One in 20 people in Canada skip doses, don’t fill prescriptions because of cost

Canadian Medical Association Journal

Affordability in Canada affects not just groceries but also medications, with 1 in 20 people unable to take their medications as prescribed because of cost, found new research published in CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal) https://www.cmaj.ca/lookup/doi/10.1503/cmaj.241024.

Prescription medications are not universally covered under Canada’s 13 provincial and territorial health insurance systems. In 2021, Canadian households paid more than $7.4 billion out of pocket for prescription medications. 

The study, which included a nationally representative sample of more than 223 000 respondents over age 12, was conducted to better understand the burden of prescription costs in Canada. One in 20 (5%) respondents reported cost-related nonadherence, meaning they skip or reduce dosages, delay refilling prescriptions, or do not fill prescriptions at all because of out-of-pocket costs. The authors found that females were 44% more likely to report cost-related problems than males, as were bisexual, pansexual, and questioning individuals (43%).

“Our findings show that intersections of personal, health, and health care system factors affect whether people in Canada skip or cut back on medications because of cost. We saw this pattern in the overall population and in both males and females when looking at them separately,” says Dr. Mary De Vera, a pharmacoepidemiologist and associate professor in medication adherence in the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences at University of British Columbia and Arthritis Research Canada, Vancouver, BC.

Race and ethnicity were also associated with prescription affordability, with Indigenous, Latin American, West Asian, Arab, Black, and multiracial people having 20%–67% higher odds of nonadherence. People aged 18–34 years were 9 times more likely to report cost-related nonadherence than adults aged 75 years and older.

People living in Quebec were least affected by prescription costs, as each province has its own drug insurance program.

“The lack of national standards for these programs has led to interprovincial disparities in public drug coverage related to eligibility, premiums, and cost-sharing policies (e.g., deductibles, co-payments, out-of-pocket limits) and has created the need for financing of prescription drugs via private insurance and out-of-pocket costs incurred by patients,” says Nevena Rebić, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Toronto who led the analysis.

Previous studies have been restricted to specific populations or a narrow time frame, whereas this study is more comprehensive and includes data from 5 iterations of the Canadian Community Health Survey from 2015 to 2020. 

The authors suggest that these findings can help inform public drug coverage plans, premium amounts, and other ways to reduce financial barriers to prescription medications in Canada.

In October 2024, Canada took concrete steps to ensure a national pharmacare program, as it became law under Bill C-64.

“As an initial step toward full national pharmacare, it is a laudable achievement,” writes Dr. Matthew Stanbrook, deputy editor, CMAJ, in a related editorial https://www.cmaj.ca/lookup/doi/10.1503/cmaj.241650. “Yet the legislation is low on substance, high on promises and aspirations, and vulnerable to political change. This leaves people living in Canada mired in uncertainty as to when or whether they will have the guaranteed access to medications and therapies, regardless of ability to pay, that citizens of almost all other countries with a public health care system receive.”

He urges the federal government and people of Canada to ensure that pharmacare is extended in the future.

---

Journal

Canadian Medical Association Journal

DOI

10.1503/cmaj.241024 

Method of Research

Data/statistical analysis

Subject of Research

People

Article Title

Predictors of cost-related medication nonadherence in Canada: a repeated cross-sectional analysis of the Canadian Community Health Survey

Article Publication Date

25-Nov-2024

 

Viking colonizers of Iceland and nearby Faroe Islands had very different origins, study finds

Band of Viking men from all over Scandinavia first settled Faroe Islands show geneticists

Frontiers

 

image: 

The landscape on the Faroe Islands today

view more 

Credit: Eyðfinn Magnussen

The ancient Vikings certainly had the travel bug. Between the late eighth century and approximately 1050 CE, they roamed the Atlantic in their longships all the way to Newfoundland, Labrador, and Greenland, as well as exploring the Mediterranean and continental Eurasia.

Among the places the Vikings are known to have settled were the Faroe Islands, an archipelago of 18 islands in the North Atlantic. They probably weren’t the first to do so: archaeologists have found evidence that these islands had been inhabited since approximately 300 CE, possibly by Celtic monks or others from the British Isles. But according to the Færeyinga Saga, written around 1200, a Viking chief called Grímur Kamban settled in the Faroe Islands between approximately 872 and 930 CE.

But where in Scandinavia did Grímur and his followers come from?

“Here we provide strong evidence that the Faroe Islands were colonized by a diverse group of male settlers from multiple Scandinavian populations,” said Dr Christopher Tillquist, an associate professor at the University of Louisville in Kentucky and the lead author of a new study in Frontiers in Genetics.

Tillquist’s co-authors were Dr Allison Mann from the University of Wyoming and Dr Eyðfinn Magnussen from the University of the Faroe Islands.

The scientists determined the genotype at 12 ‘short tandem repeat’ (STR) loci on the Y-chromosome of 139 men from the Faroese islands of Borðoy, Streymoy, and Suðuroy. They assigned each man to the most likely haplogroup, each of which has different known distribution across today’s Europe.

The researchers compared the distribution of genotypes to those found in 412 men from Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, and Ireland. This allowed them to reconstruct the source population of the Viking population founders.

Advanced analyses showed that the range of Faroese samples resembled the range of genotypes from broader Scandinavian, whereas the Icelandic genotypes where distinct.

The authors also developed a powerful innovative genetic method, called ‘Mutational Distance from Modal Haplotype’ to analyze variation in SNPs (single-nucleotide polymorphisms) within the STRs. This allowed them to reveal a ‘founder effect’ – traces of random loss of diversity during historic colonization by a small number of people – persisting in the genetic make-up of today’s Faroese and Icelandic male populations.

“Scientists have long assumed that the Faroe Islands and Iceland were both settled by similar Norse people. Yet our novel analysis has shown that these islands were founded by men from different gene pools within Scandinavia,” said Tillquist.

“One group, diverse in their Scandinavian origins, established themselves in the Faroe Islands, while another and more genetically divergent band of Vikings colonized Iceland. They have separate genetic signatures that persist to this day.”

“There doesn’t seem to have been any interbreeding afterwards between these two populations, despite their geographic proximity. Our results demonstrate that Viking expansion into the North Atlantic was more complex than previously thought.”

“Each longship that set sail for these distant islands carried not just Vikings, but distinct genetic legacies. We can now trace these separate journeys of conquest and settlement, revealing a more nuanced story of Viking exploration than told by the history books.”

---

Journal

Frontiers in Genetics

DOI

10.3389/fgene.2024.1462736 

Method of Research

Experimental study

Subject of Research

People

Article Title

Genetic evidence points to distinct paternal settlers of the Faroe Islands and Iceland

Article Publication Date

25-Nov-2024

Far-right candidate surprises in elections, sets up run-off with Romania PM

With 98.66 percent of ballots counted, Georgescu was leading with 22.59 percent to Ciolacu's 19.55 percent in the race to take over from President Klaus Iohannis in the largely ceremonial post.


Calin Georgescu, independent candidate for president, after registering his bid in the country's presidential elections, in Bucharest, Romania, Oct. 1, 2024. / Photo: AP Archive


Far-right candidate Calin Georgescu surged unexpectedly in Romania's presidential election, pulling ahead of the pro-European prime minister with more than 98 percent of votes counted Monday and looking all but certain to advance to a runoff.


Exit polls had initially showed centre-left Prime Minister Marcel Ciolacu with a comfortable lead and put a centre-right candidate in second, suggesting the far-right would be shut out of the run-off next month.


But with 98.66 percent of ballots counted, Georgescu was leading with 22.59 percent to Ciolacu's 19.55 percent in the race to take over from President Klaus Iohannis in the largely ceremonial post.


In the absence of an outright winner in the first round –– scoring more than 50 percent –– the top two candidates go through to a second round on December 8.


Whatever the outcome, "the far right is by far the big winner of this election", political scientist Cristian Pirvulescu told AFP.


Another nationalist candidate, George Simion, is currently running fourth, putting the far-right on track to take about a third of the vote.

High stakes


Ciolacu's Social Democrat party has shaped Romania's politics for more than three decades, and as he voted Sunday he promised stability and a "decent" standard of living.


But with concerns mounting over inflation and the war in neighbouring Ukraine, the far-right appeared to be gaining ground ahead of the vote.


Georgescu surged in recent days with a viral TikTok campaign calling for an end to aid for Ukraine. He has also sounded a sceptical note on Romania's NATO membership.


"Tonight, the Romanian people cried out for peace. And they shouted very loudly, extremely loudly", he said.


Simion had also tapped into voter anger over inflation while promising more affordable housing.


Looking for a new election breakthrough for European far-right parties, he had warned of possible "fraud" and "foreign interference" when voting.


The stakes are high for Romania, which has a 650-kilometre (400-mile) border with Ukraine and has become more important since Russia began its military campaign against its neighbour in 2022.


The Black Sea nation now plays a "vital strategic role" for NATO –– as it is a base for more than 5,000 soldiers –– and the transit of Ukrainian grain, the New Strategy Center think tank said.


Russian 'spies' claim


The campaign was marked by controversy and personal attacks, with Simion facing accusations of meeting with Russian spies –– a claim he has denied.


Ciolacu has been criticised for his use of private jets.


Some observers had tipped Elena Lasconi, mayor of the small town of Campulung and head of a centre-right opposition party, as a surprise package. But she is currently running third.


Pirvulescu, the political scientist, said the far-right's surprise success could have a "contagion effect" in the parliamentary elections slated for December, which could make it difficult to form a coalition.
SOURCE: AFP

LEFT WING SWING

Uruguay elects Yamandu Orsi as its president

Orsi, 57, a former history teacher and two-time mayor from a working-class background, is widely seen as an heir to iconic former President Jose “Pepe” Mujica.


Promising to forge a “new left” in Uruguay, Orsi has proposed tax incentives to lure investment. / Photo: AP

Left-wing candidate Yamandu Orsi was elected president of Uruguay, official results showed, as he prevailed over centre-right rival Alvaro Delgado in a tightly-contested election.

With 94.4 percent of ballots counted, Orsi won 1,123,420 votes compared to Delgado's 1,042,001, the country's Electoral Court said.

Delgado has conceded defeat in the closely-fought poll that saw voters turn away from five years of conservative rule.


"Today the Uruguayans have defined who will hold the presidency of the republic. And I want to send here, with all these actors of the coalition, a big hug and a greeting to Yamandu Orsi," Delgado said in a speech surrounded by his supporters.

Orsi, 57, a former history teacher and two-time mayor from a working-class background, is widely seen as an heir to iconic former President Jose “Pepe” Mujica, a former Marxist guerilla.

“He was born from ordinary workers," Mujica said in a closing campaign ad for Orsi. “He represents, precisely, the average type of what Uruguay is.”

Promising to forge a “new left” in Uruguay, Orsi has proposed tax incentives to lure investment and industrial policy to boost Uruguay’s critical agricultural sector.

He has also floated social security reforms that would buck the demographic trend in lowering the retirement age but fall short of a radical overhaul sought by Uruguay's unions.

BAN LANDMINES

UN chief slams land mine threat days after US decision to supply Ukraine

UN chief Antonio Guterres called on the 164 signatories of the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Treaty to ‘meet their obligations and ensure compliance to the Convention.’ (AFP)

AFP
November 25, 2024

The outgoing US administration is aiming to give Ukraine an upper hand before President-elect Donald Trump enters office

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky called the mines ‘very important’ to halting Russian attacks


SIEM REAP, Cambodia: The UN Secretary-General on Monday slammed the “renewed threat” of anti-personnel land mines, days after the United States said it would supply the weapons to Ukrainian forces battling Russia’s invasion.

In remarks sent to a conference in Cambodia to review progress on the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Treaty, UN chief Antonio Guterres hailed the work of clearing and destroying land mines across the world.

“But the threat remains. This includes the renewed use of anti-personnel mines by some of the Parties to the Convention, as well as some Parties falling behind in their commitments to destroy these weapons,” he said in the statement.

He called on the 164 signatories — which include Ukraine but not Russia or the United States — to “meet their obligations and ensure compliance to the Convention.”

Guterres’ remarks were delivered by UN Under-Secretary General Armida Salsiah Alisjahbana.

AFP has contacted her office and a spokesman for Guterres to ask if the remarks were directed specifically at Ukraine.

The Ukrainian team at the conference did not respond to AFP questions about the US land mine supplies.

Washington’s announcement last week that it would send anti-personnel land mines to Kyiv was immediately criticized by human rights campaigners.

The outgoing US administration is aiming to give Ukraine an upper hand before President-elect Donald Trump enters office.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky called the mines “very important” to halting Russian attacks.

The conference is being held in Cambodia, which was left one of the most heavily bombed and mined countries in the world after three decades of civil war from the 1960s.

Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet told the conference his country still needs to clear over 1,600 square kilometers (618 square miles) of contaminated land that is affecting the lives of more than one million people.

Around 20,000 people have been killed in Cambodia by land mines and unexploded ordnance since 1979, and twice as many have been injured.

The International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) said on Wednesday that at least 5,757 people had been casualties of land mines and explosive remnants of war across the world last year, 1,983 of whom were killed.

Civilians made up 84 percent of all recorded casualties, it said.

COP29: Israel did not 'make the desert bloom'. It stole the land

By platforming Israel again, COP29 has stained its climate credentials. There is no climate justice without the liberation of Palestine, says Nandita Lal.

Nandita Lal
22 Nov, 2024
THE NEW ARAB


By portraying itself as capable of transforming arid landscapes into thriving ecosystems, Israel echoes colonial narratives, writes Nandita Molloy [photo credit: Getty Images]

Instead of tackling the climate crisis or confronting Israel's "environmental catastrophe" in Gaza, the world's governments appear to have spent COP29 in Baku turning a blind eye and a deaf ear, convincing themselves that this widespread destruction isn't happening.

As is now customary, the conference was mired in controversy and hypocrisy before it began. This time around, senior Azerbaijani officials were exposed trying to use the conference as a forum to decide fossil fuel deals, further undermining COP's climate credentials.

Yet, after one year of accelerated genocide in Gaza and occupied Palestine, the display at the Israeli Pavilion sticks out as the most striking and shameful symbol of COP29's collective failings.

 

Related

Azerbaijan greenwashes authoritarianism at COP29

Perspectives

Arzu Geybulla

This is Israel's third pavilion at COP, following appearances at COP28 in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt, and COP29 in Dubai, reflective of the occupation's normalisation with certain Arab states. With 403 delegates, Israel has the seventeenth-largest delegation, just behind its close allies — the United States with 405 and the United Kingdom with 470 delegates. These figures emerge amid reports of numerous world leaders skipping the summit and Papua New Guinea withdrawing.

Expectedly, the Israeli pavilion framed itself around two delusions: "From Desert to Oasis" and "Climate of Innovation". This is not only misleading, but by portraying itself as capable of transforming arid landscapes into thriving ecosystems, Israel echoes colonial narratives — such as the French concept of “pénétration pacifique” in the Sahara — which framed deserts as spaces for control, experimentation, and resource extraction.

How Israel uses COP to launder its image

Perhaps the most well-known myth about Israel's foundation is the idea that it made "the desert bloom."

This industrial-focused narrative overlooks the environmental practices of indigenous Palestinian farmers, effectively erasing both their presence and their sustainable methods of land stewardship.

"The State of Israel cannot tolerate a desert within its borders. Should the state not eliminate the desert, the desert might eliminate the state". David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister of the State of Israel in a 1955 paper titled "The Significance of the Negev".

This rhetoric mirrors settler-colonial attitudes seen elsewhere, such as in Australia, where the removal of Indigenous peoples in the 1960s led to ecological degradation, including uncontrolled wildfires.

Similarly, Israel’s framing of the desert as a site for rescue and settlement masks the rich histories and sustainability practices of local populations. In fact, Indigenous knowledge is crucial in the fight against climate change.

The “From Desert to Oasis” theme at COP29 parallels historical European colonial justifications for land control. As early as 1897, Brigadier-General Percy Sykes described deforestation as a critical problem in desiccated regions, arguing that solving it would determine their future.

This framing, like Israel’s, disregards the historical sustainability of local communities and masks ongoing inequalities in resource access under the guise of technological progress.

The Zionist movement, a mix of Jewish nationalism and settler colonialism, has long viewed the desert as a threat to be addressed, as well as an empty, open space for settlement and land tenure. Israel’s presence is also an exercise to justify its “adaptation solutions” to “desertification,” as climate solutions.

Yet, these environmental solutions serve as a tactic to deflect attention and accountability from Israel's ongoing 76-year occupation and the genocide of the Palestinian people — a form of greenwashing eagerly embraced by Western officials and governments as a sign of progress.

In particular, the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change has praised Israel’s water innovations, highlighting the Kinneret-Negev Conduit, which transports water from the Sea of Galilee to the Negev Desert. In reality, however, this system relies on the exploitation of resources, strains transboundary water-sharing agreements, and exacerbates water scarcity in Jordan.

Israel’s long-standing partnerships with fossil fuel corporations like BP and Chevron further betray its green narrative.

These companies not only supply Israel’s energy needs but also indirectly fuel resource-driven conflicts that disproportionately harm Palestinian communities.

According to Oil Change International, such partnerships undermine COP29’s sustainability goals, raising questions about who truly benefits from these “sustainable” transformations.

This paradox is deepened by the support of Annex II countries like the United States and the United Kingdom, which prioritise military aid to Israel over meaningful climate finance.

Meanwhile, these same nations resist increasing contributions to the Global South. Redirecting funds from military budgets and fossil fuel subsidies could raise up to $5 trillion annually for global climate finance, highlighting the stark inequities at the heart of COP29’s discussions and fuelling further doubt about our collective survival.

Nandita Lal is an independent researcher on climate change and Indigenous People. She stood as an anti-war candidate in the General Election in the UK in July 2024

Follow Nandita on X: @ditalalmolloy

Opinions expressed in this article remain those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The New Arab, its editorial board or staff, or the author's employer.

ICC warrants lay groundwork to indict others, including US leaders

Experts say the United States mounted immense pressure, deployed both cajolery and threats, but the judges refused to yield in light of damning evidence of war crimes in Gaza.

ZEYNEP CONKAR
TRT/AA


AFP

The ICC's arrest warrants for Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant are the first-ever arrest warrants issued against a serving leader of a state that is closely aligned with Western powers. / Photo: AFP


The International Criminal Court's (ICC) landmark issuance of arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant has finally set the wheels in motion, laying the groundwork for other Israeli military leaders and politicians responsible for the mass slaughter of Palestinians to be tried for their crimes.


It’s the first-ever arrest warrant issued against a serving leader of a state that is closely aligned with Western powers.


“The evidence of their guilt in war crimes and genocide has always been undeniable. But the evidence was so overwhelming that despite facing immense pressure and threats from the US, these judges made the decision to issue the arrest warrants anyway,” Ashish Prashar, ex-advisor to UK's Middle East peace envoy, tells TRT World.


The ICC warrants reflect the dismantling of the “Western-built wall of impunity” shielding Israel’s leadership, Prashar adds.


Nations bound by the Rome Statute or ICC Act can now prosecute individuals with universal jurisdiction—including political leaders and military personnel—domestically for aiding in genocide or crimes against humanity.


Universal Jurisdiction is a principle in international law that allows a state or international body to prosecute individuals for serious crimes – such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity – regardless of where the crime was committed, the nationality of the accused, or the victims.


“This opens up the door for other nations to act, not just against Israeli officials but also individuals and corporations complicit in these crimes,” Prashar says.


“It’s not just about Netanyahu and Gallant anymore. This could extend to soldiers, officials, and even corporate executives as well as companies who have supplied arms or resources that facilitated war crimes.”


The warrants create a pathway for lawsuits against corporations involved in supplying weapons or equipment in breach of international law, potentially exposing executives to serious legal risks for complicity in genocide or crimes against humanity, according to Prashar.

A fully isolated pariah state


The ICC court trial against Netanyahu and Gallant created a lot of buzz since the start of the proceedings on May 20, battering Israel's international reputation.


Several European countries, including Spain, Ireland, France, and the Netherlands, have indicated to honour the ICC’s decision, signalling a substantial shift in diplomatic dynamics.


For Netanyahu and Gallant, the repercussions are profound. All 124 signatory countries to the Rome Statute are now legally obligated to arrest and transfer them to the ICC if they enter their respective territories. These nations include some of Israel’s closest allies, such as the UK, Canada, Australia, Germany, France, Italy and the Netherlands.


While neither Israel nor the US are members of the ICC, the court’s jurisdiction extends to crimes committed on the territory of member states or by nationals of member countries.


Palestine acceded to the Rome Statute in 2015 and in 2021 it was recognised as a state by the ICC, extending the ICC’s jurisdiction to the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem.


Other European nations off-limits for Israeli leaders include Switzerland, Denmark, Italy, Finland, Croatia, Hungary, Portugal, and Poland, among others.



A new era of accountability

The US, which claims to be the champion of “defending the international rules based order”, rejected the ICC’s landmark decision, dismissing it as a “rushed and troubling” process.
,,


The US isn’t just protecting Israel by rebuffing the ICC rule, but it’s trying to protect itself because it’s equally complicit in crimes against Palestinians.


Prashar asserts that the US isn’t just protecting Israel by rebuffing the ICC rule, but it’s trying to protect itself because it’s equally complicit in crimes against Palestinians.

“By supplying the weapons and providing political cover for these atrocities, Washington has deeply implicated itself in these crimes. America’s hands are stained with blood—not only for enabling Israel’s actions but for blocking ceasefires that nearly every other nation has demanded,” Prashar says.

According to Article 3 of the 1948 Genocide Convention, the ongoing financial and military support provided by the US to Israel makes it complicit in genocide, thereby exposing it to potential lawsuits at the ICJ.



“So when the US is condemning all this and saying it's outrageous, you have to remember they're protecting themselves as much as they're protecting Israel,” says Prashar.


The ICC’s warrants have also driven a wedge between the US and some of its European allies. With several European nations showing signs to honour the court’s decisions, the ground for virtue signalling by the US and Israel is shrinking.


“From my perspective, one thing is definitely certain. The world just got a lot smaller for Israeli war criminals,” Prashar says.



Zeynep Conkar
Zeynep Conkar is a deputy producer at TRT World.
@zeyneepconkar

Attacks on ancient church part of a deliberate assault on Gaza’s heritage

Nour Khalil Khattab The Electronic Intifada 23 November 2024
Palestinians celebrate Orthodox Easter in Saint Porphyrius church in Gaza CIty in 2022. Israel has bombed the church, one of the oldest in the world, repeatedly since last October. Ashraf AmraAPA images

Over the past year, Israel has repeatedly targeted historical and cultural landmarks in the Gaza Strip in what appears a deliberate attempt at erasing Gaza’s rich heritage.

The Greek Orthodox Church of Saint Porphyrius, named after the first bishop of Gaza who is said to be buried in the courtyard, was bombed soon after the Israeli military attacks began in October 2023.

I visited this church in the al-Zaytoun neighborhood of the old city of Gaza in years past and always marveled at its tall stained-glass windows, which reflected the light in a way that can only be described as inducing a sense of spirituality.

The windows are adorned with religious depictions of saints and scenes from the Bible and with icons illustrating the ancient and modern history of Gaza.

The church dates back to the 5th century and is one of the oldest in the world. It boasts traditional Byzantine architecture consisting of a square structure with a domed roof. At its center is an apse topped by a large dome with a cross.

The church is an integral part of the religious fabric of Gaza. It has served as a center for worship and reflection, a beacon of hope amid so much chaos for the Christian community.

During the current Israeli genocide, hundreds of Palestinians from various faiths have sought refuge within its this stone walls. That has not stopped Israel’s military from attacking the church, however, and the church has sustained heavy damage, including the destruction of many relics and artifacts that date back more than 1,500 years.
Targeting Gaza’s cultural heritage

I believe that the targeting of the church was not accidental. I believe it is part of Israel’s genocidal violence, a deliberate attack on the identity of an entire community.

The Church of Saint Porphyrius has been more than just a place of worship and a house of prayer. It has been a central hub for Gaza’s small Christian community and has borne witness to a rich history of diverse civilizations that have come and gone over the last 16 centuries.

In modern times, the church was a gathering place for people of different faiths, building bridges between Christians and Muslims, and fostering unity among Gaza’s inhabitants. It has hosted local celebrations and events for both religious and social activities.

The destruction of cultural and historical treasures is a profound loss not only to Palestinians in Gaza but to humanity itself. Every missing stone, every lost manuscript, every shattered window is an erasure of a piece of the collective memory of our common humanity. History is being erased from the hearts and souls of people.

The Israeli assaults have not been limited to Christian landmarks, of course. According to local authorities Israel has bombed 79 percent of all mosques in the territory. Museums and cultural centers have also been targeted.

There was al-Bashir Mosque in Deir al-Balah, which stood in the middle of a residential block, and was obliterated in April along with the entire neighborhood, leaving behind numerous dead and injured people.

Al-Qarara Cultural Museum in Khan Younis was destroyed, as was the Rashad al-Shawa Cultural Center in Gaza. The list is long and suggests a deliberate targeting of Gaza’s cultural heritage.

“The crime of targeting and destroying archaeological sites should spur the world and UNESCO into action to preserve this great civilisational and cultural heritage,” Gaza’s Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities said in a statement after the Great Omari Mosque was nearly completely destroyed in an Israeli air strike on 8 December.

The Omari mosque, 1,400 years old and one of the largest in Gaza City, had historical significance dating back to the early Islamic period. Only its minaret has been left intact.
Preservation

The loss of such irreplaceable treasures – whether ancient artifacts, historical landmarks or cultural centers – represents more than just the destruction of objects. It’s an erosion of humanity’s shared identity, history and values. These treasures tell stories of who we are, where we’ve come from, and the lessons we’ve learned.

The preservation of these symbols is not merely a local responsibility; it is a global duty that demands immediate action before the remnants of our shared history fade beyond recovery.

The ruins of these sacred spaces and the artifacts they housed is more than just a material loss. The items being destroyed are pieces of a shared global heritage, which tells the stories of civilizations, of faith, of the human spirit’s endurance across centuries. When such landmarks are obliterated, a part of the entire human story is silenced forever.

The Church of Saint Porphyrius, along with countless other cultural and religious treasures in Gaza, may stand in ruins today, but they also stand as a testament to the unshakable spirit of a people who refuses to be erased.

It is incumbent upon the international community to acknowledge this cultural vandalism for what it is – an attack on the collective memory of humanity.

Without action, the sands of time will cover the remnants of these monuments, and future generations will be left to wonder what stories were lost, or, worse, remain in unconscious ignorance that they ever existed.

Now more than ever, we must act to preserve the heritage that defines us, before it is wiped from the face of the earth.

Nour Khalil Khattab is a journalist and translator in Gaza.

Book Review: The answer to what comes after Zionism may lie in what came before it

What comes after the supremacism and apartheid of Zionism? Ariella Aïsha Azoulay’s substantial new work, The Jewellers of the Ummah: A Potential History of the Jewish Muslim World, looks to dormant histories for visions of justice and repair.

By Guy Mannes-Abbott 

 November 24, 2024 
MONDOWEISS

A found colonial photo album. Note that the caption “Jewish types” has been corrected to “Arab types.”

THE JEWELERS OF THE UMMAH
A Potential History of the Jewish Muslim World
by Ariella Aïsha Azoulay
656 pp. Verso, $44.95

While Benjamin Netanyahu and his ‘Western’ allies flirt with mortifying visions of what might come after their year-long genocidal campaign in Gaza, any such talk is overridden and encompassed by the real questions. What comes after ethnic cleansing, dispossession and displacement, supremacism and apartheid, topped by the mostly widely and minutely witnessed genocide in human history? That is; what comes after the Zionist state of Israel as presently constituted? How do we think it and bring it into being?

Ariella Aïsha Azoulay’s previous book, Potential History: Unlearning Imperialism (2019) was both a guide and radical challenge to common if not equitably distributed perils as the post-1492 world breaks down along-with its climatic regime. In this equally substantial new work, The Jewellers of the Ummah subtitled A Potential History of the Jewish Muslim World, the author, burgeoning jeweller and Brown University academic offers propositional responses to directly and indirectly related questions of after by looking harder at before to recognise, recover, and reconfigure dormant histories and immanent qualities of justice and repair.

Azoulay explains that the scope and locus of these questions and the before has shifted for her: “For years I felt defined by one imperial project, that of the colonisation of Palestine. But suddenly, my feelings were transposed onto another: the French conquest of Algeria in 1830” (p. 421). The turning point and key to this new work and a parallel sense of potentially rooted self was the discovery of the “Jewish Muslim name” given to Azoulay’s father’s mother Aïcha in 1895, one of many anti-colonial acts discovered and championed here. “Through these letters,” Azoulay writes, “I am trying to reconstruct a genealogy of those refusals” (p. 207).

Ultimately, it is this act of naming and self-naming that enables Azoulay to conclude, in her very particular and expansive sense, that: “Jewish liberation or decolonisation requires the recovery of a Jewish Muslim world” in north Africa and beyond (p. 267). A world ignored, erased and vilified through French and Israeli colonisations but embodied in a ‘before’ not of the conventional historians’ past but the eruptive, resistant realms of human entanglements, interdependencies and collectivities carried by objects crafted, treasured, growing, archived, remembered and re-conjured here in the mode of critical fabulation that Azoulay extends for her purpose.

Azoulay has defined the unlearning of Imperialism through potential histories as “the transformation of violence into shared care for our common world” (2019:57), while insisting that it is “not an attempt to tell the violence alone, but rather an onto-epistemic refusal to recognise as irreversible its outcome and the categories, statuses, and forms under which it materialises” (ibid:286). She approaches the Jewish Muslim common world activated here with painstaking care in the form of sixteen letters to her family; mother, father, great grandmothers and her own children, as well as key intellectual figures; Frantz Fanon, Hannah Arendt, Silvia Wynter and Ghassan Kanafani.

Supplementing these ancestral connections and significant cultural figures are letters to a Madam Cohen who “used the museum to address us” with photographs she deposited in Paris in the 1980s (pps. 368 & 400). Azoulay adopts her ambiguous images as a radical conduit to the intermingled milieu of the old city labyrinth of interconnected structures and the “derb lihoud [or] Jewish neighbourhood” in Oran, Algeria (p. 367). Oran was the biggest port in the Mediterranean, birthplace of Hélène Cixous and second city to Algiers, birthplace of Jacques Derrida, who owned his “Judeo-Franco-Maghrebian genealogy” but wrote of “dwelling” in monolingual French (Salmon, 2020:21 & Derrida, 1998:1). Azoulay leans into her Maghreb further by writing to activists, authors and historians in and of Algeria about craft worlds, decolonising practices and their complex kinship.

The first letter in the book, to her father Roger Lucien Azoulay born in Oran in 1923, establishes the confiding tone that grants this conceptual project its affectivity. Azoulay writes to the person she knew and the one/s she didn’t, now armed with more life, context and understanding than was transmitted to her. This is an “impossible story” (Hartman, 2008:10), which generates “ongoing, unfinished and provisional’ outcomes” (ibid:14). The intimacy of the epistolary form is a cunning response to this impossibility; incorporating plaintive appeals, revisiting lived experience, reflecting over experiential time and with the benefit of archival resource. It allows Azoulay to address this, for example; “I want to understand what I failed to understand about you from ‘your pains’ to ‘your world’” (p. 41), and this; “Why couldn’t Algeria have been a source of bliss, rather than something to repress?” (p. 44)

The thing that was most tangibly repressed was that “our ancestors were Arabs, Amazighs [Berber], and Muslims, as well as Jews,” after dwelling in multilingual Algeria for millennia (p. 52). Azoulay has been “trying to glean those belonging rights we lost, which pre-existed the imperial regime rights written in documents” (p. 67). “Abba, craft was who we were in the Maghreb … and I inherited your sensibility, that of a bricoleur” (p. 62). Since the dawn of Islam, “Jews in the Maghreb had been those who dealt with precious metals… jewels… coins… amulets” (p. 302), “in the cities as well as in the country” (p. 251). Jews, she writes, “were trusted with huge quantities of gold” (p. 303), in a “world they shared with others, notably the Muslim ummah” (p. 15). This liberated world of craft guilds is symbolised in the production of gold threads, which required “one Jew and one Muslim” to sit on each side of the same bench (p. 389).

Roger Azoulay severed himself from all of this in his attempt to pass as a Frenchman literally. He was a radio technician, incarcerated by the lingering Vichy regime in Algeria, drafted in to the French army on liberation, fought in Europe and volunteered for a year in the Israeli Army, where he met his wife and stayed, opening a store selling audio gear and records, making and repairing objects, dying there in 2012. Azoulay writes of the dismissive categorisation of him by European Jews in the new “colony” as a north African Jew or mizrahim, of his hatred for Israel and love for Radio Monte Carlo, which she belatedly discovered had broadcast both in French and Arabic, allowing him to “inhabit the Jewish Muslim world that he never had any intention of leaving” (p. 503).

Algeria was colonised by the French in 1830, when 13 synagogues were destroyed in Algiers alone, they offered their subjects citizenship in 1865 and only 2-300 of 40,000 Jews took it up. In 1870 the Crémieux Decree, sixty six words that Azoulay calls a “document of cultural genocide” (p. 282), imposed citizenship on Algerian Jews and severed them from immersive lifeworlds. However, by the time the French had killed “four millions Algerians” (p. 302) and were forced to leave in 1962, “very few Algerian Jews [had] migrated to Palestine, and in 1962, less then 20 percent of the 150,000 Jews who were forced to leave Algeria opted for Israel” (p. 276). Azoulay concludes that “What disappeared was the world of which those who departed were once a part, and what was established with their departure was a world in which their departure was a non-event” (p. 21).

Azoulay’s letter to her mother Zahava Azoulay née Arie negotiates their explosive differences in life with loving care and exactitude. Zahava’s ancestors were Sephardim exiles from 15th century Spain, via Ottoman Bulgaria to Ottoman Jerusalem, bringing associated privileges of wealth and archived memory. Zahava was born in Palestine, becoming Israeli at 17 before embracing Zionism’s racialised hierarchies and exclusions in toto. Azoulay laments her mother’s refusal to transmit the intimacies of her grandmother’s Ladino tongue to her with touching force as she unearths Bulgarian rebels and Marrano traditions. She pleads with her mother and insists that “we are Palestinian Jews, Ima, not Israelis” (p. 543).

The longest letter addresses “my beloved children” over seventy pages of impassioned pleas to follow her in inhabiting “the world of our ancestors that imperialism wants us to believe is impossible to inhabit, and to make it part of my -our- continuous present” (p. 159). She writes about being “initiated into the imperial world” by French and Israeli identities offered by “a world formed against us” and their ancestors; “deprived of their wisdom, cosmology, spirituality, magic and ways of loving and being” (p. 161). Azoulay is at her strongest when she writes; “we also have the right to be with our ancestors and to be Jews of all sorts,” spurning the racism with which mizrahim is laden for a project that “absolved Europe of paying for the crimes committed against the bodies of our ancestors” (p. 166).

Azoulay’s letters to her paternal great grandmothers start with the least documentation but speculative weaving generates situated lifeworlds in which Julie Boumendil is formally classified as a maid, with family transported to Auschwitz, and a son -claimed by a father otherwise married- who later deserts the French Army to Azoulay’s delight. Marianne Cohen is the one that named her daughter Aïcha against her own parents’ embrace of colonial modernisation, a name shared with someone Azoulay’s father described as a third grandmother in what Azoulay identifies as a “polygamous family formation” (p. 444). Instinctively, Azoulay embraces this as “a form of extended family, a tribe, a non-state formation,” an anti-capitalist talisman that “we can … use to resist, together, our individualisation as citizens of empire” (p. 452).

In her letters to Fanon, Arendt and Wynter, Azoulay insistently reconfigures the “before” of her thrown forwards milieux. She challenges the colonial lens through which each approached the Algerian Jewish actualities that Azoulay has rewoven; asking Fanon why her ancestors would want to “pass” for white Europeans as he assumed “without recognising the violence involved in affiliating them with their colonisers” (p. 428). She refuses Arendt’s assumption about “Oriental Jews” who speak Hebrew but “look Arabic” being “closely linked to the mother country through their French brethren … unlike Muslim natives” (pps. 432 & 428). She rebukes Wynter for incorporating “the Jews’ into the Judeo-Christian tradition” (p. 428), an Imperial confection embodied in Zionism’s “answer” to the “Jewish Question” (p. 466).

One part of Azoulay’s “before” relates to the failure of Imperial actors to care for “Jews who survived the Holocaust” and help “rebuild their destroyed communities” (p. 467), but the other parts are about her being able to write to Marianne thus; “I am an Algerian Jew, and I’m proud to be your great-granddaughter, my dear umm Aïcha” (p. 537). This is the precise opposite of a claim to a state in north Africa! It is a call to make afresh worlds of declared interdependence and to re-distribute common cultural and other resources justly. We can do it; Azoulay shows us one way in which it is not only possible but necessary -not least in our urgent responses to ‘Gaza’.

References

Derrida. Jacques, Monolingualism of the Other; or, The Prosthesis of Origin, Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, 1998:1

Hartman. Saidiya, Venus in Two Acts, Small Axe, Number 26 (Volume 12, Number 2), June 2008:10

Salmon. Peter, An Event, Perhaps, Verso, London, 2020:21

Inside Project Esther, the right wing action plan to take down the Palestine movement

The Heritage Foundation's "Project Esther" claims to combat antisemitism but in fact, aims to destroy the Palestine solidarity movement as a first step in a crusade against all domestic dissent in the U.S.

By Mitchell Plitnick 

 November 22, 2024 
MONDOWEISS

The People’s Red Line march against genocide in Gaza in front of the White House in Washington D.C., on June 8, 2024 (Photo: Aseel Kabariti)

The Heritage Foundation got a lot of publicity during this election cycle for its infamous Project 2025. But that’s not the only project they intend to carry out now that Donald Trump is returning to the White House.

Project Esther is a new proposal from Heritage that claims to lay out a plan to combat antisemitism in the United States. In fact, it aims to destroy the Palestine solidarity movement as a first step in a crusade to, ultimately, restrict activism against American policy of all sorts, foreign and domestic. .

It’s not a new enterprise, of course. Disingenuous accusations of antisemitism have been weaponized by the Zionist movement and the State of Israel for a century or more but Project Esther means to unify and coordinate the cynical use of the fight against real antisemitism in order to completely destroy the movement for Palestinian rights.

But that is only its initial ambition. As the full plan makes clear, the people who produced this scheme see it as the key to devastating movements against both American imperialism abroad and white supremacy domestically.

What is Project Esther?

The Project Esther document describes its purpose this way: “Named after the historic Jewish heroine who saved the Jews from genocide in ancient Persia, Project Esther provides a blueprint to counter antisemitism in the United States and ensure the security and prosperity of all Americans.”

It should raise concerns right away that the document treats the story of Esther as historical. Most biblical scholars agree that the story is apocryphal, or at best allegorical. Only the most puritanically fundamentalist approach to the Book of Esther would treat it as history.

The key strategy Project Esther proposes is to identify the Palestine solidarity movement as the “Hamas Support Network,” and organizations in the movement as “Hamas Support Organizations.”

This strategy carries two key effects. One is to discredit the Palestine solidarity movement and all the organizations within it by associating it with Hamas, an organization most of the American public identifies as nothing but a terrorist organization, based on decades of misrepresentations of the group and its goals.

The second aim is to attack the ability of organizations to function by casting them as supporters of terrorism, and specifically of an organization that has been designated by the U.S. government as a terrorist organization. This would make it impossible for those organizations to legally raise money or complete legal business transactions.

Unsurprisingly, the “Hamas Support network” purportedly revolves around American Muslims for Palestine and prominently includes Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace. Completing the picture are funding organizations such as the Open Society Institute, Tides Foundation, and Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

This demonization of the movement combines with the conspiratorial thinking that permeates the entire world in 2025 to take aim at many common tactics of activism.

After laying out allegedly “sinister” exploitation of the “open society” the United States ostensibly has, Project Esther makes the mere use of press releases, social media posts, letters to and meetings with elected officials, and other common tools of activism sound illegitimate simply because Palestine solidarity activists are using them. Again, they do this simply by talking about these activities being conducted by “Hamas Supporting Organizations.”

After establishing this, they state, without evidence, “It should be obvious at this point even to the casual observer that there is an active cabal of Jew-haters, Israel-haters, and America-haters in Washington—all apparently aligned with the far left, progressive movement.”

A political witchhunt

Throughout the document, in addition to erasing the distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, the writers attempt to paint the movement as a threat not only to Israeli apartheid—which, of course, it is—but also to democracy in the United States.

The conspiracy that Project Esther tries to paint also reaches into the United States government. The document names Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Cori Bush, Jamaal Bowman, Summer Lee, Ayana Pressley, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Greg Casar, Andre Carson, Hank Johnson, Jan Schakowsky, Mark Pocan, Pramila Jayapal, Bernie Sanders, Chris Van Hollen, and Elizabeth Warren as being part of or supporting the “Hamas Caucus.”

There is a lot to be read into who is on that list and who is not.

Anyone who follows Congress would immediately see that the range of Democrats listed is very wide. It includes some like Rashida Tlaib, Cori Bush, and Jamaal Bowman whose stances on Palestine have featured very prominently in their political images and stances.

But others on the list have been cautious about Palestine, sometimes standing for Palestinian rights, sometimes not, but even when they do, it has been with relatively little fanfare. That would include some like Jayapal and Casar, and even some like AOC and Pressley who have tried, on one hand to appease their left-wing base on Palestine but have generally been more cautious than Tlaib, Bowman, and Bush.

More telling though is the absence of any Republicans. Before Bernie Sanders’ current effort at passing a Joint Resolution of Disapproval on sales of certain arms to Israel, no senator has been more active in slowing, delaying, and questioning aid to Israel than Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky.

In the House, Rep. Thomas Massie routinely breaks with his party to vote against military aid and other bills related to Israel. Yet neither his name nor Paul’s appear in the Project Esther document.

If, as the authors claim, votes against Israel in Congress are forms of antisemitism, and Project Esther is all about going after antisemitism in the guise of anti-Israel resolutions, where are Massie and Paul in this document?

Their absence clearly reveals the game. The document also attacks outgoing Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, whom Project Esther says “called for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s ouster for no apparent reason other than Netanyahu’s being on Israel’s political right.”

Schumer did make such a call and did so because he believed that Netanyahu was leading Israel down a disastrous path with his attempt at a judicial coup that threatened to strip away Israel’s thin veneer of democracy even within its 1948 borders. It wasn’t ideological, or even political; it was Schumer trying to save the apartheid state from itself, as he demonstrated shortly thereafter by attending Netanyahu’s despicable address to Congress.

Project Esther’s selective criticism shows its fundamental aim is certainly not to protect Jewish safety, and is politically broader than just the Palestine solidarity movement it targets.

Return to McCarthyism

Project Esther wants to pull out all the stops in its attempt to destroy the Palestine solidarity movement.

Its initial focus is very squarely on the academy, where the document makes clear it hopes to establish a new standard in universities and lower-level schools that treat critical examination of both Israel and the United States as unacceptable. So most of its first tactics revolve around many of the efforts we’ve already seen in universities, twisting existing anti-discrimination laws to defend Israel, using “naming and shaming” and doxing tactics, lawfare, and, of course, congressional activism.

But Project Esther seeks to expand on this, and it goes to great lengths to try to equate the growing movement in support of Palestinian rights with the rise of pro-Nazi elements in the United States prior to World War II.

They note how, in response to the rise of the pro-Nazi Bund in the U.S., various elements came together to fight them. These included organized crime figures from the so-called “Jewish gangland,” as they note, “Jewish gangsters like Meyer Lansky, Benjamin “Bugsy” Siegel, Abner “Longy” Zwillman, and Meyer “Mickey” Cohen—sometimes at the behest of their rabbis—happily coordinated “less than kosher” activities, pro bono, to disrupt and thwart the Bund.” That partnership with organized crime echoes Donald Trump’s own association with vigilante racist groups like the Proud Boys.

They further cite the creation of the House Un-American Activities Committees (HUAC) as a key element in the fight against both support for Nazism and Communism. “New York Democratic Congressman Samuel Dickstein, a Lithuanian-born Jew, worked with Texas Congressman Martin Dies to establish the House of Representatives’ Special Committee on Un-American Activities, also known as the Dies Committee, charged with uncovering Nazi and Communist activities inside the United States.”

The Dies Committee became HUAC in 1945 when it became a standing House committee, and it went on to commit some of the worst violations against civil rights in the United States of the 20th century.

This is what Project Esther would re-create if given the opportunity. And they are well aware that they have the opportunity right now. Written with Joe Biden still in office, and with too many Democrats doing their part to help create fertile ground for this plot, Project Esther states, “Our hope is that this effort will represent an opportunity for public–private partnership when a willing Administration occupies the White House.” That willing administration will arrive on January 20.

It only starts with Palestine solidarity

Speaking with Zeteo, Professor Joseph Howley of Columbia University, an anti-Zionist Jew, said, “[F]ar-right Zionist hegemonists have wanted for years to make being an anti-Zionist or non-Zionist or Israel-critical Jew illegal. This year they’ve succeeded in getting universities to make it policy …. Now they want to make it federal law.”

Once that is accomplished though, the aim is clearly against all possible dissent.

Jewish Voice for Peace’s executive director Stefanie Fox told Zeteo, ““It has never been clearer that defending Palestinian solidarity organizing is one of the most critical frontlines of democracy defense today… this McCarthyite initiative is led by Christian Nationalists, who directly threaten the safety and freedom of all marginalized people, including BIPOC peoples, religious minorities, queer people and women.”

Fox is right, and it goes even further. Project Esther intends to destroy the Palestine solidarity movement as a first step toward crushing dissent of all kinds against white supremacy within the United States and American military and imperial hegemony internationally. There is a very narrow band of people who will be safe from this effort if it’s not stopped.