Uncategorized
It’s time for the pro-Palestinian movement to make a radical change
Over the past two years, activists across the world ramped up calls for divestment from Israel. On university campuses and at meetings of pension boards, the same call has become increasingly prominent: pull money away from anything tied to Israel.
But now that a fragile ceasefire may be taking hold, I want to offer a simple, slightly provocative suggestion: If you care about Palestinian lives, don’t just divest from Israel. Invest in Gaza.
And I mean that quite literally.
According to a joint damage and needs assessment conducted by the United Nations, World Bank and European Union a few months ago, about $53.2 billion will be required over the next decade to help Gaza recover from the destruction wrought by the war. (Some sources cite an updated figure of more than $80 billion.) Of this, at least $30 billion is to repair physical infrastructure — homes, water systems, roads and more. Another $19 billion is needed to address the collapse of Gaza’s economy and public services: shuttered businesses, lost wages, halted schooling, broken clinics.
But even before anything is rebuilt comes the problem of the debris. According to that same assessment, somewhere between 41 and 47 million tons of rubble now litter Gaza — maybe more. Not a single new road can be laid, or foundation poured, until that is cleared. That work alone could cost hundreds of millions of dollars and take months of careful, often dangerous work.
And if Gaza is to be more than a symbol of tragedy — if it is to become a place where young people can live, work, and build a future — it will need productive investment. Physical infrastructure alone won’t deliver prosperity. The creation of markets and sustained economic growth requires investment in businesses, job creation, job training and entrepreneurship. That, too, must be part of the agenda.
Which means it’s time for the pro-Palestinian activists who have protested in cities and on college campuses all over the world since October, 2023, to change their tune. If you were marching for a ceasefire in Gaza; if you were pushing institutions to divest from Israeli-linked firms; if you’ve held a sign that says “Free Palestine” — it’s time to reconsider your tactics.
Imagine if even a fraction of the energy spent on divestment campaigns was channeled into reconstruction and development funds. Universities could create fellowships, specifically for Gaza residents, to give them the training necessary to bring their territory into a better future. Student groups could partner with international NGOs to fund the development and continued operations of schools or clinics. Municipalities that have severed ties with Israeli investments could reinvest that capital in Gaza’s public health or housing.
It’s easy to say, “We won’t fund oppression.” It’s harder — and far more meaningful — to say, “We will fund rebuilding.”
That pledge is desperately needed. There are encouraging headlines about funding for Gaza, but, as of yet, little cold, hard cash.
In theory, international donors will step in. The United States-backed “20-point plan” includes reconstruction of Gaza as a pillar, but does not attach a promise of concrete funding. The U.N. recently confirmed that multiple countries, including the U.S., have shown “willingness” to help fund the monumental effort, but offered no specifics. The Gulf states and other regional actors have expressed interest in supporting postwar rebuilding, but have not yet made any clear commitments. An exception is the European Union, which has pledged €1.6 billion to support Gaza’s reconstruction. That’s a very generous amount — but a tiny fraction of what’s required.
The political will may exist in principle. But in practice, many of these promises remain vague, contingent or politically fragile. And they come at a moment when investment in global foreign aid is trending in the opposite direction. President Donald Trump’s administration has shuttered USAID offices; bilateral development budgets are shrinking; and public tolerance — especially in Western democracies — for large-scale foreign aid packages is wearing thin.
Relying solely on states and slow-moving aid agencies isn’t going to be enough. Not at the scale or pace that’s necessary. Gaza’s future won’t just depend on donor generosity — it will require new sources of capital and creative partnerships that can go beyond patching the ruins and instead build a foundation for long-term prosperity.
Of course, there are legitimate concerns, including the unsettled future of Gaza’s governance, the potential for further conflict with Israel down the road, the risk of Hamas interference, and the specter of corruption. But those are not reasons to do nothing. They’re reasons to build mechanisms for transparency and oversight.
If activists demand accountability from Gaza’s reconstruction, while proactively investing in it, they’ll be making a future for the strip not just possible, but better.
And here’s the uncomfortable truth: While divestment campaigns are great at signaling values, they rarely create concrete results that bring positive change to the lives of everyday Palestinians. They have yet to rebuild a single school. They don’t help provide health care.
Gaza needs more than slogans. It needs billions of dollars. Now.
So, to those in the pro-Palestinian movement: you’ve spent months organizing, marching and lobbying. You’ve asked the world to listen. Now’s your chance to lead. If you truly believe in justice for Palestinians, this is the time to show it. Put your money where your mouth is. Don’t divest from Israel. Invest in Gaza.
The post It’s time for the pro-Palestinian movement to make a radical change appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Iran and US Views on Sanctions Relief Differ, Iranian Official Tells Reuters
Iranian women walk past an anti-US billboard in Tehran, Iran, February 19, 2026. Photo: Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
Iran and the United States have differing views over sanctions relief in talks to curb Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, a senior Iranian official told Reuters on Sunday, adding that new talks were planned in early March as fears of a military confrontation grow.
Iran and the US renewed negotiations earlier this month to tackle their decades-long dispute over Tehran’s nuclear program as the US builds up its military capability in the Middle East, fueling fears of a wider war.
Iran has threatened to strike US bases in the Middle East if it is attacked by US forces.
“The last round of talks showed that US ideas regarding the scope and mechanism of sanctions relief differ from Iran’s demands. Both sides need to reach a logical timetable for lifting sanctions,” the official said.
“This roadmap must be reasonable and based on mutual interests.”
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said on Friday that he expected to have a draft counterproposal ready within days, while US President Donald Trump said he was considering limited military strikes.
READINESS TO COMPROMISE
While rejecting a US demand for “zero enrichment” – a major sticking point in past negotiations – Tehran has signaled its readiness to compromise on its nuclear work.
Washington views enrichment inside Iran as a potential pathway to nuclear weapons. Iran denies seeking nuclear weapons and wants its right to enrich uranium to be recognized.
Washington has also demanded that Iran relinquish its stockpile of highly enriched uranium (HEU). The UN nuclear agency last year estimated that stockpile at more than 440 kg of uranium enriched to up to 60% fissile purity, a small step away from the 90% that is considered weapons grade.
The Iranian official said Tehran could seriously consider a combination of exporting part of its HEU stockpile, diluting the purity of its most highly enriched uranium and the establishment of a regional enrichment consortium in exchange for the recognition of Iran’s right to “peaceful nuclear enrichment.”
“The negotiations continue and the possibility of reaching an interim agreement exists,” he said.
BENEFITS FOR BOTH SIDES
Iranian authorities have said that a diplomatic solution delivers economic benefits for both Tehran and Washington.
“Within the economic package under negotiation, the United States has also been offered opportunities for serious investment and tangible economic interests in Iran’s oil industry,” the official said.
However, he said Tehran will not hand over control of its oil and mineral resources.
“Ultimately, the US can be an economic partner for Iran, nothing more. American companies can always participate as contractors in Iran’s oil and gas fields.”
Uncategorized
Mike Huckabee’s Comments to Tucker Carlson on Israel and Middle East Land Draw Condemnation in Region
Tucker Carlson speaks on first day of AmericaFest 2025 at the Phoenix Convention Center in Phoenix, Arizona, Dec. 18, 2025. Photo: Charles-McClintock Wilson/ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect
Comments by US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee suggesting that Israel had a biblical right to much of the Middle East drew condemnation over the weekend from countries across the region, who called his remarks “dangerous and inflammatory.”
Huckabee, an evangelical Christian, has been a staunch supporter of Israel throughout his political career and a longtime defender of Jewish settlements in the West Bank – land which the Palestinians seek for a state.
In an interview with Tucker Carlson that was conducted on Wednesday in Israel and aired on Friday, the populist US talk show host asked Huckabee about Israel’s right to exist and about Jewish roots in the ancient land.
Citing the book of Genesis, Carlson asked whether the modern state of Israel had a right to the lands promised in the Bible by God to Abraham, stretching from the Euphrates River to the Nile, covering much of the Middle East. In response, Huckabee said:
“It would be fine if they took it all. But I don’t think that’s what we’re talking about here today.”
Huckabee added: “We’re talking about this land that the state of Israel now lives in and wants to have peace in, they’re not trying to take over Jordan, they’re not trying to take over Syria, they’re not trying to take over Iraq or anywhere else. They want to protect their people.”
In response, a joint statement condemning Huckabee’s comments was issued by the Palestinians and countries in the Middle East and beyond, including Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Indonesia and Pakistan.
They said his comments were: “Dangerous and inflammatory remarks, which constitute a flagrant violation of the principles of international law and the Charter of the United Nations, and pose a grave threat to the security and stability of the region.”
A US Embassy spokesperson said Huckabee’s comments did not reflect any change in US policy and that his full remarks made clear that Israel has no desire to change its current boundaries.
Israeli officials did not immediately comment on the interview or the reaction from countries that signed the joint statement.
Uncategorized
Jack Hughes Makes History as 1st Jewish Male Athlete with Olympic ‘Golden Goal’
Milano Cortina 2026 Olympics – Ice Hockey – Men’s Gold Medal Game – Canada vs United States – Milano Santagiulia Ice Hockey Arena, Milan, Italy – February 22, 2026. Jack Hughes of United States scores their second goal in overtime to win gold. Photo: REUTERS/David W Cerny
i24 News – Jack Hughes made history on Sunday as the first hockey player widely recognized for both having a bar mitzvah and scoring an Olympic game-winning goal, leading the United States to its first men’s hockey gold medal since 1980.
The 24-year-old New Jersey Devils star from Orlando, Florida, scored early in sudden-death overtime to secure a 2-1 victory over Canada at the Milan Cortina Olympics. Hughes finished a cross-ice pass from teammate Zach Werenski, who had wrestled the puck from Canada’s Nathan MacKinnon.
“This is all about our country right now,” Hughes said. “I love the USA. I love my teammates. It’s unbelievable. The USA Hockey brotherhood is so strong.” Hughes also endured a high stick during the game, losing a couple of teeth but continuing to play.
The victory marked the first US win over Canada in a top-level men’s competition since the 1996 World Cup of Hockey. The win completed a US sweep of Olympic hockey gold, following the women’s 2-1 overtime victory against Canada on Thursday.
Hughes ended the tournament with three goals and three assists, contributing offensively even from a lower line. His older brother, Quinn Hughes, a Minnesota Wild defenseman, scored the US overtime winner against Sweden in the quarterfinals. Their parents, Jim and Ellen Hughes, were present for the celebrations.
Team USA also paid tribute to the late Johnny Gaudreau, who was killed in 2024 with his brother. Gaudreau’s jersey hung in the locker room throughout the tournament, and players carried it onto the ice after the medal ceremony. Two of Gaudreau’s children joined the team for commemorative photos.
Sunday’s match marked the third men’s Olympic gold medal game between the US and Canada, with Canada having won in 2002 and 2010. Hughes’ golden goal solidifies him as a historic figure in hockey, blending his Jewish heritage with Olympic triumph.