Britain, Australia and Canada recognize Palestinian state

Britain, Canada and Australia all recognized a Palestinian state on Sunday in a move borne out of frustration over the Gaza war and intended to promote a two-state solution but which is also bound to anger Israel and its main ally, the United States.

The three nations' decision aligned them with about 140 other countries which also back Palestinians' aspiration to forge an independent homeland from the Israeli-occupied territories.

Britain's decision carried particular symbolic weight given its major role in Israel's creation as a modern nation in the aftermath of World War Two.

"Today, to revive the hope of peace for the Palestinians and Israelis, and a two-state solution, the United Kingdom formally recognizes the State of Palestine," Prime Minister Keir Starmer said on X.

Other nations, including France, are expected to follow suit this week at the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

Israel's Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said that Britain, Canada and Australia's decisions on Sunday were a reward for murderers. That assault killed 1,200 people and saw 251 others taken hostage, according to Israeli tallies.

Israel's ensuing campaign has killed more than 65,000 Palestinians, most of them civilians, according to Gazan health authorities, and has spread famine, demolished most buildings and displaced most of the population - in many cases multiple times.

Palestinian Foreign Minister Varsen Aghabekian Shahin welcomed countries recognizing a Palestinian state.

"It is a move bringing us closer to sovereignty and independence. It might not end the war tomorrow, but it's a move forward, which we need to build on and amplify," she said.

Western governments have been under pressure from many in their parties and populations angry at the ever-rising death toll in Gaza and images of starving children.

"Canada recognizes the State of Palestine and offers our partnership in building the promise of a peaceful future for both the State of Palestine and the State of Israel," Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said on Sunday.

Israeli minister Ben-Gvir said he would propose at the next cabinet meeting to apply sovereignty in the West Bank - de facto annexation of land Israel seized in a 1967 war.

He also said the Western-backed Palestinian Authority, which exercises limited self-rule in the West Bank, should be dismantled.

 

 

Hamas at the Crossroads: Kill or Get Killed

In the brutal theatre of Gaza, Hamas finds itself at a historic crossroads — a reality starkly defined by the dictum kill or get killed. For Israel, the stated objective is clear ‑ the complete dismantling of Hamas as a governing and military force. For Hamas, survival has become both a military necessity and a political imperative.

Israel’s relentless strikes — from Gaza City to Doha — have made it clear that Hamas leaders are no longer safe even beyond their borders. The military offensive inside Gaza has decimated infrastructure, uprooted nearly the entire population, and left Hamas struggling to function as a governing body. Yet, paradoxically, the group continues to resist, proving its resilience through urban warfare, tunnel networks, and the strategic use of hostages in negotiations.

The problem is existential. Unlike traditional political movements that can retreat, regroup, and return, Hamas has been pushed into a corner where capitulation could mean extinction. Its leverage now rests on asymmetric warfare, regional mediation, and the hostage card. Without these, it risks becoming irrelevant — or annihilated.

This survivalist posture comes at a staggering cost. Gaza’s civilian population bears the brunt of the war, facing famine, displacement, and death. While Israel insists that Hamas hides behind civilians, Hamas’s very survival strategy ensures that Gaza remains both its shield and its Achilles’ heel. The humanitarian catastrophe threatens to erode what local legitimacy the group once enjoyed, even as international outrage grows against Israel’s disproportionate use of force.

The irony is bitter ‑ the more Israel tries to crush Hamas militarily, the more the group leans into its identity as an armed resistance movement rather than a governing authority. Each decapitation strike on its leadership risks splintering Hamas into more radical, less controllable factions. Far from erasing Hamas, this “kill or get killed” dynamic could entrench the cycle of violence for another generation.

The only path out of this trap lies not in military annihilation but in political imagination. Without a viable political horizon for Palestinians, attempts to eradicate Hamas will only create new versions of it. As things stand today, Hamas is not simply fighting a war — it is fighting for its very existence. And in that existential battle, Gaza’s civilians are paying the highest price.

 

Gaza is burning or being burnt by Israel

Over the last few days the western media has been propagating an Israeli headline, “Gaza is burning”. On the contrary it should have been, “Gaza being burnt by Israel”. The Israeli troops are moving deeper into the enclave's main city. The number of soldiers is rising with each passing day as IDF believe that up to 3,000 Hamas combatants are still in the city.

Please allow us to say that Gaza is not merely a battlefield; it is a society in flames. Over two years of intensive military operations, territorial encirclement, and an all-but-complete blockade have produced a cascade of death, displacement, and institutional collapse.

The question of agency — whether Gaza “is burning” as an accident of war or because a party intends and effects its devastation — is not rhetorical. Evidence from humanitarian agencies, human-rights groups, and UN investigators points clearly to a campaign of force and policy by Israel that has produced, and continues to produce, catastrophic civilian destruction and deprivation.

The multiple UN and humanitarian reports document mass casualties, widespread displacement and the conditions of famine and disease now ravaging Gaza. The UN’s humanitarian coordination office describes Gaza City — home to nearly a million people who have nowhere safe to go — as facing daily bombardment and “compromised access to means of survival.”

The WHO’s public-health analysis confirms the lethal public-health consequences: rising malnutrition and deaths from starvation and disease, with hundreds of children already dead from malnutrition and famine conditions confirmed in parts of Gaza.

These outcomes are not incidental side effects of a narrowly targeted counterterror operation. Human-rights organizations have documented patterns of attacks that repeatedly hit schools, hospitals, shelters, and entire neighborhoods — precisely the civilian infrastructure that normally offers protection in war.

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have catalogued repeated strikes on schools and hospitals, extensive razing of towns, and the use of siege tactics that cut off food, fuel, and medical supplies — measures they say amount to unlawful collective punishment and, in Amnesty’s assessment, further evidence of genocidal intent.

An independent UN commission of inquiry has concluded that actions by Israeli authorities and forces meet the threshold of genocide, citing acts that include killing, causing severe bodily and mental harm, and imposing conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction.

That finding is explosive in normative terms because it reframes the humanitarian crisis as one driven not only by military necessity claims but by a pattern of conduct that international law treats as among the gravest crimes.

Three interlocking dynamics matter. First, operational doctrine: tactics emphasizing area bombardment, extensive use of heavy munitions in dense urban areas, and commands for mass civilian displacement dramatically increase civilian death and infrastructure destruction. Second, blockade and siege: restricting entry of food, fuel, water, and medicines turns even partial destruction into sustained catastrophe by preventing recovery and medical care. Third, accountability failures: continued supply of weapons and limited enforcement of international humanitarian law incentives have, critics argue, reduced the political and legal costs of tactics that imperil civilians.

The human consequences are immediate and wrenching. Schools that once sheltered displaced families are being struck; hospitals struggle to operate without fuel and supplies; entire neighborhoods have been razed to foundations; and children face not only the trauma of violence but death from malnutrition and preventable disease.

If civilian protection were the operational imperative, the combination of precise targeting, unfettered humanitarian corridors, and a halt to displacement orders would reduce civilian suffering. Instead, the combination of intense urban combat, orders pushing mass displacement within a sealed territory, and the impediment of essential supplies has produced conditions that human-rights experts interpret as deliberate or recklessly indifferent to civilian life. That is the core of the charge that Gaza is being “burnt” by Israeli policy and force.

Doha Summit: Strong Words No Action

Israel’s brazen airstrike on Doha on September 09 is not just an attack on Qatar—it is an assault on the dignity and sovereignty of the entire Arab and Muslim world. Targeting a Hamas delegation engaged in US-backed ceasefire talks, Israel killed five members and a Qatari officer, proving it is willing to bomb peace itself.

At the emergency Arab-Islamic summit in Doha, Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani condemned the strike as “blatant, treacherous, cowardly aggression.”

Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian called it “a blatant act of terrorism,” warning that no Arab or Muslim nation is safe from Israel’s ambitions.

Iraq’s Prime Minister urged a shift “from condemnation to coordinated action.”

Malaysia’s Anwar Ibrahim blasted the hollowness of repeated declarations.

Turkey’s Erdogan accused Israel of embodying “a terrorist mentality,” and Jordan’s King Abdullah II warned of unending expansionism.

Even the UN Security Council unanimously condemned the strike—an unprecedented rebuke.

Yet evidence suggests coordination between Israel and US Central Command, exposing Washington’s double game ‑ publicly criticizing Israel while enabling its wars across Gaza, Syria, Lebanon—and now Qatar.

This aggression also reflects Benjamin Netanyahu’s desperation. His failure to crush Hamas, coupled with corruption trials and political infighting, has made perpetual war his only survival strategy.

With over 65,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza—including 21,000 children—Israel measures success in death tolls, not strategic gains.

Striking Qatar, host to the largest US base in the region, signals Israel’s broader “Greater Israel” ambitions—regional dominance with American cover.

Five years after the Abraham Accords, it is clear normalization did not moderate Israel. It emboldened Tel Aviv to trample sovereignty with impunity.

By striking Qatar, Israel has crossed every red line, daring Arab states to move beyond words.

The time for statements is over. Arab and Muslim nations must cut ties, enforce boycotts, and present a unified front. Anything less will ensure Israel dictates the Middle East’s future in blood and fire—while the Arab world watches silently from the sidelines.

Israeli Strike on Qatar: A Wake-Up Call for Arab Monarchs

Israel’s brazen airstrike on Qatari soil has torn away the mask of “normalization” and exposed the contempt Tel Aviv holds for Arab sovereignty. The attack, which targeted a Hamas delegation attending US-brokered ceasefire talks, killed five members and a Qatari security officer. The leadership survived, but the message was clear: no Arab capital is beyond Israel’s reach.

This was not just an attack on Hamas. It was a violation of Qatar’s sovereignty, a slap in the face to Washington — Qatar’s supposed ally — and a provocation to the entire Arab world. For decades Israel has bombed Lebanon, Gaza, and Syria. Now, by striking Qatar — a state known for mediation and humanitarian diplomacy — Israel has crossed a new line.

The strike also shatters illusions about normalization. The Abraham Accords were sold as pathways to peace. Instead, they emboldened Israel, eroded Arab leverage, and exposed the region to even greater danger.

Qatar, which refused to normalize, now stands vindicated. Its independent stance — grounded in mediation, relief, and dignity — contrasts starkly with the silence of others.

The global reaction revealed Israel’s growing isolation. In a rare consensus, the UN Security Council, including the US, condemned the strike. Yet reports suggest coordination between Israeli forces and US Central Command, underscoring Washington’s duplicity.

Far from intimidating Qatar, Israel has only amplified its role. Qatar is now preparing an emergency Arab-Islamic summit, with expectations of real measures — joint diplomatic pressure, trade and tech restrictions, and united action in global forums. The UAE’s ban on Israel from a defense expo and Iran’s confirmed participation point to a rising front of solidarity.

Israel intended to project dominance but instead exposed desperation. It is failing in Gaza, where over 64,000 Palestinians have been killed without breaking Hamas, and it stumbled in June’s 12-day war with Iran. The Qatar strike is less about strength than about masking repeated defeats.

For Arabs, this must be the breaking point. Silence has only invited more aggression. The attack on Qatar is not just another outrage — it is the wake-up call the Arab world can no longer afford to ignore.

Who is the true representative of Palestinians?

For more than 700 days Israel has been undertaking land and air attacks on Gaza enclave and killed more than 65,000 people, mostly women and children. The strip has been reduced to rubbles, with the destruction of infrastructure. In the latest UN resolution the two state formula has been endorsed, with minus Hamas involvement.

There is no denying to the fact that Hamas has been in virtual control of Gaza for nearly two decades. There is a suggestion to resolve Palestine issue without any role of Hamas, what so ever. It may be a wish of Israel, but do the ground realities support this?

Ironically Palestinians are represented by different bodies in different contexts:

Internationally (Diplomatic Representation)

Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO):

Recognized by the United Nations and over 130 countries as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. The PLO holds Palestine’s seat at the UN as a “non-member observer state.”

Within Occupied Palestinian Territories

Palestinian Authority (PA):
Established under the 1993 Oslo Accords, the PA governs parts of the West Bank. Its leadership is dominated by Fatah, a major faction of the PLO. President Mahmoud Abbas is both head of the PA and chairman of the PLO.

Hamas:
An Islamist movement that controls the Gaza strip since 2007, after winning the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections and subsequent conflict with Fatah. Hamas is not part of the PLO, and it does not support Oslo-style negotiations with Israel.

In Exile

Millions of Palestinians live outside the West Bank and Gaza, especially in Jordan, Lebanon, and elsewhere. They are formally represented by the PLO, but many feel underrepresented due to internal divisions.

United States

The US recognizes the PLO as the representative of Palestinians, but relations are tense. It does not recognize Hamas and designates it as a terrorist organization. Washington supports the PA (West Bank-based) but pressures it to cooperate on security with Israel.

European Union (EU)

The EU deals mainly with the PA/ PLO. Like the US, the EU also labels Hamas a terrorist group. Provides large amounts of financial aid to the PA for governance and humanitarian work.

Arab League and Arab States

Mostly Arabs recognize the PLO as the representative of the Palestinians. Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and UAE work with the PA and sometimes mediate between Fatah and Hamas. Qatar and Turkey maintain ties with Hamas, provide financial aid to Gaza, and give political space to its leadership.

Iran and Allies

This group strongly back Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) militarily and financially. Iran does not consider the PA effective against Israel and instead supports “resistance” factions. Hezbollah of Lebanon also aligns with Hamas and PIJ.

Russia and China

Both the leading super powers recognize the PLO/ PA officially, but also engage with Hamas as part of broader Middle East diplomacy, positioning themselves as mediators.

Let us explore how Hamas has attained popularity?

Hamas’s rise in popularity among Palestinians is rooted in a mix of social, religious, political, and resistance factors. Here’s a breakdown of how it became a powerful force:

Origins and Religious Roots

Founded in 1987, during the First Intifada (uprising against Israeli occupation), Hamas emerged from the Muslim Brotherhood network in Gaza, which already had credibility through mosques, schools, and charities. It gained early support by combining Islamic identity with nationalist resistance, offering an alternative to the more secular PLO/ Fatah.

Resistance against Israel

Hamas distinguished itself by armed resistance (rockets, suicide bombings, tunnels), presenting itself as uncompromising in the face of Israeli occupation. Many Palestinians saw Hamas as more effective in confronting Israel than the PA, which was engaged in negotiations that delivered little tangible progress. After the Second Intifada (2000–2005), Hamas gained credibility as the symbol of defiance, while the PA lost legitimacy due to corruption and security coordination with Israel.

Social Services & Grassroots Work

Hamas built extensive charitable networks that include schools, clinics, food distribution, orphan support and relief for families of prisoners and martyrs. These welfare programs won the loyalty of poorer Palestinians, especially in refugee camps and Gaza, where the PA and international aid were seen as insufficient.

Political Legitimacy through Elections

In 2006 Palestinian Legislative Elections, Hamas (running under the banner Change and Reform) won a majority of seats, defeating Fatah. Its victory was attributed to: 1) frustration with Fatah’s corruption and inefficiency, 2) Hamas’s reputation for integrity and discipline and above all 3) its hardline stance against Israel.

Regional and International Support

Iran, Qatar, and Turkey provided financial, political, and military backing that allowed Hamas to sustain governance in Gaza despite Israeli blockades. Egypt, while wary of Hamas, also engaged with it as a key player in Gaza.

Gaza Takeover (2007)

After a violent split with Fatah, Hamas seized control of Gaza Strip in 2007. Despite isolation and blockade, Hamas positioned itself as the de facto authority, further cementing its influence among Palestinians in Gaza.

Symbol of Resistance rather Compromise

Many Palestinians perceive the PA/ Fatah as compromised, weak, or too close to Israel and the United states. Hamas, despite the hardships in Gaza, is seen as authentic, incorruptible, and willing to sacrifice. Each confrontation with Israel (wars in 2008–09, 2012, 2014, 2021, and 2023–25) often boosts Hamas’s popularity, as it frames survival itself as victory. Hamas attained popularity by blending religion, resistance, social welfare, and political credibility at a time when the PA and Fatah were seen as corrupt and ineffective.

Let us also examine how its popularity differs between Gaza, the West Bank, and the Palestinian diaspora?

Gaza Strip

Hamas has emerged the strongest since beginning of its rule in Gaza in 2007.

The reasons for support include governance, security, and basic services despite blockade. The group has emerged as defender against Israel during repeated wars. Many people view Hamas as less corrupt as compared to Fatah.

The factors marring it popularity are said to be hardships from blockade, unemployment, and war destruction, at times fueling resentment. Some Gazans criticize Hamas’s authoritarian style and restrictions on freedoms. Despite suffering, many still rally behind Hamas in times of conflict with Israel.

West Bank

Hamas support is significant, but less than in Gaza. The reasons for support include: 1) frustration with the Palestinian Authority (PA) and its security coordination with Israel and 2) younger generation sees Hamas as more authentic and uncompromising. The challenges it faces include: 1) West Bank being under tight Israeli control and PA crackdowns, limits Hamas’s political space, and 2) fear of violence or arrest reduces open activism.

During escalations in Gaza, Hamas’s popularity spikes in the West Bank as people see them standing up against Israel.

Palestinian Diaspora

Support for Hamas is found mainly in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and the Gulf states as many refugees feel abandoned by the PA/ PLO, but Hamas keeps the “right of return” alive in its rhetoric. Hamas runs charities and schools in refugee camps (especially in Lebanon).

In Jordan, support is cautious, since the government fears Islamist influence.

In Lebanon, Hamas has networks in Palestinian refugee camps but competes with other factions.

In Gulf/ Turkey elite diaspora often back Hamas politically and financially.

Palestinian Citizens of Israel

Hamas has limited direct influence, since it is outlawed by Israel. Some Palestinians in Israel admire its stance against occupation, but most are engaged in civil rights struggles through legal political parties.

Keeping all these narratives in mind, it may be said that eliminating Hamas or bringing peace in the occupied territories or even creation of an independent Palestine will not be sustainable.  

Is Israel attacking countries under the US supervision?

With each passing day and the precision with which Israel attacked Qatar, Iran, Syria, Iraq and other countries, a question is getting louder, is Israel attacking countries under the US supervision?

It is a very important and sensitive question. Based on the strategic relationships between United States and Israel the probability just can’t be ruled out.

Here are the reasons that support the perception:

Military Support:

Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of the US foreign military aid, running into billions of dollars annually. Much of Israel’s military technology, intelligence systems, and weapons are supplied by the US.

Operational Coordination:

While not every Israeli attack is directly supervised by the US, Washington is usually informed in advance of major military operations—especially those with regional consequences like strikes in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, or beyond.

Political Cover:

The US provides Israel with diplomatic protection, especially at the UN Security Council, often vetoing resolutions that condemn Israeli actions. This gives Israel confidence that it can continue operations without facing strong international consequences.

Shared Intelligence:

The CIA, Pentagon, and Israeli intelligence frequently share intelligence. In many cases, Israeli attacks—particularly on Iran linked targets—are planned with at least some level of US awareness, if not outright coordination.

Recent Pattern:

Analysts often describe Israeli military actions as being carried out with a “green light” from Washington, even if the US doesn’t control the tactical execution.

The US may not be giving step-by-step battlefield orders, Israel’s ongoing military actions—especially in Gaza—are effectively carried out under US strategic supervision and protection, both militarily and diplomatically.

Let us explore the incidents where US involvement was direct (like supplying bombs during Gaza wars, or joint planning against Iran), to show how this collaboration works.

Let us identify the situations where the US involvement was direct or so close that it’s hard to separate support from supervision:

1. Gaza Wars (2008–09, 2014, 2021, 2023–25)

Weapons Supply:

During heavy Israeli bombardments of Gaza, the US quickly replenished Israel’s stock of precision-guided bombs, artillery shells, and Iron Dome interceptors. For example, in 2014 and again in 2021, Washington quietly authorized emergency transfers of munitions while battles were still ongoing.

Political Cover:

At the UN, the US vetoed multiple ceasefire resolutions, allowing Israel to continue operations.

Supervision Aspect:

Without US weapons and diplomatic shields, Israel could not have sustained these long campaigns.

2. Lebanon and Hezbollah (2006 and beyond)

2006 War:

Israel’s month-long war with Hezbollah relied on US-supplied bunker-buster bombs and real-time intelligence from American surveillance assets.

Joint Planning:

US and Israeli militaries regularly war-game scenarios of a “multi-front” war with Hezbollah, meaning Israel’s current strategy is partly drawn up with Pentagon input.

3. Operations against Iran

Nuclear Program Attacks:

The famous Stuxnet cyberattack (2009–10) on Iran’s Natanz facility was a joint CIA-Mossad operation.

Targeted Killings:

Israel’s assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists were carried out with US intelligence support, according to multiple reports.

Air Strikes in Syria:

Israeli strikes on Iranian convoys and depots in Syria often used US intelligence and were coordinated to avoid clashing with US troops stationed nearby.

Present Gaza War

Direct Weapons Pipeline:

US cargo planes flew precision bombs, tank shells, and artillery rounds directly to Israel while civilian casualties mounted in Gaza.

White House Green Light:

Leaks from Pentagon officials revealed Israel was asked to pause or minimize strikes, but not ordered to stop.

Embedded Coordination:

US military officers reportedly worked inside Israeli command centers to coordinate targeting and logistics — an unusually deep level of involvement.

Ongoing Strategic Framework

US and Israel have joint operations rooms for real-time intelligence sharing.

Israel’s most advanced fighter jets (F-35s) are co-produced with US technology, and software updates pass through Pentagon systems — meaning the US can monitor their use.

Israel does not fight wars in isolation; every major military campaign has US fingerprints, whether in weapons, intelligence, or diplomatic protection.

Bottom line:

While Israel pulls the trigger, the US is the one who supplies the gun, reloads it, and shields Israel from the world’s outrage. That is why many analysts argue Israeli attacks are effectively conducted under US supervision.

Time for Muslims to take collective actions against Israel

For more than 700 days killing of Gazans has continued unabated, but the Muslim rulers have not gone beyond condemnation of Israeli attacks. Now, Israel has killed the political leaders of Hamas in the Qatari capital Doha on Tuesday and only condemnation in very soft words has come. Let us find why can't Muslim rulers go beyond condemnation of Israeli terrorism?

In our opinion, it is a pertinent and important question. The repeated condemnations without meaningful action by most Muslim-majority states in response to Israeli aggression—especially in Gaza—stem from a complex mix of geopolitical, economic, and internal factors. Some of the main reasons are:

Dependence on the West

Many Muslim countries, particularly in the Middle East, rely heavily on the United States and Europe for security, trade, investment, and military technology. They fear, taking decisive action against Israel risks sanctions, aid cuts, or political isolation.

Deep Split

The Muslim world is deeply fragmented—Sunni vs Shia, Arab vs non-Arab, monarchies vs republics. This has resulted in rivalries (Saudi Arabia vs Iran, Turkey vs Gulf monarchies) those prevent a unified front.

Normalization and Hidden Ties with Israel

Several Arab states (UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan) have normalized relations through the Abraham Accords, and many others maintain covert cooperation.

Economic Vulnerabilities

Oil-rich states depend on stable exports, foreign investment, and dollar-based trade. Poorer Muslim countries (Pakistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, etc.) face IMF pressure and debt traps, limiting foreign policy freedom.

Fear of Internal Unrest

Leaders worry that pushing too hard against Israel, in other words the United States could invite political or regime change attempts. Authoritarian governments fear that pro-Palestine activism could spill over into broader dissent.

Lack of Unanimity

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has been reduced to a symbolic forum, issuing statements but lacking enforcement mechanisms or collective security structures.

Strategic Silence

Some leaders prefer Israel as a silent partner in intelligence, cyber, and defense, especially against Iran, Hezbollah, or Islamist movements that threaten their regimes.

Therefore, Muslim countries remain stuck between public outrage and private interests. Condemnation is the safest path—it appeases their populations without risking ties with Washington or destabilizing their regimes.

Enough is enough, now the time has come to take concrete steps. Here are some realistic and concrete steps Muslim countries could take—short of direct war—if they truly wanted to go beyond mere condemnation of Israeli aggression:

Economic Measures

Oil & Gas Leverage:

Gulf states could coordinate an oil embargo or selective supply restrictions targeting Israel’s allies, similar to the 1973 Arab oil embargo.

Boycott and Divestment:

Governments could ban trade with Israeli firms and pressure companies operating in Israel to disengage.

Sanctions on Israeli Goods: Restrict imports of Israeli agricultural, tech, or defense products.

Diplomatic Pressure

Expel Ambassadors:

Muslim countries with relations (UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan) could downgrade or cut diplomatic ties.

Global Legal Action:

Refer Israel to the International Criminal Court (ICC) collectively, instead of leaving it to NGOs.

Block Normalization:

States like Saudi Arabia could halt normalization talks, signaling that Palestine remains a red line.

Political Unity

Revitalize the OIC:

Transform it from a talk shop into an action body: joint resolutions, emergency summits with binding decisions.

Joint Palestine Fund:

Pool resources into a sovereign fund for Gaza reconstruction and Palestinian self-sufficiency.

Collective Lobbying at UN:

Use numbers (57 Muslim countries) to push binding UN resolutions, even if the U.S. vetoes in the Security Council.

Strategic Non-Military Support

Humanitarian Corridors:

Use leverage with Egypt and Jordan to ensure permanent aid corridors into Gaza.

Technology and Cyber Support:

Provide Palestinians with communication tools, cybersecurity, and medical technology to resist siege conditions.

Intelligence Sharing:

Quietly pass on information that can protect Palestinian civilians from strikes.

Symbolic but High-Impact Moves

Suspend Flights to Tel Aviv:

Muslim-majority airlines could suspend services, disrupting Israel’s connectivity.

Cultural and Sports Boycotts:

Ban Israeli teams from participating in sporting events in Muslim countries.

Public Accountability:

Name and shame Muslim leaders who maintain cozy ties with Israel while condemning it publicly.

Israeli attempt to kill Hamas negotiating team in Doha a big dent to US credibility

Following Israeli assassination attempt to kill members of Hamas' negotiating team in Doha, Qatar on Tuesday, it appears that the Israeli military is now entering "full ethnic cleansing mode," in Gaza.

Israeli officials claimed responsibility and said it was aimed at assassinating the negotiators—but ultimately killed six people who were not involved with Hamas' team.

The Trump administration said Tuesday it had been aware of the attack before it was carried out and claimed it had warned Qatari officials—which Qatar denied.

Analysts suggested the lead-up to the bombing—with the US securing Hamas and Israeli support for a vague ceasefire proposal that was to be discussed in Doha—pointed to a scenario in which the US helped orchestrate the attack and aided "an attack on diplomacy itself," as Center for International Policy executive vice president Matt Duss said.

Duss, a former foreign policy adviser to US Sen. Bernie Sanders, warned the assassination attempt could cause long-lasting harm to the United States' reputation.

"This is an attack in the capital of a major non-NATO US ally in the midst of US-supported negotiations—against officials who were originally hosted there at the United States' request," said Duss.

"If it was conducted with the approval of the US, it's the latest nail in the coffin of President Donald Trump's claim to be a 'peacemaker.' This will have disastrous consequences for future peace efforts, and for US security."

The Trump administration's response to the attack was ambiguous, with press secretary Karoline Leavitt saying the bombing did not "advance Israel or America's goals" but adding that "eliminating Hamas... is a worthy goal."

The attack, said Duss, makes clear that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu intends to see Israel's accelerating campaign of ethnic cleansing in Gaza through to the end," and has no intention of reaching a ceasefire deal.

Gregg Carlstrom of The Economist said that as far as countries in the Gulf region are concerned, the question of whether Trump knew about the attack ahead of time "is somewhat irrelevant."

"If yes, he approved a strike on a country under an American security guarantee," said Carlstrom. "If no, he couldn't prevent said strike. Either way, the question for Gulf leaders is the same, what is the value of American security guarantees?"

Condemnation of the attacks poured in from global leaders including United Nations Secretary General António Guterres, who said Israel's actions were "a clear violation of Qatar's sovereignty and territorial integrity" and accused Israeli officials of "destroying" efforts for a permanent ceasefire.

Other countries including Algeria, Jordan, and Egypt also decried the attack on Qatar's "sovereignty" and accused Israel of undermining the talks.

The peace group CodePink asserted, "The US is fully aware of Israel's intentions and actively collaborates with it" to reach the "true objective" of "the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians."

"This collaboration is evidenced by the blatant plan to lure ceasefire negotiators into a single location under the pretense of peace talks, only to attempt to assassinate them," said CodePink.

"This is a complete rejection of a diplomatic solution—something Israel has no intention of reaching. This attack on foreign soil also serves as a direct challenge to Qatar, proving that neither its borders, laws, nor financial influence can deter Israeli strikes."

The assassination attempt proves, said the group, "Peace negotiations are essentially antithetical to Israel and a trap for more assassinations and attacks on sovereign nations."

"It is time world leaders take a principled stand in defense of the people of Gaza," said the group. "The more the international community fails to hold Israel accountable, the more brazen it becomes in their war crimes."

Spy agencies determining fate of Middle East

We are of the view that the geopolitics in the Middle East are basically driven by the top ace spy agencies CIA and MI6 due to their long presence and lust to attain dominance. Both the agencies often play complementary as well as opposing role. In the Middle East, both the CIA of United States and MI6 of Britain active, but their influence and power are not equal. Here’s a breakdown:

CIA (Central Intelligence Agency)

Stronger presence:

The US has far greater military, economic, and political involvement in the Middle East as compared to Britain, which gives the CIA wider reach.

Resources and scale:

Vast funding, technology, and manpower allow the CIA to operate with more depth — from drone surveillance to covert paramilitary operations.

Regional influence:

CIA has elaborate intelligence sharing agreements with Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and Gulf states. The CIA often leads in counterterrorism, cyber intelligence, and monitoring Iran.

Direct action capability:

CIA has carried out assassinations of Qasem Soleimani in 2020 with Pentagon support, regime-change operations in Iraq in 2003, and drone warfare across Yemen, Syria, and elsewhere.

MI6 (Secret Intelligence Service of Britain)

Smaller but skilled:

MI6 operates with fewer resources but has deep historical networks dating back to the colonial and post-colonial era.

Special niche:

It is strong in human intelligence (HUMINT), diplomatic channels, and discreet operations. Often complements CIA efforts rather than competing.

Influence through alliances:

MI6 maintains ties in former British-influenced states (Jordan, Oman, Gulf monarchies). Often acts as a bridge between US and regional players, sometimes preferred for backchannel talks where US involvement is too visible.

It may be concluded that CIA is stronger in raw power, funding, and reach. MI6 is smarter in specialized, discreet, and historic networks. In practice, they often work together, with CIA leading and MI6 supplementing in sensitive or diplomatic areas.

Still it may be of some interest to readers to compare their weaknesses in the Middle East (CIA’s visibility vs. MI6’s limited resources).

CIA Weaknesses in the Middle East

Visibility and Reputation:

The CIA is often seen as the symbol of American interventionism. Its role in the 1953 Iran coup, the 2003 Iraq invasion, and drone strikes has created deep mistrust among populations.

Over-reliance on technology:

Heavy dependence on satellite imagery, drones, and cyber tools sometimes weakens on the ground human intelligence (HUMINT). Local actors may feed misleading information (faulty Iraqi WMD intelligence in 2003).

Political Constraints:

The CIA operates mostly within US foreign policy ambit, which can change with administrations (Trump pulling out of Syria, Biden recalibrating Iran policy). This limits long-term consistency in operations.

MI6 Weaknesses in the Middle East

Limited Resources:

Britain’s budget and global presence are much smaller than that of the United States. MI6 often has to “ride on the back” of CIA logistics and surveillance infrastructure.

Reduced Global Clout:

Post-colonial decline means Britain no longer has the political weight it once held in the region. Many Middle Eastern powers see London as secondary to Washington.

Reliance on Alliances:

MI6 depends heavily on Five Eyes (United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) for intelligence sharing. Alone, it struggles to project force or influence in hostile zones (Iran, Syria).

Therefore it may be said that in the Middle East CIA is the heavyweight, but MI6 survives by being subtle and clever, often achieving results disproportionate to its size.

Adding Mossad of Israel to the picture really changes the balance of spy power in the Middle East.

Mossad (Israel)

Strengths:

Regional focus and expertise:

Unlike CIA and MI6, Mossad is laser-focused on the Middle East. It enjoys deep cultural, linguistic, and ethnic infiltration skills (especially in Arab states and Iran).

Human Intelligence (HUMINT):

Mossad is known for its daring covert operations that include kidnapping Eichmann (Argentina, 1960), assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, and cyberattacks like Stuxnet with CIA help. It uses diaspora networks, business fronts, and deep-cover operatives.

Operational daring:

Conducts high-risk missions the CIA or MI6 would hesitate to attempt due to political exposure.

Political backing:

Israel’s survival depends on intelligence; Mossad has a direct line to top leadership and can act fast.

Weaknesses

Limited global reach:

It operates best in Middle East, North Africa, and Europe; weaker footprint in Asia or Latin America as compared to CIA.

Overexposure:

Mossad’s assassinations and covert operations generate huge backlash; Arab states and Iran actively hunt Mossad operatives.

Dependency:

It relies heavily on CIA for satellite surveillance, funding, and advanced cyber tools.

The Strongest

CIA is the strongest in resources, global reach, and tech. It can topple governments, conduct drone wars, and pressurize allies.

MI6 is the best at diplomacy, subtle influence, and backchannel talks. It is trusted more in Gulf monarchies than the CIA sometimes, due to less heavy-handed reputation.

Mossad is the sharpest blade in the region itself. When it comes to Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, or Syria — Mossad usually has the deepest, most actionable intelligence.

Netanyahu’s Unabated Gaza Campaign

It has been more than 700 days that Israel has continued military operations in Gaza. It is being said that Israel is doing this under the protection of the United States. However, it may also be said that even countries like Russia, China and Saudi Arabia just could not gather strength to impose any sanctions on Israel. We have the following observations:

US and Western Support

Israel is able to do this under the US and Western Shield. Washington has been providing steady arms supplies and political protection at the UN. The US has been vetoing or forces the presenters to soften resolutions that could force accountability.

Fragile Coalition Politics

Netanyahu’s survival hinges on ultra-right allies who demand maximal war goals. Ending the war could collapse his government and he could end up in jail under corruption charges.

Public Mood in Israel

Despite failure of the government to avert Hamas October 07, 2023 attack, unresolved hostage issue keeps much of society aligned with ongoing military action. Right-wing base still dominates the agenda, even as war fatigue grows.

Weak International Enforcement

The ICJ has ruled there is a plausible risk of genocide, but it has no enforcement arm. The ICC issued arrest warrants, but implementation depends on states unlikely to act against a US ally.

Climate of Impunity

Normalization of extreme rhetoric allows harsher military conduct without domestic blowback. International criticism often fades into symbolic statements.

Divided Opposition

Regional and Palestinian political fragmentation means no coherent alternative pressure strong enough to compel an immediate ceasefire.

Hezbollah: Friend or Foe of Lebanon

Hezbollah occupies a complex position within Lebanon’s political and social landscape, generating both support and opposition.

Arguments portraying Hezbollah as a friend of Lebanon

Resistance role:

Hezbollah emerged in the 1980s as a resistance movement against Israeli occupation, gaining legitimacy particularly after Israel’s withdrawal in 2000 and the 2006 war.

Community services:

The organization provides health care, education, and welfare services, particularly to underserved Shia populations, filling gaps left by the Lebanese state.

Political representation:

Hezbollah holds seats in parliament and ministries, thereby integrating a marginalized sectarian constituency into Lebanon’s political process.

Arguments portraying Hezbollah as a foe of Lebanon

Parallel authority:

Hezbollah maintains a powerful military structure independent of the Lebanese Armed Forces, challenging state sovereignty.

External alignment:

Its close ties to Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps suggest that its priorities may extend beyond Lebanese national interests.

Regional involvement:

Hezbollah’s intervention in the Syrian conflict and confrontations with Israel risk entangling Lebanon in regional wars.

Economic consequences:

Its designation as a terrorist organization by multiple Western and Arab states contributes to sanctions and international isolation, aggravating Lebanon’s economic crisis.

Hezbollah’s dual identity — as both a provider of security and services, and as an armed actor operating outside state control — creates a paradox.

For supporters, it is an indispensable defender of Lebanon.

For critics, it undermines national sovereignty and stability.

The friend-or-foe debate remains contingent on whether one prioritizes resistance against external threats or the consolidation of a sovereign Lebanese state.

 

Yemen carries out precision operations

Yemeni Armed Forces carried out five precision military operations targeting the Israeli military’s General Staff building in Tel Aviv, the Hadera power station, Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv, Ashdod Port, and the ship MSC ABY in the northern Red Sea. These attacks were conducted using a number of drones and a cruise missile.

Brigadier General Yahya Saree, spokesperson for the Yemeni Armed Forces, stated that the Air Force conducted four drone operations using Samad-4 drones. 

The first targeted the General Staff building in Tel Aviv, while the remaining three struck the Hadera power station, Ben Gurion Airport, and Ashdod Port. He confirmed that all targets were successfully hit.

In addition, the Air Force and Missile Unit carried out a joint operation against the ship “MSC ABY” vessel for violating the ban on entering ports in occupied Palestine and for its ties to the Israeli regime. The ship was struck directly using two drones and a cruise missile.

The Yemeni Armed Forces affirmed that these operations are part of their continued support for the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip, aimed at ending the aggression and lifting the blockade. Officials emphasized that the attacks are a response to the “Zionist enemy’s acts of genocide and starvation against civilians”. 

Following the announcement from Sanaa, air raid sirens sounded again in Tel Aviv and its surrounding areas. The Israeli military said it has detected another missile launch from Yemen. Israeli media reported that the airspace over Ben Gurion Airport has been closed following the launch.

According to military experts, the Yemeni response to the assassination of the Prime Minister and ministers in Sanaa has not occurred yet. The calculations for the response to this operation are different and will most likely be carried out at a deterrent level.

On Monday, Yemeni forces announced they struck the Israeli oil tanker Scarlet Ray in the northern Red Sea with a ballistic missile.

Below is the latest statement in full issued by the Yemeni Armed Forces:

“In victory for the oppressed Palestinian people and their noble fighters, and in response to the crimes of genocide and starvation committed by the Zionist enemy against our brothers in the Gaza Strip.

 In line with our affirmation of the ongoing ban on the Zionist enemy’s maritime navigation in the Red Sea and the Arabian Sea, the Yemeni Air Force and the Missile Force executed a joint military operation targeting the ship (MSC ABY), which had violated the decision to ban entry into the ports of occupied Palestine and was linked to the Zionist enemy. The operation, carried out in the northern Red Sea with two drones and a cruise missile, directly struck the ship successfully, by the grace and support of God.”

Addressing the Palestinian people facing US-backed genocidal war in Gaza, the statement went on to say:

“We march upon your path, we follow your way, and we stand united in your cause. We do not retreat when others retreat, we do not abandon when others abandon, and we do not hesitate when others hesitate, deny, or turn back—thus becoming the losers.

“Our oppressed brothers in Gaza—upon whom the aggression has continued, the siege has tightened, their enemy has slaughtered and starved them, while the weak abandoned them and the traitors conspired against them. May the eyes of the cowards never sleep! We continue our support for them until the genocide is stopped and the siege lifted from them.”

 

Time Is Ripe for Dumping Trump

Every political career reaches a tipping point. For Donald Trump, that moment has arrived. His return to the political stage was meant to showcase strength and inevitability. Instead, most of his high-profile decisions and strategies in what amounts to his “second term of influence” have backfired, leaving the Republican Party fractured and America’s standing diminished.

On foreign policy, Trump’s swagger delivered little substance. His tariff wars bruised US farmers more than Beijing, his embrace of autocrats yielded no concessions, and his abandonment of long-standing allies left Washington isolated. The Middle East “breakthroughs” unraveled into fresh instability, while his tough talk on Iran and North Korea ended with neither deterrence nor diplomacy.

At home, his tax cuts fed corporations but starved the federal budget, inflating deficits without lifting wages for most Americans. His promised transformations on infrastructure and healthcare never materialized. Instead, voters were left with widening inequality, broken promises, and a chaotic pandemic response that remains a stain on his record.

Politically, the costs are even starker. Trumpism has become an anchor for Republicans, costing the party moderates and suburban voters while entrenching bitter divisions within. Legal troubles multiply, crowding out policy debate and reminding Americans of the scandals that defined his presidency. What once looked like disruptive energy now looks like exhaustion.

The United States faces serious challenges — from economic restructuring to climate resilience and global leadership. Clinging to a leader defined by backfires, chaos, and personal vendettas is not just unwise; it is reckless. The time is not just ripe but urgent for Republicans, and for the country, to move beyond Donald Trump.

Gaza likely to become another state of the US

With the passage of time it is becoming that initially United States, with the help of Israel, will take physical and administrative control of Gaza. Officially, it is being said that the US is not taking control of Gaza, most rich in fossil oil and gas. 

It is also being propagated that people are talking about a proposal circulating among Trump-aligned officials, not an actual policy in effect.

A Controversial Proposal Circulating

A plan called the Gaza Reconstitution, Economic Acceleration, and Transformation (GREAT) Trust is being floated. It envisions the US administering Gaza under a 10-year trusteeship, temporarily relocating Gazans with financial incentives, and rebuilding the region into high-tech smart cities and resorts.

This proposal is not officially approved or implemented, it remains under discussion and highly controversial, especially regarding legality and humanitarian implications.

Trump’s Remarks on “Taking Over” Gaza

In February 2025, Donald Trump made headlines by stating that the US would “take over” Gaza and possibly deploy troops, framing it as redevelopment.

His comments triggered widespread international condemnation, with UN experts calling the proposal a violation of international law and likening it to ethnic cleansing.

Some analysts stress it is unlikely ever to be executed—constituting extreme rhetoric or a negotiating ploy rather than a concrete, actionable policy.

Current Ground Reality

At present, Gaza is under Israeli military control, not US administration. Israel controls Gaza’s borders, airspace, and sea access, and the international community recognizes Gaza as part of the occupied Palestinian territories.

US involvement is limited to supporting Israel diplomatically and militarily—not on-the-ground governance or administration of Gaza.

 

 

While provocative plans and statements have surfaced suggesting US control over Gaza, no such control has been put into action. The status quo remains unchanged - Gaza is not under US administration, and these proposals are speculative and deeply contested.

Houthis threat to kill Netanyahu

The Houthis (Ansar Allah) are primarily a Yemeni movement with their base of power in northern part of the country. More recently, its main conflict has been with the United States and its allies, particularly because of Red Sea shipping disruptions.

After the killing of the prime minister of Yemen's Houthi-run government and several other ministers, Houthis have expressed their intentions to kill Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Can this be taken as a real threat to the life of Netanyahu?

In all the probability, the Houthis do not have the capability to directly target Netanyahu inside Israel. Their missile and drone reach has extended toward Israel during the Gaza war (some were intercepted by Israel, US, and allied forces), but striking the Israeli Prime Minister personally is far beyond their operational reach.

However, they can increase pressure on Israel by: 1) targeting Israeli linked ships and shipping lanes in the Red Sea, 2) launching long-range missiles or drones toward Israeli territory, and 3) deepening Israel’s regional isolation by linking the Gaza conflict with Yemen.

In reality, Netanyahu faces greater personal risk from inside Israel (domestic unrest, Palestinian militant groups) or from major regional actors (Hezbollah or Iran) rather than from the Houthis themselves.

While, it may be concluded that the Houthis are not a direct threat to Netanyahu, but they contribute to the overall regional security pressure on Israel that indirectly undermines his political standing and safety.

External threats to Netanyahu

Let us examine the structured hierarchy of external threats to Netanyahu’s life and political survival, ranked from most serious to least:

Hezbollah – Highest Direct Threat

The group has the capability, being the largest, most experienced armed group on Israel’s borders. It has tens of thousands of rockets, advanced drones, precision missiles. Its biggest advantage is proximity, right on Israel’s northern border. It may be said that the threat level to Netanyahu is very high – Hezbollah could, in theory, target Israeli leadership.

Iran – Indirect Threat

Iran enjoys capability, being the regional power with ballistic missiles, drones, cyber operations. While Iran may not directly target Netanyahu, it can facilitate proxies (Hezbollah, militias in Iraq/ Syria, and Houthis).

Palestinian Militants

Hamas, PIJ, and West Bank groups have the capability, having short-to-medium range rockets, cross-border raids, suicide missions. On top of all they enjoy proximity. Most of the resistance group consider Netanyahu directly responsible for Gaza destruction. Analysts believe it is difficult for them to reach him personally due to Israel’s heavy security.

Houthis (Yemen)

Houthis enjoy certain advantages like long-range drones and ballistic missiles, some have reached Israel’s southern airspace, others intercepted. Houthis position themselves as part of “Axis of Resistance” with Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas. Target Israel-linked shipping and occasionally Israel itself. Their threat level is low, as they cannot realistically strike Netanyahu personally, but can harass Israel economically and militarily.

Other Regional Militias

Groups based in Iraq and Syria enjoy certain capabilities, rockets and drones, but usually confined to US or Israeli targets in Syria/ Iraq. Therefore, the real threat level to Netanyahu’s life may be low to moderate, but nuisance attacks are possible, though unlikely to reach Israeli leadership.

Mahmoud Abbas Becomes Redundant

The Trump administration announced Friday it would deny and revoke visas for about 80 senior Palestinian officials, including President Mahmoud Abbas, ahead of the UN General Assembly in New York in September. The move, unprecedented in scope, would bar most of the Palestinian delegation from one of their few global platforms.

The State Department justified the measure by citing the Palestinian Authority’s appeals to international courts, its alleged refusal to condemn the October 07 attacks, and its pursuit of unilateral recognition. Yet the decision violates the 1947 UN Headquarters Agreement, which obliges Washington, as host state, to admit all delegations. International law, like diplomacy, is treated in Washington as a tool bent to Israel’s interests.

Contrary to US assertions that Abbas has not condemned the Hamas October 07 operation, in a letter sent in early June 2025 to French President Emmanuel Macron — and also to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman — Abbas wrote that what Hamas did, “in killing and taking civilians hostage, is unacceptable and condemnable.” He further called for the immediate release of all hostages, the dismantling of Hamas’s military capabilities, and its removal from power in Gaza.

The ban is striking because the Palestinian Authority has long served as a subcontractor for Israel’s occupation. Rather than a liberation movement, Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah became administrators of an imposed status quo.

The so-called PA “security forces” have worked closely with Israel to suppress resistance—arresting fighters, dispersing protests, and keeping order while settlements expanded. The Authority collected taxes, ran services, and projected a façade of sovereignty as Israel tightened control.

Again and again, Abbas bent to US and Israeli demands: endless “peace talks” without peace, restraining international campaigns against Israel, and managing a bureaucracy designed more to pacify than to resist.

His rhetoric echoed Washington’s ostensible preference for negotiations over confrontation. Yet the moment he pursued even mild accountability—seeking prosecutions in The Hague, he and his entourage were punished like enemies.

The lesson is clear. Compliance has not protected Abbas. Obedience has not earned favor. By banning the delegation, Washington has shown that subservience guarantees nothing. The PA’s decades of compromise have delivered only humiliation, proving that trading resistance for hollow promises is a bargain with no reward.

Washington claims its decision safeguards peace, but hypocrisy is obvious. In 1988, it denied Yasser Arafat a visa, forcing the UN to relocate to Geneva so he could speak.

In 2013, it barred Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir over his ICC indictment. Yet Benjamin Netanyahu—himself wanted by the ICC for Gaza crimes—will address the Assembly without issue. Law is wielded selectively; principle turned into a cudgel.

Timing also reveals intent. France, the UK, and Canada are preparing to recognize Palestine, joining nearly 150 countries that already do. Washington fears Abbas might use the UN podium to press for independence, and so silences him preemptively. This is not diplomacy but sabotage—an effort to erase Palestinians from the global conversation just as momentum builds for recognition.

Even so, Europe’s recognition drive is riddled with contradictions. Recognition without sovereignty is little more than a flag on paper. A Palestinian “state” lacking borders, airspace, water, and an economy would be a phantom. The Western vision is one of management, not liberation: Abbas — or a hand-picked successor in his mold — presiding over fractured enclaves while Israel sets the terms.

Yet even this empty gesture alarms Washington and Tel Aviv, who move to crush it before it gathers force. The visa ban is more than bureaucracy—it is an assault on Palestinian representation itself. Once again, the US proves not a mediator but Israel’s enforcer, binding its credibility to permanent occupation.

For those who believed collaboration would yield liberation, the lesson could not be sharper. Decades of compliance, of abandoning armed struggle for negotiations and coordinating security with an occupier, have yielded nothing but betrayal.

The moment Abbas sought accountability, he was discarded like a tool no longer useful. You cannot compromise your way to freedom; bargaining with those determined to erase you leads only to erasure.

In silencing Abbas, Washington has not just humiliated a pliant Authority. It has broadcast contempt for international law, the UN system, and Palestinian voices.

The US poses as the champion of democracy and human rights, but this is the behavior of an authoritarian bully afraid of losing control. And though the Palestinian delegation may be barred from September’s Assembly, their absence will speak louder than any speech—reminding the world that a people erased from the chamber are not erased from history.

 

Iran arrests suspects having links with Mossad

Iran's Revolutionary Guards said on Saturday they had arrested eight people suspected of trying to transmit the coordinates of sensitive sites and details about senior military figures to Israel's Mossad, reports Iranian state media.

They are accused of having provided the information to the Mossad spy agency during Israel's air war on Iran in June, when it attacked Iranian nuclear facilities and killed top military commanders as well as civilians in the worst blow to the Islamic Republic since the 1980s war with Iraq.

Iran retaliated with barrages of missiles on Israeli military sites, infrastructure and cities. The United States entered the war on June 22 with strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

A Guard’s statement alleged that the suspects had received specialized training from Mossad via online platforms. It said they were apprehended in northeastern Iran before carrying out their plans, and that materials for making launchers, bombs, explosives and booby traps had been seized.

State media reported earlier this month that Iranian police had arrested as many as 21,000 "suspects" during the 12-day war with Israel, though they did not say what these people had been suspected of doing.

Security forces conducted a campaign of widespread arrests and also stepped up their street presence during the brief war that ended in a US-brokered ceasefire.

Iran has executed at least eight people in recent months, including nuclear scientist Rouzbeh Vadi, hanged on August 9 for passing information to Israel about another scientist killed in Israeli airstrikes.

Human rights groups say Iran uses espionage charges and fast tracked executions as tools for broader political repression.

 

Duality of standards for Iran and Israel

Many readers like me are unable to understand why the United States, Britain, France and Germany are adamant at imposing sanction on Iran, but are not asking Israel to stop bombarding Gaza?

The apparent contradiction reflects how strategic interests, alliances, and global optics intersect in United States and Britain, France and Germany foreign policy. Let me break it down:

Iran Nuclear Program

The United States, Britain France and Germany have long opposed Iran’s uranium enrichment, seeing it as a path to nuclear weapons. Sanctions are their primary leverage tool.

Regional Rivalries

Iran’s support for Hezbollah, Houthis, and other groups hostile to Israel and the West makes it a “destabilizer” in their eyes.

Alliance Pressures

Many Gulf Arab states are partners of Israel, US, Britain, France and Germany and they view Iran as a strategic threat, pushing Western powers to maintain maximum pressure.

Domestic Politics

In Washington and Europe, appearing “soft on Iran” is politically costly. Sanctions serve as a signal of toughness.

Israeli attacks on Gaza

Israel’s strikes in Gaza have caused massive civilian deaths. Western governments face pressure from international institutions (UN, ICC), NGOs, and their own publics.

The US, Britain France and Germany consider themselves defenders of international law. Unchecked Israeli bombing undermines their stance on Ukraine, human rights, and global order.

Escalation in Gaza risks dragging in Lebanon, Syria, and potentially Iran—threatening oil supplies and broader Middle East stability, which Europe especially fears.

In the US and Europe, large pro-Palestinian movements, especially among younger voters and immigrant communities are creating political pressure to rein in Israel.

Core Contradiction

On Iran, the West uses sanctions as a pressure tool because Iran is seen as an adversary.

On Israel, despite being an ally, the West uses diplomatic urging rather than sanctions—because Israel is a strategic partner, but its Gaza actions are politically damaging to the West’s global image.

In essence, Iran is a strategic opponent and super powers use sanctions as pressure

They consider Israel a strategic ally and want to save it from any external pressure, the statements are rhetoric only.

This double standard is being viewed in non-Western capitals (Beijing, Moscow, Global and South) as dual standard and Western stance weakens their credibility globally.

The non-Western world views this double standard of sanctions on Iran but “restraint pleas” for Israel.

China points out that the US, Britain, France and Germany are punishing Iran harshly for alleged destabilizing actions, but shield Israel diplomatically despite Gaza bombings.

By calling for ceasefires and humanitarian aid, China portrays itself as a “responsible global mediator,” contrasting with the West’s selective morality.

Iran is a vital energy partner for China under its Belt and Road Initiative. Sanctions make Tehran more dependent on Beijing, strengthening Chinese influence.

Russia

Russia terms the West’s “rules-based order” biased. They argue: “If bombing cities in Ukraine is a war crime, why not Gaza?”

Iran is often accused of supplying drones and partnering with Russia under sanctions, so Moscow benefits from Tehran’s isolation.

Russia frames itself as standing with the oppressed (Palestinians) against Western-backed aggression, resonating in Arab and African states.

Colonial Echoes

Many see the West’s defense of Israel and punishment of Iran as a continuation of imperial “divide and rule.”

Western claims about human rights and international law are viewed as selective—undermining their authority when they criticize others (African leaders, Asian governments).

Countries like Turkey, Brazil, and South Africa amplify calls for accountability against Israel, while trading more with Iran outside the dollar system.

Strategic Impact

The West’s inconsistency weakens its moral standing globally.

Non-Western powers gain diplomatic and economic space by filling the “justice gap.”

Iran, despite sanctions, finds sympathy in many Global South societies as a victim of Western double standards—while Israel risks becoming diplomatically isolated outside the Western bloc.

Moral of the story

The contradictory stances of US, Britain France and Germany may preserve short-term alliances, but they’re eroding their credibility in the long run, especially in the Global South.