U

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

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

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

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

Disarmament remains key dispute

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

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. pushes Gaza roadmap

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

)Source: Aljazeera English)

A

ustralian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said Friday that the AUKUS defense partnership with the United States and Britain remained “full steam ahead” following a lengthy call with U.S. President Donald Trump, while urging Washington to exempt Australia from U.S. tariffs.

Albanese said the two leaders reviewed progress under AUKUS and agreed that the trilateral security pact would continue to benefit all three countries.

“We reviewed the significant progress that has been made under AUKUS, which remains full steam ahead,” Albanese told reporters in Canberra.

AUKUS, established in 2021, is Australia’s largest defense project and is designed in part to strengthen the three countries’ military capabilities in the Indo-Pacific amid growing Chinese influence in the region.

Submarine program moves forward

Under the pact, U.S. Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines are expected to be based in Australia from next year. Australia is also due to acquire several Virginia-class submarines from around 2030, while Britain and Australia are developing a new class of nuclear-powered submarine under the agreement.

Australia has committed about A$368 billion ($260 billion) over three decades to the project, including major investments in U.S. and British submarine production facilities.

The United States has said it is satisfied with progress since a review of AUKUS conducted last year. Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby said Washington saw increasing alignment between the three countries and expected Australia to continue meeting its commitments.

AUKUS has faced concerns over the availability of U.S. submarines and production capacity. Colby previously warned that American industry faced challenges meeting both U.S. and allied demand for nuclear-powered submarines.

China has strongly criticized the agreement, warning that it could contribute to an arms race in the Indo-Pacific.

Australia seeks tariff exemption

Albanese described his conversation with Trump as productive and said he had asked the president to exempt Australia completely from U.S. flat tariffs of 12.5%.

Trump agreed to consider the request, Albanese said.

Australia has argued that it should qualify for an exemption because it runs a trade deficit with the United States and imports large amounts of American machinery, technology and aircraft.

The leaders also discussed the conflict involving Iran and Australia’s recent defense agreements with Papua New Guinea and Fiji.

Albanese said he told Trump that Australia wanted to see an end to the conflict in the Middle East while maintaining that Iran should not be permitted to develop nuclear weapons.

The call came as Australia seeks to deepen its security cooperation with the United States while managing economic concerns linked to Washington’s trade policies. For Canberra, the future of AUKUS remains central to its long-term defense strategy and efforts to strengthen its position in the increasingly contested Indo-Pacific.

(Source: Reuters)

T

urkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said Wednesday that Türkiye  would continue to strongly defend the Palestinian cause, as he met Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Ankara for talks on Gaza, the West Bank and efforts to establish an independent Palestinian state.

Speaking at a joint news conference after the meeting, Erdoğan said Türkiye  was working with the Palestinians to advance the Palestinian cause on the basis of a two-state solution. He accused the Israeli government of continuing what he described as unlawful actions in the West Bank and Jerusalem, including settlement expansion, demolitions and forced displacement.

According to United Nations figures cited by Erdoğan, about 3,800 Palestinians had been displaced in 2026 as a result of settler violence, demolitions and evictions, while nearly 100 Palestinians had been killed.

“Palestinian statehood is being undermined,” Erdoğan said, adding that the international community could not ignore what was happening. He said Palestinian support was a shared responsibility, particularly for the Muslim world.

Erdoğan calls for Palestinian state

Erdoğan said he and Abbas discussed developments in the occupied Palestinian territories as well as bilateral relations. He also welcomed the decision to hold Palestinian legislative and presidential elections, saying they could contribute to reconciliation and strengthen Palestinian unity.

The Turkish president said Ankara opposed attempts to alter the status quo at Muslim and Christian holy sites, particularly the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound in Jerusalem and the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron.

He accused the Israeli government of seeking to benefit from instability and new conflicts while pushing the Palestinian issue out of international attention.

“Whatever they do, they will not succeed,” Erdoğan said, adding that Türkiye  would continue supporting the Palestinian cause “on every platform.”

He reiterated Türkiye ‘s support for the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital and with territorial continuity.

On Gaza, Erdoğan said Israel’s government continued to take what he described as an uncompromising and aggressive approach despite international efforts and Palestinian calls for peace.

He called for conditions to be established quickly for reconstruction in Gaza and for ensuring security for its population.

Abbas thanks Türkiye for support

Abbas thanked Erdoğan and Türkiye  for their support for Palestinian rights and for providing humanitarian assistance to Gaza, hosting Palestinian students and treating patients and wounded people.

He said the two leaders had held productive discussions on regional developments and bilateral relations and agreed to strengthen dialogue between Türkiye  and Palestine.

Abbas also welcomed the recent joint defense agreement between Türkiye , Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, describing it as potentially important for regional stability and security and for protecting the interests of Muslim countries.

He said a just peace could only be achieved by ending the occupation and establishing an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, in accordance with international law and the Arab Peace Initiative.

Abbas said a ceasefire agreement in Gaza had been reached through efforts by Türkiye , Egypt, Qatar and the United States, but warned that humanitarian aid had yet to enter Gaza at the level needed. He also called for reconstruction and the return of legitimate Palestinian authority to Gaza.

“Gaza is an integral part of the State of Palestine,” Abbas said, emphasizing that there could be no Palestinian state without Gaza.

He also said the Palestinian Authority faced serious financial difficulties, claiming Israel was withholding about $6.5 billion in Palestinian funds, affecting the government’s ability to pay salaries and cover expenses in Gaza.

Settler violence in the West Bank and Jerusalem

Abbas said he and Erdoğan also discussed escalating tensions and settler violence in the West Bank and Jerusalem. He accused Israeli settlers of acting under the protection of Israeli forces and said attacks had targeted Muslim and Christian holy sites alike.

“We are standing firm on our land and are opposed to displacement,” Abbas said.

He stressed the importance of Palestinian unity and said the Palestine Liberation Organization remained committed to a unified political program and national institutions.

Abbas also said Palestinians were preparing for legislative and presidential elections scheduled for November 28, describing them as an important step toward strengthening the Palestinian political system.

The Palestinian president ended by thanking Erdoğan for Türkiye ‘s support and expressing hope that Palestinians would achieve independence and freedom while peace and stability returned to the region.

Both leaders also expressed condolences following the crash of a Turkish F-16 fighter jet during a training flight in Yalova.

(Source: Anadolu Agency)

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)

T

he Democratic primary for Michigan’s open U.S. Senate seat has become one of the most expensive and closely watched congressional races in recent history, with pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC and affiliated political action committees pouring more than $60 million into efforts to support U.S. Representative Haley Stevens and defeat progressive challenger Abdul El-Sayed. 

The race, which will determine the Democratic nominee to replace retiring Senator Gary Peters, has evolved into a national referendum on campaign finance, U.S. policy toward Israel and the growing influence of pro-Palestinian voices within the Democratic Party.

El-Sayed, a physician, epidemiologist and former public health official, has made opposition to outside political spending a central theme of his campaign, arguing that wealthy special interests are attempting to shape the outcome of the election. Stevens, a four-term congresswoman, has defended her record while distancing herself from the independent expenditures made on her behalf. 

According to Federal Election Commission records cited by Al Jazeera, AIPAC’s political arm, the United Democracy Project (UDP), has spent more than $30.6 million on the Michigan race, the largest expenditure by the organization in a single contest. Combined with spending by other political action committees and an estimated $6.5 million from a nonprofit advocacy group, outside support for Stevens has exceeded $60 million. 

The role of nonprofit organizations in U.S. elections

The spending has eclipsed previous records for Senate primaries and has intensified scrutiny of the role of super PACs and nonprofit organizations in U.S. elections.

AIPAC directs the United Democracy Project and is also its largest donor, contributing roughly $30 million of the PAC’s $100 million fundraising total this election cycle. The remaining funding comes largely from wealthy pro-Israel donors, including hedge fund manager Paul Singer, businessman Robert Kraft, investor Marc Rowan and entertainment executive Haim Saban, according to campaign finance disclosures. 

Additional support for Stevens has come through a network of newly established political committees and nonprofit organizations.

One of the largest, A Stronger Michigan, has spent more than $17 million and is backed primarily by the nonprofit Center Forward. Other committees, including Michigan Forward 2026, Center Forward Committee and Unite to Win, have also invested heavily in television advertising and voter outreach. Some of these groups receive funding from corporations, trade associations and nonprofits whose donors are not fully disclosed under U.S. campaign finance laws. 

Although the campaigns themselves cannot legally coordinate with independent expenditure groups, the unprecedented level of outside spending has dominated the political debate ahead of Tuesday’s primary.

Large Arab presence

At a campaign rally in Dearborn, a city with one of the country’s largest Arab American communities, supporters repeatedly criticized AIPAC rather than Stevens herself.

Michigan state legislator Alabas Farhat told supporters they would make the organization “burn” millions of dollars by electing El-Sayed, while several speakers, including Representatives Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, criticized U.S. support for Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. 

El-Sayed has argued that Stevens’ campaign has become dependent on outside financial support tied to pro-Israel interests.

Speaking at a recent rally, he said America’s political system allows “billionaires and corporations and special interests like AIPAC to buy and sell politicians.” During a televised debate, he linked Stevens’ congressional votes supporting aid to Israel with the organization’s financial backing of her campaign. 

Stevens has rejected suggestions that the outside spending defines her candidacy.

During a recent debate, she argued that campaign finance reform remains a broader national issue affecting candidates across the political spectrum, saying there was little difference between super PACs supporting either campaign. Critics, however, point to the disparity in spending, noting that groups backing El-Sayed have spent only about $3.5 million. 

Strong grassroots fundraising

While outside groups have dominated television advertising, El-Sayed has outraised Stevens in direct campaign contributions from individual donors. Campaign finance records show El-Sayed has raised approximately $14.5 million compared with Stevens’ $11.9 million, reflecting strong grassroots fundraising despite the flood of independent expenditures supporting his opponent.

AIPAC has defended its involvement, saying it represents Americans who believe a strong U.S.-Israel relationship serves both countries’ interests.

The organization has rejected claims that it acts on behalf of a foreign government, describing itself as a coalition of pro-Israel Americans participating in the democratic process. In a recent message to supporters, AIPAC described the Michigan Senate contest as “critical.”

Political analysts say the outcome of the race could have implications far beyond Michigan.

A victory for El-Sayed would represent one of the highest-profile electoral successes for a progressive candidate critical of unconditional U.S. support for Israel and could signal changing attitudes among Democratic voters, particularly after months of debate over the wars in Gaza and the Middle East. Supporters argue such a result would weaken AIPAC’s influence within the Democratic Party, while opponents view the race as an important test of mainstream Democratic support for the U.S.-Israel alliance.

The contest also carries national political significance because the Michigan Senate seat is expected to be highly competitive in November. The Democratic nominee will likely face former Congressman Mike Rogers, and the outcome could help determine which party controls the U.S. Senate after the general election.

(Source: Aljazeera English)

A

t least nine people have died after thousands of migrants crossed from Morocco into the Spanish enclave of Ceuta in one of the largest surges in recent years, prompting local authorities to declare a humanitarian emergency and request military assistance.

Authorities in Ceuta said between 1,500 and 2,000 migrants had entered the enclave over the past 10 days, with hundreds more arriving on Thursday alone. Regional President Juan Jesús Vivas described the situation as an “absolute humanitarian and social emergency” and urged Spain’s central government to deploy troops to help restore control at the border.

Spain’s Interior Ministry rejected calls to declare a national emergency, saying such measures do not apply to migration crises, but announced that 60 soldiers would be deployed to reinforce border security.

Video footage showed groups of migrants entering the territory by sea, many using inflatable flotation devices to swim around border barriers from the Moroccan coast. Others crossed by land after scaling border fences, according to Spanish media reports.

Some migrants were heard shouting “Viva España!” as they entered the enclave.

Zakaria Zarroqui, a migrant rights activist, told Reuters the latest influx resembled the mass crossing in May 2021, when about 10,000 Moroccan and sub-Saharan migrants entered Ceuta within days.

“The situation remains out of control as we speak,” Zarroqui said, adding that people continued gathering in the Moroccan border town of Fnideq in an attempt to reach the Spanish territory.

Ceuta and Melilla

Ceuta, together with the nearby Spanish enclave of Melilla, forms the European Union’s only land border with Africa and has long been a focal point for migrants seeking to reach Europe.

The surge follows a recent ruling by Spain’s Supreme Court that migrants intercepted at sea while attempting to reach Ceuta or Melilla cannot automatically be returned to Morocco.

“It has been a slow trickle since the Supreme Court’s ruling, but today has been an explosion,” a spokesperson for Spain’s Guardia Civil told Reuters.

Spain’s Interior Ministry said it was working closely with Moroccan authorities to respond to the increase in irregular crossings, accusing human smuggling networks of exploiting the court ruling to encourage migrants to attempt the journey.

Interior Minister Fernando Grande-Marlaska is expected to visit Ceuta on Friday to assess the situation and coordinate the government’s response.

(Source: Aljazeera English)

I

ndia’s student protest movement has gained momentum online after demonstrations against examination paper leaks triggered a wave of social media posts criticizing Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government.

The protests, led by students demanding the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, intensified after a march toward Parliament on July 20 brought central New Delhi to a standstill.

According to protesters, more than 100 students were injured during a police crackdown. Police denied allegations of excessive force, but videos recorded by demonstrators circulated widely across social media platforms.

The footage showed scenes from the protests, including clashes between police and demonstrators, tear gas, baton charges, and students fleeing the area. The videos quickly spread on Instagram and other platforms, generating memes, commentary, and calls for further demonstrations.

“If nothing, we are televising our revolution,” protester Avanshika Singh told Al Jazeera during the demonstrations.

Cockroach Janta Party leads campaign

Young protesters said social media had become a central tool for documenting events and mobilizing support.

Posts criticizing the government and demanding accountability over repeated examination paper leaks have spread widely, while official posts by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party have reportedly been flooded with comments calling for the education minister’s resignation.

The protests have also inspired demonstrations in other Indian cities, including Mumbai, Bengaluru, Patna, Lucknow, and Aizawl.

The demonstrations are being organized by the Cockroach Janta Party, a political pressure group formed after remarks by India’s chief justice comparing young people to “cockroaches” and “parasites” sparked backlash online.

The group has said protests will continue peacefully until three demands are met: the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, assurances that criminal cases will not be pursued against protesters, and compensation for families of students who died by suicide following exam paper leaks and cancellations.

A reversal of social media dominance

Political analysts say the movement represents a significant shift in India’s online political landscape.

Modi and the BJP were among the earliest political forces in India to effectively use social media to build support. However, analysts say Generation Z protesters are now using the same platforms to challenge the government’s narrative.

Cultural critic Anurag Minus Verma described the protests as an example of online irony and meme culture being transformed into a political organizing tool.

“The criticism and hate directed at Modi in the capital is not only acceptable now, but even cool,” Verma told Al Jazeera.

Prime Minister Modi addressed the issue on social media, saying that “nothing is more important than the welfare and future of our youth” and noting that the government had established fast-track courts to punish those responsible for examination paper leaks.

The response was quickly challenged online by leaders of the Cockroach Janta Party, who continued to criticize the government’s handling of the crisis.

As protests continue in New Delhi, organizers say social media remains central to their strategy, allowing students to document events in real time and build support beyond the streets of the capital.

(Source: Aljazeeera English)

A

n internal Israeli government document obtained by Al Jazeera has revealed that Israeli authorities collected information on more than 150 international humanitarian organizations in 2013, identifying several prominent charities as supporters or critics of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel.

The spreadsheet, accessed through an Israeli government ministry website, listed basic information on international charities, including directors’ names, contact details and areas of operation. A separate comments section, however, contained assessments of some organizations’ positions on Israel and the Palestinian issue.

Among the organizations singled out were Oxfam, which the document described as “active in global BDS efforts,” as well as France-based Première Urgence International, labelled a “critic of Israel,” Geneva-based Defense for Children International, described as “involved in anti-Israel campaigning,” and Spain’s Mundubat, characterized as “highly involved in BDS.”

Responding to the findings, Oxfam said the comments reflected allegations rather than objective assessments of its work.

The organization said it does not support or promote the BDS movement and operates under humanitarian principles and international legal standards. It reiterated its position that Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank violate international humanitarian law.

Experts say file shows early monitoring strategy

Analysts interviewed by Al Jazeera said the document offers insight into Israel’s approach to monitoring international civil society organizations during a period when the BDS movement was gaining international momentum.

The document dates from October 2013, a year marked by several high-profile boycott initiatives, including physicist Stephen Hawking’s withdrawal from a conference in Israel, academic boycott campaigns, and efforts by religious organizations to oppose products originating from Israeli settlements.

Mayssoun Sukarieh, a senior lecturer at King’s College London, said Israel was beginning to feel the impact of the growing BDS campaign and may have been gathering information that later informed legislation targeting boycott supporters.

In 2017, Israel enacted a law barring entry to foreign nationals who publicly support the BDS movement.

Tania Hary, executive director of the Israeli human rights organization Gisha, said the document demonstrated government monitoring of humanitarian organizations rather than addressing legitimate security concerns.

She argued the file reflected long-standing scrutiny of organizations providing assistance to Palestinians living under Israeli occupation.

Giovanni Fassina of the European Legal Support Center said the document illustrated what he described as an early phase of Israel’s broader efforts to track organizations supporting Palestinian rights.

NGOs respond

Several organizations named in the document disputed the characterizations.

Germany’s Medico International said it had never endorsed the BDS movement, although it supports the right of individuals and groups to advocate for boycotts as a form of political expression.

By contrast, the Palestine Solidarity Association of Sweden acknowledged its support for the BDS campaign, describing it as a nonviolent strategy aimed at promoting Palestinian rights and encouraging Israel to comply with international law.

The report comes amid continued debate over the relationship between Israel and international humanitarian organizations operating in the occupied Palestinian territories.

Aid groups have repeatedly raised concerns over restrictions on humanitarian access to Gaza, administrative requirements imposed on international organizations, and increased scrutiny of aid operations during the conflict that began in October 2023.

The Israeli Ministry of Welfare and Social Affairs, through whose website the document was reportedly accessed, did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

(Source: Aljazeera English)

S

pain reclaimed the FIFA World Cup title after substitute Ferran Torres scored an extra-time winner to secure a hard-fought 1-0 victory over defending champions Argentina in Sunday’s final, ending one of the tournament’s least spectacular championship matches with a dramatic finish.

Torres struck in the 106th minute, converting Spain’s 20th attempt on goal after more than 100 minutes of deadlock at New York/New Jersey Stadium. His decisive finish delivered Spain’s second World Cup title and completed another milestone for head coach Luis de la Fuente, who became the oldest coach to win the tournament at the age of 65.

The victory capped a remarkable period for Spanish football, with De la Fuente’s side extending its unbeaten run to 38 matches across all competitions after also winning the 2024 UEFA European Championship.

Spain controlled possession for most of the match and consistently pushed Argentina onto the defensive, registering 20 shots, including 12 on target. However, the European champions struggled to convert their dominance into goals as Argentina adopted a cautious approach focused on disrupting Spain’s rhythm.

The South American side rarely threatened in attack, producing only two attempts throughout the match and failing to record a single shot during the 90 minutes of regular time—a first in a World Cup final.

Spain’s breakthrough finally arrived in extra time after substitutes Ferran Torres and Nico Williams injected pace and creativity into an otherwise slow contest.

Messi unable to inspire Argentina

Argentina captain Lionel Messi, appearing in his third World Cup final, was largely contained by Spain’s organized defense and struggled to influence the match.

Teenage Spanish star Lamine Yamal, widely expected to provide attacking inspiration, also found little space against Argentina’s disciplined defensive setup.

Tensions boiled over after the final whistle as frustrated Argentine players became involved in a scuffle with their Spanish counterparts following a physically demanding contest.

De la Fuente praised his players after lifting football’s biggest prize, describing the squad as one that had “won everything.”

“I’m so proud of this generation of footballers who have remained true to our philosophy and continued improving it,” the Spain coach said after the match.

The triumph adds the World Cup to Spain’s recent European Championship success and reinforces the country’s position among international football’s elite.

Argentina coach Lionel Scaloni, whose side was unable to defend the title it won in Qatar in 2022, paid tribute to his players and to captain Messi despite the defeat.

Spain’s victory concluded the expanded 2026 FIFA World Cup, with Torres’ late strike proving enough to separate two of world football’s strongest teams after a tense and tactical final.

(Source: Reuters)

U

.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday declassified a series of documents that he said revealed Chinese interference in U.S. elections, renewing his long-standing focus on election security despite previous intelligence assessments concluding that Beijing did not alter the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.

In a 25-minute televised address from the White House, Trump claimed the documents exposed “shocking vulnerabilities” in the U.S. electoral system and alleged that China had obtained personal information from approximately 220 million American voter records.

The president also accused members of the U.S. intelligence community of suppressing information about China’s activities and urged Congress to pass stricter election laws, including voter identification requirements, proof of citizenship for voter registration and limits on mail-in voting.

The address comes ahead of November’s midterm elections, as Republicans seek to defend narrow majorities in Congress amid political headwinds linked to the Iran conflict and rising energy prices.

However, Trump’s claims appeared to conflict with findings by the U.S. intelligence community. A declassified intelligence assessment issued in 2021 concluded that no foreign government attempted to alter any technical aspect of the 2020 presidential election, including voter registration systems, ballots, vote tabulation or certified results.

CIA thinks otherwise

The assessment, conducted under then-Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe—now serving as CIA director under Trump—found that while China had collected publicly available information on American voters and political trends for years, it did not attempt to interfere directly in the election outcome.

According to Reuters, two people familiar with the matter said the voter data cited by Trump consisted largely of publicly available voter files that political campaigns and consultants routinely purchase and could not be manipulated to alter election results.

Some White House officials reportedly expressed concern before the speech that releasing the documents could create a misleading impression about the nature of China’s activities.

Trump nevertheless argued that the newly declassified material demonstrated significant weaknesses in U.S. election security and reiterated claims that large numbers of non-citizens were registered to vote, although he did not provide evidence that those registrations resulted in illegal ballots being cast.

Rare voter fraud

Election experts and previous studies have consistently found that voter fraud and non-citizen voting in U.S. elections are rare.

Democratic Senator Mark Warner, vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, rejected Trump’s assertions, saying the U.S. intelligence community had unanimously concluded that China “did not even try to change a single vote” in the 2020 election.

The president also renewed his call for lawmakers to approve the SAVE America Act, legislation that would require photo identification to vote, proof of U.S. citizenship for voter registration and tighter restrictions on mail-in ballots. The measure has passed the Republican-controlled House of Representatives but remains stalled in the Senate amid Democratic opposition.

Despite Trump’s assertions about election vulnerabilities, the declassified documents released Thursday did not provide evidence that votes in the 2020 election were altered or manipulated, according to Reuters.

(Source: Reuters)

U

.S. Vice President JD Vance has accused members of the Israeli government of attempting to influence American public opinion against U.S. diplomatic efforts to end the war with Iran, describing the campaign as an effort to prolong the conflict.

In an interview with podcaster Joe Rogan released on Wednesday, Vance defended last month’s U.S.-Iran interim peace agreement and alleged that Israeli officials sought to derail negotiations through a coordinated influence campaign.

“I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there have been people within the Israeli government who are trying to shift us away from that policy because they want to continue the military campaign,” Vance said.

The vice president cited a recent Time magazine report alleging that a former Trump campaign manager had been hired on behalf of Israel to oversee a digital campaign aimed at shaping American public opinion regarding Israel and the Iran conflict.

“There’s a literal foreign influence campaign being funded to tank the very deal that I was pursuing,” Vance said, adding that a “well-funded” effort had sought to undermine negotiations.

He also claimed that he had personally faced intense criticism because of his diplomatic outreach.

“People are attacking me viciously for quite literally trying to accomplish the negotiation objective that the president set for the country,” Vance said.

The issue becomes problematic

While acknowledging that allies and adversaries routinely attempt to influence U.S. policy, Vance said the issue becomes problematic when such campaigns shape American political decision-making.

“It doesn’t bother me that Israel tries to do this,” he said. “What does bother me is when those operations, those influence campaigns, actually affect American political judgement.”

Asked whether the United States would have entered the latest conflict with Iran without Israeli influence, Vance replied: “Yes, yes I do.”

He nevertheless reiterated President Donald Trump’s long-standing position that Iran should not acquire nuclear weapons.

“I think the president, separate from any influence from Israel, believes very strongly—and I agree with this—that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon,” Vance said.

The remarks highlight growing public differences between Washington and Israel over U.S. policy toward Iran, particularly following the collapse of last month’s interim peace agreement amid renewed military exchanges.

Former Israeli diplomat Alon Pinkas described Vance’s comments as unprecedented, saying no sitting U.S. vice president had previously accused Israel of actively working to undermine American foreign policy through an influence campaign.

Separately, Vance also addressed the controversy surrounding the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, alleging that Epstein had unspecified high-level connections to both U.S. and Israeli intelligence agencies.

(Source: Aljazeera English)

T

he death of longtime Republican Senator Lindsey Graham has renewed debate over his enduring influence on U.S. foreign policy, with supporters praising his commitment to American leadership abroad and critics pointing to his advocacy for military intervention and unwavering support for Israel.

Graham, who died on Saturday at the age of 71 following what his office described as a brief and sudden illness, was one of the most recognizable Republican voices on national security issues for more than two decades. Throughout his career, he consistently championed military action, backed strong U.S. alliances with Israel, and maintained a hardline stance toward Iran, Russia and China.

His passing prompted tributes from U.S. President Donald Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and several Republican lawmakers, while also drawing criticism from anti-war advocates and Palestinian rights groups, who argued that Graham’s legacy was defined by support for prolonged military conflicts.

Political analysts say two themes are likely to dominate assessments of Graham’s career: his advocacy for interventionist foreign policy and his transformation into one of Trump’s closest allies.

Michael Hanna, U.S. Program Director at the International Crisis Group, said Graham had cultivated a long-standing reputation for promoting military solutions to international crises.

“He was a major supporter of the Iraq War and remained a strong advocate for the use of military force throughout his career,” Hanna said, adding that Graham played an influential role in encouraging the Trump administration’s hardline approach toward Iran.

Strong backing for Israel

Support for Israel remained central to Graham’s foreign policy positions. He repeatedly called for expanded U.S. military assistance to Israel and defended its military operations following the October 7, 2023 attacks and the subsequent war in Gaza.

In 2021, Graham successfully pushed for an additional $1 billion in U.S. military assistance after visiting Israel, where he posed alongside Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu holding a sign reading “More for Israel.”

Netanyahu paid tribute to Graham following his death, describing him as one of Israel’s strongest supporters in Washington and recalling that the senator often advocated for greater U.S. assistance than Israel itself requested.

Graham’s rhetoric on the Gaza war frequently drew international criticism. He defended Israel’s military campaign in Gaza in uncompromising terms and made several controversial remarks about the conflict that human rights advocates condemned as inflammatory.

Palestinian advocacy groups said Graham consistently supported policies that contributed to escalating violence in the region, while critics described him as one of the most outspoken proponents of military solutions in U.S. foreign policy.

Graham was also among the leading congressional advocates for confronting Iran militarily. Earlier this year, he publicly supported U.S. military action against Tehran and maintained close contact with President Trump as tensions between Washington and Iran escalated.

Analysts say Graham’s influence was one of several factors shaping the administration’s approach, although decisions ultimately rested with the president.

Alliance with Trump

Although Graham was an outspoken critic of Trump during the 2016 Republican presidential campaign—calling him “unfit for office” and “a kook”—the senator later became one of the president’s closest political allies.

The two frequently met at the White House and appeared together at public events, with Graham emerging as a trusted adviser on national security and foreign affairs.

Following Graham’s death, Trump called on South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster to appoint Graham’s sister, Darline Graham Nordone, to temporarily fill the Senate seat, describing the move as a fitting tribute to the late senator.

Observers say Graham’s death comes at a time when the Republican Party is increasingly divided over foreign policy, particularly regarding military intervention abroad.

Recent polling indicates younger Republican voters are less supportive of overseas military operations and more skeptical of interventionist policies than previous generations.

Hanna said Graham represented a generation of Republican leaders whose worldview was shaped by post-Cold War American global leadership and extensive military engagement overseas.

While his Senate seat is expected to remain in Republican hands, analysts suggest his absence could further accelerate debates within the party over the future direction of U.S. foreign policy, military intervention and Washington’s role in global conflicts.

(Source: Aljazeera English)

C

anadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has described Saudi Arabia and Türkiye as the two most influential countries in shaping potential solutions to the Middle East’s ongoing crises, emphasizing the importance of direct engagement with regional powers over public criticism.

Speaking to reporters during an official visit to Jeddah on Friday, Carney said that meaningful progress on regional conflicts would depend largely on the role played by Riyadh and Ankara.

“The two most influential countries regarding potential solutions in the Middle East are Saudi Arabia and Türkiye,” Carney said.

Carney stressed that Canada remains deeply committed to developments in the Middle East but argued that constructive dialogue is more effective than criticizing governments from afar.

He said engaging directly with regional leaders does not imply endorsement of all their policies.

“Lecturing countries from a distance is an ineffective strategy,” Carney said. “It may be satisfying, but it is ineffective. Engagement can be effective. That does not mean it will always be decisive, but it can produce results.”

Talks with Erdoğan

Addressing Canada’s relations with Türkiye, Carney said he discussed unresolved bilateral issues during his recent meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Ankara.

He noted that the direct dialogue had yielded positive outcomes that would not have been possible through diplomacy conducted from Ottawa.

Diversifying Canada’s partnerships

The Canadian prime minister also highlighted his government’s efforts to reduce Canada’s heavy reliance on the United States by expanding international partnerships.

“We are overly dependent on the United States. That has been demonstrated,” Carney said. “Every Canadian strongly recognizes this, and we are seeking diversification.”

His remarks reflect Ottawa’s broader strategy of strengthening diplomatic and economic ties with a wider range of global partners as Canada seeks a more diversified foreign policy and trade agenda.

(Source: Anadolu Agency)

T

urkish tennis player Zeynep Sönmez has attracted international attention both for her historic performances at Wimbledon and for a symbolic display of solidarity with Palestinians after tournament officials barred her from wearing a pro-Palestinian badge.

The 24-year-old became one of the tournament’s most talked-about players after using a watermelon-shaped vibration dampener on her racket — a symbol widely associated with Palestinian identity and solidarity because it shares the colors of the Palestinian flag.

Sönmez said Wimbledon officials prohibited her from wearing a pro-Palestinian brooch during the tournament, prompting her to adopt the watermelon symbol instead.

“I used to wear a brooch, but tournaments no longer allow me to wear it,” Sönmez told Türkiye’s Anadolu Agency.

She questioned what she described as inconsistent standards governing political expression in tennis, noting that players have been permitted to display Ukrainian symbols while similar expressions of solidarity with Palestinians were not allowed.

“I argued that the Ukrainian flag is allowed, but the Palestinian one is not,” she said. “They told me they would not permit it.”

Unable to wear the badge on her clothing, Sönmez attached the watermelon-shaped dampener to her racket, explaining that tournament officials could not object to her choice of equipment.

Her gesture received widespread praise in Türkiye.

Turkish Youth and Sports Minister Osman Aşkın Bak commended Sönmez’s stance, describing it as an example of sport promoting universal human values. Ömer Çelik, spokesperson for Türkiye’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party), also praised her expression of solidarity with Palestinians.

Sönmez thanked supporters, saying the encouragement she received from Türkiye made her feel she was “never alone” on court.

From ball girl to national trailblazer

Born in Istanbul on April 30, 2002, with family roots in the Black Sea town of Arhavi, Sönmez began dreaming of a professional tennis career while working as a ball girl at a Women’s Tennis Association tournament in Istanbul.

Watching fellow Turkish player Çağla Büyükakçay win a WTA title inspired her ambition to reach the sport’s highest level.

Coached by Issam Jellali and Mehmet Bayraktar, Sönmez transformed her game following a difficult Wimbledon qualifying defeat several years ago, adopting a more aggressive playing style while building on her speed and athleticism.

She has also earned recognition for her sportsmanship, including a widely praised fair-play moment during a tournament in Monastir, where she and opponent Eva Lys corrected line calls in each other’s favor.

Sönmez has enjoyed the strongest period of her career over the past two seasons.

She captured her first WTA 250 singles title in Mérida, Mexico, in 2024 before continuing her rise through the rankings.

Her performances elevated her to a career-high world ranking of No. 51, making her the highest-ranked Turkish woman in WTA history, surpassing Çağla Büyükakçay’s previous national record.

Sönmez also became the first Turkish player—male or female—in the Open Era to reach the third round at Wimbledon in 2025.

She matched that achievement at the 2026 Australian Open, defeating Anna Bondár and upsetting 11th seed Ekaterina Alexandrova before exiting in the third round.

Earlier this season, she earned the first top-10 victory of her career by defeating Italy’s Jasmine Paolini at the Porsche Tennis Grand Prix in Stuttgart.

Wimbledon campaign ends

Sönmez’s 2026 Wimbledon singles run concluded in the second round with a 7-5, 6-3 loss to American Claire Liu.

Despite the defeat, her performances on court and her symbolic show of support for Palestinians made her one of the tournament’s most prominent figures, drawing international attention both for her sporting achievements and her advocacy.

(Source: Aljazeera English)

T

he United States’ World Cup campaign has been plunged into controversy after FIFA took the extraordinary step of suspending Folarin Balogun’s automatic one-match ban, allowing the striker to play against Belgium in the tournament’s last-16 despite receiving a straight red card in the previous match.

The unprecedented ruling came after U.S. President Donald Trump personally urged FIFA President Gianni Infantino to review Balogun’s dismissal, according to a source familiar with the conversation, sparking accusations of political interference and prompting an angry reaction from Belgium ahead of one of the tournament’s biggest knockout matches.

FIFA announced Sunday that Balogun’s mandatory suspension would not be enforced immediately but instead placed under a one-year probationary period under Article 27 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code.

The decision means the 25-year-old striker will be available for Monday’s clash against Belgium in Seattle while retaining the red card on his disciplinary record.

The ruling immediately became one of the World Cup’s defining controversies, shifting attention away from football and onto questions about the independence of FIFA’s disciplinary process and the influence of political leaders over international sport.

Balogun had scored his third goal of the tournament during the United States’ 2-0 victory over Bosnia and Herzegovina before being sent off after a VAR review for stamping on defender Tarik Muharemovic’s ankle during the second half.

U.S. coach Mauricio Pochettino immediately disputed the dismissal, insisting the challenge did not warrant a red card.

According to Reuters, Trump later telephoned Infantino and requested that FIFA review the incident.

Automatic one-match ban lifted

Although FIFA has not overturned the sending-off itself, the governing body exercised its disciplinary discretion to suspend the implementation of the automatic one-match ban.

“In line with Article 27 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code, the implementation of the match suspension is suspended for a probationary period of one year,” FIFA said in a statement.

It added that if Balogun commits another offense of similar nature during the probation period, the suspended sanction would automatically take effect in addition to any new punishment imposed.

FIFA declined repeated Reuters requests to comment on the circumstances surrounding the decision or on Trump’s reported intervention.

Trump celebrated the outcome on his Truth Social platform.

“Thank you to FIFA for doing what was right, and reversing a great injustice,” the U.S. president wrote.

The White House also welcomed the decision, posting “USA-USA-USA” on social media shortly after FIFA’s announcement.

U.S. Soccer accepted the ruling without further comment.

American players said they first learned of Balogun’s reinstatement while traveling to training.

“We found out about it just coming over here,” captain Christian Pulisic told reporters.

“At first, you’re like, ‘Oh really, is this real?’ And then, ‘Oh, this is great news.'”

Belgium questions legality of FIFA ruling

The decision drew an immediate protest from the Royal Belgian Football Association (RBFA), which described itself as “astonished” and questioned whether FIFA had violated its own disciplinary regulations.

Belgian officials argued that while Article 27 allows disciplinary sanctions to be suspended under certain circumstances, another section of FIFA’s rulebook specifically requires players sent off during a match to miss their team’s next fixture.

“Article 66.4 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code clearly provides that a red card automatically results in a suspension for the team’s next match, as has been the case for all previous red cards issued during this FIFA World Cup,” the RBFA said in a statement.

Belgium also cited Article 10.5 of the tournament regulations, which states that any player receiving a direct or indirect red card “will automatically be suspended from their team’s subsequent match.”

The Belgian federation said it was examining all available legal options before Monday’s encounter.

Pochettino rejected suggestions that FIFA had created a special exception for the United States, insisting previous disciplinary cases showed sanctions could legally be deferred.

“I think 99.9% of people in football have said this is an unfair punishment,” the Argentine coach said.

“There’s evidence from the past that makes it possible to suspend a punishment and fulfill it later on, so I don’t understand how people can be surprised.”

He added that similar disciplinary discretion had been exercised in previous FIFA competitions.

One example frequently cited is Portuguese captain Cristiano Ronaldo, who was permitted to play at the start of the World Cup after FIFA suspended part of a three-match ban imposed during qualifying.

Highly unusual move

Another case involved Qatar midfielder Assim Madibo, whose lengthy suspension for a dangerous tackle remained fully enforced because of the seriousness of the offense.

Legal experts noted that while Article 27 grants FIFA’s disciplinary committee broad discretion to suspend sanctions, its use in relation to an automatic World Cup suspension is highly unusual and likely to generate continued debate about consistency in the application of tournament rules.

The controversy has also reignited broader concerns about FIFA’s governance and its relationship with political leaders.

Although Trump has publicly supported the U.S. national team throughout the tournament, critics questioned whether direct intervention by a head of state in an active disciplinary case risks undermining confidence in football’s independent judicial processes.

Supporters of the ruling, however, argued that FIFA acted within its legal authority and corrected what many believed was an excessively harsh punishment.

Monday’s United States-Belgium last-16 encounter will now unfold under intense scrutiny, with Balogun’s presence ensuring that debate over FIFA’s decision is likely to continue well beyond the final whistle.

Whatever the result on the field, the episode has become one of the most controversial moments of the tournament, raising difficult questions about disciplinary consistency, political influence and the balance between justice and sporting regulations at football’s biggest event.

(Source: Reuters)

M

ore than 5,300 people remain trapped in online scam compounds in Myanmar near the Thai border despite a multinational crackdown launched last year, according to a Thai-based human rights organization that has urged authorities to intensify rescue efforts.

The Civil Society Network for Human Trafficking Victim Assistance (CSNHTV) said thousands of victims continue to be held in four scam compounds located in territory controlled by the Myanmar Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (DKBA), where criminal syndicates continue to operate extensive online fraud and human trafficking networks.

In a letter addressed to Thai police, the organization called for immediate action to dismantle the remaining compounds and free those still being held against their will.

According to the group, approximately 1,600 of those trapped are Chinese nationals, while around 200 are from Myanmar. Victims also include citizens of the Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia, Brazil, Russia, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda and Zimbabwe.

“Many of these compounds have yet to be dismantled or subjected to rescue operations to free all remaining victims,” the organization said.

It warned that the criminal syndicates continue to carry out online fraud targeting victims across the world, particularly in the United States and Europe.

Multibillion-dollar criminal industry

Scam centers across Southeast Asia, especially in Myanmar and Cambodia, have evolved into a sophisticated transnational criminal industry worth billions of dollars.

Originally linked to casinos and online gambling operations during the COVID-19 pandemic, the compounds have expanded into hubs for online investment scams, romance fraud, cryptocurrency schemes and other cybercrimes targeting victims worldwide.

Many of those recruited to work in the centers were lured by false job offers before being trafficked across borders and forced to participate in online scams.

A report released by the United Nations in February found that many scam compounds are staffed by foreign nationals trafficked by organized criminal gangs and subjected to serious human rights abuses.

The report documented widespread cases of torture, sexual abuse, forced abortions, food deprivation, solitary confinement and other forms of cruel treatment used to coerce victims into carrying out online fraud.

“The litany of abuse is staggering and at the same time heart-breaking,” said Volker Türk.

Türk added that many survivors face additional hardships after escaping the compounds, often encountering disbelief, stigma or even punishment instead of receiving protection and rehabilitation.

Calls for stronger regional cooperation

Rights groups say dismantling scam compounds requires closer cooperation between governments in the region, as many operations are protected by armed groups controlling parts of Myanmar’s border areas.

Although thousands of trafficking victims have been rescued during joint operations conducted by Thailand, Myanmar and neighboring countries over the past year, humanitarian organizations warn that thousands more remain trapped, highlighting the continued reach of criminal networks exploiting vulnerable migrants through forced labor and online fraud.

(Source: Aljazeera)

R

ecent legislative amendments have brought about changes to the structure of the National Security Council in Turkey, which has played a decisive role in domestic politics throughout the history of the Republic. With the establishment of the Directorates of Internal Security Research and Assessment, External Security Research and Assessment, and Defense Planning Coordination, the expanding nature of security in the global arena has been taken into account. Furthermore, such an expansion should also be viewed as a consequence of Turkey’s changing foreign policy and geopolitical perceptions.

President Erdoğan delivered a speech highlighting key points at the opening of the National Security Conferences, a series planned to articulate Turkey’s approach to security. Alongside an emphasis on historical state tradition, the speech drew attention to the harmonious coordination between Turkey’s institutions in the face of the region’s ongoing and seemingly endless ‘ring of fire’, whilst also heralding the National Security Council’s return to its core remit. In light of the reforms implemented and this announcement, it is worth asking whether there has been a shift in Turkey’s security culture alongside its evolving foreign policy approach.

The relationship between foreign policy and security culture

Security culture is a concept frequently used in the study of International Relations (IR). In this context, it is defined as the totality of norms that shape how a state or society perceives security, defines threats and formulates responses to the security challenges it faces. Security culture, centered on the perception of threats, helps us understand what a state regards as a threat, or which policies it views as such, and, in parallel, the values by which it defines itself and the historical memory through which it does so. At the same time, the behavioral framework that develops through these elements forms a state’s established code of conduct in the international arena.

Consequently, the perception of security becomes a concept directly linked to foreign policy as a natural outcome of these definitions and perceptions. For when a state’s strategic mindset and self-definition change as a product of an internal process, foreign policy is naturally updated, which in turn implies a shift in the reference points of the security narrative. Just as a definition of interests, resulting from a protectionist mindset and a narrow geopolitical narrative, reflects a limited context, such a narrative also leads to the perception of security threats being viewed from a considerably broader perspective.

What is Turkey’s security culture?

The most fundamental element shaping Turkey’s security culture has been the identity redefined alongside the establishment of the state. With the acceptance of a Western identity as the cornerstone of the state, foreign policy was entirely shaped by a Western geopolitical narrative, and security culture was naturally shaped by the perception of areas outside the West as sources of threat. Paradoxically, despite waging war against the West, Turkey has constructed its security culture on a plane identical to that of the West, defined its perception of threat as originating from outside the West, and sought to meet its security needs through Western organizations or alliances.

Historical experiences inherited from the Ottoman Empire led to the new state being security-focused; the new Republic, through discourses on national sovereignty, territorial integrity and the unity of the state, necessitated a strong state structure. This, in turn, led to Turkey’s security culture becoming state-centered, and institutions have largely defined their roles as significant power factors in domestic politics by relying on this discourse.

The Middle East and the Caucasus represented the core regions perceived as threats by this security culture; the attempt to demonize Islam, the Kurdish issue and the identities defined through these factors were framed as problems for Turkey. As a result of the geopolitical narrative reflecting a narrow hinterland, distant regions did not even fall within the scope of this security culture. Consequently, Turkey’s security culture has reflected a framework synonymous with the West and its interests; adherence to the NATO concept, both during and after the Cold War, has been Ankara’s foremost priority.

The shift in the security paradigm

Since 2002, the changes in Turkish foreign policy have naturally led to a shift in the security paradigm, as they also signified a significant transformation of identity. Firstly, the norms guiding foreign policy have diverged, and Turkey has begun to perceive its historical ties not as a threat but as a source of strength. A foreign policy approach has begun to prevail in which Turkey defines itself through an identity that, without disregarding Western values, places greater emphasis on its own identity elements, an identity that, in the simplest terms, can be expressed by the concept of our ‘heartland’. In parallel with this shift in self-definition, the definitions of interests and threats have changed, and the geopolitical perspective has expanded from a framework confined to the West to encompass a much broader geography stretching as far as Africa, Asia and the Americas.

So, what has changed in Turkey’s security culture? First and foremost, Turkey has become a country that understands very clearly that it must ensure its own security. In particular, the situation into which European states have fallen following the war in Ukraine continues to be discussed as an example illustrating just how accurately Ankara has assessed the situation. In this respect, from its very inception, Turkey has moved away from relying on international coalitions and policies dictated by them, and has begun to define its own security framework. In the words of Erdoğan, Turkey has shattered the glass ceiling over it and has transformed into an actor capable of redefining concepts at a regional level, writing its own narrative and shaping its own future. This situation has been interpreted as a reflection of self-confidence; by enhancing its own capabilities, Turkey has been able to devise solutions through its own policies whenever it perceives a threat to its security.

Regions where the traditional security culture held a perception of security threats have largely come to be viewed as areas for cooperation; security has been perceived not merely as a need secured by closing oneself off within borders, but rather as synonymous with taking proactive action. Security has been linked to the deepening of relations and increased mutual interdependence; where security vulnerabilities have arisen as a result of this approach, necessary measures have been taken to expand security boundaries. In this context, cross-border operations have constituted one of the most significant indicators of the shift in Turkey’s security paradigm. Consequently, security boundaries have been expanded, and Turkey has risen to the status of a state capable of implementing its own policies, demonstrating that security can also be ensured through new points established beyond its borders. Furthermore, it is a fact that, in line with Turkey’s evolving and expanding geopolitical understanding, the country now maintains military bases in many countries.

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.

T

he “Technological Republic” manifesto published by Palantir has sparked new debates. This is because the published manifesto can be read not merely as a corporate vision, but as an explicit declaration of the new regime of domination in the age we live in—a form of digital colonialism. This text, signed by Peter Thiel and Alex Karp, shifts artificial intelligence from being merely a technical tool and directly elevates it to a core element of geopolitical domination. The software industry’s famous rhetoric of a ‘moral debt’ owed to the United States demonstrates that technology is no longer viewed as a neutral field, but rather as a terrain for political and military mobilization—in other words, a kind of digital front.

In essence, the landscape we are witnessing here is a reproduction of classical colonialism in the digital age. Yesterday, the imperial mindset that derived its legitimacy from the claim of bringing civilization is today re-establishing itself through security justifications and notions of algorithmic superiority. Just as the rhetoric of the ‘white man’s burden’ once constructed a hierarchical world order, today’s AI-centerd technological discourse is producing a similar epistemic domination. Given that the idea that some cultures are “more inclined towards progress” whilst certain societies are “in need of guidance and management” is explicitly stated in the manifesto, it is difficult to claim that this mindset has been dismantled or left behind. Consequently, the necessity to fight no longer arises solely on the military battlefield or at diplomatic tables, but directly within the decision-making architecture of algorithms and in lines of code.

The dismantling of algorithmic ethics

The most striking aspect of the Palantir manifesto is that the specific oligarchic interests, which for years have been concealed behind masks of universality, transparency and the common good of humanity, are now being declared without any need for concealment. Whilst the tech giants have for a long time presented themselves as structures that transcend borders, stand above ideologies, and serve the greater good of humanity, with this manifesto we see the mask has fallen. The call contained in the manifesto, whilst inviting other companies to adopt a similar stance, promises to turn artificial intelligence into a weapon, to protect the supreme interests of Western society, and to turn technology into a tool for exercising dominance over the weak.

The rhetoric of universalism is, in fact, merely a strategic mask for expanding the market and gaining infrastructural influence, and a reflection of past capitalist experiences. In reality, particular interests continue to masquerade as universal values, whilst labelling regulatory interventions by other countries as resistance to progress. Globalised trade, which in the past was driven by the bourgeoisie in opposition to mercantilist rhetoric, today seeks to constantly fend off countries’ legitimate and legal regulatory measures by invoking the balance between freedom and security, under the pretext of ‘attacks on freedom’.

This Western-centric technological paradigm takes refuge in ‘acceptable margin of error’ defences whilst claiming human lives in Gaza and Iran. Rather than distinguishing the innocent and the oppressed, it does not shy away from systematic massacres carried out by code. Children, women, those in schools, those in hospitals; in the eyes of the code, they are reduced to nothing more than acceptable numbers. This brutality, which aligns with Karp’s rhetoric of “intimidating the enemy” as stated in the manifesto, points to the mental landscape of technology.

Thiel’s transhumanist vision and his obsession with “upgrading the human race”, also featured in the manifesto, are the outward expression of yet another corrupt mindset. Behind this mindset, one can discern a constant master-servant hierarchy, a perpetual elitist approach, and a claim to authority. Indeed, by directly asserting that some societies are superior to others, he regards domination through AI as quite reasonable. However, this is not the fault of the AI itself, nor is it sufficient to blame the AI. What matters is being able to see the mindset underlying the algorithm and to understand how this tainted mindset views “us”. The issue is recognizing that technology in general, and AI in particular, is not a neutral field, but a terrain for geopolitical mobilization.

In fact, with every crisis originating from a tech company, we see a fresh batch of dirty laundry being aired, yet we still fail to grasp the true scale of the issue. Whilst the fallout from Palantir’s manifesto continues, Elon Musk’s lawsuit against OpenAI, filed in 2026, has brought yet another storm to the fore. While Musk argues that the company has strayed from its mission ‘for the benefit of humanity’ and evolved into a profit-driven tyranny, he overlooks the efforts of his own AI company xAI, the allegedly transhumanist Neuralink, and SolarCity—a firm which exploits the energy needs of millions of people on a massive scale. Whilst he himself holds dominant positions in sectors such as energy, space, the global internet, smart vehicles, artificial intelligence and medicine, he criticises other companies’ attempts at hegemony. However, Musk is correct in pointing out that OpenAI, which set out claiming to work for humanity, has begun to contribute to turning AI into a weapon in wars.

Epistemic liberation and values-driven technology

Whilst the Western world repeatedly lays bare its mindset through these manifestos, lawsuits and revelations, the fact that the views of two figures in the Turkish agenda opposing this mindset have come to the fore actually prompted this article. Selçuk Bayraktar’s emphasis on the need to develop technology with a vision centered on moral, ethical and human dignity—in response to the Palantir manifesto—and his approach questioning the mindset behind technology are, in this regard, highly valuable. On the other hand, Esra Albayrak’s address at the World Decolonization Forum was significant in terms of questioning the colonialist mindset. This address, which reminded us that this mindset dominates the world it has occupied through the triad of ‘erasing identity, erasing language, and establishing mastery’, actually describes the triad of data exploitation, linguistic dominance and algorithmic control in the digital age.

Naturally, since the colonialism of the digital age is now carried out not with tanks but with algorithms, there is no need for vast territories. From digital publishing platforms to social media, from apps to technological tools, and from operating systems to software, acts of occupation continue to infiltrate our intellectual world at every point—whether at home or in our pockets. This open yet covert occupation manifests itself in the form of platform dependency, algorithmic steering, and the shaping of our mental landscape. For this reason, the struggle for decolonization continues, and the need for a struggle for independence in the digital world grows day by day. On the one hand, there is the aim of not falling behind in the technology race; on the other, the aim of serving humanity by blending technology with human values. A key dimension of the aspiration to be a refuge for the oppressed, a voice for the innocent, and a defender of the righteous and justice lies in the construction of a value-driven digital space.

A Human-centered direction in technology and Turkey

Faced with this global landscape, Turkey’s historic duty is to construct a new paradigm that blends algorithmic independence with human dignity, and to chart its own sovereign roadmap in opposition to Western-centered algorithmic hegemony. The current path to establishing epistemic independence on the intellectual plane lies in being able to give a unique voice to the thoughts and emotions that shape technology and the digital sphere. This is only possible by having a say in the trajectory of technological development.

In the initial phase, it is imperative to rapidly strengthen national data sovereignty, oversight mechanisms and domestic artificial intelligence infrastructure at the institutional level. Our priorities include both protective measures against existing threats and steps that support initiatives to shape the future. Whilst capitalizing on opportunities, we must not overlook risks such as algorithmic bias, privacy breaches and geopolitical dependency; the aim should be to transform the individual from a data object into a subject whose agency is safeguarded.

Whilst we may believe we are protected by simple user agreements; it is now clear that technology—as a force—and the discourse of those who produce it serve as a strategic tool for building global influence. We must therefore strive to understand that neither social media, nor large language models, nor the phones in our hands, nor other data-collecting technologies are innocent, and we must discern whom they serve and to what extent.

We must not overlook the fact that these discussions could enable today’s algorithms to quietly erode civil rights and the right to life. In fact, in the face of this mindset that reduces human beings to a data set, what is required is the establishment of a paradigm rooted in ‘our values’ to counter algorithmic hegemony. A civilizational initiative that centeres compassion, ethics and human will against systems that code our children as ‘acceptable losses’ is not merely a national but a global imperative.

(Originally published in Turkish by Kriter)

C

onservative candidate Abelardo De La Espriella has secured a narrow victory in Colombia’s presidential runoff election, defeating leftist Senator Ivan Cepeda in a closely contested race that signals a significant political shift in one of Latin America’s largest economies.

According to preliminary results released by Colombia’s national registrar on Sunday, De La Espriella won 49.66 percent of the vote, while Cepeda received 48.70 percent, leaving a margin of approximately 250,000 votes with nearly all ballots counted.

The result marks a major setback for the political movement of outgoing President Gustavo Petro, Colombia’s first left-wing president, whose reform agenda and security policies became central issues during the election campaign.

De La Espriella, a lawyer and political newcomer, campaigned on promises to crack down on crime, revive economic growth, reduce government spending and strengthen Colombia’s oil and gas sector.

Speaking to supporters in the coastal city of Barranquilla after the results were announced, he pledged to govern for all Colombians regardless of political affiliation.

“I will govern for all Colombians, for those who voted for me and for those who chose the other candidate,” De La Espriella told cheering supporters.

His campaign centered on criticism of Petro’s administration, which he accused of failing to contain armed groups, drug trafficking and insecurity in several regions of the country. He vowed to end negotiations with rebel and criminal organizations while expanding investment in the energy sector and reducing the size of the state by as much as 40 percent.

Despite advocating major economic reforms, De La Espriella has also promised to maintain some of Petro’s most popular social measures, including a 23 percent increase in the minimum wage and assistance programs for vulnerable communities.

The president-elect also received a congratulatory call from Donald Trump, who had publicly endorsed his candidacy during the campaign. The endorsement attracted attention both inside Colombia and internationally, highlighting growing ties between conservative political movements across the Americas.

Cepeda refuses to concede immediately

Although the preliminary count favored De La Espriella, Cepeda stopped short of immediately conceding defeat.

Addressing supporters in Bogotá, the veteran leftist politician said his campaign would await the completion of Colombia’s official verification process, which involves a ballot-by-ballot review supervised by judges and notaries.

Cepeda said his campaign was contesting results from roughly 33,000 ballot boxes out of more than 122,000 nationwide.

“We are open to dialogue; we are willing to reach agreements as long as they are respectful, genuine, and reflected in political actions that benefit the nation,” he told supporters.

While acknowledging the narrow margin, Cepeda emphasized that his supporters remain a powerful political force that must be represented in future national decisions.

The close result reflects a deeply polarized electorate divided between demands for stronger security measures and support for the social and environmental reforms introduced under Petro’s government.

De La Espriella will take office facing significant political and economic challenges.

Despite winning the presidency, he is expected to encounter resistance in Congress, where Cepeda’s coalition, the Historic Pact, remains one of the largest political blocs. No party controls a majority, meaning the incoming president will likely need to negotiate extensively to pass legislation.

Analysts say this reality may force De La Espriella to moderate some of his more ambitious proposals, particularly plans to dramatically reduce government spending and reshape state institutions.

The new administration must also address mounting public debt and sluggish economic growth while balancing demands for increased security spending.

Questions have additionally been raised about De La Espriella’s business record. During the campaign, Colombian media reported that several of his companies had been dissolved or faced financial difficulties, though his legal practice remained profitable. The president-elect rejected suggestions that these issues undermine his economic credentials.

Security concerns dominated the election

Security emerged as one of the defining issues of the campaign.

Many Colombians remain concerned about growing violence linked to drug trafficking organizations, dissident guerrilla factions and criminal networks operating in remote regions.

Supporters of De La Espriella argued that a tougher approach is necessary to restore public order and combat extortion, kidnappings and narcotics trafficking.

However, critics fear his confrontational rhetoric could undermine ongoing peace initiatives and potentially reignite broader conflict in a country that has endured more than six decades of violence involving left-wing insurgents, right-wing paramilitary groups and criminal organizations.

At Cepeda’s election-night gathering, several supporters voiced concerns that Colombia could move away from reconciliation efforts pursued in recent years.

Colombia’s election adds to a broader trend across Latin America, where several countries have recently elected conservative leaders.

Voters in countries including Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, Bolivia and Ecuador have shifted toward right-leaning governments amid concerns about inflation, crime and economic performance.

More than 26.3 million Colombians participated in the runoff vote, representing a strong turnout among the country’s 41.4 million eligible voters. More than 427,000 voters submitted blank ballots, often viewed as a form of protest against both candidates.

While the final certified results are still pending, De La Espriella’s victory appears set to usher in a new political era for Colombia, one focused on security, economic liberalization and closer relations with conservative governments across the region.

(Source: Reuters)

B

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

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

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

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

Court rejects non-violence argument

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

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

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

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

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

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

Group vows further legal challenge

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

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

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

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

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

Origins of the ban

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

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

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

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

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

T

he number of people displaced by conflict, persecution, and violence worldwide fell in 2025 for the first time in more than a decade, according to a new report released by the United Nations refugee agency on Thursday. However, the agency warned that millions of refugees remain trapped in prolonged displacement, often spending years or even decades away from their homes with little prospect of rebuilding their lives.

The report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) found that 5.4 million people were newly displaced during 2025, while a significant increase in refugee and internally displaced persons returning home contributed to a decline in overall displacement figures.

Despite the improvement, the agency estimated that there were still 41.6 million refugees and people in refugee-like situations around the world by the end of the year, including approximately 6 million Palestinian refugees.

UNHCR officials described the figures as a mixed picture, highlighting both encouraging signs of return and persistent challenges facing millions who remain displaced.

“Displacement levels remain extraordinarily high despite the positive trend in returns,” the agency said, stressing that many returnees face insecurity, economic hardship, and damaged infrastructure upon returning to their countries.

Record returns drive decline

A key factor behind the decline in global displacement was a sharp increase in the number of refugees and internally displaced persons returning home.

According to the report, around 14.7 million people returned to their places of origin in 2025, representing a 50 percent increase compared with the previous year and marking the second-highest annual return figure recorded since UNHCR began tracking such data in 1965.

The majority of those returns took place in six countries: Afghanistan, Syria, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ukraine, and Myanmar.

While the figures suggest growing opportunities for return in some conflict-affected countries, UNHCR cautioned that many people went back to difficult and often unstable conditions.

In several countries, returnees encountered damaged infrastructure, limited access to healthcare and education, ongoing insecurity, and weak economic prospects, raising questions about the long-term sustainability of their return.

Afghan returns surge

Afghanistan recorded one of the most dramatic shifts in refugee movements during 2025.

UNHCR reported that approximately 2.9 million Afghans returned home during the year, including 1.9 million refugees. The number was five times higher than in 2024 and significantly reduced the global Afghan refugee population from 5.8 million to 3.7 million.

The agency attributed much of the increase to stricter immigration and residency policies introduced by neighboring Iran and Pakistan, which host some of the world’s largest Afghan refugee populations.

Many Afghans reported feeling compelled to return rather than making a fully voluntary decision, according to the report.

The findings underscore the complex nature of refugee returns, where movements are not always driven by improved conditions in countries of origin but sometimes by changing policies in host states.

Syria sees major shift

The report also highlighted significant changes in Syria, long regarded as one of the world’s largest displacement crises.

Following the collapse of the government of former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in December 2024, approximately 1.3 million Syrians returned to their homes during 2025. The figure was nearly three times higher than the previous year and contributed to a reduction in the global Syrian refugee population from 6 million to 4.9 million.

However, UNHCR warned that the challenges facing returning Syrians remain severe.

Large parts of the country continue to suffer from widespread destruction caused by years of conflict. Many communities lack basic services, employment opportunities remain scarce, and sporadic violence continues in some regions.

The agency stressed that successful return requires not only physical safety but also access to housing, education, healthcare, and economic opportunities.

T

aiwan’s military conducted a large-scale coastal defense exercise on Tuesday, simulating the destruction of an invading Chinese force in what officials described as a more realistic combat scenario designed to strengthen the island’s readiness against a potential amphibious assault.

The drill, held along Taiwan’s western coastline facing mainland China, involved the coordinated use of rockets, artillery, mortars, anti-tank missiles, and mobile weapons systems to create a defensive “kill zone” aimed at stopping enemy forces before they could establish a beachhead.

The exercise comes amid growing military pressure from China, which claims Taiwan as its territory and has not ruled out the use of force to bring the self-governed island under Beijing’s control. Chinese military aircraft and naval vessels regularly operate around Taiwan, while Beijing has intensified military activities in the Taiwan Strait in recent years.

The drills were conducted simultaneously from eight locations across a 20-kilometer stretch of coastline near the central city of Taichung, an area considered one of the most likely landing points for a potential Chinese invasion.

Military officials said the exercise reflected a broader effort to make Taiwan’s armed forces more agile and prepared for actual battlefield conditions.

“What is different about this training compared with the past is that we are no longer conducting heavy artillery firing in a fixed, routine formation,” artillery commander Ong Yih-ming told reporters during the exercise.

“The timing for entering positions this time was based on realistic combat conditions. Therefore, the level of difficulty for our troops was considerably higher,” he said.

Overhauling military doctrine

Taiwan has been overhauling its military doctrine in recent years, shifting away from traditional large-scale formations toward a more flexible defense strategy focused on mobility, survivability, and rapid response.

The latest exercise showcased several key weapons systems, including the domestically produced Thunderbolt-2000 multiple launch rocket system, a truck-mounted platform designed to deliver concentrated firepower while maintaining high mobility.

Military officials said Tuesday marked the first time in seven years that the Thunderbolt-2000 had conducted live-fire operations in an active deployment area.

Rocket commander Liao Neng-cheng said the exercise significantly reduced preparation times to better mirror wartime conditions.

“In previous years, units would often arrive at firing positions a week in advance and spend several days preparing,” he said.

“This time, we arrived only one day before the exercise and completed all preparations within a much shorter timeframe.”

Improving military’s ability

The changes are intended to improve the military’s ability to survive and operate under conditions where enemy surveillance, missile attacks, and electronic warfare could limit opportunities for lengthy preparations.

Alongside the Thunderbolt-2000 systems, troops deployed U.S.-made Paladin self-propelled howitzers, anti-tank missiles, conventional artillery pieces, and mortar units. The weapons were used in a simulated operation designed to halt an amphibious landing force approaching Taiwan’s shores.

Military planners have long regarded Taiwan’s western coast as one of the most vulnerable areas in any future conflict. The region’s beaches and mudflats provide some of the few locations suitable for large-scale amphibious landings by the Chinese military.

The exercise took place as tensions between Taipei and Beijing remain elevated.

Taiwan’s government rejects China’s sovereignty claims, insisting that only the island’s 23 million people have the right to determine their future. Beijing, however, considers Taiwan a breakaway province and has repeatedly stated that reunification is inevitable.

Chinese officials have increased military and political pressure on Taiwan since the election of Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te, whom Beijing has labeled a separatist.

China’s growing intolerance of Taipei

China has also suspended formal communications with Taipei and stepped up military patrols near the island. Taiwanese authorities have reported an increase in Chinese coast guard activities around Taiwan’s waters, including near the Taiwan-controlled Pratas Islands in the northern South China Sea.

Speaking to local media on Tuesday, Chiu Chui-cheng, head of Taiwan’s Mainland Affairs Council, accused Beijing of attempting to alter the status quo in the Taiwan Strait.

“The one trying to change the status quo is the Chinese Communist Party,” Chiu said.

“We will use strength and sufficient deterrent capability to prevent the Chinese communists from changing the status quo by force.”

The Chinese government’s Taiwan Affairs Office did not immediately comment on the exercise.

Security analysts say Taiwan’s military modernization efforts reflect growing concerns over China’s expanding military capabilities and increasingly frequent operations near the island. While many experts believe an invasion would remain an extraordinarily complex undertaking, Taiwan continues to strengthen its defenses and improve readiness for a range of possible conflict scenarios.

Tuesday’s exercise highlighted Taipei’s determination to demonstrate its ability to defend the island’s coastline and respond quickly to potential threats, even as cross-strait relations remain among the most sensitive flashpoints in the Asia-Pacific region.

The drill also underscored Taiwan’s ongoing efforts to adapt its military strategy to an evolving security environment, one increasingly shaped by China’s military rise and the growing strategic competition between Beijing and the United States.

(Source: Reuters)

R

ising geopolitical tensions and disruptions to global energy supplies have strengthened international momentum behind renewable energy and climate action ahead of the COP31 United Nations climate conference, according to the UN’s top official in Türkiye.

Babatunde Ahonsi told Anadolu that recent instability, including tensions surrounding the Strait of Hormuz, has exposed the vulnerability of an energy system heavily dependent on imported fossil fuels and reinforced the need to accelerate the transition to renewable energy sources.

“An energy system that is dependent on fossil fuel, and especially imported fossil fuel, has really sharpened minds and redoubled the commitment to accelerate movement towards renewable energies,” Ahonsi said.

His comments come as Türkiye prepares to host and preside over COP31 in the Mediterranean city of Antalya this November.

COP31 expected to focus on implementation and accountability

Ahonsi said the conference could mark an important shift in global climate diplomacy, moving discussions beyond negotiations and toward measuring countries’ progress on their climate commitments.

According to the UN official, previous climate summits achieved major milestones, including the Paris Agreement and subsequent commitments to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

He noted that COP28 helped establish a broader international consensus on energy transition, while COP29 focused heavily on climate finance.

Now, Ahonsi believes COP31 should emphasize accountability.

“This is the COP at which we will have to transition from negotiations to verification,” he said, arguing that countries’ climate pledges should be increasingly measured, tracked, and independently assessed.

He added that global climate action has moved beyond scientific debate and now requires rapid implementation of proven solutions.

“We are no longer talking about the science. Now is the time to accelerate implementation,” he said.

Türkiye positioned as a bridge between regions

Ahonsi said Türkiye’s geographic and diplomatic position could help facilitate consensus among countries with differing priorities.

He described the country as a bridge between East and West, North and South, connecting Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. He also pointed to Türkiye’s recent role in mediating international disputes as an asset in climate negotiations.

The UN official praised the leadership of Murat Kurum, who will serve as president of COP31, and said building trust among nations would be essential to achieving meaningful outcomes.

“Without trust, you cannot really have progress in terms of multilateral climate action,” Ahonsi said.

He also highlighted the significance of hosting the conference in the Mediterranean region, which scientists consider one of the world’s climate hotspots. The region is warming faster than the global average and faces increasing risks from heatwaves, droughts, wildfires, and water shortages.

Africa’s role in global climate action

Ahonsi emphasized that Africa will remain a major focus of climate discussions, noting that the continent contributes relatively little to global greenhouse gas emissions while experiencing some of the most severe climate impacts.

He called for greater climate finance and technology transfers to developing countries, arguing that previous international commitments must now be translated into concrete action.

At the same time, Ahonsi stressed that Africa should not be viewed merely as a vulnerable region requiring assistance.

Instead, he described the continent as a vital partner in addressing climate change, citing its young population and growing capacity for innovation and adaptation.

“Africa should not be viewed as some vulnerable region that requires handouts,” he said. “It has to be about partnership.”

As governments prepare for COP31, energy security concerns, climate finance, renewable energy investment, and implementation of existing climate pledges are expected to dominate discussions, with the conference seen as a critical opportunity to accelerate global efforts to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and address the growing impacts of climate change.

(Source: Anadolu Agency)

A

year after its introduction in Congress, the proposed Block the Bombs Act has gained significant support among U.S. lawmakers, reflecting growing debate in Washington over military aid to Israel and the humanitarian consequences of the war in Gaza.

The legislation, introduced in June 2025 by Representative Delia Ramirez, initially attracted 21 Democratic co-sponsors. That number has now risen to 73 lawmakers, including one Republican, marking one of the most substantial congressional challenges to longstanding bipartisan support for military assistance to Israel.

Speaking at a news conference on Capitol Hill, Ramirez described the growing support as evidence that views within Congress are shifting.

“While some thought that the bill was extreme, it has, in fact, become pretty mainstream,” she said.

Despite the increase in backing, supporters acknowledge that the proposal remains far from securing a majority in the 435-member House of Representatives, where Republican leadership has not allowed the measure to come to a vote.

Bill targets specific weapons transfers

The Block the Bombs Act would prohibit the transfer of certain heavy bombs and artillery ammunition to Israel, weapons that supporters say have been used in some of the deadliest attacks during the war in Gaza.

Backers of the legislation argue that U.S. military assistance should be conditioned on compliance with international humanitarian law and the protection of civilians.

Representative Rashida Tlaib said public opinion has increasingly shifted toward questioning unconditional military support for Israel.

“Americans want us to invest here at home,” Tlaib said. “They want us not to invest in death and destruction and bombs. They want us to invest in clean water and housing and childcare and so much more.”

The legislation has attracted support from lawmakers who were not previously associated with efforts to restrict military aid to Israel. Representative Valerie Foushee, who previously received support from pro-Israel advocacy groups, endorsed the bill in 2025, arguing that weapons should not be supplied if they are not used in accordance with international law.

This week, Representative Thomas Massie became the first Republican co-sponsor of the measure.

“America is morally obligated to end support of Israel’s devastation of Gaza and its people,” Massie said in announcing his support.

Growing debate over US policy toward Israel

Advocates say the bill reflects broader changes in public opinion regarding U.S. policy toward Israel and the Palestinian territories.

Recent polls have shown declining support among Americans for providing military aid to Israel without conditions. Supporters of the legislation argue that Congress should better reflect those changing attitudes.

The bill has also received support from the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Its chair, Greg Casar, said public activism has played a major role in increasing support for the proposal.

“The idea behind the Block the Bombs Act is simple: The United States should not be supplying bombs that we know will be used to perpetuate one of the worst disasters of our lifetimes,” Casar said.

The debate comes amid broader congressional scrutiny of U.S. policy in the Middle East. Earlier this week, the House approved a resolution aimed at limiting President Donald Trump’s authority to conduct military action against Iran without congressional authorization.

In addition, 40 senators voted in April to block the transfer of military bulldozers to Israel, signaling growing willingness among some lawmakers to challenge aspects of U.S. military support.

Advocacy groups backing the legislation welcomed the increase in support but stressed that much work remains.

Jewish Voice for Peace Action Political Director Beth Miller described the growth in co-sponsors as significant but said the total remains well below a congressional majority.

Supporters of the measure argue that continued humanitarian suffering in Gaza requires a reassessment of U.S. military assistance, while opponents maintain that aid to Israel remains essential for the country’s security.

With Congress still largely supportive of Israel, the legislation faces difficult odds. Nevertheless, its growing backing highlights a notable shift in the political debate surrounding U.S. arms transfers and Washington’s role in the war.

(Source: Aljazeera English)

I

n his first major encyclical, Pope Leo XIV has issued a sweeping warning about the risks posed by artificial intelligence, describing the technology as a transformative force comparable to the Industrial Revolution and cautioning against allowing technological power to outpace moral responsibility.

The 40,000-word document, Magnifica Humanitas (“Magnificent Humanity”), argues that AI presents profound challenges for human dignity, democracy, labor, and global equality.

Drawing on the biblical story of the Tower of Babel, Pope Leo warned against what he described as the “idolatry of profit” and the belief that technology can reduce every aspect of human life to data and performance.

“Humanity, in all its grandeur and woundedness, must never be replaced or surpassed,” the pope wrote, while acknowledging that technological advances can alleviate suffering and create new opportunities when guided by ethical principles.

The pontiff has repeatedly compared the current AI revolution to the social and economic upheaval caused by industrialization in the 19th century. He said he chose the name Leo XIV in honor of Pope Leo XIII, whose landmark encyclical Rerum Novarum addressed workers’ rights and economic justice during the Industrial Revolution.

Throughout the document, Leo criticizes what he calls the “technocratic paradigm” — the idea that efficiency, optimization, and technological progress alone should guide political and economic decision-making.

He also raises concerns about the use of AI in warfare, warning against autonomous weapons systems and arguing that no algorithm can resolve the moral questions surrounding armed conflict.

Anthropic’s presence highlights growing debate over AI governance

The launch of the encyclical attracted particular attention because of the presence of Christopher Olah, whose company Anthropic develops the Claude artificial intelligence chatbot.

The Vatican’s decision to feature Anthropic rather than other major AI firms such as OpenAI, Google, Meta, or xAI was widely interpreted as significant, reflecting the company’s emphasis on AI safety and ethics.

Speaking at the Vatican event, Olah acknowledged that AI developers face incentives that can conflict with ethical considerations.

“We need informed critics who will tell the labs when we are failing,” he said, adding that moral voices are needed to ensure technological development serves society rather than narrow commercial interests.

The appearance underscored the increasingly complex relationship between religious institutions, governments, and technology companies as AI systems become more influential in daily life.

Some analysts view the Vatican’s engagement as an attempt to shape global discussions about artificial intelligence before regulatory frameworks become dominated by governments and private corporations.

A prominent voice in debates over AI governance

The Catholic Church, which represents nearly 1.4 billion people worldwide, has sought to establish itself as a prominent voice in debates over AI governance. Just days before releasing the encyclical, Pope Leo approved the creation of an interdepartmental Vatican commission dedicated to artificial intelligence policy and ethics.

Supporters argue that the Church can provide a moral perspective often absent from technology debates, while critics question whether religious institutions can meaningfully influence the development of rapidly evolving AI systems.

Nevertheless, the pope’s intervention signals that the Vatican intends to remain an active participant in one of the defining global debates of the 21st century. By framing artificial intelligence as a question of ethics, human dignity, and social responsibility, Pope Leo has challenged the idea that decisions about humanity’s technological future should be left solely to governments and Silicon Valley executives.

(Source: Anadolu Agency)

I

srael and Lebanon have agreed to implement a ceasefire aimed at ending months of hostilities, the Trump administration announced on Wednesday, raising hopes that a broader agreement to end the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran could be within reach.

The agreement, reached following negotiations in Washington, requires a complete cessation of hostilities by the Iran-backed Hezbollah and the withdrawal of its fighters from southern Lebanon’s Litani region, according to a joint statement issued by the United States Department of State.

The development comes despite continued violence across the region and mounting tensions involving Iran, Gulf states, and U.S. forces.

A previous ceasefire announced last month failed to halt fighting, with clashes continuing after Israel launched operations in Lebanon in March against Hezbollah, which had opened a front against Israel in support of Tehran.

The latest agreement is viewed as a key component of wider diplomatic efforts to end the regional conflict that erupted following U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran earlier this year.

Gulf attacks and Strait of Hormuz tensions continue

Even as diplomatic efforts advanced, regional tensions remained high.

Kuwaiti authorities said Iranian missile and drone attacks damaged facilities at Kuwait International Airport, killing one person and injuring more than 60 others. Airport operations were temporarily suspended before flights resumed later in the day following emergency safety measures.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps denied targeting the airport directly, claiming the damage was caused by failed U.S. interceptor missiles. The U.S. military rejected that account, saying Iranian drones deliberately targeted the airport.

At the same time, the United States Central Command reported carrying out defensive strikes against missile launch sites and naval assets in southern Iran. U.S. forces also struck targets on Qeshm Island near the strategically important Strait of Hormuz after what officials described as attempted Iranian attacks.

The Strait of Hormuz, a critical route for global oil and gas shipments, remains largely closed more than three months after the conflict began. Oil prices rose nearly 2% on concerns about continuing disruptions to energy supplies.

Negotiations with Iran remain fragile

The ceasefire announcement comes amid ongoing efforts to secure a broader agreement between Washington and Tehran.

Iran has linked progress in negotiations to an end to fighting in Lebanon and is seeking access to frozen oil revenues, sanctions relief, an end to restrictions on its ports, and guarantees regarding future access to the Strait of Hormuz.

Abbas Araqchi said negotiations with the United States had not been suspended but acknowledged that no significant progress had been made in recent days.

Meanwhile, President Donald Trump expressed optimism that developments could occur soon.

“If it happens, it could happen over the weekend,” Trump told reporters at the White House, without providing further details.

Trump also indicated that negotiators were attempting to separate discussions about reopening the Strait of Hormuz from the conflict in Lebanon.

Despite the ceasefire announcement, violence continued on Wednesday. Lebanese security sources reported Israeli drone strikes that killed at least six people in southern Lebanon and targeted areas near Beirut. Israel said it had intercepted a hostile aircraft believed to have been launched by Hezbollah.

Araqchi warned that Iran would respond decisively if Israel expanded military operations against Beirut.

The conflict has killed thousands of people, primarily in Iran and Lebanon, while disrupting global trade and energy markets. Although the Israel-Lebanon ceasefire has raised hopes for a wider diplomatic breakthrough, ongoing military incidents underscore the fragility of the situation and the challenges facing negotiators seeking a broader regional settlement.

(Source: Reuters)

C

an an X post become the new handbook for a dying world order? Palantir Technologies recently transformed the 22 key arguments from the book The Technological Republic: Hard Power, Soft Belief, and the Future of the West (2025) by the company’s CEO Alex Karp and Nicholas Zamiska into a concise series of posts on X. This post rejected Silicon Valley’s “app tyranny”, advocated for engineering talent to be directed towards national defense and strategic innovation, and positioned “hard power” as indispensable for the West’s survival. Criticism of the post was not long in coming. From established authors to social media influencers, many people contributed to the debate, writing articles on the subject. Headlines screamed “techno-fascism”. Academics warned against authoritarian tech elites. Social media figures described this vision as a dangerous fusion of artificial intelligence and conservatism.

However, the debates largely failed to move beyond emotional reactions to the bold voices raised by Palantir founder Peter Thiel, Alex Karp, and others against conventional states. As a young academic who has been working on techno-politics and US security mechanisms for years, I strive to examine the issue from a rational perspective. I discuss these studies in greater detail in my book “Security Mechanisms and Techno-Politics in the United States”, to be published by Routledge in August 2026. What truly concerns me, however, is how quickly we resort to slogans rather than historical context. Before labelling the book text that became Palantir’s X post as ‘techno-fascism’, we must ask: Does this book represent a radical break, or does it serve as a new kind of field guide written during a period when the international order is collapsing, much like Sherman Kent’s “Strategic Intelligence for American World Policy” (1949), which was penned at the very moment a new world order was emerging?

The birth of the new order: 1945 and the construction of the American century

Let us return to 1945. The Anglo-Saxon allies had collaborated with the Soviet Union, led by Stalin, to defeat the Hitler regime. This victory gave rise to a rules-based order that established the United Nations, NATO, the Bretton Woods institutions, and the bipolar competition between the democratic West and the communist East. The establishment of Israel in 1948 cemented the US-Israel strategic partnership. The Suez Crisis of 1956 confirmed the end of British hegemony. The US became the undisputed leader of the Western bloc.

Technology and intelligence developed in tandem with this new order. Stanford University, founded in 1891, laid the foundations for what would eventually become Silicon Valley. The Stanford Industrial Park, Hewlett-Packard’s first garage venture, the relocation to the Valley of William Shockley, the inventor of the transistor, and Robert Noyce’s breakthroughs in the field of semiconductors transformed this region into the centre of the microelectronics revolution. All these developments took place in the late 1940s and 1950s. That is, precisely during the period when the CIA (1947), the West’s primary intelligence agency during the Cold War, was established, and the Soviet KGB was formalized in 1954.

It was against this backdrop that Sherman Kent emerged. A member of one of Yale’s founding and rather ‘white’ families, Kent had served in the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) during the war. Following the organizational crises of the CIA’s early years (1947–1950), figures such as Kent, William Langer and Max Millikan were tasked with professionalizing American intelligence. Kent’s 1949 book was not merely an academic study of analytical methods. It was a practical handbook for American global policy. It guided policymakers on how intelligence should be gathered, analyzed, and utilized to establish and maintain US global hegemony. Kent became the founder of the analytical school that still shapes the US intelligence community today and launched the journal Studies in Intelligence. This journal is still in publication. His work embedded analytical thinking into the very fabric of the American century.

The moment of unravelling: The collapse of the liberal order and the new interregnum

Let us now fast-forward to 2026. The post-1945 liberal international order is not merely undergoing reform; it is effectively unravelling. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz stated at the Munich Security Conference in February: “The world order that has existed for decades no longer exists.” Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, in his speech at Davos, described this moment as “not a transition, but a rupture.” The Trump administration’s latest National Security Strategy made this an explicit doctrine. According to the strategy document, the liberal order led by the US was coming to an end. This was undoubtedly not because the US was weak, but because it chose not to sustain it. The title of the 2026 Munich Security Conference Report, devoid of irony, was: Under Destruction.

The words of Antonio Gramsci, which have become a staple in the vocabulary of many of our politicians, have never been more relevant: “The old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interim period, a multitude of pathological symptoms emerge.” At times when old structures dissolve faster than new ones emerge, new handbooks inevitably appear. These are not impartial academic studies. They are field guides for those who wish to shape what is to come.

The new handbook: Palantir and the search for a techno-political direction

Alongside Peter Thiel’s long-standing intellectual project and the government contracts secured by Palantir, Karp and Zamiska’s book The Technological Republic serves as such a guide. Kent wrote his book at the dawn of a rules-based order built upon American hard power and institutional alliances. Karp and Zamiska, however, are writing The Technological Republic at the twilight of that order. Just as Kent’s generation faced after 1945, they too diagnose the same problem: a fluid world requires purposeful techno-political guidance. However, the direction they propose is clearly conservative. Silicon Valley must repay the ‘moral debt’ it owes to the country that made its rise possible. Engineering talent must be shifted from consumption-focused, distracting fields to defense, intelligence and strategic artificial intelligence. ‘Hard power’ is not a dirty concept; it is the foundation of any viable republic. Pluralism without power is weakness.

This call emerges as an argument that the market-driven, borderless globalization of the past thirty years has eroded the national purpose, weakened sovereignty, and left Western societies defenseless against rivals who have never denied the reality that technology is not neutral. The software Palantir has developed for defense and intelligence agencies is presented not as an expansion of surveillance, but as a necessary fusion of private-sector innovation and public mission. Just as DARPA funding, once under the US Department of Defence, made the birth of Silicon Valley possible.

Palantir’s critics are right to be concerned about the risks of surveillance, the militarization of artificial intelligence, and the concentration of power in private actors. However, labelling the entire project as ‘techno-fascism’ prevents us from seeing the context in which this company and Karp’s book emerged. Kent’s handbook was never value-neutral. It served American hegemony. Karp’s book is similarly biased, politically conservative and technologically grounded in realism. Yet it stems from the same awareness. According to this awareness, power vacuums invite disorder.

P

ope Leo XIV has issued the strongest apology yet by a pope for the Catholic Church’s historical involvement in slavery, acknowledging that the institution was slow to condemn the practice and at times helped legitimize it.

In his first papal encyclical, titled Magnifica Humanitas (“Magnificent Humanity”), Leo said the Church had taken centuries to fully recognize slavery as incompatible with human dignity, describing the legacy as “a wound in Christian memory.”

“For this, in the name of the Church, I sincerely ask for pardon,” the pope wrote, expressing “deep sorrow” for the suffering endured by enslaved people throughout history.

Leo acknowledged that Church authorities had, in some periods, responded to political rulers by regulating or legitimizing forms of subjugation, including the enslavement of non-Christians. He also noted that ecclesiastical institutions themselves owned slaves during the Middle Ages.

The pope said the Church only reached a “formal, absolute and universal condemnation” of slavery during the 19th century under Pope Leo XIII, after what he described as centuries of inconsistency in teaching and practice.

Strongest papal admission yet

Leo’s statement marks the clearest acknowledgment by a pope of institutional responsibility for slavery, going further than previous Vatican statements that focused primarily on the actions of individual Christians or colonial powers.

Pope John Paul II, during a 1985 visit to Africa, asked forgiveness for the suffering caused by “men belonging to Christian nations” involved in the slave trade.

His successor, Pope Francis, repeatedly condemned modern slavery and formally repudiated 15th-century papal decrees used by European colonial powers to justify conquest and enslavement.

However, those statements stopped short of directly addressing the role of the papacy itself. Leo’s encyclical is the first to explicitly state that the Church as an institution failed to act decisively against slavery for centuries.

The document also reflects on modern ethical concerns, particularly the impact of artificial intelligence and the risks of new forms of economic exploitation.

Personal historical connection

The encyclical comes amid renewed interest in Pope Leo’s own family history. Genealogical research published after his election last year revealed that the first U.S.-born pope has ancestry linked both to enslaved people and to slaveholders.

The Vatican has not announced whether further initiatives or commemorations related to the Church’s historical role in slavery are planned following the pope’s remarks.

Historians and advocates have long debated whether the Catholic Church should issue a formal institutional apology for slavery and colonial-era abuses. Leo’s statement is likely to intensify discussions within the Church and beyond about accountability, historical memory, and reconciliation.

(Source: Reuters)

A

fter the end of the Cold War, the United States began to dominate the world as the sole superpower. Over the past 35 years, the Americans, maintaining this singularity, have tried to punish their enemies and the countries they declared as enemies by invading them. For this purpose, they occupied Afghanistan and Iraq, the latter having no connection to the 9/11 attacks while the former’s sheltering of Bin Laden did not require invasion of the whole country. Allies also did not withhold their support from the U.S. in these occupations.

Americans, together with Israel, who consider it their duty to attack countries they have labeled as enemies and try to legitimize it with excuses such as democracy and human rights, most recently attacked Iran on February 28. More than two months have passed but the Israel‑U.S. duo, which killed all Iranian leaders on the first day with Iran’s initial naivete, still have not achieved their goals. No regime has collapsed, no country has been occupied, Iran’s nuclear program has not been destroyed, and the Iranian army has not been neutralized. Moreover, Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz has plunged the whole world into an economic crisis.

In short, Iran is a big bite for the U.S. and Israel, and they could not swallow it. Although Trump repeatedly proclaimed victories, there is no real victory. If the allies had supported America, the outcome might have been different, but the allies declared they would not do anything for the U.S. by refusing to enter a war that the U.S. itself does not even have. Moreover, the U.S. was planning to occupy Greenland, NATO territory, just a few months ago.

Super‑power status open to debate?

The United States’ failure naturally opens its super‑power status to debate. Five years ago, while writing an academic paper on whether the U.S. is still a superpower, I observed that despite being the world’s most powerful country in many areas, the U.S. does not possess the power to control the entire world. For example, 24 % of global GDP belongs to the United States. With that share, it is impossible to dominate the remaining 76 % of the world. Militarily, the U.S. is the strongest country, but even in this field the days of policing the world are far behind.

However, while writing the paper I concluded that the U.S. remains a superpower thanks to its allies. Especially because many European states, Japan, South Korea, Canada, and numerous European allies accept U.S. leadership, America’s super‑power status continued.

The tide has turned, and now the United States is led by Donald Trump, a leader whose actions are uncertain even in his own country, whose statecraft is debated, and who does not hesitate to target his own allies. In the Iran war, Trump entered the conflict without any ally’s approval, simply because Israel wanted it. Even though he eyed Greenland and threatened to withdraw from NATO, he still expected support from allies. Yet his allies, not being as reckless, did not join a war that the U.S. itself had not started, leaving the U.S. (and Israel) alone.

Israel is an ally of the US more than Europe

Today, Israel is the United States’ closest ally. You will not see Israel suffering the insults Trump directed at Europeans. Conversely, Israel’s closest ally is not the United States. In other words, Israel will not go to war for the U.S.; they see the U.S. as a country whose resources will be exploited. Unfortunately, this is the painful truth many know but dare not say about U.S.–Israel relations.

As a result, the United States is more alone than ever, which provides a good opportunity to test its power. The Iran war became an example serving exactly this purpose. It is evident that the U.S. cannot maintain hegemony alone. Perhaps it could win a one‑on‑one war against Iran or another country, but the price would be heavy. Therefore, if it does not engage in an existential war, every war it joins will take pieces from its existence and further weaken it.

It is also necessary to emphasize the clumsiness of the American army. Americans are truly ahead in internet technology, which helps keep their economy strong. However, they struggle to keep up with changes in the weapons industry. While Iran managed to push away massive aircraft carriers with a few thousand‑dollar kamikaze drones and, according to claims, shot down an F‑35 with a lower‑technology air‑defense system, battlefields are filling with smaller, more effective weapons, yet the U.S. still relies on large‑scale armaments. Consequently, some of its assets have been destroyed or forced to withdraw from the region. If this trend continues, the United States’ biggest asset will be its nuclear weapons, whose production becomes easier over time. Thus, American hegemony in weaponry is rapidly declining.

Moreover, as long as the Trump administration governs, it is unlikely that Washington will abandon its current policies for a more rational foreign policy. Since American voters elected Trump, Americans themselves need to do a reckoning for their country and elect leaders who truly believe in the “America First” motto and think more sensibly. Otherwise, even if they do not realize it, their country is sliding downhill rapidly.

If this trend continues, the American era will end much earlier. Assuming the U.S. emerged as a superpower in 1945, its hegemony would not even last a hundred years. No hegemon lends its power to another country for free, alienates its friends, conducts arbitrary invasions, or hands state power to leaders who are blackmailed, have a dark past, and are incompetent.

T

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

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

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

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

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

Judge says sanctions likely violated free speech

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

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

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

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

Debate Over Gaza genocide and international accountability

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

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

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

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

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

(Source: Reuters)

E

xchanges between US President Donald Trump and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz are becoming increasingly heated. Merz was initially one of the European leaders with whom Trump got on best. While leaders of major European nations, such as France and Spain, found themselves embroiled in disputes with Trump following his inauguration for a second term in early 2025, Merz’s first meeting with Trump at the White House in June 2025 ended without incident. Trump’s warm welcome and words of praise were also well received in the German media.

Merz’s praise for Trump, his avoidance of raising issues between the two countries, and his assertion that the US was an indispensable partner for Germany all played a key role in ensuring the meeting’s positive outcome. Furthermore, Merz brought a copy of his German grandfather’s birth certificate as a gift and did his utmost to win over the American president.

Despite Trump’s threats regarding Greenland and the economic toll of his tariffs on European industry, the positive start to the Trump-Merz relationship proved resilient for a long duration. This was because Merz was one of the European leaders who was most vocal in advocating a cautious and conciliatory approach in response to Trump’s aggressive policies. Unlike France, Spain and the UK, Germany continued to unconditionally support Israel’s actions in the Middle East during Merz’s tenure. While the aforementioned countries recognized the State of Palestine in response to Israel’s actions, Germany’s refusal to recognize Palestine also contributed to Trump’s satisfaction with Merz.

Finally, Merz’s statements supporting the war initiated by the U.S. and Israel against Iran—which was in violation of international law—had also greatly pleased Trump. The German Chancellor, who supported Israel during last year’s 12-Day War by stating, ‘This is the dirty work Israel is doing for all of us,’ entered into a heated dispute with Iranian leaders by demanding regime change prior to the Israel/U.S. offensive that began on February 28 of this year, earning the appreciation of the Trump-Netanyahu duo.

Regarding the US and Israel’s stance on attacking Iran with the aim of changing its regime, Merz argued that this was in accordance with international law. Shortly after the war began, the German chancellor visited Trump at the White House. While he expressed his support for the US and Israel, he remained silent in the face of Trump’s harsh criticism of the Spanish and British prime ministers, who had announced during the meeting that they would not allow their countries’ bases to be used for the war. Clearly, Merz’s stance also pleased the American president.

Angering Trump

It was clear that the German chancellor would anger Trump by changing his stance on Iran and making critical statements as events took a turn for the worse, given that he had pursued an Iran policy aligned with the US and Israel. The deterioration in the relationship between Trump and Merz became apparent when the US and Israel realized that effecting a regime change in Iran would be more difficult than they had anticipated. They had not even managed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, which had been closed by Tehran. Merz’s rejection of Trump’s request for assistance against Iran in reopening the Strait of Hormuz infuriated the American president.

Merz’s rejection of this request, accompanied by the question, ‘Did they ask us when they started the war?’, led to an intense response from Trump, given that the German chancellor had previously adopted a stance in his pre-war statements along the lines of ‘Yes, the regime in Iran must change’ and ‘Go on, do our dirty work for us’. Now that the process was not going as planned and the global cost of the war was rising daily, Merz’s reluctance to offer support was causing Trump distress.

It should be noted that both parties believed they were justified in their actions. Merz feels vindicated in his stance, arguing: ‘Our support was purely rhetorical; you entered this war confidently without the need to consult us, so do not ask us to join now. We are already occupied with a war against Russia in Ukraine, and our military strength is insufficient. Trump, on the other hand, believed he was in the right, reasoning, ‘You said the regime in Iran must change. You said our attack was in accordance with international law, so why aren’t you supporting us?’

Damaging a relationship

These differences in position and perspective appear to have damaged the relationship between the two leaders, as well as US–German relations, to an extent that will be difficult to repair. The German chancellor’s remarks in a speech on 27 April further enraged Trump. In the speech, she stated that ‘the US would not be able to end the war against Iran in the short term because the Iranians are stronger than anticipated and the Americans lack a truly persuasive negotiating strategy’, and that ‘the entire American nation has been humiliated by the Iranian regime’. Trump, who has threatened to withdraw American troops from Germany, said that ‘it is hardly surprising that Germany is in such a dire state, both economically and in other respects, under the leadership of Merz, who has no idea what he is talking about’.

Unable to contain his anger, Trump took his criticism of the German chancellor a step further, accusing Merz of being ‘completely ineffective’ in the war in Ukraine thus far and stating that ‘instead of meddling in other matters, he should be trying to put his “ruined country” back in order’. Trump’s remarks that the German chancellor should devote more time to ending the war between Russia and Ukraine, followed by his instruction to the defense minister to withdraw 5,000 troops from Germany, may prevent Merz from further escalating this dispute. This is because, while US interest in and support for Ukraine has diminished significantly under Trump, an escalation of tensions between Washington and Berlin could leave Germany and other European countries in an even more difficult position with regard to Russia.

The failure of the US and Israel to achieve their objectives in the unjust war they launched against Iran, coupled with Iranian resistance, is causing a rift among even Trump’s most loyal supporters. The US could face serious problems with its allies and Israel if the Strait of Hormuz were to close for an extended period.

(This article was originally published in Turkish by the Middle East Africa website)

F

ollowing Viktor Orbán’s defeat, the elections held in Hungary attracted considerable attention in Turkey. Various predictions were made based on election assessments and comparative analyses. Analyses comparing the election winner, Péter Magyar, with Orbán, in particular, interpreted the election results through classic dichotomies, such as democracy versus authoritarianism, liberal democracy versus populism, and the right versus the far right.

However, regrettably, many of these analyses relied on these clichéd distinctions and interpretations. Furthermore, the post-liberal rise in Hungarian and international politics was analyzed from a liberal perspective, resulting in erroneous interpretations. Initial assessments such as the return of liberal democracy, the retreat of authoritarianism, and the defeat of the far right and populism demonstrate an inability to understand the true nature of the sociopolitical transformation occurring in Hungary and around the world.

The true significance of the Hungarian election results

The clearest conclusion to be drawn from the election results is that there is a significant crisis of legitimacy and trust within the political landscape, rather than an ideological shift. Orbán was defeated by another post-liberal figure who uses similar language, draws on the same social base, and shares a similar perception of the crisis. In other words, contrary to what is often assumed, the new prime minister, Magyar, is not so much a liberal democrat as he is another figure who largely represents the post-liberal current due to the rhetoric he employs and the ideological position he occupies. From this perspective, the Hungarian elections should not be viewed as a regime change or political transformation but rather as a renewal and cleansing of actors within post-liberalism itself.

More precisely, Orbán’s defeat and the winner’s profile do not, contrary to many interpretations, signify that the social demands he represented and championed have disappeared. On the contrary, the election results indicate that post-liberal tendencies persist, but the current government has lost its ability to represent these demands.

The most significant indicator of this is that the dynamics underpinning the post-liberal quest remain firmly in place. The inequalities brought about by neoliberalism, the uncertainties arising from technological transformation, and the perceived cultural disintegration caused by liberal democracy continue to generate a strong need for security and meaning across broad sections of society. People still expect a political stance that delivers public services and defends their own values.

For this reason, the election results should be interpreted as a rearticulation of the social demands represented by post-liberalism, despite the fact that these demands are being discredited with labels such as populism, authoritarianism, and far-right extremism. When Orbán’s political platform could no longer meet these expectations, the electorate did not abandon that platform. Instead, they chose a new leader whom they believed could represent it more effectively. Thus, the transformation witnessed in the Hungarian elections is more indicative of a crisis of representation being resolved than an ideological rupture. Society did not change its demands; it simply updated its choice of who would represent them.

Why did Orbán lose?

The real breaking point that led to Orbán losing his 16-year reign was not the depletion of his ideological framework. As the standard-bearer of the post-liberal movement, Orbán began contradicting his own claims. Over time, he formed a new power bloc to replace the “corrupt elites” he had criticized. This network, centered on the distribution of state resources, became the focal point of accusations of corruption and nepotism.

In foreign policy, however, his decision to replace the “corrupt EU,” which he claimed was victimizing the Hungarian people through liberal democratic impositions, opposing moral values, and neoliberal economic policies, with Putin’s Russia and Trump’s U.S. began to backfire. The hegemonic rhetoric of foreign policy suffered as a result of the increasing visibility and influence of Russia and the U.S. Indeed, anti-elitist rhetoric has lost credibility and is now perceived as merely anti-EU.

Furthermore, the deterioration in economic performance has accelerated this crisis of legitimacy. Financial pressures arising from high inflation, interventionist policies, and tensions with the EU have undermined the government’s claims of “stability” and a “protective state.” Consequently, the disconnect between rhetoric and material reality has become more apparent. Orbán, the champion of the post-liberal movement he defines as “illiberal democracy,” was unable to maintain the moral and political framework he had established. This has led to the collapse of his credibility, reliability, consistency, and moral superiority claims. All of this has driven centrist voters, who were already opposed to Orbán and predominantly reside in major cities, as well as peripheral voters, where Orbán traditionally enjoys a high concentration of support, to seek an alternative.

The political significance of Magyar

Péter Magyar’s rise and electoral victory are most significant at this juncture. Magyar is neither a radical alternative nor an outsider to the political discourse established by Orbán. However, it cannot be said that he has abandoned Orbán’s ideology and “found the right path,” as is often assumed. On the contrary, Magyar is a figure who speaks a similar language yet promises to anchor it within a more rational, balanced, and trustworthy framework.

What sets Magyar apart is his promise to rebuild the political ground represented by Orbán and sustain it more honestly and fairly. Consequently, Magyar is not a representative of a classical liberal restoration, and his frequent emphasis on the rule of law should not be interpreted as such. He neither abandons the idea of a strong nation-state within the post-liberal framework nor entirely abandons the space for debate and politics of self-valorization opened up by the Orbán era. Instead, Magyar promises to embed post-liberalism and politics of self-valorization within a more rational, institutionalized, and sustainable framework. In this respect, Magyar does not aim to abandon the “post-liberal” approach t rather to fulfill their requirements honestly and successfully. Thus, the political significance of Peter Magyar should not be assessed as an ideological break in Hungarian politics but rather as a recalibration of the same line.

Taking all this into account, Magyar can essentially be described as the leader of a populist initiative that takes the form of “anti-Orbánism.” His strategy is based on an anti-corruption narrative and the idea of “cleansing the state of a handful of corrupt Orbánist elites.” This is a powerful manifestation of populism. By projecting an ethical stance, Magyar positions himself as a central figure in rebuilding a legitimate and just order. This is precisely the area that was most eroded during Orbán’s tenure, and Magyar has succeeded in winning over peripheral voters with this approach.

The difference in approach toward relations with the EU is also a significant indicator of anti-Orbánist populism in foreign policy. Unlike Orbán, who sometimes relies on a confrontational rhetorical style, Magyar aligns more closely with the principle of “a strong Hungary, a strong Europe” as a European nation. This approach largely stems from the perspective that Europe’s strategic autonomy is achievable through strong nation-states, which is somewhat anti-Russian and anti-American. Consequently, while Magyar’s ideology is similar to Orbán’s, his practical policies diverge.

The picture that emerges within this framework clearly demonstrates the following: Magyar embraces post-liberalism and promises to rescue it from Orbán’s grasp, purify it, and rebuild it through discipline. While preserving the mobilization generated by populism, Magyar aims to rebuild the institutional and economic foundations eroded by Orbán. In this respect, Magyar represents a more refined, accountable, and enduring version of post-liberalism. He seeks to reinforce this by upholding the same social sensitivities through the rule of law, institutional balance, and economic rationality.

W

hile nuclear negotiations between the U.S. and Iran were ongoing, the U.S.-Israel-Iran War began with Israel’s attack on Iran, which received a green light from Trump. This attack occurred just as it had on June 13, 2025, and continued with U.S. participation. For the time being, the war has come to an end with the 15-day ceasefire declared on April 8. This ceasefire occurred because Iran administration survived despite the human casualties and damage to its infrastructure in the war. Iran simultaneously struck Israel with ballistic missiles, spreading the war to Gulf states and closing the Strait of Hormuz. Iran achieved a relative balance of power. One of the reasons for the ceasefire on the US side is Trump’s unwillingness to bear further costs.

Shortly after the ceasefire was declared on April 8, the U.S. and Iranian negotiation delegations met in Islamabad, Pakistan’s capital. They left Islamabad without reaching an agreement due to failing to find common ground on the conditions put forward by both sides. However, they did agree to maintain the ceasefire. However, both sides declared their resolve to return to war should no agreement be reached.

While both the US and Iran appear to agree on not prolonging the 40-day war, Israel—which initiated the war and drew the US into it—does not want to end the war or see an agreement between the US and Iran. This is because Israel has yet to achieve its objectives against Iran. Although Israel has stated that it will comply with the ceasefire, its approach to the process has unfortunately rendered the ceasefire exceedingly fragile. Israel’s stance complicates any potential agreement requiring the US to act contrary to Israel’s interests and concerns.

Just as Israel has pitted the US against Iran through its sustained campaign over the years, it does not wish for this war to end without securing maximum benefit from the situation. In other words, it wants to bring about internal turmoil or regime change that would lead to Iran’s fragmentation. To this end, Israel is attempting to poison the negotiations and render any potential agreement impossible by utilizing all its influence and power over the US administration.

Israel’s negative stance toward ceasefires is not limited to those between the U.S. and Iran. In fact, even the ceasefire with Lebanon, secured under US pressure, holds no significance for Israel. While appearing to have reached an agreement with Lebanon, Israel continues its attacks under the pretext of Hezbollah. Consequently, it is evident that Israel cannot accept ceasefires in Iran and Lebanon and is therefore trying to break them and return to war.

This study will examine Israel’s attempts to undermine ceasefires in the region separately for the Iranian and Lebanese fronts. In the conclusion, an attempt will be made to explain what Israel aims to achieve through these moves.

Israel’s approach to the ceasefire between the US and Iran

The justifications Israel cited for initiating the war against Iran are the same as those it is now citing to violate the ceasefire and, if possible, prevent an agreement from being reached. Yet, over the course of the 40-day war, it has become clear that nearly all of the claims Israel made regarding the Iranian regime were false.

Most notably, the claims that Iran was on the verge of possessing a nuclear weapon were baseless. This reinforces the argument that Israel made this claim solely to initiate the conflict. Claims that the Iranian people would not support the regime and that the regime would collapse if the religious leader were killed have also been proven false. It has also come to light that Israel deceived Trump on this matter.

However, despite all these facts, Israel continues to demonize Iran by claiming that it has the potential to acquire nuclear weapons and plans to eliminate first Israel, then the United States, and rest of West; in doing so, it seeks to prevent the establishment of mutual trust and to block any agreement with what it portrays as such an “enemy of civilization.”

Israel has done more than circulate these narratives to undermine the ceasefire. It has also pressured Trump and his administration through the Jewish lobby in the U.S. While doing so, Israel has enlisted the support of Jewish senators and members of the House of Representatives in the U.S. Congress, including senators like Lindsey Graham, who is funded by the Jewish lobby. Israel has used these tactics to persuade Trump to break the ceasefire and return to war.

Israel’s most significant assets in sabotaging negotiations with Iran have been Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, both of whom were part of the U.S. negotiating delegation. Both of these Jewish figures have close ties to the Israeli government and Netanyahu. As with the process of securing the ceasefire in Gaza, this pair relayed all discussions to Netanyahu and took no steps without his approval. Following the February 26 negotiations, Witkoff stated that “everything was on track and we could now move on to technical matters.” However, after the outbreak of war on February 28, he attempted to exonerate Israel, which initiated the war, by spreading the lie that “the Iranian delegation threatened them by claiming to possess 400 kilograms of enriched uranium and the ability to produce at least 11 nuclear bombs during the final negotiations,” thereby seeking to legitimize the war.

For this reason, the Iranian side announced that they would not accept Witkoff as head of the U.S. negotiating delegation and preferred Vice President J.D. Vance instead. Consequently, Vance chaired the negotiations in Islamabad. However, Israel did not remain idle during this process. According to media reports, Vance spoke with Netanyahu by telephone during the negotiations to convey Iran’s proposals. The negotiations stalled due to Netanyahu’s negative stance.

As can be seen, while Israel seeks to both undermine the ceasefire and prevent a potential agreement by portraying Iran as an unreliable actor, on the other hand, through its mouthpieces in the U.S. media, it has published analyses claiming that the ceasefire was a mistake, that an agreement with Iran would strengthen Iran and damage U.S. prestige, and that the best option is for the U.S. to bring Iran to heel through the use of force. Not content with this, Israel has sought to influence the U.S. public and exert pressure on the Trump administration’s decisions by mobilizing all institutions of the Jewish lobby.

The impossible ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon

Although the ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon, which began on November 27, 2024, is technically still in place, it is highly unlikely to be upheld due to Hezbollah’s involvement in the conflict on Iran’s behalf since March 2. Israel had also frequently violated the ceasefire, carrying out attacks—particularly in Beirut’s Dahiye district and southern regions beyond the Litani River—under the pretext of targeting Hezbollah. However, with Hezbollah’s intervention in the war, the ceasefire has officially ceased to exist.

From March 2 until the 10-day ceasefire was announced on April 17 following talks held on April 14 under U.S. facilitation and hosting, Israel used Hezbollah as usual and, following the ground operation that began on March 16, established an 8–10-kilometer buffer zone in southern Lebanon. Consequently, by the time the ceasefire took effect, Israel had occupied approximately % 6 of Lebanese territory and refused to allow the return of Lebanese civilians forcibly evacuated from the area.

One of the preconditions for the ceasefire between the US and Iran was that Israel cease its attacks on Lebanon. However, due to Israel’s continued attacks, the Lebanon issue was deemed outside the scope of the US-Iran ceasefire. Nevertheless, at Trump’s insistence, the Israeli and Lebanese ambassadors were brought together in Washington to declare a ceasefire. Trump then prohibited Israel from attacking Lebanon. Although Israel did not take this ban seriously, Iran’s demand was ultimately met.

However, since the Lebanese government and army were unable to disarm Hezbollah as assigned under the ceasefire, Israel continues its attacks on the pretext that the necessary conditions have not been met.

Despite these setbacks, on April 24, before the ceasefire period expired, the Israeli and Lebanese ambassadors met again in Washington under the leadership of U.S. Secretary of State Rubio. At a ceremony attended by Trump and Vance, they announced that the ceasefire had been extended for an additional three weeks more.

While the continuation of the ceasefire is positive, Israel’s occupation of Lebanese territory persists, and Hezbollah has stated that it will continue to fight Israel. Thus, the ceasefire appears likely to remain on paper only. Indeed, Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam has stated that Lebanon will not agree to a final settlement unless Israel ends its occupation of Lebanese territory. Meanwhile, it has been leaked to the media that Trump plans to sign a peace agreement in Washington within approximately a month, with Netanyahu and Lebanese President Aoun in attendance. However, as long as Israel continues to attack Lebanon and attempt to provoke a civil war by pitting Hezbollah against other ethnic and sectarian groups, this seems unlikely to materialize.

Consequently, since Israel has not yet achieved its objectives regarding Iran, it is trying to undermine the ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran to keep the war going. Although Israel appears to have agreed to a ceasefire in Lebanon on paper, it is continuing its attacks under the pretext of Hezbollah. Israel is also attempting to establish a permanent presence in the territories it has occupied. As long as Israel maintains its current policy, neither a ceasefire nor lasting peace in the region will be possible.

(Originally published in Turkish by Kriter)

I

n late April, Istanbul hosted the Muslim Impact Forum, bringing together political figures, civil society leaders, and organisations from across dozens of countries. Framed as a platform for collaboration, the forum aimed to confront a recurring challenge: how can a fragmented global Muslim landscape respond more effectively to shared political, social, and humanitarian pressures?

It is a question that has become increasingly urgent. From ongoing conflicts in parts of the Muslim world to rising anti-Muslim sentiment in Western societies, the pressures are both external and internal. Against this backdrop, the forum positioned itself not simply as a space for dialogue, but as an attempt to build coordination.

The presence of senior Turkish officials reflected an effort to bridge political leadership with civil society initiatives. Mehmet Şimşek, Türkiye’s Minister of Treasury and Finance, set a high-level tone for the assembly by framing the current geopolitical turbulence as a “new normal” defined by polarization and trade fragmentation.

The macro-vision: Regional integration and the trust deficit

For Şimşek, the solution to this global instability is structural and proactive. “Can we invest in regional integration as an antidote against fragmentation?” he asked, highlighting that the world is currently suffering from a significant “trust deficit”. By positioning Türkiye as a mediator and an advocate for new trade and energy corridors, Şimşek’s address provided the macroeconomic framework for the forum’s goals: transforming sectarian and ethnic diversity into a “source of richness” rather than a cause for “perpetual conflict”.

Yet the central question remains: can such gatherings move beyond conversation? In an interview on the sidelines of the forum, Humza Yousaf, former First Minister of Scotland, framed the moment in stark terms. “Forums like this are needed now more than ever before,” he said, pointing to the “extremely difficult situations” facing Muslim communities globally.

“How do we use all of the energy, talent, money and expertise that we have as a collective Ummah, not just to solve our problems, but to make the world better for all of humanity?” For Yousaf, the issue is not a lack of capacity, but a failure to act collectively. The distinction matters: representation alone does not guarantee impact. Without access to decision-making power, presence can remain symbolic.

That diagnosis was echoed by Aazim Kidwai, director of the forum, who described fragmentation as the defining challenge. “We see Muslims fragmented. We see organizations all doing their own thing,” he said. Rather than proposing new structures, the forum’s approach is to connect existing actors, on the assumption that cooperation is already possible, but not yet realized.

The Internal Architecture: Dismantling Ego and Fear

At the core of this approach is a simple but often elusive concept: trust. While Minister Şimşek identified the “trust deficit” as a global barrier, Kidwai noted its impact on an organizational level: “When people have trust, then they sign up to work together”. Partnerships announced during the forum were presented as early steps in that direction, though the durability of such initiatives remains shaped by competing interests and institutional rivalries.

If fragmentation is widely acknowledged, its causes are less often addressed openly. Kidwai pointed to two factors that repeatedly undermine cooperation: ego and fear. “Organisations often want to retain things in their own name… their own brand,” he said. “And there’s also fear, that if they step back, someone else will take over”.

These are not purely organisational issues. They reflect deeper structural dynamics—competition for visibility, funding, and influence—that shape how institutions operate. Yousaf added that to overcome these, “We have to encourage excellence in our young people… to take leadership positions with confidence”.

The significance of the forum will ultimately be measured not by the prestige of its attendees, but by its follow-through. Grand visions of “Middle Corridors” and high-tech integration are essential, yet they remain fragile blueprints. The real test is whether the partnerships announced in Istanbul can survive the transition from the conference hall to the boardroom. The Muslim Impact Forum reflects a growing, urgent awareness that isolated responses are no longer sufficient in a polarized world. However, as the insights from Yousaf and Kidwai suggest, the “skeleton” of infrastructure cannot move without a nervous system of trust.

If global Muslim leadership is to move from conversation to coordination, it must do more than build roads and railways; it must dismantle the internal architecture of ego and fear. Only then can the “trust deficit” be bridged, turning a moment of dialogue into a movement of impact.

T

he five-month political deadlock in Iraq, which had persisted since the November 2025 elections, ended on 27 April 2026 with the announcement of a surprise candidate. The country’s largest parliamentary bloc, the Shiite Coordination Framework, nominated 41-year-old businessman Ali al-Zeydi as its candidate for prime minister, and Iraqi President Nizar Amedi officially tasked Zeydi with forming the new government. Zeydi, a figure with no political background who is seen as a ‘technocratic consensus figure’, has reignited both internal balances and the dynamics along the Washington–Tehran axis. The young prime ministerial candidate is expected to present his cabinet to parliament within 30 days.

The quota system in the shadow of crises

In Iraq, the process of forming a government has traditionally been fraught with difficulties due to the ethnic-sectarian quota system known as ‘Muhasasa’, which has been in place since the US invasion of 2003. Under this system, the presidency is allocated to the Kurds, the speakership of parliament to the Sunnis and the premiership to the Shia Arabs, despite this not being enshrined in the constitution. However, this power-sharing arrangement, particularly when combined with competition between factions within the Shia bloc and the interventions of external actors, can lead to governance vacuums lasting several months.

A similar scenario emerged during the latest crisis following the November 2025 elections. Rivalry between former prime minister Nuri al-Maliki and incumbent prime minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani brought the process to a standstill. This deadlock was only resolved when both figures withdrew their candidacies in the national interest and reached a consensus on Ali al-Zeydi, a non-political figure. Zeydi’s candidacy was approved by the majority of leaders within the Coordination Framework, thereby becoming the will of parliament’s largest bloc.

Portrait of a young businessman: who is Ali al-Zeydi?

Born in Baghdad in 1986, Ali al-Zeydi is the youngest prime ministerial candidate in Iraqi history. He studied law and finance and completed a master’s degree in banking and finance. Notably, he has never previously held any political office or served in government.

Prior to entering politics, he was a wealthy businessman at the helm of major conglomerates such as the Al-Owais Group and National Holding, spanning 15 sectors including agriculture, property, energy, logistics, education, and healthcare. Furthermore, his management of major contracts supplying food to the Iraqi army, as well as his educational investments, including Al-Shaab University, demonstrate the extent of his economic influence. However, Zeydi’s profile is not without controversy. The South Islamic Bank, of which he is chairman of the board, was subjected to sanctions in 2024 at the request of the US Treasury Department due to suspicions of money laundering and dollar smuggling. The bank was also barred from conducting dollar transactions. Some analysts have criticised this situation as an attempt to normalise and sweep under the carpet the ongoing major corruption investigations in Iraq.

Zeydi’s candidacy is seen as an attempt to maintain balance between Nuri al-Maliki and Muhammad Shia al-Sudani within the Coordination Framework. Zeydi is known to have close ties with the incumbent Prime Minister, Sudani, and his cousin, Ziya al-Zeydi, is a parliamentarian from Sudani’s coalition. This raises the question of whether Zeydi is an extension of the current system.

Nevertheless, Zeydi’s name has also been well received by other key political figures. In addition to the leaders of the Kurdish KDP and KYB parties, the Sunni Azm, Siyada and Taqaddum alliances have also congratulated Zeydi and issued messages of support. Shortly after his appointment, Zeydi met with Sunni leaders and promised to establish a government that would represent all Iraqis.

The Approach of the US, Iran and other powers

One of the key figures involved in the process was US President Donald Trump. As is well known, Trump firmly vetoed Nuri al-Maliki, the Shiite bloc’s first choice and a figure known for his close ties to Iran, threatening to cut off all support for Iraq should Maliki become prime minister. This pressure from Washington forced the Coordination Framework to back down, prompting it to reconsider its options for prime ministerial candidates.

However, Trump openly supported Zeydi’s candidacy, posting a message on Truth Social reading “Congratulations, Ali!” and inviting him to Washington once he had formed the government. This apparent green light from the US appears to be conditional on Zeydi forming a government that maintains a ‘distance from Iran’. Meanwhile, the Tehran administration initially remained silent, but Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Arakchi later congratulated Zeydi, stating that they supported Iraq’s stability. Political circles are also discussing whether Zeydi’s appointment might be the result of a “mysterious” agreement between Washington and Tehran regarding Iraq, as has been the case in all prime ministerial selection processes since 2003, or whether it is a temporary step back by Iran to avoid sanctions.

One of the key figures involved in the process was US President Donald Trump. As is well known, Trump firmly vetoed Nuri al-Maliki, the Shiite bloc’s first choice and a figure known for his close ties to Iran, threatening to cut off all support for Iraq should Maliki become prime minister. This pressure from Washington forced the Coordination Framework to back down, prompting it to reconsider its options for prime ministerial candidates.

Ali al-Zeydi’s appointment to form a government has received widespread support, both within and beyond the US and Iran. In its congratulatory message, the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs emphasised the deep historical ties between the two countries and expressed a desire to develop strategic institutional cooperation further in the coming period. During a telephone conversation, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari congratulated Zeydi and they discussed the development of bilateral relations and Pakistan’s role in reducing regional tensions. Arab League Secretary-General Ahmed Abu Ghait welcomed the appointment, expressing hope that the new government would fulfill the Iraqi people’s aspirations for security and prosperity.

Leaders of many Arab countries, including Syria, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Jordan and Lebanon, also telephoned al-Zeydi to offer their personal congratulations. The European Union (EU) Delegation to Iraq and British Ambassador to Baghdad, Irfan Siddiq, stated that they viewed the appointment positively and emphasized that they would continue to support Iraq’s reform, peace and development process.

The challenging process ahead for Zeydi

Securing a vote of confidence from an absolute majority of the 329-seat parliament within the 30-day legal timeframe is Ali al-Zeydi’s greatest test on the path to becoming Prime Minister. Should Zeydi succeed in forming a government, the economic crisis will be the first of many challenges he will face. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the disruption of oil exports due to tensions between the US, Israel and Iran have already severely impacted Iraq’s struggling economy.

Corruption and security issues constitute another major crisis awaiting Zeydi. Combating deep-rooted corruption and addressing the future of Shia militia groups (Hashd al-Shaabi), which operate outside the army’s full control, are among the most sensitive issues facing the new government. Political stability is another area where it remains to be seen whether Zeydi will be able to succeed, given that Iraq has been unable to achieve it for years. After all, it is unclear how influential figures such as Muqtada al-Sadr will react to this process.

Some predict that, should Zeydi fail to form a government, the Coordination Framework could propose new candidates to buy time, while others suggest that the country could be drawn into a cycle of early elections. Ultimately, it will become clear in the coming weeks whether this ‘rejuvenation’ operation in Baghdad constitutes genuine reform or merely a tactical manoever, depending on the nature of the cabinet to be formed.

This article was originally published by Middle East Africa in Turkish.

A

planned withdrawal of 5,000 US troops from Germany may appear limited in scale, but analysts warn it reflects a far broader challenge confronting NATO and European security.

The decision, announced by Donald Trump, comes amid escalating tensions between Washington and its European allies. Disputes over tariffs, disagreements on support for Ukraine, and sharp rhetoric surrounding the Iran conflict have deepened divisions across the Atlantic alliance.

The troop reduction follows criticism from German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who accused the United States of mishandling tensions with Iran. In response, Trump signaled not only the withdrawal from Germany but also hinted at possible reductions in other European countries, including Italy and Spain.

Spain has already refused US requests to use its bases for operations linked to the Iran conflict, while Trump criticized both countries for what he described as insufficient support.

For years, Trump has argued that Europe relies too heavily on US military protection, frequently singling out Germany for failing to meet defense spending expectations.

A shift in US priorities

Despite the planned reduction, Germany still hosts tens of thousands of US troops, far fewer than during the Cold War, when troop levels reached around 250,000.

Officials in Washington suggest the shift reflects a broader strategic pivot. According to Pentagon leadership, the US intends to focus on regions where its military power is uniquely decisive, particularly in Asia and the Western Hemisphere.

European leaders, however, view the move as a sign of weakening commitment. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk warned that internal divisions now pose a greater threat to the alliance than external adversaries.

The withdrawal highlights Europe’s long-standing dependence on US military support, even as threats from Russia persist.

In response, key nations, including France, United Kingdom, and Germany, have pledged to significantly increase defense spending. Projections suggest European defense budgets could nearly double by 2030.

Yet financial investment alone may not be enough.

Europe’s defense industry remains fragmented, with multiple countries producing competing systems rather than coordinating efforts. This lack of integration drives up costs and slows development. For example, Europe manufactures several types of battle tanks, while the US focuses on a single main model, improving efficiency and scale.

Joint defense projects have also struggled. A high-profile effort between France and Germany to develop next-generation fighter jets has faced repeated delays due to disagreements over leadership and design priorities.

Capability gaps and strategic risks

One of the most urgent concerns is missile defense. European systems currently lack the scale and sophistication of US platforms such as Patriot and THAAD systems, which have been heavily deployed in recent conflicts.

At the same time, the Pentagon has canceled plans to deploy additional long-range missile units to Europe, further widening capability gaps.

The European Union is attempting to address these vulnerabilities by encouraging member states to source more defense equipment domestically. By 2030, at least half of defense procurement is expected to remain within the EU.

However, transitioning away from US systems presents risks, particularly as global demand for weapons increases amid ongoing conflicts.

A crossroads for NATO

Europe now faces a strategic choice. A faster path to rearmament would rely on continued US cooperation, but that depends on trust that appears increasingly strained.

The alternative is a slower, more independent route requiring greater spending, deeper industrial integration, and political willingness to pool sovereignty, an objective that has long proved elusive.

Despite the challenges, there are signs of progress. Defense companies such as Saab, Rheinmetall, and BAE Systems report record demand, while newer NATO members Sweden and Finland have rapidly integrated into the alliance.

Still, the withdrawal of 5,000 troops underscores a critical reality: Europe’s security architecture is entering a period of transition, with uncertain implications for the future of transatlantic cooperation.

(Source: CNN)

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)

D

onald Trump has announced that the United States will begin guiding stranded vessels through the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz starting Monday, as tensions with Iran remain high despite ongoing diplomatic contacts.

In a social media post, Trump described the initiative, dubbed “Project Freedom”, as a humanitarian effort aimed at ensuring safe passage for ships trapped in restricted waters since the outbreak of war in February. He warned that any interference with the operation would be met “forcefully.”

According to United States Central Command, the mission will involve approximately 15,000 personnel, guided-missile destroyers, and over 100 aircraft. The operation comes as an estimated 20,000 sailors remain stranded in the Gulf, facing dwindling supplies and mounting physical and psychological strain.

Iranian officials, however, have pushed back against the move. Senior lawmaker Ebrahim Azizi warned that any US involvement in the waterway would constitute a violation of the current ceasefire.

Despite the tensions, Trump said discussions with Tehran were “very positive,” raising cautious hopes for a broader agreement. Iranian state media confirmed that a US response to Tehran’s latest peace proposal, reportedly delivered via Pakistan, is under review.

Strategic waterway under pressure

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most critical energy corridors, with roughly 20% of global oil and liquefied natural gas passing through it. The ongoing conflict has already driven up global energy prices and disrupted maritime traffic.

Late Sunday, the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations reported that a tanker in the strait had been struck by an “unknown projectile,” though all crew members were reported safe.

Iran’s latest 14-point proposal reportedly calls for a full cessation of hostilities, including the withdrawal of US forces near its borders and an end to the naval blockade. It also seeks a comprehensive agreement within 30 days.

While Trump acknowledged receiving the proposal, he expressed skepticism about its acceptability and left open the possibility of renewed military strikes if Iran “misbehaves.”

“We’re not leaving,” Trump said, signaling continued US involvement in the region even as diplomatic efforts proceed.

Iran stresses full control of the Strait of Hormuz

Iran has maintained that it retains full control over the Strait of Hormuz, insisting that any vessel movement must be coordinated with its authorities. Officials warned that continued US naval activity and blockade measures could violate existing ceasefire understandings, signaling that Tehran may take “reciprocal measures” if it views Washington as breaching agreements. 

At the same time, Iranian messaging has combined deterrence with diplomacy. While submitting a 14-point peace proposal that includes reopening the waterway and ending hostilities, Tehran has also reinforced its military posture in the region. Reports of recent incidents, including attacks on vessels near Iranian waters, underline its willingness to enforce restrictions, even as negotiations with the United States continue in parallel.

(Source: BBC)

H

ow is the Ukraine-Russia War going? Who has suffered what losses? Which country is in the stronger position? Is Russia close to victory? Is Ukraine definitely losing? So many years have passed since the war began, and we still do not know…

There is a war between the US-Israel coalition and Iran; what is the situation for each side? How heavy are America’s losses? What is the situation in Israel? Is Iran losing? What is the capacity of the parties to continue the war? Ismail Kaani; has he betrayed Iran, been executed, fled to Israel, or is he still in his post in his country and fighting? Who attacked the girls’ school in Iran? Why are Trump and his team now denying the attack they initially admitted to? Did Iran fire missiles at neighbouring countries, or is it all a Mossad ploy to expand the front?

Once again, attempts are being made to sow seeds of discord between Turkey and Azerbaijan. There is a desire for the war to spread to encompass all countries in the region, and disinformation is being churned out ceaselessly.

It is possible to extend these events and questions to all wars and conflicts. But is it ever possible to obtain the true answers in all their stark reality?

The battle for communication during war

Our region has long been shaped by intense geopolitical tensions, wars, conflicts, proxy wars, civil wars and various forms of inter-state competition. One of the most fundamental challenges facing the public during such periods is the issue of access to reliable information. In an environment where conflicts are taking place, a significant portion of the news, images and commentary circulating are often not merely neutral accounts of events; they are also fragments of information produced, selected, framed or distorted in line with specific strategic objectives.

This situation is directly linked to the nature of modern warfare. This is because contemporary wars involve not only battles fought on physical fronts—such as space, air, land and sea—where military units confront one another, but also a comprehensive communication struggle aimed at shaping public perceptions.

In this context, the information domain has become just as significant as the military dimension of war. States, armed groups, intelligence services, international actors and, in some cases, even private communications companies seek to influence the production and circulation of information in conflict environments. The primary aim of these efforts extends far beyond merely influencing rival military forces; it targets a much broader audience.

Various objectives, such as undermining the morale of rival societies, boosting the morale of one’s own society, gaining the support of the international public, generating diplomatic legitimacy, and obscuring military failures, lie at the heart of these communication activities. Consequently, a significant portion of the information circulating during wartime functions as strategic communication tools.

Historically, it is evident that propaganda and psychological operations have been an integral part of modern states’ war strategies. Propaganda bureaus established in Europe and America during the First World War developed systematic communication techniques to mobilise public opinion. During this process, the communication tools of the era—such as newspapers, posters, cinema and radio—were utilised extensively. Subsequently, during the Second World War and the Cold War, propaganda techniques became even more institutionalised, and states’ communication strategies became an integral part of military doctrine. Today, digital communication technologies have made this process far more complex and rapid.

The impact of evolving communication

The emergence of social media platforms, in particular, has dramatically increased the speed and volume of information circulation during times of war. Whilst information reaches the public via specific editorial processes in traditional media systems, these filtering mechanisms appear to have weakened significantly in the digital environment. Social media algorithms operate not according to criteria of accuracy or reliability, but according to the logic of the ‘attention economy’. This leads to content that is emotionally striking, dramatic or provokes anger spreading much more rapidly. Consequently, the flow of information the public faces during periods of war is not only intense but also highly irregular and difficult to verify.

Another significant reason for the spread of false or distorted information in conflict environments is military secrecy and information control. A significant portion of actual data regarding military operations is naturally classified or restricted. States do not share operational details for security reasons, and the information presented to the public is often filtered to some extent. This situation creates a breeding ground for speculation to fill the gaps. At the same time, the parties to the conflict may be inclined to exaggerate their own successes, inflate their opponents’ losses, or downplay their own losses. Such rhetorical strategies have been frequently observed throughout military history and have become far more visible with the advent of modern communication technologies.

The development of digital technologies has also significantly expanded the technical scope of information manipulation. Image editing software, AI-assisted video production techniques, and visual material taken out of context have introduced new tools that make it difficult to assess the accuracy of war reporting. For example, footage from an old conflict may be presented as evidence of a new incident, or a video filmed in a different geographical location may be linked entirely to a different event. When such content spreads rapidly, particularly on social media, it can provoke strong emotional reactions among the public. However, subsequent verification efforts may reveal that the context of this content is incorrect.

Today, many people believe they are watching wars almost in real time. Footage shot on mobile phones, social media posts and live news feeds create the impression that conflicts are being followed directly and without interruption. Yet this is largely an illusion. The content the public sees is often narratives produced about the events rather than the events themselves. These narratives are presented within specific frames and lead the viewer to perceive the event from a particular perspective. Consequently, there is a significant difference between the war itself and the way it is represented in the media.

It is observed that narratives produced during periods of conflict generally take shape around specific patterns. Whilst narratives of heroism and resistance are highlighted on one side, themes of victimhood and human drama may be emphasised on the other. Furthermore, discourses portraying the opposing side as entirely irrational, barbaric or inhuman are also widely used. Such narrative patterns may be repeated in state propaganda apparatus, individual social media posts and the news language of certain media organisations. This is because people often find it easier to accept and share information that aligns with their own identities, political views, or emotional inclinations.

Information in times of war

Under all these conditions, the fundamental problem faced by ordinary citizens is an epistemological one. In other words, the issue is not merely knowing which information is true, but understanding how to access accurate information. In conflict zones, it is often impossible to arrive at absolute truths. Obtaining definitive information regarding military developments, diplomatic negotiations and the actual situation on the ground usually takes time. The true scale of many events may only become apparent months or years later. For this reason, it is important to avoid definitive judgements and to develop a certain intellectual caution when approaching information during times of war.

To make a more informed assessment of information in such an environment, certain methods can be employed. Firstly, comparing different sources is of great importance. Relying on a single media source can lead to a significant narrowing of perspective, particularly when international conflicts are involved. Comparing news reports from media organizations in different countries allows one to see how events are presented within different frameworks. Furthermore, reports from independent research institutions, academic analyses and open-source intelligence studies can also assist in making a more balanced assessment.

(Originally published in Turkish by Kriter)

T

he United States has spent an estimated $25 billion on its war in Iran so far, according to a senior Pentagon official, marking the first official public figure for the cost of the conflict.

Jules Hurst, acting comptroller at the Pentagon, disclosed the figure during testimony before the House Armed Services Committee. He noted that the majority of the spending has gone toward munitions but did not provide a detailed breakdown or clarify whether the estimate includes long-term costs such as rebuilding damaged military infrastructure in the Middle East.

The figure drew a response from Democratic Representative Adam Smith, who said lawmakers had long been seeking clarity on the war’s financial toll. The $25 billion total is roughly equivalent to the annual budget of NASA.

War spending fuels economic and political concerns

The cost of the war is becoming a growing political issue in Washington, particularly with midterm elections approaching. Democrats are attempting to tie the conflict to rising living costs, as disruptions to global oil and gas supplies have driven up fuel prices and contributed to broader inflation.

U.S. gasoline prices have reached their highest level in nearly four years, according to industry data, adding to voter frustration over affordability.

President Donald Trump’s approval ratings have also declined amid the conflict. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll shows only 34% of Americans support the war, a drop from 38% in March.

Pentagon defends war as ceasefire holds

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth defended the war effort, arguing that the spending is justified to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

“What would you pay to ensure Iran does not get a nuclear bomb?” he told lawmakers, dismissing criticism from Democrats as defeatist.

The conflict began on February 28 with U.S. strikes on Iran. Although a fragile ceasefire is currently in place, the Pentagon has significantly increased its military presence in the region, including deploying three aircraft carriers.

So far, 13 U.S. troops have been killed and hundreds wounded in the fighting.

(Source: Reuters)

I

n the 21st century, wars have begun to take shape not only through purely physical conflicts but also through systems integrated with cognitive, cyber and artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. We can say that modern conflict and battlefields encompass operations targeting information, perception and the human mind, alongside the use of military force. This new form of warfare is referred to in the literature as cognitive warfare. The fundamental objectives of cognitive warfare can be described as influencing the adversary’s decision-making processes, steering the psychology of the target population(s), and weakening political will. NATO’s 2025 Cognitive Warfare report highlights that contemporary conflicts and wars are increasingly behavior-centric, and that the decisive arena is no longer geographical; rather, it is based on the strategic reality of how individuals and groups perceive, interpret, decide and act.

Within this framework, it can be argued that today’s mass media, the increasing use of AI-enabled technologies, and the undeniable influence of social media are effectively forming the new operational front of war. Cognitive warfare extends to social foundations such as trust, shared epistemic standards and institutional legitimacy. From a force development perspective, AI platforms are utilized alongside elements of cognitive warfare, both for threat/attack purposes and as a countermeasure. In other words, techniques that enable enemy influence can also be utilized through reverse engineering to support defensive cognitive security (such as detecting anomalies in influence networks and pattern recognition of coordinated deceptive behavior).

At this stage, whilst neuroscience and neurotechnologies are emerging as tools for influencing the mind by affecting the brain, it can be said that AI platforms have become the primary means of influencing the mind by manipulating the information ecosystem. Consequently, the operational concern is not merely that AI produces persuasive content. It also lies in AI’s ability to: Optimize narratives in real time across all channels, automate social media interaction (using bot or hybrid actor swarms), generate artificial credibility (deepfake videos, fake expert profiles, fabricated evidence), exploit cognitive biases and psychological vulnerabilities (the salience effect, fear conditioning, polarization dynamics).

In this context, cognitive warfare can be regarded as the process of preparing the groundwork prior to a physical attack. In NATO documents, the cognitive domain is discussed as the sixth operational domain following land, sea, air, cyber and space. The tensions between the US and Iran, and particularly the military conflicts of recent years, have clearly demonstrated just how significant cognitive warfare has become in modern war doctrines. As of 28 February, the attacks launched by the US against Iran have involved not only conventional military force but also intensive use of cyberattacks, cognitive warfare integrated with information manipulation, and AI-supported, target-focused strikes. The key question here is: how did the US utilize AI-integrated systems, which combine data-driven targeting with AI-integrated cognitive warfare, as a strategic tool throughout Operation Epic Fury, the offensive launched against Iran?

The use of military artificial intelligence

Military AI encompasses a wide range of systems and tasks. On this basis, we can state that it is fundamentally divided into two main categories: autonomous weapon systems and decision support systems. Autonomous weapon systems have the capability to select and/or engage targets independently. Decision support systems, on the other hand, are regarded as a key focus in the technology-driven structure of many modern armies today. These systems can be considered software applications that provide intelligence and planning information to personnel.

Admiral Brad Cooper, Commander of CENTCOM, stated during the US-Iran conflict that the US military was using AI systems and that AI assisted in data processing, but that final decisions were made by humans. It is known that the US military utilizes AI systems based on large language models (LLMs) for logistics, administrative support, intelligence gathering and analysis, as well as decision support systems on the battlefield. Claude, developed by Anthropic, is cited as an example of a decision support system rather than a weapon.

Claude is integrated into the intelligent system known as Maven, which is widely used by military, intelligence and law enforcement organizations. Maven uses AI algorithms to identify potential targets from satellite and other intelligence data. In this context, Maven accelerates the military’s offensive capabilities by suggesting and prioritizing targets. Whilst these AI systems have a relatively long history, the US military’s ability to utilize them did not emerge overnight. We are also aware that many Iraqi and Afghan civilians lost their lives as a result of analytical errors and cultural biases within the US military.

Most recently, there is strong evidence that the use of AI systems led to a Tomahawk cruise missile striking a girls’ school adjacent to an Iranian base, contributing to the deaths of approximately 175 people, the majority of whom were students. This attack could be interpreted as a failure of US intelligence or as an indiscriminate strike. Indeed, the effective use of automated systems depends on comprehensive infrastructure and personnel capable of operating them. In this context, it is also worth noting that the US’s ability to utilise AI in warfare today is the result of decades of investment and experience.

AI-supported targeting systems in the context of cognitive warfare

In the context of the US–Iran conflict, one of the prominent features of modern warfare is the increasing role of AI-supported decision-making systems in attacks. Applications emerging in active war and conflict zones, particularly in the Middle East, demonstrate the potential consequences of these technologies in terms of both operational effectiveness and ethical responsibility.

Furthermore, the AI systems utilised by the US in its military and intelligence operations against Iran constitute a significant part of this transformation. Systems such as Maven, developed within the US Department of Defence, play a significant role in intelligence analysis concerning Iran’s military infrastructure, nuclear facilities and regional militia networks. In this context, discussions regarding AI-supported target identification systems used in Gaza are important for understanding the cognitive and technological warfare practices that may emerge in future high-intensity geopolitical rivalries such as that between the US and Iran.

The AI system named “Lavender”, used by Israel in Gaza, was developed to identify individuals believed to be linked to Hamas by analysing vast datasets. The system generates a score regarding an individual’s likelihood of being a Hamas member by analysing numerous data points, including telephone data, communication networks, address changes, social connections and intelligence records. However, although it is known that these algorithmic assessments are not definitive and contain a certain margin of error, there is evidence that the lists generated by this system were used in large-scale target identification processes during the first weeks of the war.

Whilst the Lavender system flagged tens of thousands of people as potential targets in the early stages of the war, some military sources have stated that this figure reached approximately 37,000. It emerged that a significant proportion of these individuals were not high-ranking military figures, but rather people of lower rank or with indirect connections.

The ‘Where’s Daddy?’ system, used in conjunction with the Lavender system, is designed to track the locations of designated targets. This system specifically aims to identify the moment the target returns home in order to determine the most opportune time for an attack. The practical consequence of this approach has been that many attacks have taken place in residential properties where the target was present alongside family members. In research, some intelligence officers have noted that military operations are often carried out not whilst individuals are engaged in military activities, but whilst they are at home, and that this leads to an increase in civilian casualties.

Furthermore, it is stated that the use of these systems has significantly lowered the accepted ‘collateral damage’ thresholds in military operations, particularly during the early stages of a conflict. In general, it has been noted that even when targeting a low-ranking militant, a certain number of civilian casualties is deemed acceptable for the operation. This situation forms the basis for serious debates regarding AI-assisted target identification systems, not only in terms of military efficiency but also in relation to international humanitarian law and the ethics of war.

AI-assisted target identification systems and ethics

The ethical debates surrounding AI-assisted target identification systems demonstrate that cognitive warfare affects not only societies’ perceptions but also the mental processes of decision-makers. In this context, the debates surrounding systems such as Lavender and Where’s Daddy, used in Gaza, serve as a significant example for understanding the human–machine relationship and how decision-making processes are transforming in modern warfare. In particular, the fact that these systems classify potential threats by analyzing extensive datasets during target identification processes highlights that the role of human decision-makers on the battlefield is becoming increasingly complex.

From a cognitive warfare perspective, this situation can be viewed not merely as a technological advancement, but also as a factor influencing military personnel’s perceptions, risk assessments and ethical boundaries. Consequently, we can state that the large-scale target identification processes generated by the Lavender system’s lists make a significant contribution to military planning.

However, despite the awareness that algorithmic assessments may contain a high margin of error, data indicates that these outputs are often approved with limited human oversight due to the need for rapid decision-making in operational processes. This situation suggests that recommendations generated by AI could exert a powerful cognitive influence on human decision-makers, leading to the algorithmic output effectively becoming a decision-making mechanism in practice. The fact that the ‘Where’s Daddy’ system focuses specifically on identifying the moments when target individuals return to their homes has resulted in operations frequently taking place in residential areas.

This situation has given rise to significant debates not only from a military strategic perspective but also regarding the ethical dimensions of warfare. Indeed, the fact that target identification processes rely heavily on algorithmic analysis leads military personnel to place greater trust in the recommendations of technological systems when making decisions, which in turn can narrow the scope of human assessment.

(Originally published in Turkish by Kriter)

T

he number of immigrants living in the European Union has reached a record 64.2 million in 2025, highlighting the continued growth and uneven distribution of migration across the bloc, according to a new study.

The report, published by the Centre for Research and Analysis on Migration, found that the figure marks an increase of around 2.1 million compared with 2024. It also represents a sharp rise from approximately 40 million recorded in 2010, based on data from Eurostat and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

Germany remained the largest host country in the EU, with nearly 18 million foreign-born residents. The report noted that around 72% of these individuals are of working age, underlining the importance of migration to the country’s labor market.

“Germany remains the main destination for migrants in Europe, both in absolute terms and, to a significant extent, relative to its population,” said Tommaso Frattini, one of the study’s authors.

700,000 immigrants in one year in Spain

Meanwhile, Spain recorded the fastest recent growth, adding roughly 700,000 immigrants over the past year to reach a total of 9.5 million. The increase reflects a broader trend of rising migration to southern European countries.

The study highlighted significant disparities across the bloc. Smaller states such as Luxembourg, Malta and Cyprus reported higher proportions of immigrants relative to their population size, even if their total numbers remain comparatively low.

Asylum applications were also unevenly distributed. Spain, Italy, France and Germany together accounted for nearly three-quarters of all claims across the EU. Germany hosted the largest number of refugees overall, with around 2.7 million.

Immigration debate in Europe

The findings come amid ongoing political debate across Europe over migration policy, border management and labor shortages. While some governments have tightened asylum rules and increased border controls, others have emphasized the economic contribution of migrants, particularly in sectors facing workforce gaps.

Analysts say the latest figures reflect both long-term demographic trends and the impact of recent global crises, including conflicts and economic instability, which continue to drive people toward Europe.

With migration expected to remain a central issue for policymakers, the report underscores the challenges facing the EU in balancing humanitarian responsibilities with domestic political pressures and economic needs.

(Source: Reuters)

D

onald Trump has said the United States is likely to resume bombing Iran as a fragile ceasefire approaches its expiration, underscoring rising tensions despite ongoing diplomatic efforts.

Speaking on Tuesday, Trump indicated he did not intend to extend the 14-day truce, which is set to end on Wednesday. He framed renewed military action as part of a strategy to strengthen Washington’s position in negotiations, saying the US was prepared to act if talks failed to produce results.

“We’re ready to go. The military is raring to go,” he said, adding that he expected force would ultimately help secure a favorable agreement. However, he did not specify what such a deal would entail or how quickly it might be reached.

The remarks were accompanied by statements on Truth Social, where Trump accused Tehran of repeatedly violating the ceasefire. While such claims could serve as a basis for renewed strikes, they have not been independently verified.

Diplomatic channels remain open

At the same time, diplomatic channels remain open. A new round of talks is expected in Islamabad, where US Vice President JD Vance is set to meet Iranian parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf. The discussions are seen as a last effort to extend the truce or reach a broader agreement before hostilities potentially resume.

Trump’s latest comments reflect a broader pattern of mixed messaging from the administration, alternating between warnings of escalation and suggestions that a deal may be within reach. Earlier in the week, he warned that “lots of bombs” could be used if negotiations collapsed, even as officials pointed to ongoing diplomatic engagement.

Senior figures in Washington have also adopted a hard line. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth recently said US forces were “locked and loaded,” signaling readiness to target Iran’s infrastructure, including its energy sector.

Firm Iranian opposition to coercive diplomacy

Iranian officials have responded with firm opposition to what they describe as coercive diplomacy. Ghalibaf said Tehran would not negotiate “under the shadow of threats,” while military leaders warned that any renewed US strikes would prompt an immediate and decisive response.

The standoff has already had wider implications, particularly for global energy markets. Fatih Birol, head of the International Energy Agency, warned that the crisis could have unprecedented consequences, especially when combined with ongoing disruptions linked to Russian gas supplies.

Analysts say the next phase of the conflict will likely hinge on the outcome of talks in Islamabad. A breakthrough could stabilize the situation, but failure to reach an agreement may lead to a rapid return to military confrontation.

With the ceasefire deadline fast approaching, both sides appear to be preparing for multiple scenarios—keeping diplomacy alive while signaling readiness for escalation.

(Source: The Guardian)

A

t least 12 British universities paid a private security consultancy run by former military intelligence officials to monitor student activists and academics, including individuals expressing support for Palestine, according to a joint investigation by Al Jazeera English and Liberty Investigates.

The investigation found that Horus Security Consultancy Limited, a firm established by former military personnel, collected and analyzed publicly available data from social media platforms, conducted background checks, and produced intelligence briefings for universities across the United Kingdom. The activity, which universities say is aimed at maintaining campus safety, has sparked criticism from rights groups, academics, and student activists who argue it amounts to systematic surveillance.

Documents obtained through freedom of information (FOI) requests reveal that universities collectively paid the firm at least £440,000 ($594,000) between 2022 and early 2025. Institutions named in the investigation include some of the UK’s most prominent universities, among them Oxford, Cambridge colleges through affiliates, Imperial College London, University College London (UCL), King’s College London (KCL), and others.

Open-source data

According to the findings, Horus provided a service that compiled daily or periodic intelligence updates using open-source data, including students’ social media posts. These reports were sometimes sold to universities for subscription fees of around £900 per month.

One such case involved a PhD student at the London School of Economics (LSE), whose social media activity during a pro-Gaza protest encampment in 2024 was included in a briefing sent to university security staff. The student, Lizzie Hobbs, said she was unaware her posts had been monitored until contacted by journalists.

“We knew surveillance was happening, but it is shocking to see how systematized it is,” she said, describing the practice as “deeply concerning.”

The investigation also highlighted the case of Palestinian-American academic Rabab Ibrahim Abdulhadi, who was subjected to a counter-terrorism “threat assessment” prior to delivering a guest lecture at Manchester Metropolitan University in 2023. The assessment, commissioned by the university, reviewed her academic work, public statements, and social media presence.

“Shocked” to learn of the report

Abdulhadi said she was “shocked” to learn of the report, adding that it raised serious questions about academic freedom. “They made an assumption of guilt and started investigating me because of my scholarship,” she said.

Universities have defended their use of external intelligence services, citing legal obligations and security concerns. Under the UK’s Prevent strategy, institutions are required to assess risks related to extremism, including those associated with external speakers and campus events.

A spokesperson for Manchester Metropolitan University said such assessments are routine and necessary to “ensure the safety of our community and external speakers.” Similarly, Imperial College London stated that the information gathered by Horus is drawn from publicly available sources and is used to identify potential risks, not to surveil individuals.

The University of Sheffield also rejected claims of targeting activists, saying its use of external services is intended to “horizon scan” for large-scale events that could affect campus operations. “It is incorrect to suggest this discourages lawful protest,” a spokesperson said.

Serious ethical and legal concerns

However, critics argue that the scale and nature of the monitoring raise serious ethical and legal concerns. Gina Romero, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, warned that the use of artificial intelligence to analyse student data could lead to disproportionate surveillance.

“The use of AI to harvest and analyze student data under the guise of open-source intelligence raises profound legal concerns,” she said, adding that such practices may lack transparency and accountability.

The investigation also found that several universities refused to disclose the full extent of their contracts with Horus, citing commercial sensitivity. Under the UK’s Freedom of Information Act, institutions can withhold information if its release could harm a third party’s business interests.

Jo Grady, general secretary of the University and College Union (UCU), criticized universities for what she described as a misuse of public funds. “It is shameful that institutions have spent hundreds of thousands of pounds monitoring their own students,” she said.

B

ulgaria’s Progressive Bulgaria coalition, led by former president Rumen Radev, was on course for a commanding victory in Sunday’s early parliamentary elections, according to near-final results released by the Central Election Commission (CEC) on Monday, raising the prospect of a single-party government in a country plagued by years of political instability.

With 87.2% of ballots counted as of 9:50 a.m. local time (0650 GMT), Progressive Bulgaria had secured 44.6% of the vote, maintaining a substantial lead over its rivals. The reformist We Continue the Change–Democratic Bulgaria coalition trailed in second place with 13.5%, narrowly ahead of the center-right GERB–SDS alliance, anchored by Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria, which stood at 13.3%.

The Movement for Rights and Freedoms (MRF), traditionally representing minority communities, garnered around 6.1%, while the nationalist Revival (Vazrazhdane) hovered just above the parliamentary threshold with approximately 4.4%.

A strong lead

Earlier preliminary results, based on a smaller share of counted votes, had already indicated a strong lead for Progressive Bulgaria, with support above 43%. Parallel vote counts conducted by polling agencies and reported by the state news agency BTA projected an even higher share nearing 45%, reinforcing expectations of a decisive outcome.

Seat projections based on partial results suggest Progressive Bulgaria could win around 134 seats in the 240-member National Assembly, comfortably surpassing the 121-seat threshold required to form a majority government. GERB–SDS and We Continue the Change–Democratic Bulgaria are projected to secure roughly 38 and 37 seats respectively, while MRF and Revival are expected to hold smaller blocs.

If confirmed, the result would mark a dramatic shift in Bulgaria’s political landscape, potentially ending a prolonged period of fragmentation that has seen the Balkan country hold eight parliamentary elections since 2021. Successive votes have failed to produce stable governing coalitions, leading to a cycle of short-lived administrations and caretaker governments appointed by the presidency.

Sunday’s election once again drew a crowded field, with 14 political parties and 10 alliances competing for seats. However, voter engagement remained subdued. The CEC reported turnout at just 34.63% as of 4:00 p.m. local time (1300 GMT) on election day, reflecting persistent public disillusionment with the political process.

Growing frustration with entrenched political elites

Analysts say Progressive Bulgaria’s surge reflects growing frustration with entrenched political elites and repeated governance failures. The coalition, which campaigned on promises of institutional reform, economic stability and a break from years of political deadlock, appears to have consolidated support across a broad segment of the electorate.

“The scale of this lead suggests voters are seeking a clear mandate and an end to the cycle of inconclusive elections,” said a Sofia-based political analyst. “Whether that translates into effective governance will depend on how the coalition manages internal cohesion and opposition pressure.”

Despite the strong showing, challenges remain. Bulgaria continues to grapple with economic disparities, corruption concerns and geopolitical pressures as a member of both the European Union and NATO. A decisive parliamentary majority could provide the political stability needed to pursue reforms, but expectations are likely to be high.

The CEC is required under Bulgarian law to announce final vote totals and the official seat distribution within four days of the election. The names of elected members of parliament must be published within seven days.

Until then, attention will remain focused on whether Progressive Bulgaria’s projected majority holds as the remaining ballots are counted. If it does, the result could mark the beginning of a new political chapter for Bulgaria after years of uncertainty and repeated trips to the polls.

(Source: Anadolu Agency)

P

rominent left-leaning leaders from across the world are convening in Barcelona this weekend in a coordinated effort to strengthen progressive alliances and push back against the growing influence of far-right movements globally.

The gatherings are spearheaded by Spain’s Prime Minister, Pedro Sánchez, and Brazil’s President, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who are co-hosting a series of high-level meetings bringing together political leaders, activists, and civil society representatives.

The initiative, dubbed the “Global Progressive Mobilization,” aims to rally support for multilateralism, democratic institutions, and coordinated action on issues such as climate change and social inequality. Organizers say the meetings will culminate in a joint declaration outlining shared priorities and strategies.

The summit comes amid shifting global dynamics, including policy changes under U.S. President Donald Trump, whose administration’s cuts to humanitarian aid, military actions, and critical stance toward NATO have unsettled traditional alliances and prompted renewed debate over international cooperation.

Prominent leaders to attend

Several prominent leaders are expected to attend, including South African President Cyril Ramaphosa and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum. Sheinbaum’s visit marks the first trip by a Mexican president to Spain since 2018, following years of diplomatic tensions related to historical grievances over Spain’s colonial legacy.

A parallel event organized by Spain’s ruling Socialist Party is set to draw around 3,000 participants, including current and former heads of state, hundreds of mayors, trade unions, and grassroots organizations. The two-day gathering will focus on mobilizing support for progressive policies and strengthening political networks across borders.

The meetings also reflect concerns among left-wing leaders following the rise of far-right parties in recent years, particularly after gains in the 2024 European Parliament elections. Organizers describe the Barcelona summit as a response to that trend, aiming to demonstrate that alternative political pathways remain viable.