Suleman Chitera 
Dalitso Kabambe, one of the presidential aspirant for the UTM party, has called on delegates to vote for visionary leaders at the upcoming elective conference.
Speaking to Bua Central Region delegates in Kasungu District, he expressed confidence in his ability to lead the party to victory in the 2025 general elections.
“I’m very optimistic that if I am voted into the UTM presidential seat and win next year’s polls, my experience will help address the challenges Malawians face today,” Kabambe stated.
UTM Bua Central Region Governor Gerald Mbewe hailed Kabambe’s remarks, underscoring the need for intelligent leadership to ensure the party’s success.
The UTM party’s 2024 elective conference is scheduled for November 17.
Other news
- Frank Mbeta Accused of ‘Entering Through the Window’ in Speaker Suleman Court Case
By MFN News Desk Team
8 October 2026Attorney General Frank Mbeta has come under scrutiny in the ongoing legal battle involving Speaker of Parliament Sameer Suleman and concerned citizen Austin Mkoka, after the Speaker’s legal team questioned the Attorney General’s decision to seek participation in the case as an Interested Party rather than represent the Speaker directly.
The development has added a new layer to a constitutional and administrative law dispute that has already placed the powers of Parliament, the Speaker and the Executive under intense legal scrutiny.
The case is being heard before High Court Judge Allan Muhome and centres on an injunction obtained by Mkoka that temporarily stopped Parliament from establishing or operationalising joint ad hoc committees to investigate a range of governance concerns involving public institutions.
Silungwe questions Mbeta’s role
Lawyer representing Speaker Suleman, Dr Chikosa Silungwe, has criticised the approach taken by the Attorney General, describing Mbeta’s attempt to participate in the proceedings as akin to “entering through the window.”
Silungwe questioned why the government side had not directly taken up the responsibility of representing the Speaker, leaving Suleman to engage private legal counsel.
The Speaker has engaged lawyer Bright Theu of Nicholls and Brookes to represent him in the proceedings. Reports from other media outlets confirm that Theu is appearing for Suleman and Parliament in the case.
The development has consequently raised questions over the constitutional and institutional relationship between the Attorney General, the Executive and Parliament—particularly when a dispute involves the exercise of parliamentary oversight powers.
Theu asks court to remove Mbeta as Interested Party
During proceedings, lawyer Bright Theu reportedly asked Judge Muhome to remove Frank Mbeta from the list of parties seeking to participate in the matter.
The request follows correspondence from Mbeta indicating that he wanted to participate in the proceedings as an Interested Party, rather than enter the case as part of the defence representing the Speaker.
That position has attracted attention because the Attorney General is the government’s principal legal representative, while the Speaker and Parliament are directly named in the judicial review proceedings.
The legal question is therefore not merely about who appears in court, but what institutional role the Attorney General is seeking to play in a case involving the Legislature’s constitutional powers.
What is the Mkoka case about?
The dispute began after Austin Mkoka launched a judicial review challenging Speaker Suleman’s plans to establish a number of joint ad hoc committees to investigate concerns involving government departments and public institutions.
The proposed investigations included institutions such as the National Oil Company of Malawi (NOCMA), ESCOM, EGENCO, Power Market Limited, Blantyre Water Board and the Department of Immigration and Citizenship Services, among others.
Mkoka challenged the legality of the proposed investigations and obtained an interim order restraining Parliament from establishing or operationalising the targeted committees pending further proceedings.
The case is now testing the boundaries of parliamentary oversight, separation of powers and the constitutional authority of Parliament to investigate matters of public concern.
Private lawyers step in for Speaker
The decision by Suleman and Parliament to engage private counsel has itself become an important aspect of the dispute.
Bright Theu confirmed that he had been engaged to represent the Speaker and Parliament as defendants in the proceedings.
The move followed uncertainty over whether the Attorney General’s office would represent the Speaker.
Nyasa Times reported that Mbeta had previously indicated that he needed to establish whether Parliament had sought assistance from his office.
The latest development therefore puts the Attorney General’s intended role under renewed scrutiny.
Why the Attorney General’s role matters
At the heart of the controversy is an institutional question: When a constitutional dispute directly involves Parliament and the Executive, where should the Attorney General stand?
The Attorney General’s office represents the interests of the State in legal proceedings. However, Parliament is a separate arm of government, and the Constitution provides for the separation of powers between the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary.
The Malawi Law Society has already joined the matter as a friend of the court, saying the proceedings raise important constitutional and administrative law questions concerning parliamentary oversight, standing and separation of powers.
This means the case has developed beyond a disagreement between Mkoka and the Speaker. It now presents the High Court with an opportunity to examine important questions concerning the constitutional boundaries of public institutions.
Government previously distanced itself from Mkoka’s case
The Attorney General’s latest move must also be viewed against the government’s earlier position on the dispute.
Government previously stated that it was not involved in Mkoka’s legal action, saying the case had been initiated independently by the concerned citizen.
Information and Communications Technology Minister Shadric Namalomba said government had neither initiated, directed, sponsored, facilitated nor funded the court action.
That position makes the Attorney General’s proposed participation particularly significant, as it raises questions about how the government’s legal interests intersect with proceedings involving the Speaker and Parliament.
A bigger constitutional battle
The substantive dispute goes beyond the personalities involved.
At issue is whether Parliament has the constitutional authority to establish and operate investigative committees in the manner proposed by the Speaker, and where the limits of parliamentary oversight lie.
Government previously cited Section 56(6) of the Constitution, arguing that the power to establish parliamentary committees rests with Parliament rather than the Speaker acting alone.
The Speaker’s side, meanwhile, maintains that parliamentary oversight is a legitimate constitutional function and that the investigations were intended to address matters of public concern.
The High Court’s eventual determination could therefore have consequences extending beyond the current dispute, potentially providing guidance on how future parliamentary investigations into government institutions should be established and conducted.
The bigger question for Malawians
For ordinary Malawians, the legal technicalities surrounding the case may appear complicated. But the underlying issue is straightforward: Who has the constitutional authority to hold public institutions accountable, and what happens when those powers are challenged in court?
The institutions targeted by the proposed parliamentary investigations provide essential public services, including fuel supply, electricity, water and immigration services.
Any legal interpretation of Parliament’s oversight powers will therefore have implications for how Malawi’s democratic institutions investigate alleged governance failures and respond to public concerns.
The current dispute involving Frank Mbeta, Bright Theu, Sameer Suleman and Austin Mkoka has consequently become a closely watched test of Malawi’s constitutional architecture.
For now, the High Court remains at the centre of the dispute, with Judge Allan Muhome expected to consider the competing legal positions as the parties argue over Parliament’s powers, the Attorney General’s role and the boundaries of institutional independence.
SEO Package
SEO Title: Frank Mbeta Accused of ‘Entering Through Window’ in Speaker Suleman Case
Focus Keyword: Frank Mbeta Speaker Suleman court case
Slug:
frank-mbeta-speaker-suleman-court-caseMeta Description: Attorney General Frank Mbeta faces scrutiny over his role in the Speaker Sameer Suleman court case as Bright Theu challenges his participation as an Interested Party.
Secondary Keywords:
- Frank Mbeta
- Sameer Suleman court case
- Bright Theu
- Austin Mkoka injunction
- Malawi Parliament court case
- Malawi parliamentary oversight
- Judge Allan Muhome
- Attorney General Malawi
- parliamentary committees Malawi
- separation of powers Malawi
Suggested Tags: Frank Mbeta, Sameer Suleman, Bright Theu, Austin Mkoka, Malawi Parliament, High Court Malawi, Parliamentary Oversight, Attorney General, Judicial Review, Malawi Politics
Suggested social headline: “‘Entering Through the Window’: Silungwe Challenges Mbeta’s Role in Speaker Suleman Case”
Editorial note: The allegations and characterisation of Mbeta’s role should be attributed to the lawyers involved; they are not a judicial finding that Mbeta acted improperly. The court proceedings remain ongoing.
- We fought for change—and the results are speaking
Suleman Chitera, Chiradzulu-based political and social commentator
By Staff Reporter
Fellow Malawians,
History will record that on 16 September, Malawians rose with one voice and demanded change. It was not an emotional gamble; it was a calculated stand against stagnation. Today, barely halfway through January, the evidence is plain: we made the right decision.
At this time of year, maize prices traditionally surge. Households brace for hunger, traders exploit scarcity, and desperation deepens. This year, the opposite is happening. In several markets, a 50kg bag of maize is selling at around K37,000; in Lilongwe, approximately K45,000. Cast your mind back to the same period last year—prices were hovering around K120,000 per bag. That difference is not cosmetic; it is the difference between dignity and despair.
I say this without hesitation or regret: standing together to send the MCP into opposition was the correct call. Ordinary Malawians are breathing again.
Fuel, once a national humiliation marked by endless queues and paralysed productivity, is no longer the daily nightmare it used to be. Businesses are operating. Transport is moving. Life is stabilising.
In a remarkably short time, we have also witnessed the rollout of free secondary education. For years, school fees were a silent executioner of dreams, forcing children out of classrooms and into early hardship. Today, children are no longer being sent home for lack of fees. That is not a slogan; it is a lived reality in households across the country.
This progress cuts across political lines. Whether you support Malawi Congress Party, Democratic Progressive Party, United Transformation Movement, or Alliance for Democracy, the truth is the same: food is more accessible, pressure is easing, and hope is returning. Had Professor APM clung to power for even four more months, these gains would not exist.
Let us also be honest with ourselves. We have erred before—allowing divisions, insults, and blind loyalty to poison our collective judgment. That must not happen again. This is the moment for national maturity. We must continue to pray for our President and demand solutions with unity, not hostility.
I am confident that foreign exchange availability will improve and that businesses will regain momentum. Stability begets confidence; confidence fuels investment.
Finally, a reminder worth repeating: when you see the DPP, you see maize. That party has historically aligned itself with food security and respect for the ordinary citizen. Equally important is the President’s decision to ensure CDF funds are managed through local councils rather than captured by individuals—so that resources reach the people they are meant to uplift, particularly in rural communities.
Change was never going to be instant. But it is here, it is visible, and it is meaningful.
Malawians did not miss their chance. They seized it.
- IMF, Currency Devaluation and Poverty: Why Africa Is Asking Tough Questions
By MFN News Desk Team
Published: October 8, 2026The debate over the role of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in Africa has intensified as countries across the continent continue to grapple with high inflation, foreign-exchange shortages, debt pressures and rising living costs.
At the centre of the debate is currency devaluation or depreciation—a policy that can help correct exchange-rate imbalances and improve access to foreign currency, but which can also make imported goods more expensive and place additional pressure on households.
For ordinary Africans, the question is increasingly direct: When a country’s currency loses value, who ultimately pays the price?
What currency devaluation means
Currency devaluation refers to a deliberate reduction in the official value of a country’s currency against foreign currencies, particularly the US dollar. Depreciation can also occur through market forces when demand for foreign currency exceeds its supply.
For countries such as Malawi, where the economy depends heavily on imports, movements in the exchange rate can quickly affect the cost of fuel, fertiliser, medicines, machinery, food and other essential goods.
This is why exchange-rate policy is not simply an issue for economists and central banks. It can directly affect household budgets and the cost of living.
Why critics say devaluation can increase hardship
The strongest criticism is that currency depreciation can feed directly into inflation.
When the local currency loses value, importers need more local currency to purchase the same amount of goods priced in US dollars. Businesses may then pass those higher costs on to consumers.
The result can be higher prices for fuel, transport, food, medicines and other imported products.
The IMF itself acknowledges that depreciation can create significant difficulties in vulnerable economies. In its analysis of Malawi, the Fund says currency devaluation can contribute to higher inflation, currency speculation and potentially lower economic growth, particularly in an import-dependent and poorly diversified economy.
Recent IMF analysis of Malawi also found a measurable relationship between exchange-rate depreciation and inflation. Its research estimated that a one-percentage-point depreciation shock was associated with approximately a 0.1 percentage-point immediate increase in monthly inflation.
That finding gives greater weight to concerns that exchange-rate adjustments can have immediate consequences for consumers.
Malawi provides an important example
Malawi’s economic experience illustrates the complexity of the issue.
The IMF reported that Malawi’s November 2023 devaluation was intended to address exchange-rate pressures. However, subsequent inflation and foreign-exchange shortages created further difficulties.
According to the IMF’s 2025 assessment, inflation reached 30.7 percent year-on-year in February 2024, while the country continued to experience severe foreign-exchange shortages. The Fund also reported that the gap between official and parallel-market exchange rates became extremely large.
The IMF argues that Malawi’s problem cannot be solved simply by maintaining an artificially strong official exchange rate. It says a unified, market-clearing exchange rate is important for restoring macroeconomic stability and reducing distortions.
But importantly, the IMF also recognises the potential social cost.
Its Malawi report says an exchange-rate adjustment under conditions of macroeconomic instability could perpetuate a depreciation-inflation cycle and recommends that reforms be accompanied by social safety nets to cushion households from short-term impacts.
Does IMF policy automatically mean more poverty?
This is where the debate requires careful examination.
It would be too simplistic to conclude that every currency adjustment imposed under an IMF programme automatically causes poverty.
The IMF’s argument is that countries facing persistent foreign-exchange shortages, fiscal deficits, debt problems and distorted exchange rates may eventually have to correct those imbalances.
A more realistic exchange rate, the Fund argues, can encourage foreign currency to move through official channels, improve export competitiveness and reduce distortions created by large differences between official and parallel exchange rates.
However, the transition can be painful—especially where people already spend a large share of their income on food, transport and energy.
That distinction is important.
The question is therefore not simply whether devaluation is good or bad. The bigger question is how it is implemented, what safeguards accompany it, and who bears the adjustment cost.
Why poor households are particularly vulnerable
Poor households have fewer options when prices rise.
A wealthy household may respond to higher food prices by reducing spending elsewhere or switching to cheaper alternatives.
A low-income family that already spends most of its income on food may have nowhere else to cut.
The IMF said in October 2026 that recent global cost-of-living crises have disproportionately affected poorer households because they spend a larger share of their budgets on basic necessities. The Fund estimated that the increase in food and energy prices between 2021 and 2024 meant around 23 million more people fell into extreme poverty than previously estimated.
This reinforces one of the central concerns surrounding economic adjustment programmes: macroeconomic stability can be necessary, but stability on paper does not automatically mean improved living standards for ordinary citizens.
Why the IMF defends exchange-rate reforms
The IMF maintains that it does not simply advocate uncontrolled currency devaluation.
In its explanation of Malawi’s exchange-rate reforms, the Fund says its objective is a unified, market-clearing exchange rate supported by broader reforms.
The argument is that an artificially maintained official exchange rate can create shortages, encourage parallel markets and make foreign exchange difficult to obtain through official channels.
The IMF also argues that countries need fiscal discipline, stronger debt management, better revenue collection and improved monetary policy alongside exchange-rate reforms.
In other words, currency adjustment is presented as one component of a wider economic restructuring programme—not a solution on its own.
But the African debate remains unresolved
Across Africa, IMF-supported reforms have frequently generated public debate over austerity, taxation, fuel subsidies, exchange rates and government spending.
Critics argue that economic reforms can place disproportionate pressure on ordinary citizens while governments attempt to meet fiscal and debt targets.
Supporters, on the other hand, argue that countries sometimes turn to the IMF precisely because they are already facing severe economic problems and lack sufficient foreign exchange or financing options.
The disagreement therefore centres on an important issue:
Should economic adjustment prioritise immediate macroeconomic stability, or should governments place greater emphasis on protecting household incomes during the adjustment process?
The answer may require both.
What should African governments demand?
African governments negotiating with international financial institutions have a responsibility to ensure that economic reforms are adapted to their domestic circumstances.
That includes demanding clear assessments of the social consequences of major policy changes.
Before implementing a major currency adjustment, policymakers should consider:
- How will food prices be affected?
- What will happen to fuel prices?
- How will fertiliser costs change?
- What happens to medicine prices?
- How will businesses access foreign exchange?
- What protection will low-income households receive?
- Will wages keep pace with inflation?
- How will small businesses survive higher import costs?
- What measures will increase domestic production and exports?
- How quickly can foreign-exchange shortages be resolved?
These questions are particularly important for economies that import large quantities of essential goods.
The bigger issue: Africa’s dependence on imports
One reason currency depreciation can be so painful is that many African economies remain heavily dependent on imported goods.
If a country imports fuel, fertiliser, machinery, medicines and food, a weaker currency can quickly transmit international prices into domestic markets.
That means the long-term solution cannot simply be repeated currency adjustments.
African economies also need stronger domestic production, agricultural productivity, manufacturing, exports, energy security and regional trade.
The IMF itself has noted that countries with heavy dependence on food and energy imports can experience stronger exchange-rate pass-through into domestic inflation.
The question Africa cannot ignore
There is a legitimate economic argument for correcting distorted exchange rates. There is also legitimate concern about the social consequences of doing so without adequate protection for vulnerable households.
Both realities can exist at the same time.
For Malawi and other African countries, the critical issue should therefore be how to restore economic stability without transferring an excessive share of the adjustment burden onto ordinary citizens.
Economic reforms should ultimately be judged not only by foreign-exchange reserves, debt ratios or fiscal balances, but also by whether families can afford food, businesses can operate, farmers can access inputs and workers can maintain their purchasing power.
The debate belongs to everyone
The IMF says exchange-rate reforms are intended to correct economic distortions and restore stability. Critics remain concerned that adjustment programmes can increase the cost of living and place disproportionate pressure on poorer households.
Africa needs this debate to be based on evidence, transparency and accountability.
Citizens should ask their governments—and international lenders—three fundamental questions:
What problem is this policy solving?
Who benefits from the reform?
And who is paying the price?The answers could determine whether economic reform becomes a pathway towards sustainable growth or another period of hardship for millions of ordinary Africans.
What is your view? Does currency devaluation ultimately help African economies recover, or does it place too much of the burden on ordinary people? Share your thoughts and join the debate.
- IMF Concludes Malawi ECF Talks, Says Major Economic Reforms Are Advancing
By MFN News Desk Team
Published: 8 October 2026 at 7:55 AM (CAT)
Lilongwe, MalawiThe International Monetary Fund (IMF) has concluded its latest discussions with the Malawi Government on a potential programme under the Extended Credit Facility (ECF), with the Fund saying considerable progress has been made towards developing a comprehensive package of economic policies and reforms.
The IMF mission, led by Justin Tyson, Mission Chief for Malawi, held meetings in Lilongwe from 22 September to 6 October 2026. The discussions focused on Malawi’s recent economic developments, fiscal and monetary policy implementation and reforms aimed at restoring macroeconomic stability.
At the conclusion of the mission, Tyson said Malawi had made progress on major reforms under the National Economic Recovery Plan (NERP), describing the reform path as a positive foundation for a potential IMF-supported programme.
The IMF, however, has not yet announced a final ECF agreement. Discussions will continue as the authorities and the Fund work to finalise the policy package that could underpin the programme.
IMF highlights progress on economic reforms
The Fund said Malawi has taken steps to strengthen fiscal discipline, increase domestic revenue and control government expenditure in line with the targets contained in the 2026/27 national budget.
Tyson said maintaining disciplined budget execution would be important as the government seeks to consolidate economic stability.
The IMF also highlighted recent fuel and sugar pricing reforms, saying the measures have helped improve the functioning of markets.
Discussions on measures to reduce Malawi’s high public debt burden have also advanced, according to the Fund.
Inflation has moderated in recent months, helped by lower food inflation. However, the IMF noted that non-food inflation remains high, meaning that significant price pressures continue to affect households and businesses.
Proposed ECF programme
If finalised and approved, an ECF-supported programme would back the government’s objectives under the NERP to restore and preserve macroeconomic stability while promoting inclusive and resilient economic growth.
The proposed policy package would include measures to:
- sustain medium-term fiscal consolidation;
- protect social spending for vulnerable households;
- strengthen and tighten monetary policy;
- preserve financial-sector stability;
- remove market distortions;
- promote economic growth and productivity;
- strengthen governance; and
- implement structural reforms needed for macroeconomic stabilisation.
The IMF said considerable progress has been made in designing the package, including incorporating Malawi’s own initiatives under the NERP.
Malawi’s economy faces significant challenges
Despite the progress reported during the talks, the IMF said Malawi continues to operate in a difficult economic environment.
Economic growth has been affected by climate shocks and declining demand for tobacco, Malawi’s largest export commodity.
The Fund also identified terms-of-trade shocks linked to the war in the Middle East as an additional source of pressure.
Although economic growth is expected to recover over the medium term, the IMF said risks to the outlook remain tilted towards the downside.
The Fund further warned that adverse weather associated with El Niño could affect agricultural production and intensify food insecurity across the region.
For Malawi, where agriculture remains central to livelihoods, food security and export earnings, weather-related shocks could therefore place additional pressure on the economy.
IMF meets Malawi’s economic management team
During the mission, the IMF delegation met Minister of Finance, Economic Planning and Decentralization Joseph Mwanamvekha, Reserve Bank of Malawi Governor Dr George Partridge, Secretary to the Treasury Dr Cliff Chiunda and RBM Deputy Governor Henry Mathanga.
The team also met other senior government officials and representatives of development partners.
The meetings were aimed at assessing Malawi’s economic situation and developing the policies and reforms that could form the basis of a new ECF-supported programme.
No final IMF deal yet
The conclusion of the IMF mission should not be interpreted as confirmation that Malawi has already secured a new ECF programme.
Instead, the latest development is that Malawi and the IMF have made considerable progress towards an agreement, but the policy package still has to be finalised.
Once the package is finalised, the proposed programme would still be subject to the IMF’s internal approval processes, including consideration by IMF management and ultimately the Executive Board.
The latest talks nevertheless represent an important step for Malawi as the government seeks to restore macroeconomic stability, address public debt pressures, improve foreign-exchange conditions and rebuild confidence in the economy.
The IMF said the team was grateful to the Malawian authorities for the candid and constructive discussions and looked forward to finalising the policy package.
Malawi Freedom Network will continue to follow the IMF-ECF negotiations and report on developments affecting Malawi’s economy, including inflation, public debt, the Malawi kwacha, foreign exchange, fiscal policy and the cost of living.
- US Military Aid to Israel Continues Despite Three Years of Gaza War
Washington maintains billions in military funding and arms transfers as opposition to unconditional support grows inside the United States
By Burnett Munthali
Three years after the war in Gaza began, the United States continues to provide Israel with extensive military assistance, including billions of dollars in funding, weapons and diplomatic backing.
A report published by Al Jazeera says US support has remained largely unchanged under both the Joe Biden and Donald Trump administrations, despite growing international criticism of Israel’s military campaign and increasing debate within the United States over Washington’s relationship with Israel.
Since October 7, 2023, at least 74,243 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, according to figures cited by Al Jazeera, while at least 1,460 Palestinians have reportedly been killed since a ceasefire took effect on October 11, 2025.
The United States has provided at least $25.5 billion in appropriations to Israel since the war began, with the funding coming from the US government and ultimately supported by American taxpayers.
Washington’s long-term military commitment includes $3.8 billion annually under a 10-year security agreement signed during the Obama administration, alongside a $14.1 billion emergency security package approved by Congress in April 2024.
US military assistance has helped Israel obtain weapons and equipment ranging from ammunition and armoured vehicles to fighter aircraft and air-defence systems, including Iron Dome, David’s Sling and Iron Beam.
The relationship extends beyond direct aid, with the United States approving at least $33.16 billion in arms transfers to Israel since October 7, 2023, according to an Al Jazeera analysis of US State Department notifications to Congress.
Some of the largest approved packages have included F-15 fighter jets and parts worth $18.82 billion, as well as billions of dollars in bombs, guidance systems, fuses and Hellfire missiles.
Critics have repeatedly argued that American-made weapons have been used in attacks that killed Palestinian civilians, while rights organisations have raised concerns about Washington’s responsibility for providing military equipment during the Gaza conflict.
The United States has also offered Israel significant diplomatic protection, including repeated use of its veto at the UN Security Council against resolutions concerning the Gaza war.
Washington’s confrontation with the International Criminal Court has further intensified criticism, particularly after the court issued an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant.
However, American public opinion has increasingly moved away from unconditional support for Israel, particularly among Democratic voters.
A New York Times/Siena poll cited by Al Jazeera found that about 68 percent of Democrats opposed providing additional economic and military assistance to Israel, compared with 45 percent three years earlier.
Despite the growing opposition, efforts in Congress to restrict weapons transfers have generally failed to secure the votes required to become law.
Analysts say the political debate nevertheless marks a significant change in Washington, where proposals to restrict military sales to Israel were once considered politically difficult to imagine.
The debate now extends to whether the US-Israel defence relationship should become even more deeply embedded in America’s military establishment, potentially making future changes in policy more difficult despite shifting public opinion.
For Palestinians, however, the central issue remains the continued military campaign and its devastating human cost, while Washington faces growing pressure over whether its financial, military and diplomatic support should continue without stronger conditions.
