BAP & U.S. Out of Africa Network Endorse the Weekend of Action Against Zionist Presence in Africa 

The Black Alliance for Peace Africa Team and the U.S. Out of Africa Network stand in full support of the Coalition for the Elimination of Imperialism in Africa’s Weekend of Action Against Zionist and “Israeli” Presence in Africa, taking place April 24–26, 2026.

We call on all anti-imperialist, Pan-Africanist, pro-Palestine, and peace-loving organizations and individuals to use this weekend to expose and oppose the expanding Zionist and “Israeli” role on the African continent and its links to the broader architecture of U.S.-led imperialism.

The political basis for this action is clear. The Zionist entity is not an isolated state pursuing narrow regional interests. It is a colonial and imperial project that has functioned for decades as a strategic outpost of Western domination. Its genocide against the Palestinian people is inseparable from its role in Africa, where it has armed reactionary forces, deepened surveillance and repression, strengthened neocolonial regimes, extracted resources, and helped consolidate the political and military infrastructure of imperial control.

For African people, this is not an abstract question of foreign policy. It is a matter of sovereignty, self-determination, and liberation.

From military and intelligence cooperation with comprador regimes, to spyware and cyber-surveillance targeting organizers and movements, to the ideological warfare of Christian Zionism and the deepening of sectarian divisions, the Zionist entity has worked hand in glove with U.S. and European imperialism to undermine African liberation. “Israeli” penetration of Africa is one more mechanism through which the U.S./EU/NATO axis of domination seeks to maintain neocolonial control of the continent.

That is why the struggle against Zionism in Africa is inseparable from the struggle to shut down AFRICOM and defeat the broader war on African people.

The forces arming and funding genocide in Palestine are the same forces that destabilize the Sahel, occupy Haiti, surveil and repress African people in the diaspora, and militarize the African continent under the fraudulent banner of “security cooperation.” Their role extends across multiple fronts on the continent, including support for militarized arrangements and proxy dynamics in places like Sudan, the Horn of Africa, including the destabilizing implications of “Israel’s” recognition of  Somaliland, and resource-driven conflicts in the Congo. These interventions have contributed to mass displacement, mass death, and deepening humanitarian crises affecting millions. The underlying logic is consistent with what we are witnessing in Palestine and Lebanon: a system that governs through force, dispossession, and the devaluation of human life. “Israel’s” role in Africa strengthens the same imperial system that treats African land, labor, and life as disposable.

The Weekend of Action Against Zionist and “Israeli” Presence in Africa provides an important opportunity to deepen political consciousness, strengthen solidarity between African and Palestinian liberation struggles, and demand that African states sever all diplomatic, military, and intelligence ties with the Zionist entity.

We encourage organizations and communities to participate in ways that reflect their local conditions and capacities.

The Black Alliance for Peace Africa Team and the U.S. Out of Africa Network affirm that African liberation requires opposition to all forms of imperial domination, including Zionism and its presence on the continent. Palestine and Africa share a common enemy and common objectives: true sovereignty and emancipation from the violence of Western imperialism. Our solidarity must therefore be political, strategic, and uncompromising.

No Compromise. No Retreat.

source: Black Alliance for Peace

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=31929 #africa #anticolonialism #antiimperialism #blackAllianceForPeace #protest #zionism

Shifting to Guerrilla Warfare, Hezbollah Delivers Massive Blows to Zionist Regime

Hezbollah has shifted to waging a guerrilla war against the Israeli occupiers in southern Lebanon, reminding Tel Aviv why it decided to withdraw from the country in the year 2000. Instead of allowing Israel to violate the ceasefire unchecked, the responses have been immediate and painful.

On April 16, the White House declared that a 10-Day temporary ceasefire had been reached between Lebanon and Israel. Only the day prior, both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Defense Minister Israel Katz had delivered speeches claiming that their operations in the south of Lebanon would continue to expand.

This caused immense frustration amongst the Israeli public and sparked backlash in the Hebrew-language media.

Sure enough, when the ceasefire went into effect, the Israelis decided to violate the agreement at least 10 times within an hour, mainly through artillery fire on Lebanese villages in the south. This was followed by two drone strikes targeting vehicles in southern Lebanon, in addition to an attack on an ambulance.

Israeli Arabic spokesperson Avrechay Adraee, who was supposed to have retired, yet has made a recent return, openly released a video message ordering displaced Lebanese civilians not to return south of the Litani River area. The occupation forces even bombed the area where efforts were being made to reconstruct a temporary bridge that had been deliberately destroyed during the war to prevent civilian passage into the south.

For a period of time, it had been feared that a return to the pre-March “ceasefire” in Lebanon had just been secured in favor of Tel Aviv once again, where the Israelis carried out frequent operations without any response. All of this as Israel was now occupying more territory illegally, as the Lebanese government negotiated for a normalisation agreement.

Hezbollah Secretary General, Sheikh Naim Qassem, then delivered an address, during which he made it clear that the Lebanese leadership was behaving unacceptably and betraying their duties through their normalizing efforts. He also insisted that the previous status quo would not return and that instead his organization would respond to the Israeli violations, fighting until the occupation of South Lebanon was totally abandoned.

Little more than a day into the ceasefire agreement, despite no announcements of retaliatory actions from Hezbollah, a series of “security incidents” were announced by the Israeli Army. The first few were said to have been tanks running over previously planted explosives, making it appear as if the incidents had occurred by accident.

However, three major “security events” occurred, inflicting at least 37 Israeli casualties, 2 of whom the Israelis admitted were deaths. At this point, it had become clear that something else was going on.

Then came an official Hezbollah statement, claiming responsibility for a single incident, where 4 Israeli Merkava tanks were said to have been completely destroyed by pre-planted IEDs, detonating them on an enemy convoy, after Lebanese fighters had been monitoring their movements. After this, the Israeli military decided not to publish any details on the IED attacks.

Yet, Israeli media commentary explained that soldiers, stationed in what is being called a “buffer zone” in southern Lebanon, have reported their frustrations over Hezbollah drones monitoring their movements.

In other words, Hezbollah has cells throughout the territory that Israel claims to be in control of, who do reconnaissance, then calculate the movements of Israeli forces, anticipating their common routes, before planting IEDs that they then detonate on convoys.

Not only is this a transition to asymmetric warfare, which the Iraqi resistance became well known for when fighting an insurgency against US occupying forces, but it is also beginning to usher in flashbacks to the days of the occupation in South Lebanon.

As an example, in 1997, Hezbollah had managed to pull off what was known as the Ansariyeh Ambush, killing 12 Israeli special forces soldiers from its elite Shayetet 13 Unit. This had been carried out through reconnaissance and intelligence work, to anticipate the arrival of the Israeli unit, a total disaster for the Israeli military at the time.

Today, Hezbollah has advanced from what it was in the 1990s and possesses much more sophisticated and powerful weapons. What it means for Israeli forces on the ground is that they must constantly keep moving, as they remain under surveillance and could be subjected to an ambush at any time.

When Israeli tanks travel down roads they have taken a number of times previously, they could suddenly face a series of EIDs. The more these attacks happen, the more terrified the Israeli conscript army’s soldiers become, fearing the possibility that they could at any moment lose an arm, leg, or their life.

Hezbollah, having shifted to such tactics, could also seek to capture Israeli soldiers at one point, something that would represent a catastrophe for the Israeli political leadership.

If such a capture operation succeeds, then Netanyahu’s campaign of triumph will be suddenly transformed into yet another costly operation that will inevitably accelerate on the ground, while eventually forcing him to commit to a prisoner exchange.

All along, this was precisely the scenario that Hezbollah had hoped for, to rope the Israelis in on the ground, in order to eventually inflict enormous losses on them and fulfill the pledge of its former leader, Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah that the south will become a graveyard for the invading army and that they will eventually have no tanks left.

Robert Inlakesh
Source: Palestine Chronicle

Nobody can "own" this land. We are on it only as part of a greater whole, as part of life and nature itself.

Don't be limited by the existent. Imagine a better world. A world where there is no private property of the commons, a world without borders, a world without hierarchies.

.
.
.

#anarchism #anarchy #anticapitalism #anticolonialism #ecology #art

Hezbollah Communique

While the “israeli” occupation forces were committing a new violation, added to their series of blatant and documented violations over the 3 days since the ceasefire went into effect, and while a convoy consisting of 8 armored vehicles was moving on Sunday 19-04-2026 from the town of Taybeh towards the old Al-Sal’a site in the town of Deir Seryan, it was targeted by the detonation of explosive devices that the Islamic Resistance fighters had planted in advance at the location. The explosion, which occurred in two stages between 15:40 and 16:40, led to the destruction of 4 “Merkava” tanks, and flames were seen erupting from them before the enemy proceeded, at 18:00, to evacuate them from the scene of the event.

Islamic Resistance in Iraq – Guardians of Blood Brigades Communique

Dismantle dominator ecology.

.
.
.

#Revolution #anarchism #ecology #anticolonialism #anticapitalism #Art

"If I die,
You must live
to tell my story"

The beginning of a poem from the legendary Refaat Alareer.

#fucktrump #democracy #nokings #abolishice #anticapitalism #humanrights #antifascist #derechoshumanos #freepalestine #8m #antifascismo #antifascism #boycottisrael #feminismo #stopgenocide #savegaza #noalaguerra #anticolonialism #antiimperialism

HAN ARRANCADO 20.000 FLORES EN GAZA, PERO NO LOGRARÁN DETENER LA PRIMAVERA.

Adaptación de un poema de Pablo Neruda.

#fucktrump #democracy #nokings #abolishice #anticapitalism #humanrights #antifascist #derechoshumanos #freepalestine #8m #antifascismo #antifascism #boycottisrael #feminismo #stopgenocide #savegaza #noalaguerra #anticolonialism #antiimperialism

Ibrahim Traoré: We Do Not Want a Democracy That Kills

The recent interview by Ibrahim Traoré, president of Burkina Faso, has caused widespread debate after going viral across global media platforms. Headlines, particularly from mainstream outlets, quickly framed his remarks as a wholesale rejection of democracy, some even suggesting an intention to entrench permanent military rule.

But this interpretation, while sensational, is deeply misleading. It strips Traoré’s statements of their political, historical, and material context that is essential to understanding both his words and the broader trajectory of the Sahel region.

Democracy, but which democracy?

The remarks emerged not from an abstract discussion, but from a grounded conversation about security, sovereignty, and survival. For nearly half an hour, the interview focused on the ongoing insurgencies in the Sahel, particularly the threat posed by jihadist groups linked to al Qaeda and the broader crisis of state stability.

It was only when Traoré was asked about elections, specifically whether a newly adopted revolutionary charter could allow him to extend his rule, that the issue of democracy arose.

His response; elections, he argued, were not the immediate concern. Burkina Faso faces existential challenges, and the priority is confronting those threats and rebuilding the state. It is within this framework that his now widely quoted statement, “people need to forget about democracy” must be understood.

Saying, “we must tell the truth. Democracy is not for us, this kind of democracy that these people show us. That’s not what interests us.”

When Traoré states that “democracy is not for us,” he is not speaking in a vacuum. His critique is directed at a specific model; Western liberal democracy was historically exported to Africa through intervention, coercion, and conditional aid.

He gave the example of Libya, whose destruction following the NATO intervention in Libya remains as an example across the continent. For Traoré, Libya represents a warning; a state that, whatever its internal contradictions, was dismantled in the name of “democracy”, leaving behind chaos, displacement, and humanitarian catastrophe.

“We came to completely change the way things work, but above all to change mindsets so that people open their eyes, see the world, and so that we never fall into that trap again. People are here; democracy is slavery. There is no democracy in this world. They pretend there is. They do as they please. And to establish it, they kill. Democracy that kills. We do not want democracy. May God spare us from that kind of democracy. We are focused on our conquest, on our rebuilding, and on the revolution. It is the only path to development.”

Thus, when he says “democracy kills,” it can also be interpreted that he is condemning a geopolitical process whereby “democracy” becomes a justification for regime change, foreign domination, and violent restructuring. These narratives have been used recently in both Venezuela and Iran, where actions against leaders are framed as justified interventions.

Traoré’s position must be situated within the crisis of sovereignty in the Sahel. Countries like Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso have experienced repeated cycles of instability, foreign military presence, and economic dependency.

The rise of military-led governments in the region, notwithstanding the challenges, has been tied to a popular rejection of neocolonial arrangements, particularly those associated with former colonial powers like France.

This is the political terrain from which Traoré speaks. His insistence on “revolution,” “rebuilding,” and “changing mindsets” reflects an attempt, however contested, to break from a model of governance seen as externally imposed and internally hollow.

Misreading the Sahel

Many liberal democratic commentators have approached Traoré’s statements through a narrow, textbook definition of democracy. This framework struggles to account for situations where the state itself is under threat, where territorial control is fragmented, and where external actors play a decisive role in shaping internal politics.

The result is a recurring pattern of misinterpretation, complex political statements are reduced to authoritarian impulses, and debates about sovereignty are dismissed as anti-democratic rhetoric.

Interestingly, similar questions arise elsewhere. In Ukraine, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has postponed elections, arguing that national survival in the face of war must take precedence.

While the contexts are vastly different, the underlying principle is comparable, the sequencing of political processes in times of crisis. But global reactions to these decisions are far from consistent.

None of this is to suggest that the Sahel’s current trajectory is without challenges. The region faces immense challenges; political, economic, and social.  However, reducing Traoré’s position to a rejection of democracy misses the point entirely. What is at stake is not simply “democracy versus authoritarianism”, but a deeper struggle over sovereignty, development, and the right of societies to define their own political paths.

Whether one agrees with his conclusions or not, the historical realities shaping the Sahel must be taken into context.

Nicholas Mwangi