Middle East and North Africa Archives

Why We Must Learn from Past Pitfalls in Israeli-Palestinian Peace

Dana El Kurd is associate professor of political science at the University of Richmond and senior non-resident fellow at the Arab Center Washington. El Kurd is a researcher of Arab and Palestinian politics, with a focus on authoritarianism and US intervention.

In September 2023, the Middle East Institute in Washington DC held a conference – in partnership with the European Council on Foreign Relations – on the topic of the Oslo Accords. The conference commemorated 30 years since Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization Yasir Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin signed the Accords on the White House lawn.

The consensus at the conference, however, was somber. It seemed to most participants and speakers that the Oslo Accords had largely failed, entrenching a one-state reality predicated on Palestinian subjugation. In a discussion of possible solutions, a co-panelist at one point argued that the Palestinians would have to wait 50+ years and democratize the Israeli system slowly, as African-Americans once did in the context of the Jim Crow south. I disagreed; based on the palpable anger and frustration among Palestinians at their deteriorating conditions, and some of the trends I saw in public opinion polls, I argued that the Palestinians would be unlikely to wait and pursue such a strategy.

Two weeks later, Hamas attacked Israel on October 7^th. The mass violence that many analysts, including myself, had warned about was unfolding. Since then, the Gaza Strip has been entirely destroyed, with 90% of Gazans displaced, likely over 10% of the population killed, and much of the infrastructure decimated. The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, as well as many other human rights organizations around the world including in Israel, have characterized the Israeli war on Gaza as genocide.

If we are to move forward in a fruitful direction from this horror, any future attempt at an enduring peace must be informed by how the failures of past peace processes led to the tragedies of the present.

Why Oslo Failed

The last two years are proof that the Oslo Accords did indeed fail to prevent violence, improve living conditions, or move towards a two-state resolution to the conflict. There are three main reasons why the Oslo effort failed to this extent.

First, the PLO and Israel were not evenly matched prior to the peace process negotiations. One party was a nuclear-armed state with advanced military capacity; the other a national liberation movement on its last leg, having been driven out of Jordan and Lebanon and reeling from dwindling support. And, most importantly, the asymmetry in their positions was not corrected for in the peace process. The PLO recognized the state of Israel and thus accepted the loss of much of historic Palestine, whereas Israel only had to recognize the PLO as a representative of the Palestinian people (a fact already internationally recognized by the UN and other relevant parties).

Thus, as Daniel Kurtzer, the former US Ambassador to Israel, has stated since: “The Oslo agreement was full of holes. The mutual recognition was asymmetrical, and that was to hurt the Palestinian negotiating position for years to come.”

Secondly, because the main mediator in this process was the United States, this asymmetry was exacerbated further. As many involved in the negotiations have since confirmed, the US took the position of “acting as Israel’s lawyer,” thus introducing severe bias in the process of mediation and negotiation.

Thirdly, the Oslo process was predicated on shrinking the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from a full discussion of self-determination for all Palestinians with the right of return for refugees down into a diminished discussion of possible statehood in remnants of the occupied Palestinian territories. This was in tension with the fact that the Palestinian liberation movement included the aspirations of all Palestinians – including those who were citizens of Israel, who resided in Jerusalem, and who were scattered in diaspora communities across the globe. Oslo reduced this aspiration, and these constituencies, who were previously represented (albeit imperfectly) in the PLO, were no longer parties to the process.

Oslo’s Impact on Palestinian Politics

The Oslo Accords also led to the creation of the Palestinian Authority, which in principle continued to be subordinate to the PLO as a representative body. In reality, the PA sidelined the PLO’s role entirely and became the main relevant actor in Palestinian politics. Moreover, the structure of the Oslo Accords led to the entrenchment of the Palestinian Authority, especially following the second Palestinian uprising from late 2000 to early 2005. In order to ensure that the security threats and “collapse of order” unleashed by the years-long uprising never could happen again, the US helped to expand the PA’s security sector, reducing their role in the occupied territories as a “subcontractor of occupation” while preventing democratic accountability. As a result, Palestinians in both the West Bank and Gaza Strip have been unable to impact their leadership or policy direction since 2007, and political elites have increasingly diverged from the will of the people. Most recently, the international community has supported Mahmoud Abbas in his effort to change election laws in order to prevent opposition, Hamas included, from ever winning office again. Thus every part of the Palestinian political landscape is now afflicted with a crisis of legitimacy.

Polling shows this legitimacy crisis clearly. The Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas has remained president since he was first elected in 2005, supported by the US intent on remaking the Middle East region in the aftermath of 9/11. Since then, he has overstayed his term limits. Today more than 80% of Palestinians want him to resign, according to the latest poll. Furthermore, the approval rate for the Palestinian Authority as a whole is 21%. The Hamas government in Gaza does not fare better. In a poll conducted Oct 6, 2023, only 28% of Palestinians in Gaza chose Hamas as their preferred party.

Why the Palestinian Public Matters

These dynamics should be relevant to policymakers around the world involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and negotiations between the two parties. The reasons are two-fold. First, given the international (and specifically American) role in the construction of the Oslo framework and its maintenance at the expense of Palestinian self-determination, many Palestinians blame this state of affairs on international actors and see this as proof that their aspirations are not taken seriously by the international community. American policy for the past three administrations at least would justify this impression, as both President Trump and President Biden pursued Arab-Israeli normalization deals and left the Palestinian issue to fester.

Secondly, the legitimacy crisis is not an issue confined to internal Palestinian politics but impacts the resolution of the conflict. Palestinian political leadership that is seen as illegitimate will not have the mandate to enter into negotiations with Israel, or compromise on any aspect of the conflict. For this reason there is not a great deal of support for any peace plan – whether two-states or one-state. Although 45% of Palestinians say they support a 2-state solution, 56% believe that the two-state solution is no longer practical due to settlement expansion and 61% believe that the chances for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel in the next five years are “slim or non-existent.” It is clear from these numbers that no political leadership, Palestinian or international, has been able to articulate a doable and serious vision of future peace.

Palestinians are outraged at the genocide in Gaza that has been allowed to unfold, the mass displacement and ethnic cleansing of parts of the West Bank, and the deteriorating conditions of their everyday life even prior to the latest war, which the international community ignored. And the only Palestinian political leadership that is deemed acceptable by international actors is one that is illegitimate at home and among much of the diaspora, and that has not and cannot articulate a political vision for a just resolution to the conflict.

Lessons from Comparative Examples

There is only one way forward from this stagnate state of affairs: taking Palestinian agency and self-determination seriously. To do so, the international community and all relevant actors to this conflict must apply the lessons of prior peace negotiations, not just in Israel/Palestine but around the world. These lessons are: public input, inclusion, and accountability.

In the case of Northern Ireland, all parties to the conflict were included in the peace process. This included armed groups on both sides of the Protestant-Catholic divide. Most importantly, the peace process took public input into account, ensuring not one but two referendums to garner buy-in and legitimacy for the peace process. Both the people of Northern Ireland and the people of the Republic of Ireland voted to approve the Good Friday Agreement. This public input was crucial in moving the process forward, and ultimately ended the sectarian conflict since 1998.

In scenarios of severe violence and genocide, the international community must also ensure accountability for war crimes. The case of Yugoslavia, and the subsequent conflict in Bosnia & Herzegovina, demonstrates the importance of accountability – as well as what happens when accountability is not guaranteed by the peace process. The Serbian leadership responsible for war crimes following Yugoslavia’s breakdown were held accountable, taken to the Hague to answer for their role in the conflict. The international community in that instance demonstrated a commitment to upholding international law and punishing violations of the Geneva Conventions.

However, in Bosnia & Herzegovina, political groups that launched a genocide against Bosniak Muslims were largely rewarded in the peace process, given a semi-autonomous region within the new state. This region, Republica Srbska, continues to destabilize the country and threatens to upend the fragile peace.

The Way Forward

To ensure a successful and sustainable peace process in the case of Israel-Palestine, the international community cannot afford to ignore these lessons. The Palestinian people must have a say in the process – that means ensuring the leadership that represents them is democratically elected, and that means taking seriously their approval of the final contours of an agreement. Moreover, all parties to the conflict must be included to ensure the legitimacy of the process, including armed groups. The inclusion of armed groups in the Northern Ireland case indeed ensured their disarmament, and avoided the emergence of spoilers that threatened the progress of the negotiations. A similar logic can be applied in this case. Palestinian civil society actors have already articulated what this might look like; the Palestinian National Initiative for instance has generated proposals for the democratic renewal of the PLO. The international community must engage with these initiatives seriously.

The international community must ensure the peace process holds the perpetrators of war crimes accountable
The Palestinian diaspora must be included in the peace process in a meaningful way, within the contours of a revitalized and democratic Palestine Liberation Organization
Any leadership that represents Palestinians in negotiations must be democratically elected
Those elections must be open to participation from political movements with armed factions to prevent them from acting as spoilers to the peace process
The peace process must be multilateral, rather than a project of an invariably biased US foreign policy

Thirdly, given the severity of the violence in Gaza, and the almost complete annihilation of life in the Gaza Strip, the international community must ensure the peace process holds the perpetrators accountable. The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory found Israeli leaders Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Isaac Herzog, and former defense minister Yoav Gallant directly responsible for genocide. One cannot imagine a peace process having any legitimacy without addressing violations of international law and war crimes of this magnitude. Initiatives such as The Hind Rajab Foundation have pursued legal action against “perpetrators, accomplices, and inciters of violence against Palestinians.” Similar attempts to hold war criminals accountable were used in the Syrian case after the civil war, with activists utilizing universal jurisdiction, in particular in European court systems, to pursue Assad-regime criminals around the world. There should be formal support for accountability by governments, rather than rely on civil society actors to fill this gap alone.

Finally, in the Israel-Palestine case, we can also deduce two additional recommendations. First, given that the power imbalance between Israel and the Palestinians is so severe, mediation of the peace process must ensure that this power imbalance is accounted for. In previous attempts at Israeli-Palestinian peace, the US did not act as an unbiased mediator – instead heavily weighting the outcome in Israel’s favor time and time again. We now have irrefutable proof that this dynamic only destroyed the possibility of peace, and increased the level of suffering and violence since. In any future process, the US cannot control the process alone.

Secondly, it is important to address all parties to the conflict, and communities that have been ignored in previous iterations of the peace process. As previously mentioned, this includes Palestinians in the diaspora, Palestinian citizens of Israel, and Palestinians in Jerusalem. Inclusion of these communities not only goes farther in legitimizing the process and addressing the full scope of Palestinian aspirations, but also has the added benefit of engaging with communities with different perspectives on, and relationships to, Israeli society.

Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, especially younger generations, have only ever understood Israeli society through the context of violent occupation. Formally including these communities in the peace process thus also has the potential of generating new policy solutions and forcing changes within the Israeli regime as well.

Enforce the War Crimes Act Against Americans Who Committed Them In Gaza

Abdelhalim Abdelrahman is a Palestinian-American political analyst, host of the Uncharted Territory Podcast and a Marcellus Policy Fellow alum at the John Quincy Adams Society advocating for a restrained U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East centered around American laws and respect for Palestinian human rights.

Following the October 7th, 2023 attacks, Israel embarked on a series of military operations that human rights organizations, legal experts, and U.N. special rapporteurs recognize as constituting a number of war crimes and other violations of international law, including the crime of genocide. The involvement of US citizens as Israel Defense Forces (IDF) personnel in Gaza–and possibly in other roles in the territory–has raised questions of whether Americans may have committed war crimes in Gaza.

The Guardian published a report in September 2025 on Daniel Rabb, a U.S.–Israeli citizen from Chicago operating as a sniper in Gaza. Raab is part of the Paratrooper Unit 202, a sniper division of the IDF, for which Raab’s parents helped fundraise over $300,000. Raab, reports the Guardian, says he shot Salem Doghmosh “simply because he tried to retrieve the body of his beloved older brother Mohammed.” This goes against International Humanitarian Law regarding the recovery of the dead. The Guardian story also quotes Asa Kasher, co-author of the Israeli Defense Forces’ ethics code, stating that “if you see someone recovering a body or helping a wounded person, that’s a rescue operation, it should be respected. Someone like that should not be shot.”

Accusations that Americans committed war crimes in Gaza have not been limited to those US citizens who served in the IDF. While allowing a trickle of aid into Gaza, Israel’s government prevented the United Nations from delivering aid for much of 2025, instead disbursing lifesaving supplies through the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), created with the involvement of the U.S. Department of State and Israel. However, the United Nations estimated that, by August 1, 2025, over 850 Palestinians in Gaza had been killed near GHF distribution sites, largely from fire by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).

On May 27, 2025, the New York Times reported that the opening of aid distribution sites by the GHF was marred by chaos and gunfire near some of the sites. On June 2, CNN reported that hundreds of Palestinians had received gunshot wounds outside an aid site run by GHF. On July 2nd, the Associated Press reported that two US contractors speaking on condition of anonymity claimed that fellow GHF contractors had “regularly lobbed stun grenades and pepper spray in the direction of the Palestinians.” AP reported that one of the contractors “said bullets were fired in all directions — in the air, into the ground and at times toward the Palestinians, recalling at least one instance where he thought someone had been hit.” Videos provided by one of the contractors “include conversation between English-speaking men discussing how to disperse crowds and encouraging each other after bursts of gunfire,” according to the AP report.

In July 2025, Democracy Now interviewed U.S. Army Veteran Anthony Aguilar about his experience in Gaza with UG Solutions, the security subcontractor working with the GHF. He told Democracy Now that the aid distribution sites had “become death traps.” He also said “[w]e are using indiscriminate force, targeting civilians, escalation of force that goes far beyond the measures of appropriate, against an unarmed, starving population.”

In August, CBS News interviewed another individual claiming to be a GHF whistleblower under the alias “Mike,” who also asserted that American subcontractors and the IDF deliberately targeted Palestinian civilians near aid sites. The GHF vigorously denies the claims that its contractors fired on any Palestinian civilians.

Under the 1996 War Crimes Act, Congress and the Department of State have the authority to investigate and charge citizens and dual nationals who facilitate war crimes. While federal level action is unlikely under the Trump administration, members of Congress, civil society, and groups leading strategic litigation should press to use U.S. law to hold both the Israeli government and individual perpetrators accountable.

The War Crimes Act

Although the United States’ engagement with international war crimes prosecution is complex, under statutory law, U.S. nationals can be held domestically accountable for war crimes. The War Crimes Act, passed in 1996 by unanimous consent in the Senate and voice vote in the House, criminalizes a range of conduct constituting “grave breaches” of the Geneva Conventions, when committed by U.S. nationals or members of the U.S. armed forces. The scope of the WCA is significant: conduct committed overseas is not exempt from prosecution under U.S. law if the perpetrator is an American national.

Conduct by U.S. citizens and dual nationals in Gaza, like firing on civilians, could constitute a “grave breach” under the Geneva Conventions. This offers a legal basis for the Department of Justice to open WCA investigations against Americans credibly alleged to have committed war crimes.

The DOJ should immediately create a War Crimes Task Force, which would actively investigate credible allegations of war crimes committed by U.S citizens in Gaza. This task force should have expertise in international humanitarian law, open-source forensics, and conflict-zone investigations. This step would make clear that American citizenship is not a means to evade responsibility, and would allow the U.S. government to enforce the War Crimes Act to help prevent future impunity. Such an effort would also likely clear the path for a long-overdue accounting of war crimes committed by people serving in the US military, such as the 151 cases uncovered by The New Yorker and the Pulitzer Center in 2024.

Disarming Dangerous ‘Allies’

While the War Crimes Act allows for charges to be brought against perpetrators, the State Department and Department of Defense are obliged under the Leahy Laws to prevent continued military aid to foreign military units “where there is credible information implicating that unit in the commission of gross violations of human rights”. There is potential for overlap: if an American is serving in a foreign military unit committing abuses, they could be charged under the War Crimes Act, and their unit should be flagged for rigorous vetting under the Leahy Laws, though the crimes need not overlap for either measure to be useful.

The Leahy Laws offer another tool to prevent the use of American weapons in human rights abuses. Initially passed in 1997, and expanded/reaffirmed since, the Leahy Laws prohibit U.S. security assistance to any foreign security force unit “about which” credible information exists of gross violations of human rights, including but not limited to torture, extrajudicial killing, and enforced disappearance. The Leahy laws prevent specific military aid from continuing to be provided to units found in violation, but the laws do not at present ensure such units are barred from receiving assistance given to the foreign country’s military as a whole, after which the distribution of that aid makes it non-traceable, and can leave it in the hands of specific units that violate human rights. Patrick Leahy, the former Senator whose name the Leahy laws bear, argued in spring 2024 that the laws should be applied to Israel. “Unlike for most countries,” he wrote, “U.S. weapons, ammunition and other aid are provided to Israeli security forces in bulk rather than to specific units. The secretary of state is therefore required to regularly inform Israel of any security force unit ineligible for U.S. aid because of having committed a gross violation of human rights, and the Israeli government is obligated to comply with that prohibition.”

To date, the Leahy Laws have been used to impede funding to suspect units in Colombia, Pakistan, Egypt, Ukraine, and elsewhere, but as Leahy himself noted, since “the Leahy law was passed, not a single Israeli security force unit has been deemed ineligible for U.S. aid, despite repeated, credible reports of gross violations of human rights and a pattern of failing to appropriately punish Israeli soldiers and police who violate the rights of Palestinians.”

Congress and State should end that double standard. Accountability and integrity under US law demands that the Leahy conditions should be upheld in every instance, even and especially when friends and allies commit war crimes.

Daniel Raab’s Israeli Sniper Unit 202 should be subject to rigorous Leahy Law vetting, reasserting that U.S. military assistance—training, intelligence, equipment, etc.— can and will be withdrawn on credible allegations of unlawful attacks. Other units responsible for war crimes, like the targeting of civilians, should be identified in the open source or news reporting and similarly be made ineligible for U.S support under the Leahy Laws.

Policy Recommendations

Congress must do its job to ensure oversight and transparency. It should require the State Department to make regular public reports on investigations of U.S. nationals under the War Crimes Act, as well as the results of Leahy vetting. Congress can and should hold oversight hearings to demand the executive branch take action (or explain its inaction) when such violations come to light. The U.S. government should coordinate with U.N. fact-finding missions, NGOs, and international prosecutors and share evidence it has that can be used to corroborate allegations. It should be absolutely clear, through public messaging by the State Department, that U.S. nationals are not exempt from accountability mechanisms for violations committed anywhere.

Enforce U.S. Law on U.S. Nationals who commit war crimes
Increase Leahy Vetting on units seen in open source to be violating human rights
Ensure Oversight, Transparency, and International Cooperation when it comes to withholding arms and prosecuting war crimes

As the second anniversary of October 7 passes, and the tenuous terms of a ceasefire are once again agreed to, the genocide in Gaza remains a humanitarian and legal crisis. American citizens and nationals have been directly implicated in the violence, raising profound questions of accountability. Washington possesses legal tools, like the War Crimes Act, and legally mandated procedural obligations, like arms withholding under Leahy Laws—but has lacked the political and moral courage to utilize them. Enforcing these statutes, such as conditioning aid, arms embargoes and enhancing transparency, are essential steps toward upholding international law, deterring future violations, and ensuring that American citizenship is never misused as a shield for war crimes.

The United States cannot credibly demand accountability for atrocities in other conflicts (e.g Russian war crimes in Ukraine) while it simultaneously shields Americans who may be complicit in war crimes in Gaza

If serving in a foreign military is a free pass to immunity, then citizenship, and by extension the law, loses meaning. The U.S. must not create that precedent. The threat, however small, of prosecution or conditioned assistance will have a deterrent effect: knowing that one’s military actions may later have legal and reputational consequences will push compliance with IHL.

While the present administration may disregard the harm done to national reputation as undermining U.S. strategic interest, unaddressed accusations of grave human rights violations by U.S. citizens abroad carries real diplomatic risk for Washington. Ignoring it erodes trust with allies and partners that expect and demand the U.S. to uphold its own laws.

Editor’s note: This piece has been updated for clarity and to include the GHF’s denial of claims by cited sources.

How a $500 USAID grant saved my future

Fatima Rezaie is an education activist who uses her platforms (instagram and Facebook) to share educational opportunities for Afghan youths, especially women, inside and outside Afghanistan.

When you grow up and study in a community with little to no resources, dreaming big can feel like a luxury. Opportunities don’t knock often, and when they do, they’re easy to miss. Sometimes, all it takes is one “yes,” one act of belief, from a single source of hope to push you one step closer. What does it take for a girl in rural Afghanistan to break through? A strong will? The right timing? Or just one small chance in the right moment?

I am writing here today because a modest investment in me by USAID changed the entire trajectory of my life. While this will always be my story to tell, I am sharing it now because the very concept of foreign aid is under attack, and the agency that provided this aid to myself and so many others is shuttered. That money, distributed through USAID, had a profound impact on countless lives, including mine.

In 2016, when I was in Grade 10 at a small-town school in Herat, Afghanistan, a new subject was added to our curriculum called “Royesh,” with the goal of empowering young women by teaching us how to start a business. It was part of the USAID Promote Women Leadership Program that encouraged women’s full participation in community by building their confidence and equipping them with the skills they need to succeed in the public and private sector. As someone always eager to try new things, I was super excited to see what it had to offer.

The international community must take unified and assertive action to pressure the Taliban to lift the ban on girls’ and women’s education in Afghanistan.

Humanitarian grants and international scholarship programs should be expanded to provide Afghan women and girls access to safe, quality education.

Individuals can make a powerful impact by volunteering, mentoring, or donating to organizations that support Afghan girls’ education.

For this new subject, we had two trainers who taught us how to plan, market, and operate a business. We engaged in activities that put us in the shoes of customers and business owners. The class was fun, and the topics were exciting, a completely new experience I had never had before.

Towards the end of the school year, the program provided funds for girls to complete secondary school education. The funds weren’t for every single Royesh trained student, but for those who can successfully get to the final round after submitting their application. In my school, only around 600 students above grade 10 were part of this program. And that’s not even counting the thousands of students receiving the same training in Kabul, Balkh, Kandahar, Nangarhar, and other public schools in Herat. I was terrified to apply as my chances felt like anything below zero, but something inside me whispered, why not? Just submit your application. At the end of the day, it’s better to try and fail than to give up and live with regret. Failure may be temporary, but regret can last forever. One day before the deadline, after going back and forth with myself, I submitted my application. With no experience writing essays or telling my story, I was beyond relieved when my application was accepted. According to the USAID’s report on Women’s Leadership Development Program, a total of 6,436 applications had been received under needbased scholarships; 5,012 had been reviewed by the selection committee, and 2,735 had been selected as final candidates. And I was among the 2,735 people. The scholarship award totaled 35,000 Afghani (about $500), enough to cover two years of high school, school supplies, and university entrance exam (Konkor) preparation courses.

This fund gave me the freedom to stop feeling ashamed of asking my parents for money, or worse, giving in to marriage just to secure financial support. Would I have been lucky enough to marry someone supportive? Only God knows. Though my parents never pressured me to marry, I never wanted to be a burden to them, especially since they had three younger children to care for. But I’m grateful that this fund gave me the support I needed to complete my secondary education and work hard for my future.

Turning Determination into Results

With that scholarship, I invested every penny back into my studies. In Afghanistan, medical school is considered a pathway to lifelong stability, and as a top student, the social pressure to pursue medicine was intense. I enrolled in rigorous Konkor preparation courses, bought essential textbooks, and took weekly practice exams to test my knowledge. I began these courses at the start of grade 11, while many aspiring medical students start as early as grade 9 or 10. I simply couldn’t afford them earlier. That small but crucial amount of funding came as a huge relief and enabled me to catch up and continue chasing my goals.

By the end of Grade 12, while preparing for medical school in Afghanistan, I also began exploring opportunities to study abroad. One of the programs I applied to was the Education for Leadership in Crisis program, offered by the U.S. Embassy in partnership with the American University of Beirut. I found out about it through my cousin, who saw an advertisement on TV while visiting his in-laws. He took a photo and sent it to me on Telegram.

A TV ad, a golden opportunity, and a fearful me, who didn’t even feel qualified enough to apply. There were only 15 seats for girls across all of Afghanistan. Could I really be one of them? Impossible, I thought. But thanks to my cousin’s encouragement, I submitted the application anyway, and the rest was history.

After successfully passing the first round of exam, I had to take the TOEFL test. TOEFL, or “Test of English as a Foreign Language,” is a test I would need to pass to enroll in an English-speaking university. I was thrilled for making to this point, but when I read the line: “You are responsible for the TOEFL test fee”, my excitement quickly turned into anxiety.

At the time, the cost was $215, which was equal to two months of my mom’s salary. Her income supported a household of six, so it was impossible to ask her for help. I rushed to check the small stash of money left from USAID fund I had hidden in my closet, and to my surprise, exactly $200 remained. It felt like a miracle. The remaining amount was kindly covered by Women for Afghan Women, an NGO in Kabul that had partnered with the U.S. Embassy to support applicants through the admission process. I will always be grateful to them for stepping in at that critical moment.

I took the exam, scored well, advanced through multiple rounds, and ultimately won the scholarship.

From Lebanon to United States of America

Over the course of my undergraduate studies in Lebanon, I graduated with high distinction, represented Afghanistan at international conferences in South Korea and France, learned Arabic, and even explored Lebanon more than I ever had in my own country. I went on to pursue a master’s degree at an Ivy League university, launched my social initiative Educate2Empower on social media – where I’ve inspired thousands of Afghan youth to chase their dreams despite fear and uncertainty – and ultimately secured my U.S. Green Card.

Was I extraordinary? Perhaps. But the truth is, my story isn’t the exception, it’s the proof. That initial $500 from USAID started a chain reaction of opportunity.

Thanks to those funds, I:

Took the TOEFL.
Studied abroad.
Founded an educational initiative.
Became a U.S. green-card holder
prepared for medical school

That small amount wasn’t a drop in the bucket, it was the first stone cast in a ripple of lifelong change.

Why This Matters

In Afghanistan, where educational access, especially for young women, is inconsistent and now, with the Taliban being in power, non-existent, programs like this break cycles of disadvantage. The establishment of American University of Afghanistan in 2005 with the support of USAID empowered hundreds of Afghan youth, especially Afghan women. After the Taliban takeover, the university continued its operations online and at its new campus in Qatar, despite funding challenges, and kept alive the last hope for a brighter future for its female students.

Prestige Series at New York - USA, by Shamsia Hassani (CC BY-SA 4.0)

Afghan women have played a key role in the development of the country across different sectors, and their continued presence is crucial for rebuilding a nation that has gone through decades of turmoil. After the fall of the Taliban regime in 2001 and before their rise in 2021, educational opportunities expanded at all levels. The infant mortality rate was cut in half, and the gross national income per capita nearly tripled in real terms, from US$810 in 2001 to $2,590 in 2020 (adjusted for purchasing power). Afghan women played a key role in livestock and dairy production, crop processing, and producing export goods like carpets, hides, karakul skins, and wool. In the 20 years before the fall of the republic, they launched around 57,000 small and medium-sized businesses with donor support.

The 2021 education ban stripped Afghan women of their fundamental right to education and has had widespread negative effects on their lives. Aid groups warn that, with growing hardship and no access to school, more girls are at risk of child labor and early marriage. According to the U.N., Afghan girls without secondary education are more likely to have children young, miss out on child immunization, and marry off their daughters before 18, making lack of education a key driver of deprivation. More importantly, the education ban has taken a severe psychological toll, with Afghan women and girls reporting anxiety, depression, PTSD, and suicidal thoughts. That’s why urgent action and sustained humanitarian funding are more critical than ever.

This ban on education hasn’t only silenced classrooms, it has triggered a chain reaction of deeper crises. Violence against women has sharply increased. The legal assistance programs and special courts that once protected women and girls have been dismantled. With no systems of support in place, many now suffer in silence. At the same time, forced and early marriages have surged across Afghanistan, as desperate families marry off their teenage daughters, often to prevent them from being taken by Taliban fighters. That’s why restoring access to education is not just a policy issue, it’s a lifeline. Without it, every other intervention will be incomplete.

Such investments:

Keep girls in school.
Encourage them to dream beyond traditional roles.
Build local ecosystems of ambition and action.

Every dollar invested yielded returns in the form of thousands of empowered students who will pave the way for further improvement. In order to save the current and future generations, the necessary actions must be taken. Foreign aid can be a lifeline for others like myself.

The first and most vital step is addressing the elephant in the room: allowing women and girls to return to school. Regional and international actors, including both Muslim and non-Muslim countries, organizations like the United Nations and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, must take stronger, unified action. It has been almost four years since the Taliban stripped Afghan women of their basic right to education, robbing the country of talent, potential, and a future that those young women could have helped build.

At this point in Afghanistan’s crisis, humanitarian grants are absolutely essential to support women and girls in continuing their education. For many, international scholarship programs offer a vital pathway to pursue their studies in safe, stable environments abroad. For example, through a new partnership, the EAA Foundation, supported by the Qatar Fund for Development (QFFD) and USAID, will mobilize US$50 million, equally contributed by both parties. This funding aims to enroll over 100,000 out-of-school children and provide nearly 2,000 post-secondary scholarships, helping thousands of Afghan students regain access to education and opportunity.

Equally powerful are the contributions of everyday individuals, especially those with time, knowledge, or resources. Volunteering with organizations that teach English to Afghan girls, or mentoring them through the process of applying for educational opportunities abroad, can be life-changing. You can’t imagine how powerful and meaningful it is for a girl in Afghanistan to have someone who believes in her, guides her, and helps her navigate a path she never knew existed. This August marks four years since the Taliban took power and stripped women of their right to education. Your support, no matter how small, can be part of the resistance to that injustice. You can find a non-exhaustive list of organizations helping Afghan women at the end of the article.

In retrospect, that $500 investment did more than support one Afghan girl, it sent a message: your future matters. My life today stands on that moment, and on the confidence that someone believed in me far before I believed in myself. Humanitarian investment is a catalyst and Eight years later, its impact in my life is undeniable.

Below are a list of organizations, curated by Fatima, that support the education of Afghan women, which you can support through donations or volunteering:

Women Online University
SOLA
Code to Inspire
Education Bridge for Afghanistan
Right to Learn Afghanistan
AYLA
Learn
Alliance for the Education of Women in Afghanistan
Sahar Education
Afghan Girls Financial Assistance Fund

U.S. Move to Sanction a U.N. Official is Rogue State Behavior

July 10, 2025 – In response to U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s move to impose sanctions on Francesca Albanese, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, on the basis of her due cooperation with International Criminal Court (ICC) processes, Center for International Policy Vice President for Government Affairs Dylan Williams issued the following statement:

“Secretary Rubio’s decision to impose sanctions on a United Nations official for the proper exercise of her duties is another egregious attack on international norms and the rule of law by the Trump Administration. Punishing U.N. officials for doing their jobs, like the administration’s sanctioning of International Criminal Court officials and their families earlier this year, is rogue state behavior that undermines global and human security, while providing succor to human rights abusers and war criminals around the world.

“It is clear that UN Special Rapporteur Albanese was targeted for saying what countless international law experts, historians and prominent statespeople have themselves concluded: Israel is committing war crimes and crimes against humanity, including genocide, in Gaza. Yet one need not agree with Albanese’s or any other U.N. or ICC official’s assessments or characterizations to defend the basic principles of due process and the rule of law. The Trump Administration’s hostility to the integrity of legal proceedings and its persecution under the color of law of those with whom it disagrees should be opposed as vigorously in international settings as it is domestically.

“We call on U.S. lawmakers to unequivocally condemn this latest abuse of power by the Trump Administration. We also encourage countries that are party to the Rome Statute of the ICC to take appropriate measures to uphold their obligations in response to these sanctions, including invocation of the European Union’s ‘blocking statute’ to prevent compliance with U.S. sanctions with extraterritorial reach.”

Netanyahu’s Dangerous Plans Advance Amid U.S. Visit

War crimes and crimes against humanity continue in Gaza without a workable ceasefire:

Dozens of civilians in Gaza continue to be killed by Israeli forces almost every day, both by ongoing bombings and near “Gaza Humanitarian Foundation” aid distribution sites, around which mass deaths have become so routine, they have been dubbed “killing fields” for Palestinians seeking food amid starvation caused by months of near-total blockade on aid.
Netanyahu continues to reject proposals that would allow experienced humanitarian aid agencies to resume essential aid delivery or commit Israel to steps toward a permanent ceasefire, while he and Trump advance plans to relocate Palestinian civilians from Gaza that constitute the crime against humanity of forced displacement – i.e., ethnic cleansing.
Trump continues to arm and abet Israel’s war crimes with new shipments of U.S. weapons, in violation of both international humanitarian law and U.S. law.

Advancing Israeli war crimes in the West Bank threaten to further destabilize the Middle East:

Israeli settlers backed by U.S.-armed Israeli forces have increased violent attacks against Palestinian communities in the occupied West Bank, with deadly incidents rightly being likened to “pogroms” against civilians who Israel is obligated by international law to protect.
Settler attacks are part of an accelerating campaign of forced displacement that also involves Israel bulldozing Palestinian communities and removing their residents from their land.
Ministers and senior lawmakers from Netanyahu’s own Likud party are pushing the Prime Minister to officially annex the West Bank, with the Trump administration saying it “stands with Israel and its decisions” when asked about possible annexation of the occupied territory.

Iran’s nuclear activities unleashed and unmonitored as hawks pivot to push for more war:

While Trump continues to say that last month’s U.S. attack on Iran “obliterated” its nuclear program, it is clear the strikes did not destroy the program, and have not only set it back by far less than the 2015 Iran Deal, but likely further incentivized Iran to seek nuclear weapons.
In a widely predicted move, the Israeli government and war hawks are already floating the idea that additional military action is needed to address Iran’s nuclear activities, raising the possibility of further U.S. involvement in hostilities that could become another major conflict.
Diplomacy toward a new agreement to limit Iran’s nuclear activities will only succeed if Trump avoids making maximalist demands – like insisting on zero uranium enrichment in Iran – based on the mistaken notion that he destroyed Iran’s program, rather than further incentivized a dash for nuclear weapons by the regime.

Building Humane Foreign Policy On Moral Outrage

Andrew Leber is an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science and the Middle East & North African Studies Program at Tulane University, and was a cofounder of Fellow Travelers Blog.

Since late 2010, U.S. policy towards the Middle East treated the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as something that could be safely left on the back burner while dealing with more pressing concerns – chiefly the desire to contain Iran’s nuclear program. Now events have come full circle, with Israel’s expansive response to Hamas’ October 7 attacks finally pulling the United States into a direct military engagement with Iran.

In condemning President Trump’s decision to send B-2 bombers halfway around the globe (without congressional approval), critics have understandably raised the specter of a protracted military engagement in the Middle East, akin to the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

War Powers Resolutions are a good start in avoiding U.S. involvement in the Israel-Iran war, but won’t be enough to de-escalate and build peace.
To meaningfully constrain Israel and build peace, the United States should use the massive amount of arms sales and other forms of security assistance it provides annually as leverage.
Progressives have an advantage in adopting an “all-of-society” approach to forming and sustaining U.S. Middle East policy.
A sustainable policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will require shaping U.S. public opinion and cultivating a broader regard for the well-being of others.

Yet Trump’s actions also highlight the limits of a politics of restraint rooted in conserving American “blood and treasure” from foreign military adventures. While successive U.S. presidents have been constrained by the ultimate unpopularity of the Iraq War, the flip side of a historical memory overwhelmingly focused on U.S. (rather than Iraqi) casualties is a sense that almost any military action is permissible so long as it avoids committing ground forces.

“No ground forces were used in the strike,” Trump noted in his subsequent letter to Congress justifying the strikes. This rhetoric channels executive legal arguments across administrations and President Obama’s own emphasis on “no boots on the ground” in overseas military operations. Even during his first term, Trump embraced drone strikes and airpower as a way to project U.S. power abroad, in many ways a continuation — albeit with even less regard for civilian casualties — of Obama’s own “light-footprint” approach to military intervention.

Still, merely limiting the direct risks to U.S. forces is no recipe for peace or human well-being, as the Obama administration found in facilitating a Saudi-led military intervention. Even in the absence of broader military commitments, present U.S. support for Israel’s “might makes right” foreign policy poses enormous reputational and material risks to the United States.

Only concerted efforts to build popular concern for the shared humanity of others, as happened in limiting U.S. support for military intervention in Yemen, will lay the groundwork for regional peace that is more than a pause between fighting. The alternative is a continuation of the Global War on Terror: carrying out (or otherwise facilitating) attacks on actors, organizations, or even states deemed threatening to the United States and its partners, with little in the way of popular or congressional oversight.

The Yemen-War Model

The progressive foreign policy movement already has experience addressing the moral hazard of U.S. security commitments in the Middle East, namely Saudi Arabia’s protracted military intervention in Yemen. There, as with Israel, sources of leverage were clear: arms sales that sustained the Saudi war effort and diplomatic cover that justified the intervention in terms of Saudi national security concerns.

As with Israel’s war in Gaza (albeit on a much smaller scale), the United States was perceived as facilitating mass suffering by providing Saudi Arabia with material and moral support for sustained attacks on Houthi forces in Yemen. U.S. leverage was also understood as critical to restraining Saudi Arabia given the absolute monarchy’s suppression of any domestic dissent. While Israel is far more open to domestic dissent than the Kingdom neither criticism by prominent former officials nor protests by the families of Israeli hostages in Gaza has meaningfully restrained Prime Minister Netanyahu in Gaza. An overwhelming majority of Jewish Israelis back the latest attack on Iran, even if some quibble with the timing. Additionally, free speech within Israel itself is under threat, with state raids on bookstores in East Jerusalem, sanctioning Israeli media critical of government actions in Gaza, and stifling of dissent within the Israeli armed forces itself.

Moral outrage over the war’s humanitarian toll and Saudi Arabia’s humanitarian abuses, not rational cost-benefit analysis, ultimately pushed members of Congress – including some Republicans – to pass successive War-Powers resolutions and take other legislative action aimed at curtailing U.S. security support for Saudi Arabia in Yemen and blocking U.S. arms sales to the kingdom. This moral outrage did not appear overnight, but was actively built by a broad coalition of activists, and turbo-charged by Saudi Arabia’s assassination of media figure Jamal Khashoggi.

While the Trump administration ultimately overrode Congress in direct terms, and maintained most arms sales to Saudi Arabia, senior officials nevertheless began to push Saudi and other Gulf leaders toward peace talks. Joe Biden in turn made ending support for the Saudi intervention part of his presidential campaign, and empowered a special envoy to seek a diplomatic solution to the conflict in 2021. (The Biden administration continued security coordination with Saudi Arabia, however, leaving its Yemen policy open to charges of being both too hawkish and too dove-ish.) Restraint ultimately worked in Saudi Arabia’s favor as well, with a de facto truce by 2022 insulating the kingdom from the Houthi force’s efforts to pressure Israel amid the ongoing Gaza war.

Of course, any restraint of Saudi Arabia was (in retrospect) playing on “easy mode.” Saudi Arabia has little domestic constituency in the United States, at least outside of the Beltway, and to the extent that Americans have strong feelings about the kingdom they tend to be negative. Even then, any “restraint” of Saudi military activities by the United States has been partial at best and highly contingent on other U.S. policy priorities.

Israel, by contrast, is overwhelmingly supported by one half of the United States’ two-party political scene, and by a fiercely devoted constituency within the Democratic Party’s supporters as well. While negative U.S. views of Israel are on the rise, it is hard to imagine a presidential candidate for either party labelling the country a “pariah” on the campaign trail anytime soon.

What is to be done?

In the near term, War-Powers legislation – as recently attempted by Tim Kaine in the Senate, and proposed by various members in the House – is the clearest tool for weighing in on the Executive’s opaque decision-making. It is good for Congress to flex its oversight muscles, for individuals and advocacy organizations to support these efforts, and to remind the President and security partners overseas of the domestic fallout of military action abroad.

Yet even within the Democratic Party, leaders struggle to meaningfully criticize Israeli actions – while drawing distinctions regarding committing U.S. forces – while other members openly long for regime change in Iran. It will require a far more concerted effort to demilitarize U.S. policy towards the Middle East at the strategic level, and to ensure that future administrations do not simply shunt the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the back burner once more.

At the local and state level, this means building and maintaining spaces to talk about Israel, Palestine, and the U.S. role in this long-running conflict – something that can no longer be taken for granted, even on private university campuses. It in turn means supporting political candidates who oppose a “Palestine exception” to free speech, while recognizing practical limits on the type and tenor of critiques they make of Israel.

In terms of shaping mass attitudes, it means integrating demands for Palestinian liberation into broader advocacy of a rights-based internationalism – as many pro-Palestinian advocacy organizations across the United States have already done.

Progressives recognize the need to build popular buy-in to global norms long taken for granted in foreign policymaking, from respect for international humanitarian law to the belief that the United States is safer when it cares for the well-being of others. The best counter to charges that U.S. policy singles out Israel for criticism – beyond noting the fact that few countries receive the same level of U.S. diplomatic and military support – is to demand that the same standards apply to Emirati involvement in Sudan’s civil war, or to our own country’s treatment of resident non-citizens.

When it comes to Israel per se, this means continuing to convey the risks of underwriting a “might makes right” approach to regional security. In engaging persuadable U.S. supporters of Israel, it means taking seriously concerns about rising antisemitism while continuing the slow, steady work of insisting that the state of Israel be judged by its actions as a state.

And at the level of national policy, it means forcing elected and appointed officials to recognize that U.S. ties to any security partner cannot take the form of writing blank checks for states bent on exacerbating human suffering – whatever their justifications. For those willing to listen, this can take the form of advocacy; for those unwilling, this should take the form of primarying them or, for appointees, their patrons.

It also means accepting, as both the Biden and now the Trump administrations have found, that Israeli war crimes in Gaza, and the fundamental injustice towards Palestinians of Israel’s one-state reality, cannot be walled off from more “strategic” considerations of the U.S. national interest rooted in avoiding costly interstate conflict.

Trump’s New Arms Transfer to Israel Deepens US Complicity in Gaza War Crimes

July 1, 2025 – In response to the U.S. State Department approving a proposed sale of joint direct attack munitions (JDAM) and related support to Israel, Security Assistance Monitor (SAM) Director, Ari Tolany, issued the following statement:

“The Trump administration has a valuable opportunity to exercise leverage with Israel to advocate for improved humanitarian access to Gaza, a ceasefire, and regional de-escalation. Instead, it has chosen to grant Israel more of the very bombs used to totally destroy Gaza and slaughter its people.

Joint direct attack munitions and other systems for munitions guidance are often marketed as a tool to mitigate civilian harm through more precise targeting. In the hands of a government like Benjamin Netanyahu’s, which has no political will to protect civilians, however, these weapons become tools to precisely target aid workers, journalists, and structures indispensable to the survival of the civilian population.

Under international law, Israel has an obligation as an occupying power to facilitate humanitarian access to Gaza. Instead, it has turned nominal aid distribution sites into killing fields. The billions of dollars of weapons, aid, and logistical support the United States has provided to Israel for more than 20 months mean that the United States is complicit in bringing about the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza. By continuing to supply weapons that have a substantial likelihood to be used to facilitate gross violations of international humanitarian law, the United States runs the risk of being legally liable for aiding and abetting war crimes. After 20 months of failure to enforce U.S. law, Congress should use all means at its disposal to prevent the transfer of these JDAMs, and other weapons likely to be used in war crimes.”

Trump’s Validation of the Iran Deal is Now Complete

Iran’s paths to a bomb were blocked under the JCPOA and cleared after Trump broke it:

Under the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran’s nuclear activities (the “JCPOA” or “Iran Deal”), Iran had less than enough low enriched uranium than that needed for a single nuclear weapon, if further enriched. It had no highly enriched uranium (HEU) and its nuclear sites and entire uranium production cycle were subject to 24/7/365 monitoring and other stringent safeguards overseen by international inspectors.
After Trump unilaterally broke the deal in May 2018, Iran responded by gradually suspending its compliance with certain JCPOA obligations, eventually amassing a large stockpile of enriched uranium, including enough HEU for several nuclear weapons, if further enriched. The visibility of international inspectors into Iran’s nuclear work diminished significantly as monitoring equipment was shut off and other verification measures were suspended.
Alongside its nuclear activities, Iran’s ballistic missile program, abuse of human rights, and support for militias and violent acts in the region – including attacks against U.S. servicemembers – also surged following Trump’s abrogation of the JCPOA.

Military strikes on Iran set back Iran’s nuclear program by far less than the Iran deal:

Despite Trump’s claims that the U.S. attacks on Iranian nuclear sites “completely totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program, early U.S. intelligence reportedly assessed that the use of about half of the total U.S. arsenal of the largest “bunker buster” massive ordnance penetrators failed to collapse the key underground buildings at the sites, setting the program back by only a few months – far less than the 12-18 months breakout time under the JCPOA.
Even more concerning is the fact that the Trump Administration says it does not know where Iran’s stockpile of several nuclear weapons worth of HEU is now.
These results are especially troubling given official U.S. intelligence assessments that, while Iran had not made the decision to build nuclear weapons prior to the attacks, U.S. strikes against its nuclear facilities may lead the regime to decide to construct nuclear weapons.

Diplomacy is the only viable way forward:

Diplomacy proved successful in blocking Iran’s paths to a nuclear weapon before and can be again, if given time and space to succeed, whereas military action has now reportedly failed.
Diplomacy can only succeed if Trump avoids making maximalist demands – like insisting on zero uranium enrichment in Iran – based on the mistaken notion that he destroyed Iran’s program, rather than further incentivized a dash for a nuclear weapon by the regime.
U.S. lawmakers should vocally support diplomacy and avoid rhetoric or actions that make achievement of an agreement less likely – such as insisting on maximalist terms for a deal.

Donald Trump Launches War of Choice

June 22, 2025 – In response to President Donald Trump’s initiation of U.S. armed hostilities against Iran, Center for International Policy Executive Vice President Matt Duss issued the following statement:

“Donald Trump has now secured his legacy as the president who launched yet another war of choice in the Middle East.

“In ordering strikes against Iran at the Israeli government’s urging, he has broken U.S. law, put our servicemembers and diplomats throughout the region and the world in harm’s way, and potentially opened the door to a prolonged, costly conflict. The cause of nuclear nonproliferation was not strengthened by this action, it was dramatically weakened.

“Congress should urgently exercise its Constitutional authority to end the involvement of U.S. armed forces in this unnecessary war and rein in this lawless president.”

Trump Threatens to Drag US Into Another War of Choice

June 17, 2025 – In response to President Donald Trump’s threats of the use of U.S. military force against Iran and other belligerent comments–including posting the message “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!” and discussing the possibility of assassinating Iran’s Supreme Leader on social media – Center for International Policy President and CEO Nancy Okail issued the following statement:

“War fever is once again descending on Washington, DC. As always, it will not be the U.S. foreign policy elites who end up paying the terrible price of another war of choice, but American service members and families along with countless civilians thousands of miles away.

“Israel’s initiation of major hostilities with Iran was an unnecessary and reckless act of war that is rapidly escalating. U.S. entry into and expansion of this conflict would transform it into a regional conflagration that could become yet another quagmire of American military overreach.

“American troops should not be put in harm’s way and US taxpayers should not be on the hook to subsidize an unnecessary and avoidable war, particularly one foisted on us by a client state government acting against peace and stability throughout the Middle East. Across the U.S. political spectrum, voters are overwhelmingly opposed to sacrificing American blood and treasure in Iran. Ordering our armed forces into a costly conflict with Iran would be a betrayal of Trump’s promises to avoid needless wars and a decision which could potentially surpass the U.S. invasion of Iraq as a strategic error.

“We commend lawmakers of both major political parties who have introduced or indicated support for Congressional legislation to make clear that President Trump does not have the Constitutionally required authorization for the use of military force in Iran. This is potentially a once-in-a-generation moment that could impact our country’s trajectory as the American wars in Vietnam and Iraq did. Politicians and other decision-makers should remember the lessons of those fateful conflicts, stand firmly against militarism, and press for a diplomatic resolution to this crisis.”

Region: Middle East and North Africa