monitor

Teaching international law has always required disciplined idealism. For those of us in the academy who reject the conceit of a benign American imperial order, it is an exercise in professional candour. One must teach rules while explaining, without euphemism, that the most powerful states do not feel bound by them and no longer bother to conceal it.

Consider the present moment. The President of the United States can announce designs on foreign territory such as Greenland not through treaty, referendum, or any lawful process, but by blunt invocation of “US interests,” accompanied by the warning that force remains available if persuasion fails. He can order the seizure of a sitting foreign head of state, Nicolás Maduro, from Venezuelan territory and then publicly boast that Venezuela’s oil will be redirected for American benefit. This has long been the practice of the United States in substance, but no previous president has been so candid about the premise. Donald Trump has stated openly that he does not consider himself bound by international law, that the only constraint on American power is his own sense of morality, a position he articulated on January 8 in an interview with the New York Times. What earlier administrations cloaked in the language of norms, necessity, or exceptionalism, he dispenses with altogether.

Intellectual honesty in the academy requires that this be taught for what it is: an explicit threat and a completed act of aggression, the very offence defined at Nuremberg as the supreme international crime. On that standard, Donald Trump is no less answerable in The Hague than Vladimir Putin, and no less than Western leaders such as George W Bush and Tony Blair should have been for the invasion of Iraq. This is not subtle. It is not a matter of contested interpretation. It is classical aggression and coercion, unembellished and undisguised, stripped of even the pretence of diplomatic restraint.

Yet much of the American mainstream media and pundit class does not describe such conduct for what it plainly is: a clear and unambiguous violation of international law. Instead, the debate is displaced. The question posed is not legality but prudence. Will this alienate allies? Is it strategically wise? Law disappears, replaced by a technocratic discussion of optics. When legality becomes a footnote to strategy, the legal order is debased.

READ: ICC rejects Israel’s appeal as arrest warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant remain in force

The indulgence is selectively dispensed. The two most militarily assertive powers, the United States and Russia, employ force with a settled expectation that nothing consequential will follow. When American aggression is at issue, condemnation is typically muted or purely ceremonial. Accountability exists largely as abstraction. The lesson conveyed to students is unmistakable. Power confers immunity.

Nowhere is this starker than in the treatment of Israel’s conduct in Gaza. Genocide is not assessed on the basis of legal definition or evidentiary threshold, but on political permission. If the United States does not wish the word to be used, it becomes unsayable. Language itself is subject to veto. This is not law. It is deference, fear, and self-interest masquerading as restraint.

European governments, meanwhile, are preoccupied with their own security anxieties and therefore reluctant to challenge Washington’s vision of the world. Their caution is understandable. Their silence is not. In moral terms, they have yet to escape the gravitational pull of their colonial pasts. The suffering of Palestinians is viewed through a different lens from that applied to Ukrainians, not because of scale or intensity, but because of race, proximity, and historical comfort. The disparity is glaring.

To sustain this imbalance, Western governments have inverted reality itself. A Zionist settler colonial project is presented as a liberal democracy, while every rule governing occupation, self-determination, and proportionality is bent or ignored. Words are redefined. Violence is reclassified. Victims are rendered abstract.

READ: UN chief warns of referring Israel to International Court of Justice over UNRWA

The same indifference is evident in the United States’ violations of the UN Headquarters Agreement through the denial of visas to officials it disfavors. These are not technical breaches. They strike at the basic functioning of the international system. Yet there is no meaningful pushback. The international community absorbs the insult and moves on.

Nor is this confined to the use of force. The United States has unilaterally torn through trade agreements, destabilising the global trading regime it once championed. But trade disputes, serious as they are, pale beside the ultimate crimes. Aggression, genocide, apartheid and crimes against humanity are not marginal infractions. They are the apex offences of the international legal order. Yet the lesson delivered by practice is stark. When committed by the powerful or their allies, nothing follows.

This is the intellectual terrain on which international law must now be taught. Students are not naïve. They see the contradiction. They understand that rules proclaimed as universal are enforced selectively, if at all. The challenge for the teacher is not to sell illusions, but to explain why law still matters when its breach carries so little consequence.

International law today stands exposed as moribund. It survives less as a constraint on power than as a record of its abuse. Teaching it honestly requires acknowledging that the system was never designed to discipline empires, only to civilise their language. That is a bleak conclusion. It is also preferable to a dishonest syllabus.

If international law is to command authority, it will not come through pious reaffirmations by those who violate it most frequently. It will come through the insistence that legality is not contingent on alliance, race, or convenience. Until then, teaching international law remains a demanding exercise in explaining not only what the law says, but why it is so often ignored by those who wrote it.

OPINION: Never again, except for Palestinians: The moral realignment

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

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has deployed a military radar in the Somali region of Puntland as part of a secret deal, amid Abu Dhabi’s ongoing entrenchment of its influence over the region’s security affairs.

According to the London-based news outlet Middle East Eye, sources familiar with the matter told it that the UAE had installed a military radar near Bosaso airport in Somalia’s semi-autonomous Puntland region earlier this year, with one unnamed source saying that the “radar’s purpose is to detect and provide early warning against drone or missile threats, particularly those potentially launched by the Houthis, targeting Bosaso from outside”.

The radar’s presence was reportedly confirmed by satellite imagery from early March, which found that an Israeli-made ELM-2084 3D Active Electronically Scanned Array Multi-Mission Radar had indeed been installed near Bosaso airport.

READ: UAE: The scramble for the Horn of Africa

Not only does the radar have the purpose of defending Puntland and its airport from attacks by Yemen’s Houthi rebels, but air traffic data reportedly indicates it also serves to facilitate the transport of weapons, ammunition, and supplies to Sudan’s paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), further fuelling the ongoing civil war in Sudan.

“The UAE installed the radar shortly after the RSF lost control of most of Khartoum in early March”, one source said. Another source was cited as claiming that the radar was deployed at the airport late last year and that Abu Dhabi has used it on a daily basis to supply the RSF, particularly through large cargo planes that frequently carry weapons and ammunition, and which sometimes amount to up to five major shipments at a time.

According to two other Somali sources cited by the report, Puntland’s president Said Abdullahi Deni did not seek approval from Somalia’s federal government nor even the Puntland parliament for the installation of the radar, with one of those sources stressing that it was “a secret deal, and even the highest levels of Puntland’s government, including the cabinet, are unaware of it”.

READ: UAE under scrutiny over alleged arms shipments to Sudan

In 1948, as the foundations of the Israeli state were being laid upon the ruins of hundreds of Palestinian villages, Albert Einstein wrote a letter to the American Friends of the Fighters for the Freedom of Israel (AFFFI), condemning the growing Zionist militancy within the settler Jewish community. “When a real and final catastrophe should befall us in Palestine the first responsible for it would be the British and the second responsible for it the terrorist organisations built up from our own ranks. I am not willing to see anybody associated with those misled and criminal people.”

Einstein — perhaps the most celebrated Jewish intellectual of the 20th century — refused to conflate his Jewish identity with the violence of Zionism. He turned down the offer to become Israel’s president, rejecting the notion that Jewish survival and self-determination should come at the cost of another people’s displacement and suffering. And yet, if Einstein were alive today, his words would likely be condemned under the current definitions of anti-Semitism adopted by many Western governments and institutions, including the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition, now endorsed by most Australian universities.

Under the IHRA definition, Einstein’s outspoken criticism of Israel — he called its founding actors “terrorists” and denounced their betrayal of Jewish ethics — would render him suspect. He would be accused not only of delegitimising Israel, but also of anti-Semitism. His moral clarity, once visionary, would today be vilified.

That is why we must untangle the threads of Zionism, colonialism and human rights.

Einstein’s resistance to Zionism was not about denying Jewish belonging or rights; it was about refusing to build those rights on ethno-nationalist violence. He understood what too many people fail to grasp today: that Zionism and Judaism are not synonymous.

Zionism is a political ideology rooted in European colonial logics, one that enforces Jewish supremacy in a land shared historically by Palestinian and other Levantine peoples. To criticise this ideology is not anti-Semitic; it is, rather, a necessary act of justice and a moral act of bearing witness. The religious symbolism that Israel uses is irrelevant in this respect. And yet, in today’s political climate, any critique of Israel — no matter how grounded it might be in international law, historical fact or humanitarian concern — is increasingly branded as anti-Semitism. This conflation shields from accountability a settler-colonial state, and it silences Palestinians and their allies from speaking out on the reality of their oppression. Billions in arms sales, stolen resources and apartheid infrastructure don’t just happen; they’re the reason that legitimate “criticism” gets rebranded as “hate”.

READ: Ex-Israel PM accuses Netanyahu of waging war on Israel

To understand Einstein’s critique, we must confront the truth about Zionism itself. While often framed as a movement for Jewish liberation, Zionism in practice has operated as a colonial project of erasure and domination. The Nakba was not a tragic consequence of war, it was a deliberate blueprint for dispossession and disappearance. Israeli historian Ilan Pappé has detailed how David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first Prime Minister, approved “Plan Dalet” on 10 March, 1948. This included the mass expulsion and execution of Palestinians to create a Jewish-majority state. As Ben-Gurion himself declared chillingly: “Every attack has to end with occupation, destruction and expulsion.”

This is the basis of the Zionist state that we are told not to critique.

Einstein saw this unfolding and recoiled. In another 1948 open letter to the New York Times, he and other Jewish intellectuals described Israel’s newly formed political parties — like Herut (the precursor to Likud) — as “closely akin in… organisation, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties.”

Einstein’s words were not hyperbole, they were a warning. Having fled Nazi Germany, he had direct experience with the defining traits of Nazi fascism. “From Israel’s past actions,” he wrote, “we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future.”

Today, we are living in the very future that Einstein feared, a reality marked by massacres in Gaza, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, and the denial of basic essentials such as water, electricity and medical aid. This is not about “self-defence”; it is the logic of colonial domination whereby the land theft continues and the violence escalates.

Einstein warned about what many still refuse to see: a state established on principles of ethnic supremacy and expulsion could never transcend its foundation ethos. Israel’s creation in occupied Palestine is Zionism in practice; it cannot endure without employing repression until resistance is erased entirely. Hence, the Nakba wasn’t a one-off event in 1948; it evolved, funded by Washington, armed by Berlin and enabled by every government that trades Palestinian blood for political favours.

Zionism cannot be separated from the broader history of European settler-colonialism. As Patrick Wolfe explains, the ideology hijacked the rhetoric of Jewish liberation to mask its colonial reality of re-nativism, with the settlers recasting themselves as “indigenous” while painting resistance as terrorism.

READ: Illegal Israeli settlers attack Palestinian school in occupied West Bank

The father of political Zionism, Theodor Herzl, stated in his manifesto-novel Altneuland, “To build anew, I must demolish before I construct.” To him, Palestine was not seen as a shared homeland, but as a house to be razed to the ground and rebuilt by and for Jews alone. His ideology was made possible by British imperial interests to divide and dominate post-Ottoman territories. Through ethnic partition and military alliances embellished under the 1917 Balfour Declaration to the ironic Zionist-Nazi 1933 Haavara Agreement, the Zionist project aligned perfectly with the West’s goal, as per the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement.

Israel is thus criticised because of its political ideology rooted in ethnonationalism and settler colonialism. Equating anti-Zionism to anti-Semitism is a disservice not only to Palestinians, but also to Jews, especially those who, like Einstein, refuse to have their identity weaponised in the service of war crimes. Zionism today includes Christian Zionists, military allies and Western politicians who benefit from Israel’s imperial reach through arms deals, surveillance technology and geostrategic partnerships.

Zionism is a global power structure, not a monolithic ethnic identity.

Many Jews around the world — rabbis, scholars, students and Holocaust survivors and their descendants — continue Einstein’s legacy by saying “Not in our name”. They reject the co-option of Holocaust memory to justify genocide in Gaza. They refuse to be complicit in what the Torah forbids: the theft of land and the murder of innocents. They are not “self-hating Jews”. They are the inheritors of a prophetic tradition of justice. And they are being silenced.

Perhaps the most dangerous development today is, therefore, Israel’s insistence on linking its crimes to Jewish identity. It frames civilian massacres, apartheid policies and violations of international law as acts done in the name of all Jews and Judaism. By tying the Jewish people to the crimes of a state, Israel risks exposing Jews around the world to collective blame and retaliation.

Einstein warned against this. And if Einstein’s vision teaches us anything, it is this: Justice cannot be compromised for comfort and profit. Truth must outlast repression. And freedom must belong to all. In the end, no amount of Israel’s militarisation of terminology, propaganda or geopolitical alliances can suppress a people’s resistance forever or outlast global condemnation. The only question left is: how much more blood will be spilled before justice prevails?

The struggle for clarity today is not just academic, it is existential. Without the ability to distinguish anti-Semitism from anti-Zionism, we cannot build a future where Jews and Palestinians all live in dignity, safety and peace. Reclaiming the term “Semite” in its full meaning, encompassing both Jews and Arabs, is critical. Further isolation of Arabs from their Semitic identity has enabled the dehumanisation of Palestinians and the erasure of shared Jewish-Arab histories, especially the centuries of coexistence, the Jewish-Muslim golden ages in places like Baghdad, Granada/Andalusia, Istanbul, Damascus and Cairo.

Einstein stood up for the future for us to reclaim it.

The way forward must be rooted in truth, justice and accountability. That means unequivocally opposing anti-Semitism in all its forms, but refusing to allow the term to be manipulated as a shield for apartheid, ethnic cleansing and colonial domination. It means affirming that Jewish safety must never come at the price of Palestinian freedom, and that Palestinian resistance is not hatred; it is survival.

And if Einstein would be silenced today, who will speak tomorrow?

OPINION: Palestinian voices are throttled by the promotion of foreign agendas

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

The abduction of Nicolás Maduro is part of a larger pattern. It belongs to the same doctrine that flattened Gaza under the language of “self-defence” and threatened Iran with “locked and loaded” retaliation while bypassing diplomacy and international law. In each case, Washington has used force not as a last resort but as a sharp instrument of statecraft, corroding the norms it once claimed to uphold. From Gaza’s ruins to Tehran’s anxieties and now Caracas’s violation, the message is unmistakable: sovereignty is conditional, law is optional, and power is the ultimate decider, echoing the famous phrase of the Florentine Niccolo Machiavelli: “A prince never lacks legitimate reasons to break his promise.” This is not containment. It is a contagion designed to restructure the Middle East and the Global South in ways the United States can no longer control.

The world recoiled in horror not because Donald Trump seized Nicolás Maduro, but because the United States kidnapped a sitting head of state. This was not law enforcement. It was a flagrant display of imperial power that shreds the last remaining threads of an international order based on sovereignty and the rule of law. The avalanche of global condemnation gathering force across Latin America, Africa, and much of the Global South reflects a more profound truth. This act cannot be justified under any moral, legal, or strategic framework.

To dress the operation up as a “war on drugs” is a grotesque lie. Washington knows Venezuela is not the primary source of the narcotics devastating American communities. Mexico holds that distinction. Venezuela may be a transit point, but it is not the engine of the crisis. The drug narrative functions as a fig leaf, a familiar pretext used whenever the United States decides to impose its will by force. It is the same feeble justification that accompanied interventions from Panama to Honduras, from Iraq to Afghanistan.

This was not about narcotics. It was about power.

The capture of Maduro marks a dangerous escalation: the extraction of a foreign leader under the banner of domestic prosecution. Even Washington’s refusal to recognize Maduro as Venezuela’s legitimate president does not grant it the right to violate another country’s territorial integrity. The UN Charter is unambiguous. The use of force against a sovereign state is illegal except in self-defence or with Security Council authorization. Neither condition exists here.

Legal scholars have been blunt. The operation violates Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and risks constituting a crime of aggression. By normalizing regime change through force, the United States invites other powers to follow suit. Washington can abduct leaders it dislikes; why should Beijing, Moscow, or Ankara restrain themselves? The erosion of norms does not stop at one border.

In the US, the constitutional damage is equally severe. Congress alone has the authority to declare war, yet Trump launched what is effectively a regime-change operation without congressional authorization. This is executive overreach of the most dangerous kind, hollowing out the separation of powers and turning military force into a presidential tool of convenience. It is not a strength. It is recklessness.

Trump styles himself as the “President of Peace,” boasting that he ended eight wars. Yet his actions tell a different story. Venezuela is now destabilized, its region inflamed, its sovereignty trampled. The Southern Hemisphere has taken note. For countries long scarred by American interventions, this episode confirms their worst suspicions: that US rhetoric about democracy masks a hunger for control.

The economic implications are impossible to ignore. Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves. Within days of Maduro’s capture, US officials were already discussing Venezuela’s oil future on global markets. This is the Monroe Doctrine reborn in its crudest form: this hemisphere is ours, and we will take what we want.

History offers no comfort here. Vietnam consumed fifteen years and millions of lives. Iraq shattered an entire region and birthed endless war. Panama and Honduras left scars that never healed. Each intervention was justified as necessary, temporary, and righteous. Each ended in strategic failure and moral disgrace.

The ghosts of the Bay of Pigs in Cuba linger. That humiliating fiasco taught the world that American power, when untethered from reality, defeats itself. Today, as Trump eyes Greenland and toys with fantasies that would fracture NATO, the same hubris is on display. The difference is that now the damage spreads faster and wider.

International reaction has been swift. Emergency sessions at the United Nations exposed Washington’s isolation. Allies wavered. Adversaries smiled. As Napoleon once advised, “When your enemy is making mistakes, let him continue”. In Beijing, Moscow, and beyond, leaders are laughing as the United States dismantles its own credibility.

The legal process ahead only deepens the peril. Maduro’s trial, if it proceeds, will inevitably raise questions of head-of-state immunity and jurisdiction. A ruling ordering his release would not merely embarrass Trump; it would detonate his presidency. Trump himself seems to sense this fragility, publicly warning that failure in the upcoming elections could lead to his impeachment. The strongman façade cracks easily when power depends on impunity.

What remains is the damage to America’s standing. This operation tells the world that US law is selective, its principles negotiable, its commitments disposable. It confirms that might has replaced right, and that international law applies only to the weak. Trump, obviously, has not read Dwight D. Eisenhower’s prophetic warning: “A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both.”

Trump’s kidnapping of Maduro will not be remembered as a victory against crime. It will be remembered as a sad chapter when the United States abandoned even the pretence of moral leadership and dismissed the warning of the first American president, George Washington, against “foreign entanglement.” It accelerated the decline of an empire already drowning in debt, addicted to foreign adventures, and blind to the cost of its own arrogance.

The tragedy is not only Venezuela’s. It is America’s. An empire that kidnaps leaders in the name of justice has already lost the very thing it claims to defend.

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

Last week, a prominent Saudi Sheikh, Mohammed Al-Issa, visited the Auschwitz concentration camp in Poland to commemorate the 75th anniversary of its liberation, which signalled the end of the Nazi Holocaust. Although dozens of Muslim scholars have visited the site, where about one million Jews were killed during World War Two, according to the Auschwitz Memorial Centre’s press office, Al-Issa is the most senior Muslim religious leader to do so.

Visiting Auschwitz is not a problem for a Muslim; Islam orders Muslims to reject unjustified killing of any human being, no matter what their faith is. Al-Issa is a senior ally of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (MBS), who apparently cares little for the sanctity of human life, though, and the visit to Auschwitz has very definite political connotations beyond any Islamic context.

By sending Al-Issa to the camp, Bin Salman wanted to show his support for Israel, which exploits the Holocaust for geopolitical colonial purposes. “The Israeli government decided that it alone was permitted to mark the 75th anniversary of the Allied liberation of Auschwitz [in modern day Poland] in 1945,” wrote journalist Richard Silverstein recently when he commented on the gathering of world leaders in Jerusalem for Benjamin Netanyahu’s Holocaust event.

READ: Next up, a Saudi embassy in Jerusalem 

Bin Salman uses Al Issa for such purposes, as if to demonstrate his own Zionist credentials. For example, the head of the Makkah-based Muslim World League is leading rapprochement efforts with Evangelical Christians who are, in the US at least, firm Zionists in their backing for the state of Israel. Al-Issa has called for a Muslim-Christian-Jewish interfaith delegation to travel to Jerusalem in what would, in effect, be a Zionist troika.

Zionism is not a religion, and there are many non-Jewish Zionists who desire or support the establishment of a Jewish state in occupied Palestine. The definition of Zionism does not mention the religion of its supporters, and Israeli writer Sheri Oz, is just one author who insists that non-Jews can be Zionists.

Mohammad Bin Salman and Netanyahu – Cartoon [Tasnimnews.com/Wikipedia]

We should not be shocked, therefore, to see a Zionist Muslim leader in these trying times. It is reasonable to say that Bin Salman’s grandfather and father were Zionists, as close friends of Zionist leaders. Logic suggests that Bin Salman comes from a Zionist dynasty.

This has been evident from his close relationship with Zionists and positive approaches to the Israeli occupation and establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, calling it “[the Jews’] ancestral homeland”. This means that he has no issue with the ethnic cleansing of almost 800,000 Palestinians in 1948, during which thousands were killed and their homes demolished in order to establish the Zionist state of Israel.

“The ‘Jewish state’ claim is how Zionism has tried to mask its intrinsic Apartheid, under the veil of a supposed ‘self-determination of the Jewish people’,” wrote Israeli blogger Jonathan Ofir in Mondoweiss in 2018, “and for the Palestinians it has meant their dispossession.”

As the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia, Crown Prince Bin Salman has imprisoned dozens of Palestinians, including representatives of Hamas. In doing so he is serving Israel’s interests. Moreover, he has blamed the Palestinians for not making peace with the occupation state. Bin Salman “excoriated the Palestinians for missing key opportunities,” wrote Danial Benjamin in Moment magazine. He pointed out that the prince’s father, King Salman, has played the role of counterweight by saying that Saudi Arabia “permanently stands by Palestine and its people’s right to an independent state with occupied East Jerusalem as its capital.”

UN expert: Saudi crown prince behind hack on Amazon CEO 

Israeli journalist Barak Ravid of Israel’s Channel 13 News reported Bin Salman as saying: “In the last several decades the Palestinian leadership has missed one opportunity after the other and rejected all the peace proposals it was given. It is about time the Palestinians take the proposals and agree to come to the negotiations table or shut up and stop complaining.” This is reminiscent of the words of the late Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban, one of the Zionist founders of Israel, that the Palestinians “never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.”

Bin Salman’s Zionism is also very clear in his bold support for US President Donald Trump’s deal of the century, which achieves Zionist goals in Palestine at the expense of Palestinian rights. He participated in the Bahrain conference, the forum where the economic side of the US deal was announced, where he gave “cover to several other Arab countries to attend the event and infuriated the Palestinians.”

US President Donald Trump looks over at Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia Mohammad bin Salman al-Saud as they line up for the family photo during the opening day of Argentina G20 Leaders’ Summit 2018 at Costa Salguero on 30 November 2018 in Buenos Aires, Argentina [Daniel Jayo/Getty Images]

While discussing the issue of the current Saudi support for Israeli policies and practices in Palestine with a credible Palestinian official last week, he told me that the Palestinians had contacted the Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro to ask him not to relocate his country’s embassy to Jerusalem. “The Saudis have been putting pressure on us in order to relocate our embassy to Jerusalem,” replied the Brazilian leader. What more evidence of Mohammad Bin Salman’s Zionism do we need?

The founder of Friends of Zion Museum is American Evangelical Christian Mike Evans. He said, after visiting a number of the Gulf States, that, “The leaders [there] are more pro-Israel than a lot of Jews.” This was a specific reference to Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince, and his counterpart in the UAE, Mohammed Bin Zayed.

“All versions of Zionism lead to the same reactionary end of unbridled expansionism and continued settler colonial genocide of [the] Palestinian people,” Israeli-American writer and photographer Yoav Litvin wrote for Al Jazeera. We may well see an Israeli Embassy opened in Riyadh in the near future, and a Saudi Embassy in Tel Aviv or, more likely, Jerusalem. Is Mohammad Bin Salman a Zionist? There’s no doubt about it.

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

Egypt has been ranked as the leading African country in global soft power influence for 2024, according to a report by Business Insider Africa. The report, based on the Global Soft Power Index published by Brand Finance, places Egypt 39th worldwide with a soft power score of 44.9 points.

South Africa and Morocco follow Egypt in the continent’s rankings, securing second and third place with scores of 43.7 and 40.6 points, respectively. The index also noted that “Egypt secures the gold for its ‘rich heritage’” while the UAE ranks number one in the Middle East and 10th globally. Globally, the US leads with a record-high score of 78.8 points, an increase from 74.8 in 2023.

The Global Soft Power Index assesses the perceptions of all 193 UN member states, evaluating countries based on eight pillars: business and trade, international relations, education and science, culture and heritage, governance, media and communication, sustainable future, and people and values.

Soft power is defined as a country’s ability to influence others through attraction and persuasion rather than coercion. Countries like Egypt are leveraging diplomacy, culture, and education to enhance their global reputation and build goodwill.

Meanwhile, China which sits on third place on the global index has been expanding its influence in Africa over the past decade and is currently hosting the China-Africa forum, with African leaders keen to explore investment and loan opportunities. China, the world’s number two economy, is Africa’s largest trading partner, with bilateral trade hitting $167.8 billion in the first half of this year.

READ: Egypt’s Al-Azhar condemns Israeli offensive in occupied West Bank

Eight European nations, Japan, and Canada on Tuesday expressed “serious concerns” about the renewed deterioration of the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip, Anadolu reports.

In a joint statement, foreign ministers of Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Japan, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK recalled the “catastrophic” humanitarian situation in the besieged enclave.

The statement mentioned the appalling conditions that are exacerbated by winter, noting that 1.3 million Gazans still require urgent shelter assistance.

The foreign ministers cited the latest Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) report, which was published earlier in December, as evidence that the situation remains desperate.

The statement expressed their appreciation for the ceasefire in Gaza but stated that they will not lose sight of the plight of Gaza’s civilian population.

It called on Israel to ensure that the UN, its partners, and NGOs can continue their vital work and lift unreasonable restrictions on imports considered to have a dual use.

Saying that many established international NGO partners are at risk of being deregistered because of Israel’s restrictive new requirements, it warned that deregistration could result in the forced closure of humanitarian operations within 60 days in Gaza and the West Bank.

“This would have a severe impact on access to essential services including healthcare,” said the statement.

READ: Israeli Knesset passes bill halting electricity, water supply to UNRWA facilities

Ensuring UN, its partners can continue their vital work is ‘essential’

It also underlined that ensuring the UN and its partners can continue their vital work is “essential” to the impartial, neutral, and independent delivery of aid throughout Gaza.

“This includes UNRWA, which provides essential services, such as healthcare and education, to millions of Palestinian refugees,” said the foreign ministers.

The statement also called on Tel Aviv to open crossings and increase the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza.

“The target of 4,200 trucks per week, including an allocation of 250 UN trucks per day, should be a floor not a ceiling,” it said, adding that these targets should be lifted so they can be sure the vital supplies are getting in at the vast scale needed.

The nations also underlined that ongoing restrictions limit the capacity for aid to be delivered at the scale needed, in accordance with international humanitarian law, or for repairs to be made to support recovery and reconstruction efforts.

“We now urge the Government of Israel to remove these humanitarian access constraints, and to deliver and honour the Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict,” it added.

Despite the ceasefire, Israel continues to keep Gaza’s crossings largely closed, preventing the entry of mobile homes and reconstruction materials and worsening the humanitarian crisis affecting over 2 million people.

Palestinian officials say that at least 414 people in Gaza have been killed since the ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas took place on Oct. 10.

Since October 2023, Israeli attacks have killed over 71,000 Palestinians in the enclave, most of them women and children, and rendered it largely uninhabitable.

READ: 25 Palestinians die in Gaza amid severe weather since start of December

Fourteen countries, including France, Britain, Canada, Germany and Japan, condemned on Wednesday Israel’s recent decision to approve new Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank. They called on the Israeli government to reverse the decision and to stop expanding settlements. 

In a joint statement published by the French Foreign Ministry, the countries said: “We, States of Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Iceland, Ireland, Japan, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and the United Kingdom condemn the approval by the Israeli security cabinet of 19 new settlements in the occupied West Bank.”      

The statement added: “We recall our clear opposition to any form of annexation and to the expansion of settlement policies.”   

Earlier, the Israeli government’s security cabinet approved the establishment of 19 new settlements in the occupied West Bank. This brings the total number of settlements approved over the past three years to 69.

READ: Shtayyeh: Settler population in West Bank and Jerusalem hits 881,000

Police in the UK have said they will arrest people who hold placards or chant the phrase “globalise the intifada,” arguing that the slogan now carries heightened risk in the wake of recent attacks on Jewish communities, Anadolu reports.

The term “intifada,” an Arabic word meaning “uprising,” came into widespread use during the Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1987.

In a joint statement, London’s Metropolitan Police and Greater Manchester Police said the move followed Sunday’s mass shooting at Bondi Beach in Sydney, Australia.

Fifteen people were killed on Sunday when two suspected shooters—father and son—opened fire along the beach in Sydney, the New South Wales capital and Australia’s largest city by population.​​​​​

The two forces also referred to a knife attack at the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation Synagogue in Manchester, northern England, on Oct. 2, in which two people were killed.

“Violent acts have taken place, the context has changed—words have meaning and consequence. We will act decisively and make arrests,” the police said.

They added: “We know communities are concerned about placards and chants such as ‘globalise the intifada,’ and those using it at future protests or in a targeted way should expect” the two forces “to take action.”

The statement said frontline officers would be briefed on what police described as an “enhanced approach,” and that powers under the Public Order Act would be used, “including conditions around London synagogues during services.”

“Visible patrols and protective security measures around synagogues, schools, and community venues have been stepped up in London and Greater Manchester. We are intensifying investigations into hate crime, and Counter Terrorism Policing continues to operate 24/7 to identify and disrupt threats,” it added.

The UK’s chief rabbi told the BBC this week that chants of “globalise the intifada” had helped lead to the two attacks.

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said in parliament on Wednesday that his government has increased funding for Jewish security.

“I’m pleased to do that, but I’m sad to do that,” he said, adding that he has ordered a review of protest and hate crime laws.