SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
The deliberate destruction of food systems, water infrastructure, medical systems, and communal cohesion is not incidental, it is an intentional form of warfare aimed at inducing despair, division, and eventual displacement.
Consequent to the escalated Zionist genocide of Indigenous Palestinian people, and after a blockade of all goods since the beginning of March 2025, Gaza is experiencing a severe humanitarian crisis, with widespread food scarcity and starvation among its population. Human rights organizations and international agencies report the Israeli blockade has led to catastrophic levels of hunger, particularly affecting children and vulnerable groups.
The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) indicates approximately 244,000 people in Gaza face the most severe level of food insecurity, with nearly 71,000 children under five at risk of acute malnutrition. The World Food Program warns famine is imminent, affecting nearly the entire population of 2.3 million.
Human Rights Watch has accused Israel of using starvation as a weapon of war, a gross violation of international law, while noting children have died from starvation-related complications due to the blockade.
Israeli and American strategies of siege, blockade, and forced starvation create the very social fragmentation they later cite as proof of Palestinian dysfunction and innate barbarity.
The United Nations and other organizations have called for immediate, unrestricted humanitarian access to prevent further deterioration. In addition, aid groups have criticized the proposed systems for potentially facilitating distribution of food and other essentials as being inadequate to meet the urgent needs.
Now, seemingly under pressure from the United States and conveniently using its mercenaries, Israel will allow “minimal” food and supplies into the besieged Palestinian enclave, while intensifying its devastating military assault.
In a recent press conference, Netanyahu ally and Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich demonically said Israeli forces are engaged in a campaign to force Palestinians into the south of Gaza “and from there, God willing, to third countries, as part of President [Donald] Trump’s plan. This is a change of the course of history—nothing less.”
Other than a tool to move the population southward as part of a brazen criminal displacement campaign, which Smotrich openly admits, the starvation of Gaza has another insidious deliberate objective—methodical, socially engineered atomization of the people in Gaza, designed to create extreme deprivation, societal chaos, and internal strife, particularly through food scarcity and lack of control, and subsequently as a pretext for further genocide, expulsion, theft, and domination.
Renowned Primatologist Jane Goodall documented a prolonged conflict (1974–1978) between two chimpanzee groups, the Kasakela and the Kahama, in Gombe Stream National Park, Tanzania. This “Gombe Chimpanzee War” saw the Kasakela community systematically attack and eliminate the Kahama group. Goodall’s findings were widely reported as support for the idea that warfare and territorial violence are natural elements of human behavior, inherited from our closest primate relatives.
Notably, reactionaries have co-opted these notions on so-called human nature to justify colonialism, falsely depicting Indigenous tribes as inherently violent “savages” to legitimize land theft and genocide.
AnthropologistBrian Ferguson has challenged Goodall’s interpretation. In a painstakingly thorough analysis of each case of documented aggression during the “Gombe Chimpanzee War,” he argues that the violence observed was not natural or inevitable. Rather, it was the result of external influences, primarily human interference by Goodall, her team, and others. Ferguson points to changes in provisioning (feeding) practices by these researchers, which disrupted social dynamics and led to unnatural group fragmentation. He also cites ecological pressures, such as resource scarcity due to nearby human activity, which may have exacerbated tensions.
Ferguson contends these factors, rather than innate aggression, better explain the conflict, emphasizing violence is context-dependent and can be negatively affected by human interference, and not a fixed part of primate and human nature. Drawing on primate studies, archaeology and anthropology, Ferguson argues war in human behavior is not innate—i.e.“human nature”—it emerged as a cultural construct when social inequalities were introduced with sedentary, agricultural life which enabled resource hoarding. Thus, he cautions against simplistic evolutionary (and reactionary) narratives which use such cases to justify human violence.
The same dynamics are now unfolding in Gaza, where Israeli and American strategies of siege, blockade, and forced starvation create the very social fragmentation they later cite as proof of Palestinian dysfunction and innate barbarity.
The deliberate destruction of food systems, water infrastructure, medical systems, and communal cohesion is not incidental, it is an intentional form of warfare aimed at inducing despair, division, and eventual displacement.
Starvation is a tool of colonization, weaponized to weaken bodies, fracture bonds, undermine social cohesion, fuel internal aggression, weaken resistance, and turn survival into an isolating struggle. These conditions are neither natural nor inevitable; they are constructed and inflicted deliberately to serve a white supremacist goal—to manufacture potentially lethal chaos within Palestinian society and shift blame for genocide onto the victims themselves.
The cynical ploy by Israel and the United States to engineer conditions for forced displacement while blaming the Palestinian people they are starving should be rejected and serve as further impetus for boycott, divestment, and sanctions.
As internal conflict escalates, Zionist forces can portray Palestinians as irredeemably violent “savages,” justifying further domination under the guise of civilizing and evicting them “for their own good.” This was reflected by Trump in his immoral plan to turn Gaza into a resort.
This strategy mirrors decades of Zionist colonial tactics—assassination, imprisonment, torture, and psychological warfare—all deployed to reinforce the false narrative that Palestinian anti-colonial resistance is proof of inherent barbarism, rather than adefensive response to European invasion, oppression, and dispossession.
With classical colonial sleight of hand, liberal Zionists then ask, with feigned bewilderment: “Where is the Palestinian Mandela?” as if peace depends on the emergence of a more palatable victim. This notion ignores how many “Palestinian Mandelas” have emerged, only to be systematically assassinated and imprisoned by Zionist forces for embodying the possibility of peace and reconciliation through justice and decolonization. Likewise, the first Palestinian Intifada, a largely women-led uprising, and the “March of Return” were largely nonviolent—a strategy Zionists found more threatening than armed resistance and thus met with brutal, disproportionate force.
The deliberate starvation of Palestinian people in Gaza is an abominable nadir in an ongoing 77-year symphony of Israeli genocide and war crimes. However, it is possible to anticipate Zionist tactics and accompanying propaganda and to respond with foresight and strategy.
The cynical ploy by Israel and the United States to engineer conditions for forced displacement while blaming the Palestinian people they are starving should be rejected and serve as further impetus for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) and other protests by all those opposing U.S.-led white supremacist colonialism, instead of allowing it to weaken, dishearten, and fracture resistance. This is the bare minimum for anyone who sees the predatory U.S.-led Zionist experiment in Palestine as a threat to the existence of the Palestinian people and to the rest of humanity.
"Israeli ambassadors must be summoned and answer to violations of international law, including the ongoing blockade and the bombing of our civilian vessel in international waters," said flotilla organizers.
A "Freedom Flotilla" vessel carrying humanitarian aid for starving Palestinians in the besieged Gaza Strip reportedly came under attack in international waters off the coast of Malta early Friday, with organizers accusing Israel of bombing the ship with armed drones.
The Freedom Flotilla Coalition said in a statement that drones attacked the front of its unarmed ship, the Conscience, twice, "causing a fire and a substantial breach in the hull."
"The drone strike appears to have deliberately targeted the ship's generator, leaving the crew without power and placing the vessel at great risk of sinking," the coalition said. "On board are international human rights activists on a nonviolent humanitarian mission to challenge Israel's illegal and deadly siege of Gaza, and to deliver desperately needed, life-saving aid."
"Israeli ambassadors must be summoned and answer to violations of international law, including the ongoing blockade and the bombing of our civilian vessel in international waters," the coalition added.
Huwaida Arraf, an organizer with the Freedom Flotilla Coalition, wrote in an email to The Washington Post that the group suspects Israel was behind the attack but can't "confirm 100%." The Israeli government has not commented on the accusations.
"Israel has threatened us and attacked us many times before, in 2010, killing 10 of our volunteers," wrote Arraf. "It is also the primary entity interested in keep[ing] us and any aid out of Gaza."
BREAKING: At 00:23 Maltese time, a #FreedomFlotilla ship was subjected to a drone attack. The front of the vessel was targeted twice, resulting in a fire and a breach in the hull. The ship is currently located in international waters near #Malta. An #SOS distress signal was sent.
[image or embed]
— Gaza Freedom Flotilla Coalition (@freedomflotilla.bsky.social) May 1, 2025 at 10:38 PM
Reutersreported early Friday that "the Maltese government said the vessel and its crew were secured in the early hours of the morning after a nearby tug assisted with firefighting operations," but the outlet noted that organizers insisted the ship "was still in danger."
Climate and human rights activist Greta Thunberg told Reuters that she was in Malta at the time of the reported attack on the Conscience and that she was planning to board the vessel to support the effort to deliver aid to Gazans, who have been struggling to survive under a suffocating two-month Israeli siege and relentless bombing.
On Friday, Amnesty International again called on Israel to lift its blockade on Gaza, saying that the Israeli government's "policy of deliberately imposing conditions of life on Palestinians in Gaza calculated to bring about their physical destruction" amounts to "an act of genocide."
The U.S.-based peace group CodePink condemned the reported drone strike in a statement Friday.
"Retired Army Colonel, former diplomat, and our beloved board member Ann Wright, along with our long-time friend and co-founder's life partner, Tighe Barry, are part of this flotilla effort," CodePink said. "We are so glad they were safe, along with the 16 humanitarians and crew on board the ship."
"CodePink recognizes this as Israel blatantly violating international law by attacking a civilian ship in international waters and putting the lives of all those on the ship in jeopardy," the group added. "They must be held accountable for this attempted murder and every crime they have committed against humanitarians and the people of Gaza. This act by Israel sends a message to the world: Anyone who tries to bring aid to the people of Gaza is a military target and will be treated as such."
CodePink pointed to a CNNreport indicating that "an Israeli Air Force C-130 Hercules was picked up leaving Israel early Thursday afternoon and flying to Malta."
Citing flight-tracking data, CNN reported that "the Hercules did not land at Malta’s international airport, the data shows, but the cargo aircraft did fly at a relatively low altitude—below 5,000 feet—over eastern Malta for an extended period of time."
"The Hercules flew over several hours before the Freedom Flotilla Coalition says their vessel came under attack," the outlet added. "The plane returned to Israel about seven hours later."
This story has been updated to include new comments from CodePink and reporting from CNN.
From Reagan to Trump, when a U.S. president or Congress has sought to take measures curtailing a range of civil liberties, they have exploited the perception of the danger posed by Arabs to justify their actions.
For decades now, Arabs, in particular Palestinians, and supporters of Palestinian rights have been the weak link in the civil liberties chain.
During this period, when a U.S. president or Congress has sought to take measures curtailing a range of civil liberties, they would exploit the perception of the danger posed by Arabs to justify their actions. They feel comfortable in doing this because they understand that the negative stereotypes associated with Arabs make the measures more acceptable and opposition to their efforts less likely to occur. Examples abound.
On three separate occasions in the 1980s, when the Reagan administration sought to roll back civil liberties, they began their assault with an attack on Arabs’ rights. Having established the identity of Arab or Palestinian with terrorist, they assumed no public support would be forthcoming in defense of Arab civil liberties. On the other hand, if their targets had been persons of another ethnicity, opposition would have been more likely.
In 1981, the Reagan administration issued an executive order that dismantled all earlier reforms by the Carter administration to outlaw domestic surveillance by the CIA and FBI, using Arabs as the scapegoats to justify this measure. As a result, for five years, the FBI infiltrated and disrupted Palestinian student groups nationwide—finally disbanding the effort with nothing to show but agents’ hours wasted and millions of dollars spent.
What Trump’s administration policies share in common with his predecessors is the use of Arabs, in particular Palestinians, and their supporters, as convenient scapegoats to justify the erosion of rights and liberties.
Reagan’s Department of Justice was also able to rewrite U.S. extradition law, making it easier to fulfill the requests of foreign countries to extradite individuals without due process protections. They did so using the case of a Palestinian visa holder whose extradition had been requested by Israel. Based on this case, Congress rewrote the laws affecting all extradition requests.
It was also under former President Ronald Reagan that the Immigration and Naturalization Service released its “Alien Terrorist and Undesirables Contingency Plan,” detailing steps under provisions of the McCarren Walter Act to imprison, try in secret, and deport large numbers of aliens based solely on their ethnicity or their political beliefs or associations. Consistent with the approach taken, the “Plan” makes several references to Arab immigrants. In fact, the test case used to lay the groundwork for this “Plan” was the arrest of seven Palestinians and the Kenyan wife of one of them, charging them with nothing more than their political beliefs and association.
In 1995, then-President Bill Clinton issued an executive order “Prohibiting Transactions with Terrorists Who Threatened to Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process” and followed by the Omnibus Anti-Terrorism Act of 1995. Both efforts introduced draconian measures that would seriously erode civil and political rights guaranteed to U.S. citizens and residents under the Constitution and international law. The law, for example, gave far-reaching powers to law-enforcement agencies, removed the presumption of innocence for those under investigation, made it easier for the government to conduct surveillance against persons suspected of violating conspiracy laws, allowed for prohibition of “material support deemed by the president to benefit terrorist organizations,” established procedures allowing the government to detain and deport individuals based on secret evidence with no opportunity for the detainees to defend themselves, and allowed law-enforcement agencies to conduct surveillance on individuals or groups, based purely on their beliefs and associations. Using the executive order and new legislation the Clinton administration unleashed a nationwide profiling program at airports, which harassed and questioned hundreds of Arab and Arab American airline passengers, even before checking in for their flights, based solely on their dress, appearance, or Arabic names.
After 9/11, the Bush administration and Congress upped the ante. While intelligence failures and lax airline safety requirements were at fault in allowing terrorists to be trained in the U.S. and carry out their horrific attacks, then-President George W. Bush issued a series of orders that resulted in the roundup and deportation of thousands of innocent Arab students, workers, and visitors. They also ordered tens of thousands of Arab and Muslim visa holders to report to immigration offices where many more were held for deportation. The anti-terrorism legislation that passed through Congress allowed expanded surveillance by law enforcement, including warrantless wiretapping, searching library records, and an expanded use of profiling. Using the expanded powers given to them by the administration, law enforcement agents infiltrated mosques and Arab social clubs, entrapping a few gullible individuals in plots that were often organized by the law enforcement agencies themselves.
This is only a partial history, but it lays the predicate for the actions being taken by the Trump administration: threats to civil liberties like freedom of speech, assembly, and academic freedom; expanded authority given to law enforcement agencies to use unconstitutional measures to detain and deport individuals based on their ethnicity or political beliefs; and an expanded interpretation of the “material support” argument used by the Reagan and Clinton administrations to violate the protected rights of citizens and residents.
There are differences to be sure. While the measures taken during the Reagan, Clinton, and Bush administrations were based on exaggerated fears of terrorism in the U.S., it’s important to note that a review of the profiling, surveillance, and immigration programs established during these administrations did little to uncover or prosecute actual cases of terrorism. At the end of the day, despite billions of dollars spent and precious law enforcement resources expended, these programs did nothing more than contribute to an expansion of law enforcement powers and erosion of rights. In the case of the Trump orders, there’s not even the pretense of fighting terrorism—rather, an exercise in the brutal use of power to create fear and force institutions and individuals to cower and submit.
What Trump’s administration policies share in common with his predecessors is the use of Arabs, in particular Palestinians, and their supporters, as convenient scapegoats to justify the erosion of rights and liberties. What Trump knows is that in the midst of Israel’s war on Gaza, his support base will enthusiastically back his efforts. He also knows that liberals in Congress, who might otherwise oppose his policies, will be hesitant to offer full-throated support to the victims of his policies if it appears they are defending Palestinians or critics of Israel. For Trump, it’s the perfect storm. For those who care about defending rights and liberties, it’s just another example of Arabs, Palestinians, and those who defend them being the weak link in the civil liberties chain.