Image Created Using AI
The problem is NOT that they don't have mirrors in Israel - but that they live in a house of mirrors, surrounded by their own distorted images and can't feel the harm and devastation that they visit on others outside that barrier.
— Wael Nawara (@WaelNawara) August 6, 2026
Israel keeps referring to its military actions in Gaza as "War."
But was it, is it, really a war?
Gaza is an occupied territory since 1967, according to United Nations and International Court of Justice rulings. Israel disengagement does not change this status, because Israel continued to exercise control over Gaza's borders, water, electricity, fuel, food and medical supplies, air and sea access.
Now, under international law, with its status as an occupied territory, Israel bears responsibility of guarding and protecting the well-being of the population in Gaza. Even in conflicts with armed groups, such as Hamas, Israeli's military must follow strict rules in combating such armed groups.
Israel has the right to use "policing" methods with targeted arrests, riot control, and so on.
Now, let's imagine a situation, where a terrorist organization has taken hostages in New York, went inside a bank with many customers inside.
Will NYPD bomb the bank in order to neutralize the terrorist group?
The answer is obvious.
The use of heavy military force in crowded, occupied areas, including apartment buildings, schools, hospitals, universities, bakeries, malls, marketplaces, and so on, is unthinkable, so why did Israel think it?
Then why have Western leaders and media kept telling us, Hamas uses children as human shields and therefore, Israel has the right to bomb schools even if it meant killing over 20,000 children?
In fact, the President of the UN General Assembly, while still a minister in the German government, effectively implied that Israel has the right to kill civilians:
Link: https://youtube.com/shorts/QsJPSgbcyeQ?si=53j6iJEhEspDbSu9
But in the same video, Craig Mokhiber , a human rights lawyer and former UN official, explains that:
Here is how legal experts and the laws of war view these ideas:
Policing vs. War: International bodies, such as the Human Rights Watch, explain that when a state controls an occupied territory, its security forces are generally expected to use policing methods—such as targeted arrests or riot control—to maintain order without harming civilians and the population.
Even when a state is legally allowed to fight an armed group, it cannot simply use any weapon. The laws of war demand two main things:
The Occupier's Duty: The International Court of Justice outlines that because Israel has long controlled Gaza's borders, airspace, and resources, it is legally an "occupying power".
Protection: This means Israel is legally required to protect the basic needs, safety, and health of the people living there, rather than treating them as enemy combatants in a standard war.
Did Israel protect the health of Gazans?
In light of:
First Published on HuffPost, Sep 2, 2011, 10:34 AM EDT
Some brave economists have made it clear that we need a new International Monetary System, a "New Bretton Woods" sort of agreement in order to solve things in the long term. But still, what do we do with the existing debt crisis?
By
Wael Nawara, Contributor
Writer
Updated Nov 2, 2011
Every country in the world, except for perhaps a handful, severely suffers from a growing debt crisis. Collectively, this is crippling the world economy and threatening the world with global instability following an imminent collapse of the international financial and economic systems. But if virtually all countries are in debt, who is lending? In fact, since almost all countries, or states, are in debt, that might be the solution to the problem.
Some brave economists and even politicians such as Brown and Sarkozy have made it clear that we need a new International Monetary System, a "New Bretton Woods" sort of agreement. That would probably solve things in the long-term. But still, what do we do with the existing debt crisis?
Let us assume that a country like the United States, with GDP of about $14 Trillion and a Public Debt roughly the same amount, "creates" or "prints" 12.5 percent of that amount annually for the next eight years, as to totally pay off its public debt problem. This generates some "fake" $1.75 Trillion a year, slightly more than the current US annual budget deficit. Usually, printing money this way would lead to significant inflation, U.S. consumer suffering and a severe devaluation of the American currency in addition to dissipation of the investors' trust into U.S. currency and economy, things which could probably spark off a global financial meltdown. But what if every other country agreed to more or less do the same process, and that newly created money does not find its way into the money markets in terms of additional liquidity or government spending, but instead is solely used to pay off the staggering debts?
The result may be that all major currencies would be devalued, but because they are all devalued, their relative value or exchange rate will be more or less the same, give or take a few points. If you think about it from a collective perspective, this idea may not be as crazy as it sounds at first.
So, if the G20 States, which together make up a sizeable portion of the global economy, and also where most of debtors and creditors come from; lending and borrowing institutions exist, signed up to such an arrangement within a larger effort to reinvent the international monetary and financial systems, followed by the rest of the world's states approving and repeating the same arrangement, could that solve the problem? Would that work as a global debt relief for everybody? A giant Paris Club to relieve the entire world from a deadly debt problem?
Of course the global economic and financial systems need to be totally redesigned. Yes, governments should stop spending beyond their means creating these monumental deficits. Yes, we need to shrink the speculative portion and reduce reliance on instruments creating virtual money, things which are poisoning existing systems.
We eventually have to even create a new accounting currency, be it ICU (International Currency Unit, or simply ECO), Bancor or SDR, which will work as an international bench mark currency to reduce the risks of relying on any one currency for reserves. But for now, the debt crisis seems urgently threatening yet highly ridiculous. After all, when everyone stands on their tiptoes, no one will ever seem taller.
Link: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/collective-currency-devaluation_b_926476
لقد خدعتَ مَنْ خدعت
Many Western Media outlets came out with the headlines:
ICJ rules that Israeli Policies in OPT are Illegal!
But that is an odd reading of the ruling - which summary the Chief Justice read for over an hour.
It is not just the policies that are illegal!
Any action Israel takes or fails to take in Occupied Palestinian Territory is illegal because its very presence in these territories is illegal. It is a "wrongful act".
Its occupation is illegal.
Annexation is illegal.
Apartheid and segregation are illegal.
Its Wall is illegal.
Detaining Palestinians (let alone torture, abuse and rape) is illegal.
Home demolitions are illegal.
Land confiscation is illegal.
Settlements are illegal.
"Outposts" are illegal.
Stealing water and other resources is illegal.
Putting Palestinians under siege is illegal.
Preventing Palestinians from exercising self-determination is illegal.
Preventing Palestinians from freely moving is illegal.
etc. etc. etc.
The ICJ has just reiterated the position of UNSC, UNGA and virtually every country on earth - that its entire presence in Occupied Palestinian Territory is and always has been (for 57 years) illegal and must rapidly end.
The only legal actions Israel can take are to:
Now, we come to downplaying the ruling as an "advisory" and non-binding!
The ruling is advisory because the UNGA asked the ICJ for advice!
It was not a case raised by one State against another.
The UNGA asked the ICJ certain questions and the ICJ answered these questions.
Is the ruling - or answers - binding?
The ICJ ruling reads itself (Pages 73-75)- and says that:
Ruling:
Also watch Dr. Ralph Wilde:
Sometimes, the desired change is just not possible or available as an option.
It's like missing a highway exit.
Or like being on the wrong train.
Your desired destination is just not on the menu.
What's the next stop?
