No One Is Talking About Gaza

The world seems to have forgotten Gaza. The much-trumpeted ceasefire was never peace—it was merely a pause, a calculated silence that allowed Israel to continue its assault under softer headlines. Killings, raids, and blockades persist, but the outrage has vanished. Western media, once overflowing with images of destruction, now devotes its front pages to Trump’s political theatrics and market gossip. This apathy is not accidental; it reflects selective morality and political convenience. When Ukraine suffers, it’s front-page news; when Gaza bleeds, it disappears. The ceasefire was not an end to violence but a rebranding of it—acceptable to Western capitals and ignored by global media. Gaza remains trapped between occupation and silence, its tragedy erased by those who claim to defend human rights.

When the so-called Gaza ceasefire was announced, the world sighed in relief. On October 16, 2026, I wrote “Gaza: Ceasefire Brings Pause, Not Peace.” Sadly, that assessment has proved accurate. What was projected as a humanitarian breakthrough has merely given Israel a quieter stage to continue its aggression—less visible, but equally lethal.

Killings, arrests, and systematic strangulation of Gaza’s population have not stopped. Reports by independent observers describe continued night raids, targeted assassinations, and a tightening blockade that deprives millions of food, medicine, and fuel. Yet, the international community acts as if peace has returned. It hasn’t. What returned is complacency—disguised as relief.

The Western media, once saturated with vivid images of destruction, has conveniently moved on. Its focus has shifted to Trump’s political drama, Wall Street turbulence, and AI-driven optimism. The suffering of Gaza has simply fallen off the editorial map. This silence is not a lapse; it is a choice. It reflects a hierarchy of human lives—a moral framework where victims matter only if their suffering fits Western narratives.

The tragedy is not only Israel’s continued impunity but also the media’s complicity in erasing it. The same outlets that once counted every missile strike now seem allergic to truth when it no longer serves their political comfort. When Ukraine bleeds, headlines multiply; when Gaza starves, the world looks away.

This selective blindness reveals a deeper sickness in global conscience. Human rights, it appears, are not universal—they are conditional, determined by who the victim is and who the perpetrator happens to be. Western capitals that preach democracy and humanitarian values have reduced Palestine to a talking point, not a principle.

Silence is not neutrality; it is endorsement. Every unreported killing, every censored image, every muted appeal strengthens the aggressor’s hand. Israel understands this perfectly. A quiet Gaza allows it to deepen occupation policies without scrutiny. And the world, addicted to short attention spans, gives it exactly that space.

International organizations remain trapped between bureaucratic inertia and political pressure. The so-called peace architects, who engineered the fragile ceasefire, have vanished from the scene. For them, “mission accomplished” meant restoring calm, not justice.

The truth is harsh: Gaza has been abandoned again—this time not under bombs, but under silence. Western media’s shift of focus from genocide to gossip exposes the moral decay of an information system guided by profit and politics, not by conscience.

Until the world admits that a ceasefire without accountability is merely an intermission between massacres, Gaza will remain a scar on the world’s conscience—a living reminder of how easily human suffering can be ignored when it is politically inconvenient.

 

 

 

 

Have All Abandoned Hamas?

The question of whether Hamas has been completely abandoned by its allies deserves a nuanced answer. While the militant-political organization is under unprecedented isolation and financial strain, it has not been left entirely friendless. What has changed is not the existence of support, but the depth and nature of it. The few remaining backers are more pragmatic and cautious than ideological.

Iran remains the most steadfast supporter of Hamas, but even Tehran’s approach has shifted from enthusiasm to calculation. The Islamic Republic continues to provide limited training, intelligence, and weapons through its network that includes Hezbollah and the IRGC. Yet, Hamas no longer occupies the central role it once did in Iran’s “Axis of Resistance.” Tehran’s strategic priority today is containing Israel through Hezbollah in Lebanon and maintaining deterrence in Syria and Iraq. In that equation, Hamas has become an auxiliary, not a frontline force.

Qatar, long seen as Hamas’s financial lifeline, has also recalibrated its policy. The unmonitored cash deliveries to Gaza that sustained Hamas’s governance structure are now being rerouted through the United Nations and humanitarian agencies. Doha seeks to retain its role as a mediator rather than an outright patron. That shift leaves Hamas with a smaller and more conditional stream of funds — insufficient to maintain administrative control in a war-torn enclave.

Turkey’s support, meanwhile, has settled into the realm of rhetoric. President Erdoğan continues to speak forcefully for Palestinian rights, but Ankara avoids concrete steps that could jeopardize its economic and diplomatic relations with the West. Turkey’s relationship with Hamas has become largely symbolic — a political shield rather than a material one.

Across the Arab world, the mood has changed dramatically. Egypt views Hamas as a destabilizing factor on its Sinai frontier; Jordan and the Gulf monarchies see it as a residue of the Muslim Brotherhood; and Saudi Arabia, pursuing strategic normalization with Israel, has little appetite for association. The UAE, a key Arab power, treats Hamas as a security threat rather than a liberation movement. This new regional consensus marks a profound isolation for the group.

Yet, Hamas is not entirely defeated. It continues to command thousands of fighters, retains limited weapons stockpiles, and still projects control over parts of Gaza. More importantly, popular sympathy for the Palestinian cause across the Muslim world remains deeply rooted. But sympathy does not translate into resources. Without substantial state sponsorship, Hamas is now sustained mainly by resilience, underground networks, and a sense of defiance rather than structured external support.

In essence, Hamas stands at a crossroads. Its godfathers have not fully abandoned it, but their backing has turned conditional and cautious. The movement survives, but in a diminished, more isolated form — powerful enough to persist, yet too constrained to dominate. The age of ideological patronage is ending; what remains is a movement fighting for relevance amid the ruins it once ruled.

 

Does Hamas Still Have Muscles to Violate Ceasefire?

After nearly 800 days of relentless Israeli bombardment, Gaza stands shattered — its people displaced, cities flattened, and infrastructure destroyed. Yet Israel continues to accuse Hamas of violating ceasefire terms. The question naturally arises: does Hamas, after such devastation, still possess the means to breach a truce, or is this accusation yet another attempt to justify continued aggression?

Since the beginning, Tel Aviv has framed its military operations as “defensive,” aimed at dismantling Hamas. But the scale and duration of the campaign tell another story — one of collective punishment rather than defense. Civilian areas, hospitals, and refugee camps have been repeatedly struck, erasing the line between combatant and non-combatant.

The power imbalance is stark. Israel, equipped with one of the world’s most advanced militaries, faces a besieged enclave surviving under blockade. In such a context, claims of Hamas violating ceasefires seem less credible and more like political cover for ongoing strikes. Each new round of violence devastates Gaza further while bolstering Israel’s domestic narrative of self-defense.

Globally, the reaction remains divided. Western powers still defend Israel’s “right to protect itself,” while UN bodies and human rights organizations warn of violations of international law. The destruction of civilian infrastructure, denial of humanitarian aid, and use of starvation as a weapon have drawn growing condemnation — yet no serious accountability follows.

Ironically, despite the prolonged war, Israel’s strategic goals remain unfulfilled. Hamas has not been eradicated; instead, its symbolic strength has grown amid Gaza’s suffering. Meanwhile, Israel’s moral and diplomatic standing continues to erode.

By insisting that Hamas alone violates the ceasefire, Israel attempts to retain moral high ground. But after 800 days of devastation, that claim sounds increasingly hollow. The real question is not whether Hamas still has the strength to fight — but whether Israel has the courage to stop a war that has already lost its purpose.

Why Trump Took So Long to End Israeli Killing in Gaza?

As Gaza bled, Washington watched. For weeks, bombs rained on civilians while the so-called champion of “peace through strength” stayed silent. Donald Trump, quick to boast of brokering deals, turned hesitant when the cost of morality threatened his politics. His long silence over Israel’s brutality was not confusion — it was complicity.

Trump’s trademark swagger vanished when Gaza burned. The self-proclaimed deal-maker watched from the sidelines as Israel’s relentless bombing turned a crowded strip into a graveyard. His hesitation wasn’t diplomacy — it was political calculation dressed as caution.

He delayed action because he feared offending the Israel lobby and evangelical base that bankroll and bolster his politics. Their loyalty mattered more than the lives lost under Israeli bombs.

Washington’s silence was not indecision; it was endorsement. By refusing to restrain Tel Aviv, Trump aligned moral blindness with political convenience.

Behind the scenes, his advisers argued that Israel remains America’s indispensable proxy in the Middle East, and any pressure might embolden Iran or upset Gulf partners.

In truth, Trump was unwilling to challenge a policy that defines US dominance in the region — where stability is measured by arms sales, not peace. Gaza’s children simply did not fit into that equation.

But the cost of silence mounted fast. The world watched in horror, and even US allies began questioning Washington’s humanity.

When images of famine and flattened hospitals flooded global screens, Trump finally called for restraint — a gesture too late to cleanse the blood on American hands.

His eventual push for ceasefire wasn’t moral awakening; it was damage control. The U.S. was losing global credibility, and Trump’s “America First” mantra was turning into “Morality Last.”

For all his talk of strength, Trump blinked when leadership demanded courage. Gaza will remain the chapter where his silence spoke louder than his slogans.

Hamas Agreeing to Ceasefire: Victory or Defeat

This ceasefire is not the end of war. It is merely the pause between two tragedies.

After months of destruction, displacement, and despair, Hamas has agreed to a ceasefire. Its supporters call it a “strategic pause,” but in truth, it reflects exhaustion — political, military, and moral. When resistance drifts from purpose to performance, it loses the essence of struggle and becomes an exercise in survival.

Hamas overestimated its resilience and underestimated the duplicity of the Arab world. The self-proclaimed defenders of Palestine turned spectators, mouthing empty slogans while doing business with Tel Aviv.

The Western champions of democracy and human rights proved, once again, that these values have geographical limits. In this moral vacuum, Hamas found itself fighting alone — a resistance without reinforcements.

The ceasefire may silence the guns, but it cannot disguise the catastrophe. Gaza stands in ruins — its governance crippled, its population scattered, its children scarred.

Israel may not have destroyed Hamas, but it has devastated everything around it. The resistance lives, but the society it claimed to protect lies in ashes.

Yet Israel’s so-called “victory” is equally hollow. Two years of relentless war have brought neither peace nor security. Instead, Israel finds itself morally isolated and diplomatically cornered. The global sympathy it once commanded has turned to disgust. Even among its traditional allies, questions are being asked: how long can “self-defense” justify collective punishment?

To conclude, is this ceasefire a victory or a defeat?

For Hamas, it is survival without success; for Israel, dominance without dignity. Both sides are trapped in a cycle of destruction that yields no justice, only rubble and resentment.

The true defeat lies with the international community — which has normalized occupation, tolerated brutality, and renamed surrender as “peace.”

 

کون بنے گا غزہ کا بادشاہ

غزہ جل رہا ہے، مگر تخت خالی نہیں۔ ہر کوئی بادشاہ بننے کو بے چین ہے — کوئی بندوق لے کر، کوئی قرارداد اٹھا کر، کوئی انسان کے آنسو بیچ کر۔ یہ وہ بادشاہت ہے جس کے محل ملبے میں دفن ہیں، اور رعایا مٹی میں۔

عرب دنیا اب صرف بیانات کی بادشاہت چلاتی ہے۔ کوئی قطر میں کانفرنس بلاتا ہے، کوئی ریاض میں “امن” کے تسبیح دانے گنتا ہے۔ ہر کوئی سمجھتا ہے کہ اس کی خاموشی ہی دانش مندی ہے۔ غزہ میں خون بہے یا بچوں کے لاشے بکھریں، اصل مسئلہ یہ ہے کہ فوٹو سیشن میں کون اگلی صف میں بیٹھے گا۔ بادشاہت کے خواب اب تسبیح کے دانوں سے نہیں، “لائکس” اور “ڈالرز” سے گنے جاتے ہیں۔

مغربی دنیا بھی کم تماشائی نہیں۔ کوئی آزادیِ اظہار کے پرچم تلے جلتے گھروں کی تصویریں چھاپتا ہے، اور کوئی “دہشت گرد” کا لیبل لگا کر قبر کی مٹی ہلکی کر دیتا ہے۔ جنہوں نے فلسطینیوں کو تاریخ کا سب سے بڑا سبق دینے کا وعدہ کیا تھا، وہ اب جغرافیہ بھی ان سے چھین چکے ہیں۔

اور حماس؟ وہ بھی بادشاہت کی دوڑ میں پیچھے نہیں۔ تخت بچانے کے لیے رعایا قربان، عزت بچانے کے لیے لاشیں گنی جا رہی ہیں۔ مزاحمت کا نعرہ اب زندہ رہنے کی نہیں، اقتدار بچانے کی علامت بن چکا ہے۔

غزہ میں بادشاہت کا تاج اب خون میں بھیگا ہوا ہے — مگر دعوے دار سب مسکراتے ہیں۔ کوئی اسرائیل کی طرف دیکھتا ہے، کوئی واشنگٹن کی، کوئی تہران کی۔ سب جانتے ہیں، جو بادشاہ بنے گا، وہ رعایا کے خون سے نہیں، خاموشی سے حکومت کرے گا۔

اور رعایا؟ وہ اب صرف ملبے کے نیچے رہ گئی ہے، جہاں بادشاہت کے تمام خواب دفن ہو چکے ہیں۔
آخر میں صرف ایک سوال باقی ہے —
غزہ کا بادشاہ کون بنے گا؟
جو سب کو مار چکا ہے، یا جو اب بھی زندہ رہنے کی سزا بھگت رہا ہے؟

Gaza War: Russia and China Look Indifferent

At first glance, Russia and China seem unmoved by the relentless bloodshed in Gaza. Their silence is often mistaken for apathy. But in reality, both are pursuing a deliberate and ruthless calculation — letting the United States drown in a moral crisis of its own making.

Moscow and Beijing see Gaza not as a regional conflict but as the ultimate exposure of Western hypocrisy. For decades, Washington lectured the world on human rights while funding Israel’s occupation machinery. Now, as civilian deaths pile up, the United States finds itself stripped of credibility. Russia and China see no reason to save America from the consequences of its double standards.

At the United Nations, their diplomacy is coldly efficient. Both talk of peace but avoid taking any direct lead, knowing well that every American veto on a ceasefire resolution is another self-inflicted wound for Washington. Why intervene when your rival insists on showcasing its moral bankruptcy before the world?

For Russia, already locked in the Ukraine war, Gaza is an unexpected advantage — a distraction that diverts Western attention and resources.

For China, the war exposes America’s declining global authority, strengthening Beijing’s narrative of a fairer, multipolar world. Both understand that the longer Gaza burns, the weaker US influence becomes in the Global South.

Neither Moscow nor Beijing wants to be entangled in Middle Eastern chaos. They prefer to appear detached while quietly cultivating Arab trust and sympathy. Their silence is not a void — it is strategy, precision, and patience rolled into one.

The West calls it indifference. In truth, it is the art of letting a rival crumble under the weight of its own contradictions.

The opponents of Russia and China say these countries are not neutral; they are opportunistic. And in Gaza’s tragedy, they have found a powerful stage on which America’s self-proclaimed moral leadership is collapsing — in full view of a watching world.

Two Years of War in Gaza, Israel Gains Nothing

Two years of unrelenting war on Gaza, and Israel still stands where it began — trapped in a cycle of destruction, denial, and diplomatic decay. What was marketed as a mission to “eliminate Hamas” has turned into a grim display of state violence that has neither secured Israel nor silenced its critics. If anything, Israel has lost far more than it has gained — morally, politically, and strategically.

Israel’s military might has flattened Gaza, but not Hamas. The resistance remains alive, its ideology more entrenched than ever among Palestinians who have nothing left to lose. Israel’s massive bombardment of homes, hospitals, and schools has not eradicated militancy — it has multiplied it.

The claim of “self-defense” now rings hollow in a world that has seen unarmed civilians buried under rubble and children starved by blockades. The war has exposed not strength, but Israel’s insecurity and moral bankruptcy.

Prime Minister Netanyahu, clinging to power through fear and militarism, has turned Israel into a pariah. Once viewed as a “democracy under threat,” Israel is now increasingly seen as an occupying force addicted to impunity.

Western governments still offer rhetorical support, but their streets tell a different story — millions protesting against Israel’s brutality and questioning their leaders’ complicity.

The regional fallout is equally severe. The Abraham Accords lie in political ruins, Arab regimes have distanced themselves, and Iran’s proxies have gained renewed legitimacy. Instead of isolating Hamas, Israel has isolated itself. The Arab world, once divided, now finds a common cause again — Palestine.

Economically, the war has drained Israel’s resources, scared away investors, and dented its global tech-driven image. The cost of perpetual war is beginning to show on Israel’s economy and psyche alike.

Two years on, Israel has neither peace nor security — only international condemnation and deep moral scars. Its military triumphs have yielded strategic emptiness.

Gaza lies in ruins, but Israel’s reputation lies beside it — shattered and unredeemable. In the long run, a state cannot bomb its way to legitimacy.

Israel’s real existential dilemma is not Hamas, but its own refusal to accept that lasting security can only be built on justice, not occupation.

 

Two Years of Israeli War on Gaza

Two years into Israeli war on Gaza, the region stands devastated — physically, morally, and strategically. What began as a campaign of “self-defense” has turned into a prolonged assault that has razed cities, erased families, and rewritten the moral code of modern warfare. Israel may claim tactical victories, but the strategic outcome is a quagmire that even its staunchest allies struggle to justify.

Gaza today is a graveyard of statistics — tens of thousands of dead, hundreds of thousands displaced, and almost the entire population dependent on aid. The relentless bombardment has not uprooted Hamas; it has only deepened the political and emotional trench dividing Israelis and Palestinians. Far from eliminating militancy, Israeli campaign has turned Gaza into a permanent symbol of resistance and despair — a living wound in the conscience of the Middle East.

The Israeli leadership sells this war as a quest for security. Yet, two years on, Israel is less secure, not more. Its borders remain tense, international isolation grows, and domestic protests simmer under the surface of official triumphalism.

The myth of “precision warfare” has collapsed under the rubble of homes, schools, and hospitals. Even Washington, Israel’s diplomatic shield, is beginning to show fatigue — forced to defend the indefensible in every international forum.

Meanwhile, the Arab world’s silence has been deafening. Once vocal capitals have turned pragmatic, their outrage replaced by quiet normalization. The Palestinians, once betrayed by borders, are now betrayed by indifference.

Israel’s war on Gaza is no longer about eliminating Hamas — it is about maintaining an illusion that military dominance can substitute for political vision. But wars end; occupations linger; and history has a ruthless memory.

Two years later, Israel may have won battles, but it is losing the narrative — and with it, the moral ground that once set it apart from those it condemns.

Gaza’s ruins are not only a testament to Palestinian suffering but also to Israel’s strategic and moral decay. The war may still rage, but the victory, if ever claimed, will be hollow.

 

US double standards: Calling Hamas Terrorists, Negotiating Anyway

The United States loves to preach moral clarity - we do not negotiate with terrorists. Hamas, Washington insists, is a terrorist outfit responsible for bloodshed and chaos. Yet when the fighting in Gaza escalates and pressure mounts, the very same US administration finds itself scrambling for ceasefires—talking, directly or through intermediaries, to the very group it vilifies.

This is not strategy; it is double standards dressed up as pragmatism. US labels Hamas terrorists when it wants to project toughness at home, but when hostages are in danger, when civilian deaths spark global outrage, or when Arab allies threaten to break ranks, suddenly those “terrorists” become indispensable negotiating partners. The moral line evaporates the moment US interests are at stake.

The hypocrisy runs deep. The US slammed the Taliban for decades, only to sit across the table with them in Doha. It demonized Iraqi insurgents, then quietly cut deals to protect its own troops. It threatens “rogue states” like North Korea, then rushes into summits when the nuclear rhetoric escalates. With Hamas, the pattern is the same - condemnation in speeches, cooperation in practice.

This duplicity has consequences. By insisting Hamas is illegitimate yet negotiating with it whenever convenient, Washington undermines its own credibility. The message is clear: terrorism is a negotiable label, applied or ignored depending on political expediency. For people in the Middle East, this only confirms what they already suspect—that US policy is not about principles, but about protecting its own interests and Israel’s dominance.

If the US truly believes Hamas is a terrorist organization, then it should be consistent and refuse talks, no matter the cost. If, on the other hand, it recognizes that Hamas is an unavoidable political actor, then it should drop the pretense and admit it. Straddling both positions—condemnation in rhetoric, negotiation in reality—is not statesmanship. It is hypocrisy.

Flotilla Confrontation: Security Meets Humanitarian Defiance

The clash on the Mediterranean was more than a naval interception; it was the meeting point of two uncompromising mindsets. Israel, driven by security fears, saw the flotilla as a breach of sovereignty. The organizers, propelled by humanitarian urgency, saw it as a moral duty. The confrontation at sea exposed the deeper conflict on land—between a state that insists on safety at all costs and activists who believe silence in the face of suffering is complicity.

For Israel, the blockade of Gaza is not an option but a shield. In its worldview, Gaza is governed by Hamas, a militant force openly hostile to the Jewish state. Every unchecked shipment, Israel argues, risks smuggling in rockets or arms. From this vantage point, the blockade is an unfortunate but necessary firewall. The flotilla’s defiance, therefore, was not seen as a humanitarian act but as a provocation, a test of sovereignty. Intercepting the vessels was, in Israel’s eyes, enforcement of deterrence—not an act of aggression.

The flotilla organizers saw the situation through a very different lens. For them, Gaza is less about security threats and more about a humanitarian catastrophe. Years of blockade have left two million people trapped in an economic and social vise. The organizers framed their mission not simply as aid delivery but as civil disobedience at sea. Their ships carried food and medicine, but more importantly, they carried symbolism—an attempt to shine a spotlight on suffering and force the international community to reckon with policies they believe amount to collective punishment.

Both narratives have their logic, and both are uncompromising. Israel’s security calculus is rooted in bitter experience of rocket fire and attacks, leaving little room for risk-taking. The activists, meanwhile, operate on the conviction that moral duty overrides political boundaries. Neither side expected to concede; both expected to be challenged.

That is why confrontation was inevitable. The tragedy is that it deepened rather than bridged the divide. Israel reinforced its image as uncompromising, while the activists underscored their point that humanitarian access is blocked. In the end, the flotilla standoff revealed more than a naval skirmish—it laid bare the gulf between security fears and humanitarian imperatives, a gulf the world has yet to find the courage to close.

Global Sumud Flotilla approaching Gaza

According to media reports, an international aid flotilla is approaching the Gaza Strip in a bid to break an Israeli blockade on the Palestinian enclave.

“We are 570 kilometers (307.7 nautical miles) away from reaching Gaza,” the International Committee for Breaking the Siege on Gaza said on X.

Tony La Piccirella, an Italian activist from the Global Sumud Flotilla, said in a video statement that they will reach on Tuesday the point that Madleen and Handala aid ships had been intercepted by Israeli naval forces in previous attempts to lift the Israeli siege and deliver humanitarian aid.

On July 26, Israeli naval forces intercepted the Handala aid ship as it neared Gaza’s shores and escorted it to Ashdod Port. The vessel had reached about 70 nautical miles from Gaza, surpassing the distance covered by the Madleen, which made it 110 miles before it had been stopped.

A group of activists joined the Global Sumud Flotilla from the Mediterranean on Monday, and two more boats are joining from the Greek Cypriot Administration and Turkey. The biggest ship of the flotilla will set sail on Tuesday with 100 on board, the activist said.

La Piccirella said in addition to Italian and Spanish navy vessels that provide protection for the flotilla, three more countries are considering sending more military vessels, without revealing the names of these countries.

“So, it's getting bigger. And it's not about us, about the Global Sumud Flotilla. It's like a movement with hundreds of people at sea and millions of people on land, and it's not stoppable until the siege is broken,” he said.

The Global Sumud Flotilla, made up of about 50 ships, set sail earlier this month to break Israel’s blockade on Gaza and deliver humanitarian aid, particularly medical supplies, to the war-ravaged enclave.

Since March 02, Israel has fully closed Gaza’s crossings, blocking food and aid convoys and deepening famine conditions in the enclave.

The Israeli army has killed over 66,000 Palestinians, most of them women and children, in Gaza since October 2023. The relentless bombardment has rendered the enclave uninhabitable and led to starvation and the spread of diseases.

 

 

Protests and walkouts eclipse Netanyahu's UN appearance

The scene in New York — empty UN rows, diplomatic walkouts and sustained street protests, including large marches from Times Square to the UN and demonstrations outside Netanyahu’s Manhattan hotel — crystallized the political cost of the address.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to the United Nations General Assembly on Friday was an attempt at a carefully staged and combative defense of Israel’s aggressive campaign in Gaza and its wider military actions across the region. Yet the performance could not mask the widening gulf between his narrative and the findings of international institutions, public-health agencies, and human-rights organizations.

Netanyahu employed one prominent map, alongside visual aids and rhetorical flourishes critics deemed theatrical props, and he repeated the phrase “Israel must finish the job.”

The line landed amid visible diplomatic rebuke - dozens of delegations staged walkouts and large sections of the Assembly remained conspicuously empty, while thousands of demonstrators in New York took to the streets demanding a ceasefire and accountability.

Independent UN mechanisms and leading rights groups have drawn a far grimmer picture than the one Netanyahu offered. In a September report, the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry concluded that the Israeli conduct in Gaza meets the legal threshold of genocide.

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have documented patterns of indiscriminate bombardment, forced displacement, and the deliberate deprivation of essential services that they say amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Public-health agencies and UN partners, drawing on figures from Gaza’s Ministry of Health, estimate that more than 65,500 people have been killed since October 2023.

The war has forced the displacement of up to 90 percent of the population, while famine conditions have taken hold in several areas. The World Health Organization has confirmed hundreds of deaths from malnutrition, many of them children.

Beyond Gaza, Israel’s military actions have extended across the region, with deadly strikes in Lebanon, Syria, and Iran, where more than 1,065 people were killed in the 12-Day War. Attacks have also targeted sites in Qatar and other parts of West Asia, widening the conflict’s footprint and drawing condemnation for what critics describe as a campaign of destabilization.

Netanyahu sought to rebut such charges by pointing to evacuation orders and intelligence claims, and by portraying Iran as the backbone of a regional “terror axis.”

Those assertions did not persuade critics who point out that warnings alone cannot absolve a belligerent of responsibility for operations that hit hospitals, shelters, and schools or that substantially hinder lifesaving aid.

The repeated refrain to “finish the job” in an enclave of nearly two million civilians risks being read not as a constrained military objective but as justification for actions with catastrophic humanitarian and legal consequences.

A particularly contentious decision during the UN appearance was the transmission of the speech into Gaza via loudspeakers on the border and, according to multiple reports, through mobile devices.

Framed by Tel Aviv as communication aimed at captives, the broadcasts were described by many humanitarian advocates and Palestinian journalists as coercive psychological pressure imposed on a population already under bombardment and facing starvation.

 

 

Tony Blair being tipped to run Gaza

According to the reports published in Haaretz and the Times of Israel the White House is backing a proposal to install former British prime minister Tony Blair at the head of a new “Gaza International Transitional Authority” (GITA), which would serve as Gaza’s supreme political and legal authority for as long as five years.

The body, modeled on transitional administrations in Kosovo and Timor-Leste, would initially be based in Egypt and later enter Gaza with a supposedly UN-endorsed, largely Arab peacekeeping force.

According to the details, GITA would oversee a technocratic Palestinian Executive Authority tasked with delivering services, running ministries such as health and education, and supervising vetted civil police.

Hamas is explicitly excluded, while the Palestinian Authority (PA) is promised an eventual role — but with no firm timetable.

By contrast, the UN General Assembly recently backed the “New York Declaration,” a plan for a one-year interim administration that would then hand power to a reformed PA following elections.

Arab states have warned that their support for any peacekeeping force depends on a credible political horizon toward Palestinian statehood. Many fear that the Blair plan offers only a more palatable form of occupation, granting Israel reassurances while denying Palestinians genuine sovereignty.

Blair’s involvement is especially controversial. While he enjoys ties with Arab leaders from the Persian Gulf, Palestinians broadly resent his record as Middle East envoy and his role in the US-led invasion of Iraq. To many, his leadership would symbolize not liberation but a continuation of externally imposed control.

The plan comes against the backdrop of Washington’s earlier floated ideas — including transforming Gaza into a “Riviera” or even facilitating mass removal of Palestinians — rhetoric widely condemned as edging toward ethnic cleansing.

Though the details from the Blair proposal do not explicitly call for displacement, critics warn that without guarantees of rights, participation, and a binding timeline, Gaza risks foreign control and loss of sovereignty.

 

Yemeni drone attack injures more than 20 in Israeli city of Eilat

According to media reports, at least 22 people were injured, including two seriously, after a drone fired from Yemen hit the city of Eilat in southern Israel on the Red Sea coast on Wednesday.

Video and images from emergency responders and the Israeli military show the drone landed near stores and restaurants. The drone was fired during the final hours of the holiday of Rosh Hashanah, which marks the Jewish New Year.

Houthis have repeatedly launched drones and ballistic missiles at Eilat and other areas in southern Israel, but these launches are frequently intercepted. It’s unclear how Wednesday’s drone penetrated Israel’s air defenses.

“Interception attempts were made, and search and rescue teams are operating in the area where the report was received regarding the impact,” the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said in a statement.

Many of those who were injured in the attack suffered shrapnel from the explosion, according to Magen David Adom (MDA), Israel’s emergency response service.

A 60-year-old man who was seriously injured was struck by shrapnel in his limbs, while a seriously injured 26-year-old man suffered shrapnel wounds to his chest, MDA said. One other person suffered moderate injuries, MDA said.

The IDF said in a separate statement that its troops “are assisting in evacuating civilians from the area and providing initial medical care.”

“An IDF helicopter was dispatched and is currently assisting in evacuating injured individuals from the scene,” it added.

The Houthi militant group in Yemen later claimed responsibility for the attack, calling it a “qualitative military operation.”

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz vowed to revenge against Houthis following the attack on the city.

“The Houthi terrorists refuse to learn from Iran, Lebanon, and Gaza – and they will learn the hard way,” Katz said in a statement.

“Whoever harms Israel will be harmed sevenfold,” Katz added.

Earlier in September, a drone launched from Yemen by Houthi rebels hit the arrivals hall at Ramon Airport in southern Israel on Sunday, the Israeli military and the Israel Airports Authority said.

No sirens were sounded, the IDF said, since the drone was identified but not classified as hostile. An “extensive investigation” was expected.

Since Israel’s war with Hamas in Gaza began in October 2023, the country has come under fire from missiles and drones from the Houthis in Yemen, who claim to strike Israel in solidarity with the Palestinians.

Israel has carried out waves of strikes targeting Houthi military facilities and civilian infrastructure the IDF says is used by the Houthis. But the long-range exchange of fire has escalated recently.

In late August, Yemen’s Houthi rebels vowed to take revenge for the killing of their prime minister and other political leaders by Israeli airstrikes earlier that month.

 

Hamas is Freedom Fighter, Not Terrorist

The dominant Western discourse labels Hamas a “terrorist organization.” Yet this framing neglects both the context of Israel’s occupation and the legal principles that underpin the Palestinian right to resist. A critical reassessment reveals Hamas as part of a broader liberation struggle—comparable to anti-colonial movements across Africa, Asia, and Europe—that embodies the right of oppressed peoples to fight for self-determination.

Legal Basis of Resistance

International law recognizes the legitimacy of armed resistance against foreign occupation. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 37/43 (1982) affirms the right of peoples “under colonial and foreign domination and alien occupation to struggle … by all available means, including armed struggle.”

The Palestinian case clearly falls within this framework. Israel’s continued occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem violates numerous UN resolutions, including UN Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), which demand Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories.

Thus, the actions of Palestinian resistance groups—including Hamas—are not “terrorism” in the legal sense but a manifestation of the internationally recognized right to resist occupation.

Historical Parallels

Resistance movements throughout history were often branded “terrorist” by dominant powers. The French Resistance against Nazi Germany engaged in armed attacks and sabotage but is now revered as heroic.

Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress (ANC) was on US and British terrorist watch lists until the 1990s.

Similarly, the FLN in Algeria and the Mau Mau in Kenya were vilified as terrorists during their anti-colonial wars.

Today, they are celebrated as freedom fighters who dismantled colonial rule. Hamas should be understood in this historical continuum rather than through selective moral judgments.

Political and Social Legitimacy

Hamas is not an isolated militant group. In the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections, declared free and fair by international monitors, Hamas won a majority, underscoring its legitimacy among Palestinians.

Beyond its military dimension, it provides education, healthcare, and welfare services in Gaza, functioning as both a political and social actor.

This dual role strengthens its claim as a national liberation movement rather than a mere armed faction.

Double Standards

The Western narrative reveals glaring inconsistencies. When Ukraine resists Russian occupation, it is celebrated as self-defense. When Palestinians resist Israeli occupation, it is condemned as terrorism.

Such double standards highlight the politicization of the term “terrorism,” stripping it of objective meaning and weaponizing it to delegitimize legitimate struggles.

Palestinian Struggle

It is important to emphasize that Hamas does not exist in isolation but as part of a century-long Palestinian resistance to dispossession and occupation.

The 1948 Nakba displaced hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, and Israel’s subsequent expansion entrenched a system widely described by human rights organizations—including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch—as apartheid. In this context, Hamas embodies continuity with the larger Palestinian liberation struggle.

Hamas is not merely a militant group but a resistance movement rooted in the Palestinian right to self-determination. International law, historical precedent, and moral logic place it firmly within the tradition of freedom fighters, not terrorists.

To criminalize Hamas is to criminalize the very notion of liberation. Just as yesterday’s “terrorists” became today’s national heroes, the Palestinian struggle—and Hamas as part of it—must be recognized as a fight for justice and freedom.

 

US and Israel must pay for Gaza reconstruction

Reports suggest that US President Donald Trump is set to convene leaders and officials from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Indonesia, and Pakistan for a multilateral meeting on Gaza. The centerpiece of his proposal will be threefold: 1) release of captives, 2) a ceasefire, and 3) Israeli withdrawal. Yet behind these points lies Washington’s real demand — pressing Arab and Muslim countries to provide troops and bankroll Gaza’s reconstruction.

This approach is deeply flawed. After nearly two years of war, Gaza has been turned into rubble. Over 65,000 Palestinians are dead, the entire population displaced, and famine has taken hold. UN inquiries and global rights experts have already concluded that Israel’s campaign constitutes genocide.

Against such evidence, one must ask: why should Arab and Muslim states be asked to fund the rebuilding of a land destroyed by Israel with American weapons and American diplomatic cover?

Morally and legally, it is Israel and its principal sponsor — the United States — who must foot the bill, not the victims’ brothers and neighbors.

In fact, justice demands far more: compensation to the families of the dead, even a million dollars for each life taken, as a measure of accountability.

History underscores this logic. After World War II, defeated aggressors were made to pay. Germany’s factories and patents were seized, Japan delivered reparations to occupied nations, and Italy compensated countries it had invaded.

The Western Allies later softened the approach through the Marshall Plan, choosing reconstruction over humiliation. But the guiding principle remained the same: those who destroy must pay to rebuild.

Expecting Arab and Muslim nations to pay for Gaza’s reconstruction is not only unjust, it is an insult. It absolves Israel of responsibility while shifting the burden onto those who stood with the victims.

If Washington and Tel Aviv believe in peace, they must accept the hard truth: accountability is the foundation of stability. Gaza will not rise from the ashes if the arsonists walk free and the neighbors are forced to pick up the tab.

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 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.