Archives: Articles

By Prof. Junaid S. Ahmad

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

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

Act I: Dinner, Diplomacy, and a Nobel Nomination

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

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

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

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

Act II: Nuclear Blackmail in the Sunshine State

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

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

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

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

Act III: Washington’s Quiet Checklist

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

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

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

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

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

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

Act IV: The Mirage of Sovereignty

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

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

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

Act V: The Honeymoon’s True Price

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

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

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

Curtain Call: The Satrap’s Smile

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

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

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

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

14 August 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By David Andersson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pressenza and translated into 

13 August 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By John D. Marks

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Deadliest Conflict for Journalists

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

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

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

Erasing the Record

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

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

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

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

Why Silencing Comes First

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

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

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

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

The United States Is Learning and Exporting the Script

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

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

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

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

The Predictable Defenses

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

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

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

The Fight for Witnesses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13 August 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dr. Salim Nazzal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14 August 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14 August 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14 August 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dr Marwan Asmar 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr Marwan Asmar is a writer from Amman.

11 August 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Quds News Network

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

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

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

Who’s Anas Al-Sharif?

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

11 August 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Quds News Network

Today, Sunday, August 11, 2025, the world lost Anas Sharif, a brave Palestinian journalist whose voice was silenced by an Israeli strike targeting the entire Al Jazeera crew in Gaza. After months of vicious incitement against him, Anas was brutally murdered.

Quds News Network has obtained his final will, a deeply moving testament filled with love for his people, a plea to protect Palestine’s children, and a call to continue the fight for freedom and dignity. His words now echo louder than ever.

“This is my will, and my final message.

If these words reach you, know that Israel has succeeded in killing me and silencing my voice.

First, peace be upon you and God’s mercy and blessings.

God knows that I gave all the effort and strength I had to be a support and a voice for my people, ever since I opened my eyes to life in the alleys and streets of the Jabalia refugee camp. My hope was that God would extend my life so I could return with my family and loved ones to our original hometown, occupied Asqalan (al-Majdal). But God’s will came first, and His decree is carried out.

I lived pain in all its details. I tasted grief and loss many times. Yet I never hesitated for a single day to convey the truth as it is, without falsification or distortion. May God be a witness against those who remained silent, those who accepted our killing, those who suffocated our breaths, and those whose hearts were unmoved by the bodies of our children and women, and who did nothing to stop the massacre that has been inflicted on our people for more than a year and a half.

I urge you to hold on to Palestine, the jewel of the crown of Muslims, and the heartbeat of every free person in this world.

I urge you to care for its people, for its oppressed little children who were not given the chance to dream or live in safety and peace, whose pure bodies were crushed by thousands of tons of Israeli bombs and missiles, torn apart, their remains scattered across walls.

I urge you not to be silenced by chains or stopped by borders. Be bridges toward liberating the land and the people, until the sun of dignity and freedom rises over our stolen homeland.

I urge you to care for my family.

I urge you to care for the apple of my eye, my beloved daughter Sham, whom life did not allow me to see grow up as I dreamed.

I urge you to care for my dear son Salah, whom I wished to stand beside until he grew strong, to carry my burden and continue the mission.

I urge you to care for my beloved mother, whose blessed prayers brought me to where I am. Her prayers were my fortress, her light my path. I ask God to comfort her heart and reward her greatly for me.

I urge you also to care for my life partner, my beloved wife, Umm Salah, Bayan, from whom the war separated me for long days and months. Yet she remained true to her promise, steadfast like the trunk of an olive tree that does not bend, patient and trusting in God, carrying the responsibility in my absence with strength and faith.

I urge you to gather around them and be their support after God Almighty.

If I die, I die firm in my principles. I bear witness before God that I am content with His decree, certain of meeting Him, and convinced that what is with God is better and everlasting.

O God, accept me among the martyrs. Forgive my past and future sins. Make my blood a light that illuminates the path of freedom for my people and my family.

Forgive me if I fell short, and pray for my mercy, for I have kept my promise and never changed nor betrayed it.

Do not forget Gaza…

And do not forget me in your sincere prayers for forgiveness and acceptance.

Anas Jamal al-Sharif

06.04.2025

11 August 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Quds News Network

Gaza (Quds News Network)- Israeli forces murdered Al Jazeera correspondents Anas al-Sharif and Mohammed Qreiqa in Gaza after striking a tent used by the network’s journalists outside al-Shifa Hospital.

Five journalists were killed in the Israeli strike. Alongside Anas al-Sharif and Mohammed Qreiqa, Israel also murdered Musab al-Sharif, Mohammed Noufal, and Ibrahim Zaher. Noufal and Zaher were photojournalists.

The killings came after weeks of public incitement against Al Jazeera reporters, particularly al-Sharif. Israeli army spokesperson for Arabic media, Avichay Adraee, had singled him out in recent online posts, accusing him of spreading “false propaganda” and supporting “terrorist agendas.”

In one statement, Adraee said al-Sharif “pretends to speak for Gaza’s suffering” but in reality “serves special interests at the expense of innocent lives.” He accused the journalist of portraying Hamas as victorious.

Al-Sharif had publicly rejected these claims. He said the Israeli military had threatened him repeatedly since the start of the genocide. “They targeted me, then my family, then my colleagues in the field,” he said. “My father was killed. They bombed us directly. All to silence my coverage.”

He insisted that his reporting aimed to document “massacres, starvation, displacement, and destruction” that Israel tried to hide. “I will not be silent. I will not stop,” he said. “My voice will remain a witness to every crime.”

The Gaza Government Media Office had announced that the number of journalists killed in Gaza reached 231 since October 7, 2023.

Israel’s ongoing genocide, backed by the United States, has killed more than 61,000 Palestinians and injured tens of thousands more. Most victims are women and children. Over 10,000 people remain missing, and hundreds of thousands have been displaced. Gaza also faces an Israeli-made famine conditions that have already claimed many lives.

11 August 2025

Source: countercurrents.org