Middle East Press On: UNRWA, Syria, Gaza, Hamas, Hamas, Palestinian Liberation and Middle Israel: New Age Islam's Selection, 13 December 2025
By New Age Islam Edit Desk
13 December 2025
· UNRWA is beyond repair, so it's time to move on
· In the quest for true allies, Israel should look eastward to India
· Middle Israel: Can Ahmed al-Sharaa move Syria forward?
· My Word: Playing the dangerous boycott game
· Israel’s media has not learned the lessons of the October 7 massacre
· Justice alone can be the basis for a ceasefire – Understanding Hamas’s rejection of Israel’s terms
· Daily Thirst amid Tents and Ruins: A ‘Rough and Sandy Path’ for Gaza’s Displaced
· Undoing Exceptionalism: Leveraging the Law in Service of Palestinian Liberation
-------
UNRWA is beyond repair, so it's time to move on
By DAVID M. WEINBERG
DECEMBER 13, 2025
We long have known that the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East is a biased, inefficient, and radicalizing actor, and that it cannot be fixed simply by “better oversight.” It is time to finish off UNRWA now.
UNRWA institutions in Gaza – schools, clinics, hospitals, and more – harbored Hamas killers and weapons, with Hamas terror attack tunnels built right underneath them. And dozens of UNRWA personnel were complicit or active participants in the October 7 assault on Israel.
It turns out that more than 2,000 agency employees were also terrorists in either Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). A fifth of UNRWA school administrators were Hamas terrorists, and 10% of the senior positions (school principals and their deputies, directors, and deputy directors of training centres) were also members of Hamas or PIJ. More than 200 agency staff were Hamas killers with unmistakable terrorist records, and hundreds more openly celebrated the October 7 rapes and murders.
Beyond Gaza, UNRWA is rotten to its core. Its schools in Judea and Samaria, Jordan, Lebanon, and elsewhere validate the so-called Palestinian “right of return,” the “right” to demographically overwhelm Israel, thus perpetuating the Palestinian war against Israel instead of helping to solve the conflict.
Watchdog organizations have tirelessly documented the hate taught in UNRWA classrooms. Palestinian children learn that Jews are liars and fraudsters, and that Jews spread corruption, which will lead to their annihilation.
Lessons that incite violence
Terrorists are glorified as role models. Lessons that incite violence are taught across all grades and subjects, including in math and science classes. Inevitably, the systematic teaching of hatred and violence within the UNRWA school system results in Palestinian terror against Israel.
And of course, the agency does nothing to resettle Palestinian refugees. In fact, the number of UNRWA-registered “refugees” continues to grow exponentially. The aid agency refuses to remove from its registry millions of people who hold foreign citizenship and residency, and who, by any other “refugee” concept, would no longer be considered refugees.
In short, while UNRWA professes to be a humanitarian organization, its true goal is to perpetuate the hope that Palestinians will one day flood and destroy Israel. UNRWA is plainly an enormous obstacle to peace.
Despite this, last Friday, the UN renewed UNRWA’s mandate for another three years, on the mistaken assertion that the organization is an indispensable humanitarian tool.
Fortunately, real changes on the ground in Gaza and in eastern Jerusalem are proving just how wrong this is and how things can be done so much better without the newly renewed agency.
In Gaza, UNRWA has been blessedly replaced by over a dozen other aid organizations. As Enia Krivine of the Foundation for the Defence of Democracies has shown, relief organizations are delivering aid and services just fine without UNRWA’s radicalizing agenda.
The UN Development Program (UNDP) is managing waste management. Fuel distribution is managed by the UN Office for Project Services (UNOPS). The World Central Kitchen has been effective at delivering food alongside the World Food Program (WFP). The UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) has taken a larger role in children-related humanitarian responses. The World Health Organization (WHO) is providing medical aid to field clinics and hospitals.
UNRWA’s decades-long monopoly on aid and services – which came part and parcel with annihilationist messaging about Israel – has finally been broken. The Trump administration (through its Civil-Military Coordination Centre in Kiryat Gat) gets partial credit for this. Now the administration is considering hitting UNRWA with terrorism-related sanctions, something that would appropriately cripple the organization.
For its part, new Israeli laws that came into effect this year outlaw coordination with UNRWA, making it difficult for the agency (which had used Israel as its base of operations for decades) to continue delivering its services. Not surprisingly, UNRWA’s well-paid lobbyists and advocates warned that Israel’s move would have catastrophic consequences. It has not.
For example, UNRWA schools in Jerusalem have been closed down. A thousand or so eastern Jerusalemite Arab students have moved to other institutions, including schools that teach the Israeli curriculum. This is an exceptionally good thing. (Why the heck was UNRWA ever allowed to open schools in Jerusalem?!)
Under the new laws, all UNRWA facilities in Jerusalem are also supposed to be shuttered, especially the agency’s vast, main compound in Maalot Dafna (Sheikh Jarrah). Israeli police finally raided the compound this week, seizing equipment and replacing the UN flag with an Israeli one – an act that was of course condemned by the UN secretary-general.
(The compound is scheduled to become a residential neighbourhood with 1,400 apartments. Haredi/ultra-Orthodox community activists are already bickering over control of the project, which abuts other mostly haredi neighbourhoods.)
Next is financial action against UNRWA. The Bank of Israel is supposed to force Israeli banks to close its accounts, and the Labour and Social Welfare Ministry is supposed to stop processing benefit payments to its employees. The Finance Ministry has already cancelled the agency’s substantial tax exemptions on imported cars, fuel, and equipment. But UNRWA still owes Jerusalem years of unpaid property taxes, worth millions of shekels.
Slowly, slowly (too slowly), the ministries of Defence and Foreign Affairs are stopping the issuance of work/residence permits to UNRWA employees, too.
Moving from axing UNRWA to a constructive post-Gaza-war framework, the “international community” must focus on rebuilding Palestinian society – free from rank corruption, destructive indoctrination, coddling of terrorism, and the overall moral rot that for too long has contaminated international politics relating to Palestinians.
First and foremost, this means elimination of refugee status for all Palestinians living in Gaza, Judea, and Samaria. “Refugee camps” must be transformed into regular neighbourhoods or towns, and their residents redefined as, well, local residents – not refugees.
Second is that meaningful curriculum overhauls should be undertaken in Palestinian educational institutions from kindergarten through university, eliminating antisemitic and anti-Israel materials, and the adoption of population-wide deradicalization initiatives.
Third is that action toward total demilitarization of Palestinian areas should be taken (excepting lightly armed police forces), as envisioned and promised in the Oslo Accords 30 years ago – but never pursued seriously.
Alas, Israel has little confidence in the ability of anybody to swiftly rebuild Palestinian society or “reform” Palestinian government, unless the Palestinians themselves wish to do so.
Throwing more aid money at the Palestinians certainly won’t help, just as it has not done the trick over the past thirty years since the Oslo Accords were signed.
Despite tens of billions of dollars and euros invested in the Palestinian Authority by the “international community,” there is no democracy, no rule of law, no transparency, no sustainability, no investment in economic stability, and no peace education in the PA. Not a single refugee has been resettled. Not one hospital has been built in the West Bank: only one sewage treatment plant.
But there is plenty of nepotism and corruption, “pay-for-slay” handouts (meaning the incentivizing and rewarding of terrorism against Israel), violent propagandizing against Israel (including support for Hamas’s October 7 invasion and massacres), and diplomatic assault on Israel in every possible international forum.
As for Western “security assistance” to the PA, this has produced mixed results, at best. The authority does not effectively control key terrorist nodes in the West Bank, and its security personnel have repeatedly participated in or facilitated terror attacks against Israeli civilians and soldiers. PA security personnel account for 12% of all Palestinian terrorists held by Israel.
In short, the overall return on Western investment in Palestinian maturity and independence is abysmal. Real reform of Palestinian government and society is going to be a long, arduous process and must involve penalty and penance, not just reward and recognition.
Which is why it is asinine of France, Britain, Canada, and others to resurrect illusions of imminent Palestinian statehood. Regrettably, their gambit is a recipe for devastating disappointment and protracted conflict.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-880024
-------
In the quest for true allies, Israel should look eastward to India
By GADEER KAMAL-MREEH
DECEMBER 13, 2025
The war in Gaza has delivered a stark lesson for Israel: Friendship isn't abstract philosophy. It's the ally who stands firm when the world turns away. As the adage goes, a real friend walks in when everyone else walks out. Israel didn't just ponder this; it lived it, unmasking true partners amid isolation and revealing hard-won opportunities for a foreign policy pivot that could endure for decades.
While long-time allies like Germany, despite its historical bonds, turned their backs at critical junctures, imposing (and later lifting) a partial arms embargo to appease domestic pressures from their growing Muslim immigrant populations, one nation stood resolute: India. As the IDF scrambled to replace German anti-tank missiles and tank engines, "Made in India" drones, produced via the Adani-Elbit joint venture in Hyderabad, dominated Gaza's skies uninterrupted, delivering vital intelligence and enabling precision strikes on Hamas terrorists.
Israel's traditional focus on Western partners, Europe, and the US, served it well for decades. But with Europe sinking into the swamp of the Ukraine war and its self-inflicted immigration crisis, it's time to aim east. Emerging as a major power (ranked third globally, behind only the US and China), India mirrors Israel's own story: a democracy hemmed in by challenging neighbours like Pakistan and China. The recent Red Fort terror attack in Delhi, which claimed 15 lives on November 10, underscores these shared vulnerabilities. On the upside, both nations boast thriving economies; India's surging 8.2% in the July-September quarter, and dynamic high-tech sectors ripe for synergy.
India showing great gestures of solidarity to Israel
Even amid the postponement of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's planned state visit, due to that tragic Delhi attack, India remains the only major power (besides the US) extending such an invitation, a gesture of solidarity as Israel faces sharp criticism from anti-Israel protests in European capitals.
If orchestrated wisely, this visit, which is now planned for the beginning of 2026, could mark a strategic shift. India's Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal, a staunch ally and confidant of Prime Minister Modi, is championing a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Israel, with terms of reference signed just last month. This comes as the US and EU stumble in their own talks with New Delhi. For Israel, an FTA could be transformative: slashing tariffs, unlocking a market of 1.4 billion consumers, and supercharging exports in tech, agriculture, and defence.
Yet trade is just the start. The Gaza war hammered home another priority: secure trade routes. With Houthis choking Red Sea shipping and drying up Eilat's port, while Chinese firms impose bans on Israeli cargo, we've learned the hard way how vital strategic trade lanes are.
Enter Indian billionaire Gautam Adani, whose empire spans over two dozen ports, including Haifa, plus airports and that drone JV that flew missions despite international backlash. A long-time confidant of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Gautam Adani stands among the world's most influential business leaders, and one of Israel’s steadfast partners at a time when many hesitate. His $1.2 billion acquisition and modernization of the Haifa Port is not just an investment; it is a strategic anchor for India’s presence in the Mediterranean. In parallel, the Adani-Elbit joint venture has accelerated India’s UAV manufacturing capability, while the broader Adani ecosystem has become a real-world sandbox for Israeli deep-tech.
A recent example: Ottario, which co-developed Adani’s Airport Cyber Fusion Suite before being acquired by Armis earlier this year. Even as others hesitate to invest in "Zion", Adani's portfolio forms the backbone of the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), the only credible alternative to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). His assets are fast becoming the indispensable nodes of a new India-aligned trade and security architecture stretching from the Arabian Sea to Europe.
Adani's pivotal investments and IMEC role haven't gone unnoticed by Israel's rivals. Since deepening ties, he has faced smear campaigns in the US and Israel, from a now-refuted short seller campaign against his listed companies to a now-frozen DOJ indictment. In this ongoing effort against the Indian tycoon, the recent narrative that is being pushed is an alleged link to businesses with Iran, which is fuelled by anonymous offers of payoffs.
After years of zig-zag policy toward China and underplaying the vast opportunity in India, it's time to seize the day. We must move beyond lamenting Europe's fading support and embrace this Indian lifeline. Aim eastwards, for a shared fate that secures us both.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-880182
-------
Middle Israel: Can Ahmed al-Sharaa move Syria forward?
By AMOTZ ASA-EL
DECEMBER 12, 2025
With Tunisian president Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali already unseated by rioters, and with Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak’s own downfall but several days away, Syrian president Bashar al-Assad told a Western journalist: “Syria is stable” (Wall Street Journal, January 31, 2011).
In fact, Syria was a mere six weeks away from the civil war that killed more than 600,000 and displaced more than 12 million, victimized by a tribalist tyranny that robbed the country’s riches, stifled enterprise, created mass unemployment, printed paper money, muzzled the intelligentsia, jailed thousands, and condemned millions to lifelong despair.
Now, a year after Assad’s downfall, the question is what are the chances that his successor will be any better, and the answer is they are low, at best.
Ahmed al-Sharaa's journey from Islamist militia member to president
Ahmed al-Sharaa has come a long way since the days in which his Islamist militia, al-Nusra Front, dispatched suicide bombers, attacked Christian, Alawite, and Druze communities, and launched car-bombing attacks in Damascus, including one in May 2012 that killed 55 and another in February 2013 that killed 83.
The man who, in 2003, joined the anti-American insurgency in Iraq spent more than 20 of his 43 years fighting before morphing into a well-tailored head of state. How much, if at all, this transformation is real is unclear, but his accomplishments en route to the presidency are clear and ominous.
First, Sharaa crafted a military attack that displayed wisdom, daring, and results. The defeat of the Syrian army in a matter of 11 days was swift, displaying quality intelligence, resolute leadership, and efficient command.
Second, Sharaa defeated not only the Syrian army but also a regional power, Iran, and a superpower, Russia. While his troops attacked, Iranian-led militias were present on the ground, and Russian aircraft were in the air.
That Russia’s air force would not interfere, and the Iranian militias would not fight, is easy to say in retrospect. On the eve of the attack, there was no such assurance. Deciding to launch it took guts. It also transformed Sharaa from an anonymous terrorist to a victorious guerrilla.
However, history is laden with successful guerrillas who became failed state builders, from Fidel Castro to Mao Zedong. Judging by his first year in office, Sharaa may be heading their way.
Unlike Castro, Sharaa is not out to confront a superpower, and unlike Mao, he has no penchant for Marxist experiments in economic alchemy. Where, then, is he headed? Is his long-term goal an Islamist republic? Very possibly, considering that during the civil war, his troops reportedly tried to forcibly convert Christians.
Then again, since he took over, alcohol has not been banned in Syria, no dress code for women has been introduced, and non-Muslim worship has not been limited. Combined with the massive release of political prisoners and the dismantlement of Assad’s secret services, Sharaa’s Syria is a nicer place than what it replaced.
But this change is atmospheric, as opposed to the substantive change Syria begs on three fronts: political construction, economic reconstruction, and sectarian reinvention. On all these, Sharaa has said nice things since taking office, promising to protect minorities, encourage foreign investment, hold elections, and also introduce a constitution and assemble a parliament.
Yet a closer look at all these raises the suspicion that Sharaa’s formula is but a variation of Bashar Assad’s theme.
The parliament was not elected by the people, much less did the people get to debate and approve the constitution. Having an omnipotent president rule without a prime minister, Sharaa’s constitution has two-thirds of parliamentary candidates vetted by presidential committees, and the rest appointed directly by the president. This is besides declaring Sharia law as the source of Syria’s jurisprudence.
Worse, the ethnic rifts that fuelled the civil war have not been healed. On the contrary, massacres by Sharaa’s troops of Alawites in the west and Druze in the east were foreboding signs that many of his Sunni constituents are less interested in building a new Syria than in settling accounts with the old one.
Equally alarming is the state of reconstruction. The good news for Syria is that the new president has managed to remove a good part of the sanctions he inherited from Assad. The bad news is that in the field, none of the construction drives that Sharaa’s devastated country demands – housing projects, highways, railways, hospitals, factories, power stations – has begun.
What has begun is corruption. Sharaa’s older brother, Hazam, is reportedly overseeing the takeover of large-scale companies through a clandestine committee, aided by a Lebanese-Australian sanctioned by Canberra for financing terrorism (“Syria is secretly reshaping its economy. The president’s brother is in charge,” Reuters, July 24, 2025).
This suggests that, while Assad is gone, his model of government is alive and well.
Evidently, millions of Syrian Sunnis want to impose themselves on the rest of Syria, the way the Alawites did under Assad. Sharaa claims he does not share this quest. That remains to be proven in deeds rather than words, but whatever his intentions, it is worth noting that such imposition is not only evil but also unworkable.
Yes, the Sunni Arabs are more numerous than any other sector in Syria. However, the rest are too sizable for them to swallow. Before the war broke out, the Kurds (who are Sunni, but not Arab), Alawites, Druze, and Christians constituted one-third of Syria. The war has only increased their share, because its refugees are believed to be predominantly Sunni Muslims, as were most of the fatalities.
Sharaa’s only way forward, it follows, is to create an ethnic confederation where the Sunnis will dominate, but the Alawites, Kurds, and Druze will govern, respectively, Syria’s west, north, and east. The alternative, one sector’s subjugation of the rest, would mean emulating Assad’s formula, and meeting his fate.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-880081
-------
My Word: Playing the dangerous boycott game
By LIAT COLLINS
DECEMBER 12, 2025
It’s easy to dismiss the recent news stories about the Eurovision Song Contest and Guinness World Records as frivolous; they’re not. These are just two of the platforms where there are major attempts to erase the presence of Israel; to cancel out the very existence of the Jewish state.
But first, let’s look at some “hard news”: the annual United Nations. General Assembly (non-binding) resolutions calling for Israel to withdraw from “Syrian Golan” and “Palestinian Occupied Territory.” The resolutions demanding Israel withdraw to pre-1967 lines come up every year, essentially calling for the ethnic cleansing of half a million Jews from Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), redividing Jerusalem, and handing Judaism’s holiest sites to Palestinian control.
The declaration regarding the Golan Heights, this year in particular, made me do a double-take. It should have made every participating country think twice.
Something fundamental has changed, but the UN is either unwilling or unable to acknowledge it. It has been exactly a year since the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad fell and was replaced by the rule of Ahmed al-Sharaa, a man who previously broke away from al-Qaeda to form his own jihadist movement, the Nusra Front, with which he managed to take over Syria.
In July, while the world focused on Gaza and libelling the Jewish state, a dreadful massacre was taking place in Sweida, Syria. It was what Druze in both Israel and their brethren over the border on the Syrian side of the Golan Heights, described as “our October 7.”
Hundreds of Druze were slaughtered by local Bedouin and Syrian forces. Under Sharaa, there have also been purges of the Alawite minority (to which the Assad family belongs), Kurds, and other minorities.
The resolution calling for Israel to leave the Golan Heights passed with 123 in favour, seven against, and 41 abstentions. That means that 123 members of the body, which is ostensibly dedicated to world peace, thought it would be a good idea to either forcibly remove the 55,000 Jews and Druze who live on the Golan, or to hand them over to the control of a Syrian leader whose first year in power was marked by the massacre of Druze and other minorities.
It is telling that the UN didn’t even hesitate to raise the resolution yet again. Even when Islamic State terrorists were situated on the Syrian side of the border, the UN somehow thought it would be good for peace in the Middle East if Israel were to hand control of the strategic plateau to the jihadists.
According to the UN’s own site, when introducing this year’s text, Turkey’s representative said that Israeli authorities must “recognize that the path to lasting security cannot be built on the continued occupation of another country’s territory.” I look forward to Turkish withdrawal from Cyprus just as soon as I stop laughing from the bad joke.
The UN is not the only international stage where there’s an ongoing battle against Israel. Behind the scenes of the Eurovision, another show is going on – not a song contest, but a showdown targeting the Jewish state.
European Broadcasting Union holds meeting on Israel's Eurovision participation
Last week, the European Broadcasting Union, which runs the competition, held a meeting of all its members to vote on Israel’s participation. Ultimately, the EBU passed an amendment to the voting rules – giving national juries a greater say than the public vote – but not banning Israel.
It didn’t have to. The change to the voting system in itself was aimed at Israel, which for the last two years has fared poorly in the national votes and phenomenally well in the public vote.
Israel’s Yuval Raphael last year won such a high score in the public vote that she came in second place overall, after the Austrian song. The juries awarded Austria 258 points, while the public gave it 178. In contrast, the national juries awarded Israel just 60 points, and the public gave Raphael a whopping 297.
To their credit, several national broadcasters, including Germany and this year’s host, Austria, stood firmly by Israel on the issue, saying they would not broadcast the world’s largest music competition if Israel were banned.
Others, however, could not bear the thought of sharing the stage with an Israeli. Spain, Ireland, the Netherlands, Slovenia, and Iceland have all announced they will not participate if Israel competes. This makes them bad losers in every sense.
Israel’s Dana International, who in 1998 became the first transgender Eurovision winner, blasted those countries that backed out because of Israel’s presence. While predictably taking a swipe at the right-wing government – she can’t afford to lose all her fans, after all – Dana International issued a statement saying: “Nevertheless, it must not be forgotten that Israel is a country fighting for its existence, trying to balance security challenges with sanity and liberal values, things that are not well accepted in the region we live in. Hamas executes people for being gay. Almost every Eurovision winner would have been hanged in the town square in Gaza.”
As Commentary’s Seth Mandel wrote: “How should we judge the countries that stomped out of Eurovision over Israel’s participation? Harshly. A singing competition is not a diplomatic convention. Would you leave a karaoke bar because there was an Israeli Jew there? Will these folks boycott all establishments that serve Israeli Jews?
“Aside from emitting a faint segregationist stink, these Europeans are politicizing every cell in their bodies in an attempt to enforce those same artistic limits on everyone else. If rare apolitical music gatherings are impossible, it has a stunting effect on the industry and on the minds and temperaments of the people participating in their own dumbing down.”
As many have noted, it’s not just the Eurovision Song Contest. There are ongoing boycotts of Israel in sports, academia, the literary world, and cultural events (ostensibly more cultured than Eurovision.)
Guinness World Records could hold its own world record in being tone-deaf. As a spokesperson confirmed in a statement to The Jerusalem Post’s Mathilda Heller last week: “We truly do believe in record-breaking for everyone, everywhere, but unfortunately, in the current climate, we are not generally processing record applications from the Palestinian Territories or Israel, or where either is given as the attempt location, with the exception of those done in cooperation with a UN humanitarian aid relief agency.”
In case you were in any doubt, the UN relief agency clause means that Palestinians can still participate. It’s only the Jews – well, Israelis of any religion–who have been cancelled.
The gaslighting of the Jewish state was revealed when the non-profit organization Matnat Chaim (The Gift of Life), which encourages altruistic kidney donations, contacted Guinness World Records regarding its planned record-breaking event scheduled to bring 2,000 Israeli kidney donors together next month for a photo in Jerusalem. Of all things to boycott!
A look at the GWR site shows some of the strange feats it has recognized, including, for example, this “brilliantly bonkers food record”: “Largest serving of chicken wings... To celebrate their 50th anniversary, Big Green Egg didn’t just throw a party – they grilled up a record! They cooked a mouth-watering 297.5 kg. (655 lb. 12.8 oz.) of chicken wings. That’s as heavy as 3 baby elephants!”
I find the comparison of thousands of devoured chicken wings to baby elephants more bizarre than bonkers, but that’s beside the point. As a vegetarian, I find the whole event in poor taste, but that’s not my beef. What do you think is healthier, educational, and life-affirming: grossly overeating chicken wings or encouraging people to donate a kidney to someone they don’t know?
As it happens, Israel is considered by some to be the highest global consumer of poultry per capita, but I’ll save my pride for the fact that Israelis, thanks largely to Matnat Chaim, lead the way in altruistic kidney donations.
Notably, Guinness World Records began its ban on Israel in November 2023, not after the October 7 Hamas invasion and mega-atrocity in which 1,200 were murdered and 251 abducted; it blocked Israel when the Jewish state began to fight back.
One thing is clear from the UN plenum, the Eurovision stage, and Guinness World Records: Israel is constantly being judged by a different standard. It’s a win for antisemitism and hatred, and a massive loss for the world.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-880062
------
Israel’s media has not learned the lessons of the October 7 massacre
By YAAKOV KATZ
DECEMBER 12, 2025
On Saturday night, the IDF reported a ramming attack in the city of Hebron. According to the initial statement, a car driven by a Palestinian resident accelerated into an IDF checkpoint. The soldiers opened fire, killing the driver and another Palestinian in the vehicle. The first reports said the men had attempted a ramming attack. Headlines followed almost instantly, nearly all echoing the same language: “Two terrorists killed in Hebron ramming attack.”
But just a few hours later – too late for most of the print editions already sent to press – the IDF admitted that one of the Palestinians was not a terrorist at all and not even connected to the incident. He was a municipal garbage collector employed by the Hebron municipality, on his daily route, and he had been mistakenly shot by Israeli security forces.
I mention this story because it jumped out as a small but striking example of something that has quietly returned to Israeli journalism: the instinct to parrot what the military says without asking questions, challenging assumptions, or even pausing to consider alternative possibilities. The lack of investigative journalism in Israel has been known for years – that part is not new. But especially after October 7 and the traumatic two years that followed, the fact that so many reporters simply accept whatever they are told without pushing back, without probing deeper, is deeply troubling.
Let me explain why this matters. Like many journalists in Israel, I, too, was invited in the years preceding October 7 to closed-door briefings with senior military commanders and intelligence officials. No reporter is ever shown raw intelligence, but we all heard the same story: Hamas is deterred, Hamas does not want war, Hamas’s training videos are bravado, Hamas wants economic prosperity, more Qatari cash, and more work permits for Gazans.
Whenever someone asked why, if Hamas was deterred, it continued to develop longer-range rockets, train openly along the border, hold military exercises, or orchestrate border protests, the answer was always the same: political messaging, bargaining tactics, pressure for more money. We accepted this explanation. No one pushed too far. No one questioned the logic too deeply. Very few challenged the military narrative that everything was under control.
To understand why, you need to understand the structural media reality in Israel. The military has near-total control over access and information. Israel does not have “Pentagon reporters” who are permanently accredited and granted independent access to the Kirya military headquarters in Tel Aviv. You cannot just walk in because you cover defence. You enter only if the IDF Spokesperson approves your visit for a specific meeting.
Everything is controlled and filtered, and, most importantly, every journalist knows it.
Reporters rely on IDF spokesperson for stories
This system creates a dependency: Reporters rely entirely on the IDF spokesperson for access to officers, stories, embeds, and frontline visits. Now imagine you are a reporter who wants to publish something critical about the IDF chief of staff or another senior commander. You know exactly what will happen: The IDF Spokesperson will block your next requests. You will lose embeds, interviews, and firsthand access to the war. Those opportunities will go to competitors.
You will be punished, quietly and effectively.
This brings me to one of the great inside jokes of the Israeli media: When newspapers proudly publish what they brand as “exclusive” interviews with senior IDF officers or alleged “first-time” accounts from Gaza or Lebanon, these pieces were assigned to that reporter. The IDF chose that journalist as the platform for its message, usually because they “walked the line” properly – critical enough to appear serious, but not so critical as to be inconvenient.
Take, for example, video footage of IDF operations sometimes broadcast on TV shows like Uvda (Israel’s 60 Minutes). This type of material does not appear because of investigative digging or a Watergate-like secret source in a parking garage. It is simply a decision by the IDF Spokesperson to allow them to have it; that’s all.
Contrast this behaviour with what happened in the United States just two months ago. When the Pentagon attempted to introduce new restrictions limiting reporters’ ability to publish information that had not been approved by United States Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth, dozens of the nation’s top defence reporters walked out, returned their press badges, and refused to comply. Their outlets backed them almost unanimously.
And look at the uproar surrounding Hegseth today over the US strike on an alleged narco boat in the Caribbean. According to reports, nine people were killed in the initial strike, and when two survivors clung to the burning wreckage, the vessel was struck again in what is a potential violation of international law. Congress, including Republican members, is demanding answers. Trump has commented, and every day brings another investigative piece. Scrutiny is relentless.
Has anything like that ever happened in Israel? Have we seen a major push across outlets for transparency, accountability, or the release of operational footage? Have military reporters refused to publish what they are told without verification?
Unfortunately, not. Instead, the media here largely plays along. It eats from the very hand it is supposed to monitor. It echoes, amplifies, and repeats claims of terrorists being killed, of military targets being bombed, and without a single question, probe, or challenge.
I genuinely understand why. The media industry is brutal, with everyone fighting for the same clicks, ratings, and subscribers. If one outlet “goes rogue” and challenges the IDF too aggressively, it can be punished; just ask the reporters who were recently kicked off Defence Minister Israel Katz’s spokesperson’s WhatsApp group. When your access is your livelihood, you tend to protect it, even subconsciously. You criticize – but only up to a point.
And perhaps this dynamic could have continued unnoticed had October 7, 2023, not happened.
Journalists were not responsible for the disaster of that day, but the media absolutely played a role in failing to challenge the assumptions that allowed it to unfold. Reporters had not asked hard enough questions. They had not pushed back on the narrative that Hamas was deterred. They had not probed the contradiction between what Hamas was showing and what the military was claiming.
This is what bothers me most today. I would have expected a major shift after October 7 and the emergence of a media that is tougher, sharper, and more willing to hold the country’s political and military leaders accountable.
I understand it is not easy, especially in wartime, and that many journalists are reservists or have children serving in Gaza or Lebanon. I also understand the emotional weight after a massacre of such scale. But journalism is not just another job. It carries civic responsibility.
Its purpose is not to serve the IDF or the political leadership but to serve the public – by imposing scrutiny, by demanding honesty, and by refusing to accept narratives simply because they come stamped with an official logo. Regurgitating IDF statements is failing that responsibility. Publishing headlines without verification is negligent. The car-ramming incident in Hebron last week is only one example, but it illustrates the larger point: The Israeli media has not yet learned its lesson.
And this brings us to the real question: What happens if it still refuses to learn?
Israel’s challenges are not going away. We are still at war. We are still surrounded by threats. We are still navigating a new Middle East. In such a moment, a media that echoes instead of interrogates becomes part of the problem.
If October 7 taught us anything, it is that the cost of unasked questions is unbearable. That is when the “conceptzia” (“concept” or governing assumption) and conventional wisdom are not challenged, the system becomes complacent.
The Israeli media does not need to wage war on the IDF, but it does need to stop serving as its mouthpiece. It needs to remember its purpose and rediscover its backbone. Because if the press will not hold Israel’s leaders accountable, no one else will.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-880035
------
Justice alone can be the basis for a ceasefire – Understanding Hamas’s rejection of Israel’s terms
December 11, 2025
by Ranjan Solomon
The latest round of ceasefire negotiations in Gaza has collapsed under the weight of impossible terms, tightening Israeli violations, and a humanitarian catastrophe that is worsening by the hour. Media headlines treat Hamas’s rejection of the ceasefire proposal as obstinacy or political posturing. But the reality is more intricate, more tragic, and more rooted in the unending assault that has consumed Gaza for more than a year. A ceasefire negotiated from beneath the rubble, under drones and artillery, can never be a path to peace. It is merely a demand that the occupied accept the logic of their occupier.
What unfolds in Gaza today is not simply a military conflict but the systematic destruction of a people. According to UN agencies, the death toll has crossed 41,000, with nearly 70 percent of the victims being women and children. More than 13,000 children have been killed—numbers that stagger the human imagination. Israel has bombed hospitals, aid convoys, UN shelters, desalination plants, sewage networks, and bakeries. Around 80 percent of Gaza’s population has been displaced, many of them multiple times, pushed from one decimated corner to another. In such a reality, a ceasefire deal that fails to guarantee dignity, safety, and sovereignty is not a ceasefire at all. It is a temporary pause in a longer campaign.
To understand why Hamas rejected the proposal, we must understand the proposal itself. Israel insisted on holding the power to re-enter any area of Gaza at will, even during supposed calm. It demanded the right to continue drone surveillance, detain anyone they wished, and refuse the return of displaced families to northern Gaza. It refused to commit to a full withdrawal of troops or to a pathway for long-term political rights. In effect, Israel wanted a ceasefire in which it controls everything—movement, territory, reconstruction, population flow, policing—while offering Palestinians only a momentary reduction in bombing. No movement on prisoners, no definitive end to hostilities, no meaningful reconstruction framework, and no political horizon. It is difficult to imagine any Palestinian, factional or civilian, risking acceptance of such terms.
Khalid Meshal was unequivocal when he cautioned that the “Momentum on cease fire talks may decline as the first phase comes to a conclusion”. You cannot have Israel brazenly unleash atrocities while expecting Hamas to stand empty handed and unable to defend themselves and the people. Perpetrators often disregard ethical constraints to achieve victory. Israel follows the precept that geopolitical theorists pursue, namely that war operates outside conventional morality, functioning on principles of pure interest and survival. For Israel, “ethics” are secondary to achieving strategic objectives. Israel will more often than not disregard ethical constraints to achieve victory.
The world often forgets that ceasefire negotiations are not abstract diplomatic exercises. They are rooted in real lives already shattered. In Khan Younis, a mother named Lina described how she spent ten days searching for her two children after an airstrike destroyed their street. She found her daughter in a hospital, alive but burned. Her son was never found. When asked whether she supported a ceasefire, she replied, “A ceasefire that brings them back to bomb us again? Let them stop the war in truth, or leave us to bury our dead in peace.” Her grief is not a political argument. But hidden in her words is the raw truth of Gaza: people want not a pause, but an end.
Israeli violations during negotiations further destroyed whatever credibility the process had. In the days when delegations shuttled between Cairo and Doha, Israel bombed Rafah repeatedly, despite earlier assuring mediators that the city would remain untouched during talks. Reports from humanitarian agencies show that aid convoys were struck, killing workers and starving communities. Amnesty International documented that Israeli forces opened fire on civilians queuing for bread and water in Deir al-Balah and Jabalia. These are not isolated “mistakes”; they are part of a larger pattern of using starvation, displacement, and collective punishment as tools of war. In such a climate, expecting Palestinians to trust Israeli promises is a cynical demand. To think that Israel has committed 738 breaches of the cease fire agreements illustrates how asymmetric the relations are.
Hamas’s position must be understood within the wider context of Palestinian political life. The movement is not negotiating simply for itself; it is negotiating in the face of a population that has endured unimaginable loss. Any agreement that leaves Israel in control of Gaza’s future would be seen as surrender. While Western capitals insist that Hamas alone is to blame for rejecting a ceasefire, they deliberately erase the fact that a ceasefire, to be meaningful, must be reciprocal. It must restrain the side with overwhelming military advantage. Yet the proposal offered no such restraint. Instead, it sought to legalise Israel’s ability to continue military operations under the cover of a truce.
The humanitarian landscape deepens this reality. The UN has warned that Gaza’s hunger crisis is already beyond famine conditions. Children are dying from dehydration. Parents are boiling grass, grinding animal feed, and burning plastic for cooking fuel. Doctors report amputating limbs without anaesthesia and performing emergency surgeries by the light of mobile phones. The World Health Organization describes northern Gaza as “a graveyard for children” because food and medical supplies have been blocked from entering. These are not separate from ceasefire negotiations—they are inseparable. Israel’s siege is part of the battlefield, and any ceasefire that does not remove the siege merely extends the humanitarian torture.
International law is not ambiguous on this. The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits collective punishment, forced displacement, starvation as a method of warfare, and targeting civilian infrastructure essential for survival. Israel’s conduct ticks every single box. The International Court of Justice issued provisional measures warning that Israel’s actions are plausibly genocidal. Yet the ceasefire proposal did not include any accountability mechanism, not even a commitment to allow independent investigations. For Palestinians, this omission is not technical—it is existential. It signals that the world expects them to negotiate in a moral vacuum, where justice has no place.
The United States, Israel’s closest ally, played a significant role in shaping the proposal. Rather than pressing Israel for restraint, it allowed Israel to draft terms that preserved every lever of military control. Washington’s statements framed Hamas as the sole obstacle, avoiding any mention of the ongoing bombardment. By refusing to enforce its own red lines, the US weakened the credibility of the entire process. Europe followed the same script, calling for calm while continuing arms sales and diplomatic cover. It is this hypocrisy that widens the gulf between Western rhetoric and Palestinian reality.
Amid all this, the voice of Palestinian families remains the moral centre. In Nuseirat camp, a displaced teacher named Samir described what he wanted from negotiations: “Let them stop killing us. Let us return to our homes. Let our children sleep without fear. If these are not guaranteed, what is a ceasefire worth?” His words are the simplest and most powerful indictment of the talks. They remind us that ceasefire is not a political trophy; it is the right of a people to live.
Hamas’s rejection is therefore not a rejection of peace. It is a rejection of a framework that entrenched occupation, protected Israeli military dominance, and offered Palestinians nothing but a temporary reprieve from death. A ceasefire without justice is merely an interval between massacres. What Palestinians demand is not complicated: a full cessation of hostilities, withdrawal of troops, return of displaced families, humanitarian access, rebuilding of homes, release of detainees, and a real path to political freedom. These are not maximalist demands; they are the minimum conditions for human survival.
The responsibility now lies with the international community to stop pretending that negotiations can proceed while Gaza burns. Pressuring Palestinians to accept unjust terms is not diplomacy—it is coercion. Real peace will require confronting Israeli impunity, end the siege, and ensure that Palestinians are treated not as subjects to be managed but as a people with rights, agency, and dignity.
Until then, ceasefire proposals will continue to fail. Not because Palestinians refuse peace, but because the world keeps offering them peace without freedom.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20251211-justice-alone-can-be-the-basis-for-a-ceasefire-understanding-hamass-rejection-of-israels-terms/
-------
Daily Thirst amid Tents and Ruins: A ‘Rough and Sandy Path’ for Gaza’s Displaced
December 12, 2025
By Shaimaa Eid
Despite the declared end of the war on the Gaza Strip, any sense of normal life remains out of reach for its residents—especially for those who lost their homes and are now displaced in tents that lack even the most basic necessities.
Chief among these needs is water, access to which has become a daily struggle that lays bare the extent of the destruction inflicted on Gaza’s infrastructure.
In overcrowded camps stretching along the coast and in completely destroyed neighborhoods, scenes of Gazans carrying empty water jugs and walking long distances, often in the rain or late at night, have become a daily occurrence. Many families send their children or women to fetch water from any nearby station that still provides small amounts of drinkable water, a routine that has become part of the daily struggle for survival.
Water Scarcity and a Daily Struggle to Drink
Abdel Fattah Hanoun, 44, whose home was destroyed in Al-Shati refugee camp in western Gaza, now lives in a tent near the beach in Deir Al-Balah.
“My family of seven and I suffer daily from the worsening water crisis. Securing water has become a constant worry that never leaves us,” he told The Palestine Chronicle.
Hanoun added that he often has to transport water from distant locations or chase after distribution trucks. At times, he is forced to buy water at high prices from small carts roaming the streets—an expense he cannot afford every day.
Children Carry Water instead of Schoolbags
Just a few meters from Hanoun’s tent, the Ghrabaly family of five lives under similar conditions. Suha Ghrabaly told The Palestine Chronicle that the water crisis has turned their lives upside down.
“My young children have to pull water jugs on a handcart every day after standing in a long line when water trucks arrive at the camp,” she said.
She explained that buying water from street vendors has become rare, forcing the family to rely mainly on distribution trucks or distant water lines located far from the tents, accessible only through unpaved, pothole-ridden, and hazardous roads.
“Even simple tasks like washing clothes, doing the dishes, or bathing the children now require prior planning and an amount of water we simply do not have,” Ghrabaly added, exhaustion evident in her voice.
According to the Gaza Municipality, Israeli occupation forces destroyed more than 60 percent of the water and sewage networks, including main pumps that supply large areas of the Gaza Strip. The municipality stated that these damages cannot currently be repaired due to Israel’s prevention of importing the necessary materials and equipment, leaving dozens of neighbourhoods exposed to prolonged and worsening crises.
Data from the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) indicates that about 95 percent of Gaza Strip residents do not have access to potable water due to infrastructure destruction, fuel shortages, and power outages.
A Teenager Bearing the Responsibility of an Entire Family
In the Al-Mawasi Al-Qarara area of the southern Gaza Strip, 15-year-old Ahmed Barhoum stands every morning in a long line at a desalination station west of Deir Al-Balah.
Ahmed, who has become the primary water provider for his family, told The Palestine Chronicle that “the station is half a kilometre away from our tent. I start my day carrying empty jugs, then stand for hours waiting for my turn.”
He explained that filling the jugs is only part of the ordeal, as the most difficult task comes afterward.
“The path is rough and sandy, and the jugs are heavy. I return to the tent exhausted every day,” he said.
For Ahmed, studying and playing are no longer part of daily life. Water is all he thinks about. Other testimonies confirm that water has become one of Gaza’s most urgent crises following the supposed end of the war.
Amid destroyed infrastructure, fuel shortages, power outages, and the continued ban on importing equipment, residents remain trapped in a vicious cycle of suffering—deprived of the most basic necessities of life.
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/daily-thirst-amid-tents-and-ruins-a-rough-and-sandy-path-for-gazas-displaced/
------
Undoing Exceptionalism: Leveraging the Law in Service of Palestinian Liberation
December 12, 2025
By Anisha Patel
For more than two years now, we have witnessed the brutality of Israel’s settler-colonial genocidal assault against the Palestinian people in Gaza. The annexation, forcible displacement, and racial segregation in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, escalate rapidly with each passing day.
But these are only the most visibly violent manifestations of the ongoing Nakba and apartheid inflicted upon the entirety of the Palestinian people across the geography and in the diaspora.
Shifting Legal Paradigms
A number of concurrent cases are indicative that the notion of exceptionalism, and by extension the absolute legal impunity, that the state of Israel has enjoyed since its establishment, is now, finally, starting to unravel:
The International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) three Provisional Measures Orders in South Africa v. Israel;
The ICJ order in Nicaragua v. Germany.
The ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Advisory Opinion on Obligations of Israel in relation to the Presence and Activities of the United Nations, Other International Organizations and Third States in and in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory;
UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/ES-10/24 on Illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory;
and the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) arrest warrants in the situation in the State of Palestine.
The shift out of the hitherto legal exceptionalism is also reflected in the various cases brought forward in different national jurisdictions against states, corporations, and individuals that are aiding and abetting or profiting from Israel’s unlawful presence in the occupied Palestine, genocide, and apartheid. Nevertheless, continued Israeli settler colonial violence against the Palestinian people, their land, and their dignity points to the immeasurable costs, being paid for by generations of Palestinians within the geography and across the world, of undoing the inaccurate legal parlance of a “sui generis situation” deliberately imposed by Israel and its allies.
What then is the relevance of investing our very limited resources and energies in engaging with the framework of international law? International law is one of the many tools we employ in the struggle for self-determination and liberation. It is a tool that is, by design, limited because of its imperial Eurocentric origins and character. A state-centric framework, invariably being made and remade by states through their words and actions, international law also reflects the power dynamics in the international order.
While these deficiencies of international law are clearly visible in its many failings when addressing the global South generally, this disparity has been most clearly exemplified in the case of Palestine. However, this has also meant that the “question of Palestine” is positioned at the heart of the post-World War II global order, as the location for its potential rupture, decolonization, and hopefully its eventual rebuilding.
Notwithstanding its flaws, history has shown that there is strategic value in mobilizing a harmonized reading of international law that enshrines non-domination and non-exploitation at the heart of international law-making and practice. Such an engagement with international law challenges the historical marginalization of the experiences of Global South peoples.
Until we reach the point of reordering the world to move beyond a state-centric configuration, we are obliged to use every tool we can, including the imperfect international legal system, as people from the Global South before us have, towards our collective liberation.
International Law as a Tool for Transformation
The ICJ Advisory Opinion, UNGA Resolutions, ICC arrest warrants, and other such legal precedents, like international law in general, are not the end of a legal process – they are but the beginning. They hold transformative hope. So, where do we go from here?
The critical issues we are obliged to continue engaging with revolve around understanding the implications of the monumental shifts that have taken place over the past year in the legal landscape of Palestine. As we have already seen, it is necessary to theorize and concretize what these legal shifts mean and the actions that need to follow, by states, international organizations, and corporations.
Limited enforcement mechanisms internationally necessitate the continued engagement with international law through national actions and legislations to ensure states, corporations, and individuals are held accountable for decades of atrocities committed against the Palestinian people.
Strategic litigation at the national level has the potential to be a key tool in reinforcing obligations arising from international law, including through universal jurisdiction and corporate accountability mechanisms. International law gains also need to be harnessed to protect students, workers’ unions, and human rights defenders who are at the forefront, pushing the boundaries of what counts as acceptable actions by those in power.
While we move along this path of operationalizing the recent legal gains, it is incumbent upon us to continue foregrounding the core objective – Palestinian self-determination as a process of decolonization. The ICJ Advisory Opinion of July 2024 has indicated the elements of restitution and reparations, including the return of Palestinian refugees and land for the unlawfully occupied Palestinian territory, in line with the bounds of the geographical limits of the request made to them by the UN General Assembly.
This is, of course, not reflective of the inalienable right of return that all Palestinian people have, as enshrined in international law. A critical part of engaging with the decolonization mindset, then, is to acknowledge that such fragmentation of the Palestinian people is a part of the settler-colonial apartheid strategy.
Countering Legal Deficiencies
To counter this calculated fragmentation, we must follow the lead of Palestinians, across geographies, on how they articulate self-determination for themselves. Grounding our international legal efforts within Palestinian articulations of self-determination is non-negotiable. While remaining cognizant of the limitations of international law, it is important to find pathways to ensure international institutions recognize and address the root cause, Israeli settler-colonialism, as a legal framework and its implications in the case of Palestinian self-determination and liberation.
As a part of this exercise, it is necessary to articulate how international law safeguards the Palestinian people’s right to resist colonial domination, apartheid, and foreign occupation by all means available. Only by stepping away from the frameworks that chastise Palestinian resistance to alien subjugation, domination, and exploitation can we move towards achieving liberation.
For decades now, Palestinian civil society actors, scholars, and practitioners have been articulating in great detail the conceptual expansion of international law, in line with the experiences of peoples from the Global South, and the tangible actions necessary to bring an end to the settler-colonial and apartheid regime still imposed by Israel.
Following the realities on the ground and the legal outcomes of the past two years, the only reasonable thing to do, legally and morally, is to centre the myriad Palestinian voices of liberation in designing a collective legal strategy. Such a collective strategy of decolonisation, of liberation, needs to employ international law strategically, in parallel to and reinforcing other tools of liberation.
Converging Strategies
This cannot be achieved at the ICJ, the ICC, the UNGA, or any other state-centric institution alone. A strategic convergence of the different tools of liberation is essential. A demand for the emancipatory role of international law to be operationalized requires leveraging international law gains in conjunction with and in support of the broader mobilization by peoples and movements.
While the neo-colonial realities that we exist in make this mobilization challenging, they also open up spaces for transnational solidarity and action. This has already been demonstrated by the large-scale mass movements, especially by students, academics, unions, and dock workers, that have come to the fore in support of Palestine over the past two years and have engaged with international law at different levels.
It would be prudent to recall that the colonial outposts of South Africa, along with its apartheid regime, were not brought to an end only because they were deemed morally unacceptable or because a court had determined their illegality. These discriminatory regimes were dismantled because they were made culturally and financially unsustainable, a condition created by a plethora of coordinated legal and non-legal actions, including cases at international courts, resolutions at the UNGA chipping away at the legitimacy of the situation in states parties forums, suspension of South Africa from the UNGA, litigation in national courts, and the Anti-Apartheid movement bringing these legal gains into action through mobilizing people across the world.
Today, we no longer live in a reality where historic state-driven coalitions such as the Non-Aligned Movement are a force to be reckoned with at the global stage. The Hague Group, an attempt to re-create such coalitions, has been inspirational but has been limited in driving large-scale changes. However, we do live in a world where social media, despite all of its shortcomings, has expanded access to information.
Over the course of the past two years at least, the reality of Israel’s colonial destruction and apartheid has been brought to every screen, allowing people to engage with the Palestinian people beyond the narratives framed by state-driven and mainstream media. The sheer scale of death and destruction in Gaza that people have witnessed over the past two years has left them gaping for vocabulary to describe the reality, a void that international law has come to partially fill, despite its indeterminacies.
Building on this transformative juncture requires international law gains to be translated in order to strategically reinforce everyday tools for people, which will in turn allow for building mass movements towards ensuring accountability and change. Decades of work by the Palestinian people, undertaken at unfathomable costs, have brought us to this moment, where the notion of Israeli legal exceptionalism is finally crumbling – it is now incumbent upon us to leverage the law in service of Palestinian liberation at every avenue available to us, at the UN, in the courts, at universities, at ports, in the banks, and on the streets.
Without Palestine’s decolonization as our compass, rebuilding the world order from the ruins of Gaza will only give rise to another world built on the foundations of oppression.
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/undoing-exceptionalism-leveraging-the-law-in-service-of-palestinian-liberation/
-------
URL:https://www.newageislam.com/middle-east-press/unrwa-syria-gaza-israel/d/137996
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism