Note. A lightly edited version of this was article published in Canadian Dimension on January 22, 2026.

Donald J. Trump via Truth Social

I’ll speak today about the rupture in the world order, the end of the pleasant fiction and the dawn of a brutal reality in which great-power geopolitics is unconstrained.

Canadian prime minister Mark Carney, opening his speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos on January 20, 2026 


Before dawn on January 3, the US launched “a large-scale strike against Venezuela” during which its president Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores were kidnapped and flown out of the country. They were subsequently arraigned in a New York court on drug and weapons charges. Though there were no American deaths, at least 100 people were killed in the assault, including Venezuelan civilians and 32 Cubans.

Four days later, in Minneapolis, MN, a masked ICE agent, Jonathan E. Ross, fatally shot a 37-year-old American woman, Renée Nicole Good, three times in the face at point-blank range.  Video analysis by the New York Times of “bystander footage, filmed from different angles, appears to show the agent was not in the path of the victim’s SUV when he fired.” Contrary to the claims put out by the Department of Homeland Security within two hours, this was a brutal murder—not self-defense.

What has any of this to do with Gaza? The short answer is: everything. For it was above all in Gaza that the New World Order of which these are symptoms was forged.

The Donroe Doctrine

Later on January 3, Trump told journalists that “We’re going to run the country [Venezuela] until such time as we can do a safe, proper, and judicious transition.” 

With a nod to the 1823 Monroe Doctrine (which he has modestly renamed the “Donroe Doctrine”), Trump warned that “Under our new national security strategy, American dominance in the Western hemisphere will never be questioned again.”

“I understand the anxiety over the use of military force,” vice-president J. D. Vance posted on X, “but are we just supposed to allow a communist to steal our stuff in our hemisphere and do nothing? Great powers don’t act like that. The United States, thanks to President Trump’s leadership, is a great power again. Everyone should take note.

By “steal our stuff” he meant Venezuela’s nationalization of foreign oil companies in 2007 under Hugo Chávez.

When Britain, France, and Israel invaded Egypt in 1956 aiming to depose president Gamal Abdel Nasser following his nationalization of the Suez Canal, US president Dwight D. Eisenhower pressured them to accept a United Nations ceasefire and voted for UN resolutions publicly condemning the invasion and approving the creation of a UN peacekeeping force. That was under the old post–WW2 “rules-based” order.

Today, according to Trump’s deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller,; 

We live in a world in which you can talk all you want about international niceties and everything else. But we live in a world, in the real world … that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world. We’re a superpower. And under President Trump, we are going to conduct ourselves as a superpower.

Move fast and break things

As Maya Angelou once said, when someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.

Trump made his determination not to have American hands tied by involvement in multilateral organizations, treaties, or agreements very clear from the get-go. On his first day in office, he withdrew the US from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Paris Climate Agreement

Two weeks later he pulled the US out of the United Nations Human Rights Council, prohibited any future US funding for the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), and ordered a review of US funding and involvement in the UN, including what he called the “anti-American” UNESCO (from which he would withdraw the US in July 2025). 

Following that review, which was led by secretary of state Marco Rubio, on January 7 this year Trump withdrew from a further “35 non-United Nations organizations and 31 UN entities that operate contrary to U.S. national interests, security, economic prosperity, or sovereignty” and “advance globalist agendas over U.S. priorities.” 

One of these was the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), to which all other countries in the world belong. This frees up the US from any future international obligations regarding action on carbon emissions and global warming. Trump has long made it clear to the world that he proposes to “Drill, baby, drill!

More recently (and very ominously), in the words of former UK prime minister Gordon Brown Trump has made “the momentous decision to constitute an alternative” to the United Nations, a so-called “‘board of peace’, with a remit for interventions far beyond Gaza, and with membership offered to about 60 favoured states, including Russia.” 

That the UN opened the road for this when it cravenly endorsed Trump’s “Gaza Peace Plan” on November 17 is indicative of just how moribund the old order has become.

Triumph of the will

The invasion of Venezuela is not a one-off. Despite running on an anti-war platform, the use of force (or threat thereof) has been a defining feature of Trump’s presidency.

He has threatened to annex Greenland, “take back” the Panama Canal, and employ economic force to compel Canada to become “a cherished and beautiful 51st state.” 

Notwithstanding his petulant lobbying for a “Noble Peace Prize” (like Obama) and his specious claim to have “ended eight wars,” in 2025 Trump bombed Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Nigeria, and Venezuela, and the US has killed at least 112 people in strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean and Pacific. Asked whether “killing the citizens of another nation who are civilians without any due process is called a war crime,” J. D. Vance responded: “I don’t give a shit what you call it.” 

On December 16 Trump declared “A TOTAL AND COMPLETE BLOCKADE OF ALL SANCTIONED OIL TANKERS going into, and out of, Venezuela … Until such time as they return to the United States of America all of the Oil, Land, and other Assets that they previously stole from us.” As of January 13, the US Navy had seized five tankers. Asked what would happen to the oil, Trump responded “We’re gonna keep it.”

Trump has now extended the blockade to Cuba, warning “THERE WILL BE NO MORE OIL OR MONEY [from Venezuela] GOING TO CUBA — ZERO! I strongly suggest they make a deal, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.” He has also threatened to take military action in his quarrels with Mexico and Colombia. Nothing like showing them who’s boss.

Asked in a lengthy interview for the New York Times in January 2026 whether there was any limit on his powers, Trump replied: “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me … I don’t need international law.”

A global protection racket

In a sharp reversal of the free trade consensus that has governed the world economy since World War II, Trump has imposed tariffs ranging from 10–41 percent on imports from all US trading partners, and certain goods (e.g. steel, aluminum, critical minerals, automobiles, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, lumber) face higher levies. As I write, the legality of Trump’s use of tariffs is being litigated before the US Supreme Court.

On February 1, 2025 he imposed 25 percent tariffs on most goods from Canada and Mexico, supposedly because neither country was doing enough to stem the flow of fentanyl (and in Mexico’s case immigrants) across the US border. On March 24 he imposed 25% tariffs on all goods from countries that import Venezuelan oil—a tactic he extended on January 12, 2026 to “any country doing business with” Iran.

On July 30, 2025, Trump put tariffs on various goods from Brazil “due to Brazil’s actions regarding the prosecution of former President Bolsonaro, the regulation of online platforms, and other issues.” In August he imposed a whopping 50 percent tariff on India, which included a 25 percent punishment for continuing to buy Russian oil. In October he made a $20 billion line of credit to Argentina contingent upon his rightwing ally Javier Milei’s party winning the upcoming parliamentary elections. 

On January 17 he threatened a 10 percent tariff, rising to 25 percent, on Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, and Finland, which would “be due and payable until … a Deal is reached for the Complete and Total purchase of Greenland”—despite having signed recent trade agreements with the UK and EU. Following pushback from European powers he backed down, announcing that talkswith NATO chief Mark Rutte had “formed the framework of a future deal.”

When French president Emmanuel Macron declined to join his Board of Peace, Trump threatened to impose 200 percent tariffs on French wine and champagne.

It is clear is that irrespective of prior agreements or treaties, Trump will not hesitate to use economic means to achieve political ends. He’s running a global protection racket.

Strongarming the courts

Not only has Trump flouted international law. He has gone out of his way to discredit international legal institutions, including the world’s two highest courts. 

Accusing South Africa of taking “aggressive positions towards the United States and its allies, including accusing Israel, not Hamas, of genocide in the International Court of Justice” (ICJ) the Trump administration instituted a series of measures intended to discredit South Africa’s moral authority to bring the case, pressurize South Africa to drop it, and discourage other countries from joining it. 

In February 2025, Donald Trump imposed sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC) for indicting Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and defense minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes. ICC chief prosecutor Karim Khan was the first victim. The US sanctioned four more judges on June 5, adding two more judges (one of them was Canadian justice Kimberly Prost) and two assistant prosecutors on August 20. Rubio sanctioned two more judges in December, and the administration is now leaning onthe court to amend its guiding documents to exempt US citizens from its jurisdiction. 

Such sanctions include an asset freeze, a prohibition on Americans doing business with sanctioned individuals, and a ban on their entering the United States. Unable to access the world banking system, victims—who also include UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese—cannot even use credit cards or book a flight or a hotel online. 

“The purpose is clear,” Prost told the Irish Times: 

Effectively, they are interfering directly with the independence of a judge. I can’t think of any other way to describe it but an attack on the independence of the judiciary and the International Criminal Court’s independence as an institution.

Securing the home front

Trump has moved just as fast on the domestic front, in ways that test the legal limits of his executive power. His actions have resulted in at least 583 challenges in the courts. While lower courts have overturned many of his orders, the conservative-dominated Supreme Court—which previously gave him immunity for “actions relating to the core powers of his office”—has so far generally proved more compliant.

The administration took an axe to the federal government and its programs, with the loss of 317,000 jobs by the end of 2025. Elon Musk’s Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE), which was created by executive order on Trump’s first day outside the normal machinery of government, was responsible for much of the early carnage. The now-defunct DOGE has been widely criticized as “illegal and unconstitutional.” 

The 26 executive orders Trump signed on his first day—more than any previous US president—included a ban on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs across the federal government, attempts to limit birthright citizenship, and the declaration of a “national energy emergency” that has led to a bonfire of environmental regulations. 

From removing over 8,000 government web pages related to DEI initiatives, “gender identity, public health research, environmental policy, and various social programs,” to excluding transgender soldiers from the military and athletes from women’s sports, waging a “war on science” and whitewashing how history is presented in the nation’s museums, Trump has used his executive powers to advance MAGA’s culture wars.

He also found time on his first day to unconditionally pardon almost all 1,600 rioters convicted in the January 6, 2021 assault on the Capitol and commute the sentences imposed on Proud Boys and Oath Keepers militia members for seditious conspiracy. While this was within his powers as president, it shows scant respect for the courts. House Democrats are now asking how many of the rioters have joined Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which increasingly looks like Trump’s Gestapo.

The same contempt for the rule of law is shown by the fact that nearly a month after Congress set a deadline of December 19 for the release of all files relating to the Jeffrey Epstein case, Trump’s Department of Justice has made public only 12,285 out of over 2 million relevant documents, and many of these have been heavily redacted.

I am your retribution

Not content with stacking the governing bodies of public institutions from the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts—now renamed the Trump-Kennedy Center—to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau with loyalists, Trump has good on his promise to his MAGA supporters that “I am your justice … I am your retribution.” 

The president has purged the US military, the justice departmentimmigration judges, and at least 17 inspectors general (the independent watchdogs who oversee federal government departments).  The list of those whose security clearances been revoked in retaliation for past actions deemed hostile to Trump is growing very long indeed. 

Weaponizing the justice department, Trump has opened criminal investigations or prosecutions against among others Letitia JamesJack SmithJames ComeyJohn BoltonEric SwalwellAdam SchiffMark KellyJohn Brennan, and Jerome Powell, all of whom he has crossed swords with in the past. The administration’s response to pushback against the murder of Renée Good from elected city and state officials has been to issue subpoenas against governor Tim Walz and mayor Jacob Frey. 

Trump has sanctioned big law firms (e.g., WilmerHaleJenner and BlockCovington & Burling) because they represented clients of which he disapproved. Rather than face being shut out of business with federal agencies, excluded from federal buildings (including courtrooms), and losing security clearances, several firms have caved to Trump’s demands and promised millions in pro bono work to causes he supports.

Silencing speech

The administration has dismantled Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and Radio Free Asia and defunded PBS and NPR on grounds that the former has “a “leftist bias” and fails to project “pro-American” values and the latter do not offer “a fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events to taxpaying citizens.”

Trump removed Associated Press from the White House press pool and stripped the White House Correspondents’ Association of its traditional power to decide which journalists have access to the president. In October, reporters from all but one news organization—including even the regime-friendly Fox News—turned in their Pentagon access badges rather than agree to new rules from secretary of defence (now styled “secretary of war”) Pete Hegseth restricting what they were allowed to report. 

Trump has personally sued among others ABC News (obtaining $15 million in an out-of-court settlement), the Daily BeastCBS News (a $16 million settlement), the Des Moines Register, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times. He is suing the BBCfor defamation for no less than $10 billion, a sum that would bankrupt the UK’s public broadcaster (whose entire income in 2025 was £5.9 billion, or $US 7.88). 

CBS canceled The Late Show with Stephen Colbert after Colbert criticized Trump. The next month, ABC suspended Jimmy Kimmel Live! after Kimmel commented on the assassination of rightwing darling Charlie Kirk, leading Trump to muse: “They’re giving me all this bad press, and they’re getting a license. I would think maybe their license should be taken away.” This is hardly a climate conducive to free speech.

Kneecapping the universities

recent report by PEN America documents how 

From executive orders and memos, to investigations, the withholding of funds for research and financial aid, and efforts to detain, deport, or deny visas to international students and academics, the federal administration has weaponized every imaginable lever to bring the higher education sector to its knees. 

The report instances 90+ Title VI investigations, $3.7 billion in cuts from federal research dollars from previously awarded grants, and NIH and NSF funding cuts with an estimated annual cost of $10-15 billion in decreased US economic output. 

The federal government has proposed suspending 38 universities including Harvard and Yale from a research partnership program because they engage in DEI hiring, fined UCLA $1.2 billion, and required that it not enroll “foreign students likely to engage in anti-Western, anti-American, or antisemitic disruptions or harassment.” Since January 2025 the State Department has revoked over 8,000 student visas, targeting in particular those who have taken part in pro-Palestinian demonstrations. 

Faced with these pressures many schools, including New York’s Columbia University, have traded academic freedom for federal dollars and accepted unprecedented political oversight of their hiring practices and the content of their research and teaching. 

Others have resisted—up to a point. Though Harvard is suing the administration, it has suspended its research partnership with Birzeit University in the West Bank and dismissed the director and associate director of its Center for Middle Eastern Studies.

The cruelty is the point

Trump’s One Big Beautiful Act allocated a mindblowing $75 billion over four years (in addition to $10 billion already appropriated for 2025) to ICE to arrest, detain, and deport immigrants. The law provided $45 billion to increase ICE detention capacity and $46.6 billion for the construction of border barriers and surveillance systems. 

Advertising “You do not need an undergraduate degree,” a generous pay and benefits package, and a $50,000 signing bonus, ICE recruited 12,000 additional agents during 2025, expanding its workforce by 120 percent. Mobilizing “Uncle Sam” imagery, the ads are crafted to attract MAGA supporters, if not outright white nationalists. 

DHS boasts that in 2025 “nearly 3 million illegal aliens … left the U.S. … including an estimated 2.2 million self-deportations and more than 675,000 deportations.” The conditions in Florida’s “Alligator Alcatraz” and other ICE detention centers are grim. A record 32 people died in ICE custody in 2025.  The cruelty is the point—to strike fear.

An unknown number of those deported have not been given due process and in some cases have been sent to third countries with which they have no connection. In what is perhaps the most notorious case of denial of legal rights, the administration defied court orders and summarily deported 238 Venezuelan men to the CECOT prison in El Salvador, which is notorious for torture and “life-threatening prison conditions.” 

ICE has conducted large-scale raids across the US aiming at 3,000 arrests per day. Though DHS claims its targets are “criminal illegal aliens across the country, including gang members, rapists, kidnappers, and drug traffickers,” ICE’s goons have rounded up people from factories, farms, meatpacking plants, restaurantschurchesschools, and even immigration courts. In Minnesota Trump’s Gestapo are going from house to house, breaking down doors and arresting people. Seventy-five percent of those held by ICE in December had no criminal convictions. This is a reign of terror.

Trump has deployed the National Guard to Los Angeles, Washington DC, Chicago and Portland, Oregon, in the latter case to support ICE. He has threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act in order to dispatch troops to end the protests in Minnesota. “If I feel it’s important to invoke the Insurrection Act,” he told the New York Times, “I have the right to do pretty much what I want to do.” L’état, c’est moi.

Signs in the window

What has any of this to do with Gaza?

Invoking Václav Havel’s parable of the Czech greengrocer who places a sign in his window reading “Workers of the World Unite” not because he believes it, but to signal his conformity—and thereby helps reproduce the system that oppresses him—Mark Carney’s 2026 Davos speech showed rare honesty from a western political leader.

“For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order,” he begins. But

We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false, that the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient, that trade rules were enforced asymmetrically. And we knew that international law applied with varying rigour, depending on the identity of the accused or the victim.

This fiction was useful … So we placed the sign in the window. We participated in the rituals, and we largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality.

Then came Gaza. When the gaps became chasms.

When George H. W. Bush went to war with Iraq over Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, he sought and got authorization from the UN Security Council. When his son, George W. Bush, wanted to fight Saddam again in 2003, he and UK PM Tony Blair—the same Blair that is now on Trump’s “Board of Peace”—used fake intelligence to get support for going to war from the US Congress and UK parliament. The UN was unpersuaded by their claims, but they went through the motions of playing by the rules before going ahead with a “coalition of the willing” anyway. When Vladimir Putin annexed Crimea in 2014 and invaded Ukraine in 2024, western powers, including the US, EU, UK, and Canada, responded with ever-escalating rounds of sanctions. 

But with Gaza, it is different. As I have documented in more than 25 articles over the last two years, not only have western governments, with the support of mainstream political parties and mass media across the political spectrum, armed, funded, and provided diplomatic cover for the genocide. They have thrown international law out of the window and perhaps fatally undermined the institutions that support it—the UN and its agencies, the ICJ, and the ICC. And they have sacrificed human rights and civil liberties at home, persecuting Israel’s critics under the specious banner of “combatting antisemitism.”

This was not Donald Trump’s doing. The responsibility lies squarely with Joe Biden, Antony Blinken, and Kamala Harris; with Rishi Sunak, David Cameron, Keir Starmer, David Lammy, and Yvette Cooper; with Justin Trudeau, Mélanie Joly, Anita Anand, and—it must be said—Mark Carney; with Emmanuel Macron, Anthony Albanese and Penny Wong, Olaf Scholz and Friedrich Merz, not to mention Kaja Kallas and Ursula von der Leyen. They dealt the final blows to the old order. Trump is just picking up where they left off.

Gaza’s revenge

Asked by Democracy Now on December 26, 2025, to comment on “what’s happening in Gaza,” the Indian novelist and activist Arundhati Roy replied: 

What is there to discuss when you’re murdering children, destroying hospitals, destroying universities, murdering journalists, and boasting about it, boasting about it? And everybody’s sort of ambiguous—I mean, what we are witnessing also is, I think, there are surveys that say that almost 90% of the population of the world wants this to stop, but there is no connection between democratically elected governments and the will of the people. It’s ended. So, the whole charade of Western liberal democracy is as much of a corpse under the rubble as the tens of thousands of Palestinians.

Trump’s triumph might be seen as Gaza’s revenge. Revenge for the West’s complicity in the worst crimes of the century. Revenge for its repeated trampling on international law. Revenge, above all, on the American Democrats who demanded everyone’s vote despite Biden’s “ironclad” support for Israel and Kamala Harris’s refusal to break with his legacy—and told protestors against genocide to shut up because “I’m speaking!” 

She is not speaking any more. Donald Trump is Aimé Césaire’s imperial boomerang. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. The imperial chickens are coming home to roost.

The first three months of Donald Trump’s “Comprehensive Gaza Peace Plan”

Canadian Dimension/ January 8, 2026 

Trucks carrying humanitarian aid wait to cross into Gaza from Egypt through Rafah. Photo by Eskinder Debebe/UN.

On September 29, 2025, standing beside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the White House, Donald Trump announced his 20-point Comprehensive Gaza Peace Plan to the world. Over the next few days the US president put heavy pressure on Hamas to sign up to his deal, threatening that Israel “would have my full backing to finish the job” of destroying the group if they didn’t.

Though neither Hamas nor any other Palestinian organization had been involved in drawing up Trump’s 20 points, Hamas signed an agreement with Israel at noon on October 9 to implement the first phase of the plan, which came into effect the next day.

This agreement—which, let us be absolutely clear, is all that Israel and Hamas have signed up to so far—committed both sides to a ceasefire in Gaza, following which Israel would withdraw its forces to an agreed-upon “yellow line” and “not return to areas it has withdrawn from, as long as Hamas fully implements the agreement.”

In the 72 hours following the IDF withdrawal, all Israeli hostages in Gaza (or their remains) were to be exchanged for “250 life sentence prisoners [in Israeli jails] plus 1,700 Gazans who were detained after October 7, 2023, including all women and children detained in that context.”

“Full aid” would also “be immediately sent into the Gaza Strip… at a minimum in consistence with the January 19, 2025 agreement regarding humanitarian aid.” The latter stipulated the entry of at least 600 trucks, including 50 fuel trucks, per day.

Though this aspect of the October 9 agreement received less media attention than the release of the Israeli hostages, it was critical for the Palestinians. The world’s top authority on food supply, the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), had declared the “irrefutable” existence of famine in Gaza more than a month earlier.

The Sharm el-Sheikh Peace Summit

The ceasefire officially began on October 10. Hamas released its last 20 living hostages, and Israel began to release Palestinian prisoners on October 13.

At the Sharm el-Sheikh “Peace Summit” in Egypt that same day, Donald Trump declared that “the war in Gaza is over.” His audience included over 30 world leaders, among them Mark Carney, Keir Starmer, Emmanuel Macron, Friedrich Merz, and Giorgia Meloni, as well as leaders from Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other Middle Eastern and Muslim states and UN Secretary-General António Guterres.

The “president of peace” (as US Secretary of State Marco Rubio baptized his boss) was praised on all sides. Elbows up as ever, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney offered “congratulations to President Trump for his essential leadership” in delivering this “historic peace plan… opening a new chapter for Israelis, Palestinians, and the world.”

Their enthusiasm is comprehensible—though totally unfounded. For months, Western leaders outside the US had been facing mounting public opposition over their support for Israel’s campaign in Gaza, as well as growing concerns over their own potential liability for complicity in what was increasingly widely being recognized as a genocide. Tensions between the US and its allies peaked when (to Israel’s fury) Britain, France, Canada, Australia, and several other Western countries recognized a Palestinian state at the 80th UN General Assembly session in September in New York.

Trump’s Gaza plan provided them with an off-ramp. As I wrote at the time, “One can almost hear the huge collective sigh of relief that went up in Western capitals as soon as the Trump plan was announced. The cracks are papered over, the delinquent allies are back in the US fold, and our craven leaders are off the genocide hook.”

The end of the war?

The reality, however, is less rosy—as everybody present in Sharm el-Sheikh must have known.

To begin with, the October 9 agreement did not commit either Israel or Hamas to accepting the rest of Trump’s 20-point plan. Hamas had always been ready to engage in prisoner exchanges—that was, after all, the reason they took hostages on October 7—Israel rather less so. Other issues have proved more intractable.

Several members of the Israeli government stridently opposed the ceasefire, and Netanyahu himself likely only entered into it under pressure from Donald Trump (who was openly campaigning for a Nobel Peace Prize). Challenged by the opposition to endorse Trump’s plan, Netanyahu’s coalition boycotted a Knesset vote on the issue.

In the ensuing days and weeks, Israeli leaders made it clear that they remained opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state now or ever and had no intention of pulling the IDF out of Gaza anytime soon. Fifty-three percent of the strip, including almost all of its arable land, lies in the area the IDF now controls behind the yellow line.

For its part, on October 24 Hamas communicated that while it was willing to “hand over the administration of the Gaza Strip to a temporary Palestinian committee composed of independent ‘technocrats’” as the Trump plan envisaged, it was not prepared to disarm without serious negotiations on establishing a Palestinian state.

Like much of what comes out of the US president’s mouth, Trump’s statement in a December 29 interview with PBS Newshour that “Hamas pledged, they swore that they were going to disarm” is quite simply false.

Very far from the Gaza “war” being over, the thorniest issues—Israel’s continuing occupation of Palestinian territories, disarmament of the Palestinian resistance, and the realization of a viable, sovereign Palestinian state—have yet to be resolved. So does the fate of Gaza’s surviving civilian population of over a million people, trapped in appalling conditions between the yellow line and the sea.

Two earlier ceasefires had enabled exchanges of hostages, in November 2023 and January 2025. Israel multiply breached and finally unilaterally ended both. There was—and is—no good reason to think the outcome will be any different this time around.

UN Security Council Resolution 2803

Notwithstanding these serious obstacles to a real peace, in a landmark resolution of November 17, which passed by a vote of 13-0 (with Russia and China abstaining), the UN Security Council welcomed Trump’s plan and endorsed its key provisions.

Resolution 2803 “authorized” a “Board of Peace”—whose composition is not specified in the resolution, but which will be chaired by Donald Trump himself—to:

  • Set up “a transitional governance administration, including … a Palestinian technocratic, apolitical committee of competent Palestinians from the Strip”
  • Establish “a temporary International Stabilization Force (ISF)… with forces contributed by participating States”
  • Create a “newly trained and vetted Palestinian police force,” which will work with the ISF to ensure “the process of demilitarizing the Gaza Strip, including… the permanent decommissioning of weapons from non-state armed groups.”

“As the ISF establishes control and stability, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) will withdraw from the Gaza Strip… save for a security perimeter presence that will remain until Gaza is properly secure from any resurgent terror threat,” the text goes on. The “standards, milestones, and timeframes” will be “agreed between the IDF, ISF, the guarantors [the US, Turkey, Egypt and Qatar], and the United States.”

Astonishingly, there is no provision for any Palestinian input into this most important of issues—for both sides. If the Palestinians give up their arms with no internationally backed guarantee of eventual statehood, they are defenceless in the face of an army that has repeatedly proved its ruthlessness. But so long as Hamas is not disarmed, Israelis fear a repetition of the dreadful events of October 7, 2023, which triggered the present so-called “war” and have been invoked to justifyevery Israeli action since.

The deal of the century?

These transitional arrangements, says the resolution, will remain in place “until such time as the Palestinian Authority (PA) has satisfactorily completed its reform program, as outlined in various proposals, including President Trump’s peace plan in 2020… and can securely and effectively take back control of Gaza.”

Both the PA and Hamas denounced Trump’s 2020 plan (which he modestly called “the deal of the century”) at the time, with Hamas describing it as an attempt “to liquidate the Palestinian national project.” Among other things, the plan would have allowed Israel to annex much of the West Bank, including the Jordan Valley, leaving behind a demilitarized Palestinian “state” made up of a series of Bantustans.

Only “after the PA reform program is faithfully carried out and Gaza redevelopment has advanced,” Resolution 2803 continues, “the conditions may”— note it says “may,” not “will”—be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood. The United States will establish a dialogue between Israel and the Palestinians to agree on a political horizon for peaceful and prosperous coexistence.”

The postponement of establishing even a “pathway” to Palestinian statehood to the indefinite future—while effectively giving Israel and the US a veto over the process—is particularly ironic, coming so soon after Canada, the UK, and all the rest purportedly “recognized” the state of Palestine.

Unsurprisingly, Hamas and the other factions in Gaza rejected Resolution 2803. In their view, Trump’s plan is no more than a “form of deep international partnership in the war of extermination waged by the [Israeli] occupation against our people.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump during the introduction of the Gaza ceasefire proposal, September 29, 2025. Photo courtesy the White House/Wikimedia Commons.

The legal background

It is difficult to overstate just how major a departure Resolution 2803 is from the UN’s previous policies on the Palestinian question—and from the body of law established by the world’s two highest international courts.

After the 1967 Six Day War, when Israel occupied the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza, Security Council Resolution 242 called for:

Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict [and]… Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area…


Israel ignored Resolution 242, as it has ignored literally hundreds of UN resolutions since—usually with the support of the United States, which has frequently employed its veto to shield Israel from sanctions or other UN action. The US has vetoed no less than six United Nations Security Council ceasefire resolutions in the course of the current “war” alone.

Responding to a request from the UN General Assembly, on July 19, 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that “Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is unlawful,” and it must “end its unlawful presence… as rapidly as possible,” “cease immediately all new settlement activities,” and “evacuate all settlers from the Occupied Palestinian Territory.”

The justices went on to stress that “all states,” as well as international organizations (including the UN), were “under an obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and not to render aid or assistance” in maintaining the occupation.

Recalling the ICJ ruling as well as earlier resolutions, on December 3, 2024 the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution requiring Israel to “comply with international law, including ceasing all settlement activities and evacuating settlers from the Occupied Palestinian Territory.” The vote was 157 in favour, eight against, and seven abstentions. Though both the US and Israel opposed the motion, the overwhelming majority of Western democracies, including Canada and the UK, backed it.

On November 21, 2024 the International Criminal Court (ICC), which was established by the Rome Statute in 1998 as “an independent, permanent court of last resort… to investigate and prosecute the most serious crimes of international concern, namely genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and aggression,” issued arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for “the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts.”

Though not recognized by the US or Israel, this is the same court that convicted Ratko Mladić and Radovan Karadzic for their part in the 1995 Srebrenica genocide and—with US approvalindicted Vladimir Putin in 2023 for war crimes in Ukraine.

The Trump administration’s response to the ICC indictments of Netanyahu and Gallant has been to impose sanctions on both the court and several of its individual officials and judges.

The UN betrays Palestine—and itself

The Security Council’s acceptance of the Trump “peace plan” is a watershed moment for the postwar international order. It marks the definitive abandonment of attempts to resolve the Israel-Palestine dispute within this framework of international law, and their replacement by obeisance to the imperatives of great power realpolitik.

Though Russia and China both criticized the Trump plan, they conspicuously did not veto Resolution 2803. Russia has no more interest in upholding international law than Israel or the US, given its invasion of Ukraine, while China would welcome a free hand in Taiwan, which it has always insisted is an integral part of its national territory (and therefore not governed by international law regarding relations between states).

In a blistering response to Security Council Resolution 2803 Francesca Albanese, the United Nations Human Rights Council Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, got to the heart of the matter.

“Despite the horrors of the last two years and the ICJ’s clear jurisprudence,” she wrote:

the Council has chosen not to ground its response in the very body of law it is obliged to uphold: international human rights law, including the right of self-determination, the law governing the use of force, international humanitarian law, and the UN Charter.


Instead, “the resolution risks entrenching external control over Gaza’s governance, borders, security, and reconstruction” and “betrays the people it claims to protect.”

Specifically:

A military force answering to a so-called ‘Board of Peace’ chaired by the President of the United States, an active party to this conflict that has continually provided military, economic and diplomatic support to the illegal occupying Power, is not legal. It is a brazen attempt to impose, by threat of continued force against a virtually defenceless population, US and Israeli interests, plain and simple.

Essentially, it will leave Palestine in the hands of a puppet administration, assigning the United States, which shares complicity in the genocide, as the new manager of the open-air prison that Israel has already established.


In abnegating its legal responsibilities and outsourcing Gaza’s future to Trump’s “Board of Peace,” she charges, the UN has betrayed not only the Palestinian people but its own founding principles as embodied in Articles 1 and 2 of the UN Charter.

You cease, I fire

Nearly three months have passed since the Gaza “ceasefire” came into effect. Israel has repeatedly stalled progress on moving to phase two of Trump’s “peace plan” until all the bodies of deceased Israeli hostages have been returned—no small task, given the difficulty of recovering them in Gaza’s devastation. By December 4 the remains of all but one hostage, police officer Ran Gvili, had been recovered. Israel is still stalling.

Though both sides have accused the other of multiple violations of the ceasefire, the monstrous asymmetry of casualties suggests the fault lies overwhelmingly with Israel.

Since October 10, at least 416 Palestinians have been killed and more than 1,110 wounded in Israeli attacks. Over the same period, just three Israeli soldiers lost their lives in Gaza. According to Palestinian sources, two of them died when their vehicle ran over unexploded ordinance, and not, as Israel claimed, in a Hamas ambush.

While there hasn’t been a single reported incident of Hamas firing rockets into Israel, the Gazan authorities claim that between October 10 and December 28 “Israel shot at civilians 298 times, raided residential areas beyond the ‘yellow line’ 54 times, bombed and shelled Gaza 455 times, [and] demolished people’s properties on 162 occasions.”

In total, Israel violated the ceasefire agreement at least 969 times from October 10 to December 28. To describe Trump’s ceasefire as “fragile,” “precarious,” or “tested,” as mainstream Western media habitually do, is to stretch the meaning of words beyond all credibility. On the Israeli side, at least, this has been a ceasefire in name only.

Restriction of aid

Let me finally turn to the only other provision in Trump’s Gaza Plan aside from the exchange of prisoners that was actually agreed in the ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas on October 9, the resumption of “full aid” into Gaza.

Israel has failed to open the Rafah crossing into Egypt, as is explicitly mandated in the Trump plan, and has severely restricted and on occasion completely stopped traffic at other crossing points throughout the ceasefire. While the number of humanitarian aid trucks that have been allowed into Gaza since the ceasefire is disputed, it is clearly far fewer than the agreed minimum of 600 per day.

Per the Israeli human rights organization B’tselem, “Due to Israeli restrictions, as of December 16, only 57 percent of the 556 aid missions planned by the UN and its partners were carried out, including the delivery of vital aid and equipment, medical evacuations, and infrastructure repairs.”

According to Oxfam, posting on December 22:

Since the current ceasefire began on October 10th, Israeli authorities continue to arbitrarily reject scores of shipments of life-saving assistance into Gaza. Almost $50 million worth of food, water, tents, and medical supplies is still being held up at border crossings and warehouses. Oxfam alone has $2.5 million worth of aid sitting in Jordan, including 4,000 food parcels.


Expressing “serious concerns about the renewed deterioration of the humanitarian situation in Gaza, which remains catastrophic,” on December 30 the foreign ministers of Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Japan, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom issued a joint statement calling upon Israel to fully open all the crossings and “lift unreasonable restrictions on imports considered to have a dual use… includ[ing] urgently needed medical and shelter equipment.”

Hobbling of INGOs

The statement further demanded that international NGOs “are able to operate in Gaza in a sustained and predictable way,” and that “the UN and its partners can continue their vital work.” It emphasized that “this includes United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East [UNRWA], which provides essential services, such as health care and education, to millions of Palestinian refugees.”

This last point matters because Israel banned UNWRA—the single most important agency for coordinating aid efforts in Gaza—from operating in Israel from January 2025, on the basis of accusations (for which it provided no evidence) that some of its employees participated in the Hamas October 7 attack. That ban remains in place.

Tightening the screw further, on December 29 the Knesset passed a law cutting off electricity and water supplies to facilities owned by or operating on behalf of UNRWA in the occupied Palestinian territories, and banned provision of telecommunications, banking, and other financial services to the agency.

Under rules introduced in March 2025, Israel required aid organizations operating in Gaza and the West Bank to submit lists of their Palestinian staff by December 31 for vetting by intelligence services. Fearful that this would put their employees in danger of targeting by the IDF, many refused. Their fears are well founded. In 2024 alone, 125 UNRWA aid workers were killed in Gaza, the highest death toll in UN history.

Despite the ceasefire in Gaza, Israel has insisted on implementing this so-called “security” measure. As a result, 37 INGOs have now lost their accreditation and will have to cease operating by March 1. These include Médecins Sans Frontières, Oxfam, Vision International, ActionAid, International Rescue Committee, CARE, Medico International, Medical Aid for Palestinians, and the Norwegian Refugee Council.

These restrictions on aid entering Gaza are too numerous and systematic to be an accident. The guns may have temporarily quieted, but Israel is continuing its ethnic cleansing and genocide by other means.

As winter bites, the old, the infirm, and above all the children will continue to die. In these circumstances the survivors may be that much more willing to abandon their homeland for “voluntary” exile. In another press conference with Netanyahu on December 29, Donald Trump suggested that more than half the population would like to take advantage of such an offer (“To me it’s common sense”).

Coincidentally or otherwise, on January 2 Israel became the first country in the world to recognizethe breakaway state of Somaliland, an enclave strategically situated on the coast of the Gulf of Aden. The government of Somaliland has denied agreeing to host Israeli bases or accept displaced Gazans, but suspicions remain.

What comes next?

Three months on, the prospects for Donald Trump’s “comprehensive peace plan” are looking decidedly shaky. Having got all its hostages back, and secure in its military occupation of 53 percent of the Gaza Strip, Israel may decline to move on to phase two and find some excuse to resume the conflict as in the previous ceasefires.

Hamas is unlikely to agree to disarm in the absence of guarantees of eventual statehood that Israel will never give—what more, after all, do Palestinians have to lose by keeping their weapons? Meantime the states that were mooted as contributors of troops to Trump’s proposed international stabilization force, including Egypt, Turkey, and Indonesia, are reportedly getting cold feet about being dragged into the quagmire.

But in a sense none of this matters. The Trump plan has done its job. Gaza is out of the headlines, the allies are back on board, and the US is calling the shots—with the imprimatur of the United Nations Security Council, which has accepted the inevitable.

The “rules-based order” established at the end of World War II is over. The world is entering “a new era of great power competition; a generational struggle to maintain peace through strength”—to quote US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, speaking after the US invasion of Venezuela—an era in which right gives way to might.

Resolution 8302 is the embodiment of that capitulation. Gaza is the future. And not just for Palestinians.

Album of the Year—hors de concours

Rosalía Lux


First Top 10—Likely Not Jazz

Big Thief Double Infinity

Wednesday Bleeds

Blood Orange Essex Honey

Patterson Hood Exploding Trees and Airplane Dreams

Mdou Moctar Tears of Injustice

Jason Isbell Foxes in the Snow

Flory Sounds Like

Wet Leg Moisturizer

Dave Stewart Dave Does Dylan

Valerie June Owls, Omens and Oracles


Second Top 10—But Is It Jazz?

Ambrose Akinmusire Honey from a Winter’s Stone

Tarune Balani Kadahin Milandaasin

Yazz Ahmed A Paradise in the Hold

Amina Claudine Myers Solace of the Mind

Theon Cross Affirmations: Live at the Blue Note New York

Linda May Han Oh Strange Heavens

Nate Mercereau Josh Johnson Carlos Nino Openness Trio

Charles Lloyd Figure in Blue

Fieldwork Thereupon

Theo Croker and Sullivan Fortner Play


Some notable EPS

Kronos Quartet and Hard Rain Collective Hard Rain

Lisa O’Neill The Wind Doesn’t Blow This Far Right

Makaya McCraven Techno Logic/Hidden Out/The People’s Mixtape/Pop-Up Shop (4 EPs, available together as Off the Record from Bandcamp)

and a reissue

Thelonious Monk Bremen 1965


Volvox Globator, who previously published the Czech translation of Prague, Capital of the Twentieth Century, has now brought out a Czech translation of the third volume in my “Prague trilogy,” Postcards from Absurdistan: Prague at the End of History. I am most grateful to Jindřich Veselý for undertaking this translation, which cannot have been the easiest of assignments given the length and character of the book.


This is the Czech publisher’s blurb. English translation follows.

Kniha Pohlednice z Absurdistánu, napsaná britsko-kanadským bohemistou Derekem Sayerem, představuje jedinečný vhled do českých dějin dvacátého století. Ve své předchozí knize autor nazval Prahu hlavním městem 20. století (Praha, hlavní město dvacátého století, Surrealistická historie Volvox Globator, 2021) a tento pohled zůstává výchozím bodem i pro tuto knihu.

Derek Sayer se podrobně zabývá kulturním a společenským děním, odhaluje absurdity, které 20. století provázely, a zároveň poukazuje na křehkost demokratického systému. Podtitul knihy Praha na konci dějin odkazuje ke slavnému dílu, které napsal Francis Fukuyama v devadesátých letech dvacátého století, ale zároveň v sobě nese nadhled, který je Dereku Sayerovi vlastní. 

V knize se prolínají dějinné, politické události spolu s osobními dějinami českých osobností, které si v nehostinných podmínkách velké části dvacátého století vydobývaly vlastní svobodu. Velká pozornost je věnována vývoji umění, které bylo nuceno, ať už jakýmkoli způsobem, na danou politickou situaci reagovat. Kniha nese veškeré parametry vědecké práce, autor však není spoutaný akademickým jazykem, naopak, jedná se o velice čtivý text, který je doprovázen více než sedmdesáti dobovými fotografiemi.

Z angličtiny přeložil Jindřich Veselý.


Postcards from Absurdistan, written by British-Canadian Czech scholar Derek Sayer, offers a unique insight into Czech history in the 20th century. In his previous book, the author called Prague the capital of the 20th century (Praha, hlavní město dvacátého století, Surrealistická historie, Volvox Globator, 2021), and this remains the vantage point for this book as well.

Derek Sayer takes a detailed look at cultural and social events, revealing the absurdities that accompanied the 20th century, while also pointing out the fragility of the democratic system. The subtitle of the book, “Prague at the End of History,” refers to the famous work written by Francis Fukuyama in the 1990s, but at the same time carries Derek Sayer’s characteristic perspective

The book intertwines historical and political events with the personal histories of Czech personalities who fought for their freedom in the inhospitable conditions of much of the 20th century. Much attention is paid to the development of art, which was forced, in one way or another, to respond to the political situation. The book has all the parameters of a scientific work, but the author is not bound by academic language; on the contrary, it is a very readable text accompanied by more than seventy period photographs.

Translated from English by Jindřich Veselý.

I was delighted to belatedly discover that my potted history/guidebook Prague: Crossroads of Europe, published by Reaktion Books (London) in their Cityscopes series in 2018, was published in Chinese translation in October 2021 by the Shanghai Literature and Art Publishing House. Here are the Chinese publication details and blurb—English translation follows, courtesy of DeepL.

《布拉格:欧洲的十字路口》

作者:德里克•塞耶

出版社:上海文艺出版社

出版时间:2021年10月

ISBN:9787532178353

定价:108.00元

内容简介

身为加拿大皇家学会院士的德里克•塞耶,在本书中既细数布拉格风云变幻的昨日,也详述布拉格精彩纷呈的今天。被誉为“欧洲美首都”的布拉格,拥有伏尔塔瓦河畔令人惊叹的自然风光,其壮观的建筑群亦多彩多姿,从罗马式圆形大厅到哥特式塔楼,从文艺复兴时期的宫殿到巴洛克式大教堂,从新艺术风格的咖啡馆到立体主义风格的公寓楼……可谓包罗万象。位于欧洲十字路口的布拉格是各方思潮、各国文化交汇碰撞之地,距今已有千年。塞耶通过回顾欧洲史的错综过往,呈现给读者一幅布拉格波澜壮阔的历史画卷。寻幽入微,言有尽而意无穷。

作者简介

德里克•塞耶,波西米亚历史专家、原英国兰卡斯特大学文化历史系教授,出版有《波西米亚海岸:一个捷克人的历史》《资本主义与现代性:马克思主义和韦伯思想概论》《二十世纪之都布拉格:一段超现实的历史》《自找麻烦:超现实主义和社会科学》等多部著作。当选为加拿大皇家学会院士的塞耶现居“牛仔城”卡尔加里,同时是阿尔伯塔大学社会理论与文化研究系的荣誉退休教授。

译者简介

金天,口笔译硕士。先后获伦敦国王学院及诺丁汉大学一等荣誉学位、伦敦圣三一学院对外英语教学证书。峰会口译员;曾任剑桥国际之友(Friends International Cambridge)领队,为当地语言学校开设有多场英语学术讲座。共计有英汉互译作品约七十万字。译有《孟买:欲望丛林》《巴黎:光影流动的盛宴》等。

目 录

003 序

昔日布拉格

003 我见一城俊伟

011 普舍美斯王朝

027 查理四世的黄金时代

041 反对一切!

055 金杯毒酒

077 白山之后

099 为了祖国,为了艺术

119 我们说斯拉夫语

145 十字路口

161 阴云笼罩

175 来自东方的共产主义

191 重回欧洲

今日布拉格

197 布拉格咖啡馆

211 啤酒实乃琼浆玉液!

221 立体主义者的塑造梦

231 当之无愧现代风

241 旧貌新颜查理镇

253 小河内

263 跳舞的房子

275 附录

315 译后记

319 大事年表

325 索引

Translation

Prague: Crossroads of Europe
Author: Derek Sayer
Publisher: Shanghai Literature and Art Publishing House
Publication Date: October 2021
ISBN: 9787532178353
Price: ¥108.00

Synopsis
As a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, Derek Sayer chronicles Prague’s turbulent past while detailing its vibrant present. Dubbed “Europe’s most beautiful capital,” Prague boasts breathtaking natural scenery along the Vltava River and a kaleidoscope of architectural wonders—from Romanesque rotundas to Gothic towers, Renaissance palaces to Baroque cathedrals, Art Nouveau cafés to Cubist apartment buildings. Situated at the crossroads of Europe, Prague has been a crucible where diverse ideologies and cultures have collided for over a millennium. By revisiting Europe’s intricate historical tapestry, Sayer unfolds a sweeping panorama of Prague’s past for readers. His exploration delves into the minutiae, leaving the narrative rich with meaning beyond its words.

Author Biography
Derek Sayer, an expert on Bohemian history and former professor of cultural history at Lancaster University, UK, is the author of numerous works including The Bohemian Coast: A Czech History, Capitalism and Modernity: An Introduction to Marxist and Weberian Thought, Prague: A Surreal History of the Twentieth Century, and Trouble in the Making: Surrealism and the Social Sciences. Elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, Sayer currently resides in Calgary, known as “Cowboy City,” and is an Emeritus Professor in the Department of Social Theory and Cultural Studies at the University of Alberta.

Translator Profile
Jin Tian holds a Master’s degree in Interpreting and Translation. She earned First-Class Honours degrees from King’s College London and the University of Nottingham, along with a Certificate in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (CELTA) from Trinity College London. She has served as a conference interpreter and previously led groups for Friends International Cambridge, delivering numerous academic English lectures for local language schools. Total English-Chinese translation output exceeds 700,000 words. Translations include Mumbai: Jungle of Desire and Paris: Feast of Light and Shadow.

Table of Contents
003 Preface
Prague of Yore
003 I Beheld a Magnificent City
011 The Přemyslid Dynasty
027 The Golden Age of Charles IV
041 Against Everything!
055 The Golden Cup of Poison
077 After White Mountain
099 For the Fatherland, For Art
119 We Speak Slavic
145 The Crossroads
161 Dark Clouds Gather
175 Communism from the East
191 Return to Europe
Prague Today
197 Prague Cafés
211 Beer Is the Nectar of the Gods!
221 The Cubists’ Dream of Form
231 Undeniably Modern Style
241 Charles Town: Old Faces, New Looks
253 Malá Strana
263 The Dancing House
275 Appendix
315 Translator’s Afterword
319 Chronology
325 Index

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

I have added a new section to this website called MY TEXTS. You can navigate there from the main menu. This is why.

For at least a decade now, like many other academics, I have used Academia.edu as a repository for my writings and a place where others can easily and freely assess them, consistently with terms of copyright. While I have never used the (monetized) “premium” features of the site, I always thought the basic idea of such an open repository an inspired one that I was very happy to support.

I found the site especially useful for posting complete texts of books that were out-of-print to which I had regained the rights, including Marx’s Method, The Violence of Abstraction, and my 1985 book with Philip Corrigan The Great Arch, which has so far had 7,535 views. I also find the site useful for posting drafts, articles published in out-of-the-way places, and occasional unpublished materials.

Reluctant as I am to remove texts from this facility, I am deeply disturbed by and feel duty-bound to resist Academia.edu’s recent unilateral change in terms and conditions. The relevant clause reads:

By creating an Account with Academia.edu, you grant us a worldwide, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable license, permission, and consent for Academia.edu to use your Member Content and your personal information (including, but not limited to, your name, voice, signature, photograph, likeness, city, institutional affiliations, citations, mentions, publications, and areas of interest) in any manner, including for the purpose of advertising, selling, or soliciting the use or purchase of Academia.edu’s Services.

I had a disconcerting example of this when the company proudly informed me that it had “made a podcast” from one of my articles without my knowledge, involvement or permission.

Like many others, I am contemplating discontinuing my Academia.edu account or at least drastically cutting the amount of material I leave on the site for its corporate management to plunder “in any manner” as they see fit.

Until I find an alternative repository that provides the services Academia.edu used to offer without asserting effective ownership over member content and personal information, I am making my work freely available—consistently with publishers’ rights—on my personal website at coastsofbohemia.com.

Most of what was formerly available for download at Academia.edu can now be downloaded from My Texts. I will be adding new materials as time goes on.

Canadian Dimension, Oct 2, 2025

United States envoy Morgan Ortagus casts the lone veto against a UN Security Council draft resolution calling for a Gaza ceasefire, aid access, and hostage release. The measure, supported by 14 members, failed due to the US veto. Photo by Laura Jarriel/United Nations.

It will soon be two years since Hamas launched its “Al-Aqsa Flood” attack on southern Israel. Israel’s retaliatory “war” has since reduced Gaza to an uninhabitable wasteland and caused—at a very conservative minimum—more than 66,000 Palestinian deaths, with some 83 percent of them, according to Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) data, being civilians. Since Israel broke its January ceasefire agreement and resumed its offensive in March, 15 of every 16 out of the 16,000 Palestinians the IDF has killed have been civilians.

In the aftermath of October 7 there was enormous support for Israel, especially in the West. But as the “war” ground on, with no apparent end in sight and ever-mounting civilian casualties, the tide of Western public opinion turned. Recent pressure led several Western governments to reluctantly berate Israel for its “intolerable and unacceptable” and “utterly reckless and appalling” actions—while doing precious little to stop them.

Despite the chorus of condemnation, we have seen nothing approaching the battery of sanctions that played such a large part in bringing down the apartheid regime in South Africa, not to mention the swingeing economic, political, and cultural sanctions imposed on Vladimir Putin’s Russia immediately following its February 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

This paralysis on the part of the “international community” is remarkable, given that what is at issue is increasingly being recognized as a genocide—the worst of all crimes under international humanitarian law. But it is not, perhaps, surprising. Given their previous support for Israel, not to mention their vulnerability to economic bullying by Trump’s US, Western leaders found themselves tossed on the horns of an impossible dilemma.

The genocide dilemma

As far back as January 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that there was a “plausible risk” of genocide in Gaza and ordered Israel to take several measures to avert this outcome. At that point the official death toll stood at 27,500—less than half of what it is now. Israel ignored these and further ICJ orders of March and May 2024.

It will likely be years before the ICJ reaches a final verdict on whether or not Israel is guilty of genocide. The world’s highest court on war crimes, the International Criminal Court (ICC), has however already issued arrest warrants in November 2024 for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for using “starvation as a method of warfare” and other war crimes and crimes against humanity.

On September 16, 2025, an authoritative new report by a UN Independent Commission of Inquiry, based on two years of investigation, concluded that:

Israeli authorities and Israeli security forces committed four of the five genocidal acts defined by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, namely killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of the Palestinians in whole or in part, and imposing measures intended to prevent births.


Amnesty InternationalHuman Rights Watch, the International Federation for Human Rights, the University Network for Human RightsMédecins Sans Frontières, the Israeli groups B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, and the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention and Human Security, as well as some of the world’s leading genocide and Holocaust historians like Israeli scholars Raz Segal and Omer Bartov, have all come to the same conclusion.

It takes some chutzpah to contend that all of these are part of some global antisemitic conspiracy to discredit Israel. Denying the genocide—the US position—is becoming less and less credible, while refusing to take a stance until the final ICJ verdict is in, which the British and Canadian governments are doing, simply looks evasive.

The problem for Western politicians is that the 1948 Genocide Convention—to which all members of the G7 apart from Japan are parties, as is Israel—requires them not only to refrain from committing genocide themselves, but “to prevent and to punish” genocide “whether [its perpetrators] are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.”

The argument made by Joe Biden, Justin Trudeau, and others against the ICC warrants that “there is no equivalence—none—between Israel and Hamas“ has no standing in international law. A war crime is a war crime and a genocide is a genocide, no matter who is committing it, guerrilla “terrorists” or the elected leaders of a democratic nation state.

Complicating things further, “complicity in genocide” is also a punishable offense. If Israel is committing genocide, then it is a genocide in which Western governments have been complicit throughout the last two years, by supplying arms, providing diplomatic cover, ignoring their own intelligence assessments that Israel has been obstructing aid, and suppressing protest. No wonder some politicians are beginning to get cold feet.

A rift in the West?

On September 18 all members of the UN Security Council except the United States voted to adopt a resolution calling for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza, the release of all hostages, and for Israel to immediately and unconditionally lift all restrictions on the entry of humanitarian aid. The US vetoed the measure. This is the sixth time in the last two years that the US has (ab)used its veto power to block a ceasefire in Gaza.

Though France and the UK voted for the resolution, no Western government has yet been prepared to defy America and trigger the nuclear option, which would be to put a United for Peace resolution to the General Assembly. If passed by a two-thirds majority, this would override any Security Council veto and could pave the way for armed UN intervention in Gaza. This procedure was invoked 13 times between 1951 and 2022.

There were nevertheless straws in the wind suggesting that some Western governments were more prepared to risk Israeli and (more importantly) US wrath and take baby steps toward pressuring Israel to end its genocide than at any time during the present “war”—if only to retrospectively cover their collective asses and avoid indictments from the ICC.

The EU Commission has finally proposed to strip Israeli goods of privileged access to European markets, with new tariffs imposed on billions of euros of exports, as well as sanctioning extremist individual Israeli ministers—though such a measure may still not pass, given continuing support for Israel by Germany and some other EU states.

Recognition of Palestine—an empty gesture?

Canada, the UK, Australia, France, and several other Western countries announced with great fanfare at the 80th UN General Assembly session in September in New York—or the day before it, “out of respect for the Jewish new year”—that they were recognizing the State of Palestine. They were very late to the party. One hundred and forty seven states had recognized Palestine prior to their move, including Spain, Ireland, Norway, and Slovenia in 2024.

While it would be wrong to dismiss the legal significance of recognition out of hand, in the absence of other measures it will likely have limited practical impact on the ground. That does not mean it is insignificant. It underlines the tensions between the US and some of its most important Western allies (as well as splits within Europe itself).

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney was refreshingly candid about why his government was changing tack:

The current Israeli government is working methodically to prevent the prospect of a Palestinian state from ever being established. It has pursued an unrelenting policy of settlement expansion in the West Bank, which is illegal under international law. Its sustained assault in Gaza has killed tens of thousands of civilians, displaced well over one million people, and caused a devastating and preventable famine in violation of international law. It is now the avowed policy of the current Israeli government that ‘there will be no Palestinian state’.


Netanyahu responded with predictable fury—and in the process confirmed that Carney’s charges were amply justified:

I have a clear message to those leaders who are recognizing a Palestinian state after the horrendous October 7 massacre: You are rewarding terror with an enormous prize.

And I have another message for you: It’s not going to happen. There will be no Palestinian state to the west of the Jordan River.

For years I have prevented the creation of that terror state, against tremendous pressure, both domestic and from abroad.

We have done this with determination, and with astute statesmanship. Moreover, we have doubled the Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria [i.e., the West Bank], and we will continue on this path.


In the face of such clarity on the part of Israel, we have to ask why Western leaders are still peddling the fantasy of a “two-state solution” at all. The suspicion must be that it is yet another evasion, designed to cover up their unwillingness to tackle the role played by ethnic cleansing and genocide in Israel’s Zionist project head on.

Trumpery at the UN

The US, by contrast, has made its opposition to recognizing Palestine at this point in time crystal clear. Interviewed recently by Tony Dokoupil of CBS Mornings, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio insultingly dismissed recognition as “almost a vanity project for a couple of these world leaders who want to be relevant, but it really makes no difference.”

In between gratuitously insulting America’s Western allies (“I look at London where you have a terrible mayor, a terrible, terrible mayor and it’s been so changed, so changed. Now they want to go to Sharia law”) and trumpeting his own imaginary achievements (“I have ended seven unendable wars… Everyone says that I should get the Nobel Peace Prize for each one of these achievements”), Trump found time to briefly mention Gaza in his address to the UN General Assembly on September 23.

His concern was not the ongoing genocide:

Now, as if to encourage continued conflict, some of this body [the UN] is seeking to unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state. The rewards would be too great for Hamas terrorists for their atrocities. This would be a reward for these horrible atrocities, including October 7th…


Three days later, in his own address to the UN General Assembly, Netanyahu accused Carney and company of capitulating “under pressure of a biased media, radical Islamist constituencies, and antisemitic mobs.”

The Israeli prime minister said little that did not repeat what he had told the same body in 2023 and 2024. What was different this time was that Netanyahu’s plane was forced to take a circuitous route to New York in order to avoid the airspace of countries that were legally bound to enforce the ICC arrest warrant. And he spoke to a largely empty hall.

On his entry, over 100 delegates from over 50 countries walked out in protest. Of those that remained, the UK and even the US filled their seats with junior staff instead of senior diplomats. The majority of those who left were from the Global South.

Sadly, Canada’s Ambassador Bob Rae remained seated. It was, he explained to CTV News, his job.

Trump’s “peace plan”

This is the background against which, on September 29, Trump and Netanyahu jointly unveiled the latest US “peace plan” at a White House press conference. Netanyahu had reportedly made several last-minute changes to the draft drawn up by Trump’s team, all to Israel’s advantage.

The 20-point plan calls for immediate suspension of all military operations, followed by the release of all Israeli captives within a 72-hour period. Israel will then release “250 life sentence prisoners plus 1,700 Gazans who were detained after Oct. 7, 2023, including all women and children detained in that context.”

This is only a fraction of more than 10,000 Palestinians languishing in Israeli jails, 3,600 of whom are held without charge or trial in “administrative detention”—many more hostages, as they are, than the 251 Israelis captured by Hamas in the October 7 attack.

It is grim testimony to the disproportionality of this “war” that “For every Israeli hostage whose remains are released, Israel will release the remains of 15 deceased Gazans.”

After the hostages are released, an amnesty will be extended to Hamas members who “commit to peaceful coexistence and to decommission their weapons,” while any who wish to leave Gaza “will be provided safe passage to receiving countries.” Hamas will disarm and “all military, terror, and offensive infrastructure, including tunnels and weapon production facilities, will be destroyed and not rebuilt.” Hamas and other factions “agree to not have any role in the governance of Gaza, directly, indirectly, or in any form.”

Once the agreement has been accepted, full aid “will proceed without interference from the two parties through the United Nations and its agencies, and the Red Crescent,” as well as unspecified third parties (likely a reference to the US-based private so-called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, which has been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Palestinians queuing for food).

Though this provision is likely to play badly in Israel, which has banned the UN’s Palestinian refugee agency UNRWA from operating within its boundaries, this is is the only role envisaged for the UN in the entire document.

The plan stipulates that “Israel will not occupy or annex Gaza” and promises that “No one will be forced to leave Gaza,” while “those who wish to leave will be free to do so and free to return.” As “a temporary International Stabilization Force” put together by “The United States… with Arab and international partners” trains “vetted Palestinian police forces in Gaza,” the IDF will gradually withdraw from the Strip to a perimeter “security zone.”

Gaza will meantime be governed by “a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee… of qualified Palestinians and international experts, with oversight and supervision by a new international transitional body… headed and chaired by President Donald J. Trump, with other members and heads of State… including Former Prime Minister Tony Blair.”

This “Board of Peace” will “set the framework and handle the funding for the redevelopment of Gaza until such time as the Palestinian Authority has completed its reform program… and can securely and effectively take back control of Gaza.”

As Patrick Wintour has perceptively noted in the Guardian, though it is not explicitly stated in the document, this “reform program” requires that the Palestinian Authority ends its participation in legal proceedings against Israel at the ICJ and ICC. (The text refers to the reform programme “as outlined in various proposals, including president Trump’s peace plan in 2020,” and the latter demands this.)

The Board of Peace will oversee a “Trump economic development plan to rebuild and energize Gaza”—is Trump’s dream of a “Riviera of the Middle East” about to come true?—and “A special economic zone will be established with preferred tariff and access rates to be negotiated with participating countries.”

Surrender or annihilation

It is significant that Hamas—whose negotiators Israel had attempted to assassinate in a September 9 air strike on Qatar—was not involved in drafting the plan or even provided with an advance copy. Palestinians are being presented with an ultimatum reminiscent of the one the Germans gave Rotterdam in 1940: surrender or your city will be destroyed.

And indeed, even while Hamas is considering the plan—for which Trump has demanded their answer “within three or four days”—Israel’s Defence Minister Israel Katz has issued a “final warning” on October 1 that “This is the last opportunity for Gaza residents who wish to do so to move south and leave Hamas operatives isolated in Gaza City,” making clear that “Those who remain… will be considered terrorists and terrorist supporters.”

If the Palestinians reject the plan, then in Donald Trump’s words at the White House press conference:

Israel would have my full backing to finish the job of destroying the threat of Hamas.

But I hope that we’re going to have a deal for peace, and if Hamas rejects the deal… Bibi, you’d have our full backing to do what you would have to do.


Netanyahu added: “If Hamas rejects your plan, Mr President, or if they supposedly accept it and then do everything to counter it, then Israel will finish the job by itself. This can be done the easy way or it can be done the hard way, but it will be done.”

The only positives in the Trump plan for the Palestinians are that it offers a possible road to ending the genocide—as is desperately needed—without Israel annexing Gaza or expelling its people, as the extreme rightwing ministers in Netanyahu’s government have demanded. In his earlier musings on a “Riviera of the Middle East” Trump too had envisaged “cleaning out” all of the Palestinians.

But even these modest consolations for the loss of Palestinian lives, homes, and hopes over the last two years are very far from guaranteed.

The plan requires Hamas to hand over all of the Israeli hostages before any Palestinian prisoners are released and to disarm on the basis of promises of amnesty while the IDF remains in Gaza. The timetable for withdrawal, by contrast, is vague and dependent on transfer of power to new security forces whose composition remains undetermined.

Once Hamas has given up its hostages and its weapons, there is nothing to stop Israel from reneging on the agreement—as it previously did with the January 2025 ceasefire—and “finishing the job” of genocide and ethnic cleansing against a defenceless Gazan population.

It is scarcely reassuring that after his return from Washington, Netanyahu put out a video reassuring Israelis that “the IDF stays in the majority of the Strip.”

Asked in the same video whether he had agreed to a Palestinian state, the Israeli prime minister replied: “Not at all, and it is not written in the agreement. One thing was made clear: We will strongly oppose a Palestinian state.”

This gives the lie to Emmanuel Macron’s claim—echoed by among others Antony Albanese and Mark Carney—that the Trump plan provides a foundation “to build a lasting peace in the region, based on the two-state solution.”

If Bibi has anything to do with it, there will be no such thing. Ever.

The plan does in fact mention Palestinian statehood, only to locate it firmly in the realms of the never-never:

While Gaza redevelopment advances and when the P.A. [Palestinian Authority] reform program is faithfully carried out, the conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood, which we recognize as the aspiration of the Palestinian people. (My emphasis)

A week is a long time in politics

Little more than a week ago, Canada, Australia, Britain, France, and other Western allies broke ranks with Israel and the US and recognized a Palestinian state. Mark Carney and others made it clear that they were taking this step, in part, to forestall Israel’s attempts—about which Benjamin Netanyahu has been quite open—to sabotage any possibility of a two-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Today, those same states are falling over backwards to lean on Hamas to accept a deal that disarms the Palestinian resistance, requires it to forgo any legal recourse for Israeli war crimes and/or genocide through the ICJ and ICC, hands Gaza over to an unelected foreign junta headed by Donald Trump and Tony Blair—onetime cheerleader of the Iraq War that left over a million Iraqis dead—to “redevelop,” and indefinitely postpones any prospect of Palestinian statehood. The word for this is betrayal.

French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, President of the EU Commission Ursula von der Leyen, and EU Foreign Minister Kaja Kallas, have all hastened to issue statements lauding “President Trump’s leadership” (Starmer) and hailing the plan as “the best immediate chance to end the war” (Kallas). “Elbows up” Mark Carney was the most sycophantic of them all, welcoming the deal as “historic.”

All agree that “Hamas has no choice but to immediately release all hostages and follow this plan,” with only Macron adding “I expect Israel to engage resolutely on this basis.”

One can almost hear the huge collective sigh of relief that went up in Western capitals as soon as the Trump plan was announced. The cracks are papered over, the delinquent allies are back in the US fold, and our craven leaders are off the genocide hook.

If Hamas fails to “seize this opportunity” (von der Leyen), we must infer, it has only itself to blame for the consequences.

The rewards of terror

Hamas senior leader Mahmoud Mardawi is bang on when he characterizes the Trump plan as offering “an end to this criminal war in exchange for ending the Palestinian people’s right to their state and their rights to their land, homeland, and holy sites.”

Mardawi is adamant that “no Palestinian will accept that,” but genocide is a powerful persuader.

Whether, out of desperation, Palestinians will buy this sordid “deal” remains to be seen. If they do, Israel gets its hostages back and it’s game over for the Palestinian resistance.

If they don’t, Israel will “finish the job” with full US backing and blame Hamas for forcing it to kill yet more Palestinian babies in order to ensure its security. Either way this is a win–win situation for Israel.

If, as Netanyahu says, a purely symbolic recognition of a non-existent Palestinian state is “an enormous prize” for the terror of Hamas’s October 7 attack, then how much greater are the rewards for the IDF’s two years of live-streamed genocide in Gaza?

It’s elbows down as Mark Carney and Anita Anand throw Canadian ICC judge Kimberly Prost under the American bus

Canadian Dimension / August 31, 2025 

The flag of the International Criminal Court at The Hague. Photo by Tony Webster/Wikimedia Commons.

A long time ago

“It was an extraordinary moment,” remembered Stephen Lewis, Canada’s ambassador to the United Nations from 1984 to 1988. “I was at the UN for four glorious years. I had never seen anything like it before, and I never saw anything like it afterwards…”

On October 23, 1985, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney gave an “electrifying” speech to the UN General Assembly, in which he not only denounced the evil of South African apartheid but promised Canada would to do everything in its power to end it:

Canada is ready, if there are no fundamental changes in South Africa, to invoke total sanctions against that country and its repressive regime. More than that, if there is no progress in the dismantling of apartheid, relations with South Africa may have to be severed absolutely.


At the next year’s Commonwealth Conference in Vancouver, Mulroney famously faced down British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher over her opposition to sanctions, pointedly asking her whether she would respond in the same way “if she was dealing with a country with a population of 25 million whites that was ruled by four million blacks.”

Less than four years after Mulroney threw down the gauntlet at the UN, South African President F.W. de Klerk, under heavy international pressure from sanctions, began to dismantle the odious edifice of apartheid, legalizing the African National Congress and releasing its leader Nelson Mandela after 27 years imprisonment on February 11, 1990.

Mandela and de Klerk jointly won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993, and Mandela went on to become South Africa’s first democratically elected president in 1994. That did not stop the US listing him as a “terrorist” until a few days before his 90th birthday in 2013, weeks before his death.

“On the 10th anniversary of our democracy,” Mandela wrote in a personal letter to Brian Mulroney in 2004:

one recalls the momentous time of our transition and remembers the people involved both within and outside South Africa. As prime minister of Canada and within the Commonwealth, you provided strong and principled leadership in the battle against apartheid. This was not a popular position in all quarters, but South Africans today acknowledge the importance of your contribution to our eventual liberation and success.

In a galaxy far, far away

A few months after his release, Mandela addressed the Canadian Parliament. Introducing his guest, Mulroney recalled “with pride, the stand taken by Canada’s prime minister, John Diefenbaker, at the Commonwealth Conference of 1961, which resulted in South Africa’s withdrawal from that body”:

Prime Minister Diefenbaker brought the Commonwealth to declare unequivocally that racial discrimination was totally contrary to its fundamental principles and that, if South Africa did not change, Mr. Diefenbaker said then South Africa must leave. He did so against some considerable opposition, but with the strong conviction and the certain knowledge that it was right. Mr. Diefenbaker’s action marked the beginning of international pressure on the apartheid regime.


The opposition came principally from the UK, together with Australia and New Zealand—countries that were once collectively referred to, alongside South Africa, Canada, and Newfoundland, as the British Empire’s “White Dominions.” The US was also not happy with Canada rocking the apartheid boat, since it saw South Africa as an important ally in the global fight against communism and the ANC as dangerously pro-communist. Not for the first or the last time in American history, geopolitics trumped any moral concerns.

Both Diefenbaker and Mulroney were Conservative politicians, and Mulroney had campaigned on a platform of improving relations with the US after the tensions of the Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau years—a promise that was to give us NAFTA. But this did not stop either of them from defying the United States when they believed it was necessary. They did not regard Canada’s membership of NATO (or the “Free World”) as requiring automatic deference to Washington’s priorities, or overlooking palpable evils like apartheid in the interests of maintaining a united Western front in the Cold War.

Canada’s Liberal governments, too, agreed on the need for an independent Canadian foreign policy, and were not afraid to break with the “elephant to the south” (as Pierre Trudeau characterized the US) when called for either. This might even be seen as a hallmark of Canadian identity—an essential one, if we must sleep next to the beast.

Diefenbaker refused to station US nuclear warheads on Canadian soil and gave only lukewarm backing to John F. Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis. Lester Pearson criticized America’s Vietnam War (allegedly leading Lyndon B. Johnson to grab him by the lapels and yell “Don’t you come into my house and piss on my rug!”) and Pierre Trudeau provided sanctuary to American draft dodgers. Jean Chrétien declined to follow the US-led “Coalition of the Willing” into the Iraq War without approval by the UN.

This is not to say that Canada’s conduct on the world stage was above criticism. As Yves Engler and others have pointed out, Canada is a settler colony whose treatment of its Indigenous population—now as well as then—leaves much to be desired. Canada’s pivot to opposing apartheid in South Africa came late in the day, and its enforcement of sanctions was half-hearted. Thousands of Canadians were allowed to enlist in the US military and fought in Vietnam, while Canadian governments of both parties provided the US with multiple forms of covert support even while not officially joining the war effort.

All the same, there is a yawning moral gulf between Canadian policies then and now.

Canada and the ICC—then

The guiding principle of Canadian foreign policy during the latter part of the twentieth century was multilateralism. Governments of both parties portrayed Canada’s role in the world as advancing universal human rights rather than defending narrowly conceived national interests. Their preferred self-image was of Canada as a global peacemaker.

At times—as in the case of apartheid—the human rights agenda called for intervention, and the proper vehicle for this was international organizations like the UN, because they alone could alone provide legitimacy for such actions. The corollary was solid Canadian support for the institutional and legal framework established after the Second World War, above all the UN and its agencies, the Geneva Conventions, and international humanitarian law.

An important addition to this legal framework was the International Criminal Court (ICC), which was established by the Rome Statute in 1998, in part in response to the genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia. The ICC was intended to be “an independent, permanent court of last resort with jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute the most serious crimes of international concern, namely genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and aggression.”

Canada played a “pivotal role”—I quote the Canadian government official website here—in the ICC’s foundation.

Canada chaired the “Like-Minded Group,” a coalition of states “that helped to motivate the wider international community to adopt the Rome Statute.” A senior Canadian diplomat, Philippe Kirsch, was chosen to chair the conference in Rome that negotiated and drafted the statute “under Canada’s leadership.” Kirsch was subsequently elected as an ICC judge in February 2003 and served as the ICC’s first president until 2009.

Canada became “the first country in the world to adopt comprehensive legislation implementing the Rome Statute” in the form of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act passed by the Canadian parliament in June 2002. This law for the first time “officially criminalizes genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes based on customary and conventional international law, including the Rome Statute.”

In December 2017 a second Canadian, Kimberly Prost, was elected an ICC judge for a nine-year term. Prost’s previous experience had included 18 years at Canada’s justice department and positions with the Commonwealth Secretariat and the UN Office on Drugs and Crime. In 2006, she was appointed as a judge of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in a major trial related to the Srebrenica genocide.

Opposition to the ICC

Not all states welcomed the establishment of the ICC. At the end of the 1998 Rome conference, 120 countries (including almost all of the United States’ allies) voted in favor of the treaty. Seven countries opposed it—the US, China, Libya, Iraq, Qatar, Yemen, and Israel. Twenty-one countries abstained.

One hundred and twenty-five countries have signed and ratified the Rome Statute and as such are legally bound to co-operate with the court, including in arresting and transferring indicted persons or providing evidence and witnesses for ICC prosecutions.

All member states of the EU are ICC members (though Hungary has now signalled its intention to withdraw from the court), as are Australia, New Zealand, and all G7 members—apart from the United States. The US signed but did not ratify the Rome Statute under Bill Clinton, and John Bolton informed the UN in May 2003 on behalf of the George W. Bush administration that “the United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty,” and “has no legal obligations arising from its signature on December 31, 2000.”

Other states that have never signed up to and/or ratified the Rome Statute include Russia, China, and India—existing or aspiring regional superpowers who, like the US, are unwilling to let a multilateral court intrude on their sovereignty—and Israel. Among the reasons Israel gives for opting out is the ICC’s definition of “the transfer of parts of the civilian population of an occupying power into occupied territory” as a war crime.

Bush, Obama and Trump

US relations with the ICC remained fractious during the Bush administration. The American Service-Members’ Protection Act (ASPA) passed in January 2002 prohibited US cooperation with the ICC, blocked US funding of the ICC, and required the US “to enter into agreements with all ICC signatory states to shield American citizens abroad from ICC jurisdiction” under pain of sanctions if they did not comply.

That same year, the US threatened to veto renewal of all UN peacekeeping missions unless its troops were granted immunity from ICC prosecution. It withdrew this demand in 2004, after pictures emerged of US troops abusing Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib.

The Obama administration cooperated with the ICC in various ways, including supporting the UN Security Council’s referral of Libya to the court in 2011 and sharing intelligence on ICC-indicted fugitives. But it never ratified the treaty—or repealed ASPA.

The first Trump administration reverted to hostility. When the ICC prosecutor’s office requested in March 2019 to open a probe into possible war crimes in Afghanistan, the US responded by threatening to revoke visas for any ICC staff seeking to investigate not only Americans, but also Israelis and other US allies.

The ICC wished to “look into methods that the US military and CIA used to interrogate detainees” in Afghanistan, because:

There is reasonable basis to believe that, since May 2003, members of the US armed forces and the CIA have committed the war crimes of torture and cruel treatment, outrages upon personal dignity, and rape and other forms of sexual violence pursuant to a policy approved by US authorities.


The US responded by taking the unprecedented step of individually sanctioning two top ICC officials, prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and head of jurisdiction Phakiso Monochoko.

Biden and the ICJ

On April 2, 2021, US President Joe Biden wrote to Congress announcing that he was ending Trump’s visa restrictions and sanctions on ICC officials. When the ICC issued an arrest warrant against Vladimir Putin in March 2023 for war crimes in Ukraine, Biden commented “Well, I think it’s justified… I think it makes a very strong point.”

Despite these signs of détente, the Biden administration’s “ironclad” defense of Israeli actions in Gaza increasingly brought the US into open conflict again with both the ICC and the International Court of Justice (ICJ)—the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, which is regarded as world’s highest court in matters of international law.

On December 29, 2023 South Africa brought an application to the ICJ charging the State of Israel with committing genocide in Gaza, and requested the court to order provisional measures to “protect against further, severe and irreparable harm to the rights of the Palestinian people under the Genocide Convention.”

On January 26, 2024 the court ruled that the risk of genocide in Gaza was “plausible,” and ordered Israel to take immediate steps to prevent the situation deteriorating further. These and further measures ordered by the ICJ on March 28 and May 24 were flouted by Israel and essentially ignored in Washington and other Western capitals. The US meantime used its UN Security Council veto to forestall any binding ceasefire motion.

Responding to the January 26 judgment, the US State Department emphasized that “Israel has the right to take action to ensure the terrorist attacks of October 7 cannot be repeated” and reasserted its belief that “allegations of genocide are unfounded.”

Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly issued a statement that paid lip service to “the ICJ’s critical role in the peaceful settlement of disputes and its work in upholding the international rules-based order,” while emphasizing that “Our support for the ICJ does not mean that we accept the premise of the case brought by South Africa.” Like the US, Joly spent more time discussing “Israel’s right to exist and defend itself” and Hamas’s brutalities on October 7 than addressing the ICJ orders, on which she had little to say.

The ICC arrest warrants

Relations between the international courts and the US reached their nadir on November 21, when the ICC issued arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for “the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare” and “the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts.”

Western politicians erupted. “The ICC issuance of arrest warrants against Israeli leaders is outrageous,” thundered Biden. “Let me be clear once again: whatever the ICC might imply, there is no equivalence—none—between Israel and Hamas. We will always stand with Israel against threats to its security.”1  

Though he undertook to abide by the ICC ruling, Justin Trudeau found “the sense of an equivalency between the democratically elected leaders of Israel and the bloodthirsty terrorists that lead up Hamas” “troubling.”

The point both seem to have missed was that the equivalency lay in the war crimes both sides were alleged to have committed, which were equally contrary to international law.

0n February 6, 2025, just two weeks after he began his second term as US president, Donald Trump signed an executive order titled “Imposing Sanctions on the International Criminal Court.”   

The first person to be individually sanctioned was ICC chief prosecutor Karim Khan, the man who was responsible for preparing the arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant. Four more judges were sanctioned on June 5. Two more judges and two ICC assistant prosecutors were sanctioned on August 20. One of them was Canadian Kimberly Prost.

Canada and the ICC—now

The ICC denounced this latest US move as “a flagrant attack against the independence of an impartial judicial institution which operates under the mandate from 125 States Parties from all regions.” Belgium, Denmark, France, Finland, Estonia, the Netherlands, Norway, Senegal, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden all condemned the US sanctions, as did Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the International Bar Association, and the European Parliament Subcommittee on Human Rights.   

But from Canada—crickets. Well, to be precise, on August 20 Canada’s UN ambassador Bob Rae, responding to a CTV News report on the sanctions, angrily posted on X:

This US attack on the International Criminal Court and its judges is disgraceful. Judge Kim Prost are [sic] carrying out their public duties. Attacks on them by Russia, Israel and the US are intended to weaken and intimidate the international legal system. They must not succeed.

But for whatever reason—some have suggested that he was pressurized into doing so by the Canadian government—Rae quickly deleted the post. And that was that.  

Ten days have passed since the US sanctioned Canada’s senior international judge, and there has been no official response from the Government of Canada.

Mark Carney supposedly had “a productive and wide-ranging conversation” with Trump on August 21 in which “We focused on trade challenges, opportunities, building a new economic and security relationship between Canada and the US, and supporting long-term peace and security for Ukraine and Europe.” Neither his post on X nor the official readout from the call contains any reference to Kimberly Prost. Carney has since made public pronouncements on the economy, Canada–US trade, Ukraine, and a new Canada–Poland Strategic Partnership, but he has remained silent on the issue of the ICC.  

Foreign minister Anita Anand, whose brief this surely is, was reported to have expressed disquiet about Prost’s sanctioning in her meeting with Marco Rubio on August 21, but her own account of the meeting makes no mention of it. Her brief X post reads, “Today, I had a productive meeting with Secretary @SecRubio in Washington. We discussed collaboration on shared priorities, including: supporting Ukraine, advancing Arctic security, addressing the security crisis in Haiti and continuing to provide humanitarian aid in Gaza.”

So far as I am aware, no other statement regarding American strongarming of the ICC—the court Canada worked so hard to establish back in the day—or the sanctioning of Kimberly Prost has been issued by any Canadian government agency or senior officials.

Elbows down

On Friday August 22, two days after Marco Rubio sanctioned Kimberly Prost, the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), the world’s hunger watchdog, declared a state of famine in and around Gaza City. Its report emphasized that “This famine is entirely man-made, it can be halted and reversed.”

This seems highly unlikely since Israel is now in the early stages of a new offensive to recapture Gaza City, and is in the process of clearing out an estimated 1m inhabitants.

If not yet a truth universally acknowledged, it is certainly a truth that is increasingly recognized that since 1967, Israel has enforced a cruel apartheid regime within the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and that since October 8, 2023, the IDF has been engaged in war crimes, crimes against humanity, and probable genocide in Gaza.

Many Palestinians would argue that the genocide is merely the culmination of a Zionist program of ethnic cleansing that began with the establishment of the state of Israel and the attendant Nakba in wars of 1947-8.

It would be nice, even at this very late stage in the day, if some Western leader were to electrify the UN with a speech calling for total sanctions against Israel and its repressive regime and threatening absolute severance of relations with Israel—or even a UN-led peacekeeping military intervention—if there is no progress in dismantling the apartheid regime or halting the ethnic cleansing and genocide.

Of one thing we can be sure. That leader will not be Mark Carney. We can be equally confident that Anita Anand will not emulate Dutch foreign minister Caspar Veldkamp and several of his cabinet colleagues in quitting the government in protest at its refusal to implement stronger sanctions against Israel.

I hold no particular brief for Brian Mulroney—or John Diefenbaker, or Lester Pearson, or Pierre Elliott Trudeau, or Jean Chrétien. They all had their faults. But they were Titans compared with the moral Lilliputians who govern Canada today. I can’t imagine any of them would have thrown Kim Prost under the bus to get “the best trade deal with the United States… better than that of any country.” Even the language echoes Trump.

Nor, I suspect, would they have stood by for two years while Israel obliterated Gaza and bombed, shelled, and finally starved hundreds of thousands of Palestinian men, women and children to death—whatever the reason. Never again means never again.

Published in Canadian Dimension, August 13, 2025 

An aerial view showing destruction in Rafah, Gaza. Photo by Ashraf Amra/UNWRA.

Cometh the hour, cometh the politicians

Back in February, Canadian-American novelist and journalist Omar Al Akkad published a book titled One Day, Everyone WIll Have Always Been Against This. “This” was Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza. That day seems to be getting closer by the minute.

While most have carefully avoided using the word genocide, the list of politicians who have been staunch defenders of Israel’s “right to defend itself” but are now condemning its actions in the strongest of words—but not doing very much more—is growing fast.

They include British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Foreign Secretary David Lammy; European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas; Canadian PM Mark Carney and Foreign Minister Anita Anand; and Australia’s PM Anthony Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong.

Following the Israeli war cabinet’s decision on August 8 to launch a new offensive to recapture Gaza City—an action likely to cause thousands more deaths and certain to displace a million more starving Palestinians to the overcrowded “evacuation zones” in southern Gaza—Carney and Starmer condemned this “escalation.” But there is no sign of the “concrete actions” the UK, France, and Canada threatened on May 19 if Israel did not “cease the renewed military offensive and lift its restrictions on humanitarian aid.”

The foreign ministers of Australia, Germany, Italy, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom (later joined by Austria, Canada, France, Norway, and the EU commission) got together to rush out a statement on August 9 “strongly rejecting” the Israeli decision to expand the war and urging “the parties and the international community to make all efforts to finally bring this terrible conflict to an end now.”

This was followed on August 12 with a statement signed by no less than 25 foreign ministers and two high representatives of the EU, lamenting that “humanitarian suffering in Gaza has reached unimaginable levels.”

The ministers complained that:

due to restrictive new registration requirements, essential international NGOs may be forced to leave the OPTs [Occupied Palestinian Territories] imminently which would worsen the humanitarian situation still further. We call on the government of Israel to provide authorisation for all international NGO aid shipments and to unblock essential humanitarian actors from operating. Immediate, permanent and concrete steps must be taken to facilitate safe, large-scale access for the UN, international NGOs and humanitarian partners. All crossings and routes must be used to allow a flood of aid into Gaza, including food, nutrition supplies, shelter, fuel, clean water, medicine and medical equipment. Lethal force must not be used at distribution sites, and civilians, humanitarians and medical workers must be protected.


Neither of these statements threatened any sanctions if Israel chose not to comply.

Surprisingly, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz came closest to actually doing anything to restrain Israel when he announced that “Under these circumstances, the German government will not authorise any exports of military equipment that could be used in the Gaza Strip until further notice.” Because of its past role in the Holocaust, Germany regards the security of Israel as a raison d’être of the German state (Staatsräson) and is Israel’s second-largest supplier of arms after the US.

Giorgia Meloni’s Italy, too, says it is contemplating sanctions on Israel “as a way to save its citizens from a government that has lost its reason and humanity.” “We are not facing a military operation with collateral damage,” Defense Minister Guido Crosetto said in an interview with La Stampapublished on August 11, “but the pure denial of the law and the founding values of our civilization.”

France’s President Emmanuel Macron has spearheaded a move to get Western powers to join the 147 countries (out of 193 UN member states) that already recognize the state of Palestine. BritainCanada, and Australia have undertaken to do so in September at the UN, albeit with conditions. Whether or not such recognition happens, in the absence of stronger measures this too will remain little more than an empty symbolic gesture.

The Trump administration in the US has meantime doubled down on its support for Israel. But fractures are appearing in the Democratic Party, which provided the Israeli government with “ironclad” backing throughout the Biden-Harris administration.

Thirty Democratic members of Congress have signed onto Delia Ramirez’s Block the Bombs Act to block offensive weapons sales to Israel, while on July 31, in the words of Senator Bernie Sanders:

By a vote of 27-17, Senate Democrats voted to stop sending arms shipments to a Netanyahu government which has waged a horrific, immoral and illegal war against the Palestinian people. The tide is turning. Americans don’t want to spend billions to starve children in Gaza.


Even Trump’s MAGA ally Marjorie Taylor Greene has gone on record saying “It’s the most truthful and easiest thing to say that October 7 in Israel was horrific and all hostages must be returned, but so is the genocide, humanitarian crisis, and starvation happening in Gaza.”

This is all way too little and way too late for the people of Gaza. Whether it is better than nothing at all remains to be seen. As of now, this performative Western outrage is little more than a sideshow that leaves the IDF free, as Donald Trump put it, to “finish the job.”

Seeing the light

Politicians are not the only ones claiming to have had their eyes recently opened to the full horror of Israel’s crimes. Many credit photos of famine victims for their conversion. We can now add the no less horrifying photographs and powerful video footage of the “wasteland of rubble, dust and graves” to which two years of Israeli bombardment have reduced Gaza, shot by journalists from Jordanian planes dropping aid packages.

It was with “immense pain and a broken heart,” Israel’s most celebrated living writer David Grossman told the Italian daily La Repubblica on August 1, that “For many years, I refused to use that term, ‘genocide.’ But now, after the images I have seen and after talking to people who were there, I can’t help but use it…” Quoting Grossman’s words later got left-wing lawmaker Ofer Cassif expelled from Israel’s Knesset chamber.

Grossman was one of over 2,300 cultural figures to sign two recent Israeli petitions denouncing the “killing of children and civilians, the starvation and displacement of the population, and the destruction of cities across the Gaza Strip” as “atrocities on a historic scale,” which are “currently taking place in our name against a population that is only several kilometers away, in an impossible reality and terrible suffering.”

Across the democratic world, hundreds of writers, artists, film makers and others in the cultural industries have signed petitions condemning Israel’s actions. In Canada, “500+ law professors, lawyers, academics, former ambassadors, and civil society, faith and labour leaders” sent Mark Carney an open letter prior to the June 15 Kananaskis G7 summit imploring him “to catalyze G7 action to end the genocide.” It has yet to receive an acknowledgment from the prime minister’s office, let alone an official response.

Something is clearly changing when Bob Geldof, of “Do They Know It’s Christmas (Feed the World)” fame, breaks his silence to accuse Israel of “lying. Netanyahu lies, is a liar. The [Israeli forces] are lying.” He added:

It enrages me to a point beyond comprehension when I see the images published by Sky News and what [former Gaza-based British surgeon] Dr [Nick] Maynard has been reporting from inside Gaza. And at that point, I thought, the 40th anniversary of Live Aid, my own past and history with this—I thought I should say something now.


Now? Where have you been for the last two years, Bob? Remember five-year-old Hind Rajab? Seven-year-old Sidra Hassouna, hanging dead from the wall of a bombed-out apartment building in Rafah, her legs shredded to ribbons of flesh in an Israeli air strike?

Remember Rafah, which Joe Biden once said was his “red line,” a city of 200,000 people that the IDF has now pulverized to unrecognizable ruins?

Purity and danger

In the US, Jewish Currents Editor-at-Large Peter Beinart has suggested that “a kind of dam has broken… in mainstream media discourse and public discourse more generally”:

people are much more willing to say things that they were reluctant to say in the past, that there is starvation in Gaza, that it is Israel’s fault, and that beyond that, that this slaughter and starvation, this assault on the people of Gaza, has to end, and that it’s immoral.


This applies even more in other Western countries, where popular support for Israel has never been as strong as in America and opinion polls indicate it is now in steep decline. Up to 300,000 people marched across Sydney Harbour Bridge for Gaza on August 3, completely wrongfooting Australia’s government. These were not your usual suspects.

Nor were the 522 people arrested in Parliament Square in London on August 9 as they protested the UK government’s proscription of Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act. The signs they were carrying—for which they can now be sentenced to up to 14 years in prison—read “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action.” This was the most arrests the Metropolitan Police had made in a single operation in at least the last decade. Half of those detained were over 60, nearly 100 were in their 70s, and 15 were in their 80s.

While Beinart welcomes latecomers and converts to the cause, “even if they come painfully late, and much, much later than one would like,” and counsels that “to gain the power to change policy, [you] have to swell beyond the initial group of activists and bring in people who may not be as morally pure as those people,” he is equally insistent that:

it’s also really, really important to remember and… elevate the voices of people who were correct initially, who said things early on that I think have turned out to be factually and morally correct. Because the danger is, if you don’t do that, then you… end up, you just replicate, you don’t change the… structure of discourse.


Among those voices, he instances Rabbis for Ceasefire; the student protestors who “were greeted… for being prematurely correct… with being suspended and being expelled and by beaten up by the police who were called in”; and “the writers, the intellectuals who said things about Israel’s attack that have proven to be correct.”

He name-checks several Palestinian writers and activists, including Representative Rashida Tlaib, who was censured by Congress in 2023 for “representing the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust… as justified ‘resistance’ to the ‘apartheid state.’”

The danger now is that in our outrage at the awful images that are overwhelming our newsrooms and the pious statements proliferating from our politicians we will forget Beinart’s “prematurely correct” voices and reproduce the same discursive tropes that have enabled, sustained, and gaslit the Gaza slaughter even as we criticize Israel.

We need to face up to the conditions that produced these horrors—and this requires us to jettison some widespread liberal illusions not only about Israel, but also about the part played in this human calamity by the free, democratic, civilized West.

An ancestral homeland?

The congressional motion censuring Rashida Tlaib in November 2023 began “Whereas Israel has existed on its lands for millennia and the United States played a critical role in returning Israel to those lands in 1948… in recognition of its right to exist…”

Western politicians habitually frame the Israel-Palestine conflict in terms of “the Jewish people’s right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland” (I quote Justin Trudeau). But the modernconnection between the Jewish people and Israel is tenuous. It is the Palestinians who have existed on this land for millennia—who are its Indigenous inhabitants—and the Israelis who are immigrants. Israeli historian Shlomo Sand argues that a majority of present-day Israeli Jews are in fact the descendants of converts.

Nobody disputes the existence of Jewish kingdoms in what is now Israel during the first millennium BCE. But Jews were never the only people living in the area—what was the Biblical Samson doing among the Philistines in Gaza? Many Jews were expelled by the Romans after defeat of rebellions in 70-71 and 132-36 CE. Most of those who remained converted to Christianity under the Byzantine Empire or Islam after the Muslim conquest in 635-7 CE, without the ethnic composition of the land being significantly altered.

Were we to apply the Zionists’ “ancestral homeland” logic and timeframe elsewhere in the modern world, we would have to return England to the Celts, kick the Hungarians and Slavs out of Central Europe, and expel everyone of European descent from the Americas, Australia, and New Zealand. It is a poor justification for a genocide.

Or a settler colony?

By any sane definition, present-day Israel is a settler colony, which was established and has since been maintained by often extreme violence against the indigenous population.

In 1878, according to Ottoman records, Palestine had 462,465 inhabitants, of whom 403,795 (87 percent) were Muslim, 43,659 (10 percent) were Christians, and just 15,011 (three percent) were Jewish. Zionist-inspired Jewish immigration from Europe began in the 1890s, fuelled by pogroms in the Russian Empire. By the end of World War I, when the Ottoman Empire was broken up, Palestine’s population was still 90 per cent Palestinian.

Encouraged by Britain, which governed Palestine under a League of Nations mandate from 1922, Jewish immigration snowballed, particularly after the rise of the Nazis in Germany. By 1944 Jews made up 30 percent of Palestine’s population. Tensions between Palestinians and Jewish incomers peaked in the Great Arab Revolt of 1936-9.

Jewish numbers grew by 100,000 (including 70,000 Holocaust survivors) immediately after World War II. Seeking to establish a Jewish state, the Irgun (led by future Israeli PM Menachem Begin), and Lehi (led by future Israeli PM Yitzhak Shamir) militias used terrorist tactics against the British, including hanging captured British soldiers held as hostages and bombing the King David Hotel in Jerusalem with the loss of 91 lives.

Things came to a head in 1947, when Britain informed the UN of its intention to leave Palestine. A UN plan to partition the territory into two states, which would have given the minority Jewish community 56 percent of the land, was rejected by the Palestinians.

Civil war between Jews and Palestinians broke out at the end of November 1947, in which both sides committed atrocities. During the Deir Yassin massacre of April 9, 1948, Irgun and Lehi slaughtered over 100 Palestinian villagers, including women and children.

On the day British forces withdrew, May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion unilaterally declared “the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel.” Troops from Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq, later joined by units from Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen, poured across the borders. The Jewish militias were meanwhile absorbed into the newly-created IDF.

After ten months of fighting Israel not only held the land allotted to it by the UN partition plan but 60 percent of the land intended for the Arab state, as well as West Jerusalem.

Jaffa, Palestine, 1920.

The great replacement

The population of Gaza is largely made up descendants of at least 750,000 refugees driven out during the 1947-8 war in what Palestinians call the Nakba (catastrophe), boosted by refugees from the 1967 Six Day War. Israeli historian Ilan Pappé writes that:

In a matter of seven months, 531 villages were destroyed and eleven urban neighborhoods emptied. The mass expulsion was accompanied by massacres, rape, and the imprisonment of males over the age of ten in labor camps for periods of over a year. (Ten Myths About Israel, chapter 1)


The total population of Palestine fell from 1,970,000 in 1947 to 872,700 in 1948. In 1947, Jews made up 32 percent of that population; by 1948, 82.1 percent. If you want to know what a real demographic “great replacement” looks like, this is it.

Between 15 May 1948 and the end of 1951, more than 684,000 new Jewish immigrants—many, now, fleeing from Arab lands where they had lived for centuries—settled in Israel. According to the UN:

Of the 370 Jewish settlements established between 1948 and the beginning of 1953, 350 were established on land abandoned by the Palestinians. In 1954 more than one-third of Israel’s Jewish population, plus 250,000 new Jewish immigrants, settled in whole cities that had been completely deserted by the Palestinians as a result of the military operations of 1948.


The so-called Law of Return, granting every Jew in the world the right to settle in Israel, was passed by the Knesset on July 5, 1950. More than 3.25 million Jews have availed themselves of this right since 1948.

In flagrant violation of international law, Palestinians driven out in the Nakba have no right of return to the lands they and their forbears had lived in and cultivated for millennia.

The “war” didn’t start on October 7

Israel’s supporters insist that the present “war” in Gaza “began”—to quote the stock phrasing that has been repeated in hundreds of news articles over the last two years—”when Hamas-led militants killed around 1,200 people, mostly civilians, in the October 7 attack and abducted 251 hostages.” Not only is this inaccurate as regards the actual events of October 7. More importantly, it totally ignores their immediate context.

Gaza is part of the occupied Palestinian territory (OPT) Israel seized from Egypt and Jordan in the 1967 Six Day War. After that war, the UN Security Council unanimously—that is, with American, British, and French support—adopted Resolution 242 mandating “withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.”

Despite further UN resolutions, Israel has not only failed to comply with this demand for 58 years, but has established Jewish settlements in the OPT in defiance of international law. The rate of settlement has increased hugely in recent years, with a 40 percent rise in the West Bank since the formation of Netanyahu’s government at the end of 2022.

In March 2025 there were 737,332 Jewish settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, spread across150 settlements and 128 outposts. Perhaps as many as 160,000 of these are American citizens, who have been at the “forefront of the rise of settler violence.” The IDF and settlers have killed at least 964 Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem since October 7, 2023 and driven tens of thousands from their homes.

Within the OPT, the Palestinian population—numbering around 5.6 million, as compared with Israel’s population of 9.5 million—has been subjected to what among many others the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the UN human rights office (OHCHR), Human Rights WatchAmnesty International, and Israel’s human rights organization B’Tselem all characterize (and comprehensively document) as an apartheid regime.

While this context cannot justify the war crimes and crimes against humanity that the ICC charged Hamas leaders with committing during the October 7 attack, it goes a long way toward explaining why Hamas launched such a desperate attack in the first place.

Hamas’s attack was not unprovoked

In a landmark ruling of July 19, 2024, the ICJ held not only that “Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is unlawful,” but also that Gaza remains part of the OPT because Israel:

continue[s] to exercise, certain key elements of authority… including control of the land, sea and air borders, restrictions on movement of people and goods, collection of import and export taxes, and military control over the buffer zone, despite the withdrawal of its military presence in 2005 […] This is even more so since October 7, 2023.


As B’Tselem summarized the situation in January 2021, “the military occupation has not ended: Palestinians in the West Bank remain its direct subjects, while in the Gaza Strip they live under its effective control, exerted from the outside.”

Hamas narrowly won elections in 2006 and expelled its rival Fatah, which nominally governs in the West Bank, from the Gaza Strip the following year. Israel responded by imposing a tight land, sea and air blockade in June 2007, turning the beleagured enclave into what Human Rights Watch has described as the world’s largest open-air prison.

Conflict has flared intermittently ever since, with Hamas and other militias firing rockets into Israel, which has responded with periodic military operations the IDF derisively calls “mowing the lawn.”

This is not an equal contest. Between January 2008 and October 6, 2023, Israel killed 6,540 Palestinians (5,360 of them in Gaza). In the same period 309 Israelis were killed by Palestinian action—a fatality ratio of 21 to 1. The disproportion speaks for itself.

IDF snipers, firing through the perimeter fence, killed 266 people and injured 30,000 during the (peaceful) weekly Great March of Return demonstrations of 2018-19. In May 2022, Israeli forces shot and killed journalist Shireen Abu Akleh—one of many more such killings to come (the most recentbeing the assassination of Al Jazeera journalist Anas al-Sharif and his crew in a targeted airstrike on their tent near al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City on August 10). Two days before Hamas’s October 7 attack, 832 Jewish settlers stormed the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem—the third holiest site in Islam.

If these are not provocations, the word has lost all meaning.

Israel’s response was not self-defense

As the occupying power in the OPT—including Gaza—Israel’s responsibilities toward the Palestinians under international humanitarian law include:

the obligation to ensure humane treatment of the local population and to meet their needs, the respect of private properties, management of public properties, the functioning of educational establishments, ensuring the existence and functioning of medical services, allowing relief operations to take place as well as allowing impartial humanitarian organizations such as the ICRC [Red Cross] to carry out their activities.


Israel’s conduct toward Gaza’s civilian population since October 2023 flagrantly ignores any and all of these legal obligations.

Leaving aside for the moment Palestinian deaths and injuries, the IDF had damaged more than 190,000 buildings by early April 2025—roughly 70 percent of Gaza’s structures—of which 102,000 were destroyed. This translates to roughly 300,000 homes lost.

By August 6, 80 percent of Gaza’s commercial facilities, 88 percent of school buildings, and 68 percent of road networks had been destroyed or significantly damaged, and only 50 percent of Gaza’s hospitals were even partly functioning. According to the latest UN data, Palestinians now have access to only 1.5 percent of cropland suitable for cultivation. The IDF demolished Gaza’s only functioning cancer hospital on March 21. The same fate was suffered by Al Israa University—the last remaining university in Gaza—in January 2024.

In an appendix to the ICJ July 19, 2024 judgment, Justice Hilary Charlesworth explained that:

the population in the occupied territory does not owe allegiance to the occupying Power, and … is not precluded from using force in accordance with international law to resist the occupation.


“On the assumption that Israel is the victim of an armed attack triggering the right to self-defence,” she goes on:

The use of force in self-defence … is directed at restoring the situation as it was prior to the armed attack. This purpose distinguishes lawful self-defence from measures that aim to punish the aggressor for the harm inflicted. The latter measures constitute armed reprisals, which are prohibited under international law.


“Whether the use of force employed by the victim of an armed attack serves the purpose of self-defence,” she concludes,” is determined by “standards of necessity and proportionality.”

An existential threat?

As of August 6 at least 61,709 people, including 17,492 children, had been killed in Gaza a direct result of IDF military action; more than 111,588 people had been injured; and more than 14,222 are missing and presumed dead. These figures, which come from the Gazan health ministry, are widely believed to be a serious undercount. The IDF lost 454 soldiers in Gaza during the same period. This is disproportionate by any criteria.

But was this killing and destruction militarily necessary? In order to restore the status quo ante, which is all international law allows?

Or was it an armed reprisal—a collective punishment inflicted on Gaza’s civilians in order to demonstrate, in Benjamin Netanyahu’s promise to Israelis at the outset of the present war, that “We will exact a price that will be remembered by them and Israel’s other enemies for decades to come”? A reprisal that also serves the Zionist longterm objective of ridding Eretz Israel, by one means or another, of its indigenous Palestinian population?

At the outset of hostilities the IDF estimated Hamas to have some 30,000 fighters. In contrast to Israel—a nuclear power with one of the strongest, most experienced, and technologically sophisticated militaries in the world—Hamas has no navy or air force, tanks or armoured vehicles. Its armoury is made up of light automatic weapons, grenades, mortars, explosives, improvised rockets, and anti-tank guided missiles and shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles. It is, we might say, a David to Israel’s Goliath.

“Brutal,” “savage,” and “barbaric” as Hamas’s October 7 attack may have been, it was in essence a DIY assault from paragliders, small boats, bulldozers, pickup trucks, and motorbikes. It revealed serious failures in Israel’s security (which Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly refused to have investigated until after the “war” is over) but it hardly adds up to what Israel’s supporters have loudly proclaimed to be an existential threat.

Hamas is even less of a threat now, when Israel claims to have eliminated at least 20,000 of its fighters and destroyed its command structure. Much as it might wish to wipe Israel from the face of the earth and reestablish Islamic domination from the river to the sea, Hamas doesn’t remotely have the capacity to do so—either now, or in any foreseeable future.

At this point it must be asked—as it should have been long, long ago—if this has long ceased to be (and possibly never was) a war of self-defense, why is Israel still fighting?

It’s not a “humanitarian crisis,” it’s a genocide

For whatever reasons—geopolitics, economics, guilt at turning a blind eye to the Holocaust, Islamophobia, racism—for the last two years Western politicians, with the overwhelming support of the mainstream media, have supported Israel’s genocidal campaign in Gaza and done their best to brand all opposition as “antisemitism.”

Not only have they provided Israel with arms and diplomatic cover at the UN and elsewhere, frustrating any coordinated international response to impose a ceasefire. They have repeatedly ignored orders from and sought to discredit the world’s two highest courts, the ICJ and the ICC. They have eroded their citizens’ civil liberties by criminalizing pro-Palestinian actions and vilifying pro-Palestinian speech.

They have gaslit their populations, requiring us to believe that when Israel destroys a hospital or a school in Gaza it is because Hamas has a tunnel underneath it; that the doctors, nurses, aid workers, and journalists it has killed, often with their whole families, are all Hamas operatives; and that the IDF is “the most moral army in the world.”

Perhaps most insidiously—and here Islamophobia and racism do work their evil—they have tried to convince us that when Hamas commits war crimes they are the result of primitive, barbaric, fanatical religious hatred, but when Israel commits the same crimes on a massively greater scale, it is defending not only itself but “Western civilization.”

I predict that in the coming days and weeks we will see plenty of blame for the “humanitarian crisis” in Gaza being laid at the door of Benjamin Netanyahu, who will seemingly do anything to survive in office (and keep out of jail). But the problems go far deeper than Bibi appeasing his extremist right-wing ministers to keep his coalition intact and his government in power.

The West may now be finally waking up to the full enormity of the horrors Israel has inflicted in Gaza. It needs also to wake up to the evils it has nurtured not just for the last two years, but for over a century, under the banner of “the Jewish people’s right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland.” It is time we started listening to Palestinian voices, while there are still Palestinians left alive to speak truth to power.

Derek Sayer / Canadian Dimension / July 29, 2025 

Girl in Gaza on her way to get food. Photo by Jaber Jehad Badwan/Wikimedia Commons.

After reneging on its January ceasefire agreement with Hamas, Israel imposed a total blockade on aid into Gaza on March 2 and cut off remaining electricity supplies a week later. It resumed its military assault on March 18. Since then, Gaza’s health authorities have recorded a further 8,196 fatalities and 30,094 injuries. The death toll from IDF actions since the present “war” began on October 7, 2023 has now passed 60,000.

United Nations data show that throughout July the IDF has been killing one person every 12 minutes. “An average of 119 Palestinians are being killed daily so far in July—the highest rate since January 2024. More than 401 Palestinians a day are being wounded, the highest figure since December 2023.”

To put this in perspective, this means that in the last month Israel has killed, on average, more people in Gaza every week than the 736 Israeli civilians who died during Hamas’s October 7 attack on southern Israel (many of them casualties of Israeli “friendly fire”)—the event that triggered, and has repeatedly been used to justify, Israel’s present “war.”

For Pity’s Sake, Stop This Now!

Aid agencies have been warning of imminent famine for months, threatening the lives of Gaza’s 2.1 million inhabitants—or whatever portion of them have survived nearly two years of IDF bombardment—who have no means of escape from the besieged enclave. Deaths from hunger are now rising exponentially, beginning with the most vulnerable.

As Nesrine Malik explains:

The children die first. In conditions of starvation, their growing bodies’ nutritional needs are higher than those of adults, and so their reserves are depleted faster. Their immune systems, not yet fully developed, become weaker, more susceptible to disease and infection. A bout of diarrhoea is lethal. Their wounds don’t heal. The babies cannot be breastfed as their mothers have not eaten. They die at double the rate of adults.


On July 29, the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, or IPC—the world’s official famine watchdog—for the first time issued a famine alert, as distinct from a warning, for Gaza, stating that:

The worst-case scenario of Famine is currently playing out in the Gaza Strip. Conflict and displacement have intensified, and access to food and other essential items and services has plummeted to unprecedented levels.

Mounting evidence shows that widespread starvation, malnutrition, and disease are driving a rise in hunger-related deaths. Latest data indicates that Famine thresholds have been reached for food consumption in most of the Gaza Strip and for acute malnutrition in Gaza City.

Immediate action must be taken to end the hostilities and allow for unimpeded, large-scale, life-saving humanitarian response. This is the only path to stopping further deaths and catastrophic human suffering.


Recent days have seen a tsunami of horrific headlines, illustrated by graphic photos of starving children. In the UK, the Guardian’s July 23 lead story blared: “‘We faced hunger before, but never like this’: skeletal children fill hospital wards as starvation grips Gaza.” The article was illustrated with a mother-and-dying-child image that seems destined to become as iconic as Nick Ut’s famous Vietnam War photo “Napalm Girl.”

The front page of the Daily Express—a right-wing populist tabloid—carried the same photo, captioning the image “For Pity’s Sake, Stop This Now.” The accompanying article was headlined “The suffering of little Muhammad clinging on to life in Gaza hell shames us all.” The paper’s head of news Callum Hoare posted on X:

The brutal suffering in Gaza must end. The shocking image shows Muhammad Zakariya Ayyoub al-Matouq, one, who weighs the same as [a] three-month old baby due to the humanitarian crisis following the continued blocking of basic aid to civilians by Israel.


Spain’s El País showed a child’s outstretched hand holding a crust of bread under the headline, “Hunger in Gaza sparks global outcry to stop the war.” India’s Economic Times paired a front-page editorial calling Israel’s actions “genocidal” with a photo of empty cooking pots outside a damaged building. The Washington Post led with “Mass Starvation Stalks Gaza” and a photo of a another Palestinian woman holding another emaciated infant.

Is “balance” finally giving way to truth?

Western newsrooms are no longer taken in by IDF propaganda videos purportedly showing “senior Hamas terrorists boasting about their meals in underground terror tunnels” while gorging on fresh fruit—a tall order, since Israel has been blockading the Strip since March 2. Nor are they uncritically accepting Israeli official statements as statements of fact, as most of them have shamefully done for the last two years.

BBC News—which has repeatedly, and justifiably, been accused of systematically downplayingPalestinian sufferings and whitewashing Israeli war crimes—issued a joint statement on July 24 with AFP, AP, and Reuters, which backhandedly conceded that the IDF indeed is using starvation as a weapon of war in Gaza. It began:

We are desperately concerned for our journalists in Gaza, who are increasingly unable to feed themselves and their families. For many months, these independent journalists have been the world’s eyes and ears on the ground in Gaza. They are now facing the same dire circumstances as those they are covering.

Journalists endure many deprivations and hardships in warzones. We are deeply alarmed that the threat of starvation is now one of them.


The statement neglected to mention that in the interests of keeping the genocidal truth under wraps, Israel has banned international media from Gaza and so far killed 232 local journalists in the course of its current “war”—more than the number of journalists killed in the US Civil War, the First and Second World Wars, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the wars in Yugoslavia, and the post-9/11 war in Afghanistan combined.

Even the New York Times, which has been steadfast in its support for Israel throughout its “war” on Gaza, carried a long and damning essay by the renowned Israeli Holocaust scholar Omer Bartov headlined “I’m a Genocide Scholar. I Know It when I See It.” To be fair, the paper carried an op-ed by Bret Stephens a few days later arguing “No, Israel Is Not Committing Genocide in Gaza,” in the interests not of truth but of “balance.”

Despite Israel’s increasingly implausible attempts to deny that there is famine in Gaza—or to shift the blame to Hamas (which a recent USAID investigation found is not “stealing aid,” a conclusion that was repeated later by IDF senior officers interviewed by the New York Times) or the UN (ignoring Israel’s own ban on UNRWA in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories and refusal of visas to UN agency personnel)—the dam has broken.

When “aid distribution centres” become killing fields

In late May, under international pressure, Israel permitted the US-backed so-called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) to distribute meagre and inappropriate aid packages through four centres set up to replace the 400-plus distribution points previously run by UNRWA and other international aid agencies. The GHF is a private body, staffed largely by US contractors, with no prior experience of supplying humanitarian aid in war zones.

Benjamin Netanyahu admitted that allowing this “minimal” aid was only done to keep US politicians onside. Israel’s National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir denounced the change in policy as “a grave mistake,” while Heritage Minister Amichay Eliyahu argued that “letting humanitarian aid in now directly harms the war effort to achieve victory.”

On July 8, following the death of five Israeli soldiers in a Hamas ambush—a drop in the ocean compared with the daily Palestinian civilian casualties—Ben Gvir demanded “a total siege, a military crushing, encouraging immigration and settlements” and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich called on Netanyahu to “immediately halt” aid for Gaza. They could hardly have made it clearer that Israeli combatants’ deaths will be paid for many times over by Palestinian civilian lives, whatever the Geneva Conventions might say.

Outside of the so-called “humanitarian zones,” to which over 90 percent of Gaza’s inhabitants have been compulsorily evacuated and now live in squalid tents—which the IDF still regularly hits, claiming to target “Hamas militants” but killing and maiming many more civilians with every strike—82.6 percent of the Gaza Strip is now within the Israeli-militarized zone or under displacement orders. Three of the GHF centres are located in the ruins of Rafah in the south, the other in Deir al-Balah in central Gaza.

Hundreds of Palestinians have been massacred when lining up for food at GHF centres or trying to reach them. As of July 15, per the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), 875 people had been killed trying to access food for their families, 674 of them in the vicinity of GHF sites. That number has now passed 1,000.

Interviewed for the BBC World Service on July 25, retired US special forces officer Lt. Col. Anthony Aguilar, a former Green Beret, explained why he had quit his job with GHF:

I witnessed the Israeli Defense Forces shooting at the crowds of Palestinians… Without question I witnessed war crimes by the [IDF], using artillery rounds, mortar rounds, and tank rounds against unarmed civilians… I have never witnessed such a level of brutality and use of indiscriminate and unnecessary force against a civilian population—an unarmed, starving population.

Lies, damned lies, and hasbara

Charging that “Today, Palestinians in Gaza face an impossible choice: starve or risk being shot while trying desperately to reach food to feed their families,” on June 30 more than 240 international charities and NGOs, including Oxfam, Save the Children, and Amnesty International, issued a joint statement calling for “immediate action to end the deadly Israeli distribution scheme (including the so-called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation) in Gaza, revert to the existing UN-led coordination mechanisms, and lift the Israeli government’s blockade on aid and commercial supplies.”

Donald Trump’s Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, former Republican governor of Arkansas, knows better. On July 24 he posted on X two photographs, which we are to assume were shot in Gaza though no date or location is given, with the comment:

Here are photos of UN trucks & enough food to feed all of Gaza but it sits rotting! UN is a tool of Hamas! US based GHF is actually delivering food FOR FREE and SAFELY. UN food is either looted by Hamas or rots in the sun! Photos from yesterday.

Huckabee, whose “evangelical Christian beliefs,” per the official US embassy website, “include support for Israeli control over their ancient and indigenous homeland,” clearly believes his responsibilities including shilling for hasbara (Israeli public diplomacy aimed at explaining and promoting Israel’s policies and image internationally). It would be nice to see him apply the same argument about ancestral homelands to the Indigenous inhabitants of the United States, but let that pass. Israel’s rights are judged by different standards.

Huckabee also believes that “There is no such thing as a Palestinian” and “no such thing as a West Bank. It’s Judea and Samaria. There’s no such thing as a settlement. They’re communities, they’re neighborhoods, they’re cities. There’s no such thing as an occupation.” This is of course music to Ben Gvir, Smotrich, and Netanyahu’s ears.

UN spokesperson Farhan Haq has cited “a number of interdependent factors” that have stopped UN aid being delivered even when it has reached Gaza, including “bureaucratic, logistical, administrative, and other operational obstacles imposed by Israeli authorities”—something former British Foreign Secretary and one-time Prime Minister David Cameron complained about back in March 2024—and “shooting incidents that have killed and injured people gathering to offload aid supplies along convoy routes.”

One recent shooting incident is related by Cindy McCain, the widow of US Senator John McCain and head of the World Food Program:

Shortly after passing the final checkpoint beyond the Zikim crossing point into Gaza, the convoy encountered large crowds of civilians anxiously waiting to access desperately needed food supplies… As the convoy approached, the surrounding crowd came under fire from Israeli tanks, snipers and other gunfire. We are deeply concerned and saddened by this tragic incident resulting in the loss of countless lives.

Today’s violent incident comes despite assurances from Israeli authorities that humanitarian operational conditions would improve; including that armed forces will not be present nor engage at any stage along humanitarian convoy routes. There should never, ever, be armed groups near or on our aid convoys, as reiterated on many occasions to all parties to the conflict.

Without these fundamental conditions in place, we cannot continue providing life-saving support across the Gaza strip.

The politicians react

If key sections of the Western media are now changing their tune on Gaza, disgust with Israel’s treatment of Palestinians is even more pronounced among the wider public.

survey carried out by Pew Research Center published on June 3 found that in 20 of 24 countries surveyed, half of adults or more have a negative view of Israel. Among Western or Western-aligned nations, Israel was viewed “very” or “somewhat unfavourably” by 79 percent of respondents in Japan, 78 percent in the Netherlands, 75 percent in Spain and Sweden, 74 percent in Australia, 72 percent in Greece, 66 percent in Italy, 64 percent in Germany, 63 percent in France, 62 percent in Poland, 61 percent in the UK, 60 percent in Canada and South Korea, and even—remarkably, in view of bipartisan support for Israel among both Republican and Democrat party leaderships—53 percent in the US.

This was before the recent blanket press coverage of the growing famine and almost daily massacres of Palestinians seeking food at the GHF distribution centres.

Wrong-footed by events, and under immense pressure from their respective publics, Western politicians have been falling over themselves to take back the narrative.

On July 21, Canada joined 24 other Western nations and the EU Commissioner for Equality, Preparedness and Crisis Management in a statement that firmly rapped Israel over the knuckles for its most recent transgressions in Gaza:

The suffering of civilians in Gaza has reached new depths. The Israeli government’s aid delivery model is dangerous, fuels instability and deprives Gazans of human dignity. We condemn the drip feeding of aid and the inhumane killing of civilians, including children, seeking to meet their most basic needs of water and food. It is horrifying that over 800 Palestinians have been killed while seeking aid. The Israeli Government’s denial of essential humanitarian assistance to the civilian population is unacceptable. Israel must comply with its obligations under international humanitarian law.


On July 25 the leaders of Britain, France, and Germany issued another statement reminding Israel that “withholding essential humanitarian assistance” is “unacceptable” and describing the situation in Gaza as a “humanitarian catastrophe.” They added that they “stand ready to take further action to support an immediate ceasefire and a political process that leads to lasting security and peace for Israelis, Palestinians and the entire region,” without saying what that action might comprise.

No doubt Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron would rather we forgot that they had signed a joint statement with Canada’s Mark Carney calling on the Israeli government “to stop its military operations in Gaza and immediately allow humanitarian aid to enter Gaza,” and threatening “If Israel does not cease the renewed military offensive and lift its restrictions on humanitarian aid, we will take further concrete actions in response,” two months ago, on May 19. Needless to say no actions of any consequence were taken.

The time for covering asses is at hand

Aware, perhaps, of their potential liability under the Geneva Conventions for not doing everything within their power to prevent genocide—or at least war crimes and crimes against humanity—in Gaza, individual Western politicians have meantime been lining up to put their immense sympathy for the Palestinian people on record.

Keir Starmer proclaims “The suffering and starvation unfolding in Gaza is unspeakable and indefensible. While the situation has been grave for some time, it has reached new depths and continues to worsen. We are witnessing a humanitarian catastrophe.”

Starmer’s Foreign Secretary David Lammy says he is he is “appalled, sickened” by the “grotesque” targeting of starving Palestinians. “These are not words that are usually used by a foreign secretary who is attempting to be diplomatic,” he adds, “but when you see innocent children holding out their hand for food, and you see them shot and killed in the way that we have seen in the last few days, of course Britain must call it out.”

Australia’s PM Antony Albanese laments that “The situation in Gaza has gone beyond the world’s worst fears… Gaza is in the grip of a humanitarian catastrophe. Israel’s denial of aid and the killing of civilians, including children, seeking access to water and food cannot be defended or ignored.”

EU foreign policy supremo Kaja Kallas (who stated on July 15 that “the EU will not move forward with sanctions against Israel”) protests that “The killing of civilians seeking aid in Gaza is indefensible.” “The images from Gaza are unbearable,” posts Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, “Israel must deliver on its pledges.”

Canadian government representatives have been more reticent in their condemnations—a good deal more reticent than when they denounce instances of alleged “antisemitism.”

But noting on July 24 that “denial of humanitarian aid is a violation of international law,” Mark Carney stated that “Canada condemns the Israeli government’s failure to prevent the rapidly deteriorating humanitarian disaster in Gaza.”

Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand echoed her boss, posting on X the same day:

The humanitarian crisis in Gaza worsens by the day. Women and children are starving, without adequate access to food and water, the most basic of needs. It is inexcusable and must end… the Israeli government must allow the uninhibited flow of humanitarian aid to reach Palestinians civilians, who are in urgent need.


New Democrat Party MP (and candidate for NDP leader) Heather McPherson asks, not altogether unreasonably:

For nearly 21 months @NDP has urged action from Canada: recognize Palestinian statehood, impose sanctions, suspend CIFTA, implement arms embargo. In a caucus of 169 MPs only a handful of Liberals have spoken out for Palestine. Why the Liberal silence? Cowardice? Racism?

It’s only words

Several things need to be said about this belated outpouring of sympathy for innocent Palestinians on the part of politicians who have been arming, diplomatically supporting, and repressing domestic criticism of Israel’s genocide for the last two years.

First, however tough their language, they never use the word genocide—or the terms war crimes and crimes against humanity. The reason is pretty clear. To do so would not only acknowledge these governments’ past complicity in the worst crimes known to the law, but legally require them to act immediately to end that complicity in the future.

The preferred term is always “humanitarian catastrophe,” which naturalizes the event—equating it with other things that cause famine, like crop failures, floods or drought—and shifts the focus away from the human actors and actions that have caused it.

Second, there is a systematic attempt to suggest that it is only now that the situation has become catastrophic. The implication is that it was legitimate to support Israel’s assault on Gaza previously. As one puzzled comment on X put it:

I have been wondering why the Zionists’ stepped up use of hunger as a mass murder weapon has suddenly triggered a Western outcry, but two years of pre-announced, and equally vile, mass murder via bombs and bullets did not generate the same outcry.


Third—and most importantly—none of these statements, however strongly worded, have been followed by any action that would put real pressure on Israel to change its behaviour. And knowing this, Israel continues to largely ignore Western protests.

Even Emmanuel Macron’s historic promise to recognize a Palestinian state—a largely symbolic gesture, albeit a significant one—has been attacked by Donald Trump, and Britain and Canada, who at one time looked prepared to join him, are now reportedly getting cold feet for fear of angering the US.

It is not as if the international community doesn’t have plenty of weapons at its disposal to force compliance on rogue states.

Apartheid South Africa was kicked out of the UN and subjected to stringent economic, sporting, and cultural sanctions and boycotts that eventually brought the system to its knees. The first Gulf War against Iraq was fought under UN auspices, and the second by a US-led “coalition of the willing.”

The most obvious contemporary example of such international action—which contrasts sharply with the West’s pusillanimous avoidance of any meaningful action to stop Israel’s carnage in Gaza—was the coordinated response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which has been met with wave after wave of sanctions.

For whatever reasons—be they geopolitical, economic, or racist—not to take comparable action against Israel is a choice. Our choice.

Our genocide

Faced with widespread Western condemnation, Netanyahu has now agreed to allow air drops of aid into Gaza and daily 10-hour “humanitarian pauses” in three areas of the Strip to enable UN convoys and other aid organizations to safely distribute food and medicine. As in his earlier pivot in May, he explained that given the international reaction, Israel “needs to continue to allow the entry of a minimum amount of humanitarian aid.”

I see this as a purely tactical retreat, like Netanyahu’s earlier acceptance under US pressure of two ceasefire deals which he subsequently broke. He went on to reassure Israelis that “We will continue to fight, we will continue to act until we achieve all of our war goals—until complete victory.” His fundamental objectives have not changed.

On July 28, the day after Netanyahu’s announcement, Israel’s leading human rights organization B’Tselem announced the publication of a report titled Our Genocide on social media. They did not pull their punches or mince their words:

Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.

It sounds inconceivable. But it’s the truth.

Israel is taking deliberate, coordinated action to destroy the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. Explicit statements by Israeli officials, combined with a consistent policy of destructive attacks and other practices of annihilation, prove beyond a doubt that Israel’s target is the entire population of Gaza.

Entire cities razed to the ground; medical, educational, religious and cultural infrastructure systematically destroyed; 2 million Palestinians forcibly displaced with the aim of expelling them from Gaza; and, of course, mass starvation and killing—all this amounts to an explicit attempt to destroy the population of Gaza and impose living conditions so catastrophic that Palestinian society cannot continue to exist there.

That is the exact definition of genocide.


They continued:

The international community has not only failed in its duty to stop the atrocities, but the leaders of the Western world, particularly the United States and Europe, also share responsibility by providing support that enables Israel’s acts of destruction. It is the duty of the international community to stop the genocide Israel is carrying out in Gaza…

This is our genocide, and we need to stop it.


Israel’s genocide. And the West’s.