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
How Do You Deal With a ‘Political Earthquake’?

The Middle East has long been accustomed to dramatic events and repeated surprises. However, it is undeniable that what came before October 7 is fundamentally different from what followed.

This shift is not only due to the ongoing wars that have spread beyond Gaza to other fronts, nor solely because of the consequences these conflicts have triggered across the region. More significantly, it has exposed the harsh realities the region faces, from the collapse of the concept of the state and its implications to the erosion of national identities and the emergence of new ethnic, sectarian, and geographical standards reshaping political maps.

Over the past years, the failure of the nation-state model, coupled with its reduction to authoritarian concepts, has played a pivotal role in deepening the psychological division in many countries, a division that, in many cases, precedes geographical fragmentation.

In the current geopolitical landscape, Gaza is no longer the Gaza we once knew. With the absence of a viable Arab-led solution, the US administration, despite its often-contradictory diplomatic statements, still keeps the depopulation of Gaza on the table as a practical resolution. Meanwhile, the West Bank is experiencing Israeli operations aimed at bringing about a radical transformation, one that all parties may soon have to accept as a new reality.

Syria, too, has entered a state of turmoil that makes it increasingly difficult to revert to its former political and territorial structure. Whether through shifts in internal power dynamics or anticipated geographical and political changes, Syria is on a path of transformation.

These unprecedented changes, which directly impact Jordan, impose urgent requirements for adaptation and strategic engagement with new realities. This new era demands a shift in priorities, making “Jordanian-focused thinking” a fundamental approach to navigating the geopolitical and security challenges unfolding across the region.

This strategic recalibration must take place on three levels. The first involves managing relations with the current U.S. administration, which has been in the White House for only a few weeks yet has already triggered a geopolitical earthquake on the global stage. For Jordan to remain a key regional player, it must employ new tools and diplomatic tactics that emphasize effectiveness and tangible results, especially considering that this administration is highly focused on reassessing the utility of aid provided to its allies.

The second is the regional shift, where several key issues stand out. The evolving relationship with Israel, which is shifting dramatically and deteriorating from bad to worse, requires a reconsidered strategy for future engagement. The relationship with Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, demands greater attention, not only because Saudi Arabia remains the only pillar of stability in the region but also due to its economic and political influence, which could prove crucial for Jordan in the coming phase. In this context, the concept of “political and economic integration” should be the foundation for shaping and strengthening ties between the two countries.

Perhaps the most pressing regional challenge is Jordan’s approach to Syria. Changes are already unfolding in the areas adjacent to Jordan’s northern border, creating a new reality that Jordan must navigate carefully. It is imperative to formulate a strategy that not only secures borders but also leverages new political and economic configurations to serve Jordan’s long-term interests.

The third is the domestic, and most important recalibration, how does Jordan adapt to these external shifts and their internal repercussions? This phase demands a new political discourse and a fresh approach to managing internal affairs. Shielding Jordan from external shocks, narratives of fragmentation, sectarian polarization, and social discord requires a two-pronged strategic response: strengthening the bureaucratic system and reinforcing national identity.

This necessitates a well-crafted national narrative, a reinvigoration of collective national consciousness, and tangible policy actions that signal the beginning of a new phase of resilience and transformation, one that will be the defining test of the coming period.

Dr Amer Al Sabaileh is a columnist in the Jordan Times

Continue reading
Talking to Hamas: What is Trump up to?

There are not enough leaks about the “backchannel” that began late last month in Doha between Trump’s envoy for hostage affairs, Adam Boehler, and leaders of Hamas’ political bureau (reports indicate that the Hamas delegation was led by Khalil al-Hayya). However, what is striking is that these talks coincided with an escalation in threats from both Trump and Netanyahu toward Hamas, warning of a resumption of war and a more severe course of action. Moreover, Israeli security sources indicate that there is a plan to begin the practical implementation of the displacement scheme announced by Trump!

The key question here is what lies behind the Trump administration’s decision to open a secret channel with Hamas at this specific time, especially when negotiations between Hamas and Israel regarding the second phase are stalling. This is particularly intriguing given that the Trump administration has shown a tougher stance toward Hamas than his predecessor, Joe Biden. Moreover, the Doha meetings coincided with Trump receiving a number of former detainees held by Hamas and issuing a strongly worded message, what he described as a serious threat. What is the significance of these parallel and simultaneous steps taken by the Trump administration toward Hamas?

Those close to the Trump administration suggest that this move is nothing more than a “tactical shift” in the US approach without any fundamental changes. The goal is to ensure that Hamas receives the message directly and forcefully, without intermediaries or misinterpretation. This explanation is logical and, in fact, the most likely scenario, as there are no real initiatives or substantial shifts in the US administration’s position. This is especially evident in the fact that the only stance issued by the U.S. National Security Council rejected the Egyptian-Arab proposal, reaffirming President Trump’s commitment to his plan.

So what message did Boehler convey to Hamas leaders? Or, in other words, what is the deal being offered to them? It is clear that the U.S. offer revolves around extending the first phase, or even calling it the second phase, in exchange for the release of all prisoners held by Hamas, including Americans, as well as the safe exit of Hamas and Qassam Brigades leaders from Gaza and the establishment of a long-term ceasefire in the Strip. However, does this include details about the day after the war? It remains unclear whether the U.S. message addressed that issue. 

Nevertheless, the American stance remains unchanged, ending Hamas’ rule, disarming the movement, or effectively abandoning its military wing. It is also unknown whether the US has a specific policy if Hamas decides to transition into a political party that adopts peaceful resistance, for example.

Of course, the alternative Trump offers Hamas, should they reject these conditions, is the resumption of war, greater destruction in Gaza, and a forced displacement campaign against Palestinians. But the question that Hamas leaders are likely posing to Trump’s envoy is: What is the value of this threat if, in the end, what you are offering is nothing but the displacement of Palestinians? Why should we accept your terms, release the prisoners, lay down our arms, and leave Gaza if the outcome in both cases is the same? It is unclear whether Boehler had an answer to this question, or perhaps why Trump refuses the Arab plan, which is the most realistic and logical proposal presented so far.

On the other side, an important question arises: Is Hamas’ position unified between Doha and Gaza? There is significant room for interpretation and differences in the language coming from the Qassam Brigades on one hand and Hamas’ political bureau, particularly from one of the movement’s senior politicians, Mousa Abu Marzouk, on the other. It is also unclear whether Khalil al-Hayya is truly authorized to make such a crucial decision for the movement or what the limits of his mandate are. Is there any acceptance of the idea of a safe passage for the movement’s leaders in Gaza or laying down arms and transitioning into a peaceful movement? Or does Hamas still insist on maintaining both political and military strategies despite the severe imbalance of power and the massive destruction inflicted on Gaza and its people? All the choices are harsh and difficult.

Mohammad Abu Rumman is a columnist in the Jordan Times

Continue reading
Litmus Test: Israel-USA Ties Dive as Trump Officials Talk to Hamas

Relations between Tel Aviv and Washington is it is becoming clear that White House officials are talking to Hamas. The US-based Axios website quoted an Israeli informed official as saying that Israeli envoy to the United States Ron Dermer, who is close to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, had a tense call with American hostage envoy Adam Boehler about the matter.

Axios political correspondent and Middle East expert Barak Ravid explained Israel’s concerns about the Trump administration’s secret negotiations with Hamas erupted in a controversial phone call last Tuesday between Dermer and Boehler.

He revealed that the aids of US President Donald Trump informed Israeli officials early last month of the possibility of dealing directly with Hamas, and the Israelis then advised the American side against doing so, especially without preconditions. However, Israel discovered through other channels that the United States was moving forward in that direction nevertheless.

No direct criticism of Trump

Netanyahu avoided criticizing Trump publicly since Axios revealed the unprecedented talks between the United States and Hamas last Wednesday, and has only said that Israel has made its opinion clear to the United States.

But hours after Boehler met in Doha with Hamas leader and head of the negotiating team, Khalil al-Hayya, Dermer did not hold back in expressing Israel’s concerns about the talks.

The American message was such a deal would go a long way with Trump, who would then push for a broader deal that could include a long-term truce, safe passage for Hamas leaders out of Gaza, release of all remaining prisoners, and an end to the war. The alternative would be a renewed Israeli military campaign to destroy Hamas.

Trump and his advisers had hoped for a breakthrough before his address to Congress the previous Tuesday, but found Hamas’s response inadequate.

Israeli Concern

The reporter said that while Netanyahu was initially averse to the idea of ​​the United States sitting down with Hamas, he and his advisers became increasingly concerned as the idea became a reality.

Ravid quoted his sources as saying that Dermer objected to Boehler making proposals without Israel’s consent, and Boehler responded that the talks did not come close to a deal with Hamas, and that he understood Israel’s parameters.

An Israeli official claimed that Dermer’s tense call with Boehler prompted the White House to reassess its approach.

The site explained that when Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff joined the efforts to reach a deal on Gaza in the final days of the administration of former US President Joe Biden, he suggested holding a direct meeting with Hamas to accelerate the talks, but that ultimately did not happen then, an Israeli official and a former US official said.

Pressure on Hamas

Trump and his advisers held a long meeting last Wednesday about the talks with Hamas, and decided that they needed to send a strong public message.

A US official said the idea was to pressure Hamas to make concessions and make clear that the US position on the movement had not changed.

On Wednesday evening, shortly after meeting with a group of the released hostages, Trump issued a new public ultimatum to Hamas to release all remaining hostages, describing it as a final warning.

On Thursday, Trump defended the talks with Hamas, describing them as beneficial to Israel “because we are talking about Israeli hostages.”

Luring Political Capital

Steve Witkoff, who is scheduled to travel to the region early next week, said the release of American hostage Alexander is the administration’s “top priority,” noting that he is wounded.

He said “good humanitarian action by Hamas” regarding Alexander “will get them a lot of political capital,” and stressed that there is a “deadline” for Hamas to agree to a deal.

Trump’s envoy said that if Hamas does not take a more “reasonable” approach, “there will be some action by Israel.”

Al Jazeera

Continue reading