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.

M

odern international law has aimed to re-establish the conscience of humanity through the normative framework constructed in the aftermath of the Second World War. However, this legal architecture is a fragile structure built upon historical traumas. Beneath this structure lies a deep fissure: the dark past that Western civilization has been unable to confront. Whilst the Holocaust originally functioned as an ethical wound at the heart of this past, its role has shifted over time; it has moved away from its function of remembrance to become a mechanism of repression. This form of collective repression, conceptualized by Carl Gustav Jung as the ‘shadow’ archetype, is becoming increasingly visible today as international law effectively loses its efficacy.

Jung’s theory of the collective unconscious and archetypes analyses the irrational layers of individuals and societies. Human beings are not confined to the level of rational consciousness; they exist alongside myths, symbols and repressed shadows. States act in a similar manner. The superficial language of international law is losing its determinative power; archetypal images are becoming the guiding force. In the case of Israel, the ‘victim archetype’ arising from the collective pain of the Holocaust is transforming into a ‘shadow archetype’ that demands absolute inviolability and derives legitimacy through violence. The Holocaust continues to be one of the most shattering collective traumas residing in humanity’s collective unconscious.

However, this trauma is gradually stripped of its meaning and reduced to the mechanism Jung termed “psychic compensation”. Repressed trauma returns in various forms within the unconscious. According to Jung, every repressed element inevitably emerges as the “shadow”. Israel does not merely limit itself to making the collective pain of the Holocaust a component of its founding identity; it sanctifies this identity, transforming it into a shield of inviolability. When assessed within the framework of Jung’s concept of the “persona”, Israel’s “victim” persona takes on the nature of an artificial mask; the shadow beneath it, with its perpetrator-like qualities, is becoming visible in Gaza.

The victim mask

Benjamin Netanyahu’s political persona aligns with Jung’s “arrogant shadow” archetype. This archetype arises from the fusion of repressed insecurities and the illusion of legitimacy produced by collective myths. Netanyahu does not content himself with positioning himself as an ordinary statesman; he presents himself as a figure imbued with historical and sacred significance. This narcissistic persona interacts with the collective unconscious, fostering irrational loyalty. The psychic intensity of the sacred—which Jung defined as the ‘numinous experience’—becomes evident here.

When this intensity finds no counterpart at the level of consciousness, it generates sacred wrath, fanaticism and, ultimately, anarchy. The elevation of the Holocaust to a sacred status immune to criticism generates violence through this very sanctity. The sanctity of the victim transforms into the legitimacy for creating new victims. This situation is explained within the framework of Jung’s principle of ‘enantiodromia’: every phenomenon turns into its opposite. The victim becomes the perpetrator; violence is perpetrated in the name of the sacred. This transformation transcends the boundaries of legal analysis. The driving forces do not operate on a rational plane; they possess mythological and archetypal qualities.

Today, international law is not limited to examining the actions and conduct of states; it must also take into account the collective unconscious archetypes that shape these acts. The sanctification of the Holocaust, the re-production of Israel as a perpetrator under the guise of a victim, and Benjamin Netanyahu’s personalisation of this unconscious mythology raise questions about the psycho-political foundations of international legitimacy. Jus cogens norms lose their effectiveness to the extent that they cannot cope with the repressed shadows of the collective unconscious.

In this situation, the future of law becomes vulnerable to the influence of myths. Myths do not dispense justice; they generate loyalty and anger. At this point, the law falls silent. Unconscious mythologies, enemy images and sacred missions are becoming decisive. Jung’s warning is clear: politics that surrenders to the mythological unconscious produces destructive results. This transformation is clearly observable in the case of Netanyahu. The victim identity is transforming into an inherent power within the perpetrator; jus cogens norms remain ineffective in the face of this irrational structure.

The mask of law

This unconscious process is becoming particularly visible through the actions in Gaza. These actions transcend the boundaries of conventional security policy; they manifest as ritualised violence stemming from collective trauma. Israel constructs its founding myth upon the Holocaust and transforms this myth into the absolute foundation of its political legitimacy. This foundation is becoming sacrosanct. The irrefutability of the Holocaust is transforming into a dogma that criminalizes criticism.

This dogmatic structure determines the political stances of the West. Rather than confronting historical responsibility, European states sanctify the trauma, rendering it untouchable. From a Freudian perspective, this situation is assessed as a masochistic tendency towards guilt. In the case of Germany, historical guilt is transforming into an irrational dependency that influences current political decisions. Like societies that deny Jung’s ‘shadow’, these states are forming a covert alliance with darkness.

At this point, Roger Garaudy’s analyses take on significance. In his work Israel, Myths and Terror, Garaudy examines the political instrumentalization of modern myths. The transformation of the Holocaust from a historical catastrophe into a sacred symbol is regarded as a harbinger of a new form of fascism. This new form operates through sanctified myths rather than military force. Israel stands as the principal beneficiary of this process. The fusion of sanctity with fascist nationalism silences the language of justice and subjects the law to dogma.

International law and crimes

International law does not operate independently of this structure. Clear war crimes such as the targeting of civilians in Gaza, the killing of children and the obstruction of basic humanitarian needs are disappearing into a legal silence. This silence bears the nature of a manifestation of the unconscious. Jung’s concept of the ‘collective shadow’ explains modern civilization’s inability to confront its own barbarism.

Israel is reproducing the trauma it suffered in the past from the position of the perpetrator. In this context, the rising student movements in Western universities represent a form of ethical resistance. These movements embody, in Jung’s words, the courage to confront the shadow. The mask of the myth is being torn away, and the sanctification of trauma is being challenged. This action possesses an ethical quality. Nurettin Topçu’s concept of the “Ethics of Rebellion” offers a powerful theoretical framework to explain this situation: the moral struggle of the self that sacrifices itself for the sake of truth.

(Originally published in Turkish by Kriter)

G

enocide and humanitarian crisis overshadowed what is traditionally a celebration of hope and renewal.

With fewer than 1,000 Christians remaining in the Gaza Strip, the community marked its third Easter under the devastating war that began after October 7, 2023. Many families are displaced, and churches that once hosted vibrant celebrations now hold only modest prayer services. Community members described the occasion as one of mourning rather than festivity, honoring those killed while clinging to hope for survival.

Basic necessities remain scarce across Gaza, affecting even symbolic traditions. Items like eggs—commonly decorated during Easter—are largely unavailable due to severe shortages. Longstanding restrictions, intensified during the genocide, have limited the flow of food, fuel, and essential goods into the territory, leaving residents struggling to maintain even the simplest customs.

Traditions lost, faith endures

Residents recalled how Easter once brought together families and neighbors—both Christian and Muslim—in shared celebration. Festive meals, visits to relatives, and children receiving sweets and gifts were once central to the holiday. Today, those traditions have largely disappeared, replaced by displacement, loss, and economic hardship.

Churches such as Gaza’s only Catholic parish have also suffered damage during the war, and attendance has declined as many Christians have fled. Still, those who remain continue to gather for prayer, emphasizing their deep-rooted presence in the land and their shared suffering with the wider Palestinian population.

Restricted worship and displacement

For the second consecutive year, Gaza’s Christians have been unable to travel to Jerusalem to attend services at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, one of Christianity’s holiest sites. Movement restrictions and security measures have further isolated the community during a period that typically draws pilgrims from around the world.

Meanwhile, ongoing displacement has forced many families to seek shelter in churches or temporary housing, often under difficult conditions. Elderly residents and long-time community members described a stark contrast between past celebrations filled with joy and the present reality marked by grief and uncertainty.

Despite these hardships, Gaza’s Christian community continues to observe its religious traditions in whatever way possible—holding onto faith and resilience in the face of ongoing war.

(Source: Aljazeera English)

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)

From October 7 to 10, 2023, Hamas attacked southern Israeli settlements, killing 1,200 Israelis and taking 251 hostages. Subsequent Israeli army counterattacks killed 77,000 Palestinians (186,000 according to The Lancet). Contrary to mainstream discourse, this was not a war. Rather, it was the systematic destruction of the Gaza Strip—a placecide. Indeed, the UN states that over 70 percent of buildings in Gaza have been destroyed. Schools, hospitals, mosques, museums, archives, and parks were destroyed. These places were all carriers of identity and memory. No reconstruction process will heal the wound inflicted on collective memory anytime soon.

On October 9, 2025, the ceasefire—achieved through Trump’s coercive efforts—allowed both sides to breathe a sigh of relief, as if they had been holding their breath for two years. Palestinians, the direct victims of Israel’s destructive operation, were relieved knowing they would not wake up to bombs and destruction the next morning. Israelis, especially the families of hostages, welcomed the announcement with joy because they would finally be reunited with their loved ones, dead or alive.

However, the communities’ joy was calm and measured, in keeping with the gravity of their situation. Unfortunately, this dignity was absent from Trump’s speech at the Knesset before the official summit to sign the ceasefire in Egypt. This dignity was absent from Trump himself and the members of parliament present, except for Ayman Odeh and Ofer Cassif. This recklessness, like the two years of systematic destruction, was etched into everyone’s memory.

On the verge of a weary peace

The ceasefire, release of hostages, exchange of Palestinian prisoners, and diplomatic efforts that culminated in Trump’s Knesset speech undoubtedly provided some relief to Israeli society. However, this relief stemmed from weariness, not peace. For Israelis, the ceasefire was not the end of the war but rather a brief reprieve. It was a period in which traumas, feelings of guilt, and questions of legitimacy were temporarily frozen.

This article discusses three phenomena reflected in the social mirror of the ceasefire: fatigue, legitimacy, and forgetting. Together, these phenomena define Israel’s current state in political and moral terms. Fatigue relates less to the burden of war than to the exhaustion of self-belief. Legitimacy has reached a point at which the government and the concept of the state itself are being questioned. Forgetting functions as a defense mechanism.

The security narrative that initially protected the state’s legitimacy during the military operation against Gaza has gradually given way to a collective sense of exhaustion. According to the latest “Israeli Voice Index” data from the Israel Democracy Institute, 64 percent of the public considers the government’s crisis management to be unsuccessful, and only 46 percent say they trust Netanyahu. This is one of the lowest figures since 2023. The fatigue here is not just physical, but also moral. Living in a constant state of alert has narrowed the horizon of meaning in Israel, both individually and collectively. People no longer know what to believe in, and the criteria for victory, security, and peace have disappeared.

This situation can be understood through the concept of exhaustion politics. When a society lives in a constant state of alarm, politics itself becomes a form of exhaustion. Indeed, over the last two years, war has become the norm rather than the exception. Consequently, many Israelis do not perceive a ceasefire as a respite but as a rehearsal for renewed tension.

The erosion of legitimacy

The ceasefire marked a turning point that shook the internal balance of the Netanyahu government. Since taking power in December 2022, the government has faced protests from secular segments of society, and its legitimacy was already shaky. Netanyahu tried to portray the destructive operation in Gaza as a unifying force that would rally the nation behind him, but he failed. For the past two years, the same groups have taken to the streets, continuing to protest and demand an end to the war and the return of the hostages. Indeed, after the ceasefire was declared, Steve Witkoff, a U.S. representative, mentioned Netanyahu’s name in his speech to the hundreds of thousands gathered in Hatufim Square in Tel Aviv.

The boos and whistles that followed have become one of the most memorable moments of the prime minister’s long political career. Conversely, the fragmentation within this already highly fragile coalition has weakened Netanyahu’s image as a “savior” leader. Trump’s standing ovations and empty compliments failed to provide Netanyahu with a legitimate basis for writing a heroic narrative, disturbing anyone with a conscience in the process.

However, according to a poll published by the Israeli newspaper Maariv after the ceasefire, the applause and victory speeches will not lead to political success. Although Likud remains the leading party, it will be unable to maintain its coalition majority. Some coalition parties are unlikely to pass the 3.25 percent threshold. Thus, the first polls conducted after the ceasefire predict that the Netanyahu bloc will win 48 to 51 seats in the 120-seat parliament, while the Zionist anti-Netanyahu bloc is expected to secure 57 to 59 seats. Netanyahu’s rhetoric of diplomatic victory is struggling to hold society together.

Some view the potential normalization of relations with Saudi Arabia and Indonesia as a historic opportunity, while others see these moves as a distraction from the Palestinian issue. At this point, legitimacy becomes not only a political concept but also a social belief system. When people lose faith in the state’s moral and political legitimacy, the rhetoric of unity gives way to silent alienation.

For the families of fallen soldiers, activists who refuse to forget their losses, and civil society groups, the ceasefire symbolizes not justice but forgetting. In such an atmosphere, every new diplomatic move is seen as an attempt to restore legitimacy. However, these attempts are becoming less and less credible among certain segments of society.

Social fatigue and forgetting

As Omer Bartov, an Israeli-American historian has noted, Israel’s collective memory is selective. Bartov interprets this as “an existential apology of the state.” In other words, Israel views forgetting as an ideological reflex that ensures the state’s continuity. While the 1948 Nakba meant ethnic cleansing, expulsion, and spatial genocide for Palestinians, Israel viewed it as a process of establishing a regime of forgetting. This process includes destroying villages, renaming cities, and creating an official historical narrative that deliberately erases this period in Palestine’s history. The goal is to erase Palestinians’ spatial memory.

Today, this policy of forgetting has taken on a new form. After the ceasefire, Israeli society wants to forget its traumas and responsibilities. The release of hostages is celebrated as a moral victory, but this victory is overshadowed by the destruction in Gaza and the deaths of thousands of civilians. The visual memory of the war is rapidly fading from the media; the focus is shifting toward concepts such as “reconstruction,” “economic recovery,” and “diplomatic opening.”

This state of denial has become a kind of social self-preservation mechanism. Rather than confronting its responsibilities, Israeli society has chosen to indulge in the warmth of forgetting. However, this approach only brings temporary peace and fosters a lasting sense of injustice. Since October 9, therefore, Israeli society has identified with both guilt and victimhood. It protects itself with a sense of victimhood while suppressing its role as the perpetrator.

Another striking element of public discourse after the ceasefire is the prevalence of silence. Street protests have diminished, the media has softened its tone, and even critical intellectuals have adopted a wait-and-see approach. Nevertheless, it would be unrealistic to call this democratic maturity. It is more likely the result of collective exhaustion.

Israeli society no longer wants to hear grand statements. Words like “victory,” “revenge,” and “peace” have become meaningless. Instead, Israelis are preoccupied with establishing small areas of everyday security. In fact, war fatigue has turned into a political ideology: the desire and discourse of “just let it end.”

Deep down, however, everyone knows that this will never end because forgetting will never bring lasting peace. As Bartov says, “Denial is a form of continuity.” This form of denial postpones, but does not eliminate the Israeli society’s confrontation with its conscience.

I

srael’s attacks on Gaza, which began on October 7, 2023, finally came to an end on October 10, 2025, with the ceasefire agreement. However, the agreement only lasted two years.

U.S. President Trump first proposed the 21-point Gaza ceasefire plan on September 23, on the sidelines of the opening ceremonies of the 80th UN General Assembly. This proposal followed a “mini Gaza” summit organized between Trump and eight Muslim countries. Both Hamas and Israel accepted and implemented the plan, with some revisions. On October 13, at a ceremony in Egypt’s Sharm el-Sheikh region, the United States, Türkiye, Egypt, and Qatar signed a declaration of intent entitled “President Trump’s Plan to End the War in Gaza in a Comprehensive Manner” as guarantor countries.

Recalling the vision for Gaza that Netanyahu shared during his first visit in February, shortly after Trump took office, it’s clear that the current situation is a remarkable transformation. Certain actors have been instrumental in bringing Trump to this point. Türkiye and President Erdoğan are at the forefront of these actors who can steer an unpredictable figure like Trump away from mistakes and enable him to act fairly.

It is therefore crucial to explain how Trump’s initial ideas, which viewed Gaza merely as a real estate project to be resolved by removing all Gazans and rebuilding Gaza as the “Riviera of the Middle East,” were softened and transformed. To this end, we will first outline the conditions under which the ceasefire plan emerged, followed by an explanation of how the process evolved with Türkiye’s involvement.

The emergence of Trump’s plan

As is well known, Trump promised during his campaign to end ongoing wars and conflicts around the world, particularly in Ukraine. Even before taking office, he played an effective role in facilitating the Israel-Hamas ceasefire, which took effect on January 19, 2025. Although Israel violated the ceasefire plan and resumed attacks on March 18, it was reported that Trump intended to negotiate a new ceasefire or a regional peace agreement in a different form.

However, it was understood that Trump’s plan was not fair or humane. It would not stop Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Rather, it would see Gaza completely evacuated and rebuilt as a tourist center, in line with Israel’s wishes.

However, there was no chance that Trump’s plan would be accepted by Hamas or other countries in the region. Additionally, a wave of anger and hatred against Israel had emerged worldwide. This wave slowly began to harm U.S. interests and force the US to protect and support Israel. Meanwhile, Israel continued to escalate its massacres in Gaza, causing the wave of anger and hatred to swell even further. Without considering the impending tsunami, Israel was placing almost the entire cost on the U.S.

Israel’s unlawful attacks and raids on the Sumud Fleet—a manifestation of the global conscience that emerged alongside individual initiatives to break the Gaza blockade and deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza—were not enough. Its detention of hundreds of activists, most of whom were from Western countries and were treated as terrorists, exhausted all patience.

The Doha airstrike

The airstrike carried out on September 9 against a building in Doha, Qatar’s capital, where senior Hamas leaders had gathered to discuss a ceasefire proposal prepared by Trump’s team, exhausted Trump’s patience. For the first time, he was convinced that Israel must be stopped. Although Israel claimed that Qatar was not the target of the attack, Israeli media had long said that Qatar should be punished for supporting Hamas and hosting its leadership. Therefore, it was understood that, with this attack, Israel wanted to eliminate the Hamas leaders and send a strong message to countries that host Hamas members, such as Qatar.

The targeting of Qatar, one of the United States’ and specifically Trump’s closest allies in the region, has prompted Trump to swiftly implement a plan he says will stop Israel and bring peace to Gaza and the entire region.

Israel’s attack on Doha has forced the US and many Western countries to reconsider their positions on Israel and Palestine. These countries are now taking bolder steps towards recognizing Palestine, something they have refrained from doing until now. Ten countries, including France, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Portugal, Belgium, Malta, Monaco, Luxembourg, and Andorra, announced their recognition of Palestine during the opening ceremonies of the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly. The UN summit included more than these recognitions. The “two-state solution” conference, jointly organized by France and Saudi Arabia and held in the General Assembly hall, also signaled a turning point against Israel.

President Erdoğan’s speech at the UN General Assembly strongly condemned Israel and called on the international community to act immediately. His speech was met with appreciation and applause from all participants. However, when Netanyahu, a genocidal war criminal, took the podium, participants left the hall in protest. This demonstrates that Israel has lost its comfortable status and is increasingly isolated.

Finally, after a productive and cordial meeting with President Erdoğan on September 26, Trump received Netanyahu on September 29. At the end of the meeting, it was announced that Trump’s team’s 21-point Gaza plan had been accepted, with the exception of the clause relating to Qatar.

Türkiye’s intervention in the process and revision of the plan

At the Gaza Summit in New York, Trump announced that Israel would cease its attacks, withdraw its army, and guarantee that it would not attack again. Humanitarian aid would be allowed to enter Gaza, and its people would not be forced to leave. Gaza would be rebuilt and ultimately governed by Palestinians. In exchange, Hamas would release all hostages, agree to lay down its arms, and relinquish its claim to the future of Gaza. But, the realization that these promises were not included in the text accepted by Netanyahu led to disappointment and backlash in all participating Muslim countries, particularly Türkiye.

During Netanyahu’s over three-hour meeting at the White House, it was revealed that Netanyahu had revised his plan from Israel’s perspective. President Erdoğan reportedly called Trump to inform him that Hamas would not be persuaded under these conditions and that progress should be made on the agreed-upon draft. Meanwhile, Trump announced that Israel had accepted the ceasefire plan and demanded that Hamas also accept the conditions and immediately release the hostages. Trump stated that he had given Hamas until midnight on October 5 and warned that, if the hostages were not released by that time, he would make Gaza uninhabitable.

In this tense environment, Türkiye intervened in the process again. With the help of MIT President Ibrahim Kalin, who was in Doha, Hamas responded thoughtfully to Trump, persuading them to agree to the ceasefire.

“We appreciate the Arab, Islamic, and international efforts, as well as the efforts of U.S. President Donald Trump, to stop the war on the Gaza Strip, exchange prisoners, allow immediate entry of aid, and reject the occupation and expulsion of our Palestinian people from the Gaza Strip. Within this framework, the initiative aims to halt the fighting and secure Israel’s complete withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. According to the exchange formula included in President Trump’s proposal, Hamas has agreed to release all live and dead hostages. Hamas also confirms its readiness to immediately begin negotiations with mediators to discuss the details of the plan.”

This response thwarted Israel’s plans and softened Trump’s stance toward Hamas. In his message, Trump praised Hamas’s response and ensured the start of the negotiation process.

Hamas’s response to Trump reiterated its agreement to transfer the administration of the Gaza Strip to an independent Palestinian body composed of technocrats based on the Palestinian national consensus and with the support of Arab and Islamic countries. This rendered Netanyahu’s attempt to incorporate Tony Blair’s formula into the plan invalid and ensured a return to the plan’s original form. This is precisely the form that Trump promised the leaders of eight Muslim countries at the mini Gaza summit.

After Trump stated that he would not ignore Hamas’s offer of peace and that negotiations should begin, Hamas announced that it had accepted the ceasefire plan with the support of Türkiye and Qatar. Israel’s move, based on the assumption that Hamas would reject the proposed plan, backfired, causing major shock in Israel. Furthermore, after Hamas accepted Trump’s plan, it became impossible to backtrack on the plan Netanyahu had announced on September 29. Consequently, Israel failed to achieve its declared objectives after October 7. In fact, while seeking to eliminate Hamas, Israel was forced to negotiate with it at the same table. Afraid of Trump’s reaction, Israel stalled the process under the pretext of cabinet approval before finally approving the ceasefire plan on October 10.

Netanyahu’s seek for fait accompli and Erdoğan’s resolute stance

Eager to transform the ceasefire agreement — which took effect 24 hours after the Israeli cabinet approved it — into a grand spectacle, Trump announced that he would travel to Egypt at the invitation of President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi to attend the signing ceremony. Before traveling to Egypt, Trump stopped in Israel, where he delivered a speech in the Knesset outlining the ceasefire plan. This was an attempt to help Netanyahu market the ceasefire as a victory. However, just as Trump was expected to leave Israel for Sharm El-Sheikh, Trump, Netanyahu, and el-Sisi participated in a three-way telephone conversation at Netanyahu’s request. Netanyahu was reported to accompany Trump to Sharm El-Sheikh for the signing ceremony, despite his name not being on the list announced to the media.

At this point, President Erdoğan demonstrated his determination once again. Defying convention, he ordered the presidential plane to pass the runway and then informed el-Sisi and Trump that he would leave if Netanyahu attended the summit. Encouraged by Erdoğan’s stance, several other leaders also opposed Netanyahu’s participation. Netanyahu’s plan to attend the summit was thwarted, and he was removed under pressure.

Although some media outlets may portray this development as President Erdoğan’s second “one minute” moment toward Israel, his stance is actually far from inflammatory. It is a legal and humanitarian response to Netanyahu’s genocidal actions. After all, Netanyahu is responsible for the deaths of nearly 70,000 Palestinians, so it would be unacceptable for anyone, let alone Erdoğan, to stand alongside him and thereby legitimize him as a war criminal. President Erdoğan’s reaction ultimately prevented Netanyahu from attending the signing ceremony and putting on a show. It also prevented the normalization of standing alongside a war criminal, which would have effectively whitewashed Israel by giving it a place on the podium.

Consequently, the signing ceremony for Trump’s Gaza plan took place with more than thirty-five leaders in attendance and great hope. Trump stated that this agreement was intended not only to bring peace to Gaza but also, with the help of the guarantor countries, to resolve ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and bring peace and tranquility to the region. However, without Türkiye’s and President Erdoğan’s timely intervention and delicate touch, neither Trump’s motivation nor the agreement between Hamas and Israel could have been sustained.

If this ceasefire was possible, it was largely thanks to President Erdoğan’s leadership, determination, and personal influence over Trump, which kept Trump engaged. This smart policy sometimes aligned with Trump and sometimes called him out on his mistakes. Ultimately, it prevented Trump from falling into Netanyahu’s orbit.

Therefore, while Trump may be seen as the architect of the ceasefire, Erdoğan and Türkiye as a whole should not be forgotten. They are the real heroes behind the scenes, with their human resources trained in foreign policy and intelligence.

(Originally published in Turkish by Kriter)

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.

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.

O

n October 7, 2023, Israel began actions that may constitute the most significant genocide of the twenty-first century. This campaign continues to this day. These actions cannot be viewed as merely a regional conflict. Rather, they reflect a deliberate and systematic policy aimed at destroying the Palestinian population. The coordinated denial of fundamental rights, coupled with the blockade and obstruction of humanitarian aid, constitutes a clear breach of core international legal principles, including the obligation to prevent genocide and protect human rights. According to Article 2 of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, genocide is defined as the commission of acts with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.

The use of the term “genocide” at the outset of this analysis is deliberate. Israel claims that its blockade of Gaza is legitimate under international law and that blockades are recognized in the legal framework. However, since the establishment of the United Nations (UN), blockades have generally been considered a use of force and are therefore prohibited. A blockade can only be lawful under two exceptional conditions.

1. A blockade is imposed in response to a threat to international peace and security pursuant to a Security Council resolution.

2. It is applied as part of the right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter in response to an armed attack against a state.

Israel’s blockade of Gaza does not meet either of these conditions. There is no Security Council resolution authorizing the blockade, and Israel cannot invoke the right to self-defense because it is not engaged in conflict with another state, but rather with Hamas, a non-state resistance organization. Israel is not engaged in conflict with another state, but rather with Hamas, a non-state resistance organization. The right of self-defense applies only in response to an armed attack by one state against another.

Furthermore, the blockade must comply with International Humanitarian Law (IHL). A blockade that harms civilians and undermines their living conditions is a clear violation of IHL. The Gaza blockade deliberately subjects the Palestinian population to mass starvation, meeting the criteria of Article 2(c) of the Genocide Convention, which prohibits deliberately inflicting conditions intended to destroy a group, either wholly or in part. Therefore, the Gaza blockade qualifies as genocide under international law.

The global Sumud Flotilla and Israel’s intervention

In response to the genocidal campaign and to break the blockade, the Global Sumud Flotilla was formed in July 2025. It was the largest international, civil society-led maritime initiative featuring numerous activists.

The fleet comprised over 40 vessels and approximately 500 activists from over 44 countries and carried urgent humanitarian aid, including baby formula, medicine, and prosthetic limbs. The goal was to raise awareness of the acute crisis and establish a maritime corridor to Gaza.

The first convoy departed from Barcelona, Spain, on August 31, 2025. As the flotilla approached Gaza’s waters, Israeli forces intervened on the night of October 1, 2025. The Israeli Navy intercepted all of the vessels, seizing the ships and detaining hundreds of activists while they were still in international waters, approximately 70–75 nautical miles (130–139 km) off the coast of Gaza. This action, occurring so far from the coast, challenges the fundamental principle of international law that guarantees the freedom of navigation on the high seas.

The key question arises: How does Israel’s intervention against the flotilla correspond to international law? Most rules governing the law of the sea are codified in the 1958 Convention on the High Seas and the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Many of these provisions also constitute customary international law, which is binding on all states, regardless of their status as parties to the conventions.

According to Article 1 of the 1958 Convention, the term “high seas” refers to all parts of the sea not included in a state’s territorial or internal waters. Article 86 of UNCLOS expands this definition to include all areas of the sea not included in a state’s exclusive economic zone, territorial sea, internal waters, or the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic state.

What does international law say?

Articles 2 of the 1958 Convention and 87 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provide that the high seas are open to all states and guarantee freedom of navigation. Article 88 of the UNCLOS stipulates that the high seas must be used exclusively for peaceful purposes. Article 89 prohibits any state from claiming sovereignty over any part of the high seas.

Additionally, according to Article 6(1) of the 1958 Convention and Article 92(1) of UNCLOS, a vessel on the high seas is, in principle, subject only to the jurisdiction of its flag state. However, to safeguard the common interests of humanity, both the Convention and customary international law recognize a limited number of exceptions. These exceptions include cases of piracy, the slave trade, illicit drug trafficking, unauthorized broadcasting, and situations where a vessel is suspected of sailing under a false flag.

Additionally, intervention may be permitted under an international agreement or a binding resolution of the UN Security Council. Coastal states may exercise the right of hot pursuit, which allows them to continue enforcement actions on the high seas in response to violations that began within their maritime zones. Together, these exceptions demonstrate international law’s effort to balance the flag state’s exclusive jurisdiction with the need to maintain order and security on the high seas.

Exclusive authority to intervene on vessels in international waters lies with the flag state. None of the limited exceptions under international law apply to Israel’s actions against the Sumud Fleet. The civilian vessels were not engaged in piracy, the slave trade, drug trafficking, or unauthorized broadcasting. They were duly registered and sailed under valid flags, eliminating any claim of statelessness or false flag operations.

The Israeli intervention was not authorized by an international agreement or a Security Council resolution either, which are the only lawful bases for such coercive measures beyond self-defense. Additionally, the doctrine of hot pursuit is inapplicable because the vessels were intercepted 70–75 nautical miles off the coast of Gaza, well beyond Israel’s territorial waters. No violation originated within Israel’s maritime jurisdiction. Taken together, these considerations demonstrate that Israel’s intervention cannot be justified under any recognized legal exception and therefore constitutes a clear violation of international law. Consequently, Israel’s intervention violates not only the law of the sea, but also international law more broadly.

A persistent challenge to international law

The interception of the Global Sumud Flotilla is part of Israel’s longstanding pattern of enforcing an illegal naval blockade. The blockade of Gaza and the repeated use of force against civilian vessels in international waters constitute blatant breaches of fundamental international legal norms, including the freedom of navigation and the obligation to prevent genocide. Amidst a documented humanitarian catastrophe, the current crisis necessitates a stronger, unified global response.

The Global Sumud Flotilla was a legitimate humanitarian initiative. The international community must move beyond consistent verbal condemnation and implement concrete, unified actions to hold those responsible for these violations of international law accountable. Ultimately, stopping the ongoing genocide requires states to take decisive steps to complement the efforts of civil society aid missions and ensure that Israel’s violations of international waters are urgently addressed by relevant legal authorities.

T

ens of thousands of people have taken to the streets across the world after Israeli forces intercepted a humanitarian aid flotilla bound for Gaza, sparking a wave of protests demanding sanctions against Israel and an end to its blockade of the besieged Palestinian territory.

The flotilla, known as the Global Sumud Flotilla, consisted of 41 ships carrying more than 400 passengers from 40 countries — including lawmakers, humanitarian workers, and prominent activists such as Greta Thunberg and Nkosi Zwelivelile “Mandla” Mandela, grandson of Nelson Mandela. The convoy was attempting to deliver food, medicine, and fuel to Gaza, where the United Nations says famine has taken hold after nearly two years of continuous Israeli bombardment.

Israel’s navy intercepted the flotilla early Thursday morning in the eastern Mediterranean, seizing the vessels and detaining all passengers. The Israeli military claimed the flotilla violated its naval blockade, calling the mission “a provocation disguised as humanitarian aid.” Activists said they were unarmed and accused Israel of “piracy in international waters.”

The interception has ignited outrage across continents, drawing comparisons to the 2010 Mavi Marmara incident, when Israeli commandos killed nine Turkish activists aboard another Gaza-bound aid ship.

Mass protests across Europe

In Barcelona, where one of the largest demonstrations occurred, an estimated 70,000 people marched through the city center chanting, “Gaza, you are not alone!” and “Freedom for Palestine!” Many carried Palestinian flags and banners reading “Boycott Israel” and “End the blockade.” Spanish television footage showed riot police clashing with protesters who tried to storm police barricades near the port.

Former Barcelona mayor Ada Colau, who was among the passengers on one of the intercepted vessels, is being detained in Israel and faces deportation. “Ada went to deliver aid, not to start a conflict,” said Josep Maria Domingo, a member of her staff. “The response from Israel is completely unacceptable.”

In Paris, around 1,000 protesters gathered at the Place de la République, waving banners that read “Genocide in Gaza: Stop Arming Israel.” In Marseille, more than 100 people were arrested after attempting to block access to Eurolinks, a French weapons manufacturer accused by rights groups of supplying components used in Israel’s air campaign.

French trade unions have thrown their weight behind the demonstrations. “Our workers refuse to be complicit,” said Jean-Luc Moreau of the CGT union federation. “We are striking in solidarity with Gaza and to demand an arms embargo on Israel.”

Ireland and Italy join in

In Dublin, tens of thousands pf protesters gathered outside the Irish parliament, waving Palestinian flags and chanting “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” Ireland has been among Europe’s most vocal critics of Israel’s Gaza campaign, with the government repeatedly calling for an end to arms exports to Israel.

“I am worried sick for my daughter, but I am so proud of her,” said Miriam McNally, whose 23-year-old daughter was among those detained on the flotilla. “She is standing up for humanity in the face of grave danger.”

In Italy, major labor unions have called for a general strike on Friday, with demonstrations planned in Rome, Milan, Naples, and Turin. Police said around 10,000 protesters filled central Rome on Thursday evening, carrying banners that read “Stop the Genocide” and “We will block everything until Gaza is free.”

“The Italian people will not stand by while civilians are starved and bombed,” said Lucia Rinaldi, a representative of the Italian Dockworkers’ Union. “The flotilla’s message is our message: Enough is enough.”

Protests spread worldwide

Demonstrations were also reported in Berlin, The Hague, Tunis, Istanbul, Sydney, Brasilia, Buenos Aires, Tripoli, and Chicago. In Brussels, approximately 3,000 people gathered outside the European Parliament, calling on the European Union to “break the siege” of Gaza. Protesters released red smoke flares and chanted, “Europe, stop funding war crimes.”

In Rio de Janeiro, crowds filled Copacabana Beach, waving Palestinian and Brazilian flags. “We were inspired by Mandela’s grandson risking his life for Gaza,” said protester Carla Nunes. “His grandfather fought apartheid in South Africa — now we are fighting apartheid in Palestine.”

In Kuala Lumpur, hundreds gathered outside the U.S. embassy, demanding the release of 12 detained Malaysian activists aboard the flotilla. Protesters held signs reading “Free Our Heroes” and “Lift the Blockade Now.”

In Istanbul, thousands marched from Taksim Square to the Israeli consulate, chanting “Embargo Now!” and “Israel = Terrorism. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan condemned the Israeli interception as a “violation of international law” and demanded the immediate release of Turkish citizens detained aboard the ships.

I

sraeli naval forces attacked an international aid flotilla bound for the besieged Gaza Strip late Wednesday, detaining hundreds of activists from around the world and seizing multiple ships carrying humanitarian supplies in what organizers condemned as a “violent act of piracy on international waters.”

The Global Sumud Flotilla, organized by the International Committee for Breaking the Siege on Gaza (ICBSG), said that Israeli forces surrounded the convoy of ships as it approached the Gaza coast and launched a coordinated raid after jamming communications.

According to the ICBSG, at least 19 ships were intercepted, including the Alma, Sirius, Adara, and Deir Yassin. The flotilla, carrying more than 500 activists from 50 countries, was attempting to deliver food, medical supplies, and construction materials to Gaza, where Israel’s 18-year blockade has created one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises.

“We are being attacked right now by the Zionist army,” the committee posted on X. “Some ships have already been intercepted. A state of emergency has been declared aboard all vessels. Cameras are offline, and military personnel have boarded our ships.”

Brutal mistreatment reported

Organizers accused Israeli forces of using excessive violence during the operation, saying naval units deployed water cannons, sound grenades, and rammed at least one vessel before storming several others.

“The Israeli navy has forcibly boarded our ships, beaten and handcuffed volunteers, and confiscated cameras and communication equipment,” the group said in a statement. “Peaceful detainees from over 50 countries are being brutally mistreated.”

Eyewitnesses on board the Adara said Israeli commandos descended from helicopters and used stun grenades before detaining the crew.

“They came out of nowhere,” said Swedish activist Anna Lund, speaking to journalists via a satellite phone before her signal was lost. “They shouted orders, fired warning shots into the air, and began seizing people. We were unarmed, carrying aid, not weapons.”

At least 200 activists have been detained so far, the ICBSG said. The Israeli military confirmed that “a number of foreign nationals” were being transferred to the port of Ashdod, in southern Israel, for questioning and that the aid cargo would be “inspected for security threats” before any items could enter Gaza.

Flotilla stopped 80 miles from Gaza

The flotilla was reportedly less than 80 nautical miles (148 kilometers) from Gaza’s shore when it was intercepted. Activists had earlier spotted more than 20 Israeli naval boats shadowing the convoy, demanding that it divert course to Ashdod.

The raid took place beyond Israel’s self-declared naval blockade zone, raising legal concerns about the operation’s legitimacy.

“This is clearly a violation of international maritime law,” said Professor Ahmed Soueif, a maritime law expert at the University of Cairo. “The flotilla was in international waters and carrying declared humanitarian cargo. Intercepting it constitutes an illegal act of aggression.”

Livestream footage broadcast from several ships before communications were cut showed activists donning life jackets and chanting “Free Gaza!” as Israeli boats closed in.

“They told us to turn back or face consequences,” said Spanish volunteer Carlos Martínez, one of the last to transmit from the Sirius. “Then our signal went dead.”

International condemnation mounts

The attack sparked widespread international outrage, with human rights groups and several governments demanding Israel immediately release the detained activists and allow humanitarian aid to reach Gaza.

Amnesty International called the interception “a dangerous escalation that violates international law,” urging Israel to “protect the rights of humanitarian workers and refrain from the use of excessive force.”

The United Nations Human Rights Office also weighed in, warning that “any interference with humanitarian relief operations in international waters is unacceptable.”

In Geneva, UN spokesperson Ravina Shamdasani said the incident “underscores the worsening humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, where the population faces famine, disease, and mass displacement.”

In Istanbul, thousands of protesters gathered outside the Israeli Consulate, waving Palestinian flags and chanting “End the siege on Gaza!” Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan condemned the raid as “an act of barbarism,” saying Ankara would raise the issue at the UN Security Council.

“History has repeated itself,” Erdoğan said in a televised statement. “The world cannot remain silent as humanitarian workers are assaulted on the high seas. Israel must be held accountable for these crimes.”

A

merican President Donald Trump said on Thursday that he would not allow Israel to annex the West Bank, setting a clear “red line” as Arab and Muslim leaders intensify diplomatic efforts to end the nearly two-year-long genocide in Gaza.

“I will not allow Israel to annex the West Bank. I will not allow it. It’s not going to happen,” Trump told reporters at the White House, emphasizing that he had conveyed his stance directly to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “It’s been enough. It’s time to stop now,” he said.

The remarks came just days after Trump met Arab and Muslim leaders on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, where he pledged that the United States would oppose any Israeli move to formally annex Palestinian territories. According to Politico, the meeting produced a 21-point plan for achieving a ceasefire in Gaza and establishing a new, non-Hamas administration to govern the territory.

Ceasefire remains elusive

Despite Trump’s assurances, progress toward a ceasefire remains slow. The Politico report, citing sources familiar with the discussions, said negotiators were “nowhere close” to a breakthrough, with both Israel and Hamas refusing key conditions demanded by the other side.

Under the Arab leaders’ proposal, Israel would commit not to annex or occupy parts of Gaza, not to expand settlements in the West Bank, and to respect the current status quo at Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa Mosque compound. In exchange, Arab states would work to support a postwar governing body in Gaza that excludes Hamas but includes representatives of the Palestinian Authority and technocrats backed by regional governments.

The plan also calls for an immediate and large-scale increase in humanitarian aid to Gaza, where the situation has reached critical levels. According to United Nations data, over 66,000 Palestinians have been killed since the start of the genocide, while more than 2 million remain displaced and dependent on emergency assistance.

Mounting humanitarian pressure

The humanitarian situation in Gaza continues to deteriorate as fighting drags into its 23rd month. Aid agencies have warned of mass starvation, the collapse of medical infrastructure, and what some international legal experts have described as “genocidal conditions.”

The International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have both received submissions alleging war crimes and possible crimes against humanity committed during the conflict. Several human rights organizations have urged the U.S. and other major powers to use their leverage to bring about a ceasefire and prevent further escalation.

Speaking alongside Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan at the White House earlier Thursday, Trump said his administration was working closely with regional partners to secure both a ceasefire and the release of Israeli hostages held by Hamas. “We’re close to getting some kind of a deal done,” Trump said. “We want to get the hostages back — we want them all back at one time.”

T

he panel placed responsibility on Israel’s highest political and military authorities, naming President Isaac Herzog, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant as figures who have incited genocide. The report accused Israel of ignoring warnings from UN agencies, civil society groups, and provisional measures ordered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

The commission urged Israel to immediately lift its siege on Gaza, end the policy of starvation, allow full humanitarian access, and dismantle the controversial Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, which it said has put civilians at risk. It also called on UN member states to halt arms transfers to Israel and prevent corporations under their jurisdiction from supporting genocidal acts.

“Every day of inaction costs lives and erodes the credibility of the international community,” Pillay warned. “All states are legally obliged to act to stop the genocide in Gaza.”

Israel dismisses findings

The report detailed systemic destruction of Gaza’s healthcare and education systems, widespread targeting of children, sexual and gender-based violence, and the bombardment of cultural and religious sites. Nearly 65,000 Palestinians have been killed since October 2023, the commission said, with famine spreading under Israel’s blockade.

Israel rejected the conclusions as “politically motivated.” The Foreign Ministry labeled the report “fake” and accused the commissioners of acting as “Hamas proxies.” In response, commissioner Chris Sidoti dismissed Israel’s rebuttal as repetitive and unoriginal, saying it resembled “statements generated by ChatGPT.”

Sidoti added that Israel has consistently failed to engage with evidence and instead relies on blanket denials “that no one takes seriously.”

Global reaction

The commission’s findings are expected to intensify calls for accountability at the upcoming UN General Assembly session, where Gaza is already high on the agenda. Pillay said the genocide in Gaza is both “a moral outrage and a legal emergency” that demands urgent international action.

“The Genocide Convention was born out of humanity’s darkest chapters,” she said. “Today, we are witnessing in real time how the promise of ‘never again’ is being broken.”

The report marks the most direct and severe condemnation of Israel yet by a UN body, placing unprecedented pressure on world governments to intervene.

(Source: Anadolu News)

According to leaked Israeli documents, it is unrealistic to expect that Hamas, which is claimed to have been rendered ineffective by only 17 per cent so far, will be completely eliminated as a result of the new occupation plan that has been launched. In other words, even if Israel were to gain complete control over Gaza’s infrastructure through a ground operation, it would not achieve full success due to Hamas’s continued presence in the tunnels. Furthermore, this would lead to the deaths of all the hostages, which would further deepen the fault lines within Israeli society.

Israel’s attacks on Gaza, which have been ongoing since 7 October 2023, entered a new phase in August 2025. Despite the passage of 22 months and the killing of more than 63,000 Palestinians, Israel’s genocidal Prime Minister Netanyahu, unable to rescue the hostages held by Hamas, contrary to his initial rhetoric that the sole objective of these attacks was to eliminate Hamas, he announced that he would begin implementing a plan for the total occupation of Gaza.

The Process Leading to the Invasion Plan

After Hamas released footage of two Israeli hostages, Evyatar David and Rom Braslavsky, in early August, saying that Netanyahu was endangering their lives by not agreeing to a prisoner exchange deal, public outrage against Netanyahu reached fever pitch in Israeli society, raising expectations that Netanyahu would have to do something to save himself from this situation. Netanyahu, who said he was shocked by the images of the two hostages, stated, ‘I understand exactly what Hamas wants. They don’t want a deal. They want to destroy us by using these horrific videos,’ and announced that he had requested the Red Cross to deliver food and medicine to the hostages.

After seeing these videos, Netanyahu said that his ‘determination to rescue the hostages and eliminate Hamas has been renewed.’ Indeed, immediately following this statement, in an interview with the American Fox News channel, he said that they ‘aim to take control of the whole of Gaza.’ However, to say that Israel’s plan to invade Gaza stems solely from Netanyahu’s sensitivity towards rescuing the hostages does not correspond with the reality on the ground.

Indeed, just a few days later, in an interview with Israel’s I24 channel, Netanyahu stated that he was ‘committed to the Greater Israel plan’ and that this was ‘a historical and spiritual mission,’ revealing the true intent behind the occupation plan.

Following Netanyahu’s statements, the issue of the occupation of Gaza was brought before the security cabinet, and after discussions there, the occupation decision was approved despite the opposition of the chief of staff. Subsequently, Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir prepared a new occupation plan, albeit reluctantly, and presented it to the defence minister. After Defence Minister Katz’s approval, Netanyahu approved the plan on 21 August, and the occupation plan, named ‘Gideon’s Chariots 2’, was implemented on the same day.

Details of the plan

In fact, the Israeli army already controls more than 85 per cent of Gaza with at least five of its brigades. In order to control the Gaza Strip more easily, the Israeli army opened four roads cutting across the strip on an east-west axis, thereby dividing it into five parts. During the ceasefire process that began on 19 January, Israeli army units withdrew from areas densely populated by Palestinians and positioned themselves in a manner that relatively encircled Gaza. This plan appears to involve the advance of troops stationed around Gaza into more inland areas, particularly the displacement of Palestinians living in the north, and a sweep of the Strip from north to south, advancing as far as the Rafah border.

So, the plan put forward as the plan to invade Gaza, involves reinforcing forces on the ground and then launching a ground operation with 100,000 troops, displacing approximately 1 million civilians living in Gaza City, along with Beit Lahia and Beit Hanoun in the north of the Strip, and forcing them to move to camp-like facilities to be established in the south, thereby creating so-called safe zones. This would reveal that those left behind are Hamas resistance fighters. Subsequently, intensive bombardment would be carried out to destroy the tunnels still remaining in these areas and rid the region of Hamas fighters. Following the bombardment, special forces would carry out pinpoint attacks to eliminate any remaining Hamas fighters and rescue hostages.

The Ministry of Defence, which has called up 60,000 reservists to support the occupation plan, estimated to last approximately 4-6 months, has stated that it may call up another 20,000 reservists in September, depending on the situation. Thus, the number of reservists called up is expected to reach around 130-150,000.

Although it has been announced that new food distribution centers and medical support units will be established for Palestinians who will be forced to migrate south under the plan, it is known that the Israeli army’s real aim is not to help displaced Palestinians, but rather to force them to leave Gaza. Therefore, if this occupation plan is fully implemented, it is estimated that thousands more Palestinians could lose their lives both in bombings and during the migration to the south.

Reactions to the Plan

Israel’s plan to invade Gaza has been met with opposition from nearly all countries except the United States, and Israel has been urged to immediately abandon this initiative, which would lead to the loss of thousands more Palestinian lives. However, there has also been intense opposition to the invasion plan from within Israel itself. This is because, under this plan, if a large-scale ground operation against Gaza is launched, it was assessed that hostages already struggling to survive under difficult conditions could lose their lives or perhaps be executed by Hamas in response to these attacks. Consequently, criticism of Netanyahu and his government has risen, primarily from hostage families, but also from a broad section of society and politicians, mostly from the opposition.

While Israeli streets have long been the scene of protests by families of hostages, the protests have intensified due to the increased risk to the hostages’ lives posed by the occupation plan. In this context, the participation of approximately 400,000 people in the protest rally held in Tel Aviv on 16 August indicates that sensitivity towards the hostages will continue to grow within Israeli society.

However, the most significant reaction to the occupation plan came from active and reserve soldiers, led by the chief of staff. Even Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir, known for his hawkish views on Gaza, opposed the occupation plan, arguing that the army was extremely tired and worn out from being at war for nearly two years and fighting on many fronts at the same time. He stated that it would be a more rational choice to negotiate a hostage exchange agreement with Hamas instead. Nevertheless, he came under pressure from cabinet members for making such statements and was asked to resign if he could not fulfill his duties.

B

ritish Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Israeli President Isaac Herzog openly clashed during a tense meeting at Downing Street on Wednesday, laying bare deep divisions between the two allies over Gaza, Palestinian statehood, and Israel’s recent strike in Qatar.

The talks came just a day after Israel escalated its regional war by targeting Hamas’s political leadership in Doha, a move Starmer condemned as “completely unacceptable” and “a flagrant violation of a key partner’s sovereignty.”

Herzog later described the Downing Street meeting as “tough and strong,” adding that allies must be willing to argue. “Things were said that were tough and strong, and clearly we can argue, because when allies meet, they can argue. We are both democracies,” he told an audience at Chatham House following the meeting.

Palestinian statehood

Tensions have been sharpened by Britain’s announcement that it will join France, Canada, and other Western nations in recognizing a Palestinian state later this month unless Israel agrees to key conditions, including a ceasefire in Gaza and greater humanitarian access.

Herzog said the prospect of British recognition of Palestinian statehood, along with Starmer’s criticisms of Israel’s handling of aid, formed the core of the disagreement. He invited London to send a fact-finding mission to Israel.

Starmer’s office confirmed he pressed Herzog to change course on Gaza, warning that Israel’s military operations were worsening the humanitarian catastrophe. He urged Israel to allow in more aid, halt offensive operations, and work toward a durable peace.

Frosty encounter

The meeting began with a brief handshake outside 10 Downing Street, notable for the absence of smiles or warmth between the two men. Inside, Starmer reiterated Britain’s commitment to Israel’s security but emphasized that only diplomacy could pave the way to peace.

“He said the strikes were a flagrant violation of a key partner’s sovereignty and do nothing to secure the peace we all desperately want to see,” a Downing Street spokesperson said, referring to the Qatar airstrike.

The Gaza war has strained Israel’s ties with Britain and other European nations. This week, the UK blocked Israeli officials from attending its largest defense trade show, signaling growing frustration in London over Israel’s conduct of the war.

Starmer is also under pressure at home. Activists and lawmakers within his Labour Party have demanded a tougher line on Israel. Health Minister Wes Streeting warned that Israel’s actions in Gaza were pushing it toward “pariah status.”

Starmer, however, defended his approach in parliament, insisting that diplomacy remained essential to securing a ceasefire and winning the release of Israeli hostages held by Hamas. “I will not give up on diplomacy,” he said, dismissing calls for symbolic gestures as “the politics of students.”

Abbas meeting and future of Hamas

The meeting with Herzog followed Starmer’s talks earlier this week with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, in which both leaders agreed there would be “absolutely no role” for Hamas in governing a future Palestinian state.

Britain has pledged to recognize Palestinian statehood ahead of the upcoming U.N. General Assembly, unless Israel fulfills four conditions: ending the war in Gaza, halting settlement expansion, allowing humanitarian aid, and committing to serious peace negotiations.

Herzog, whose role is largely ceremonial but whose comments carry political weight, has angered critics in the past, including when he declared that “all residents of Gaza” bore responsibility for the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attacks on Israel.

For Starmer, the clash with Herzog underscored a delicate balancing act: maintaining Britain’s historic ties with Israel while responding to growing domestic and international pressure to recognize Palestinian rights and call out Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

(Source: Reuters)

The renowned International Association of Genocide Scholars has released a resolution stating that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Backed by 86% of voting members, the resolution is yet another document endorsing Israel’s genocidal crimes in the coastal enclave, now in ruins. However, no actions are expected from global powers, who prefer to remain silent when Israel is the perpetrator. Remember that they ignored the ICJ’s decisions, and the U.S. went too far by sanctioning the court’s judges.

The American administration’s position is particularly important in holding Israel accountable for its crimes. It is the only country that not only relentlessly supports the Israeli government, but also supplies the weapons used in the genocide. As long as Israel has American sponsorship, it will not hesitate to kill more people in Palestine and the region. Just two weeks ago, an Israeli cybersecurity official was detained in the U.S. for soliciting a minor but was released immediately, proving that Israelis can commit crimes with impunity.

However, recent developments show that Israel’s immunity in the U.S. has already reached its limits. Recent polls show an apparent erosion of support for Israel among Americans. For the first time, the number of Americans favoring Palestine has exceeded the number of pro-Israel Americans. Furthermore, far-right Americans, who were staunch supporters of Israel, have become the most critical group. This surprising change in attitude is noteworthy because groups like MAGA (Make America Great Again) have a significant influence on the Trump administration.

Criticizing Israel

Once staunch defenders of Israel, influential figures such as former Trump aide Steve Bannon, journalist Tucker Carlson, and Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene have recently begun to harshly criticize Israel and its associated lobby groups. Influencers like Erik “Egor” Bilzerian, Candace Owens, Ana Kasparian, and Cenk Uygur also massively oppose Israel (and Jews) for the Gaza genocide. They particularly criticize the U.S.’s endless support for the Israeli government, which they view as prioritizing another country’s interests over America’s.

There are many examples that justify their anger. For instance, if an American citizen cannot afford their medical expenses, no hospital will treat them, and they may die. Conversely, if an American citizen is wounded while serving as an IDF soldier in Gaza, they will receive free medical care. Furthermore, an American labeled as anti-Israeli cannot receive aid from the government.

A student cannot criticize Israel; otherwise, they will be expelled from the university. Yet, they can freely criticize the American state and even set its flag on fire with impunity. Can they burn the Israeli flag? How dare they! Additionally, an American cannot chant “America first” because the Anti Defemation League (ADL) deems it anti-semitic.

Impunity

Since Israel and Israelis go unpunished for their crimes, unlike Americans, many people think the American government is subjugated by Zionists.

In such circumstances, the awakening against Israel’s secretive power grab in politics, the media, the arts, academia, business, and so on is a significant development. Since MAGAverse occupies a significant portion of the political spectrum, their complaints will hardly be ignored by ordinary people and politicians.

In fact, even staunch Israeli supporters have chosen to remain silent rather than support the ongoing genocide. President Trump is even aware of the growing anti-Israeli sentiment and has admitted that his supporters are starting to sway away from Israel.

Nevertheless, despite people’s discomfort with the United States providing free aid to Israel, it is unlikely that the U.S. government will stop supporting this genocidal country. The U.S. has deep ties to Israel and it will take time for people to pressure their government to dismantle these ties. Second, Israel has clearly lost the information war, both globally and in the U.S.

Formidable support

However, their influence remains strong and formidable. Israel has a considerable influence over mainstream media, Hollywood, and the internet, in addition to having a enormous fiscal power. Opposing Israel can have punitive consequences, so not everyone is brave enough to sacrifice their career as Susan Sarandon, Mark Ruffalo, and Tucker Carlson did.

Furthermore, ironically, those who object to Israeli subjugation and the Gaza genocide make their voices heard via pro-Israeli media platforms owned by Zionists. Don’t expect Google, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, or WhatsApp to ban anti-Israeli posts. X and TikTok are the only platforms that are not Zionist media, but we remember how Elon Musk of X was forced to comply with their terms, and how TikTok was almost banned in America.

Still, if Americans continue to speak out against Israel, they can chant, “America first” and “Make America great again.” America is already a powerful country, but utilizing its greatness requires the courage to say no to lobby groups. What America needs is not power, but audacity, which is inherent in patriotism.

T

he world’s largest academic association devoted to the study of genocide has declared that Israel’s military campaign in Gaza meets the legal definition of genocide, according to a resolution overwhelmingly approved by its members.

The International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS), a 500-member body of academics and legal experts, announced on Monday that 86 percent of participating members voted in favor of the resolution, which states that Israel’s “policies and actions in Gaza” satisfy the criteria outlined in Article II of the 1948 United Nations Genocide Convention.

The resolution calls on Israel to “immediately cease all acts that constitute genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity against Palestinians in Gaza,” listing deliberate attacks on civilians, starvation, deprivation of aid, sexual and reproductive violence, and forced displacement among the actions cited.

Israel in denial

Israel’s Foreign Ministry strongly rejected the resolution, calling it “disgraceful” and claiming it was “entirely based on Hamas’ campaign of lies.”

“Israel will continue to defend its citizens while taking all feasible measures to minimize harm to civilians,” a ministry spokesperson said. The government is already defending itself against a genocide case filed at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague.

Since October 7, 2023, Israeli operations have killed over 63,000 Palestinians, and left 15,000 more under the rubble of their homes, according to health officials in Gaza, and caused widespread destruction of infrastructure, homes, and public services. Nearly the entire population has been displaced at least once, while a UN-linked hunger monitor has warned of a “man-made famine” in parts of the territory.

A landmark statement

“This is a definitive statement from experts in the field of genocide studies that what is going on on the ground in Gaza is genocide,” said Melanie O’Brien, president of the IAGS and a professor of international law at the University of Western Australia. “There is no justification for the commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide—not even self-defense,” she added.

Since its founding in 1994, the IAGS has passed nine resolutions recognizing historic or ongoing genocides. It publishes a peer-reviewed journal, organizes international conferences, and is widely regarded as the leading academic network in the field of genocide studies.

Ismail Al-Thawabta, head of the Gaza government media office, welcomed the resolution as a “prestigious scholarly stance” that “places a legal and moral obligation on the international community to take urgent action to stop the crime, protect civilians, and hold the leaders of the occupation accountable.”

Sergey Vasiliev, an international law professor at the Open University in the Netherlands, who is not affiliated with the association, said the resolution reflected a growing consensus. “This legal assessment has become mainstream within academia, particularly in the field of genocide studies,” he told Reuters.

Growing pressure on Israel

Several international rights organizations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have previously accused Israel of committing crimes that may amount to genocide. In recent weeks, hundreds of staff members at the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights urged UN High Commissioner Volker Türk to explicitly characterize the conflict as an unfolding genocide, according to a letter seen by Reuters.

The debate over Israel’s actions in Gaza has deepened international divisions. While some Western nations, including the United States, have defended Israel, others have increasingly expressed alarm over the scale of civilian casualties and destruction.

The 1948 U.N. Genocide Convention, drafted in response to the Holocaust, defines genocide as crimes committed “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.” It obligates signatory states to prevent and punish acts of genocide, regardless of when or where they occur.

Legal experts note that establishing genocide requires proving both the act and the intent to destroy a group in whole or in part. Israel’s critics argue that its policies of blockade, bombardment, and population displacement in Gaza demonstrate such intent.

I

n the heart of Gaza, under the suffocating weight of a relentless genocide, the name Anas Al-Sharif stands as a luminous beacon of courage, truth, and unwavering dedication. A journalist for Aljazeera Arabic, Al-Sharif devoted his life to documenting the brutal realities endured by the Palestinian people—stories marked not by mere genocide but by systematic extermination and destruction.

His frontline reports from the northern Gaza Strip, delivered amidst shelling and destruction, offered the world an unvarnished window into a region subjected to one of the most severe humanitarian catastrophes of our time. Yet, his story transcends the tragedy of his death; it is a testament to the enduring spirit of those who risk everything to bear witness, even as the forces of genocide seek to silence them.

Born in 1996 in the Jabalia refugee camp, Anas Al-Sharif’s childhood was shaped by the legacy of displacement and the harsh realities of life under siege. His family’s history is rooted in the 1948 Nakba, when Palestinians were forcibly expelled from their homes in Al-Majdal. This history of dispossession instilled in him a profound commitment to telling the stories of his people—stories that might otherwise be erased from global memory.

From a young age, Al-Sharif viewed journalism as more than a career; it was a vital instrument of resistance and a means of survival. He began his media career at the Al-Shamal Media Network before joining Aljazeera Arabic, where he rose to become one of its most prominent correspondents in Gaza’s northern frontlines. His fearless approach to reporting, characterized by his steadfast presence amidst bombardments wearing his press vest and helmet, gained him recognition not only for the risks he took but also for the uncompromising integrity and humanity that infused his work.

Deeply personal journalism

Al-Sharif’s journalism was deeply personal. He was not just a reporter; he was a husband and father to two young children—a daughter named Sham and a son named Salah—who carried with them his hopes for a future beyond the rubble. He famously vowed to “report until my last breath,” a pledge that became tragically prophetic.

His presence on the frontlines was not an act of recklessness but a deliberate choice. Each report was an act of bearing witness against a genocidal campaign, designed to ensure that the human cost of the assault on Gaza was seen, heard, and never forgotten by a world that preferred to look away.

In every frame he captured and every word he spoke, Al-Sharif transformed journalism into a powerful weapon against injustice and silence. His mission was simple yet profound: “To tell the story of Gaza from the ground, from the heart.” His work was an unfiltered counter-narrative to attempts at erasure and denial, providing raw testimony amid the smoke and rubble.

In many videos captured by Anas Al-Sharif, his daughter Sham and son Salah appear, carrying with them the purest hope amid the destruction. These tender moments with his children reveal the deeply human side of a man who devoted his life to giving Gaza a voice. Sham and Salah, now fatherless at a young age, represent one million children in Gaza living through indescribably painful stories, struggling to find normalcy under the shadow of loss and violence.

A family man

In a poignant post shared by Anas’s wife, Bayan, on January 22, 2025, she reflected on the heart-wrenching yet hopeful reunion between Anas and his children after fifteen months of separation due to genocide, displacement, and devastation:

“My husband Anas met Sham and Salah after 15 months of war, displacement, and destruction. Though the time was short compared to their young lives, each day carried the pain of absence and the weight of longing. This moment felt like a new birth for hearts worn down by separation, as souls torn apart by war gathered again under a roof of love and yearning. Thank God for reuniting us after all this pain.”

Her words capture the depth of suffering experienced by Palestinian families, reflecting a painful reality shared by two millions in Gaza every day.

Some videos circulating online captures his life, and one of these shows a tender reunion with his daughter Sham. I have saved the video, replaying it countless times—watching how they embraced tightly, exchanged kisses, and how their eyes locked in a gaze filled with longing and deep yearning. In the background, his trembling voice calls out, “Yaba, wayn ya rouhi, ya omri” (Dad, where are you, my soul, my life), “wayn enti” (Where are you?), “eshtaqtellik” (I missed you).

The second video shows Anas breaking down in tears as he documents the massacres around him. Through his tears, he heard the voices of his hungry people urging him on: “Keep going, Anas, you are our voice.” He wrote in response:

“Indeed, I could not hold back my tears at the horror of these massacres, but the cries of my starving people rang beside me: ‘Keep going, Anas, do not stop, you are our voice.’ By God, this is my sole mission—to carry the voice of the forsaken, the besieged, the starving people of Gaza.”

The brutal reality of this mission was made clear on August 10, 2025, when an Israeli airstrike targeted a media tent outside Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, killing Al-Sharif along with four fellow Aljazeera journalists—Mohammed Qreiqeh, Ibrahim Zaher, Mohammed Noufal, and Moamen Aliwa.

This was not accidental. It was a premeditated attack on press freedom, a war crime under international law, carried out in the midst of a genocidal siege aimed at destroying not only the Palestinian people but the very mechanisms through which their suffering could be reported to the world.

The immediate aftermath was marked by condemnation from media organisations, journalists’ rights groups, and international observers who recognized this strike as part of a broader campaign to silence independent reporting. Aljazeera called it “a blatant and premeditated attack on press freedom,” describing it as a desperate attempt to erase voices exposing the systematic occupation and obliteration of Gaza.

The toll on Gaza’s media workers

This attack fits into a wider, deeply troubling context. According to the most recent data compiled by the Committee to Protect Journalists and corroborated by independent observers, over 270 journalists and media workers have been killed in Gaza since October 2023, marking the deadliest period for the press in any war zone in recorded history.

These deaths are not “collateral damage.” They are the consequence of a systematic strategy—part of a genocidal campaign—that targets journalists to obscure the scope of the atrocities being committed. By attacking the press, the perpetrators seek to blind the international community, cutting off the flow of information and crippling accountability.

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression had already issued dire warnings about the escalating threats facing journalists in Gaza, highlighting Israeli military campaigns specifically targeting media personnel. Yet, despite these warnings, the international response has been insufficient, allowing these violations to continue with near impunity.

The final message: A testament of defiance

In the wake of his assassination, Al-Sharif’s final words were released, resonating deeply as both a personal testament and a rallying cry. This is my will and my final message. If these words reach you, know that Israel has succeeded in killing me and silencing my voice.”

“O God, accept me among the martyrs, forgive me my sins, and make my blood a light that illuminates the path of freedom for my people.”

These words capture a lifetime of defiance and commitment, embodying the spirit of a man who fully understood the dangers he faced but refused to let fear dictate his mission.

Al-Sharif’s final message transcends mourning; it is a call to the world to remember the profound human cost of this genocide and to resist efforts to erase truth through violence.

I

srael’s political-security cabinet has approved a plan to occupy Gaza City, escalating military operations nearly two years into the genocide despite mounting criticism from allies and humanitarian groups.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office announced early Friday that the Israeli occupation forces would “prepare to take control of Gaza City while providing humanitarian aid to the civilian population outside the combat zones.”

The decision focuses on the enclave’s largest urban center in the north, even as Netanyahu reiterated in a Thursday interview with Fox News that Israel intended to take military control of the entire Gaza Strip. “We don’t want to keep it. We want to have a security perimeter. We don’t want to govern it,” Netanyahu said, suggesting Arab countries could assume administrative control, though without naming which nations might participate.

Evacuation and ground offensive plans

Citing an Israeli official, Axios journalist Barak Ravid reported that the operation would involve evacuating Palestinian civilians from Gaza City ahead of a ground offensive. Sources told Reuters that evacuation warnings could be issued “weeks in advance to allow civilians to move out of targeted areas.”

Israel’s plan emerged from a tense meeting earlier this week between cabinet members and Israeli military chief Eyal Zamir, who reportedly pushed back against expanding the Gaza campaign. Alternative proposals—such as phased takeovers of remaining non Israel-controlled areas—were rejected by most ministers, who argued they would not achieve the dual goals of defeating Hamas and freeing hostages.

Any final resolution will require approval from Israel’s full cabinet, which is not expected to convene until Sunday.

Mediation efforts

Earlier in 2025, Israel and the United States rejected an Egyptian-backed proposal from Arab leaders to establish a non-partisan Palestinian technocratic authority to govern Gaza post-war.

Opinion polls show that a majority of Israelis now favor a negotiated deal to secure the release of remaining hostages over continued military escalation. However, Netanyahu’s coalition, heavily influenced by far-right ministers, has resisted such agreements unless Hamas is decisively dismantled.

In the U.S., the White House had no immediate comment Friday. U.S. President Donald Trump has declined to state whether he supports or opposes a complete Israeli military takeover of Gaza.

Israeli officials believe around 50 hostages remain in Gaza, with approximately 20 still alive. Most releases to date have resulted from mediated ceasefire arrangements, but the last such talks collapsed in July. Hamas has signaled to Arab intermediaries that increased humanitarian aid could restart negotiations.

The United Nations called reports of a possible Gaza City offensive “deeply alarming,” warning of catastrophic consequences for civilians.

A major phase in the genocide

If implemented, the occupation plan would mark a major new phase in the Israeli genocide in Gaza, putting Israeli troops in control of Gaza’s most populous city for the first time since 2005. It would also raise questions about governance, security, and the fate of both Palestinian civilians and the remaining hostages.

With Arab capitals signaling reluctance to oversee Gaza under Israeli security control, Netanyahu faces diplomatic and logistical challenges.

Whether the Gaza City offensive will change the reality on ground for Israel remains uncertain. For now, the decision signals that, despite international calls for restraint, Israel is prepared to expand its military footprint in pursuit of its genocide goals.

(Source: Reuters)

o

n March 2, Israel completely closed Gaza’s border crossings, preventing any food or lifesaving supplies from entering. More than four months later starvation and famine have spread throughout Gaza. People fainting and passing out on the street due to lack of food has become common. Most Palestinians in Gaza survive on one “meal” of canned food a day. Finding vegetables and fruits is a luxury – if they are available at all the prices are extremely high.

When I speak to people in Gaza, the stories I hear are heartbreaking. “The hardest I’ve seen since the famine began in Gaza was of two little girls, maybe five years old, each holding a small bag, searching for anything to eat through garbage,” said Samah Zaqout, speaking to me from Gaza. “I was in a car, and I couldn’t get out. Even if I had, how much could I really help? I have nothing to offer, literally there is no food to offer in Gaza. My family is surviving day by day on canned food. That day my family was cooking rice, trying to save what little flour we have for the day after. Even though I’m also caught in this loop of survival, I realized I’m luckier than many, including these two girls and many who succumbed to famine.”

Most of my family is still in Gaza. They tell me that they regularly receive requests for flour from friends and neighbors. They have always helped other families in the past, but this time, they don’t have the luxury of doing so. The flour they give away will not come back, and it cannot be replaced. A 25-kilogram sack of flour (about 55 pounds) costs around $700 in Gaza today. Prices are beyond imagination, and almost no one can afford them.

The world watches as Gaza starves

Gaza is starving while the world watches. No one has done enough to force Israel to allow critical humanitarian supplies in. Israeli officials such as Itamar Ben-Gvir, Bezalel Smotrich, and Miki Zohar have publicly supported the idea of starving Gaza, claiming it will push Hamas to surrender. This is a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions, which are intended to protect civilians from the effects of war and prevent the use of food as a weapon.

In Gaza, Palestinians seem to be an exception to the rules of international law. Some European capitals have called on Israel not to use starvation as a weapon of war. But words without action do nothing to satiate the hunger of Palestinians in Gaza. Under threat of sanctions, Israel reached an agreement with the EU to allow hundreds of aid trucks into Gaza; two weeks later this appears to be another false promise.

Even when food is available, accessing it can be deadly.

On May 7, an Israeli airstrike targeted a local market and two popular restaurants, the Thailandi and  Palmera, in Gaza City, killing 25 Palestinians. Photos emerged of injured Palestinians sitting around tables to eat. Another photo showed blood and broken glasses that appeared to be from a young woman who lost her life in the airstrike; blood-soaked slices of pizza were left on the table.

Death travels too fast in Gaza

On April 28, another Israeli airstrike hit a crowded café at the entrance of the Al-Nuseirat refugee camp, killing and injuring a dozen people. The scene was repeated: Palestinians sitting around a table amid debris, blood, and food and drink leftovers.

On July 1, Israel targeted the popular Baqa cafe in Gaza city, killing 37 Palestinians. Ten days later, the Israeli war machine killed 15 more Palestinians who lined up to get food supplements. Many of the victims in these attacks are children.

Death travels too fast in Gaza, and anyone can be a target, even people trying to get water. On July 13, Israel targeted a group of Palestinians who gathered to get water, killing 13 people, mostly children. The Israeli army said the airstrike was “a mistake” and the missile missed its target.

Israel has also recently targeted food distribution centers, rendering them unable to function. In Gaza City, an Israeli airstrike hit a food distribution center, and the next day, people tried to steal its contents. Is dying of hunger the only option for Palestinians? They have already exhausted all their energy against Israel’s relentless war machine.

A loaf of bread is a dream

The world cannot wait any longer to send humanitarian supplies to Gaza and stop the mass murder. There is no safe place in Gaza, and Palestinians should have better options than dying of starvation or being killed by warplanes.

Over two months ago, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) and the World Food Program (WFP) announced that their stockpiles of aid had depleted. UNRWA accused Israel of deliberately starving people in Gaza. It was clear that Israel’s policy of closing crossings and preventing the delivery of humanitarian supplies to Gaza would lead to this outcome. Yet little has been done by influential countries to end this policy. The number of malnourished children and adults has doubled in recent weeks, further signaling a looming catastrophe.

We are not even talking about meat, vegetables, fruits and clean water supplies. The dream of people in Gaza is to get a loaf of bread. As shocking as it sounds, the urgency of situation in Gaza means that our demands for a ceasefire and for allowing humanitarian supplies should be on the same level.

On July 2, 2025, the UK House of Commons overwhelmingly approved a motion to designate Palestine Action as a terrorist organization, with 385 MPs voting in favor and just 26 against. The decision was subsequently endorsed by the House of Lords on 3rd July. As a result, the proscription officially came into effect on 5th July, making it a criminal offence to support or be associated with the group under UK law.

Following the designation, the Metropolitan Police updated their official news site with a public statement, titled “Update on policing in London following proscription of Palestine Action.” The statement reads:

“Palestine Action has now been proscribed by the UK Government and expressing support for them is a criminal offence in the UK. There are a number of events taking place in London this weekend, and anyone attending should be aware that officers policing these will act where criminal offences, including those related to support of proscribed groups or organisations, are committed.”

The proscription, under the Terrorism Act 2000, grants police additional powers to intervene where individuals or groups are seen to be endorsing or facilitating a proscribed organization.

The Road to Proscription: From Warnings to Crackdown

Talks of proscribing Palestine Action have been circulating in government circles since late 2023, as the group’s high-profile actions escalated. Their direct-action campaigns, including the occupation of Elbit Systems sites in Leicester and Bristol, and the targeting of weapons factories and offices connected to the Israeli arms trade, drew both media attention and condemnation from officials.

As public support for Palestine surged amid Israel’s escalating military operations in Gaza, government ministers began signaling a harder line. In October 2023, then-Home Secretary Suella Braverman sharply criticized pro-Palestine demonstrations, branding them “hate marches.” She drew no distinction between peaceful protesters and violent ones, stating: “To my mind, there is only one way to describe those marches, they are hate marches.”

Who Are Palestine Action and Why Are They Targeted?

To understand the gravity of the UK government’s recent decision to proscribe Palestine Action, it’s important to consider who the group is and why it has been targeted.

Founded in 2020, Palestine Action is a direct-action network known for its disruptive protests against British complicity in Israel’s military operations, particularly through targeting Elbit Systems UK, a major arms manufacturer supplying drones and weapons to the Israeli military.

The group’s tactics include occupying factory rooftops, damaging equipment, and defacing buildings with red paint to symbolize Palestinian blood. While these methods are confrontational, they are non-violent. Supporters argue the actions are a necessary form of civil disobedience to expose and disrupt what they describe as the UK’s role in human rights abuses in Gaza.

The U.K. government’s move to proscribe Palestine Action came shortly after activists breached a Royal Air Force base in Brize Norton, Oxfordshire, on the 20th June. Members of the group damaged two military aircraft, in which the Police estimated that the damage caused by the incident amounted to approximately £7 million.

The incident marked a sharp escalation in the group’s direct-action tactics and appears to have been a key trigger for the government’s decision to invoke terrorism legislation.

Palestine Action does not use weapons or target civilians; instead, it targets corporate infrastructure linked to international conflict, a distinction now at the heart of a contentious national debate.

The Public Pushback: What’s at Stake?

Since the ban on Palestine Action took effect, the Metropolitan Police, also known as the Met Police or the Met, which is the territorial police force responsible for law enforcement and crime prevention within Greater London, has cracked down on public displays of support for the group. In Parliament Square, Met Police officers arrested over 20 demonstrators, many holding placards reading: “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.”

Key developments include:

• 29 protesters have been arrested on suspicion of terrorism offences.
• The group was officially proscribed as a terrorist organization after a last-minute legal challenge to delay the ban at the Court of Appeal failed.
• Palestine Action now joins a list of banned organisations including al-Qaeda, ISIS (Daesh), and Hezbollah.
• Membership or support for the group is a criminal offence, punishable by up to 14 years in prison.
• Even wearing a T-shirt or badge with the group’s name can result in a maximum six-month prison sentence.

Among those arrested was Reverend Sue Parfitt, aged 83, an emblematic figure of the broad crackdown.

Leslie Tate, a 76-year-old Green Party councilor, condemned the ban as “the creeping edge of totalitarianism” and called the protests “necessary to defend our democracy.”

What does this mean for future activism in the UK?

The proscription of Palestine Action is not an isolated event but part of a broader democratic challenge facing the UK. Growing emphasis on security concerns is increasingly influencing political discourse, sometimes at the expense of fundamental civil liberties.

Democracies depend on dissent, protest, and the freedom to question authority. When protest is criminalized, the balance of power can shift away from citizens toward the state.

Critics caution that equating disruptive but non-violent activism with terrorism risks blurring vital democratic boundaries.

From its inception, the genocide in Gaza has been both an Israeli military and ideological crusade, revealing a calculated indifference to the future of the Palestinian people. While political transitions, negotiations, and planning for the “day after” are usually essential components of conflict resolution, they seem to be entirely absent here. The intent, it seems, is not to build bridges or pathways to peace, but to dismantle any prospect of Palestinian statehood. Given the scale and precision of the destruction in Gaza, one must ask: what else would be the point of such devastation, if not to make recovery impossible?

For Palestinians, this approach represents a dark strategy to make tomorrow as unbearable as today – a perpetual cycle of loss that undermines the very foundation of a viable future. Every bombed-out building, every displaced family, and every erased neighborhood tells a story not just of wartime suffering, but of a deliberate push to make any semblance of normalcy in Palestinian life nearly impossible. At its core, this war isn’t just about today’s strategic gains, it’s about erasing the possibility of a Palestinian tomorrow.

As Israel advances its military objectives, the question arises: at what point will the international community deem it appropriate to call for a cease-fire? There is an assumption that when enough has been achieved and enough targets neutralized, a ceasefire will restore balance. But there is a “but” and it’s critical to recognize that.

The Israeli government has made its position abundantly clear: it intends to maintain a military foothold in Gaza. It’s not about temporary control or temporary security measures; it’s about establishing a permanent presence. And the debate within the Israeli leadership goes beyond military strategy. They are now debating whether to stop at the occupation or to go a step further by reintroducing civilian settlements in Gaza, a move with ominous implications.

This choice is not a minor detail – it reflects the heart of the conflict’s trajectory. What was once a question of defense or withdrawal has become a struggle between two extremes: those who advocate apartheid-like policies and those who favor even harsher measures. For the Palestinian people, it’s a staggering dichotomy that leaves no room for dignity or autonomy.

In recent years, the two-state solution-a cornerstone of peace negotiations for decades-has been largely sidelined, if not outright abandoned. The Abraham Accords, a diplomatic initiative championed by the first Trump administration, shifted the focus from Palestinian statehood to normalized relations between Israel and other Arab states. While heralded as a breakthrough in regional diplomacy, the Accords effectively buried the two-state solution and cast doubt on any meaningful path to Palestinian sovereignty.

What we’re witnessing is not just a military campaign; it’s a campaign of annihilation. A future for Palestinians, if left to its current trajectory, is being systematically narrowed, erased piece by piece. The erasure goes beyond physical structures, striking at the social, cultural and political foundations of Palestinian society. It’s a future held in chains, where aspirations are crushed under the weight of calculated indifference and ideological hostility.