Monday, May 18, 2026

After Trump’s China trip, White House plans new attack on Iran

Andre Damon@Andre__Damon, 18 May 2026
 

This image provided by U.S. Central Command shows a F/A-18E Super Hornet launching at left, as an F/A-18E Super at right, prepares to launch from the flight deck of Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) in support of Operation Epic Fury, on Saturday, Feb. 28, 2026. [AP Photo/U.S. Navy]

Just two days after US President Donald Trump’s return from Beijing, the White House is making active preparations for a renewed onslaught against Iran.

The New York Times reported Friday that the United States and Israel are “engaged in intense preparations — the largest since the cease-fire took effect — for the possible resumption of attacks against Iran as early as next week.”

Trump’s state visit to Beijing, the first by an American president to China in nearly a decade, was dominated by the crisis triggered by the war on Iran. Despite a public show of goodwill between Trump and Chinese Chairman Xi Jinping, no public agreement was reached on the resolution of the Iran crisis, and no official communique was issued.

Despite the massacre of more than 3,000 Iranians and the destruction of 81,000 civilian structures, the United States has achieved none of its goals. It has neither overthrown the Iranian government, nor broken Iran’s military, nor gained control over the Strait of Hormuz.

On Sunday, Axios reported that Trump is expected to convene his top national security team in the Situation Room on Tuesday to discuss restarting combat operations. The meeting follows a Saturday session at Trump’s Virginia golf club attended by Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff.

Sunday evening, after a phone call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump posted on Truth Social: “For Iran, the Clock is Ticking, and they better get moving, FAST, or there won’t be anything left of them.”

He followed with an AI-generated image of a map of the Middle East overlaid with the American flag, with red arrows pointing at Iran from every direction—hinting at a US ground invasion of Iran.

Trump had earlier posted an image of himself pressing a red button on a command console, with mushroom-cloud explosions shown on an overhead screen—in the latest signal that he is considering the use of nuclear weapons in Iran.

According to the Times account, the Pentagon options under consideration include the deployment of US troops inside Iran, which “would come with big risks of casualties.”

In escalating the Iran war, Trump speaks not only for himself but for the entire financial oligarchy. Having launched the war, Trump has staked the prestige of American imperialism on subjugating Iran. Failure to achieve that aim is seen by the ruling class as a catastrophe that would accelerate the collapse of the dollar-denominated financial order on which American capitalism’s solvency depends.

Dominant sections of the US media are openly agitating for a US ground invasion of Iran. In a Sunday op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal, titled “How to Finish the Job in Iran,” Seth Cropsey—a former deputy undersecretary of the Navy in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations—wrote that Trump must “follow through on the threat of catastrophic force. That means preparing for a multistage operation, including boots on the ground, that forcibly reopens the Strait of Hormuz to accelerate the collapse of the Iranian state.”

Cropsey pointed to the desperate crisis facing US imperialism: “If oil remains around $150 a barrel for the rest of the year, inflation will accelerate, while key industries see their supply chains derailed. Mr. Trump has a narrow window in which to end this crisis favorably, reopen the Strait of Hormuz, and ensure an economic rebound while securing American interests and prestige. But that requires deploying the full spectrum of American power.”

The push for renewed strikes continued on the Sunday talk shows. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Trump’s most prominent foreign-policy ally, in an appearance on Meet the Press, called for the United States to resume bombing Iran’s energy infrastructure. “What President Trump has done has been amazing militarily,” Graham said. “But there’s still more targets to be had. And there’s things we can do to hurt. The energy infrastructure is their soft underbelly. If you go back to the fight, I’d put energy on top of the list.”

The Democratic Party offered no opposition to the planned escalation. Instead, the Democrats who appeared on the Sunday talk shows largely devoted their foreign-policy remarks to condemning what they considered an insufficiently belligerent posture by Trump toward China at the Beijing summit.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer declared: “For the sake of democracy and the stability of the global economy, Trump must not sell out Taiwan.” The Democrats’ complaint is that the war Trump launched against Iran has distracted the United States from the conflict with China.

The war against Iran is at the same time a war against the American working class. The inflationary crisis triggered by the war has produced a massive surge in the cost of energy and food. NBC News reported that fresh vegetable prices have risen more than 44 percent on an annualized basis over the past three months. Gas is at a national average of $4.51 a gallon, and Brent crude has jumped roughly 50 percent since the start of the war.

Responding to the disastrous increase in the cost of living, Trump told reporters at the White House this month: “I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation.”

The administration has made the connection between war abroad and the assault on social programs at home explicit. At a White House Easter luncheon on April 1, Trump declared: “It’s not possible for us to take care of daycare, Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things. We have to take care of one thing: military protection.” “We’re fighting wars,” he said.

The costs of the war are mounting on the Treasury as well. Pentagon Comptroller Jay Hurst conceded at congressional testimony last week that the war has cost $29 billion, a figure that excludes damage to American bases. Harvard public-policy economist Linda Bilmes told Fortune in April that she was “certain we will spend $1 trillion for the Iran war.”

The escalation of the war on Iran comes amid a major upsurge of the class struggle. Some 3,500 Long Island Rail Road workers walked off the job at midnight Friday, shutting down the busiest commuter line in the United States in the first LIRR strike since 1994.

The 1,300 United Auto Workers members at Nexteer Automotive in Saginaw, Michigan, have twice rejected concessionary contracts in the past six weeks and are pressing the union for an immediate strike. The 1,000 UAW members at American Axle’s Three Rivers, Michigan plant voted by 98 percent on May 12 to authorize a strike when their contract expires on May 31.

The immediate trigger of these struggles is the cost-of-living crisis created by the war. The defense of workers’ living standards cannot be separated from the fight against the war.

Trump’s threats to annihilate Iranian society must be treated with the utmost seriousness. The administration is a criminal, gangster regime that will stop at nothing—including the use of nuclear weapons—to advance the interests of the American ruling class.

The struggles in transit and the auto industry show the way forward in the fight against Trump’s schemes for war and dictatorship. The murderous Trump regime, and its enablers in the Democratic Party, must be opposed through the method of the class struggle and the program of socialism.

 

ICC issues secret arrest warrants for five additional senior Israeli officials: Report

 The Hague-based court previously issued warrants for the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former War Minister Yoav Gallant

News Desk, The Cradle, MAY 17, 2026

(Photo credit: Getty Images)

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued secret arrest warrants for three Israeli politicians and two military officials, Haaretz reported on 17 May, citing diplomatic sources.

The timing of their issuance is unknown. The ICC has often issued arrest warrants in secret, publicly announcing them only later to enable a possible arrest of the suspect.

Israel’s Foreign Affairs Ministry and State Attorney’s Office do not respond immediately to requests for comment.

The Hague-based court issued arrest warrants against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former War Minister Yoav Gallant in November 2024.

ICC prosecutor Karim Khan requested that ICC judges issue the arrest warrants in May 2024, alleging that Netanyahu and Gallant were responsible for war crimes committed by the Israeli military in Gaza.

Netanyahu and Gallant bear criminal responsibility for the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts, according to the ICC prosecutor.

In response to the issuance of the arrest warrants, the US and Israel carried out a campaign to pressure the ICC to prevent and cancel the arrest warrants issued against the Israeli leaders, Le Monde reported in August 2025.

The campaign, which targeted the ICC chief prosecutor Khan, began in March 2024 after he announced his intention to seek the indictment of Netanyahu and Gallant.

In response, the Israeli prime minister launched a campaign to use “all means” to stop the prosecutor with the help of his allies in London, Washington, and Berlin.

At the end of April 2024, a staff member at the ICC accused Khan of sexual assault.

A source speaking to Le Monde said the allegations were part of an effort to “get rid of the prosecutor” and “hijack the process” of arrest warrants.

In October 2024, while the judges were still determining whether to issue the arrest warrants, a mysterious account named “ICC Leaks” appeared on the social network site X.

The account publicized the allegations of sexual assault made against Karim Khan internally at the ICC the previous May. 

The ICC finally issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant on 21 November 2024.

In February 2025, Chief Prosecutor Khan was placed under sanctions by the US.

Netanyahu applauded the move, calling the court “anti-Semitic and corrupt.”

Khan continued to work on two other indictments against Israeli Minister of National Security Itamar Ben Gvir and Israeli Minister of Finance Bezalel Smotrich.

However, Khan has been on temporary leave since 16 May 2025, pending the outcome of the investigation into the sexual misconduct allegations, which he strenuously denies.

During its genocide in Gaza, Israel has killed more than 72,000 Palestinians, the majority women and children, while destroying most of the strip.

Jewish settlers insist they will colonize Gaza, as they are colonizing the occupied West Bank.

“We are here on the way to new Jewish communities in Gaza,” settler leader Daniella Weiss stated in an interview at the border of the strip in late April.

“The 2 million or whatever number of Arabs, Gazans, who live here will not live in Gaza,” Weiss added. “It can take a week, it can take maybe a few months. They will not live here.”

Sunday, May 17, 2026

When Killing Becomes Commonplace

Consortium News, May 14, 2026

After destroying 56 small boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific Ocean, the Trump administration’s murderous attacks have become commonplace but remain illegal and evil, says Andrew P. Napolitano.

President Donald Trump outside the White House on May 8, 2026. (White House /Patrick B. Ruddy)

By Andrew P. Napolitano

 “It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished

unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.”

— Voltaire (1694-1778)

Last week, when the Pentagon resumed its attacks on small boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific Ocean, the media barely noticed.

The U.S. military has now destroyed 56 vessels and killed 190 persons. The killings began in September 2025 and have continued to this month.

The attacks caused a stir a few months ago when one of the strikes disabled the boat at which the attack was aimed but failed to kill all the passengers. When a follow-up strike was ordered, it succeeded where the initial strike had failed.

The admiral who ordered the murder of the survivors told members of Congress in secret that he believed he was following orders. The secretary of defense denied that he ordered the survivors to be killed.

Killing survivors is expressly prohibited by federal law as well as by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. And, of course, ordering the killing of innocents is always unlawful.

So, the Pentagon made two changes. It produced more lethal strikes so as not to be burdened with the problem of survivors, and it either stopped killing survivors or stopped revealing that it killed them.

Everyone who professionally monitors the government expects that it will not be truthful when the truth is unpleasant or reveals criminal behavior. This expectation is realistic, considering history and Supreme Court rulings that permit the government to lie.

The Navy rescued two survivors whom it failed to kill. Under the law, rescuing is to be done by the Coast Guard. But that law was written when the Coast Guard was in the Department of Defense. Today, it is in the Department of Homeland Security, which is largely mistrusted by the DoD.

So, rather than share information about its attempted murders with a department of the government over which it has no control, rather than having a team ready and nearby to rescue survivors, the Pentagon assigned the Navy to arrive long afterward and rescue two fishermen.

But the Navy didn’t know what to do with them, so its legal team asked Department of Justice lawyers for guidance. They asked the DoD what evidence of crimes it had on these fishermen, whereupon the DoD was unable to provide an answer that would rise to the level of probable cause — the legal standard for charging and detaining anyone. 

Probable cause is a level of evidence such that a neutral person would conclude that it is more likely than not that the detained persons committed a stated crime. At that point, the DoJ told the DoD to return these would-be victims to their home countries.  

Survivors Intend to Sue

Unclassified still from video of the first airstrike on Sept. 1, 2025. (U.S. Government, Wikimedia Commons)

In 56 attacks, and one follow-up attack, only three persons survived. Two of them have hired American lawyers and have served notice of their intention to sue the federal government for its attempted murder of them.

The government initially claimed that these killings were of known drug dealers and this was part of a law enforcement operation. Yet, under federal law, the military is prohibited from engaging in law enforcement. 

When confronted with that, the White House claimed that the folks in the boats were enemy combatants, and thus susceptible to targeting by the military. But that would require some empirical evidence of their use of force or violence against U.S. personnel, of which the government revealed none.

Then, the White House likened the effect of the sale of drugs as a war on the American people and offered that the job of the military is to defend the country in wartime from what it called narco-terrorists.

Yet, controlled dangerous substances are initially ingested voluntarily either by those looking to become addicted and separated from reality, or by those who believe that they — not the government — own their own bodies.

It is clear that none of the government’s changing justifications for these killings amounts to a legally cogent argument. The Constitution requires due process — notice, fair trial, right to appeal — and it permits only judges to impose sentences; and it requires judges to impose only sentences that have been prescribed by law.

Stated differently, the president cannot order the killing of a person because he thinks or fears — or even knows — of their criminal behavior. It is apparently of no moment to him that drug dealing is not a capital offence.

The Voltaire quotation at the top of this piece about murders and trumpets has haunted me since I first read it as a college student. The reference to the trumpets was Voltaire’s way of calling attention to government wars and executions, many of which in his day were often accompanied by trumpets.

But trumpets or not, all this raises the question: How can an act that is intrinsically evil — the intentional killing of the legally innocent — become moral or lawful just because it is committed by government officials?

The short answer is: IT CANNOT. Moreover, intrinsically evil acts can never produce moral outcomes, because the toleration of pure evil will propagate it.

In America, all persons are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty. This principle has been a bedrock of Anglo-American jurisprudence for 600-plus years.

The president and all in government take an oath of fidelity to the Constitution, whose values embody this principle.

A government is illicit when it violates the very laws it enforces. When the government breaks its own laws, it invites others to do so. When it kills innocents, it invites others to do so. It is always immoral and criminal for anyone intentionally to extinguish innocent human life.

And now, President Donald Trump’s ordered killings are so commonplace, there is little coverage and less outrage. But we will see both when the killings come home.

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, was the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel and hosts the podcast Judging Freedom. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the U.S. Constitution. The most recent is Suicide Pact: The Radical Expansion of Presidential Powers and the Lethal Threat to American Liberty. To learn more about Judge Andrew Napolitano, visit https://JudgeNap.com.

 

Saturday, May 16, 2026

How Iran’s strength bolsters Gaza’s resistance

 

Ali Abunimah Rights and Accountability 11 May 2026

https://www.youtube.com/embed/UoyDOx5KOWM?feature=oembed& When representatives of Palestinian resistance factions arrived in Cairo in mid-March for talks with Egyptian and Qatari mediators, they were not told in advance that Nickolay Mladenov would be waiting for them.

Mladenov is no neutral broker. The former UN official now serves as director-general of US President Donald Trump’s so-called Board of Peace and its “High Representative for Gaza.”

According to Muhammad Shehada, Mladenov did not come to mediate. He came to deliver an ultimatum on behalf of Israel and the United States: Accept full unconditional disarmament or face a renewed Israeli onslaught.

On The Electronic Intifada Livestream on 7 May, Shehada said Palestinian factions saw Mladenov as “an emissary or an envoy of Benjamin Netanyahu,” the Israeli prime minister.

Citing accounts from participants, Shehada said Mladenov was “extremely condescending,” issuing a threat “that if you don’t accept my proposal, immediately, unconditionally, Israel would get a free hand in Gaza and would resume its military operations.”

A Palestinian writer and researcher from Gaza, Shehada is a visiting fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations.

You can watch his full conversation with co-hosts Ali Abunimah and Nora Barrows-Friedman in the video above.

From the UN to the Israel lobby

Mladenov’s bias is hardly hidden. After leaving his post as UN special coordinator for the “peace process” in 2021, he immediately joined the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, an offshoot of the Israel lobby group AIPAC.

His conduct in Cairo exposed what this whole process has really been about: forcing and formalizing Palestinian surrender.

In October, Israel agreed on paper to a ceasefire framework. The Palestinian resistance would ensure the return from Gaza of all living and dead Israeli prisoners of war and captives.

Israel, in turn, was supposed to stop its genocidal attack on Gaza, halt “all military operations,” pull back its forces, allow at least 600 aid trucks a day into the territory, permit 200,000 tents and 60,000 temporary homes, open the Rafah crossing and allow both an International Stabilization Force and the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza – a Palestinian-run body meant to begin civilian governance – to enter the territory.

From there, negotiations on a second phase were supposed to begin.

Man in suit speaks from a podium
Nickolay Mladenov at the launch of the Board of Peace at the World Economic Forum in January 2026. The former UN official, now acting as Board of Peace “high representative,” is seen by Palestinians as a messenger for Israel. (Photo by World Economic Forum/Benedikt von Loebell via Flickr, licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)

All this was set out in Trump’s so-called peace plan for Gaza, endorsed by the UN Security Council in November – in the face of united opposition from Palestinians who viewed the resolution as capitulating to Tel Aviv and Washington and violating fundamental principles of international law.

The Palestinian resistance nevertheless kept its side of the deal. Israel, to no one’s surprise, violated virtually all of its commitments, while the supposed mediators, especially the United States, did nothing.

As Shehada explained on the Livestream, the only item ever fulfilled was the release of Israeli captives.

Since then, Israel has continued killing Palestinians, choking off aid, blocking temporary shelters and preventing the Palestinian-run administrative committee from even entering the territory.

Yet Washington, the other so-called mediators and much of the media shifted the focus away from Israel’s violations and ongoing crimes and back onto the old colonial demand that Palestinians surrender all means to resist and defend themselves.

Palestinian factions rejected the ultimatum, infuriating Mladenov.

“Israel never fulfilled phase one of the Trump deal. How are you asking us to move to phase two when the first phase was never fulfilled?” Shehada said, summarizing the position Palestinian resistance representatives put to Mladenov.

Terms of surrender

In a recent +972 Magazine article, Shehada reports on two Arabic-language documents laying out Mladenov’s demands.

Mladenov set out a 250-day timeline ending with Palestinians handing over even personal weapons and, “only once an investigative committee verifies that Gaza is completely free of any weapons whatsoever – a very elusive process – would Israel make a limited and ‘gradual’ withdrawal over an undefined period of time to the ‘Red Line’ that would still leave it in control of about 38 percent of Gaza.”

“Rubble removal and reconstruction under Mladenov’s proposal would only begin on day 251,” Shehada adds.

The documents – reviewed by The Electronic Intifada – strip Hamas and the other factions of any governing role. They place Gaza under external control, similar to the colonial Mandate under which Britain ruled Palestine after World War I.

Israel would remain in control of Gaza deep into the process, with the final stage still preserving an indefinite Israeli “security perimeter” inside the territory.

The point is plain enough. Israel and the US want to keep using hunger, destruction, despair and blackmail to impose what Israel’s army – despite more than two years of genocide and devastation – could not impose by force.

Shehada summarized the logic clearly on Livestream. Mladenov, he said, demanded that Palestinians “become absolutely defenseless, weaponless,” and trust their lives to an occupier and its backers who have never stopped killing them.

What then is the endgame? According to Shehada, Mladenov’s proposals aim “to completely rewrite the Trump plan to [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu’s satisfaction,” in order to render it unworkable and “give Israel an absolute free hand to do whatever it wants.”

While humanitarian relief and recovery were supposed to begin immediately in phase one, Mladenov is holding the civilian population’s most basic rights and their very survival hostage to total surrender by the resistance.

He is, according to Shehada, seeking the “destruction of everything that they [Palestinians] have that might be used as either defensive weaponry or as basic leverage in any future negotiations.”

Decommissioning vs. disarmament

Trump’s plan does not even mention disarmament. Instead it calls for “placing weapons permanently beyond use through an agreed process of decommissioning.”

That language comes directly from the Northern Ireland peace process. In practice, decommissioning meant armed groups did not immediately give up their weapons, but placed them out of sight and out of use so long as the political process advanced and Britain took reciprocal steps to withdraw its forces and dismantle its repressive apparatus in the north of Ireland.

The weapons remained an insurance card if commitments were violated. Indeed, the Irish Republican Army slowed, and at crisis points suspended, its participation in decommissioning to pressure the British government to fulfill its promises.

“Hamas was saying that we can do this,” according to Shehada. “Lock all the weapons up in depots for the next five years, 10 years, 15 years, 20 years, and then you need an agreement to end the Palestinian question, to end Israel’s apartheid.”

Actual disarmament – the final destruction of resistance weapons – would therefore be the result of a political settlement and a reciprocal process, not a precondition imposed only on one side.

As flawed and Israel-biased as it was, Shehada acknowledged that by adopting the concept of decommissioning, the Trump framework “was premised on the idea that you don’t have to surrender, you don’t have to capitulate.”

According to Shehada, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Ireland and the United Kingdom support decommissioning as a mechanism for Gaza.

Netanyahu and Mladenov replaced that with demands for outright disarmament – meaning, as Shehada put it, “surrender everything you have. You have absolutely no leverage whatsoever.”

But the comparison has limits.

Northern Ireland involved a political process that at least formally recognized the rights and aspirations of all participants and established a path towards a united Ireland, the core objective of the Irish anti-colonial struggle.

With Palestine, even states backing decommissioning still start from the colonial premise that Palestinian resistance is the problem, not Zionist colonization, apartheid, siege and genocide.

Iran changes the power balance

This is why the regional dimension matters. The demand that the Palestinian – and for that matter Lebanese – resistance surrender rests on the assumption that the US and Israel still dominate the region so completely that they can dictate terms and everybody else must obey.

But the US-Israeli war of aggression against Iran, and Hizballah’s formidable resistance in Lebanon, have exposed real limits to that power.

Iran has not only withstood a full-scale joint assault by the world’s and the region’s strongest and most genocidal military forces, it has arguably emerged stronger.

Shehada said Trump’s Board of Peace “began to unravel” once the US and Israel attacked Iran.

He noted that Indonesia suspended its participation and said Gaza’s factions drew a blunt lesson from the regional confrontation: “If you stand your ground, if you hit back, you strike back, you maintain steadfastness, you will get your way.”

“That lesson was immediately caught by people in Gaza,” Shehada said. It made the resistance factions “even more uncompromising on accepting the Mladenov proposal.”

Despite the catastrophic humanitarian situation Israel deliberately maintains, Washington and Tel Aviv have not secured the regional omnipotence they claim.

The existence of Palestinian weapons is not the root problem, but the consequence of the root problem: Zionist occupation, land theft, apartheid and genocide, sustained by US imperial power.

This basic truth cannot be wished away.

Any plan that begins by demanding Palestinian submission while leaving Israeli colonial power intact is a fraud.

Palestine, especially Gaza, does not need more such scams dressed up as “peace.” Its people need liberation and the restoration of all their rights.

The durable Western support for Israel even as it has perpetrated genocide since 7 October 2023 underscores that liberation will not be a gift from the likes of Mladenov, nor a reward for what Israel’s arms suppliers and financiers consider Palestinian good behavior.

As in every anti-colonial struggle, liberation will be won by Palestinians through their own efforts and sacrifices – and through the broader regional struggle to end the US imperial domination without which the Zionist colony in Palestine would disintegrate.

Friday, May 15, 2026

‘Death to Arabs’: Settler mobs storm Jerusalem’s Muslim, Christian quarters for ‘Flag March’

 Israelis organize the Jewish supremacist march each year to celebrate the conquest of Jerusalem in 1967

News Desk, The Cradle, MAY 14, 2026

 

(Photo credit: Chaim Goldberg/Flash90)

Tens of thousands of Jewish settlers descended on occupied Jerusalem on 14 May to celebrate the so-called ‘Flag March,’ beating Palestinian residents in the Muslim Quarter of the city, damaging storefronts, and shouting anti-Arab slogans.

The event, also known as the Flag Dance, commemorates the Israeli conquest of East Jerusalem during the Six-Day War in 1967.

Even before the parade began, Zionist youths pushed and cursed Palestinian residents and activists from “Standing Together,” an Israeli-Palestinian group established to protect Palestinians during the parade.

“When we put our bodies on the line, it oftentimes reduces the violence because settlers are less willing to attack when there are Jews there or when we document what’s going on,” stated Ori Shaham, the group’s international spokesperson.

The parade has long been marked by violence, extreme racism, and hate songs directed against the Palestinian residents of the Old City.

On Wednesday, the Knesset’s Aliyah, Absorption, and Diaspora Committee held a discussion on the violence directed against Christians during the annual parade.

The committee’s chairman, MK Gilad Kariv, stated that “there is nothing more ugly and offensive to the status of Jerusalem than the ugly behavior on the sidelines of the Flag Parade.”

“Every year we know what will happen … Muslim and Christian residents will close their shops, close their homes and schools, and lock themselves in their homes so as not to be exposed to violence? Is this the way of Judaism and the Torah of Israel?”

Last month, Haaretz reported that the Authority for Jewish National Identity in the Prime Minister’s Office provided nearly $200,000 in funding to organize the parade.

The remainder of the $400,000 budget was provided by the Foundation for the Renewal of Communities in Israel, an umbrella organization for several Torah groups.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir used the Flag Day march to make a provocative raid on the Temple Mount, home to the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the third-holiest site in Islam.

Thucydides’ Trap: Peace and rivalry between the United States and China

 Professor Graham Allison’s concept has influenced the way scholars and leaders think about competition between global powers.

By Nora Delaney

Fall 2025

HOW SHOULD LEADERS AND POLICYMAKERS THINK about relative shifts in power between countries? Are there principles from history that countries can look back to that help understand geopolitical tensions when countries increase their political and economic power? These are the questions that help us navigate conflicts and understand prospects for peace.   

Graham AllisonGraham Allison, the Douglas Dillon Professor of Government and former Kennedy School dean, has argued that we can take a lesson from the ancient Greek historian Thucydides. Thucydides chronicled the Peloponnesian War in the 5th century BCE when the rising city-state of Athens challenged the dominant existing power of Sparta. Thucydides wrote, “It was the rise of Athens and the fear that this instilled in Sparta that made war inevitable.” 

Allison has looked to Thucydides and his exploration of the tensions between a rising and established world power to understand the relationship between China and the United States. In his 2017 book “Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’ Trap?,” Allison argues that history shows many instances where rising powers challenge established ones, and often these situations end in war—though not always. Allison’s Thucydides’ Trap has since become an influential metaphor in international relations as experts think about the friction between China and the United States—and ways that they might avoid devastating conflict. The Institute for National Strategic Studies and the National Defense University Press, for example, published analyses interpreting the Thucydides Trap in the context of U.S.–China dynamics. Allison’s analysis has also generated attention in China. President Xi Jinping frequently uses it to identify the challenge today’s two great powers face; for example, in his meeting with Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer in October 2023, he said “The ‘Thucydides Trap’ is not inevitable, and Planet Earth is vast enough to accommodate the respective development and common prosperity of China and the United States.” Indeed, during Allison’s quarterly visits to China, Xi and key members of his team have engaged him directly to explore opportunities for escaping the Thucydides Trap.

Allison chairs the Harvard China Working Group that includes faculty from across the university and is pursuing ongoing work at the Kennedy School that grapples with the nature and future of U.S.-China competition. The rivalry between the United States and China, Allison has argued, encompasses four key areas that he and his colleagues at the Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs have researched and reported on: rivalry in economics, technology, military power, and diplomacy. These reports were originally prepared as part of a package of transition memos for the Trump-Biden transition after the November 2020 election. 

Allison and others at the Belfer Center and the Kennedy School continue to lead in our understanding of the ways the United States and China compete and cooperate as world powers.

Israel increasing use of solitary confinement for Palestinians, including for minors

 Data obtained from Israel Prison Service shows children and women among detainees increasingly being held in isolation

A member of the Israeli security forces walks outside the Kziot prison in the Negev desert on 25 January 2025 (AFP/Gil Cohen Magen)

Kziot prison in the Negev desert in Israel, on 25 January 2025 (AFP/Gil Cohen Magen)

By MEE staff

Published date: 14 May 2026 12:01 BST | Last update:21 hours 32 mins ago

There has been a marked increase in Palestinian prisoners, particularly minors, being held in solitary confinement since Israel‘s genocide in Gaza began, according to recently published data. 

The data was published this week by Physicians for Human Rights, who obtained it through a freedom of information request to the Israel Prison Service. 

It showed that the number of minors transferred to solitary confinement rose from one in 2022 to 50 in 2023, before spiking significantly to 290 in 2024. 

Meanwhile, the number of adult detainees held in solitary confinement nearly tripled year-on-year in 2024, reaching 4,493. 

Female detainees in solitary confinement rose too, from two in 2022 to 25 two years later. 

New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch

Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters

The Israel Prison Service has two types of solitary confinement: punitive and deterrent isolation. The former lasts 14 days, while the latter can last for six months, and Israeli authorities are able to renew it. 

According to rights groups, most cases involve Palestinians being held in short-term punitive isolation.

Rights organisations have long been critical of solitary confinement, considering it to be an extreme form of punishment. 

Research suggests that it can lead to mental health problems, memory loss, hallucinations and physical illnesses. 

‘Returned from hell’: Press monitor exposes torture of Palestinian journalists by Israel

Read More »

Conditions for Palestinian prisoners have worsened since Israel’s genocide in Gaza began in October 2023. 

Prisoners and detainees have reported food shortages, as well as the spread of diseases within jails and violence committed by prison guards. 

“What was once an exceptional measure has become routine – including for minors and women,” said Oneg Ben-Dror of Physicians for Human Rights. 

She added that the sharp increase of using isolation had raised serious concerns about prisoners’ human rights, as well as their physical and mental health. 

The Israel Prison Service told Haaretz that there had been a “dramatic increase” in the number of security detainees in recent years, including minors. 

It said that comparisons of conditions before and after October 2023 “distort reality” and said that it operated under a policy of “custodial governance” in which it handles any breach of order or discipline in accordance with the law. 

Huge spike in arrests

As of last month, more than 9,600 Palestinians were being held in Israeli jails. 

At least 3,532 of them were held in administrative detention, an Israeli policy which allows the military to detain Palestinians without charge or trial for periods of six months, a period which can be renewed indefinitely.

At least 342 prisoners were children, 84 were women, and 119 were serving life sentences. 

There has been a huge spike in arrests since the Israeli genocide in Gaza began. Before October 2023, around 5,250 Palestinians were held in Israeli prisons.

In March, Israel’s Knesset approved a bill allowing the execution of prisoners, by 62 votes to 48, despite international calls to abandon it.

Under the law, anyone who “intentionally causes the death of another person with the intent to harm an Israeli citizen or resident, or to threaten the existence of the State of Israel” could face the death penalty or life imprisonment.

The wording effectively targets Palestinians, while Jewish Israelis who kill Palestinians would face, at most, a prison sentence.