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.

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."

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.”

 

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.

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.

 

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.

 

Fury Over Murder of Journalists by Israel

Israel is drawing harsh criticism after it launched a pair of strikes at Nasser Hospital in southern Gaza on Monday that left at least 20 people dead, including journalists and healthcare workers.

As reported by CNN, Israel launched "back-to-back strikes on the Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis" that were "separated by only a matter of minutes." The second strike killed some emergency crew members who had rushed to the scene in the wake of the first strike.

The strikes drew immediate condemnation from press freedom groups who accused Israel of intentionally attacking reporters in Gaza and dismissed claims by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the strikes were a "tragic mishap."

Thibaut Bruttin, the director general of Reporters Without Borders, said Israel attacked the journalists in an attempt to prevent them from delivering news about the famine in Gaza.

"How far will the Israeli armed forces go in their gradual effort to eliminate information coming from Gaza?" he asked. "How long will they continue to defy international humanitarian law? The protection of journalists is guaranteed by international law, yet more than 200 of them have been killed by Israeli forces in Gaza over the past two years."

He then called upon the United Nations Security Council to set an emergency meeting to enact "concrete measures... to end impunity for crimes against journalists, protect Palestinian journalists, and open access to the Gaza Strip to all reporters."

Sara Qudah, regional director at the Committee to Protect Journalists, called out the international community for letting Israel get away with launching military strikes against reporters.

"Israel's broadcasted killing of journalists in Gaza continues while the world watches and fails to act firmly on the most horrific attacks the press has ever faced in recent history," she said. "These murders must end now. The perpetrators must no longer be allowed to act with impunity."

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) accused Israel of "silencing the last remaining voices reporting about children dying silently amid famine" in Gaza, while charging the international community with reacting with "indifference and inaction."

"This cannot be our future new norm," said UNRWA. "Compassion must prevail. Let us undo this man-made famine by opening the gates without restrictions and ⁠protecting journalists, humanitarian and health workers. Time for political will. Not tomorrow, now."

Former New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan said that her fellow journalists needed to hold the Israeli government to account for its actions.

"Journalists everywhere need to stand in solidarity on this killing spree and resulting news blackout," she wrote on Bluesky.

And Drop Site News' Ryan Grim ripped into Netanyahu's claim that his government "deeply regrets the tragic mishap" that occurred at the hospital.

"Israel deeply regrets the tragic mishap of striking a hospital and then waiting 17 minutes until rescue workers gathered and striking it again," Grim commented sarcastically on X.

Israel has previously claimed that attacks on so-called "safe zones" and on aid workers were mistakes.

 

Israel under siege, diplomatically

Israel is facing a perilous moment and cannot afford the luxury of petty feuds and personal vendettas at the highest levels. Differences of opinion are inevitable; what’s not acceptable is airing them in ways that erode deterrence, morale, and the perception of competence. 

Israel is under siege diplomatically, with several allies announcing plans to recognize a Palestinian state in September. At home, the war’s continuation without a hostage deal and the haredi (ultra-Orthodox) conscription crisis are tearing the country apart.

A nationwide strike on behalf of the hostages is planned for Sunday, and there are haredi protests seemingly every time a haredi youth is arrested for draft evasion.

Add to this the constant speculation over whether the government will fall – and which party might bring it down – and the atmosphere is combustible.

And that’s to say nothing of the other fronts demanding Israel’s constant vigilance: Iran, Lebanon, Syria, and the Houthis.

Yet, with all this to address, leading ministers are spending valuable time and energy on personal score-settling: Defense Minister Israel Katz with Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Eyal Zamir, Justice Minister Yariv Levin, and Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara.

Katz, in what appears to be little more than an effort to show Zamir who is boss, froze high-level IDF promotions that Zamir recommended, implying in a social media post that the days when the IDF could act without government oversight ended with its failures on October 07, 2023.

Levin, locked in a battle with the judiciary since the current government came to power in December 2022, changed the locks on his Tel Aviv office to bar the attorney-general – with whom he is engaged in a prolonged and bitter dispute and whom the government has fired, pending Supreme Court approval – from entering.

At a time when Israel’s leaders should be razor-focused on the enormous challenges ahead, diffusing their energy into petty disputes undermines public trust and the confidence that they can steer the country out of its precarious situation.

That dysfunction sends exactly the wrong message – both inside and outside the country – at exactly the wrong time.

A public spat between the defense minister and the chief of staff, amid rumors that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wants to fire Zamir and just a week after a public clash over whether to occupy all of Gaza (Zamir opposed but was overruled), gives Israel’s many enemies reason to smile.

It signals weakness in the decision-making process, suggesting that orders will be slower to form and harder to implement. It also invites exploitation, giving adversaries material to magnify through propaganda, feeding the perception that Israel is too busy fighting among itself to fight them.

The lock-changing episode – undermining a Supreme Court ruling that nothing should be done to impair Baharav-Miara’s ability to do her job until the court rules on a petition regarding her firing – only deepens the impression of dysfunction.

At a critical moment, this broadcasts to Israelis that the government is distracted by internal battles rather than focused on pressing threats.

That’s a sobering reality for everyone – the families of hostages; the soldiers and reservists in Gaza, Judea and Samaria, Lebanon, and Syria; as well as their concerned families who need to believe the country’s steering wheel is firmly in capable hands.

It’s also true for the broader public, which must trust that the government can solve problems rather than worsen them through self-inflicted “own goals.”

Blue and White Chairman Benny Gantz captured the sentiment in a biting social media post: “Who said there are no kindergartens in August? A justice minister changing the locks in the attorney-general’s office, and a defense minister busy playing power games with the chief of staff and holding up key military appointments. This is not how a government is run; this is what a kindergarten looks like.”

It would be easy to dismiss this as the usual sour musing of an opposition leader eager for the government’s downfall. But this time, Gantz’s words seem more apt than the routine criticisms of a frustrated politician.

Courtesy: The Jerusalem Post

Bahri denies carrying arms for Israel

Responding to recent media coverage, Saudi Arabian shipping logistics company Bahri has issued a statement categorically denying that its vessels carry Israel-bound shipments, reports Seatrade Maritime News

“In response to false allegations and malicious rumours circulating in certain media outlets and on social media platforms, claiming that the company’s vessels are transporting shipments bound for Israel, Bahri categorically denies these unfounded claims. These allegations are entirely false and without merit,” the company said in its statement.

The release comes after dockworkers from Italian union Unione Sindacale di Base (USB) refused to work on Bahri Yanbu, after claiming to have found a large shipment of weapons and ammunition onboard the vessel. USB’s own coverage of the event makes no mention of Israel, but alleged the weapons shipment lacked necessary paperwork.

The union is currently running a campaign to prevent arms trafficking in Italian ports, and to resist Italian ports playing a role in weapons logistics chains.

The union’s “We will not work for war” stance has seen containers of “war material” turned away from Italian ports. USB has also been involved in coordinated action with other European unions to target materiel and weapons-grade materials destined for Israel, cargoes they believe will be used to carry out genocide in Gaza.

 “The company operates strictly in line with the Kingdom’s declared and consistent policies in support of the Palestinian cause,” Bahri said in its statement.

“It has never transported any goods or shipments to Israel and has never been involved in any such operations in any capacity.”

The Saudi ship owner, which has a fleet of 103 vessels in sectors including oil, products, dry bulk, and break bulk, said it retained the right to pursue legal action against those spreading malicious claims against the company.

 

Trump paved way for Israeli attacks on Iran

Israel had been planning a full-scale invasion of Iran for many years, but the re-election of Donald Trump coincided with a series of critical events paving the way to the direct attack in June this year, four current and former Israeli intelligence sources told Euronews in separate interviews.

Israeli intelligence sources, speaking on condition of anonymity due to security concerns, told Euronews that Mossad agents had identified key strategic factors and political conditions enabling them to prepare for and initiate the attack on Iran. Among these, they cited the intensification of the proxy war, the election of US President Donald Trump, and the momentum of nuclear negotiations with Western powers.

On June 13, Israel launched multiple land and air strikes on Iran, killing senior Iranian military leaders, nuclear scientists and politicians, and damaging or destroying Iranian air defences and nuclear military facilities.

Iran retaliated with missile and drone strikes on Israeli cities and military sites, aided by Houthis in Yemen.

The US defended Israel from these attacks and, on the ninth day, bombed three Iranian nuclear sites. Iran then struck a US base in Qatar. On June 24, under US pressure, Israel and Iran agreed to a ceasefire.

Both sides claimed victory following the ceasefire. Israel and the US asserted that they significantly degraded Iran’s missile and nuclear programs, while Iranian authorities denied these claims. Independent assessments are currently limited due to the secrecy surrounding Iran’s nuclear program.

Israel and the US said that the attack had been in the planning for many years, in parallel with diplomatic engagement with Iran.

“Israel has never hidden the fact that it wants to destroy the Iranian nuclear program, and it has never hidden the fact it was also willing to allow it to be resolved diplomatically, as long as the diplomatic solution prevents Iran not only from enriching uranium, but from ever getting the capacity to pose an existential threat to the state of Israel,” a first Israeli intelligence source told Euronews.

Diplomatic engagements were not bringing any tangible results, the sources said, while tensions between the US and Iran grew following Donald Trump's first presidency in the US from 2016-2020.

In 2018, Trump withdrew the US from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), which had limited Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. Following the US re-imposition of sanctions, Iran began ignoring the deal’s nuclear restrictions in 2019.

“I think the pivotal moment was in April 2024, when Iran launched missiles directly from its own territory at Israel. Until then, Iran had primarily relied on proxies to attack Israel, while Israel carried out covert operations inside Iran with plausible deniability, aiming to prevent escalation into full-scale war,” the first intelligence source said.

In April 2024, Iran launched missiles at Israel in retaliation for an Israeli strike on its consulate in Syria that killed Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Zahedi. He was the highest-ranking Iranian military official killed since the Iranian General Qassem Suleimani’s assassination in 2020 by the US Trump administration. Suleimani was the ‘architect’ of Iran’s proxy war in the Middle East.

“I think Israel had to wait from April 2024. It needed time to gather all the intelligence and planning it needed in order to feel confident that, already in the first two or three days of the war, we would be in a position where we had complete control over the situation, minimal casualties at home, and complete control of Iranian airspace, with the ability to attack whenever and wherever we want to,” the source added.

Donald Trump's second election as US president was another key pivotal moment and was welcomed by all the four sources.

“The original plan was to attack in October 2024. That was after the second direct missile attack by Iran on Israel following Israel’s assassination of Hezbollah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah in Lebanon in September,” the first intelligence sources said, but the attack was delayed to wait for the US elections in November.

“I think it was very important for Israel that Trump should win those elections. Once Trump was elected, he put the main emphasis on reaching a hostage deal,” said the second source, referring to the Hamas-Israel conflict.

“Once the hostage deal was signed around March 2025, Israel was again in a position to attack Iran. But the US and Iran entered into negotiations, to try bringing a peaceful solution to the issue of Iran's enrichment and nuclear program,” the first source added.

In March, the US and Iran began indirect negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program. The negotiations did not bring an agreement, although counterparts described them as “constructive”.

“Trump gave 60 days to those negotiations. The day after, Israel attacked Iran. I think that obviously was coordinated with the US administration,” all the current and former Israeli intelligence sources told Euronews.

Washington has never publicly stated that Israel’s first attack on Iran was coordinated. However, following the US strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said at a press conference on June 23 that the operation had been planned for many years.

“When we attacked, we were at the end of the 60-day period of negotiations. I think it was very clear to Trump at this stage that the Iranians were not willing to forego enrichment on Iranian soil, even though the negotiations did bring up some interesting solutions to that. For example, some sort of international enrichment agency that would allocate enriched uranium at civilian levels to all countries in the region interested in it,” the first intelligence source said.

“Trump realized Iran was engaging in negotiations merely to buy time, with no real intent to reach a resolution. The talks served as a decoy, giving Iran the impression it wouldn’t be attacked, especially amid widespread press reports that Israel was on the verge of striking,” the first source added.

While Iran claimed victory and celebrated its resilience towards Israel's invasion, Israeli intelligence sources said that Tehran’s regime has been left weakened following the attack.

“Israel has emerged from several conflicts in a stronger strategic position in the region, but in a more difficult political position with its Western partners, except perhaps Washington. We’re at a very delicate moment in which both Israel and Iran have little to gain by pushing further right now,” Ian Lesser, fellow and adviser to the German Marshall Fund’s president, told Euronews.

“Iran has fewer options now. One option is to return to negotiations. Another is to turn to its traditional methods of responding, which rely on proxies and non-traditional actions, including terrorism. There is also the possibility that, if Iran maintains some ability to develop nuclear weapons, it may see this as another path. But I don’t think anyone will let them do that. There may be disagreements about Israeli strategy and policy, but overall, Israel and its Western partners are not willing to tolerate a nuclearized Iran,” the expert added.

If the war had gone further, Israel would have probably attacked gas and oil installations, a fourth former Israeli intelligence source told Euronews. However, after the ceasefire, negotiations have resumed at diplomatic level.

On July 25, diplomats from Iran met counterparts from Germany, the UK, and France in Istanbul for talks, the first since Israel’s mid-June attack on Iran, amid warnings that these European countries might trigger a “snapback” of UN sanctions on Tehran.

The second intelligence source said that following the conflict, Israel would maintain control over Iranian airspace, in order to “destroy anything that even suggests that the Iranians are preparing to rebuild any of the capabilities that we have destroyed”. — Euronews

What is the ultimate objective of Netanyahu?

If we strip away the diplomatic language and look at Netanyahu’s actions in Gaza through the lens of political strategy rather than morality, the objectives many analysts see are not just about “defense” — they align with a set of long-term political, security, and ideological goals.

Here’s how many observers interpret what he seeks to attain:

Erase or cripple Palestinian political sovereignty

By devastating Gaza’s infrastructure, governance, and population capacity, Netanyahu can make any future independent Palestinian state nearly impossible to sustain. This aligns with the position of many in his coalition who reject a two-state solution entirely.

Consolidate his own political survival

Netanyahu has faced massive protests, corruption trials, and political instability. War shifts the national focus to “security,” rallying his right-wing base and delaying domestic accountability.

Cement Israel’s control over territory

By depopulating or making parts of Gaza uninhabitable, Israel could increase its long-term security buffer and limit the demographic growth of Palestinians near its borders.

Appease ultranationalist coalition partners

His government depends on far-right figures who openly call for resettling Gaza with Israelis and removing large numbers of Palestinians. Maintaining their support keeps his fragile coalition in power.

Send a deterrent message regionally

By showing overwhelming force, Netanyahu signals to Hezbollah, Iran, and other adversaries that challenges to Israel will be met with total military dominance.

Align with Zionist ideology

Some in Netanyahu’s camp believe a “Greater Israel” — without a viable Palestinian state — is the only acceptable outcome. The destruction of Gaza is seen as a step toward making that reality irreversible.

Moral of the story

It may be concluded that the genocide accusation isn’t just about punishing Hamas; it’s about shaping a future where Palestinian political and demographic influence is permanently weakened, while Netanyahu secures his political survival and cements an ideological vision.

 

Rally against Netanyahu's new Gaza plan

According to Reuters thousands of protesters took to the streets of Tel Aviv on Saturday night to oppose Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's plan to escalate the nearly two-year Gaza war, demanding an immediate end to the campaign and for the release of the hostages.

A day earlier, the prime minister’s office said the security cabinet, a small group of senior ministers, had decided to seize Gaza City, expanding military operations in the devastated Palestinian territory despite widespread public opposition and warnings from the military the move could endanger the hostages.

"This isn't just a military decision. It could be a death sentence for the people we love most," Lishay Miran Lavi, the wife of hostage Omri Miran told the rally, pleading to US President Donald Trump to intervene to immediately end the war.

Public opinion polls show an overwhelming majority of Israelis favour an immediate end to the war to secure the release of the remaining 50 hostages held by militants in Gaza. Israeli officials believe about 20 hostages are still alive.

The Israeli government has faced sharp criticism at home and abroad, including from some of its closest European allies, over the announcement that the military would expand the war. The full cabinet is expected to give its approval as soon as Sunday.

Most of the hostages who have been freed so far emerged as a result of diplomatic negotiations. Talks toward a ceasefire that could have seen more hostages released collapsed in July.

"They (the government) are fanatic. They are doing things against the interests of the country," said Rami Dar, 69-year-old retiree, who traveled from a nearby suburb outside of Tel Aviv, echoing calls for Trump to force a deal for the hostages.

Tel Aviv has seen frequent rallies urging the government to reach a ceasefire and hostage deal with Hamas, who ignited the war with their October 2023 attack. Saturday's demonstration attracted over 100,000 protesters, according to organizers.

"Frankly, I'm not an expert or anything, but I feel that after two years of fighting there has been no success," said Yana, 45, who attended the rally with her husband and two children. "I wonder whether additional lives for both sides, not just the Israelis but also Gazans, will make any difference."

Israel using US munitions to attack Gaza schools

The Israeli military has “illegally and indiscriminately” used US munitions to attack school shelters in Gaza, killing hundreds of people, Human Rights Watch (HRW) says, reports CNN.

The US-based campaigners’ report, “Gaza: Israeli School Strikes Magnify Civilian Peril,” was published Thursday.

Israel’s campaign following the Hamas-led attacks of October 07, 2023 has made the vast majority of Gaza’s 2.1 million people homeless – forcing many to flee their neighborhoods in search of civilian infrastructure.

Israel has frequently said its strikes on school facilities in Gaza target embedded Hamas fighters. But HRW said it only found seven instances where the military published details of alleged militants killed – and highlighted two strikes, which killed nearly 50 people, where they found no evidence of any military target.

Such attacks would violate international law because schools and other educational facilities are civilian objects and protected from attack, HRW said. They lose that protection when used for military purposes or are occupied by military forces. But the use of schools to house civilians does not alter their legal status.

HRW called on the US and other governments to halt arms sales to Israel, given the “clear risk” that weapons might be used to commit or facilitate “serious violations” of international humanitarian law.” Washington’s supply of arms to Israel has made the US “complicit” in their lawful use, the group said.

“Israeli strikes on schools sheltering displaced families provide a window into the widespread carnage that Israeli forces have carried out in Gaza,” Gerry Simpson, associate crisis, conflict and arms director at HRW, said in the report. “Other governments should not tolerate this horrendous slaughter of Palestinians merely seeking safety,” added Simpson.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said it “operates exclusively on the grounds of military necessity and in strict accordance with international law.”

“It must be emphasized that the report blatantly ignores Hamas’ systematic pattern of unlawfully embedding its’ military assets, including weapons and ammunition in, beneath, and in proximity to densely populated civilian areas, and cynically exploits civilian infrastructure for terror purposes,” the IDF added.

“Specifically, it has been well documented that Hamas exploits schools and UNRWA facilities for its military activities by building military networks beneath and within schools; establishing command-and-control centers within them, launching attacks toward IDF forces from them, and imprisoning hostages in them.”

The military said it takes “feasible precautions” to mitigate harm to civilians as much as possible and “regrets any harm caused to uninvolved civilians.”

Israeli attacks on school shelters in Gaza have killed at least 836 Palestinians and injured another 2,527 people, as of July 18, HRW reported, citing the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).

HRW investigated two such attacks where it identified the use of US munitions. The agency said it reviewed satellite imagery, photos, and videos of the attacks and their aftermath, as well as social media and interviews with eyewitnesses.

CNN has previously reported on the use of US weaponry in deadly strikes and has reached out to the State Department for comment on the HRW report.

On July 27, 2024, the Israeli military launched at least three strikes on the Khadija girls’ school in Deir Al-Balah, central Gaza. At least 15 people were killed.

Then on September 21, Israel struck Al-Zeitoun school, northern Gaza. At least 34 people were killed.

“Can you imagine, a building full of displaced people leveled in the blink of an eye?” a journalist cited in the HRW report said. “I saw people with serious and more minor injuries, and then saw human remains on the ground.”

The allegations chimed with repeated human rights warnings that Israel’s 22-month bombing and siege has rendered much of the enclave uninhabitable.

HRW said attacks on school shelters have diminished access to refuge, exacerbated reconstruction challenges, and disrupted education among a pre-war population of more than 2.2 million people – where half of those are under the age of 18.

At least 97% of schools in Gaza have sustained damage, the UNICEF-led Education Cluster reported in August. Efforts to rebuild destroyed homes in Gaza could take until 2040, the UN said in May. The level of destruction is so extensive that it would require external assistance on a scale not seen since 1948, the agency added.

At least 61,158 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, the Ministry of Health there reported on Wednesday. At least 193 people have starved to death, including 96 children, the ministry added.

One Palestinian student told CNN that days spent going to university have been replaced by a brutal struggle for survival repeated displacement, and severe hunger.

“The war came and destroyed everything,” Raghad Ezzat Hamouda, 20, told CNN on Wednesday.

“I lost my ambitions and dreams,” added Hamouda, who is displaced with nine family members in Tal Al-Hawa, central Gaza. “Gaza has become uninhabitable. (There are) no homes, no schools, no universities, no infrastructure... Just ashes.”

 

 

 

Global voices condemn Israeli war and starvation campaign in Gaza

Protests condemning Israel’s devastating war and deliberate starvation campaign in Gaza continue to sweep across the globe, as activists, politicians, and ordinary citizens demand an end to the violence and immediate humanitarian aid.

On Sunday, demonstrators gathered outside the US consulate in Istanbul. They held Palestinian flags and shouted slogans denouncing the Israeli blockade of Gaza, which has caused mass starvation. Their message was clear - the international community must hold Israel accountable for the ongoing atrocities.

Meanwhile, in Sydney, Australia, tens of thousands braved heavy winds and rain to march across the iconic Harbour Bridge in a massive “March for Humanity.” Protesters carried pots and pans, symbolic of the forced starvation endured by Gaza’s population, and called out for a ceasefire and unrestricted delivery of aid.

Police estimated attendance at around 90,000, while organizers said the number could be as high as 300,000.

New South Wales Senator Mehreen Faruqi addressed the crowd, demanding the “harshest sanctions on Israel” and condemning the “massacres” of Palestinians as crimes that must not go unpunished.

Author Antony Loewenstein, whose work exposes the Israeli arms industry, highlighted the Australian government’s role, accusing it of complicity through supplying fighter jets used in Gaza’s bombardment.

Loewenstein pointed out that Australia is deeply entangled in Israel’s war machine, enabling and profiting from the destruction.

The humanitarian crisis in Gaza has reached catastrophic levels. Since October 2023, over 180 people—more than half children—have died from starvation caused by Israel’s siege. Israeli forces have also killed nearly 900 people near aid distribution centers run by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a US- and Israel-backed initiative criticized by Human Rights Watch as “death traps” due to repeated deadly attacks.

Tragically, hundreds more have died attempting to access UN-led food convoys, further underscoring the brutal reality of the siege.

Overall, Israel’s war has claimed the lives of more than 60,800 Palestinians in Gaza, with reports from Israeli human rights groups confirming allegations of genocide—a charge already under investigation at the International Court of Justice.

The deliberate starvation, mass killings, and systematic destruction of Gaza reveal a state policy aimed at collective punishment and ethnic cleansing. This campaign cannot be dismissed as collateral damage or an unfortunate byproduct of war. It is a calculated effort to crush Palestinian resistance by any means necessary.

The world’s silence and inaction in the face of these crimes only embolden Israel’s apartheid regime. Without decisive global intervention, Israel will continue its path of genocide, supported by complicit governments and military suppliers around the world.

Justice for Palestinians demands not only condemnation but concrete measures to end Israel’s siege, hold its leaders accountable, and ensure freedom and dignity for Gaza’s people.

The protests spreading worldwide are a powerful reminder that the fight for Palestinian rights and liberation will not be silenced — and that the struggle against Israeli aggression and oppression must intensify until peace and justice prevail.