Putin’s Illegal Conquests Wouldn’t Be the First the White House Has Endorsed

New Lines, September 8, 2025: Zunes provides an extensive analysis of how the U.S. position citing the illegality of Russia’s annexation of conquered Ukrainian territory has been compromised by U.S. recognition of illegal Israeli and Moroccan annexations of conquered territories, and thus Trump’s apparent willingness to acquiesce to Russian aggression would not constitute a major break in U.S. policy: Putin’s Wouldn’t Be the First Illegal Conquests the White House Has Endorsed…

Hamas’ control of Gaza brought on by US policy

Zunes’s letter to the editor in the Santa Cruz Sentinel, Sept. 4, 2025
Hamas’ control of Gaza brought on by US policy

Many thanks to Tim McGirk (Guest Commentary, Aug. 21) for his open letter to Rep. Jimmy Panetta, who continues to support Trump’s policy of facilitating Israel’s war and famine on the civilian population of Gaza. The former Time magazine Jerusalem bureau chief correctly noted a number of Panetta’s dishonest appraisals of the situation.
     Unfortunately, McGirk’s review of Gaza’s history may have led some readers to believe the people of that territory elected Hamas to rule them. While this extremist Islamist party did win a plurality in the 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections, they shared governance with the moderate Fatah party until 2007, when the Bush administration pushed Fatah to forcibly remove Hamas from government.
     In a brief civil war, Hamas was defeated in the West Bank, but was able to violently seize power in Gaza, where they have tragically remained in power ever since. If the Bush administration hadn’t kept supporting Israel’s occupation and settlements (thereby weakening the moderates) and hadn’t meddled in internal Palestinian politics, Hamas’s control of Gaza and the subsequent horrors would never have occurred.
—Stephen Zunes, Santa Cruz

Democratic Leadership Still Hasn’t Caught Up to the Party’s Base on Gaza

In These Times, September 4, 2025, by Stephen Zunes
Nearly two years in to the U.S.-backed genocide in Gaza, there are clear signals the Democratic Party’s
base is moving far away from supporting the Israeli government and its war machine. And while party leadership is beginning to show some hopeful signs it might be starting to listen to constituents’ changing attitudes on the issue of Israel and Palestine…

A Two-Year Road to Genocide. Israel-Palestine Conflict. Its Past, Present, and Future.

Wyoming Star, August 13, 2025, ByJoe Yans, quoting Stephen Zunes
Stephen Zunes: … This is not a religious conflict, first and foremost, and that hasn’t stopped extremists, both Jewish and Muslim, from trying to turn it into one. Not to mention some Christian fundamentalists in the West. But in these two competing nationalisms, Israel ultimately won. And while Zionism for Jews was a national liberation movement for historically oppressed people, like many of the nationalist movements arising during the late 19th Century, it felt more like a colonial settler enterprise, like the French in Algeria or the British in Rhodesia… And because of the support from the West and their own technological prowess, the Israelis have had the upper hand, not only claiming 78% of historic Palestine in the First War, which led to the fleeing and expulsion of the majority of the indigenous Palestinian population, but, since 1967, they’ve had effective control of the rest of Palestine, giving the Palestinian Authority these tiny urban enclaves, surrounded by Israeli settlements…

Armenia-Azerbaijan Peace Tied to the Abraham Accords?!

The Wyoming Star, Aug. 8, 2025, piece by Joe Yans, quotes Zunes:
But why should a bilateral peace process between two non-Middle Eastern states be co-opted into a framework that was originally designed (at least nominally) to normalize relations between Israel and select Arab states? According to Dr. Stephen Zunes, a professor of politics and international studies at the University of San Francisco and Middle Eastern studies program coordinator, this push makes no sense from a foreign policy standpoint.
    “This has nothing to do with the Abraham Accords. Both Armenia and Azerbaijan already recognize Israel. There is already extensive cooperation between Azerbaijan and Israel in regard to the military, oil, trade, and technology.”
    “It is also worth mentioning that the three Arab monarchies that have signed did not make a ‘peace agreement’ with Israel since, except for a small contingent sent by Morocco partway through the October 1973 conflict between Israel and a coalition of Arab states led by Egypt and Syria, none of the signatory countries had ever been at war with Israel. None of these countries were threatening Israel, none of them had the capacity to threaten Israel, and Israel’s distance from these countries ranges from 750 to 3,200 miles,” Dr. Zunes explained in a comment to Wyoming Star.
    Instead, the Accords offered diplomatic cover for Israel’s continued occupation of Palestinian territories, without demanding any meaningful concessions in return.
    Dr. Zunes echoes this statement: “The Abraham Accords perpetuate the myth that the key to Middle East peace is in having autocratic Arab states recognize Israel, not in Israel ending its occupation. There is no mention of the Israeli occupation in the Accords, much less a call for it to end. Indeed, by weakening Arab leverage on Israel by recognizing that government prior to Israel recognizing Palestine, it eases pressure on Israel to make the necessary compromises for peace. For over two decades, every Arab country has been on record supporting normalization of relations with Israel in return for Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories and the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. The Abraham Accords insist that Arab recognition be unilateral in an apparent effort to remove this leverage from the Palestinian side, one of the few routes remaining to the millions of Palestinians suffering under the Israeli occupation and colonization of the West Bank.”

It’s Not About the Bomb

The Progressive, August 5, 2025, by Stephen Zunes [source & audio]
It would be a mistake to view the U.S. bombing of Iran and support for Israel’s twelve-day war on that country as simply about preventing the Iranian regime from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Ultimately, it’s about punishing Iran for its refusal to acquiesce to the hegemonic aspirations of the United States and its Middle Eastern allies. There was a time when Iran was the most important ally of the United States in the region. In 1953, the CIA facilitated the overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected government following its nationalization of the country’s oil resources…

Video: Israelis continue to say no to war.

Zunes Facebook Video July 17, 2025: Meanwhile, the Trump administration and the leadership of both parties in Congress continue to say yes. As the U.S./Israeli-imposed famine on Gaza increases, I keep getting solicitations to contribute to Democratic candidates who insist on arming and funding Israel’s siege, bombing, and occupation. Meanwhile, the Democratic leadership refuses to support their party’s nominee for New York City mayor who opposes such war crimes…

Video: What are the chances of a Gaza ceasefire deal soon?

CNA (Channel News Asia) July 6, 2025 (9 mins.)
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said July 6 he hoped an upcoming meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump could “help advance” a Gaza ceasefire deal, after sending negotiators to Doha for indirect talks with Hamas. Stephen Zunes, professor of politics and director of the Middle Eastern studies program at the University of San Francisco, discusses on CNA’s Asia First why he believes a lasting ceasefire in Gaza remains unlikely.
CNA.Asia & CNA YouTube channel