China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC)

Agricultural Modernization And Food Security In The Era Of CPEC – OpEd

A farmer in Pakistan

October 26, 2025 

By Dr. Hamza Khan


Pakistan has never experienced any other economic field other than agriculture as the primary source of its economy, and sustenance to millions of its population and also feeding an ever-growing population. Nevertheless, the industry has not been on the forefront of the world in terms of technology, productivity and sustainability decades ago.

The introduction of Phase 2 of China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) has brought it to a crossroad now. It is one of the essential shifts of the priorities of the development of infrastructure to the industrial and agricultural development. Not only the Pakistani lands are transforming due to the partnership between China in terms of technological transfer, irrigation control, seed production and smart agriculture, but the food security policy of the country and its contribution to the world agriculture is also re-invented.

The essence of this transformation is the introduction of the modern technologies into the farming. The farmers in Pakistan have been applying the outdated ways of production that limit their production and divert their resources like water. It is changing that fact with the introduction of the Chinese knowledge in smart irrigation systems. Through precision irrigation e.g., drip and sprinkler irrigation, farmers are now able to reduce water wastage to bare minimum, and at the same time regulate crops to the brim of their water supply. This is a game changer to a nation that is water stressed like Pakistan and proper management of water can be the difference between excesses and deficits.

Along with using the agricultural irrigation, there has also been the introduction of better varieties of seeds which has brought a hope to the agricultural scene. Chinese research centres and Pakistani agricultural education institutions are active on hybrid kinds of seeds, which are even more resistant to disease, pests and climate stress. Harvest of these seeds are already being experienced: wheat, rice and cotton output per acre are growing in huge quantities. Farmers who were barely able to make ends meet are now reaping the benefits of their labour that are being compared to that of their peers in the region. Pakistan is also becoming a competitive nation in the global market particularly when it comes to its principal export like rice and cotton where the quality and quantity holds the greatest significance.

Besides the technical modernization, there are other socio-economic consequences of the modernization of agriculture with CPEC. The Chinese-Pakistani co-operative agricultural activities are not just the Chinese and Pakistani equipment and technological synergy, but turned out to be a reflection of long-term cooperation which has a beneficial impact on the two nations. China will be enjoying a stable supply of agriculture and a safe food chain in the market, whereas Pakistan will be enjoying a one trillion Chinese food market. The exports of rice, fruits and vegetables have already started to increase, and it is one of the signs that the diversified foreign exchange portfolio is starting. Agricultural produce is the sole means of getting out of the improvement of forex to any country experiencing balance-of-payments strains.

In the rural heartlands of Pakistan there is also trickle-down effects of modernization. Poverty is gradually eliminated in the rural region as farmers adopt the application of new technologies and achieve high yields. Rise in income levels will lead to more education means, healthcare, and infrastructure in villages. The transformation is not only economic, but to a large number of smallholders, the transformation is very personal. This was a region that used to be seen as a tedious and unstable source of livelihood is being reinstated to its pride and stability. The growth of the income is raising the living standards since there is a new dawn of hope among the rural communities that were left behind a long time ago.



One of the most positive transformations in this change is the increased involvement of the youth in the agribusiness in Pakistan. New entrepreneurs are infiltrating the agriculture sector with new concepts, such as digital solutions to connect farmers with markets, start-ups to offer precision tools, data analytics, and e-commerce platforms. Smart farming is no longer an abstract idea that is present in policy documents: it is being implemented. This is vital power and creativity to the existence of the industry. It is also revitalizing agriculture to be something worth to desire not as an ancient business but as a modern business worth venturing into.

Modernization does not apply to crops only. The cattle and dairy sectors which equally contribute to the Pakistani GDP are also evolving. Improved breeding, disease control programs, and advanced dairy management systems are also improving milk and meat production and most of these are of Chinese origin. Pakistan is making a step in the right direction of achieving food security to its rapidly growing population as the livestock is becoming more productive. These also help in stabilizing the prices of food such that when the demand is the highest still the basic commodities will not be denied to the poor.

The provincial cooperation can be considered another positive venue. The Sindh and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and the state of Punjab are aligning their projects in agricultural development to a unified vision. Regional disparities are being minimized by applying concerted actions and knowledge exchange. Where Punjab is leading in regard to mechanization, Sindh in water management and KP in experimenting with high value crops and green house farming. This balance will ensure that development is not concentrated in one region but rather it will be spread uniformly all over the country.

The short run economic profit is not the only way to consider modernisation in Agriculture, but a long-term future of Pakistan. As the disruption of food supply chains and climate patterns continue to be more unpredictable in the world, a modern, robust agricultural system is emerging as a national security issue. The newly acquired technologies will make it easy to ensure that Pakistan will be in a position to feed its people, resist environmental shocks, as well as manage to compete in exports. In that aspect, modernization is not a luxury but it is a survival need.

Dr. Hamza Khan has a Ph.D. in International Relations, and focuses on contemporary issues related to Europe and is based in London, UK

When Indian Royalty Spoke Up For Communism – Essay

Historic speech in 1969 gave Udaipur’s new Foundation its mojo


At a simple ceremony in the City Palace on 20 October 1969, Maharana Bhagwat Singh Mewar announced the establishment of the Maharana of Mewar Charitable Foundation. Photo-credit: MMCF archives (Accession no: 2009.10.0246-00026)

October 26, 2025
By Raju Mansukhani


In today’s time and age the term ‘communism’ is used as a slur, often an outright abuse for political opponents not toeing the neo-liberal line of capitalist development. In 1969, on October 20th, Maharana Bhagwat Singh Mewar of Udaipur spoke up for communism when announcing the formation of the Maharana of Mewar Charitable Foundation, a public charitable trust to which he donated large portions of The City Palace along with cash donation of Rs 11 lakhs. “By changing the colour of our cap or ‘ism’ no benefit can be derived,” he said, “if Communism be any solution for our present precarious condition, we should not be afraid to accept Communism.” He spelt out words of caution when accepting Communism, “provided it is Indian oriented; it is not an imported inspiration and commodity; the sustenance of our life is not in foreign hands.” In his speech, at the simple ceremony, the Maharana underscored the importance of promoting self-reliance and self-respect through the new Foundation in the Republic of India.

Coming from an Indian Royal, who traced his ancestry to the 8th century CE, these thoughts and words may seem contrarian, difficult to understand and place in the context of a newly-independent India facing scarcity, shortages on various fronts. By 1969, the Indian National Congress under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was raising slogans of ‘Garibi Hatao’ (Remove poverty) to whip up popular support among the masses. The Maharana, in contrast, was focusing on ‘national character’. He said, “since our Independence the biggest casualty has been that of our character. Without character no nation can keep its country independent.” Being conscious of India’s ancient culture and its traditions, he observed “the West is trying to evolve a media for peace within and prosperity outside from our literature. Can we not evolve an ‘ism’ of our own wherein the respect and freedom of Mankind is considered sacred and individual aspiration is respected?”

Sharing the objectives behind establishing the Maharana of Mewar Charitable Foundation (MMCF), Maharana Bhagwat Singh Mewar consistently used the word ‘temple’, a place of worship when referring to it. “This temple, the inspiration centre of self-respect and self-reliance should inspire the people,” he said adding, “and assist activities and institutions which promote self-reliance and self-respect.”
Focused on the vision

“I am honoured to commemorate the vision of my illustrious grandfather, our Founder-Chairman and Managing Trustee His late Highness Maharana Bhagwat Singh Mewar and my father, His late Highness Maharana Arvind Singh Mewar,” said the young Dr Lakshyaraj Singh Mewar, the present Chairman and Managing Trustee of MMCF. On the occasion of 56th founding day of MMCF, he said, “Under their leadership, MMCF has grown as a ‘temple of inspiration’ dedicated to nation-building tasks, generating employment through tourism-led activities, education and philanthropic programs since 1969. As a result of their collective pioneering efforts, the city of Udaipur has emerged on the global map of tourism, giving the state of Rajasthan a new progressive identity, besides several additional benefits. Today I reaffirm my pledge to build on the platforms created by my forefathers. On this auspicious anniversary, my best wishes to visitors and stakeholders working towards the sustainable development of Udaipur and Rajasthan in the 21st century.”

Undoubtedly the MMCF has been at the forefront of giving the heritage-city of Udaipur opportunities to develop centres of excellence and consistently working to ensure The City Palace Museum provides its million-strong visitors a world-class cultural experience, year after year. Explained Dr Lakshyaraj, “Our Foundation manages The City Palace Museum and its affiliate bodies and trusts. Philanthropy is integral to the Foundation, and I am proud to say, that they continue to enhance their work, and are making a significant difference in the lives of the people they connect with.”

In its sixth decade of operations, the Foundation has grown and collaborated with the world’s leading museums, institutions and global agencies: the Getty Foundation, USA; UNESCO India Office; Ministry of Culture, Government of India; Rajasthan Tourism, Government of Rajasthan; Udaipur Municipal Corporation; Embassy of France in India; Domaine National de Chambord, France; ICOMOS; the Indian Heritage Cities Network Foundation; Oxford eResearch Centre, Oxford University; Smithsonian’s National Museum of Asian Art in Washington, DC; The Cleveland Museum of Art, Ohio, USA; Victoria and Albert Museum, London; Museum Rietberg, Zurich; Pinacothèque de Paris and Maharaja Fatehsingh Museum, Vadodara, India. “We have merited their support as we keep alive the heritage of Mewar and India,” he said with considerable pride. “The challenge is to perpetuate our legacies through holistic heritage management in our globalized world of the 21st century. This is where MMCF is making its mark,” he said.

In a recent publication of CII-FBN India chapter, Dr Lakshyaraj Singh Mewar wrote: “Yes, heritage management is quite a challenge. What is important to realize is that our heritage and value systems are our identity. These are the pillars on which our Family and our Businesses are built upon. I often refer to it even in financial terms by stating: it is our equity. We can say it with pride and honour that we bring our centuries-old heritage and values to the table. With time, equity needs to grow; it cannot be diluted. We can invite other like-minded individuals and organisations to contribute to this equity; we are open-minded about this invitation.” The focus on heritage management, hospitality, education and environmental protection is steadfast. “In each of these domains there are new opportunities and challenges; it adds to the excitement of making our commercial and non-commercial enterprises grow,” he said.
Vignettes of history

The years 1969 to 1971 were filled with political turbulence across India, just 22 years after Independence. Not only was the Congress Party facing internal dissensions, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was pursuing a socialist programme to nationalize major industries, the banking sector. She had been a strong opponent of the Princely States who had merged into the Union of India but were still granted several privileges and retained their titles.

Readers may not be aware that in India till 1947, there were 565 Independent Princely States, the richest and largest among them were the States of Baroda, Gwalior, Hyderabad, Jammu and Kashmir and Mysore. On account of its illustrious history, the State of Udaipur-Mewar was considered the foremost amongst all the Princely States of India. The Sisodia Dynasty of Suryavanshi Rajputs governed the State of Udaipur-Mewar, with its capital for the last five centuries at Udaipur in Rajasthan. At the time of India’s Independence in 1947, the State of Udaipur-Mewar was the first to amalgamate with the Indian Union. His late Highness Maharana Bhupal Singh, the Custodian of Mewar in 1947 said, “India’s Independence brings to fulfillment the 1400 years’ struggle and endeavour of my forefathers.” With the accession to India, Mewar ceased to exist as a sovereign State. Its economy, polity, administration, judiciary, lands and resources were now merged with, or handed over to, the Government of India.

Members of the former Royal families were now citizens of the free democratic Republic of India. In Udaipur these historical changes were seen as a challenge to the ongoing process of modernisation. The Maharanas, as heads of the House of Mewar, continued to work on socially relevant projects which meaningfully involved the community. They also realised the need to be prepared for the challenges ahead. Sure enough, in 1971 came the 26th Amendment Act of the Constitution of India. The Constitutional Amendment 1971 abolished the titles and special privileges of former rulers of Princely States. While it affirmed Parliament’s power to amend Constitution, the Abolition of the Princely Privileges by the Government of India dealt a severe blow to the former Princely States, most of whom had been governing their states for centuries.

It is in this context that Maharana Bhagwat Singh’s decision to establish the Maharana of Mewar Charitable Foundation, and several other charitable trusts, proved to be visionary beyond doubt. He could now continue working on developmental projects in Udaipur’s City Palace, keeping the focus on education, welfare, philanthropy and heritage management. Moreover, these endeavours were resulting in revenue generation from otherwise ‘immovable’ assets like palaces and buildings.
Building institutions

The City Palace Museum of Udaipur is today an iconic must-see Museum for visitors who marvel as they walk-through the palaces of the Mardana Mahal and Zenana Mahal, with over a million visitors each year. Said Dr Mayank Gupta, CEO of the Foundation, “our Museum offers cultural experiences across almost 20,000 square metres. Our galleries include: Asia’s first silver gallery titled ‘Splendour of Silver: Reflecting the finest of Silversmithy’; an exhibition dedicated to Architecture and Conservation; the sculpture gallery titled ‘Divine Gesture: The Magnificence of Mewar Spirituality’; ‘Symphony of Mewar: A Royal Collection of Musical Instruments’; Bhagwat Prakash Gallery of Mewar Miniature paintings; Fateh Niwas Gallery of archival photographs and maps; Salehkhana Gallery: Arms and Armoury Exhibition; ‘The Mewar Regalia’ dedicated to Royal Textiles and Costumes and ‘The Regal mode of Transport’ exhibition.”

He highlighted the establishment of a best-in-class conservation laboratory and the utilization of The Museum System (TMS) software as the ‘firsts in India’. “We are providing professionals from India and overseas a fine opportunity to hone their skills in Udaipur,” he said. Besides the Museum, the Maharana Mewar Special Library, Maharana Mewar Research Institute and Maharana Mewar Historical Publications Trust are the associate institutions carrying forward the vision of His late Highness Maharana Bhagwat Singh Mewar.

Fifty-six years seems like a blink of an eye in the long glorious history of Udaipur-Mewar dating back to pre-modern eras. Yet the establishment of the Maharana of Mewar Charitable Foundation in 1969 has set new benchmarks in the domain of heritage management in contemporary India. The Nobel Laureate Sir V S Naipaul, during his visit in 2001 to receive a prestigious award from MMCF, had remarked, “Mewar and Udaipur may have lost political battles in recent times. But I can clearly see that they have won the war.”

Raju Mansukhani

Raju Mansukhani, based in New Delhi, is a researcher-writer on history and heritage issues; a media consultant with leading museums, non-profits, universities and corporates in India and overseas. Contributing regular columns, book reviews and features in the media he has drawn attention of the new generations to critical issues and personalities of Indian and Asian history. Over the last three decades he has authored books on diverse subjects including the media, palace architecture, sports and contemporary history. Through in-depth documentaries, he has profiled leading Asian public figures highlighting their research and publications.

AIPAC has become so politically toxic that even centrist Democrats are abandoning the group

As support for Israel plummets among U.S. voters, Democrats are distancing themselves from AIPAC, and the Israel lobby group is on the defensive.

By Michael Arria 

 October 22, 2025 
MONDOWEISS

Rep. Seth Moulton speaks a Massachusetts Patriots Day event on April 13, 2024. (Photo: Joshua Qualls/Governor’s Press Office)


Last week, Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) announced that he will stop accepting political donations from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee(AIPAC) and will return all the money that he has received from the lobbying group thus far.

“In recent years, AIPAC has aligned itself too closely with Prime Minister Netanyahu’s government,” said the Congress member in a statement. “I’m a friend of Israel, but not of its current government, and AIPAC’s mission today is to back that government. I don’t support that direction. That’s why I’ve decided to return the donations I’ve received, and I will not be accepting their support.”

“Rep. Moulton is abandoning his friends to grab a headline, capitulating to the extremes rather than standing on conviction,” said AIPAC spokesperson Marshall Wittmann in response to the move. “His statement comes after years of him repeatedly asking for our endorsement and is a clear message to AIPAC members in Massachusetts, and millions of pro-Israel Democrats nationwide, that he rejects their support and will not stand with them.”

Moulton, who is attempting to oust Ed Markey from his Senate seat, is certainly no dove. In 2022, the Marine veteran led a letter calling on then-President Biden to designate the Houthis as a terrorist organization. When the Trump administration bombed three Iranian nuclear facilities earlier this year, he refrained from criticizing the action.

Moulton’s been a consistent supporter of Israel, not just abroad, but at home too. He voted for the Antisemitism Awareness Act and other resolutions that conflate antisemitism with anti-Zionism, and he condemned his alma mater, Harvard University, over a student letter that blamed the October 7 attack on Israeli policies.

In short, Moulton is not the kind of Congress member one would expect to criticize an Israel lobby organization. Criticism of AIPAC generally emerges from the left flank of the Democratic Party, from lawmakers like Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar.

However, that has changed in recent weeks. Moulton is the fourth politician to reject AIPAC money after previously accepting it, joining Reps. Morgan McGarvey (D-KY), Valerie Foushee (D-NC), and Deborah Ross (D-NC).

These developments come amid a slew of recent polls showing that support for Israel is plummeting among U.S. voters. A September survey from The New York Times and Siena University found that only 34% of U.S. voters back Israel, compared to the 47% who did shortly after October 7. A New York Times article on the poll referred to the shift as a “seismic reversal.”

“Disapproval of the war appears to have prompted a striking reassessment by American voters of their broader sympathies in the decades-old conflict in the region,” noted the paper.

Democratic consultant Peter Feld says such moves clearly show that the lobbying group has become a pariah among the public, but notes that voters want more than opposition to AIPAC from their elected officials. They’re looking for lawmakers who will actually oppose Israel’s actions.

“Some of the candidate polling lately misconstrues AIPAC for the core issue, when it’s really the continued support for arming Israel that has alienated so many Democratic voters,” Feld told Mondoweiss.

However, he also noted that Moulton’s move shows how AIPAC is now “radioactive.”

That reality hasn’t just been reflected in polling on Israel, but also through recent media appearances by pro-Israel lawmakers.

For years, the Israel lobby was seemingly regarded as a third rail issue that couldn’t be acknowledged, but now politicians are being consistently pressed on the issue.

In a recent episode of The Breakfast Club, host Charlamagne tha God challenged Governor Josh Shapiro (D-PA) on AIPAC, asking him whether U.S. foreign policy is shaped by lobbying groups as opposed to national interest.

Governor Gavin Newsom was left tongue-tied and fidgeting on a recent episode of The Ringer’s Higher Learning podcast, after host Van Lathan told the presidential hopeful that he wouldn’t vote for a 2028 candidate who accepted AIPAC money.

AIPAC has adopted a more defensive posture as its reputation has declined. The group recently put out an ad insisting that its work benefits Americans, a clear rebuttal to recent criticisms it has faced from the U.S. right, which have only increased in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s murder.

“Funded by Americans. Directed by Americans. Strengthening an alliance that benefits America!” reads the organization’s pinned tweet, which promotes the ad.

It’s unclear whether AIPAC’s toxicity will impact its ongoing ability to influence U.S. elections, especially because it already conceals its role in many races.

“Candidates’ rejecting AIPAC money will probably be a growing theme of the 2026 midterm elections, but that doesn’t mean AIPAC will become entirely marginalized,” Eli Clifton, a senior advisor at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft told Mondoweiss.

“While some candidates may reject AIPAC’s money, others will see the group’s enormous funding capabilities as a means to finance primary and general election campaigns that otherwise might not be viable,” he added, noting the vast sums that AIPAC’s United Democracy Project Super PAC spent on Democratic primaries.

No matter what happens, it’s clear that AIPAC will face a level of backlash during the upcoming midterms that it hasn’t previously encountered.

One race where it will presumably take center stage is Missouri’s 1st District, where former U.S. House member Cori Bush announced that she was running to take back her seat. Bush was defeated by current Rep. Wesley Bell (D-Mo.) in a 2024 primary, and AIPAC spent $8.5 million backing the challenger.

At a town hall event in August, Bell was confronted by constituents over his AIPAC support.

“There’s a lot of folks who don’t want to have the conversation,” Bell told the crowd, while denying that Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza. “They just want to spew what they think is important, but they don’t want to have an actual debate because these are tough issues.”

“Wesley Bell wanted to argue for semantics so that he can have some ethical, moral standing ground that his complicitness isn’t perpetuating the genocide, and he really failed on showing the community that he cared about it,” an attendee told NPR after the meeting.

“I ran for Congress to change things for regular people,” declared Bush in her first 2026 campaign ad. “I’m running again because St. Louis deserves leadership that doesn’t wait for permission, doesn’t answer to wealthy donors, and doesn’t hide when things get tough.”

Braxton Payne, a Missouri political strategist, told Jewish Insider that this election would be Bush’s best chance to reclaim her seat.

“Her strongest place is inside the city [of St. Louis] and you’re seeing… a strong pendulum swinging in regards to the conflict in Gaza and Palestine, and I think that is going to be probably one of her main narratives that she’ll lead with,” said Payne.

Opinion...

President Trump, say goodbye to your dream of winning the Nobel Peace Prize


October 25, 2025

Middle East Monitor

US President Donald Trump speaks to members of the media aboard Air Force One on October 24, 2025, in flight. [Andrew Harnik/Getty Images]

by Jasim Al-Azzawi

Donald Trump’s self-congratulatory claim that he “ended nine major wars” is a refrain of his post-presidential mythmaking. He speaks of peace like a stage magician speaks of miracles — with flourish, confidence, and an eye to applause. He boasts that he “ended eight wars” and that his deals are monuments of diplomacy. The Nobel Committee, he implies, should be grateful for the spectacle. This is not humility. It is hubris.

But as the Gaza truce — the crown jewel of his latest diplomatic initiative — disintegrates amid renewed Israeli airstrikes and contentious politics, the illusion of peace is devolving into the same familiar Middle Eastern quagmire. With it, Trump’s long-coveted Nobel Peace Prize nomination is at risk of turning into a joke.

There is a dark humor to the conjugal politics of Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu. Two mythmakers and dealers in theatrical certainty have entered into a convenience marriage: Trump brings the stagecraft, Netanyahu brings the violence, dressed up as national security. They each need the other to exist politically. Trump needs the trophy of “peace” to burnish a contested legacy; Netanyahu needs the American umbrella to camouflage a fracturing coalition and his own fading credibility at home. When the ceasefire breaks down, they will accuse each other of betrayal — and those crushed by their egos will pay the cost.

The Trump-brokered peace, announced with fanfare and promoted as a historic breakthrough, has proven to be nothing of the sort. “The ceasefire was never real,” veteran State Department Middle East peace adviser Aaron David Miller told interviewers. “It was a political show for domestic optics, not regional stability.” Former US ambassador Daniel Kurtzer described such plans as “built for headlines, not for lasting compromise.” These are not partisan complaints. They are admonitions from veterans who spent decades trying to translate the region’s contradictions into workable institutions. Peace requires more than a tweet; it requires timelines, verification, incentives, and credible third-party guarantees.

Netanyahu’s history as an unreliable partner gives these warnings teeth. Israeli opposition leaders — current coalition critics and former prime ministers — have not hesitated to brand him a liar and to accuse him of sabotaging peace for political gain. Daniel Levy, director of the US/Middle East Project, encapsulates the instinct of many analysts: “Netanyahu views diplomacy as a tactical move. He signs agreements to buy time or deflect pressure, not to implement them.” Sarah Leah Whitson put it differently: “Netanyahu has never honored a single agreement with the Palestinians.”

That history is not merely epigraph; it is practice. Foreign leaders have expressed concern privately about his double-dealing. It was infamously reported that the then-French President Nicolas Sarkozy was overheard telling President Barack Obama, “I cannot stand Netanyahu; he’s a liar,” to which Obama reportedly replied, “You’re tired of him, but I have to work with him every day.” Public frustration has given way to private fatigue. Back home in Israel, critics call his leadership a theater of delay: last-minute demands, strategic ambiguity, and agreements that expire the moment they are made.

When — not if — the ceasefire collapses, the theatrics will be tediously predictable. Trump will tweet about betrayal and bad faith. Netanyahu will invoke Hamas’ intransigence and existential threat. Each will level the accusation that the other betrayed a friend for a secret agenda. Each will spin blame for domestic audiences. One man’s charge of treachery will be another’s excuse for resumed assault.

The ethical and legal stakes are not abstract. Rights organizations, humanitarian organizations, and the United Nations have reported repeated assaults on civilian infrastructure, extreme limits on aid flows, and events giving rise to grave concerns about compliance with the laws of war. Satellite images and survivor accounts accumulate, solidifying into the evidentiary records that haunt states when the world demands accountability. Should mass violence recur, those records will be delivered to prosecutors, fact-finders, and public memory.

And the Nobel Committee will not treat these events as footnotes. The Committee takes intention and outcome into account. It has a record of courting controversy when laurels appear to be premature; it is not blind to the difference between spectacle and substance. A man who would have it honor him for negotiating temporary truces while violence rages on asks the world to mistake photo opportunities for penance.

Apologists will point to the optics: Mr Trump went, he brokered a handshake, and leaders posed for photographs. That is literally true. He recaptured the narrative of peacemaking on camera. But optics don’t substitute for verification. A handshake without inspectors is a seal on a promise that will more than likely be broken. A ceasefire without enforcement is a pause, not a solution. If the pause fails, the same spectacle that seeks to immortalize a legacy will instead expose the hubristic theater that hides human devastation.

When the recriminations come, they will be raw and theatrical. Trump will accuse Netanyahu of ingratitude and duplicity. Netanyahu will accuse Trump of naïveté and of overpromising what was never deliverable. Both will tell the truth and both will lie. The price will be paid in lives.

History demands hard questions. Leaders who traffic in theatrics and will not build durable instruments of peace are not merely fools. They are architects of future misery. The Nobel Committee has never been a publicity office for presidents who hunger for laurels. It honours those whose actions reduce suffering, not those who stage temporary reprieves.

If violence resumes and it becomes clear that the “peace” was a prop, Trump’s claim to the prize and moral legitimacy will evaporate. He may never have deserved the award; he may now deserve the scorn. Netanyahu will be held to the same benchmark: not by orations or photo ops, but by whether the innocent are safer for his intrigues. The verdict of history is slow in coming, but it will come. In the meantime, the rubble bears witness, the refugees remember, and the world watches.

“Perfidy is the currency of Middle Eastern politics,” said former New York Times war correspondent and Pulitzer Prize winner Chris Hedges, as if he had Netanyahu in his crosshairs. “And Trump, for all his bluster, is learning that the region devours illusions.”

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

Trump’s push to uphold Gaza ceasefire is creating a political crisis in Israel

Israel isn’t a vassal state of the U.S., JD Vance said. But when it comes to the ceasefire in Gaza and annexing the West Bank, Israeli decision-making is deeply intertwined with Washington’s current priorities.

By Qassam Muaddi 

 October 24, 2025 
MONDOWEISS

U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meet in Israel amid accusations that the U.S. is “babysitting” Israel to make sure it adheres to the ceasefire with Hamas, October 22, 2025. 

(Photo: Screenshot from Israeli Prime Minister’s Youtube Channel)

The succession of U.S. officials arriving in Tel Aviv over the week has fueled consternation in Israeli political circles as Washington ups the pressure on Israel to stick to U.S. President Donald Trump’s Gaza ceasefire plan. Israeli political circles have bristled at having to bend to the American President’s will, as opposition use the opportunity to lambast Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for turning Israel into a “vassal” of the United States.

Virtually all of Trump’s inner circle has made the rounds in Tel Aviv throughout the past week, including U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, Vice President JD Vance, and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

They were all there, JD Vance said, to monitor the ceasefire, rushing to add: “But not monitoring in the sense of, you know…you monitor a toddler.” But Israeli media referred to the flurry of visits as American “Bibi-sitting.”

Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz published a caricature on Wednesday portraying Netanyahu as a child playing with toy tanks and airplanes while Witkoff tells him, “Just a little while more, and then off to bed.” Maariv published another cartoon showing Witkoff, Vance, and Kushner closely tailing Netanyahu, who says, “Honestly, I’m just going to the toilet.”

Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid didn’t hold back either. At the opening of the Knesset’s winter session, Lapid slammed Netanyahu for getting Israel into “the most dangerous political crisis in its history,” and for sabotaging past ceasefire deals that could have seen the earlier release of the Israeli captives in Gaza. Lapid also said that Netanyahu had turned Israel into “a vassal state that takes orders concerning its own security.”

Things got even tenser during a press conference with Netanyahu when Vance was asked by a reporter whether Israel was becoming a “protectorate” of the U.S.

“We don’t want a vassal state, and that’s not what Israel is,” Vance responded. “We don’t want a client state, and that’s not what Israel is.”

Vance’s insistence on what the U.S. isn’t doing, of course, is the thing that cements it in everyone’s minds.

Netanyahu is still chafing at the prospect of an international coalition of forces that would enter Gaza, and has objected to the participation of Turkish forces in particular. When asked about the matter on Tuesday, Vance said that “nothing will be forced on Israel,” noting that Turkey still has “a constructive role” to play.

The visits by Vance, Witkoff, Kushner, and Rubio came as the fragile ceasefire in Gaza was about to unravel last Sunday, October 19, following an incident in Rafah in which two Israeli soldiers were killed in an explosion. Israel accused Hamas of breaching the ceasefire and launched a series of strikes across Gaza, killing at least 40 Palestinians. Hamas denied any knowledge of the Rafah incident, with reports that the explosion was caused by an Israeli bulldozer running over an unexploded ordinance, of which the White House was reportedly aware.

Later, Trump told Fox News that both parties were respecting the ceasefire as Israel ceased its bombardment by the end of the day.

Political circles in Israel regarded the halt of Israel’s blitz as a sign that Netanyahu had folded under continuous U.S. pressure to make the ceasefire work. Israel’s hardline National Security Minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, regarded the decision as “shameful” and called on Netanyahu to resume its full-scale onslaught against Gaza.

Now there’s another sticking point that is continuing to fuel U.S.-Israeli tensions: annexation.
West Bank annexation is off the table. Or is it?

In the midst of this wave of criticism, Netanyahu announced his candidacy for the post of Prime Minister in the upcoming November 2026 elections. Netanyahu is currently the longest-serving Prime Minister in Israel’s history, having led a shifting arrangement of right and center-right coalitions for a total of 18 years.

In the middle of JD Vance’s visit, the Israeli Knesset voted in favor of the first reading of a bill that would annex the West Bank. The reaction from the U.S. was unprecedented.

Before boarding his flight to Tel Aviv earleir this week, Secretary of State Rubio said that the vote was “counterproductive” and “threatening to the peace deal.” Vance went further, calling the vote “weird,” “stupid,” and an “insult,” adding that “the policy of the Trump administration is that the West Bank will not be annexed by Israel.”

But the hardest U.S. reaction came from Trump himself, who said in an interview with Time magazine that Israel’s annexation of the West Bank “will not happen because I gave my word to the Arab countries,” adding that “Israel would lose all of its support from the United States if that happened.”

The problem is that annexing the West Bank has been Netanyahu’s most important electoral promise since 2019. He has been spearheading a years-long legislative effort to make that annexation a reality, starting with the 2018 Nation-State Law, then with the Knesset resolution to reject a Palestinian state in July 2024, and finally with last July’s Knesset resolution allowing the government to annex the West Bank.

This is particularly inconvenient for Benjamin Netanyahu, as he needs to avoid any major confrontation with Washington at the current moment. In a post on X, Netanyahu said that the vote was “a provocation by the opposition to sow discord,” although the bill was introduced by an ally of his right-wing camp, Avi Maoz, who ran in the last elections in coalition with Netanyahu’s own party, the Likud.

But Netanyahu’s dissociation from his own allies is understandable. He now finds himself trapped between his commitment to his voting base and the broader interest of securing continued support from the U.S., whose current administration has a different order of priorities.

Those priorities are what Trump hopes will be his crowning achievement: brokering a normalization deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia, which has clearly said that Israel’s annexation of any part of the West Bank would be a “red line.”

In his first term, Donald Trump also clashed with a Netanyahu-led government that had pledged to annex parts of the West Bank. Trump halted the annexation process by brokering normalization agreements with several Arab states, most crucially the United Arab Emirates. The importance of the so-called Abraham Accords, for Trump, comes from the fact that the remaining Gulf countries that have yet to normalize relations with Israel — Qatar and Saudi Arabia — are the key to securing regional U.S. economic and political dominance. This is part of the larger U.S. agenda of reasserting American hegemony and confronting the rising influence of China. A part of Trump’s roadmap to get there is by integrating Israel in the Middle East.

After its genocide in Gaza, Israel is facing international isolation, so regional integration should seemingly be an Israeli priority as well. But in this instance, integration would force Israel to at least temporarily pause its plans to assert Jewish sovereignty between the river and the sea, as the Likud’s charter put it.

Smotrich gave voice to that supremacist dream while speaking at a tech conference on Thursday, saying that Israel would not give up annexation for the sake of normalization: “If Saudi Arabia tells us ‘normalization in exchange for a Palestinian state,’ friends — no thank you. Keep riding camels in the desert in Saudi Arabia, and we will continue to develop.”

Following a flurry of condemnation from Israeli opposition figures, Smotrich gave a halfhearted apology for any “insult” it might have caused, but maintained that Israel would not give up the “heritage,” “tradition,” and “rights” of the Jewish people in “Judea and Samaria” — the Zionist term for the West Bank.

But Smotrich’s statement isn’t a fringe opinion, as much as the Israeli opposition would like to suggest otherwise. Despite their condemnations of the way Smotrich said it, the vast majority of Knesset members support annexation. Following European recognition of a Palestinian state in September, opposition leader Benny Gantz said in a New York Times op-ed that Israel’s rejection of a Palestinian state was a matter of “national consensus.”

But Israel doesn’t even have to accept a Palestinian state to keep Trump happy. It just has to refrain from outright annexation — for now, at least. Even that is something that Israel is finding hard to do.

The ongoing frenzy of political recriminations in Israeli circles is a sign that they’re gearing up for elections and trying to score points against their rivals. What this tells us is that the Israeli political establishment has, at least implicitly, accepted that the war is over for the moment. But the fact that this political theater unfolds in the shadow of unprecedented U.S. pressure suggests how deeply Israeli decision-making is intertwined with Washington’s priorities.

Israeli Knesset Advances Bill to Annex West Bank as JD Vance Visits Israel

Trump has stated that he is opposed to Israeli annexation of the West Bank.

By Sharon Zhang , 

Truthout

October 22, 2025

U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance, right, and Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrive ahead of a meeting at the Prime Minister's Office in Jerusalem, Israel on Wednesday, October 22, 2025.Nathan Howard - Pool / Getty Images

The Israeli legislature advanced a bill calling for Israel to annex the occupied West Bank on Wednesday, amid U.S. Vice President JD Vance’s visit to Israel.

The Knesset approved legislation for Israel to apply “sovereignty” over the Palestinian territory in a preliminary vote, narrowly passing with 25 members for and 24 against. The move is the first in a series of votes required for a bill to become law in the state.

Israeli media reports that members of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s party, Likud, were opposed to the legislation, viewing it as a way to snub Netanyahu as his government already takes moves to annex the West Bank.

Indeed, the vote was timed to coincide with a visit by Vance and members of Trump’s top Middle East advisers, including special envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, who does not officially hold a position but has been conducting business in the region on behalf of the administration.

The Likud party dismissed the vote as an attempt at “trolling” and “aimed at damaging our relations with the U.S. and Israel’s great achievements in the campaign.”

Related Story

West Bank Death Toll Amid Genocide Tops 1,000 as Israeli Forces Kill Child
Israeli forces shot and killed fourth grader Mohammad Bahjat Al-Hallaq while he was playing soccer with friends. By Sharon Zhang , Truthout  October 17, 2025

“We strengthen settlements every day with actions, budgets, construction, industry, and not with words,” the party said, adding that “true sovereignty will be achieved not with a show-off law for the protocol, but by working properly on the ground and creating the political conditions appropriate for the recognition of our sovereignty, as was done in the Golan Heights and in Jerusalem.”

The Trump administration has previously expressed its opposition to Israeli annexation of the West Bank.

“ I will not allow Israel to annex the West Bank. Nope. I will not allow. It’s not gonna happen,” Trump said late last month, ahead of Netanyahu’s address at the UN General Assembly in New York City.

Notably, however, Trump has been providing Israel with ample military resources and diplomatic cover allowing Israel to carry on with its current illegal de facto annexation of the West Bank. Further, in his first term, Trump formally recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, a move that significantly advanced Israel’s quest for annexation.

On Tuesday, nearly every Senate Democrat signed a letter, led by Sen. Adam Schiff (California), urging Trump to recommit to his pledge to oppose annexation of the West Bank.

“Since your plan for Gaza does not address the West Bank, it is imperative that your Administration reinforce your comments and emphasize its opposition to annexation,” the lawmakers said.

“As longstanding supporters of Israel’s security and Palestinian aspirations for statehood, we are unified in our opposition to unilateral measures by either party that undermine the prospect of lasting peace through negotiations to achieve a two-state solution. That includes any steps by Israel to annex territory or expand settlements that prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state,” they went on.

The only Senate Democrat to not sign the letter was John Fetterman (Pennsylvania).

Though Trump has spoken out against formal annexation, his administration has demurred on recognizing a Palestinian state. In an interview with 60 Minutes on Sunday, Kushner claimed that Gaza and the West Bank are too different culturally to link as a state — without acknowledging Israel and the U.S.’s role in separating the two territories. “You need both places to be functioning — in a good way, where they can thrive before you can connect them,” he said.

However, the idea is vastly popular among the American public. A Reuters/Ipsos poll out Wednesday conducted following the implementation of the Gaza ceasefire deal found that 6 in 10 Americans say the U.S. should recognize a Palestinian state, including 80 percent of Democrats, 58 percent of independents, and 41 percent of Republicans.

Honest, paywall-free news is rare. Please support our boldly independent journalism with a donation of any size.

Trump’s ‘peace plan’ traps Gaza in limbo

Gaza is now trapped in the limbo of the uncertainty surrounding the Trump plan. The U.S. might prevent Netanyahu from resuming Israel’s genocide, but unless Palestinians gain full control over Gaza’s future, it’s just a slower form of killing.

By Mitchell Plitnick 

 October 25, 2025 

MONDOWEISS

President Donald Trump is greeted by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and others after disembarking Air Force One at Ben Gurion International Airport in Israel, Monday, October 13, 2025, to celebrate the U.S.-brokered ceasefire and hostage release agreement between Israel and Hamas. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

On Tuesday, Israeli military sources announced that, in their estimation, Hamas still has some 20-25,000 fighters, although many of them are new recruits who are not well trained. They also said Hamas still has “hundreds” of rockets, although the majority of Hamas’ arsenal is said to have been destroyed.

Retired General Giora Eiland, who still has a significant position in Israel’s military hierarchy, added that the tunnel network in Gaza is still some 80% intact.

If these estimates are true, and that is far from clear, it’s either an admission of grave failure by Israel or an admission that destroying Hamas was never the point of the genocide that Israel has committed over the past two years. Or, possibly, both.

These statements are meant to arouse a feeling in Washington and in Israel that the “job” is not yet finished and Israel must be allowed to resume its genocide.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been squirming under the weight of President Donald Trump’s imposed ceasefire since it began, even while he has been forced to present a smiling public face about it.

Netanyahu’s immediate strategy is to require Trump to keep full pressure on Israel to maintain the “ceasefire.” He is doing this with a steady stream of provocative and deadly actions. He is allowing some aid into Gaza, but not nearly enough. Israel continues to work at provoking Palestinian responses with targeted attacks and provocative actions.

On Sunday, Israel suffered losses in the Rafah area under disputed circumstances. The United States allowed some response, but sharply limited it, preventing Israel from using the incident as an excuse for abandoning the ceasefire deal.

Lest anyone mistake the Trump administration’s actions for beneficence, there was complete silence from Washington the previous day, when Israeli forces fired on a Palestinian civilian vehicle near Gaza City, wiping out a family of eleven, including seven children.

Trump has continued to accuse Hamas of breaching the ceasefire, while ignoring Israel’s actions, which have thus far led to over 100 Palestinian deaths in Gaza since the ceasefire began.

But even while Trump has continued to issue empty threats against Hamas, his administration’s actions have been aimed at restraining Israel. The dispatch of Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, followed by Vice President JD Vance, and now Secretary of State Marco Rubio has had the effect of making sure that Israel is aware that the U.S. is watching and is not prepared to see this ceasefire collapse.

In a very telling episode, the Knesset voted to annex major chunks of the West Bank while Vance was in the country. This drew a sharp rebuke from the Vice President and a panicked response from Netanyahu. It is a stark contrast to Joe Biden’s meek response more than a decade ago when he visited Israel and the government announced a major new settlement while he was there. President Barack Obama was quite upset by the incident, but Biden wanted to ignore it.

Trump on Thursday warned Israel that the U.S. would no longer support Israel if it annexed the West Bank. But for Gaza, this isn’t a sustainable position. Trump is not going to maintain this kind of pressure indefinitely. He has put the annexation question to bed for some time (which just means that Israel will simply go on with its gradual annexation of the West Bank rather than the dramatic move of a formal annexation), but Gaza will require much longer-term engagement. More importantly, Trump’s “20-Point Plan” faces serious obstacles, and they are of a type that is very likely to result in the U.S. administration becoming frustrated with Hamas more than with Israel.

The danger of Hamas’ “Yes, but…”

Hamas made it clear when it agreed to the ceasefire that it was not agreeing to all of Trump’s plan. All parties understood that.

Hamas’ recent activities, mobilizing against Israeli-backed Palestinian clan militias, have been routinely mischaracterized, portraying them as executions of Palestinian civilians virtually at random. Given that these are summary executions without the benefit of a legal system, it is likely there are injustices, including deadly ones, being committed. But it’s far from the rampant killing that is being portrayed.

That mischaracterization is not an accident; it is an intentional distortion to keep open an avenue for Israel to use to resume its full-fledged genocide, and the United States is going along with it.

Some are also characterizing Hamas’ actions as a bid to re-establish permanent control over Gaza. It may seem like it, but Hamas is unlikely to be that naïve. They know very well that there is an international consensus that wants to see them completely outside of power in Gaza, and, if possible, even physically removed from Palestine. That’s not just an Israeli and American view; it is shared by Trump’s Arab partners.

Hamas knows this, and has repeatedly indicated a willingness to cede power in Gaza. But they are not unconditional in that willingness.

They want to cede that power to Palestinians, not to Trump or Israel. They expect a technocratic government of Palestinians in Gaza, which would eventually lead to new elections there. It’s hardly an unreasonable stance.

Hamas has also indicated a willingness to give up its offensive weapons in exchange for peace. Their desire to keep handguns and means of personal protection is not something they can compromise on; if they give those up, they will be targeted by the very militias they are currently rounding up. These weapons are not going to be particularly useful if Israel decides to come after them, but they can be used to defend against rogue Palestinians.

These are difficult issues, as is the question of Palestinian autonomy and self-rule and how Trump’s plan can lead to Palestinians attaining their inalienable rights (spoiler alert: it can’t). That’s why Israel, the United States, and, yes, Hamas as well are laying the narrative groundwork for failure.

Where Gaza goes in a post-Trump Plan world

Trump has a vested interest in seeing the ceasefire endure, but what does that mean in practice?

Neither Trump nor Netanyahu is going to be willing to allow Palestinians to govern themselves, even as technocrats. Without that, there will continue to be resistance. It’s that simple.

Some limited rebuilding might be contemplated, but right now, that is being used as a tool to force Hamas to comply with Trump’s demands for their disarmament and disbandment. Jared Kushner made that clear, explicitly stating that any reconstruction efforts would be concentrated in the area of Gaza that remains under Israeli control.

Yet as much as Netanyahu would like to return to the all-out slaughter, he is not going to risk Trump’s wrath to do it. But in the meantime Gaza is likely to be trapped in a nightmarish middle ground between genocide and a functioning future.

Israel will not tolerate any security role in Gaza for Türkiye, as Trump has floated. They’d much prefer that both security and governing forces in Gaza be led by the U.S. or, short of that, more pliant Muslim countries such as Indonesia and Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan is perhaps Israel’s closest, if one of its quietest, allies in the Muslim world. Trump has already secured the participation of Indonesia and is working on Azerbaijan.

But with such uneven reconstruction, there will be real difficulties even if Israel can be persuaded to allow humanitarian aid—which would need to include temporary shelters, construction materials and machinery, blankets, food, water, and medical supplies—into Gaza in sufficient quantities.

Gaza is now caught in the netherworld of the uncertainty of the Trump plan. While Vice President Vance says the ceasefire is “going better than expected,” it is not going anywhere for the people of Gaza.

Vance was remarking on how Israel is “complying” with Trump’s directives. That is, they are not killing so many Palestinians or doing so much shooting that the ostensible ceasefire would collapse.

But autumn is soon going to turn to winter in Gaza. There are insufficient shelters for most of the people, inadequate supplies of food and water, few heat sources, and limited means to address these issues in the short time allotted.

Hamas will continue to assert itself as the only feasible authority in Gaza, making its bargaining position stronger, and thus strengthening Netanyahu’s case for sterner measures.

The Trump administration has not even decided for itself how it wants to see humanitarian aid delivered, as it is unclear how much leeway the United Nations and other humanitarian aid organizations will be given in Gaza. What is clear is that they do not yet have sufficient freedom to act in the impactful way that is needed.

The International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion, issued on Wednesday, provoked an hysterical response from Washington, as it ordered Israel to cooperate with all UN agencies, including the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which Israel has falsely accused of supporting Hamas and encouraging attacks on Israel.

“As President Trump and Secretary Rubio work tirelessly to bring peace to the region, this so-called ‘court’ issues a nakedly politicized non-binding ‘advisory opinion’ unfairly bashes Israel and gives UNRWA a free pass for its deep entanglement with and material support for Hamas terrorism,” the State Department wrote on Twitter.

All of this leaves the people of Gaza facing a different kind of hardship. There doesn’t seem to be any immediate rush to deploy an international force that would lead to a further Israeli withdrawal and enhanced efforts to clear the massive amounts of rubble. Without that necessary first step, reconstruction cannot truly begin in a sustainable way.

The population is cold, hungry, and facing unprecedented health crises that will go on for many years, according to the World Health Organization. While diplomats bicker, those conditions worsen.

As things stand, there are likely to be many more opportunities for Israel to try to increase its military activities in the Strip. They seem to be continuing their practice of arming and paying Palestinian militias to sow chaos in the Strip. This also provides an indirect pipeline for Hamas and other Palestinian factions fighting against these militias to acquire Israeli weapons and supplies after defeating various branches of these militias.

Trump might prevent Netanyahu from returning to the full force of Israel’s two-year genocide, and that is still a real positive. But what the people of Gaza are facing now, with so many unanswered questions about how the Strip is to be managed, fed, supplied, and secured, carries with it its own set of threats.

It’s better than the genocide that was, but unless Palestinians are given full access to their own decisions and the tools they need to rebuild and survive until Gaza is rebuilt, it’s just a slower kind of killing.

In a landslide vote, McGill University professors and librarians endorse the academic and cultural boycott of Israel

In a 114-8 vote, the McGill Association of University Teachers endorsed the academic and cultural boycott of Israel. The win came after years of organizing, demonstrating the collective power of professors, librarians, and students against genocide.

By Malek Abisaab, Rula Jurdi Abisaab and Michelle Hartman 

 October 22, 2025 
MONDOWEISS

Professors from McGill and Concordia, October 7, 2025 supporting the student strike for divestment and against genocide.


On October 10, 2025, the McGill Association of University Teachers (MAUT) succeeded in passing a resolution at a special general meeting endorsing the academic and cultural boycott of Israel. The resolution calls for the association to “take all necessary steps to implement the boycott of Israeli academic institutions, while ensuring that the boycott applies to institutional partnerships and agreements, not individual Israeli academics.”

This principled stance taken by full-time professors and librarians is a major victory at a university where such an action was thought to be impossible until recently. An article in the student-run McGill Tribune the day after the vote characterized this vote as “historic,” another calls it unprecedented. With this huge victory, the faculty association joins at least 20 other such associations in Canada, as well as others across North America and the world. As a recent article in the Guardian points out, “boycotting Israel has gone mainstream.”

This endorsement by a large group of professors and librarians across the university demonstrates that solidarity with Palestine cannot be silenced. It may be difficult to hear our unwavering voices – especially in an atmosphere of repression well-documented by the report “Palestine on Campus,” but we keep pushing ahead and it only gets louder.

Conventional wisdom held that it would be impossible for professors to endorse the academic boycott at McGill, an institution that has proudly accepted donations from prominent Zionist donors who actively support the state of Israel. One example is the well-known Quebecois donor, Sylvan Adams, a self-proclaimed “ambassador of Israel” in Canada. With the world increasingly cutting ties with the state of Israel and implementing boycotts, McGill doubled down and continued to build a sports centre in Sylvan Adams’ name, while devoting a section of the centre’s website to his biography, giving him unusual attention in a university context, especially at McGill. The so-called, “McGill University -Tel Aviv University Collaborative Sport Science Grants” are advertised on the centre’s website, exemplifying the type of activities tied to the state of Israel that the boycott aims to stop.

It is in this context of complicity, marked by retaining as well as establishing new exchange programs during this period, that professors accelerated their efforts to endorse the boycott.

Movement building at McGill

Many believed that we would not have enough support and that professors would shy away from it because of intimidation. But in the end the campaign victory was the result of a long period of organizing and building solidarity between and among professors, librarians, and students, as well as across other sectors of the university, including healthcare workers, lawyers, and non-academic workers.

Crucial to our support network and solidarity-building was the role of students and decades of local, collective, mutually supportive work with them. We had worked in support of the Palestinian students and diverse student bodies in the solidarity movement, and joined efforts with students in the so-called “printemps érable” or student strike of 2012. Whether as professors, actively participating in a large movement, or engaging in distinct actions that build and bolster solidarity, these forms of learning in action were crucial to our formation as professor-organizers.

At McGill where we work, we were also part of many campaigns over the years. Alone and with colleagues at Concordia University, which is 10 minutes away, professors worked closely with students, supporting their projects, participating in their strikes, mobilizing professors to show up to their events or/and tie their projects to theirs, as well as recognize their collective decisions and that their right to strike is not undermined by the university’s administration. Meanwhile, we also built strong ties with local Palestinian community associations and leaders.

What would have seemed impossible at McGill–often characterized by a politically apathetic student body–has now happened twice in one year; students have gone on strike for Palestine. The mood on campus has substantially changed, as a record number of students voted on and then ratified, in an online process, a strike in solidarity with Palestine on October 7, 2025. Professors and librarians from McGill, Concordia, and Dawson College stood proudly together and with students on this strike day.

Escalating against genocide

The tradition of working together in the Palestinian solidarity movement, as students, professors, and librarians has long origins, but was intensified and diversified from October 2023 onward. The furious pace of organizing worked to keep up with the escalating horror in Palestine, especially in Gaza, when new red lines were being crossed daily. In October 2023 and after, the droves of people, pouring into the streets around the world and in Montreal, in solidarity with Palestine, was notably led by the youth.

On campus, those of us with more experience worked to keep up with the students’ pace. We were focused on navigating the new challenges of organizing together with the many people who are joining the movement; holding our local, provincial, and national governments–along with our universities– accountable; and formulating ways to resist the repression and censorship the movement was facing.

For two years, starting October 2023, campus organizing for Palestine at McGill reached unprecedented levels. The student union passed a policy against genocide, affirming BDS, supported by professors, and built and maintained a 75-day encampment, while holding two strikes, one on April 2, 2025 and the most recent one on October 7, 2025 just days before the professors and librarians’ vote on the boycott.

As we reflect on what we are doing in this moment after our successful boycott vote, we want to underline how much invisible labor goes into the successful organization of solidarity movements. We never want to lose sight of our goal–supporting the liberation of Palestine–nor elevate our own hard work above the on-the-ground resistance. It is nonetheless important to underscore the work that is unnoticed. The support of librarians, for example, was crucial in this boycott, though they are often ignored with focus being placed on professors.

The vote is just the beginning

As we approached the MAUT general meeting vote we were told that it would be nearly impossible to meet a quorum of 100 people. A meeting during the same week drew about three dozen people. Supportive colleagues encouraged each other not to be disappointed if we did not manage to have enough people for quorum and therefore a binding resolution.

In the end, this proved not to be the case. The attendance at the time of the vote was 114 full members, 2 abstentions, 8 votes against, and the overwhelming majority of 104 people in favor. The moment the vote was announced people burst out in applause. Our minds went immediately to our Palestinian colleagues, friends, and family–thinking about this very small gesture of support toward them, which we have worked so hard to fulfill. We also immediately thought about the colleagues, friends, and family we have lost in Gaza, and the destruction of all of the universities and most of the schools they worked in.

The resolution itself for Gaza, for Palestine, standing against genocide by calling for this boycott was a deeply collective effort. The twelve colleagues who proposed the motion came from six faculties, and there was support from at least two others based only on people we talked to. Many colleagues could not attend the meeting but we still had an unprecedented turnout at our vote. At least two colleagues we spoke to directly told us they had changed flights, another four shifted other travel arrangements to be at the vote in person. People told us directly and clearly that they were moved and motivated by the ongoing situation in Gaza and because they wanted to firmly, loudly, and clearly stand against genocide.

On October 10, we affirmed our commitment to hold our university accountable to us as professors and librarians by exercising a boycott against Israeli academic and cultural institutions, and now we begin working to implement this boycott and work together to support the struggle for freedom and liberation in Palestine.

As professors and librarians, we most often work in different capacities and diverse ways. Our experiences in the last twenty years, but especially the last two years, has shown us the power of collective organizing; the necessity of building solidarity together and among each other in various departments and faculties, and across our associations and unions. We must work together with colleagues in other universities and institutions. Crucially, we must build our work in support of students and alongside students and other youth. Our struggle is far from over, it has only just begun.

UN rejects top US diplomat Rubio’s claim of UNRWA becoming ‘subsidiary of Hamas’

October 24, 2025 

Middle East Monitor

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio (L) looks on as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks following their meeting at the Prime Minister’s office in Jerusalem on October 23, 2025. [FADEL SENNA/POOL/AFP via Getty Images]

The UN on Friday rejected remarks by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who accused the UN agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA) of becoming “a subsidiary of Hamas,” Anadolu reports.

“You’ve already heard us talk about how UNRWA is not linked to Hamas,” deputy spokesman Farhan Haq told the reporters.

His remarks came after Rubio told the reporters in Israel that the UN is on the ground in the Gaza Strip, but UNRWA is “not going to play any role,” describing it as a “subsidiary of Hamas.”

Haq dismissed Rubio’s characterisation, reiterating that UNRWA plays a crucial humanitarian role in Gaza.

“UNRWA is the backbone of our humanitarian operations in Gaza.

“There were a small number of staff members of UNRWA who were credibly linked to Hamas, and we have handled that situation and fired those personnel. Others were not found to have any links, or there was no evidence provided to back up any allegations,” he said.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled on Wednesday that Israel is obliged under the Geneva Convention to agree to and facilitate relief schemes provided by third states and impartial humanitarian groups, including the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the UNRWA, to ensure that sufficient aid reaches the Gaza Strip.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on Wednesday welcomed the adversary opinion of the ICJ and “strongly” urged Israel to comply with its obligations in relation to the presence and activities of the UN and other humanitarian actors in the Occupied Palestinian Territory in accordance with the advisory opinion.

Former Trump adviser accuses CIA of colluding with Mossad, lying about Hamas

October 24, 2025 

Middle East Monitor

Steve Bannon, former adviser to Donald Trump, attends his arraignment at the New York Criminal Courthouse in New York, US, on Thursday, Sept. 8, 2022

. [Steven Hirsch / Pool – Anadolu Agency]


Steve Bannon, former adviser to US President Donald Trump, has accused the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of providing “false and misleading” information to the Trump administration about the position of Hamas on negotiations with Israel. He claimed that the agency was “working for Israel’s Mossad” and operating under its influence, Arabi 21 News reported.

In remarks that have stirred widespread controversy across political and media circles in the United States, Bannon alleged that the CIA had “deliberately lied” to the US Special Envoy for the Middle East, Steve Witkoff. He said the alleged lies were intended to “buy time for Mossad,” which, according to him, was conducting secret operations alongside Trump administration talks over a possible deal between Israel and Hamas.

Bannon stated that Witkoff had been receiving three daily briefings from the CIA, during which the agency allegedly misled him each time. He claimed that this was not an intelligence error but a deliberate act of deception. According to Bannon, the CIA had told Witkoff that Hamas was not interested in peace and would never reach an agreement, a position he said reflected the views of Mossad and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

He further alleged that these misleading reports caused Witkoff to miss an important meeting that was scheduled to take place in Muscat, Oman. Bannon claimed that there had been a clear intention to end the negotiations, and that Mossad’s influence over the CIA was the reason Witkoff was unable to attend the meeting.

Clearing Gaza’s surface of bombs will take up to 30 years, aid group says


October 24, 2025 

Middle East Monitor

An aerial view of destruction in Sheikh Ridwan neighborhood following the Israeli forces’ withdrawal with the ceasefire agreement in Gaza City, Gaza on October 17, 2025. [Mohammed Abu Samra – Anadolu Agency]

Clearing the surface of Gaza of unexploded ordnance will likely take between 20 to 30 years, according to an official with aid group Humanity & Inclusion, describing the enclave as a “horrific, unmapped minefield”, Reuters reported.

More than 53 people have been killed and hundreds injured by lethal remnants from the two-year Israel-Hamas war, according to a UN-led database, which is thought by aid groups to be a huge underestimate.

A US-brokered ceasefire this month has raised hopes that the huge task of removing them from among millions of tons of rubble can begin.

“If you’re looking at a full clearance, it’s never happening, it’s subterranean. We will find it for generations to come,” said Nick Orr, an Explosive Ordnance Disposal expert at Humanity & Inclusion, comparing the situation with British cities after World War Two.

“Surface clearance, now that’s something that’s attainable within a generation, I think 20 to 30 years,” he added.

“It’s going to be a very small chipping away at a very big problem.”

Orr, who went to Gaza several times during the war, is part of his organisation’s seven-person team that will begin identifying war remnants there in essential infrastructure like hospitals and bakeries next week.

For now, however, aid groups like his have not been given blanket Israeli permission to start work on removing and destroying the ordnance nor to import the required equipment, he said.

COGAT, the arm of the Israeli military overseeing Gaza aid, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. It blocks items into Gaza which it considers have “dual use” – both civilian and military.

Orr said it was seeking permission to import supplies to burn away bombs rather than detonate them, to ease concerns about them being repurposed by Hamas.

He voiced support for a temporary force such as one foreseen in the 20-point ceasefire plan.

“If there is going to be any kind of future inside of Gaza, there needs to be an enabling security force that allows humanitarians to work,” Orr said.