Featured
The 1967 Arab-Israeli War revisited
Published
2 years agoon
I was ten years old after the 1967 Arab-Israeli War when Israel occupied the West Bank in June 1967. Then, I didn’t fully grasp what was happening to us. Arab radio stations transmitting from Cairo, Damascus and Baghdad had been galvanizing us into believing that Israel’s days were numbered and that Arab nationalism, which nearly replaced Islam as our de facto religion, would soon tear up the Zionist entity to smithereens.
We virtually worshipped Gamal Abdul Nasser, the legendary Egyptian president, who became a god-like figure among most Arabs from Bahrain to Casablanca.
It was far more abominable to curse the ultimate leader of Arab nationalism than to curse the Almighty. Under such circumstances, achieving victory over Israel, the darling of the West, was tantamount to indulging in day-dreaming.
I remember I once asked Professor Hamed Algar, Professor of Ottoman History at the University of California at Berkeley, for his opinion of Nasser.
He described him as “the second major disaster to hit the Muslim world after Mustafa Kemal Attaturk“.
Read Also: The 1967 War was a Defeat of Arabism, Nasserism, Baathism and anti-Islam Doctrines.
So you can imagine the gigantic shock and disappointment we suffered when all of our dreams were crushed when all these charismatic leaders proved to be mere contemptible little men who excelled in rhetoric and in repressing their peoples but failed utterly in the confrontation with Israel in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War.
A Narrative Story pre-the 1967 Arab-Israeli War
Four years before I was born, a great calamity had befallen my family.
The Israeli army murdered three of my four paternal uncles, Hussein (28), Mahmoud (25), and Yousuf (23). The three, all simple and impoverished shepherds, were grazing their flock of sheep and goats near the village of Al-Burj along the so-called armistice line, 22 kilometers south-west of the West Bank town of Hebron. Together with my three uncles, a number of other relatives, including a woman, were also shot dead. In fact, the Israelis not only nearly wiped out my entire family, but also seized our sheep herd, upon which our total livelihood depended to a large extent.
This calamity condemned us to a life of misery and abject poverty for many years to come. The Red Cross and the Red Crescent didn’t run active services in our region at that time, so we were left to endure our fate alone. I remember my late father telling me that the Jordanian government gave us two goats free of charge, as compensation for the tragedy. My family viewed this as a kind of insult added to injury.
Thus, my family had to live in a cave for 21 years. The misery, the suffering, the poverty and the harshness of daily living were conspicuous aspects of our life. Interestingly, to this day, the Israeli government has neither apologized for the crime nor compensated us for our stolen property.
The 1967 Arab-Israeli War: Would zionist jews say “mea culpa”?
Imagine, just imagine, how rabid and vitriolic Jews would be if they were in my shoes. None the less, these self-absorbed and self-worshiping Zionists still have the Chutzpah to accuse their victims of being ” terrorists and anti-Semites.” Isn’t this discourse tantamount to fornicating with truth and history? Well, in the final analysis, shamelessness has always been and will always be the main feature of being a Zionist Jew!
I don’t know when these Jews will say mea culpa to their Palestinian and other victims. Perhaps when kosher pigs fly!!
Well, I do realize that it is too premature, probably naïve, to even evoke such a question. After all, Israel is still murdering Palestinian children nearly on a daily basis.
Many stories to tell!
Of course, our tragedy didn’t stop at losing three men and a number of other relatives murdered and hundreds of sheep stolen by the Israeli government. Much more had been seized from us six years earlier, in 1948, including our farming land in al-Za’ak, in what is now Israel. We were not even allowed to retrieve our belongings, such as bed coverings, household utensils and probably some money that had been left prior to the expulsion at the hands of armed Jewish gangs.
Anybody who might have tried would have been shot on the spot. I heard of several people who had ventured to reach their former homes just across the border, only to be shot dead after having dug their graves.
The take-no-prisoners policy was consistent with the Israeli strategy of ‘cleansing the indigenous Palestinian inhabitants who constituted the vast majority of the population in mandatory Palestine.
To implement this Nazi-like policy, various Israeli gangs, which came later to form the so-called Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), committed numerous wanton massacres against the Palestinians. Some of the most outrageous massacres included Deir Yassin, Dawaymeh, Tantura, Lud and Qastal, but there were many others. The atrocities, carried out knowingly and deliberately by the Jewish leadership, were aimed at terrorizing the Palestinians into leaving. The message was as clear as it was gruesome. “If you want to stay alive, you’ve got to leave.”
Israeli propaganda during the 1967 Arab-Israeli War would tell the world later that the ‘Arab refugees’ left their homes willingly and were not forced into leaving by the Jude-Nazi gangs. I say Judeo-Nazi because when Jews think, behave and act like Nazis they become Nazis.
Interestingly, the Zionists continue to shamelessly generate such big lies to deceive and mislead world public opinion. I strongly believe that Zionist Jews are God’s lying people.
They lie as often as they breathe; dishonesty seems to be a built-in Zionist character. You can not be Zionist and honest at the same time.
Moreover, you can’t support Israel unless you are either completely ignorant or irredeemably unconscionable or both.
Israel itself wouldn’t be able to survive five minutes in an environment ruled by truth, honesty and justice.
Zionist Jews would never admit that Israel and Jews ever did any wrongdoing or committed any crime.
A Zionist would even tell God Almighty “you’re a liar.” Didn’t Jews carry signs in the US reading “Allah is on my ass”? ( I got this quote from Alfred Lilienthal’s famous book The Zionist Connection).
Zionist Jews may not be the most murderous people under the sun. However, they are certainly the most dishonest and mendacious.
Moreover, there is no doubt whatsoever that Zionist Jews are the most racist people under the sun. For these Jews, the life of a single Jew is far more important than the lives of a million non-Jews. For them, non-Jewish life has no sanctity.
The 1967 Arab-Israeli War: Jordanian era
Under Jordanian rule (1951-67), i.e. pre the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, the most important concern for the Jordanian authorities was loyalty to King Hussein and his family. The King was nearly ‘a demi god’ and the entire country, including the media, the security forces and the people revolved around his figure. Hence, the claim often made that Jordan was a king with a country, rather than a country with a king, had a substantial degree of veracity.
Connections to the King and his Mukhabarat (intelligence apparatus) and immediate coterie would automatically put one in a preferential position.
Shouting “Ya’ish Jalalat al Malik al-Muaazam” (Long Live The King), would give one an automatic certificate of good conduct. No wonder, it was a despotic regime based on sycophancy, favouritism, and nepotism.
King Hussein never really made genuine efforts to push back recurrent Israeli incursions, forays and raids on Palestinian population centres in the West Bank pre the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, let alone liberate occupied Palestine. Indeed, the Commander-in-Chief of the Jordanian army in the late 1940s, when Israel was created, and up until March 1, 1956, was a British officer by the name of John Baggot Glubb who came to be known among Palestinians and Jordanians as Glubb Pasha, an honorary title. So, who in his right mind would have expected a British officer to fight the Jews on behalf of the Arabs?
As far as Palestinians were concerned, the most immediate priority for the Jordanian regime i.e. King Hussein was to make sure that they and other Jordanians didn’t pose a threat to the survival, security and stability of the Hashemite monarchy. A Palestinian would get a six-month prison term if an empty bullet cartridge was found in his possession.
And as the Israelis would do later, the Jordanians enlisted the ‘Makhatir’ (clan notables) to inform on every gesture of opposition to the Hashemite rule within their respective clans and areas. This in turn created a kind of police-state atmosphere all over the country.
Free-minded Palestinians who insisted on voicing their conscience were persecuted and dumped into the notorious El-Jafr prison in eastern Jordan where they were often tortured savagely, even to death. I know of a person from my town (Dura) who was tortured to death for his affiliation with the Communist Party.
Torture is still practiced in Jordan with the knowledge, blessing and encouragement of the United States and Britain. Some of the so-called ‘terror suspects’ held by the CIA were secretly flown to Jordan in order to be ‘softened up’ by Jordanian interrogators.
In the mid1950s, the Jordanian security forces on several occasions shot and killed demonstrators who were protesting the pro-Western policies of the government and the regime’s failure and inability to stop recurrent Israeli attacks. Some of these demonstrators were affiliated with or instigated by the Ba’ath party and the Communists who openly called for overthrowing the monarchy.
As a counterbalance to the leftists, who were quite active, especially in the West Bank, King Hussein allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to operate relatively freely. So it was a kind of divide-and-rule policy.
The leftists would accuse the Brotherhood of being British agents and the Brotherhood would retort by accentuating the atheism and enmity to Islam of the Communists and Ba’athists. Hussein’s relations with the Brotherhood remained relatively stable until the final years of his life when he introduced the one-man-one-vote law, aimed primarily at reducing to the minimum the number of parliament seats the well-organized Islamists could win.
Notwithstanding, the Muslim Brotherhood, or the Islamic Action Front, remains Jordan’s largest opposition party, despite government harassment and constant persecution.
The Muslim Brothers were not British agents or agents of any power. They only wanted to create an Islamic state in accordance with the Sharia. In other words, their strategy and goals were diametrically incompatible with those of the Communists and the Ba’athists. Hence, the mutual sullen hostility.
However, to be honest, the Jordanian regime, especially with regard to how the state treated its citizens, was not as bad and harsh as other Arab regimes, e. g., Syria, Iraq and Egypt. In non-political and non-security matters, the rule of law was generally observed and applied. In general, an individual’s dignity was upheld as long as he or she didn’t criticize the regime or undermine the ‘security of the kingdom.’
More to the point, King Hussein was truly an astute leader. Far from behaving with vindictiveness and vengefulness toward his political opponents, even those who sought to assassinate him and overthrow his regime. The King nearly always pardoned them, showing magnanimity and gallantry unmatched in modern Arab history.
Despite its authoritarianism and despotism, the Jordanian regime never persecuted us in any way even remotely comparable to what the Nazi-like Israelis have been doing to us since 1967. The Jordanians never demolished a home, bulldozed a farm or arrested people for years without charge or trial as Israel has been doing to us.
Yes, ‘wrongdoers’ were arrested and tried and often tortured, but their families wouldn’t be detained, their homes wouldn’t be bulldozed and their farms, orchards and olive groves wouldn’t be decimated as the Israelis routinely do. Jordan actually granted us full citizenship until the late King Hussein severed legal and administrative ties with the West Bank in 1988.
An outstanding exception occurred in 1970, during the so-called Black September events when the Jordanian army battled with PLO guerrillas who The King claimed were planning to take over Jordan and end the monarchy. Some atrocities were committed during these confrontations and many people, Palestinians and Jordanians, were killed. Nonetheless, the ‘September events’ should be considered a kind of anomaly in The King’s relations with the Palestinians.
In general, one can safely contend that there is no comparison between the Nazi-like Israeli occupation rule and the Jordanian era. The Jordanians were not really occupiers, they never behaved as occupiers. In many ways, The King was our king and the Kingdom was our kingdom. Yes, the regime was authoritarian and generally repressive, but, in all honesty, it cannot be compared to the Israelis whose barbarianism, brutal oppression, racism and savagery transcend reality.
Nonetheless, Jordan was (and still is) a weak and poor kingdom, economically, politically and especially militarily. The Israeli army routinely carried out cross-border incursions into the West Bank prior to 1967, murdering innocent villagers, and the Jordanian army was generally too weak and too unequipped to repulse the Israeli aggressors.
King Hussein must have calculated that maintaining a peaceable or even quasi-friendly modus vivendi with Israel was the best insurance policy for retaining his kingdom and the rule of his Hashemite dynasty. I think he was wrong in thinking this way. His non-hostility towards Israel didn’t prevent the Jewish state from pursuing its aggressive policies, which culminated in the occupation of the West Bank in 1967.
King Hussein did make a lot of contacts with Israel even before the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. For example, on September 24, 1963, the director-general of the Israeli prime minister’s office, Yaacov Herzog, met the King in the London clinic of the King’s Jewish physician, Dr. Emmanuel Herbert.
Another meeting took place in Paris in 1965 and Israel was represented by Golda Meir, who was accompanied by Herzog.
It is also believed that Hussein had lots of contacts with the Israeli state through the alumni offices of Boston University.
You may like
Featured
Who Will Guard Gaza’s Future? Inside the International Stabilization Force and the Peace Summit
Published
2 days agoon
November 3, 2025
As the world turns its gaze toward the upcoming Gaza peace moot scheduled in Sharm el-Sheikh, anticipation mixes with skepticism. Delegations from more than 25 nations, including Egypt, Qatar, Indonesia, Pakistan, and the United States, are expected to participate. The summit’s stated goal is to chart a post-war roadmap for Gaza: one that ensures reconstruction, stability, and long-term governance. Yet, beneath the diplomatic smiles lies a deeper unease. Will this summit bring justice, or simply repackage occupation in the language of peace?
While Egypt positions itself as a mediator and the United States attempts to portray itself as a peace broker, many in the Muslim world view this as an exercise in image management. For Gazans who have endured months of devastation, the word “peace” feels hollow when their children are still being buried beneath rubble.
The International Stabilization Force: A New Guardian or Another Overseer?
Central to the summit’s agenda is the proposed International Stabilization Force (ISF). It is a multinational security body meant to take charge of Gaza once Israeli troops withdraw. According to policy outlines discussed at the Council on Foreign Relations, the ISF would be composed of troops from Muslim-majority countries such as Egypt, Indonesia, and Turkey, supported logistically by the U.S. and possibly NATO allies.
Its mission is to oversee security, prevent rearmament, and assist in rebuilding civilian police institutions. Yet this concept immediately triggers questions of legitimacy and control. Who will the ISF answer to, whether it be the United Nations, the Arab League, or Washington? And will it protect Gazans or impose an externally dictated order?
Critics warn that such a force could serve as a buffer between Israel and Gaza rather than a guarantor of Palestinian sovereignty. A security expert quoted, “If the ISF’s mandate comes from Western powers, it may enforce stability at the cost of freedom.”
Gaza’s Sovereignty Between Protection and Control
The idea of international troops in Gaza is not new. Similar arrangements in Lebanon and Bosnia offered mixed results when peacekeeping often turned into passive observation, and local populations remained powerless. For Gazans, the fear is that the ISF might become an instrument to monitor them rather than protect them.
While Israel seeks guarantees that Hamas will not regain control, Palestinians demand something far simpler: the right to self-govern without occupation or military oversight. Many analysts argue that unless the ISF’s command structure includes Palestinian representation, it risks deepening mistrust.
Furthermore, there are legal and ethical dilemmas. If Israeli forces withdraw but still control Gaza’s airspace and borders through the ISF, can Gaza truly be called free? The world has seen this model before, which is an illusion of autonomy wrapped in the language of international cooperation.
The Politics Behind Peace: Competing Interests
Every participating nation arrives with its own agenda. For example, Egypt, leading the ISF, offers regional prestige. For Qatar and Indonesia, participation reinforces solidarity with Palestinians. For the United States, it is a strategic opportunity to maintain influence over the post-war narrative. Yet, for Gaza, each external interest risks turning the strip into a geopolitical chessboard.
Observers note that the absence of any confirmed Israeli participation in the summit is telling. It suggests that while plans are made for Gaza’s future, the voices of those who live there remain marginalized. Without Gazan and broader Palestinian leadership at the table, the summit risks becoming an exercise in deciding the fate of a people without their consent.
Reconstruction and Responsibility: The Road Ahead
Rebuilding Gaza will require an estimated $70 billion, according to updated UN and World Bank figures. Roads, hospitals, power grids, and schools must be reconstructed almost from scratch. The ISF, if deployed, will play a role in securing aid routes and ensuring humanitarian access, but security alone will not heal Gaza. Without justice, accountability, and economic sovereignty, reconstruction will be little more than rebuilding the cage.
Experts emphasize that any real peace must involve lifting the blockade, restoring trade access, and giving Palestinians control over their borders and ports. Without these measures, even billions in reconstruction funds will fail to bring lasting stability.
The Moral Imperative
The peace summit in Egypt and the proposed International Stabilization Force are being presented as symbols of hope. However, hope without accountability is fragile. If the world truly wants to guard Gaza’s future, it must begin by addressing the root cause of its suffering, which is occupation, displacement, and systemic denial of human rights.
True peace cannot be imposed, but it must be built on justice. For Gazans, peace is not about foreign soldiers on their streets. It’s about waking up without fear, owning their land, and rebuilding their lives with dignity. The question that remains is whether the world will finally allow them that chance.
Crimes Against Humanity
Israel’s Airstrikes on Gaza Reveal the Fragility of Truce
Published
2 days agoon
November 3, 2025
When a fragile truce was declared a few days ago, a brief wave of hope washed over Gaza. Families thought they might finally rebuild their shattered homes, search for missing relatives, and sleep without the thunder of jets. However, within days, Israeli warplanes were once again striking the besieged strip. The so-called ceasefire, brokered with international backing, proved to be another chapter in a series of broken promises and shattered faith.
Israel claimed its latest strikes were a “response” to alleged violations by Hamas. Yet, on the ground, the victims were overwhelmingly civilians. Gaza’s health authorities confirmed more than a hundred people killed in the first hours of renewed bombardment. Most of them are women and children. Hospitals, already operating on the brink of collapse, struggled to treat the flood of casualties amid power shortages and dwindling medical supplies.
The truce, meant to bring calm, instead became a cruel illusion. The hum of drones returned, the fear crept back, and families once again fled for survival through rubble-strewn streets. International media outlets described scenes of panic as people searched for shelter, knowing there was none.
Bombardment Under a Banner of Peace
Each new airstrike tears away the thin veil of diplomacy that labels this as a truce. Residential blocks in Khan Younis and Gaza City were flattened, as eyewitnesses described entire families buried under rubble. Aid convoys waiting at Rafah were delayed yet again, leaving tens of thousands of displaced families without food or shelter. Even temporary medical camps reported running out of anesthesia and blood supplies as wounded civilians poured in.
For many Gazans, this ceasefire was never about peace. It was a pause for breath, which means the one that Israel chose to weaponize. As one humanitarian worker told, “Every time they say peace, we prepare for more funerals.” The despair among civilians is palpable, as they question whether the world even listens anymore.
This renewed round of bombings underlines a haunting reality that every so-called truce has become another opportunity for Israel to reposition militarily while Gaza’s people pay with their lives.
Truce Without Trust: The Myth of Protection
The fragility of the ceasefire exposes an uncomfortable truth that there is no enforcement mechanism strong enough to hold Israel accountable. Western governments condemned the bombing with soft statements but continued supplying military aid. The United States, which once called for restraint, quietly approved another arms shipment days before the strikes resumed.
This moral contradiction fuels Gaza’s anguish. Washington preaches human rights yet funds the very machinery that violates them. The European Union speaks of international law but rarely acts when those laws are broken. For ordinary Palestinians, the message is clear that their lives are negotiable, their suffering expendable in geopolitical bargains.
Human rights analysts argue that without credible monitoring, ceasefires will remain political performances rather than pathways to peace. As one UN official said, “If a truce allows bombing to continue, it is not a truce but just a theater.”
The Humanitarian Fallout: Life Amid Rubble
The humanitarian picture is grim. The United Nations estimates over 1.7 million Gazans are internally displaced, living in makeshift tents, classrooms, or under broken walls. Clean water remains scarce, fuel is nearly exhausted, and disease spreads faster than aid. Children draw pictures of bombs instead of butterflies while mothers ration bread to feed hungry infants.
Entire neighborhoods lie in ruins while their residents wait for food deliveries that rarely arrive. The World Food Programme reports that over 90% of Gaza’s population faces acute food insecurity. Hospitals are short on insulin, cancer medicine, and even basic painkillers. In some areas, people boil seawater to drink. Aid agencies have warned that if the siege continues, famine could arrive before winter.
Yet trucks full of aid remain parked just across the border, which is a cruel reminder of political paralysis and global indifference.
Legal and Moral Accountability
Under international law, targeting civilians during a ceasefire violates the Geneva Conventions. Still, Israel acts with impunity, shielded by its Western allies. Human rights groups have repeatedly called for independent investigations, but efforts stall at the UN due to American vetoes. The International Criminal Court’s pending case on alleged war crimes in Gaza remains stalled by diplomatic pressure.
For the people of Gaza, these violations are not abstract. They are lived experiences with the sound of collapsing roofs, the dust in the lungs, the endless funerals of neighbors and friends. Each airstrike deepens a collective trauma that future generations will inherit.
International experts now warn that without accountability, the world risks normalizing war crimes. As Amnesty International stated, “A ceasefire without justice is a countdown to the next tragedy.”
What Lies Ahead
As diplomats gather to discuss the next phase of Gaza’s future, the ground reality remains unchanged. The truce is more fragile than ever, and the people it was meant to protect are once again paying the price. Unless the international community enforces accountability and demands a genuine end to hostilities, this cycle will repeat.
A ceasefire should mean safety, not survival between strikes. For Gaza’s people, peace cannot come from pauses in bombing, but it must come from the world’s moral awakening to their right to live, rebuild, and breathe free. The global community must decide whether it stands for human life or for silence in the face of genocide.
Gaza’s skyline has vanished under intense smoke, while its streets, once filled with life, now echo with silence and grief. Amid this devastation, Israel has chosen to open another front, and this time not with missiles, but with geography. The Knesset, Israel’s parliament, has recently advanced two bills that aim to formally annex large parts of the occupied West Bank. It is an act of political conquest, while on the other hand, Gaza’s children are buried under rubble.
This is not a coincidence but a continuity. As Gaza suffers from genocide, Israel is redrawing borders to make that erasure permanent.
A Legislative Land Grab
Recently, Israel’s parliament approved the first readings of two annexation bills. The first extends Israeli civil law to all West Bank settlements, which is a territory occupied since 1967 and recognized internationally as Palestinian land. When it comes to the second bill, it targets Ma’ale Adumim, a massive settlement east of Jerusalem that splits the West Bank in half, severing its north from its south.
Although the votes were close, with one passing 25–24 and the other 31–9, their meaning was profound. As per the reports, both bills were introduced while U.S. Vice President JD Vance was visiting Israel, symbolizing open defiance of Washington’s diplomacy. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hesitated to endorse them publicly, but pressure from his far-right allies, led by Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, is relentless. Their ideology is clear: no Palestine, no partition, and hence no peace.
Gaza’s Agony: A Genocide in Real Time
While politicians in Jerusalem debate annexation, Gaza’s population fights to survive. The UN Commission of Inquiry has declared Israel’s actions in Gaza a genocide, which is a deliberate, systematic, and aimed effort at destroying a people. Till now, more than 67,000 Palestinians have died. Thousands have been displaced, and entire neighborhoods lie flattened. Hospitals function without power while aid convoys are bombed before reaching the hungry.
The International Court of Justice ordered Israel in January 2024 to prevent acts of genocide and ensure humanitarian access. None of those orders was respected. Moreover, the siege tightened, and starvation was made a weapon. Against this backdrop, annexation of the West Bank reads not as policy, but as a strategy that seems to be the second half of a single campaign to erase Palestine from existence.
Illegality Beyond Dispute
When International Law is brought into the limelight, Israel’s annexation efforts are null and void. Even the ICJ’s 2024 advisory opinion confirmed that Israel’s occupation and settlement expansion violate the Fourth Geneva Convention. The United Nations has repeatedly reaffirmed that any attempt to acquire land by force is illegal. States are required not to recognize or assist such measures.
Yet, Israel continues to act with impunity. Roads, checkpoints, and segregated zones have already turned the West Bank into an archipelago of isolated enclaves. The annexation of Ma’ale Adumim would cement that reality, rendering a future Palestinian state geographically impossible. As it was observed,
“Israel no longer hides its intent, and the map of occupation is clearly being turned into a map of sovereignty.”
Washington’s response has been familiar: sharp words, soft hands. Vice President Vance called the Knesset vote an “insult,” with a warning that it endangered the fragile Gaza ceasefire framework. Yet, U.S. military aid, which is nearly $3.8 billion annually, continues without condition. American arms still supply Israeli jets, and U.S. vetoes still block UN resolutions calling for accountability.
This pattern of contradiction has defined U.S.-Israel relations for decades, including public condemnation and private protection. Israel acts knowing that Washington’s rebukes will never reach the language of sanctions. It is diplomacy without deterrence, and therefore, carte blanche.
The Ceasefire Framework
As Gaza starves, diplomats continue to negotiate the truce. According to reports, the ceasefire plan includes a phased release of Israeli hostages, the freeing of about 2,000 Palestinian prisoners, and gradual Israeli troop withdrawals from urban centers. However, each new bulldozer digging into West Bank soil makes these efforts meaningless.
How can peace talks survive when one side expands the very occupation at their root? How can trust grow when homes are demolished under the shadow of negotiation tents? Consequently, the annexation vote mocks every word written in ceasefire communiqués.
What Lies Ahead
Inside Israel, Netanyahu faces a dangerous balancing act. His far-right allies threaten to topple his coalition if he slows annexation. Western allies warn of isolation if he proceeds. The prime minister’s hesitation is tactical, not moral. Whether annexation happens now or later, the machinery of occupation keeps grinding forward.
Internationally, legal pressure is rising but somehow easing, especially after the announcement of the so-called “truce”. The UN Human Rights Council urges accountability, while the European governments debate sanctions against settlers and arms-export suspensions. However, power still shields Israel from the consequences of law. The ICJ’s rulings carry moral weight, yet enforcement remains elusive. Until action matches outrage, international law will remain a promise unfulfilled.
Annexation during genocide is the moment when the world’s excuses run out. Law, morality, and history converge here. If the international community turns away again, the phrase “never again” will lose its meaning forever. And in the dust of Gaza and the stones of the West Bank, humanity itself will stand accused.
Trending
-
Featured2 years agoWorld passively watching as Israel perpetrates open-ended massacre in Gaza
-
Featured3 years agoArgentina wins the World Cup; are there any other winners?
-
Featured2 years agoIsrael is Hiding Crucial Demographic Facts About Palestinians
-
Featured4 years agoHistory of the Ottoman Empire
-
Featured3 years agoChristian militia infiltrate Lebanon
-
Featured5 years ago“Do Not Waste Water Even If You Were at a Running Stream” Prophet Muhammad
-
Featured2 years agoMuhammed: The Greatest Man to walk on Earth
-
Featured3 years agoWorld Leaders Remain Silent Over Human Rights Violations in the UAE
