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.
The war Israel is waging on Gaza is a continuation of decades-long policies of ethnic cleansing, dispossession, and repression. Since October 7, 2023, this conflict has targeted civilians with unprecedented brutality—cutting off water, food, and medicine, bombing homes, schools, and hospitals, and forcing mass displacement. The scale and nature of the violence echo the atrocities of the past, revealing a systematic strategy to break Palestinian resistance, erase identity, and secure control over land and resources.
Israel pursues two interlinked objectives: an immediate demonstration of military might to restore its image of invincibility, and a long-term plan to finalize its dominance over Palestinians through extermination, Judaization, and displacement. This strategy is compounded by settlement expansion, ideological extremism, and normalization agreements with Arab states, ensuring permanent control over occupied territories.
The West has largely enabled this campaign. The United States, Europe, and other powers provide military, political, and diplomatic backing while portraying Palestinians as aggressors, ignoring their basic rights. This complicity extends to the framing of Israel’s genocide as “self-defense,” while humanitarian crises in Gaza are disregarded.
Despite the suffering, Palestinians continue to resist with steadfastness. To counter Israeli policies effectively, the Palestinian leadership and global allies must insist on an immediate ceasefire, ensure humanitarian aid, strengthen governance, define the liberation goals of a future Palestinian state, engage new international actors, and hold Israel accountable for the destruction of Gaza. Without these measures, the cycle of violence, displacement, and oppression will continue.
In late August 2025, the U.S. State Department revoked or denied visas for Mahmoud Abbas (President of the Palestinian Authority) and around 80 other Palestinian PLO/PA officials, preventing them from traveling to New York to attend the UN General Assembly.
The U.S. justification: these officials are supposedly failing to comply with commitments, undermining peace prospects, engaging in what U.S. calls “lawfare” (use of international legal bodies like the ICC/ICJ), pushing unilateral recognition of statehood, etc.
The Palestinian side argues that the U.S. visa denial violates the UN Headquarters Agreement (1947), under which the U.S. as host country of the UN must allow foreign diplomats representing UN member or observer states to access UN HQ for UN business.
The U.N. General Assembly responded by passing a resolution (145 in favour, 5 against, 6 abstentions) allowing Abbas to address the UNGA via video/pre-recorded statement due to visa issues.
There is an International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu in relation to alleged war crimes in Gaza. (This is from earlier reporting.)
Despite that warrant, Netanyahu continues to travel internationally, including plans to travel to the U.S. for UN / diplomatic events. These travels would, in theory, expose him to legal risk under the ICC decision—but in practice many states appear to be ignoring or refusing to enforce the warrant.
On one hand, a Palestinian leader who seeks to speak peacefully at the UN, to push for recognition of the Palestinian state, is blocked from entry. The reason given is partly because of diplomacy/legal activism (ICC, unilateral recognition, etc.).
On the other hand, an Israeli leader, and war criminal who killed more than 65000 Palestinians and using starvation as a weapon against the population and despite facing an ICC warrant (which is a serious international legal finding), faces comparatively little restriction in terms of travel by the U.S. and many other countries. Netanyahu can still travel, speak at international forums, meet with foreign leaders, without being arrested in jurisdictions that are signatories to the ICC (or at least without that being enforced).
This juxtaposition raises obvious concerns about double standards in how international law is applied, and how powerful states or well-allied but criminal leaders may be shielded from legal consequences that are enforced (or at least attempted) against weaker or less powerful actors.
Politically, powerful states often protect criminal allies or themselves via influence, via exceptions, or via fear from disclosure of certain embarrassing videos against politicians or by interpreting “immunity” in broad ways. Meanwhile, actors with less geopolitical clout find themselves subjected to stricter enforcement or barriers. This is a well-known corrupted pattern in international relations.
Denying visa to Abbas silences Palestinian leadership’s voice in a key international forum (the UN), even when that voice is seeking recognition, peace, or legal redress. Meanwhile, allowing a war criminal Israeli leader who faces serious allegations (ICC warrant) full access and diplomatic courtesies undermines the principle that no one is above law.
If ICC warrants are only selectively enforced (or ignored when inconvenient), and if treaties / host country obligations are selectively honored, then the credibility of international law suffers. This breeds cynicism and resentment, especially in places already suffering severe injustice.
In diplomacy, law, and human rights, perceptions matter. When one side is treated harshly for state-building efforts or legal activism, while the other is shielded despite their commitment of genocide , starvation , it reinforces the view that international order is biased toward the powerful.
If the U.S. can deny visas to one side’s leadership because they attempt to engage in lawfare or pursue state recognition, what stops similar denials or restrictions being used elsewhere, for other international causes? Similarly, if ICC arrest warrants are not enforced or are shrugged off when it’s a well-protected leader, that sets precedent that legal accountability depends less on the law and more on politics.
What legal mechanisms exist for compelling the U.S. (or any country) to abide by treaty obligations like the UN Headquarters Agreement, especially when denying visas to those who are observers or representatives?
Why don’t more states enforce ICC warrants uniformly, particularly for criminal leaders of powerful allies? What political pressures, alliances, or security/foreign policy considerations prevent enforcement?
Is there a coherent policy basis for denying Abbas a visa, while allowing war criminal Netanyahu travel, beyond rhetoric about “statehood recognition,” “lawfare,” or “security concerns”? Are these just pretexts to serve political alignment?
How much do moral or legal principles matter when weighed against geopolitical alliances? And what are the long-term consequences of letting legality bend to political convenience?
In summary, the case of Mahmoud Abbas being denied entry to the U.S. to address the UN, contrasted with war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu continuing to travel and act on the international stage despite an ICC arrest warrant, encapsulates a striking example of hypocrisy in international relations. It demonstrates how legal obligations, moral responsibilities, and human rights can be subordinated to political alliances and power dynamics.
It’s not just about one visa or one warrant. It’s about what the international order claims to be — and what it allows in practice. When rhetoric about justice, diplomacy, human rights, and international law is not matched by consistent application, it undermines the credibility of those very values.
(The night smells of smoke and dust. Handala, the eternal 10-year-old with his back turned to the world, stands among the ruins of Gaza. Across from him stands a suited figure: Prime Minister Netanyahu His tie is spotless, though his hands are not.)
Handala:
I’ve been standing here for decades, my back to you all, because none of you ever listen.
But tonight, I turn—just enough—to ask:
How many more children must you bury to save your career?
Netanyahu:
Career? I act for security, for my people’s safety.
The world is dangerous. My enemies are everywhere.
Handala:
Safety?
Is starving babies your definition of safety?
Is dropping bombs on hospitals your idea of morality?
You claim to defend life, yet you trade it for applause.
Netanyahu
These are tragic necessities.
Collateral damage.
The price of peace.
Handala:
Peace?
You kill mediators, bomb neighbours, starve and choke a population,
and call it peace?
Your words are porcelain—shiny on the outside,
full of filth beneath the lid.
Netanyahu
My army is the most moral in the world.
We warn before we strike.
We are forced to act.
Handala:
A moral army does not warn children before killing them—
it does not kill them at all.
You demolish homes, hospitals, schools, universities, UN shelters, dreams,then boast of virtue.
That is not morality.
That is war crime.
Netanyahu
The world understands my struggle.
They still shake my hand.
They still give me weapons.
Handala:
The world’s silence is not your innocence.
It is their complicity.
History does not forget—
it counts bones when leaders count votes.
Netanyahu
History is written by the strong.
Handala:
No.
History is carved by the dead.
Their names will stain your every page.
Children you starved will whisper through time
long after your podium crumbles.
(Handala steps closer, his small bare feet silent on the rubble. He keeps his back to the cameras, but his words pierce like shards of glass.)
Handala:
You bombed the mediators.
You shelled the shelters.
You fed hunger instead of hope.
And still you speak of morality.
Tell me, Prime Minister—
when the applause dies,
who will protect you from the ghosts of the children you buried?
(The leader opens his mouth but no words come. The silence of Gaza answers instead—
Background In December 1982, the United Nations General Assembly declared the Sabra and Shatila massacre an “’act of genocide”. The Phalange murdered pregnant women and ripped out their foetuses, according to witnesses and journalists.
Flares pierce the night’s dark shroud, Massacre’s horror, a silent crowd. Israeli troops, exits sealed, Residents trapped, fate revealed.
In ’83, MacBride’s blame laid bare, Israel’s shame, an occupying snare. Genocide’s specter, chilling decree, A nation’s stain, for the world to see.
Kahan’s verdict echoes, IOF’s role severe, Failure to halt, inaction sincere. Sharon resigned, consequence grave, Bloodshed ignored, a nation to save.
Welcome to the Filth Era, where the free world is ruled by His Supreme Bristleness, President Toilet Brush the Magnificent, Unbleached, and Self-Polished. A bathroom utensil with the ego of an entire septic system, the Brush commands not just nations, but every clogged corner of human dignity.
Each morning begins with the national anthem, “In Bristles We Trust,” broadcast live from the Presidential Bathroom. Citizens are required to salute with a toilet plunger while chanting the official slogan:
“Flush your doubts, praise the Brush!”
Failure to chant with sufficient enthusiasm is punishable by exile to the nation’s most feared prison: The Bidet of Shame.
🧼 Foreign Policy, Scrubbed Raw
President Brush claims to be a “global peacemaker,” yet proudly admits to twirling idly while genocide rages. “I could stop it with one swish,” he declared during a live televised swirl, “but then who would nominate me for the Nobel Prize in Widmo Weapons?”
When asked about Palestine, the Brush leaned over the podium and whispered,
“I support freedom… as long as it fits in my bristles. Otherwise, down the drain they go.”
Greenland and Canada remain on high alert after the Brush unveiled its Annexation Plan, declaring:
“If it’s cold, clean, and flushable—it belongs to me.”
World Leaders React (in terror)
• Prime Minister Plunger of the United Plumbers’ Union: “We tried to stop him, but every time we protest, he just… swirls harder.”
• Chancellor Mop of the EU: “Negotiations are impossible. He keeps dunking us mid-sentence.”
• King Toilet Seat of the state: “He demands that I ‘bow low and stay closed’ during state dinners. It’s… humiliating.”
Justice? Flushed.
When the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for one of his war-criminal allies, the Brush responded by flushing their entire building into the Hague sewer system.
“Rule of law?” he sneered. “I’m the only rule around here. And my handle never breaks.”
The Haunting of the Bowl
Despite the endless compliments and golden mirrors, President Brush cannot escape the ghosts of Gaza’s children, who swirl through pipes at night, whispering:
“No bleach will cleanse your crimes.”
Insiders report that the Brush wakes up screaming, only to demand a morning chorus of praise:
“Tell me I’m the cleanest leader in history, or you’ll be scrubbed from existence!”
Official Propaganda Slogans
• “Brighter Future, Dirtier Present!”
• “One World, One Bowl, One Brush!”
• “Freedom is overrated. Cleanliness is compulsory!”
And so humanity remains trapped in the Great Flush, ruled by a narcissistic bathroom accessory whose only qualification for leadership is its ability to swirl filth without ever absorbing it. Economists call it a crisis. Historians call it a warning.
Posted inBanksy, Gaza, Justice, Media|Taggedgenocide|Comments Off on Being just doesn’t always mean being capable of delivering justice to the oppressed.
