Reflections from news and commentary of the day
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Friday, February 6, 2026
Thursday, February 5, 2026
Wednesday, February 4, 2026
Fr. Bob's Reflection for the Fourth Sunday in Ordinary Time
The Gospel reading today can feel strange, and even unsettling. In the Beatitudes, Jesus seems to turn the world upside down. Instead of praising the successful, the assertive, or the powerful, He tells us that the Kingdom of God is set up to reward the poor, the sad, the meek and the hungry.
Before we hear those words, St. Paul reminds the Corinthians of a hard truth about themselves. Most of them were not wealthy. They were not highly educated. They did not hold positions of power or influence.
And yet, Paul tells them plainly: God chose you, on purpose. Those whom society overlooked were the very ones God called His own.
God wants each of us to know that we matter deeply to Him. Abraham Lincoln once joked, “God must love the common man – He made so many of them.”
Joseph Stalin later mocked the Church by asking, “How many divisions does the Pope have?” By worldly standards, the Church looked weak compared to Stalin’s power and cruelty. Yet today, the Church endures, while Stalin’s empire has long since collapsed.
Time and time again, God works through what the world deems weak, in order to shame the strong. As Saint Paul reminds us, “God chose the weak to confound the strong. God chose the foolish to confound the wise.”
Who else but God could use someone like Mother Teresa – a small, unassuming woman working quietly among the dying in India. She moved nations and governments toward compassion.
To those outside the faith, Christianity often doesn’t make any sense. We believe things that seem impossible. We may even appear foolish in the eyes of the world.
We believe in one God in three Persons. We believe that God was born in a stable, died on a cross and rose from the dead. We believe that Christ comes to us under the humble appearances of bread and wine. We believe in loving God above all else and loving our neighbor as ourselves – even neighbors we don’t like or barely know.
No wonder the world sometimes looks at us as if we’re crazy. But maybe being Christian means being willing to look foolish.
Have you ever been to a rodeo? The cowboys are the stars of the show – strong, skilled and daring. The crowd cheers them on. But when a cowboy is thrown from his horse and lies helpless in the arena, it’s the clowns who rush in. With silly costumes and funny antics, they distract the animal while others pull the fallen rider to safety.
The crowd laughs, but in truth, the clowns are the real heroes. When danger strikes, when someone is vulnerable and in need of mercy, it takes courage and compassion to step in. When someone is down, send in the clowns.
They’re all around us: ordinary Christians trying to live the Gospel, day by day. Not seeking applause or recognition – only striving to do God’s will.
Today’s Gospel invites us to ask an honest question: What qualifies us to be called “blessed” by Jesus? Are we merciful? Are we peacemakers? Are we poor in spirit?
There are no easy answers. It might be simpler to ignore the challenge altogether. But perhaps there’s an unspoken Beatitude for us as well: “Blessed are those who struggle with the issues; who suffer criticism for acting on behalf of the Gospel.”
If Christ were to look at you today and say, “Blessed are you because…”
How would you finish that sentence?
Yours in Christ,
Fr. Robert Warren, S.A.
Spiritual Director
Tuesday, February 3, 2026
Monday, February 2, 2026
[Salon] ISIS unleashed - ArabDigest.org Guest Post by Sirwan Kajjo
ISIS unleashed
Summary: with the US choosing to throw in its lot with the al-Sharaa regime, it was only a matter of time before Syria’s Kurds and their fighting arm the SDF were defeated. Last month's rout of Kurdish forces in Northeast Syria has allowed the escape of ISIS fighters and the release of their families into a chaotic situation that could see a resurgence of terrorism in the region and beyond.
Today’s newsletter focusses on comments about the Islamic State made by the Kurdish-American journalist Sirwan Kajjo in our 28 January podcast. You can find the podcast here.
The SDF was the crucial element in the battle to defeat ISIS and it was heavily backed by the United States over several years. What happened to the US support for the SDF?
Since the arrival of al-Sharaa in Damascus, the United States decided to support this new government. It was a meeting back in May 2025 between President Donald Trump and the interim president of Syria, Ahmad al-Sharaa in Riyadh, that basically changed things for everyone in Syria, including the SDF. And later on, in November of the same year, al-Sharaa came to the White House, had another meeting, and then joined the anti-ISIS global coalition. The United States decided that in Syria there's only one group that we can work with. While they continued their partnership with the SDF, they made it very clear that in the future, if there is any way for the SDF to continue the partnership, it would have to be through their integration into the Syrian government and the Syrian state writ large. But recently, after the outbreak of the violence in Aleppo and later on in eastern Syria, the United States made it even more clear that it's over for the SDF. If they do want to join the Syrian military and the Syrian state, then they should do so by joining individually, not as an intact force which has for a long time been a major demand for the Kurdish-led forces and also a major point of contention between Damascus and the SDF. So it's become clear that the United States no longer supports the SDF at least in the way it did in the past decade and in the framework of the fight against ISIS.
Following the Syrian Army offensive, an ISIS flag was raised at the entrance to Al-Karamah, Al-Raqqah, Syria. The video is not from the ISIS period as the wheat monument (circled in blue) was built after the town was liberated in 2017.
It would appear to me that the Syrian Kurds have been betrayed. Is that how you see it?
Well, I should say the United States, since the beginning of this partnership with the SDF a decade ago, has been very consistent in terms of defining the relationship with the Kurdish-led forces, that this was a transactional partnership. This was not meant to be a strategic partnership in the context of giving an opportunity for the Kurds to establish a lasting autonomy in the Northeast. And this was reiterated recently by US Special Envoy to Syria, Tom Barrack, that it was meant to be in the context of fighting ISIS and he basically said that that partnership had expired. And so many Kurds would like to call this a betrayal, but from a US perspective, everything was clear from the get go, from the minute the United States, under the Obama administration, decided to support the Kurds directly in the fight against ISIS. It's remained in that context, even though that partnership has allowed the Kurds to expand territory and build institutions that function in a de facto capacity in the Northeast and so, yes, from a Kurdish perspective, Kurds have been a loyal partner to the United States and other Western powers and in return they expected more assertive support in the post-Assad era.
Washington is the key here. And Tom Barrack made it very clear: ‘this is it, our support is finished. We're walking away from you. We're supporting al-Sharaa’.
That's basically what happened. The United States still maintains about 1000 troops in the region, although some of them have been moved around given the changing dynamics in the Northeast. So, there is still a US military presence. I don't know how much effect that will have given that the Syrian government forces have taken over much of the territory that was controlled by the SDF. And so, yes, if there is any support for the Kurds in the future it will probably be in terms of forcing them to continue this integration process. The United States remains determined that any integration of the SDF into the Syrian state will have to be by terms dictated by Damascus.
There are people listening to the podcast thinking, well, ISIS was defeated. It's no longer a threat. But Sirwan, you and I both know that's far from the case. What has happened with the prisons and the camps holding ISIS fighters and their families now that the SDF has been defeated?
They were immediately taken over by the al-Sharaa forces, including the al-Hol camp which is the largest camp, holding thousands of families of ISIS militants including many foreign citizens. Now, it's a chaotic situation in certain prisons, like in al-Shaddadi, which is located in the southern part of Hasakah province where a prison break happened and many ISIS prisoners were able to escape. Some of them were captured by the Syrian forces, others remain at large, so those would eventually pose a threat and not only to the Kurdish region but also to areas under al-Sharaa’s control. And you also have these other thousands of families, including women and children, that have been held in these camps, most of them still hold an ISIS extremist ideology, so they do pose a direct threat to the security of the region and to regional security as a whole. Some of them have been moved to Iraq. The US said that the Iraqis have initiated a process of taking as much as 7000 individuals from al-Hol camp. Now, that's major but we also hear some opposition voices within Iraq basically saying it's not a good idea even though Iraqi officials say this is a temporary arrangement until there is a process where these individuals are repatriated to their home countries. All in all, it's a very chaotic situation because, yes, ISIS was defeated territorially. Militarily, it no longer held territory but they've been very active since 2019. And in the Syrian desert known as al-Badia, we have seen an uptick of ISIS activity in those areas, especially after the collapse of the Assad regime. I'm not trying to be hyperbolic here but the threat is very real given that the Syrian government has shown it doesn't have the capacity to counter ISIS, not least because some members of the Syrian military are former ISIS or former al-Qaeda, and some still hold that extremist ideology. So, it's dangerous in that sense as well. We will see how the US and its Western allies will deal with this situation but it's certainly one of great significance in the long run.
Yes, and you mentioned that there are former ISIS fighters - who may not be former, when I think about it - in the Syrian armed forces. I'm also told that in the security services, there are ISIS sympathisers, fellow travellers, whatever you want to call them. So there is the threat, of course, to Iraq, to Syria, but also beyond those borders. I'm thinking about Europe. ISIS lost the caliphate but the ideology has not been defeated, has it?
No, it has only seen a resurgence in the past few months, for these reasons that you mentioned. The official ISIS narrative opposes the al-Sharaa government. They think it's an apostate regime, a puppet regime that is loyal to the West and many within ISIS, as well as people who sympathise with the group, still believe this is a chance to try to have a resurgence in many parts of Syria. And we see that online. I saw some reporting on camps holding ISIS families celebrating the fact that their brothers are coming for us, things like that. So, there is a sense of victory among people including those who are still in Kurdish custody. This is definitely something that Western officials should consider if they are concerned about their own security. In Europe in particular, given that many of these individuals do come from European backgrounds.
Sunday, February 1, 2026
Pope Leo XIV urges youth politics rooted in peace
Pope Leo XIV urges youth politics rooted in peace
The Pope urged young leaders to take courage, reminding them that their efforts toward fraternity are shared across cultures and faiths.
Pope Leo XIV addressed young political leaders from around the world at the “One Humanity, One Planet” conference on Saturday, urging them to ground political life in peace, justice, and care for the most vulnerable.
Speaking in the Clementine Hall, the Pope praised the participants’ commitment to the common good and highlighted their diversity as a strength rather than a challenge. Their approach, he said, embodies synodality — a way of proceeding marked by listening, shared discernment, and respect for complexity.
“Your way of proceeding is not incidental,” he told them. “It serves as the essential lens through which you observe the world.” In a global climate shaped by polarization and conflict, the Pope framed synodality as a practical tool for political engagement, one capable of seeking truth without fear and collaboration without erasing differences.
The address repeatedly returned to peace, which the Pope described as a gift received, a covenant shared, and a promise yet to be fulfilled. Peacebuilding, he insisted, does not begin on the world stage but in daily settings: universities, workplaces, civic groups, and political parties. Without harmony in those spaces, global peace remains an abstraction.
Saturday, January 31, 2026
Iran Says It Will Not Negotiate With US on Ballistic Missiles
Subscribe to read
https://www.ft.com/content/44c4094b-09a6-47ce-a28a-81c2f18f1cb9
Friday, January 30, 2026
Thursday, January 29, 2026
[Salon] Welcome to the Jungle: Trump’s Board of Peace goes global - ArabDigest.org Guest Post
Welcome to the Jungle: Trump’s Board of Peace goes global
Summary: the US president’s Board of Peace has less to do with peace, in Gaza or elsewhere, and more to do with enforcing a new, transactional global order. Welcome to the America-First Trumpian world.
We thank Hugh Lovatt for today’s newsletter, an edited version of his article first published on the European Council on Foreign Relation’s website. Hugh is a senior policy fellow with the Middle East and North Africa programme at the ECFR and chairman of the Brussels-based European Middle East Project (EuMEP). @h_lovatt on X
President Donald Trump’s Board of Peace (BoP) is not much of a peace mechanism. Look no further than its logo—a US-first western hemisphere flanked by rip-off UN olive branches burnished in Trumpian gold—to see the BoP for what it really is: a top-down project to assert Trump’s control over global affairs.
At its Davos inauguration, the US president delivered a rambling speech to the 19 countries present, hailing them “the most powerful people in the world.” Belarus’s autocratic leader and an early BoP signatory, Aleksandr Lukashenko, was unable to attend due to European sanctions over human rights abuses. Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, was also absent, facing an International Criminal Court arrest warrant over alleged war crimes in Gaza.
The Guardian cartoon on Donald Trump and his ‘Board of Peace’
After Trump’s “top leaders” were presented, Jared Kushner unveiled a $30bn “Trump development plan” for “New Gaza.” Complete with a skyscraper-crammed coastline, the vision would see the wholesale bulldozing of the Strip to create a newly engineered society and economy under BoP supervision. Judging by the Arabic spelling mistakes in the PowerPoint presentation, no Palestinians were consulted on their “prosperous future”.
What began with a mandate to implement Washington’s Gaza ceasefire plan, as enshrined in UN Security Council resolution 2803, has morphed into a personal vehicle for a Trumpist world order. The BoP’s charter omits any reference to Gaza and echoes Trump’s criticism of the UN, calling for “courage to depart from…institutions that have often failed” by establishing “a more nimble and effective international peace-building body”.
European leaders broadly backed resolution 2803, but have avoided the BoP (bar Hungary and Bulgaria), expressing concerns over its mandate, legality and challenge to the UN. They are right to stay away: the board’s purpose, governance and financial entanglements risk legitimising a system in which loyalty and money outweigh international law. Joining such a body would dilute Europe’s voice and erode what remains of the multilateral rules-based system.
How the Board of Peace works
BoP can be thought of as a Trump-owned US company, with the US president as permanent chairman and majority shareholder. According to the board’s charter, all decisions and power emanate from Trump as he selects and presides over a subordinate governing board of member states.
Board members will serve three-year terms, renewable at the chairman’s discretion. Out of the 50-60 countries invited, 21 have so far joined. Many no doubt value the opportunity of a closer, more transactional US relationship. Others share Trump’s hostility to the UN-sponsored liberal order. Together, they will vote on the BoP’s budget, international agreements and “peace-building initiatives”, with only a simple majority—and the approval of the chairman—required.
While the charter describes funding as voluntary, Trump’s track record suggests he will press members to “pay up”, with big payers likely to have the most influence. (Those paying $1bn will be given permanent membership.)
Below the board is an Executive Board and CEO appointed by Trump. This is where the power lies, tasked with day-to-day running of the board and the managing of funds. It also has the mandate to set the agenda for each board meeting, further reducing member-state autonomy.
Among its members are senior US officials and businessmen: Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and founder of Affinity Partners, an American investment firm with close ties to Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds; Marc Rowan, CEO of asset management firm Apollo Global Management which invests in private equity and real estate; and Ajay Banga, another business executive and president of the World Bank Group.
The mixture of private investment funds with American power and geopolitics, combined with likely opaque decision-making and financial expenditure is a recipe for kleptocratic oligarchy. Already, the Guardian is reporting that Albania joined the BoP just as Kushner gained approval from the Albanian government to build a $1.4bn luxury resort on Sazan Island. Meanwhile, Bulgaria’s outgoing prime minister, Rosen Zhelyazkov, reportedly joined the BoP at the urging of a Bulgarian oligarch sanctioned by the US for corruption.
What this means for Gaza
The BoP has several subsidiary entities focused on Gaza, which Trump has “exclusive authority to create, modify, or dissolve.” First is the Gaza Executive Board to oversee the implementation of Trump’s 20-point plan, including a Palestinian National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG). Composed of 15 members led by Ali Shaath and charged with Gaza’s day-to-day management, the NCAG sits at the bottom of the hierarchy with little influence or agency. So far, Israel has not even let members into the war-torn Strip.
As per the 20-point plan, the BoP will also establish a Gaza International Stabilisation Force (ISF) led by American General Jasper Jeffers, though it is not clear who in the BoP he will report to. Questions similarly remain over the scope of the ISF’s mandate to enforce the disarmament of Hamas and other armed groups in Gaza.
In addition, Trump has appointed two White House advisors, Aryeh Lightstone and Josh Gruenbaum, as senior BoP advisors. They will be enforcers of Trump’s writ. Lightstone’s background should be cause for concern: he was an advisor to former US ambassador David Friedman and is a “staunch defender” of Israel’s settlement project. He was also reportedly involved in establishing the disastrous Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (which caused the deaths of numerous Gazan aid seekers) and is now working through the Gaza Civil-Military Coordination Center (CMCC) to develop US plans for post-conflict Gaza.
Having long asserted that the US will “take over” and “own” Gaza, Trump now wields near-total control of the Strip through the BoP. The involvement of private investment funds, many with real-estate interests, reinforces his vision of a US-backed, corporate-built “Gazan Riviera” as showcased in Davos.
A week earlier, the CMCC had already moved in this direction, reportedly presenting plans for a “Gaza First Planned Community” designed to house up to 25,000 Palestinians in a residential neighbourhood built on the ruins of Rafah. The scheme appears to revive Israeli plans for “humanitarian bubbles” of “Hamas-free” areas secured by foreign contractors, with residents subject to relentless external vetting and biometric checks. Such an approach would deepen Gaza’s territorial and societal fragmentation and do little to counter Hamas, which remains deeply imbedded in Palestinian politics and society.
The main checks on Trump’s “Gazan Riveria” vision will be Hamas’s continued control on the ground but also the extent to which Arab members of the BoP can push back internally and condition their funding on a more holistic reconstruction, predicated on Israel’s full withdrawal from Gaza and the return of the Palestinian Authority.
What Europeans can do
Outside the Trump-controlled BoP, European states have significant influence. They should engage directly with the Gaza Executive Committee which is more in line with UNSCR 2803 and where there is strong European representation through Nikolay Mladenov, Tony Blair and Sigrid Kaag. Arab partners such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia who are represented on both the Board and Gaza Executive Committee are also indispensable partners in shaping BoP actions from the inside.
Being relevant on Gaza does not mean toeing the US-line. It means making commitments to empower the Palestinian National Committee as it comes under tremendous pressure to follow the US and potentially sign murky real estate development deals. Such deals might generate profits for the BoP’s investment fund, but will do little to support ordinary Gazans who want to rebuild their homes and communities in safety and unlock economic re-development (which requires an end to Israel’s decades-long siege of the Strip).
European states should also look for ways to support the ISF once concerns over its mandate and command and control structure are addressed. This could include funding, technical support, and even limited troop contributions (as they have done in other peacekeeping missions). By being proactive, Europeans would strengthen their hand with Trump, who remains the best hope of pressing Netanyahu into a full withdrawal from Gaza and broader Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations.
European countries are stronger when they hold the line together in defence of European interests. On Greenland, for example, their collective pushback forced Trump to climb down—at least for the time being. With this in mind, Europeans should engage with the BoP on specific issues from the outside and work with partners on the inside. The goal should be to shape BoP engagement in line with Europe’s vision for peace in Ukraine, Israel-Palestine and the broader Middle East where renewed US strikes on Iran risk renewed regional convulsion.
But Europeans should also be aware of the dangers of short-term transactionalism. By buying into the BoP, they would risk legitimising a Trumpian order centred on the president and his reversion to 19th century geopolitics where might is right and territorial conquest by great powers is legitimate. With the rules-based order already in trouble before Trump’s return to the White House, Europe will have to look to itself to secure its interests.
How tradition carries the gift of love across generations
How tradition carries the gift of love across generations
facebook
twitter-x
email
In an age dominated by individualism, tradition draws our focus outward, grounding us in a shared history and collective responsibility.
The word “tradition” originates from the Latin tradere, meaning “to hand over” or “to deliver.” It evokes the image of passing on something precious — knowledge, culture, and faith — from one generation to the next. Tradition is a collection of customs or rituals. But it is also a profound act of communion that binds us to the past, roots us in the present, and prepares us for the future.
Tradition reminds us that the world we inhabit was not built in isolation. It was crafted by countless hands and minds, many of whom we will never know. The homes we live in, the roads we walk, and the prayers we say are gifts we’ve received from others — evidence of their lives, hopes, and wisdom. This heritage is not ours to hoard or disregard; it is a shared responsibility.
As the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, “Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical, or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed” (CCC 83).
This underscores tradition’s dynamic nature: while its core truths remain unchanging, its expressions adapt to meet the needs of every age.
"Procession in Naples" (Detail) by Franz Richard Unterberger, c. 1878
Procession in Naples (Detail) by Franz Richard Unterberger, c. 1878
Wikimedia Commons | Public Domain
Fostering a shared life
More than continuity, tradition fosters conviviality — a shared life that transcends the boundaries of the living and the dead. When we engage with tradition, we participate in a dialogue with those who came before us and those who will follow. We experience this vividly in the Eucharist, where the faithful across time and space are united in Christ. Similarly, cultural and familial traditions remind us that our lives are not isolated but are part of a much larger story.
This perspective reshapes how we understand community. In an age dominated by individualism, tradition draws our focus outward, grounding us in a shared history and collective responsibility. It invites us to care for what we’ve been given—not as museum keepers preserving relics, but as stewards who nurture and enhance these gifts for future generations. G.K. Chesterton captured this well, describing tradition as “the democracy of the dead,” a way of giving a voice to our ancestors in shaping the present.
Procession through the streets of contemporary Naples
A procession through the streets of contemporary Naples
Imma Gambardella | Shutterstock
Preserving tradition doesn’t mean resisting change. It means transforming what we’ve inherited with care and integrity, ensuring its values endure while addressing contemporary realities. In this sense, tradition is both a gift and a task. It demands humility to recognize that we are part of something greater than ourselves and courage to discern when transformation is necessary.
Tradition is a living chain that connects us to those who came before us, to one another, to those who will come after us and, ultimately, to God. It reminds us that we belong to a community far larger than ourselves — one that spans generations and points toward eternity. By embracing, preserving, and enriching what we’ve received, we affirm that the world is not ours alone; it is a gift meant to be shared and handed on.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)