The Transatlantic Rift Over Gaza’s Future

 Imran Khalid

Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair

The fragile ceasefire in Gaza, now in its seventh week, has done little to calm the political tempests surrounding it. What was meant to be a pause in hostilities has become a proxy debate over the enclave’s future, exposing a widening rift between Washington and key European capitals. This diplomatic cleavage threatens to undermine the post-conflict architecture, compromise the humanitarian response, and cast a shadow over Western coherence in the face of global crises. It has also opened up space for regional actors to assume a more assertive diplomatic role as Western plans drift without consensus.

The core of the division lies in fundamentally different approaches to the stabilization of Gaza. On November 17, 2025, the United States secured by a unanimous vote—with Russia and China abstaining—the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 2803 endorsing a U.S.-backed stabilization blueprint for the Strip. This text authorizes a transitional International Stabilization Force to oversee borders, aid corridors, and the progressive disarmament of non-state armed groups. The resolution also establishes a U.S.-chaired “Board of Peace” as the primary transitional authority until at least 2027. For Washington, the priority remains immediate demilitarization and the swift creation of security parameters to prevent future escalations. Yet the structure reflects a familiar pattern: security solutions conceived far from the region, with limited consideration for the political and humanitarian realities on the ground.

Conversely, many European governments, keenly aware of the massive and still-worsening humanitarian toll and sensitive to the imperatives of international humanitarian law, view the U.S. initiative with deep misgivings. At recent meetings of EU foreign ministers, officials welcomed the ceasefire but stressed unequivocally that humanitarian operations must be neutral, impartial, and rooted in international humanitarian law. European statements have repeatedly warned that heavily constrained access at key checkpoints continues to critically hamper relief efforts, pushing northern Gaza toward imminent famine risk this winter, according to the latest Integrated Food Security Phase Classification snapshot.

The European Parliament has gone further, urging an immediate and permanent ceasefire alongside the rapid restoration of essential infrastructure, while also signaling the non-negotiable need to exclude armed non-state actors from any future governance arrangements. This insistence reflects not only a legal position but a belief that no stabilization framework can succeed if it sidelines local legitimacy and regional partners.

This public disagreement marks a sharp departure from the transatlantic unity that has often been the bedrock of Western responses to major conflicts. That fragile consensus has frayed as the U.S. plan emphasizes security-first solutions at the expense of a massive, neutral surge in humanitarian relief. The resulting UN resolution, which lends international cover to the U.S. framework, was met with abstentions by Russia and China and with palpable unease in parts of Europe, underscoring a deep philosophical and practical split on how to manage the fraught aftermath of the conflict. The vacuum created by this discord is increasingly visible to regional stakeholders, who view the Western stalemate as detached from the suffering unfolding on the ground.

The U.S.-EU rift carries significant implications for the region and the future of Western diplomatic influence. First, a divided West struggles to lend decisive international legitimacy to any stabilization plan. The perception of the plan as primarily a U.S.-led, security-first initiative risks alienating crucial regional partners, particularly Gulf states, who insist that reconstruction efforts genuinely preserve Palestinian agency. Their financial and logistical involvement will be indispensable, and they are unlikely to back a model seen as an extension of external coercion rather than a negotiated regional settlement.

Second, the failure to agree on robust, operational humanitarian guarantees could rapidly deepen the catastrophe on the ground. Since the ceasefire entered into force on October 10, 2025, more than 330 Palestinians have been killed in incidents and renewed military operations, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry and UN-verified figures. Humanitarian agencies continue to warn of acute food insecurity affecting the entire population, with nearly half a million people already in “catastrophic” hunger. If stabilization efforts are not rigorously and immediately paired with neutral aid corridors, guaranteed access, and essential infrastructure repair, the human toll will worsen dramatically, potentially leading to mass casualty events due to starvation or disease, turning the ceasefire into little more than a procedural pause before the next eruption of violence.

Third, the open disagreement in the heart of the Western alliance complicates global governance and regional stability. Middle powers and other actors, who often look to the West for coherent leadership, are now forced to navigate competing diplomatic blueprints. Turkey and Egypt, which played pivotal roles in brokering the October ceasefire, find themselves in an increasingly delicate position as they try to reconcile U.S. security demands with European and Arab insistence on humanitarian primacy. Unlike Western capitals, Ankara and Cairo possess direct relationships with all key Palestinian factions and regional backers, giving them leverage no external blueprint can replicate. Their mediation is not merely facilitative but structurally indispensable, and they are rapidly emerging as the only actors capable of converting the ceasefire into a durable political horizon. This lack of coherence amplifies strategic and economic uncertainty across the broader Middle East, including in the Red Sea, where the years-long Houthi campaign has already driven up war-risk premiums and shipping costs.

Given the current political deadlock, the immediate future necessitates a pivot toward pragmatic, operational solutions. While competing grand frameworks clash on principles, the urgency of the humanitarian crisis demands a focus on what can be delivered on the ground now. A realistic path forward lies in reviving low-politics, technical diplomacy: trilateral or quadrilateral talks (U.S.–EU–UN–key regional facilitators such as Turkey and Egypt) focused exclusively on integrating rigorous, EU-style humanitarian benchmarks and guarantees into the existing International Stabilization Force mandate. Only regional diplomacy can tether this technocratic structure to political legitimacy, and Turkey’s unique diplomatic posture positions it as the actor most capable of ensuring that humanitarian access and Palestinian representation are not subordinated to distant security doctrines.

The alternative—partial implementation of the U.S. plan without full EU logistical or financial buy-in, leading to insufficient aid and further suffering—risks a complete collapse of the truce and a potentially wider regional crisis. The choice for the West is no longer about picking a side in the diplomatic struggle, but about making the operational case for impartial aid corridors, donor coordination, and infrastructure repair that deliver immediate, tangible results for the people in Gaza. Regional actors cannot be relegated to the margins of this process. Without their leadership, no plan, however well drafted, will endure. In a fractured world, such technical craftsmanship and steadfast adherence to international humanitarian principles are not just moral currency; they are a strategic imperative for stabilizing hotspots and preserving the integrity of the transatlantic alliance itself. The fate of Gaza will ultimately be shaped not by external blueprints, but by those willing to balance security with humanity and to anchor diplomacy in the lived realities of the region.

Imran Khalid is a geostrategic analyst and columnist on international affairs. His work has been widely published by prestigious international news organizations and publications.

Russia and India: The Quiet Axis of the Coming Multipolar Epoch

The strengthening Russia–India partnership reflects a deeper, quieter transition toward a multipolar world order that is unfolding beyond the glare of Western-centric geopolitical narratives.

Phil Butler

History does not always announce its turning points with parades or proclamations. Sometimes it shifts in the quiet between headlines, in the steady movement of tankers across warm seas, or in the unhurried diplomacy of states that have survived far older disruptions than the American century. The partnership between Russia and India is one of those shifts.

Is India the Key to Multipolarity?

While Western leaders exhausted themselves in the theatre of the Ukraine conflict, insisting that sanctions and moral condemnations could halt the world’s turning, Russia spent its time building something more enduring: civilizational partnerships that would outlast the noise. India, ancient and unflappable, became the most important of them.

This was not a dramatic reorientation but a gradual resumption of a natural affinity. The Soviet Union had been India’s most reliable partner for decades, not because of ideology, but because both nations understood the fragility of true sovereignty. India never forgot the vetoes cast at the UN when it mattered, nor the way Russian arms and engineering gave it room to maneuver in a world that rarely grants breathing room to rising states. What changed after 2022 was not sentiment but the global landscape itself. As the West plunged headlong into a sanctions crusade, confident that Russia could be isolated, India recognized what few dared to say aloud: the Old World Order had already collapsed, and every state was now choosing its footing in the emerging terrain.

Neither nation needs the other to choose sides

When Europe cut itself off from Russian oil, it believed it was constructing a strategic fortress. In reality, it simply redirected the flow. The tankers that once fed German industry sailed instead toward Gujarat and Tamil Nadu, and with each arrival, a new kind of global economy quietly took shape. Russia needed markets; India needed affordable, predictable energy. Their interests met perfectly, without lectures, conditions, or the manipulative courtship rituals Western diplomacy so often relies upon. In this exchange, Moscow found not just an economic partner but a sovereign one; New Delhi found not just a supplier but a counterweight to the kind of pressure it never tolerates from Washington. Now, the balance is shifting largely because of failed U.S. diplomacy/policy.

The Awakening

This was the moment the West misunderstood most deeply. It imagined India would eventually fold under political pressure, moral suasion, or the desire to appear aligned with the “international community,” a phrase that now sounds increasingly provincial. But India is not a junior power in need of validation. It did not fight for decades to emerge as an independent civilizational force only to become a pawn in someone else’s geopolitical narrative. It refused to choose, which is to say it chose itself.

Russia understood this posture instinctively. For all its problems, Moscow still grasps the grammar of sovereignty better than most Western capitals now do. The United States wants partnership to mean obedience; Europe wants partnership to mean ideological conformity. Russia, lacking both the missionary impulse and the luxury of condescension, simply wants stability with states that want stability with it. This is why defense cooperation between Russia and India remained intact despite every Western prediction of collapse. The link was never sentimental. It was structural. Indian aircraft, radars, engines, launch platforms, and missile systems are tied to Russian engineering. The West cannot replace those pipelines without dismantling half of India’s military architecture. And even if it could, it would still balk at the level of technology transfer India demands. Russia never balked. That is the difference.

When Putin finally arrived in New Delhi in 2025, Western commentary treated it as an act of defiance or symbolism. But neither side needed symbolism. They needed continuity, predictability, and the reassurance that the partnership was not subject to the fevered mood swings of electoral democracies. The agreements signed that week were not revolutionary in content but devastating in implication: Russia and India were formalizing a long-term relationship that did not require Western approval. The world could no longer be managed by media narratives, sanction packages, or diplomatic scolding. A deeper order was revealing itself, slow-moving but irreversible.

The end of the Ukraine conflict, whenever it is declared, will not return the world to the conditions of 2010 or even 2019. The unipolar moment has expired, not through dramatic revolt, but through exhaustion. Europe lost its strategic autonomy long before it realized it. The United States, pulled ever inward by its domestic fractures, no longer has the coherence to dictate global norms. China is consolidating its sphere, not expanding it recklessly. And into this vacuum steps Russia, not as a hegemon, but as one of several gravitational centers in a plural world. India, meanwhile, has stepped into something even more consequential: the role of a civilizational broker whose partnerships define the balance between East and West rather than tilt toward either.

A Simpler New World

The Russia–India relationship is not a military alliance, nor an economic dependency, nor a sentimental relic of Soviet friendship. It is something quieter and therefore more resilient: a shared understanding that the age of blocs is ending and the age of sovereign civilizations is beginning. Neither nation needs the other to choose sides. They need only to ensure that the world does not force them into choices that deny their nature.

This is the quiet axis of the century. Not loud, not theatrical, not desperate — just steady. Russia will anchor the northern arc of Eurasia. India will anchor the demographic and cultural center of Asia. China will dominate its manufacturing sphere while managing its borders. The West will remain influential but no longer decisive. And somewhere within that constellation, Russia and India will continue their partnership, not because it is dramatic, but because it works.

History’s real turning points rarely appear in news alerts. They appear in relationships that survive the storms. The West treated the conflict in Ukraine as the defining conflict of our time. But the world will remember it as the moment when the global order finally shifted, quietly, toward the civilizations that never stopped believing they had futures beyond the Atlantic script. Russia’s partnership with India is one of the clearest signs of that shift. It is not the end of an era, but the resumption of a course heading.

Phil Butler is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, and an author of the recent bestseller “Putin’s Praetorians” and other book

Is there Anything REALLY New about America’s NEW Strategic Strategy?

The newly unveiled U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS) argues that it marks a profound strategic rupture in transatlantic relations by depicting Europe as a declining civilisation, redefining Russia as a potential partner, and prioritising U.S. domestic strength over global commitments.

Seth Ferris

It is all coming together, a paradigm shift, and one does not need a policy paper or press briefing to see the writing on the wall. The 33-page document should be viewed more as the US finally facing reality: Europe is on the decline, morally, economically, and geopolitically. Its institutions have been hijacked by political elites who have lost step with the values that once defined what it means to be European. As the BBC reports, the document, unveiled by the US administration, suggests ‘Europe is facing “civilisational erasure” and does not cast Russia as a threat to the US.’

The document is widely viewed as aligned with Donald Trump’s worldview, which argues that Europe is sliding into decline, merely confirming what critics say is already visible across the continent. Furthermore, the report claims Europe is failing economically, politically, and culturally, and that its core values have been surrendered to powerful special interests. It echoes Trump’s calls to restore “Western identity,” curb foreign influence, halt mass migration, and refocus U.S. priorities on domestic security—potentially at the expense of long-standing allies.

Civilisational Erasure

In terms of Europe, the document warns that if current trends continue, the continent could be “unrecognisable in 20 years or less,” with economic troubles overshadowed by what it describes as the threat of “civilisational erasure.” It questions whether some European states will retain the economic or military strength needed to remain dependable partners.

The US has taken a practical position, which is manifested as an isolationist shift, substantiated by the document’s own words and the global reaction

The Washington Post called it a “grenade in Brussels”; Euronews noted it warns of Europe’s “civilisational decline”; X users (e.g., @Sunnymica) labeled it “fascist European rantings.” European leaders like Poland’s Donald Tusk responded, “Europe is your closest ally, not your problem.”

The report accuses the EU and other multinational bodies of undermining member states’ political sovereignty and argues that migration policies are stoking social conflict. It also cites concerns about restrictions on free speech, declining birth rates, and what it portrays as a loss of national identity and confidence amongst EU member states.

In contrast, it praises the rise of “patriotic European parties” and asserts that the U.S. should encourage this political revival across the continent. As I wrote, one policy analyst, who worked many years for USAID and energy policy:

You are a policy guy; what do you make of this so-called new Security Strategy, if there is really anything new about it, or only a reality check? I am really confused if the US wants to defeat Russia and China or finish off Europe,  effectively a controlled shot to the head, especially the EU and NATO, so to keep the US and the USD as predominate at the expense of competing blocks who are out of step with US and European values.

The 33-page NSS deliberately reframes identity and domestic politics that are now center stage in U.S. strategic thinking. This approach openly brings forth the public questioning of the integrity of strategic alliances. What is especially revealing is how it defines the lending of support to nationalist forces in allied states as stated policy, such as to the AfD in Germany. This approach is more in keeping with the MAGA agenda. Such a combination of a new focus and more rhetoric puts forth a new approach in how the US deals with its friends and allies; however, how that will be implemented is anybody’s best guess.

Nonetheless, the document, if acted upon as real policy, will most definitely produce a realignment in transatlantic relations; however,  it will not necessarily lead to a “finishing off” of Old Europe  but rather a purposeful weakening of the existing consensus, the same one that has sustained U.S.–European cooperation for decades.

European leaders seem to have their own separate agenda. They are only too willing to sacrifice all in achieving short-term gains and maintaining the political status quo as a desperate act of self-preservation… something no longer acceptable to Donald Trump and his MAGA movement; this is REALISM — a strategy that is based on reality, not on Western European dreaming… !!

And indeed, Trump and PUTIN have shared values — and that’s a good thing in the BIGGER scheme of things.

The NSS is a bomb thrown straight at Europe. The document dedicates just 2.5 pages to Europe (out of 33), framing it as a declining entity facing “civilizational erasure” due to migration, low birth rates, EU integration, censorship, and loss of national identity. It calls for the US to “cultivate resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations” and praises “patriotic European parties” (a nod to far-right groups)

The biggest takeaway is that Russia is no longer considered an enemy but a country that the US should try to make arrangements with. Unlike the 2022 NSS (which mentioned Russia 71 times as a threat), the 2025 version omits Russia from the list of direct adversaries. It prioritizes “reestablish [ing] strategic stability with Russia” to end the Ukraine conflict and stabilize European economies. It blames “European officials” for blocking peace and notes a “large European majority wants peace.”

Managing European relations with Russia…

“A core U.S. interest is to negotiate an expeditious cessation of hostilities in Ukraine… to reestablish strategic stability with Russia.” — Reactions: Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov hailed it as “largely consistent with our vision”; Al Jazeera reported Russia “welcomes” the softer tone; X posts (e.g., @MoveToRussiaCom) called it a “major shift” toward Russia as “not enemies anymore.”

The Kremlin has praised the new national security strategy adopted by US President Donald Trump, saying it aligns closely with Russia’s own view of global affairs.

It is apparent that the US is no longer financially or militarily capable of maintaining its hegemonic empire, or of supporting its client states indefinitely. The NSS admits past “hegemonic” pursuits (e.g., democracy promotion, endless interventions) have “diffused [US] strength and an unstable foundation,” leading to unsustainable deficits and overextension. It rejects indefinite support for “client states,” shifting resources to the Western Hemisphere and domestic industry. However, it asserts US “pre-eminence” in the Americas via a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine.

The US attitude toward the EU has become rather less than friendly, warning that alliances with many will be either impossible to maintain, or completely worthless in the near future. It is also interesting that Israel is hardly mentioned, likely losing its “greatest ally” tag due to the incredibly few mentions it gets. Israel appears only ~6 times (briefly, e.g., in lists of conflicts or as a partner in containing Iran).

The Middle East is deprioritized (“no longer the top strategic priority,” requiring only “careful management”). This contrasts with prior NSS documents’ heavy focus on Israel as a cornerstone ally.

The NSS criticizes the EU for “trampling on basic principles of democracy” via “unstable minority governments” and “subversion of democratic processes.” It urges Europe to “take primary responsibility for its own defence” without US dominance, implying alliances are burdensome and unreliable. It endorses ending NATO’s “perception… as a perpetually expanding alliance” by stopping the never-ending march of the alliance towards Russia’s borders, a fact that should not be lost on Ukraine.

“European officials who hold unrealistic expectations for the war in Ukraine… many of which trample on basic principles of democracy… We must encourage Europe… to take primary responsibility for its own defence.” Perhaps most revealing, as The Guardian highlighted is US support for Europe’s far-right to “divide” the EU, and the document calls out Europe for failing to stay abreast of the needs of its own voters and pushing them to alternative parties, which has further divided both individual countries and the alliance as a whole.

In the final analysis, the summary and commentary are not far from the core of what is found in the NSS’s document. The prevailing narrative in recent media coverage (December 4–8, 2025) supports this contention. The US has taken a practical position,  which is manifested as an isolationist shift, substantiated by the document’s own words and the global reaction. For the full text, see the White House release.

Revolutionary blueprint vs. wake-up

America’s new National Security Strategy isn’t so much a revolutionary blueprint as it is a wake-up call that confirms that U.S. hegemony has frayed at the edges and risks completely unravelling unless drastic measures are taken. Europe has been sharply downgraded from a steadfast do-no-wrong ally to a continent teetering on “civilizational erasure,” praising its nationalist insurgents, AfD and others.

These 33 pages extend an olive branch to Russia while sidelining endless proxy wars, and the document codifies Trump-era realism: prioritize American preeminence at home and in the Americas, let faltering partners fend for themselves, and abandon the illusions of perpetual global dominance.

Whether this signals the death knell for NATO and the EU or a pragmatic pivot away from overextension remains to be seen—but as reactions from Brussels’ outrage to Moscow’s approval underscore, the transatlantic rift is no longer subtext; it is policy. For a superpower grappling with deficits and decline, it’s less innovation than inevitability, a strategy that hedges its bets on division in order to reclaim strength.

Seth Ferris, investigative journalist and political scientist, expert on Middle Eastern affairs

The European Dream: Broken Promises for African Migrants

 The reality experienced by many Africans in Europe, such as South Africans in the United Kingdom, reveals a mechanism of psychological and economic attrition.

Mohamed Lamine KABA

Since 1945, Europe has shaped the image of a continent of opportunity, social rights, and individual success. For Africans, this vision has fueled mass departures, driven by the hope of a better life. But today, the reality is one of social precariousness, institutional racism, professional downgrading, and political invisibility. From post-Brexit Britain to industrial Germany and France with its successive migration laws, the African condition in the West reveals a mechanism of systemic exclusion.

James Durrant’s article published on 15 November on the SA People portal is revealing. In the early 2000s, London was a refuge from power cuts, crime, and uncertainty. Twenty years later, the disillusionment is brutal, with tax increases, a British passport devalued since Brexit, housing difficulties, a constant feeling of strangeness, rising energy costs, and a social climate increasingly hostile to migrants, even skilled ones. With a pint costing £8, six-figure flats, and salaries eaten away by taxes, the dream is crumbling in everyday life.

For them, the United Kingdom ceased to be a promised land; it became a place of tension, constraints, and constant waiting

This situation hits West Africans, Sahelis, and Great Lakes Africans even harder, as they arrive without networks or financial capital and are often confined to underpaid jobs. Many never have the opportunity to live decently, save money, or even make plans for the future. A large proportion live in invisibility. That is to say, they work illegally, live in unsanitary shared accommodation, and are dependent on unstable odd jobs. This institutional logic gives rise to a violent dynamic in which integration becomes an administrative myth and exclusion a social reality.

Migration policies exacerbate this violence. Europe outsources border control and funds third countries (such as the Arab Maghreb) to detain, imprison, and deport migrants. Testimonies documented by Human Rights Watch describe arbitrary arrests, inhumane detention, mass refoulement, and humiliation inflicted on African migrants accused of a single intention: ‘wanting to go to Europe.’ This system creates marginalized existences, condemned even before setting foot on the continent.

This is why returning home, as some South Africans are doing today, becomes a form of liberation. Not for comfort, but because it has become impossible to exist with dignity in societies where Africans remain ‘eternal foreigners,’ watched, controlled, and suspected. Returning home – working remotely, earning pounds but living in Cape Town, Abidjan, or Dakar – is now the only strategy for breathing, asserting oneself, and rebuilding one’s life. This article analyses, over eight decades, the paradoxes of a dream that has become a mirage, and the historical structures that produce the feeling of being eternally foreign.

1945-1990: Postcolonial illusion and the European promise of integration

The immediate post-war period ushered in an era of illusions for South Africans, as for many other populations in the global South, shaped by the belief in a “new universal space” born from the ruins of fascism/Nazism and enshrined in the United Nations Charter. At the same time, the European discourse on integration – and then the construction of the European Community from 1957 onwards – presented itself as an ethical break with the imperial logic that had organised the world since the 19th century. For many South Africans (traumatised by the apartheid system on the one hand, and by its legacy on the other) seeking education, employment, or political asylum in the United Kingdom, this Europe promised civic equality and a moral horizon free of racial hierarchies. The dominant narrative, particularly at the heart of British ideology after 1948, suggested that the empire was now giving way to the Commonwealth, an imaginary space of equality, movement, and shared citizenship.

However, this promise of integration remains fundamentally unfulfilled. The postcolonial illusion lies in the gap between universalist rhetoric – ‘one humanity, one law’ – and social, legal and economic practices that continue to hierarchise bodies and mobility. In Britain, the settlement of black South Africans in the 1960s-1980s was met with increasingly restrictive migration bureaucracy, discriminatory hiring practices, informal residential segregation, and the emergence of sometimes violent public discourse on ‘preserving the British way of life.’ In fact, integration was never a political reality; it became an administrative fiction that everyone had to negotiate individually, in a context marked by the persistent underground presence of imperial racism.

Between 1945 and 1990, Europe built its narrative of moral greatness by proclaiming the end of empires, but without dismantling the mental structure of white supremacy. For South Africans in the United Kingdom, this contradiction is the daily experience of a postcolonial world that promises inclusion while subtly organizing distancing.

1990-2015: economic crisis, security policy, and rise of structural racism

During the period 1990-2015, Europe entered a phase of profound economic, social, and identity readjustment that radically changed the situation of migrants, particularly those from Africa. With the acceleration of globalization, economic liberalization and successive crises, European states gradually adopted increasingly restrictive migration policies. The initial openness to immigrant labour was transformed into a strategy of control and social sorting. Migration ceased to be seen as a contribution to reconstruction or growth and became a ‘problem’ and a ‘burden’ requiring security management.

This transformation is accompanied by tougher immigration laws, stricter residence conditions, reinforced border controls, and an increase in ‘ethnic profiling’ in government agencies, law enforcement, and the labour market. For many African migrants, this means access to housing, employment, public services or social protection is marked by constant institutional obstacles, refusals, delays or hidden discrimination.

On a social level, the 1990s to 2010s saw the rise of nationalist and xenophobic rhetoric, increasingly promoted by political movements and the media, which linked immigration with insecurity and cultural threats. This climate fuelled structural racism, which was less spectacular than open attacks but more insidious: residential segregation, invisible barriers to employment, marginalization in public spaces, and a constant feeling of being ‘tolerated’ rather than accepted.

As a result, the ‘European dream’ – equality, mobility, a better life – is turning into an unfulfilled promise for many migrants. For these populations, integration remains a utopia as Europe’s legal, social and economic structures are being reshaped around a paradigm of control, selection and hierarchy based on origin. This historic upheaval, which began in the 1990s, ushered in a model of ‘differentiated inclusion’: it is no longer a question of welcoming others, but of assessing their value – and often relegating them.

2015-2025: the shattered dream – inflation, Brexit, measurable discrimination

From 2015 onwards, the Western dream for many African migrants, particularly South Africans in the United Kingdom, began to crumble under the combined effects of rampant inflation, the economic shock of Brexit and the rise of now documented discrimination. The 2016 vote and the effective exit from the European Union initiated a structural transformation: the economic fabric, employment opportunities and the property market were profoundly disrupted. According to estimates, Brexit contributed to a lasting decline in business investment and a slowdown in productive growth. This had a direct impact on employment and migrants’ ability to stabilize their lives.

Added to this is a surge in the cost of living: rents in London and other major British cities, rising energy prices and increased daily expenses. For many African families, wages are no longer enough to cover basic needs; saving, investing and building a future are becoming illusory. In this context, the precarious status of expatriates is taking hold – the promise of social mobility abandoned, relegated to the level of monthly survival.

At the same time, perceptions and experiences of discrimination are increasing. Recent studies conducted among populations of African origin in Europe show that between 2016 and 2022, the proportion of those who have experienced discriminatory treatment in access to housing, employment or education has increased exponentially. In the United Kingdom, foreign-born migrants – and even more so Black people and Africans – frequently report feelings of social exclusion, profiling, and implicit or explicit denial of access to certain spaces, as if administrative belonging were never enough to erase difference.

In this context, many South Africans understand that the British dream – stability, social advancement, welcome – was nothing more than an ideological mirage. Their trajectories bear witness to a shift: hopes dashed, commendable efforts… but a reality of survival, invisibility and institutional rejection. For them, the United Kingdom ceased to be a promised land; it became a place of tension, constraints and constant waiting. And it is in this gap between promise and experience that the disillusionment of migration is rooted today.

In short, from 1945 to 2025, history shows a constant paradox: Europe promises integration, but organizes exclusion. Africans experience a double punishment: material precariousness and denial of identity. However, the Western dream is not dead; it has been transformed into an ideological product, sold as an escape but experienced as confinement. Documenting these realities is not an exercise in denunciation, but a duty to truth: without recognition of structural injustices, no reform is possible. The demand is simple, irrefutable, universal: dignity, justice and recognition of African humanity, everywhere.

The harsh truth is this: one can travel thousands of kilometers and remain trapped in a state of eternal and invisible foreignness in Western Europe.

Mohamed Lamine KABA, Expert in geopolitics of governance and regional integration, Institute of Governance, Humanities and Social Sciences, Pan-African University

If Gaza Resistance Ends: What History Tells Us About the Palestinian Fate

Ramzy Baroud

Image by Mohammed Ibrahim.

US President Donald Trump’s ‘Board of Peace’ is reportedly set to be announced before the year’s end. This news coincides with increasing reports that the US administration is serious about pushing forward the second phase of the Gaza ceasefire.

However, many critical questions remain unanswered. How can a governing council be superimposed on Gaza when Palestinians are unified in their rejection of any new form of Western mandate over their lives?

Furthermore, how can the proposed ‘International Stabilization Force’ (ISF) operate in Gaza without total clarity regarding its mission? If the ISF ends up serving primarily as an Israeli line of defense, the entire project will collapse before it begins.

Neither Arab nor Muslim countries will seriously engage in subduing Palestinians on behalf of Israel. Any other participating force will inevitably be treated by Palestinians as an occupation force.

The main obstacle, however, is the fact that Israel has never truly respected the first phase of the ceasefire, which began, in theory, on October 10. Since that date, Israeli forces have killed over 360 Palestinians and wounded hundreds more, while demolishing thousands of residential structures, according to satellite images verified by the BBC.

Worse, Israel has habitually bombed targets beyond the ‘Yellow Line’, which was designated as the Palestinian area where humanitarian aid is allowed to flow and people are meant to return to some kind of normalcy, despite Gaza’s near-total destruction.

Israel is hoping to make the first phase of the agreement a permanent one. This intent is evident in the continued bombings, the prevention of life-saving supplies and aid, and the constant, unsubstantiated accusations that Palestinians are the ones violating the ceasefire.

It is expected that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will make the disarmament of Gaza the main sticking point, knowing in advance that Gaza will not surrender its weapons. He has made this clear and repeatedly so, including on November 15, when he stated that “Hamas will be disarmed — either the easy way or the hard way”.

But what if Gaza agrees to surrender its weapons? Will Israel leave the Palestinians alone? Will the prospects of a just peace and Palestinian freedom increase exponentially? To address this question, let’s delve very quickly into three experiences, two from history.

Palestinian and even some Israeli historians have argued that, during the ethnic cleansing of historic Palestine, the Nakba, Israel had the intention of depopulating the country regardless of whether Palestinians resisted or not.

The implementation of Plan Dalet, the operation aimed at expelling the Palestinian population, was in no way related to the method or intensity of Palestinian resistance to Zionist militia violence.

In fact, the framework of that expulsion was predicated on the use of war as a pretext, as opposed to war as a response to Palestinian resistance. “The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war,” wrote Zionist leader and Israel’s first prime minister at the time, David Ben-Gurion.

Though some Mukhtars (village leaders) assumed that no resistance meant that they would be spared the same fate as those who resisted, they were wrong. Israeli historian Ilan Pappe writes: “Whereas the official Plan Dalet gave the villages the option to surrender, the operational orders did not exempt any village for any reason”.

The same pattern was repeated throughout history. In 1982, after a US-brokered agreement to evacuate Palestinian PLO forces out of Lebanon, the assumption was that their departure would keep the Israeli army from attacking Palestinian civilians.

Indeed, on August 21, 1982, PLO factions began leaving the country, leaving the camps undefended and their Lebanese allies vulnerable. However, Israeli violence in West Beirut had grown, not subsided, leading in September 1982 to the Sabra and Shatila massacre, which killed up to 3,500 Palestinian refugees and Lebanese civilians.

All the promises by Washington, the supposed ‘guarantees’, and the diplomatic language of US envoy Philip Habib, who acted as the President’s Special Envoy, meant absolutely nothing, as Israel helped facilitate one of history’s most brutal massacres.

And, of course, there is the ongoing saga of the West Bank itself, which, unlike Gaza, lacks armed resistance infrastructure and is administered by the Palestinian Authority (PA), which operates based on an Israeli-US-Western mandate.

Yet, even before the Gaza genocide, the West Bank’s suffering had grown, its land confiscated, entire communities ethnically cleansed, whole refugee camps destroyed, and hundreds of residents killed.

Between October 7, 2023, and late 2025, UN and human rights reports indicate that Israeli forces and settlers killed over 1,000 Palestinians in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem (more than 200 children). Thousands more were injured, and Israeli authorities destroyed or confiscated thousands of Palestinian-owned structures, displacing many. Additionally, an estimated 10,000 Palestinians from the West Bank were arrested between October 2023 and August 2024.

If Israel’s genocide in Gaza is entirely motivated by the desire to crush the armed groups, then why the continued crushing of the West Bank?

Those who continue to entertain the Israeli narrative regarding Gaza must confront this historical record and acknowledge two crucial, enduring realities. First, Israel’s violence is fundamentally driven by its settler-colonial ambitions, not merely by Palestinian resistance. Second, Palestinian resistance is a deeply rooted historical imperative — the native population’s determined struggle for self-liberation from foreign occupation.

Only by abandoning the reductionist language that frames Israeli wars as simple responses to armed groups can we arrive at a profound understanding of events in Palestine, Israel’s true motives, and the legitimacy of the Palestinian struggle.

Dr. Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of six books. His forthcoming book, ‘Before the Flood,’ will be published by Seven Stories Press. His other books include ‘Our Vision for Liberation’, ‘My Father was a Freedom Fighter’ and ‘The Last Earth’. Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA).