The Palestine Chronicle

1. PLO’s Crossroads: Abbas’ Gambit and the Future of Palestinian Unity

By Areeb al-Rantawi

Writing in the Al-Jazeera Arabic website, Areeb al-Rantawi offers a critical analysis of the PLO Central Council meeting, highlighting Abbas' controversial statements, the deep divisions within Palestinian politics, and the urgent need for a unified national strategy amidst the ongoing Gaza crisis.

The recent session of the PLO Central Council garnered attention primarily due to the speculation surrounding the appointment of a "second man" within the organization and President Abbas' contentious remarks about Hamas. Otherwise, the proceedings would likely have gone unnoticed.

Public perception of the PLO and the Palestinian leadership is overwhelmingly negative, marked by doubt, accusations, and a profound lack of trust. This assessment isn't based on our opinion but on the consistent findings of numerous public opinion polls conducted both before and after the "Al-Aqsa Flood" operation.

Calls for the revitalization, democratization, and overall activation of the PLO have been voiced by Palestinians across the board, reflecting a shared understanding of the critical juncture and the immense challenges ahead.

However, these appeals and initiatives, supported by various Arab nations (such as Doha, Algeria, and Cairo) and influential global powers (such as Moscow and Beijing), have been disregarded. They've been met with resistance and obstruction from a leadership entrenched in its exclusive control, unwilling to undertake necessary self-assessment or abandon its failing strategies, even as the threats from settlements, settlers, and the extremist right-wing dominating decision-making in Tel Aviv drew dangerously close.

Therefore, the convocation of the Council wasn't driven by the need to "arrange the Palestinian house" and mend its internal divisions, as Ramallah's "propaganda machine" suggests, but by a fundamentally different agenda.

It was evident that this Central Council meeting, which has effectively taken over the authority of the Palestinian people's highest body—the National Council—acting both within and beyond its legitimate scope, lacked genuine political legitimacy, despite possessing a superficial legal quorum.

Key resistance factions, notably Hamas and Islamic Jihad (neither of which is represented anyway), were absent. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the National Initiative officially boycotted the session. Ironically, the Council's stated primary goal was internal unity, yet the president himself had just used the most offensive and vulgar language to describe a major Palestinian faction—the same President who claimed to have instructed his Executive Committee to explore avenues for restoring unity.

Ultimately, it's clear that this Council meeting, held nineteen months into the devastating war of encirclement, cleansing, and genocide, wasn't convened to address internal Palestinian national concerns, confront the enormous challenges, or honor the heroism and sacrifices of the people and resistance in Gaza. Instead, it was driven by the need to comply with external dictates aimed at reshaping and rehabilitating the Authority and the PLO to align with the requirements of the "day after" and its implications.

This context explains the widespread suspicion and doubt among the Palestinian people and factions regarding this event, which appeared inadequate for the gravity of the Palestinian moment and its inherent risks and challenges.

Politically, the unprecedented and vulgar language directed at segments of the Palestinian people and their organizations was regrettable. While the offensive language itself is significant, it doesn't diminish the importance of the underlying messages.

The assertion that the "hostage" issue is merely Israel's pretext for continuing its war of cleansing and genocide is strongly refuted by those who make it. This is evidenced by Bezalel Smotrich's statement just a day before the Central Council convened, where he openly declared that the liberation of the hostages was not the priority in the Gaza war, but rather the destruction of Hamas, the displacement of Gazans, the establishment of Israeli sovereignty over the Strip, and the construction of settlements to permanently close this file.

If the issue of hostages, prisoners, and detainees, and the need for their "liberation," is indeed Israel's pretext for its ethnic cleansing war, then what is its pretext for brutalizing and violating the West Bank so extensively?

What is its pretext for subjecting the Palestinian Authority leadership, including President Abbas, his Prime Minister, and ministers, to the most humiliating restrictions on their movement within the West Bank, Jerusalem, and when traveling abroad?

What is Israel's pretext for its rapid and continuous annexation of Palestinian land, rights, and holy sites? What is its pretext for seizing clearance funds and imposing starvation even on PA employees?

And why would Palestinian officials, specifically President Abbas, volunteer to promote and justify the Israeli narrative? This occurs while Israeli leaders, at both security and political levels, are revealing the "fabricated pretexts" concocted by Netanyahu and his government to prolong the war, obstruct ceasefire agreements, and justify reneging on any signed agreements.

Didn't Ramallah hear Yoav Gallant's recent admissions about the alleged "Philadelphi tunnels," and Ronen Bar's testimony about the government's actions to extend the war and undermine any chance of ending it? Behind these two figures—and what they represent—is a significant number of senior officials, former prime ministers, and opposition leaders who consistently blame Netanyahu and his extremist right-wing government for the ongoing war.

Therefore, Palestinians have every right to view this pre-determined meeting with suspicion and doubt. Its convocation was solely in the context of "day after" planning, to bury the resistance and align with the outcomes of the American-backed Israeli solution—as Trump himself stated just two days prior, indicating a shared agenda with Netanyahu.

The talk of reforming the PLO, injecting new blood, changing its leadership, and electing a "Deputy President" is a worn-out narrative that resonates with neither Palestinians nor those familiar with the intricacies of their internal dynamics.

Virtually, every Palestinian has called on the Authority and the Presidency to appoint a "Deputy President," especially given the President's advanced age. Historically, such demands have only brought misfortune to those who made them.

Today, the Presidency recognizes the need to formalize the "second man" position—a need (or rather, a dictate) stemming from external demands. The condition is that this position be filled by someone more aligned with the unchecked Israeli-American dominance, primarily to ensure a Palestinian "stamp" on any deal or settlement, whether tactical in the post-Gaza war context or strategic concerning the future of the Palestinian cause and national project.

This isn't what Palestinians have long advocated for; instead, these are impositions from international capitals involved in the project of reshaping and "engineering" the Middle East, with Palestine at its core.

Instead of the long-delayed Council meeting fostering optimism for the recovery and unification of the Palestinian political system through reform and revival, its convening has deepened the division and exacerbated the dangerous rift. This is particularly evident in the hostile stances taken against a significant and influential segment of the national action factions.

It has become obvious that we are witnessing a step backward. The reconciliation file is definitively closed, and hopes for a return to national consciousness and a reawakening of conscience have been dashed.

The Central Council no longer embodies Palestinian political, social, geographical, and cultural pluralism. Instead, it has become a compliant tool for an influential faction, convened "on demand," primarily to pass and legitimize ambiguous and questionable decisions and policies.

The Council has lost its comprehensive representative character and has transformed into a shield for the decision-making "troika" in Ramallah, isolated from the rest of the national action factions and a large part of Fatah itself, not to mention the vibrant forces within the Palestinian people outside its established factions and organizations.

For all these reasons, Palestinians now approach their meetings with apprehension and suspicion regarding the motives behind the calls for their convening, rather than eagerly anticipating regular or emergency sessions.

These developments leave open only one viable option for progress: the formation of the broadest possible Palestinian national coalition within a united national front. This front should include resistance factions, thousands of national figures, youth movements, and community initiatives, all in defense of the PLO and with the goal of reclaiming and liberating it from those who have seized control.

The remaining option is to stop knocking on firmly closed doors and instead work to open channels of communication and interaction between the living and active forces within the Palestinian people. This is crucial to prevent further erosion of the Palestinian national position and to salvage what can be salvaged from the system of the "sole legitimate representative," thereby restoring credibility to the Palestinian national project, which has never faced such a direct and indirect threat of liquidation, even from some Palestinians themselves.

– Areeb al-Rantawi is a Jordanian writer and political analyst. He is the Director of the Al-Quds Center for Political Studies.

(Al-Jazeera Arabic website – translated and prepared by The Palestine Chronicle)

The post PLO's Crossroads: Abbas' Gambit and the Future of Palestinian Unity appeared first on Palestine Chronicle.

2. Willing to Normalize: Why Syria’s Betrayal of Palestine Doesn’t Even Make Strategic Sense

By Robert Inlakesh

We have reached the point where there can no longer be any denial. Syria's new leadership has repeatedly signalled its willingness to sell out the Palestinian people, just to get in the US' good books. 

From launching anti-Palestinian crackdowns to repeatedly expressing interest in normalization, Damascus is pursuing collaboration with a regime carrying out a genocide.

The most recent revelations from two US congressmen, that Syrian President Ahmed al-Shara'a is seeking to join the so-called 'Abraham Accords' and normalize ties with Israel, have sparked outrage amongst many Syrians, while loyalists of the new administration continue to make excuses. 

Unfortunately, due to the divisive nature of the Syrian issue, there are very few willing to perform any kind of critical analysis of the decisions taken by the newly-instated government in Damascus. If you attempt to do this, you are instantly framed as an 'Assadist' or that you are undermining the Syrian people. 

This toxic way of approaching the issue needs to be changed, and the facts must be established. It is a similar tactic used by Zionists, who claim that by criticizing Israel, you are being antisemitic.

In addition to this, no amount of appeals to listen to the alleged popular will of Syrians will work as a moral argument for a government willing to collaborate with the regime committing a genocide against the people of Gaza. What is being done to the Palestinian people at this time represents one of the worst atrocities since World War 2. 

If Ahmed al-Shara'a does normalize ties with Israel, he and his regime will be complicit in the genocide of Palestinians, the occupation of the Holy sites in al-Quds, and the surrendering of Syrian lands, which Israel will never relinquish unless forced to do so. 

Saudi Arabia, which was on the verge of normalizing ties with the Israelis prior to the Gaza genocide, has not even signalled that it would stoop so low.

A Pro-Israeli Government in Damascus?

Since the fall of Bashar al-Assad's government on December 8, when Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) officially took control of Damascus, the new Syrian leadership has continually released statements and taken action in favour of Israel.

The most recent report regarding Ahmed al-Shara'a's willingness to normalize ties with Israel cites US officials Cory Mills, who serves on the House Foreign Affairs and Armed Services committees, and Congressman Marlin Stutzman. This came following their trip to Damascus.

President al-Shara'a did not deny these reports. In fact, Syria's Foreign Minister Asaad Hassan al-Shibani commented on Friday that "we have repeatedly emphasized that Syria will not pose a threat to any country, including Israel." Shibani previously stated that Israel is "a proven fact" and indicated that under the correct circumstances, there could be a Damascus-Tel Aviv dialogue.

In late December, the newly-instated Mayor of Damascus, Maher Marwan, called for normalization with Israel. Marwan defended his stance in an interview with NPR. "Our problem is not with Israel," he stated, adding, "We don't want to meddle in anything that will threaten Israel's security."

In fact, in Ahmed al-Shara'a's first interview since instating himself as Syrian President, which he gave to The Times (UK), he took the opportunity to pledge that Syria will not engage in "any conflict whether with Israel or anyone else and we will not let Syria be used as a launchpad for attacks." 

The excuse for this rhetoric is that "the Syrian people need a break", yet armed clashes and sectarian massacres continue to occur across Syria, as the nation has failed in four months to unite under one banner and instead is divided across its various regions. 

On top of this, armed militia forces affiliated with the new Syrian authorities have repeatedly clashed with Lebanese clans, Palestinian resistance forces, and even the Lebanese Army.

While the people of Dara'a have risen up on at least two occasions to combat Israeli invading forces in southern Syria, the only armed action taken in the nation's south by the new Syrian security forces has been against Syrian factions, attempting to force disarmament. 

Damascus, in line with Israeli orders to completely disarm the nation south of the Capital, has focused its armed efforts there, while militant groups allied with the HTS-led government continue to retain their weapons. 

Israel began a massive bombing campaign – the largest in the Israeli air force's history – across Syria immediately upon the fall of Bashar al-Assad. It also invaded Syria, expanding its occupation of the Golan Heights and seizing the strategic high ground at Jabal al-Sheikh, while also placing 6 major water sources of Syria's south under its control. 

Israel has killed hundreds of people throughout Syria since December, including committing assassinations against security units affiliated with HTS. However, the few statements released that address the ongoing invasion, ethnic cleansing of villages, erecting of checkpoints, and airstrikes have never threatened any consequences. In fact, these government statements are often accompanied by complaints about how Iran and Hezbollah are no longer in Syria and, therefore, there is no reason to attack.

Yet, on the other hand, whenever the Syrian government is challenged on its inaction in the face of the suffering of Syrians in the nation's south, its media apparatus and spokespeople quickly jump to blame Iranian conspiracies that seek to drag Damascus into a costly confrontation.

Meanwhile, the Syrian intelligence has been working to crack down on pro-Palestine resistance action. The latest case is the arrest of two leaders of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) movement, Yasser al-Zafri and Khaled Khaled. For some time, it was unclear why exactly they were arrested. 

The excuse then produced was that they were in possession of unregistered weapons, which, if this rule was going to be applied equally, would mean the arrest of tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of people.

This claim about unregistered weapons wouldn't be quite as laughable if Ahmed al-Shara'a had not just announced that, in order to stop the huge number of foreign fighters inside the country from committing terrorism, he may have to naturalize them as Syrian citizens.

Under the previous Syrian leadership, Israelis were also banned from entering the country, and citizens were charged if they communicated with them, let alone called for normalization. 

Yet, under the rule of Ahmed al-Shara'a, not only can Israelis now visit, but a journalist working for Israel's Channel 12, Itai Anghel, was taken by the new Syrian security forces on a friendly tour of military sites, the remains of the former Iranian embassy, and was even shown previously classified documents. Meanwhile, Syrian journalists give interviews to Israel's public broadcaster KAN, calling for "peace" with Israel.

Debunking the Excuses

The most common excuses that are presented by loyalists to the new Syrian leadership fall into the following categories:

5Dimensional Chess: "The President is trying to lift US sanctions, and he is making sacrifices to do so, but he has a grand plan."

Whataboutism: "But Assad and Hafez al-Assad never attacked Israel, so why should Ahmed al-Shara'a?"

Imagination: "When Syria becomes powerful, then it will defeat Israel."

Sectarianism: "The Iranians are the real enemy seeking a Sunni genocide."

Victimhood: "The Syrian people are tired of war, how dare you question the saviour leader!"

Below, I will address each point and show how none of these arguments make any sense, even if you are to view the issue from a Syrian-centric approach that completely sidelines all religious, moral, or national causes, simply considering the predicament of the nation from a materialistic and economic perspective. 

The first excuse often offered to explain away all of the government's dealings with Western nations and statements from its officials regarding Israeli normalization is perhaps the most difficult to disprove, as it relies on faith in the leaders' intentions.

Nevertheless, the reality, as it stands, is that the US is demanding a range of concessions from Syria if it is going to lift the sanctions, not only limited to Israeli normalization. Over the past month, right-wing Washington-based think tanks, which have influence over the Trump administration, have started to criticize Ahmed al-Shara'a and his failure to implement his various pledges upon taking power.

In addition to this, there is no real indication that Israel is even willing to normalize with it yet and is instead seeking to impose its plot to occupy key segments of southern Syria, establish relations with potential proxy forces, demilitarize the south, and put itself in the most powerful position possible.

Far from a 5D chess move, Syria would be entering into discussions with Israel without anything to use as leverage. In order to understand this better, take Egypt's Anwar Sadat, although he had lost the 1973 war, Israel would have been defeated if it wasn't for the US' aid, and was willing to trade the occupied Sinai Peninsula in exchange for removing the strategic threat posed to it from Cairo. What does Syria have to offer? A meaningless deal to end US sanctions and possibly stop airstrikes, which Israel will undoubtedly fail to comply with?

In order to believe that this is some kind of power play, you would first have to demonstrate that Ahmed al-Shara'a has leverage, which, by claiming he needs to normalise ties just to ease the economic suffering in his country, he admits he doesn't have. Suggesting normalization in exchange for lifting sanctions is an admission of weakness and will mean concessions for the sake of concessions.

Additionally, Israel does not want a strong Syria and will take all action necessary to prevent that from happening, as we are currently witnessing. Even neighboring Jordan, which has its domestic security situation under control, is now suffering economically and politically. Another great example is that of Egypt, which did gain territory from its agreement. Look at the state of the country now: Did the conditions of Egyptians or Jordanians get better with normalization? 

The whataboutism argument is normally premised on what people claim Bashar al-Assad and his father did or didn't do. In order to save time, as the history is mixed and there are certainly issues between both governments and various Palestinian movements, let's deal with the commonly repeated claim that Bashar and Hafez "never attacked Israel". 

Hafez al-Assad launched the most successful war ever waged against Israel by Arab State powers in 1973, temporarily liberating the occupied Golan Heights as Egypt retook the Sinai. As for under Bashar, in 2017, there were strikes ordered against Israeli military positions in the Golan Heights, and its air defences also brought down an Israeli fighter jet. While Syria stopped responding to Israeli attacks in 2018, it is factually false to say it never attacked Israel. 

It cannot be disputed that Bashar al-Assad failed to properly protect his country from Israeli attacks and that he even prevented Iran-backed armed groups from launching attacks out of southern Syria, yet claims that these two former Presidents never attacked Israel are false. 

Then we have the dreamers, people who believe in Ahmed al-Shara'a to the point of idolatry and without any indication of this, think blindly that he will normalize ties with the Israelis as a trick, so that he can then build a strong military and defeat Israel. Most of the reasons why this argument begins to fall apart were already addressed above.

Next up is the sectarian argument that presents Iran and its allies – Hezbollah, Ansarallah, and the Iraqi PMF – as the true enemies of Syria. In essence, this is the exact argument used by the Israelis and Americans, however, it is extremely popular largely due to the horrors inflicted during the course of the Syrian War.

This argument is also not new and is why Israel began providing military, financial, and medical support to some dozen Syrian opposition groups during the civil war. One of those groups that Israel backed was al-Nusra, which later changed its name to Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), led by Ahmed al-Shara'a (who then called himself Abu Mohammed al-Jolani) as the Syrian branch of Al-Qaeda.

There can be no denial that serious sectarianism plagued Syria throughout the war, with all sorts of foreign militia forces operating there and various massacres occurring on both sides. Countless documented cases exist.

While Bashar al-Assad's former regime was largely run by corrupt officials who were Sunni, some of whom are now working under the rule of al-Shara'a, there were many cases of sectarian violence and even ethnic cleansing. To be clear, the majority of the massacres carried out explicitly on sectarian groups were conducted by al-Qaeda affiliates like al-Nusra and Daesh.

However, a common sectarian argument employed in favour of al-Shara'a is that Iran committed a Sunni genocide. Many historical revisionists even claim "one million Sunnis were killed". So let's evaluate this allegation.

The highest estimate offered for the total number of war deaths, over the course of 13 years, comes from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR). According to the SOHR's data, 618,000 people were killed in total, 164,223 of which were civilians.

If we go with the highest possible death toll available, from the SOHR that took a favourable view to the opposition, it clearly shows that the large majority of the Syrian war deaths were combatants. 

The civilian death toll breakdown lists 122,695 men, 15,671 women and 25,857 children, over 13 years of conflict, and were killed by all sides; the largest portion of the deaths was attributed to the Syrian government and its allies. 

According to reports, forces aligned with Assad carried out around 50 total, explicitly sectarian massacres. For reference, more separate sectarian massacres have occurred in Syria since al-Shara'a took power.

It is undeniable that the horrors of the Syrian conflict have left deep mental scars on its people, the kind of trauma that can spark intergenerational hatred, yet the sectarian propagandists who try to overinflate the statistics to argue in favor of Israeli normalization do so with an agenda.

The idea that a Sunni genocide occurred and that Iran still intends to carry out such an atrocity lacks any evidence. Simply put, this is a religio-nationalist argument that works to serve as an excuse for otherwise inexcusable actions.

Another commonplace argument is that Syrians are tired of war, a very valid point and a reasonable position to take. Yet, normalization with Israel does not promise prosperity in Syria at all, for the above-mentioned reasons pointed out in this article.

In reality, instead of seeking peace for the Syrian people, what the government would be doing is opening relations with a nation that is committing a genocide against a population which are actually almost entirely Sunni Muslims. 

This means giving up all national considerations, abandoning thousands of Syrians in the Golan Heights who still view themselves as Syrian, while working to combat the only forces in the entire region that actually challenge Israel.

In only 18 months, the very lowest accepted death toll in Gaza is around 52,000, with another 14,000 missing (assumed dead), about 70% of whom are women and children. All of them were killed by one side, Israel, and almost all of them are Sunnis, although in this context, nobody mentions the Sunni element. 

The largest estimates of the death toll in Gaza range up to 300,000 for reference. Based on the lowest Gaza death toll, if you want to make it proportionate to Syria in current population size, this would equate to over 520,000 killed in just 18 months. 

Arguing in favour of normalization, purely based upon economic interests alone, there is no guarantee that it will achieve the long-desired peace that Syrians deserve. The other regional examples reflect the very opposite. On the other hand, Syria's leadership is then openly involved in the genocide of Palestinians. 

So then the counterargument would go? Are Palestinians not tired? And if so, why do they refuse to bow down to their occupiers?

On no level does it make any sense for Syria to normalise ties with Israel at this current point in history. It does not offer long-term security, economic, or territorial gains, and is a betrayal of all the region's held to religious, political, and moral obligations. The only ones who seek to benefit from such an agreement are those in power; ie. Ahmed al-Shara'a personally.

– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine. He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.

The post Willing to Normalize: Why Syria's Betrayal of Palestine Doesn't Even Make Strategic Sense appeared first on Palestine Chronicle.

3. Pope Francis’s Legacy of Love and Peace Remembered on the Day of His Funeral

By Kathy Kelly

Pope Francis was speaking about the children of Gaza, who have been orphaned, maimed, sickened, starved, forcibly displaced, traumatized, and buried under fire and rubble.

In 2022, Pope Francis created a will expressing his desire that just one word be inscribed on the stone marking his burial place: Franciscus.

Franciscus, Latin for Francis, is the name Jorge Mario Bergoglio chose when, twelve years ago, cardinals elected him to become the Bishop of Rome. He sought union with Saint Francis, known as one who lived on the margins, who discarded his worldly clothes, and who kissed the lepers. Pope Francis longed for "a church that is poor and is for the poor."

He recognized, as Bishop Robert McElroy once expressed it, that "too much money is in the hands of too few, while the vast majority struggle to get by."

As the spiritual leader of the world's 1.4 billion Catholics, Pope Francis unified people of different generations. He encouraged genuine love for humans—"Todo, todo, todo." Or, as the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.'s personal physician, the late beloved Chicagoan Dr. Quentin Young, would often say, "Everybody in, nobody out."

Pope Francis exhorted people to set aside the futility of war and to always care for those who bear the worst brunt of war, particularly the children. His were the words of a man whose heart aches for children who are being punished to death, sacrificed by powerful people whose lust for greed and power overcomes their capacity for compassion.

"Yesterday, children were bombed," Pope Francis said in his final Christmas message last December. "Children. This is cruelty, this is not war." He added, touching the cross he wore around his neck, "I want to say this, because it touches my heart."

Pope Francis was speaking about the children of Gaza, who have been orphaned, maimed, sickened, starved, forcibly displaced, traumatized, and buried under fire and rubble. In excerpts from the book Hope Never Disappoints. In Pilgrims Towards a Better World, published in November 2024, he was blunt about Israel's accountability, writing:

"What is happening in Gaza has the characteristics of a genocide. It should be investigated to determine whether it meets the definition formulated by jurists and international bodies."

On Easter, the day before his death, Pope Francis expressed in a written message: "I appeal to the warring parties: Call a ceasefire, release the hostages, and come to the aid of a starving people that aspire to a future of peace!"

During the current war, beginning in 2023, Pope Francis developed a strong relationship with parishioners of the Church of the Holy Family in Gaza. By holding virtual gatherings with the hundreds of people sheltering in the church, he was able to stay in daily touch with the realities they faced under Israel's siege and bombardment. On days when he learned that the bombing was particularly heavy, Pope Francis would call to check in on them as many as five times a day.

Amid the mourning at Pope Francis' funeral in St. Peter's Square, several Palestinian flags were raised in a powerful gesture of solidarity. pic.twitter.com/PpBOXvH5vp

— The Palestine Chronicle (@PalestineChron) April 26, 2025

Pope Francis carried his antiwar message to the seats of power in places around the world. In September 2015, exasperated by the superpowers' desire to control others through militarism, he posed a simple question to the US Congress: "Why," he asked, "would anyone give weapons to people who use them for war? (…) The answer is money, and the money is drenched in blood."

Pope Francis emphasized the stewardship so vitally needed for future generations to have a habitable planet, sounding an alarm about the need to address climate change. "The world in which we live is collapsing and may be nearing the breaking point," he stated in a magisterial document released in October 2023. "Despite all attempts to deny, conceal, gloss over, or relativise the issue, the signs of climate change are here and increasingly evident."

The Pontiff likewise denounced the use of atomic energy for the purposes of war, and declared possession of nuclear weapons to be immoral, asking: "How can we speak of peace even as we build terrifying new weapons of war?"

In accordance with his wishes, Pope Francis will be buried in a basilica dedicated to the Virgin Mary, a place he went to pray before and after each of his forty-seven "apostolic missions." The Basilica of Saint Mary Major is located in one of Rome's poorer neighborhoods, a church in a neighborhood with refugees. Francis has entrusted himself to the protection of Mary, the mother of Jesus.

I'd like to think that those words, "Todo, todo, todo," will break down the barriers creating illusory divisions between us, leading us toward true egalitarianism, embracing Earth and one another, grateful always for the chance to "choose life, so that you and your descendants can live."

Beloved Franciscus, "Oremus." Let us pray.

–Kathy Kelly, a peace activist and author, co-coordinates the Merchants of Death War Crimes Tribunal and is board president of World Beyond War.  She contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.

The post Pope Francis's Legacy of Love and Peace Remembered on the Day of His Funeral appeared first on Palestine Chronicle.

4. Motherhood Stolen and the Price of Denied Care in Gaza – A Doctor’s Testimony

By Dr. Mimi Syed

This mother would never see her children grow up, never watch her daughter graduate from college, or her son become a man. The injustice of it all burned within me, a fire that would never be extinguished.

The emergency department at Al Aqsa Hospital in Deir Al Balah was in chaos, a familiar scene during my second medical mission in Gaza. The aftermath of multiple airstrikes on the nearby Nuseirat Refugee Camp had left us with a relentless influx of casualties. Bodies lay on the ground awaiting assessment, and patients continued to arrive, victims of the most recent bombing.

Amidst the turmoil, a 29-year-old mother with three small children was rushed in by ambulance. She was unconscious, her blood pressure dangerously low, and she was bleeding from her breast. Her children, all under seven, sat quietly by her side, their faces etched with fear.

I reached into my tackle bag, gloves bloody, and pulled out a few balloons to distract them. Their faces lit up as they grabbed the colorful latex, momentarily forgetting the horror around them.

A Father's Eyes Filled with Despair – A Doctor's Testimony from Gaza

An elderly woman, later revealed to be the aunt, accompanied the mother. The woman was covered in a gown, clutching her breast where a massive tumor protruded.

As I removed her clothing and the gauze applied by paramedics, I was confronted with a sight that, despite my experience in underserved areas, I had never witnessed: a breast mass so large and disfiguring that it was clearly the source of her profuse bleeding.

A diaper beside her was filled with a large clot of blood, evidence of the tumor's highly vascularized state. I attempted to stem the bleeding, but it was clear that this growth had been uncontrolled for months, becoming a ticking time bomb. I ordered two units of emergent blood as her pressure plummeted, her skin turning pale and clammy.

Her aunt revealed that the lump had been noticed months prior, the size of an olive. A doctor had prescribed tumor resection and chemotherapy, treatments unavailable in Gaza due to the decimated healthcare system. Approved for medical evacuation by the WHO, she had been denied exit by the Israeli government multiple times.

Israeli Government's Use of 'Toxic Deflection' to Justify Annihilation of Palestinians

Reviewing her records, it was evident that her cancer was treatable. In any other country, or even in Gaza before October 7th, she would have received care and been cured. But now, there was nothing we could do. We lacked the blood supply to stabilize her, and the surgical resources needed to debulk the tumor were better allocated to patients with more hope for recovery.

I turned to the young woman, her children huddled close, and delivered the devastating news. She would die soon, with her children next to her on the cot. This mother would never see her children grow up, never watch her daughter graduate from college, or her son become a man. The injustice of it all burned within me, a fire that would never be extinguished.

The Death of Gaza's Healthcare System: A Doctor's Testimony

The manufactured cruelties I witnessed in Gaza will forever be etched in my mind. This young mother, denied treatment due to deliberately created barriers, paid the ultimate price. It's hard to imagine a more innocent civilian being punished by the Israeli government.

Since October 7, 2023, Israel has blocked lifesaving medications like chemotherapy, sealing the fate of countless others like her. Her story is a stark reminder of the calculated annihilation of the healthcare system in Gaza and the urgent need for change.

(The Palestine Chronicle)

– Dr. Mimi Syed is an American board-certified emergency medicine physician, Dr. Syed served in Gaza from August 8 to September 5, 2024, and December 3 to December 31, 2024, at both Al-Aqsa Hospital and Nasser Hospital. She contributed this article to the Palestine Chronicle.

The post Motherhood Stolen and the Price of Denied Care in Gaza – A Doctor's Testimony appeared first on Palestine Chronicle.

5. Gaza: Israel’s ‘Zone of Interest’ and the Global Silence on War Crimes

By Jeremy Salt

Gaza has been turned into a death zone by Israel, with deliberate, mass-scale violence and complicity from its civilian population, while the international community remains largely indifferent.

War crimes and crimes against humanity are being committed in Gaza on a scale we have never seen before, not in the lifetime of almost all of us. They have been committed every day for more than 18 months now. No one escapes. Not the young and not the old, not the disabled and not the patient in the hospital. 

There is no sanctuary, no safe place. The Palestinians are burned to death in tents. They are terrorized into flight from one part of Gaza to another. They are lured into 'safe places' and then bombed. They are being starved to death, deliberately denied food, water and electricity, thereby condemning hospital patients to death. 

The genocide is comprehensive, deliberate, mass murder planned in advance and carried out with great attention to detail. There is no mercy, no compassion, no common humanity. The whole of Gaza has been turned into a death zone. The cruelty is hard to comprehend. 

This is not just the government or the military command or the 'soldiers' sniping at children and blowing up hospitals, but Israel's civilian Jewish population. 

Israelis march against Netanyahu, but not once have they marched against genocide. Not once have they marched against the killing of 19-20,000 Palestinian children by their army and air force. The polls since late 2023 have been consistent in recording the complicity of the majority of the Israeli Jewish population. 

A poll carried out by a Tel Aviv university research institute in late 2023, when hospitals had already been bombed and thousands of civilians killed, revealed that only two percent of those polled thought too much firepower was being used in Gaza. 

Nearly 58 percent thought it was too little. A poll carried out by the Viterbi Family Centre for Public Opinion and Policy Research at the Israeli Democracy Institute, also in late 2023, revealed that more than 80 percent of those polled believed the suffering of the civilian population should be taken into account only "to a very small extent" or "a fairly small extent." 

A Pew Research Centre poll released on May 30, 2024, found that 19 percent of those polled thought the military had gone too far, 39 percent that it had got it "about right," and 34 percent "not far enough." So 73 percent "about right" or "not far enough," at a time more than 35,000 Palestinian civilians had been killed, a high proportion of them (about 70 percent) women and children. 

An Israeli Democracy Institute poll of October 2024 found 53 percent favoured ending the way not because of the mass killing of Palestinians but because of "damage to the hostages." Sixty-two percent thought bringing back the hostages should be the primary goal of the war. 

Only three percent thought the war should be ended because of the cost in human life and the desire for peace and quiet, 'for whom?' not specified. Eighty-six percent of Jews graded the role of the military as "excellent," and 61 percent opposed the investigation of soldiers accused of abusing Palestinian prisoners. 

At the same time, 48 percent were pessimistic about the future of the country. Since October 2023, tens of thousands of Israelis have voted with their feet by leaving the country, the reason for which is not to be misinterpreted in any way as sympathy for the Palestinians. 

Not one poll has been based on attitudes towards the slow extermination of the Palestinian population. Israelis are not asked whether they think it is right, even in war, for families to be burnt alive in their tents or paramedics and aid workers murdered on the road. 

Not one question is asked about the mass killing of the totally innocent children. This world-historic crime does not even register in the daily Israeli news cycle. In May 2024, UNRWA commissioner-general Philippe Lazzarini described Gaza as "a war on children." No one should be surprised. Israel's wars always involve a high casualty rate among women and children. 

Neither were children excepted from the threats by Israeli politicians and military commanders to annihilate Gaza. The remark by the intelligence officer Eliyahu Yossian that "There are no innocents in Gaza. There are 2.5 million terrorists" comes out of a culture in which Palestinians have been dehumanized over decades as insects and snakes and children as terrorists in the making. 

Vox pop street questions usually get the answer that it's all Hamas' fault. This echoes Golda Meir's remark: "We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children." 

The "excellent behavior" of the soldiers breaks every convention ever written on the conduct of an army in wartime. The soldiers send videos back to their families and friends as they humiliate prisoners, blow up universities, mock children in their shattered classrooms and prance around in women's underwear in the homes they have destroyed. 

They deliberately kill children. They fired hundreds of bullets into the car where a five-year-old child, Hind Rajab, was pleading for someone to come and save her. They had previously killed six members of her family and they killed the two paramedics coming to her rescue. 

They killed all six of a father's sons, leaving him to bury them. They killed photojournalist Fatima Hassouna and six of her brothers and sisters. They murder paramedics and bury them with their ambulances. 

They have wiped out entire extended families, 60,70, 80 or more people, so that even the name no longer only exists except on a death register. These are abominable crimes and there are thousands of them. 

The argument that Israelis don't know any better because the media filters out what the government doesn't want them to know doesn't wash in the 21st century. They either do know or they could easily find out. 

Germans in the 1940s only had a totally controlled press and radio. They had some kind of credible argument for not knowing, but with the internet and social media these days, Israelis have no excuse. 

The Gaza genocide is not just the outcome of a handful of psychopaths at the top. This is an entire people, divided amongst themselves, but broadly united in their support of state terror and complicit in genocide. 

They were hardly brought to this point overnight. Lifelong indoctrination across generations prepared the way. The state Israelis have is the one the early Zionists knew they would need if they were to succeed. 

They looked on 'diaspora' Jews with contempt. Their model was the state of the Bible, powerful, vengeful, ruthless and successful in establishing its dominance in the land of Canaan. Its enemies were not just to be defeated but eliminated, wiped off the face of the earth.

This is the Amalek Netanyahu invoked when opening the campaign against the Gaza civilian population. He was summoning up the image of an ancient genocidal state to justify genocide and the great majority of Israelis went along with it. 

Less than 80 kms from Gaza, Tel Aviv is as remote from death by missile and starvation as Rudolf Hoss and his family were from the slaughter on the other side of the wall separating their villa from the Auschwitz death camp. 

In the film Zone of Interest, Frau Hoss picks flowers and shows visitors around the garden. In Tel Aviv, only a short drive from Israel's own death camp, Israelis play netball on the beach, bronze their bodies, or sip a latte in the nearest café. 

They don't care, they are indifferen,t or they justify. Before she died in 2023, Brigitte Hoss said she was sure her mother knew what was going on over the garden wall, and Israelis know just as well what is going on over the Gaza fence. 

As for the killing of Israeli civilians, apart from the fact that many if not most were killed on October 7 2023 by their own military, there is no resistance movement in history that has not involved the killing of 'innocent' civilians – but by whose standards are they innocent, the occupier or the occupied? 

Who is truly 'innocent'? Was the British settler in Kenya, the French settler in Algeria, wholly 'innocent'? The German civilian in occupied France or Poland? The Israeli settler on the other side of the Gaza fence, living on land stripped of its native population? The settler on the West Bank? The Australian or American living on land seized from the native population? 

Are they absolved by the fact that these crimes were committed a few centuries ago? If there is a difference, surely it is that we are supposed to know by now that such behaviour cannot be tolerated in a 'civilized' world. 

Finally, to go back to the opening phase of the Gazan stage of the Palestinian genocide, there is strong evidence that the Hamas attack of October 7 was allowed to go ahead. Netanyahu knew for weeks, if not months, that it was coming, knew it had been planned for a long time, and knew it would be a major attack. 

He had all the information it needed, from human intelligence on the ground, including the warnings of its own soldiers, to sensors and cameras built all around Gaza and surveillance footage from drones and satellites.

Yet he did nothing and even waited several hours before reacting with the armed forces. 

This cannot be interpreted in any other way than Netanyahu allowing the attack to go ahead, wanting it to go ahead as an investment promising a high return: 1000 Israeli lives invested, Gaza annihilated. 

Would he be capable of such perfidy? Of course. He is a pathological liar, hardened, heartless, corrupt, unprincipled, a "vile messiah leading a cult of lies and death," as a newspaper described him, and that is just Jewish opinion inside Israel.

Gaza was evidently the first step in an orchestrated campaign worked out with the US to clean up the Middle East once and for all. The next step was Lebanon,  where thousands of civilians were killed in Beirut and the south, and Hezbollah's leadership wiped out. The third step was Syria, whose destruction handed Israel its greatest victory since 1948, possibly even greater than 1967. 

Now there's the prospect of a war with Iran if only Trump can be convinced. If Yemen can be broken by mass aerial attacks, with rumours even of plans for a ground invasion, and if Iran can be collapsed as well, all the Middle East will belong to Israel. 

It will be surrounded by scorched earth, and finally it will feel 'safe.' There will no longer be an 'Arab world', only fragmentation and intimidated states living under the thumb of Israel and its all-powerful American protector. This is what Israel and its US benefactor are driving towards. 

In fact, the future Israel has created for itself has never seemed less certain. Over 80 years, it has completely failed to integrate into the Middle East. Instead, it chose to force itself upon the region. 

The consequences have been catastrophic. Israel remains what it was at the start, a violent western outpost in West Asia. Without western arms, money, and political protection, it cannot survive. It has nothing else to fall back on, and these gifts will not continue indefinitely.

– Jeremy Salt taught at the University of Melbourne, at Bosporus University in Istanbul and Bilkent University in Ankara for many years, specializing in the modern history of the Middle East. Among his recent publications is his 2008 book, The Unmaking of the Middle East. A History of Western Disorder in Arab Lands (University of California Press) and The Last Ottoman Wars. The Human Cost 1877-1923 (University of Utah Press, 2019). He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.

The post Gaza: Israel's 'Zone of Interest' and the Global Silence on War Crimes appeared first on Palestine Chronicle.

6. Jordan’s Muslim Brotherhood Ban: Why It Has Everything to Do with Israel

By Robert Inlakesh

Jordan's renewed crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood reflects growing regime insecurity and its deepening collaboration with Israel amid rising pro-Palestine sentiment at home.

On Wednesday, Jordanian Interior Minister Mazin al-Faraya announced that the Hashemite Kingdom is placing a ban on the Muslim Brotherhood. While the move comes in what Amman has framed as a reaction to destabilizing activities of the group's members, it appears more like a crackdown on dissidents.

Although Jordan had originally banned the Muslim Brotherhood from operating inside the country over a decade ago, the new declaration was aimed at shutting down all activities connected to a licensed splinter group that was quickly surrounded by police officers upon the new ruling.

While it is clear that Amman is serious about seeking to purge not only Muslim Brotherhood-connected groups from within its borders but also decreasing the influence of its ideology, it is unclear how far the ban is intended to go. 

For instance, the fate of the most popular political bloc in parliament is the Islamic Action Front (IAC), which is known for its affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood and has desperately sought to distance itself from the organization, fearing a crackdown.

Jordan, as a Constitutional Monarchy, maintains a bicameral legislature. This means that its parliamentary system is essentially split into two, the lower chamber (House of Parliament) and the Senate. 

Hezbollah's Resurgence: The Era of Sheikh Naim Qassem?

While the lower chamber consists of 138 elected officials, who are voted in by the public once every four years, the Senate is composed of 69 members who are all chosen by King Abdullah II. The nation's Grand Mufti and its Supreme Court Judge are also chosen by the Hashemite ruler.

In Jordan, the parliament also has no say on who will become the prime minister or one of its Ministers, as these roles are subject to appointment by the King alone. Why this matters is that the only place where the democratic will of the Jordanian public is heard is in the parliament's lower chamber. 

Back in September, an election took place, and the Islamic Action Front won in a landslide.

Since that time, the Jordanian leadership has launched a series of crackdowns targeting individuals and events linked to the Islamic Action Front and Muslim Brotherhood. 

In addition to this, the Hashemite Kingdom has cracked down upon several prominent pro-Palestine protest organisers in the country. 

The Muslim Brotherhood's stances towards Palestine and the war on Gaza have greatly contributed to a rise in their popularity.

However, another important indicator emerged from the last election and that was the large bloc that cast their ballot without choosing any party. This crowd was interpreted as a protest vote group, yet there is no political entity representing them and thus nobody specifically to be persecuted.

US Vs. Ansarallah: Will Trump Launch A Ground War in Yemen for Israel?

Jordan is currently experiencing a range of issues, including everything from increasing economic instability to political unrest over the leadership's collaboration with Israel, even allowing the free flow of supplies to aid the Israelis in committing their genocide in Gaza. The largest portion of Jordan's citizenry are actually Palestinian, which compounds these issues further.

In addition to all of this, there is now even greater instability on its northern border with Syria, following the fall of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, leading to fears of all kinds of hostilities erupting as a result.

Last week, the Jordanian authorities announced that they had arrested a cell consisting of 16 fighters, accusing them of attempting to damage national security. A number of claims were made about the weapons and capabilities that the groups were said to have possessed, including rockets with a 5 KM range and a facility for developing drones.

The Jordanian authorities claimed the group to have been affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood and to have taken orders from a cadre leader operating out of Beirut, Lebanon. Later, reports began to emerge that suggested the rockets had a range of 12 KM and that the group was affiliated with Hamas. Either way, the whole incident has been covered vaguely, and little can be concluded from what was publicly shared.

What is for certain, however, is that the armed cell issue has been weaponized in order to excuse the larger Muslim Brotherhood crackdown. Then came claims that other cells were also arrested. In all, it is clear that the excuses issued for this purge of the Muslim Brotherhood and their affiliates, including a ban on disseminating or discussing them in any positive way on the media, are not genuine.

Jordan understands well that its population is fed up with their declining living standards, false promises about political reforms, all while there is continued collaboration with Israel. The Jordanian leadership clearly fears a popular uprising, but also any resistance groups emerging that will challenge Israel from within its territory.

Working together with the unelected Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas, the King of Jordan is committed to crushing any rebellion against Israel's genocide in the Gaza Strip. 

How Netanyahu's Fight against His Own Intel Chief Impacts Gaza

This is why the Jordanian ruler opposes Israeli annexation of the occupied West Bank so furiously, as he understands that, given the collapse of the EU-US-Israeli collaborationist regime in Ramallah, which represents no more than a corrupt class of business elites, his own position on Palestine collapses.

Khaled Barakat, a leader of the Palestinian Alternative Revolutionary Path (PARP) movement, recently stated the following in a comment piece for al-Akhbar News:

"The regime—like the authority in Ramallah—sees neither Jerusalem nor the daily massacres in Gaza as issues worthy of severing relations with the Zionist entity. It refuses to bear its historical and political responsibility for the loss of Jerusalem and the homeland in 1948 and 1967."

He continued: 

"At the same time, its security apparatus confiscates the citizens' right to fight for Jerusalem, their own rights to freedom and to stand with Gaza, and their right to cry out against the actions of Ben Gvir and his herd of vicious settlers. It denies them the right to reject daily slaughter and the crimes of the enemy in Jerusalem: Judaization, displacement, house demolitions, and daily desecration of Al-Aqsa Mosque and Muslim and Christian holy sites."

The anti-Israel sentiment inside Jordan is overwhelming, which has led to a number of Jordanians taking matters into their own hands and launching individual armed attacks against Israeli forces on the opposite side of the border. Meanwhile, Jordan has continued to send supplies through its territory to Israel, while publicly using the language of human rights and expressing its concern over the massacres in Gaza.

At the same time, Amman frequently cracks down on pro-Palestinian voices and would-be armed cells that seek to confront Israel, under the guise of national security, stability, and using excuses about "Iran-backed" conspiracies. 

These conspiracy theories about Iranian, Hezbollah or Ansarallah plots are the same arguments used by every pro-Israel and pro-US leadership and group in the region. Such accusations rarely produce any demonstrable proof that such conspiracies exist, yet they are widespread.

The anti-Iran rhetoric often works due to its sectarian elements, even convincing some portions of the wider Arab World that they should ally themselves with Israel and the United States in order to fight "the Shia". Yet, the absence of any considerable Muslim minority groups in Jordan makes the sectarian propaganda less effective and thus a different boogeyman must be conjured up.

Despite all of this, the Hashemite rulers' crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood is a tell-tale sign of fear in the direction the government is heading. Historically, confident leaders don't feel the need to initiate political crackdowns, liquidate political parties and curtail free speech, unless they sense a threat to the status quo.

(The Palestine Chronicle)

– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine. He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.

The post Jordan's Muslim Brotherhood Ban: Why It Has Everything to Do with Israel appeared first on Palestine Chronicle.

7. Endless Displacement: The Tragedy of Forced Evictions in Tulkarm, Jenin

By Fayha Shalash – Ramallah

Tens of thousands of Palestinians continue to endure displacement and loss in Tulkarm and other northern West Bank refugee camps under ongoing Israeli military aggression.

Tasneem Sleit continues to endure the suffering of displacement after being expelled with her family from their home in Tulkarm camp, like tens of thousands of other Palestinians.

The Israeli military aggression against the refugee camps in the northern West Bank has been ongoing for three months, with no end in sight.

All residents of the Jenin, Tulkarm, and Nur Shams camps have been forcibly evicted from their homes, and hundreds of these homes have been demolished as part of a broader plan to erase the refugee camps and completely alter their landscape under the pretext of eliminating armed resistance cells.

More than 40,000 displaced persons from these camps are living in difficult conditions without official Palestinian support. More than half of them have taken up residence in centers, halls, and clubs in the cities of Jenin and Tulkarm, suffering from a lack of aid and an uncertain future.

Star of David Markings: Israeli Soldiers Humiliate Palestinians in Hebron

No Greater Feeling of Despair

On January 27, Israeli aircraft bombed a target in Tulkarm camp, killing two Palestinians. At the time, Tasneem was outside her home in the al-Madaris neighborhood of the camp and was unable to reach it due to a large-scale Israeli army raid.

Since then, Tasneem has not seen her home. She and her husband were forced to rent a house on the outskirts of the camp, but the Israeli army stormed it on March 12 and turned it into a military barracks, forcing the family to flee once again.

"A few weeks ago, my parents received an order from the Israeli court to demolish their home inside the camp. Then I learned that my home had been demolished. There is no feeling more difficult than this: to have the memories, belongings, and beautiful years we spent there vanish in such moments. It is an extremely harsh thing," she told the Palestine Chronicle.

"The displaced are completely exhausted," Tasneem said, describing their situation, amid Israeli military announcements that they will remain in the camps until next year, with no clear future for them.

Tulkarm Invaded: 'Israeli Soldiers Forced Me to Act as a Human Shield, Stole My Money'

"We are waiting for news of withdrawal so we can return to our homes, most of which have been destroyed, and the remaining homes have been severely damaged. Life in the camp is unbearable. There are those who say we will return to the camp even if we stay in a tent, despite knowing that they are forbidden from rebuilding their homes," she said.

The displaced are not just looking for food; they also need many things that are not available to them, such as clothes they left behind in their homes, now buried under rubble, and general necessities for children.

The majority of volunteers serving the displaced have stopped working, unable to cope with the increasing burdens. This is not to mention the large number of Tulkarm residents whose homes were destroyed by soldiers because they overlooked the camp or were used as military barracks.

The residents have no alternative housing options other than the already overcrowded shelters.

Blinded in Hebron – Israel Shot Jannat in the Face and the Media Ignored It

When Will Our Tragedy End?

Ambulance driver Hazem Masarweh is experiencing the most difficult days of his life after being displaced from his home in Jenin camp.

Masarweh told us that he was forced to flee his home inside the camp at the start of the offensive. He was able to rent a house to avoid being confined to shelters, but he doesn't have any cooking or laundry supplies inside the house.

"All the food aid provided to the displaced contains grains that must be cooked, but we don't have stoves or ovens, which has worsened our suffering," he told us.

To distribute the heavy load, Hazem and his two children were forced to move to one location, while his wife and daughter moved to another, and their eldest son moved to a third. They visit each other every 20 days.

Masarweh owns the Ibn Sina Medical Center in the camp, which the Israeli army has raided several times, destroying its contents. He is unaware of the fate of his home inside the camp.

The Ethnic Cleansing of the West Bank: Thousands Displaced in Israel's Brutal Assault

"We are experiencing a complex psychological state. We are trying to survive with only what we have, and we are constantly thinking about our homes and the camp's alleys that we grew up in. Will we ever return to them? What does it look like now? When will our prolonged tragedy end?"

Perhaps the greatest concern for the displaced is the lack of any prospects or end to this aggression, similar to previous incursions. The continued displacement weighs heavily on the shoulders of the displaced and their hopes for a dignified life, which seems like a mirage under occupation.

(The Palestine Chronicle)

– Fayha' Shalash is a Ramallah-based Palestinian journalist. She graduated from Birzeit University in 2008 and she has been working as a reporter and broadcaster ever since. Her articles appeared in several online publications. She contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.

The post Endless Displacement: The Tragedy of Forced Evictions in Tulkarm, Jenin appeared first on Palestine Chronicle.

8. Imperial Cowardice: Gaza and the Moral Collapse of the American Elite

By Mohamed El Mokhtar

Gaza is not an aberration. It is a mirror. And in that mirror, young America no longer sees empire — it sees its moral ruin.

Not long ago, in a courteous written exchange, an American friend — Anglo-Saxon, an attorney by profession, graduate of George Washington University and Yale — shared with me a conviction he believed to be lucid: in his view, Israel far surpassed the Arab world in diplomacy, strategy, and technology.

As for American Jews, he said, they excelled in navigating the levers of power — not through privilege, but through merit. What he saw was not domination or capture, but the rightful fulfillment of political modernity.

I read his message attentively. Then I responded, soberly. I do not dispute the resilience of a people, nor their achievements. What I question is how a particular ideological loyalty — Zionism — has become a tacit orthodoxy at the very heart of American power. A reflexive dogma, where any nuance is suspect and every question deemed heretical.

I made sure to draw a distinction our era seems to have forgotten: to criticize a structure of power is not to target a community. To illustrate the ideological saturation now governing American institutions, I cited — carefully, and with critical distance — a troubling phrase once uttered about "Jewish domination of the West." Not to echo it, but to expose its falseness. The real subjugation is not to a people, but to a pro-Israel lobby: structured, strategic, effective — and, unlike other powerful interest groups (in defense, energy, pharmaceuticals), uniquely shielded by symbolic impunity.

This is not about identity, but about power. About a narrative machinery built on moral intimidation, reputational disqualification, and the sanctification of memory. A memory hardened into armor. An impunity enshrined as a doctrine.

My friend declined to explore this complexity. A few days later, he ended our correspondence. Not out of disdain, but out of fear. Fear of certain words. Fear, too, of upsetting the domestic balance: his wife was Jewish, and Gaza was already a cursed word. He wasn't fleeing an idea, but a climate. The climate of an age where doubt is fault, and thought, transgression.

That says it all. America no longer thinks. It recites. It no longer governs. It bows.

What it now venerates is a binary and brutal vision of the world — the vision of an empire that still thinks like a frontier. This posture is not new. The Anglo-Saxon elite, forged in expansion, never needed lobbies to wield violence. But without the current ideological grip, it might have hesitated more, and struck with more restraint.

This is a nation of self-righteous cowboys, convinced every conflict is a duel and every dissenting voice, betrayal. The Middle East is not a region to understand, but a stage to dominate. In this mental theatre, Israel plays a familiar role: enforcer, moral outpost, flattering reflection of an America enamored with its own imperial image.

This reflex is not a deviation. It reveals a deeper deficiency: a country without an aristocracy of the mind. Jackson was born in a log cabin. Truman never attended university. Reagan played the presidency like a role. Bush Jr., despite Yale, embodied privilege devoid of culture. As for Trump, he is the raw child of a frenzied empire — wealth without nobility, power without restraint, vulgarity without shame.

Beneath this vacuum lies a deeper unease: a WASP elite, long dominant but rarely erudite, destabilized, for decades now, by the rise of Jewish American elites: more cultivated, more cosmopolitan, more strategic, and deeply Zionist. Supported by an influential, doctrinaire evangelical base, these elites have mastered the narrative. The white Protestant elite, rather than compete, aligned itself. Some out of conviction; many out of fear or quiet resignation.

And so the story changed hands. Not by conspiracy. But by surrender — and by imposture.

And that surrender kills. In Gaza, it kills bodies. In America, it kills minds. There, hospitals collapse. Here, consciences do. What remains is not diplomacy or thought, but political liturgy. And those who utter the word "genocide" — students, artists, journalists — are dragged to the scaffold.

The moral fracture is wide open. A generation—educated, critical, often Jewish itself—now sees what the ruling class can no longer name: that Israel has become a genocidal war machine, and America, its dispenser of impunity.

This complicity is bipartisan. Sometimes it bears the name Biden, sometimes Trump. One embodies soft submission, the other, brutal blindness. Trump was not a mistake — he was a verdict. A revenge against the betrayal of universal principles. He did not merely dismantle institutions; he revived white supremacism, reawakened latent antisemitism.

A tragic irony: In defending Israel blindly, America endangers the moral future of its own Jewish citizens.

More broadly, the country has surrendered to lobbies, especially the pro-Israel lobby. From progressives to conservatives, this submission transcends party lines — it has become a bipartisan rite.

Its foreign policy is no longer autonomous. It is bought, captured, and executed.

And this submission rests on deeper foundations: a rotten electoral system where money dictates the agenda, and loyalty to Israel matters more than any platform, principle, or nation.

Since the Citizens United ruling, corporations can fund Political Action Committees and flood campaigns with dark money. Corruption does not stop at Congress — it reaches the Supreme Court itself.

Nancy Isenberg has shown that America was never a meritocracy, but a hierarchy of humiliation. Richard Slotkin reminds us that its founding mythology rests on redemptive violence. And Alexander Hinton teaches that genocide does not begin with bombs, but with silence.

Gaza is not an aberration. It is a mirror. And in that mirror, young America no longer sees empire — it sees its moral ruin.

Yet even fractured, the country is still crossed by currents of resistance: lucid intellectuals, principled journalists, visionary artists. But these voices remain scattered, uncoordinated.

Across from them, the conservatives know how to lock down the narrative, dictate the agenda, and occupy the space.

The war in Gaza did not only redraw a map. It revealed a generational rupture. A young, educated, connected, critical America is rising. And it speaks a language the political elite no longer understands.

– Mohamed El Mokhtar Sidi Haiba is a social and political analyst, whose research interest is focused on African and Middle Eastern Affairs. He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.

The post Imperial Cowardice: Gaza and the Moral Collapse of the American Elite appeared first on Palestine Chronicle.

9. Deporting Dissent: The Dangerous Precedent Set by the Persecution of Pro-Palestine Activists

By Ramzy Baroud  

While US activists advocating for justice in Palestine deserve unwavering support and defense for their profound courage and humanity, Americans must also recognize that they, and the remnants of their democracy, are equally at risk.

"Rights are granted to those who align with power," Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate student, eloquently wrote from his cell. This poignant statement came soon after a judge ruled that the government had met the legal threshold to deport the young activist on the nebulous ground of "foreign policy".

"For the poor, for people of color, for those who resist injustice, rights are but words written on water," Khalil further lamented. The plight of this young man, whose sole transgression appears to be his participation in the nationwide mobilization to halt the Israeli genocide in Gaza, should terrify all Americans. This concern should extend even to those who are not inclined to join any political movement and possess no particular sympathy for – or detailed knowledge of – the extent of the Israeli atrocities in Gaza, or the United States' role in bankrolling this devastating conflict.

The perplexing nature of the case against Khalil, like those against other student activists, including Turkish visa holder Rümeysa Öztürk, starkly indicates that the issue is purely political. Its singular aim appears to be the silencing of dissenting political voices.

Judge Jamee E. Comans, who concurred with the Trump Administration's decision to deport Khalil, cited "foreign policy" in an uncritical acceptance of the language employed by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Rubio had previously written to the court, citing "potentially serious foreign policy consequences" stemming from Khalil's actions, which he characterized as participation in "disruptive activities" and "anti-Semitic protests".

The latter accusation has become the reflexive rejoinder to any form of criticism leveled against Israel, a tactic prevalent even long before the current catastrophic genocide in Gaza.

Those who might argue that US citizens remain unaffected by the widespread US government crackdowns on freedom of expression must reconsider. On April 14, the government decided to freeze $2.2 billion in federal funding to the University of Harvard.

Beyond the potential weakening of educational institutions and their impact on numerous Americans, these financial measures also coincide with a rapidly accelerating and alarming trend of targeting dissenting voices within the US, reaching unprecedented extents. On April 14, Massachusetts immigration lawyer Nicole Micheroni, a US citizen, publicly disclosed receiving a message from the Department of Homeland Security requesting her self-deportation.

Furthermore, new oppressive bills are under consideration in Congress, granting the Department of Treasury expansive measures to shut down community organizations, charities, and similar entities under various pretenses and without adhering to standard constitutional legal procedures.

Many readily conclude that these measures reflect Israel's profound influence on US domestic politics and the significant ability of the Israel lobby in Washington DC to interfere with the very democratic fabric of the US, whose Constitution's First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and assembly.

While there is much truth in that conclusion, the narrative extends beyond the complexities of the Israel-Palestine issue.

For many years, individuals, predominantly academics, who championed Palestinian rights were subjected to trials or even deported, based on "secret evidence". This essentially involved a legal practice that amalgamated various acts, such as the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), among others, to silence those critical of US foreign policy.

Although some civil rights groups in the US challenged the selective application of law to stifle dissent, the matter hardly ignited a nationwide conversation regarding the authorities' violations of fundamental democratic norms, such as due process (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments).

Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, however, much of that legal apparatus was applied to all Americans in the form of the PATRIOT Act. This legislation broadened the government's authority to employ surveillance, including electronic communications, and other intrusive measures.

Subsequently, it became widely known that even social media platforms were integrated into government surveillance efforts. Recent reports have even suggested that the government mandated social media screening for all U.S. visa applicants who have traveled to the Gaza Strip since January 1, 2007.

In pursuing these actions, the US government is effectively replicating some of the draconian measures imposed by Israel on the Palestinians. The crucial distinction, based on historical experience, is that these measures tend to undergo continuous evolution, establishing legal precedents that swiftly apply to all Americans and further compromise their already deteriorating democracy.

Americans are already grappling with their perception of their democratic institutions, with a disturbingly high number of 72 percent, according to a Pew Research Center survey in April 2024, believing that US democracy is no longer a good example for other countries to follow.

The situation has only worsened in the past year. While US activists advocating for justice in Palestine deserve unwavering support and defense for their profound courage and humanity, Americans must also recognize that they, and the remnants of their democracy, are equally at risk.

"Our defense is in the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands, everywhere," is the timeless quote associated with Abraham Lincoln. Yet, every day that Mahmoud Khalil and others spend in their cells, awaiting deportation, stands as the starkest violation of that very sentiment. Americans must not permit this injustice to persist.

– Ramzy Baroud is a journalist and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of six books. His latest book, co-edited with Ilan Pappé, is "Our Vision for Liberation: Engaged Palestinian Leaders and Intellectuals Speak out". Dr. Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA). His website is www.ramzybaroud.net

The post Deporting Dissent: The Dangerous Precedent Set by the Persecution of Pro-Palestine Activists appeared first on Palestine Chronicle.

10. Iran and the United States: Nuclear Argy Bargy, Propaganda, and the Politics of Power

By Dr. M. Reza Behnam

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." –  Voltaire, Enlightenment author and philosopher (1694-1778)

Since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, the United States and Israel have been zealous in their efforts to disempower it. Israel has used its powerful hasbara (propaganda) machine to peddle absurdities about Tehran as a nuclear threat to the region and the world.

For refusing to bend to US-Israeli demands to abandon the Palestinian cause and for standing against their hegemonic plans for the region, Iran has been the target of the most restrictive economic sanctions in history and under perpetual threat of military intervention.

Like any sovereign nation, Iran has the right to defend itself. Nuclear weapons are a security guarantee that Iran has not sought. Unlike Israel and the United States, it has not threatened nor bombed, invaded or occupied its neighbors. However, after Israeli air strikes in April and October 2024 and continued US threats, Iran has had no choice but to adopt its long-held nuclear doctrine, which regards weapons of mass destruction against Islam.

In a civilized conflict-free world, there would be no need for weapons, nuclear or otherwise. Unfortunately for some countries, like Iran, possessing nuclear weapons may become a necessary tool for survival. For others, like the United States and Israel, the ghastly weapons are used as cudgels to bully countries into submission.

It is important to establish that the US intelligence community—the collective work of America's 18 spy organizations—has determined that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons. It stated as much in its "Annual Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community" 2024 report: "Iran is not currently undertaking the key nuclear weapons development activities necessary to produce a testable nuclear device." Previous reports have also stated that Iran's military doctrine is defensive and its nuclear program is meant to build negotiating leverage and to respond to perceived international pressure.

The question then becomes why it is that the nuclear issue is front and center when the United States does engage with Iran, and why has its program, in existence for more than four decades and intended for civilian energy/scientific purposes, been so falsely represented.

Demonizing Iran has served the imperial interests of the United States and its military outpost Israel in the Middle East. Through the well financed aggressive propaganda efforts of Israeli lobby groups like the tactically benign sounding American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Tel Aviv has been successful in selling Washington, the corporate media and the American public on the provocative idea that Iran is a threat to it, the region and the United States.

The narrative about Iran and its nuclear objectives is replete with myths and distortions. US foreign policy decisions have been largely framed to protect and secure Israeli interests, often to the detriment of America's own.

A fettered Iran allows Israel unchallenged regional supremacy. Like former US administrations, the Trump White House, in collaboration with Israel and its Arab allies, is determined to strip Iran of its revolutionary identity and undermine its regional clout.

Iran has legitimate security interests and concerns, fully aware that it is the primary target of Israel's military and nuclear arsenal. A 2025 Arms Control Association report reveals that Israel—the only nuclear weapons power in the Middle East—has an estimated 90 nuclear warheads with sophisticated delivery systems in its inventory, as well as the fissile material stockpiles for at least 200 nuclear weapons.

Iran, on the other hand, is a threshold state. To achieve the weaponization stage, it would need to enrich uranium to 90 percent purity, weaponize the fissile material, and develop the delivery systems. None have been done.

Unlike Israel, Iran is a signatory to the 1968 UN Non-Proliferation Treaty. As such, it is prohibited from developing, acquiring or using nuclear weapons, although it does have the right to manufacture and enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. In addition, Iran's leaders have vigorously pursued the establishment of a nuclear weapons-free zone for the region.

There are a number of rational reasons for the Islamic Republic to go down the road toward acquiring nuclear weapons; principally, self-defense.

Former Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak (2007-2013), in his memoirs, for example, reveals that the regime of then Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came close to attacking Iran at least three times between 2010 and 2012. Barak stated that he and Netanyahu had pushed for military operations against Iranian facilities, but they backed down after opposition from their top security officials.

Barak also discloses that he disagreed with Netanyahu that Iran's nuclear program posed an existential threat to Israel. He was instead more concerned about the regional balance of power.

Some in Iran's political class, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, suspect that the United States, Israel and their Arab allies are intent on overthrowing the Islamic Republic. Recent history confirms their suspicions.

They point to crippling economic sanctions, covert operations, cyber attacks, assassination of nuclear scientists and military personnel, missile attacks and sabotage of gas pipelines and military sites.

In July 2022, for example, during a visit to Israel, President Joe Biden signed a pledge to never allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon and to "…use all elements of its national power to ensure that outcome."

It is with that pledge and President Trump's ultimatums that the United States has entered a new round of nuclear talks with Iran, currently underway. Strangely enough, it was Trump, encouraged by Netanyahu, who pulled out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear agreement in 2018 and imposed heavier "maximum pressure" sanctions, believing that economic hardships would drive Iranians to topple the government.

Before the recent nuclear meetings began in early April, Trump threatened: "If they [Iran] don't make a deal, there will be bombing. It will be bombing the likes of which they have never seen before." In a show of force, in addition to two aircraft carriers in the Red Sea, the White House has deployed a squadron of fighter jets, stealth bombers, air defenses and large quantities of weapons to the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia.

Also, Netanyahu, incapable of remaining silent, sounded off, saying that the only nuclear deal Israel would accept would have Iran agreeing to eliminate its entire program. He further elaborated: "We go in, blow up the facilities and dismantle all the equipment, under American supervision and execution."

The Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, reported (April 17, 2025) that Netanyahu recently sought the US administration's support to conduct joint commando and air strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. Trump, however, vetoed the plan while discussions with Tehran are ongoing. Netanyahu is clearly intent on derailing the negotiations to ensure that there will never be rapprochement between the US and Iran.

Except for a short interval during the Obama administration, when Iran and the P5+1 countries (China, France, Russia, U.K., US plus Germany) finalized the       JCPOA in 2015, the United States has leaned on a muscular military policy and has never been serious about engaging cooperatively with Iran. It has, however, been serious about ensuring Israel's hegemony in the region.

President Obama's "new dawn for the Middle East" included moving away from years of failed policies, particularly "Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," a 1996 initiative pushed by pro-Israel stalwarts and advanced during the George W. Bush administration.

Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, Bush and Netanyahu set in motion the aggressive goals documented in "Clean Break" to contain, destabilize, and overthrow governments that challenged US-Israeli hegemony. Plans were drafted for military action against seven countries, starting with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. All but Iran have been destabilized and/or balkanized.

Even though the relationship between Obama and Netanyahu was often strained, Obama's actual record in office makes him one of the most pro-Israel presidents since Harry S. Truman.

The scale of Israel's barbarity in Gaza and the Occupied Palestinian Territories and its insatiable addiction to expansion and power forewarns Iran and other actors in the Middle East that they must be vigilant in their defense to survive.

Netanyahu's jingoistic vision of Zionist Israeli supremacy has never changed. Ten years ago, he bluntly told an Israeli parliamentary committee that there could never be peace with the Palestinians: "I'm asked if we will forever live by the sword," and I say "yes."

Israel may not be visibly present at the nuclear negotiating table, but its influence over the outcome is, however, palpable and discernible.

What Washington and Tel Aviv fail to understand is that they are dealing with a politically astute country that deserves the respect it demands as a nation that has resisted colonizers and colonization throughout its 5,000-year history in West Asia.

No amount of absurdities—American or Israeli—can change that reality.

– Dr. M. Reza Behnam is a political scientist specializing in the history, politics and governments of the Middle East. He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.

The post Iran and the United States: Nuclear Argy Bargy, Propaganda, and the Politics of Power appeared first on Palestine Chronicle.