Tuesday, July 28, 2026

 

Israel’s Ghoulish Settlers Eye Up Gaza, As Netanyahu Kills Trump’s Board of Peace

by | Jul 29, 2026

Reprinted from Andy Worthington’s website.

On Sunday evening (July 19), a group of some of the most repulsive, ghoulish people on the face of the earth marched towards the perimeter fence separating the Gaza Strip from the rest of the world to declare their intention to re-colonize Gaza, to re-establish three Israeli settlements that were dismantled in 2005 when, under Ariel Sharon, 21 settlements in total were abandoned, occupied, at the time, by 8,000 Israeli settlers.

Settlers at the Gaza perimeter fence on the evening of July 19, 2026 calling for new Israeli settlements to be built on the site of a still-ongoing genocide. (Photo by Oren Ziv, accompanying his July 20 article for +972 Magazine, “Nearly half of Israel’s government joins march vowing Gaza settlements”).

These fanatical Israeli settlers, on what was billed as the “March of Thousands”, although only a few hundred people attended, were led by the two far-right ministers in Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition government — Itamar Ben Gvir, the Minister for National Security, who is in charge of Israel’s prisons, which, for Palestinians, have become a gulag of torture facilities since October 7, 2023, and Bezalel Smotrich, the Minister of Finance, and also the minister in charge of settlement affairs within the Defense Ministry, who has played a huge role in the ever-growing, and ever more violent expansion of Israel’s illegal settlements in the West Bank.

Speaking at the rally, Ben Gvir said, “If someone had said three years ago that we would control 70% of the Gaza Strip, no one would have believed it. So today I say: there will be Jewish settlement throughout Gaza. We are returning home. Gaza is ours.”

A screenshot from a video of Itamar Ben-Gvir making a speech about colonizing Gaza while marching with supporters towards the perimeter fence of the Gaza Strip on July 19, 2026.

Smotrich, meanwhile, warned that a change of government in the forthcoming elections in October, could “roll back all the Zionist and national settlement revolution” undertaken over the last four years.

The two men were accompanied by more than two dozen ministers and legislators, as well as the 80-year old settler fanatic Daniella Weiss, who told the crowd, “They ask me, ‘What will happen to the Arabs in Gaza?’ There will be no Arabs in Gaza, unequivocally.”

Netanyahu’s reticence in the face of selective western outrage about the West Bank

Although Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party was listed as a sponsor of the rally, Netanyahu was noticeably silent about it. This, undoubtedly, wasn’t because he fundamentally opposes the settlers’ aspirations to re-colonize Gaza, but because, while western countries have been and continue to be largely indifferent to the almost immeasurable military slaughter and destruction in Gaza, they have been far more outspoken about settler activities in the West Bank.

On May 28 this year, the EU imposed sanctions on three individuals and four violent settler movements, including Daniella Weiss and her Nachala Settlement Movement, which, as they described it, “encourages and facilitates coercive acts that lead to the forced displacement of Palestinians”, and whose “outposts obstruct access to Palestinian agricultural and grazing land and have been persistent sources of settler violence.”

Netanyahu is also aware that both Ben-Gvir and Smotrich were sanctioned last June by the governments of the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Norway “for their repeated incitement of violence against Palestinian civilians” in the West Bank, followed by Slovenia and the Netherlands in July, and Spain in September, even though neither man has yet been issued an arrest warrant by the International Criminal Court — for war crimes and crimes against humanity — as is the case with Netanyahu himself, and his former defense minister, Yoav Gallant.

While the IDF sought to prevent the settlers’ rally, designating the surrounding area as a “closed military zone” for 24 hours, and setting up barriers with the military police, which the settlers mostly managed to avoid, it would be unwise to think that Israel Katz, Israel’s current defense minister, is unsympathetic to the settlers’ cause.

Tiresomely well known for identifying any gathering of Palestinians or Lebanese as a “terror nest”, Katz said, just last week, on Israel’s Channel 14, “I intend to establish three Nahal outposts, which is also a military entity, in those places that were in northern Gaza” — a reference to military bases that, as Nour Odeh explained for Al Jazeera, “combine farming with an armed presence in a bid to consolidate control over a territory.”

Although the settlers claimed that they were “returning home after 21 years,” as a banner declared, this is nothing but historical revisionism, as the decision to withdraw from Gaza in 2005 was an act of deliberate “disengagement” that was meant to stymie further Palestinian demands, as Belén Fernández explained in May last year.

Psychotic indifference to genocide — from Israel to Jared Kushner

What was particularly sickening about Sunday’s rally was the gleeful indifference of those gathered — as a beautiful sunset incongruously lit up the sky — to the fact that they were overlooking a vast concentration camp, the size of east London, which is littered with the buried corpses of at least 10,000 Palestinians.

Almost all civilians, they remain buried under 60 million tonnes of debris — “20 times the combined amount generated by conflicts worldwide since 2008”, in the Guardian’s words — which has been created as a result of Israel’s still-unending 33-month genocidal assault, in which, at the barest minimum, over 73,000 Palestinians, again, overwhelmingly civilians, have been killed.

A screenshot from a video of Daniella Weiss speaking to supporters about the colonization of Gaza at the perimeter fence of the Gaza Strip on July 19, 2026.

As I watched the video of the monstrous Daniella Weiss, I realized that I hadn’t been so sickened by callous indifference to the industrial slaughter of an entire people since January this year, when, at Davos, Jared Kushner, Donald Trump’s son-in-law, and a prominent real estate investor, first presented his AI-generated vision of “New Gaza”, a futuristic high-rise coastal tourist resort on Gaza’s shoreline, which, as I described it, captured “the callous, ghoulish, cruel and heartless opportunism of those who see the world only through a lens of business opportunities and maximum profit-making for themselves and their cronies.”

As I further described it in February, when Trump’s Board of Peace held its inaugural meeting in New York, what was so grotesque about Kushner’s vision, as it was paraded for a second time, was that it was “a techno-futuristic vision rising up not in some pristine desert, or on some sort of neglected brownfield site, but on a genocidal crime scene of unparalleled depravity.”

Kushner’s vision was also devoid of Palestinians, as, of course, is the settlers’ vision.

On Sunday, as on most occasions when the settlers address the world, they made a point of emphasizing that the solution, for the Palestinians, is “voluntary migration”, a lie that is regular wheeled out to create an illusion that Israel’s intent is anything other than the persistent extermination of the Palestinian people through every means available — primarily, direct military action, starvation, disease and the destruction of the entire healthcare sector.

However much Daniella Weiss rants and raves about western countries “helping out” with Israel’s Palestinian “problem”, no one is going to become involved in what would be the largest and gravest crime of ethnic cleansing in history. Muslim countries won’t do it, if for no other reason than that it might destabilize their regimes through their populations’ sympathy with the Palestinians, and western countries won’t, because Weiss has failed to recognize that every single western country is now struggling with massive opposition to any kind of immigration whatsoever through a resurgence of far-right racism.

Israel strangles Trump’s Board of Peace

When it comes to Jared Kushner’s grandiose, heartless, profit-driven visions of a futuristic “New Gaza”, the realities of dealing with the Israelis seem to have made it evaporate, as Julian Borger reported for the Guardian in an article last week, entitled, “Trump’s Board of Peace drops full Gaza recovery plan in favour of tiny pilot scheme.”

The Board of Peace first emerged last October, under Trump’s 20-point “Peace Plan” for the future of Gaza, much of it hammered out over long months of negotiations between Qatar, Egypt, the US, Israel and Hamas and the various other Palestinian factions in Gaza, even though Trump tried to take credit for it all.

It led, immediately, to an end to Israel’s sickening carpet-bombing of Gaza, and its deadly land-based assault on Gaza City, which was clearly a huge step forward, and it also led to the release of the last Israeli hostages seized on October 7, 2023, in exchange for around 1,900 Palestinian prisoners and hostages.

There, however, the success ended. As Israel kept killing Palestinians, although in smaller numbers, it also steadily increased the amount of Palestinian land under its control, from 53% at the time of the ceasefire to nearly 70% now, with no sign of any agreed withdrawal. It has also persistently refused to allow the entry into Gaza of the agreed 600 trucks of humanitarian aid a day, and has also failed to properly re-open the Rafah Crossing, to allow desperately ill patients to travel abroad for urgent medical treatment, and to allow those who want to return to come home.

Moreover, with Trump AWOL, having lost interest after he was feted for bringing peace to Gaza, the various components envisaged in his plan — for which UN Security Council approval was secured in November — have unravelled. The Board of Peace is largely spectral, its most prominent member being the former UN official Nikolay Mladenov, who has taken Israel’s side, calling on Hamas to disarm before any further negotiations can take place regarding Gaza’s future, even though Hamas never agreed to that, having wisely tied disarmament to future discussions regarding Gaza’s governance.

For this, a Palestinian committee appointed by the Board of Peace was supposed to begin the day-to-day running of Gaza, taking over from Hamas, which was willing to oblige, but Netanyahu refused to let them in, and has left them, humiliated, living in hotel rooms in Cairo. Equally spectral is the International Stabilization Force envisaged to maintain order.

As Borger described it, “The Gaza recovery plan being pursued by Donald Trump’s Board of Peace (BoP) has shrunk dramatically from an ambitious blueprint for the reconstruction of the whole territory to a small pilot project in the south of the strip.

Even the envisaged pilot scheme — involving a temporary camp for a tiny fraction of Gaza’s 2 million displaced people, with a Palestinian administration, police and a small international security force — is not expected to take shape before the end of the year.”

As Borger added, “Incremental steps have been announced in recent weeks. A few Moroccan and Kosovar officers have arrived in Israel where they are intended to be the kernel of an International Stabilization Force (ISF), tasked with protecting the pilot camp. A logistical base for this future force to store vehicles, equipment and other material is nearing completion at the Kerem Shalom crossing between Israel and Gaza.”

A photo of the base for the International Stabilization Force (ISF) in Gaza, by the Kerem Shalom Crossing, made available to the Wall Street Journal, and used in their article on July 9, “Trump Wanted 20,000 Peacekeeping Troops in Gaza. He Is Starting With 10 to 20.”

“However”, as he also explained, “preparatory work on the pilot camp near the southern Gaza of city of Rafah has not begun, nor has construction of the camp’s ISF support base. Satellite images of the area show disturbed earth but no new structures”, with no “substantial progress” expected before the elections on October 27, in which Netanyahu is hoping to cling on to power.

Amongst western diplomats, as Borger described it, “There is growing apprehension that Netanyahu, facing the threat of electoral defeat, will gamble on a new all-out offensive in Gaza before the October vote.” He added that his diplomatic sources believe that “the best hope of progress in Gaza is a new Israeli government, but it is far from clear whether any successor coalition would be substantially more flexible.”

One diplomat told Borger that the Board of Peace, as Borger described it, “had no choice but to make the most of very limited progress, as an admission of failure would open the way for extreme factions in the Israeli government with radically different plans for Gaza.”

In the diplomat’s words, “The aim is just to keep something going, keep the ball in play, because if you stop there are others with a more extreme agenda just waiting to jump in and take over, and they are talking about wholesale population transfer and colonization” — a reference to Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, for sure, but one that also seems to misunderstand the extent to which that is also the position taken by Netanyahu and Israel Katz.

Borger noted that Israeli officials “have repeatedly suggested that a return to war is inevitable” on the basis of Hamas’s alleged “refusal” to disarm, despite the evidence of Hamas’ willingness to comply, as they demonstrated on July 6, when the Government Media Office announced that its Emergency Committee had been dissolved, ending its 19-year government in “a move intended to facilitate the transfer of administrative authority to the Palestinian-led National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG)”, followed by the transfer of weapons to NCAG control.

As Borger described it, Hamas “has said it would be willing to lay down its weapons under certain conditions and took part in negotiations in Cairo” two weekends ago “on possible disarmament mechanisms.” The talks, he noted, “covered the disarmament of Hamas and rival Israeli-backed militias inside Gaza, who would receive the surrendered weapons, how they would be stored and whether assault rifles would count as offensive weapons or personal arms.”

However, he added, reports from Cairo suggested that “progress on decommissioning weapons was unlikely while Israel continued to carry out airstrikes and creep ever further into Hamas-held territory.” A Palestinian source told Haaretz that, “As long as Israel doesn’t commit to a gradual withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and to changing the reality there, there’s no basis for talks.”

Borger suggested that “limited pressure” had been put on Israel by Aryeh Lightstone, a senior advisor to the Board of Peace, and, apparently, Trump’s “lead negotiator in Israel”, who “wrote to the Netanyahu government privately in June, calling for a relaxation of restrictions on ‘dual-use’ humanitarian aid entering Gaza, which have stopped the shipment of essential items such as water pipes and solar panels”, and who also sought clearance for “the eventual entry into Gaza of the ISF and a vetted Palestinian police force.”

As Borger conceded, however, “The Israeli government has so far not approved any of the requests.”

Instead, the Board of Peace is left with its pilot scheme near Rafah, which Borger called “a far cry from [its] initial aspirations”, when Kushner “promised that the gates to aid would be thrown open and basic infrastructure — including water, sewage and electric systems, hospitals and bakeries — would be restored across the strip within 100 days.”

At meetings in Cyprus three weeks ago, Mladenov, Lightstone, advisers from the Tony Blair Institute and members of the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG) apparently “hammered out” the scaled-down plans for a pilot scheme consisting of “portable cabins for tens of thousands of displaced people”, set up in the buffer zone along the ceasefire line near Rafah.

According to the plans, the IDF “would withdraw from the line and security at the crossing between Hamas-run Gaza and the camp would be overseen by the ISF and a specially trained Palestinian police force, officially vetted by NCAG and the ISF”,  although in reality, as Borger added, “Israel is expected to have a decisive say in who is recruited.”

The ISF will undertake training in Egypt, but that has not yet begun, and, as Borger explained, “It is hoped that [it] will be about 5,000-strong (a quarter of the force originally anticipated), with troops from Morocco, Kosovo, and possibly Albania and Kazakhstan.” Training will take months, and, perhaps most crucially, “the legal framework for their presence is still being negotiated with the Israeli government.”

One official said that, “If we got this done, in place, by December, I’d be very happy.”

Borger added that “preference for settlement in the pilot camp would be given to former residents of the Rafah area”, but added that it was “not clear what other criteria would be used in vetting Palestinians wanting to move there.” He noted that  the entire scheme “has been denounced by critics”, who include the former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert, who has called it a “concentration camp” in the making, as I discussed in a recent article, in which I noted claims that no free movement will be allowed. Borger, however, was told by Board of Peace officials that “there will be freedom of movement in and out of the pilot area.”

He also noted claims that “a wider range of humanitarian relief items would be let into the pilot camp”, compared to Hamas-controlled Gaza, although even there, he added, “the Israeli government has insisted on a distinction between humanitarian aid and reconstruction, with only the former being permitted.”

Borger also discussed how funding remains a pressing issue, largely because so little of the $17 billion pledged by allies when Trump launched his Board of Peace has materialized. Instead, the most significant support to date has come from the EU’s Palestine Donor Group, which announced last week that it had raised €883 million for Gaza, “intended for the restoration of basic water and sanitation infrastructure and waste management”, and also “meant to be complementary to the BoP’s projects.” The Board of Peace is also, apparently, “negotiating for some of the $11bn in Palestinian tax revenue and frozen bank assets seized and withheld by Israel to be diverted to project funds”, although that proposal has enraged the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank, which has been “financially suffocated.”

Is there a way forward?

Most noticeably, however, what Borger’s discussions with those on the ground in Israel reveal is how the Israeli government itself retains so much control over the Board of Peace’s plans, and can, as it has with the ceasefire deal in general, fail to fulfil its obligations as and when it wishes, and can also provide further obstruction simply by refusing to deal with requests for cooperation.

No one seems to have the power to oblige Israel to cooperate, except, perhaps, Donald Trump himself, but he appears to have no interest in doing so, either because, as I suggested, he has lost interest, or, perhaps, because, although he doesn’t strike me as a Zionist — through his interest, solely, in himself; in what we might call being “Trumpist” — he is also beholden to Israeli interests through the significant financial donations made to him by prominent pro-Israeli figures like Miriam Adelson, the widow of the casino owner Sheldon Adelson, whose fanatical support for Israel is undisputed.

While Julian Borger ably demonstrated how sidelined Trump and his Board of Peace seem to have become, none of this helps us to see a future beyond the grim reality of now — of a still-tightening, suffocating noose on Gaza that those wielding it still refuse to consider relinquishing, caught, as they are, in a fixation with nothing but the slow extermination of the Palestinian people.

Will any leaders in the west wake up, and see that, beyond the grim settler violence in the West Bank, which they are so ready to criticize, they have allowed Trump’s largely empty contributions to Gaza’s future to enable them to pretend that something far, far worse isn’t happening right next to the West Bank, in the grotesque, ongoing death camp depravity of the Gaza Strip?

Andy Worthington is a freelance investigative journalist, activist, author, photographer (of a photo-journalism project, ‘The State of London’, which ran from 2012 to 2023), film-maker and singer-songwriter (the lead singer and main songwriter for the London-based band The Four Fathers, whose music is available via Bandcamp). He is the co-founder of the Close Guantánamo campaign (see the ongoing photo campaign here) and the successful We Stand With Shaker campaign of 2014-15, and the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison and of two other books: Stonehenge: Celebration and Subversion and The Battle of the Beanfield. He is also the co-director (with Polly Nash) of the documentary film, “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo”, which you can watch on YouTube here.

To receive new articles in your inbox, please subscribe to Andy’s new Substack account, set up in November 2024, where he’ll be sending out a weekly newsletter, or his RSS feed — and he can also be found on Facebook (and here), Twitter and YouTube. Also see the six-part definitive Guantánamo prisoner list, The Complete Guantánamo Files, the definitive Guantánamo habeas list, and the full military commissions list.  Please also consider joining the Close Guantánamo campaign, and, if you appreciate Andy’s work, feel free to make a donation via PayPal or via Stripe.

Source: Mondoweiss

Palestinians in the West Bank are bracing for an escalation of the Israeli crackdown on their communities after armed Israeli settlers killed four Palestinians in the village of Tell, southwest of Nablus in the northern West Bank, on Friday morning. The four Palestinians were executed in the field while they were defending their lands against a settler attack, during which an altercation between a settler and one of the village’s residents led to the death of the settler amid the onslaught on the village.

On Friday morning, a group of armed Israeli settlers had stormed a plot of land in Tell and were confronted by local Palestinian villagers, who had rushed to the scene to defend against the settler incursion. A physical altercation ensued, during which a Palestinian grabbed the rifle of an Israeli settler and fired it, according to local reports and video footage, killing one Israeli. Israeli settlers then opened fire on the crowd of Palestinians, killing four and wounding at least seven others. A second Israeli was also killed during the incident, although it remains unclear whether he was killed by the Palestinian who fired the gun or by friendly fire.

The incident sparked a wave of incitement that soon included Israeli politicians calling for large-scale military action across the entire West Bank. The Israeli army subsequently announced that it would conduct a wide-scale operation to arrest Palestinians involved in the incident. Israeli forces also sealed off the city of Nablus and its governorate, closing down surrounding roads, while settler groups went on a rampage against five Palestinian towns in the northern West Bank, torching property and opening fire at inhabitants.

Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held a special meeting with the Israeli army’s Chief of Staff, Eyal Zamir, and the Minister of Defense, Israel Katz, to determine next steps. In a joint statement following their meeting, Netanyahu and Katz said that they had ordered the army to demolish the home of the Palestinian who shot and killed the Israeli settler in Tell, to confiscate all weapons in villages from which attacks against settlers emanate — without naming which villages — and to revoke working permits for all Palestinians who live in them. Katz and Netanyahu also stated that the Israeli government would move to legalize even more settler outposts across the West Bank. 

Following the statement, the Israeli army announced the cancellation of weekend vacations for Israeli troops in the West Bank and that it had approved “offensive plans” across the territory.

The incident was promoted by the Israeli media, and later by Western mainstream media outlets, as a fatal Palestinian attack against Israeli hikers, which triggered widespread calls for reprisal. Israel’s National Security Minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, said that “the cities and villages of [Palestinian] murderers in the West Bank must be treated like Beit Hanoun,” referring to the north Gaza town that the Israeli army completely leveled during the genocidal assault on the Strip. Ben-Gvir also said that “for every Jew killed, the enemy must lose houses and land.”

Israel’s hardline Finance Minister, Bezalel Smotrich, who holds vast powers over the West Bank as the head of the Civil Administration, said that “the villages of Tell, Beit Furik, and Irak Burin must become like the refugee camps of Jenin and Tulkarem,” which the Israeli army completely displaced in February of last year, expelling at least 40,000 Palestinians from their homes.

What happened in Tell?

According to Munther Shtayeh, the deputy mayor of Tell, “there was no planned attack on Israeli settlers. Rather, settlers were attacking the villagers when the incident occurred.” Shtayeh pointed out that the village had been attacked in the past days, including an attempt by Israeli settlers to torch a house with a family inside it. “Villagers have been on the alert for any new attack, and that is why many young men were present at the edge of the village on Friday morning,” the deputy mayor told Mondoweiss. “That was when the armed settlers arrived, and after a standoff, things escalated, which led to the death of a settler, and then the settlers opened fire indiscriminately, killing four men from the village.”

Shtayeh pointed out that “the youngest of the victims was in his late twenties, and the oldest was in his early forties.” All had families and children, the deputy mayor added. According to the Palestinian Ministry of Health, the four victims were from the same family: Imran Ramadan, 37, Jawad Ramadan, 27, Ibrahim Ramadan, 32, and Farouq Ramadan, 41.

Shortly after the events, video footage circulated on social media showing a group of Palestinians and a group of Israeli settlers in a standoff with the presence of several Israeli soldiers. One Israeli, according to the footage, points a rifle towards a Palestinian, who snatches it from the settler. Shots are then heard, followed by more intense bouts of gunfire. Israeli media later reported that two Israelis were killed, one of them an army soldier, and said that during the incident, a Palestinian had grabbed a rifle from a settler security guard, confirming that it was not a planned attack. The Israeli army radio later said that an internal army investigation confirmed that the incident in Tell was not a planned attack.

The aftermath

In the hours following the attack, groups of Israeli settlers launched rampages across the villages of Faraata and Jeet, both west of Nablus but falling under the governorate of Qalqiliyah. Video footage Several videos filmed by Faraata residents showed settlers burning houses in the village, Palestinians fleeing amid sounds of gunfire as one fell to the ground, and settlers roaming the streets and burning cars. 

Akef Jumaa, the coordinator of the Qalqiliyah governorate’s popular committees, which coordinate local defense efforts against settler attacks, told a local radio channel that Israeli settlers had attacked the village of Jeet, where they were confronted by residents. Then the settlers continued on to Faraata, where they attacked houses and set fire to farmland, while several residents were injured. Jumaa described Faraata as “a small hilly village with no more than 1,200 inhabitants.”

Palestinian media also reported that settler groups attacked the village of Sarrah near Tell, southwest of Nablus, where a Palestinian family was reportedly forced to evacuate their home. The mayor of Sarrah told the Arabic-language Alaraby TV during its live broadcast that at least 150 Israeli settlers were attacking the village from its western entrance, adding that settler attacks “have recently been occurring almost daily,” but that today was “the largest and fiercest attack.”

Meanwhile, Israeli forces raided the Nablus Specialized Hospital in Nablus City, arresting two Palestinians from Tell. The spokesperson for the hospital, Wael Kharouf, told Mondoweiss that Israeli forces had arrested two Palestinians from the hospital and confiscated CCTV footage.

“Both of the men who were arrested are siblings from Tell,” Kharouf said. “One of them had arrived in the morning, wounded in the hand by live fire, and the other, his brother, had accompanied him.”

Kharouf added that the Israeli army showed “no respect for the medical nature of the facility, as the soldiers had handcuffed some of the staff during the raid and forced them to lie on the ground.”

A predictable escalation

Last December, Netanyahu downplayed the violence of settler groups in an interview with Fox News, saying that it was “much bloated” and describing the settler groups as “a handful of kids …about 70 kids” from broken homes. 

Yet Netanyahu’s claims are contradicted by figures from Israel’s own security establishment. In April 2026, the former head of the Mossad, Tamir Pardo, said following a field visit to the West Bank that the escalation of settler violence and the absence of accountability might lead to “a wider explosion of the situation” in the territory.

Less than a week later, the head of the Israeli army’s central command, Major General Avi Bluth, warned of the consequences of settler violence in the West Bank, which he described as “Jewish terrorism.” Bluth admitted that there were “hundreds” of Israelis involved in these attacks, which pose a danger to the security of the Israeli state. The Israeli army official added that it was “almost a miracle” that Palestinians hadn’t launched a new Intifada as a result of the settler attacks, but that they “won’t remain indifferent indefinitely.”

In recent months, attacks by settler groups on Palestinians have intensified, with settler groups moving to take over Palestinian houses in areas under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority. Last Sunday, a group of settlers raided the town of Deir Jarir, east of Ramallah, killing two Palestinians, aged 55 and 26. The attack followed a confrontation between Palestinians and settlers who attempted to steal sheep from a farm in the town.


This article was originally published by Mondoweiss; please consider supporting the original publication, and read the original version at the link above.Email

Qassam Muaddi is the Palestine Staff Writer for Mondoweiss.




Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.

The Israelis had their jaws dropping and dragging on the grounds.  The Saudis were cock-a-hoop.  The Trump administration remains, as it always does, streaky and fickle.  The agreement between the US and Saudi Arabia for the creation of a civilian nuclear program was originally contingent on one vital fact: that Israel and the Kingdom normalise their relations through the Abraham Accords.  But President Donald Trump is the enemy of contingency and conditions, indifferent, even hostile to stability.  He is the relativising distillate, the corrosive acid that does away with fetters and understanding. Trust him, and any sense of constancy, at your peril.

On July 22, the US Secretary of Energy Chris Wright and Saudi Minister of Energy Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman signed what was described by the US Department of Energy as “a peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement” (also known as a 123 agreement pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act), alongside a bilateral safeguards agreement.  The 123 agreement is intended to provide US companies access to the Kingdom’s nuclear energy program, supposedly “benefiting American industry, workers, and supply chains while helping to meet Saudi energy needs.”  Vacuous and inconsistent words followed: the claim that these agreements uphold “high standards of nuclear safety, security and nonproliferation” and that the US “competitive edge in civil nuclear technology” is being strengthened. 

Secretary Wright was also in a reassuring mood that “these agreements uphold the highest standards of nuclear safety and nonproliferation, while relying on the world’s best nuclear technology and scientists, designed right here in the United States.”

Neither the department media release, nor Secretary Wright, made mention of the original contingency for such a deal, namely the normalisation of relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel.  Riyadh had made it a fundamental condition that participating in the sanitising procedure of normalisation would entail Israel’s commitment to a clear path towards Palestinian statehood.  

Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Energy also made no mention of any impediments to the arrangement, claiming that the agreement bolstered “efforts to diversify energy sources, advance cutting-edge technologies, and expand opportunities for cooperation and investment in ways that serve the mutual interests of the two friendly countries”.

On Truth Social, Trump was ready with a qualifying blast, tethering what seemed, at least initially, to an unconditional agreement.  “The Civil Nuclear Deal (There will be no enrichment of material!)… which pertains only to non-military use such as the ones Iran and UAE (and others) already have, will be approved, but is totally subject to Saudi Arabia joining the very respected and successful Abraham Accords.”  In separate remarks, the President also claimed that, while he did not talk about the accords with Wright prior to inking the deal, “it was always understood, and Chris knew, and Saudi Arabia knew”.  

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt also reiterated the point that, if Saudi Arabia did not join the Accords, “the deal is off.”  Conversations would continue being held with the Saudis on that score. 

Trump’s clarifications did hit the right note in Israel.  But the idea that Saudi Arabia might be permitted a uranium enrichment facility was already being mooted by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 2023, though this caused some dismay among members of the defence forces, the intelligence agency Mossad and the Israel nuclear energy agency.  Channel 13, drawing from an unnamed source apparently close to the Israeli PM, revealed that Israel would want “to know what the level of American monitoring of such a process would be, what would be the level of involvement and what would be Israel’s insurance policy, and accordingly devise a clear position.”

However advertised, the US-Saudi nuclear deal does present a proliferation threat that would involve the production of fissile material.  Rosemary Kelanic, director of the Middle East program at the US-based Defense Priorities, shudders at the prospect.  “The US has never done this before. We have never helped another country enrich on their own soil.”  The impeccable logic here was that producing one’s own nuclear fuel presented a “much bigger risk” for the construction of nuclear weapons. “Once you have it on your ground,” insists Gil Murciano, CEO at Mitvim, the Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies, “it’s only a question of the level of enrichment.”  Given the resources available to the Saudis, becoming a “threshold nation” would be easy fare.

It also seems anomalous that the gulf kingdom, being the world’s largest oil exporter, would be so keen on a civilian nuclear industry.  A plausible theory here is that nuclear energy will serve to reduce carbon emissions under Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s Vision 2030 economic plan, reduce Saudi consumption of oil for electricity and enable a great share of oil for export.  Hussain Abdul-Hussain of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies suggests another, less benign motive: that any such industry will be positioned for any eventuality that Iran develops its own nuclear weapons.  As the Crown Prince told CBS News in 2018, “without a doubt if Iran developed a nuclear bomb, we will follow suit as long as possible”.

The terms of the deal have yet to be released in full.  Despite Trump’s current position, were US companies to build a uranium enrichment facility for the Saudis, it is axiomatic that the steps towards producing highly enriched uranium that could then be used in a military program diminish.  It is also worth noting that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which Saudi Arabia is a signatory, does not deal with the thorny topic of enrichment.

It then follows that what is good for one Sunni state might well be good for others.  A domestic enrichment facility starts becoming appealing to others: Egypt or Turkey for instance.  But that will be some way off: this agreement could reach its terminus in print and aspiration, becoming yet another one of Trump’s aborted projects. Email

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.

 

Source: How Things Work

No American city has been as central to this decade’s struggles for social justice as Minneapolis. George Floyd’s murder by Minneapolis police on May 25, 2020 set off the biggest civil rights protest surge in our national history. Five and a half years later, ICE decided to make an example out of Minneapolis with a quasi-military invasion—which prompted a shockingly effective organized grassroots backlash that will be studied for years to come.

For the rest of the country, which associated Minneapolis more with “Minnesota Nice” than with fiery uprisings, the city may have seemed like an odd epicenter for our violent racial strife. But as Justin Ellis shows masterfully in his new book “The Cruelty of Nice Folks,” the history of race in Minneapolis makes a mockery of all that niceness. Ellis, a Minneapolis native who now writes for Defector, moved back to his hometown in order to do the research that allowed him to tell several intertwined stories: his own family history, George Floyd, the legacy of police violence, and Minneapolis’s long and sordid record of Nice White Liberals who failed to meaningfully reckon with the injustices growing on the other side of town.

I interviewed Ellis about Minneapolis, the failures of white liberalism, and whether defunding the police is possible. Our conversation is below.

How Things Work: Early on in this book, you mention a dynamic that I’ve definitely witnessed in newsrooms, which is that when some big story with a strong racial element happens (i.e. George Floyd), editors tend to try to pull in every black writer to write about it. On one hand, this can pigeonhole black writers. On the other hand, your writing about George Floyd led directly to this book. How did you make the decision to pursue the book project?

Justin Ellis: I struggled with this from the jump, even as far back as writing the essay for The Atlantic that ultimately led to the book. I’ve worked in journalism and media for over 20 years, I’ve seen the way newsrooms pursue and abandon diversity inside the house, then scramble when they feel the urgent need to tell stories about black life (only in someone’s death). It’s all exhausting and insane, and by the time Floyd was murdered I thought I was done with my journalism career.

Everything with Floyd hit so much more personally for me. I lived a few blocks away from where he was killed while I was in middle school, I could tell you what the inside of Cup Food looked like from memory. More than that, I felt really motivated by the dissonance a number of people had over such a brutal police killing happening in Minneapolis. That people would believe a crime like Floyd’s murder couldn’t happen in Minneapolis says a lot about the myths and lies perpetrated in the city’s name. Ultimately, I thought a book would let me explore that more in my own terms with my own understanding of the city.

Hubert Humphrey is mostly remembered today as a guy who lost a presidential race to Richard Nixon. But you have a fascinating section on his time as mayor of Minneapolis, where he was kind of the prototypical Nice White Liberal. What can the nice liberals of today learn from Hubert Humphrey about the limitations to that governing style?

Ellis: Humphrey really became the template for what we’d now call a standard bearer moderate Democrat. You do not get an Amy Klobuchar, Josh Shapiro, even a Joe Biden, without him. At the time when Humphrey became mayor in the 1940s he saw the threats to Black and Jewish families in Minneapolis in stark terms and he often was willing to personally intervene on the behalf of people, whether that was trouble with the police or being able to walk into certain restaurants or businesses. He saw the power in organizing committees and outside groups to offer policy ideas or create pressure around fixing employment disparity and housing segregation. He was also a model technocrat. He fully embraced this idea of giving things like “the race issue” serious study and finding solutions through lengthy reports. He was one of the earliest local politicians to believe that you could fix policing through better education and training. Credit where it is due, Humphrey could have won office without doing any of this, but saw it as a bigger moral calling.

But ultimately Humphrey’s legacy on the local level is creating the theater of equality. Every single one of those things I mentioned above are from the playbook we see today. It’s a lot of measures that help reassure white liberal voters without giving up any of their standing, while leaving marginalized groups always waiting, saddled with this expectation of fealty to one party because the men wearing blue ties acknowledge racism exists, even if they never want to take responsibility.

It’s telling that all of Humphrey’s grand ideas are all for nothing because of his ambition for higher office. He won two terms as mayor and jumped to run for Senate, and in the process left Minneapolis essentially the same as he found it for black families.

Your book, like Elizabeth Hinton’s “America on Fire,” delves into a decades-long cycle that’s played out in many US cities: Police violence, followed by uprisings, followed by promises for reform and blue ribbon commissions that ultimately produce only “modest change and a photo op.” Did you come out of your reporting with a solid idea of what a better process would look like?

Ellis: I don’t know how you can look at Minneapolis today and say they are better for choosing reform over revolution. The mayor reorganized the public safety department, then there was turnover in the leadership there. The chief who was supposed to lead the transformation of the police force recently resigned in disgrace. Like most police departments in the country, the budget continues to balloon thanks to overtime costs. And at the moment the city is failing to even meet the basics of its court-mandated reforms. By definition this is insanity, right?

I think like anything in local government, having a process for the community to guide designs and offer feedback is important. But I think the starting point has to be a total tear down, not a rebuild. That sounds simplistic, but look at where making changes on the edges has gotten us? Revised training standards and use of force policies have amounted to departments that are effectively the same. The aim needs to be so much higher.

After George Floyd, the Minneapolis City Council voted to end the city’s police department as it was constituted. Much of your book follows the long and ultimately unsuccessful fight over trying to achieve that vision. Do you think that was always doomed, or were there strategic changes that could have been made that would have allowed the city to end up in a better place?

Ellis: I really go back and forth on this. The machinery of so many cities like Minneapolis makes it seem near impossible to break up modern policing. The city’s charter commission, an unelected board whose only job is to give guidance to the city council on proposed changes to the charter, basically a kind of local constitution, was able to stall the policing referendum for one year just by pulling some procedural bullshit over a Zoom meeting.

I do think there were flaws with the proposal Minneapolis residents had to vote on in 2021, namely that it was a loosely defined black hole that voters could fill with their fears. It more or less was a ballot question that said “do you support ending policing and giving the city council space to come up with a better idea over time?” To succeed in a movement like this you need something like a diorama, a model people can wrap their heads around to visualize community safety, showing specialists in dealing with unhoused populations, domestic violence, addiction, and maybe even a violent crimes unit. And you have to get people to understand one thing: “this is a starting point,” because it’s going to take time, and most likely the current police will remain in place over the transition. Because people vote scared. There’s a reason why the final weeks of almost every election we’re all inundated with ads barely above grindhouse movies.

I think my most naive or idealistic belief is that you need a mayor willing to stake their career to support this kind of transformation. In Minneapolis you had a mayor—and even police chief—who actively campaigned against rebuilding the police department. It shouldn’t be a political calculus to say “the police as currently constituted do not really work for this city or for you.”

Somewhat related question: it has always bothered me that the debate over defunding the police (which, to be sure, was never a genuine goal of the Democratic establishment) always devolves so quickly into bitching over the term itself, rather than substantive discussions of the underlying issues. Based on Minneapolis’s experience, do you see a path forward for the defund movement?

Ellis: We live in the most absurd era of bullshit rhetoric. It’s infuriating to see how “defund the police” became this weapon that could be so easily used against anyone who wanted to point out that law enforcement budgets operate on the same logic as a venture capitalist’s wet dream of hockey stick growth. Overtime costs for most departments only go up while case clearance rates mostly remain low and black people keep dying. Yet it’s wrong to say “maybe we could use that money in better ways,” because then you wind up as a chyron on Fox & Friends.

It’s now as bloated and captured as “woke.” The problem is “police reform” is the worst of all these terms because of how easily it is co-opted and can provide cover for cynical moderate liberals and the revanchinists on the other side. In the years leading up to Floyd’s death, local activists in Minneapolis were actually successful in clawing back or diverting money from the city’s police budget. And then Floyd was killed. And Dolal Idd. And Amir Locke. I think the way forward increasingly is going to mean bending light in the direction of an abolition people can live with in their communities. I think it will amount to all the ways police departments can have responsibilities, equipment and people peeled away. Or, to quote Grover Norquist, “to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.”

Your own life—growing up in Minneapolis, moving away, then returning home in 2020 to both take care of your mother and to explore your own family history—is woven into this book. How do you think Minneapolis has shaped your life personally, in a way that wouldn’t have been the same had you come from another city?

Ellis: One of the things I really wanted to get at in the book is the liberal tendency to think that things will get better over time, that change can be incremental. That everything works through the often invoked and misquoted “long arc of the moral universe.” This is something that got ingrained in me at a very young age, that society is an ongoing group project that we can make better, but the results likely won’t arrive in your own lifetime. There’s an incredible chapter in Kwame Ture and Charles Hamilton’s Black Power: The Politics Of Liberation in America, that picks apart all the ways traditional coalition building is a busted premise because it works off the belief that institutions are inherently legitimate and can be salvaged if they break bad, and that you can have a working alliance between people who have always been on secure footing in the country and the people who have been traditionally vulnerable.

Now we’re seeing all the ways these traditional political teamups are failing and have so much evidence that incrementalism is ultimately bullshit that helps serve entrenched power. I think growing up around this kind of thinking helped me ground the book in the fact that a belief in good intentions or some unseen moral horizon ultimately contribute to a different, but just as devastating, form of white supremacy.

The book’s epilogue is about the recent ICE invasion of Minneapolis, and people’s remarkably successful fight against the Trump administration’s aggressive deportation efforts. In my modest amount of reporting in Minneapolis this year, I repeatedly heard activists talk about the ways that the 2020 uprisings laid the groundwork for the actions against ICE. Do you think that’s true, and if so, how?

Ellis: Yes and no. I think on a practical, or maybe tactical level, the groundwork definitely came out of the pandemic and the period after Floyd’s death. Yes, it’s organizing through apps like Signal, but it’s also the growing influence of mutual aid. I think it’s also devising alternative methods for block-by-block safety without police. Before there were people on corners with whistles, there were protectors and watch shifts in George Floyd Square. In the aftermath of Floyd one neighborhood in south Minneapolis started an armed patrol and filed a class action lawsuit against the city because police response times to 911 calls was negligible.

More broadly, what I saw in Metro Surge made me think about the toll of the immediate years after Floyd’s death. It’s true that for many people it was a wake up call to police abuses or the underlying rage over the city’s neglect. Could that make people feel more prepared, or more outraged when ICE arrived? Yes. But something I also wondered about was, frankly, white guilt, which can be just as animating. This is a city that had the eyes of the world focused on it for a year after a black man died under a policeman’s knee and then failed to change its police department. For some people, this likely represented a second chance at completing a white savior action.

But in my talks back in Minneapolis while promoting the book, something that kept coming up in conversation is that the outpouring to support immigrant families, while noble, quietly whistles past all the same needs that have been unaddressed in the city’s black community. I do think it’s true something did crack in the city’s psyche because of Metro Surge, because there was a new willingness to use the protective powers of whiteness to aid migrant families or just face down masked goons. But it’s hard to reconcile all that effort, to say nothing of the near-universal praise the city received, with the persistent systems of inequity that made both immigrants and black families vulnerable in the city.

You can order “The Cruelty of Nice Folks” from an independent bookseller, or wherever books are sold.


This article was originally published by How Things Work; please consider supporting the original publication, and read the original version at the link above.