Israel and the US went into this war together, said Katy Balls in The Sunday Times. But as the conflict drags on, some members of Maga’s “isolationist wing” are starting to complain that Israel “led” the US into it, in pursuit of its own agenda.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio lent credence to that theory some weeks ago, when he said that the US had struck Iran because Washington “knew that there was going to be an Israeli action” that would prompt a retaliation. And only last week Tulsi Gabbard, the US intelligence chief, told Congress that Iran had abandoned its pursuit of nuclear weapons, undermining any claim that Iran posed an “imminent threat”.

Convenient claims

It is pretty clear that it posed no such threat, said Donald Macintyre in The Independent – and it is well known that Benjamin Netanyahu had been trying to persuade the US to join in such a war for 25 years: successive US presidents blocked it. But that doesn’t mean that Donald Trump was lured into a war by Israel, even if he sometimes finds it convenient to claim that the Israelis are acting without his knowledge.

For Netanyahu, this war is not just about destroying a hostile regime, said Emma Graham-Harrison in The Guardian. This autumn, he will face his first electoral test since the 7 October attacks. For the past two years, his poll ratings have been “stubbornly below levels that would return him to power”. Victory for Israel in this conflict – which has the support of 90% of Israelis – would do much to turn that around.

‘Draining support’

But in going to war with Iran, the PM is gambling with his country’s long-term security, said Gideon Rachman in the Financial Times. For decades, the single biggest guarantee of that security has been the “strong bipartisan support” Israel commands in the US. “But the Netanyahu government’s actions – first in Gaza and now in Iran – are draining that support away.”

If this war turns into a costly “quagmire”, it’s “entirely conceivable” that both the Democratic and Republican candidates in the 2028 presidential race will propose curtailing support for Israel – an outcome that would be a “strategic disaster for the Israelis”.

As the Iran war enters its third week, there is a divergence between how the United States and Israel conduct its operations against Tehran and what each nation hopes to accomplish. While President Donald Trump and his administration struggle to articulate an overarching goal for the war, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has pushed ahead with expanding the front lines of his army’s assault not only on Iran but across Lebanon and Syria as well. With little end to the fighting in sight, is this still a single war of unified purpose, two separate conflicts being fought concurrently or a bit of both?

What did the commentators say?

The war on Iran may have been launched by Israel and the U.S. “at the same time,” said CNN, but it’s “becoming clear” the two nations have “some differences in how they see the war proceeding.” The pair enjoys a “number of overlapping objectives,” said former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Daniel Shapiro to the outlet. But there remains “some divergence” between Israel and the U.S., which is only likely to increase “as time passes.”

The longer the conflict lasts, the more likely their “endgames and risk tolerance” may differ, said Axios. Trump, in particular, currently stands “more aligned” with the Israeli government’s “maximalist objectives” than many among his own staff. Israeli and American armed and intelligence services are “moving in concert,” although “their targets vary,” with the U.S. focused “almost exclusively” on military targets, while Israeli assassinations and other operations are “intended to lay the groundwork for regime change.”

Netanyahu may appear to be “flying high” after finding an American president “willing to go all the way” with his long-telegraphed war on Iran, but Israeli analysts are “increasingly aware of where the two countries’ strategies” may bifurcate, said The Economist. Netanyahu has been “blunt” about his nation’s wish for regime change in Tehran, even as Israeli leadership has come to feel that Trump’s goals rest “primarily on controlling the flow of oil from Iran.” Israel is “willing to use the war to inflict deeper damage” on Iranian state infrastructure, while Washington “shows little sign of a clear political endgame,” said Bloomberg. Netanyahu is thus “far more likely to favor a drawn-out campaign” than Trump, given the “growing economic and political pressure” the president faces domestically.

At the onset of this war, both Israel and the U.S. “stated their desire to lay the groundwork for regime change,” The New York Times said. But as the war goes on, Trump has acknowledged that a popular uprising “didn’t seem imminent.” Israel would “prefer” to extend their war “for as long as possible, potentially for weeks, to weaken the Iranians,” said Israeli policy analyst Ahron Bregman to Turkey’s Anadolu Agency. Trump, meanwhile, will “seek a way to end this war, especially as oil prices continue to rise.” His goals “did not include regime change,” said CIA Director John Ratcliffe at a House Intelligence Committee meeting.

It is within this context that Israel’s “related but separate agenda” of concurrent attacks on Hezbollah is taking place, said Shapiro to CNN. Netanyahu is waging an “ulterior campaign to try to do significantly more damage to Hezbollah” in the hopes of spurring a “diplomatic process” with, or within, the Lebanese government. Trump generally supports dismantling Hezbollah infrastructure, yet Israel’s operations in Lebanon are “not of the same level of priority for U.S. interests.”

What next?

For the time being, the Trump administration seems publicly comfortable with the U.S. and Israel’s parallel-and-diverging strategies in Iran. The Trump regime “holds the cards” and has “clear” objectives, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Thursday in a press conference. Israel is “pursuing objectives as well.”

Q: Why are we helping Israel prosecute this war if they're going to pursue their own objectives?HEGSETH: We hold the cards. We have objectives. Those objectives are clear. We have allies pursuing objectives as well.

— @atrupar.com (@atrupar.com.bsky.social) 2026-03-20T19:47:25.485Z

Netanyahu, for now, “appears to be operating on the assumption that Trump shares his goals,” said William Usher, a former CIA Middle East analyst, to Bloomberg. That may be true “regarding the total elimination of [Iran’s] nuclear program, but perhaps not much beyond that.”

Donald Trump ​has said the decision to end the war ​with Iran will ​be a “mutual” one between himself and Israel’s ​Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“We’ve ​been ​talking. ⁠I’ll make a decision at ​the right ​time, ⁠but everything’s going to be taken ⁠into ​account,” Trump said.

The war in the Middle East has entered its second week, having “set new speed records for conflict and destruction”, said Nick Paton Walsh on CNN. Both sides have achieved some of their objectives, but “the question of where” and how “it all ends echoes the loudest”.

What did the commentators say?

A “new phase” of the US-Iran war has highlighted the “limits of their strategies”, said The Economist. In the opening exchanges, Trump would have hoped that rising oil prices from missile strikes would force Iran to “cut a deal”, whereas Iran aimed to cause enough “chaos” in “America’s soft underbelly of the Gulf states” that they would “beg Trump to stop the war”.

However, while both sides could claim to have achieved some of their military objectives, they have been “unable to deliver political ones”. The Iranian regime has “proved resilient thus far. So have America’s Gulf allies.” Investors in the Gulf region may have started “grumbling” at the costs involved, but further escalation from Iran is more “risky” for its regime. “After decades of economic mismanagement”, it “could turn out to be less resilient than it thinks”.

Trump himself is “on the horns of a dilemma” and has two fundamental options, said Robert A. Pape in Foreign Affairs. “One path is doubling down” on the campaign of air strikes, “extending aerial control over the skies and surveillance on the ground”. The other is “ending the military commitment” altogether.

Without a “golden off-ramp”, the president would have to judge whether to “deal with short but limited political costs now or more protracted and more uncertain political costs later”. With Iran intent on pursuing “horizontal escalation” – widening the “geographic and political scope of a conflict rather than intensifying it vertically” – perhaps the “wisest choice” would be for the US to “accept a limited loss now rather than risk compounding losses later”.

Significant changes to the economic landscape could be the deciding factor for both sides to find an “off-ramp”, said Frédéric Schneider on the Middle East Council on Global Affairs. We forget that the first strikes “came at a moment of global economic fragility”. Since missiles were first launched, there has been significant “volatility” in the market, driven by major disruption to shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, QatarEnergy’s liquid natural gas production, and flights through Dubai International Airport.

The “most likely scenario” is that “sustained attacks” over a four- to six-week period will cause economic costs to “escalate sharply”. If the situation were to deteriorate beyond that point, however, we could realistically see the removal of “roughly one-fifth of global oil supply”, which would “constitute a shock without modern precedent”.

The US may be motivated to de-escalate by the near-certain “inflationary impulse” of banks, but for the Gulf countries caught in between, prolonged conflict involving “infrastructure damage, collapsing investor confidence and emergency military spending would create genuine fiscal distress”.

What next?

Prolonged conflict could have one of three outcomes, said Roland Oliphant, David Blair and Maryam Mazrooei in The Telegraph. For many Iranians, the most favourable would be a “democratic revolution”. The country differs from others such as Libya and Syria in that it has a “deeply rooted sense of civic and national identity” that transcends divides, and, most significantly, a “vast, highly-educated and pragmatic middle class”.

Second, Trump may try to replicate the US intervention in Venezuela. However, the Iranian institution is “still functioning”, particularly with the appointment of Mojtaba Khamenei as Supreme Leader, and has the “same entrenched, IRGC-aligned elite” in charge.

Finally, a “darker outcome”. The prospect of a “civil war seems very real”. Reports of a “possible US-backed ground incursion by Kurdish militant groups based in northern Iraq” have been dodged by the Trump administration, yet the consequences are “fraught with danger”.

Donald Trump’s controversial Board of Peace meets for the first time today to discuss the reconstruction of Gaza.

But as members prepared for the Washington summit, a “bitter dispute” between Europe and the US over the future of Gaza has “broken out into the open”, said The Guardian. Kaja Kallas, the EU's foreign policy chief, has said that the board is a “personal vehicle for the US president”.

What did the commentators say?

European leaders initially “rushed to praise” Trump’s announcement of a peace deal, said Esther Webber on Politico, but “now they’re not so sure they want anything to do with it”. There was some “jockeying for position on the panel” at first, but the board’s charter has “triggered alarm” among some “key European allies”.

“Sceptics” noted that the charter “makes no direct reference to Gaza” and could “effectively create a shadow United Nations”. Countries seeking a permanent seat have been asked to contribute at least $1 billion, “creating another political obstacle”.

The EU shouldn’t join, said James Moran on the Centre for European Policy Studies, because the board currently includes Benjamin Netanyahu, an “ICC indicted war criminal”, and a second one, Vladimir Putin, has also been “invited”. Also, Trump’s “threats and pronouncements” very much suggest that he has “little intention of properly respecting the UN Charter”.

Although European countries are “sceptical”, Eric Alter, from the Atlantic Council, told The Times, Trump is the “only one to be able to gather these 20 to 30 countries right now”. Europeans, Alter said, are taking a risk by not participating in an organisation that “could help at least the Gaza situation”.

The Board of Peace is the “only game in town” for those interested in bettering the lives of Palestinians in Gaza, Yousef Munayyer, the head of the Israel-Palestine programme at the Arab Center Washington DC, told Al Jazeera. But it is “extremely and intimately tied to the persona of Donald Trump”.

For the EU the “issue” is “where and how to engage”, said Katarzyna Sidło for the European Union Institute for Security Studies. “To play a more active role in the next phase of the Gaza process, the EU does not need board membership so much as political will.” European governments and institutions can “work within the existing international framework anchored in UN Security Council Resolution 2803”.

Trump’s “recent retreat” from threats of military action against Greenland showed that a “united European front amplifies influence”. A “similarly unified EU-wide position” could “also help persuade” the US to reopen the Rafah crossing and reinforce an “internationally backed presence on the ground”.

What next?

“Despite concerns”, the EU was expected to send its commissioner for the Mediterranean, Dubravka Suica, as an observer to today’s meeting, said Al Jazeera. But two EU member nations – Bulgaria and Hungary – have “come on board” and joined Trump’s fledgling group.

Together with Kosovo and Albania, who have also joined as board members, they will attend today. Italy, Cyprus, Greece and Romania confirmed they would send representatives as “observers”, while Romania’s President Nicusor Dan will attend in person.

So how will today’s meeting go? “If Trump uses his authority under the charter to order everyone around, block any proposals he doesn’t like, and run this in a completely personalistic fashion,” Richard Gowan, from International Crisis Group, told Al Jazeera, “I think even countries that want to make nice with Trump will wonder what they’re getting into.”

But if “Trump shows his mellower side. If he’s actually willing to listen, in particular to the Arab group and what they’re saying about what Gaza needs, if it looks like a genuine conversation in a genuine contact group”, then that “will at least suggest that it can be a serious sort of diplomatic framework”.

After the return of the final hostage taken during the 7 October attacks, phase two of the 20-point Gaza peace plan is under way. During this period, the plan requires Hamas to demilitarise, relinquishing its weapons, and for Israel to fully withdraw its troops from the region.

The return of the body of police officer Ran Gvili has “turned the page on arguably Israel’s darkest chapter”, said Henry Bodkin in The Telegraph. However, “in doing so, it ushers in an uncertain new era”.

What did the commentators say?

There is no doubt that the “situation changed” when the ceasefire came into effect on 10 October, but the balance of power “remains precarious in the almost entirely destroyed territory”, said Luc Bronner in Le Monde.

Since the ceasefire was introduced, more than 500 Palestinians have been killed – at “an average of just over 4.5 deaths per day” – with 1,400 more wounded, and three Israeli soldiers have been killed. This compares to around 92 deaths per day during the two years of conflict preceding the ceasefire, according to Ministry of Gaza records. What has become clear is that “it is neither full-scale war nor a true ceasefire”, said the outlet.

“Difficult questions remain unaddressed”, said Reuters. Phase two efforts have been “shaken” by Israeli attacks in the region, and Hamas resistance. Both Israel and Hamas have “shown little sign of narrowing their disputes”. Phase two success is contingent on the disarmament of Hamas, “further withdrawal of Israeli forces” and deployment of peacekeepers. “Many Israelis and Palestinians suspect Donald Trump’s plan will never be fully realised and a frozen conflict will continue indefinitely.”

The Gaza reconstruction effort is “better organised than many commentators seem to realise”, said David Ignatius in The Washington Post. Of course, progress towards peace faces “many obstacles”. Why would Hamas, whose existence is “about armed struggle”, want to “neuter itself”?

The jury is also out over whether Qatar and Turkey – two of its biggest supporters and now members of the Board of Peace – will pressure Hamas to sign a deal. Looking forward, Hamas will “want a share” of the projected “$25 billion [£18.2 billion] in investment in new utilities and public services”, which could provide “more than 500,000 jobs”.

Nevertheless, “any sensible person should wish success for the Board of Peace and its courageous Palestinian representatives”. The Board of Peace may appear a “stunt” to many, but there is a “real plan”, “anchored” in UN resolutions. This is different from other Trump-led ventures: it is an “attempt at systematic implementation”. It may be a “long shot”, but it’s the “best chance” to create a Gaza controlled “by its people”, not by Israel or Hamas.

Gaza has to be approached differently, said Nidžara Ahmetašević in Al Jazeera. If current plans go ahead, the region will be “on its way to becoming a semi-protectorate, just like Bosnia”. The peace plan may promise to end attacks, but it “institutionalises endless external control”. The Dayton Accords, which brought the Bosnian War to an end 30 years ago, excluded Bosnian citizens, and the “same logic underpins” the proposed plans in Gaza: “peace negotiated about a people, not with them”. “Peace that merely stops violence without enabling freedom and dignity is not peace.”

What next?

At home, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will have to fight to stave off challengers to his position, mainly from some relatives of hostages, said Bodkin in The Telegraph. The “bring them home” movement has been an “uncomfortable voice” in Netanyahu’s ear, and has ignited “intense feelings of solidarity” across the country”.

According to current polling, should Yonatan Shamriz – whose brother was killed in December 2023 – start his own party, he could win six Knesset seats, providing a “significant block” to the current PM.

“Ultimately, the question is whose clock is ticking with a greater sense of urgency,” said Dennis Ross and David Makovsky in Foreign Affairs. Israel has “made clear” that it will resort to violent action if the voluntary disarmament falls through, giving a deadline of six months after the initial ceasefire.

Trump’s role will be key, having to “apply sustained leverage” on all parties, backed up by states that have influence in the region. If this phase fails, the “future looks bleak”. At best, the territory will stay partitioned and, at worst, “Gaza will once again become a war zone”.

A hugely controversial Israeli settlement project, with a bypass road that closes off the occupied West Bank to Palestinians, has cleared planning hurdles and is out for tender.

Thousands of homes are to be built in the E1 area east of Jerusalem, in a move that will effectively divide the West Bank. And, in doing so, it will “bury the idea of a Palestinian state”, said Israeli finance minister Bezalel Smotrich.

What is E1?

First proposed in the 1990s but, until now, frozen by pressure from the US, E1 covers the tract of desert between East Jerusalem and the large Israeli settlement of Ma’aleh Adumim. “It would be the last link in a chain of building projects that will slice the West Bank in half, and sever it” from East Jerusalem, which “Palestinians hope one day will be the capital of their independent state”, said The Telegraph.

The public tender proposes 3,401 housing units and a dual-use bypass road that is “designed as a sealed transit corridor for Palestinian vehicles”, said The Guardian. This provides Israel “with a pretext to bar Palestinians from existing roads in the planned settlement area”. Israeli politicians have named the planned bypass “sovereignty road”; its opponents call it “apartheid road”.

The Israelis could remove the settlement in the future, “as it did with its ones in Gaza in 2005”, but that seems very unlikely, given current “strong support for the settlements among Israel’s government and even some opposition parties”, said The Associated Press.

Is it legal?

The Palestinian authorities, and much of the international community, have repeatedly called all Israeli settlements illegal, but this has not stopped their rapid expansion in the West Bank since Israel seized control of the territory in 1967.

The West Bank is split into three areas: A, B and C. The Palestinian Authority has nominal control over the small, scattered A and B zones, while Area C, where E1 is located, covers about 60% of the total territory and is controlled by Israel. Although it is “fundamental to the contiguity of the West Bank and the viability of Palestine and its economy”, according to a 2015 UN Special Coordinator’s report, Area C has become increasingly dotted with Israeli infrastructure and settlements, many of them surrounding main Palestinian population centres.

Area C, and E1, fall outside the Green Line, which distinguishes Israel from Palestine in the eyes of the international community. This means that, although Israel has military and civil control of the area, granted by the Oslo Accords in the 1990s, it is not sovereign Israeli territory.

Despite the International Court of Justice repeatedly ruling that Israel’s settlements should be withdrawn, “there is no sign of that happening”, said Reuters. And “by linking up with other Israel-controlled areas”, the E1 settlement “would go still further”.

Why is it so contentious?

The E1 “triangle of land” between Jerusalem, the major West Bank cities of Ramallah, in the north, and Bethlehem, in the south “is critical for the development and prosperity of a future Palestinian state”, said The Guardian.

A settlement there would forcibly displace existing Palestinian and Bedouin communities and, by dividing the West Bank in half, prevent the establishment of a contiguous Palestinian state. It is “intended to create irreversible facts on the ground leading to a one-state reality”, said the anti-settlement monitoring group Peace Now.

For Israeli hardliners, this is very much the point. Smotrich has said E1 will practically “erase” the idea of Palestinian state. It “consolidates the Jewish people’s hold on the heart of the land of Israel” and “every settlement, every neighbourhood, every housing unit is another nail in the coffin of” the “two-state delusion”.

That is the “real concern right now”, said The Independent when a number of countries, including the UK, formally recognised the Palestinian state last year. “Without concrete action”, recognising statehood is ultimately “pointless, as there won’t be anything left to be a state”.

‘From Donald Trump to Benjamin Netanyahu, let 2026 be a year of reckoning’

Jonathan Freedland at The Guardian

“May the coming year see those leaders who have done so much damage” at last “be called to account,” says Jonathan Freedland. A “slew of congressional defeats” for President Donald Trump’s party in November’s elections would be “satisfying in itself, wounding that gargantuan ego,” and would “dispel the aura of indomitability that has enveloped” him. Likewise, Israel’s 2026 elections “might be the last chance to save key democratic institutions that have been under sustained assault” by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Read more

‘We’re living through the Great Detachment’

David Brooks at The New York Times

The U.S. is facing an era of “romantic recession,” says David Brooks. It’s not just a decline in marriage rates, “we’re seeing a systematic weakening of the loving bonds that hold society together.” Values have changed in recent decades, pushing young Americans toward “individual freedom” and away from romantic relationships. “You can build a culture around loving commitments, or you can build a culture around individual autonomy, but you can’t do both.”

Read more

‘10 drugs just became more affordable for Medicare recipients, but America needs far more relief’

Emma Freer at MS NOW

“Starting today, older Americans who are enrolled in Medicare” will see lower prices on a handful of widely used drugs, which “will save a combined $1.5 billion annually on out-of-pocket costs,” says Emma Freer. These changes brought by former President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act represent a “sea change in federal policy.” But the U.S. “must do more to lower the cost of all prescription drugs, and “those costs need to be lowered for all Americans.”

Read more

‘New Year’s goal: Care to step outside? You won't regret it.’

Jean Case at USA Today

What if, instead of setting unachievable New Year’s goals, “we chose a resolution so simple, so achievable and so transformative that it could reshape not just our lives, but also our communities and even our country?” says Jean Case. Make this the “year you step outside for at least 10 to 20 minutes every day.” Urban nature exposure improves mental health to a measurable degree. “These aren't marginal improvements. They're prescription-strength results from the most accessible medicine on earth.”

Read more

In the decades since residents in Somalia’s northwest region broke away from the East African nation during its 1991 civil war, Somaliland, as the area is known, has existed largely in geopolitical stasis. It has enjoyed relative stability and transfers of power despite no global recognition — until now.

On Friday, the Israeli government became the first United Nations member nation to officially recognize Somaliland as an “independent and sovereign state,” pledging in a press release to “immediately expand its relations” with the nascent African nation through “extensive cooperation in the fields of agriculture, health, technology and economy.” Israel is still internationally ostracized over its war in Gaza, and by recognizing Somaliland, the country risks antagonizing its regional neighbors and the global community.

How did Israel and Somaliland get to this point?

Ties between the government of Israel and authorities in Somaliland “emerged” during the former’s search for countries “willing to take in Gazans it was looking to move out of the Strip during the war,” said the Times of Israel. Also central to Israel’s “motivation for deepening ties with Somaliland” is Somaliland’s “proximity to Yemen.” Access to Somaliland ground and airspace could be used to “conduct strikes and surveil the Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen.” Israel’s upgraded relations are a “breakthrough” in Somaliland’s “quest for international recognition,” The Guardian said. Somaliland officials hope Israel’s move will “break decades of diplomatic isolation” and “encourage other countries to follow suit,” said DW.

In its announcement, Israel framed its decision as “in the spirit of the Abraham Accords,” the Trump administration-led normalization effort between Israel and various Arab and Muslim states in the region. Somaliland President Abdirahman Abdullahi has similarly expressed hopes that his nation will join the accords in the near future.

Who is and isn’t happy and why?

While both Israeli and Somaliland officials have spent the days since their announcement celebrating their newfound relationship, the global community wasted little time broadly condemning the agreement. Any effort to “undermine the unity, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of Somalia” not only runs counter to the AU at large, but “risks setting a dangerous precedent with far-reaching implications for peace and stability across the continent,” said African Union Chairperson H.E. Mahmoud Ali Youssouf in a statement that did not mention Israel.

The European Union’s diplomatic arm reiterated the “importance of respecting” a united Somalia in a brief statement. It also called for “meaningful dialogue” to resolve the intra-Somali conflict.

News of the upgraded relationship between Israel and Somaliland was welcomed, however, by some countries, including Taiwan, which hailed the “like-minded democratic partners sharing the values of democracy, freedom and rule of law” in a statement. In return, the Chinese government, which claims authority over Taiwan, decried Israel’s violation of Somalia’s integrity. And while Israel’s move has been widely condemned across the Arab and Muslim world, the United Arab Emirates, an Abraham Accords signatory, “notably did not condemn” the upgraded relationship, said Israel’s YNet news. “This was not coincidental,” as the UAE has recently been “developing ties” with Somaliland as well.

What next?

Although Israel is “rushing to attach great importance” to its diplomatic decision as a crucial step in any military action against Yemen, as the “bridesmaid of relations between Somaliland and Israel,” the UAE is in “no hurry to renew the war against the Houthis,” said Haaretz. A “possible result” is an Israeli military presence in the area, but one that is “constrained by the United Arab Emirates’ policies and its regional commitments to its neighbors.”

Somaliland officials hope Israel’s recognition will set the stage for a more impactful agreement with the Trump administration. However, President Donald Trump has “sounded unimpressed by the Muslim-majority state offering to join the Abraham Accords,” said the New York Post. “Just say, ‘No, comma, not at this —” Trump began explaining when the paper asked if he would support Somaliland recognition, before correcting himself. “Just say, ‘No.’”

Following “two days of whirlwind diplomacy” at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, Donald Trump has insisted he is “making progress towards ending two destructive conflicts in eastern Europe and the Middle East”, said John Bowden on The Independent.

The US president met his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, on Sunday in his Palm Beach “Winter White House” and then Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday.

What did the commentators say?

The details of Trump’s “supposed gains” in both discussions “remain unclear” beyond his own assertions, and “there is little evidence to support the idea that either the war in Ukraine or the horrific conditions in Gaza will abate any time soon”, said Bowden.

The president remains “evasive” about how he plans to “force various parties” in Ukraine and the Middle East to “get fully on board with his peacemaking agenda” beyond “vague threats and coercion”.

Zelenskyy said the 20-point peace plan for Ukraine is 90% agreed, while Trump said a security guarantee for the country is “close to 95%” completed. But there are “still a few main sticking points”, said the BBC, including how much territory Kyiv will be asked to hand to Moscow, the future of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant and plans to turn part of the Donbas region into a demilitarised economic zone.

In reality, talking between Zelenskyy and Vladimir Putin “has not even begun”, said Ben Hall in the Financial Times. Both are “locked in another titanic if less murderous struggle: the battle for Donald Trump’s mind”. Neither side wants to be “seen as the obstacle to peace and then punished for being so”.

Netanyahu is a man who “knows how to talk to President Trump”, said Lara Spirit in The Times. After awarding the US president the Israel Prize, the state’s highest cultural honour, and thanking him for his help on behalf of Israelis, he will “probably be walking away from Florida largely happy with what he heard”. Trump “praised” him and “issued statements of support” on the Gaza ceasefire, Iran’s nuclear capabilities and the Israeli leader’s “hopes of securing a presidential pardon”.

He “got what he came for” on Gaza, said Mark Stone on Sky News, although there were some “intriguing divergences” between him and Trump on Syria and the West Bank. After two “December days in Palm Beach” I have “sunburn and whiplash”. While “the sunburn is my fault”, Trump’s “head-spinning” style of diplomacy is “to blame for the whiplash”.

What next?

With US midterm elections due next year, Trump will need to focus on “the economy and the cost of living” rather than “foreign conflicts”, said Stone.

The president “knows that”, and so do “America’s adversaries and its troublesome allies”. The question is what they will “gamble on in 2026”, knowing that Trump “may not care – or may simply go along with it”. The rest of us should “buckle up”.

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has blamed his Australian counterpart Anthony Albanese for failing to counter the spread of antisemitism that culminated in Sunday’s deadly mass shooting at Bondi Beach.

At least 15 people were killed and more than 40 injured when two gunmen opened fire at a Hanukkah celebration in the Sydney suburb.

“Your government did nothing to stop the spread of antisemitism in Australia,” Netanyahu said, addressing Albanese, as he claimed the Australian government had “let the disease spread”.

What did the commentators say?

It is “highly contestable” to claim the Australian PM could have prevented this attack, said the Australian Financial Review’s political editor Phillip Coorey. But the government has “spent two years falling short” of recommendations to tackle anti-Jewish hate, even those made by “its own handpicked envoy, Jillian Segal”.

That, along with a “palpable lack of moral clarity” when it came to condemning the 7 October attacks on Israel and a “lack of visible leadership” at a time of growing opposition to Israel’s war in Gaza, has left the government “exposed” to claims it has not done enough to counter antisemitism.

“Elements of the Australian media” have also “made their own contribution to this atmosphere”, said Alexander Downer in The Australian. “Much of the reporting coming out of the Middle East was deeply hostile to Israel”, and the national broadcaster, the ABC, has “frequently taken at face value claims made by Hamas, a terrorist organisation”.

These factors have, according to representatives of the Australian Jewish community, created a “permissive environment, where the warning signs were clear and too often left unchecked”, said the ABC. In recent years there have been “hateful symbols displayed at otherwise peaceful demonstrations and a pattern of targeted attacks on Jewish institutions”, in a nation that is home to the largest proportion of Holocaust survivors outside Israel.

There is also evidence that external agents are exacerbating the hostility. In August, Australia severed diplomatic ties with Iran, whom it accused of paying for arson attacks against a synagogue in Melbourne and a kosher cafe in Sydney.

Danny Citrinowicz, an Iran expert at Israel’s Institute of National Security Studies in Israel, told The Telegraph it was “too early to jump to conclusions” about Tehran’s potential involvement in Sunday’s shooting. “They are definitely suspects and high on the priority list,” he said, adding that “Al-Qaeda and IS have also been active in Australia”.

What next?

Albanese has repeatedly vowed to eradicate the “scourge” of antisemitism, and has already suggested an imminent tightening of existing firearms legislation. “But it all sounds so hollow,” said Coorey in the Australian Financial Review, especially in the aftermath of one of Australia’s worst-ever terror attacks. “The Jewish community and its supporters aren’t listening. They stopped listening long ago. Now, they’re openly hostile.”

Australia must also grapple more broadly with the implications of the Bondi attack, said Downer in The Australian. They have long viewed their country “as a model of liberalism” where discrimination is “anathema”. “This self-image of Australia has now been shattered.”

What will it take for the ultra-Orthodox community to play its part in Israel’s survival? Despite 7 October 2023; despite the “near-existential” threat Israel faces across a variety of fronts; despite the “attendant acute military manpower crisis” and the enormous sacrifices experienced by so many Israeli families in the Gaza war – despite all this, the Haredi community remains adamant that young ultra-Orthodox men should be exempt from Israel’s compulsory military service.

It’s pure moral cowardice, said David M. Weinberg in The Jerusalem Post. Nothing in the Torah forbids serving in war. Yet now, in a cynical bid to win back the support of his erstwhile Haredi government partners, Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party has introduced a bill that essentially entrenches the community’s “draft evasion”.

Exemptions have become ‘institutionalised’

“The roots of this issue go back to the founding of the state,” said Eric R. Mandel in the same paper, “when David Ben-Gurion exempted approximately 400 Torah scholars from military service.” Back then, Haredim were far fewer in number, and Israel’s first prime minister believed their small and insular world would soon enough fade from existence. “Instead, the opposite occurred.” Driven by one of the highest birth rates in the developed world, Haredim today make up about 13% of Israelis; by 2065 it’s estimated they’ll reach 25%.

And over the decades, their exemption from Israeli life has become “institutionalised”, producing a class of citizens who neither serve in the army nor participate in the workforce, yet still enjoy hefty state subsidies. That imbalance had already created serious tensions within Israeli society; but post-7 October and the ensuing war in Gaza, what was once a cultural issue has now become Israel’s “greatest internal security threat”.

A turning point in all this came in June 2024, said Sam Sokol in The Times of Israel (Jerusalem), when the supreme court called a halt to the all-too-blatant pro-Haredi discrimination and ruled that the government must start conscription immediately. After the ruling, religious “yeshiva” schools harbouring draft dodgers saw their budgets slashed, and draft refusers lost access to state benefits.

But Netanyahu’s coalition has long been dependent on two ultra-Orthodox parties, Shas and United Torah Judaism (UTJ), said Haaretz (Tel Aviv). So even though the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) are short 10,000 soldiers, or between 12 and 15 battalions, in the wake of the Gaza war, Netanyahu’s government, in direct violation of the supreme court’s ruling, has repeatedly called up reservists in their 30s and 40s – men with families – instead of recruiting from the 80,000 or so eligible 18- to 24-year-olds from the ultra-Orthodox community.

New bill ‘chock-full of loopholes’

Likud’s new bill is an attempt to put this inflammatory issue to bed, said Shalom Yerushalmi in The Times of Israel: Netanyahu is parading it as a “historic achievement”, claiming it will force thousands of Haredi men into uniform. In reality, “not a single battalion, never mind a division, will come of it”. And that’s because it’s “chock-full of loopholes”, said Sam Sokol. Criminal sanctions on draft dodgers are only due to come into effect in 2027; not only full-time “yeshiva” students, but anyone who’s studied in a “yeshiva” for two years between ages 14 to 18 will be considered ultra-Orthodox, and granted yearly deferments from enlistment.

The only recruitment likely to rise in number given those incentives is that of applicants to “yeshivas”. The bill has caused turmoil in Israel, said Ravit Hecht in Haaretz, and even within Bibi’s coalition. But the PM won’t mind. Having given the appearance of coming up with a solution, he can now sit on the bill while the nation argues it out. In short, he has resorted to “his time-tested tactic of playing for time” ahead of the 2026 elections. It’s classic Netanyahu, said Sima Kadmon on Ynet (Rishon LeZion): throw “a chunk of meat into the arena”, make us fight among ourselves and, in so doing, crucially, make us forget all about “his own failures”.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been dogged for years by criminal corruption charges. Now he is asking President Isaac Herzog to short-circuit the legal process by giving him a pardon before the court hands down a verdict.

Netanyahu’s pardon application did not “include an admission of guilt” to allegations of bribery, fraud and breach of trust, said CNN. Instead, the request is part of an effort to “heal the rifts, achieve national unity and restore public trust in the state’s institutions,” the prime minister said in a one-page letter. Opposition leaders have been withering in their response. “Only someone guilty asks for a pardon,” said Yair Golan, the head of Israel’s Democrats party, on X. But right-wing leaders supported Netanyahu’s plea. A pardon is “critical for the security of the state,” said Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir in a statement.

The request “immediately hijacked the Israeli political conversation,” said The New York Times. But some opposition figures suggested they would support a pardon for Netanyahu on one condition. Former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett said on X that clemency is possible for his rival if it is conditioned upon Netanyahu’s “respectful retirement from political life.”

What did the commentators say?

Netanyahu has committed a “staggering act of hypocrisy,” said Dan Perry at Forward. The promise to heal Israel’s national divide is “jaw-dropping,” given how Netanyahu launched a “demonization campaign against the courts” following his 2019 indictment. That spawned a fierce nationwide battle over the future of the Israeli Supreme Court. Netanyahu “now plays peacemaker” after poisoning the nation’s trust in its institutions. A pardon should come only with a “full personal admission of guilt — spoken aloud by Netanyahu himself.”

Herzog is facing a “political, national and leadership decision” unlike any other, Shalom Yerushalmi said at The Times of Israel. Israel’s president is unlikely to make a decision that “would tear the public apart rather than unite it” by granting the “most problematic pardon in Israel’s history.” But Herzog is likely to seek a “middle ground,” either by putting conditions on the pardon or by encouraging Netanyahu to return to plea-bargain discussions. There is no chance, though, that Netanyahu will heal the nation. “No one can change this prime minister at the age of 76.”

What next?

Herzog’s office is weighing an “extraordinary step with significant implications,” said The Jerusalem Post. The issue is “shaking many people in the country,” the president said in a statement, adding that he would move only in the “best interests of the State of Israel and Israeli society."

Israeli society is watching. Roughly 400 retired police officers asked Herzog to reject Netanyahu’s request, said The Times of Israel. A pardon might “ignite severe violence in Israeli society,” they said in a petition. Netanyahu is looking outside his country for support. The prime minister asked President Donald Trump to push again for his pardon, said Axios. That may not be forthcoming. Trump has “done all he can do," said a U.S. official to the outlet.

‘America is losing scientists. Here’s one solution for that.’

Chris R. Glass at The Washington Post

America’s “scientific dominance was never inevitable,” but “policymakers grasped a crucial insight: they were investing in people, not just research,” says Chriss R. Glass. Our “advantage persists. But bureaucratic ossification now threatens it, as our global rivals pick off the best and brightest that we have trained but can’t retain — unless we change our visa system.” America’s “policy assumes that top researchers will endure any visa lottery or processing delay to stay in the U.S. That assumption is obsolete.”

Read more

‘Pharmacy deserts make staying healthy harder’

The Boston Globe editorial board

Pharmacy closures “reflect changes in purchasing patterns, as more people turn toward mail-order prescriptions,” says The Boston Globe editorial board. But having a “physical pharmacy nearby provides health care access that mail order can’t always duplicate.” One “way to prevent closures is through payment reform to ensure that insurers compensate pharmacists — regardless of whether they are independent or part of a chain — a fair amount for dispensing drugs.” But “payment reform can’t be the only solution.”

Read more

‘Europe needs a plan for decoupling from America’

Martin Sandbu at the Financial Times

Europeans are “facing the choice between being in control of their own affairs, and their long-standing partnership with the U.S.,” says Martin Sandbu. President Donald Trump has “tried to bounce Ukraine into conceding to Russian demands for the sake of a superficial and unjust peace,” while the “Europeans have scrambled to change the U.S. president’s mind on something they rightly see as existential. How many more lessons do they need to conclude that the transatlantic relationship is over?”

Read more

‘The only sensible answer to Netanyahu’s pardon request: a resounding “no”’

Haaretz editorial board

The “pardon request that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu submitted to President Isaac Herzog stands out for its chutzpah,” says the Haaretz editorial board. Netanyahu “isn't willing to admit anything, and he doesn't accept responsibility for anything.” Even “while he is asking the president to pardon him, he continues to imply that the cases against him were fabricated and to depict the law enforcement system as criminal.” Netanyahu “seeks to exploit the institution of the pardon to abolish justice.”

Read more

What happened

Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Tuesday ordered “powerful strikes” on Gaza, accusing Hamas of violating the Oct. 10 ceasefire by firing on Israeli troops, killing one, and delaying the return of hostage bodies. Gaza hospital officials said at least 81 Palestinians were killed in the overnight strikes. Hamas said it had “no connection to the shooting incident in Rafah and affirms its commitment to the ceasefire agreement.”

Who said what

The new rounds of violence were “likely the most serious challenge to the tenuous ceasefire deal in Gaza since it came into force,” The Associated Press said. The Israeli Defense Forces said the ceasefire was back in effect after its heavy airstrikes, but it would “respond firmly” to any violations.

Israeli “should hit back” when its troops are fired upon but “nothing’s going to jeopardize” the ceasefire, President Donald Trump said on Air Force One en route to South Korea. “Hamas is a very small part of peace in the Middle East,” and “if they’re not good, they’re going to be terminated.” Israel considers the return of hostage bodies a “key plank” of the deal and accused Hamas Tuesday of staging the discovery of a hostage’s partial remains, said The New York Times. Hamas has blamed “conditions on the ground” in war-ravaged Gaza for the slow returns.

What next?

Tuesday’s “skirmishes” weren’t the “first time the ceasefire has been tested,” The Wall Street Journal said, and they “underscore how fragile the deal is” and “demonstrate the challenges for the next steps,” which “call for Hamas to disarm and for an international force to help stabilize Gaza.”

Israel has said it is still committed to the ceasefire agreement with Hamas despite conducting a series of air strikes in Gaza overnight that reportedly killed more than 100 people.

Both sides have accused each other of violating the US-brokered deal, with Israel claiming yesterday’s strikes were in response to the killing of an Israeli soldier last week and for Hamas’ failure to hand over the remains of all dead hostages.

As the fragile ceasefire begins to fray less than a month after it was signed, Donald Trump has been quick to jump in and defend his signature diplomatic achievement, saying “nothing is going to jeopardise” the peace plan.

What did the commentators say?

Having been “tested and challenged” in recent days, the “fragile ceasefire remains in place”, for now at least, said Sky News’ Middle East correspondent Adam Parsons.

There are likely to be “three factors at play here”. Firstly, Israel “felt it had to respond to a series of provocations”. At the same time, while Hamas have condemned Israeli air strikes, “they are distancing themselves from the attack on the Israeli soldiers” and trying to calm anger around a failure to return the bodies of hostages. To the surprise of many, the Islamist group has been keen to “make amends, to soothe doubts and to try to stay on a path that, long term” allows it to “still have a part to play in Gaza’s future”.

But it is the third factor – the reaction of the US – that is “perhaps the most decisive”. Trump, his Vice President J. D. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, have all spoken out against a return to hostilities in the last week, with the latter reiterating the message that “there is no plan B”.

But it is starting to feel that the ceasefire, hailed by Washington as a turning point for the region, is “more like a loophole than a real promise”, said Middle East Monitor. It was “never about peace in the first place” but “literally a hostage swap disguised as diplomacy”. In practice, it has “functioned as a calculated break, a short interval that allowed Israel to regroup, re-arm and resume its mass killing campaign with the full backing of the US”.

The Israeli government has “gone to lengths to undermine the peace process”, said Jonah Valdez in The Intercept. Aside from the attacks on Palestinians it continues to limit the amount of humanitarian aid to enter Gaza. It has overseen an increase in settler violence in the West Bank, and last week the Knesset even passed a symbolic vote on full annexation despite protestation from the US.

“They are trying to push the Palestinians to react,” said Ramy Abdu, chair of Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, a watchdog that has tracked Israel’s targeting of civilians in Gaza. “This is their strategy, they want Palestinians to do anything to react just to complete their mission.”

What next?

While recent incidents on both sides “reflect the current troubled state of the ceasefire”, said Jonathan Spyer, director of research at the Middle East Forum, in The Spectator, they “probably do not presage its imminent collapse”.

This is “because neither side has an interest at the present time in a full return to hostilities”. Hamas’ main aim was to prevent Israeli troops from occupying Gaza City, a move that “threatened the organisation’s continued existence as a governing structure”. It needs to maintain the support of key allies Turkey and Qatar, who pressured the group into accepting the terms of the ceasefire and who “in turn want to stay on the right side of the US administration”.

Israel, meanwhile, wants a “period of rest and recuperation for its exhausted soldiers and similarly has an interest in staying on the right side of the Trump administration”.

A “durable peace is still possible”, said The New York Times, but “speed is of the essence”. The “linchpin” will be “the creation and deployment of an international force” which would “create conditions to realise other aspects of the plan: filling the growing security vacuum in Gaza, allowing for Palestinian self-governance and ensuring that Israel will not be threatened”.

So far only Indonesia has pledged troops, with the paper reporting that Washington is struggling to recruit other countries.

In the end, it might be the “brutally simple” arithmetic in Gaza that scuppers peace in the long term, said The Critic. “A ceasefire there may be” but Hamas will never “abide by any agreement to commit suicide politically as the price of a transitional political arrangement in Gaza”. For its part, “Israel, or those in its ascendancy, is not any time soon going to run the experiment of accepting a Palestinian state”.

What happened

As the war in Gaza passed the two-year mark last week, President Trump’s all-out push to end the conflict gained momentum, with negotiators from Israel and Hamas meeting with mediators in Egypt to consider his 20-point peace proposal. The plan calls for Hamas to release its remaining Israeli hostages in exchange for Palestinian prisoners; for the terrorist group to disarm; and for Israeli forces to pull back and allow for a temporary authority to administer the Gaza Strip. Trump leaned heavily on both sides to come to an agreement, reportedly urging Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in private to stop being so “f---ing negative” and “take the win,” and openly warning Hamas that it faced “complete obliteration” if it rejects the plan. He sent Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, his son-in-law and informal adviser, to oversee the talks, which also include mediators from Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey.

Israel chose not to hold an official ceremony to commemorate the second anniversary of the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks because it fell on a Jewish holiday. But thousands gathered unofficially in communities near Gaza, where Hamas had overwhelmed Israeli defenses, killing some 1,200 people and taking 251 hostage. Across the border, thousands of Palestinians—already grappling with a hunger crisis, mass displacement, and Israeli air strikes—fled another Israeli offensive on Gaza City. “Our families have died, our homes are gone,” said Sanaa Adwan, a displaced woman in Khan Younis. “We pray to God that this war will end as soon as possible.”

What the editorials said

“President Trump will deserve credit” if the deal ends the fighting—and it must, said The Boston Globe. The conflict must end to free Evyatar David, an Israeli hostage forced by Hamas captors to dig his own grave. It must end so the severely burned Palestinian teen Rahaf Al-Dalou, in Boston for treatment, can return home. But Gaza needs “a political and diplomatic solution” that will “hold the peace, not just end the war.” Can Trump commit to the long-term nation building that will be required?

One point must be nonnegotiable, said The Wall Street Journal: “the speedy release of all hostages.” Hamas said “yes, but” to Trump’s plan, asking to water down the proposals that it be disarmed and excluded from a Gazan government, but the president pretended to hear only the “yes.” That was by design. If Trump can get the group to step one, which is hostage release, he will not only end the agony of many Israeli families. He will also rob the terrorists of “most of their leverage to determine how the rest of the proposal is implemented.”

What the columnists said

This has been “the longest, most violent war between Israel and Hamas in history,” said Daniel DePetris in the Chicago Tribune. Since the Oct. 7 assault, more than 1,150 Israeli soldiers have been killed, while Gaza authorities say Israel’s relentless strikes have killed some 67,000 Palestinians—some of them dying while waiting in line for food aid meant to relieve the widespread famine. Millions of people have been displaced. My home still stands, barely, said Gaza resident Ghada Abdulfattah in The New York Times, but it’s one of the few. Some 90% of this enclave of 2 million people has been bombed to ruins, and nearly everyone has an injured relative. “Gaza feels like a city of amputees.”

The war has also profoundly transformed Israel, said Constantin Schreiber in Politico, leaving it “struggling with its identity, its democracy, and its place in the world.” Traumatized by Hamas’ vicious slaughter of their children, Israelis mostly backed Netanyahu’s overwhelming military response as he not only obliterated most of Hamas but also severely weakened other enemies, like Iran and Lebanon’s Hezbollah. But while Israelis feel safer, many fear their country is growing “more Orthodox, more militaristic, and less democratic.” And as ever more Western nations accuse them of genocide and recognize Palestinian statehood, they are “increasingly disconnecting from the West.”

Left to himself, Netanyahu would not end the fighting now, said Yair Rosenberg in The Atlantic. His far-right coalition partners want to empty Gaza of Palestinians, and until recently he thought he had an ally in Trump. But he went too far last month when he ordered the bombing of Hamas officials who were meeting in Qatar to discuss a U.S. proposal. Trump was angry, and he has now “successfully bullied” Netanyahu to the negotiating table. To get an inked deal, “he’ll need to do more of that.”

What happened

Israel and Hamas completed the first phase of President Donald Trump’s 20-point Gaza peace plan Monday, with Hamas freeing the final 20 living Israeli hostages it seized two years ago and Israel releasing about 1,700 Palestinian detainees and some 250 serving life sentences. Trump flew to the region Monday to speak before Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, and meet with Arab and European leaders at a Gaza “peace summit” in Egypt that neither Israel nor Hamas attended.

Who said what

“This long and difficult war has now ended,” Trump told the Knesset. “You know, some people say 3,000 years, some people say 500 years — whatever it is, it’s the granddaddy of them all.” This isn’t “only the end of a war,” he added. “This is the historic dawn of a new Middle East.” Most of his speech “drew raucous cheers from Israeli lawmakers,” The Associated Press said, but his suggestion that Israel pursue a peace deal with Iran “elicited a muted response.”

The release of prisoners and hostages prompted "cheering, hugging and weeping” among waiting crowds in Tel Aviv and Gaza, Reuters said. Yet “even as Israelis and Palestinians reveled in split-screen scenes of tearful reunions with pale and frail-looking loved ones, many pitfalls and questions remained over the future of the Gaza Strip,” The New York Times said. Notably, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “did not join” Trump in “declaring that the war in Gaza was over.”

The Gaza agreement “represents a significant diplomatic triumph” for Trump and a “vindication of his unorthodox” brand of diplomacy, The Wall Street Journal said. But now that Monday’s whirlwind “victory lap” is over, his “ability to pursue a broader regional settlement will be tested by his own instinct to move on now that the fighting in Gaza has been halted.”

What next?

The “fragile ceasefire in Gaza” may have been the “easiest part” in the “long and tortuous” process, the AP said. “Key details of the peace plan” remain unclear, including “how and when Hamas is to disarm,” when Israel will withdraw from Gaza and what the proposed security force and future government will look like.

Benjamin Netanyahu has hailed the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas as “the beginning of a new path” but it’s not at all clear where it will lead the Israeli prime minister himself.

The peace plan agreed last week “delivered a jubilant moment in one of the darkest periods of the decades-old conflict between Israelis and Palestinians” but, for Netanyahu, it could be “the poison pill” that spells his downfall, said the Los Angeles Times.

What did the commentators say?

“To a greater extent than most, this war has been tied to the political fortunes of one leader,” said Joshua Keating in Vox. Netanyahu’s political opponents, and the families of hostages, have repeatedly alleged that he was deliberately prolonging the war in order to maintain his grip on power and delay a long-running corruption trial that could see him sent to prison for 10 years.

Having secured the release of all remaining living Israeli hostages held by Hamas, “ambiguity” around the next phase of the peace plan is what has kept Netanyahu’s nationalist coalition together up to now, said Tal Shalev at CNN. Despite the protestations of hard line ministers and “far-right threats to overthrow the government”, Netanyahu has been able to spin the deal into “a win: hostages returned; IDF holding ground, Hamas weakened”. He “may have been cornered” into the ceasefire but he’s “engineered enough wiggle room to claim that he hasn’t”.

This should be a moment of triumph for Israel’s longest serving prime minister but, in truth, he is now “stuck between a Trumpian rock and an extremist hard place of his own making”, said Paul Nuki in The Telegraph. His supporters on the right “may worry that Israel is becoming little more than a US protectorate” but, “worse than that, the wider Israeli population, which for two long years was wrapped up in the trauma of 7 October” will now have the headspace to comprehend the country’s shattered reputation among its allies in the West. To an electorate keen to signal a break from a traumatic and contentious recent past, Netanyahu could be the perfect “fall guy”. And, “if that happens, it may not be a great victory that awaits Netanyahu but a terrible defeat – one that could see him jailed or seeking exile in Miami”.

What next?

Israel must hold new parliamentary elections no later than October 2026 but few expect the prime minister to wait that long. Even though he’s facing criminal charges in his own country and is the subject of an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court, “the very fact that Netanyahu is still in power, retains Donald Trump’s support and has presided over two years of war in which regional foes have been decimated might yet work in the prime minister’s favour”, said Neri Zilber in the Financial Times.

Right now, Trump “reigns supreme” in Israeli public affections, said CNN, and, by putting the US president front and centre of his upcoming election campaign, Netanyahu “will try to carry out political alchemy, converting the deal into political gold”. Whether it’s enough to “rewrite Netanyahu’s legacy as the prime minister who presided over Israel’s worst security failure and longest war will become an ultimate test of Israeli voters’ memory”.

Joyous scenes have greeted the release of 20 Israeli hostages by Hamas, and the arrival of the first batch of nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners and detainees released by Israel, under Donald Trump’s Gaza peace plan.

The US president declared the two-year war in Gaza “is over” and, to a standing ovation in the Israeli parliament in Jerusalem, said today is "a day of profound joy and soaring hope” and “the historic dawn of a new Middle East".

Who are the released Israeli hostages?

The 20 Israeli hostages, released in two batches this morning, are all men and more than half of them had been taken seized by Hamas at the Nova desert festival on 7 October 2023.

They included Evyatar David, who was shown emaciated, and digging what he said was his own grave, in a video released over the summer by Hamas that “rattled many people", including Trump, said Bloomberg. Also released was Nvidia employee Avinatan Or: a photo of him on 7 October being torn away from his partner Noa Argamani (who was also taken hostage and released last year) “became an iconic image of the day’s horrors”.

Among the other released hostages were twin brothers Gali and Ziv Berman, brothers Ariel and David Cunio, Omri Miran, who was abducted from his kibbutz in front of his wife and children, and Matan Angrest, an Israeli Defense Force soldier who was captured from his burning tank near the Gaza perimeter fence.

What about those hostages who have died?

There are 28 dead Israeli hostages whose bodies are also due to be returned to Israel under the terms of the peace deal.

This is “the much tougher phase” and “everyone is on edge”, Rotem Cooper, who is waiting to receive the body of his father Amiram, told the BBC. The Israeli Hostage and Missing Families Forum have posted on X that they have learned “only four deceased hostages” will be returned today.

“The act of burial is highly important in Jewish tradition,” said The Times, and “must be returned to the earth as quickly as possible after death”. The absence of a body “has left many hostage families unable to begin the Jewish mourning process”.

What about the Palestinian prisoners?

Under the terms of the peace deal, some 250 Palestinian prisoners serving sentences in Israeli jails, and 1,700 detainees from Gaza, including 22 children, are to be released.

Earlier today, the mood on the Palestinian side was “less one of open celebration, more of confusion”, said Lucy Williamson, the BBC's Middle East correspondent. Waiting relatives “say the speed of this deal means the list of Palestinian prisoners set for release today has been constantly changing overnight”.

At least one bus carrying released Palestinians has already arrived in Ramallah, in the occupied West Bank. But it’s thought that the majority of prisoners, rather than detainees, on the list “are to be sent into exile”, rather than returned to Gaza or the West Bank, said The New York Times. It’s not clear in which country “exile” would be.

Thought to be included on the list of prisoners to be released is Iyad Abu al-Rub, an Islamic Jihad commander convicted of orchestrating suicide bombings in Israel that killed 13 people in the early 2000s, and Eham Kamamji, who was arrested in 2006 and has been serving a life sentence for the kidnapping and murder of an Israeli settler. Writer Basem Khandaqji, winner of the International Prize for Arabic Fiction, who was sentenced by Israel to three life terms for his involvement in the Carmel Market suicide bombing in 2004, was also on the list to be freed.

Despite frantic last-minute negotiations, Hamas was unable to secure the release of six “high-profile” Palestinian prisoners, said Middle East Eye. Chief among these is Marwan Barghouti, who is serving five life sentences after Israel convicted him in 2004 of multiple counts of murder. Once secretary general of the Fatah political faction, he is “currently the most popular Palestinian political figure, according to numerous polls”, and would be a “shoo-in for the Palestinian presidency if elections were held and he were able to run for office”.

A source close to Barghouti told the news site that, although US envoy Steve Witkoff had signed off on his release, “the Israeli prime minister’s office unilaterally removed his name from the prisoner exchange list at the last minute”.

Israel confirmed today that the proposed Gaza ceasefire – the first of the 20 points in the agreement – has gone into effect, with the Israel Defense Forces beginning its withdrawal from parts of the strip.

If the peace plan is successful, it would be a “massive blow to Joe Biden’s legacy”, said The Independent. Few Democrats still defend his administration’s “hug Bibi closer” strategy, and recent developments appear to have validated Donald Trump’s “brash, demanding approach” towards Benjamin Netanyahu.

What did the commentators say?

If this agreement holds, it could stand as the “signature achievement” of Trump’s second term, said the BBC. Where Biden’s relationship with Netanyahu was more “tenuous”, Trump’s friendship with Israel’s prime minister and popularity with Israeli voters allowed him to put “pressure” on Netanyahu after the strikes on Iran and Qatar. Trump’s close ties to the Gulf states, business agreements with Qatar and the UAE, and presidential visits to Saudi Arabia have all won favour with leaders in the region.

Though much of the diplomacy has been conducted far outside the US, near-unconditional party support at home played a significant part, said Gerard Baker in The Times. In the last 50 years, no Republican president has “enjoyed such a level of trust” from his administration. With the party becoming something of a “personality cult”, if Trump “wants to move diplomatic mountains, he faces no resistance” from within.

That was an advantage certainly not shared by his Democrat predecessor, said the BBC. While Trump’s “solid Republican base” has allowed him “room to manoeuvre”, “every step Biden took risked fracturing his own domestic support”, due to split opinion on the Gaza conflict within the Democratic Party and voter base.

Trump’s diplomacy skills may even be evolving, said David Ignatius in The Washington Post. In addition to his familiar “imperious”, “go-it-alone” personality, the president arguably displayed “more flexibility and cooperation than are typical of him” by involving Middle Eastern partners like Turkey, Egypt and Qatar in diplomatic discussions.

The “boldness” of the president’s recent tactics left little room for “interagency”, Joel Braunold, managing director at the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace, told Lawfare. But Trump’s “just try and get it done” attitude – “there’s something to be said for that”. Of course, Trump is no stranger to an eye-catching announcement, so the “proof will be in the pudding” as to whether his unique brand of diplomacy creates fair and lasting change.

“There are many unresolved details” and a degree of scepticism is in order, said Baker in The Times. The recent past is “littered with too many ceasefires, accords and peace deals” in the Middle East, and it would be misguided “to express any confidence now that this latest one will endure”.

What next?

The history of political turbulence in the region suggests that there is a long road ahead, said The New York Times. Questions over the proposed interim “technocratic” leadership in Gaza overseen by the US, and the extent of Palestinian Authority involvement, have yet to be answered satisfactorily.

Working out peace deals in the region is “a little like cleaning up after volcanic eruptions: There is a certainty it will happen again. It is just hard to know when, or how ferociously.”

What happened

Israel and Hamas Wednesday agreed to exchange hundreds of Palestinian prisoners for all remaining Israeli hostages as Israel’s military pulled back in Gaza. President Donald Trump, who had pushed both sides to negotiate, announced that they had signed on to the “first phase” of his 20-point peace plan at ongoing Gaza negotiations in Egypt. Hamas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed the news, though each side focused on different aspects of the agreement.

Who said what

“The whole world came together around this deal,” Trump told Fox News Wednesday night. He called Wednesday's breakthrough a “historic” victory that will bring “peace in the Middle East,” and said the remaining Israeli hostages would be freed “probably Monday.” Officials said the 20 hostages believed to still be alive would be returned as soon as Sunday, while the remains of the 28 deceased Israelis would be handed over as they are located.

The hostage-for-prisoner swap “marks a breakthrough in what had been eight months of stalled negotiations after he took office, bringing Trump closer to a top foreign-policy goal of ending the war in Gaza,” The Wall Street Journal said. But Hamas’ statement on the deal “hinted at major details yet to be worked out, and Egyptian officials said mediators were working to hash out a final agreement that could still get derailed.”

If “Trump can hold this deal together” to the end, he “may have as legitimate a claim to that Nobel as the four American presidents who have who have won the peace prize,” David Sanger said at The New York Times. But this first step toward ending the Gaza war is probably the easiest part, and the “history of the region suggests that working out peace accords to end conflicts is a little like cleaning up after volcanic eruptions: There is a certainty it will happen again. It is just hard to know when, or how ferociously.”

What next?

Netanyahu said he would present the agreement to his cabinet for approval today. Trump told Axios he was “likely going to Israel in the coming days” to address Israeli lawmakers.

Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu shrugged off the world’s criticisms as he prosecuted his country’s war in Gaza. But with a peace deal possibly at hand, it’s clear there is one person he cannot ignore: President Donald Trump.

Netanyahu was “strong-armed by Trump” into going along with the president’s peace proposal, said The New York Times. While the prime minister presented the potential deal as a joint American-Israeli effort, Trump suggested otherwise to reporters. Netanyahu has “got to be fine” with a deal to end the war, Trump said. “He has no choice.” Netanyahu now has a “delicate balancing act” to perform, said the Times. His political survival depends on “appeasing his far-right coalition partners” who will not approve a deal that lets Hamas survive. At the same time, he knows that fighting Trump “will hurt Netanyahu, not Trump,” said Al-Monitor’s Mazal Mualem.

The draft peace deal offers a pathway, “however vague,” to a future Palestinian state, said the Financial Times. Netanyahu has built a career on his opposition to such a state. But Trump reminded Netanyahu that “Israel was propped up by billions of dollars in U.S. aid.” And the president is eager to bring the war to an end. The “rule of thumb is Donald Trump’s interests come first,” said Michael Oren, Israel’s former ambassador to America.

What did the commentators say?

“Trump is successfully bullying Netanyahu,” Yair Rosenberg said at The Atlantic. If the war is to come to an end, “he’ll need to do more of it.” The prime minister is facing a “mutiny” from far-right members of his coalition government who want to “ethnically cleanse” Gaza and fill it with Israeli settlers. Trump is the “only actor who can provide a counterweight to these radicals.” The president has “incredible leverage” over Netanyahu. “He just needs to use it.”

Netanyahu “consistently placed spokes in the wheels” when the Biden administration pressed him, Amos Harel said at Haaretz. Now he has “concluded that he can no longer block Trump’s moves.” Netanyahu is selling the proposed Gaza deal to his voters as a “tremendous diplomatic achievement” that was possible only because of the “prime minister’s stubbornness.” One key date: The Nobel Peace Prize will be announced October 10. If Trump gets Hamas to free Israeli hostages, “he probably deserves the prize he so covets.”

What next?

Indirect talks between Israel and Hamas began Monday in Egypt, said Axios. Trump “wants to see a deal as soon as possible,” and his team is pushing for “implementation of the deal without delay.” The process has a “really good chance” of producing peace after two years of war, the president said Monday.

Hamas leaders believe Trump “is the only person who can pressure Netanyahu into a deal,” said NBC News. But the war is not over until it is over. “We will return to fight” if the talks do not succeed, said Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir, Israeli Defense Forces’ chief of staff.

What happened

Hamas negotiators arrived in Egypt Sunday for indirect negotiations with Israel prompted by President Donald Trump’s 20-point plan to end the Gaza war. Hamas accepted the general terms of the plan on Friday, including the release of all remaining hostages, living and dead. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a televised address Saturday that he hoped to announce the hostages’ release “in the coming days.”

Who said what

These negotiations are “expected to be among the most consequential since the start of the war,” the BBC said, and Hamas’ willingness to “enter the talks without explicit conditions” may be a “recognition of its limited leverage after nearly two years of war.” Netanyahu “took much personal credit” for the emerging plan, The New York Times said, but it was “abundantly clear to Israelis, and to Palestinians and others in the region,” that Trump was “calling the shots.”

“I said, ‘Bibi, this is your chance for victory.’ He was fine with it,” Trump told Axios’ Barak Ravid on Saturday. “He’s got to be fine with it. He has no choice.” Trump “doesn’t threaten Netanyahu; he orders him,” Israeli columnist Nahum Barnea wrote in Sunday's Yedioth Ahronoth, a mainstream Hebrew daily, per the Times.

What next?

The “messages from Hamas and Israeli leaders” suggested “both sides were under more pressure than at any point in recent months,” The Washington Post said. But “there remained substantial gaps between their positions and a significant possibility that the fragile détente would break down.” Israel said its negotiators are traveling to Egypt today, and Trump envoys Steve Witkoff and son-in-law Jared Kushner are expected to join the talks later this week.

What happened

President Donald Trump Monday released a 20-point plan to end Israel’s war in Gaza, following a two-hour White House meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who backed the proposal. Under the plan, Israel would halt its attacks and withdraw in stages as Hamas released all Israeli hostages, disarmed and gave up any governing role in the Palestinian enclave. Gaza would be run by apolitical Palestinian technocrats overseen by a “Board of Peace” chaired by Trump, with security provided by an Arab-led international force and Palestinian police, until a reformed Palestinian Authority could take control.

Who said what

Trump called the unveiling of his proposal for “eternal peace in the Middle East” a “historic day.” If Hamas did not agree, he added, he would give Israel “full backing” to destroy the militant group. Hamas “faces a bitter tradeoff,” The Associated Press said, as the plan demands it “effectively surrender” in return for humanitarian aid for Gazans, an end to the fighting and a “vague promise that some day, perhaps, Palestinian statehood might be possible.”

Netanyahu said he backed Trump’s plan. But he “peppered his support” with “conditions” that appeared aimed at reassuring his “far-right coalition partners who don’t want him to stop the war,” The Washington Post said, and he “hedged with details that could make it difficult for Arab nations to sign on.”

The foreign ministers of Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar jointly said they have confidence in Trump’s “ability to find a path to peace” based on a “two-state solution,” though they did not back his specific plan. The Palestinian Authority also welcomed Trump’s “sincere and determined efforts” for peace and agreed to pursue his reforms. Hamas said it wasn’t consulted on the plan but would consider it.

What next?

Trump “deserves the credit he craves” for this plan, which “laid a strong foundation” for eventual Israeli-Palestinian peace, David Ignatius said in the Post. “If you are a betting person,” the odds are it fails, Thomas Friedman said in The New York Times. But “if you are a hoping person, hope that this time will be different,” because “this really is the last train” to anywhere in the Mideast but the “gates of hell.”

How influential is Netanyahu?

First elected as prime minister in 1996, he has since won five elections, making him the longest-serving leader in Israel’s history. Netanyahu, 75, has seldom been personally popular—recent polls suggest only 40% of Israelis trust him—but long ago established himself as “Mr. Security,” the man best placed to protect Israel from its enemies, notably Iran and its allies Hezbollah and the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. To his critics inside Israel, “King Bibi” is a ruthless and corrupt danger to democracy who prioritizes his own interests over Israel’s. The right-wing leader is, nevertheless, the most influential figure in Israeli politics today, and arguably the entire Middle East. Both friends and foes describe Netanyahu as the ultimate political survivor, one who is motivated by both an overwhelming sense of his own importance—“Without Bibi the country is lost,” his wife, Sara, often says—and a deep pessimism. “I’m asked if we will forever live by the sword: Yes,” he told Israeli lawmakers in 2015.

What shaped his worldview?

His father, in large part. Bibi was born in Tel Aviv in 1949, the middle son of Benzion Netanyahu, a Polish-born medieval historian—“Jewish history is in large measure a history of holocausts,” he once said—who believed in a Greater Israel that would encompass modern-day Jordan. Netanyahu’s teenage years were spent between Israel and the U.S., where his father taught; at 18, in 1967, he returned to Israel for military service. During five distinguished years in the army, he fought in Lebanon and served in the Israeli special forces alongside his brothers Iddo and Yoni, the latter of whom was especially close to Bibi. In 1976, while Netanyahu was studying at MIT, Yoni was killed during a special forces raid to free Israeli hostages held by Palestinian and German terrorists at Uganda’s Entebbe International Airport. In death, Yoni became a national hero and inspired his brother’s political career.

In what way?

Netanyahu said his brother saw himself engaged in a “struggle between civilization and barbarism.” In the wake of Yoni’s death, “[I] devoted myself to this battle.” The Netanyahus founded an Israeli anti-terrorism institute in Yoni’s memory; Bibi headed the organization, which gave him the connections to enter politics. Appointed Israel’s representative to the U.N. in 1984, he became a regular presence on U.S. cable news, defending Israel’s policies with skill and charm. Elected to the Knesset in 1988, Netanyahu was named head of the right-wing Likud party in 1993 and three years later became prime minister after defeating Shimon Peres’ Labor by less than 1 percentage point. His first term was troubled. He infuriated right-wingers by ceding chunks of the West Bank to Palestinian Authority control, while accusations of corruption damaged him with centrists. He lost the 1999 election.

How did he make a comeback?

Netanyahu served in Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s cabinet in the early 2000s, before resigning in 2005 to protest Israel’s withdrawal from the occupied Gaza Strip. In 2009, he was elected prime minister again, capitalizing on a rightward shift in Israel fueled partly by Hamas’ takeover of Gaza and fear of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. In office, he nurtured Israel’s high-tech economy, forged anti-Iran alliances with Arab monarchies, and gained notoriety for trying to consolidate power. His attempts at media manipulation, allegedly offering deals in return for favorable coverage, embroiled him in two criminal cases; his proposed “judicial reform” law would allow for greater political influence over the judiciary. On the Palestinian issue, Netanyahu has worked to undermine a two-state solution. His governments, which have included far-right parties since 2022, have let Israeli settlers build on West Bank land designated as Palestinian by the U.N. And until the massacre of Oct. 7, 2023, Netanyahu let Qatar send millions of dollars a month to Gaza, believing a strong Hamas would serve as a counterweight to the West Bank–based Palestinian Authority.

How did Oct. 7 affect him?

The attack by Hamas, in which nearly 1,200 Israelis were killed and 251 taken hostage, was the result of serious intelligence failings, and initially dealt a crushing blow to Netanyahu’s reputation. His relentless prosecution of the war in Gaza since—in which more than 65,000 people have died, according to Palestinian authorities—has weakened Israel’s alliances with many Western nations and bitterly divided Israelis, though the campaign still enjoys significant support in the country. Critics allege he has kept the war going to appease far-right members of his coalition, delay a reckoning over his security failures, and reduce the possibility of his being tried on corruption charges. “My Matan is being sacrificed on Netanyahu’s altar,” Einav Zangauker, mother of hostage Matan Zangauker, said earlier this month.

Why is Netanyahu still in power?

Because the war’s continuation has let him play to his strengths as Mr. Security. Under Netanyahu’s leadership since Oct. 7, Israel has not merely destroyed Hamas as a military force but also decapitated its ally Hezbollah in Lebanon, and inflicted major damage on Iran’s military capabilities and nuclear program, with U.S. assistance, in its 12-day war with the Islamic Republic. While Israel’s regional enemies are weaker, Netanyahu warned last week that growing international condemnation could force Israel to become a “super Sparta” with “autarkic features,” meaning little engagement with international trade—presumably with himself in charge. “He thinks he’s the one who can save Israel from the imminent threat of annihilation,” said Aviv Bushinsky, who worked as an aide to Netanyahu for nine years. “He really believes that he is the only one on Earth that can do it.”

Dealing with Washington

“Who the f--- does he think he is? Who’s the f---ing superpower here?” These were reportedly Bill Clinton’s words after his first meeting with Netanyahu, in 1996. The Israeli prime minister knows the U.S. and its media well, and—buoyed by pro-Israel lobby groups and support from the Christian Right—he has felt confident to push back against Democratic presidents who have sought to rein in Israel. Barack Obama’s officials described him as “untrustworthy.” In 2015, Netanyahu accepted a Republican invitation to address Congress and railed against the nuclear deal Obama was brokering with Iran. Bibi had better relations with President Joe Biden, especially after Oct. 7. But by the time Biden left office, he was privately referring to Netanyahu as an “asshole.” President Trump has given Netanyahu free rein to wage war in Gaza and attack Israel’s enemies across the Middle East. But there are signs that, like his predecessors, Trump is losing patience with Bibi. The Wall Street Journal reported last week that, after Israel’s strike on Hamas leaders in U.S.-allied Qatar, Trump told aides, “He’s f---ing me.”

What happened

Britain, Canada, Australia and Portugal Sunday formally recognized the state of Palestine, calling the move a way to preserve fading hopes for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. About 150 other nations already recognize Palestinian statehood, and more are expected to do so this week, including France, as Israel’s war in Gaza and West Bank annexation threats sap support from Tel Aviv’s traditional Western allies.

Who said what

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said in a video statement that recognizing Palestine statehood was intended to “revive the hope of peace for the Palestinians and Israelis” and was “not a reward for Hamas,” because it meant the “brutal terror organization” can “have no future, no role in government, no role in security.” Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said the move “in no way legitimizes terrorism,” but the “current Israeli government is working methodically to prevent the prospect of a Palestinian state from ever being established.”

The “leaders who are recognizing a Palestinian state” are “rewarding terror with an enormous prize,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said. “And I have another message for you: It’s not going to happen. A Palestinian state will not be established west of the Jordan River.” Hamas, which also rejects a two-state solution, partially applauded the move. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said recognition was a step toward allowing the "State of Palestine to live side by side with the State of Israel in security, peace and good neighborliness."

Britain’s decision “carried particular symbolism given its major role in Israel’s creation as a modern nation in the aftermath of World War II,” Reuters said. “But without the United States coming on board with the idea of a Palestine,” Burcu Ozcelik at London’s Royal United Services Institute told The Associated Press, “I think very little will change on the ground.”

What next?

Sunday’s announcements fired the “starting gun on a week that will bring a watershed moment in international relations between Israel and major international powers” at the U.N. General Assembly, The Wall Street Journal said. Once France recognizes Palestine, the U.S. will be the “sole permanent member of the Security Council with veto power that is holding out,” The New York Times said.

First elected as prime minister in 1996, Benjamin Netanyahu has won five elections since, making him the longest-serving leader in Israel’s history (exceeding even David Ben-Gurion, its founding PM). He has spent just 18 months out of office since 2009. His right-wing politics, particularly his approach to the Palestinian question, have profoundly shaped Israeli society and public opinion.

He has seldom been personally popular (recent polls suggest only 40% of Israelis trust him), but “King Bibi”, an exceptionally shrewd operator, long ago established himself as “Mr Security”, the man best placed to protect Israel from its enemies, notably Hamas and Iran. To his detractors, he is ruthless, reckless, a danger to democracy who prioritises his own political survival over Israel’s interests – and, of course, the driving force behind the brutal war in Gaza. He is, nevertheless, by far the most influential figure in Israeli politics today, and arguably in the entire Middle East.

Where do his politics come from?

Not least, from his father. He was born in Tel Aviv in 1949 – the middle son of Benzion Netanyahu, a Polish-born medieval historian who was a Revisionist Zionist (militant, territorially maximalist) and was often openly critical of his son. His teenage years were spent between Israel and Philadelphia, where his father taught; but when he was 18, in 1967, he moved back to Israel for military service. During five distinguished years in the army, he fought in Lebanon and served in the Sayeret Matkal, Israel’s equivalent of the SAS, alongside his brothers Yonatan and Iddo, to whom he was close. In 1976, Yonatan (Yoni) was killed during a special forces raid on Uganda’s Entebbe Airport to free the 106 mostly Israeli hostages held by Palestinian and German terrorists. The only Israeli military casualty of the operation, Yoni is revered as a national hero; his death inspired his brother’s political career.

In what way?

It fell to Netanyahu, who was in Boston, studying at MIT, to break the news to his parents; he later founded an anti-terrorism institute in Yoni’s memory, setting him on a path to politics. He was hired by Israel’s ambassador to the US in 1982, became its representative to the UN in 1984, and was elected to the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, in 1988. Five years later, he became leader of Likud, Israel’s main right-wing party; and in 1996 he beat Shimon Peres to become PM. His first term was troubled. Right-wingers were furious that he agreed to cede 80% of Hebron to Palestinian Authority control, among other concessions in the occupied West Bank; the Left accused him of “killing the peace”, by undermining the 1993 Oslo Accords, of which he was a fierce, long-term critic. He lost the 1999 election.

How did he make a comeback?

Netanyahu served as foreign minister and then finance minister in Ariel Sharon’s government, before resigning in 2005 in protest at Israel’s withdrawal from the occupied Gaza Strip. In 2009, he was elected PM again. Migration to Israel of more than a million citizens of the former Soviet Union (at least 10% of Israel’s whole population) over the previous 20 years had led the country’s politics to take a more conservative, nationalistic turn – reinforced by the collapse of the peace process, the Second Intifada (2000-2005) and rising Palestinian terrorism. By 2007, Hamas had taken power in Gaza.

What policies has he pursued?

A champion of free market economics who has nurtured hi-tech startups, he has also gained notoriety for trying to reshape Israel’s institutions. His attempts at media manipulation, allegedly offering deals in return for favourable coverage, have embroiled him in two criminal cases; while his proposed “judicial reform” law is widely seen as an attempt to weaken the judiciary. On the Palestinian issue, Netanyahu, in theory, changed tack in 2009, endorsing a two-state solution with a “demilitarised” Palestine. But he continued to undermine it in practice. His governments have supported Israeli settlers who build on land in the West Bank designated by the UN as Palestinian. He has been in a coalition with ultra-nationalist settler parties since late 2022. His Gaza strategy was, until recently, to keep Hamas in power, as a counterweight to the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. He allowed Qatar to fund Hamas, believing that it could be safely contained militarily. Since Hamas’s attacks of 7 October 2023, he has once again opposed a two-state solution, saying that he was “proud to have prevented the establishment of a Palestinian state... after we saw the little Palestinian state in Gaza”.

How did 7 October affect him?

The attacks, in which 1,195 people were killed and 251 taken hostage, were the result of serious intelligence failings, and initially dealt a crushing blow to Netanyahu’s reputation, and to his Hamas policy. His relentless prosecution of the war in Gaza since, in which 64,200 people have died, according to Palestinian authorities, has damaged Israel’s global standing (though the campaign still has significant support at home). It is widely suspected that he has kept the war going to delay a reckoning over his failures, and to reduce the possibility of his being tried on corruption charges, relating to media manipulation and allegedly receiving expensive gifts from businessmen.

Why is he still in power?

What looked like a disaster has also proved an opportunity: it gave Israel the chance not just to destroy Hamas as a military force, but to decimate its ally Hezbollah in Lebanon, and to execute the “12-day war” against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Netanyahu has seized the opportunity to redraw the map of the Middle East, humiliating Iran and its “axis of resistance” and bolstering his own position. But the basic tensions remain: his own coalition pushes for “total victory” in Gaza, while much of the world, the Muslim world in particular, demands a fair settlement for the Palestinians.

Dealing with Washington

“Who the f**k does he think he is? Who’s the f**king superpower here?” These were reportedly Bill Clinton’s words after his first meeting with Netanyahu, in 1996. The Israeli PM knows the US and its media well, and – buoyed by pro-Israel lobby groups and support from the Christian Right – he has felt confident to push back against Democratic presidents who have sought to rein in Israel. Barack Obama’s officials described him as “untrustworthy” and “disrespectful toward the president”. In 2015, Netanyahu accepted a Republican invitation to address Congress – and railed against the nuclear deal Obama was brokering with Iran. He had better relations with Joe Biden, especially after 7 October. But by the time Biden left office, he was privately referring to Netanyahu as an “asshole”. Donald Trump, by contrast, has been a near-perfect ally. The US officially recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in Trump’s first term. In 2020, his administration brokered the Abraham Accords, normalising relations between Israel and several Arab states; Trump joined Israel’s attacks on Iran, and has suggested Palestinians be removed from Gaza. He has even called for Netanyahu’s corruption charges to be dropped.

Israel’s president has defended his country’s attack on Hamas leaders in Doha amid growing international condemnation over the targeted air strike on Qatari territory. “If you want to move on, you have to remove some of the people if they are not willing to get that deal,” said Isaac Herzog.

What did the commentators say?

By attacking “parties to a negotiation in the midst of their deliberations”, Israel has “literally blown up” Gaza ceasefire talks, said ABC News.

The air strike shows “it has no interest” in stopping the war in Gaza. The Hamas negotiators were the very people who “could approve a ceasefire and had already agreed to multiple proposals before”. This assassination attempt will “make any country or group question the point” of negotiating with Israel.

Whatever “diplomatic momentum existed” has “evaporated into thin air” since Israel struck Qatar, said Daniel DePetris in The Spectator. The latest draft ceasefire was “tabled just a few days ago” but it “now lies in tatters, if it was a serious proposal to begin with”. Benjamin Netanyahu and his government have “dealt a serious blow to a diplomatic process that was already on life support”; this was probably “the goal all along”.

Netanyahu has “clearly concluded” that ceasefire negotiations were “leading nowhere”, said the Council on Foreign Relations. So “decapitating Hamas” is a more efficient way for Israel to “advance its war aims of destroying the group, bringing home Israeli hostages” and making sure that Hamas “can never rule again”.

For Hamas, the strike “could be a warning to get on with things” and “accept the deal on offer”, said David Patrikarakos on UnHerd. Either way, Netanyahu has “staked his legacy” on the “gamble” that “overwhelming strength and the repeated destruction of Israel’s enemies” can achieve "what diplomacy with Hamas has not”.

What next?

The Qatari government has commissioned a legal team to look into holding Netanyahu responsible for breaking international law with the attack.

Meanwhile, the EU may suspend bilateral support for Israel in the wake of the incident, said European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. The proposed measures include sanctions targeting “extremist ministers and violent settlers” as well as a partial freeze on trade agreements.

The Doha attack could also imperil the Abraham Accords that normalised relations between Israel and several Arab states, said Rami G. Khouri on Al Jazeera. How Washington handles the “intensifying Israeli attacks” on Arab states could “shape the future” of relations between the US and the Gulf nations.

What happened

Israel Wednesday said its forces have pushed into the outskirts of Gaza City and it will activate 60,000 reservists for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's planned operation to seize the whole city. Netanyahu's government also gave final approval Wednesday to a controversial settlement project in the West Bank that would effectively cut the occupied Palestinian territory in two. Far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said approval of the settlements meant the "dangerous idea" of a Palestinian state was "being erased from the table."

Who said what

The Israeli Defense Forces "have begun preliminary operations and the first stages of the attack on Gaza City" and Hamas' "battered and bruised" fighters, Israeli military spokesperson Brig. Gen. Effie Defrin told reporters. But Israel's "exhausted military may face a manpower problem," CNN said. In a "country of fewer than 10 million people," The Associated Press said, the large call-up of reservists "carries economic and political weight."

Israel is "bucking international criticism" and "growing support" for Palestinian statehood in moving ahead with its Gaza City invasion and West Bank settlements, The New York Times said. The two moves suggest that Netanyahu is "bending to the ideologies of extremists" in his government, "even at the cost of isolating Israel internationally." In a new Reuters/Ipsos poll, 58% of Americans said they believed every country in the United Nations should recognize Palestine as a nation.

In Gaza, residents are "bracing for the worst," said Al Jazeera. Israel's assault "will just create another mass displacement of people who have been displaced repeatedly," U.N. spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric told reporters. The situation in Gaza is "nothing short of apocalyptic reality for children, for their families and for this generation," Save the Children regional director Ahmad Alhendawi told the AP.

What next?

Israel said it would warn Gaza City residents before a full-scale attack and give civilians a chance to evacuate. The IDF reservists won't have to report for duty until next month, "an interval that gives mediators some time to bridge gaps between Hamas and Israel" over a ceasefire proposal Hamas endorsed earlier this week, Reuters said.

"The transformation of Israel's image from David to Goliath, from righteous to wrathful" has tarnished its reputation in the U.S., said Jackie Calmes in the Los Angeles Times. A Gallup poll published last week found that only 32% of Americans back Israel's military action in Gaza, down from 50% in late 2023. The survey was conducted last month, largely "before the torrent of heartrending photos of malnourished babies" spread around the world. The reduced support "was driven by increased opposition among Democrats and independents," only 8% and 25% of whom, respectively, back Israel's war aims. Some on the American right are also lashing out, said Jacob Magid in The Times of Israel. According to a Pew Research poll from April, 50% of young Republicans view Israel unfavorably, up from 35% in 2022. That "animosity" is shared by a few sitting GOP lawmakers; MAGA firebrand Marjorie Taylor Greene, for instance, is "no less critical of the Jewish state than some of the most progressive Democrats." As President Trump reportedly put it while speaking to a prominent Jewish donor: "My people are starting to hate Israel."

The idea that the GOP is divided over Israel is, however, "mostly fiction," said Matthew Continetti in The Free Press. Yes, the predictable "foreign-policy restrainers" like Tucker Carlson are blasting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu through their "megaphones." But Trump "remains as resolutely pro-Israel as ever," and the vast majority of Republican voters "continue to reward politicians who stand with the Jewish state against Jihadism." That Gallup poll? Republican support for Israel's war against Hamas actually jumped from 66% to 71%. The data simply don't back the notion that the "reliably pro-Israel GOP is wobbly."

While Trump and his supporters have stuck with Netanyahu, Israel can't ignore that the world and a majority of Americans have turned against it, said Joe Klein in his Substack newsletter. Israel becoming a "pariah state" would be all too "convenient for the antisemites," and Jews everywhere, including the U.S., would suffer. So, American Jews—who "carry some weight in Israel"—should strive for "unanimity" on both the "evil of Hamas" and "the excesses of the Netanyahu government." In the U.S., "every Jewish pulpit in the land" should call for an end to "starvation and displacement" in Gaza. A strong Israel serves as a "security blanket" for the Jewish people in a hostile world, and its future is essential. "But decency is integral to real moral strength."

As Israel ramps up its war in Gaza with plans to occupy Gaza City, the escalation may worsen the humanitarian crisis and isolate Israel internationally.

Gaza City is "one of the last areas of the territory not yet under full military occupation," said NPR, and is home to "tens of thousands" of refugees from the war, as well as Gaza's "last partially functioning hospitals." The occupation aims to "root out Hamas," said Axios. "We intend to control all of Gaza," said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But the operation could backfire: Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir warned that it might "trap the military within the enclave and put the remaining hostages at risk," said CNN.

Taking control of Gaza City risks ending in a "strategic dead-end," said Patrick Kingsley at The New York Times. Israel ultimately intends to hand Gaza to "Arab forces that will govern it properly without threatening us," said Netanyahu. But Israel's army is "depleted" after fighting the "longest high-intensity war in the country's history." Fewer reservists are reporting for duty while munitions and spare parts are "running down." By overriding his generals, Netanyahu has again "prioritized his political needs by choosing to extend the war."

'Complete dismantling' of Hamas

The only way to prevent Hamas' resurgence is its "complete dismantling as the effective ruling entity in the Gaza Strip," said Kobi Michael and Yossi Kuperwasser at Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Security Studies. "The aim is to convince Gaza's public that Hamas will not return." Until that happens, "no real reconstruction process in the area can begin." The burden on Israel's army, though, would be "substantial."

Netanyahu should heed the IDF's warnings and "avoid the Gaza occupation swamp," said The Jerusalem Post editorial board. The prime minister asserts the "full occupation" of the Palestinian territory would "signal the end of Hamas," but "experience and military analysis suggest otherwise." Occupation would allow Hamas to "go underground and regroup" in an asymmetric fight, bogging Israel down in a "costly, open-ended war with no end in sight." That would be a "long-term disaster for Israel."

'Self-inflicted injury'

Hamas and Netanyahu "both want to keep the Gaza war going," said Jonathan D. Strum at The Hill. The prime minister and his "ultra-nationalist" backers are following a "vision of a Palestinian-free Gaza," which is why they continue the war despite military advice that further fighting serves "no military purpose." Hamas, meanwhile, wants to survive as a "political force" and can best do that while Israel continues the "self-inflicted injury" of a prolonged war.

Occupying Gaza could be a "political tactic to pressure Hamas" for ceasefire negotiations, said PBS NewsHour. Netanyahu has set out an "ambitious goal," said David Makovsky, the director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy's Project on Arab-Israel Relations. But the dynamic could prove tricky if Hamas does not return to negotiations. "We just don't know yet."

What happened

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's security cabinet this morning approved a proposal for the Israeli Defense Forces to take over Gaza City, the largest population center in the embattled Gaza Strip. "We intend to" take over all of Gaza, but "we don't want to keep it" or "govern it," Netanyahu said on Fox News Thursday. "We want to hand it over to Arab forces" after defeating Hamas.

Who said what

The resolution approved by the security cabinet "appeared to stop short of Netanyahu's proposal" but "also did not explicitly rule out or reject" the idea, The Washington Post said. A full Gaza takeover would be a "gamble that defies international pressure to end the war and lacks broad domestic support," The Wall Street Journal said. Polls show "most Israelis want the war to end in a deal that would see the release of the remaining hostages," Reuters said.

"What Netanyahu is offering is more war, more dead hostages" and "tens of billions of taxpayer shekels poured into the delusions" of his hawkish right-wing allies, opposition leader Yair Lapid said. As the security cabinet met Thursday night, "thousands, including freed hostages," protested across Israel against expanding the war, Ha'aretz said.

In pushing forward with the "pivotal and risky" incursion, Netanyahu is also "bucking the advice of the Israeli military," The New York Times said. The IDF's chief of staff, Lt. Gen Eyal Zamir, has "pushed back against the plan," citing concerns about the "exhaustion and fitness of reservists" and "becoming responsible for governing millions of Palestinians."

What next?

The resolution still needs approval "by the full cabinet, which may not meet until Sunday," Reuters said, citing two government sources. If the plan is approved, the Times said, the military would likely need "days, at least, to call up reserve forces" and "allow time for the forced evacuation of tens of thousands of Palestinians from the new areas of combat."

Occupying Gaza is the only way to ensure Israel's security and wipe out Hamas, claimed Benjamin Netanyahu as he announced that the Israeli army will "take control of Gaza City".

The UN said that the move risks "catastrophic consequences" for Palestinian civilians and Israeli hostages, and there has also been condemnation from world leaders, the Israeli military and relatives of the hostages.

Who owns Gaza?

Before Israel was established in 1948, the area now known as Gaza was "part of the large swathe" of the Middle East that was under British colonial rule, said South China Morning Post.

Upon the foundation of Israel, 700,000 Palestinians either fled or were forced from their homes. Tens of thousands of them "flocked" to the "strip of land wedged between Israel, Egypt and the Mediterranean Sea", which was handed to the control of the Egyptian army.

During the Six-Day War of 1967, Israel took control of Gaza from Egypt and began to build settlements on the land. Then, after Israel and the Palestinians agreed the Oslo Accords in 1993, control of Gaza was handed to the Palestinian Authority (PA).

In 2005, Israel performed a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, uprooting all of its troops and thousands of settlers. Within months, Hamas won parliamentary elections in Gaza and aggressively seized control of the territory from the PA. In response, Israel imposed a strict blockade on Gaza, which some argued was another form of occupation.

What is the legal definition of 'occupation'? 

According to Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations a territory is considered occupied "when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army". Israel is not a party to the Fourth Hague Convention but it's "considered customary international law" and, therefore it "still binds Israel", said Atlantic Council.

What might happen next?

There are fears that settler movements may seize the opportunity to try and return to Gaza, said Leonie Fleischmann on The Conversation. Since Israel began its "onslaught" in the strip, settler groups have been calling for the resettlement of Gaza and although it's "not yet clear" whether Netanyahu plans to allow the establishment of civilian settlements there, "historical precedent makes this a very real possibility".

Some have speculated, however, that the "threat of full occupation" is just part of a "strategy" to pressure Hamas to make concessions in "stalled talks", said Hugo Bachega, the BBC's Middle East correspondent. "We don't want to govern it. We don't want to be there as a governing body," Netanyahu has said. We "want to hand it over to Arab forces that will govern it properly without threatening us and giving Gazans a good life."

How these aims are realised is less than clear, as Jonathan Sacerdoti noted in The Spectator. "Politically", the notion of "long-term Israeli security control over Gaza" without annexation or direct governance presents an "unsolved riddle: who will take responsibility for civil life once the guns fall silent"?

'Discriminating against DACA students'

The Wall Street Journal editorial board

The Education Department is "harassing colleges that provide scholarships to young people who came to the country illegally as children," says The Wall Street Journal editorial board. Many "Dreamers have no memory of or ties to their home countries," and "most couldn't afford tuition at these schools without scholarships." Denying "Dreamers an opportunity to learn and advance in society doesn't help anyone." This is "one more way of punishing Dreamers because their parents crossed illegally into the U.S. decades ago."

Read more

'The conviction of Colombia's ex-president is a sign of hope amid autocracy's rise'

Maria McFarland Sánchez-Moreno at The Guardian

Former Colombian President Álvaro Uribe was "convicted of bribing a witness who had linked him to the paramilitaries," and the "fact that it has happened at all is a striking development that would have seemed almost inconceivable a decade or so ago," says Maria McFarland Sánchez-Moreno. In a "time of rising autocracy and abuse, including in the U.S., it also offers reasons for hope." No "matter how much power leaders may amass, they are not ultimately above the law."

Read more

'The unspoken etiquette of mourning on social media'

Alessandra Schade at Time

As "social media reshapes how we share — and grieve — there are many for whom public mourning still feels gauche, even offensive," says Alessandra Schade. Grieving online "offers catharsis and connection. Engaging with a deceased person's profile can help sustain a bond beyond the grave." But "every post, photo, or story risks transgressing invisible social landmines of what is and isn't acceptable." Conversations "around death are returning to the public square."

Read more

'How do you destroy a country's reputation? Just ask Benjamin Netanyahu.'

Alon Pinkas at The New Republic

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has "achieved something on a scale unparalleled in the annals of modern democracies: He has devalued a country," says Alon Pinkas. It is "not just a tarnished image or reputational damages that are reversible but a fundamental case of brand self-destruction." A "prosperous democracy, labeled as a 'start-up nation,' a hub for innovative, creative, cutting-edge technologies, synonymous with scientific and medical excellence," has "become an international outcast, a country regarded as rogue."

Read more

Israel's hardline national security minister has sparked outrage across the Muslim world – by flouting a decades-old arrangement aimed at keeping in check religious tensions over Jerusalem's Temple Mount.

On Sunday, Itamar Ben-Gvir prayed at the Al Aqsa Mosque compound that sits atop the Temple Mount, or Haram al-Sharif, as it is known to Muslims. A spokesperson for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said his visit "crossed all red lines".

What's the history?

"The history of the Temple Mount is one of perpetual friction," said Simon Kupfer in The Times of Israel.

It was the site of King Solomon's temple, destroyed by the Babylonians in 587BC, then rebuilt in 516BC only to be razed again, this time by the Romans, during the Great Jewish Revolt of AD70. It remains the holiest site in Judaism. In the seventh century, the Islamic Caliph Abd al Malik conquered Jerusalem and built the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa Mosque there. The site then became the third holiest site in Islam, after Mecca and Medina.

Jerusalem changed hands repeatedly times over the next 1000 years, with control of the site often falling to each religion in turn. "After the 1948 Israeli-Arab war, Jordan controlled the Temple Mount and barred Jews from praying there," said Kupfer. Then, in 1967, Israel "stormed East Jerusalem" during the Six Day War and "raised the Israel flag over the Dome of the Rock". The then Israeli government, however, handed "day-to-day control of the temple" to a Jordanian-controlled Islamic trust called the Waqf, and "thus began the status quo that remains in place today".

Under a "delicate, decades-old arrangement" with Muslim authorities, "Jews can visit but may not pray there", said Sky News. "Suggestions that Israel could alter the rules at the compound have sparked outrage in the Muslim world before, and ignited violence in the past."

What's the latest flashpoint?

Last Sunday was Tisha B'Av, a day of mourning and repentance, when Jews reflect on the destruction of Solomon's temples. Ben-Gvir chose that day to lead a group of over 1000 worshippers in prayer, singing and dancing at the foot of the steps of the Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock.

The hardline national security minister has been sanctioned by the UK for "repeated incitements of violence against Palestinian communities" in the occupied West Bank. And on Sunday he called for Israel to "conquer and declare sovereignty" over Gaza and "encourage" Palestinians to leave the enclave.

Since entering government in 2022, Ben-Gvir has "persistently undermined the police's regulations for the Temple Mount and stoked outrage in the Arab and Muslim world", said Amos Harel in Haaretz. He has visited the site on a number of previous occasions but this is the first time he has led a congregation in prayer.

What will it all mean?

Arab nations, including Saudi Arabia and Jordan, have condemned Ben-Gvir's action, with Jordan describing it as a "blatant violation of international law and international humanitarian law, an unacceptable provocation, and a condemned escalation". Hamas said it represented a "grave and escalating crime against the mosque".

The timing of the visit "must be understood in a broader political context", said Haaretz's Harel. With Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu facing growing public pressure to agree a deal with Hamas to secure the release of the remaining hostages and end the war in Gaza, Ben-Gvir has clearly sought to pour "gas on the fire".

Netanyahu's office has been quick to stress that Israel's policy of maintaining the status quo at Al Aqsa "has not changed and will not change". So "either Netanyahu was unconnected to the events on the Temple Mount, or the visit was co-ordinated with Ben-Gvir, with the negotiations on a hostage deal in the background".

"There is, unfortunately, no clear solution" to the religious tensions around the site, said Kupfer in The Times of Israel. "Any attempts to impose rights for Jews to pray there will most likely, if not certainly, be met with yet another violent resistance. Any Israeli withdrawal will embolden Hamas and Hezbollah."

The history of the Mount is "soaked in blood". It's not a question of whether it "will spark another flame that ignites another conflict but, rather, when".

What happened

President Donald Trump Monday acknowledged that there is "real starvation" in Gaza and suggested that Israel could be doing more to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinians. His assessment, delivered during a press conference alongside British Prime Minister Keir Starmer in Scotland, contradicted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's statement Sunday that "there is no starvation in Gaza."

Who said what

"Based on television," the Gaza "children look very hungry," Trump said. "Some of those kids are — that's real starvation stuff. I see it, and you can't fake that." He said the U.S. and other allies would "set up food centers" in Gaza where "people can walk in and no boundaries" will keep them from getting aid. But Netanyahu has "got to sort of like run it," Trump added. "I want him to make sure they get the food."

It "wasn't immediately clear whether Trump was referring to a new American effort" or the violence-plagued Israeli-backed program in place since Netanyahu partially lifted an aid blockade in May, The Wall Street Journal said. The White House said details would be "forthcoming."

Trump is "seemingly recalibrating his stance on Gaza as images of emaciated children" spark "renewed worries" about malnutrition and starvation, The Associated Press said. His "rare" and "sharper-than-usual criticism" of Netanyahu follows "growing condemnation" of Israel's Gaza war domestically and from some of America's "closest allies," Politico said. Starmer said at Monday's news conference that "people in Britain are revolted at seeing what they are seeing on their screens."

What next?

The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, the leading global authority on food crises, said Tuesday morning that the "worst-case scenario of famine is currently playing out in the Gaza Strip," and predicted "widespread death" without immediate action.

Will the joint U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran "strengthen Tehran's authoritarians or hasten their demise?" asked Karim Sadjadpour in The New York Times. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Trump have both raised the prospect of "regime change" in Tehran, and the crushing military defeat the two countries inflicted on Iran exposed "deep vulnerabilities" in the Islamic Republic, which is headed by 86-year-old Ayatollah Khamenei. But the regime does not seem "at risk of imminent collapse." The ruling elites haven't splintered into competing factions and still have a monopoly on violent repression. No charismatic opposition leader or organization has harnessed Iranians' "mass discontent" to craft a unifying anti-government message. The regime appears "brittle," but the struggle of younger, secular Iranians for a less oppressive government "is only beginning."

The Israeli airstrikes have actually generated a lot of "mixed feelings" among Iranians, said Joshua Keating in Vox. On one hand, about 80% of the population of 90 million has no love for their fanatically religious ruling elite. Very few will mourn Israel's targeted killings of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commanders responsible for violent crackdowns on peaceful demonstrators over the years. But Iranian opposition members loudly rejected Netanyahu's call for them to rise up to topple their rulers, saying "the bombing doesn't help their movement." Iranians are also understandably "leery" of what a new regime would look like, said Jonah Shepp in New York magazine. If the Islamic Republic collapses, the power vacuum would likely be filled by the Revolutionary Guards, "the locus of the regime's hard power." An IRGC government would operate either as a typical military dictatorship or as a theocracy similar to the current one. Any effort by younger Iranians to create a democracy would "face tremendous odds."

The early signs are not encouraging, said The Economist in an editorial. When the war broke out, Khamenei sought safety in a bunker and delegated his governing duties to a new council dominated by Revolutionary Guard members. One observer says the country is now effectively "under martial law." After the Israeli assassinations of veteran IRGC commanders, their replacements are itching for vengeance, hell-bent on redeeming national pride. Israel and the U.S. may have won this military campaign, but the attack may not "break the cycle of paranoia and insecurity that has left Iran and its people in a ruinous state."

"Every Houdini eventually comes across a lock they can't pick," Yossi Mekelberg, from the Chatham House think tank, told Al Jazeera.

Benjamin Netanyahu has dominated Israeli politics for nearly three decades and is again riding high after a series of stunning military victories. The question everyone is asking now is: what will his next move be and how long can the ultimate political escape artist survive?

What did the commentators say?

In Israel, the "emerging narrative is that the end result of the conflict with Iran has solidified" Netanyahu's position, said Al Jazeera.

Only two weeks ago, he was in "real trouble". Public opinion had turned against Israel's war in Gaza and the night before he ordered strikes on Iran his ruling coalition government just survived a confidence vote.

"Now, he can argue that he has severely weakened Israel's most dangerous regional enemy, Iran," and destroyed its nuclear programme, which he has for decades claimed posed an existential threat to his country.

Netanyahu "sees his destiny at this moment", said Ami Dror, one of his former bodyguards, in The New Statesman. "He believes he has been ordained to save the country", to "protect Israel from the eternal hatred" and "to prevent the Holocaust my father survived from happening again".

"Much will depend on Trump, the unpredictable, self-declared most pro-Israel US president in history", said the Financial Times.

In what Axios called an "unprecedented intervention" this week, Donald Trump called for Netanyahu to be pardoned over ongoing corruption charges and his long-running trial to be immediately cancelled.

But Trump has been far more hesitant to intervene when it comes to Gaza. An "early test" of Netanyahu's vision for the Middle East "could come soon", said the FT. Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani is hoping for an imminent resumption of talks about a Gaza ceasefire.

"Arab and Western leaders have for decades said that resolving the protracted Palestinian-Israel conflict is key to neutering extremist forces" and stabilising the region. But Netanyahu has "repeatedly rebuffed Western pressure to make any concessions to the Palestinians, let alone take steps towards the establishment of a Palestinian state".

What next?

With Hamas all but wiped out, Hezbollah greatly diminished, Syria's Assad regime toppled and Iran's nuclear threat neutralised – for now at least – Netanyahu is in a strong position. So the time may be right to "announce an end to the war in Gaza and bring the remaining 50 hostages home; to make the most of the 'Bibi bounce' and seek to renew his mandate with fresh elections", said The Telegraph.

Recent polling showed that a vast majority of Israelis supported the strikes on Iran, and Netanyahu has seen his own popularity rise in recent weeks. Not surprisingly, there are reports that his closest advisers are weighing up calling a snap election.

"Netanyahu is stronger than ever," Mitchell Barak, an Israeli pollster and former political aide to Netanyahu, told Al Jazeera. "No one's going to bring him down, no one's going to challenge him, not his opponents, not his detractors, nobody."

But Israel's – and Netanyahu's – moment of ultimate victory carries with it its own dangers, said Uzi Arad, a former national security adviser to the PM. "Some already are practising hubris – I can already detect it," the Mossad veteran told the FT. "We all have weaknesses, and this is a complicated country."

The same could be said of its leader.

Last Thursday night, the commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guard's aerospace unit, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, held an emergency meeting at a military base in Tehran.

Hajizadeh and his officials had been warned not to congregate in one place, said Steve Bloomfield in The Observer, owing to the risk of an imminent Israeli attack, but they assumed that any raid would still be days off. It was a fatal miscalculation.

Their bunker was one of dozens of sites targeted that night by Israeli jets, which eviscerated the top ranks of Iran's armed forces and killed some of its leading nuclear experts. Israel has since continued to pummel the country's military and nuclear sites, along with energy infrastructure. Iran has responded by firing ballistic missiles at Israel, a few of which have penetrated its Iron Dome defences, killing dozens of people.

Donald Trump, who had previously stressed that the US was not involved, urged Iranians to evacuate Tehran on Tuesday, and demanded the regime's "unconditional surrender". Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei insisted Iran would never compromise with Israel, and threatened the US with "irreparable damage".

How did Israel plan the attack on Iran?

Israel's strike on Iran's nuclear and missile programmes was years in the planning, said The Times of Israel. The operation – dubbed "Rising Lion" – involved over 200 aircraft in the opening strikes, around two-thirds of the country's combat air force. Israel had spent months smuggling precision weapons systems and commandos into Iran. Mossad agents had set up a secret drone base near Tehran. These assets enabled Israel to take out Iranian air defences and hit missile launchers as they emerged from shelters, protecting Israeli pilots and helping them establish complete dominance of the skies over Iran.

Why did Israel attack now?

The attack was carefully timed by Israel, said Lina Khatib in Prospect. "Never in its history has the Islamic Republic been weaker." Its proxy forces in Gaza and Lebanon – Hamas and Hezbollah – have both been defanged, and the fall of the Assad regime in Syria has deprived it of a key ally. Even before last week, its air defences were in a parlous state owing to earlier Israeli strikes.

Trump had set a 60-day deadline for Iran to accept a nuclear deal presented by the US. That ran out last Thursday, giving Israel a perfect "opportunity to go for the jugular". "Ever the opportunist", Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu seized his chance, said The Guardian. He has long wanted to attack Iran, and doing so now had the added bonus of bolstering his weak position at home. You can hardly blame Netanyahu for wanting to stop Tehran's "mad mullahs" from getting their hands on a nuclear weapon, said Paul Baldwin in the Daily Express. "Handwringers" like Keir Starmer may witter about the need for de-escalation, but "they all know Israel has done them and the world a favour".

Will Israel succeed?

Israel may have felt that it had no choice but to act, said The Economist, but the all-out offensive is nevertheless "a huge gamble". Launched without overt US backing, it could have all sorts of unpredictable regional and global consequences. And there's no guarantee that it will even succeed. Israeli military strikes did manage to halt the nuclear weapons programmes of both Iraq and Syria – in 1981 and 2007 respectively – but Iran's is "much more advanced and dispersed than those ever were".

It has mastered the process of enrichment and its programme may just start again in the future in a more "virulent" form. In the meantime, Israel has no clear exit strategy from this war unless the Iranian regime falls or the US gets involved with its superior bunker-busting bombs. A protracted conflict will be hard for either side to sustain, said James Shotter in the FT. While Iran is burning through its supplies of missiles, Israel's stocks of interceptors are also limited.

What will happen next?

One possibility, said Michael Burleigh in The i Paper, is that Tehran, after some face-saving strikes on Israel, accepts defeat and returns to the negotiating table with the US.

Alternatively, it may lash out in desperation and seek to block the Straits of Hormuz, choking global trade. But the conflict may just drag on at a lower level, in a "tit-for-tat forever war".

Many in Washington fear that Trump may, as he has hinted, join the bombing campaign in an effort to kill off Iran's nuclear programme once and for all, said Gideon Rachman in the FT. It would be a dangerous move. Trump promised to be a peacemaker and cut deals. Only last month, in a speech in Riyadh, he "scorned the idea that outsiders can bring positive change to the Middle East by force". It would be a "supreme irony" if he found himself "dragged into another war for regime change in the Middle East".

Israel launched its war in Iran to keep the Islamic regime from acquiring a nuclear weapon. The question now is whether the regime will survive the onslaught, especially with President Donald Trump considering joining the fray.

A collapse of the Iranian government "is unlikely," said NBC News. The regime is "unpopular, but it still has a tight grip on power." There are also no likely alternatives ready to seize power. Still, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said to reporters this week that the government in Tehran could fall. Israel's war is "changing the face of the Middle East."

The Israeli mission is "now moving inexorably toward regime change," said David Ignatius at The Washington Post. But Israel "can't bomb its way" to a new Iran that reverses the 1979 Islamic revolution. Indeed, the bombing campaign Iran is experiencing usually "makes people hunker down, turn inward and often fight harder." There is a hope, however, that this moment will offer Iranians a "chance to build something new."

Regime change gamble

The war has "reopened the door" to political change in Iran, said Joseph Bosco at The Hill. While the conflict has "significantly" set back Iran's nuclear ambitions, it has also "weakened the domestic credibility and ruling power" of the Islamic government. The West "must not allow the opportunity to pass." Iran's regime has been "living on the edge" by supporting terrorism across the region and against the United States for more than 40 years. "Let's push it over."

Israel's "endgame" might be a regime change in Iran, "but it's a gamble," said Amir Azimi at BBC News. Israel's attack is a "real threat to Iran's leadership," compounded by Iranian unhappiness with the country's "economy, the lack of freedom of speech, women's rights and minority rights." If the government should fall, it is "unclear where such a process might lead." One possibility is a "descent into chaos" that would have a "massive impact across the Middle East."

'The moment is auspicious'

The "only lasting foundation" for long-term Middle East peace is "overthrowing the ayatollahs," said John Bolton, the former national security adviser, at The Wall Street Journal. In the current crisis, "further divisions within the regime's leadership should be fostered and exploited," perhaps by offering "amnesty" to some current officials to induce them to "switch sides" and help create a "more consolidated opposition." America should offer support to aid that opposition and bring down the clerics. "The moment is auspicious."

The weakness of Iran's Islamic government has "encouraged attacks before," said The Economist. Iraq's Saddam Hussein tried to take advantage of Tehran's "post-revolutionary disarray" and launched a war against Iran that lasted for eight years. Instead of "weakening" Iran's regime, the war actually "strengthened its leadership" and allowed it to hold power for decades. A similar moment seems to have arrived now. But with "no clear alternative," Iranians may wonder if "they are better off sticking with what they have." An "entrenched regime" could be even more of a threat to its "foes, neighbors and citizens."

Perhaps the most surprising thing about Israel's aerial assault on Iranian military targets is how unsurprising Thursday night's bombardment may have been. After years of pressure against Iran's embryonic nuclear program and threats of violence by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the attack is as much a culmination of longstanding antagonism as it is a new and sudden development. Now, as a clearer picture of this long-anticipated strike emerges, military experts have also begun looking ahead.

With regional tensions already high after years of war in Gaza, violence in Lebanon and revolution in Syria, Israel's latest assault may lead the Middle East into further turmoil. And a global order already roiled by President Donald Trump may struggle to respond to this latest disruption.

What did the commentators say?

In the wake of Israel's attack, it is "likely" that Iran will make a "desperate run to nuclear breakout," said former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Daniel Shapiro at Foreign Affairs. Trump, in turn, will be "faced with a decision" that will "split his advisers and political base" — whether to "intervene militarily" after having spent years touting American isolationism. Trump claimed he "not only knew about the strikes" beforehand, but that they are being used to "coerce the Iranians into his preferred bargaining position" for nuclear treaty talks with the U.S., said Responsible Statecraft.

"More conventional missile and drone attacks are expected" from Iran, said the Financial Times. Iran could also "turn to asymmetric warfare" such as closing the Strait of Hormuz, which it has threatened to do in the past. Before this week's attack, White House Special Envoy Steve Witkoff warned Republican senators that Iran could "unleash a mass casualty response" to any Israeli attack, said Axios. He highlighted concerns that "Israel's air defenses would not be able to handle an Iranian response involving hundreds of missiles."

With a nuclear Iran "unacceptable" and a permanent negotiated nuclear deal "highly unlikely," a military assault on Tehran was the "only viable option left," said Matthew Kroenig, the vice president and senior director of the Atlantic Council's Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security. Crucially, Iran is left with "few good options" for retaliation, given its proxies are "degraded" and Israel's Iron Dome is able to "demonstrably defend" against missile attacks. As such, this "will de-escalate quickly, like Trump's strike on Qasem Soleimani during his first term."

What next?

Violence between Israel and Iran is "now likely to top the agenda" at the G-7 summit scheduled to begin this weekend in Canada, said the Financial Times. With foreign leverage over Israel "limited," the question becomes whether nations like Canada, Britain and France, typically critical of the Netanyahu government, will "support any defense of Israel against Iranian retaliation." Meanwhile, Israel is "going alone" against Iran, said Daniel Mouton, a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative. "Regardless" of what led Israel to launch its assault, the attack will ultimately "exacerbate preexisting tensions" between Israel and the United States.

For now, expect a "rapid cycle of escalation" between Israel and Iran, said CNBC. The attacks and drone counter-strikes that have electrified the skies above both nations are "probably still the opening salvo," said Firas Maksad, the managing director for the Middle East and North Africa practice at Eurasia Group. And even if the Iranian military "quickly backs down," said Shapiro at Foreign Affairs, Israel should still brace for an "ongoing series of asymmetric attacks, such as cyber operations and terrorist attacks against its embassies, travelers and businesses."

What happened

Israel attacked Tehran and Iranian nuclear facilities and missile sites early Friday morning, killing the country's three top military leaders and at least two leading nuclear scientists. Israeli officials said the attack, involving 200 warplanes that hit more than 100 targets, was a "preemptive" strike on Iran's nuclear program. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Israel "took unilateral action" and the U.S. was "not involved in strikes against Iran."

Who said what

Iranian state media confirmed the deaths of Maj. Gen. Mohammad Bagheri, the chief of staff of Iran's armed forces; Gen. Hossein Salami, top commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps; and deputy armed forces commander Gen. Gholamali Rashid. Israel's strike dealt a "major blow to Iran's chain of command," The New York Times said, and escalated fears that the "long-simmering tensions between the heavily armed rivals could explode into a full-blown regional war."

A spokesperson for Iran's armed forces said both Israel and the U.S. "must pay a very heavy price" and would "receive a very forceful slap." But the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, did not mention the U.S. in a later statement, saying only that Israel "should anticipate a harsh punishment" for opening its "wicked and blood-stained hand to commit a crime against our beloved country."

"Should Iran retaliate," The Washington Post said, "it was not immediately clear whether the U.S. would assist Israel's defense, including shooting down Iranian drones and missiles as it did twice last year." A U.S. official said that decision was "up to the president." Iran subsequently fired about 100 drones in retaliation, which Israel said it was starting to intercept.

What next?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a video statement that "this operation will continue for as many days as it takes" to "roll back the Iranian threat to Israel's very survival." U.S. intelligence does not share Israel's view that Iran is close to building a nuclear weapon, and President Donald Trump said Thursday he had told Netanyahu "I don't want them going in" while his administration was negotiating a nuclear deal with Tehran. Iran said Friday morning it will not participate in U.S. talks scheduled for Sunday.

Israel has for decades vocally identified Iran's nuclear ambitions as the greatest threat to the existence of the Jewish state. And for their part, since the creation of the Islamic Republic in the late 1970s, Iran's rulers have repeatedly pledged to destroy Israel.

After nearly half a century of tensions, last night's Israeli air strikes on Iran have left the two nations teetering on the brink of all-out war. So why has Israel chosen this moment to attack its historical nemesis?

Netanyahu's long march

The attacks have been a long time coming. Benjamin Netanyahu "has built a career on the popular fears of Iran's nuclear programme and ambitions", said The New Arab in 2015.

As a parliamentarian in 1992, Netanyahu warned the Knesset that Iran could reach nuclear weapons capability in "three to five years". Three years later, he repeated the claim that Iran would have a nuclear weapon in "three to five years".

In 2009, a US State Department diplomatic cable released by Wikileaks revealed that Netanyahu was telling Washington that Iran was "probably one or two years away" from developing functioning nuclear weapons. In 2012 he told the United Nations General Assembly that Iran was just one year away from having a nuclear bomb.

Speaking to The Atlantic in 2010, Netanyahu "framed the Iranian [nuclear] programme as a threat not only to Israel but to all of Western civilisation", telling the magazine: "You don't want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs."

Iran's weakness

Previously, Israel had feared that Hamas and Hezbollah, militant proxies for the Iranian regime with a large ground presence in Gaza and Lebanon, would form part of any military response to an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

That picture has changed since the 7 October attacks; Iran has been "weakened" by the war in Gaza and by violence in Lebanon where the once-powerful militias have been "decimated", said The New York Times. The fall of the Assad regime in Syria, also an ally of Tehran, has further reduced the reach of what Netanyahu has called the Iranian "octopus".

Israeli strikes against Iran's air defences last October "weakened their capabilities, allowing Israeli fighter jets to more safely launch a new mass attack".

Iran's nuclear violations

The new attack came 24 hours after the International Atomic Energy Agency said Iran was in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for the first time in almost 20 years because of its refusal to disclose information about its nuclear plans.

Tehran responded by announcing it would ramp up its nuclear activities, warning it had "no option but to respond". Netanyahu claimed an intelligence assessment had found that Iran would be able to produce nuclear weapons "within months if not weeks", said Amin Saikal on The Conversation. Talks between the US and Iran aimed at limiting the latter's nuclear capability have been "inconclusive", which has only reinforced Netanyahu's conviction that military action is "the best option to halt Iran's nuclear programme".

Trump distracted

Just this week, Trump warned Netanyahu not to do anything that could undermine his administration's nuclear talks with Iran. The US president was "keen to secure a deal to boost his self-declared reputation as a peace broker", said Saikal.

But Trump is distracted by the unrest in Los Angeles and the ongoing impact of his tariff war, as well as the stalled efforts to secure peace in Ukraine. So "Netanyahu felt that now was the time" to strike, "even if the Americans don't like it", said the BBC.

The "unilateral" strikes have indicated a "collapse" of Trump's efforts to restrain Netanyahu, said The Guardian. The part the White House plays now could significantly influence what comes next, in the region and potentially far beyond.

Israel appears to be preparing a preemptive military attack on Iran, putting the entire Middle East region on high alert.

An attack by Israel, thought imminent by US and European officials, would derail the ongoing negotiations between Washington and Tehran to phase out Iran's nuclear capabilities.

Iran has threatened to retaliate with a counterattack not only on Israeli targets but also on American military bases in Iraq. "In case of any conflict, the US must leave the region because all its bases are within our range, and we will target all of them," said Iran's Defence Minister General Aziz Nasirzadeh.

What did the commentators say?

Iran's retaliatory plan is an "immediate counterattack" similar to its October 2024 firing of 200 ballistic missiles at Israel, which sent the entire population into bomb shelters, said The Times of Israel.

In a threat to Israel and the US, Tehran has "vowed to unleash an 'unprecedented response'", said Newsweek. A Houthi source also told the news site that the Iran-backed militant group is "at the highest level of preparedness for any possible American escalation" and warned that a broader conflict "will drag the entire region into the abyss of war".

Fear of provoking Iran's allies and proxy forces is a real deterrent to the US. Donald Trump's "America First" policy means he is wary of letting the US get dragged into an uncontained conflict in the Middle East and of seeing his nuclear talks with Iran branded a failure. Last month, Trump said that he had urged Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, not to strike Iran while Washington is pursuing negotiations with the Islamic regime.

But Israel might not be deterred. These threats come after months of rising tensions during which Netanyahu has "pressed Trump to seize on what Israel sees as a moment of Iranian vulnerability", said The New York Times.

The feeling in Israel has been that a unilateral strike on Iran without US support "would be unthinkable", said The Telegraph. Israel appears to have the military capability to undermine Tehran's nuclear programme, but only with US support could they be sure of profoundly damaging it.

The UN nuclear watchdog's board of governors recently found that Iran had broken its non-proliferation agreement for the first time in 20 years and a "damning" report from the International Atomic Energy Agency last week cited a general lack of "co-operation" from Iran and raised concerns over "secret activities and undeclared nuclear material". Those findings put Iran in a weaker position but intelligence chiefs worry that "Trump might still strike a 'soft' deal with Iran that does not guarantee the Jewish state's long-term security – in order to establish his legacy as a peacemaker".

Such a deal might be "weeks away", according to a former Israeli government official quoted by Middle East Eye. There is also "little the US can do to prevent Israel from unilaterally bombing Iran if it chooses to do so". However, Netanyahu would rather "share the political responsibility" of an attack on Iran with the US and will wait while that possibility still exists.

What next?

A sixth round of negotiations between the US and Iran is scheduled for this weekend in Oman but a deal does not appear imminent. President Trump has said that he will not accept any uranium enrichment by Iran, whereas Iran insists that its long-standing nuclear programme is intended only for peaceful purposes.

Trump initiated direct talks with Iran on his trip to the Middle East in May despite opposition from Israel, which remains sceptical of any potential deal with Iran and prefers to continue conducting what Netanyahu's office described as "countless overt and covert operations" to stunt the growth of Iran's nuclear programme.

Critics of the Israeli PM believe he is motivated to remain in a state of crisis to hold together his weakening coalition government until the next election, due by October 2026 at the latest. Most Israelis believe Netanyahu is primarily interested in remaining in power, said The Times of Israel, citing a recent poll. Asked what the PM believes is his main goal, 55% said staying in power, while 36% said returning the Israeli hostages held by Hamas in Gaza.

Hamas' two-decade rule over Gaza may finally be coming to an end, amid the Israeli occupation, challenge from a rising rival militia, and growing opposition among its own people.

In response, the Islamist group has suggested in recent statements it could hand over control of Gaza willingly, but does this "signal a real change of heart, or are they just another calculated move to buy time and polish their image on the world stage?", asked The Jerusalem Post.

What did the commentators say?

Confirmation at the weekend of former Hamas military chief Mohammed Sinwar's death "changes little in and of itself", said The Economist. As happened with the killing of previous leaders, the group has been quick to appoint a replacement, "but it could shift the balance within the movement's leadership", which has until now been "dominated by Gazans".

Hamas leaders outside the strip – currently based in Doha, Beirut and Istanbul – "have the upper hand once again". They are "expected to support" a ceasefire deal "relinquishing Hamas' post-war role in Gaza but preserving its standing in the Arab world".

Izz al-Din al-Haddad, the group's new de facto leader in Gaza, "will have to decide now if he wants to be remembered as the man on whose watch Gaza was finally destroyed", an Israeli intelligence analyst said. "He may prefer to be the last man standing after a ceasefire."

An "added challenge" facing the new commander will be "how to keep control of a desperate civilian population, for whom hunger is now proving a more potent force than fear", said The Telegraph.

It has always been hard to assess civilian support for Hamas within Gaza, but a "series of protests in recent weeks has led some analysts to believe that ordinary Gazans' fear of Hamas was waning".

Hamas has responded to the emergence of rival leader Yasser Abu Shabab and his Popular Forces militia in eastern Rafah with a "rising tone of desperation" that is "telling", said The Spectator.

That Abu Shabab's Popular Forces "operate openly – within an IDF-controlled zone, sheltering thousands of Gazan civilians – signals a breach in Hamas' dominance". The movement has "long accustomed itself to a monopoly on governance and security in the strip; now, the spectacle of an armed, non-Hamas force coordinating humanitarian corridors and liaising with international relief efforts strikes at the very foundation of that monopoly".

"Yet behind the public bravado lies a more intricate web," with reports that Abu Shabab receives instructions from a senior adviser to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, as well as support from elements of Israel's security establishment.

What next?

Sensing an opportunity to end Hamas' near 20-year grip on Gaza, Abbas has said the group must "hand over its weapons" and called for the deployment of international forces to protect "the Palestinian people".

In a letter addressed to French President Emmanuel Macron and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who this month will co-chair a conference on a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians, the veteran Palestinian leader said he was "ready to invite Arab and international forces to be deployed as part of a stabilisation/protection mission with a (UN) Security Council mandate".

In a "sign that Hamas perhaps understands that it is no longer in a position to rule Gaza", it has even offered to turn over the administration of Gaza to a technocratic government, reported Al Jazeera.

The problem is that Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has "two main tasks". The first is to "prolong the war, allowing him to continue using it as an excuse to avoid accountability". The second: to "prevent the break-up of his government" and set himself for an election that must be held before October next year.

Neither of these are served by the complete destruction of Hamas, which means, ironically, its greatest hope of retaining control of Gaza may well lie with Netanyahu himself.

What happened

A controversial Gaza food aid operation backed by the U.S. and Israel descended into chaos Tuesday as thousands of Palestinians overwhelmed the newly formed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation's sole functioning distribution center. Nearby Israeli troops and tanks fired warning shots and helicopters shot flares as "desperate Palestinians" broke through a fence to get food, The Associated Press said.

Who said what

GHF said that after the number of Palestinians swelled at the Rafa hub, its staff "fell back" to "allow a small number of Gazans to take aid safely and dissipate," in line with established safety protocols. "There was some loss of control momentarily," Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, but "happily, we brought it under control."

The United Nations and other aid groups are boycotting GHF, saying it "won't be able to meet the needs of Gaza's 2.3 million people and allows Israel to use food as a weapon to control the population," the AP said. They also oppose the group's "use of facial recognition to vet recipients." Tuesday, "desperation for food" after an 11-week Israeli aid blockade trumped Gazans' "concern about biometric and other checks," Reuters said.

What next?

GHF said it handed out 8,000 food boxes Tuesday, its second day of operation, but that constitutes "a mere trickle of assistance" given the vast need, The New York Times said. Meanwhile, unease over the war is building in Israel. "What we are doing in Gaza now is a war of extermination: indiscriminate, limitless, cruel and criminal killing of civilians," former Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Olmert wrote in Haaretz. "Israel is committing war crimes."

What happened

Britain said Tuesday it was suspending talks with Israel on expanding their free-trade agreement due to the "egregious policies" of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government in Gaza and the West Bank. The European Union's foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said a "huge majority" of EU members supported reconsidering the bloc's trade deal with Israel. The United Nations Wednesday said no food aid had reached its Gaza warehouses despite Netanyahu allowing in a few dozen trucks after an 11-week blockade of humanitarian aid.

Who said what

Tuesday's "steps by London and Brussels" signaled the "shifting attitudes among longtime supporters of Israel" as Netanyahu escalates the assault on Gaza, The Washington Post said. The announcements followed a "rare public reprimand" on Monday from Britain, France and Canada, The New York Times said. The three countries threatened "concrete actions" unless Israel ended its "wholly disproportionate" and "egregious actions" in Gaza.

Netanyahu called the warning a "huge prize" for Hamas. But British Foreign Secretary David Lammy told the U.K. Parliament Tuesday that "opposing the expansion of a war that has killed thousands of children is not rewarding Hamas." He called Israel's aid blockade "cruel and indefensible" and said "the world is judging" Netanyahu's government. Israeli opposition lawmaker Yair Golan told Israeli public radio Tuesday that unless it starts "behaving like a sane country" again, "Israel is on the path to becoming a pariah state."

What next?

The "mounting pressure from Israel's allies including the U.S." has left Netanyahu "with a dilemma," The Wall Street Journal said: "End the end the conflict and risk the collapse of his government, or plow on and sacrifice international support."

Benjamin Netanyahu has lifted the blockade of humanitarian aid to Gaza after admitting that Israel's allies were "approaching a red line" in their support over the risk of famine in the territory.

The Israeli prime minister's decision to allow limited food supplies into the enclave for the first time in nearly three months is "highly unpopular" among some of his ministers but comes "amid mounting US pressure" and growing divisions at home, said The Times of Israel.

What did the commentators say?

The complete blockade on fuel, food and medicine entering Gaza was "meant to ramp up pressure" on Hamas, said The Independent. But it appears to have had the opposite effect.

"Israel – let me be frank – has been played like a violin," said Matthew Syed in The Sunday Times. "With each bomb blast, each picture of weeping children, each story of operations undertaken without anaesthesia, Hamas has secured the propaganda that no amount of paid advertising could ever procure. The blockade is, in that sense, priceless."

Donald Trump, previously one of Israel's staunchest international allies, said on Friday that it was time to take care of those "starving" in Gaza. Reports in Israeli media claim that the US agreed to pressure Israel into resuming humanitarian aid as part of an indirect arrangement with Hamas for the release of Israeli-American soldier Edan Alexander last week.

At the same time, a Dutch proposal to reassess the EU's economic and political ties with Israel in response to the situation in Gaza has been "steadily gaining support among a group of member states", said Euronews. The EU is Israel's biggest trading partner. Eight countries have now "explicitly endorsed" the idea that Israel is in violation of international humanitarian law and while this is "far short of the unanimous support needed, it signals a shift in thinking among the 27".

Even hardline members of Netanyahu's cabinet have accepted the necessity to relent, in the face of growing international hostility. Far-right finance minister Bezalel Smotrich – one of the driving forces behind the months-long blockade – said that the resumption of aid deliveries to the strip was necessary "to dispel the lies of starvation", said The Times of Israel. While the blockade had "created very great pressure on Hamas", he said, its execution "needs to be moderated so that it does not explode in our faces".

What next?

Israel's "genocidal campaign in Gaza" has begun to fracture the "kind of international exceptionalism that shielded it from accountability", said Mehmet Rakipoglu in Middle East Eye. But it may in the end be "growing internal turmoil" that forces Netanyahu's government to end the war.

Israel is now "closer to a civil war than ever before", said former Israeli PM Ehud Olmert in Haaretz, and The New Arab reported that the Israel Defense Forces is facing "a crisis of dissent", with reservists refusing call-ups and veterans speaking out against the war.

The Gaza war has "increasingly become Israel's Vietnam", said Rakipoglu, "an unwinnable campaign marked by military overreach, strategic misjudgment and growing political costs".

Like its American ally half a century ago, Israel has found itself "trapped in a campaign it cannot decisively win, facing a resilient opponent, internal dissent and mounting international isolation".

Donald Trump has been making the rounds of the Middle East this week, with stops in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. But there was one glaring omission on his itinerary: Israel, the US's closest ally in the region. And this week, following direct negotiations between the US and Hamas, the group released the last living American hostage: Edan Alexander, a US-Israeli citizen. The US president described it as a step "to put an end to this very brutal war and return all living hostages and remains to their loved ones".

Israel was not involved in the process: according to Axios, Benjamin Netanyahu discovered the negotiations only via Israeli intelligence. In Israel, the fact that the prime minister is apparently "relying on his intelligence agencies" to find out what his closest ally is up to in his own backyard "has been taken as a worrying sign of drift" between the two men, said The Telegraph.

What did the commentators say?

When Trump won re-election, Netanyahu was "relieved", said Politico. With a Republican back in the White House, Netanyahu knew he would gain a "much freer hand" in Gaza, "even more unbound" than he was by Joe Biden. And so he has: Netanyahu "suffered no consequences" for breaking the ceasefire with Hamas. But the two leaders "don't actually see eye-to-eye on much else".

Most recently, Trump is frustrated with the war in Gaza and "unhappy" about Netanyahu's planned military expansion, said Columbia University's Institute of Global Politics fellow Kim Ghattas in the Financial Times. Humanitarian reasons aside, it runs counter to his "unworkable" vision for a Gaza Riviera. More importantly, it offers "no victories that make the US president look good". And so the US keeps "cutting Israel out of the deals it is making".

Israel was already "feeling particularly sensitive" after Trump's surprise announcement last week that the US would stop bombing the Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen, as long as they stopped firing on US cargo ships in the Red Sea, said The Telegraph's Jerusalem correspondent Henry Bodkin. Not only did the US not coordinate with Israel on discussions, it didn't even demand that the Houthis stop firing rockets at Israel, which they are doing several times a week.

Trump and his Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, are "suspicious of, tired of, and disgusted by Netanyahu and his tricks", said Haaretz security analyst Amos Harel. The Israeli PM is as committed to a "Netanyahu first" policy as Trump is to "America first". The divide isn't as much between Trump and Israel as it is between Trump and Netanyahu, said Yair Rosenberg in The Atlantic. Polls have shown that about 70% of Israelis support ending the war in Gaza in return for a deal that would free the remaining hostages, and the same percentage want Netanyahu to resign "either now or after the war". Trump knows this; his team has "picked a side", of both "the Israeli preference and the American interest".

What next?

"The decades-long alliance between Israel and the US will endure and reports of a rift have been swiftly denied," said the FT's Ghattas. But Trump's "envoy for everything", Witkoff, is "stretched thin". As with "everything from tariffs to Ukraine", the key problem with Trump's vision for the Middle East is the White House's "spaghetti approach: throw ideas at the wall, see what sticks, bag the first whiff of a win as a major victory, move on or change tack".

Netanyahu "may soon learn what Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy also found out the hard way: for Trump, "Gaza and Ukraine are sideshows", said Politico.

What happened

Hamas Monday released Edan Alexander, a 21-year-old U.S.-Israeli soldier and the final living U.S. citizen the militant group held since taking hundreds of Israelis hostage 585 days ago. President Donald Trump, whose envoys negotiated Alexander's release directly with Hamas, called it a "step taken in good faith" to "put an end to this very brutal war" in Gaza.

Who said what

Amid the celebrations in Israel, the U.S. success in freeing Alexander "created a backlash" against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, The Associated Press said. Critics assert that his "insistence on keeping up the war in Gaza is politically motivated" and puts his own interests over the lives of the 23 hostages believed to still be alive.

Netanyahu "sought to persuade a skeptical public" last night that his "decision to prolong the war contributed to Alexander's release," The Washington Post said. But Israel "learned about the deal" only late Sunday, a development many Israelis "interpreted as a sign of increasingly strained relations" between Trump and their prime minister.

What next?

The backchannel talks with Hamas were the latest in a series of Trump administration moves that "sidelined or surprised the Israelis," The Wall Street Journal said. Combined with Trump's detente with Yemen's Houthis, nuclear talks with Iran and decision to skip Israel during his current Middle East trip, the Post said, "many Israelis are wondering whether Israel is the next U.S. ally to be left behind by a president they considered, just months ago, to be the most pro-Israel in history."