

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Whether it’s the Israeli government, an international peacekeeping force, or a post-conflict reconstruction authority for Gaza chaired (grotesquely) by Donald Trump, the fate of Palestine still rests in the hands of outsiders.
All the living hostages held by Hamas returned to Israel this week. The 20 men have been reunited with their ecstatic families. It’s extraordinary that they are still alive, more than two years after Hamas and its allies seized them along with around 230 others after the attacks of October 7. They survived two years of captivity, of war, of privation. They survived when other hostages died during Israeli raids. They survived when the Israel Defense Forces killed at least 67,000 Palestinians—more than 80% of them civilians, according to leaked Israeli sources—during two years of aerial and ground assaults.
The survival of these 20 Israelis is a testament to their resilience, yes, but more so to their value. The hostages were the only asset that Hamas could trade for the release of Palestinian prisoners, a ceasefire to end the war, and a deal to guarantee a Palestinian state.
Israel released 2,000 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for these 20 men and more than 20 dead hostages. It has stopped bombing Gaza (though it is still killing people on the ground for alleged ceasefire violations). The IDF has withdrawn from some of the land it has occupied in Gaza. Israel is still restricting aid to the region to punish Gazans because Hamas has not returned all the bodies of the dead hostages (which may be held by other factions or lie inaccessible under the rubble).
Hamas is left with almost nothing. True, it too has survived, even though Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had promised not to end the war without extinguishing Hamas. But without the hostages as collateral, the organization has no leverage to force the IDF to relinquish further territory or to guarantee that the Israeli government won’t resume bombing Gaza. As for Palestinian statehood, it remains as elusive after this hostage exchange as it has been for years.
Palestinians are no closer to determining their own future. Gaza lies in ruins. The West Bank is being gobbled up by Israeli settlers. Whether it’s the Israeli government, an international peacekeeping force, or a post-conflict reconstruction authority for Gaza chaired (grotesquely) by Donald Trump, the fate of Palestine still rests in the hands of outsiders.
Although Trump, in his triumphalist address to the Israeli Knesset, took the peace deal for granted—and spoke grandly of a peace deal for the entire region—Israeli and Palestinian negotiators have not agreed on the next steps for Gaza. Hamas, not surprisingly, wants to continue being politically relevant. To that end, it has refused to give up its weapons, which is all that’s left of its much-diminished power. Israel wants complete disarmament and no political future for Hamas, which would reduce it to the status of a Boy Scout troop. Trump has threatened to disarm Hamas by force, which sounds a lot like the return of armed conflict.
But then who will administer Gaza? Trump’s plan calls for “a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee, responsible for delivering the day-to-day running of public services and municipalities for the people in Gaza.” In other words, Trump wants to install a group of functionaries who don’t aspire to do anything other than take out the trash and keep the hospitals running. Israel doesn’t want anything that looks like an actual state that could unite with Palestinians in the West Bank, develop a truly sustainable economy, or (god forbid) develop a foreign policy.
With Tony Blair running the reconstruction authority, it will all start to look like the aftermath of the Iraq war—and that didn’t work out so well for Iraqis.
The Palestinian Authority (PA) is maneuvering to play a role in the new Gaza administration even though Israel wants it sidelined. The Trump administration has such contempt for the PA and the associated Palestinian Liberation Organization that it revoked the visas of their representatives to attend the United Nations General Assembly last month in New York. Marwan Barghouti, a dynamic figure who could take the reins of the PA and unify Palestinians, remains in Israeli prison. According to the peace deal, the PA is expected to “complete its reform program,” which basically means that it must become even more subservient to Israeli and American interests before it will be invited back to the table. Behind the scenes, however, a compromise is emerging whereby the PA will likely play a role in choosing the functionaries in charge in Gaza and supplying guards for the border crossing to Egypt.
In any case, the real power in Gaza will be held by an international authority, the “Board of Peace,” chaired by Donald Trump and run (probably) by the UK’s Tony Blair. This authority will preside over the economic reconstruction of Gaza. Trump’s plan speaks of “convening a panel of experts who have helped birth some of the thriving modern miracle cities in the Middle East.” He probably has the cities of the Gulf States in mind—Dubai, Doha—but they of course had oil wealth to spend. Meanwhile, it’s impossible to forget Trump’s preferred strategy of turning Gaza into a huge resort where rich Emiratis and Americans enjoy a Club Med experience while the Palestinians who remain serve them drinks and clean their hotel rooms.
To make sure that Hamas doesn’t stage a comeback with a hidden cache of weapons, an Arab-led peacekeeping force is supposed to take over from the IDF as it withdraws from occupied territory. Of course, any peacekeeping body would be an improvement over the IDF, and an Arab force has been part of many proposals for Gaza over the years. On the positive side, such a force would more than likely prevent the expulsion of Palestinians from their land—because the Arab countries in the region don’t want an influx of Palestinian refugees. On the negative side, Arab countries would likely go along with the implementation of a plan that makes Palestinians second-class citizens—because that’s often how they are treated elsewhere in the region.
Also, the US military will be involved in the initial stages of this peacekeeping plan. With Tony Blair running the reconstruction authority, it will all start to look like the aftermath of the Iraq war—and that didn’t work out so well for Iraqis.
Where does that leave a Palestinian state?
The more support other countries give to Palestinians by recognizing their state—in the absence of an actual state—the more Israel seems to push back against the international consensus. Before the peace deal, the country’s minister in charge of national security, Itamar Ben-Gvir, talked of Israel’s “complete crushing” of the Palestinian Authority by annexing the West Bank. In supporting a push for more settlements that effectively divide the West Bank in two, Netanyahu declared that “there will never be a Palestinian state.”
Even though 11 more countries recognized a Palestinian state last month at the UN General Assembly, the Trump administration has held firm in its refusal to go along. During Trump’s speech to the Knesset, two Israeli politicians were kicked out of the assembly for calling on the United States to follow the lead of Canada, the UK, and 155 other countries.
Yes, Trump’s peace plan talks about creating conditions for “a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood.” But it is pushed into a hypothetical future, much like Barack Obama once supported nuclear disarmament, though not in his generation or even his children’s generation but at some vague point in the future. There’s kicking the can down the road, and then there’s kicking the can into the Van Allen belt.
In the meantime, Israel will continue to reduce the material basis of a Palestinian state by creating new settlements in the Occupied Territories, preventing the rise of credible political actors in the Palestinian community, and keeping all the important levers of power in the hands of the IDF or external actors.
Benjamin Netanyahu has been in charge of Israel for much of the last 30 years (with a break in the early 2000s). He has presided over a shift in Israeli politics to the far-right. The left has practically disappeared. One of the few credible challengers to Netanyahu, Naftali Bennett, is even further to the right of the prime minister.
The 2026 elections may change all that. Even with the Gaza deal in place, Netanyahu faces the very real possibility that he won’t be able to put together a governing coalition. The far-right parties that have kept his current government afloat are losing ground. According to the latest polling, Otzma Yehudit would maintain its six seats if elections were held today. But Religious Zionism, which currently has seven seats, wouldn’t even make it into the Knesset.
But whoever emerges from the next elections, they won’t accept a Palestinian state unless they are pressured to do so.
Going into the elections, Israeli voters won’t soon forget (or forgive) Netanyahu for the security lapses that led to the October 7 attacks, his refusal to take advantage of earlier diplomatic opportunities to negotiate hostage returns, and his ongoing corruption charges. They won’t likely forget the hostility of the far-right to any ceasefire and the fact that Netanyahu had to have his arm twisted by Trump to negotiate (finally) the hostage release.
Of course, Netanyahu is a survivor. He has been held hostage by parties even further to the right, and yet he has proven resilient. He still might jettison those far-right parties and find a new governing majority. Perhaps in yet another term he would reverse the worst anti-Palestinian policies (doubtful). Perhaps voters will send him into retirement (and, with luck, into prison).
But whoever emerges from the next elections, they won’t accept a Palestinian state unless they are pressured to do so. Conjuring such a state out of the broken pieces of the Palestinian community will be much more difficult than the negotiation of a prisoner exchange or even a ceasefire. Let’s first see if the next stage of the Gaza deal can be achieved—the further withdrawal of the IDF, a compromise over the future of Hamas, the delivery of sufficient humanitarian aid, the introduction of a peacekeeping force, and the start of economic reconstruction.
But let’s also be clear: Those steps would only bring Gaza back to where it was, more or less, before October 7. The world must keep its eyes on the prize. Palestinians need a viable state that can coexist with Israel and ensure that the genocide that Israel attempted over the last two years will never happen again.
Far from being “one of the great days in human history,” the Trump plan is just a start.
If US President Donald Trump really wants to earn a Nobel Peace Prize, he’s going to need to do better than his 20-point “Comprehensive Plan to End Gaza’s Conflict.” While in his characteristic style of exaggeration, Mr. Trump called the release of his plan “one of the greatest days in human history,” poring over Arab, Israeli, and US press reveals that most analysts are not inclined to see it that way.
After reading commentaries by writers across the board what is most striking is how widely divergent their views are toward Mr. Trump’s effort. While a few in all three regions express hope that the plan represents a pathway to peace, there’s a significant group of Israelis, Arabs, and Americans who see it as flawed and dangerous, albeit for different reasons.
Israeli hardliners, for example, suggest that if Mr. Trump’s 20-point plan were implemented, it will inevitably lead to the creation of a Palestinian state that will pose a mortal threat to Israel’s security. Meanwhile, a sizable body of Arabs express the concern that, if followed, Trump’s plan will make Israel’s occupation permanent, resulting in the dissolution of the Palestinian cause. In fact, the only issues on which there is agreement are that the plan would stop the further devastation in Gaza and allow for the return of Israeli hostages and some Palestinian prisoners.
The reasons behind this wide range of interpretations about the plan’s intentions are many: the Arabs’ well-earned lack of trust in both Trump and Netanyahu; the belief of hardline ideological Israelis that Netanyahu will do whatever it takes to remain prime minister; the deliberate vagueness of most of the plan’s key points; and, especially galling for Palestinians, the fact that they were handed the plan as a fait accompli without having been asked to provide input and told to accept it or, as Mr. Trump put it, “all HELL, like no one has ever seen before, will break out against Hamas.”
Of all of these factors, it’s the vagueness that is problematic for all sides. Israeli hardliners, for example, fret over the mention of an Israeli withdrawal, the presence of Arab peacekeepers, Palestinian police, and the possible return of the PA (which, in their minds, means a link between the West Bank and Gaza leading to a Palestinian state).
Palestinians, on the other hand, reading the document closely, see that none of these provisions are guaranteed. And while there is mention of a phased Israeli withdrawal, the plan provides for Israeli forces to remain in a security perimeter inside Gaza. For Palestinians this means a continuation of the two-decades-long stranglehold Israel has had over all access into and egress from Gaza. They see this plan as too focused on Israeli security, with little regard for justice and Palestinian security.
Another glaring problem is the lack of definition of terms and an enforcement mechanism that will ensure that the terms of the plan are implemented. What, for example, is the definition of the “technocratic apolitical Palestinian committee” that is to be created to run day-to-day operations in Gaza? Will its members be vetted by the Trump-led board? Will the Israelis be able to veto members? And, without any clarity on these points, will this committee be viewed as having legitimacy by Palestinians? And finally, without a defined neutral mechanism for enforcement, will the US allow Israel to act in Gaza as they have with regard to the ceasefires in Lebanon and Syria—where they act as the sole arbiter and enforcer of the agreements? (Their interpretation of ceasefire is apparently “you cease, while we continue to fire.”)
The plan mentions an economic development plan to attract foreign investment that is to be designed by experts who have helped “birth some of the thriving modern miracle cities in the Middle East” and a special economic zone with preferred tariffs. But one is hard pressed to understand the relevance of all of this to the plight and immediate needs of Palestinians, which must take precedence over fantasy cities of the future.
There is some detail provided with regard to Hamas members’ decommissioning their weapons, pledging to commit to peaceful coexistence, and the formation of an International Stabilization Force in Gaza. But what’s not clear is how this will be administered. And while our polls make clear that Palestinians in Gaza have had enough of this war and Hamas, they also express the desire to be governed by a national unity coalition of Palestinians, and want accountability for the crimes committed by the Israeli forces.
The bottom line is that far from being “one of the great days in human history,” the Trump plan is just a start. It may end the bombing and return those held captive, but in order to lead to peace, there must be a great deal more discussion that adds flesh to the bones of the plan. That will require openness and trust on all sides. That said, the following are essential.
First, Hamas should accept the Trump Plan, even while stating their concerns and objections. Continuing the conflict is (and has long been) a dead end. Hamas cannot and should not be the arbiter of the Palestinian future. Too many lives have been lost and many more shattered. The fighting must end. Second, Arabs and other nations must insist that Israelis be held accountable for the crimes they have committed. They can’t be brushed aside. Third, with a ceasefire agreed to by all sides, the massive influx of aid and support that Palestinians will require should commence. Fourth, working from the outline provided by the Trump plan, negotiations should begin, with serious Palestinian input at all levels to flesh out the details that can resolve unanswered questions. Fifth, if the president wants to earn his place in history, he must be willing to crack the whip requiring Israel to adhere to whatever terms are established. And finally, for this to be prize-worthy, the whip-cracking must also be applied to the West Bank and East Jerusalem—and not only with regard to annexation. If peace is to be achieved, settlement expansion, land confiscation, home demolitions, raids, and rampages by settlers must end. These behaviors have weakened the credibility of the PA, won greater support for Hamas, and prepared the ground for even greater conflict.
The Trump plan, with its focus on Israel’s security and vague assurances to Palestinians, succeeded in getting Netanyahu and Hamas on board, each side with their own reservations. If it is to lead to peace, there is hard work ahead.
All the governments of the world seem to be waiting for a completed arson investigation before they put out the fire, so the Global Sumud Flotilla is rushing to the blaze.
The Global Sumud Flotilla is the rather grand name of a ragtag bunch of boats that are now sailing near Crete. They will soon be joined by ships from the navies of Italy and Spain after coming under attack by Israel or their proxies. They are trying to bring relief supplies to Gaza, to break the 17-year Israeli siege of Gaza, and open a humanitarian corridor to end the famine, and what a United Nations commission recently confirmed is a genocide. They are not quite up to the task. Most of them know it, but they’re going anyway.
The Flotilla’s last major stop was in Bizerte, Tunisia, most boats tied to a sea wall at the far end of the harbor. Several times a day local Tunisian people would bring small donations of food and water to the end of the dirt road and Flotilla volunteers would meet them and carry the supplies across a rocky field to the boats.
From one of those small trucks an old woman, somebody’s grandmother, handed me a box she had filled with baby formula. The cans were different brands, some shopworn. She had collected them, and when she pressed her precious box into my hands she said to me, “For the babies. For the babies.”
Down at the boats there was chaos: beautiful, inspiring, all too human madness. People swarmed everywhere making hasty repairs and makeshift alterations, while others stripped anything useful from boats too damaged during the sail from Barcelona to ever leave port again. It seemed half the people had a sort of field commission, suddenly in charge of procurement, estimating food and water, and fuel requirements for undetermined days of travel, doing electrical repairs and installations or servicing engines. I had vetoed a dangerously jerry-rigged propane connection to a galley stove and was sent to the open-air market to find a camp stove. My companion was the medic on the boat—she has a doctorate in journalism. She is an amazing woman—she’d led a group to Everest base camp—and with her Arabic and local savvy we actually found the camp stove.
They were all desperate for a spot on some of the most decrepit boats in the Mediterranean, vying to cross a pitiless sea to most likely end up in Israeli prisons.
Everyone was pushed beyond their competency, past all their own red lines, by their commitment and the needs of the mission. They were getting the job done that their governments refuse to do. Because a thousand miles across the sea the people of Gaza are dying.
All nations are obligated to take steps to stop genocide when it is occurring. That duty does not require perfect evidence. It does not require the final ruling of a court that says events constitute genocide. Such rulings only occur years later, after the monstrous deed is already done, and of course the perpetrators will deny it to the end, as Israel has. Yet all the governments of the world seem to be waiting for a completed arson investigation before they put out the fire.
The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry has released an 80-page report detailing their finding of genocide in Gaza. On a smaller scale, more human than the legalese, doctors who volunteer in Gaza report that when Israel found out that they were bringing infant formula in their bags, Israel started searching their bags and seizing the infant formula. There is no way to spin that fact. These were doctors who would be giving that formula to babies. You can’t make a bomb out of infant formula. It constitutes no conceivable threat, yet Israel is intentionally preventing small amounts of food to get to starving babies.
We’ve all seen their skeletal little bodies, the pleading looks in their eyes, their traumatized mothers. Israel recently incarcerated an 82-year-old woman with Alzheimer’s in a camp for “terrorists,” so perhaps these babies are “terrorists.” Perhaps the frozen embryos, eggs, and sperm in Gaza’s only IVF clinic destroyed by Israel were also “terrorists.” Or, more likely, killing the future and hope of the Palestinian people is the clearest, most heartbreaking evidence of Israel’s intent to commit genocide.
Every day we see video of the bombing and aerial images of the wasteland. Israel has long since destroyed the hospitals, the schools and universities, the farmland and the infrastructure that makes life possible. Not satisfied with the Cold War cliché of bouncing the rubble, Israel has threatened to reduce Gaza to dust, unless a peace deal is negotiated. Then they bombed the negotiators in Doha.
And still the United States, Germany, and Great Britain send arms—our tax dollars paying for every bomb.
Hundreds of former ambassadors to the European Union have urged that organization to sanction Israel, but the EU dithers while they enrich and support Israel with 35% of Israel’s foreign trade. A few nations, with all due solemnity, have recognized the Palestinian state, but as yet do nothing to protect the people of that state.
And so the volunteers of the Global Sumud Flotilla flung themselves upon the sea. They are doctors, lawyers, journalists, and very ordinary people, all with worried families back home. Almost none have experience on the sea, but all have a deep knowledge of the tragic history of Palestine.
Do they sail under a banner that is always at the edge of splintering into catastrophe? Absolutely. It couldn’t be otherwise. Imagine your local PTA suddenly expanded to hundreds of passionate, contentious members. Imagine all meetings conducted in three languages. Imagine that PTA isn’t organizing a silent auction, but a thousand-mile voyage into a war zone. Of course it’s nuts.
But hundreds of people went to Tunisia anyway. They were all desperate for a spot on some of the most decrepit boats in the Mediterranean, vying to cross a pitiless sea to most likely end up in Israeli prisons.
They came because their governments refuse to act.
They sail to stop a genocide.
The United States must recognize that its own strategic interests require a decisive break from partnering in Israel’s destructive strategy.
The attack by Israel and the U.S. on Iran had two significant effects. First, it once again exposed the root cause of turmoil in the region: Israel’s project to “reshape the Middle East” through regime change, aimed at maintaining its dominance and blocking a Palestinian state. Second, it highlighted the futility and recklessness of this strategy. The only path to peace is a comprehensive agreement that addresses Palestine’s statehood, Israel’s security, Iran’s peaceful nuclear program, and the economic recovery of the region.
Israel wants to topple the Iranian government because Iran has supported proxies and non-state actors aligned with the Palestinians. Israel has also consistently undermined U.S.-Iran diplomacy regarding Iran’s nuclear program.
Instead of endless wars, Israel’s security can be ensured by two key diplomatic steps—ending militancy by establishing a Palestinian state with United Nations Security Council guarantees, and lifting sanctions on Iran in exchange for a peaceful and verifiable nuclear program.
Israel has driven the region to a 4,000-kilometer swash of violence from Libya to Iran through its reckless, lawless, and warmongering actions, all ultimately aimed at preventing a State of Palestine by “remaking” the Middle East.
The far-right Israeli government’s refusal to accept a Palestinian state is the root of the problem.
When the British empire promised a Jewish homeland in Mandatory Palestine in 1917, the Palestinian Arabs constituted 90% of the population and Jews less than 10% of the population. In 1947, with intense U.S. lobbying, the U.N. General Assembly voted to grant 56% of Palestine to a new Zionist state, while the Jews were only 33% of the population. Palestinians rejected this as a violation of their right to self-determination. After the 1948 war, Israel expanded to 78% of Palestine, and in 1967, occupied the remaining 22%—Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights.
Instead of returning occupied lands in exchange for peace, Israeli right-wing politicians insisted on permanent control of 100% of the land, with the Likud founding charter declaring in 1977 that there would be only Israeli sovereignty “between the Sea and Jordan.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu represents this policy of domination—and has served as prime minister for a total of 17 years since 1996. When he came to power, he and his U.S. neocon allies authored the “Clean Break” strategy to block the creation of a Palestinian state. Instead of pursuing land for peace, Israel aimed to reshape the Middle East by overthrowing governments that supported the Palestinian cause. The U.S. would be the implementing partner of this strategy.
This is exactly what happened after 9/11, as the U.S. led or sponsored wars against Iraq (invasion in 2003), Lebanon (U.S. funding and arming Israeli aggressions), Libya (NATO bombing in 2011), Syria (CIA operation during 2010’s), Sudan (supporting rebels to break Sudan apart in 2011), and Somalia (backing Ethiopia’s invasion in 2006).
Contrary to the glib promises by Netanyahu to the U.S. Congress in 2002—that regime change in Iraq would bring a new day to the Middle East—the 2003 Iraq War augured the events that were to come across the region. Iraq descended into turmoil, and since then, each new war has brought death, destruction, and economic disarray.
This month, Israel attacked Iran even as negotiations between Iran and the U.S. were underway to ensure the peaceful use of Iran’s nuclear program—repeating the same WMD propaganda that Netanyahu used to justify the Iraq War.
Israel has been claiming for more than 30 years that Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. However, on June 18, 2025, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) director general stated that there is “no proof of a systematic effort” by Iran to develop nuclear weapons. More to the point, Iran and the U.S. were actively engaged in negotiations according to which the IAEA would monitor and verify the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program.
The attack on Iran proves yet again the futility and nihilism of Netanyahu’s approach. The Israeli and U.S. attacks accomplished nothing positive. According to most analysts, Iran’s enriched uranium remains intact, but is now in a secret location rather than under IAEA monitoring. In the meantime, with Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza, neither peace nor security have been achieved.
Israel has driven the region to a 4,000-kilometer swash of violence from Libya to Iran through its reckless, lawless, and warmongering actions, all ultimately aimed at preventing a State of Palestine by “remaking” the Middle East.
The solution is clear: It is time for the United States to recognize that its own strategic interests require a decisive break from partnering in Israel’s destructive strategy.
Prioritizing genuine peace in the Middle East is not only a moral imperative, but a fundamental U.S. interest—one that can only be achieved through a comprehensive peace deal. The key pillar of this deal is for the U.S. to lift its veto on a Palestinian State on the borders of June 4, 1967, and to do so at the start, not in some vague distant future that never actually arrives.
For more than 20 years, Arab nations have backed a practical peace plan. So too has the Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC), with its 57 member countries, and the League of Arab States (LAS), with its 22 members. So too have almost all the nations in the U.N. General Assembly. So too has the International Court of Justice in its 2024 ruling that Israel’s occupation is illegal. Only Israel, with support from the U.S. veto, has stood in the way.
Here is a seven-point peace plan in which all parties would benefit. Israel would gain peace and security. Palestine would achieve statehood. Iran would win an end to economic sanctions. The U.S. would win an end to costly and illegal wars fought on Israel’s behalf, as well as the risks of nuclear proliferation if the current violence continues. The Middle East would win economic development, security, and justice.
The Israeli government's enterprise in Gaza and the occupied West Bank is criminal and yet it continues.
The Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu is setting the stage for the upcoming United Nations’ International Conference for the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution. The three-day session, to be held in New York on June 17-20, 2025, will be chaired by the President of France, Emmanuel Macron, and the Crown Prince of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Muhammad bin Salman bin Abdul Aziz. It is believed that at this confab France and a number of other countries will formally recognize the State of Palestine. In an angry response, Netanyahu announced that should France and others make this announcement Israel will retaliate with the formal annexation of the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
In a sense, the threats are meaningless, not because Israel couldn’t take measures to sabotage a Palestinian state, but because this is precisely what it has been doing for several decades—and it’s accelerated its efforts in the past few years.
The daily news from Gaza is numbing. After 18 months of an immense toll in lives and property, Israel agreed to a ceasefire in March, only to break it and intensify their plans to ethnically cleanse and annex large swathes of this territory. Daily, there are reports of Israeli bombings, shelling, or shootings that kill scores of Palestinians at shelters or food distribution sites. In each instance, the Israelis, true to form, at first deny that it happened, then deny that they had anything to do with the killings—“it might have been Hamas” or, “if we did, it was because our soldiers were forced to shoot in the air” to control unruly crowds. When all else fails, they obfuscate by announcing that a military review panel is looking into the matter (coupled with the charge that anyone prejudging the matter before the Israeli military publicly issues its findings—which they never do—must be guilty of harboring an anti-Israel bias). The result is that there is no accountability and the killings continue.
The Netanyahu government’s plan for Gaza is taking shape. The logic behind the Israeli-US “humanitarian mission” in Gaza is now established and that is to facilitate their “ethnic cleansing” masterplan for the area. First, the Israelis are conducting “mopping up” operations in the north, evicting as many Palestinians as possible from 80% of Gaza and forcing them to congregate in congested areas along the southern border. Then, after denying Palestinians food aid for three months, they have set up these Israeli-run food distribution sites in the south with the clear message that “if you’re hungry and want food, this is the only place you’ll get it.” As throngs of desperate Palestinians mass at the sites, the Israelis use live ammunition as crowd control, killing dozens at each location. The entire enterprise is criminal and yet it continues.
The situation in the West Bank has gone from bad to worse. After months of raids that have taken the lives of 1,000 Palestinians and destroyed the homes of 40,000, the Israeli government has authorized the establishment of 22 new settlements, the confiscation of more Palestinian lands, and the construction of more Jewish-only roads. All of this will serve to further the cantonization of the West Bank, isolating Palestinian population centers from one another.
The design Israel is following was laid out in 1978 by Mattityahu Drobles of the World Zionist Organization. The Drobles Plan envisioned total conquest of the West Bank through the establishment of Israeli settlement blocs connected by highways and secured infrastructure that would divide the area making the establishment of a contiguous Palestinian state impossible. This was Drobles’ declared intent. Back in the 1970s, Israel’s Labor governments rejected this idea, preferring to build settlements along the 1967 lines. When Likud came to power, they embraced Drobles in 1979 and began to implement it, but without ever formally acknowledging it. Now they have.
Palestinians in East Jerusalem fare no better. They still face threats of confiscation of homes and properties, the weaponization of archaeology through which Israel has seized sites they believe hold special importance to their history, while ignoring that same site’s pre-history or current importance to Palestinian Muslims or Christians. And while Christians and Muslims are violently assaulted or harassed as they seek to pray on their faiths’ holy days, Jewish worshippers are protected by the Israeli military as they violate what had been the previously accepted “status quo” at the Haram al Sharif. While in the past, these violations were carried out by a handful of Jewish religious extremists, now there are thousands, including government officials, who annually invade the Haram. And as if to signal their clear intentions, the Israelis have changed street signs which once pointed the way to the “Haram” to now read the “Temple.”
And so, the upcoming UN sessions have the makings of a supreme test of wills. It pits the Israeli government, backed by the United States, against the rest of the world. We know what Israel is doing and what they still can do. The question is whether other nations will find the resolve to directly confront Israel’s plans and take direct action to isolate and punish them for their actions. It will require more than recognition of Palestinian rights, verbal protests, or resolutions of disapproval of Israeli policies. Europe can’t just protest settlements and genocide in Gaza, while continuing to be the largest buyers of Israeli-made weapons. If they don’t apply sanctions (like Spain) or boycott settlement products (like Ireland), nothing will change.
In a real sense, what is at stake in next week’s UN sessions is even more than just recognition of a Palestinian state, it is the survival of the rule of law and human rights covenants and the integrity of the United Nations.
"The expulsion of the Palestinian civilian population from Gaza would not only be unacceptable and contrary to international law," said Germany's foreign minister. "It would also lead to new suffering and new hatred."
U.S. President Donald Trump's call on Tuesday for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza with American military force drew near-universal condemnation from the international community, with political leaders, United Nations officials, and human rights groups denouncing the outrageous proposal as inhumane and blatantly unlawful.
"Any forcible transfer in or deportation of people from occupied territory is strictly prohibited," Volker Türk, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, said in a statement following Trump's remarks alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is facing an International Criminal Court arrest warrant after presiding over a 15-month-long, U.S.-backed decimation of the Gaza Strip.
U.S. allies and adversaries, including in the Middle East, swiftly rejected Trump's call for American ownership of Gaza and the total removal of the Palestinian population. Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Palestine's envoy to the U.N., Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and ordinary Palestinians in Gaza were among those who dismissed the U.S. president's proposal as unconscionable.
"These calls represent a serious violation of international law," said Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. "Peace and stability will not be achieved in the region without establishing a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital on the borders of 1967, based on the two-state solution."
European nations also sharply criticized Trump's proposal, with France's foreign ministry expressing "opposition to any forced displacement of Gaza's Palestinian population, which would constitute a serious violation of international law, an attack on the legitimate aspirations of Palestinians, and also a major obstacle to the two-state solution and a factor of major destabilization for our close partners, Egypt and Jordan, and the whole region."
German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said that "the expulsion of the Palestinian civilian population from Gaza would not only be unacceptable and contrary to international law."
"It would also lead to new suffering and new hatred," she warned.
"Once again, the man who claimed to be the peace candidate is showing himself to be nothing more than the War Profiteer President."
Trump's call for a U.S. takeover of the Gaza Strip came days after the president said he wants to "just clean out" the Palestinian enclave by forcibly displacing the territory's population, which is living under a fragile cease-fire agreement and in the process of returning to homes left in utter ruins by Israeli and American bombs.
Francesca Albanese, the U.N. special rapporteur for the occupied Palestinian territories, said at a press conference on Tuesday that Trump's proposal is "completely irresponsible." Even the act of floating ethnic cleansing in Gaza amounts to "incitement to commit forced displacement, which is an international crime," said Albanese.
"The international community is made up of 193 states," she added, "and this is the time to give the U.S. what it has been looking for: isolation."
U.S. human rights and anti-war organizations joined the chorus slamming Trump's proposal, with Amnesty International USA executive director Paul O'Brien writing on social media that "removing all Palestinians from Gaza is tantamount to destroying them as a people."
Sara Haghdoosti, executive director of Win Without War, said in a statement late Tuesday that "forcibly removing Palestinians from Gaza is ethnic cleansing."
"It is obviously illegal, deeply morally wrong, and incredibly dangerous," said Haghdoosti. "People in Palestine, Israel, Lebanon, and beyond need a real end to the war, not permanent forced displacement. Instead, tonight President Trump proposed to send U.S. armed forces to Gaza to kick Palestinians out and act as security guards for [Jared] Kushner and friends as they cash in on what Trump called 'the Riviera of the Middle East.'"
"Once again," Haghdoosti added, "the man who claimed to be the peace candidate is showing himself to be nothing more than the War Profiteer President."
While the Democratic Party has mostly maintained its pro-Israel stance since the publication of Carter’s 2006 book, his words now appear quite prescient and reflect a growing international consensus.
The late President Jimmy Carter was not a particularly progressive president, but his exemplary service as a peacemaker and humanitarian since leaving office has resulted in an outpouring of heartfelt tributes following his death at the age of 100 on December 28. During his final years, however, the Nobel Peace Laureate was met with intense criticism for insisting that standards of peace, human rights, and international law should apply not just to countries hostile to U.S. interests, but to U.S. allies like Israel as well.
Particularly controversial was Carter’s 2006 book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, which went on to be a New York Times bestseller, in which he argued against Israel’s ongoing occupation of the West Bank, the Palestinian territory seized in 1967 during a war that the international community had hoped would form the basis for the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Carter was a liberal Christian Zionist who believed passionately in Israel’s right to exist as a secure homeland for the Jewish people. Like many left and liberal Jewish Zionists, however, he argued that the continued occupation and colonization of the West Bank would make a viable two-state solution impossible, and that Israel would be forced to choose between allowing for democratic governance in all the areas they controlled—meaning Jews would thereby be a minority, and Israel would no longer be a Jewish state—or imposing an apartheid system akin to the one instituted in South Africa prior to its democratic transition in 1994.
Carter was falsely accused of referring to Israel as an apartheid state, when he had explicitly stated otherwise. He was referring only to the Israeli-occupied West Bank, where the establishment of Jewish-only roads, Jewish-only settlements, and other strict segregation policies do resemble the old South African system.
Since Carter wrote Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid 18 years ago, the number of Israeli settlers in the occupied territories has more than doubled, most of them surrounding Palestinian cities and towns in a manner that would make the establishment of a viable contiguous Palestinian state impossible.
In reality, the main objection of Carter’s critics was that he dared criticize the Israeli government, a recipient of tens of billions of dollars’ worth of unconditional taxpayer-funded military equipment from U.S. arms manufacturers.
Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid received overwhelmingly negative media coverage following its release. The Washington Post accused Carter of harboring a “hostility to Israel” in part for allegedly failing to note, according to reviewer Jeffrey Goldberg, that the Israeli government “dearly wants to give up the bulk of its West Bank settlements.” In reality, the illegal settlements have continued to expand since 2006, and the Israeli government has reiterated that they are there to stay.
An article in The New York Times about the reaction to the book included a number of quotes from pro-Israel organizations attacking it, while failing to quote a single Palestinian or Palestinian-American source.
The Democratic Party leadership was also hostile to the book. In a rare rebuke by another former president of the same party, Bill Clinton, ignoring Carter’s frequent trips to and extensive knowledge of Israel and Palestine, wrote, “I don’t know where his information (or conclusions) came from” and insisted, “It’s not factually correct, and it’s not fair.”
Howard Dean, then chair of the Democratic National Committee, also voiced his disagreement with Carter’s analysis. Representative Nancy Pelosi, who was about to become Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, declared, “It is wrong to suggest that the Jewish people would support a government in Israel or anywhere else that institutionalizes ethnically based oppression, and Democrats reject that allegation vigorously.” She added, “We stand with Israel now and we stand with Israel forever.”
Former presidents have almost always been granted an opportunity to speak at their party’s subsequent conventions, but in apparent reaction to the book, Carter’s appearance at the 2008 Democratic National Convention was limited to a video clip speaking in praise of nominee Barack Obama and interviewing survivors of Hurricane Katrina. Carter also only appeared in short video clips at the 2012 and 2016 conventions.
In 2022, Joe Biden named Emory University professor Deborah Lipstadt to be the U.S. Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combating Antisemitism. Lipstadt had previously accused Carter of engaging in “traditional antisemitic canards” and compared him to the notorious antisemite and Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke.
But while the Democratic Party has mostly maintained its pro-Israel stance since the publication of the book, Carter’s words now appear quite prescient and reflect a growing international consensus. In 2022, Amnesty International published a 281-page report making a compelling case that Israel practices a form of apartheid toward the Palestinians. Human Rights Watch published a similarly detailed study the previous year reaching the same conclusion. B’Tselem, Israel’s leading human rights organization, also released an extensive report documenting the Israeli government’s imposition of apartheid. Similar conclusions have been reached by the United Nations Special Rapporteur for the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories. This past July, the International Court of Justice, in an advisory opinion, also found that Israel’s ongoing and multiple violations of international humanitarian law constitute apartheid.
A number of Carter’s former critics, including a board member of the Carter Center who resigned in protest following the publication of the book, have since apologized and acknowledged that the former president was correct. No one in the Democratic Party leadership has yet done so.
Indeed, very few of Carter’s critics have been willing to demand an end to Israel’s settlements and segregation policies in the West Bank or acknowledge that these colonial outposts in the occupied territories constitute a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and a series of unanimous U.N. Security Council resolutions.
Since Carter wrote Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid 18 years ago, the number of Israeli settlers in the occupied territories has more than doubled, most of them surrounding Palestinian cities and towns in a manner that would make the establishment of a viable contiguous Palestinian state impossible.
As a result, many Palestinians and others who once supported a two-state solution have concluded it is too late and are now demanding a single democratic state with equal rights for both peoples between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Similarly, increasing numbers of Jewish people in the United States and elsewhere now believe that the Zionist movement has become hopelessly dominated by overt racists, and have renounced Zionism altogether.
Carter warned that the choice before Israel was “peace or apartheid.” The Israeli government and its backers in Washington have chosen apartheid—but people across the world have not given up on the peace Carter envisioned.
It’s official now. America’s closest ally, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the one accorded more than 50 standing ovations in Congress just months ago, is under indictment by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity and war crimes. America must take note: the U.S. Government is complicit in Netanyahu’s war crimes and has fully partnered in Netanyahu’s violent rampage across the Middle East.
For 30 years the Israel Lobby has induced the U.S. to fight wars on Israel’s behalf designed to prevent the emergence of a Palestinian State. Netanyahu, who first came to power in 1996, and has been prime minister for 17 years since then, has been the main cheerleader for U.S.-backed wars in the Middle East. The result has been a disaster for the U.S. and a bloody catastrophe not only for the Palestinian people but for the entire Middle East.
These have not been wars to defend Israel, but rather wars to topple governments that oppose Israel’s oppression of the Palestinian people. Israel viciously opposes the two-state solution called for by international law, the Arab Peace Initiative, the G20, the BRICS, the OIC, and the UN General Assembly. Israel’s intransigence, and its brutal suppression of the Palestinian people, has given rise to several militant resistance movements since the beginning of the occupation. These movements are backed by several countries in the region.
The obvious solution to the Israel-Palestine crisis is to implement the two-state solution and to demilitarize the militant groups as part of the implementation process.
Israel’s approach, especially under Netanyahu, is to overthrow foreign governments that oppose Israel’s domination, and recreate the map of a “New Middle East” without a Palestinian State. Rather than making peace, Netanyahu makes endless war.
What is shocking is that Washington has turned the U.S. military and federal budget over to Netanyahu for his disastrous wars. The history of the Israel lobby’s complete takeover of Washington can be found in the remarkable new book by Ilan Pappé, Lobbying for Zionism on Both Sides of the Atlantic (2024).
Rather than making peace, Netanyahu makes endless war.
Netanyahu repeatedly told the American people that they would be the beneficiaries of his policies. In fact, Netanyahu has been an unmitigated disaster for the American people, bleeding the U.S. Treasury of trillions of dollars, squandering America’s standing in the world, making the U.S. complicit in his genocidal policies, and bringing the world closer to World War III.
If Trump wants to make America great again, the first thing he should do is to make America sovereign again, by ending Washington’s subservience to the Israel Lobby.
The Israel Lobby not only controls the votes in Congress but places hardline backers of Israel into key national security posts. These have included Madeleine Albright (Secretary of State for Clinton), Lewis Libby (Chief of Staff of Vice President Cheney), Victoria Nuland (Deputy National Security Advisor of Cheney, NATO Ambassador of Bush Jr., Assistant Secretary of State for Obama, Under-Secretary of State for Biden), Paul Wolfowitz (Under-Secretary of Defense for Bush Sr., Deputy Secretary of Defense for Bush Jr.), Douglas Feith (Under-Secretary of Defense for Bush Jr.), Abram Shulsky (Director of the Office of Special Plans, Department of Defense for Bush Jr.), Elliott Abrams (Deputy National Security Advisor for Bush Jr.), Richard Perle (Chairman of the Defense National Policy Board for Bush Jr.), Amos Hochstein (Senior Advisor to the Secretary of State for Biden), and Antony Blinken (Secretary of State for Biden).
Netanyahu has been an unmitigated disaster for the American people, bleeding the U.S. Treasury of trillions of dollars, squandering America’s standing in the world, making the U.S. complicit in his genocidal policies, and bringing the world closer to World War III.
In 1995, Netanyahu described his plan of action in his book Fighting Terrorism. To control terrorists (Netanyahu’s characterization of militant groups fighting Israel’s illegal rule over the Palestinians), it’s not enough to fight the terrorists. Instead, it’s necessary to fight the “terrorist regimes” that support such groups. And the U.S. must be the one to lead:
The cessation of terrorism must therefore be a clear-cut demand, backed up by sanctions and with no prizes attached. As with all international efforts, the vigorous application of sanctions to terrorist states must be led by the United States, whose leaders must choose the correct sequence, timing, and circumstances for these actions.
As Netanyahu told the American people in 2001 (reprinted as the 2001 foreword to Fighting Terrorism):
The first and most crucial thing to understand is this: There is no international terrorism without the support of sovereign states. International terrorism simply cannot be sustained for long without the regimes that aid and abet it… Take away all this state support, and the entire scaffolding of international terrorism will collapse into dust. The international terrorist network is thus based on regimes—Iran, Iraq, Syria, Taliban Afghanistan, Yasir Arafat’s Palestinian Authority, and several other Arab regimes, such as the Sudan.
All of this was music to the ears of the neocons in Washington, who similarly subscribed to U.S.-led regime change operations (through wars, covert subversion, U.S.-led color revolutions, violent coups, etc.) as the main way to deal with perceived U.S. adversaries.
After 9/11, the Bush Jr. neocons (led by Cheney and Rumsfeld) and the Bush Jr. insiders of the Israel Lobby (led by Wolfowitz and Feith), teamed up to remake the Middle East through a series of U.S.-led wars on Netanyahu’s targets in the Middle East (Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Syria) and Islamic East Africa (Libya, Somalia, and Sudan). The role of the Israel Lobby in stoking these wars of choice is described in detail in Pappe’s new book.
The neocon-Israel Lobby war plan was shown to General Wesley Clark on a visit to the Pentagon soon after 9/11. An officer pulled a paper from his desk and told Clark: "I just got this memo from the Secretary of Defense's office. It says we're going to attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years—we're going to start with Iraq, and then we're going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran."
In 2002, Netanyahu pitched the war with Iraq to the American people and Congress by promising them that “If you take out Saddam, Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region[...] People sitting right next door in Iran, young people, and many others, will say the time of such regimes, of such despots is gone.”
A remarkable new insider account of Netanyahu’s role in spearheading the Iraq War also comes from retired Marine Command Chief Master Sargent Dennis Fritz, in his book Deadly Betrayal (2024). When Fritz was called to deploy to Iraq in early 2002, he asked senior military officials why the U.S. was deploying to Iraq, but he got no clear answer. Rather than lead soldiers into a battle he could not explain or justify, he left the service.
The neocon-Israel Lobby teamwork has marked one of the greatest global calamities of the 21st century.
In 2005, Fritz was invited back to the Pentagon, now as a civilian, to assist Under-Secretary Douglas Feith in the declassification of documents about the war, so that Feith could use them to write a book about the war. Fritz discovered in the process that the Iraq War had been spurred by Netanyahu in close coordination with Wolfowitz and Feith. He learned that the purported U.S. war aim, to counter Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, was a cynical public relations gimmick led by an Israel Lobby insider, Abram Shulsky, to garner U.S. public support for the war.
Iraq was to be the first of the seven wars in five years, but as Fritz explains, that follow-up wars were delayed by the anti-U.S. Iraqi insurgency. Nonetheless, the U.S. eventually went to war or backed wars against Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Lebanon. In other words, the U.S. carried out Netanyahu’s plans—except for Iran. To this day, indeed to this hour, Netanyahu works to stoke a U.S. war on Iran, one that could open World War III, either by Iran making the breakthrough to nuclear weapons, or by Iran’s ally, Russia, joining such a war on Iran’s side.
The neocon-Israel Lobby teamwork has marked one of the greatest global calamities of the 21st century. All of the countries attacked by the U.S. or its proxies—Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Syria—now lie in ruins. Meanwhile, Netanyahu’s genocide in Gaza continues apace, and yet again the U.S. has opposed the unanimous will of the world (other than Israel) this week by vetoing a UN Security Council ceasefire resolution that was backed by the other 14 members of the U.N. Security Council.
The real issue facing the Trump Administration is not defending Israel from its neighbors, who call repeatedly, almost daily, for peace based on the two-state solution. The real issue is defending the U.S. from the Israel Lobby.
Even though fascist Donald Trump is still worse, just look at the latest polls in the swing states and recognize where we are heading. A true leader doesn't zig and zag when innocent people are being killed.
As the keynote speaker at Morehouse College in Atlanta last week, Joe Biden listened to the class Valedictorian’s call for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza. The President nodded and applauded with others in the assembly. In contrast, he had just approved another billion dollars in killer weapons for the genocidal Netanyahu regime to blow up what’s left of the Death Camps in Gaza. “Stop it, stop it now, Joe,” declared his wife, Dr. Jill Biden months ago.
Countless times Joe Biden has publicly urged Netanyahu to allow the waiting trucks carrying – food, water, and medicine – blocked at the Egyptian and Israeli borders to deliver this humanitarian aid. But Biden declined to demand sanctions and an end to the Israeli military blocking hundreds of trucks, paid for by the U.S., into Gaza to help the dying population. He could have draped American flags over these trucks and dared the Israeli state terrorists to stop them. Biden showed lethal weakness from an unused position of great presidential power. “Stop it, stop it now, Joe,” implored his wife Dr. Jill Biden as thousands of children are being killed who could have been saved.
When Biden took his oath of office, he swore to uphold the laws of the land. That oath requires action.
Biden asked early on that Netanyahu comply with international law. His government commits daily overt numerous war crimes targeting civilians, homes, schools, markets, hospitals and health clinics, ambulances, fleeing refugees, and even Mosques and Churches. The Israeli regime also violates the international law that requires the conquerors to protect the civilian population. Biden, Blinken and Austin have refused to condemn such “crimes against humanity,” halt arms shipments and thereby obey five federal laws prohibiting the U.S. from sending weapons to countries that are violating human rights or being used for offensive purposes.
When Biden took his oath of office, he swore to uphold the laws of the land. That oath requires action. His State Department, in a required compliance report this month to Congress, disgracefully punted. “Stop it, stop it now, Joe,” beseeched Dr. Jill Biden.
From the beginning, Biden has backed a two-state solution publicly and in private conversations with Netanyahu. These words support a peaceful settlement. Yet whether under Obama as vice president for eight years or since 2021, as president, Biden has not connected to any action advancing the two-state proposal. Worse, he has never called out Netanyahu, with consequences, for bragging year after year to his Likud Party that he has been supporting the Hamas regime and helping to fund it because Hamas, like Netanyahu, opposes a two-state solution.
Biden is still rejecting the recognition of a Palestinian state by 143 of the 193 member states of the United Nations. This week Spain, Norway and Ireland said they would recognize a Palestinian state. Biden bizarrely insists statehood be negotiated with Israel. He knows, of course, how many Israeli colonies (so-called settlements) exist in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Israel rejects outright any such Free Palestine. Weak Joe Biden is okay with that brutal occupation. “Stop it, stop it now, Joe,” says Dr. Jill Biden.
Joe Biden is always condemning anti-semitism against Jews, while he spends billions of dollars weaponizing Netanyahu’s violent anti-semitism against Arab semites in Palestine. This “other” anti-semitism has been violently inflicted, with very racist epithets, on defenseless, subjugated Palestinian families for over fifty-five years. The violence includes U.S. fighter planes bombing, ground troops smashing homes, and refugee camps, blowing up homes, imprisoning and torturing thousands of men, women and children, without charges, and hundreds of dictates, checkpoints, and other maddening harassments. (See the New York Times Magazine Sunday, May 19, 2024 piece “The Unpunished: How Extremists Took Over Israel”). Biden and Netanyahu are arm-in-arm anti-semites against Arabs. (See the “Anti-Semitism Against Arab and Jewish Americans” speech by Jim Zogby and DebatingTaboos.org).
It’s the ongoing massacre of these little innocents—in their mother’s or father’s arms or in crumbling hospitals that led Dr. Jill Biden to admonish: “Stop it, stop it now, Joe.”
Throughout his fifty-year political career, Biden has never said that “Palestinians have a right to defend themselves.” Only the overwhelmingly more powerful, occupying Israelis have this right, as he has repeated hundreds of times. “Stop it, stop it now, Joe,” advises Dr. Jill Biden.
Biden has expressed doubt about the Hamas Health Ministry’s fatality count in Gaza – itself a huge undercount. (See my column March 5, 2024 column: Stop the Worsening UNDERCOUNT of Palestinian Casualties in Gaza). His actions enabling the Israeli annihilations (“over the top” he once blurted) are moving the real fatality toll, especially with the Rafah invasion and starvation, to the fastest rate ever recorded in 21st century conflicts, according to experts. This includes the bloody, accelerating deaths of babies and children.
It’s the ongoing massacre of these little innocents—in their mother’s or father’s arms or in crumbling hospitals that led Dr. Jill Biden to admonish: “Stop it, stop it now, Joe.”
Still, Joe Biden conveys weakness to Netanyahu, to Netanyahu’s Congress and its omnipresent “Israel-can-do-no-wrong” lobby. Being weak on such a high visibility and protested genocide in Gaza is bad for your re-election, Joe. Even though Der Führer Donald is worse. Look at the latest polls in the swing states! A true leader doesn’t zig and zag when innocent people are being killed. “Stop it, stop it now, Joe.”
Warning comes after key European allies—Norway, Ireland, and Spain—announced their "landmark" decision to formally recognize a Palestinian state.
Israel's foreign minister issued a blunt threat of "severe consequences" for the countries of Norway, Ireland, and Spain—and presumably other nations that may follow—after the trio announced their decision Wednesday to formally recognize a Palestinian state.
In their joint move, inspired in large measure by the ongoing Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip, the governments of Norway, Ireland, and Spain said they would make the formal recognition next week on May 28. In response, Israel recalled its ambassadors from Oslo and Dublin as an initial sign of displeasure and protest.
Israel's foreign minister Israel Katz said in a public statement that the move to recognize Palestine was a "distorted step" by the countries which he claimed was "an injustice to the memory of the victims of 7/10, a blow to efforts to return the 128 hostages, and a boost to Hamas and Iran's jihadists, which undermines the chance for peace and questions Israel's right to self-defense."
Katz warned that "Israel will not remain silent" in the face of what it perceives as a betrayal by its European allies and that "further severe consequences" would follow for those making such a decision. Israel recalled its ambassador to Spain last year after comments made about violations of humanitarian law in Gaza.
Israel's National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir also condemned the move Wednesday and said the response from Israel would be to intensify its operations in Gaza—where the ICC chief prosecutor this week alleged war crimes by Israeli forces have taken place—even further. In his remarks, Ben-Gvir called for a "root treatment" for the city of Rafah, where hundreds of thousands of civilians have fled but many still remain with nowhere go.
Israel's Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, meanwhile, called for immediate punishment for the Palestinian Authority and expanded settlement construction in the Occupied West Bank as a response.
In their remarks, leaders from Norway and Ireland defended recognition of a Palestinian state as the appropriate response to the violent conflict that has endured for decades but has escalated dramatically—and brutally—over the last seven months, both in Gaza and the Occupied West Bank.
"In the midst of a war, with tens of thousands killed and injured, we must keep alive the only alternative that offers a political solution for Israelis and Palestinians alike," said Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, as he led the three nations in their announcement.
In place of a "long and gruesome conflict," Støre said a new reality must be realized: "Two states, living side by side, in peace and security."
Taoiseach Simon Harris, head of the Irish Parliament—who made the announcement on behalf of Ireland alongside Tánaiste Micheál Martin and Green Party Minister Eamon Ryan—called the decision the "right thing to do" as he condemned Hamas, which he said has "nothing to offer," while also reiterating unwavering commitment for "Israel's right to exist securely and in peace with its neighbors."
The decision by Ireland, Harris said, was made in the context of its own fight for independence and freedom from colonial rule. Citing Ireland's own declaration for independence in 1919, Harris said recognition for a Palestinian state is vital "because we 'believe in freedom and justice as the fundamental principles of international law,' and because we believe that 'permanent peace' can only be secured 'upon the basis of the free will of a free people.'"
In response to Ireland's announcement, Social Democrats leader Holly Cairns applauded the government's decision.
"The Social Democrats have long called for the government to match its strong words, on the carnage in Gaza, with action—and this is a powerful action which sends a strong message," Cairns said. "That message is one of hope, peace, justice and freedom— for an imprisoned Palestinian people being massacred by a barbaric occupier."
Spain's Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez spoke before members of Congress in Madrid on Wednesday where he denounced "the massacre in Gaza and the rest of the Palestinian territories," and defended the move to recognize a Palestinian state as necessary under the circumstances and in the face of Israel intransigence.
"Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu is still turning a blind eye and bombing hospitals, schools, andhomes," Sánchez declared. "He is still using hunger, cold and terror to punish more than a million innocent boys and girls—and things have gone so far that prosecutors at the International Criminal Court have this week sought his arrest for war crimes."
Reacting to Wednesday's announcements by Ireland, Norway, and Spain, officials with Oxfam International—which has long lobbied for a Palestinian state and urgently demanded a cease-fire in Gaza to end the current bloodshed—welcomed the news.
"This recognition is a landmark decision and other countries must follow suit," said Sally Abi Khalil, Oxfam Regional Director for the Middle East and North Africa. "It is a crucial step in affirming the Palestinian people's inalienable right to self-determination, but it must transcend beyond symbolism into concrete steps towards ending the Israeli occupation and achieving full sovereignty for the Palestinian State."
While the ongoing assault on the southern city of Rafah has triggered a mass exodus of hundreds of thousands of people with no safe place to go in Gaza, Khalil said, "We urgently need an immediate and permanent ceasefire and an end to the blockade to end the death and destruction, to allow unfettered aid into Gaza and to ensure the release of the hostages and illegally detained Palestinian prisoners."
Jim Clarken, Oxfam's chief executive, also championed the decision by the three European nations for showing "real and brave leadership on the world stage."
"We know right now that the people of Gaza are starving and that UN agencies have regrettably had to halt aid operations in Rafah," Clarken said, "Ireland stood by UNRWA in its hour of need. We need now to leverage today’s move to press for urgent life-saving aid to get to the people of Gaza."