Wednesday, March 26, 2025

The Crisis Of African Liberators
March 21, 2025
Source: Africa Is A Country



On the eve of celebrating the 50th anniversary of its independence on June 25, 1975, Mozambique is going through a political and human rights crisis that is unprecedented in its young history as a nation. The anniversary coincides with the that of other former Portuguese colonies in Africa—Angola, Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau (which became independent in 1973), and São Tomé and Príncipe (which became independent in 1975)—since the historical liberation processes took place in parallel and articulated fashion, in the face of the struggle against a common enemy. This synchronicity prompts a series of reflections on the countries’ experiences over the last five decades. Objectively, the assessment is not positive, given that these countries are among the world’s most impoverished nations, as shown by various social and economic indicators. In addition, these countries are afflicted by acute political crises marked by their populations’ weariness with the vicissitudes of the current regimes, especially in Mozambique, whose case is paradigmatic of an even greater problem on the continent.

In the wake of the major geopolitical transformations taking place in the main centers of global power, political movements have emerged on the African continent that challenge the regimes installed after independence. Many characterize these as struggles for a “second independence,” in the sense that the movements for liberation from the European colonial yoke, which began in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, became distorted over time, degenerating into oppressive and authoritarian regimes. This has led to a crisis of representation based on the widespread perception that African political elites have hijacked their respective state apparatuses to satisfy private interests and keep themselves in power. Even more aggravating is the idea that these elites have allied themselves with their former European colonizers, as well as with other foreign players, becoming the local counterpart to a logic of neocolonial domination.

Certainly, the most eloquent example of this phenomenon is the case of the Alliance of Sahel States (AES), a recently founded mutual defense pact between the countries of Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso. This is a coordinated action with the manifest aim of eliminating French influence in the region, resulting from colonialism and previously abetted by the local political elites, who were deposed by military coups. To this end, the leaders of the movement expelled French military bases (and even embassies, in some cases) and redirected dividends from the exploitation of mineral resources to the respective national treasuries. Even more emblematic of the movement’s aims was its unilateral decision to leave ECOWAS, the regional cooperation bloc, on the grounds that it was an organization manipulated by the West under the leadership of Nigeria.

Across the continent, emerging movements challenge the status quo, characterized by demands for emancipation, participation, and greater social inclusion. Each in its own way, these movements express new correlations of forces resulting from their internal and regional social dynamics in interaction with broader geopolitical transformations. As a result, their success or failure will depend on factors such as the solidity of institutions, the degree of organization of civil society, and above all, how the regimes in power will react to a whole set of relatively unprecedented situations in African countries since their independence. Let’s see how the current political crisis in Mozambique fits into this context.
From controversial elections to a “parallel government”

Since the results of the general elections on October 9 were announced, a wave of demonstrations and civil protests has swept Mozambique, challenging what is seen as electoral fraud in favor of the Frelimo party, which has been in power since independence. On October 24, the electoral bodies gave victory to Daniel Chapo, the ruling candidate, with 70.61 percent of the votes, against 20.37 percent for the runner-up, Venâncio Mondlane, supported by the newly created Podemos party. However, the electoral process was marred by numerous allegations of irregularities, from the registration process to the voting itself. In fact, since the first multiparty elections in 1994, accusations of fraud have been recurrent and widely documented, with the determining factor being the fact that Frelimo has almost absolute control over state institutions, including the electoral and judicial bodies. However, this time, due to the sheer volume of accusations, the challenge came not only from the opposition but also from various sectors of civil society and even the international community (especially the European Union).

The fact is that after the official announcement of the results, the main opposition candidate called on the population to demonstrate in protest and obtained great support for his cause, above all because of widespread dissatisfaction with deteriorating living conditions in the country. The brutal murders of Elvino Dias and Paulo Guambe, activists from the Podemos party, which took place in circumstances that have yet to be clarified, further aggravated public indignation. Against this backdrop and having been harshly and disproportionately repressed by the authorities, the demonstrations escalated from marches in the streets to more drastic actions. Over the last three months, the country has witnessed episodes of genuine popular revolt and civil disobedience, such as the interruption of access routes, activities at ports, airports, and borders, and the destruction of infrastructure (especially police stations and headquarters of the ruling party), leaving the country in a state of anomie bordering on ungovernability.

Tensions peaked in the last week of 2024 after the Constitutional Council validated the election results, which were widely contested at various levels. During this phase of the demonstrations, acts of popular revolt increased and police repression intensified, to the point that civil society organizations filed accusations against security authorities to international bodies on the grounds of serious human rights violations and crimes against humanity. As 2025 began, with the expected confirmation of Frelimo’s victory, the inauguration ceremony for the new president was also marked by strong popular protests and disproportionate police repression, resulting in arrests and even deaths.

At the inauguration, public participation was isolated and suppressed, supposedly for security reasons. From a symbolic point of view, the ceremony epitomized the notorious disconnection between the once liberating party and Mozambican society. By contrast, Venâncio Mondlane’s triumphant return to the country the week before was greeted with popular acclaim in the streets of the country’s capital. Since October, Mondlane had gone into self-exile, allegedly for his own safety. It was from his exile that the officially defeated candidate called for and organized the demonstrations, which included work stoppages and, especially, the nonpayment of road fares, among other actions. Many demonstrations led to violence and various tensions, generating an atmosphere of generalized confusion for which both parties were blamed. Controversies aside, the fact is that the demonstrations called for by the opposition gained massive popular support, in visible contrast to the officially established authority of the regime.

Taking advantage of the vacuum in the popularity of the sworn-in president, Mondlane proclaimed himself President of the Republic via social networks, from “where” he does most of his mobilization work. This communication strategy has been one of the main factors behind his popular support, especially among the huge youth population, plagued by unemployment, absolute poverty, violence, and low expectations for the future. In fact, as various Mozambican social analysts have said, these are the fundamental causes of popular discontent, with the electoral crisis appearing as the tip of the iceberg of deeper problems. In this sense, various sectors of society have called for an initiative to promote an inclusive dialogue between the new government and the opposition, which has not happened, thus postponing a solution to the crisis.

It is precisely through social media that Mondlane has instituted a kind of “parallel government,” issuing “presidential decrees” based on agendas that are widely supported by a large part of the population and, on the other hand, contradict the government’s decisions and policies. This situation of ambiguity has resulted in several episodes of social tension that are expected to worsen over the next few years, with no prospect of reduction and a high risk of growing out of control and becoming violent, as has already been observed. According to data published by the Decide Electoral Platform (a civil society organization that has been monitoring the latest electoral processes), 353 deaths have been recorded since the demonstrations began in October, with the majority, 91 percent, being lethal shootings by the police. According to the organization, if this situation of “two governments” continues, the tendency is for social unrest to increase, leading to more deaths and violent clashes.
Problems and solutions in the neighborhood

The environment of uncertainty in Mozambique is paradigmatic of a broader context on the continent, namely, contestation against political regimes that were consolidated decades ago, after the dawn of African independence. At a regional level, the prompt support provided by Frelimo’s closest historical allies, such as the ANC (South Africa), MPLA (Angola), ZANU-PF (Zimbabwe), and Chama Cha Mapinduzi (Tanzania), who recognized the electoral victory of their “comrades” even before the final official validation, is quite symptomatic. It’s no coincidence that some of these countries are facing similar problems at home: In last year’s elections, Nelson Mandela’s historic ANC was forced to form a government of “national unity” with the Democratic Alliance (DA), the party that represents the white segment of the population; this situation stems from the growing unpopularity of the party that fought apartheid and has ruled the country since 1994. In Angola, meanwhile, there is enormous concern on the part of the regime about the potential contamination effect that the situation in Mozambique could generate locally, given the parallels between the two countries’ histories.

As a counterpoint, Botswana held elections that put an end to 58 years of rule by the BDP party, which had been in power since its independence in 1966. This case attracted attention precisely because it was a point outside the curve, in which the transition took place smoothly. This perhaps reflects the fact that Botswana is recognized as one of the most prosperous countries in Africa, registering positive economic growth rates and good positions in the HDI ranking by the continent’s standards. Despite being a country of little strategic relevance in the region, Botswana’s example holds important lessons for its neighbors, especially from the point of view of political stability and socioeconomic development.

Finally, for Mozambique and its counterparts in the PALOP (Portuguese-speaking African countries), the 50th anniversary of independence could serve as a moment of reflection that provides useful lessons for overcoming the difficult living conditions to which the overwhelming majority of their inhabitants are subjected. In the cases of Mozambique and Angola, one-party systems survived the establishment of liberal democracy, resulting in a kind of “multipartyism without democracy,” in which almost absolute control over all institutions and spheres of public life persists. As the Mozambican case suggests, the excessive concentration of power on the part of the liberation parties and movements, whose legitimacy is anchored in past anticolonial struggles, can become the main factor of instability and an obstacle to development. As a result, the various protest movements all over the continent point to internal solutions in the form of strengthening civil society and mechanisms aimed at greater inclusion of various actors and sectors of society in decision-making processes. Only in this way will everyone be able to truly participate in the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of independence.
Palestinian co-director of Oscar-winning documentary detained, released by Israeli forces

JERUSALEM (RNS) — The filmmaker was allegedly attacked by Israeli settlers in his West Bank village, according to his co-director.



Hamdan Ballal, right, Oscar-winning Palestinian co-director of “No Other Land,” is checked at a hospital in Hebron a day after being detained by the Israeli army following an attack by Jewish settlers in the village of Susya in Masafer Yatta, March 25, 2025. 
(AP Photo/Leo Correa)


Michele Chabin
March 25, 2025


JERUSALEM (RNS) — Hamdan Ballal, the Palestinian co-director of the Oscar-winning documentary “No Other Land,” was injured by Jewish settlers in the West Bank on Monday night (March 24) and subsequently detained by Israeli security forces, his co-director said.

Yuval Abraham, one of the film’s four Israeli and Palestinian co-directors, said on social media that a group of settlers “lynched” Ballal, leaving him with injuries to his head and stomach. The Israeli journalist said “soldiers invaded the ambulance that (Ballal) called and took him. No sign of him since.”

Ballal was released on Tuesday, his lawyer said.

The Israel Defense Forces issued a different account of the events.

“Last night several terrorists hurled rocks at Israeli citizens, damaging their vehicles near Susya,” the IDF said in a statement. “Following this, a violent confrontation broke out, involving mutual rock-hurling between Palestinians and Israelis at the scene.”

When the IDF and Israeli police arrived “to disperse the confrontation, several terrorists began hurling rocks at the security forces.” The forces apprehended three Palestinians — including Ballal — “suspected of hurling rocks at them, as well as an Israeli civilian involved in the violent confrontation. Contrary to claims, no Palestinian was apprehended from inside an ambulance,” the statement said.

The West Bank village of Susya is where Ballal lives. Basel Adra, the film’s other Palestinian director, told The Associated Press that about two dozen young Jewish settlers, some of them teenagers and many of them masked, pelted Palestinian villagers with rocks.

When IDF soldiers arrived, “soldiers pointed their guns at the Palestinians, while settlers continued throwing stones,” the AP reported.

Adra said settlers have ramped up their attacks on Susya and other Palestinian villages since the film won an Academy Award on March 2.

“We came back from the Oscars and every day since there is an attack on us,” said Adra, who is from Masafer Yatta, the subject of the film. “This might be their revenge on us for making the movie. It feels like a punishment.”

The documentary chronicles the Israeli government’s attempts to displace Palestinians from Masafer Yatta, an area south of Hebron in the West Bank composed of several small Palestinian enclaves. Israel has used the area for military training since the 1970s.

Critics of the film say it depicts Israelis as violent while ignoring decades of Palestinian violence against Israeli civilians, killing thousands. Its supporters say it shines a light on Israel’s state-sanctioned settlement expansion in the West Bank.

A Feb. 26 report by Oxfam, a British nongovernmental organization focused on poverty, found that more than 40,000 Palestinians have been forcibly displaced from the West Bank since a temporary ceasefire in Gaza came into force on Jan. 19. The report said it was the highest number of displaced Palestinians from the West Bank since Israel captured the territory from Jordan during the 1967 war.

Mustafa Tamaizeh, economic justice development manager and West Bank response lead for Oxfam, said in a statement with the report that Israel was “pursuing this destruction with full impunity while aiding and abetting illegal Israeli settlers to attack Palestinian communities.”

Israel, however, insists the goal of Operation Iron Wall, the military operation it launched in the West Bank on Jan. 21, is designed to prevent armed Palestinian groups, including Hamas, from attacking Israel, as it did during the first and second intifadas, or uprisings. The military operation has become the longest such Israeli campaign in the West Bank since the second intifada, according to the International Crisis Group, a global NGO.

RELATED: He won a Pulitzer for his book on the Israeli occupation. Then came the cancellations.

While only a small fraction — an estimated few hundred to 3,000 or 4,000 — of the West Bank’s 500,000 settlers are confrontational or violent, according to organizations that monitor the situation, they have become bolder and more dangerous in recent years.

Arik Ascherman, director of the Israeli human rights organization Torat Tzedek-Torah of Justice, identified three milestones that have empowered the settler fringe. The first was the November 2022 election of the current Israeli government, led by right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has repeatedly capitulated to demands from his far-right-wing pro-settlement coalition partners. The second was the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas massacre. The third was the election of President Donald Trump in the United States.


Since the Oct. 7 massacre, “even Israelis who were somewhat supportive of Palestinian rights may be unwilling to support them now. Some are angry at all Palestinians,” Ascherman told RNS. “They are giving settlers free rein to carry out attacks.”

And Trump’s election and his decision to immediately cancel President Joe Biden’s sanctions against violent settlers has led them to feel “they are untouchable,” Ascherman said.
In Pulling The Gaza Documentary, The BBC Is Failing Palestinian Children

Anyone who is offended by a child sharing their lived experiences of survival can choose not to watch the BBC Gaza documentary. But do not deny innocent children – who have experienced unimaginable grief and loss – the right to tell their stories, writes Sylvia Monkhouse

By Sylvia Monkhouse
March 21, 2025



Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone is a harrowing account of life in Gaza as seen through the eyes of Palestinian children. It provides a rare window into young lives devastated by months of relentless bombings, displacements, and unspeakable horrors.

It aired on 17 February on BBC Two, but was swiftly removed from iPlayer four days later, following fierce lobbying from pro-Israel voices. The reasons given for its removal? Well, they simply don’t add up.

The main objection was that the father of Abdullah, the 13-year-old narrator, is the deputy minister of agriculture in Gaza’s Hamas-run government. But like it or not, it’s a fact of life in Gaza that almost anyone living there will have some connection to Hamas. Hamas runs the government, so anyone working in an official capacity must also work with Hamas. Not only that, but Abdullah’s father is hardly a “terrorist leader” as was claimed. He is a technocrat, in a role concerned with agriculture, not politics or military, who even studied at UK universities.

Other objections included the risk of payments potentially funding Hamas. But as Hoyo Films and now the boy himself have confirmed, Abdullah was paid a very small sum via his sister’s bank account which was used to cover basic living expenses. And the complaints around the use of antisemitic language have been rebuffed by many – including Jewish Voice for Labour. The word ‘“Yehudi” is simply Arabic for “Israeli,” and is used by Jewish Israeli journalist Yuval Abrahamto to describe himself in the Oscar-winning film No Other Land.

Crucially, absolutely nothing in the film has been found to be factually inaccurate.

The film received five stars in the Guardian and the Times, which described it as “exceptional”. It’s an outstanding, powerful film and a crucial piece of journalism. Since international journalists are banned from Gaza, there are scant opportunities to witness Gazan children’s stories. This film gave us a small insight and humanised Palestinian children.

Why then, is an innocent child, the victim of unimaginable suffering, put under such intense scrutiny as to whether or not they should be allowed to tell their story?

Consider the source

When you consider the source of the complaints, you can’t help but feel like the humanisation of Palestinians was precisely the problem.

Spearheading the campaign to have the documentary removed from public view was Tzipi Hotovely, Israel’s ambassador to the UK. Throughout her political career, Hotovely has gone out of her way to dehumanise Palestinians, accusing them of being “thieves of history” who have no heritage, and calling the Nakba – the violent mass displacement of Palestinians – “an Arab lie.” More recently, she claimed there was “no humanitarian crisis” in Gaza.

Despite strong counterprotests from a far greater number of people wanting the documentary to stay put – including over 1,000 industry professionals and more than 600 British Jews – the BBC bowed to pressure from the pro-Israel lobby, and dutifully took the documentary down.

That’s why I decided to start a petition, calling on the BBC to reconsider its decision, and allow Palestinian children their right to be heard. The petition quickly gained lots of support and now has over 25,000 signatures.

Failing Palestinian children

Not long after I started the petition, it emerged that Abdullah, the film’s 13-year-old narrator, has experienced harassment as a result of the kickback against the film, and now fears for his life. “I did not agree to the risk of me being targeted in any way”, he said. And “[if] anything happens to me, the BBC is responsible for it.”

Putting children’s safety and mental wellbeing at risk is not only blatantly wrong, but is in breach of the BBC’s own guidelines on safeguarding young people. Sadly, Abdullah’s was not an isolated case.

In a recent interview with the Independent, former BBC newsreader Karishma Patel explained her reason for quitting the BBC: its longstanding refusal to show the full extent to which Irael is harming Palestinian children. She recalls how she begged the BBC to cover five-year-old Hind Rajab’s story while she was still alive, trapped inside a car with her murdered relatives. The BBC chose not to, only naming her after she was killed, and not even making clear in the headline who had done it. “The BBC failed Hind,” says Patel. “And it has failed Palestinian children again in pulling the [Gaza] documentary.”

I’ve just written to Tim Davie, Controller-General of the BBC, to draw his attention to the huge number of people who want the documentary to be reinstated, and why the reasons put forward to justify its removal simply do not add up. I told him, “Anyone who is offended by a child sharing their lived experiences of survival can choose not to watch it. But do not deny innocent children – who have experienced unimaginable grief and loss – the right to tell their stories.” You can read my full letter here.

Let’s see if he responds. The BBC didn’t bother reaching out to Abdullah to apologise to him after they pulled the film. So I’m not holding out too much hope.


ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.  Donate



Sylvia Monkhouse is a freelance copy editor, writer, activist and mother.
Israel’s Return To War Is a Prelude To Mass Expulsion
March 21, 2025
Source: +972 Magazine


Image by Abed Rahim Khatib/Flash90

Two months after agreeing to a ceasefire deal that should have ended the war, Israel has resumed its bombardment of the Gaza Strip with an intensity that recalls the earliest days of the onslaught. Israeli airstrikes have killed over 400 Palestinians and wounded hundreds more since the early hours of this morning, and the army has ordered thousands of residents of the towns and neighborhoods spanning the perimeter of the Strip to flee their homes.

Israel has again fully sealed off Rafah Crossing to medical evacuees, while Egyptian and American forces that had replaced Israeli troops in the Netzarim Corridor as part of the ceasefire are withdrawing from their posts. Dismembered bodies are piling up in hospitals once more, with medical staff across the Strip warning that their facilities are at full capacity.

We know what comes next: more airstrikes and evacuation orders and likely another ground invasion which, if we are to take Israeli ministers at their word, promises to be more extensive and lethal than the last. “Israel will, from now on, act against Hamas with increasing military strength,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office said in a statement earlier today. “With God’s help,” Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich echoed, “[the renewed assault] will look completely different from what has been done so far.” Former National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, who quit the government over the ceasefire deal, appears set to triumphantly return to office.

But to what end? Israel is spinning a narrative that it had no choice but to resume the offensive due to “Hamas’ repeated refusal to release our hostages, as well as its rejection of all the proposals it has received from U.S. Presidential Envoy Steve Witkoff and from the mediators.” Yet this is a total distortion of reality, and the families of Israeli hostages who remain captive in Gaza know it.

“The claim that the war is being renewed for the release of the hostages is a complete deception,” the Hostages and Missing Families Forum said in a statement. “The Israeli government has chosen to give up on the hostages [through] the deliberate dismantling of the process to return our loved ones.”

Indeed, what Hamas rejected were Israel’s attempts to renege on the terms of the ceasefire that both parties had committed to. The second phase of the deal, which was supposed to bring about the return of the remaining hostages and a permanent ceasefire, was due to begin over two weeks ago, except Israel never allowed it to. Instead, together with Witkoff, Israel ripped up the agreement and concocted a new proposal: to extend phase one and keep exchanging hostages for Palestinian detainees; in other words, to sever the release of hostages from any guarantee to end the war.

Israel knew Hamas would reject this proposal, and that was the point all along. The maneuver simply gave the Israeli government a pretext to re-impose a total blockade on food, water, fuel, electricity, and medicine into the Strip; and now, with President Trump’s full backing, to resume its genocidal assault. This time, though, the end goal is clearer than ever.
‘Finishing the job’

When Trump stood beside Netanyahu in the White House on Feb. 4 and proclaimed his intention to “take over” and “own” the Gaza Strip, he didn’t go into detail about what exactly this would portend for the enclave’s 2.3 million Palestinian residents, besides making it clear that Gaza will no longer be their home. “We’ll make sure something really spectacular is done,” he declared, adding that the population could be relocated to “other countries of interest with humanitarian hearts” where they will be able to “live out their lives in peace and harmony.”

In essence, what Trump presented wasn’t really a blueprint; it was a green light for Israel’s government and defense establishment to begin imagining scenarios for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza.

Where the population would go didn’t really matter (Egypt and Jordan swiftly rejected Trump’s suggestion that they would take in displaced Palestinians). What mattered was that the most powerful country in the world had given its backing to what the Israeli right has long referred to as “finishing the job” that the Nakba of 1948 left incomplete; what senior ministers and government agencies have been clamoring for since October 7; and what Netanyahu himself has reportedly considered to be a desirable outcome.

The Israeli government didn’t waste any time in getting the wheels turning. As Environmental Protection Minister Idit Sliman put it: “God has sent us the [Trump] administration, and it is clearly telling us: it’s time to inherit the land.”

As soon as Netanyahu returned from Washington, Israel’s security cabinet resoundingly endorsed Trump’s proposal. Defense Minister Israel Katz set up a new authority to facilitate what is euphemistically referred to as the “voluntary emigration” of Palestinians from Gaza, and discussed plans to that effect with senior figures in the army and the Prime Minister’s Office. COGAT, the army unit responsible for handling Palestinian civilian affairs, prepared its own outline, stating that the expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza can proceed even if Egypt refuses to open its border: the army will instead facilitate their transport via land or sea to an airport, and from there to destination countries.

Lauding Katz’s creation of a “very large emigration department” in the Defense Ministry, Smotrich told a meeting in the Knesset earlier this month that “if we remove 5,000 [Palestinians] a day, it will take a year [to expel them all],” adding that budget will not be an issue. And while he conceded that the logistics of finding countries to receive them will be complex, he noted that Israel was working with the United States to identify candidates.

Indeed, in recent days, American and Israeli officials told AP that their governments had approached Sudan, Somalia, and Somaliland about absorbing Palestinians from Gaza in exchange for financial, diplomatic, and security benefits. CBS later reported that the Trump administration has also reached out to the new interim government in Syria via a third-party interlocutor.

It is unclear if any of these regimes would actually entertain such a proposition. But if we learned anything from the Abraham Accords, it’s that, for the right price, there will be takers.
Making Gaza unlivable

There will, of course, be no “voluntary emigration” from Gaza; Palestinians have unequivocally rejected Trump’s plan, hitting back that the only places they will willingly relocate to are the villages, towns, and cities inside Israel from which they were expelled in 1948. Netanyahu, Smotrich, and Katz know this even better than Trump does — which is why, in practice, the idea of eradicating Gaza’s population was always premised on a resumption of Israel’s military assault on the territory.

Forcibly displacing over 2 million people, even with the support of a global superpower, is no simple task. For one thing, it would require eliminating Hamas as a viable resistance force, which Israel was unable to do throughout more than 15 months of fighting. Trump was never going to agree to putting American boots on the ground to fulfil his fantasy; it was always going to be left in Israeli hands to work out the practicalities. And while we don’t yet know how exactly the army will escalate its renewed offensive — if indeed, as reports suggest, it intends to — we do have clues from the way it waged the war until now.

In particular, the army’s three-month operation in northern Gaza that preceded the ceasefire provided something of a test case for mass expulsion, based on the so-called Generals’ Plan. By isolating three cities from the rest of the Strip, subjecting them to intense bombardment, and denying the entry of any humanitarian aid, Israel managed to forcibly displace hundreds of thousands of people. It is not hard to imagine that a renewed ground invasion could herald a similar move scaled up to encompass the whole enclave. How successful such an endeavor would be remains to be seen.

But Israel’s 15-month onslaught also exhibited another impetus which, albeit not an official war aim, appears to have guided much of the military’s policy in Gaza: an effort to bring about conditions that make it impossible to sustain life.

There is simply no other way to explain the starving of an entire population while attacking food distribution centers and aid convoys; the shutting off of water pipes and denial of electricity to desalination plants; the systematic destruction of health care facilities, abduction of medical staff, and restrictions on foreign health workers; the razing of entire towns and neighborhoods; and the attempt to terminate the only organization capable of preventing total humanitarian collapse. Even after the ceasefire took hold, Israel has continued to prevent the entry of mobile homes into Gaza in violation of the agreement, ensuring that stable life cannot return to the Strip.

In this sense, Israel had already laid the foundations for the eradication of Gaza’s population before Trump even came to office. As Meron Rapoport wrote here last month, the president’s speech at the White House merely gave Israel’s visions of ethnic cleansing a “Made in America” stamp of approval.
Unenforced ICC Arrest Warrants Are Just Part Of The Wider Zionist Impunity Framework

By Ramona Wadi
March 22, 2025
Source: Middle East Monitor




Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be following up on his Hungarian counterpart Victor Orban’s invitation to visit his country, Israeli media have reported. This, despite the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant for Netanyahu, which signatories to the Rome Statute are obliged to enforce. As is usually the case when it comes to Israel, however, possibilities take precedence over absolutes.

The visit is scheduled to take place before Easter. “Once the date of the visit is confirmed, we will, of course, announce it, taking into account the extremely important security considerations in this case,” said Orban’s Chief of Staff Gergely Gulays.

In February, Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó announced Hungary’s decision to reassess “its future participation” in the ICC, allegedly because the international arrest warrants against Netanyahu and his former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant make the court’s actions “seriously politicised”.

Soon after his electoral victory, Chancellor Friedrich Merz invited him to Germany. “I have also promised him that we will find ways and means for him to visit Germany and also to be able to leave again without being arrested in Germany,” Merz told journalists in Berlin. “I think it is a completely absurd idea that an Israeli prime minister cannot visit the Federal Republic of Germany.”

Earlier this year, Italy also announced that it would not enforce the ICC arrest warrants, while France cast doubt over them, claiming that Netanyahu has immunity since Israel is not a member of the court.

The truth is that despite the arrest warrants, few EU countries have stated explicitly that they will obey the ICC and enforce its warrants when it comes to Netanyahu (and Gallant, presumably). Which means that the ICC’s lack of authority over each individual country’s decision whether or not to enforce the warrants enables Netanyahu to avoid prosecution for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza. And enables him to continue committing them.

And while Israel continues to target Gaza and the occupied West Bank, Netanyahu’s forthcoming visit to Hungary will reinforce that normalisation. Hungary’s stance, as well as that of Germany, may be the most explicit in tone. However, the politics of both countries expose what the EU attempts to do through diplomatic channels; they ensure Israel’s protection at all costs, even if that means that tens of thousands of Palestinians have to be massacred in the process.

In November last year, Orban said that the arrest warrants are “complete defamation” and that his invitation to Netanyahu signals that he had no other choice but to go against the court’s decision. It is bizarre to say that a prime minister facing international arrest warrants over a genocide that was not only live-streamed, but also lauded and supported in various ways by Israelis and the international community, is now being “defamed” by a system that is replete with bureaucracy and loopholes. But that’s far-right populism for you: bizarre.

However, Orban is voicing what many world leaders are no doubt trying to work out, albeit less blatantly. The ceasefire negotiations, for example, rested more on what Netanyahu wants rather than justice and international law. And the fact that the Israeli narrative is so entrenched in global discourse gives more cover to Netanyahu and decisions such as those taken by Hungary, Germany and Italy.

If other countries emulate Hungary’s example, we must question the significance and future of the ICC in the face of opposition from states that are parties to the Rome Statute. They have opened the door to international anarchy.

 

Source: Jason Hickel Substack

Conventional narratives in the West claim that the government in China lacks popular legitimacy and only retains power through coercion. But existing evidence from the two main studies on this question – both conducted by established Western institutions – shows the opposite. These studies demonstrate that the government in China enjoys strong popular support, and that most people in China believe their political system is democratic, fair, and serves the interests of the people.

The first study is published by Harvard’s Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation. The Ash Center operates what they describe as “the longest-running independent effort to track Chinese citizen satisfaction with government performance”. Regular surveys have been conducted since 2003. The most recent results were published in 2020, in a report titled “Understanding CCP Resilience: Surveying Chinese Public Opinion Through Time”.

This is not a pro-China publication. In fact, the Ash Center starts with the assumption that China is an authoritarian system dependent on coercion, and is therefore likely to face a crisis of public legitimacy. But the study’s actual results establish very different conclusions.

The authors summarize their results as follows. “We find that, since the start of the survey in 2003, Chinese citizen satisfaction with government has increased virtually across the board. From the impact of broad national policies to the conduct of local town officials, Chinese citizens rate the government as more capable and effective than ever before. Interestingly, more marginalized groups in poorer, inland regions are actually comparatively more likely to report increases in satisfaction. Second, the attitudes of Chinese citizens appear to respond (both positively and negatively) to real changes in their material well-being.”

The report finds that public satisfaction with the central government is extremely high. In 2016, the final year of data, it stood at 93%, having generally increased over time. Satisfaction with lower levels of government is somewhat lower but still very strong; for instance, provincial governments enjoyed 82% support in the final year of data.

The second study is published by the Alliance of Democracies (AoD), a Danish NGO founded by the former Secretary General of NATO and the former Prime Minister of Denmark. AoD partners with Latana, a market research firm based in Germany, to conduct annual surveys on democracy perception in more than 50 countries around the world. They have published the Democracy Perception Index report every year since 2019. It is the gold standard in the industry, produced by liberal institutions that certainly cannot be accused of having a pro-China bias. And yet the results on China are consistently striking.

According to the most recent report (2024), people in China have overwhelmingly positive views of their political system. 92% of people say that democracy is important to them, 79% say that their country is democratic, 91% say that the government serves the interests of most people (rather than a small group), and 85% say all people have equal rights before the law. Furthermore, China outperforms the US and most European countries on these indicators – in fact, it has some of the strongest results in the world. The figure below compares China’s results to those from the US, France and Britain. These results may help explain the high levels of satisfaction with government reported by the Ash Center.

The AoD study also assesses people’s perceptions of freedom of expression, and free and fair elections. Here too, China outperforms the US and most of Europe. When given the statement “Everyone in my country can freely express their opinion on political and social topics”, only 18% of people in China disagreed (compared to 27% in the US). And when given “Political leaders in my country are elected in free and fair elections”, only 5% in China disagreed (compared to 27% in the US).

One possible criticism is that people in China may be reluctant to say negative things about their government because they may fear repression. But the Latana methodology is explicitly designed to mitigate against this possibility. The AoD report states “In contrast to surveys conducted face-to-face or by telephone, the anonymity offered by Latana’s methodology may help reduce response bias, interviewer bias, and respondent self-censorship.” These methods appear to be effective. If China’s positive results are due to fear of repression, we would expect to see similarly positive results in countries that are regarded as having repressive regimes, but this does not occur. People living in such states do not hesitate to express critical opinions. For instance, in Russia only 50% of people said their country was democratic.

Many people are surprised by the AoD results for China because they believe China does not in fact have a democratic system. It is true that China does not have a Western-style liberal democracy, where voters elect the head of state every few years. But it does have its own system of democracy, which it refers to as a “whole-process people’s democracy”, with principles of democratic centralism and a unique party system. This system seeks to institutionalize popular engagement in the policy-making process to ensure responsiveness to people’s needs (see summaries here and here, and a podcast on this with US Professor Ken Hammond here). Direct elections occur at the two most local levels of the National People’s Congress, with elected deputies then voting for those who will serve in the higher levels.

Whatever one might think of this system, it is clear that most people in China seem to like it.

The results of the AoD study suggest that what matters most when it comes to people’s perceptions of democracy is not whether their country has Western-style elections, but whether they believe their government acts in the interest of most people. In many Western countries that have regular multi-party elections, people do not believe that their governments act in the interests of most people, and do not believe their countries are democratic. In China, people overwhelmingly perceive that their government acts in the interests of most people, and this may be key to high democracy perception there.

This result is not particularly surprising, given that CCP came to power through a popular revolution that enjoyed mass support from peasants and workers, with the explicit objective of improving the lives of the oppressed majority. While China has experienced several major policy changes over time, including a process of market liberalization in the 1980s that caused high inflation and widespread protest, over the past decade the government has taken strong steps to reduce poverty and ensure universal access to good housing, food, healthcare and education.

None of this is to say that China’s political system does not have problems and internal contradictions that must be overcome. It does, just as all countries do – nobody could reasonably claim otherwise. But these studies point to an important reality that should be grappled with: that the Chinese people have a much higher regard for their political system than people in the West tend to assume.

Source: Foreign Policy In Focus

A private-public partnership to improve highway infrastructure in Honduras was supposed to be a boon for economic development. Instead, it quickly turned out to be a lose-lose agreement for an already impoverished population — and a grim warning about investment rules that give corporations too much power.

It began in 2016, when the government proposed to develop a highway along Honduras’s northern coast — complete with tolls that would have raised transportation costs and other prices for locals.

People quickly rose up to oppose the project that threatened to raise their cost of living, as well as drain the public purse. Those early protests turned into a 421-day camp against toll booths along the highway. In 2018, following these protests, the government cancelled the contract for the project with a company called Autopistas del Atlántico (ADASA).

But after five years of silence,  the investors returned with a vengeance. Now, an investor group including ADASA, J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, and a couple of Goldman Sachs funds, is bringing a multi-million dollar claim against the country in a Washington, D.C.-based tribunal for far more than it ever invested.

They’ve gone to the World Bank-based International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) to demand $179 million from Honduras, alleging a “breach of its contract for the suspension of the toll road in the face of community protest and cancellation of the contract in 2018,” according to The Corporate Assault on Honduras, a report published in September 2024.

Karen Spring, coordinator of the Honduras Solidarity Network, explained during a presentation of the report that the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system that ICSID is part of allows transnational corporations to file claims that squelch the voices of affected people.

“The 15 active claims against Honduras are an attack on struggles for dignity, justice, and democracy. These suits and the system that allows them are an attack on the sovereignty of Honduras and the self-determination of affected communities,” said Spring.

Citizen Outrage

As part of the “Angry Citizens’ Movement” (Mesa de Indignación Ciudadana), Suyapa Majano and Idalia Carballo say that neither the weather nor the state’s armed forces could intimidate the struggle against the toll booths, which people considered unconstitutional and a violation of their right to free movement.

Suyapa Majano recalls that in order to sustain the protest camp, they took shifts in which mostly women took part. They celebrated birthdays roadside and, during Holy Week, they made the Stations of the Cross, all in order to demonstrate their opposition to the toll booths.

“We never let up the struggle,” despite the fact that “several men and women were beaten,” routinely tear-gassed, and persecuted for their protest. “There are students who participated too, that I remember had to flee.” Those who remained in the country were profiled by repressive state armed forces.

Idalia Carballo questions the legality of using tolls on roads that had already been built and where there are no alternative routes to ensure free circulation for locals. “They put up the toll booths, but didn’t build anything themselves,” she said.

Carballo recalls that the government of then president Juan Orlando Hernández supported Autopistas del Atlántico by providing police and military personnel to repress the population who protested against the toll booths.

Hernández — who has since been convicted in New York state for conspiring to import cocaine into the U.S. — touted the tourist corridor contract as a step forward for the country’s infrastructure, supposedly to stimulate trade, tourism, job creation, and lower transportation costs.

Initially, the contract established that the toll booths could only start collecting after construction had been completed. However, in 2016 — after just 10 percent had been completed — the company received approval to start charging all vehicles that traveled on the road. This activated the minimum annual guaranteed income — the difference between the minimum anticipated revenue and revenue earned — provided for in the contract. As a result, Honduras now owes the company $110 million, instead of $42 million previously, due to the early cancellation of the project, as The Corporate Assault on Honduras explains.

The Failure of Public-Private Partnerships

The Autopistas del Atlántico claim is only one of 15 arbitration suits currently in process against Honduras, largely promoted by investors who benefited from decisions made following the 2009 coup d’état during the so-called narco-dictatorship period. Many of these claims have been brought under the terms of free trade agreements and investment protection treaties that enshrine extraordinary corporate privileges. In this case, the company is able to bring recourse via Investor-State Dispute Settlement Mechanisms (ISDS) under its Public-Private Partnership (PPP) contract.

“We see at least three lawsuits […] that correspond to Public-Private Partnership contracts, which were negotiated by [the former Commission for the Promotion of Public-Private Partnership] under conditions highly detrimental to the [public] purse ,” explains Jen Moore of the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS).

PPPs in Honduras were permitted through the 2010 Law for the Promotion of Public-Private Partnerships, which also created the now defunct Commission for the Promotion of Public-Private Partnerships (COALIANZA). COALIANZA’s role was to promote, enter into, and supervise PPP contracts between the public and private sector, involving both domestic and transnational corporations.

In 2019, COALIANZA was dismantled following the raid of its offices by the Technical Agency of Criminal Investigation (ATIC) under widespread accusations of corruption. Earlier, in 2014, part of COALIANZA’s activities were declared secret under the Law for the Classification of Public Documents Related to National Security and Defense or Secrecy Law. This led to serious questions about the limited auditing and oversight of its operations.

Two other claims involving a Public Private Partnership contract have been filed against Honduras by the Palmerola International Airport (PIA) for $10 million, very recently discontinued, and the Eléctricas de Medellín Ingeniería y Servicios S.A.S. for $500 million. Another pair of claims likely to correspond to a PPP contract were filed by International Container Terminal Services & Operadora Portuaria Centroamericana, but lack of transparency in their case meant the amount is unknown.

Moore remarks that although it is difficult to know the details of the arbitration claims against Honduras because the related documentation remains confidential, companies often act out of one of two aims: first, to pressure authorities to change the rules or to ensure business conditions remain in their interest; and second, to force the people to compensate investors for their losses, including future lost profits.

Luciana Ghiotto of the Transnational Institute states that the Investor-State Dispute Settlement system has been widely criticized beyond Honduras.

She remarks that Honduras’ decision to leave ICSID in August 2024 was “an important step, but not enough.” She explains, “ICSID is only one of various global arbitration centers available, whereas investment protection treaties […] enable investors to sue the State in any arbitration forum in the world.”

The ISDS system is set up to keep the rules of the game stacked in favor of corporations at great cost to people and the public interest. The report The Corporate Assault on Honduras urges the abolishment of these exclusive corporate privileges that have been granted through international treaties, as well as in national laws and contracts, including Public-Private Partnerships.