Archives: Articles

By PROJECT SAVE THE WORLD

Bikini Atoll was the site of U.S. nuclear tests in the 1940s and 1950s. Thomas Goreau’s grandfather was the photographer in charge of documenting the events – {before” and “after.”

Imagine a paradise lost—lush islands ringed by vibrant coral reefs, teeming with life. Now imagine that paradise reduced to a radioactive wasteland, a testing ground for weapons of unimaginable destruction. Welcome to Bikini Atoll, a place scarred by nuclear explosions and the devastating legacy of exploitation. This story is told by Thomas Goreau, a passionate discussant of the atoll’s tragic past and uncertain future.

Goreau’s family history is relevant to the tale, for his grandfather, Fritz Goro, had been a famous pioneering photographer who developed methods of making visible things that people could never have seen otherwise, including scientific research evidence. He was the official photographer for the Manhattan project and the Bikini tests and worked closely with Oppenheimer. For example, as soon as the sand was cool enough after the first bomb test at Alamagordo, Oppenheimer, General Leslie Groves, and Goro walked together through ground zero, where sand had been melted into glass.

Thomas Goreau now possesses the archive of his grandfather’s photos and plans to produce a book displaying many of them. He also disclosed that his father had been exposed to radiation while working in the area and had died of it at age 45. Now Thomas Goreau continues the work of his father and grandfather by serving as president of the Global Coral Reef Alliance. He had just returned from an expedition to the Maldive Islands, where the coral reefs are dying of heat.

“Bikini” – a Name That Shocks

You probably think of “Bikini” as the name of a revealing swimsuit. But before it became fashion shorthand, Bikini Atoll was the site of U.S. nuclear tests in the 1940s and 1950s. The name capitalizes on the shock and awe associated with nuclear explosions.

Bikini Atoll, part of the Marshall Islands in the Pacific, became a target for nuclear tests because of its remoteness. But “remote” didn’t mean uninhabited. The islanders had lived there for 3,600 years, a community deeply connected to their land and sea. That didn’t matter to the U.S. military. They showed up unannounced in 1946 and told the residents they had to leave immediately. The islanders were promised they could return, but that promise was a lie.

A Forced Exodus and Broken Promises

The people of Bikini were displaced, their idyllic home turned into a radioactive laboratory. They were sent to barren islands with no lagoons for fishing, no fresh water, and limited food. Goreau describes how many starved to death or suffered malnutrition. When U.S. planes finally noticed their plight, supplies were air-dropped—bags of white rice and processed foods that wreaked havoc on the islanders’ health.

The U.S. government spun this as a temporary relocation, but the truth was far darker. Bikini Atoll became the site of 23 nuclear tests, including the infamous “Castle Bravo” detonation in 1954, which was 1,000 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. The fallout from Bravo irradiated not just the test site but also nearby islands and American personnel stationed there.

Spencer mentioned a documentary about the Marshall Islands, Nuclear Savage, which reveals that the U.S. knowingly subjected the Marshallese people to radioactive fallout, treating them as human guinea pigs. The filmmaker showed documents proving that experiments initially intended for mice were instead conducted on people.

The Fallout: Cancer, Jellyfish Babies, and a Poisoned Paradise

The human toll of these experiments is staggering. Goreau describes “jellyfish babies” – infants born with no bones, translucent and doomed to die. Cancer rates skyrocketed among the Marshallese, and entire generations have been scarred by the legacy of radiation.

And what of the atoll itself? Goreau’s grandfather documented the natural beauty of Bikini before the tests. Coral reefs thrived, their vibrant ecosystems supporting a delicate balance of life. But all of that was obliterated. The first thing the military did was dynamite the coral, clearing the lagoon for their warships. Later, the bombs themselves—one underwater, one in the air—turned the coral to rubble. Today, even the attempts to “clean up” Bikini are a testament to failure. The military bulldozed radioactive waste into craters and covered them with a concrete dome – the Runit sarcophagus – that is now cracking and leaking due to rising seas.

A Global Responsibility: Climate Change and Nuclear Legacy

Goreau’s work as head of the Global Coral Reef Alliance ties Bikini’s story to a broader crisis: climate change. Rising seas threaten not just Bikini but all low-lying atolls in the Pacific. Coral bleaching events, driven by warming oceans, have decimated reefs that once provided natural protection against storms. Goreau warns that we are nearing the point of no return, where even drastic action may not be enough to save what’s left.

This dual legacy of nuclear testing and climate change underscores a painful irony. The same militaristic and extractive systems that devastated Bikini Atoll are also driving global warming. Goreau and Spencer lament the continued prioritization of military spending over environmental and humanitarian needs. The resources that could be used to combat climate change are instead funneled into weapons programs, perpetuating cycles of violence and destruction.

The Resilience and Tragedy of the Marshallese People

Despite everything, the Marshallese people endure. But their resilience is not without cost. Goreau describes how they’ve been relegated to islands with no freshwater, forced to rely on food shipments that often fail to arrive. The Marshallese diaspora has spread across the Pacific, with many seeking better opportunities abroad. But for those who remain, life is precarious. Rising seas now inundate their homes, and the specter of radiation lingers.

Spencer and Goreau discuss how the Marshallese have been rendered invisible by the very forces that displaced them. Their plight is rarely covered in the media, and their voices are often excluded from international climate and nuclear policy discussions. The Marshallese are not just victims; they are a warning. What happened to them could happen to all of us if we fail to reckon with the twin threats of nuclear war and climate collapse.

Can the World Be Saved?

As the conversation winds down, Spencer challenges Goreau to solve the world’s problems in two minutes. His response is sobering. He argues that we need to not only stop burning fossil fuels but also actively remove carbon from the atmosphere. Even that might not be enough; we may need to reflect sunlight back into space to cool the planet. Yet these measures are controversial and fraught with their own risks.

Goreau’s ultimate point is that we cannot rely on technological fixes alone. The root causes of our crises are systemic: militarism, greed, and a disregard for life. There are still steps we can take—and must take—to mitigate the damage and build a more just and sustainable world.

22 January 2025

source: projectsavetheworld.substack.com

By Greg Grandin

Donald Trump won the White House twice on a promise to close the border. Now he waxes poetic about reopening the frontier — whose “spirit,” he said yesterday in his second Inaugural Address, “is written into our hearts.” This month, he talked about buying Greenland from Denmark, annexing Canada, retaking the Panama Canal and renaming the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. “What a beautiful name,” Mr. Trump said, pronouncing the phrase with a decided stress on its last syllable: A-mer-i-CA, not A-MER-i-ca.

This expansionist turn is surprising for a politician best known for wanting the nation to hunker down behind a border wall. But Mr. Trump is smart. He knows, it seems, that the angry, inward-looking nationalism that first won him office can be self-destructive, as it was during his besieged first term. These calls, then — to make America not just great but also greater in size — tap into a more invigorating strain of patriotism: a vision of a United States that is forever growing, forever moving outward.

Mr. Trump’s recent remarks have electrified his base, with MAGA enthusiasts using social media to circulate battle plans to seize Canada and maps of a United States that stretches from the Arctic to Panama. But Mr. Trump is also harking back to the founders, many of whom similarly thought the United States had to expand to thrive. “Extend the sphere,” wrote James Madison in 1787; increase the “extent of territory,” and you’ll diffuse political extremism and stave off class warfare. “The larger our association,” said Thomas Jefferson in 1805, speaking of his Louisiana Purchase, “the less will it be shaken by local passions.”

In the years that followed, the United States moved across the continent with dizzying speed, citing the doctrine of conquest as it took Indian and Mexican land, reaching the Pacific and then seizing Hawaii, Puerto Rico and other islands.

And later, in the 20th century, even after the United States, along with much of the world, renounced the doctrine of conquest, our leaders still conjured up a sense of potentially limitlessness expansion, in the opening of markets for U.S. exports, in wars to rid the world of evils, in upward mobility and a growing middle class and in science and technology, which offered what the historian Frederick Jackson Turner once said the American West promised: “perennial rebirth.”

Mr. Trump is tapping into this social and intellectual history, promising to “pursue our Manifest Destiny into the stars” — even “to Mars.” But he does so in that witchy style he has perfected, which makes conventional ideas sound outlandish.

His detractors may scoff at the idea of annexing Greenland. But as it turns out, such annexation has long been a goal of U.S. politicians, at least since 1867, when Secretary of State William Seward, shortly after purchasing Alaska, considered buying the island — and Iceland — from Denmark. Franklin D. Roosevelt had his eye on the island, and after his death, the Truman administration, in 1946, offered Copenhagen $100 million for Greenland. The Danes declined. Later, Gerald Ford’s vice president, Nelson Rockefeller, proposed obtaining Greenland for its mineral wealth. In these pages, C.L. Sulzberger in 1975, citing national interest, wrote that “Greenland must be regarded as covered by” the Monroe Doctrine, that is, fully within the United States’ security perimeter.

As for Mr. Trump’s idea of adding more stars to the flag, William Kristol, a vocal Never Trump conservative, agrees with the idea, having suggested that Cuba could also become a state. He tweeted shortly after Mr. Trump gave up the White House in 2021, “60 years at 50 states is enough.” If the United States was to leave Trumpism behind, it had to grow — a sentiment Madison would agree with.

And now here’s Mr. Trump himself, triumphant in his return and grandstanding for growth.

But he is operating in a vastly different world from past expansionists’. In the decades since Bill Clinton said in 1993 that the “global economy is our new frontier,” this country has witnessed a constriction in its sense of what is possible. Traumatizing wars, a culled middle class, crippling personal debt, dystopian tech, serial climate catastrophes, Gilded Age levels of concentrated wealth, stalled life expectancy, with young people dying at alarmingly high rates — all this has combined to create political paralysis.

Mr. Trump’s imperial gambit seems a bid to break out of the deadlock, to say there are no limits, that the country does have a future. Do we want Greenland? We’ll take Greenland. Do we want Canada?

According to Politico, a number of wealthy Trump supporters, especially in tech, see Greenland as valuable not for its minerals or strategic position but as a spiritual solution to our current malaise, a way of restoring a sense of purpose to a country adrift.

But the challenges this country confronts will not be solved by fleeing to an imagined frontier and hoping its harsh climate, as one Trump supporter put it, will forge a “new people.”

And this is where Mr. Trump’s fumbling around for a rallying cry becomes dangerous, for in treating international politics as if it were a game of Risk, he’s signaling that the world is governed by new rules, which are really old rules: The powerful do what they will; the weak suffer what they must. For all its shortcomings and hypocrisies, the global order that emerged at the end of World War II promoted the idea that cooperation, not aggression, should be the presumed starting point of diplomacy.

Mr. Trump’s aggressive annexation fantasies — his threats to expand “our territory,” as he said Monday, to use punitive tariffs or military force to rearrange the world’s borders — say otherwise. Despite the soaring tone of his Inaugural Address, there was still plenty of aggrieved menace: “We will not be conquered,” he said, “We will not be intimidated.” He is sending a clear signal that dominance, not mutualism, is the world’s new organizing principle and that the doctrine of conquest, thought to have expired, is still valid.

Indeed, the world is plagued by savage wars. Today’s grand strategists, including those who guided the Biden administration, see wars not as things to be ended but as opportunities to create realms of influence.

On China, Joe Biden largely followed Mr. Trump’s lead on trade, and their various efforts to contain Beijing have increased the likelihood of conflict, particularly over Taiwan or the South China Sea. With Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, with Israel’s assault not just on Gaza but also on Lebanon and Syria and with our own “military interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and elsewhere,” the legal theorist Eric Posner wrote, the “ruins of international law are all around us.”

Mr. Trump’s imperialist musings, then, aren’t so much setting the pace but legitimating something that already exists: a new world order where aggression is expected.

Still, his uninhibited language (his willingness to provoke allies and force them to engage in childish games of dominance, as he is doing with Canada, Denmark and Panama) adds to the volatility of an already volatile world. One lesson the past teaches, especially the imperialist past Mr. Trump is invoking, is that opening the kind of belliger­ent, multifront balance of power that is in operation today — with the United States pushing against China, pushing against Russia, with all countries, everywhere, angling for advantage — will lead to more confrontation, more brinkmanship, more war.

Mr. Grandin is a professor at Yale and the author of the forthcoming “America, América: A New History of the New World” and other books.

21 January 2025

source: nytimes.com

“But let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream” Amos 5:24

Jerusalem/ Bethlehem, Monday January 20^th, 2025

In light of the recent ceasefire agreement between the Israeli occupation and Hamas, we extend our heartfelt congratulations to our Palestinian people for their steadfastness and resilient spirit during these challenging and bloody times. We deeply mourn for more than 47,000 Palestinians who have lost their lives and offer our sincerest condolences to their families and to the families who have suffered the devastating loss of their homes and properties. To the over 115,000 injured, we wish a swift and full recovery. The release of prisoners brings a moment of relief and joy; however, we emphasize that this is but a one step toward true peace and justice.

While we welcome the ceasefire and the prisoners exchange, we hope that the Israeli Prime Minister and his ultra-right-wing government will not sabotage the deal, as they did for the past months. A genuine cessation of the genocidal war must follow the release of prisoners. We also urge the international community to commit to rebuilding Gaza without conditions and not to abandon its people and leave them to their pain and suffering, as has tragically happened after the previous Israeli wars on Gaza.
The devastation in Gaza is immense. Approximately 70% of structures have been damaged or destroyed, including over 250,000 homes. More than 30 hospitals have been destroyed, severely impacting access to healthcare, especially for the injured ones. The United Nations estimates that over 50 million tons of rubble now cover Gaza, clearing this debris alone is expected to take over 14 years, with rebuilding potentially extending to 2040.

Accountability remains paramount. We call upon the international community to ensure international human rights standards and that the rulings by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) are respected and implemented without delay. The Israeli prolonged occupation and apartheid must come to an end, and the Palestinian people’s inalienable rights and their right to self-determination must be recognized and upheld.
We further emphasize that what is happening in Gaza must not come at the expense of the Palestinians in the West Bank including Jerusalem. The Gaza ceasefire agreement must not pave the way for further Israeli annexation of Palestinian land in the West Bank or another wave of killing, maiming, destruction and displacement of Palestinians there, with the blessing of some western superpowers that uphold colonial policies and practices towards our people. Gaza’s suffering cannot be used as a cover for ignoring or worsening the situation of Palestinians in other parts of Palestine including the 1948 areas.
We also call for immediate access to Gaza for journalists and international fact-finding missions. The truth of what has happened during this time of genocide must be exposed to the world. Only through transparency and accountability can we ensure that such massacres and war crimes are not repeated in Palestine and in any other area worldwide.
The international powers should make of this cease fire a definitive cessation of war, impeding the threats of present Israeli government to restart war after the one month cease fire.
We express our profound gratitude to all nations, churches, organizations, universities and all people that have stood in solidarity with Palestine, advocating for the rights of our people and supporting our just cause and demands for dignity and justice. It is imperative that the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) continues its vital work until the right of return for Palestinian refugees is honored and fully implemented. The Israeli aggressive plans against UNRWA should be condemned and stopped by all countries’ members of the UN.

The complete lifting of the illegal embargo on Gaza is a just step and essential to allow for the flow of the humanitarian aid into Gaza and for an immediate commencement of reconstruction efforts. Rebuilding schools, universities, hospitals, and critical infrastructure must be prioritized to restore dignity and normalcy to the lives of our people.
Finally, we call upon our political leaders to rise up to this historic moment. Now is the time for national unity and collective united leadership to guide us toward independence and sovereignty. Only through a united front can we secure the future that all Palestinians deserve.
While the ceasefire and prisoner exchange mark significant progress, lasting peace can only be achieved through justice, accountability, and the explicit recognition of our rights.
We wrote in our Kairos Palestine document in section 4.3 “Our future and their future are one. Either the cycle of violence that destroys both of us or peace that will benefit both”. Till then, we remain steadfast in our pursuit of a future where our people live freely, with peace, dignity and independence in our homeland.

Kairos Palestine

Source: kairospalestine.ps

By Seyed Hossein Mousavian

The incoming Trump administration has expressed support for a negotiated solution with Iran on all outstanding issues. When asked about a message to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, President-elect Trump simply said, “I wish him luck.”

During his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump indicated that his Iran policy in the second term would be “very different” than that in his first. He rejected the “regime change” policy and reiterated that he wants Iran to be successful, but also that he opposes the country’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.

In September 2024, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian stated that Tehran is ready for “constructive” dialogue and is “ready to engage” with the West about nuclear power, and willingness to improve relations with the U.S.

Nevertheless, the gaps between Washington and Tehran will be difficult to bridge. If Trump wishes to break the deadlock by negotiating with Iran, he will face fierce opposition within the U.S., in Iran, and in the region. Last month, Israel’s former war Cabinet member, Benny Gantz, called for Iran to be targeted “directly.”

Assuming Trump wants an alternative to another endless conflict, the first step must be a new nuclear agreement with Iran. It is likely that Israel will want the dismantlement of Iran’s enrichment capabilities. When I was the spokesperson for Iran’s nuclear team (2003-05), however, in a private meeting, Ayatollah Khamenei told Rouhani — then Iran’s top nuclear negotiator — that “if Iran is to abandon its right to enrich, it will either have to happen after my death, or I will have to resign from leadership.” Forcing this option would therefore likely mean the failure of negotiations, just as they failed from 2003-13.

If Trump’s main objective is to ensure that Iran does not acquire a nuclear bomb, however, he needs a plan that would permanently block the acquisition of nuclear bombs not only by Iran but also by other ambitious countries in the region. As President Biden warned, “if Iran gets the bomb, then Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt will follow.”

Here are the elements of such a plan:

First, as in the Obama administration’s Iran nuclear deal, Iran would agree to complete transparency of its nuclear programs and the most stringent level of International Atomic Energy Agency verification measures.

Second, the key principles of the agreement would be that it applies to all the countries in the region, making it possible to make permanent the main nonproliferation limitations of the deal, including limiting uranium enrichment to below 5 percent and no separation of plutonium from spent fuel.

Third, following the implementation of a new nuclear deal, Washington and Tehran would need to engage in discussions about regional security. Both countries should temporarily suspend all threats and hostilities as a first step and goodwill gesture.

Some years ago, Robert Einhorn, then a U.S. nuclear negotiator told me that “when we raise the necessity of regional talks, some Iranians mistakenly believe that we mean the dismantling of Iran’s missile and defense capabilities. All countries including Iran have the right to the defense capabilities they need. We understand that Iran, like us, has its own security concerns. Both sides must therefore engage in a serious and fair dialogue to address each other’s legitimate and lawful concerns and find a balanced solution.”

Ayatollah Khamenei is the ultimate decision-maker regarding Iran’s relations with the United States. On Jan. 8, 2024, he said that the U.S. is fundamentally hostile to the Iranian nation and the Islamic Republic, wishing for the destruction of Iran. Based on the several decades of understanding I have of his views, I believe that the essence of his concerns regarding the relations with the U.S. can be summarized in three key points: the threat to Iran’s independence through interference in internal affairs, the “regime change” policy and the lack of respect for and recognition of Iran’s national interests.

On the other side, during 15 years of research at Princeton University on U.S.-Iran relations, I believe that “challenging and threatening the U.S. interests in the region” is the most important concern the U.S. has regarding Iran’s policies after the 1979 revolution.

If there is going to be a fair and balanced deal, both capitals should acknowledge each other’s legitimate regional interests and commit to not threatening those interests. This would require some realignment of their regional security and diplomacy strategies, especially with their key allies.

Moreover, it would require a credible and sustainable model for regional stability and peace. Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Cooperation Council countries in the Persian Gulf, could achieve such an arrangement through a new collective security and economic framework modeled on the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

The arrangement would facilitate establishing balanced and normal relations with the Western and Eastern blocs; regional arms control arrangements including a nuclear weapons-free zone and the reduction of U.S. military forces and expenditures in the region.

The agreement could also link a cessation of military conflict between Iran and Israel with a just and durable solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict based on a two-state solution as required by multiple UN resolutions.

Finally, the deal could also include significant economic cooperation between the U.S. and Iran, potentially involving projects worth hundreds of billions of dollars in sectors such as petrochemicals, aviation and clean energy. This would create major economic stakes in the agreement within both countries, making the new arrangements more robust.

On his first day in office at the White House, President Trump could agree in a phone conversation with his Iranian counterpart, President Pezeshkian, to have special envoys from both countries quickly initiate direct talks for such a fair, sustainable and historic agreement.

Seyed Hossein Mousavian is Middle East security and nuclear policy specialist at Princeton University.

17 January 2025

Source: thehill.com

By Anealla Safdar

Pappé talks on ‘neo-Zionism’, ceasefire talks, the second coming of Trump and ‘indoctrination’ in Israel.

14 Jan 2025 – On a freezing Saturday morning in Copenhagen, Ilan Pappe warmed up in a cinema hall, chatting and joking in fluent Arabic with one of the organisers of a conference he was soon to address between sips of black coffee from a paper cup.

Unlike other Israelis, Pappe said, he learned the language “of the colonised” by spending time in Palestine, surrounding himself with Palestinian friends, and taking formal Arabic lessons.

Hundreds of academics, officials, international rights activists and everyday Danes aghast at Israel’s genocide against Palestinians in Gaza attended the event in the Danish capital, hosted by the European Palestinian Network.

The group was founded recently, and its members include Danes of Palestinian heritage.

Pappe later told the audience that since the outbreak of Israel’s latest war on Gaza, he has been shocked by Europe’s response.

“I share with a lot of people a surprise at the European position,” he said on stage. “Europe, that claims to be a model of civilisation, ignored the most televised genocide of modern times.”

On the sidelines, Al Jazeera interviewed 70-year-old Pappe, a leading Israeli historian, author and professor who has spent much of his life fighting for Palestinian rights. We asked him about Zionism, solidarity, and what he thinks a shifting American political landscape means for Gaza.

************************

Al Jazeera: You have long said that the tools of Zionism, the nationalist, political ideology that called for the creation of a Jewish state, included capturing land and evictions. For the past 15 months, Gaza has endured daily mass killings. What stage of Zionism are we witnessing?

Ilan Pappe: We are in a state that one can define as neo-Zionist. The old values of Zionism are now more extreme, [in] far more aggressive form than they were before, trying to achieve in a short time what the previous generation of Zionists were trying to achieve in [a] much longer, more, incremental, gradual way.

This is an attempt by a new leadership of Zionism to complete the work that they started in 1948, namely of taking over officially the whole of historical Palestine and getting rid of as many Palestinians as possible and in the same process, and [this is] something new, creating a new Israeli empire that is either feared or respected by its neighbours – and therefore can even expand territorially beyond the borders of mandatory or historical Palestine.

Historically, I’m willing to say with some caution that this is the last phase of Zionism. Historically, such developments in ideological movements, whether they are colonials or empires, it’s usually the final chapter [that is] the ruthless one, the most ambitious one. And then it’s too much and then they fall and collapse.

Al Jazeera: We are days away from a new political landscape as Donald Trump heads to the White House for a second time. He has an even louder voice on social media with the tech billionaire and X owner Elon Musk, who lauds Israeli policies and its military, among the senior figures of his administration. How do you see the presidency influencing Israel? Will the war on Gaza continue?

Pappe: It’s very difficult to see anything positive during the second Trump term in office and with his associations with Elon Musk.

The future of Israel and Zionism is connected to the future of America.

I don’t think all the Americans are supporters of Trump. I don’t think all the Americans are supporters of Elon Musk.

[But] I’m afraid there is not much that can be done in the next two or three years.

The only good news is that populist leaders like [US President-elect Donald] Trump and nutcases like Elon Musk are not very capable. They are going to bring down with them the American economy and the American international standing, so it will end badly for America if these kind of personalities are going to lead it.

In the long run, I think it can lead to less involvement by the United States in the Middle East. And for me, a scenario in which you have minimal American involvement is a positive scenario.

We need international intervention not only in Palestine but for the whole Arab world, but it has to come from the Global South and not from the Global North. The Global North has left such a legacy that very few people would regard anyone from the Global North as an honest broker. I’m very worried about the short term, I don’t want to be misunderstood. I cannot see any forces stopping the short-term disasters that are awaiting us.

When I see a wider perspective, I think we are at the end of a very bad chapter in humanity, not the beginning of a bad chapter.

Al Jazeera: Currently, there are ceasefire negotiations. When do you expect Palestine will enjoy peace?

Pappe: I don’t know, but I do think that even a ceasefire in Gaza is not the end unfortunately, because of the genocide. Hopefully, there will be enough power to if not stop it, at least tame it or limit it.

In the long term, I can see a process that is long. I’m talking about 20 years, but I do think we are at the beginning of this process.

It’s a process of the decolonisation of a settler-colonial project.

It can go either way. We know it from history. Decolonisation can be very violent and not necessarily produce a better regime or it can be an opportunity to build something much better, a win-win for everyone concerned and the area as a whole.

Al Jazeera: To Palestinians and many observers, it feels as though the world is just standing by while Israel is expanding into its neighbours and carrying out the genocide with impunity.

Pappe: Well, a last stage from a historical point of view is a long process. It’s not an immediate process. It’s not a question of will it happen, but it is a question of when. And definitely that could take time.

There are developments regionally and globally that allow this phase to continue. Whether it is the rise of populist politicians like Trump, the power of multinational corporations, the rise of fascism, new right fascism in Europe, the level of corruption in some of the Arab countries, all of it works in in a way that sustains a global alliance that allows Israel to do what it does, but there is another alliance.

It doesn’t have the same power, but it’s widespread and it’s connected to a lot of other struggles against injustice. It is quite possible that if not in the immediate future, a bit later this kind of global sentiment that is not only focused on Palestine, it’s focused on global warming, poverty, immigration, and so on – that this one becomes a more powerful political force. Every little victory for that other global alliance brings the Zionist project closer to an end.

Al Jazeera: What does this other alliance have to do? What could help their cause?

Pappe: There are two things. One, we don’t have an organisation that kind of contains this goodwill, the support, the solidarity, this energy to fight injustice. It needs a proper organisation and some of the young people who are part of this alliance seem to dislike, for good reasons, organisations and so on. But you need this infrastructure.

The second thing is to abandon the purist approach that such movements had in the past and create networks and alliances that take into account that people disagree even on fundamental issues, but are able to work together for stopping a genocide in Gaza, for liberating colonised people.

Al Jazeera: Going back to the more powerful alliance that you say is upholding Zionism, you talked about the rise of the far right in Europe. Among them though, there are still strains of anti-Semitism.

Pappe: This unholy alliance was there from the very beginning. If you think about it logically, both anti-Semites and Zionists, when it comes to Europe had the same target, they didn’t want to see the Jews in Europe. Seeing them in Palestine could be an objective both of the Zionist movement and anti-Semitic movement.

Now there is a new layer of uniformity of ideas between the neo-right and Israel, and this is Islamophobia.

The new right is now, although it has still strong anti-Jewish, namely anti-Semitic elements in it, it’s targeting mainly Muslim and Arab communities. It doesn’t target Jewish communities, in particular.

They see Israel as the most important anti-Islamic anti-Arab force in the world, so there’s also identification on that level – but of course, it’s something that Jews would regret outside of Israel if they would be part of such an alliance. Even pro-Israeli Jews in Europe feel a bit uneasy about [those that] don themselves with the Israeli flag, but at the same time with the Nazi flag.

Hopefully, it will make them rethink their association with Israel. We already see the signs, especially in the American Jewish community among the young generation, that they understand that Israel is now part of a political alliance that they as American Jews cannot identify with.

As we say, it allows Israel to continue because of Trump and populist leaders, but it’s also something that will not be forever in the future.

Al Jazeera: The genocide has led many, including some Jewish groups, to study the creation of Israel and the historic ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Have you seen families divided by their understanding of the conflict?

Pappe: It doesn’t happen [in Israel] but definitely Jewish families outside of Israel.

The amount of information that flows is such that the younger generation cannot be blind. Even if they get a very good Jewish education, then even more so, they can see the immorality of the Israeli action.

It’s mostly intergenerational conflict, which is a positive sign because it means that the current generation might be much more uniform in this position.

Al Jazeera: But within Israel, young people also have access to the documentation of the genocide on social media, on platforms like TikTok. But many still disregard Palestinian suffering.

Pappe: They didn’t get the same education as young Jews in America. They got an education from a very indoctrinated country. And that’s the key. They were produced, if you want, engineered by the Israeli education system.

I wrote an article in 1999 warning that, looking at the Israeli curricula, the next graduates of this system would be racist fanatics, extreme and dangerous to themselves and to others. Unfortunately, I was absolutely right.

This is the product of a very indoctrinated society from the cradle to the grave.

You need to re-educate these people. You can’t just show them things and hope that this would move them.

They can see dead Palestinian babies and say ‘Good, very good’. Dehumanisation is part of the Israeli DNA and it’s very hard to confront just by giving them more information.

__________________________________________

Anealla Safdar is Al Jazeera‘s Europe editor.

20 January 2025

Source: transcend.org

By Jeffrey D. Sachs and Sybil Fares

The June 2025 UN Conference on Palestine can be the long-awaited turning point for the region.

10 Jan 2025 – The UN, on its 80th birthday in 2025, can mark the occasion by securing a lasting solution to the conflict in the Middle East, by welcoming the State of Palestine as the 194th UN member state. The upcoming UN Conference on Palestine, set for June 2025, can be a turning point – a decisive, irreversible path towards peace in the Middle East. The Trump administration would greatly serve America’s interests, and the world’s, by championing the two-state solution and a comprehensive Middle East peace deal, at the gathering in New York in June.

Amid Israel’s shocking brutality in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria, a small window of hope has nonetheless emerged. Almost the entire world has coalesced around the two-state solution as the key to regional peace.  As a result, a comprehensive deal is now within reach.

The UN General Assembly recently adopted a potentially transformative resolution (PDF) by an overwhelming margin. The UNGA demands an end to Israel’s illegal 1967 occupation and reaffirms its unwavering support for the two-state solution. Most importantly, the resolution laid  out a roadmap for establishing a Palestinian state at The High-level International Conference (PDF), to be held in June 2025, at the United Nations.

Consider how long the Palestinians, and the world, have waited for this moment. In 1947, the UN first took on the responsibility of addressing the Palestinian question. With Resolution 181 (PDF), the UN General Assembly proposed the partition of Mandatory Palestine into two independent states – one Jewish and one Arab. The proposed partition, alas, was neither fair nor agreed upon by the parties. It allocated 44 percent of the land to the Palestinians though they were 67 percent of the population. Yet before the plan could be revised and settled peacefully, Zionist terror groups began to ethnically cleanse more than 700,000 Palestinians from their homes, the so-called Nakba, or catastrophe, of the Palestinian people.

After Israel declared its unilateral independence, and defeated the Arab neighbours in war, a senior UN mediator, Count Folke Bernadotte, tried to resurrect the two-state solution.  Yet Bernadotte was assassinated by Lehi, a Zionist paramilitary organisation. Israel signed the 1949 Lausanne Protocol, resurrecting the two-state solution under UN auspices, but then blatantly disregarded it. What ensued instead was Israel’s 75-year quest to deny Palestinians their rights to a homeland.

For decades, the US government, under the guidance of the Israel lobby, presided over a phoney negotiating process.  These efforts ostensibly involved direct bilateral talks between an occupying power and an occupied people, inherently unequal parties, in which Israel’s goal was always to reject a truly sovereign Palestinian state. At best, Israel offered “Bantustans,” that is, little powerless enclaves of Palestinians living under Israel’s control.  The US-dominated process has continued since the mid-1970s, including the 1978 Camp David Accords, 1991 Madrid Conference, 1993-1995 Oslo Accords, 2000 Camp David Summit, 2003 Quartet Roadmap for Peace, and 2007 Annapolis Conference.  In this hall-of-mirrors process, the Israelis have continuously blocked a Palestinian state while the US “mediators” have continuously blamed the Palestinians for their intransigence.

The Trump administration could choose to change the game at the upcoming UN conference – in America’s interest, Israel’s long-term interest and security, and the interest of the Middle East and the world in peace. The US is, in fact, the only remaining veto against a Palestinian state. Israel has no veto on a Palestinian state or on peace for that matter. Only the US has that veto.

Yes, Prime Minister Netanyahu has ideas other than peace. He and his coalition continue to have one purpose: to deny a state of Palestine by expanding Israel’s territorial conquests, now including not only occupied Palestine but also parts of Lebanon and a growing part of Syria.

A new US foreign policy is needed in the Middle East – one that brings about peace rather than endless war.  As mandated by the International Court of Justice, and as demonstrated through the General Assembly, G20 (PDF), BRICS (PDF), League of Arab States (PDF), the overwhelming majority of the world favours the two-state solution.

The UN Conference on Palestine is therefore a key and vital opportunity, one that could unlock a comprehensive peace for the Middle East, including seven interconnected measures:

1. An immediate UN-mandated ceasefire across all fronts of the conflict, including Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, and Iran, and the immediate release of hostages and prisoners of war across all entities.
2. The admission of a sovereign State of Palestine as 194th UN member state on the June 4, 1967 borders with its capital in East Jerusalem; the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in 1967, with the simultaneous introduction of UN-mandated international forces and security guarantees to protect all populations.
3. The protection of the territorial integrity and stability of Lebanon and Syria, and the full demilitarisation of all non-state forces, and withdrawal of all foreign armies from the respective countries.
4. The adoption of an updated Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran, and the end of all economic and other sanctions on Iran.
5. The termination, including defunding and disarmament of belligerent non-state entities, of all claims or states of belligerency, and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area, (without excluding the possibility of subsequent territorial adjustments, security arrangements, and cooperative forms of governance agreed by the sovereign parties).
6. The establishment of regional peace and normalisation of diplomatic relations by all Arab and Islamic states with Israel.
7. The establishment of an Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East Sustainable Development Fund to support the reconstruction, economic recovery and sustainable development of the region.

After far too many decades of violence and wars, the chance for peace is here and now.  The UN’s endeavour for a comprehensive peace is our best hope and opportunity in decades.

______________________________________________

Jeffrey D. Sachs, Professor of Sustainable Development and Professor of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University, is Director of Columbia’s Center for Sustainable Development and the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network.

20 January 2025

Source: transcend.org

By Chris Hedges

Israel plays a cynical game. It makes phased agreements with the Palestinians that ensure it immediately gets what it wants. It then violates every subsequent phase and reignites its military assault.

16 Jan 2025 – Israel, going back decades, has played a duplicitous game. It signs a deal with the Palestinians that is to be implemented in phases. The first phase gives Israel what it wants — in this case the release of the Israeli hostages in Gaza — but Israel habitually fails to implement subsequent phases that would lead to a just and equitable peace. It eventually provokes the Palestinians with indiscriminate armed assaults to retaliate, defines a Palestinian response as a provocation and abrogates the ceasefire deal to reignite the slaughter.

If this latest three-phase ceasefire deal is ratified — and there is no certainty that it will be by Israel — it will, I expect, be little more than a presidential inauguration bombing pause. Israel has no intention of halting its merry-go-round of death.

The Israeli cabinet has delayed a vote on the ceasefire proposal while it continues to pound Gaza. At least 81 Palestinians have been killed in the last 24 hours.

The morning after a ceasefire agreement was announced, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused Hamas of reneging on part of the deal “in an effort to extort last minute concessions.” He warned that his cabinet will not meet “until the mediators notify Israel that Hamas has accepted all elements of the agreement.”

Hamas dismissed Netanyahu’s claims and repeated their commitment to the ceasefire as agreed with the mediators.

The deal includes three phases. The first phase, lasting 42 days, will see a cessation of hostilities. Hamas will release some Israeli hostages – 33 Israelis who were captured on Oct. 7, 2023, including all of the remaining five women, those aged above 50, and those with illnesses – in exchange for up to 1,000 Palestinians imprisoned by Israel.

The Israeli army will pull back from the populated areas of the Gaza Strip on the first day of the ceasefire. On the 7th day, displaced Palestinians will be permitted to return to northern Gaza. Israel will allow 600 aid trucks with food and medical supplies to enter Gaza daily.

The second phase, which begins on the 16th day of the ceasefire, will see the release of the remaining Israeli hostages. Israel will complete its withdrawal from Gaza during the second phase, maintaining a presence in some parts of the Philadelphi corridor, which stretches along the eight-mile border between Gaza and Egypt. It will surrender its control of the Rafah border crossing into Egypt.

The third phase will see negotiations for a permanent end of the war.

But it is Netanyahu’s office that appears to have already reneged on the agreement. It released a statement rejecting Israeli troop withdrawal from the Philadelphi Corridor during the first 42-day phase of the ceasefire. “In practical terms, Israel will remain in the Philadelphi Corridor until further notice,” while claiming the Palestinians are attempting to violate the agreement. Palestinians throughout the numerous ceasefire negotiations have demanded Israeli troops withdraw from Gaza. Egypt has condemned the seizure of its border crossings by Israel.

The deep fissures between Israel and Hamas, even if the Israelis finally accept the agreement, threaten to implode it. Hamas is seeking a permanent ceasefire. But Israeli policy is unequivocal about its “right” to re-engage militarily. There is no consensus about who will govern Gaza. Israel has made it clear the continuance of Hamas in power is unacceptable. There is no mention of the status of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), the U.N. agency that Israel has outlawed and that provides the bulk of the humanitarian aid given to the Palestinians, 95 percent of whom have been displaced. There is no agreement on the reconstruction of Gaza, which lies in rubble. And, of course, there is no route in the agreement to an independent and sovereign Palestinian state.

Israeli mendacity and manipulation is pitifully predictable.

The Camp David Accords, signed in 1979 by Egyptian president Anwar Sadat and Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin, without the participation of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), normalized diplomatic relations between Israel and Egypt. But the subsequent phases, which included a promise by Israel to resolve the Palestinian question along with Jordan and Egypt, permit Palestinian self-governance in the West Bank and Gaza within five years, and end the building of Israeli colonies in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, were never honored.

Or take the 1993 Oslo Accords. The agreement, signed in 1993, which saw the PLO recognize Israel’s right to exist and Israel recognize the PLO as the legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people, and Oslo II, signed in 1995, which detailed the process towards peace and a Palestinian state, was stillborn. It stipulated that any discussion of illegal Jewish “settlements” was to be delayed until “final’ status talks, by which time Israeli military withdrawals from the occupied West Bank were to have been completed. Governing authority was to be transferred from Israel to the supposedly temporary Palestinian Authority. The West Bank was carved up into Areas A, B and C. The Palestinian Authority has limited authority in Areas A and B. Israel controls all of Area C, over 60 percent of the West Bank.

The right of Palestinian refugees to return to the historic lands seized from them in 1948 when Israel was created — a right enshrined in international law — was given up by the PLO leader Yasser Arafat, instantly alienating many Palestinians, especially those in Gaza where 75 percent are refugees or the descendants of refugees. Edward Said called the Oslo agreement “an instrument of Palestinian surrender, a Palestinian Versailles” and lambasted Arafat as “the Pétain of the Palestinians.”

The scheduled Israeli military withdrawals under Oslo never took place. There was no provision in the interim agreement to end Jewish colonization, only a prohibition of “unilateral steps.” There were around 250,000 Jewish colonists in the West Bank at the time of the Oslo agreement. They have increased to at least 700,000. No final treaty was ever concluded.

The journalist Robert Fisk called Oslo “a sham, a lie, a trick to entangle Arafat and the PLO into abandonment of all that they had sought and struggled for over a quarter of a century, a method of creating false hope in order to emasculate the aspiration of statehood.”

Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin, who signed the Oslo agreement, was assassinated on Nov. 4, 1995 following a rally in support of the agreement, by Yigal Amir, a far-right Jewish law student. Itamar Ben-Gvir, now Israel’s National Security Minister, was one of many rightwing politicians who issued threats against Rabin. Rabin’s widow, Leah, blamed Netanyahu and his supporters — who distributed leaflets at political rallies depicting Rabin in a Nazi uniform — for her husband’s murder.

Israel has carried out a series of murderous assaults on Gaza ever since, cynically calling the bombardment “mowing the lawn.” These attacks, which leave scores of dead and wounded and further degrade Gaza’s fragile infrastructure, have names such as Operation Rainbow (2004), Operation Days of Penitence (2004), Operation Summer Rains (2006), Operation Autumn Clouds (2006) and Operation Hot Winter (2008).

Israel violated the June 2008 ceasefire agreement with Hamas, brokered by Egypt, by launching a border raid that killed six Hamas members. The raid provoked, as Israel intended, a retaliatory strike by Hamas, which fired crude rockets and mortar shells into Israel. The Hamas barrage provided the pretext for a massive Israeli attack. Israel, as it always does, justified its military strike on the right to defend itself.

Operation Cast Lead (2008-2009), which saw Israel carry out a ground and aerial assault over 22 days, with the Israeli air force dropping over 1,000 tons of explosives on Gaza, killed 1,385 — according to the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem — of whom at least 762 were civilians, including 300 children. Four Israelis were killed over the same period by Hamas rockets and nine Israeli soldiers died in Gaza, four of whom were victims of “friendly fire.” The Israeli newspaper Haaretz would later report that “Operation Cast Lead” had been prepared over the previous six months.

Israeli historian Avi Shlaim, who served in the Israeli military, wrote that:

the brutality of Israel’s soldiers is fully matched by the mendacity of its spokesman…their propaganda is a pack of lies…It was not Hamas but the IDF that broke the ceasefire. It did so by a raid into Gaza on 4 November that killed six Hamas men. Israel’s objective is not just the defense of its population, but the eventual overthrow of the Hamas government in Gaza by turning the people against their rulers.

These series of attacks on Gaza were followed by Israeli assaults in November 2012, known as Operation Pillar of Defense and in July and August 2014 in Operation Protective Edge, a seven week campaign that left 2,251 Palestinians dead, along with 73 Israelis, including 67 soldiers.

These assaults by the Israeli military were followed in 2018 by largely peaceful protests by Palestinians, known as The Great March of Return, along Gaza’s fenced-in barrier. Over 266 Palestinians were gunned down by Israeli soldiers and 30,000 more were injured. In May 2021, Israel killed over 256 Palestinians in Gaza following attacks by Israeli police on Palestinian worshippers at the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound in Jerusalem. Further attacks on worshippers at Al-Aqsa mosque took place in April 2023.

And then the breaching of the security barriers on Oct. 7, 2023 that enclose Gaza, where Palestinians had languished under a blockade for over 16 years in an open air prison. The attacks by Palestinian gunmen left some 1,200 Israeli dead — including hundreds killed by Israel itself — and gave Israel the excuse it had long sought to lay waste to Gaza, in its Swords of Iron War.

This horrific saga is not over. Israel’s goals remain unchanged – the erasure of Palestinians from their land. This proposed ceasefire is one more cynical chapter. There are many ways it can and, I suspect, will fall apart.

But let us pray, at least for the moment, that the mass slaughter will stop.

______________________________________________

Chris Hedges is a Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist who was a foreign correspondent for fifteen years for The New York Times, where he served as the Middle East Bureau Chief and Balkan Bureau Chief.

20 January 2025

Source: transcend.org

By Benjamin Norton

BRICS added as a new partner Nigeria, Africa’s most populous country, with the 6th-biggest population on Earth. BRICS+ now has 10 members and 9 partners, which make up 54.6% of the world population and 42.2% of global GDP (PPP).

19 Jan 2025 – BRICS continues to grow. On 17 January, it officially admitted Nigeria as a new partner country.

Nigeria has the world’s sixth-largest population, with the biggest population on the African continent.

In addition to being Africa’s second-largest economy, Nigeria is the number one oil producer on the continent.

BRICS expands to 55% of world population by adding Nigeria, Africa’s most populous country

With the addition of Nigeria, BRICS now has 10 full members and nine partners.

Together, the extended BRICS+ group represents 54.6% of the world population.

The 10 members are:

• Brazil
• Russia
• India
• China
• South Africa
• Egypt
• Ethiopia
• Indonesia
• Iran
• United Arab Emirates

The nine BRICS partners, which are on the path to full membership, include:

• Belarus
• Bolivia
• Cuba
• Kazakhstan
• Malaysia
• Nigeria
• Thailand
• Uganda
• Uzbekistan

Brazil, which is the chair of BRICS in 2025, announced Nigeria’s admission on 17 January. Brasilia emphasized that BRICS has two main goals: “strengthening South-South cooperation” and “reforming global governance”.

Indonesia, the world’s fourth-most populous country with the seventh-largest economy, was also accepted as a BRICS member in early January.

At the BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia in 2024, the organization adopted a comprehensive plan to transform the international monetary and financial system, by challenging the dominance of the US dollar and promoting trade and settlement in local currencies.

A map of BRICS membership, as of 19 January 2025, looks as follows:

BRICS KEEPS GROWING

BRICS+ is nearly 55% of the global population

Ten of the 20 most populous countries on Earth are part of BRICS, including seven of the 10 most populous nations.

Nigeria is expected to have the second-largest growth in population in the upcoming decade, after BRICS co-founder India.

Nigeria’s population is estimated to increase by 65 million from 2024 to 2037, and the country’s biggest city, Lagos, has been described as a candidate for “the world’s top megacity by the end of the century”.

The three most populous countries in Africa are now part of BRICS: Nigeria, in first, is a partner; while Ethiopia, in second, and Egypt, in third, became full members in 2024.

The extended BRICS+ family, with 19 members and partners, together comprise 54.6% of the global population.

This is according to IMF data from October 2024, which reported the total world population as 7.92 billion, and BRICS countries with a combined population of 4.32 billion. (Cuba is excluded from IMF data, so the actual figure is slightly higher.)

Africa will make up 38% of world population by 2100

Africa’s share of the global population is going to grow significantly in the 21st century. As Our World in Data reported:

In 2023, Africa is home to around 18% of the global population; by 2100 this is projected to rise to 38%. Asia will see a significant fall from almost 60% today to around 45% in 2100.

By the end of the century, more than 8 out of every 10 people in the world will live in Asia or Africa.

BRICS+ is 42.2% of global GDP (PPP)

Accompanying BRICS’ increasing population is its growing share of the global economy.

With Nigeria added, BRICS members and partners now make up 42.2% of world GDP, when measured at purchasing power parity (PPP), based on October 2024 IMF data.

Africa’s largest economies

Nigeria has the second-largest economy in Africa, after Egypt, which became a BRICS member in 2024.

The third-biggest economy on the continent is South Africa, which joined BRICS in 2010, just a year after it was initially founded as “BRIC”, by Brazil, Russia, India, and China.

Africa’s fourth-largest economy, Algeria, was invited to become a BRICS partner at the 2024 summit in Kazan, Russia.

The continent’s fifth-biggest economy, Ethiopia, also became a BRICS member in 2024.

Nigeria’s economy is larger than that of the Netherlands, when GDP is measured at purchasing power parity.

The economy of BRICS member Egypt is bigger than that of Australia.

BRICS is growing especially influential in global commodities markets.

Nigeria is the top oil producer on the African continent, and the 15th-biggest crude producer on Earth.

Five of the world’s top 10 oil-producing countries are members of BRICS. Together, they represent more than 30% of global oil production, and BRICS+ has significant overlap with OPEC+.

If BRICS can de-dollarize part of the global oil market, it can take a big step toward challenging the dominance of the US dollar.

_____________________________________

Benjamin Norton is an investigative journalist, analyst, writer and filmmaker.

20 January 2025

Source: transcend.org

By Palestine Chronicle

The ceasefire agreement between Hamas and Israel, set to unfold in three stages, establishes steps for military cessation, detainee exchanges, and humanitarian relief, ultimately aiming for Gaza’s reconstruction and lasting peace.

16 Jan 2025 – Below are the confirmed details of the Gaza ceasefire agreement.

The agreement includes provisions for improving the conditions of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, although Israel has refused to release senior Palestinian prisoners.

An Egyptian-Qatari committee will oversee the return of displaced persons from the southern Gaza Strip to the north.

Below are the key points of the ceasefire agreement, which both Hamas, as a representative of the Palestinian Resistance, and Israel have agreed to implement in three stages, starting Sunday, January 19, 2025:

Stage 1

This phase will last 42 days, with the following conditions agreed upon:

A temporary cessation of military operations by both sides, with Israeli forces withdrawing eastward, away from populated areas, to a zone along the border in all areas of Gaza, including Wadi Gaza (The Gaza Valley – PC). The withdrawal will be to a distance of 700 meters from the border, based on maps from before October 7, 2023.

A temporary suspension of Israeli air activity for military and reconnaissance purposes in Gaza, for 10 hours per day, and 12 hours on days when prisoners and detainees are released.

During the first phase, Israel will release approximately 2,000 prisoners, including 250 serving life sentences, and around 1,000 prisoners detained after October 7, 2023.

Return of displaced persons to their homes and withdrawal from Wadi Gaza, as follows:

After the release of 7 Israeli detainees, Israeli forces will fully withdraw by the seventh day of the agreement, from Rashid Street east to Salah al-Din Street, dismantling all military positions in this area. The return of displaced persons will begin, and freedom of movement for civilians will be guaranteed across all of Gaza. Humanitarian aid will enter through Rashid Street from day one without obstacles.

On the 22nd day of the agreement, Israeli forces will withdraw from central Gaza, particularly from the Netzarim Axis and Kuwait Roundabout, to an area near the border, dismantling all military installations. The return of displaced persons will continue, and freedom of movement will be granted across Gaza.

The Rafah Crossing will open seven days after the start of Stage 1, with the entry of sufficient humanitarian aid, relief supplies, and fuel through 600 trucks daily, 50 of which will carry fuel, with 300 trucks heading to northern Gaza.

Exchange of detainees and prisoners, as follows:

Hamas will release 33 Israeli detainees (alive or dead), including civilian women, soldiers, children under 19, elderly individuals over 50, and wounded or ill civilians, in exchange for the release of Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails. For every Israeli detainee released, Israel will release 30 Palestinian children and women from prison.

In exchange for the release of 30 elderly and ill Palestinian prisoners, Hamas will release all living Israeli detainees who are elderly, ill, or wounded civilians.

Israel will release 50 Palestinian prisoners for each Israeli soldier released by Hamas.

The detainee exchange schedule in Stage 1 is as follows:

On the first day of the agreement, Hamas will release 3 Israeli civilian detainees. On the seventh day, it will release 4 more.

Afterward, Hamas will release 3 Israeli detainees every seven days, and all living detainees will be released before any bodies are returned.

In the sixth week of the agreement, Israel will release 47 prisoners from the “Shalit Deal,” who were re-arrested after their release in 2011.

If the number of living Israeli detainees released does not reach 33, the remaining number will be made up of bodies. In return, Israel will release all women and children detained after October 7, 2023, by the sixth week.

The detainee exchange process is linked to the adherence to the terms of the agreement, which include the cessation of military operations by both sides, the withdrawal of Israeli forces, the return of displaced persons, and the entry of humanitarian aid.

Palestinian prisoners released under the agreement will not be re-arrested for the same charges for which they were previously detained. They will not be re-arrested to complete the remainder of their sentences. Palestinian prisoners will not be required to sign any documents as a condition for their release.

The criteria established for the detainee exchange in Stage 1 will not serve as a basis for exchange in Stage 2.

Indirect negotiations will begin between both sides on the conditions for implementing Stage 2, no later than the 16th day of the agreement’s implementation. An agreement must be reached before the end of the fifth week of Stage 1.

The United Nations and its agencies, along with other international organizations, will continue their humanitarian operations across Gaza, and these operations will continue throughout all stages of the agreement.

The rehabilitation of Gaza’s infrastructure will begin, with the entry of necessary equipment for civil defense teams, and the removal of rubble and debris, continuing throughout all stages of the agreement.

The entry of supplies to build shelters for displaced persons who lost their homes in the war will be allowed, including the construction of at least 60,000 temporary housing units and 200,000 tents.

A larger number of wounded military personnel will be allowed to reach the Rafah Crossing for medical treatment, and the number of people allowed to pass through the crossing will be increased. Restrictions on travelers and goods movement will also be lifted.

Stage 2 (42 days)

Declaration of sustained calm, including the permanent cessation of military operations and hostile activities, and the resumption of detainee exchanges, including the release of all remaining living Israeli men in exchange for an agreed number of Palestinian prisoners.

Israeli forces will completely withdraw from Gaza.

Stage 3 (42 days)

Exchange of the bodies of deceased individuals from both sides after identification.

The implementation of Gaza’s reconstruction plan over the course of 3 to 5 years, including homes, civilian buildings, and infrastructure, with compensation for all affected individuals, under the supervision of multiple countries and organizations.

Opening all crossings and allowing free movement of people and goods.

_______________________________________

News Agencies, via Al-Jazeera – Translated and prepared by Palestine Chronicle Staff.

20 January 2025

Source: transcend.org

By George Lakey

The Global Nonviolent Action Database details some 40 cases of mass movements overcoming tyrants through strategic nonviolent campaigns.

8 Jan 2025 – With Donald Trump set to take office after a fear-mongering campaign that reignited concerns about his desire to become a dictator, a reasonable question comes up: Can nonviolent struggle defeat a tyrant?

There are many great resources that answer this question, but the one that’s been on my mind lately is the Global Nonviolent Action Database, or GNAD, built by the Peace Studies department at Swarthmore College. Freely accessible to the public, this database — which launched under my direction in 2011 — contains over 1,400 cases of nonviolent struggle from over a hundred countries, with more cases continually being added by student researchers.

At quick glance, the database details at least 40 cases of dictators who were overthrown by the use of nonviolent struggle, dating back to 1920. These cases — which include some of the largest nations in the world, spanning Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America — contradict the widespread assumption that a dictator can only be overcome by violence. What’s more, in each of these cases, the dictator had the desire to stay, and possessed violent means for defense. Ultimately, though, they just couldn’t overcome the power of mass nonviolent struggle.

In a number of countries, the dictator had been embedded for years at the time they were pushed out. Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, for example, had ruled for over 29 years. In the 1990s, citizens usually whispered his name for fear of reprisal. Mubarak legalized a “state of emergency,” which meant censorship, expanded police powers and limits on the news media. Later, he “loosened” his rule, putting only 10 times as many police as the number of protesters at each demonstration.

The GNAD case study describes how Egyptians grew their democracy movement  despite repression, and finally won in 2011. However, gaining a measure of freedom doesn’t guarantee keeping it. As Egypt has shown in the years since, continued vigilance is needed, as is pro-active campaigning to deepen the degree of freedom won.

Some countries repeated the feat of nonviolently deposing a ruler: In Chile, the people nonviolently threw out a dictator in 1931 and then deposed a new dictator in 1988. South Koreans also did it twice, once in 1960 and again in 1987. (They also just stopped their current president from seizing dictatorial powers, but that’s not yet in the database.)

In each case people had to act without knowing what the reprisals would be.

East Germany’s peaceful revolution

When East Germans began their revolt against the German Democratic Republic in 1988, they knew that their dictatorship of 43 years was backed by the Soviet Union, which might stage a deadly invasion. They nevertheless acted for freedom, which they gained and kept.

Researcher Hanna King tells us that East Germans began their successful campaign in January 1988 by taking a traditional annual memorial march and turning it into a full-scale demonstration for human rights and democracy. They followed up by taking advantage of a weekly prayer for peace at a church in Leipzig to organize rallies and protests. Lutheran pastors helped protect the organizers from retaliation and groups in other cities began to stage their own “Monday night demonstrations.”

The few hundred initial protesters quickly became 70,000, then 120,000, then 320,000, all participating in the weekly demonstrations. Organizers published a pamphlet outlining their vision for a unified German democracy and turned it into a petition. Prisoners of conscience began hunger strikes in solidarity.

By November 1988, a million people gathered in East Berlin, chanting, singing and waving banners calling for the dictatorship’s end. The government, hoping to ease the pressure, announced the opening of the border to West Germany. Citizens took sledgehammers to the hated Berlin Wall and broke it down. Political officials resigned to protest the continued rigidity of the ruling party and the party itself disintegrated. By March 1990 — a bit over two years after the campaign was launched — the first multi-party, democratic elections were held.

Students lead the way in Pakistan

In Pakistan, it was university students (rather than religious clerics) who launched the 1968-69 uprising that forced Ayub Khan out of office after his decade as a dictator. Case researcher Aileen Eisenberg tells us that the campaign later required multiple sectors of society to join together to achieve critical mass, especially workers.

It was the students, though, who took the initiative — and the initial risks. In 1968, they declared that the government’s declaration of a “decade of development” was a fraud, protesting nonviolently in major cities. They sang and marched to their own song called “The Decade of Sadness.”

Police opened fire on one of the demonstrations, killing several students. In reaction the movement expanded, in numbers and demands. Boycotts grew, with masses of people refusing to pay the bus and railway fares on the government-run transportation system. Industrial workers joined the movement and practiced encirclement of factories and mills. An escalation of government repression followed, including more killings.

As the campaign expanded from urban to rural parts of Pakistan the movement’s songs and political theater thrived. Khan responded with more violence, which intensified the determination among a critical mass of Pakistanis that it was time for him to go.

After months of growing direct action met by repressive violence, the army decided its own reputation was being degraded by their orders from the president, and they demanded his resignation. He complied and an election was scheduled for 1970 — the first since Pakistan’s independence in 1947.

Why use nonviolent struggle?

The campaigns in East Germany and Pakistan are typical of all 40 cases in their lack of a pacifist ideology, although some individuals active in the movements had that foundation. What the cases do seem to have in common is that the organizers saw the strategic value of nonviolent action, since they were up against an opponent likely to use violent repression. Their commitment to nonviolence would then rally the masses to their side.

That encourages me. There’s hardly time in the U.S. during Trump’s regime to convert enough people to an ideological commitment to nonviolence, but there is time to persuade people of the strategic value of a nonviolent discipline.

It’s striking that in many of the cases I looked at, the movement avoided merely symbolic marches and rallies and instead focused on tactics that impose a cost on the regime. As Donald Trump wrestles to bring the armed forces under his control, for example, I can imagine picketing army recruiting offices with signs, “Don’t join a dictator’s army.”

Another important takeaway: Occasional actions that simply protest a particular policy or egregious action aren’t enough. They may relieve an individual’s conscience for a moment, but, ultimately, episodic actions, even large ones, don’t assert enough power. Over and over, the Global Nonviolent Action Database shows that positive results come from a series of escalating, connected actions called a campaign — the importance of which is also outlined in my book “How We Win.”

As research seminar students at Swarthmore continue to wade through history finding new cases, they are digging up details on struggles that go beyond democracy. The 1,400 already-published cases include campaigns for furthering environmental justice, racial and economic justice, and more. They are a resource for tactical ideas and strategy considerations, encouraging us to remember that even long-established dictators have been stopped by the power of nonviolent campaigns.

________________________________________________

George Lakey has been active in direct action campaigns for over six decades. Recently retired from Swarthmore College, he was first arrested in the civil rights movement and most recently in the climate justice movement.

20 January 2025

Source: transcend.org