Donald Trump

In my latest analysis of the situation in the Gaza Strip, I look at how the surviving Palestinians are caught between, on the one hand, Israel, which still occupies 58% of Gaza, and still hopes to actively resume its genocidal assault, and a US-led colonial project, which claims to want to bring peace, but is disturbingly led by mostly US politicians and businessmen who only seem interested in its future as a real estate and business opportunity, in which the Palestinians are regarded as either peripheral or irrelevant. Although some hope must rest with the appointment of the Palestinian National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG), the technocratic committee charged with the day-to-day running of Gaza, it is alarming that, above it are not one, but two largely US-led organizations — the Board of Peace, led by Trump, and featuring only Americans, apart from the inclusion of Tony Blair, and the Gaza Economic Board, which also, at least, includes representatives of the Gulf and Middle Eastern countries who have played a major part in the long negotiations for peace. In addition to doubts about the sincerity or ability of these organizations to bring peace, questions also remain about the extent to which Israel has been excluded, and how much, if at all, it will seek to insist that it has the right to put its own security first, and to press ahead with efforts to resume its genocidal assault on Gaza. More than anything, this, in particular, must not be allowed.

Celebrating a significant court ruling last week, in the District Court in Washington, D.C., in which Judge Sparkle Sooknanan, a Biden appointee, ruled definitively that the Trump administration’s use of Guantánamo to hold migrants with final deportation orders flown from ICE detention facilities on the US mainland was and is completely illegal under immigration law (the Immigration and Nationality Act), and is also “impermissibly punitive” as a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. It’s been ten months since Trump began using Guantánamo to hold migrants, and five months since lawyers with the American Civil Liberties Union (the ACLU), the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP) submitted a lawsuit on behalf of two Nicaraguan nationals held at Guantánamo at the time, and also on behalf of every other migrant in “a similarly situated class.” It’s unknown as yet if the Trump administration will appeal, but it’s abundantly clear from Judge Sooknanan’s ruling that there are absolutely no grounds for doing so. The use of Guantánamo to hold migrants was a vile example of performative cruelty, meant to terrify all migrants in the US, and would-be migrants elsewhere, and its demise is long overdue.

My analysis of the deeply flawed UN Security Council resolution on Gaza that was passed last week, which made Donald Trump the unelected and unaccountable emperor of Gaza for the next two years, at the head of a spectral “Board of Peace”, and also authorized the creation of an equally spectral “International Stablilization Force” to disarm Hamas. I note how the resolution fails to punish Israel for two years of genocide, and sidelines the Palestinians, with only the vaguest of mentions of “a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood” at some nebulous point in the future. I quote opposition to the resolution from Palestinian representatives and from Francesca Albanese, and I also explain why I think Trump’s plan will fail — not just because the practical support he needs will either be unacceptable, or will fail to materialize, but also because of the impossibility of quelling the Palestinian resistance. In addition, I think we should all take some comfort from the fact that, behind the scenes, the power imbalance in the United Nations, whereby the US can railroad a resolution through the Security Council the day before the General Assembly voted for a diametrically opposed resolution affirming “the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination”, including “the right to their independent State of Palestine”, cannot hide the fact that most of Trump’s support came from countries that criticized the lack of a clear route to Palestinian self-determination. Meanwhile,Israel retains control of 58% of Gaza, and seems reasonably content to try to ensure that the remaining population of Gaza, trapped in the remaining 42%, are held in dire conditions that resemble, as much as possible, the concentration camps that they envisaged for them when they escalated their genocidal assault in May this year. In the long run, however, I believe that Israel’s position is untenable, and that the only way out of the impasse is, indeed, for Palestinian self-determination and statehood to be prioritized.

Three weeks into the ceasefire in Gaza, which is still in place, even though Israel switches it on and off at will, and last night undertook unforgivable aerial bombardments killing over a hundred civilians, I examine the short-term and long-term problems with Donald Trump’s “Peace Plan.” Short-term problems include the delivery of humanitarian aid, which, although increasing, is still failing to meet the requirements in the ceasefire deal, while the long-term problems involve the future governance of Gaza. I look at the particularly poisonous impact of the refusal, by Israel and its supporters in the west, to differentiate between Hamas as the legitimate administrative government in Gaza, and its military wing, which, for two years, has underpinned its entire genocidal assault on a trapped civilian population, and reflect on how Hamas cannot be expected to disarm, or even to relinquish power, until a political solution is in place that involves Israel’s military withdrawal and Palestinian self-determination. I also look at how Trump’s proposal for an “International Stabilization Force” will fail without a political solution, as recently confirmed by King Abdullah of Jordan, and assess alarming indications that the US’s primary interest, as suggested by Trump in February, is not in securing a meaningful political settlement, but in redeveloping Gaza as a real estate project.

My analysis of the momentous events of the last few days, as a ceasefire has begun in Gaza, and the last remaining living Israeli hostages have been freed in exchange for 1,968 Palestinians, including 1,718 hostages seized in Gaza since October 7, 2023, and held without charge or trial. I condemn the dehumanization of the Palestinians in most of the western media, in contrast to the attention paid to the Israelis, especially as so many of the Palestinians had so evidently been severely mistreated, and I point out how the media’s bias has prevented it from noting that 55 of those freed were healthcare workers, seized in the unforgivable war on Gaza’s hospitals that Israel has been waging relentlessly for the last two years. I also puncture the balloon of Donald Trump’s pomposity, noting that, although he pushed for the ceasefire deal, he has not put forward a credible plan for post-genocide Gaza beyond an unacceptable suggestion that its governance would be overseen by colonial overlords. I insist that Palestinians must be allowed to decide their own future, as part of a necessary process of securing their independence, in line with the recent recognition of the existence of the State of Palestine by numerous western countries. What is needed most urgently, as Israel is already trying to undermine the ceasefire deal, is for western countries and Arab nations to insist on being allowed to begin undertaking massive debris-clearing and reconstruction operations in Gaza, alongside a massive increase in humanitarian aid, as winter creeps in on a population that is still as deprived of all of the basic necessities of life as it was before Trump began hogging the spotlight.

My tentatively optimistic response to the news that the first phase of the Gaza “Peace Plan” that Donald Trump first announced eleven days ago has been agreed by the Israeli government and Palestinian negotiators, promising an enduring ceasefire in return for the freeing of the remaining hostages in Gaza (and with Palestinian prisoners and hostages also freed), and with humanitarian aid once more allowed into Gaza in significant quantities. Although Palestinian negotiators recognize that it is a huge gamble to trust Trump, reports suggest that they saw no other viable route forward to avoid the otherwise endless US-backed Israeli genocide. Time will tell if they are correct or not, but in the meantime, having wisely insisted that all discussions about disarming and about the post-genocide governance of Gaza will be addressed in future negotiations, all eyes are currently on Gaza, to see if the killing will stop, if humanitarian aid at scale will be allowed in, and, most particularly, if, when the hostages are freed, Israel can, as I describe it, “constrain its voracious genocidal lust by ceasing its military attacks”, and, if not, if the US is prepared to enforce its compliance.

My analysis of the 20-point Gaza “Peace Plan” unveiled yesterday by Donald Trump in the presence of Benjamin Netanyahu, who claimed to accept it. While many world leaders have responded to it positively, and Hamas’ leadership is currently studying it, it is clearly fraught with profound problems and unanswered questions despite seeming to promise an end to hostilities, and the resumption of the delivery of humanitarian aid at scale. Anyone with any fundamental decency wants the killing to stop, but the plan, with its demand for the immediate release of all the hostages, would remove Hamas’ sole bargaining chip, allowing Netanyahu to resume hostilities having placated his fiercest internal critics — the families of the remaining hostages. Also of great concern is the intention to initiate the “temporary transitional governance” of Gaza by “a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee”, because that would, in turn, be overseen by “a new international transitional body, the ‘Board of Peace’”, chaired by Trump, and including the former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, widely and understandably hated in the Middle East for his role in facilitating the Iraq War. As if this proposal for a neo-colonial takeover of Gaza isn’t revolting enough, Hamas also faces demands to disarm completely, even though that would provide the Palestinians with no defence if Israel were to break the terms of the deal, which, on past experience, seems likely, and is especially worrying because, immediately after agreeing to the plan, Netanyahu posted a video telling his Israeli audience that there was “no way” that the IDF was leaving Gaza, pouring scorn on any future hopes for a Palestinian state, and seemingly relishing the continuation of Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza. As I state in the article, “Although everyone with a heart aches for an end to the killing, the timing of the plan, above all, reeks of desperate efforts by Israel and the US to stem the increasing tide of high-profile western support for Palestine”, and is “too high a price to pay for a people whose right to independence and self-governance on their own land, after nearly 80 years of barbaric oppression, apartheid and slaughter ought to be non-negotiable”, and I’d be surprised if Hamas accepts it.

Photos from, and my report about the 31st coordinated monthly global vigils for the closure of the “war on terror” prison at Guantánamo Bay, which took place across the US and in London, Brussels, Mexico City and Belgrade on August 6, 2025. I describe Guantánamo as doubly forgotten because, as we continue to campaign for justice for the 15 men still held in the “war on terror” prison, who now seem largely to have receded from memory, Trump’s recent reanimation of Guantánamo as a venue for his “war on migrants” seems also to have drifted from view, after a flurry of media activity in the first few months of his baleful second presidency. This is in spite of the fact that, six weeks ago, it was reported that 72 migrants were being held at Guantánamo, and that 26 of them, including a British national, had been identified as having criminal records for serious crimes. Since then, however, the trail has gone cold, even though it is reasonable to fear that the administration is planning a one-way trip for these men to obliging third countries. This recently happened with South Sudan and Eswatini (formerly Swaziland), where the men disposed of by the administration were given no safeguards that they would not be subjected to torture, “disappearance” or even death, as required under the Torture Convention, to which the US is a signatory.

My definitive overview of the first six months of Trump’s “war on migrants”, with a particular focus on the administration’s recent and truly alarming drive to deport, to third countries, migrants with criminal records, who have served prison sentences, often for serious crimes. The administration claims that it is being forced to act because these ex-prisoners’ home countries won’t take them back. However, even if this is sometimes true, it is essentially an intractable political problem, to which the answer cannot, and must not be to eviscerate the post-WWII consensus — involving the Refugee Convention and the Torture Convention — that there must be robust mechanisms preventing foreign nationals from being deported, either to their home countries, or to third countries, where they face the risk of torture or death. I also examine how Trump’s declared pursuit of migrants with criminal records (roughly 4% of the 11 million undocumented migrants in the US) is a smokescreen seeking to disguise a blunter and much more violent truth — that all eleven million are a target, because entering the US illegally is being regarded as a crime worthy of deportation. I also examine how there must always be a balance between a desire to stem uncontrolled immigration and the need for a significant number of immigrants to do numerous essential jobs, and run through the sordid back story of the administration holding Venezuelan migrants at Guantánamo, and then sending others on a one-way trip to a mega-Guantánamo in El Salvador, on the basis of allegations about their criminality that were largely exposed as lies. I proceed to explain how this new focus on finding migrants with criminal records and sending them on a one-way trip to third countries (South Sudan and Eswatini in the last week) has been cynically implemented to forestall any sympathy for these men, to enable a program that can be effected without attracting the outrage it deserves, with its horrific echoes of the Bush administration’s “extraordinary rendition” policies in the “war on terror”, which may well also constitute the reviled international crime of enforced disappearance. I end with some good news, with polls showing that Americans are increasingly turning against Trumps’s excesses, although that alone is not sufficient to prevent an ever-increasing humanitarian and moral disaster without serious resistance.

My report about the disturbing news that, in recent weeks, around 60 migrants, from 26 countries including the UK, have been flown to Guantánamo, apparently reviving the use of detention facilities on the naval base, which began with the arrival of 178 Venezuelans in February, but then tailed off after legal challenges, and after the administration was embarrassed by research establishing that, although they were all described as dangerous gang members, this was demonstrably untrue. In a new twist, seeking to overcome these earlier embarrassments, the Department of Homeland Security has published a list naming 26 of these men, and alleging that all of them, including the British national, have been convicted of serious crimes, although, via an internet search, I was unable to verify any of these claims. What the administration’s intention is remains unclear, but two options seem probable. Sending men with criminal convictions to Guantánamo (if these claims are true) may enable the administration to claim that it can hold them without charge or trial, replicating the model used in the existing “war on terror” prison, or it may be a prominent way to deport them to third countries, as recently happened when eight men from a variety of countries, all allegedly with criminal convictions, were sent to an unknown fate in war-torn South Sudan. Drawing analogies with the “extraordinary rendition” program of the Bush administration, and the often flawed resettlements of Guantánamo prisoners in third countries under Obama and Biden, I examine a recent and commendable New York Times investigation into the 58 countries that administration officials have approached, or want to approach, regarding taking in migrants who are not their own nationals. I also discuss the seven countries who have already agreed, and raise the alarm about the threat of the worst abuses of the “war on terror” being revived under Trump and his senior officials, who seem particularly motivated not to safely repatriate migrants, but to defy protections against torture or even death by sending them to unsafe destinations where any rights they should have will be unenforceable. I also sound a similar alarm about the increasing expansion of unaccountable hit squads “disappearing” people on the US mainland, and the creation of new detention facilities, reminiscent of Guantánamo, with “Alligator Alcatraz” in Florida as the first example, and highlight the very real prospect that, without ferocious resistance, the $175 billion allocated to ICE in Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” will lead to a horrendous police state expansion of “disappearances” and gulags across the entire country. As I state in my conclusion, “Resistance is necessary, by all means available.”