S. African Ambassador Gets Huge Welcome After Expulsion by Trump

The South African ambassador, expelled and declared persona non grata by the Trump administration, received a hero’s welcome upon his return to Cape Town on Sunday, with hundreds of supporters waving Palestinian flags and chanting “Free Palestine.”

The crowds at Cape Town International Airport surrounded Ebrahim Rasool and his wife as they emerged in the arrivals terminal in their hometown.

“A declaration of persona non grata is meant to humiliate you,” Rasool told the supporters as he addressed them with a megaphone. “But when you return to crowds like this, and with warmth… like this, then I will wear my persona non grata as a badge of dignity.”

“It was not our choice to come home, but we come home with no regrets.”

Rasool also said it was important for South Africa to fix its relationship with the US after President Donald Trump punished the country and accused it of taking an anti-American stance even before the decision to expel Rasool.

Rasool was previously declared persona non grata. His return comes as US President Donald Trump has cut all funding to South Africa, a move widely seen as retaliation for Pretoria’s case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), where it has accused Israel of genocide in Gaza.

They were the ex-ambassador’s first public comments since he was declared persona non grata, removed his diplomatic immunities and privileges, and gave him until this Friday to leave the US. It is highly unusual for the US to expel a foreign ambassador.

Rasool was declared persona non grata by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio in a post on X on March 14. Rubio said Rasool was a “race-baiting politician” who hates the US and Trump.

Rubio’s post linked to a story by the conservative Breitbart news site that reported on a talk Rasool gave on a webinar organized by a South African think tank. In his talk, Rasool spoke in academic language of the Trump administration’s crackdowns on diversity and equity programs and immigration and mentioned the possibility of a US where white people soon would no longer be in the majority.

“The supremacist assault on incumbency, we see it in the domestic politics of the USA, the MAGA movement, the Make America Great Again movement, as a response not simply to a supremacist instinct, but to very clear data that shows great demographic shifts in the USA in which the voting electorate in the USA is projected to become 48% white,” Rasool said in the talk.

On his return home Sunday, he said he stood by those comments, and characterized them as merely alerting intellectuals and political leaders in South Africa that the US and its politics had changed.

“It is not the US of Obama, it is not the US of Clinton, it is a different US and therefore our language must change,” Rasool said. “I would stand by my analysis because we were analyzing a political phenomenon, not a personality, not a nation, and not even a government.”

He also said that South Africa would resist pressure from the US — and anyone else — to drop its case at the ICJ accusing Israel of genocide. The Trump administration has cited that case against US ally Israel as one of the reasons it alleges South Africa is anti-American.

South Africa filed a case at the ICJ in December 2023, which accuses Israel of violating its obligations under the Genocide Convention in its war on the Gaza Strip. More than 10 countries have since joined South Africa in the genocide case.

Some of the supporters welcoming Rasool, who is Muslim, waved Palestinian flags and chanted “free Palestine.”

“As we stand here, the bombing (in Gaza) has continued and the shooting has continued, and if South Africa was not in the (International Court of Justice), Israel would not be exposed, and the Palestinians would have no hope,” Rasool said.

“We cannot sacrifice the Palestinians… but we will also not give up with our relationship with the United States. We must fight for it, but we must keep our dignity,” according to the Quds News Network.

Continue reading
Trump: Arrest of Mahmoud Khalil is The First of Many’

Mahmoud Khalil, an Algerian citizen of Palestinian descent and a US green card holder, is facing deportation after being arrested by federal immigration officials on March 8.

A leader of student protests at Columbia University, Khalil’s arrest has been described by US President Donald Trump as the “first of many” as his administration ramps up its crackdown on campus opposition to the Gaza war. But a federal judge has temporarily halted the 30-year-old’s expulsion from the US.

As a legal permanent resident, Khalil was detained without a warrant by the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials as he and his wife were returning to their Columbia University-owned apartment in upper Manhattan.

The agents initially claimed his student visa had been revoked, but after Khalil’s wife provided proof of his green card status, they stated that his green card was also being revoked and took him into custody.

DHS justified Khalil’s arrest by citing his involvement in “activities aligned to Hamas, a designated terrorist organisation,” under the framework of Trump’s executive orders aimed at “prohibiting anti-Semitism.” 

“Khalil’s case has been the most publicly known case of an arrest by DHS officials of a pro-Palestine protester from a college campus or a university campus” said Meghnad Bose, a Delacorte Fellow at the Columbia Journalism Review, and one of the journalists who broke the news of the arrest.

A recent graduate from the School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA), Khalil was a prominent figure during the 2024 Columbia University pro-Palestinian campus occupations.

He acted as a spokesperson and negotiator for demonstrators who condemned Israel’s military actions in Gaza and advocated for the institution to sever financial ties with Israel and companies supporting the genocide.

Recently, Khalil was among the pro-Palestinian activists investigated by a new disciplinary body at Columbia University established to address harassment and discrimination complaints. 

Days before his arrest, an online campaign targeting Khalil was launched by pro-Israeli groups and individuals, including Columbia Business School professor Shai Davidai, who called for his arrest and deportation.

These posts tagged U.S. officials such as President Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Attorney General Pam Bondi.

“That is definitely a suspicious turn of events. Was the DHS conducting its own investigation into Khalil prior to all of this? Or were they just acting on cue based on what these pro-Israel groups and individuals posted online?” Bose said.

Initially believed to be in a New Jersey facility, Khalil was confirmed to be at LaSalle Detention Centre in Louisiana on March 10. On the same day, Judge Jesse M. Furman ruled that Khalil cannot be removed from the US without court approval.

The actions against Khalil coincided with the Trump administration’s decision to cancel around $400 million in federal grants to Columbia University, citing the “failure to protect Jewish students from anti-Semitic harassment.” 

The university’s response to Khalil’s arrest has been criticised for its lack of transparency and action.

The day before the arrest, Khalil emailed Columbia interim president Katrina Armstrong: “Since yesterday, I have been subjected to a vicious, coordinated, and dehumanising doxxing campaign led by Columbia affiliates Shai Davidai and David Lederer who, among others, have labelled me a security threat and called for my deportation.”

He continued, “I have not been able to sleep, fearing that ICE or a dangerous individual might come to my home. I urgently need legal support, and I urge you to intervene and provide the necessary protections to prevent further harm.”

Reports surfaced of the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents being spotted on campus throughout the week of the arrest. In response, Columbia University issued a memo over the weekend advising faculty and staff not to interfere in “exigent circumstances” when ICE agents seek access to university buildings or individuals without a warrant.

Khalil’s arrest has sparked a wave of protests on campus, with students, including Jewish ones, rallying in opposition to DHS’s actions, demanding that ICE be removed from university premises. 

“Especially vulnerable are the international students, because many of them feel that if they post on social media now, if they attend a protest, they might end up being deported,” Bose said, raising concerns about the right to protest within university communities.

Khalil’s arrest also seems to be part of a broader political strategy targeting universities. 

“This is happening specifically to someone who is Palestinian and who stood up for the rights of Palestinians in Gaza. So this is not just a cause agnostic free speech issue,” he added.

Donald Trump has frequently targeted Columbia University for its students’ advocacy for Palestinian rights in Gaza, including during his electoral campaign.

“The Gaza Solidarity encampment at Columbia inspired similar encampments not just across the United States, but across the world,” he said.

“It seems rather clear that they [the Trump administration] want to make Columbia [an] example for communities of students and faculty around the country, that even an Ivy League University in New York City will not be spared the wrath of the American government for having protested against the policies of the American government as it relates to Israel.”

This report is written by Francesca Maria Lorenzini for the Jordan Times

Continue reading
Saudi Arabia Plays Host to Superpower Politics

By Maksym Skrypchenko 

Diplomatic efforts to end the Russia-Ukraine War are once again in the spotlight, as US and Russian officials meet in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday. In a sharp contrast to the previous administration’s strictly defined red-line policy, representatives from the newly formed US President Donald Trump-aligned diplomatic team—Secretary of State Marco Rubio, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, and Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff—are set to engage with their Russian counterparts in discussions that many fear may sideline Ukraine’s own interests.

The stakes in this conflict extend far beyond territorial disputes. For Ukraine, the war is an existential struggle against an enemy with centuries of imperial ambition. Every defensive maneuver is a stand for sovereignty and self-determination. Yet recent diplomatic moves suggest that Ukraine’s central role in negotiations may be diminished. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s absence from the Saudi meeting underscores the deep-seated concern in Kyiv that their security concerns might be marginalized in a process dominated by transactional interests.

https://twitter.com/canon75gaz81/status/1891836717696450562

Under the previous administration, Washington’s policy was driven by a clear set of red lines designed to deter any actions that could provoke a nuclear-armed adversary. That approach was predicated on a belief that excessive support for Ukraine might lead to a dangerous escalation. However, the new strategy, as signaled by Trump’s team, appears less encumbered by these constraints. Instead, the focus seems to have shifted toward a pragmatic resolution—a process that prioritizes ending the war at the expense of Ukraine’s moral imperatives underpinning their fight for survival. This shift represents not only a departure in tone but also in substance. While the previous policy imposed strict limitations to avoid provoking Moscow, the current approach appears more willing to concede Ukraine’s positions if it serves the broader goal of ending the fighting.

Trump’s affiliation with Saudis


The decision to hold talks in Saudi Arabia is far from arbitrary. The Saudi Kingdom provides a neutral venue and a longstanding trusted mediator especially for figures like Steve Witkoff and Donald Trump, whose longstanding business and diplomatic ties in the region are well known. This credibility is further reinforced by Saudi Arabia’s recent announcement of a $600 billion package with the US, comprising investments and procurement agreements from both public and private sectors.

Moreover, Saudi Arabia’s position outside NATO shields it from the obligations that compel Western allies to enforce international legal mandates, including the ICC arrest warrants issued against top Russian officials, notably Putin. In such an environment, Saudi Arabia offers a secure venue for direct negotiations with Moscow, free from the pressures of external legal mandates.

Meanwhile, high-ranking European officials express growing concern over their exclusion from the process. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has even suggested the possibility of deploying British troops to enforce any resulting peace deal, a move that underscores the importance European leaders give to Ukraine’s future. The concerns are not merely about the cessation of hostilities, but about the long-term security guarantees that Ukraine desperately needs. European officials argue that a peace process that excludes Kyiv from the initial stages could lead to an agreement lacking the robust assurances necessary to prevent future Russian aggression.

Russian approach

Russia, for its part, is approaching the negotiations with its signature long-game strategy. Recent reports suggest that Kremlin officials are assembling a team of seasoned negotiators well-versed in securing maximum advantage. Their method is well known—ask for a shopping mall when all they need is a cup of coffee. Just one day before the talks, Russian diplomats are already staging a narrative of victory, asserting that the EU and the UK are entirely non-negotiable parties to any future agreements on Ukraine. According to the Russian representative at the UN, Ukraine has irretrievably lost key territories, and any new arrangement should force Kyiv into accepting a demilitarized, neutral state determined by future elections. This approach is designed to create the illusion of strength while ultimately settling for concessions that heavily favor Russian interests.

Meanwhile, for Ukraine, the principle that “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine” is more than just a slogan—it is a critical security principle. Ukrainian leaders are rightfully wary of any agreement negotiated without their active participation. With the current US strategy favoring swift and transactional outcomes rather than comprehensive negotiations, there is a real danger that Kyiv’s position could be compromised. The absence of Ukraine from these early discussions may result in a peace agreement that fails to address the existential risks the nation faces. Without strong security guarantees built into any deal, Ukraine remains vulnerable to renewed incursions and a potential destabilization of the entire region.

In this evolving diplomatic landscape, the contrast between the old and new approaches is stark. The previous risk-averse strategy sought to maintain clear boundaries to prevent escalation, whereas the current approach appears more willing to blur those lines in the hope of bringing an end to the bloodshed. Yet by doing so, there is an inherent risk: the very nation fighting for its survival might be reduced to a bargaining chip in a broader geopolitical deal.

It is imperative that Ukraine’s interests remain at the forefront of any negotiations. The war in Ukraine is not just a regional conflict—it is a struggle that speaks to the fundamental principles of sovereignty and self-determination. Any peace settlement that fails to incorporate Ukraine’s security concerns is likely to be unstable at best, and catastrophic at worst.

Maksym Skrypchenko is the president of the Transatlantic Dialogue Center

Continue reading
Marco Rubio: ‘…Hamas Can Never Rule Gaza…’!

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio told United Arab Emirates President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan that Hamas must never govern Gaza again, according to a State Department readout of their call on Tuesday.

The two discussed regional security, the ceasefire agreement between Israel and the Palestinian group Hamas in Gaza, and the release of hostages, including American citizens, said State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce.

During the call, Rubio expressed appreciation for the UAE’s humanitarian aid to Gaza and “highlighted the imperative of ensuring that Hamas can never rule Gaza or threaten Israel again,” she said.

Rubio and Sheikh Mohamed also reaffirmed the strength of US-UAE ties and explored avenues for cooperation in artificial intelligence and emerging technologies. They further discussed “their support for the cessation of hostilities in Lebanon,” said Bruce.

The call came as US President Donald Trump’s proposal to “take over” Gaza and forcibly displace Palestinians faced widespread international criticism.

Rubio is set to visit the Middle East this week with planned stops in the UAE, Israel and Saudi Arabia as part of diplomatic efforts amid a fragile ceasefire in Gaza according to Anadolu.

On Monday, Trump warned that “all hell” will break out if all Israeli captives in Gaza were not released by 12 p.m. on Saturday.

Hamas announced late Monday that it was indefinitely postponing the next hostage-prisoner exchange scheduled for Saturday, citing Israeli violations of the ceasefire agreement.

The three-phase ceasefire deal has been in place in Gaza since Jan. 19, halting Israel’s 15-month war, which has killed more than 48,200 people and left the enclave in ruins.

Continue reading
Experts: Trump’s Idea Violates International Law


In a proposal that has sent shockwaves across the globe, President Donald Trump’s suggestion that the US “take over” the Gaza Strip and turn it into a “Riviera of the Middle East” has faced fierce criticism from legal experts and human rights activists.

Trump’s controversial plan came during a joint news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House, where he said the US “will take over the Gaza Strip,” and proposed the permanent resettlement of Palestinians.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio later clarified Trump’s remarks, describing the plan as a “generous” offer aimed at rebuilding the war-ravaged enclave, adding that “people can move back in” after reconstruction.

According to Michael Lynk, who served as the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territories from 2016 to 2022, Trump’s plan “clearly” violates international law.

“Under international law, it’s clearly illegal,” Lynk, currently an associate professor at the University of Western Ontario, told Anadolu. “Just talking about the forced displacement of Palestinians — the ethnic cleansing of the 2.2 million Palestinians in Gaza — that would be a serious violation of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which both the United States and Israel have signed on to.”

Lynk also pointed out the legal repercussions of such an action under the 1998 Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court (ICC).

“It would also be a crime against humanity,” he added, noting that the ICC has jurisdiction over Gaza, even though neither the US nor Israel are signatories of the Rome Statute. “Their leaders could be criminally liable for initiating forced displacement of the Palestinians.”

As the world watches closely, the UN Security Council has already addressed Israel’s war on Gaza, which has killed nearly 62,000 people, having added thousands who are missing in the rubble, since a cross-border attack by Hamas on Oct. 7, 2023, according to Gaza’s authorities.

In June 2024, the Security Council adopted resolution 2735, calling for an immediate and durable ceasefire in Gaza and rejecting any attempts at “demographic or territorial change” in the Gaza Strip.

“We have both these strong legal and diplomatic guardrails that would be opposed to this,” Lynk said, referring to the both Rome Statute and the June 2024 Security Council resolution.


‘Clearly a war crime’

Jonathan Kuttab, an international human rights lawyer and Executive Director of the Friends of Sabeel North America (FOSNA), a movement of Palestinian Christians, also voiced strong criticism of Trump’s controversial Gaza plan. Describing the proposal as “shocking on many levels,” Kuttab said that it “totally disregards international law.”

“You can’t just go and take another piece of territory and own it,” he told Anadolu. “It’s a war crime. It’s clearly a war crime.”

Kuttab also pointed to the moral dimensions of the plan, calling it “totally immoral.”

He questioned how it was even conceivable to displace over 2 million people in the Gaza Strip from their homes, likening this to an attempt at ethnic cleansing.

“He (Trump) is saying it in the presence of Netanyahu, who’s smirking because he’s the one who destroyed Gaza,” Kuttab noted. “It’s totally unacceptable. It’s also anachronistic.”

Kuttab added that the proposal’s underlying motive was both ideological and practical.

“The ideological aspect is to get people to start thinking in terms of accepting the idea that Palestinians can be removed from Palestine permanently,” he said. “The practical thing is to allow Netanyahu’s government to survive … The government will collapse unless you resume the war, or unless you do something to get rid of the people in Gaza. So Trump is willing to do the work for Netanyahu.”


ICC’s ability to issue arrest warrants for Trump

Lynk also indicated that if the US, with the support of Israel, forcibly removes Palestinians from Gaza and forces them either to Egypt or Jordan, the ICC would have the ability to issue arrest warrants for Trump, Netanyahu, and others involved in such a plan.

The implications of Trump’s proposal extend beyond legal concerns. The international community, particularly in the Arab and Muslim world, have strongly rejected such a move. Everyone in the region and beyond remembers the long history of Palestinian displacement, including the 1948 Nakba, when over 750,000 Palestinians were forced to flee their homes, never to be able to go back.

“No Arab or Muslim leader in the region could ever support the forced displacement of Palestinians,” Lynk said.


If Palestinians must leave Gaza, ‘the appropriate place would be Israel’

“If Palestinians have to leave Gaza in order for the rubble to be removed from the war that Israel inflicted on Gaza and to remove the 30,000 unexploded munitions in Gaza, then … the appropriate place for them to move to would be Israel itself,” he suggested.

This, Lynk argued, would fulfill the right of return as enshrined in UN Resolution 194, which guarantees Palestinians this right to go back to their homes that Israel forced them to leave.

“That would seem to be the path that is most consistent with international law and with a rights-based approach.”

The implications of Trump’s proposal could reach beyond the borders of Gaza. Lynk expressed concern that the plan could pave the way for further Israeli settlements in occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Trump has already reversed Biden-era policies regarding the West Bank by removing sanctions on Israeli settlers and groups.


‘We don’t have to wait for the Hague to act’

Lynk and Kuttab agree that Trump’s plan would be dead on arrival, given the unified rejection it would face from the Arab and Muslim world.

However, Kuttab warned that if Trump attempts to follow through, it would severely undermine the international order.

“The Security Council, of course, will do nothing, because there is the veto power there, but national countries have the right under international law — in fact, the obligation to do something,” he continued.

“We don’t have to wait for the Hauge to act … Every country has local courts that can carry out and implement international law, because crimes against humanity and war crimes have universal jurisdiction,” he stressed in Anadolu.

Continue reading