Everywhere Insiders 13: U.S. Visa Moves, Gaza Care, and Power

 

Irina Tsukerman is a human rights and national security attorney based in New York and Connecticut. She earned her Bachelor of Arts in National and Intercultural Studies and Middle East Studies from Fordham University in 2006, followed by a Juris Doctor from Fordham University School of Law in 2009. She operates a boutique national security law practice. She serves as President of Scarab Rising, Inc., a media and security strategic advisory firm. Additionally, she is the Editor-in-Chief of The Washington Outsider, which focuses on foreign policy, geopolitics, security, and human rights. She is actively involved in several professional organizations, including the American Bar Association’s Energy, Environment, and Science and Technology Sections, where she serves as Program Vice Chair in the Oil and Gas Committee. She is also a member of the New York City Bar Association. She serves on the Middle East and North Africa Affairs Committee and affiliates with the Foreign and Comparative Law Committee. 

Tsukerman views U.S. visa revocations for PA/PLO officials and suspension of a Gaza childcare program as charged steps complicating any PA role in post-Hamas Gaza. In South Korea, she links indictments to entrenched corruption undermining public trust. In South Africa, she doubts a G20 inequality study will overcome ANC cronyism. Thailand’s ouster of Paetongtarn Shinawatra signals elite power struggles. She praises UAE prodigy Roudha Al Serkal’s WGM title as a significant step forward. Tsukerman condemns Russia’s occupation tactics in Zaporizhzhia and the Taliban’s escalating repression of Afghan women.

Interview conducted August 29, 2025.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So we are back here with Everywhere Insiders, a mix of Associated Press and Reuters, today. The U.S. State Department, under Secretary of State Antony Blinken, has revoked the visas of several Palestinian Authority and Palestine Liberation Organization officials ahead of a high-level meeting at the UN General Assembly. The groups previously maintained representatives in the United States.

The State Department has also suspended a program that allowed some injured Palestinian children from Gaza to come to the U.S. for medical treatment. This decision reportedly followed political pressure from conservative voices on social media. It is unclear whether Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas himself will be affected by these visa restrictions. Any thoughts?

Irina Tsukerman: So far, the administration has not declared Abbas persona non grata, and it would not be easy to do so for the head of the Palestinian Authority. It is, however, noteworthy that this step was taken even as discussions continue about who might govern Gaza if Israel succeeds in removing Hamas. The Palestinian Authority has been floated as a possible candidate.

Reports indicate that Egypt has been training Palestinian security forces for a potential role in Gaza’s administration and post-conflict stabilization. Those would be personnel from the West Bank working in coordination with the Palestinian Authority. Essentially, the U.S. move signals that at least some members of the PA and PLO are viewed as problematic, citing reasons such as corruption, prior or ongoing support for terrorism, or human rights abuses. However, the administration has not provided detailed evidence publicly. If alternative leadership is being considered for Gaza, it has not been made clear who those figures would be. Israel and the UAE have discussed potential candidates, but no confirmation has been made.

This step by Washington complicates the prospect of the Palestinian Authority taking on a leadership role in Gaza. It makes U.S. diplomatic involvement in such an arrangement more awkward, given that several PA-linked officials have now been sanctioned.

On the medical program, Democrats in Congress are pressing for its reinstatement. Conservatives have raised concerns for several reasons. First, they object in principle to foreign nationals receiving medical care in the U.S. funded through American programs or resources. Second, they argue that hospitals in Israel, Egypt, or closer regional facilities are better positioned to treat most injuries, with only highly complex cases requiring U.S. expertise.

Third, conservatives worry that family members accompanying injured children could include individuals with ties to Hamas, who might overstay their visas or cause security issues in the U.S. The concern is that the medical program could be exploited as a means of entry under pretenses.

Historically, most Palestinian children in need of specialized care have been treated in Israeli hospitals, in the West Bank, or in countries like Egypt and Jordan, with some also going to Europe or the Gulf states. Relatively few cases involved travel to the U.S., particularly after restrictions on movement in and out of Gaza tightened in recent years.

Nevertheless, the program existed, and its suspension has become a public controversy. Even if it was rarely used, the fact that it has now been explicitly revoked has elevated it into the headlines.

Moreover, it is not the fact of how many people were actually utilizing it. However, the fact that it existed and is now being shut down—presumably as a political measure—is causing the outcry. If there were zero children actually coming to the U.S. and it was quietly defunded for that reason, I do not think anyone would have even noticed. However, because it was made into a public gesture, I think that is part of the reason for the pushback, at least theoretically. People are saying that it is not a good look because the kids have no involvement in any combat-related activities and, therefore, should not be penalized for any potential violations by their family members.

Jacobsen: The wife of South Korea’s former president was indicted Friday as part of investigations into his administration in an attempt to overcome opposition by declaring martial law. Yoon Suk-yeol is the jailed ex-president. The historical context is that South Korea has had several political crises involving corruption, bribery, and abuse of authority. However, there was no successful imposition of martial law by Yoon Suk-yeol. Any thoughts on this continuing saga?

Tsukerman: Yes. The key issue here is that allegations of corruption in South Korea—whether involving financial misconduct, bribery, or influence peddling—have repeatedly eroded public trust in leadership. Past leaders have sometimes used claims of national security threats or foreign interference to justify strong measures; however, these claims have not always been substantiated.

In this case, the underlying driver is corruption, involving not only financial misconduct by leaders themselves but also by their close associates and family members. Attempts to cover up such wrongdoing by framing it as a national security issue can backfire, causing more long-term damage to South Korea’s institutions and public confidence than if the leader had resigned outright.

What is interesting is that subsequent administrations have taken a different tack, especially in foreign policy. Some leaders have sought a more dovish approach toward North Korea, engaging in dialogue and peace overtures, even though Pyongyang has often rejected them. South Korea has demonstrated openness to supporting U.S.-led diplomatic initiatives, as seen when former President Donald Trump pursued meetings with Kim Jong-un.

So, while corruption scandals weaken domestic governance, they also intersect with South Korea’s broader security posture, raising the question of whether short-term political survival tactics have created greater instability than doing nothing at all.

Jacobsen: South Africa has commissioned an inequality report for the G20 summit, announced on Thursday, August 28. South Africa has appointed American Nobel Prize–winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, who is widely respected, to lead a group of six experts in compiling the report and presenting it to world leaders.

Kenya-based nonprofit Oxfam, which regularly releases reports on wealth inequality, stated in June that the wealth of the wealthiest 1% has surged by $33.9 trillion since 2015—an amount they argue could eliminate global poverty 22 times over. I am not familiar with the precise definition of poverty that Oxfam uses. South Africa itself is ranked as one of the most unequal countries in the world. Any thoughts on this?

Tsukerman: I do think there is value in studying inequality, but given the level of corruption within the African National Congress (ANC) and the South African government more broadly, I am not sure whether such a study will be conducted fairly or provide real insight into the causes of the current situation.

The root causes of inequality in South Africa are self-evident. A small minority controls vast resources, often using political connections to dominate industries and significant sectors of the economy. That naturally results in limited upward mobility for most citizens unless they are politically connected.

This system has persisted for decades. The ANC, historically supported by the Soviet Union, inherited some of the same political and economic tendencies, where elites benefited disproportionately compared to the general population. Although South Africa today has a multi-party system, the ANC’s dominance means corruption and cronyism remain entrenched.

If the ANC genuinely wanted to address inequality, it would need to allow a more competitive political environment and reduce the stranglehold of monopolistic forces that control both politics and resources—whether energy, mining, or transportation. Without that, studying inequality alone risks being an exercise in futility.

I also question the timing. Commissioning such a study right before the G20 summit seems more like a public relations move to appear responsive to global concerns rather than a serious attempt to tackle inequality. If they had started earlier, they could have presented both data and tangible progress. As it stands, this feels performative.

It appears that South Africa is commissioning this study not for genuine impact, but rather for presentation purposes—something polished to show at an international gathering, only to be shelved afterward until the next summit. Meanwhile, the country faces very real economic problems.

There have been recurring energy blackouts, widespread corruption in the energy sector, and even allegations of internal sabotage. Public frustration is high over mismanagement and the perception that leaders are selling out national resources to foreign interests. South Africa has faced controversies over its ties with sanctioned states like Iran and Russia. While President Cyril Ramaphosa has at times attempted to reassure the U.S. and Western partners by downplaying such relationships, critics argue that little substantive change has occurred.

If South Africa is serious about reform, it must hold accountable those within the ANC and its allies who are undermining the economy. That requires truly independent inquiries rather than ones controlled by the very political actors sustaining the status quo.

Jacobsen: This one is significant. Thailand’s Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra was dismissed today, Friday, by the Thai Constitutional Court for violating ethics. She is the sixth prime minister from, or backed by, the billionaire Shinawatra family to be removed by either the military or the judiciary in a two-decade struggle between the country’s rival elites. Paetongtarn was also Thailand’s youngest prime minister. A special session of Parliament is scheduled for early September to determine the way forward. Any thoughts?

Tsukerman: The dismissal continues Thailand’s cycle of political instability. The Shinawatra family has dominated Thai politics for years, but members of the family—or leaders aligned with them—have repeatedly been ousted through coups or judicial rulings. Paetongtarn’s removal reflects both ongoing allegations of corruption and entrenched elite rivalries.

There are also external dimensions. Thailand’s political crises often intersect with regional tensions, such as strained relations with Cambodia. Nationalist rhetoric, combined with opaque dealings between Thai and Cambodian elites, has fueled unrest. While international mediators, including the United States, have occasionally stepped in to pressure dialogue and de-escalation, these interventions rarely resolve the deeper domestic divides.

Ultimately, Thailand’s instability stems from persistent elite infighting, recurring judicial interventions, and a lack of durable democratic protections for its population. The cycle of removing Shinawatra-linked leaders shows no signs of ending, and it continues to destabilize Thailand’s governance and credibility abroad.

Thailand has suffered for decades from political turmoil—characterized by authoritarian crackdowns, populist measures employed for demagoguery, and persistent rivalries between entrenched factions. The dismissal of Paetongtarn Shinawatra is clearly a blow to her supporters, who saw her position as a vehicle for advancing their factional interests. However, this does not mean a new appointment will improve Thailand’s prospects or ease tensions with Cambodia.

What is needed is sustained, serious diplomacy to address long-standing regional disputes. Internally, Thailand faces the deeper issue that the same political elites continue to dominate, regardless of which figurehead is in power. Their constant infighting rarely translates into better governance or more opportunities for the Thai public. The reality is that Thailand’s political culture has become entrenched in cycles of corruption, judicial intervention, and elite power struggles. Without systemic reform, simply replacing one official with another will not deliver stability or progress for ordinary citizens.

Jacobsen: That covers much heavy political news. Let us look at something positive. A recent milestone for women’s representation in sports: 16-year-old Roudha Al Serkal from the United Arab Emirates has become the first woman from the Gulf region to earn the title of Woman Grandmaster in chess.

She achieved the title during the Arab Women’s Chess Championship, scoring enough points to qualify for the title. Al Serkal, who is from Abu Dhabi, is now celebrated as a breakthrough figure for Gulf women in international chess.

This is being hailed as a win for Emirati women in a sport long dominated by men. It is also being framed in some reporting as a Gulf-wide achievement. Any thoughts?

Tsukerman: This is indeed a positive development. In several Gulf countries—particularly the UAE, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia—there has been a notable increase in women’s political empowerment, social visibility, and ability to pursue careers and activities that were once largely inaccessible to them.

In the UAE, for example, women have become increasingly active in business, cultural activities, and now in sports, such as chess. This is not entirely new—elite women in the region have historically had some visibility—but what is different now is the broader participation beyond just the ruling or elite families.

That said, there are important nuances. Saudi Arabia, despite its reputation for strict conservatism, is a much larger and more diverse society, with over 30 million people and a long history of urban centers where women have been relatively engaged and active. The harshest restrictions on women were more common in rural, tribal, and suburban areas. In contrast, the UAE is a smaller country with a more closely knit population. While it has long been outward-looking in trade and business, its social norms have, on average, been more conservative.

The increased visibility of Emirati women—whether in business, diplomacy, or sports like chess—is the result of many years of gradual internal change. Unlike Saudi Arabia, where reforms under recent leadership were rolled out in sweeping public announcements, the UAE’s progress has been quieter and less internationally publicized, but still significant.

It is encouraging to see Emirati women gaining more opportunities and recognition. Realistically, conservative family structures in the UAE will continue to shape society for some time, and women’s political power remains limited—diplomatic and official roles exist. However, they are not yet close to decision-making authority. Even so, the progress matters. It has the potential to create opportunities not just for elite women, but also for middle- and working-class women, making society more vibrant and inclusive over time.

So, a symbolic gain, but still important. It is an improvement, and in this context, even symbolic change carries weight.

Jacobsen: Let us go with the short version here. Russia’s occupation of Zaporizhzhia, including the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, has kept the region a focus point since the invasion. Enerhodar, once a thriving city of around 50,000 people, has now been described by Reuters as a “ghost town,” with reports of intimidation and seemingly arbitrary detentions aimed at erasing Ukrainian identity. What are your thoughts on Russia’s use of terror, intimidation, and cultural erasure in this particular area?

Tsukerman: None of this should come as a surprise. Cultural erasure—bordering on genocidal intent—is part of Russia’s strategy in Ukraine. Russian officials and state-linked figures have made repeated calls for the liquidation or re-education of Ukrainians, rhetoric that clearly indicates genocidal intent. Disturbingly, such statements have not triggered proportionate international political consequences.

The European Union has imposed successive rounds of sanctions—now in the high teens—but sanctions alone have not altered Russia’s fundamental objectives. Russia has been remarkably successful at infiltrating Western political discourse, normalizing the idea that Ukraine is not truly sovereign and advancing the narrative that Russia has some “rightful” role there. This undermines Ukraine’s international standing and emboldens further aggression.

On the ground, Russia has combined repression with depopulation. Many residents of Enerhodar and the surrounding area have fled, both out of fear of repression and because Russia cannot be trusted to manage nuclear infrastructure safely. Russia has a long history of corruption, negligence, and poor maintenance in technical and nuclear facilities—a legacy from Soviet times that persists today. There have even been questions about the functionality of its own nuclear arsenal due to chronic mismanagement.

When it comes to captured infrastructure like the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, Russia’s attitude is deeply troubling: a mix of arrogance, nihilism, and disregard for human life—including its own soldiers. That creates a real risk of a nuclear accident under occupation, whether through incompetence or neglect. This danger is a primary reason people have evacuated; no one wants to remain near a potential nuclear catastrophe.

At the same time, Russia benefits strategically from depopulating occupied regions. Fewer Ukrainians in the area means less risk of resistance, sabotage, or organized opposition. For Moscow, holding the nuclear plant is already a tactical and symbolic success—they prefer to reduce the local population rather than face ongoing civilian resistance.

What astonishes me is that the Zaporizhzhia plant has not become the subject of far more urgent and focused diplomatic negotiations. The potential consequences of an accident are catastrophic, not just for Ukraine but for Europe as a whole.

Even an accidental discharge at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant would be an environmental disaster, resulting in massive casualties. I do not understand why there has not been more international pressure to secure this area and negotiate it out of Russian hands. Of course, for Russia, this site represents significant leverage, and they would be very hesitant to part with it without demanding something substantial in return.

At the very least, there should be sustained diplomatic efforts, given the sensitivity of the nuclear security issue in this conflict. A disaster at that plant could render parts of Ukraine uninhabitable for decades.

Jacobsen: We have time for one more today. This one comes from UN News. At a press conference in Geneva, Sophia Kalthorp, UN Women’s Chief of Humanitarian Action, stated that despite existing bans, Afghan people overwhelmingly want girls to have access to education. Reportedly, more than 90% of Afghan adults support the right of girls to be in school, despite the Taliban’s restrictions. As I understand it, the Taliban bans girls from education beyond grade six. Any thoughts?

Tsukerman: The UN has been remarkably ineffective in pressuring the Taliban. The regime has not been weakened by international non-recognition; instead, it has leveraged economic and geopolitical partnerships to entrench its rule. Despite horrific reports of repression—including banning girls from secondary and higher education, restricting women from most jobs, prohibiting them from travelling without a male guardian, and even imposing rules about women not being visible through windows in their own homes—the Taliban has managed to build ties abroad.

Russia, for example, removed the Taliban from its list of terrorist organizations and has invited Taliban officials to international forums. Reports suggest that Russian security services have even provided training and assistance in camps. China and Iran have also increased their engagement, particularly through energy and trade deals. Pakistan remains central to the Taliban’s rise and survival, despite ongoing border clashes, while India has cautiously opened diplomatic channels to counter Pakistani influence.

At the same time, the Taliban attempts to present itself internationally as a legitimate government. Some of its so-called initiatives—such as claims that banning women under 35 from driving reduces greenhouse emissions—are absurd and highlight their instrumentalization of policy for control and propaganda rather than genuine governance.

Western governments have also engaged selectively: for example, the UK has negotiated with the Taliban over the return of Afghan refugees, with the Taliban promising housing and economic support for returnees. However, none of this changes the fundamental reality: the Taliban continues to erase women from public life systematically, and international engagement has so far failed to reverse or even slow that trend.

Jacobsen: Do you have any more comments on that?

Tsukerman: Yes. To finish the point, while the Taliban has promised to build housing for Afghans being expelled from the UK, Iran, Pakistan, and other countries, and might be using resources from energy and trade deals to do so, repression inside Afghanistan has not lessened. In fact, it has continued to intensify, particularly against women.

Germany has also entered the picture. It has negotiated the return of certain Afghan nationals classified as criminals under German law, arranging their transfer under heavy security convoys and specific conditions. I find it troubling that so much emphasis is placed on returning such individuals, while far less focus is directed toward protecting the rights of ordinary Afghans who are not criminals and who face severe repression at home. The humanitarian priority should be securing the safety and rights of the vulnerable, rather than simply expelling offenders.

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Irina.

—

Scott Douglas Jacobsen is the publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-0692343) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369-6885). He writes for The Good Men Project, International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416), The Humanist (Print: ISSN 0018-7399; Online: ISSN 2163-3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), A Further Inquiry, and other media. He is a member in good standing of numerous media organizations.

***

If you believe in the work we are doing here at The Good Men Project and want a deeper connection with our community, please join us as a Premium Member today.

Premium Members get to view The Good Men Project with NO ADS. Need more info? A complete list of benefits is here.

—

Photo by Global Residence Index on Unsplash

 

The post Everywhere Insiders 13: U.S. Visa Moves, Gaza Care, and Power appeared first on The Good Men Project.

View the full article