In the 45 years since launching the Palestine Human Rights Campaign, I have witnessed more tragic wars than I can care to count and defended Palestinians against more heinous crimes than I can bear to list. During all this time, we have had American supporters who have embraced the cause of Palestinian rights and supported our calls for justice. But never have I witnessed the sea of change in opinion and its impact on the policy debate that is now taking place.
Five decades ago, there were a handful of members of Congress who would courageously speak out and there were some Christian churches, peace and civil rights leaders, and small progressive Jewish groups who would endorse our appeals for Palestinian human rights. For their efforts, they, like us, were subjected to intimidation seeking to silence their voices or punish their advocacy.
Change began with the first Intifada, as national television broadcast Israeli troops firing on stone-throwing Palestinian youth, and the horror that greeted then defence minister Yitzhak Rabin’s orders to his soldiers to break the bones of the young protesters. Building on this shifting opinion, the prominent political activist Jesse Jackson elevated the issue of justice for Palestinians during his 1988 presidential campaign. That year, we succeeded in having the issue debated, for the first time, at the Democratic convention. I will never forget the feeling I had as I mounted the convention podium to introduce our platform plank calling for Palestinian rights.
After the Madrid Peace Conference of 1991 and the Oslo Accords between 1993 and 1995, there was another observable shift in US opinion. On closer examination, however, the change was largely on the Democratic side. Then president Bill Clinton and the Democrats backed the “Oslo process", while Republicans, whose party had increasingly come under the influence of the right-wing Christians and Reagan-era neo-conservatives, embraced a hardline pro-Israel stance. Since then, this partisan divide has continued to widen.
As a review of current polling makes clear, this partisan split increasingly masks America’s very real ideological and demographic divide on a range of domestic and foreign policy concerns. On the Democratic side, the largest component group of voters are African-Americans, Latinos, Asian-Americans, millennials and college-educated women. While on the Republican side, over 40 per cent of their voters are white, older, less than college-educated, or “born again” Christians. Their respective views on the Palestine-Israel issue are mirror images of one another. More revealing is the divide between self-identified liberals and conservatives.
Polls now show that the majority of Democratic voters hold deeply unfavourable views of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, oppose many Israeli policies, and favour conditioning US aid to Israel based on their treatment of Palestinians. Not only have attitudes changed, but progressive Jewish groups and organised Arab Americans have been empowered by this new political environment and have been engaging their elected officials. This has emboldened members of Congress to speak out. In response to both Israel's recent policies in Jerusalem and the bombardment of Gaza, this split is having an impact in Congress.
Activists and protesters march in support of Palestine near the Washington monument in Washington. AFP
The result: for the first time in 30 years, a dozen members took to the floor of Congress to denounce Israeli efforts to evict Palestinians from their Jerusalem homes and the killings of civilians in Gaza; more than one-half of the Democratic Senate caucus has called for an immediate Hamas-Israel ceasefire; and progressives in the House of Representatives are calling on President Joe Biden to stop a proposed US arms’ sale to Israel and a bill has been introduced calling for US aid to Israel to be conditioned on their treatment of Palestinians. Also noteworthy has been the muted responses of normally pro-Israel Democratic senators and representatives. They know where their base voters are on this issue and they, therefore, are treading carefully.
The American media has given extensive coverage to this development. I was so proud to see a New York Times front page story, which appeared on May 15, open with the sentence: "In 1988, when James Zogby ... pushed Democrats to include mention of Palestinian sovereignty in their platform they responded with a clear warning ... If the P-word is even in the platform, all hell will break loose." The article goes on to note how the issue we raised and lost back then, is now centre stage in the policy debate.
That’s the good news. More sobering is the fact, as I noted in the same story, that "the base of the party is in a very different place than where the party establishment is". We haven’t won this policy debate, not by a long shot. But what’s new and important is that we are forcing a debate. And that’s the first step on the road to change.
Dr James Zogby is the president of the Arab American Institute and a columnist for The National
The burning issue
The internal combustion engine is facing a watershed moment – major manufacturer Volvo is to stop producing petroleum-powered vehicles by 2021 and countries in Europe, including the UK, have vowed to ban their sale before 2040. The National takes a look at the story of one of the most successful technologies of the last 100 years and how it has impacted life in the UAE.
Abu Dhabi
Umm Al Emarat Park
Yas Gateway Park
Delma Park
Al Bateen beach
Saadiyaat beach
The Corniche
Zayed Sports City
Dubai
Kite Beach
Zabeel Park
Al Nahda Pond Park
Mushrif Park
Safa Park
Al Mamzar Beach Park
Al Qudrah Lakes
Ten tax points to be aware of in 2026
1. Domestic VAT refund amendments: request your refund within five years
If a business does not apply for the refund on time, they lose their credit.
2. E-invoicing in the UAE
Businesses should continue preparing for the implementation of e-invoicing in the UAE, with 2026 a preparation and transition period ahead of phased mandatory adoption.
3. More tax audits
Tax authorities are increasingly using data already available across multiple filings to identify audit risks.
4. More beneficial VAT and excise tax penalty regime
Tax disputes are expected to become more frequent and more structured, with clearer administrative objection and appeal processes. The UAE has adopted a new penalty regime for VAT and excise disputes, which now mirrors the penalty regime for corporate tax.
5. Greater emphasis on statutory audit
There is a greater need for the accuracy of financial statements. The International Financial Reporting Standards standards need to be strictly adhered to and, as a result, the quality of the audits will need to increase.
6. Further transfer pricing enforcement
Transfer pricing enforcement, which refers to the practice of establishing prices for internal transactions between related entities, is expected to broaden in scope. The UAE will shortly open the possibility to negotiate advance pricing agreements, or essentially rulings for transfer pricing purposes.
7. Limited time periods for audits
Recent amendments also introduce a default five-year limitation period for tax audits and assessments, subject to specific statutory exceptions. While the standard audit and assessment period is five years, this may be extended to up to 15 years in cases involving fraud or tax evasion.
8. Pillar 2 implementation
Many multinational groups will begin to feel the practical effect of the Domestic Minimum Top-Up Tax (DMTT), the UAE's implementation of the OECD’s global minimum tax under Pillar 2. While the rules apply for financial years starting on or after January 1, 2025, it is 2026 that marks the transition to an operational phase.
9. Reduced compliance obligations for imported goods and services
Businesses that apply the reverse-charge mechanism for VAT purposes in the UAE may benefit from reduced compliance obligations.
10. Substance and CbC reporting focus
Tax authorities are expected to continue strengthening the enforcement of economic substance and Country-by-Country (CbC) reporting frameworks. In the UAE, these regimes are increasingly being used as risk-assessment tools, providing tax authorities with a comprehensive view of multinational groups’ global footprints and enabling them to assess whether profits are aligned with real economic activity.
Contributed by Thomas Vanhee and Hend Rashwan, Aurifer
A comparison of sending Dh20,000 from the UAE using two different routes at the same time - the first direct from a UAE bank to a bank in Germany, and the second from the same UAE bank via an online platform to Germany - found key differences in cost and speed. The transfers were both initiated on January 30.
Route 1: bank transfer
The UAE bank charged Dh152.25 for the Dh20,000 transfer. On top of that, their exchange rate margin added a difference of around Dh415, compared with the mid-market rate.
Total cost: Dh567.25 - around 2.9 per cent of the total amount
Total received: €4,670.30
Route 2: online platform
The UAE bank’s charge for sending Dh20,000 to a UK dirham-denominated account was Dh2.10. The exchange rate margin cost was Dh60, plus a Dh12 fee.
Total cost: Dh74.10, around 0.4 per cent of the transaction
Total received: €4,756
The UAE bank transfer was far quicker – around two to three working days, while the online platform took around four to five days, but was considerably cheaper. In the online platform transfer, the funds were also exposed to currency risk during the period it took for them to arrive.
