U

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

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

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

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

Disarmament remains key dispute

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

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. pushes Gaza roadmap

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

)Source: Aljazeera English)

T

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)

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)

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)

A

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

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

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

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

Genocidal intent

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

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

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

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

Thousands of children killed

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

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

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

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

Impact on health and future generations

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

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

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

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

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

B

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

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

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

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

Court rejects non-violence argument

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

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

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

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

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

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

Group vows further legal challenge

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

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

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

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

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

Origins of the ban

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

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

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

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

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

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)

T

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

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

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

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

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

Judge says sanctions likely violated free speech

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

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

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

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

Debate Over Gaza genocide and international accountability

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

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

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

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

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

(Source: Reuters)

A

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.

G

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

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

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

Traditions lost, faith endures

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

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

Restricted worship and displacement

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

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

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

(Source: Aljazeera English)

T

he Palestinian Authority on Monday strongly condemned a new law passed by the Israeli Knesset mandating the death penalty for Palestinian prisoners, calling it a war crime and a grave violation of international law.

In an official statement, Palestinian officials said the legislation breaches the Fourth Geneva Convention, which guarantees protections for civilians under occupation and ensures fair trial standards. The Authority warned that the move represents a dangerous escalation in Israeli policies across the occupied Palestinian territories, including Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. It urged the international community to take immediate action to halt what it described as systematic violations and to hold Israel accountable.

‘Dangerous shift’ toward extrajudicial killings

The Palestinian Foreign Ministry described the law as a “dangerous shift toward legalizing genocide” and accused Israel of institutionalizing extrajudicial executions. It said the legislation places Israel in direct confrontation with international legal norms and called for sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and the activation of accountability mechanisms through bodies such as the International Criminal Court.

Palestinian factions echoed the condemnation. The Palestine Liberation Organization said the law effectively legalizes extrajudicial killings, while the Fatah movement described it as “legalizing policies of killing” already experienced by detainees in Israeli prisons, including allegations of medical neglect and abuse.

Calls for international action grow

The Hamas movement called the legislation part of an “escalating criminal campaign” against Palestinian prisoners and urged international human rights organizations to intervene urgently. Meanwhile, Palestinian political figures, including members of the Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee, warned that the law reflects what they described as a deepening system of discrimination and repression.

The Palestinian National Initiative also called for comprehensive sanctions and boycotts against Israel, arguing that the law marks a turning point toward entrenched “racist” legislation. Officials warned that failure to act would embolden further measures targeting Palestinians and undermine prospects for stability in the region.

The legislation passed its final readings in the Israeli parliament with the support of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, drawing sharp reactions across Palestinian political and civil society groups, who say the measure poses an immediate threat to the lives of Palestinian prisoners.

(Source: Anadolu Agency)

S

everal European leaders have voiced strong concern and, in some cases, outright condemnation after Israeli police barred Pierbattista Pizzaballa from entering the Church of the Holy Sepulchre to lead Palm Sunday Mass.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni described the move as an “offense” not only to believers but to all communities that value religious freedom. Italy’s Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani called the decision “unacceptable” and announced that Italy would summon the Israeli ambassador for clarification.

French President Emmanuel Macron also condemned the action, warning of a growing pattern of violations affecting Jerusalem’s holy sites and calling for unrestricted worship for all religions.

Widespread condemnation across Europe

Spain, Portugal, Poland, and Malta joined the criticism, highlighting concerns over religious rights and international law.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez condemned what he called an “unjustified attack” on religious freedom, stressing that coexistence depends on tolerance. Portugal’s Foreign Ministry said the decision “deserves deep condemnation,” urging Israeli authorities to uphold freedom of worship.

Polish President Karol Nawrocki expressed strong opposition, describing the move as disrespectful to Christian traditions, while Malta’s Foreign Minister Ian Borg called for immediate reconsideration to ensure access to Christianity’s holiest site.

According to the Latin Patriarchate, Pizzaballa and Francesco Ielpo were stopped and forced to turn back while attempting to privately enter the church—marking what officials say is the first such incident in centuries.

Broader tensions over religious access in Jerusalem

The incident comes amid wider restrictions in Jerusalem, where Israeli authorities have also limited Muslim access to the Al-Aqsa Mosque for several consecutive weeks under emergency measures linked to the ongoing war with Iran.

Meanwhile, Pope Leo XIV used his Palm Sunday Mass at St. Peter’s Square to deliver a broader message against violence, stating that “no one can use Jesus to justify war” and calling for an end to armed conflict.

The developments have intensified international scrutiny over religious freedoms in Jerusalem, a city sacred to Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, as tensions continue to rise in the region.

(Source: Anadolu Agency)

A

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

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

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

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

Violent vs. non-violent mortality

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

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

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

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

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

Methodological challenges in active conflict

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

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

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

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

(Source: The Lancet)

G

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

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

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

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

Tight security oversight

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

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

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

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

Ceasefire under strain

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Source: The Associated Press and Anadolu Agency)

A

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

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

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

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

Two zones

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

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

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

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

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

Invisible line

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

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

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

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

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

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

Devastating agricultural land

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

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

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

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

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

(Source: Aljazeera)

A

merican President Donald Trump is moving forward with plans to establish a new international body known as the “Board of Peace,” an initiative that began as a mechanism to oversee the Gaza ceasefire but has since expanded into a far broader concept with global ambitions.

The Trump administration now envisions the board as a wide-ranging peace-building forum that could broker conflicts beyond Gaza and potentially rival the United Nations, particularly the U.N. Security Council. More details are expected Thursday, when Trump is scheduled to discuss the initiative at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

Speaking at the White House on Tuesday, Trump sharply criticized the United Nations, saying it “has never lived up to its potential” and suggesting the Board of Peace “might” replace it, though he added that the U.N. should continue to exist.

Broad mandate, centralized authority

While the board’s charter has not yet been publicly released, a draft obtained by The Associated Press indicates that significant authority would be concentrated in the hands of the chairman — a role Trump has said he will hold. Under the draft, the chairman would have the power to invite members, break tie votes, determine meeting schedules, and create or dissolve subsidiary bodies.

The document describes the board as a “more nimble and effective international peace-building body,” arguing that existing institutions have too often failed to deliver lasting peace. Funding would come from member-state contributions, with three-year terms for members. Countries contributing more than $1 billion in cash during their first year would be eligible for permanent membership.

U.S. officials stressed that the draft remains under revision and could change significantly before being shown publicly.

Countries invited and responses so far

According to U.S. and diplomatic sources, several countries have already agreed to participate, including the United Arab Emirates, Morocco, Vietnam, Kazakhstan, Hungary, Argentina and Belarus.

Invitation letters have also been sent to leaders including Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Paraguayan President Santiago Peña. Russia, Israel, India, Slovenia, Thailand and the European Union’s executive arm have confirmed receiving invitations.

The Kremlin said it is reviewing the proposal, with spokesman Dmitry Peskov stating that Moscow seeks clarification on “all the nuances.” Trump confirmed that Russian President Vladimir Putin has been invited.

Israel has also been asked to join, though it remains unclear whether Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will accept. Israeli officials have voiced concerns about the board’s composition, particularly Türkiye’s inclusion, which they say was not coordinated with Israel.

France has already declined to participate. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot said Paris supports implementing the Gaza peace plan but opposes creating a new organization that could replace the United Nations.

Additional boards and Gaza implementation

The White House announced that an executive board will support the Board of Peace’s broader vision. Its members include U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Trump envoy Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Apollo Global Management CEO Marc Rowan, World Bank President Ajay Banga and Deputy National Security Adviser Robert Gabriel.

A separate Gaza Executive Board will oversee implementation of the second phase of the Gaza ceasefire, including deploying an international security force, disarming Hamas and rebuilding the territory. Former U.N. Middle East envoy Nickolay Mladenov is expected to manage day-to-day operations, alongside representatives from the U.S., Türkiye, Qatar, Egypt, the UAE, Israel and Europe.

The Gaza Executive Board will also supervise a committee of Palestinian technocrats tasked with managing Gaza’s daily civil affairs.

As invitations continue and details remain fluid, the Board of Peace is shaping up as one of the most ambitious foreign policy initiatives of Trump’s presidency.

(Source: The Associated Press)

T

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

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

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

Conditions necessary for moving to the second phase

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

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

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

What is Israel objecting to?

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

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

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

Expectations and challenges of the second phase

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Officials, artists join demonstration

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

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

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

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

Sports figures and cultural resistance

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

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

(Source: Anadolu Agency)

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said on Wednesday that Türkiye would not tolerate coercion, piracy or other provocations threatening its maritime interests in the Eastern Mediterranean, saying Ankara was closely monitoring risks to its Blue Homeland, a term used in Türkiye to refer to Türkiye’s maritime borders, and to Turkish Cypriots.

In a New Year’s message released by the Presidency, Erdoğan said Türkiye was alert to rising tensions in the region and would defend its rights and interests. “We will never tolerate coercion, piracy or banditry in our seas,” he said.

Erdoğan used the address to reflect on domestic and foreign policy developments over the past year, paying tribute to Turkish security forces killed in operations against terrorism and organized crime and thanking veterans for their service.

Despite the growing climate of war and crisis in the region, Erdoğan said Türkiye was continuing its path with confidence. He said the government’s economic program was yielding results, citing easing inflation, strengthening central bank reserves and gains in production, investment, employment and exports.

He added that Türkiye had broken records in sectors including tourism and the defense industry, and said a large-scale social housing project of 500,000 units would help low-income citizens and ease housing and rental pressures.

Earthquake reconstruction priority

Erdoğan said rebuilding areas devastated by the Feb. 6, 2023, earthquakes remained the government’s top priority. He noted that keys to the 455,000th housing unit had been handed over to beneficiaries in Hatay on December 27, and said infrastructure, public spaces and cultural sites in affected cities were being restored.

He thanked workers, institutions and donors involved in reconstruction and said the government would continue to deliver on its promises.

On regional affairs, Erdoğan said Türkiye would continue to support communities beyond its borders, pointing to its policies in Syria and Gaza.

He said recovery in Syria had accelerated following the country’s December 2024 revolution, adding that political stability was advancing and voluntary returns were increasing. According to Erdoğan, around 600,000 Syrians had returned from Türkiye to Syria over the past year.

Türkiye would continue to support Syria’s new administration to ensure security and stability without discrimination based on ethnicity or sect, he said.

On Gaza, Erdoğan said Türkiye would not remain silent until those responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinians were held accountable. He said a ceasefire reached in October was holding despite Israeli violations, and that Ankara was working to increase humanitarian aid and support reconstruction.

Erdoğan also said Türkiye would continue efforts to help end the war in Ukraine through a just and lasting peace.

Domestic security

Turning to domestic security, Erdoğan said key thresholds had been crossed in the government’s “terror-free Türkiye” initiative, adding that a parliamentary commission was nearing completion of a report intended to give the process new momentum.

He said the initiative should not be undermined by short-term political interests and pledged that the government would do what was necessary to ensure its success.

Erdoğan concluded by saying his government would continue to focus on concrete projects and investments in 2026, extending New Year’s wishes to Türkiye, the region and the world.

(Source: Anadolu Agency)

H

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

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

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

The White Paper

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

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

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

A more cautious policy in the region

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

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

Breaking away from the U.S.

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

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

A Turning point: October 2023

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

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

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

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

A

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

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

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

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

Demonstrations are not enough

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

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

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

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

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

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

Significant mobilizations

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

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

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

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

Piazza Palestina

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

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

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

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

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

H

eadlines such as “Russia’s chief rabbi meets President Putin,” “Albania’s chief rabbi visits Prime Minister Edi Rama,” “Ukraine’s chief rabbi meets President Zelensky,” or “Washington’s chief rabbi gives a blessing to Syrian leader Ahmed al-Shara” have become increasingly common in international media.

These stories are often presented as meetings held to address the concerns of local Jewish communities. Yet a closer reading frequently reveals that discussions also extend into sensitive political territory, particularly matters related to Israel. In some cases, religious leaders have reportedly urged governments to soften criticism of Israeli policies, restrict anti-Israel protests, or limit pro-Palestinian demonstrations.

This pattern has raised questions about the extent to which some diaspora religious figures engage in political advocacy related to a foreign state. While Israel holds deep historical, cultural, and religious significance for many Jews worldwide, the involvement of religious leaders in lobbying host governments on international political issues inevitably invites scrutiny.

Religion, citizenship, and political advocacy

Support for Israel among Jewish communities abroad takes many forms — cultural, emotional, financial, and political — and is a legitimate expression of identity for many individuals. However, the public political engagement of religious leaders, especially when it aligns closely with the foreign policy interests of another state, raises complex questions about the appropriate boundaries between faith, citizenship, and political activism.

In many countries, religious clergy are expected to remain outside partisan or foreign-policy advocacy. In secular states such as France, clerical involvement in politics is often restricted, and breaches of this principle have historically led to legal consequences or public backlash. These norms are designed to protect social cohesion and prevent religion from becoming a vehicle for political power.

In Israel, religion and state are closely intertwined, and rabbis play a formal role in public life, including within the military and state institutions. In that context, religious authority influencing policy is widely accepted as part of the country’s political culture.

However, this domestic reality does not automatically translate to diaspora contexts. When religious leaders abroad move beyond representing community welfare and become outspoken advocates on international political conflicts, their actions may be perceived — rightly or wrongly — as political interference rather than pastoral leadership.

Moral authority

Religious leaders are widely regarded as moral guides, expected to promote peace, justice, and human dignity. In situations involving armed conflict, civilian suffering, or alleged violations of international law, many people expect clergy of all faiths to speak in universal ethical terms rather than align uncritically with any state actor.

When religious figures are seen as endorsing or excusing violence — regardless of who commits it — their moral credibility may be questioned by broader society. This is not unique to any one faith and applies equally to religious leaders of all traditions.

One of the unintended consequences of overt political advocacy by religious leaders can be increased social tension. When faith leaders are perceived as prioritizing foreign political causes over the concerns of the societies in which they live, it can fuel mistrust and resentment — dynamics that ultimately harm minority communities themselves.

Combating antisemitism, Islamophobia, and all forms of hatred requires careful attention to how public actions are interpreted. While prejudice is never justified, community leaders also bear responsibility for fostering dialogue rather than deepening divisions.

A Call for caution, not condemnation

This article argues that diaspora Jewish religious leaders should carefully consider the implications of political advocacy that goes beyond community welfare.

Focusing on spiritual leadership, social harmony, and universal ethical principles may ultimately serve both their congregations and wider society more effectively than engaging in contentious geopolitical disputes.

History offers many lessons about the risks of blurred lines between religion and politics. Respecting those lessons may help ensure peace, trust, and security for all communities in increasingly polarized times.

U

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

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

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

Sanctions and accusations

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

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

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

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

Call for accountability

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

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

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

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

UN membership and cultural boycotts

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

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

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

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

I

sraeli forces and illegal settlers committed 57 violations and assaults against Palestinian journalists in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip during November, the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate (PJS) said on Saturday. The organization warned that the pattern of incidents indicates a “continued systematic escalation” intended to obstruct press freedom and prevent media crews from fulfilling their professional duties.

In its monthly assessment, the PJS Committee on Press Freedoms said that the violations demonstrated increasingly “dangerous patterns” that directly target journalistic work and place reporters’ lives at risk. The report noted that two journalists, one in Tulkarem and another in Gaza, were injured while covering events. According to the syndicate, both were struck by live ammunition or plastic-coated bullets fired during confrontations in their respective locations.

The PJS emphasized that illegal Israeli settlers played a prominent role in the most serious assaults documented during the month. It described numerous incidents in which settlers prevented journalists from filming, pursued them through rural areas, beat them with sticks, hurled stones at them, and at times brandished weapons to threaten media crews. These assaults occurred across several areas of the West Bank and contributed to what the syndicate called a climate of fear and intimidation aimed at restricting coverage.

Detention of journalists

The report also recorded a series of other violations. Sixteen incidents involved the detention of journalists or the obstruction of their work by Israeli forces. In addition, there were several cases of direct physical assault unrelated to gunfire, along with multiple incidents in which cameras or other equipment were confiscated or media material was forcibly deleted.

The syndicate also documented two cases in which journalists’ vehicles were destroyed or taken. It reported that one journalist was arrested, another experienced a raid on his home, and a separate case involved a journalist being brought before an Israeli court.

Mohammed al-Lahham, who heads the PJS Press Freedoms Committee, said the figures reflected “a clear policy aimed at silencing Palestinian journalists.” He stressed that the escalation in attacks has continued despite the clear visibility of press markings and the international protections afforded to journalists under humanitarian law.

Al-Lahham called on the global community to increase pressure on Israel to halt daily violations and to provide international protection for journalists working in Palestinian territories.

Assaults in the shadow of a genocide in Gaza

The growing number of assaults comes against the wider backdrop of Israel’s two-year military campaign in Gaza and mounting violence in the occupied West Bank. According to the syndicate, more than 70,000 Palestinians, most of them women and children, have been killed in Gaza since October 2023, while nearly 171,000 have been injured. The war came to a halt under a cease-fire agreement implemented on Oct. 10. In the West Bank, Israeli forces and armed settlers have killed at least 1,088 Palestinians and wounded more than 10,700 others since the war began. More than 20,500 Palestinians have also been arrested during this period.

Press freedom organizations say Palestinian journalists are working in one of the world’s most dangerous environments for media workers. They argue that the scale of violations committed since October 2023 demonstrates a pattern of deliberate targeting designed to restrict documentation of events on the ground. The PJS reiterated its call for an international monitoring and protection mechanism, warning that without external intervention, attacks against Palestinian journalists are likely to continue growing in frequency and severity.

(Source: Anadolu News)

G

eneral Assembly calls Israeli presence in Syrian Golan ‘illegal,’ urges withdrawal to 1967 line; separate resolution reaffirms two-state solution and calls for end to occupation

The UN General Assembly on Tuesday adopted two significant resolutions addressing the decades-long Israeli occupation of Arab territories, declaring Israel’s continued control over the Syrian Golan Heights “illegal” and calling for an end to its occupation of Palestinian lands captured in 1967.

The twin votes, held during the 80th session of the General Assembly, underscored the deepening international concern over Israel’s expansion of settlements, ongoing military operations, and deteriorating humanitarian conditions across the region.

123 nations back Golan resolution

In the first vote, the General Assembly adopted a draft resolution penned by Egypt, which demanded that Israel withdraw fully from the occupied Syrian Golan to the line of June 4, 1967.

The resolution passed with 123 votes in favor, seven against and 41 abstentions, reaffirming longstanding UN positions that Israel’s effective annexation of the territory is unlawful under international law.

It declared the Israeli decision of Dec. 14, 1981 — which imposed Israeli laws, administration, and jurisdiction on the territory — “null and void and without any legal validity whatsoever.”

The text further determined that Israel’s continued occupation and de facto annexation of the Syrian Golan remains “a stumbling block to achieving a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the region.”

Israel captured the Golan Heights from Syria during the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, later extending domestic law to the territory in a move unrecognized by the UN and widely rejected by the international community. Syria has repeatedly called the area an integral part of its sovereign territory and demanded its full return.

Western diplomats noted that support for the resolution remains consistent with prior years, reflecting broad international consensus. The United States, Israel, and a handful of allies voted

Two-state solution

In a separate vote earlier in the day, the General Assembly adopted a resolution titled “Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine,” calling for an end to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories captured in 1967 and reaffirming support for a two-state solution based on UN parameters.

The draft — co-sponsored by Djibouti, Jordan, Mauritania, Qatar, Senegal and Palestine — received 151 votes in favor, 11 against, and 11 abstentions, reflecting broader support than the Golan resolution.

The text reaffirms the UN’s historical responsibility for the question of Palestine and emphasizes the urgent need to uphold international law and UN Security Council resolutions in pursuit of peace. It calls on Israel to halt all settlement activities, cease unilateral measures altering the status of Jerusalem, and refrain from actions that undermine the prospects of a negotiated settlement.

The resolution also urges renewed, credible negotiations to achieve a just and lasting peace, while calling on all states to refrain from recognizing any changes to the 1967 borders — including with regard to Jerusalem — unless agreed upon by the parties.

Humanitarian concerns drive calls for international action

The resolution highlights the worsening humanitarian situation facing Palestinians, urging UN member states to increase assistance to address what it describes as a “severe and escalating humanitarian crisis.”

According to UN agencies, millions of Palestinians across the occupied West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza remain affected by movement restrictions, settlement expansion, renewed military operations and the collapse of essential services. Aid workers say the situation has deteriorated significantly in 2025.

The General Assembly called on donors to step up support to UNRWA, the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, and pressed for unimpeded humanitarian access across all occupied territories.

Israeli representatives dismissed both resolutions as politically motivated and one-sided, arguing that they ignore Israeli security concerns and complex realities on the ground. They accused the General Assembly of maintaining a “systematic bias” against Israel.

Palestinian officials, meanwhile, welcomed the strong vote totals, describing them as evidence of overwhelming international backing for Palestinian rights and the two-state solution.

Syrian diplomats praised the Golan resolution as an important reaffirmation of Syria’s sovereignty, calling Israel’s occupation a “grave and ongoing violation of international law.”

Arab states, several non-aligned countries, and many from Africa, Asia and Latin America also voiced support, stressing that the international community must ensure compliance with UN decisions.

T

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

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

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

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

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

Aid distribution turned deadly

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

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

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

UN refused to participate, citing safety risks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Source: CNN)

T

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

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

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

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

A mandate to demilitarize Gaza

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

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

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

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

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

Russia and China withhold support

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

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

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

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

Statehood language sparks Israeli backlash

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Source: Reuters)

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

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

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

On the verge of a weary peace

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

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

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

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

The erosion of legitimacy

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

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

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

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

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

Social fatigue and forgetting

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

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

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

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

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

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

I

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

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

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

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

The emergence of Trump’s plan

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

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

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

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

The Doha airstrike

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Originally published in Turkish by Kriter)

U

.S. President Donald Trump announced Thursday that Kazakhstan has agreed to join the Abraham Accords, marking the first expansion of the Middle East peace framework during his second term in office. The move, while largely symbolic given Kazakhstan’s existing ties with Israel, underscores the Trump administration’s renewed push to broaden normalization efforts between Israel and Muslim-majority countries.

“Kazakhstan is the first country of my Second Term to join the Abraham Accords, the first of many,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. “This is a major step forward in building bridges across the world.”

He added that a formal signing ceremony would be held soon, saying, “Many more countries are lining up to embrace peace and prosperity through my Abraham Accords. This is real progress, real results.”

The announcement came hours before Trump hosted Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev and four other Central Asian leaders for a dinner at the White House, part of a broader diplomatic engagement aimed at strengthening U.S. influence in the region amid China and Russia’s expanding presence.

A new phase in the Abraham Accords

The Abraham Accords, launched in 2020 during Trump’s first term, established diplomatic and economic ties between Israel and several Arab or Muslim-majority countries — the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan. The initiative was hailed by Trump as a major achievement in Middle East diplomacy and a cornerstone of his foreign policy legacy.

Kazakhstan’s inclusion adds a Central Asian dimension to the accords, but its significance differs from previous members. The country, a majority-Muslim former Soviet republic, already recognized Israel in 1992 and has maintained steady diplomatic and economic relations for more than three decades.

Still, U.S. officials framed the decision as a sign of renewed momentum for the accords and evidence that “Washington’s regional partnership model remains attractive.”

Vice President JD Vance said Kazakhstan’s entry “gives great momentum to the Abraham Accords,” emphasizing that “the momentum of the Abraham Accords is alive and well in the second administration.”

Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Marco Rubio said the new partnership would enhance economic collaboration between Kazakhstan and Israel. “Through this agreement, Kazakhstan joins a partnership that brings special and unique opportunities for development — in energy, technology, agriculture, and water management,” he told reporters.

Symbolism and strategy

While the practical implications of Kazakhstan’s move are limited, analysts say the decision carries strategic value for both Washington and Nur-Sultan. For Trump, it revives a diplomatic brand closely associated with his presidency, offering a visible foreign policy success amid shifting alliances in the Middle East and Central Asia.

For Kazakhstan, participation may strengthen ties with Washington and open doors for investment and technology transfer at a time when it seeks to balance relations among major powers — including Russia, China, and the U.S.

“Kazakhstan’s entry doesn’t represent normalization per se, but rather political alignment,” said Ariel Cohen, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center. “By joining, Kazakhstan signals that it supports Trump’s broader regional strategy while positioning itself as a bridge between Muslim nations, Israel, and the West.”

The announcement also reflects Trump’s ambition to expand the Abraham Accords beyond the Middle East. His administration has long expressed interest in bringing additional nations — including Saudi Arabia, Oman, Indonesia, and, into the framework.

Eyes on Riyadh and Damascus

Trump has repeatedly said that adding Saudi Arabia to the accords remains a top priority. Riyadh came close to joining in 2023 before talks stalled over Palestinian statehood issues and shifting regional dynamics following the Gaza genocide.

Now, with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman scheduled to visit Washington later this month, speculation is mounting that Trump may attempt to revive the deal. “We have a great relationship with Saudi Arabia,” Trump said Thursday. “We’ll see what happens.”

Even more striking is the potential inclusion of Syria under President Ahmed al-Sharaa, who took power following the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime earlier this year. When asked whether he planned to discuss the accords with al-Sharaa during their upcoming meeting on Monday, Trump was evasive but upbeat. “He’s doing a very good job,” Trump said. “It’s a tough neighborhood, and he’s a tough guy — but a lot of progress has been made with Syria.”

I

f we were to travel back in time to the day Zohran Mamdani announced his candidacy for mayor of New York City, even a large segment of Democratic voters would not have believed he could actually win. Yet, within a year, Mamdani managed to turn that perception completely upside down through a carefully planned strategy and a remarkably strong performance.

However, Mamdani’s success is not merely a matter of local politics. The fact that we are discussing the NYC mayoral election here in Turkey is the clearest sign of this. Mamdani embodies a potential that could influence the future of U.S. politics through the politics he represents, the discourse he employs, and the campaign strategy he implements. This potential is tied directly to the transformation of American politics and the rise of left-populism.

Populism vs. traditional centrist politics

It is now clear that the rise of populism, both globally and in the United States, is linked to the failure of traditional centrist politics rooted in liberal democratic systems to fulfill their political, economic, and social promises to individuals. The resulting dissatisfaction naturally generated its own alternatives, and populism—both as a movement and as a set of actors—has become the bane of liberal democracies. Although anti-elitism and anti-establishment sentiments are common worldwide, the specifics of what is considered “anti” vary depending on culture, values, ideology, and economic priorities.

Although populism in the American context has become synonymous with Trump, it is increasingly evident that populism represents a deeper social current with a more profound political expression, as seen in the MAGA movement and Mamdani’s victory. Traditional centrist figures, rhetoric, and policies are insufficient to persuade individuals; they only further energize the populist spectrum.

A populist movement that goes beyond Trump is already reshaping Republican elites on the American right. Similarly, on the left, a populist current has taken root, first under Bernie Sanders and later through figures like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, despite being defined as “democratic socialist” or “progressive.”

In short, populist politics has begun to occupy the space once held by traditional centrist politics on both the right and left. Political competition is no longer primarily between centrist parties, but rather among anti-establishment populist actors.

Mamdani and left populism

On the other hand, Mamdani’s election could trigger a major transformation within the Democratic Party itself. The party’s traditional liberals were unable to mount an effective response to Trump’s identity- and value-based populist politics. Despite Trump’s many mistakes and heavy negative baggage, his populist appeal proved too strong for them to overcome.

Mamdani and Cuomo’s rivalry was built entirely upon this divide. Although he is progressive and liberal, Cuomo—because of his profile, rhetoric, and political stance—embodies the image of an elite establishment figure who is detached from the real problems of ordinary people. Thus, he was outdated and out of touch.

Mamdani, on the other hand, adopted a new, distinctly anti-establishment approach that contradicted the Democratic Party’s traditional elites and pursued an openly left-populist strategy. He emphasized fundamental, class-based issues such as economic hardship, rent, and healthcare. He spoke directly to the lower and middle classes—to subway riders, tenants evading landlords due to lack of rent, and workers bullied by employers.

He made populist promises. Moreover, his ethnic and religious background gave him a natural advantage in connecting with “non-white” individuals who felt socially and politically marginalized. He accomplished this through street politics, face-to-face communication, social media engagement, and, at times, intentionally raw and unpolished methods.

Ultimately, he successfully positioned himself as the genuine representative of the socially and economically excluded. In essence, he applied “Populism 101″—and won.

Right populism vs. left populism

In light of these developments, the transformation within the Democratic Party may manifest as an empowerment of populism and populist figures. Mamdani’s success bolsters the idea that left populism could solve the Democratic Party’s long-standing inability to produce a “new figure, new rhetoric, and new story” since Obama. His case partially confirms that left populism can effectively persuade the party’s traditional base first, then the younger generation, and finally, broader segments of society.

However, the key question lies with the Republicans: After Trump, the party may struggle to find a right-populist figure capable of persuading MAGA supporters and the wider conservative base, even rhetorically. Their ability to counter the economic critiques and promises of left populism with identity-based populism—to convince voters that identity issues matter more than economic ones or to highlight economic issues themselves—will determine their future success.

Therefore, it can be said that the defining feature of U.S. politics in the coming period will be the struggle between right-wing and left-wing populism. Mamdani, a Muslim, immigrant, anti-Zionist leftist, has achieved success through left populism by positioning himself as the near-perfect antithesis of traditional politics and the establishment. Given the success of right-wing populism, the Democratic Party may seek its elusive “magic formula” in this arena. The current zeitgeist compels American politics to place populism at its center.

Zohran Kwame Mamdani, the Democratic Party candidate and a Ugandan-born American politician of Indian descent, won the New York mayoral election, defeating independent candidate Andrew Cuomo. Mamdani’s victory was not unexpected, as polls had placed him ahead of the other candidates months ago.

The polls also alarmed the opposition, who poured millions of dollars into Cuomo’s campaign to defeat Mamdani. Recall how Mamdani was depicted as the perpetrator of the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center or how Donald Trump threatened to cut New York City’s budget. Elon Musk even used his X account to demonize the Muslim candidate. However, the massive black propaganda campaign failed, and Mamdani became the new mayor.

As expected, the anti-Mamdani Zionist campaign was led by billionaires such as Bill Ackman, influencers like Laura Loomer, and media outlets like the New York Post, all of whom worked hard to ensure Mamdani’s loss. Their opposition is not only political but also ideological.

Maintained and promoted by lobbies and businesspeople alike, Zionism has been one of the most influential forces in U.S. politics. Organizations like AIPAC invest in politicians and successfully elect candidates. AIPAC recently claimed that 95% of the candidates it supported won the most recent U.S. elections. Experience has shown that politicians without AIPAC’s endorsement rarely win.

Zionist money could not help much

Relying on their donations, Zionists believed they could prevent a Muslim politician from becoming the mayor of New York City. However, the result was not as they expected. This time, donations worth millions of dollars reaped only defeat.

Since Zionists supported the rival candidate, Mamdani’s victory was also a defeat for them. They are obviously worried not only about Mamdani’s victory, but also about the changing course of American politics. Zionists do not want the increasing Muslim impact on U.S. politics. Moreover, Mamdani’s victory may foreshadow future losses.

Since the beginning of the Gaza genocide, as has been the case elsewhere in the world, the American people’s perception of Israel and its supporters has changed for the worse. This is a positive change, as Israel is the perpetrator of a genocide yet continues to play the victim. Currently, most Americans favor Palestine over Israel due to Israel’s brutality. Christian Zionists are not the main source of sympathy for Israel in America. In fact, there are reports of people leaving churches and criticizing priests who defend Israel’s crimes.

American people are questioning U.S.-Israeli alliance

Clearly, a rift has emerged from debates over U.S. support for Israel. More and more, the American people are questioning the U.S.-Israeli alliance and irrevocable grants to Israel. Influential conservatives such as Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Dan Bilzerian, and Nick Fuentes, among many others, criticize U.S. politicians and the government for their unconditional support of Israel. Since American youth idolize and trust these figures, their voting choices will most likely go against the Zionist lobby’s expectations.

Zohran Mamdani, who is not the preferred candidate of nationalists parting ways with MAGA (e.g., Tucker Carlson), may not be a one-time exception that upsets pro-Israeli groups. People are now more aware of U.S. politics and lobbies, and of who supports whom and how much politicians receive in donations from lobby groups. While supporting a Muslim candidate was previously seen as abnormal and chanting “Israel first” was normal, everything has recently changed by 180 degrees. As we can see, New Yorkers no longer mind having a Muslim mayor.

Moreover, spending millions of dollars on election campaigns does not sway people’s will; it backfires. Also, voters are no longer furious when a candidate does not promise to visit Israel after winning.

The perception of Muslims and Gaza

Moreover, if a Muslim wins the mayoral elections in one of the world’s richest cities, it means that the perception of Muslims has changed for the better. Gaza certainly plays a significant role in shaping people’s views. Therefore, it is not wrong to say that Mamdani owes some of his success to Gaza and its people.

The genocide in Gaza has awakened Americans and others and made them see that Israelis are brutal and will kill even babies. Realizing this, people have questioned why Washington acts as Israel’s protector and becomes complicit in genocide. They have criticized pro-Israel policies and America First foreign policy, and they are now trying to influence American politics, which is still largely controlled by Zionist groups.

We can expect pro-Israel setbacks in the upcoming congressional elections. If pro-Israel politicians lose, the American government’s attitude toward Israel will change. Mamdani is not the first Muslim to win despite opposition from malicious power centers, but, as a Muslim, he may accelerate the change taking place in the Islamophobic political spectrum.

Mamdani defeated Andrew Cuomo, Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Bill Ackman, Laura Loomer, pro-Israel social media, AIPAC, and many other rivals who competed with their money, influence, and political power. This victory will certainly inspire new challengers and cause the power of pro-Israel groups and lobbies to decline.

O

n November 4, 2025, New Yorkers went to the polls to vote. Zohran Mamdani, a 34-year-old Ugandan native, won against Andrew Cuomo, a seasoned politician whose father and grandfather were prominent New York politicians. Mamdani won with 50.4% of the vote, a margin of almost nine points. He won 30% of the Jewish vote in the city. Mamdani campaigned on the issue of affordability and won by a landslide. This victory is significant for New York, the future of the Democratic Party, and the landscape of American politics.

Mamdani won in the city with the second largest Jewish population after Tel Aviv. This is quite telling. It indicates that Jews no longer support Israel as they used to. At the very least, it is no longer the main issue on which they base their vote. Mamdani has been a fierce critic of Israel. He not only criticized Israel’s behavior, he also marginalized the issue of Israel at the center of American politics.

During the debate, when asked where he would go on his first trip outside the U.S., Mamdani responded that, unlike the other candidates, he would not go anywhere because his mandate would be to take care of the city. He added that, if he wanted to meet with his Jewish constituents, he would meet with them in New York. He said he would visit their synagogues and homes. Basically, he was saying that Israel is a foreign policy issue outside his mayoral mandate. This was a departure from the typical American politician, for whom Israel is treated as a domestic issue.

An unprecedented win

Mamdani’s win in New York sets a precedent. New York is home to billionaires who are ardent Zionists, such as Michael Bloomberg, Rupert Murdoch, and Bill Ackman, among others. If Mamdani could defeat the Zionists in their stronghold, it will encourage others to confront the Zionists elsewhere. The Israel lobby is no longer the deciding factor in elections. This applies to both Democrats and Republicans.

We are starting to see members of Congress criticize Israel’s behavior in Gaza. More importantly, they are addressing the crux of the matter: the special relationship between Israel and the U.S. They are asking questions that, not long ago, were taboo: Why is the relationship with Israel so special? Is Israel really a strategic asset? Why are we spending our taxpayers’ money on Israel? Why? What are the benefits?

Marjorie Taylor Greene has accused Israel of war crimes and genocide. She and Thomas Massie have criticized the Israel lobby’s grip on Congress. They have demanded that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) register as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) so that pro-Israel lobbying would be treated like any other foreign lobbying. During a speaking engagement at Turning Point USA, J.D. Vance was asked about the special relationship with Israel and the usual unconditional support, to which he responded by dismissing it. He said that Israel is a country whose interests align with those of the U.S. at times and diverge at others. Expect an exponential increase in such comments and questions now that Mamdani has won.

Affordability issues for New Yorkers

Additionally, Mamdani’s campaign indicates people’s preferences. Mamdani did not campaign on ideological or foreign policy issues. In fact, when pressed by the Fox News anchor on whether Hamas should disarm, Mamdani said he had no opinion on the matter because he is focused on affordability issues for New Yorkers. Even those who are ideologically opposed to Mamdani agree that policymakers should focus on the American people first. Several figures on the left and right have criticized the U.S. government for funding wars and spending so much on foreign aid instead of focusing on domestic issues.

After September 11, the national debt increased tremendously, from around $5.7 trillion in 2000 to $38 trillion in 2025, according to some sources. The purchasing power of the average American has decreased, and the quality of life has deteriorated. Meanwhile, the gap between the rich and poor is growing wider. People like Musk, Ellison, and Zuckerberg are worth 300 to 400 billion, while the average American can’t make ends meet.

The average American cannot afford rent, send their children to college, or afford healthcare. Mamdani’s win is a wake-up call to the political class, which has become detached from the problems and concerns of ordinary people and focused on attracting the funding and support of big lobbies. AIPAC is probably the most influential of them all.

A transformative event for the Democratic Party

Mamdani’s victory is definitely a transformative event at the heart of the Democratic Party. It is the ultimate defeat for Schumers and Pelosis of the Democratic Party. Mamdani’s victory means the progressive wing has taken over the Democratic Party. More and more candidates with progressive agendas will emerge. Mamdani’s win means the Democratic Party’s audience is primarily progressive.

Mamdani’s win will energize the progressive wing of the Democratic Party and the MAGA wing of the Republican Party. People like Vance, Massie, and Marjorie Taylor Greene will become more influential and vocal, while traditional Republicans like Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio will lose prominence.

Mamdani’s win is transformative for both domestic politics and foreign policy. The American people want the political class to focus more on their day-to-day issues and livelihoods and less on foreign policy and ideological issues. This change in American voters’ preferences is a devastating blow to Israel. Israel cannot exist without American support. Mamdani’s win could be the first page in the last chapter of American support for Israel.

A

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

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

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

A state-built system of domination

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

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

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

International law and corporate red lines

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

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

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

Corporate complicity and risk

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

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

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

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

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

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

L

eftwing independent Catherine Connolly has won Ireland’s presidential election by a decisive landslide, securing 63% of first-preference votes in a result that stunned the political establishment and delivered a major symbolic blow to the ruling coalition.

The 68-year-old Galway TD and long-time social justice campaigner will become the Republic’s 10th head of state, succeeding Michael D Higgins after his 14-year tenure.

Speaking at Dublin Castle on Saturday night after being officially declared president-elect, Connolly pledged to be “a president for all”, vowing to defend Irish neutrality, champion climate justice and give a platform to the marginalized.

“I will be a voice for peace, a voice that builds on our policy of neutrality, a voice that articulates the existential threat posed by climate change,” she said, switching between Irish and English. “Together, we can shape a new republic that values everybody and champions diversity.”

A shock for the political mainstream

Connolly secured 914,143 of 1,442,698 valid votes, far ahead of Fine Gael’s Heather Humphreys, who received 424,987 (29%). Fianna Fáil’s candidate, Jim Gavin – who had withdrawn following a financial scandal but remained on the ballot – won 103,568 votes (7%).

Despite the commanding win, turnout fell to 46%, unusually low for a presidential election, and more than 213,000 ballots were spoiled or invalid, reflecting frustration with the lack of choice and the perception of a two-horse race.

Though the presidency is largely ceremonial, Connolly’s victory is widely interpreted as a rebuke to the two big centrist parties that have dominated Irish politics for a century.

Her candidacy surged on the back of anger over Ireland’s housing and cost-of-living crises, missteps by government strategists, unity among leftwing parties, a viral, youth-driven online campaign.

Sinn Féin, Labour, the Social Democrats and People Before Profit all backed Connolly once her momentum became clear, giving her a rare pan-left coalition of support.

A more outspoken presidency ahead?

Connolly has long been a critic of western foreign policy and has accused the U.S. and U.K. of enabling genocide in Gaza. Her victory raises questions about how far she will test the traditionally soft-spoken boundaries of the presidency.

Political analysts say friction with the government is likely if she uses the Áras as a platform for moral advocacy in the tradition of Mary Robinson and Michael D Higgins—but with a more radical tone.

For her supporters, Connolly embodies a generational shift and a rejection of politics-as-usual.

She gained traction with younger voters through podcasts, cultural endorsements and viral videos—including a lighthearted football keepy-uppy clip that became a campaign trademark. She was publicly supported by musicians and artists such as Kneecap and The Mary Wallopers.

Outgoing president Higgins congratulated her in a statement, saying the office would offer “full support” as she prepares for her inauguration next month.

Connolly will take office amid high expectations from Ireland’s left — and deep unease within government ranks — setting the stage for a presidency unlike any other in recent decades.

(Source: The Guardian)

A

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

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

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

Engineered Stability

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

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

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

Geoeconomic Rewiring

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

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

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

Strategic Recalibration

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

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

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

T

urkey’s Defense Ministry said on Thursday that negotiations with the United Kingdom on the possible procurement of Eurofighter Typhoon fighter jets are progressing positively and that Ankara expects the process to move toward a contract “at an appropriate time.” In the same briefing, the ministry also signaled Turkey’s readiness to contribute troops to an emerging multinational Gaza Task Force aimed at stabilizing the territory under a ceasefire agreement.

The remarks — the clearest indication in months that discussions over the aircraft are still on track — come as Ankara seeks to bolster its air force during the transition period before Turkey’s indigenously developed KAAN next-generation fighter becomes fully operational.

“Following the talks held with the United Kingdom, positive steps have been taken, and it is aimed to complete the procurement process at an appropriate time,” Defense Ministry sources said. “When the Eurofighter aircraft procurement reaches the contract stage, official announcements will be made by our side.”

Officials cautioned against speculation in foreign media about the size or configuration of the order, saying negotiations are ongoing and that “claims beyond this should not be taken seriously.”

Transition period until KAAN

The ministry said that Turkey’s air force capability will be supported by allied systems until the KAAN platform enters serial production and broad deployment.

“Until the deliveries of our domestically produced KAAN begin, the Turkish Armed Forces will acquire the systems required to fulfill its missions primarily from allies and other relevant countries,” the sources said, highlighting continued reliance on NATO interoperability.

Ankara has pursued the Eurofighter option partly to hedge against continued delays in export clearances. The fighter is jointly produced by the UK, Germany, Spain and Italy — meaning any final sale requires approval from all four governments. The UK is strongly supportive, while Berlin has been slower to sign off, citing broader EU-Turkey tensions.

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan discussed the procurement last week in Qatar, where Turkey has positioned itself as a key actor in Gulf and Mediterranean security frameworks.

Turkey signals role in Gaza task force

The ministry also confirmed that Turkey stands ready to participate in a potential multinational Gaza stabilization mission, expected to fall under a broader International Stabilization Force (ISF) after months of ceasefire diplomacy.

“The Turkish Armed Forces, with the experience it has gained from previous peace missions, stands ready to assume any duties entrusted to it for the establishment and maintenance of peace, within the framework of international law,” the sources said.

Diplomatic contacts are underway between guarantor states of the Gaza ceasefire, including Turkey, Qatar, Egypt, and the U.S. Under the emerging architecture, the ISF would coordinate humanitarian relief, infrastructure rehabilitation and border security.

Defense officials said Turkey’s preparations are “ongoing in coordination with relevant state institutions,” reinforcing Ankara’s intention to play a central role not only diplomatically but also operationally.

Syria, SDF integration, and regional security calculus

The ministry also addressed developments in Syria, saying cooperation with Damascus continues to deepen after years of rupture between the two governments.

“Following the signing of the memorandum of understanding on Joint Training and Advisory Cooperation on Aug. 13, 2025, training, visits, advisory, and technical support activities aimed at enhancing Syria’s defense and security capacity are ongoing,” the statement said.

Turkey emphasized that it is closely watching the planned integration of the U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) into the Syrian Army — a process that could potentially end the group’s semi-autonomous command structure in the northeast.

“The integration of the SDF terrorist organization into the Syrian Army is of critical importance,” the ministry said. “This process must proceed in a manner that does not harm Syria’s political unity and territorial integrity.”

Turkey reiterated its red line of “One State, One Army,” viewing the re-centralization of the Syrian security sector as essential to its border security interests.

For now, the timing of a Eurofighter contract remains tied to intra-European negotiations. But Ankara’s public confirmation that talks are advancing — alongside an explicit signal about peacekeeping readiness in Gaza — suggests Turkey’s military diplomacy is entering a new phase as it seeks to leverage its experience in multinational stabilization missions from the Balkans to Libya.

(Source: Anadolu Agency)

T

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

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

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

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

Court ruling adds pressure to fragile ceasefire

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

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

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

Israel dismisses ruling, maintains accusations against UNRWA

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

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

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

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

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

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

Palestinians hail ruling

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

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

Palestinian officials described the opinion as a breakthrough moment.

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

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

I

srael’s attacks on Gaza and the genocide perpetrated against the Palestinian people are going down in history as one of the most heinous crimes against humanity of our time. The failure of world governments to take action to stop this massacre compels us to reconsider the ethical and political responsibilities of the international community. In this context, the solidarity of the people stands out in the face of the silence of states, and the role of civil society, international solidarity networks and grassroots movements is more critical than ever.

The Israeli blockade of Gaza has been ongoing for years and continues as a practice that violates fundamental principles of international law and targets the civilian population. The systematic denial of the most basic humanitarian needs, such as food, medicine, water, shelter, and freedom of movement, has created a reality that tests not only the conscience of a region but of all humanity. During this period, the international community has demonstrated its will to end Israel’s blockade through mass demonstrations, boycott campaigns and diplomatic pressure, but all these efforts have failed to compel concrete action.

Under these conditions, numerous aid initiatives by land, sea and air aimed at alleviating the humanitarian crisis experienced by the Palestinian people have either been blocked or directly attacked.

An institutionalized form of global conscience

Emerging precisely in this context, the Global Sumud Flotilla is noteworthy not only as an aid initiative but also as an institutionalized form of global conscience. Aiming to break the blockade both physically and symbolically, this flotilla, embodying solidarity and human values, exposes the reality of an inhumane siege targeting the civilian population.

‘Sumud’, the Arabic word steadfastness and resilience, has transcended mere ideology in this context, becoming a tangible symbol of human dignity, solidarity, and the quest for justice. A key feature of the Global Sumud Flotilla is that it is a coalition of four major international movements: The Global Movement to Gaza, Freedom Flotilla, Sumud Nusantara and the North African Palestine Solidarity Organization. This coalition symbolizes the convergence of solidarity practices from different geographical areas towards a common goal and strengthens the global nature of the movement.

The flotilla’s primary objective is to break the Israeli blockade and deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza. Carrying basic necessities such as food and medicine, this flotilla aims to effectively breach the blockade imposed on the Palestinian people, thereby meeting humanitarian needs and drawing international public attention to Gaza.

Past initiatives

Flotilla initiatives targeting the Gaza Strip have been one of the most notable forms of resistance developed by the international civil society against the Israeli blockade since 2008. This took concrete form in August 2008 when two small civilian vessels, the Free Gaza and the Liberty, broke through the blockade and reached the Gaza coast. The first time a civilian vessel reached Gaza constituted an open challenge to Israel’s naval blockade and demonstrated that determination could sometimes prevail over the use of force. However, the fact that only a few of the more than thirty similar attempts made between 2008 and 2016 reached Gaza shows that overcoming the blockade has been systematically made more difficult.

The 2010 attack on the Mavi Marmara resulted in the killing of ten activists in international waters and clearly demonstrated Israel’s disregard for international law. This attack engraved in the collective memory the reality that ships carrying civilians could face lethal force even in international waters. In subsequent years, the Zaytouna-Oliva (2016) and al-Awda (2018) ships were seized by Israeli forces.

In the summer of 2025, the Madleen and Hanzala ships, which set sail for Gaza, were similarly stopped at sea. All these examples demonstrate that, although civil initiatives to break the blockade are essentially acts of conscience and solidarity, Israel’s response to them has mostly taken the form of raids and punitive reprisals.

The political and symbolic importance of solidarity

The significance of the Global Sumud Flotilla stems not only from its delivery of humanitarian aid. The Flotilla also plays a critical role in making the genocide in Palestine visible and bringing it to the attention of the international community. In an environment where the truth is being obscured, grassroots initiatives such as the Sumud Flotilla ensure that the realities in Palestine are discussed worldwide.

Unlike previous initiatives, the Sumud Flotilla represents a new phase in terms of both its scale and international context. Setting sail with delegations from 44 countries and more than 50 ships, it is the largest civil maritime solidarity initiative ever organized. The broad spectrum of participants, ranging from activists to doctors, artists to politicians, reinforces the initiative’s message that ‘Gaza is not alone’ and underscores its universal nature.

Furthermore, the scale of the humanitarian disaster in Gaza following 7 October has further fuelled debates that the policy of starvation constitutes a war crime. In this context, Sumud is regarded not only as a flotilla carrying humanitarian aid but also as an institutional act of global conscience in the face of genocide. As was the case with the Mavi Marmara incident in 2010, it is no longer possible to conceal interventions; live broadcasts, automatic ship tracking systems and the presence of an international crew make it inevitable that any intervention will resonate with global public opinion.

The strongest aspect of the Sumud Flotilla is undoubtedly its moral and ethical significance. This initiative carries not only aid supplies but also the collective conscience of humanity. Participants take great personal risks in order not to remain silent in the face of oppression; they remind the world that what is happening in Gaza is not just numbers, but points to real lives and tragedies. The confrontation between small boats and large warships has become a powerful symbol representing moral superiority in this asymmetrical struggle.

Such initiatives are not merely aid activities for people under siege, but also a reminder and message of solidarity from the world. The fact that volunteers from all corners of the world are taking risks for them is an important source of psychological support for the people of Gaza. Furthermore, by refusing to remain silent, these flotillas hold up a mirror to the international community and force it to question the comfort of ‘turning a blind eye’.

A

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

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

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

The influence of the Zionist lobby

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

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

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

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

Differences with Germany

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

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

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

Attitudes towards France

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

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

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

Does France respect international law on Gaza?

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

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

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

(Originally published in Turkish by Kriter)

I

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

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

Massive destruction in Gaza

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

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

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

Urbicide

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

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

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

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

Evidence of war crimes

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

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

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

S

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

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

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