Opinion Archives - CrossFireArarbia

Kareem Khan – Chronology of a Scandal: A View From Amman

Saleem Ayoub Quna
July 29, 2026

By Saleem Ayoub Quna

Another somber episode in the ongoing Middle East saga is about to be quietly scrapped by manipulative overt hands and emerging developments, that are no less than disappointing!

The story of the main character of this episode began long time ago in Edinburgh, Scotland, in 1970, when a child was born to a dermatologist Scottish mother and a Pakistani father of the same trade!

The child was named Kareem Asad Ahmad Khan, who grew up to educate himself in Law, later to pursue a judicial career, until he landed as top job in The Hague, the Netherland, in 2021, and eventually becoming the Chief Persecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

It was at this juncture that he replaced Ms. Fatou Bensouda, a lady of Gambian origin, who was seeking to investigate the never-ending tragic situation in Gaza and the West Bank under the Israeli military occupation.

Scuffle With Mossad

Bensouda stepped down after 17 years of service at the ICC, including the last nine years as Chief Prosecutor. On her point of departure, she made it clear that the Israeli head of intelligence, Yossi Cohen, met her more than once and told her to drop the charges she was making against Israel’s actions in the two Palestinian territories, but she would not bow, until she officially resigned on 15 June, 2021.

And so since the beginning of his new appointment the new chief prosecutor, and like his predecessor, Khan was charged of continuing to investigate cases, situations and/or individuals suspected of offenses such as genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and aggression, where and whenever, they occurred, whether in Ukraine, Darfur, Belarus, Afghanistan or in Gaza and which indeed become his nightmare, magnified by an Israeli genocide on all accounts that began on 7 October 2023 and lasted for 2 years, 9 months and more, and was declared ‘De Jure’ in October 2025.

No one warned Mr. Khan that he was stepping into a thick minefield, or if they did, he would only listen to his heart and conscience! For that, he must have been bracing for the worse, for himself, and probably for the thousands of war victims he was investigating.

The war in Gaza led to the death and injury of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, (nearly 75,000 dead and more than 200,000 injured), whereas for the Israelis, they suffered 1200 dead and at least over 5000 injured.

So, in May 2024, Khan adopting a “balanced” position despite the flagrant disparity between the two sides on all levels, announced the arrest warrants for five main individuals directly involved in Gaza war: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and the top three leaders in Hamas: Yehya Sinwar, Mohammd Dief and Ismail Haniyeh.

Days after the issuance of these arrest warrants, the name of a certain local female employee (known only as Sarah) suddenly popped up at the ICC, as the alleged victim of sexual harassment at the hands of non-other than the honorable Chief Prosecutor, Kareem Khan!

In an orchestrated follow up, the US Treasury Department in February 2024 imposed sanctions on Khan, after President Donald Trump sanctioned the ICC judges for issuing the said arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Galant.

And in May 2025 Khan stepped down as Chief Prosecutor due to the said allegations of sexual misconduct, and was suspended pending a vote by the state members of the ICC.

In July 2026 Khan was ousted from his post as 82 out of 125 ICC member states voted, in secret, in favor of his dismissal!

As for the Palestinian leaders who were also involved in that war, Israel took things in their hands and ended the life of the three Hamas leaders: Mohammd Deif was killed in Khan Younes on 13 July 2024, Yehya Sinwar killed in the same city on 16 October, 2024 and Ismael Haniyeh was assassinated in faraway Tehran on 31 July, 2024.

The question now is whether the candidate for the Chief Prosecutor post at the ICC, will follow suit in the footsteps of his two predecessors, regarding the unfinished business of atrocities and war crimes around the globe, or will he/she be somebody of a new breed of international prosecutors?

Soon we may have a clue! But personally, I am not optimistic!

Opinion

West Bank: A Ticking Time-Bomb

CrossFireArabia
July 28, 2026

By Ismail Al Sharif

Imagine you are sitting with your children at home when a violent knock shakes the door. You open it to find a blond, European-looking man holding a weapon in one hand and a Torah or Talmud in the other, with soldiers behind him.

He orders you to leave the house, saying: “God gave me this house 3000 years ago.” You reply, “But it’s my home; I was born here, and my father and grandfather were born here before me.”

They push you aside, storm into your house, and throw your furniture outside. Your children cry, they throw your wife out, and your blood boils. You wrest the weapon from the blond man and shoot him. They kill you, and then a bulldozer comes to demolish your house.

The next day, the world’s newspapers headline: “Army kills terrorist after he tried to attack occupation soldiers.”

You might go out in the morning to graze your sheep, and in the distance, you see a few fair-haired young men who have pitched a tent on a fenced-off plot of land on a hill. At first, the scene seems fleeting, but soon you see them approaching your land, wandering among your olive trees and your flock, then attacking you, stealing your livestock, and burning your trees.

After that, they seize part of your land and annex it to the area they have taken over. The fence extends day by day, growing longer and wider. Over time, your land, and the land of your relatives, friends, and all the people of your village, becomes part of the nucleus of a new settlement.

Roads change, streets are closed, and checkpoints are erected, until reaching a place only a few hundred meters away becomes a journey that takes hours.

These scenes are repeated daily in the West Bank, where settlers terrorize, assault, and kill Palestinians under the protection of the occupation army, while ministers from the occupation government appear in the background of these attacks. The goal is clear: To empty the West Bank of its original inhabitants, both Muslims and Christians, and uproot them from their land, paving the way for its seizure and Judaization.

All of this is happening in full view of the world, amidst President Donald Trump’s objections and the condemnation of the international community, at a time when his 20-point peace plan was announced in a celebratory atmosphere on September 29th of last year.

However, time has revealed that this plan was nothing but ink on paper. The occupation continues to control over 60% of the Gaza Strip, demolishing buildings and bulldozing agricultural lands in the areas under its control. It also continues its daily bombardment of the Strip, which, since the plan’s launch, has resulted in the deaths of approximately 1,200 Gazans and injured more than 3,600 others. This is while the siege continues and humanitarian aid is prevented from entering.

As for the West Bank, settlement outposts have expanded, and the occupation government recognized 19 additional settlements after the plan’s launch. This coincides with an unprecedented escalation in settler attacks, the continued demolition of homes and displacement of their residents, as well as the ongoing incursions into Palestinian cities, villages, and refugee camps.

The government of war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu makes no secret of its plans to annex the West Bank and thwart any attempt to establish a Palestinian state, while its leader orders the occupation army to launch continuous military campaigns in West Bank cities, villages, and refugee camps.

The West Bank today sits atop a powder keg, fueled by accumulated feelings of anger, fear, frustration, and resentment, awaiting a spark that could ignite the situation. Then, the sporadic confrontations could transform into a widespread popular uprising, which could very well extend beyond the borders of the West Bank.

No one knows how wide the circle of confrontation might widen, where it might spread, or the extent of the repercussions it might have in Jerusalem, the Palestinian territories within Israel, and neighboring countries. Arab governments and their armies may find themselves facing mounting popular and political pressure, pushing them either to engage in a confrontation they do not want, or to take positions and actions they have long sought to avoid.

This article was originally written in Arabic by Ismail Al Sharif and published in Jordan’s daily newspaper Ad Dustour and is reprinted in crossfirearabia.com. Mr Al Sharif long worked in newspaper management and publishing in Amman.

News Opinion

Wildfires, Tough Questions

CrossFireArabia
July 28, 2026

By Ayoub Abu Dayyeh

Every summer, southern Europe braces for another wildfire season. This year, large fires have swept across parts of Spain, Sicily and southwestern France, destroying forests, threatening villages, forcing evacuations, and leaving behind landscapes that may take generations to recover.

Firefighters have displayed extraordinary courage, often risking their lives against flames intensified by drought, heat waves, mulch and strong winds. Yet the repeated return of these disasters raises a question that extends beyond climate change and forest management. It is a political and moral question about priorities.

Spain and France are among Europe’s strongest economies and are both leading members of NATO. Together with their allies, they possess some of the most advanced military capabilities ever assembled. NATO can mobilise fleets of aircraft, satellites, drones, logistics networks, and highly trained personnel with remarkable speed when military operations are required. History has shown that the alliance has been able to sustain prolonged military campaigns in countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Libya, while individual member states have also participated in operations in Syria and against Iran-backed military targets in recent years. The financial and technological resources devoted to warfare are immense.

Against this backdrop, the struggle against wildfires appears strangely underpowered. Each summer, firefighters often speak of aircraft shortages, exhausted crews, and limited resources. Local authorities compete for specialized firefighting planes because demand exceeds supply. Countries request assistance from their neighbors through European cooperation mechanisms, yet devastating fires frequently continue burning for days before sufficient aerial support arrives. Even Jordan has participated in firefighting in Cyprus on many occasions.

This contrast invites reflection. If nations possess the industrial capacity to manufacture sophisticated fighter jets, cruise missiles, precision-guided weapons, and advanced drones and surveillance systems, why does the world still struggle to produce enough specialised firefighting aircraft? If military alliances can coordinate thousands of personnel across continents within hours, why is a similarly ambitious international system for combating natural disasters still so limited?

The question is not whether military forces should disappear. Every nation has legitimate security concerns and responsibilities to defend its citizens. Rather, the question concerns balance, justice and equity. Security today is no longer defined solely by armies confronting one another. Climate change, prolonged droughts, extreme heat, floods, and wildfires increasingly threaten lives, infrastructure, food security, biodiversity, and economic stability. A forest fire that destroys thousands of hectares, devastates tourism, and fills cities with smoke is not merely an environmental problem. It is a national security challenge.

Imagine if even a small fraction of global military expenditure were redirected toward environmental emergency preparedness. Hundreds of additional firefighting aircraft could be built and strategically stationed around the Mediterranean basin. Satellite systems already monitoring military movements could continuously detect new fires within minutes. Military logistics could rapidly deploy firefighters, engineers, medical teams, and equipment wherever flames emerge. Joint exercises could prepare nations not only for armed conflict but also for climate-related disasters.

Such an initiative would not require abandoning defense. It would simply recognise that the threats of the twenty-first century demand broader definitions of security. Protecting forests, preserving water resources, and safeguarding communities against climate-driven disasters deserve the same seriousness that governments devote to conventional military planning.

Some may argue that military aircraft cannot simply replace firefighting planes. They are correct. Different missions require different equipment, training, and tactics. Nevertheless, the comparison remains valid at the level of priorities. The capacity to invest, innovate, manufacture, and coordinate certainly exists. The real question is whether sufficient political will exists to treat environmental emergencies with equal urgency.

The forests burning across Spain, Sicily, Greece and France remind us that nature does not recognize national borders. Smoke drifts across countries and so pollution. Wildlife disappears without passports. Carbon released from burning forests contributes further to global warming, increasing the likelihood of future fires. Every delayed response makes the next disaster more probable.

History often celebrates technological achievements developed for war. Perhaps the coming decades should instead celebrate technologies developed for protecting life. Imagine an international alliance whose greatest strength lies not in the destructive power of its weapons but in its ability to extinguish fires, prevent famine, restore ecosystems, and save human lives before disaster spreads.

The smoke rising above the forests of Spain and France should therefore provoke more than sympathy. It should provoke a reassessment of our collective priorities. Humanity has demonstrated extraordinary ingenuity in designing machines capable of striking targets thousands of kilometers away with astonishing precision. Surely the same ingenuity can be directed toward extinguishing fires that threaten our shared natural heritage.

In the end, the measure of civilization is not only how effectively it wages war, but also how effectively it protects life. When future generations look back at our time, they may ask a simple question: Why was it easier to finance destruction than to prevent forests from burning? The answer will reveal far more about our values than about our technology.

Ayoub Abu Dayyeh wrote this piece for The Jordan Times.

Opinion

US-Israel Relations Toxic

CrossFireArabia
July 22, 2026

By Robert Inlakesh

Zionists have now become so unpopular that the Vice President feels the need to appear critical of Israel.

The recent comments made by US Vice President JD Vance to Joe Rogan are indicative of just how toxic the Israel brand has become. Yet his comments have been largely pulled out of context in order to invent an image of a totally different politician to the man who is actually operating as America’s second in command.

In a recent episode of the Joe Rogan Experience, JD Vance made some notable comments on Israel when pushed on the topic – ranging from admitting an Israeli Mossad connection to the infamous Jeffrey Epstein to Israeli interference in the negotiation process he led with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Understanding the nature of these comments first requires a little background information on who JD Vance actually is. This is a man whose political rise has largely been attributed to Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel.

Vance’s relationship with Thiel began to form back in 2011, when the German-American entrepreneur gave a speech at Yale Law School, which would lead to a relationship whereby Vance would be brought into the world of big tech and venture capital.

The Palantir co-founder later granted Vance $15 million dollars – the largest single sum ever donated to a Senate candidate – to buy him into politics. While JD Vance had previously criticized US President Donald Trump’s character vociferously, Thiel is credited with having successfully convinced Trump to make him his VP.

It is clear that Vance has broader political ambitions, including winning the Presidency in the future. Paramount to understanding his recent shift on the question of Israel is understanding all of this context. What has presented as a shift on the question of Israel began with the comments he previously made regarding Israeli opposition to the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) the US briefly secured with Iran.

At the time, the Vice President had stated that those Israelis who had become critical of Washington’s strategy needed to “wake up and smell the reality of the situation that country is in”, after noting that the US taxpayer had footed the bill for defending it and reminding those critics that Donald Trump was their last true ally.

Again, on the Joe Rogan Podcast, he attempted to replicate this sentiment, but was subjected to follow-up questions which ended up making what he was trying to pull off fall flat.

While Vance has proven capable of questioning some Israelis and their supporters, he is deliberately ambiguous. This is because he is siding with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and trying to criticize the current Israeli opposition, without actually going as far as naming anyone consequential.

He even told Joe Rogan that Jeffrey Epstein was connected to both the CIA and Mossad, but made it clear that former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barrack was responsible for coordinating with the convicted sex trafficker. The American official then tries to pass off the situation as if Netanyahu is an opponent of Epstein’s affiliates.

When discussing Israeli influence on the United States, he does not deny that it exists, but instead argues that this is normal and even tries to compare it to Qatar’s limited role in influencing Washington.

All this being said, it is clear that JD Vance is not making radical critiques of Israel; it is a strategy that hopes to put him on the record as having been a voice within the Trump administration who has pushed back against the disastrous pro-Tel Aviv policy choices.

What is significant about this, however, is that a politician like him feels it to be necessary to present himself as critical of the Israelis. It reflects a substantial shift in American politics across the board, especially amongst voters 35 years old and younger.

In the Democratic Party, the base has become so incredibly pro-Palestinian that taking contributions from AIPAC and stating a pro-Israel position has gone from being a net positive to now being a position that could even lose an establishment Democrat their position in Congress.

On the Republican side, there is still remaining support for Israel amongst its base, but the vast majority of these sentiments come from older voters. If you look at young Republicans, the picture is very different, and according to the polls, the 35-year-old and under bracket is gradually shifting more and more towards an anti-Israel position. There is, therefore, a need for even Republican candidates to begin treading a fine line on the issue.

For a large segment of American voters, a politician’s position on Israel is a primary indicator of whether they are genuine actors or not. If they are seen to be identifying with the Israel Lobby, the assumption is that they are not going to prioritize their constituents and instead will work to please the donor class.

It represents a radical change in US politics and is a major loss for the Zionists, who have now become so unpopular that the Vice President feels the need to appear critical of Israel in order to avoid committing political suicide.

– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine. He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.

Opinion

US-Israel: More Than a Crack in Relations

CrossFireArabia
July 22, 2026

By Mohammad Abu Rumman

The significance of the recent vote in the U.S. House of Representatives does not lie in its immediate outcome. The amendment introduced by Republican Congressman Thomas Massie to suspend roughly $3.3 billion in annual U.S. military aid to Israel was defeated by a comfortable margin, 314 votes to 104. The real surprise, however, was that 103 Democratic lawmakers voted in favor of the proposal, representing more than half of the Democrats who cast either a “yes” or “no” vote. This is difficult to dismiss as a passing protest or as the position of the party’s progressive fringe alone.

The more revealing development is that a number of those lawmakers had, until recently, been considered acceptable allies by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), with several having previously received its endorsement and political support. Yet immediately after the vote, online fundraising for fifteen of those members seeking re-election quietly disappeared from AIPAC’s donation platform. Their names remained listed among “pro-Israel” legislators, but the financial pipeline had effectively been shut off.

Against this backdrop, Vice President J.D. Vance’s recent remarks become particularly significant. Vance did not merely criticize specific Israeli policies. Speaking on Joe Rogan’s podcast, he accused elements within the Israeli government of attempting to derail U.S. negotiations with Iran and prolong the military campaign. He also referred to financial and political influence campaigns aimed at attacking American officials whose priority, in his view, was to place U.S. national interests above all else.

The debate over Israel is therefore evolving from two seemingly opposite directions that ultimately converge on the same question. Progressive Democrats approach the issue through the lens of Gaza, human rights, and the costs of unconditional American support. At the same time, an emerging current within the Republican populist right approaches it through the doctrine of “America First,” skepticism toward endless wars, and growing reluctance to see the United States become the permanent financier and guarantor of conflicts largely shaped by its allies.

This does not mean that either party is suddenly turning against Israel, nor does it suggest that the U.S.-Israel strategic alliance is on the verge of collapse. America’s military, intelligence, and institutional commitments remain deeply entrenched. What is changing, however, is the old bipartisan consensus.

Within the Democratic Party, divisions have become increasingly visible. Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries opposed the amendment, while senior Democratic figures, including Nancy Pelosi and Katherine Clark, voted in favor of it. Even J Street—the liberal pro-Israel organization that opposed the amendment itself—acknowledged that the vote represented a politically significant moment.

Republicans, meanwhile, remain broadly supportive of Israel, particularly within the party’s traditional conservative and evangelical base. For precisely that reason, Vance’s comments provoked unusually fierce criticism from Republican politicians and conservative media, who viewed them as a departure from long-standing party orthodoxy. Yet the very existence of such a dispute suggests that Israel is no longer entirely beyond debate, even within the constituency historically regarded as its strongest American supporter.

Here lies the central paradox of the current moment. Benjamin Netanyahu sought to use the Gaza war to reshape the Middle East while capitalizing on what had become an unprecedentedly close relationship with the Trump administration. Yet Israel’s successive wars—from Gaza to Lebanon and later Iran—have produced an unexpected consequence: they have triggered a broader American conversation about costs rather than strategic necessity.

Increasingly, the central question in Washington is becoming less about Israel’s security and more about America’s own national interest. Why should the United States continue to bear the financial, military, political, and diplomatic costs of these conflicts? And who ultimately determines when America enters a war—or when it leaves one?

Even the personal relationship between Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu has not escaped these contradictions. After a period of remarkable military coordination, differences emerged as Trump sought negotiations with Iran and an end to the conflict, while Netanyahu’s government viewed continued military pressure as an opportunity to pursue broader strategic objectives. What had appeared to be an exceptionally close partnership gradually evolved into a more complicated relationship marked by disagreements over ceasefires, Lebanon, and the parameters of any future understanding with Tehran.

Israel thus finds itself confronting a profound strategic paradox. It has reached perhaps the highest level of military integration with the United States in its history, while simultaneously experiencing one of the lowest levels of political acceptance among growing segments of the American public and political establishment.

The first major war fought in such close strategic coordination between Washington and Tel Aviv may well have achieved important military objectives. Yet it also accelerated the erosion of the old bipartisan consensus, reopening fundamental questions about money, influence, and the independence of American decision-making. In that sense, Israel may have won battles on the battlefield while beginning to lose something far more consequential in Washington.

The writer is a Jordan Times columnist