T

he Israeli military has acknowledged for the first time that its forces fired on a vehicle carrying 5-year-old Palestinian girl Hind Rajab in Gaza in January 2024 and announced a criminal investigation into the incident.

The Israeli army had previously denied that its troops were involved in the killing. Months after the incident, a preliminary military investigation concluded that Israeli forces were “not present near the vehicle or within firing range.”

The new findings mark a significant reversal in the military’s account of one of the most widely publicized killings of a Palestinian child during the Gaza war.

Hind was traveling with six members of her family in a vehicle in northern Gaza when it came under Israeli fire. She survived the initial attack and remained trapped inside the car, where she made a desperate phone call to Palestinian Red Crescent paramedics asking for help.

An ambulance sent to rescue her also came under fire.

Twelve days later, rescuers found Hind’s body inside the bullet-riddled vehicle alongside the bodies of her relatives.

Military acknowledges firing on vehicle

In a statement, the Israeli military said an examination had found that Israeli troops had fired at a vehicle “that was approaching them.”

The military said the findings, combined with what it described as apparent failures in coordinating the movement of the Palestinian Red Crescent ambulance, had led to the decision to open a criminal investigation by the Military Police Criminal Investigation Division.

The investigation is part of the Israeli military’s first comprehensive review of alleged war crimes since the beginning of Israel’s war in Gaza in October 2023.

The military said its General Staff’s Fact Finding and Assessment Mechanism had examined 150 incidents and transferred them to the military’s top legal authorities to determine whether criminal investigations should be opened.

Of five decisions announced Wednesday, two resulted in criminal investigations: the killing of Hind Rajab and the March 2025 killing of 15 Palestinian paramedics and first responders.

Family calls for independent investigation

Hind’s mother, Wesam Hamada, welcomed the decision as a long-overdue development but said it did not amount to justice.

She called for an independent and transparent investigation and genuine accountability for those responsible for her daughter’s death, rather than a closed military inquiry.

Palestinian Ambassador to the United Nations Riyad Mansour also questioned whether the Israeli military could conduct a credible investigation into its own forces. He described previous Israeli investigations as neither independent nor credible and said accountability should include the arrest of those responsible.

The Hind Rajab Foundation similarly criticized Israel’s military justice system, arguing that investigations into alleged violations by Israeli forces frequently end without meaningful prosecution or punishment.

No criminal probes into aid worker killings

The Israeli army also announced that it would not open criminal investigations into three other incidents involving humanitarian workers.

They included the April 2024 Israeli strike that killed seven World Central Kitchen aid workers in Deir el-Balah, a February 2024 strike on a Doctors Without Borders shelter in Khan Younis that killed two employees, and a November 2023 attack on a Doctors Without Borders convoy that killed two others.

In the World Central Kitchen case, the Israeli military acknowledged “serious failures” that led its forces to mistakenly believe the convoy had been taken over by Hamas fighters. However, the military advocate-general concluded there was no reasonable suspicion of criminal misconduct.

World Central Kitchen condemned the decision, saying it was inconsistent with the full circumstances of the attack and failed to provide meaningful accountability.

Australia also criticized the decision because one of those killed, Australian aid worker Zomi Frankcom, was among the seven WCK employees.

Foreign Minister Penny Wong said Frankcom’s family deserved justice and that the decision fell “far short” of the accountability Australia expected. She said Australia would summon Israel’s ambassador and continue pressing Israel over the deaths.

U

.S. envoy Jared Kushner said Monday that the United States would not support rebuilding Gaza until Hamas gives up its weapons, as Israel continues carrying out attacks across the devastated Palestinian territory.

Kushner made the remarks after meeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in an effort to advance a U.S.-backed roadmap for ending the genocide. The meeting did not produce a breakthrough, with major disagreements remaining over Hamas’ disarmament and an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.

“We have a plan to rebuild Gaza, but we will not allow Gaza to be rebuilt until the demilitarization occurs,” Kushner told Fox News.

He said Washington did not want reconstruction funds to be invested in Gaza if the territory could again become a battlefield.

Disarmament remains key dispute

Hamas had agreed to disarm as part of the U.S.-backed proposal, which would also involve an Israeli withdrawal and an end to attacks on Gaza. Israel, however, rejected the proposal earlier this month, saying it would not make concessions until Gaza was fully demilitarized.

Kushner appeared to align closely with Israel’s position, emphasizing that Hamas would need to surrender its weapons before major reconstruction and Israeli withdrawal could proceed.

“We’re also not going to restrict Israel’s right to defend itself if there are any imminent threats,” Kushner said, adding that Washington had sought to clarify what that provision would mean.

His comments came despite President Donald Trump earlier Monday calling for an end to Israeli attacks on Gaza.

“Israelis should not be striking in Gaza. Hamas agreed to lay down their weapons,” Trump said.

Israel has continued launching near-daily attacks on the territory. According to the figures cited by Al Jazeera, at least 1,265 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since a ceasefire came into effect last year. The broader Israeli war on Gaza has killed more than 73,000 Palestinians since October 2023, according to the same source.

U.S. pushes Gaza roadmap

Kushner also met Hamas officials on Sunday in a rare direct encounter as Washington seeks to move its Gaza plan forward. He described the discussions as “very cordial” but said the United States would judge Hamas by its actions rather than its promises.

“They said all the right things,” Kushner said, while expressing skepticism about the group’s willingness to fulfill its commitments.

He said Hamas could potentially surrender its weapons and tunnels within 60 to 90 days, describing such an outcome as a major security gain for Israel.

Kushner warned that if Hamas failed to follow through, the group would lose international support and Israel would have greater backing from Washington and other countries to continue military action.

The U.S. envoy also argued that the proposed agreement would benefit Israel by removing what he described as a major security threat.

The dispute over reconstruction highlights one of the central obstacles to the U.S.-backed plan. Gaza has suffered enormous destruction during the Israeli genocide, creating an urgent need for housing, infrastructure, health care and other basic services.

Washington has remained a major supporter of Israel throughout the genocide. According to Al Jazeera, the United States has provided Israel with about $25 billion in military aid over the past three years and has defended the Israeli government at international forums.

The latest diplomatic efforts come as Washington attempts to reconcile its calls for an end to the fighting with Israel’s demand for Hamas’ complete disarmament before any broader political settlement.

For Palestinians in Gaza, however, the continuation of Israeli strikes and the conditions attached to reconstruction leave the territory’s future uncertain, even as international efforts seek to establish a lasting ceasefire and begin rebuilding.

)Source: Aljazeera English)

T

housands of Palestinians gathered in Gaza City on Tuesday for one of the largest mass funerals since the start of the genocide, mourning 112 members of the Abu Shreia and al-Hassaina families whose remains were recovered from beneath the rubble nearly three years after an Israeli airstrike destroyed their homes.

The funeral, held in the Sabra neighborhood, marked the first time many relatives had been able to bury their loved ones since the attack in November 2023, when entire extended families were killed and buried under collapsed buildings.

Rows of white body bags containing the recovered remains were carried through the streets as mourners wept, prayed and scattered flowers from balconies overlooking the funeral procession. The ceremony brought together thousands of relatives, neighbors and residents, many of whom said the burial reopened wounds that had never healed.

For 39-year-old Lara Abu Shreia, the funeral was the painful conclusion of nearly three years of waiting.

“Today felt like the first day I lost them,” she said. “It was a renewed grief, saying goodbye to them this way.”

The November 22, 2023 strike destroyed her family’s residential compound in Sabra while she, her husband and their five children had already been displaced to southern Gaza following Israeli evacuation orders issued at the start of the genocide.

Fourteen of her closest relatives were killed, including her mother, Nawal, eight siblings and several nieces and nephews.

“My family disappeared almost in one moment,” she said.

Everyone was trapped under the rubble

While displaced in southern Gaza, Lara remained in regular contact with one of her sisters whenever communications allowed. On the night the attack occurred, she learned that airstrikes had hit Sabra but initially hoped the silence from her family was due to communication outages that frequently affected Gaza during the genocide.

Instead, her husband received the devastating news that the family compound had been destroyed and everyone inside was trapped beneath the rubble.

For months, Lara struggled to accept the loss.

When she returned to northern Gaza after the fighting eased, she visited the destroyed home, hoping against all odds that someone had survived.

“I kept telling myself maybe they were playing a trick on me. Maybe someone was hiding,” she recalled. “Maybe I will find someone we didn’t know about.”

Instead, she found only ruins.

In recent weeks, Palestinian Civil Defense teams began extensive recovery operations at the site, eventually retrieving 112 sets of remains from buildings where officials believe 153 people had been buried.

The operation was among the largest recovery missions conducted since the war began.

Mahmoud Basal, spokesperson for Gaza’s Civil Defense, described the funeral as unprecedented.

“Today, 112 martyrs are being buried in one funeral for the first time in the history of the Palestinian cause,” he said.

8,000 bodies remain under the rubble in Gaza

According to Civil Defense estimates, more than 8,000 bodies remain trapped beneath collapsed buildings across Gaza.

Recovery efforts have been hampered by extensive destruction, damaged infrastructure and a shortage of heavy equipment needed to clear debris safely.

“We need the capabilities and equipment to enter Gaza so Civil Defense teams can carry out this humanitarian mission,” Basal said.

He added that in many cases identifying victims has become increasingly difficult after years beneath the rubble.

“Some bodies have disappeared. Some have evaporated. Some have been scattered into very small pieces, making identification extremely difficult,” he said.

For Lara, witnessing the recovery process became a personal necessity despite relatives urging her to stay away.

“I told them, ‘I want to see. Even if it is just a bone, I want to see something from them,'” she said.

Another relative, 50-year-old Ali Abu Shreia, also lost two brothers and their entire families in the attack.

He said the strikes unfolded rapidly as relatives moved between houses in search of safety before gathering in the home of Mufeed al-Hassaina, a former Palestinian minister of public works and housing.

“They thought they would be safe, but the war machine did not distinguish between civilians, homes or families,” he said.

Ali described the victims as ordinary civilians with no military role.

“They were business owners, traders, people active in their community,” he said. “Seven families were completely erased from the civil registry.”

The funeral highlighted the enduring humanitarian consequences of the war, which has left thousands of people officially listed as missing because their remains have never been recovered.

More families on the waiting list

Families across Gaza continue to wait for excavation teams to reach destroyed neighborhoods where relatives are believed to remain buried.

Civil Defense officials say the search continues across multiple locations, although limited equipment means many recovery operations progress slowly.

Tuesday’s ceremony brought together grieving families who had lived for years without graves to visit or funerals to attend.

As the procession wound through Sabra, elderly relatives, parents and children walked behind the rows of white body bags, many overcome with emotion after years of uncertainty.

Women standing on balconies overlooking the funeral scattered flower petals onto the procession below while prayers echoed through the neighborhood.

For Lara, however, the burial offered little sense of closure.

Instead, it marked the beginning of another chapter of grief.

“I wanted to hug the bag,” she said quietly. “I wanted to hug whatever remained of them.”

(Source: Aljazeera English)

A

n independent United Nations commission has accused Israeli authorities and security forces of deliberately targeting Palestinian children during the war in Gaza, actions it said amount to genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. The findings, released Tuesday, drew an immediate and forceful rejection from Israel, which described the report as a “libelous sham” that ignored the conduct of Hamas.

The report was issued by the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory and examines alleged violations committed against Palestinian children in Gaza, the occupied West Bank, and East Jerusalem since the outbreak of war on October 7, 2023.

According to the commission, children accounted for approximately 30 percent of all fatalities during the Gaza conflict, a proportion significantly higher than in previous rounds of fighting. Investigators concluded that Israeli military operations caused an unprecedented level of harm to children and that evidence pointed to deliberate targeting in some cases.

“The evidence shows that Palestinian children have been deliberately targeted and killed by the Israeli security forces,” commission chair Srinivasan Muralidhar said in a statement accompanying the report.

Genocidal intent

The commission argued that the killing of children was a central factor in establishing a genocidal intent against Palestinians in Gaza. According to the report, Israeli military operations continued to result in child casualties even after a ceasefire took effect in October 2025.

Investigators said Israeli forces repeatedly employed high-payload munitions and weapons with wide-area effects in densely populated residential neighborhoods despite mounting evidence of civilian and child casualties.

The report stated that such attacks, which caused exceptionally high numbers of child deaths, indicated intentional conduct. It further argued that Palestinian children were targeted collectively because Israeli security forces viewed the broader civilian population as being associated with Hamas and other armed groups operating in Gaza.

The commission concluded that these actions contributed to efforts aimed at destroying the Palestinian population in Gaza, in whole or in part.

Thousands of children killed

According to figures cited in the report, at least 20,179 Palestinian children were killed between October 7, 2023, and October 7, 2025.

The commission noted that children represented roughly 30 percent of all fatalities during that period. By comparison, children accounted for about 24 percent of conflict-related deaths during previous Gaza conflicts in 2008–2009 and 2014.

Investigators said the scale of child deaths, combined with patterns of military operations, distinguished the current conflict from earlier wars.

The report also highlighted the broader humanitarian consequences of the conflict on Gaza’s youngest residents. It said repeated displacement, destruction of homes, shortages of food and medicine, and restrictions on humanitarian assistance severely damaged children’s health, development, and psychological well-being.

Impact on health and future generations

Beyond direct casualties, the commission found that attacks on healthcare facilities and reproductive services had long-term effects on children and families.

The report documented rising miscarriages, deteriorating conditions for newborns, and severe strain on Gaza’s medical infrastructure. Investigators warned that the destruction of healthcare services had undermined the survival prospects of infants and young children.

The commission further reported that nearly all children in Gaza now require psychological support due to trauma caused by the conflict, displacement, loss of family members, and prolonged exposure to violence.

Muralidhar said the targeting of children threatened not only individual lives but also the future existence of the Palestinian people.

“By targeting children, Israel is undermining the capacity of the Palestinian people to exist and determine their future,” he said.

B

ritain’s Court of Appeal has ruled that the government’s decision to ban the pro-Palestinian protest group Palestine Action as “a terrorist organization” was lawful, marking a major victory for the government and a significant setback for campaigners who argue the move threatens free speech and the right to protest.

In a judgment delivered on Monday, Chief Justice Dame Sue Carr rejected the group’s claim that it was primarily engaged in non-violent civil disobedience, concluding instead that its activities involved organized and deliberate acts of property destruction targeting military facilities and defense companies.

The ruling overturns a February decision by the High Court, which had found that although some of Palestine Action’s activities involved criminal conduct, the scale and nature of its actions did not justify designation under Britain’s terrorism legislation.

The government appealed that decision, and the ban remained in force while the legal challenge proceeded.

Court rejects non-violence argument

Delivering the judgment, Carr said the court found significant flaws in Palestine Action’s argument that it should be viewed as a peaceful protest movement.

“In our judgment, that premise was seriously flawed,” she said. “It was not a sustainable proposition to portray Palestine Action as a non-violent organization.”

The court concluded that the organization operated through covert networks that carried out coordinated attacks on defense contractors and military sites, causing substantial property damage and disruption.

Government lawyers argued that the group’s activities went beyond legitimate protest and amounted to actions that threatened national security and public safety.

The ruling effectively places Palestine Action in the same legal category as proscribed organizations such as Al-Qaeda and Hamas under British law.

Membership of, or support for, a proscribed organization is a criminal offense in the United Kingdom and can carry a prison sentence of up to 14 years.

Group vows further legal challenge

Following the judgment, Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori said the organization would continue its legal battle.

“We will fight proscription all the way,” Ammori said, pledging to challenge the ruling before the UK’s Supreme Court and, if necessary, the European Court of Human Rights.

She described the ban as “one of the most extreme attacks on free speech and the right to protest in modern British history.”

Supporters of the group argue that Palestine Action’s activities are a form of direct action aimed at disrupting companies linked to Israel’s military operations in Gaza rather than acts of terrorism.

Civil liberties organizations have also criticized the government’s approach, warning that the designation could set a precedent for treating political protest movements as terrorist organizations.

Origins of the ban

The British government moved to outlaw Palestine Action following a high-profile incident in June 2025 when activists entered a Royal Air Force base to protest Britain’s support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

The action followed a series of demonstrations and acts of vandalism directed at defense facilities, particularly sites connected to Israeli weapons manufacturer Elbit Systems and its British subsidiaries.

Officials have said the group’s operations have caused millions of pounds in damage and disrupted facilities considered important to national security.

Palestine Action was established in 2020 and has become known for direct-action campaigns involving occupations, blockades, and damage to property associated with defense and security industries.

Government ministers argued that the cumulative impact of those actions justified proscription under terrorism legislation.

T

he United States has removed Francesca Albanese from its sanctions list, reversing a controversial decision imposed during the Trump administration over her criticism of Israel’s war in Gaza and her calls for international legal action against Israeli and American officials.

The move came one week after a federal judge temporarily blocked the sanctions, ruling that the measures likely violated Albanese’s free-speech protections under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Albanese, an Italian lawyer serving as the United Nations special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, had become a prominent critic of Israeli military operations in Gaza. In her role, she called on the International Criminal Court to investigate alleged war crimes involving Israeli and U.S. nationals.

She also authored a report accusing several major American corporations of complicity in what she described as Israel’s “ongoing genocidal campaign in Gaza,” drawing strong criticism from Washington and pro-Israel groups.

The sanctions, imposed in July 2025, barred Albanese from entering the United States and cut off her access to the American banking system. U.S. officials at the time said the measures were intended to counter efforts to pressure the ICC into pursuing investigations against U.S. and Israeli officials, executives, and companies.

Judge says sanctions likely violated free speech

The legal challenge against the sanctions was filed in February by Albanese’s husband and daughter, who is a U.S. citizen. Their lawsuit argued that the penalties were politically motivated and unlawfully targeted Albanese for expressing her views on Gaza and international law.

On May 13, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ruled in favor of temporarily blocking the sanctions. Leon stated that Albanese’s residence outside the United States did not strip her of constitutional protections in this case and suggested the administration had sought to punish her because of the “idea or message expressed” in her public statements.

Following the ruling, the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control announced it would suspend enforcement of the sanctions while the court order remained in effect. The Treasury Department’s latest update now confirms Albanese has been fully removed from the sanctions list.

Neither the United States Department of State nor the White House immediately commented on the reversal.

Debate Over Gaza genocide and international accountability

The case has drawn international attention amid growing global divisions over Israel’s genocide in Gaza and efforts to pursue accountability through international courts.

Supporters of Albanese argued that the sanctions represented an unprecedented attempt by the United States to silence a U.N. official for expressing criticism of a close U.S. ally. Human rights organizations and legal experts warned that the measures risked undermining the independence of U.N. investigators and international institutions.

Critics of Albanese, however, accused her of bias against Israel and defended the Trump administration’s decision to sanction her. U.S. officials previously argued that her actions unfairly targeted Israeli and American individuals while politicizing the work of the United Nations.

The removal of the sanctions may now ease tensions between Washington and some international human rights bodies, though broader disagreements over the Gaza conflict and the role of the ICC are likely to continue.

Albanese has not yet publicly commented on the Treasury Department’s decision.

(Source: Reuters)

A

ccording to the Lancet, a respected academic journal, the Gaza Mortality Survey interviewed 2,000 households across 200 sampling locations between December 30, 2024, and January 5, 2025. Researchers documented the status of 9,729 individuals who were members of those households on October 6, 2023, the day before hostilities escalated.

Using stratified cluster sampling and statistical weighting — adjusting for age, gender, governorate of origin and household size — the study produced the following estimates for the first 15 months of the conflict: 75,200 violent deaths (95% confidence interval: 63,600–86,800), Equivalent to 3.4% of Gaza’s pre-war population, 42,200 women, children and older people killed violently, comprising 56.2% of violent deaths and 16,300 non-violent deaths, including 8,540 excess deaths above projected baseline mortality.

By comparison, Gaza’s Ministry of Health reported approximately 49,090 violent deaths over the same period. The Lancet study concludes that the ministry’s figure was about 34.7% below its central estimate.

However, the demographic breakdown — particularly the proportion of women, children and elderly among the dead — closely mirrors MoH reporting. The researchers say this convergence is significant, finding no evidence that official figures were inflated. Instead, they suggest the ministry likely undercounted violent deaths amid the extreme operational pressures of the conflict.

Violent vs. non-violent mortality

The study distinguishes between deaths caused directly by military action and non-violent deaths linked indirectly to the war, such as those resulting from untreated disease, disrupted medical care or other conflict-related conditions.

Researchers estimate 8,540 excess non-violent deaths up to early January 2025. While substantial, that figure is lower than some earlier projections suggesting indirect deaths might outnumber direct fatalities several times over.

The findings indicate that violent deaths were the primary driver of mortality during the period examined. The estimated crude death rate from violence was 33.1 per 1,000 population per year — a level the authors describe as exceptionally high by contemporary conflict standards.

The results broadly align with a 2025 capture-recapture analysis published in The Lancet, which suggested Gaza’s official figures undercounted deaths by roughly 40%. The consistency of findings across different methodologies strengthens confidence in the overall scale of mortality, the authors say.

The survey also estimated that 12,200 people were missing, predominantly men aged 18–64. For their primary calculations, the researchers conservatively treated missing individuals as alive, noting that final mortality totals could shift depending on future clarification of their status.

Methodological challenges in active conflict

With a 97.2% household response rate and detailed supervisory procedures, the Gaza Mortality Survey demonstrates that rigorous mortality surveillance is possible even in an active war zone, the authors argue. They emphasize that their figures are estimates rather than definitive counts and carry statistical margins of uncertainty.

Nonetheless, the evidence suggests that by early January 2025, between three and four percent of Gaza’s population — estimated at roughly 2.2 million before the war — had been killed violently.

Since the survey concluded, humanitarian conditions in Gaza have deteriorated further. Famine was declared in parts of the territory in August 2025, and health infrastructure remains severely compromised.

The long-term health consequences of the conflict — including chronic disease, trauma and disrupted medical care — are likely to extend well beyond the period covered by the study, the authors warn, underscoring the enduring human cost of the war.

(Source: The Lancet)

G

aza’s Rafah border crossing with Egypt reopened on Monday for limited passenger traffic, marking a significant—though largely symbolic—step in the implementation of the Israeli-Hamas ceasefire, according to Egyptian officials.

Egyptian authorities said the crossing would initially allow 50 Palestinians to travel in each direction per day, with no commercial goods permitted. The reopening comes amid growing humanitarian pressure, as Gaza health officials estimate that around 20,000 people, many of them children, are in urgent need of medical evacuation after more than two years of devastating genocide.

An Egyptian official involved in ceasefire implementation talks, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed the limited scope of the reopening. Israeli officials and Egyptian state media also acknowledged the move, describing it as a trial phase that could expand if security arrangements prove workable.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel would permit 50 medical patients per day to leave Gaza, each accompanied by up to two relatives. In addition, approximately 50 Palestinians who were stranded outside Gaza during the war will be allowed to return daily, according to an official familiar with the negotiations.

Tight security oversight

Israel and Egypt will jointly vet travelers passing through Rafah. The crossing will be overseen by European Union border assistance personnel, alongside a limited Palestinian administrative presence. Israeli officials said the number of travelers could gradually increase if the arrangement is deemed successful.

Israeli forces seized control of the Rafah crossing in May 2024, citing efforts to prevent arms smuggling by Hamas. It was only briefly reopened during a short-lived ceasefire in early 2025 to allow medical evacuations. Israeli resistance to reopening Rafah eased last week after the recovery of the remains of the final Israeli officer held in Gaza.

Before the war, Rafah served as Gaza’s primary exit and entry point for people, as all other crossings are controlled by Israel. Under current ceasefire terms, Israeli troops continue to control the corridor separating Rafah from Gaza’s main population centers.

Egypt has repeatedly warned against any attempt to use the crossing to forcibly displace Palestinians, insisting it must function as a two-way passage. Historically, Egypt has screened Palestinians seeking to cross.

Ceasefire under strain

The Rafah reopening coincides with the transition of the U.S.-brokered ceasefire, which took effect on October 10, 2025, into its second phase. The truce halted more than two years of genocide that began on October 7, 2023.

While the first phase focused on hostage-prisoner exchanges, humanitarian aid, and a partial Israeli troop withdrawal, the second phase envisions far more complex steps, including the establishment of a new Palestinian governing committee in Gaza, the deployment of an international security force, Hamas’ disarmament, and the launch of reconstruction efforts.

However, the ceasefire remains fragile. On Sunday, the European Union sharply criticized Israel for what it described as repeated violations of the truce.

“We condemn the repeated violations of the ceasefire in Gaza, where hundreds of Palestinians were killed and injured by Israeli strikes over the weekend,” said Hadja Lahbib, the EU commissioner for equality, preparedness, and crisis management.

According to Gaza’s media office, 524 Palestinians have been killed and 1,360 injured by Israeli attacks since the ceasefire began, despite commitments to halt hostilities.

Lahbib emphasized that international humanitarian law must be fully respected and that civilians must be protected “everywhere and at all times,” underscoring mounting international concern that the ceasefire could unravel without stronger enforcement mechanisms.

(Source: The Associated Press and Anadolu Agency)

A

stretch of yellow-painted concrete blocks running through parts of the Gaza Strip has become a powerful symbol of a new reality for Palestinians: a de facto internal border that dictates where people can live, move and survive.

Known locally as the “yellow line,” the boundary marks the furthest point of Israeli military redeployment under the first phase of the ceasefire that came into effect in October. According to Israeli military maps, the line extends between 1.5 and 6.5 kilometers inside Gaza from its eastern border with Israel, placing roughly 58 percent of the enclave under direct Israeli military control.

On the Palestinian side of the line, daily life unfolds under constant uncertainty. Just meters from the yellow blocks in eastern Gaza City, Zaid Mohammed, a displaced father of four, shelters with his family in a small tent pitched amid the ruins of destroyed homes.

“Israeli soldiers are only a few hundred meters from here,” Zaid said, gesturing toward the eastern horizon where the sound of gunfire and drones is a near-constant presence. “It’s dangerous to move even a few steps. Sometimes we hear bulldozers demolishing what’s left of houses or farmland.”

Two zones

The yellow line divides Gaza into two zones: an eastern area under Israeli military control and a western area where Palestinians face fewer movement restrictions but remain vulnerable to air strikes, displacement orders and sudden shifts in what is deemed “safe.”

Although not formally recognized as an international boundary, the line functions as a powerful internal border. United Nations agencies and humanitarian organizations say it has expanded, shifted and retracted repeatedly during the war, creating fluid but deadly constraints on civilian movement.

During a visit to Gaza in December, Israeli Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir described the yellow line as “a new border line,” signaling Israel’s intent to retain long-term control over large swathes of the territory. The areas affected include key regions such as Rafah in the south and Beit Hanoon in the north.

The line’s emergence is the result of a series of forced displacement orders issued by the Israeli military throughout the conflict. These orders were often delivered through leaflets, phone messages or online maps, sometimes while bombardment was ongoing, giving civilians little time or clarity to evacuate safely.

The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) has reported that at various points more than 70 percent of Gaza’s territory was either under evacuation orders or classified as unsafe.

Invisible line

On the ground, however, the yellow line is often invisible. In many areas, there are no signs or clear markings. Residents rely instead on sound, memory and instinct to determine where danger begins.

“A street that felt safe yesterday can be deadly today,” said one aid worker in central Gaza, speaking on condition of anonymity. “People pack up and flee even if their homes are still standing, because the rules change overnight.”

The cumulative toll has been immense. Israel’s war on Gaza has destroyed or damaged more than 80 percent of buildings in the enclave, home to around 2.3 million people. A UN official said last week that clearing more than 60 million tons of rubble could take over seven years.

Most of Gaza’s population has been displaced at least once, with many forced to move multiple times. Families now live in tents or bombed-out buildings, often close to military zones.

Living under these conditions has had severe psychological consequences. Mental health professionals working with the World Health Organization and UNICEF report widespread anxiety, insomnia and trauma, particularly among children.

“Children have learned new maps of safety,” said a Gaza-based psychologist working with an international NGO. “They know which streets are forbidden, how to react to drones, when to run. That kind of normalization of danger leaves deep scars.”

Devastating agricultural land

The yellow line has also devastated livelihoods. Farmers can see their land but cannot reach it. Businesses close when they fall too near restricted areas. Even during lulls in fighting, fear prevents people from returning to work or rebuilding.

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization has documented extensive losses of farmland due to shelling, military activity and restricted access near boundary zones.

For many Palestinians, the yellow line represents more than a military measure. It is a daily reminder of instability, loss and the shrinking space available for civilian life.

“It’s not just a line on a map,” Zaid said quietly, watching his children play in the dust. “It decides where we can go, how long we can stay, and whether we dare to hope for something better.”

Though unofficial and often unseen, the yellow line is etched deeply into Gaza’s landscape — and into the lives of those struggling to survive on its edge.

(Source: Aljazeera)

T

he first phase of the 20-point Gaza Ceasefire Plan began on October 10, 2025. The plan was made possible through the initiative of U.S. President Trump and the mediation of Turkey, Qatar, and Egypt. The ceasefire agreement was formalized with a letter of intent signed on October 13 in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, in the presence of representatives from more than 35 countries and international organizations that accompanied the mediating and guarantor countries. The United Nations Security Council accepted the agreement on November 17, and it entered into force as Resolution 2803.

In exchange for Israel halting its attacks, withdrawing its troops behind a designated yellow line, and opening the border crossings to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza, the first phase of the agreement was established. This phase required that Hamas first release 20 live hostages and then hand over the bodies of 28 deceased hostages. Although Hamas fulfilled its obligations, Israel did not completely stop its attacks nor allow the free entry of humanitarian aid. Nevertheless, to prevent the resumption of attacks, Hamas tolerated Israel’s ceasefire violations, handed over all hostages in its possession, and worked to advance to the second phase of the agreement.

In fact, after two years, it is a great achievement that the parties have accepted the ceasefire. It is also important that the first phase of the agreement has been completed despite the problems. However, the second phase is of even greater importance. It includes the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza, the establishment of a Gaza peace committee (Board of Peace), the formation of a temporary administration composed of Palestinian technocrats, the deployment of an international stabilization force, and the reconstruction of Gaza.

Conditions necessary for moving to the second phase

After Trump was re-elected president, he pressured Israel to accept a ceasefire even before taking office. This resulted in the implementation of a three-phase Gaza ceasefire plan on January 19, 2025. However, Israel waited for the completion of the first phase, which included the reciprocal release of hostages and prisoners. Israel then prevented the transition to the second and third phases, which included the withdrawal from and reconstruction of Gaza. After 60 days, on March 18, 2025, Israel claimed that Hamas had violated the ceasefire agreement by attacking Gaza, thereby rendering the ceasefire null and void.

Today, a similar process is unfolding. Israel is attempting to break the ceasefire again by blaming Hamas and refusing to allow any initiative that would permit the reconstruction of Gaza or pave the way for a two-state solution.

Despite many difficulties, the first phase of the ceasefire has been successfully completed, and it is now necessary to move on to the second phase. However, neither Trump’s 20-point plan nor UN Security Council Resolution 2803 set out a timetable for the phases of the ceasefire agreement. It is unclear when each phase will begin and end or when the next phase will start. In fact, conditions on the ground necessitate moving to the second phase of the ceasefire agreement as soon as possible. The international community has high expectations in this regard. Nevertheless, it’s clear that Israel wants to maintain the status quo, despite these expectations, and is trying to delay moving to the second phase by stalling for various reasons.

What is Israel objecting to?

Implementing the ceasefire reduced and, to a certain extent, halted international pressure on Israel, and Tel Aviv took full advantage of this. Its most significant gain has undoubtedly been the release of hostages that it had been unable to rescue. However, Israel has failed to fulfill its ceasefire responsibilities, either by neglecting them or deliberately ignoring them. Israel has attempted to sabotage the ceasefire process by fabricating excuses such as Hamas failing to deliver the bodies of deceased hostages on time, failing to lay down its arms, stealing humanitarian aid, and carrying out attacks on the yellow line. Israel has now raised its final objection to the transition to the second phase: Turkey’s participation in the stability force to be established.

Netanyahu stated that they would not allow Turkish soldiers in Gaza under any circumstances, saying that this was their red line. Nevertheless, both Trump and Emir Al-Thani of Qatar insisted that Turkey should be part of the stabilization force, which threw Israel’s calculations into disarray. They assessed that if they officially broke the ceasefire, they would incur Trump’s wrath. Therefore, despite all their objections, they were forced to maintain the ceasefire.

By undermining the close relationship between President Erdoğan and Trump, Israel is attempting to persuade Trump to oppose Turkey. To this end, Israel is trying to portray Turkey as the new Iran, threatening peace and stability in the Middle East. In this way, Israel is trying to advance its annexation agenda by preventing Turkey from entering Gaza and removing Turkey from Syria and destabilizing the country.

Expectations and challenges of the second phase

In order to advance to the second phase of the ceasefire, Trump must first reveal the composition of the “Peace Council” that he promised to establish. Additionally, the structure and role of the sub-administration consisting of Palestinian technocrats who will serve under this council and the international stabilization force must be disclosed. These councils will manage Gaza’s transition and reconstruction process.

However, the most important issue that has been overlooked is the necessity for Israel to cease its attacks completely, withdraw from Gaza, and lift restrictions on humanitarian aid entry. As long as Israel continues its attacks and occupation and prevents humanitarian aid from entering Gaza, Hamas will not lay down its arms or hand over power, as it has pledged to do. Therefore, while the U.S. administration is working to establish the Peace Council and the stabilization force, it must also ensure that Israel acts in accordance with its commitments.

However, it appears that the parties’ expectations for the second phase differ, and reaching an agreement between the two sides will be difficult. Israel demands that the Peace Committee and the stabilization force be composed of individuals and countries of its choosing, thereby seeking to maintain control.

Israel even wants the stabilization force to be involved in disarming Hamas and, if necessary, engage in conflict with Hamas. Hamas, on the other hand, wants the stabilization force positioned to protect Gazans from Israeli soldiers and structured to prevent Israeli attacks. For this reason, they want soldiers from Muslim countries, primarily Turkey, to be part of this force. As in previous agreements, they want to prevent the entire structure from being pro-Israel and prevent Israel from sabotaging the process.

Around 520,000 people gathered on Istanbul’s Galata Bridge on New Year’s Day for a mass demonstration in support of Palestinians and to call for an end to the war in Gaza, according to organizers.

The march, held under the slogan “We won’t cower, we won’t keep quiet, we won’t forget Palestine,” was organized by the Humanity Alliance and the National Will Platform, with the participation of more than 400 civil society organizations. The Turkish Youth Foundation (TUGVA) led the event.

Participants began assembling before dawn after morning prayers at major mosques across Istanbul, including Hagia Sophia, Sultanahmet, Fatih, Suleymaniye and the Eminonu New Mosque. Carrying Turkish and Palestinian flags, crowds gathered in mosque courtyards before marching on foot toward Galata Bridge.

Despite freezing temperatures, turnout was high. Authorities imposed extensive security measures, particularly around Sultanahmet Square, and provided hot refreshments to demonstrators. The main program began at about 8:30 a.m. local time.

Officials, artists join demonstration

Ministers, senior officials and figures listed in the official state protocol joined the march. A large banner depicting “Hanzala,” the iconic Palestinian cartoon figure created by the late artist Naji al-Ali, was displayed near the main press platform.

The event also featured performances by well-known artists, including Lebanese-Swedish singer Maher Zain, Turkish singer Esat Kabakli and the band Grup Yuruyus.

Speaking to reporters, Bilal Erdoğan, chair of the Ilim Yayma Foundation’s Board of Trustees and a member of TUGVA’s High Advisory Board, said the new year had begun with prayers for Palestine and described the gathering as a demonstration of moral and spiritual unity.

Addressing the crowd, TUGVA Chair Ibrahim Beşinci said the scale of participation reflected a collective stance against what he described as the ongoing violence in Gaza. He cited figures on civilian deaths and destruction and commemorated three Turkish police officers killed days earlier in an operation against the Daesh militant group.

Sports figures and cultural resistance

Support for the march was also voiced by prominent sports officials. The chairmen of Beşiktaş, Galatasaray and Trabzonspor, along with a Fenerbahçe board member, publicly encouraged participation, alongside statements from several other clubs.

An art installation titled “Roots” was unveiled on Galata Bridge, featuring an olive tree rising from rubble and scattered cultural objects, symbolizing memory, resilience and cultural resistance in Gaza, organizers said.

(Source: Anadolu Agency)

H

istorically, Great Britain was one of the most powerful countries and dominant actors during the 17th and 18th centuries, as the Ottoman Empire was weakening. After the Industrial Revolution, Britain emerged as a dominant world power in economics, commercial routes, politics, maritime, and the military. Depending on its power and resources, England began acquiring colonies in different parts of the world, such as Africa, North America, the Middle East, and India.

As the global colonial race accelerated, formidable rivals such as Italy, France, and Germany emerged. Changes in the social, political, and other dynamics within the international system caused Britain’s dominant position to falter, as it did for other empires and superpowers throughout history. Notably, the rise, development, and spread of nationalism throughout the world led to rebellions against colonial rule and struggles for independence in countries under colonial British rule.

This applied to the Middle East. After World War I, a number of uprisings broke out under the influence of pan-Arabism in countries that Britain shared with France under the Sykes–Picot Agreement (1916). When the Arab nationalist movement emerged in Palestine between 1936 and 1939, Britain’s situation became even more difficult. This was because Britain had promised to establish a national homeland for the Jews in Palestine in the 1917 Balfour Declaration and thus had to contend with two distinct national and political groups in the region.

The White Paper

According to Professor Pappe, a leading Israeli scholar on the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948, Palestine under British mandate was governed by the British, desired by the Zionists, and claimed by the Hashemites until the 1920s. After the 1920s, London placed a greater emphasis on efforts to establish a federal state and undertook initiatives such as the Passfield White Paper.

The British Empire presented the “Balfour Declaration” in 1917, which promised to give Jews a national homeland in Palestine, as a pragmatic political option for its interests in the region. When it could not cope with Jewish immigration, the Empire was forced to pursue a “policy of appeasement” toward both the Arab and Jewish populations. However, another important factor influencing Britain’s decision to leave the region amid Jewish attacks on British authority was the regional situation and geopolitics.

By 1947, threats from Germany and Italy had been eliminated. London had maintained control in Egypt and the Suez Canal and no longer needed a buffer state like Palestine. This also led to a gradual decline in Britain’s inclination to establish a two-state federal system or a Palestinian state.

A more cautious policy in the region

After Israel’s establishment in 1948, Britain pursued a more cautious policy in the region because the U.S. was increasingly settling in the Middle East, and Britain did not want to provoke Arab countries’ reactions. After losing its decisive role in the region to the U.S., especially following the “Suez Crisis” (1956), Britain deviated from its pro-Arab policies and began supporting Israel to control its rising power.

Having lost its regional leadership to the U.S., some of Britain’s actions and policies during this period were shaped by competition with Washington. In this context, Britain’s policy on Palestine was largely shaped by the policies of larger and rival powers, as in the past, following the 1957 Eisenhower Doctrine. After this historical turning point, London tried to design a Palestine policy that would break the U.S.’s regional hegemony.

Breaking away from the U.S.

Despite this, a historical analysis reveals that Britain is more aligned with U..S regional policy and has supported Jewish settlements in opposition to Arab interests. Initially, British policymakers followed an integrated regional policy with the U.S. However, especially after the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the USSR, Britain has not hesitated to criticize American policy toward the Middle East and often Israel’s actions and its policy toward Palestine.

For example, the U.K. has occasionally criticized Israeli violence due to actions that harm the “Middle East Peace Process,” as well as the First and Second Intifadas. Furthermore, the 2007 Foreign Affairs Committee Report of the British House of Commons warned the British government against establishing relations with organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.

A Turning point: October 2023

As time went by, Britain’s shift towards a pro-Arab stance and opposition to the pro-Israeli American Middle East policy raised concerns in Tel Aviv. In a 2017 House of Lords meeting, it was decided that London would not align with the U.S. in the region and would develop its own unique Middle East policy.

In 2017, British Prime Minister Theresa May rejected U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to declare Jerusalem the “unified capital of Israel” and move the U.S. embassy there. This rejection was interpreted as a departure from British foreign policy efforts to establish a unique presence in the Middle East.

The Israeli army’s invasion and destruction of Gaza following the Al-Aqsa Flood on October 7, 2023, and its genocide against the Palestinian population were condemned by the international community. Like many other Western capitals, the British government announced that it would recognize Palestine as a state.

However, the UK’s ambiguous position on Palestine continues to raise questions. Although London strongly opposed the Israeli authorities’ establishment of more settlements in the West Bank in 2019 and beyond, and criticized the Gaza massacre, the UK’s military and technological relations with Tel Aviv have continued thanks to the Jewish lobby’s influence on the British parliament, which we also see at the U.S. Congress.

A

s the global map of recognition shifts, Palestine now stands acknowledged by 157 of the 193 UN member states, following a wave of diplomatic moves in 2025 that included the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, France, Belgium, Portugal, Luxembourg, and Malta. These recognitions, nearly eight decades after the 1948 Nakba, mark a critical moment in the long and uneven pursuit of Palestinian statehood.

From Gaza, where daily life remains under blockade and the air carries the tension of uncertainty, such announcements are followed with cautious observation rather than celebration. Many remember previous moments of symbolic gestures—Oslo, the UN observer status in 2012—each met with brief optimism, then folded back into occupation and control.

Yet, this year feels different in its scale and timing: public outrage in Western capitals has reached an intensity unseen in decades, as mass demonstrations fill streets from London to Rome, Sydney to Toronto, demanding political accountability and an end to complicity. For Palestinians, these shifts signal that the narrative once monopolized by power is being challenged.

Recognition alone will not change the checkpoints, empty shelves, or loss, but it disrupts the silence that has long defined international diplomacy—and from Gaza, that disruption, however delayed, is still seen as a necessary beginning.

Demonstrations are not enough

But what does recognition mean for those outside Palestine who have long stood in solidarity with it? To move beyond the language of diplomacy, I reached out to voices abroad — people who marched, spoken, and acted in support of Palestine from afar.

Hannah, a 59-year-old activist from the UK, reflects on decades of demonstrations for Palestine in her country. “Demonstrations have been going on in the UK for decades. I’m ashamed to say that my understanding of the situation in your country was limited despite this,” she admits.

When asked what motivates her to continue participating, Hannah explains, “I lost faith in the power of demonstrations to impact government decisions after an enormous protest failed to prevent Tony Blair committing the UK to war in Iraq. But in the absence of anything else productive ordinary citizens can do, I join others in the streets. I find marches depressing because people seem to think marching is enough, and conversely, marching doesn’t seem to achieve much. Yet, hearing Palestinian people gain some small comfort from knowing people around the world are marching in their name encourages me to take part.”

She emphasizes her preference is for more targeted protests. “A narrower message, like ‘stop arming Israel,’ seems more relevant in the UK than ‘free Palestine,’ which is obviously desirable but perhaps not immediately achievable—certainly not without first withdrawing arms sales to the occupier,” Hannah adds.

Paul, a 53-year-old author and academic with Irish roots living in England, reflects on decades of demonstrations for Palestine in the UK. “I believe the current wave of demonstrations started very soon after Israel’s response to October 7, but support for Palestinian goals has been ongoing for decades,” he explains. Paul traces public support for Palestine back to the 1990s, during events such as opposition to the Iraq War, when many British and Irish people recognized the moral and political consequences of actions in the Muslim world.

His motivation to participate in demonstrations stems from a deep sense of social justice. “From the very beginning, I wasn’t afraid to express my views. Almost immediately after October 7, I was asked to write a news article in which I tried to present an impartial viewpoint,” Paul recalls. He emphasizes the importance of speaking out despite potential consequences, noting many in Britain fear losing their jobs or facing backlash. Yet he trusted the integrity of institutions enough to be outspoken and to call for peace.

Significant mobilizations

Tess, a 36-year-old activist from the United States, notices, while there have been longstanding protests tied to broader liberation movements, the mobilizations following October 7 were particularly significant. She remembers attending a major protest in Washington, D.C. and highlights the ongoing efforts of her local BDS cooperative grocery store, which has been organizing since 2012, but found renewed energy after October 7.

Her motivation to participate is rooted in a lifelong awareness of government interventions and colonial violence. “Living in the U.S., my life has been marked by witnessing colonialism, and its ultimate expression in Israel’s occupation of Palestine felt especially vivid after October 7,” she explains. Tess emphasizes the responsibility she feels as an American: the weapons used in the conflict are made, sold, and funded in her country, implicating her complicity. Additionally, her background as a farmer deepens her emotional response to the destruction of land, olive trees, and ecosystems in Palestine. She also mourns the destruction of libraries, archives, and cultural artifacts, which represent precious human knowledge and heritage.

Maria, 65, is a criminal defense lawyer from New Zealand. Her professional life has been devoted to standing beside marginalized individuals in court, a guiding principle for her activism for global human rights. She recalls the first large-scale demonstrations for Palestine in New Zealand occurred shortly after October 2023, when images and testimonies from Gaza began circulating widely. In Auckland, thousands marched down Queen Street, representing a broad coalition of young families, long-time activists, Pacific Islander communities, Māori sovereignty advocates, union members, and students. For Maria, this marked a transition from isolated protests to a significant social movement.

Her motivation to participate stems from a commitment to fairness and the principle that all lives matter equally. She draws personal resonance from parallels with the historical dispossession of Māori people in Aotearoa and her Irish heritage, recognizing patterns of structural violence and intergenerational trauma.

Piazza Palestina

Francesca, 30, from Italy, recalls demonstrations for Palestine began a few months after October 2023, though protests had occurred in various forms prior. In Turin, Piazza Castello has been transformed into a symbolic “Piazza Palestina,” with a permanent sit-in where young protesters share information by day and sleep in tents by night—a striking display of commitment and visibility.

Francesca’s sense of solidarity comes from both academic study and following news as well as following Palestinian photographers, journalists, and writers like Francesca Albanese, on Instagram. She also reads books and novels written by Palestinians to better understand their culture, history, and experiences.

Gabrielle, 31, from Australia, recalls major protests in Sydney, particularly at Town Hall, began around October 23, 2023. Her motivation to participate was fueled by feelings of helplessness while doomscrolling through her phone. Attending rallies felt like the minimum she could do in response to the crisis.

Though Gabrielle is not Palestinian, her work in fashion has brought her into contact with Arab and Muslim designers. Hearing their grief made the crisis feel personally close.

Thomas, 62, a mechanical engineer who spent most of his career in the steel industry, lives in Wollongong with his wife and has three children and seven grandchildren. For him, activism is a privilege, but also a moral responsibility.

U

N Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories Francesca Albanese said she will continue speaking out against Israel’s actions in Gaza despite U.S. sanctions, personal threats and mounting political pressure, insisting that attempts to silence her will fail.

In an interview with Anadolu in London, Albanese said the sanctions imposed by Washington and the accusations levelled against her are part of an escalating campaign aimed at suppressing scrutiny of alleged crimes in Gaza.

“They have become more and more vicious with personal threats and physical threats, and then the sanctions are a combination of it,” Albanese said. “But you cannot silence the truth in the face of a genocide.”

Sanctions and accusations

The United States imposed sanctions on Albanese more than five months ago, barring her from travelling to the country and allowing for the freezing of any U.S.-based assets. The measures were announced after Washington accused her of encouraging International Criminal Court (ICC) action against U.S. and Israeli officials.

Albanese said she has faced what she described as “spurious accusations of antisemitism” and claims of supporting terrorism, allegations she firmly rejected.

“These accusations have found fertile ground in the hypocrisy of many Western countries,” she said, adding that the pressure has only strengthened her resolve.

In August, several UN experts warned that sanctions on a UN special rapporteur risk undermining the independence of the international human rights system.

Call for accountability

Albanese stressed that accountability must extend beyond international courts and include individuals and institutions at the national level.

She noted that citizens from countries including the UK, France, Italy, Belgium and Tunisia have served in the Israeli military during the Gaza offensive, arguing that governments should investigate whether laws have been breached.

“They should be held accountable. They should be considered suspects,” she said, referring to individuals and entities allegedly complicit in crimes.

Israel is currently facing proceedings at both the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court. In November 2024, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant on allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

UN membership and cultural boycotts

Commenting on several European broadcasters withdrawing from the 2026 Eurovision Song Contest in protest over Israel’s participation, Albanese said it was striking that cultural platforms were acting before diplomatic institutions.

“It’s incredible that Eurovision is the first public gathering where Israel is effectively being boycotted,” she said. “This should have happened in the UN General Assembly.”

She added that Israel’s UN membership should be suspended, arguing that the call is based on the scale and persistence of alleged violations rather than singling out one state.

Following confirmation earlier this month that Israel would compete in Eurovision 2026, broadcasters in Iceland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Slovenia and Spain announced their withdrawal.

T

he Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) — a U.S.- and Israeli-backed organization that became one of the most controversial actors in Gaza’s wartime aid landscape — will formally end its operations in the Strip, according to the group’s executive director and multiple Israeli officials familiar with the decision. The closure follows months of criticism, deadly incidents at aid distribution points, and the recent shift back toward United Nations–led relief during the current ceasefire.

GHF suspended its work in mid-October, but its leadership now confirms the suspension will become a permanent shutdown.

“We are winding down our operations as we have succeeded in our mission of showing there’s a better way to deliver aid to Gazans,” GHF executive director John Acree said in a statement. Acree did not address questions regarding the hundreds of fatalities linked to the organization’s sites, but maintained the foundation delivered “valuable lessons” for future humanitarian responses.

Israeli sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the plan to close the operations was finalized weeks earlier but remained undisclosed until Acree’s announcement.

Backed and funded by both Washington and Tel Aviv, the GHF began operations in late May with the stated purpose of creating an alternative to the United Nations’ long-standing aid distribution model. It promised highly secured, controlled delivery sites that would prevent aid from reaching Hamas — a claim heavily promoted by both the Israeli government and certain U.S. officials.

Aid distribution turned deadly

From its launch, GHF ran several large-scale distribution sites in southern Gaza and one in the central part of the Strip. But the foundation’s strategy of concentrating aid at a limited number of fenced, tightly controlled points produced massive crowds of desperate Palestinians, many of whom had few other avenues to access food.

According to UN figures, more than 2,100 Palestinians were killed while seeking aid, whether in stampedes, clashes, or shootings in and around GHF sites. Some of the deadliest incidents took place near Rafah, where Palestinian authorities and witnesses repeatedly accused Israeli forces of firing on crowds gathered near the foundation’s structures. A CNN investigation into one of these events found evidence that Israeli troops opened fire as civilians surged toward food supplies.

The GHF consistently denied responsibility for the deaths, blaming “crowd behavior” and Hamas militants for the chaos. But humanitarian groups said the foundation’s model was fundamentally flawed. Its single-site approach, they argued, funneled hundreds of thousands of starving civilians into a handful of enclosures — with predictable, tragic consequences.

UN refused to participate, citing safety risks

Unlike previous international efforts, the United Nations declined to take part in GHF’s model from the start. UN officials argued the model lacked independence, was too closely aligned with the policies of the U.S. and Israel, and created unacceptable risks for Palestinian civilians.

The GHF insisted operations were conducted in coordination with the Israel Defense Forces, while security at aid sites was managed by private military contractors. Critics said this structure blurred the lines between humanitarian action and military strategy.

Reactions to the foundation’s shutdown highlight deep divides over its role. In Washington, U.S. State Department deputy spokesperson Tommy Pigott praised the group’s performance.

“GHF’s model, in which Hamas could no longer loot and profit from stealing aid, played a huge role in getting Hamas to the table and achieving a ceasefire,” Pigott wrote on social media. “We thank them for all that they provided to Gazans.”

But Palestinian groups, including Hamas, reacted with anger — and satisfaction. In a statement, Hamas called GHF’s closure “a deserved step,” condemning the organization as one that “engineered starvation” and operated as part of Israel’s “security apparatus.”

Palestinian civil society organizations also welcomed the shutdown, saying the return of aid operations to the United Nations could reduce chaos and improve civilian safety.

Yet the debates sparked by the foundation’s turbulent existence are far from over. Its supporters say it demonstrated new ways to minimize diversion of aid, while its critics insist the model was built on political priorities, not humanitarian principles.

What remains uncontested is that one of the war’s most controversial aid initiatives has come to a definitive close.

(Source: CNN)

T

he United Nations Security Council on Monday adopted a U.S.-drafted resolution backing President Donald Trump’s proposed roadmap to end the Gaza genocide, clearing the way for the deployment of an international stabilization force and the creation of a transitional authority to govern the enclave.

The resolution — passed with Russia and China abstaining — marks Washington’s most significant diplomatic gain at the UN since the genocide started two years ago. It formalizes the first steps of Trump’s 20-point Gaza plan, which Israel and Hamas agreed to in principle last month, including a ceasefire and a staged hostage exchange.

The vote is expected to pave the way for countries to contribute troops to the stabilization mission and participate in the “Board of Peace,” a U.S.-chaired transitional governance authority that would oversee Gaza’s reconstruction, security arrangements, and economic revival.

Mike Waltz, the U.S. ambassador to the UN, told the chamber that the resolution “charts a possible pathway for Palestinian self-determination,” adding that the plan aims to ensure Gaza “rises free from terror’s shadow, prosperous and secure.”

A mandate to demilitarize Gaza

The resolution authorizes participating states to take part in establishing an international stabilization force, tasked with overseeing the demilitarization of Gaza, securing key infrastructure, and dismantling militant capabilities.

According to the text, the force is empowered to facilitate the identification and destruction of weapons caches, tunnel networks, and other military infrastructure, while coordinating with the transitional governance body to restore public services.

The move represents the first time the Security Council has supported a mandate for foreign forces inside Gaza, and it raises questions about future clashes with Hamas, which rejected the decision.

In a sharply worded statement, Hamas said it will not give up its weapons and denounced the resolution as “an international guardianship mechanism” imposed on Gaza. The group asserted that armed resistance remains “legitimate” and warned that any force attempting to confiscate weapons may face confrontation.

Hamas officials called the resolution “unacceptable,” insisting that the transitional authority endorsed by the UN does not represent Palestinian consensus.

Russia and China withhold support

Although Russia and China declined to veto the measure, both abstained and criticized the resolution for granting too much authority to the United States.

Russian ambassador Vasily Nebenzya accused Washington of seeking “complete control over the Gaza Strip” through opaque mechanisms. “The council is giving its blessing to a U.S. initiative on the basis of Washington’s promises,” he said, pointing to a lack of clarity around the structure and rules governing the Board of Peace and the stabilization force.

China’s envoy also complained that the resolution leaves the UN sidelined, offering it no clear role in shaping Gaza’s political future.

The abstentions reflect continued geopolitical tensions between the major powers but also suggest a reluctance to obstruct what many countries see as the best available framework to end the genocide.

Statehood language sparks Israeli backlash

The Palestinian Authority (PA), which has been under pressure to lead postwar governance efforts, welcomed the resolution and signaled its readiness to help implement it. Diplomats said the PA’s support helped prevent a Russian veto by assuring Moscow that Ramallah would play a central role in the transition.

The resolution sparked controversy in Israel due to references to a possible “credible pathway” to Palestinian statehood — language Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long opposed.

Under pressure from far-right members of his ruling coalition, Netanyahu reiterated Sunday that Israel remains firmly opposed to Palestinian statehood and vowed to demilitarize Gaza “the easy way or the hard way.”

Despite domestic political tensions, Israel is not expected to obstruct the early implementation of the ceasefire and hostage-release components, which are already underway.

President Trump celebrated the vote in a social media post, calling it “a moment of true Historic proportion” and promising further announcements about the Board of Peace’s membership in the coming weeks.

With the Security Council’s endorsement secured, diplomatic efforts are now turning to assembling the multinational force and launching the transitional governance process — steps that will test international willingness to back a U.S.-led blueprint for Gaza’s future amid ongoing uncertainty on the ground.

(Source: Reuters)

A

new human rights report, published by the Action Center for Corporate Accountability at the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), has warned international corporations and investors that their activities in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories could expose them to serious legal and reputational risks due to what it describes as Israel’s settler-colonial apartheid regime and ongoing genocidal campaign in Gaza.

The publication, titled The Business of Apartheid What Companies and Investors Should Know, part of a growing body of documentation by rights organizations and legal experts, argues that Israel’s governance system — from its early Zionist institutions to present-day state authorities — has entrenched “Jewish supremacy” and imposed “second-class citizenship” on Palestinians. It urges companies to assess whether their operations are contributing to systemic human rights violations and international crimes, including apartheid and genocide.

“Businesses must exercise an abundance of caution when entering into operations or activities under Israel’s jurisdiction,” the report states. “They should examine current operations and supply chains to ensure that they are in no way causing, contributing, or directly linked to these crimes.”

A state-built system of domination

According to the report, Israel’s apartheid regime has been implemented and reinforced by successive governments across all branches of authority. It argues that policies of territorial fragmentation, population control, and resource allocation have been designed to maintain Jewish dominance over Palestinians throughout historic Palestine.

The authors trace these structures back to before Israel’s establishment in 1948, asserting that early Zionist institutions “laid the foundations for a state that upholds Jewish supremacy.” They contend that since 1967, Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza — and its long-term closure of the coastal enclave — form a central part of this system.

The report goes further, accusing Israel of pursuing “a genocidal campaign to destroy Palestinians in Gaza” through military operations and forced displacement. It describes the assault as an extension of a decades-long policy aimed at consolidating territorial control.

International law and corporate red lines

The authors reference a series of international legal findings, including the International Court of Justice’s opinion on the illegality of Israel’s occupation and settlement enterprise. They cite the 2018 report by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), which found that businesses operating in or supporting Israeli settlements could not do so in compliance with international law or the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs).

“The Court’s observation that Israel has integrated settlements and annexed East Jerusalem into its own territory implicates both government authorities and the Israeli economy,” the report says. “Businesses and investors must consider whether they can truly separate themselves from this unlawful presence.”

This, it argues, places the burden on corporations to ensure their activities do not sustain a system deemed unlawful under international law.

Corporate complicity and risk

The report outlines three “lenses” for businesses to evaluate their potential complicity in Israeli apartheid.

The first examines “inhuman acts” — such as extrajudicial killings, arbitrary arrests, and mass surveillance — that companies may indirectly support through partnerships with Israeli security agencies or technology providers.

The second focuses on land administration and infrastructure projects that enable “fragmentation, territorial takeover, and dispossession” in the occupied territories.

The third identifies high-risk sectors — including arms, technology, infrastructure, media, extractives, and finance — that are more likely to be entangled in rights violations.

“These three lenses are overlapping and interlinked,” the report notes. “Businesses and investors should consider how their operations may not only enable individual abuses but also sustain Israel’s broader apartheid regime.”

The authors warn that complicity in such activities could lead to financial, commercial, and legal consequences under international criminal and civil frameworks.

A

s Israel’s genocide nears its grim conclusion, a quiet yet irreversible financial and strategic shift is taking shape across the Middle East. Gaza’s war did not merely end a battle — it ended an era. What once stood as the emblem of defiance has become the threshold of transformation. Beneath the rubble, new blueprints are being drafted — not for reconstruction alone, but for an order reimagined around control, stability, and the calculated management of uncertainty. The world sees devastation; the region’s rulers see design.

For decades, the political grammar of the Arab world was shaped by the quest for Palestinian statehood — the unfinished promise that defined its politics and its conscience alike. Movements of resistance offered identity and purpose to societies caught under occupation. Yet the aftermath of Gaza has stripped that vocabulary of its authority. Across the region, the lexicon of ideology is being replaced by the language of modernization. Capitals now speak of investment, diversification, and digital governance — not liberation or revolution. The Islamist current, once the emblem of authenticity, now appears an anachronism, out of rhythm with a generation that measures power not by ideology but by infrastructure.

Gaza’s tragedy thus marks more than a humanitarian catastrophe; it is a political verdict. The logic of perpetual struggle has exhausted itself, giving way to a new doctrine of technocratic pragmatism — a belief that precision, not passion, must govern destiny. This vision is being advanced not through slogans but through systems, where legitimacy derives from performance, and stability is manufactured through fiscal control, not popular mandate.

Engineered Stability

This shift marks the quiet end of an age when political Islam and its non-state actors still claimed a seat at the table of power. Once romanticized as voices of resistance, such actors are being systematically marginalized. Their unpredictability threatens the economic choreography upon which the region’s new legitimacy depends. The battlefield is being replaced by the boardroom; insurgency by institution; charisma by compliance. What began as a struggle for land and liberation has metamorphosed into a campaign for containment — a management of disorder calibrated through contracts, consultants, and capital injections. The new trinity of regional politics is efficiency, control, and investment.

Already, plans are being circulated for a new Arab–Islamic–International administration to oversee Gaza — blending Gulf financing with Western oversight. Beneath its bureaucratic veneer lies an unmistakable truth: this is governance by design, not consent. The Palestinian Authority, long diminished, may find in this structure its final chance at survival, while regional powers see in it a prototype — a model of managed sovereignty, where technocrats replace revolutionaries and balance sheets substitute manifestos. 

In this unfolding architecture, political loyalty is now measured less by ideology than by investment flows and regulatory reliability. “Regional stability” has come to mean the predictability of markets rather than the peace of peoples. Volatility is no longer seen as a symptom of injustice, but as an obstacle to commerce. The state that cannot guarantee confidence — both fiscal and psychological — risks exclusion from the emerging network of modern governance.

Geoeconomic Rewiring

Beneath this political choreography lies a grander economic symphony. The Middle East is being rewired through infrastructure — ports, pipelines, railways, and data corridors forming a new connective tissue of power. Electricity grids and digital payment systems now serve as the arteries of diplomacy. The Gulf, flush with liquidity and ambition, positions itself as the strategic fulcrum of this design — a broker between East and West, between resource and innovation. Its rulers are recasting themselves not as ideological patrons but as architects of transformation, constructing legitimacy through the promise of progress rather than the mythology of resistance. 

What gives this moment its historical weight is its timing. The regional transformation coincides with the slow erosion of the post–Cold War financial order. The world order is reorganizing around monetary sovereignty, not just geopolitics. As the dominance of the U.S. dollar wanes, states are repositioning themselves within an emerging mosaic of multipolar exchange. The Gulf’s sovereign wealth funds now stretch toward Asia; trade routes are recalibrated to align with new currencies and digital settlements; and infrastructure corridors — from China to the Mediterranean — are redrawing the very logic of geography.  

The Arab world is not breaking from the West, but hedging against it, crafting a delicate equilibrium between Washington and Beijing. The coming order will not be unipolar or chaotic — it will be layered, interdependent, and fluid, where alliances overlap and power is exercised through systems, not declarations.

Strategic Recalibration

Israel now stands in a paradox of strength and isolation. Its military supremacy remains unchallenged, yet its strategic influence is eroding amid new regional alignments. The Gaza war laid bare not only the human cost of its doctrine but also the limits of force in an era when power is increasingly measured by image, investment, and integration. The Middle East that follows will be shaped not by instability, but by flow — of capital, data, and legitimacy.

The political cost of this transformation, however, will be high. The fall of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — a symbolic casualty of the old order — will mark Israel’s recalibration. With it, the ideological foundations of “Greater Israel” will quietly collapse, giving way to an era defined not by conquest but by compromise — by interdependence and shared sovereignty.

This outcome has little to do with Donald Trump. He remains a facilitator—a middleman navigating the fault lines of competing power centers. The real architects are the forces reshaping the financial and industrial order itself: the global financial–industrial complex, techno-geopolitical forces such as AI and advanced computing, and the emerging poles of a multipolar world—Russia, China, and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), whose geoeconomic leverage has become indispensable to this unfolding shift, translating capital into influence and positioning themselves as shareholders in the architecture of the emerging regional order. Power is tilting eastward through new alignments such as BRICS, the SCO, and the GCC, which are redefining the balance between finance, energy, and sovereignty.

T

he United Nations’ highest court ruled Wednesday that Israel must allow the U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) to deliver humanitarian aid inside the Gaza Strip, a decision that carries significant political and legal consequences for Israel as it faces mounting pressure over its blockade of the territory.

In its advisory opinion, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) found that Israel has a legal obligation under international humanitarian law to facilitate relief operations by U.N. agencies, including UNRWA, which Israel banned from bringing supplies into Gaza earlier this year.

“Israel is under the obligation to agree to and facilitate relief schemes provided by the United Nations and its entities, including UNRWA,” ICJ President Yuji Iwasawa said as he read the 70-page opinion in open court.

Israel has blocked UNRWA shipments since March, despite the agency maintaining core operations on the ground. It says 6,000 trucks loaded with food, medicine, shelter equipment and educational materials remain stuck at the border in Egypt and Jordan. The agency is the primary aid lifeline for Gaza’s 2.2 million residents and also administers health care and schooling for tens of thousands of displaced families.

Court ruling adds pressure to fragile ceasefire

The ruling comes amid a fragile U.S.-brokered ceasefire that has held since October 10. U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres welcomed what he called an “unambiguous” determination by the world court, urging Israel to comply.

“This decision comes at a moment in which we are doing everything we can to boost our humanitarian aid in Gaza,” Guterres said. “The impact of this decision is decisive in order for us to be able to do it at the level necessary for the tragic situation in which the people of Gaza still find themselves.”

Human rights organizations say that even after the ceasefire, Gaza remains on the verge of famine, with hospitals crippled and sanitation systems near collapse.

Israel dismisses ruling, maintains accusations against UNRWA

In a written statement, Israel’s Foreign Ministry rejected the opinion, arguing that UNRWA is compromised and cannot be permitted to operate freely.

“Israel fully upholds its obligations under international law,” the statement said. “We will not cooperate with an organization that is infested with terror activities.”

The ICJ, however, noted that Israel failed to provide evidence substantiating its claims of systematic infiltration by Hamas.

The agency itself said the ruling “clearly restores legal certainty” around its mandate in Gaza.

ICJ advisory opinions are formally nonbinding, but carry major diplomatic weight and are often cited by other international courts and U.N. bodies. The decision is expected to be used as supporting material in the separate genocide case brought by South Africa against Israel at the ICJ, and in the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant proceedings targeting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister Yoav Gallant.

Stanford legal scholar Tom Dannenbaum said the opinion “provides strong legal support” for prosecutors seeking to prove that Israel used starvation as a method of warfare — one of the allegations already cited in the ICC warrant.

Palestinians hail ruling

The ruling is the third major advisory decision against Israel by the World Court in the past two decades. In 2004, the ICJ declared Israel’s West Bank barrier unlawful. Last year, it found Israel’s continued occupation of Palestinian territory in violation of international law and called on states to consider countermeasures — a decision that accelerated diplomatic recognition of Palestine in Europe and Latin America.

This latest ruling intensifies scrutiny of Israel’s humanitarian policies and could deepen its rift with the U.N. system, as well as allied states that have expressed concern about conditions in Gaza.

Palestinian officials described the opinion as a breakthrough moment.

“It is clear, unequivocal and conclusive,” said Ammar Hijazi, the Palestinian ambassador to the Netherlands. “Israel now has no pretext, no context, no excuse to deny humanitarian assistance.”

The decision was also welcomed by humanitarian groups that have long warned that the blockade was causing deliberate deprivation.

A

t the United Nations General Assembly, French President Emmanuel Macron announced that his country recognized Palestine as a state. This announcement raised questions about Paris’s policy toward the Gaza genocide. Is Macron pursuing a pro-Palestinian policy? Has France pursued a policy based on human rights and international law since the Gaza genocide began? How do Zionist lobbies, which are very influential throughout the Western world, affect France’s policy on Palestine? What are the main factors determining Paris’s recent policy on the Israeli issue? How do the policies of France and Germany, the two leading countries in the European Union, converge and diverge with regard to the genocide in Gaza?

First, let us review the fundamental parameters that shape France’s policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Last July, French President Macron announced at the UN General Assembly that France would recognize the Palestinian state. U.S. President Donald Trump opposed this decision and disparaged Macron and France, stating that “his words carry no weight.” Indeed, it is difficult to argue that France, which is constantly losing economic and political power and being forced to abandon its former spheres of influence, particularly in Africa, is a significant player in Middle Eastern affairs.

Paris lags far behind Washington in terms of influence in the Middle East, especially when compared to the U.S.. However, France, a G7 member and one of Europe’s two nuclear powers, carries significant weight within the EU. Aware of this, Israel and the Zionist lobby harshly criticized Macron, fearing that France’s decision to recognize Palestine would prompt other European countries to follow suit. Indeed, other Western countries followed France’s lead in recognizing Palestine, tearing down another wall built by the global Zionist structure.

The influence of the Zionist lobby

France’s ability to influence Middle Eastern politics directly is limited, but it can greatly impact European politics. One factor shaping France’s policy on Gaza is the country’s increasing political instability due to the unstoppable rise of the far right, which has weakened Macron’s administration.

Elected president as the “liberal” candidate of a broad coalition formed in 2017 to curb the rise of the far right, Macron failed to resolve France’s chronic domestic and foreign policy problems, which led to the rise of the “far left” alongside the far right in the 2024 parliamentary elections and caused him to lose his parliamentary majority. With Macron weakened in this way, he has adopted a critical stance toward Israel, considering the mounting protests in France against the Gaza genocide. The decision to recognize Palestine is also a product of this critical approach.

Despite the growing criticism of Israel’s genocidal policies, France has refrained from imposing sanctions that would force Israel to back down. Compared to other EU countries, such as Spain and Ireland, France’s criticism of Israel is more cautious. This can be explained by the influence of Zionist lobbies on French politics. There is no doubt that France, home to the largest Jewish population in Europe, is strongly influenced by Zionist lobbies, both within its borders and in the United States.

Recalling how these lobbies use economic and political tools, media under their control, and other illegal methods against administrations unwilling to cooperate with Israel makes it clear why Paris refrains from taking steps that would upset Israel greatly. From this perspective, it is evident that the Macron administration in France, a country with the largest Muslim and Jewish diaspora populations in Europe, is pursuing a balanced policy, striving not to upset either diaspora too much.

Differences with Germany

In this respect, it should be noted that France differs from Germany, another important EU country. While Germany refuses to recognize the State of Palestine, France has decided to do so. While Germany opposes the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) arrest warrant for Netanyahu, and its chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has stated that Netanyahu would not be arrested if he visited Germany, France has supported the ICC’s decision. While Germany continues to send weapons to Israel until mid-2025, thereby becoming complicit in genocide, French President Macron called for an arms embargo on Israel on October 6, 2024.

While Germany continued to defend Israel’s civilian massacres in Gaza under the guise of “Israel’s right to defend itself,” France began to criticize these massacres. For example, at the EU summit held at the end of October, when the Israeli genocide began, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz stated that Germany was “in solidarity with Israel,” while French President Macron criticized Israeli policy, saying, “We believe that a comprehensive blockade, indiscriminate bombing, and more importantly, a large-scale ground operation are not appropriate ways to adequately protect the civilian population.”

At various times, Macron has called for Israel to stop bombing Gaza, refrain from killing civilians, not forcibly displace Gazans, not obstruct humanitarian aid, and secure a ceasefire. He has also described Israel’s human rights violations in Gaza as “shameful.”

Attitudes towards France

France’s critical stance toward Israel has seriously damaged relations between the Macron and Netanyahu administrations. It has also caused tension in France’s relations with countries that support Israel, notably the U.S. and Germany. For instance, U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee criticized Macron’s decision to recognize a Palestinian state, saying, “If France is so determined to see a Palestinian state, I have a suggestion: Take a piece of the Côte d’Azur and establish a Palestinian state there.”

Armin Laschet, a member of the ruling CDU party in Germany and chairman of the federal parliament’s foreign affairs committee, also expressed discomfort with Macron’s “unilateral” decision.

In response to France’s criticism of Israel’s aggression, the harshest statements came from Netanyahu’s administration. Netanyahu claimed that Macron’s criticism of Israel meant he was “supporting Hamas” and said that the French president’s policy meant he “chose to side with terrorism,” showing his intolerance of criticism of Israel’s policy of massacring Palestinians in Gaza. Tel Aviv’s intolerance of France’s critical stance was evident in November 2023 when French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot was beaten and arrested by Israeli security forces while visiting a church in Jerusalem during his visit to Israel.

Does France respect international law on Gaza?

Do the criticisms of France’s stance on Israel’s genocide in Gaza show that, as a member of the UN Security Council, France has pursued a policy respectful of international law and human rights? Has France done its part to prevent this genocide? The answer is clearly no. On October 16, 2023, France, alongside the United States and the United Kingdom, rejected the Security Council draft resolution proposed by Russia, which called for a ceasefire in Gaza. By doing so, they effectively voted in favor of allowing the massacres to continue. Subsequent votes in favor of ceasefire resolutions (except for October 25, 2023) do not mitigate Paris’ guilt but set it apart from the United States, which vetoed all ceasefire resolutions.

Another criticism of France’s policy on the Gaza genocide is the bans on demonstrations in support of Palestine and the police’s violent arrests of demonstrators during these demonstrations. Additionally, the French administration detained and deported Gassan Abu Sitta, a British surgeon of Palestinian origin and rector of the University of Glasgow, at the Paris airport in May 2024 when he arrived for a conference. Germany is claimed to be behind this decision. This is another example of France’s restrictions on activities in support of Palestine.

The greatest criticism of France’s policy regarding the Gaza genocide is that it has either turned a blind eye to or been complicit in the EU’s support of Israel’s long-standing aggression, despite France being a key leader of the EU. France’s greatest failure in not convincing Berlin to change this misguided policy is its failure to adopt effective sanctions against Israel under the EU umbrella for two years and its unconditional continuation of support for the Netanyahu administration, as the EU’s most important leadership partner. France was also very late in recognizing the Palestinian state and in taking action to prevent the Gaza genocide from taking place before the eyes of the world. It is still failing to take the necessary steps.

(Originally published in Turkish by Kriter)

I

srael’s decades-long policy of violence and genocide in Palestine continues to escalate before the eyes of the world. Through its attacks in 2008, 2012, 2014, and 2021, Israel sought to remove the Palestinians from Gaza. With its 2023 attack, Israel has escalated its efforts to achieve this goal. Through its phased occupation strategy, Israel has become a war machine, attacking the values that humanity has built.

It has engaged in inhumane practices, such as dividing Gaza into pieces, indiscriminately massacring its people, including children, the elderly, and women, forcing them to move, destroying their living spaces, condemning them to hunger and thirst, and cutting off their communication with the world.

Massive destruction in Gaza

Since October 7, 2023, when the latest occupation and attempted genocide began, it has been reported that 67,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, including more than 20,000 children, in addition to 15,000 who are still under the rubble of their homes. Additionally, 169,000 people have been wounded. However, it must be stated that the actual numbers are likely much higher.
This is because many people are under the rubble or missing, which makes it impossible to accurately determine and record the number of people trapped under the rubble.

Just a few days ago, Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on Palestine, drew attention to this issue, stating that “we should start thinking about the figure of 680,000” as the actual death toll in Gaza. While the international community grapples with the horror of these figures, attacks aimed at destroying living spaces continue.

According to studies conducted by international organizations, nearly 200,000 buildings, as well as around 40 hospitals and health facilities, have been destroyed or damaged. Additionally, approximately 90 percent of Gaza’s population has been displaced; 77 percent of the road network; more than 50 percent of cultivated land; and waste systems have been seriously damaged. Public health problems have also arisen due to infrastructure debris, air, and water pollution.

Urbicide

In its satellite assessments, UNESCO has identified at least 110 damaged cultural assets, including 13 places of worship, 77 historical and artistic structures, three movable cultural property storage facilities, nine monuments, one museum, and seven archaeological sites. According to World Bank data, rebuilding all this destruction would cost at least $53 billion.

This table clearly shows that, in addition to crimes against humanity in Gaza, Israel has committed the crime of urbicide. The term “urbicide,” which entered the literature of urban studies after the Bosnian War, refers to the deliberate destruction of urban spaces. The killing, genocide, displacement, obstruction of humanitarian access, physical destruction, urban destruction, and environmental devastation witnessed in Gaza are not ordinary war damages.

These attacks are aimed at destroying the Palestinian way of life, social spaces, and collective memory. These attacks are directed not only at military targets, but also at homes, schools, hospitals, and infrastructure facilities, such as water, electricity, and sewage systems. They are also directed at marketplaces, mosques, churches, and cultural spaces. Most dramatically, Israel is attacking refugee camps.

Academics, activists, and various media outlets such as Eyal Weizman, Stephen Graham, and Ahmad Z. Khalilia, and Nordine Latreche state that the humanitarian tragedy unfolding in Gaza constitutes urbicide, or the destruction of urban life. The systematic destruction of Palestinian cities, elimination of public spaces, and attacks aimed at destroying urban life and memory support the idea that this destruction is genocide. In this sense, Israel’s attack on Gaza goes beyond traditional war crimes.

Evidence of war crimes

Although urbicide is not a crime defined in international law, it is associated with war crimes and crimes against humanity. This is because Gaza is being completely destroyed and its inhabitants are being denied the right to live. Important evidence supporting claims of genocide is being produced by international actors through examples of urbicide.

The following statements from the Forensic Architecture report, A Spatial Analysis of the Israeli Military’s Conduct in Gaza Since October 2023 (2024), are noteworthy: Incidents include attacks on homes, shelters, hospitals, and other medical facilities; public institutions, such as universities, schools, and government buildings; culturally significant sites, such as cemeteries, archaeological sites, and mosques; agricultural infrastructure, such as fields, orchards, greenhouses, and water wells; and infrastructure for transporting, storing, and distributing aid.

Furthermore, Israel is creating “safe zones” and issuing evacuation orders, repeatedly displacing the Palestinian population in Gaza on a large scale. The scale and nature of the attacks, the extent of the damage, and the number of victims are being questioned, as is the organized structure of the violent acts and the low probability of them occurring randomly.

S

outh African President Cyril Ramaphosa has reaffirmed that his country’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) will continue, despite the recently announced ceasefire in Gaza, which has been hailed as a breakthrough in ending nearly two years of war.

Speaking before parliament in Cape Town on Tuesday, Ramaphosa said the peace deal “will have no bearing” on the ongoing legal proceedings. He emphasized that South Africa remains committed to ensuring justice for the people of Gaza, accusing Israel of committing acts that amount to genocide under international law.

“The peace deal that has been struck, which we welcome, will have no bearing on the case that is before the International Court of Justice,” Ramaphosa said. “The case is proceeding, and it now has to go to the stage where Israel has to respond to our pleadings that have been filed in the court, and they have to do so by January of next year.”

Long legal battle

South Africa first filed the case in December 2023, alleging that Israel’s military campaign in Gaza violated the Genocide Convention of 1948. The government submitted a 500-page legal brief to the ICJ in October 2024, detailing evidence of mass killings, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, and deliberate obstruction of humanitarian aid.

Under ICJ timelines, Israel’s response is due by January 12, 2026, with oral hearings expected in 2027. A final judgment could come as late as 2028, according to legal experts familiar with the process.

So far, the court has issued three provisional measures, ordering Israel to prevent genocidal acts, punish incitement to genocide, and ensure the delivery of humanitarian assistance to Gaza. Israel has largely ignored these rulings, according to UN monitors.

The genocide, which began in October 2023, has killed more than 67,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza’s health authorities, leaving much of the enclave in ruins and displacing millions.

‘Peace without justice is not sustainable’

Ramaphosa underscored that South Africa’s pursuit of the case was not political, but moral and legal, rooted in the principles of accountability and human rights.

“We cannot go forward without the healing that needs to take place, which will also result from the case being properly heard,” he said. “True peace requires justice, recognition, and reparations.”

His remarks drew widespread support from international human rights advocates. Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, wrote on X that “peace without justice, respect for human rights and dignity, without reparations and guarantees of non-repetition, is not sustainable.”

Global support for South Africa

South Africa has gained growing international backing for its ICJ case. Several countries — including Spain, Ireland, Turkiye, and Colombia — have joined or declared their intent to join the proceedings in support of Pretoria’s efforts.

Colombian President Gustavo Petro said earlier this year that governments “risk becoming complicit in atrocities” if they fail to act, while Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, one of Europe’s most outspoken critics of Israel’s conduct, reiterated on Tuesday that the ceasefire “cannot mean impunity.”

“There cannot be impunity,” Sánchez told Spanish radio. “The main actors of the genocide will have to answer to justice.”

Human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have also accused Israel of committing acts amounting to genocide and crimes against humanity. A UN Commission of Inquiry released in September 2025 concluded that Israel had committed genocide in Gaza, adding weight to South Africa’s case at The Hague.

Israel has strongly rejected all allegations of genocide, calling South Africa’s case “baseless” and “politically motivated.” Israeli officials have insisted that their military operations targeted Hamas fighters, not civilians, and that they acted in self-defense following the group’s October 2023 attacks.

L

ast September, the 80th opening session of the United Nations General Assembly led nine more countries, all considered members of the Western world, to recognize the Palestinian state. However, it quickly became clear that the optimistic expectation that this group’s decision would dramatically change Israel’s genocide and massacre in the Gaza Strip was unfounded. It is now too late for a Palestinian state, whose integrity has been destroyed and whose administrative structure in the West Bank has been rendered ineffective, to be accepted in Europe.

The opportunity has long since passed. These recognition decisions were not taken seriously in Washington or Tel Aviv, especially since they were made without any deterrent sanctions against Netanyahu. Notably, two of the countries that signed the latest recognition decisions, France and the United Kingdom, are G7 member states that gave Israel the green light for its regional offensive following the Al-Aqsa Flood operation on October 7, 2023.

Germany, the now diminished leader of the European Union, and Italy, which is vying for its throne, still insist that the time is not right to recognize the Palestinian state. It’s important to note that these two countries are second and third, after the United States, in arming Israel. Europe’s lack of influence in resolving the Palestinian issue is related to the current global situation.

Meetings between government and state leaders in New York and Washington in September confirmed that Europe no longer carries weight in resolving the Palestinian issue following the war between Ukraine and Russia. Two parameters that will determine developments regarding Palestine have become clear. The first is the power struggle between Trump and Netanyahu. The second is Turkey’s sphere of influence, which extends from the Mediterranean Basin to Kazakhstan and from Donbas to the coast of Somalia.

Are European governments’ pro-Palestinian policies sustainable?

To understand why Europe has been ineffective in addressing the Palestinian issue, it is important to consider its failure to establish a defense identity and its inability to resolve the energy crisis caused by the COVID19 pandemic and the war between Russia and Ukraine. In its current form, the European Union is being pushed into a legal structure. Moreover, most of the countries that comprise the European Union are also experiencing imbalances in their internal political dynamics. Whether and to what extent the European countries that have recognized the Palestinian state will stand by their decisions is another source of uncertainty.

For example, will Spain be able to maintain its current stance on recognizing the Palestinian state and imposing sanctions on Israel after the 2027 general elections? Could Spain’s policies toward Israel change if Pedro Sánchez loses his premiership? Similarly, upcoming presidential and general elections in France could bring about changes as well. In France, where the far-right is growing stronger by the day, opinion polls conducted after the Palestinian state was recognized showed that 71 percent of respondents opposed raising the Palestinian flag on municipal buildings.

The same can be said for the UK. It is difficult to predict how the Labour Party government’s decision to recognize Palestine will evolve under a possible Reform Party government, which currently leads in the polls. In short, if the Palestinian state is to have a future, developments on the Washington-Ankara axis, not in European capitals, will be decisive. Similarly, U.S. President Trump discussed his plan for Gaza not with European countries but at a special meeting with Gulf countries, including Turkey. Throughout the week of sessions at the UN General Assembly, Trump reiterated at every opportunity that he would not allow Israel to annex the West Bank.

Is Trump’s record consistent with his plan?

However, it was Donald Trump who supported Israel’s decision to move its capital from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem during his first term and recognized Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights. During the first nine months of his second term, he showed no resolve to curb Israel’s regional aggression. Despite Lebanon’s parliament accepting the U.S. plan to disarm Hezbollah, Israel has not ceased its attacks on Lebanon nor withdrawn from the occupied Lebanese territory.

There is also no indication that Israel’s aggression and occupation of Syria will end. The U.S.’s fluctuating rhetoric on cooperating with the PYD/YPG terrorist organization and CENTCOM’s relentless cooperation with the Israeli government do not provide convincing evidence that Trump has any authority over Netanyahu.

Regarding the Iran issue, Trump first said he would not allow Israel to attack Iran alone. Then, he ordered an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities using U.S. capabilities to please Netanyahu and the Jewish lobby in his country.

Finally, there was the bombing of Doha, the capital of Qatar, which was ignored. Following the attack, the propaganda claiming that “this was an Israeli operation and Trump knew nothing about it” has convinced no one. Moreover, while Trump repeatedly said he would not allow the annexation of the West Bank, Mike Johnson—the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives who financed his election campaign with hundreds of thousands of dollars from Jewish lobbies—made the following statement to the Israeli media: “According to my research on Israeli history, the West Bank is Israeli territory.”

However, there are very different geopolitical dynamics in the region. Let’s see how events unfold. Pro-Israel U.S. Congressman Lindsey Graham expressed his vision for peace, saying, “I do not support stopping military operations until Hamas is completely destroyed. Israel must be allowed to finish the job.” Should we replace the term “Hamas” in this statement with “Palestinian resistance at all levels”?

A Gaza plan from the Israeli perspective

Trump’s “verbal promises,” which directly violate the rules of the international order established after World War II, cannot find resonance in today’s Middle East. Furthermore, Trump’s ability to act is limited by U.S. domestic politics, where 90 percent of members of both houses of Congress are backed by the Jewish lobby.

In fact, in the 24 hours before Trump’s meeting with Netanyahu at the White House on September 29, Israel launched 140 attacks on Gaza. At the press conference after the meeting, the U.S. president emphasized that he had shared his plan with Islamic countries. However, it became apparent that the conditions he set forth aimed to completely eliminate the prospect of a Palestinian state. They demanded the complete surrender of Hamas and the total abolition of all Palestinian resistance movements. These conditions coincided with Israel’s plan to attack Gaza.

Trump views the Gaza Strip solely as an economic commodity and marginalizes Palestinians from the region’s administration. His proposal aims to establish a multinational version of the “colonial administration” implemented after the invasion of Iraq in Gaza. Mahmoud Merdawi, a senior Hamas official, described the plan’s objective in his initial assessment as “an attempt to suppress the momentum towards the recognition of the Palestinian state.”

H

amas has released the first group of Israeli captives as part of a highly anticipated ceasefire agreement aimed at ending the devastating genocide in Gaza, marking a tentative step toward peace after nearly two years of relentless fighting.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) confirmed on Monday that it had taken custody of seven Israeli captives released by Hamas in the initial phase of the deal. In Tel Aviv’s “Hostages Square,” crowds erupted in cheers as local television channels announced that the captives were now in Red Cross custody. The release was hailed as the first tangible success of a broader agreement that envisions the return of 20 living captives in exchange for nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails.

Officials involved in the operation told Reuters that the freed captives were being transported to the Israeli military base at Re’im, near the Gaza border, where they were expected to undergo medical examinations, showers, and clothing changes before being reunited with their families. They will then be transferred to hospitals for further treatment and psychological care.

The DPA news agency reported that Israeli authorities were preparing to receive additional captives on Monday morning, while Hamas sources told Al Jazeera Arabic that the remaining 13 captives would be handed over at around 07:00 GMT in central Gaza.

A landmark exchange

The deal, negotiated with mediation from Qatar, Egypt, and the United States, represents the first significant breakthrough in months of diplomatic deadlock and military stalemate.

Under the terms of the agreement, Hamas will release all 20 surviving captives it holds in Gaza. In return, Israel will free approximately 2,000 Palestinian prisoners, many of whom have been detained without formal charges under Israel’s administrative detention system.

Among those expected to be freed are 250 Palestinians serving life sentences, though high-profile detainee Marwan Barghouti — a leading figure in Palestinian politics — will not be among them, Israeli officials said.

Israel has also agreed to receive the bodies of 28 Israeli captives confirmed to have been killed in Gaza due to Israeli bombardment.

The prisoner exchange will begin once Israel confirms that all living captives are back within its territory.

‘A new path’

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the release as a “moment of unity” in a nation deeply divided over his handling of the genocide.

“This is an emotional evening … because tomorrow, our children will return to our borders,” Netanyahu said in a televised address on Sunday night. “Tomorrow is the beginning of a new path — a path of rebuilding, a path of healing, and, I hope, a path of united hearts.”

However, the prime minister continues to face sharp criticism from families of captives, many of whom accuse him of prioritizing military objectives over the safe return of their loved ones.

‘Trump’s show’

The exchange comes as U.S. President Donald Trump — the chief architect of the ceasefire — arrived in Israel on Monday ahead of a major regional summit in Egypt’s Sharm el-Sheikh.

Trump, who has made the ceasefire a centerpiece of his second-term foreign policy, departed Washington on Sunday afternoon accompanied by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe.

“This is going to be a very special time,” Trump told reporters before boarding Air Force One. “Everybody’s cheering.”

During the flight, Trump said the release might occur “a little early” and praised Qatar for its role in brokering the agreement. “The war is over. You understand that,” he said.

Al Jazeera’s correspondent Nour Odeh, reporting from Amman due to the network’s ongoing ban in Israel, described the developments as “Trump’s show.”

“He will be arriving in Israel, meeting with the families of captives, addressing the Knesset, and then going to Egypt’s Sharm el-Sheikh, where he has summoned the leaders of more than 20 countries,” Odeh reported.

Ceasefire and devastation

As part of the deal, Israeli forces have withdrawn from Gaza City and parts of northern Gaza, though they continue to control more than half of the enclave’s territory.

Palestinians have begun returning to neighborhoods that were reduced to rubble during months of Israeli bombardment. Al Jazeera’s Ibrahim al-Khalili, reporting from Gaza City, described scenes of widespread destruction: “People are walking through wastelands — entire districts flattened. There’s almost nothing left.”

In Deir Al-Balah, in central Gaza, humanitarian convoys have started trickling in under the ceasefire framework. Dozens of aid trucks entered the enclave on Sunday, carrying food, medical supplies, and tents.

But aid agencies warn that distribution remains painfully slow, with many areas inaccessible due to damaged infrastructure and unexploded ordnance.

Al Jazeera’s Hind Khoudary reported that after two years of siege and bombardment, Gaza’s population faces extreme deprivation:

“People are not waiting only for food,” she said. “They need tents, solar panels, medical equipment — everything. Most have lost their savings, can’t access bank accounts, and depend entirely on humanitarian assistance.”

I

n what U.S. President Donald Trump hailed as a “historic breakthrough,” Israel and Hamas have agreed to the first phase of a peace plan that aims to halt fighting in Gaza and begin the release of hostages and prisoners after two years of devastating war.

“This means that ALL of the hostages will be released very soon, and Israel will withdraw their troops to an agreed upon line as the first steps toward a Strong, Durable, and Everlasting Peace,” Trump announced on social media Wednesday. “All Parties will be treated fairly!”

Under the first phase of the agreement, Hamas is set to release 20 living Israeli captives in the coming days in exchange for about 2000 Palestinian prisoners held in Israel. In return, Israel’s military will begin a partial withdrawal from most areas of Gaza, marking the most significant step toward de-escalation since the conflict began in 2023.

Cautious hope after years of bloodshed

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded to the announcement by expressing optimism. “With God’s help, we will bring them all home,” he said on social media. His office later confirmed that the Israeli cabinet would convene on Thursday to approve the plan, calling it a “sacred mission.”

Hamas, in a statement released shortly after Trump’s post, said the agreement came after “responsible and serious negotiations” and urged the United States and mediators to ensure Israel fulfills all obligations “without delay or changes.” The group emphasized that the deal also guarantees greater humanitarian access to Gaza, where over two million people have been displaced, and international agencies have warned of famine conditions.

While the breakthrough has sparked celebrations in parts of Israel—particularly in Tel Aviv’s “Hostages Square,” long a site of protests and vigils—many remain skeptical about how lasting the ceasefire will be.

“This is a step in the right direction, but trust is fragile,” said Yael Cohen, whose son was among those kidnapped during Hamas’ attacks two years ago. “We’ve seen deals collapse before.”

International praise and caution

The peace initiative, announced during Trump’s visit to the United Nations General Assembly, has drawn widespread international support. European leaders hailed the agreement as a long-awaited opening for diplomacy.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, speaking during a visit to India, called the news “a relief” and urged “immediate implementation and the lifting of all restrictions on humanitarian aid to Gaza.”

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the EU “fully supports” the agreement’s terms, while French President Emmanuel Macron described it as “a moment of hope” that must pave the way for a two-state solution.

“This agreement must mark the end of the war and the beginning of a political solution based on two states,” Macron said at a press conference in Paris, where officials are meeting later Thursday to discuss Gaza’s future.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni also welcomed the deal, with Meloni calling it “extraordinary news” and urging rapid enforcement.

From Beijing, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun said China hopes for a “lasting and comprehensive ceasefire,” adding that the agreement could ease Gaza’s humanitarian crisis and reduce regional tensions. “We stand ready to work with the international community toward a comprehensive, fair and lasting solution,” he said.

Regional mediators applaud progress

Turkey and Qatar—both instrumental in brokering the negotiations—also voiced strong approval. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan thanked Trump for “demonstrating the necessary political will” and said Ankara would monitor implementation closely.

“I extend my heartfelt greetings to my Palestinian brothers and sisters who have endured indescribable suffering for two years,” Erdogan wrote on X. Turkey’s Foreign Ministry reiterated that humanitarian aid delivery and Gaza’s reconstruction would remain priorities.

Egypt, another key mediator, welcomed the deal as a “critical step” and confirmed that Cairo will host follow-up meetings in the coming week to discuss Phase Two of the plan, which is expected to focus on establishing a governing authority in Gaza “non-affiliated with Hamas.”

P

alestinians have suffered from Israeli persecution since the British colonized Palestine in 1917. For decades, the issue was called the Arab-Israeli conflict as neighboring Arab states supported Palestine against Israel.

However, after peace agreements were made with Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994, the Palestinians were abandoned, and the Arab-Israeli conflict was renamed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There was actually no conflict, only asymmetric persecution, expulsion, and occupation perpetrated by Israel against the very existence of the Palestinian people.

Despite Israel’s lawlessness and brutality, the Israeli state has convinced the majority of the world that they are the victims, though the opposite is true. Unfortunately, most Arab states turned a blind eye to what was happening in Palestine and pressured Palestinian groups to make peace with Israel, even though it is the Israeli side that does not want peace.

There has also been strife between Hamas, based in Gaza, and the Mahmoud Abbas-led Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, which mostly hails from Fatah, the biggest Palestinian party in the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

However, the ongoing genocide in Gaza has sparked a global awakening among non-Arab, non-Palestinian, and non-Muslim communities. From the Spanish government to shopkeepers in Thailand, people around the world have begun to support Palestine in the face of Israel’s genocide.

The keyword here is “eye-witness” because, unlike previous genocides, the one in Gaza can be witnessed by anyone around the world. Thanks to communication technology, particularly the internet and social media, Gazan victims and honest media outlets can broadcast the genocide live, and anyone in the world can watch it.

Attempt to control mainstream media

This is also why Israel tries to control mainstream media, especially social media. The United States, which is supportive of Israel, recently got American business people to acquire TikTok America and castrate it. It is no longer possible to criticize Israel on TikTok, as is the case with Facebook, Instagram, Google, etc. By doing so, Gazan children will be called terrorists, while Israelis, from soldiers to Itamar Ben-Gvir, will be introduced as victims.

Clearly, it is too late for Israel to hide the facts and crimes they have committed in Gaza. They have already lost the information war, and any attempt to rebound will backfire. Anti-Israeli media is so powerful that Israeli money cannot veil every crime. They also can’t carry out their campaigns secretly. Tiktok America is now owneed by Larry Ellison.

Ellison convinced American Secretary of the State Marco Rubio to support Israel, and he appointed Bari Wiess, a journalsit who openly incited against the late Palestinian intellectual Refaat Alareer, leading to his murder, as the new head of CBS News, bought Paramount Media Group, and donated millions of dollars to Israel thanks to his purchase of TikTok. He was caught covering up Israel’s crimes.

Another reason why the world is increasingly becoming anti-Israeli is Israel’s excessive and unrelenting brutality. People cannot bear so many murders, including babies. Every day, news shows the fragmented bodies of Gazan children. The killing of women and elders, the bombing of hospitals, the flattening of cities, and attacks on regional states such as Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, Qatar and Iran have made people think that Israel shows no mercy. Thus, people felt compelled to take action because their consciences could not bear so much evil.

International solidarity grows

Therefore, people around the world began to counter Israel’s crimes. As I write this article, 250,000 people protested Israel in Amsterdam, at a time Geert Wilders, a pro-Israeli politician, praised Israel’s action.

Additionally, some Israeli tourists were attacked in Thailand. Meanwhile, the Sumud Flotilla raised awareness about Israel’s persecution of the Palestinian people, fulfilling its duty and perhaps paving the way for new flotillas.

Popular support certainly affects the political spectrum as well. Some U.S. politicians, who received donations from AIPAC, have distanced themselves from the top Jewish lobby group and stopped accepting new donations, in other words bribes. The recognition of the Palestinian state by more countries is also a result of public pressure.

Amid the ongoing genocide in Gaza, it is nearly impossible to justify Israel’s right to defend itself. Even Donald Trump’s involvement as president can be seen as a consequence of the American people’s eroding support for Israel.

A rare union of people against genocide in Gaza

We are witnessing a rare union of people from around the world against a genocidaire. Palestine is no longer just an issue for the Arab or Muslim worlds, but rather for the whole world. It has been supported by the Dutch, British, Spanish, Irish, Chinese, Colombians, Peruvians, and even Americans and many more.

Remember how many countries were represented in the Sumud Flotilla. Israel did not sink the fleet, but rather detained the participants and deported them. If the flotilla belonged to an Arab or Muslim country, its fate would certainly be different. The Mavi Marmara, which sailed from Turkey, saw the murder of nine Turkish nationals by the Israeli navy in international waters.

Overall, the world is united against Israel, except for the U.S., Germany, and a few other countries. This disapproval will emancipate Gaza and perhaps the whole of Palestine. On the other hand, the silence of some of Palestine’s friends—some of whom are Arab and Muslim states—will not be forgotten or forgiven.