrades is not a historical anecdote two decades later; instead, it has become standard practice.

Hundreds of Palestinians have been arrested and are currently held in Palestinian Authority jails because they are accused of resisting the occupation; PA prisons operate as “revolving doors” with the occupation jails. In the besieged refugee camps of the West Bank, such as Jenin, Tulkarem and Nour Shams, the PA’s “homeland protection” campaign came as a precursor to the ongoing Zionist invasions that have displaced tens of thousands. In Gaza, not only did the PA fail to act against genocide, but PA officials such as Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) have joined in the U.S.-Zionist demands to disarm the resistance, while the Rada’ (Deterrence) Force issued a statement just today warning of the PA’s role in supporting gangs of collaborators in occupied areas of the Strip.

Further, the PA has, in recent months, escalated its financial collaboration with Zionist and imperialist demands, and cut the salaries of the families of prisoners and martyrs, creating hardship and crisis for the families of those who have given the most in defense of Palestine. This anniversary is an open call to speak out, to expose and to confront this dangerous attack on the Palestinian prisoners and the Resistance.

The case of Ahmad Sa’adat highlights imperialist complicity and full involvement in Zionist genocide — and the imprisonment of the Palestinian resistance. When he was abducted by the Palestinian Authority, he and his comrades were held under U.S., British, and Canadian guard in the PA-run Jericho prison. Today, there are dozens if not more Palestinian and Palestine solidarity prisoners in imperialist jails and facing persecution, in the United States, Britain, Canada, Italy, Germany, Belgium, Austria, France, the Netherlands, and elsewhere, as well as in Arab reactionary regime prisons.

These same powers, led by the United States, are currently also attacking Venezuela and the Bolivarian Revolution by imprisoning President Nicolas Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores, and threatening further war, aggression, and economic coercive measures against Iran, targeting the nations and peoples that continue to resist imperialist domination and plunder.

This week of action coincides with important hearings in Italy in the cases of Anan Yaeesh, Mansour Doghmosh and Ali Irar, as well as in the case of the seven imprisoned Palestinians including Mohammed Hannoun, and in the case of Ahmed Salem, on 16 and 20 January. It also coincides with an ongoing hunger strike by the Prisoners for Palestine in British jails that seeks to end British complicity in the genocide and challenge the criminalization of Palestine Action and the Palestine movement broadly. While Heba Muraisi, Kamran Ahmad and Lewie C ended their strike yesterday with the announcement that Elbit Systems would be denied a £2 billion training contract with the British military, Umer Khalid is continuing his hunger strike to demand a full shutdown of Elbit, release on bail, ending censorship of communications, a fair trial, and the deproscription of Palestine Action. We urge participants in the week of action to highlight and stand in solidarity with the Palestinian and international prisoners for Palestine held in imperialist jails everywhere, as well as in anti-imperialist demonstrations and actions against war and aggression.

Palestinian prisoners are Resistance leaders, on the front lines for justice and liberation, struggling relentlessly, with an unbreakable will, toward freedom amid the most dire conditions of torture, abuse, medical neglect and deliberate killing. This is a critical moment to take action, escalate, and make their voices heard — for justice, return and liberation.

24 years after his arrest, it is long past time for freedom for Ahmad Sa’adat, his fellow Resistance leaders and all Palestinian Prisoners in Zionist, imperialist, reactionary and Palestinian Authority jails.

33 years after Oslo, it is long past time to expose the so-called Palestinian Authority and bring down its “security coordination” and treachery against the Palestinian people.

78 years after al-Nakba, it is long past time for the liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea!

We call for an international week of actions from January 15th to January 25th, calling for the liberation of Ahmad Sa’adat, his fellow resistance leaders and all Palestinian prisoners, confronting the “state of emergency” and the “execution law,” demanding an end to the genocide in Gaza and throughout occupied Palestine, highlighting the malevolent role of the “Palestinian Authority,” and challenging the imperialist enemy. Take action to escalate against the zionist genocidal colonial entity, organize for justice in Palestine!

What can you do at you local level?

• Endorse the Week of Action to Free Ahmad Sa’adat and all Palestinian Prisoners.
• Organize or join a protest or demonstration against the ongoing Zionist-imperialist genocide in Palestine, or against ongoing imperialist wars and aggression against Venezuela, Iran and around the world, with a contingent, signs or banners for Ahmad Sa’adat and the Palestinian prisoners
• Educate through your networks: organize a discussion on Resistance leaders and political prisoners, share resources about Ahmad Sa’adat and Palestinian prisoners on social media and in your community
• Organize an event, protest, teach-in stand or letter-writing meeting for the Week of Action.
• Organize events, actions and protests to demand freedom for Ahmad Sa’adat and all Palestinian Prisoners. Protest in public spaces, campuses and community spaces.
• Take direct action to confront the war machine: From Elbit Systems to Microsoft to Maersk, take direct, confrontational, escalatory or labor action to stop the profiteers of genocide.
• Share our resources online, and/or print the posters and flyers linked to above and distribute them in your local communities or neighborhoods.
• Join the Red Ribbons/Save Palestinian Prisoners social media campaign, as well as protests and local actions, from 16-31 January 2026.

“The Palestinian struggle for national liberation is part and parcel of the international movement of peoples for national liberation, international racial and economic justice, and an end to occupation, colonialism and imperialism.” – Ahmad Sa’adat

• Endorse the Week of Action organizational endorsements
• Download Materials and Flyers
• Visit the Linktree

Statements and Writings by Ahmad Sa’adat

• Ahmad Sa’adat: Prisons, the Black Liberation Movement, and the Struggle for Palestine (Jadaliyya, 24 January 2019)
• Ahmad Sa’adat, “Echoes of the Shackles” (English translation)
• Letter from Ahmad Sa’adat to Georges Abdallah: “You remain a symbol and a model for us” (Samidoun, 4 September 2017)
• Ahmad Sa’adat issues statement to Resistance Festival in Greece (4 October 2017)
• International Workers Day: On May 1, Ahmad Sa’adat’s message from prison to the international left. (Free Ahmad Sa’adat, 30 April 2017)
• Interview with Ahmad Sa’adat: Prisoners’ struggle is critically important for the Palestinian liberation movement (Free Ahmad Sa’adat, 19 April 2017)
• Call to action from Ahmad Sa’adat: Boycott Israel! (Samidoun, 29 July 2015)
• Palestinian leader Ahmad Sa’adat from prison: We are struggling for democracy, liberation and justice for all (Samidoun, 11 December 2015)
• Interview with Ahmad Sa’adat: Leading from Prison, Ending Negotiations, and Rebuilding the Resistance (Journal of Palestine Studies, Summer 2014)
• Ahmad Sa’adat’s message to the Landless Workers’ Movement congress: Full Text (Free Ahmad Sa’adat, 13 February 2014)
• Ahmad Sa’adat’s Message to the World Social Forum – Free Palestine (Free Ahmad Sa’adat, 29 November 2012)
• Sa’adat from Isolation: Security Cooperation and PA Political Detention Must End (Free Ahmad Sa’adat, 29 January 2012)
• Ahmad Sa’adat greets Conference in Solidarity with Palestinian Prisoners in Morocco (Free Ahmad Sa’adat, 25 January 2011)
• Ahmad Sa’adat Greets the US Social Forum (Free Ahmad Sa’adat, 18 June 2010)
• Ahmad Sa’adat speaks from isolation in Asqelan: The so-called “Two state solution” is a threat to the Palestinian people and the right to return (Free Ahmad Sa’adat, 1 June 2009)
• Ahmad Sa’adat statement before sentencing (Free Ahmad Sa’adat, 25 December 2008)
• Ahmad Sa’adat’s statement to Ofer military court (Free Ahmad Sa’adat, 14 January 2007)
• Interview with Ahmad Sa’adat in his Jericho prison cell (Solidaire, 15 June 2006)
• Interview with Ahmad Sa’adat (Mireille Terrin, Chris den Hond, 5 January 2005)
• Creating a Pole of the Democratic Left: Interview with Ahmad Sa’adat (Mireille Court, Chris den Hond, August 2004)
• The Popular Palestinian Intifada – Where is it heading? (Free Ahmad Sa’adat, 28 September 2003)
• Interview With Imprisoned PFLP General Secretary Ahmad Saadat (Fight Back News, 1 June 2003)

Resources and Articles on Ahmad Sa’adat

• The Case of Ahmad Sa’adat: Resistance Without Compromise (Abu Riad, 15 January 2025)
• On 17 October: Palestinian Resistance confronts colonial assassinations, imprisonment and genocide (Samidoun, 17 October 2025)
• Imprisoned Palestinian leader Ahmad Sa’adat attacked in isolation by Zionist guards (Samidoun, 22 November 2025)
• Free Sa’adat, Free Palestine: 23 Years of Injustice and Resistance, by Benay Blend (Palestine Chronicle, 15 January 2025)
• Georges Abdallah’s message to the International Week of Solidarity to Free Ahmad Sa’adat (Samidoun, 17 January 2022)
• 13th anniversary of the sentencing of Palestinian left leader Ahmad Sa’adat: Take action for liberation! (Samidoun, 25 December 2021)
• Free Ahmad Sa’adat, imprisoned leader of the Palestinian liberation movement (Samidoun, 19 April 2020)
• Ahmad Sa’adat: An exceptional revolutionary leader in challenging times by Khaled Barakat (Samidoun, 20 January 2019)
• Georges Abdallah calls for action to free Ahmad Sa’adat, confront normalization, in statement from French prison (Samidoun, 14 January 2019)
• Ahmad Sa’adat: Palestine will be freed by the people, not the elites (Samidoun, 11 December 2018)
• 9 Years Later: My Journey to see my Father; 45 Minutes, a Window and a Telephone by Sumoud Sa’adat (Samidoun, 25 August 2015)
• Palestinian Authority Security Cooperation and the Internationalization of Occupation: The Case of Ahmad Sa’adat by Charlotte Kates (Jadaliyya, 27 January 2015)

15 January 2026

Source: samidoun.net

By Jonathan Kuttab

Last week, Palestinian Christians following the Eastern Calendar celebrated Christmas. January 6 is recognized by the Palestinian Authority as a national holiday, with government and municipal offices closed for Eastern Christmas, just as they are on December 25 for Western Christmas and major Muslim holidays. This may come as a surprise to many Americans, who are still fed the line that Palestinian Christians are persecuted by the Palestinian Authority and that the dwindling Christian population is shrinking as a result of Islamic extremism rather than the ongoing Israeli occupation.

Netanyahu has also recently announced that Israel needs to be the “defender of Christians” throughout the region and that Israel would be prepared to act militarily to support and defend minorities, especially Christians in Africa and elsewhere. Already, Israel is interfering in Syria, here claiming to support the Druze minority, and it has moved into Somaliland with similar justifications. Now, he is aspiring to become a dominant regional power as a so-called defender of Christians.

All this sounds absolutely bizarre to Palestinians, who know Israel’s long record of harassment towards Christians, their churches, and their holy places. Christian priests in Jerusalem are spat upon and berated by religious Jews on a daily basis. Christian Palestinians face the same enmity, and their property and land is equally coveted by Israel because the state views them in the same light as it views their Muslim compatriots.

This became particularly clear to me this week as I visited the Christian village of Taybeh, in the Ramallah area of the West Bank. The ancient church in that village was attacked by Jewish settlers who also set fire to part of its property. Churches and church institutions in Gaza have been attacked and bombed by the Israeli army, including the third oldest Christian Church in the world, the Church of Saint Porphyrius in Gaza City, as well as the Arab Al Ahli “Baptist” hospital in Gaza City. Israel is also moving to tax church property in Jerusalem in violation of the centuries old tradition of exempting such properties from taxation, a potential death blow for local Christian institutions.

A recently-leaked secret memorandum from AIPAC reveals that Zionist propagandists, after doing some field research, have decided that the best argument in support of Israel is to attack Islam. While support for Israel is rapidly declining, there still exists a lot of suspicion, ignorance and hatred for Islam and Muslims in the West. Americans, who may not feel much sympathy towards Israel these days, are still vulnerable to ads and arguments stoking fear of Islam and Shari’a law. References to so-called “Judaeo-Christian values” deliberately exclude and cast suspicion on Islam and Muslims as a dangerous or inferior “other,” while positing a unity of purpose between the state of Israel and Christians in the West. Interfaith activities often ignore Islam, seeking to project unity and affinity between Christians and Jews at the expense of Muslims.

It is important to firmly oppose such trends for a number of reasons. For one thing, the Muslim community in America is still very vulnerable, and it does not have access to the solidarity, resources, official backing and acceptance that the Jewish community has achieved after many years of discrimination and marginalization. While anti-Jewish attitudes still persist in some significant portions of the population, it is often quickly exposed and properly confronted. Private and official bodies are constantly on the lookout for anti-Jewish animus. Publications, speeches and statements are assiduously monitored and any hint of perceived anti-Jewish antisemitism is duly denounced and dealt with. This is as it should be. Unfortunately, the fight against such antisemitism has also been effectively weaponized to shield Zionism and Israel from criticism and to stifle any reasonable discussion of Palestine/Israel. Bias against Islam and Muslims, by contrast, is regularly tolerated, at times even celebrated, and hardly results in proper rebuke or serious consequences.

Another reason to oppose such trends is that the core issues between Israel and Palestinians are purely political, involving disputes over land and population. Viewing the situation as a religious conflict between Judaism and Islam (with Christianity weighing in on the side of the Jews, whom they persecuted in the past) is both inaccurate and dangerous. It pits groups against each other, with God supposedly taking sides. It also justifies the most extreme positions, as adherents of each faith feel they are doing God’s will when they oppose their infidel enemies. And with “God on their side,” it is both useless and even “sacrilegious” to give in to others who are considered heathen and infidels. This is true both for Jews and Muslims. Thankfully, since the times of the Crusades, Christians do not raise exclusive claims to the Holy Land in the name of their God. Yet, adherents of all three religions have a religious connection to the Holy Land, with sacred sites, places of worship and important pilgrimage interests in Palestine. This renders them vulnerable to manipulation and persuasion by political (often secular) elements in the name of their respective religions. In this sense, Christian Zionism, which provides a religious cover for pro-Israeli policies as a Christian duty, is as dangerous as Jewish fanaticism or Muslim fundamentalism.

Therefore, Netanyahu’s pronouncement that he sees Israel as the “defender of Christians” in the region is nothing more than a cynical ruse that should fool no one. Ask the Christians of Palestine how they feel about Netanyahu, Israel, and Zionism first.

And while you are at it, ask why despite repeated efforts, the Israeli prison services are refusing to allow a Christian Palestinian prisoner with whom we are in contact, a Catholic, to have a Bible with or have a priest visit him and administer the sacraments. The Israeli prison authorities state that such religious “privileges” could be given to regular criminals but not to so-called “security detainees.”

The unspoken truth is that many, particularly religious Israelis have more animosity towards Christians than even towards Muslims. This may be understandable in light of their bitter historic experiences with anti Jewish bigotry in the Christian West. Yet these attitudes are never admitted publicly in English, or in the West. It is more politically expedient to garner support for Israel by promoting a Jewish-Christian alliance against Muslims and Islam. This is the cynical truth behind Netanyahu’s proclamation that he is a defender of Christians.

16 January 2026

Source: fosna.org

By Ray Thek

Europe, and Germany in particular, postures as the moral conscience of the postwar world.

No society has invested more intellectual and institutional energy in confronting its crimes than Germany has with the Holocaust. Yet faced with the mass death, forced displacement, and systematic destruction of life in Gaza, Europe has responded with paralysis, euphemism, and procedural caution. This contradiction is not incidental; it exposes the fatal limit of Europe’s moral imagination.

Germany’s postwar settlement rejected inherited collective guilt but embraced an eternal responsibility. Holocaust memory was cemented into law, education, and political culture, culminating in the doctrine that Israel’s security is Germany’s Staatsräson—a national reason of state. This commitment was intended to prevent the repetition of past crimes.

Instead, it has produced a rigid ethical framework, one that fails to recognize injustice when it falls outside the specific historical template of the Third Reich. The problem is not ignorance of Palestinian suffering, but a moral architecture never designed to perceive it.

Frantz Fanon, in The Wretched of the Earth, argued that colonial violence is not exceptional but structural. It does not manifest as a rupture demanding moral reckoning, but as a condition to be managed. Civilian deaths under occupation are rendered tragic yet tolerable, regrettable yet inevitable. Order is privileged over justice; stability over liberation.

Europe’s response to Gaza is, from this perspective, grimly predictable. Palestinian suffering is processed as a humanitarian problem, not a political emergency. Aid is debated; accountability is deferred. Violence is condemned rhetorically while the structures that enable it are insulated from critique. As Fanon warned, colonial violence becomes invisible precisely because it is continuous.

Edward Said’s critique of Orientalism further explains why this suffering fails to command full moral recognition. Within dominant European discourse, Israel is legible: a familiar, Western-aligned state—strategic, rational, juridical. Palestinians, by contrast, appear as emotional, opaque, and threatening; their voices are treated as advocacy rather than testimony. This discursive asymmetry determines who is believed, who is mourned, and whose deaths require justification before they can elicit outrage. Even when acknowledged as victims, Palestinians are rarely recognized as full political subjects with legitimate claims. They remain objects of concern, not bearers of rights.

Germany’s particular paralysis sits at this intersection. A Holocaust memory, rightly treated as singular, has hardened into a moral firewall. Any forceful critique of Israel is instantly scanned for historical inversion: Germans judging Jews, perpetrators lecturing victims. Faced with this specter, German policy defaults to the least destabilizing position—verbal concern paired with material and diplomatic continuity. This is not unconscious guilt; it is overcorrection institutionalized as doctrine.

As philosopher Zahi Zalloua argues, ethical frameworks collapse when they trap us in fixed identities: absolute victim, absolute perpetrator, moral debtor, moral creditor. Ethics must be relational, responsive to present vulnerability, not frozen in historical accounting.

Europe’s moral language remains backward-looking, Neanderthal and categorical. It asks whether today’s violence fits yesterday’s template, whether suffering meets inherited thresholds, whether recognition risks odious comparison. In doing so, it forecloses ethical responsiveness. Palestinian suffering becomes legible only insofar as it confirms established roles.

This is also why the word genocide is so meticulously avoided. The hesitation is not merely legal; it is imaginative. In European memory, genocide is industrial, bureaucratic, unmistakable—evil in a recognized form. Violence that unfolds through siege, starvation, and asymmetric warfare does not “look right.” It is reclassified downward, managed linguistically, and stripped of its power to rupture moral comfort.

What we are witnessing, therefore, is not a failure of memory, but a failure of universality. “Never Again” was never operationalized as an ethical principle capable of restraining allies or confronting colonial logics. It became a promise bounded by geography, history, and power.

This is why the current moment is so profoundly unsettling. The images are ubiquitous; the suffering is documented in real time. The justifications—complexity, lack of leverage, fear of escalation—sound dreadfully familiar. What returns is not the psychology of genocide, but the logic of the bystander, now wrapped in the sterile language of humanitarianism and legal caution.

Former perpetrators, Europe does not lack lessons. It lacks the courage to apply them.

Until Holocaust memory is integrated with a full reckoning of colonial violence, and until moral imagination is freed from fixed identities and geopolitical loyalty, Europe will continue to remember the past with solemnity while failing the ethical tests of the present.

“Never Again” will remain a commemorative slogan, not a living ethic—invoked sincerely, yet constrained by the very structures it was meant to overcome.

Indeed.

Former Israeli Occupation Force (IOF) captain and now Professor of genocide history at Brown University, Omar Bartov, put it,

“(i)n terms of the whole culture of memory, commemoration, teaching, pedagogy that use the Holocaust with very good intentions to teach tolerance and humanity — that is becoming increasingly difficult now because those institutions and many of the individuals in those institutions who were charged or appointed themselves to disseminate that culture of commemoration, of memory with the humanistic message of ‘never again’ — never again what? Never again in humanity. Never again genocide. Never again indifference to human lives. They have been silent over what is happening in Gaza. They have not spoken out now for two years. And that, I think, has greatly diminished their authority. And I’m afraid the result of that may be that this culture of commemorating the Holocaust may recede back to where it began, which is a kind of ethnic enclave of Jews talking about their suffering with other Jews.”

Ray Thek is a pseudonym for a Myanmar writer who needs to remain anonymous.

16 January 2026

Source: forsea.co

Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai

Chairman

World Forum for Peace & Justice

January 15, 2026

The Committee on the Rights of the Child opened its one hundredth session in Geneva from 12 to 30 January 2026 at a moment of profound concern for children worldwide. In his opening statement, Mahamane Cissé-Gouro, Director of the Human Rights Council and Treaty Mechanisms Division at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, emphasized that the Committee was convening at an exceptionally difficult time for children’s rights. Across the globe, children are increasingly affected by violations of international humanitarian law and by growing challenges to their fundamental rights. At the same time, international support for human rights mechanisms is shrinking, while treaty bodies face unprecedented financial and political constraints. Against this backdrop, he stressed, the Committee’s work has never been more vital.

Sophie Kiladze, Chair of the Committee, described the one hundredth session as a truly remarkable milestone. Over more than 35 years, the Committee has reviewed hundreds of State party reports, issued thousands of recommendations, adopted 26 general comments, convened days of general discussion, conducted inquiries, adopted individual decisions, and organized numerous events promoting the child as a rights holder. Yet, despite these sustained efforts, Ms. Kiladze acknowledged that the suffering of millions of children remains beyond imagination. \

We all know that the question of children’s rights involves deep moral complexity. All children are born with equal moral worth and deserve an equal chance in life. Yet perfect equality is unattainable in practice, requiring societies to seek fair and humane alternatives that protect the most vulnerable. Nowhere is this challenge more visible than in situations of protracted armed conflict.

In this context, the plight of children in Indian occupied Kashmir demands urgent attention. The heavy military presence—estimated at approximately 900,000 Indian troops, number cited by internationally renowned Indian novelist Arundhati Roy—has profoundly altered the daily reality, perceptions, and psychological development of Kashmiri children. Many grow up in an atmosphere of constant fear: fear of midnight raids, warrantless searches, arbitrary detention of young boys under draconian laws such as the Public Safety Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, physical abuse of elders, and violations of the dignity and safety of women within their households. Such experiences leave lasting scars on young minds.

Armed conflict in Kashmir has affected all inhabitants of the valley, but its most severe consequences are borne by children. Exposure to violence fills young hearts with anger, frustration, and helplessness, depriving them of peace of mind. Health—one of the most valuable assets of childhood—is severely compromised, as many children suffer from anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder. The conflict has robbed them of a carefree childhood and imposed adult responsibilities far too early. Some children are placed in orphanages after losing their caretakers at the very moment when parental support is most crucial. Education, essential for the future development of any society, is repeatedly disrupted, producing long-term consequences for both individuals and the broader community.

Despite these hardships, the children of Kashmir possess immense qualities and capacities. What they urgently need are reliable and dependable educational spaces. No child’s education should be allowed to suffer because of insecurity, unpredictability, violence, or administrative neglect. Protecting education is a critical first step toward safeguarding Kashmir’s most valuable asset—its young minds—and ensuring that the next generation inherits not despair, but opportunity, learning, and hope.

Numerous credible Indian and international organizations have documented the psychological toll of conflict on Kashmiri children. In early May 2025, a team from the child psychiatry department at the Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (IMHANS), Kashmir, supported by UNICEF India, visited psychosocial mental health camps in Uri, Kashmir. Over two weeks, clinicians observed dozens of children exhibiting symptoms of panic, anxiety, insomnia, nightmares, irritability, and persistent fear of renewed violence. UNICEF has repeatedly warned that armed conflict is particularly traumatic for children and can result in long-term mental health consequences if left unaddressed.

Media and clinical reports corroborate these findings. Mumbai Mirror reported in September 2025 on a 16-year-old girl from Kupwara who presented with severe anxiety following shelling in her neighborhood after the May 10, 2025, ceasefire between India and Pakistan. According to professionals at the Child Guidance and Wellbeing Centre in Srinagar—the only fully operational government facility dedicated to child and adolescent mental health in Kashmir—girls often present in greater numbers, as they tend to express distress more openly. Children as young as eleven have reported intense fear of being alone, even while using the washroom, due to constant exposure to violent imagery and war-related media.

Recent data further underscores the gravity of the crisis. The 2022–2023 annual report of the Child Guidance and Wellbeing Centre at IMHANS documents a sharp rise in mental health cases among children aged 0–18, with the highest number in the 7–14 age group. Moreover, the National Crime Records Bureau reported in December 2023 that Jammu and Kashmir recorded the highest number of attempted suicide cases in India in 2022, a deeply alarming indicator of widespread psychological distress.

As the Committee on the Rights of the Child commemorates its one hundredth session, this historic milestone must serve not only as a moment of reflection, but as a call to renewed moral and institutional responsibility. For the children of conflict-affected regions such as Kashmir, declarations, general comments, and recommendations—however valuable—remain hollow unless they translate into tangible protection, accountability, and relief on the ground.

The Committee is uniquely mandated to ensure that the Convention on the Rights of the Child is not reduced to an aspirational document but upheld as a living instrument of protection for children trapped in situations of prolonged occupation and armed conflict. The children of Kashmir continue to experience violations of their most basic rights: the right to life, the right to education, the right to physical and mental health, and the right to grow up free from fear and violence. These violations are neither isolated nor incidental; they are systemic, long-standing, and well-documented by credible national and international sources.

We therefore urge the Committee on the Rights of the Child  to: (a) give sustained and heightened attention to the situation of children in Jammu and Kashmir in its dialogue with the State party; (b) explicitly address the psychological trauma, disruption of education, arbitrary detention, and family separation affecting Kashmiri children in its concluding observations; (c) call for unrestricted access for independent child-protection and mental-health mechanisms, including UN agencies and humanitarian organizations; and (d) recommend concrete, time-bound measures to ensure compliance with the Convention and its Optional Protocols.

Children living under conflict cannot wait for political settlements to enjoy their rights. International law does not permit the suspension of childhood. If the Convention on the Rights of the Child is to retain its credibility and moral authority, it must speak most forcefully for those children who are least able to speak for themselves. The children of Kashmir are entitled not to sympathy alone, but to protection, justice, and a future free from fear.

Dr. Fai is also the Secretary General

World Kashmir Awareness forum.

He can be reached at: 

WhatsApp: 1-202-607-6435  or gnfai2003@yahoo.com  

www.kashmirawareness.org