We stand firmly against injustice in all its forms. Nothing can justify the current war crimes committed by Israel in occupied Palestine. Equally, nothing can excuse the continued support offered by other nations to this apartheid regime. If you believe in human rights, dignity, and justice, then we urge you to boycott this rogue state. Silence is complicity, do what’s right.
Mourners attend the funeral of Palestinian journalist Mohammed Abu Hattab, who was killed in an Israeli strike, in Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip, November 3, 2023. REUTERS/Mohammed Salem – RC2I54ATCC1L
To the brave journalists of Gaza, we owe you more than words can express. Your courage, resilience, and unwavering commitment to the truth have been a beacon of light in a time of unimaginable darkness.
Thank you for telling the world the real story of the Gaza genocide. You have given a voice to the voiceless, shining a spotlight on the horrors of war and exposing the devastating toll of violence on innocent lives.
Thank you for your bravery in reporting from the most dangerous zones. While bombs fell and destruction raged around you, you stood firm, risking your lives to ensure the truth reached the world.
Thank you for exposing the true, inhumane face of the enemy. Your work has dismantled the propaganda, showing the global community the stark reality of apartheid and genocide in Gaza.
Thank you for showing the suffering of Gaza’s civilians. Through your lenses and words, the world has witnessed the agony of families torn apart, children orphaned, and entire neighborhoods reduced to rubble.
Thank you for documenting the genocide for justice. Your relentless documentation will serve as critical evidence for the International Criminal Court, bringing accountability closer for war criminals like Netanyahu and Galant.
Thank you for highlighting the heroism of Gaza’s medical workers. You captured the courage of doctors and nurses who worked tirelessly under relentless bombardment, risking their lives to save others.
Thank you for exposing the cruelty of Israeli settlers. You showed the world the settlers blocking aid trucks, starving 2.5 million Palestinians, and destroying food meant for the besieged.
Thank you for sharing your personal stories from tents. You humanized the suffering, reminding the world that behind every number is a life, a family, a dream.
Thank you for exposing the lies about hospitals and UN schools. Your reporting uncovered the enemy’s fabrications, proving that even spaces of healing and refuge were not spared from their brutality.
Thank you for documenting 470 days of the most televised genocide in history. Your work has awakened global consciousness, ensuring these atrocities will never be forgotten.
Thank you for awakening the world to Zionist crimes. Your truth-telling has galvanized movements, strengthened the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) campaign, and amplified global solidarity for Palestine.
Thank you for showing the suffering of Gaza’s animals. From donkeys to cats, your empathy extended to all living beings enduring this war, revealing the depth of destruction.
Thank you for calling out pseudo-journalists. You exposed the bias and complicity of media figures like Piers Morgan and broadcasters like BBC and CNN, forcing the world to confront their role in perpetuating injustice.
Thank you for highlighting the resilience of Gaza’s people. You captured their defiance, their insistence on living, and their unwavering determination to remain on their land despite genocidal plans.
Thank you for exposing Western hypocrisy and complicity. You laid bare the silence and double standards of governments claiming to champion human rights while enabling oppression.
Thank you for uniting the people of Palestine. Through your work, you have strengthened their resolve and reminded the world of their unbreakable spirit.
To the journalists of Gaza, you are not just reporters—you are truth-tellers, justice-seekers, and defenders of humanity. Your courage has inspired millions and will continue to shape the fight for liberation and justice. Thank you for your humanity in the face of unimaginable brutality.
You have given hope to the oppressed and a voice to the silenced. History will remember your heroism.
This audit examines how elite philanthropy, wealthy individuals, family foundations, and corporate sponsors has been used to build and protect pro-Israel infrastructures in universities, museums, and public culture, and to punish or deter speech that centres Palestinian rights. It identifies specific donors, organisations, and institutions, and shows how their money has been used to shape what can and cannot be said about Palestine, especially after 1967 and during the Gaza genocide.
From 1948 onward, diaspora fundraising structures functioned as political infrastructure, not charity. Established channels such as the Jewish National Fund (KKL-JNF) and allied fundraising bodies mobilised donor money for land and state-building projects that directly intersected with dispossession and permanent demographic engineering after 1948, while Palestinian refugees were pushed into long-term dependency on relief. JNF’s own institutional history describes its land-acquisition mission and its reliance on global fundraising, embedding philanthropic money into territorial outcomes rather than neutral relief.
By the 1950s, financial instruments were also built to internationalise state support. Israel Bonds, launched in 1951 via the Development Corporation for Israel, institutionalised a diaspora investment pipeline framed as development but functionally tied to underwriting state capacity during years when refugee return and restitution were denied. The point for this audit is mechanism: philanthropy and quasi-philanthropy were structured early as durable, transnational support systems for a state project, while Palestinian narrative and legal claims were treated as a reputational threat to be managed.
From the late 1960s onward, US and European donors increasingly treated support for Israel as a core part of their philanthropic identity. By the 1990s, this was institutionalised into a dense ecosystem of foundations, campus coalitions, trips, think tanks, and legal NGOs whose explicit mandate was to strengthen attachment to Israel and counter Palestinian narratives. The Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Philanthropies are a central pillar of this system. On their own site they describe a strategic portfolio for Israel education and engagement and campus ecosystem investment, including support for organisations such as Hillel and the Israel on Campus Coalition, designed to expand pro-Israel programming capacity inside universities. AEN, fiscally sponsored through allied campus infrastructure, defines its mission around mobilising faculty and administrators to counter what it frames as delegitimisation of Zionism and Israel. In practice, this means a donor-funded network inside universities that treats sharp criticism of Zionism and the Israeli state as a problem to be managed, not an academic position to be debated.
The Adelson family’s philanthropy illustrates how this works on the level of political socialisation. Through the Adelson Family Foundation they have been described across multiple investigations and organisational materials as a dominant funder of Birthright Israel, donating at very large scale to expand free trips designed to foster emotional attachment to Israel among young Jewish adults. Hillel and allied organisations describe how such funding enabled campus-facing Israel programming through fellows and sponsored activities across dozens of universities. This is not neutral cultural exchange. It is state-aligned narrative delivery under the banner of philanthropy, aimed at future professional and political strata.
The Adam and Gila Milstein Family Foundation is explicit about political intent. Its published materials frame its grantmaking around combating what it defines as anti-Israel activity on campuses and list grantees that include organisations engaged in naming, shaming, and litigation strategies against Palestine advocacy, including the Lawfare Project and StopAntisemitism-linked campaigning. This is philanthropy used not to broaden debate but to police the boundary of permissible speech, with complaints, pressure campaigns, and legal threats functioning as the enforcement layer.
Alongside positive programming came a project to redefine antisemitism in ways that serve state interests. Israel-aligned advocacy groups, often supported by the same donors, promoted a new antisemitism framework that shifts institutional focus from hatred of Jews as Jews to robust criticism of Israel and Zionism. They successfully pushed the IHRA working definition of antisemitism, with examples that include certain Israel-focused speech, into universities, city councils, and cultural bodies, then used it operationally through complaints, investigations, and funding pressure. The mechanism is not abstract: donor-funded networks provide the template language, train administrators, fund “campus climate” apparatus, and then trigger enforcement against staff and students who name apartheid, settler colonialism, or genocide, even while those terms appear in reports by major human rights organisations and UN mechanisms.
The capture becomes most visible when donors move from funding to punishment. After 7 October 2023, the Gaza genocide triggered the largest wave of campus Palestine solidarity in US history. It also triggered open donor revolt. At Harvard, major donors publicly escalated pressure, and the Wexner Foundation ended its relationship with Harvard Kennedy School in October 2023, explicitly linking the break to Harvard’s response. This is a textbook donor sanction: withdrawal of institutional money to force political discipline. The donor pressure environment was widely reported as a central factor in governance instability during 2023–2024, making clear that Palestine is treated as a trigger issue where donors intervene directly in university administration and public positioning.
At other elite universities the pattern was similar. Columbia University faced sustained donor and political pressure during Gaza protests, and US university administrations repeatedly cited donor relations and reputational risk while deciding on policing, suspensions, and expulsions. The audit point is mechanism: philanthropic dependency converts universities into compliance institutions, where administrators pre-emptively narrow speech to protect funding, then present the outcome as neutral governance.
Blacklist operations take philanthropy-driven narrative control to a punitive, personalised level. Canary Mission compiles dossiers on students, academics, and activists and publishes them online, branding targets as antisemites or terrorist sympathisers for involvement in pro-Palestine organising. StopAntisemitism-style campaigns operate similarly by targeting individuals and pressuring employers. These projects do not merely “criticise”. They create long-tail professional harm through searchable reputational tagging, employer intimidation, and institutional risk escalation, producing predictable self-censorship. The audit finding is not that donors alone run these operations, but that donor ecosystems fund, legitimise, and amplify them, while universities and employers treat the resulting smear output as actionable “risk information.”
In the arts and museum sector, donor capture operates through sponsorships and trustee roles that come with unspoken red lines. The Zabludowicz Art Trust and its co-founded Outset Contemporary Art Fund, linked to Poju and Anita Zabludowicz, have long been major funders and partners of London’s Tate galleries. In late 2024, large numbers of artists and art workers signed open letters urging Tate to cut ties with these bodies, arguing that donor relationships were functioning as artwashing and reputational shielding during Gaza’s destruction. Whether an institution accepts that characterisation is not the audit question. The audit question is leverage: major institutions became structurally dependent on sponsors whose political associations made full Palestinian truth-telling institutionally costly.
The broader UK arts world has seen similar conflicts. In 2024, Baillie Gifford faced sustained public pressure and withdrawals connected to sponsorship and investment concerns, leading multiple festivals to sever relationships. The practical lesson is simple: donors can shape cultural programming by attaching money to reputational conditions, and institutions frequently respond by avoiding “high-risk” Palestine speech rather than protecting it.
Germany provides a concentrated example of donor-state-cultural convergence. Since 2019, the Bundestag’s BDS resolution has operated as an institutional permission slip for venue denial and funding withdrawal, and German cultural bodies repeatedly cancelled events and talks involving artists and scholars who expressed support for Palestinian rights, citing antisemitism allegations and funding risk. This is not philanthropy alone, but philanthropy strengthens it by financing the complaint infrastructure and by signalling that funding will follow “safe” compliance, while dissent risks institutional punishment.
After 7 October 2023, the repression layer intensified across borders through policing and administrative powers. Entry denials, event cancellations, and investigation threats targeted speakers and witnesses whose value was evidentiary. Al Jazeera’s 2017 investigation into the UK Lobby recorded an Israeli embassy official discussing plans to “take down” a UK minister viewed as critical of settlements, followed by official fallout, showing that diplomatic-political influence and narrative enforcement operate in tandem with the wider ecosystem that donors help underwrite.
All of this sits on top of subtler forms of capture inside universities and cultural bodies. Philanthropic money builds Israel Studies chairs, sponsors dialogue centres, and funds trips and fellowships tied to frameworks that depoliticise occupation and erase the language of settler colonialism and apartheid. Foundations are often willing to support Palestinian or Arab projects when framed as coexistence or conflict management; when scholars or artists insist on naming perpetrators, mechanisms, and legal categories, access to grants, venues, and publication becomes materially harder.
Digital platforms became an enforcement multiplier during 2023–2026 because Gaza evidence was produced under siege while foreign journalists faced access restrictions. Human Rights Watch documented patterns of suppression on Meta platforms affecting Palestinian content, and major reporting summarised the scale and repeatability of these censorship patterns during the war. The audit mechanism is evidentiary: suppress the documentation stream, then claim the record is insufficient.
For Palestinians and their allies, the harms are concrete. Students and academics risk blacklisting, career damage, and immigration consequences when they speak plainly about Israeli crimes because donor-funded watchdogs and lawfare groups build dossiers and pressure institutions to punish them. Universities warp academic freedom around donor sensitivities, disciplining and cancelling Palestine solidarity while accepting philanthropically funded infrastructures whose explicit aim is to counter criticism of Israel. Museums and festivals that depend on donors tied to Israel’s military and economic project become reluctant to platform Palestinian narratives or to acknowledge apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and genocide for fear of losing funding and facing hostile media campaigns.
This audit does not claim that all Jewish or Israeli-related philanthropy is malign, nor that Palestinians are never funded. It shows something more specific: across 1948–2026, an overlapping network of donors, foundations, and sponsor-driven cultural governance repeatedly converted money into narrative boundaries. Where Palestinian rights advocacy threatened the legitimacy of dispossession, occupation, apartheid, or genocidal conduct, philanthropic leverage was used to shape curricula, punish speakers, police institutions, and manufacture professional risk. The actors are named, the mechanisms are operational, and the consequences are measurable. Under the cover of generosity and support for education and culture, philanthropy has repeatedly functioned as a weapon of narrative control, protecting a regime of occupation, apartheid, and genocide from the full force of honest description.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is one of the most powerful lobbying organizations in the United States, known for its unwavering support of Israel and its influence on American politics. Founded in 1951, AIPAC’s stated mission is to strengthen, protect, and promote the U.S.-Israel relationship. While it has achieved significant success in shaping U.S. foreign policy in favor of Israel, AIPAC’s role in American politics has sparked intense debate, with critics arguing that its influence undermines U.S. sovereignty and distorts democratic processes.
The Reach of AIPAC
AIPAC’s power lies in its ability to mobilize resources, influence legislation, and shape public opinion. The organization works tirelessly to lobby members of Congress, regardless of party affiliation, ensuring broad bipartisan support for policies that align with its goals. It hosts an annual policy conference that draws thousands of attendees, including prominent politicians, business leaders, and activists. This event often serves as a platform for showcasing unwavering U.S. commitment to Israel despite holding apartheid status.
AIPAC also channels significant financial support to political campaigns through affiliated Political Action Committees (PACs) and donor networks. While AIPAC itself does not directly donate to candidates, its recommendations and endorsements carry considerable weight, influencing the flow of campaign contributions from pro-Israel donors.
Legislative Influence
AIPAC has successfully advocated for legislation that strengthens U.S.-Israel ties, including military aid packages, defense cooperation agreements, and trade partnerships. For instance, it played a pivotal role in securing the 2016 Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. and Israel, which committed $38 billion in military aid over ten years. AIPAC has also been instrumental in shaping U.S. policy toward the Middle East, particularly in countering perceived threats from Iran as they did with Iraq which resulted in a distastrous western war against the Iraqis for unfounded claims.m and led to the slaughter of more than million Iraqis.
AIPAC’s illegal influence as a foreign organisation extends beyond fostering bilateral relations. They contend that the organisation threatens and bullies the lawmakers to adopt policies that do not align with broader U.S. interests. For example, AIPAC has been a vocal opponent of the Iran nuclear deal, lobbying Congress to impose stricter sanctions and take a hardline stance that some believe could escalate tensions in the region. It also strongly supports the ongoing genocide and starvation that Israel is still carrying out in Gaza and Lebanon.
Controversies and Criticism
AIPAC’s shameless interference in American politics has not been without controversy. Critics from across the political spectrum have raised concerns about the organisation influence on U.S. foreign policy. It’s obvious that AIPAC’s lobbying efforts prioritise Israeli interests over American ones, undermining the principle of an independent U.S. foreign policy to serve far right Israeli interests and Israeli terrorist settlers.
AIPAC has also faced allegations of stifling debate on U.S.-Israel relations. Politicians and public figures who voice criticism of Israeli policies risk being labeled as anti-Semitic, creating a chilling effect on open discourse and discussion which limits freedom of specach and this is considered to be against the American constitution. This dirty game was highlighted in high-profile cases involving members of Congress who challenged AIPAC’s agenda and faced significant political backlash.
The debate over AIPAC’s influence reflects broader concerns about the role of lobbying in American politics. Critics argue that AIPAC exemplifies how well-funded interest groups can disproportionately shape policy, often at the expense of broader public opinion. to serve an apartheid entity that has been oppressing the indigenous people of Palestine for decades.
The question of how to balance lobbying influence with democratic accountability remains central to the discussion about AIPAC’s role in American politics. Transparency and open debate are essential to ensure that U.S. policies serve the national interest while respecting the diverse perspectives of its citizens. AIPAC support of illegal Israeli occupation should be condemned and banned.
As AIPAC continues to wield significant power, its illegal activities will likely remain a focal point in discussions about the intersection of foreign policy, lobbying , and ‘democracy’ in the United States.
Under Israeli military occupation, Palestinian women are not passive victims—they are central figures in the survival, resistance, and resilience of their communities. Though often overlooked in global discourse, their roles as mothers, educators, caregivers, and community organizers are indispensable to Palestinian life. Women carry the weight of daily displacement, economic hardship, and emotional trauma while simultaneously preserving culture, identity, and hope.
In the West Bank and Gaza, women navigate checkpoints, curfews, and military raids not as individuals, but as the guardians of families and communities. Many women are the sole breadwinners, managing small businesses, running schools, or working in hospitals—all while balancing the demands of caregiving and raising children under constant threat.
Women also serve as the moral and emotional anchors of their families and neighborhoods. In the face of violence and displacement, they organize support networks, host community kitchens, and teach children resilience through storytelling and song. Their strength is often quiet but profound. They are the ones who hold the community together — not through protest alone, but through daily acts of dignity, love, and survival.
In addition, Palestinian women are active participants in the political and social resistance. From organizing demonstrations to documenting human rights abuses, they challenge the narratives of occupation and assert their right to self-determination. Their voices are powerful, even when marginalized by global media or international institutions.
Yet, the role of women is not without its costs. Many suffer from chronic stress, anxiety, and grief. They are often denied access to education, healthcare, and employment due to occupation policies and systemic discrimination. The psychological toll is compounded by the loss of loved ones, the destruction of homes, and the inability to visit family members across checkpoints.
Despite these challenges, Palestinian women remain the heart of their societies. They are the architects of resilience, the keepers of memory, and the leaders of tomorrow’s resistance. In a world that often reduces them to “victims.
A sign featuring a quotation by Malcolm X is pictured during a sit-down protest by pro-Palestinian activists inside Charing Cross railway station to call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza on 4th November 2023 in London, United Kingdom. Mass Palestinian solidarity rallies have been held throughout the UK for a fourth consecutive weekend to call for an end to the Israeli bombardment of Gaza. (photo by Mark Kerrison/In Pictures via Getty Images)
In conflicts and occupations throughout history, a recurring strategy employed by aggressors is to portray themselves as victims while wielding power over those they subjugate. This tactic not only misleads the public but also creates an environment where oppressors can justify their harmful actions. By presenting themselves as vulnerable or under threat, they seek to gain sympathy and deflect scrutiny from their own injustices.
The Power of False Victimhood
The strategy of playing the victim taps into the innate human capacity for empathy. When perpetrators of violence or oppression position themselves as victims, they manipulate public sentiment, redirecting attention away from their own acts of aggression. This carefully constructed image serves to confuse the narrative and obscure the reality of who holds power and responsibility in a conflict.
In some cases, occupying forces claim self-defense as a justification for enacting policies that perpetuate suffering, dispossession, and human rights violations. This narrative creates a paradox: those with overwhelming power present themselves as besieged and under threat, even as they implement measures that suppress and harm vulnerable populations. By adopting this posture, they attempt to delegitimize the grievances of the true victims and stifle international and domestic critique.
Methods of Intimidation and Control
Maintaining the illusion of victimhood often involves a multifaceted approach that includes direct and indirect forms of intimidation against genuine victims. These methods aim to silence, discredit, and weaken the oppressed, ensuring that their stories remain unheard. Key tactics include:
1. Harassment and Threats: Those who attempt to speak out against the aggressors often face targeted harassment, surveillance, or explicit threats. This climate of fear discourages activism and isolates individuals, preventing them from sharing their experiences or building solidarity.
2. Propaganda and Disinformation: Control of media and information channels allows oppressors to flood public discourse with misleading narratives. By amplifying false claims, omitting key details, and emphasizing isolated incidents that support their narrative, they manipulate public perception. This tactic shifts blame and casts doubt on the legitimacy of the victims’ plight.
3. Weaponizing Legal Systems: Using laws as tools of oppression, aggressors may initiate baseless legal actions, impose arbitrary restrictions, or enforce punitive regulations. These measures serve to criminalize dissent, sap resources, and intimidate those who resist, further entrenching the imbalance of power.
4. Economic and Social Marginalization: By restricting access to vital resources and opportunities, aggressors create conditions that make it difficult for affected populations to challenge the status quo. Economic deprivation and social exclusion erode community resilience, making it harder for victims to organize or seek justice.
The Consequences of Deception
The portrayal of aggressors as victims has far-reaching implications. It allows them to rationalize ongoing violence, erodes trust in genuine human rights advocacy, and polarizes public opinion. This cycle of manipulation not only deepens the suffering of oppressed communities but also destabilizes efforts toward peace and justice.
Moreover, by undermining the credibility of victims and displacing accountability, these deceptive practices contribute to a culture where violence is normalized and impunity prevails. The narrative of false victimhood diminishes the visibility of those who endure daily hardships and silences calls for meaningful change.
The Path Forward: Promoting Awareness and Accountability
Breaking this cycle of deception requires a concerted effort by the international community, media, and civil society to critically analyze claims of victimhood and hold oppressors accountable. Independent investigations, robust journalism, and platforms that amplify the voices of those affected are essential tools for countering manipulative narratives.
Promoting awareness means educating audiences about the tactics used to deceive public opinion and teaching them to discern between genuine claims and orchestrated portrayals. Building an informed and empathetic global community helps expose these deceptive practices and supports movements for justice and peace.
Ultimately, dismantling the facade of false victimhood is crucial to ensuring that the stories of those who suffer under oppression are heard, acknowledged, and addressed. Only by recognizing these strategies for what they are can we challenge the structures that perpetuate harm and work toward a future rooted in truth and accountability.
Remarkable and historic speeches from both Palestinian co-director Basel Adra and Israeli co-director Yuval Abraham, after their film ‘No Other Land’ won the Oscar for Best Documentary.
MEHDI HASAN, MAR 03, 2025
Source: zeteo.com
Hollywood has been cracking down on pro-Palestine voices since Oct. 7th, 2023, from the firing of Melissa Barrera from ‘Scream 7’, to the demotion of CAA power agent Maha Dakhil, to Susan Sarandon saying her “projects were pulled.”
It was, therefore, a rather pleasant surprise to see the most elite Hollywood audience of all – the crowd at the 97th Academy Awards ceremony at the Dolby Theater on Sunday evening – loudly applauding and cheering a Palestinian onstage, in primetime, as he decried the “ethnic cleansing” of his people and the “atrocious destruction of Gaza.”
Basel Adra is the Palestinian co-director of ‘No Other Land,’ which won the Oscar for Best Documentary on Sunday. The film was made by a Palestinian-Israeli collective of four activists – Adra, Hamdan Ballal, Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor – and tells the story of the destruction of Masafer Yatta, in the occupied West Bank, by the Israeli military. The title, ‘No Other Land,’ comes from a woman in the film who asks where else the Palestinians of the West Bank are supposed to go.
Abraham, in his acceptance speech, not only highlighted the “ethnic supremacy” instituted by his country in the Occupied Palestinian Territories but also challenged the destructive role of the United States: “I have to say, as I am here, the foreign policy in this country is helping to block this path [to peace].”
Got that? Not only did a film about occupied and persecuted Palestinians win an Oscar, but the great and the good of Hollywood put their hands together for two speeches slamming “ethnic cleansing” and “ethnic supremacy” in Palestine. To quote the title of a previous Oscar winner’s best song: Times Have Changed.
Nevertheless, they haven’t changed enough. As the New York Times noted on Sunday night, the film’s Oscar win represents “a landmark and a rebuke. Despite a string of honors and rave reviews, no distributor would pick up this film in the United States, making it nearly impossible for American filmgoers to see it in theaters or to stream it.”
As I have said many times before, the biggest victims of so-called ‘cancel culture’ in the US remain the Palestinian people and their supporters. The shameful treatment of ‘No Other Land’ by the big distributors in our movie industry is just the latest and best example of that.
So let us do our best to make sure Adra and Abraham’s powerful and historic speeches go far and wide. You can watch and read them in full below.
BASEL ADRA
“Thank you to the Academy for the award. It’s such a big honor for the four of us and everybody who supported us for this documentary. About two months ago, I became a father, and my hope to my daughter is that she will not have to live the same life I am living now, always fearing violence, home demolitions, forced displacement that my community, Masafer Yatta, is facing every day. ‘No Other Land’ reflects the harsh reality we have been enduring for decades and still resist as we call on the world to take serious actions to stop the injustice and to stop the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian people.”
YUVAL ABRAHAM
“We made this film, Palestinians and Israelis, because together our voices are stronger. We see each other. The atrocious destruction of Gaza and its people, which must end; the Israeli hostages brutally taken in the crime of Oct. 7, which must be freed. When I look at Basel, I see my brother. But we are unequal. We live in a regime where I am free under civilian law and Basel is under military laws, that destroy lives, that he cannot control. There is a different path, a political solution without ethnic supremacy, with national rights for both of our people. And I have to say, as I am here, the foreign policy in this country is helping to block this path. Why? Can’t you see that we are intertwined? That my people can be truly safe if Basel’s people are truly free and safe? There is another way. It’s not too late for life, for the living.”
You're afflicted, like me, with a bird's journey and this happens in the afternoon, when you say: Take me to the river you foreign man, to the river take me my road upon your banks is long And we listen to what pedestrians say on the bridge:
"I have other things to do"
"I have a place on the ship"
"I have a share in life"
"And as for me, I must catch the subway I am late for memories and for the saxophone lesson, and my night is short"
We listen to what hidden longing for a mysterious street is in us: I have my life over there my life that caravans made then went on their way, and here I have my life as my bread's worth and my questions about a destiny a passing present tortures, and I have a beautiful chaotic tomorrow
Echo for echo: who of us said those words, me or the foreign woman? No one can return to another. Eternity performs its manual chores out of our lives then thrives ..
So let love be an unknown, and the unknown a kind of love. How strange to believe this and still love! Because
Zionism, an intricate racist ideology deeply rooted in Jewish nationalism and the aspiration for a homeland in Palestine, stands as a focal point and where historical narratives, religious convictions, and contemporary geopolitics converge. It is like a curse of fate upon the Palestinians who have been suffering a lot from this brutal ideology which caused a lot of destruction to Palestinians and to the whole region of Middle East. It turned the Middle East into a hotbed of violence. Imagine how beautiful the Middle East would be without the ideology of Zionism, the right hand and extension of western colonialism. Yet, beneath its surface lies a contradiction regarding its alignment with liberal principles and its broader societal and political ramifications.
Theodor Herzl, an Austrian journalist, played a pivotal role in transforming Zionism into a political movement, advocating for the establishment of a Jewish national state in Palestine. However, critics, including philosopher Michael Marder, contend that a critical examination of Zionism is essential to address injustices perpetrated against its victims, encompassing both Palestinians and marginalized anti-Zionist Jews who have been sidelined in the mainstream narrative of Zionist history.
At its essence, Zionism represents a resurgence of nationalist fervor within Judaism, particularly evident with the establishment of the modern state of Israel, which came at the cost of the displacement of indigenous Palestinians and brutal killings and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians during its establishment in 1948. Central to Zionist ideology are notions of Jewish exceptionalism, the superstitious divine promise with the land of Israel, and a perceived conflict with non-Jewish entities. Some scholars view these beliefs as seeds of the bloody history of Zionism.
Zionism’s departure from Enlightenment ideals, such as individual liberty and the separation of church and state, in favor of a “racial philosophy of history” that positions Jews as a superior race. This departure from principles of equality and universalism raises fundamental questions about the compatibility of Zionism with liberal values. At its core, Zionism prioritizes group autonomy and privileges a specific ethnic/religious group over others, challenging the liberal principles of inclusivity and equality. Its compatibility with liberal principles remains doubtful and does not align with western values of liberalism.
The emphasis of Zionist ideology on Palestine reflects a nationalist narrative that challenges the universalist ethos of liberal human rights. Prioritizing national identity over individual rights undermines the foundational tenets of liberalism, perpetuating tensions between Zionist aspirations and liberal values. While some pro-Zionism express concerns about the erosion of democratic ideals, it is essential to recognize that the inherent tension between Zionism and liberalism predates the establishment of the state of Israel. This tension underscores the complexity of the relationship between Zionism and liberal values.
Finally, the discourse surrounding Zionism necessitates a nuanced examination of its historical context, philosophical foundations, and contemporary implications on Palestinian people who have been living under the brutal occupation of Zionist state for more than 75 years.
Background
On 22/12/23, the UN has passed a resolution to boost humanitarian aid to Gaza, following several delays over the last week as the United States lobbied to weaken the language regarding calls for a ceasefire. The resolution, which calls for steps “to create the conditions for a sustainable cessation of hostilities”, passed with 13 votes in favour, none against, and the US abstaining.
Hallowed halls of rhetoric and lies,
Linda, the envoy, wears a diplomatic guise.
American values, a hollow charade,
She condemns one side, a mockery displayed.
"Oh Linda," we sigh, sarcastic tone,
Selective empathy, the world has known.
UN podium, taking a stand,
Condemning Israeli woes, with a scripted hand.
Twenty thousand lost, Palestinian cries,
Sympathy for them, silence defies.
Are Israelis the sole recipients of grace?
Or do Palestinian lives not deserve a place?
Linda, the enigma, a monster in disguise,
Condemning one, while the other side cries.
Humanitarian values, a twisted masquerade,
In your selective condemnation parade.
So, let mockery echo loud and clear,
For hypocrisy displayed, drawing near.
In the dance of diplomacy, a dark ballet,
Linda, the question remains, which side do you betray?
Who would like to support and keep the apartheid regime ?
The Western governments seem to me to support Israel to slaughter the indigenous people of Palestine “from the river to the sea”. On the other hand they dare to quickly condemn protesters chanting “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” which literally aims to dismantle Israeli apartheid to creat one state for the Palestinians and Jews so they can live together peacefully with equal rights and responsibilities.
This is perhaps indicative to all that the word ‘justice’ in the dictionary of western governments doesn’t apply to all people equally , and I’d rather dare to say ‘enough messing with our intelligence and end your racist policies of double standards’.
South Africa is the best and humane example where all sovereign countries should follow and submit a genocide case against Israel to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for killing more than 22 thousand Palestinians and injuring around 60 thousands in Gaza in less than 3 months.
Will the ICJ be doing it’s job among the current ‘racist’ double standards? This is another and ultimate measure of the validity of international law and it’s failed institutions.
After the 75-year of miserable experience, Palestinians would like to say loudly and clearly ‘ENOUGH IS ENOUGH’.
