What happened

Israel’s parliament on Monday gave final approval to legislation that makes death by hanging the default punishment for West Bank Palestinians convicted of murdering Israelis. The Knesset approved the bill 62-48 amid condemnation from human rights groups, Palestinians and several European governments.

Who said what

“From today, every terrorist will know, and the whole world will know, that whoever takes a life, the State of Israel will take their life,” far-right National Security Minister Ben-Gvir, the driving force behind the bill, told lawmakers. Capital punishment was already legal in Israel, but only two people have been executed in 78 years, most recently Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in 1962.

“In theory, Jewish Israelis could also be executed under the law,” the BBC said, but the law’s language precludes that in practice. “The intent is clearly for the law to apply to Palestinians and not to Jewish terrorism at all,” Yoav Sapir, the former head of Israel’s public defender’s office, told The New York Times.

What next?

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel has already asked the Supreme Court to annul the law. The court will likely strike it down over its discriminatory provisions, Sapir told the Times.

The “dangerous fanatics” of Palestine Action have been given a “free pass” to continue promoting hatred and committing acts of violent disorder, said The Sun. Last Friday, the High Court ruled that the government’s decision to proscribe the group as a terrorist organisation had been unlawful.

Palestine Action had, the three judges accepted, carried out some acts of terrorism, said Alistair Gray in the Financial Times. But they ruled that the challenge to the ban – which was put in place last July, after activists broke into RAF Brize Norton and damaged two planes – was successful on two main legal grounds. The first was that the decision to outlaw the group amounted to “unjustified interference” with the right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. The second was that the decision, taken by then-home secretary Yvette Cooper, was “disproportionate”, because Palestine Action’s activities had not yet reached “the level, scale and persistence” to fall within the legal definition of terrorism.

‘Good intentions’

This ruling is “disturbing”, said Melanie Phillips in The Times. Between August 2024 and June 2025 the group was responsible for 158 “direct action events”, 28 of which caused damage to property exceeding £50,000, or required a significant police presence. In 2024, an activist allegedly attacked a police officer with a sledgehammer, fracturing her spine. Are ministers just supposed to wait around “until more people are injured, or someone even gets killed by these activities”, before they’re allowed to ban the group?

“There were clearly good intentions behind the proscription, but the problems with such a blanket measure became apparent as soon as the police began putting it into practice,” said The Daily Telegraph. Among the more than 2,700 people arrested, were many who would generally never be considered terrorists, from priests to pensioners. To class these people, however “ignorant or misguided” they were, as terrorists, in the same league as militants from al-Qa’eda or Islamic State, threatened to “make the ban look ridiculous”, and those locked up look like martyrs.

‘Fundamentally unsound’

“One does not have to endorse the vandalism perpetrated by Palestine Action supporters” to understand that the proscription of the group was “fundamentally unsound”, said David Littlefair on UnHerd. It’s notable that “the same people who might become apoplectic at citizens being disciplined over social media posts have been remarkably sanguine in response to thousands of pensioners facing prison time for poorly defined crimes”. Many seem now to feel “that the value of free speech as a concept is contingent on how annoying they find the speaker”.

The ban will remain in place while the government prepares to appeal, said Haroon Siddique in The Guardian. But the debacle has already been a “humiliation” for Keir Starmer’s beleaguered government – and “has transformed Palestine Action from a little-known protest group to one that is on the front page of newspapers”.

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”.

‘What we know and don’t know about alcohol’s health impacts’

Leana S. Wen at The Washington Post

The White House “reignited a debate about alcohol this month by removing daily recommended limits in the national Dietary Guidelines for Americans,” and this “leaves many people wondering how much is too much and what alcohol means for their health,” says Leana S. Wen. Alcohol is an “addictive substance that can profoundly disrupt lives,” but what is “far less settled is whether low levels of alcohol consumption pose health risks for people who can moderate their intake.”

Read more

‘DEI initiatives at colleges and universities help protect religious freedom’

Mary J. Lomax-Ghirarduzzi at the San Francisco Chronicle

DEI critics “often claim that eliminating such programs would serve as a defense of religious belief,” but “here’s the problem with that philosophy: It is because of DEI that students of varied faiths — or of no faith at all — can freely pursue their spiritual lives without being coerced, excluded or silenced,” says Mary J. Lomax-Ghirarduzzi. DEI offices “help provide religious student groups with access to space and resources while ensuring that their existence is welcomed, not grudgingly tolerated.”

Read more

‘Peace boards and technocrats won’t stem out Palestinian resistance’

Refaat Ibrahim at Al Jazeera

The “problem with the present setup and Israel’s insistence on ‘no Hamas, no Fatah’ is that they reflect a profound ignorance of the fabric of Palestinian society, its politics and history,” says Refaat Ibrahim. The “idea that a Palestinian political entity can be created by outside forces and fully integrated into the occupation to manage Palestinian affairs is unrealistic.” Israel has “decided to ignore this deeply rooted reality, attempting to bypass it by imposing artificial facts.”

Read more

‘The world is adjusting to an unreliable United States’

Fareed Zakaria at Foreign Policy

Europe has been “caricatured as too divided to act, too lethargic to decide, too comfortable to think strategically,” but “over the past year, Europe has behaved with a quiet shrewdness that contradicts that stereotype,” says Fareed Zakaria. Faced “with an unpredictable United States, it has neither lashed out nor capitulated. Instead, it has adapted.” What’s at “stake here is not America’s image but its future power,” as China is “building one of the most resilient economic ecosystems in modern history.”

Read more

Vladimir Putin could sit alongside Tony Blair, Marco Rubio and Jared Kushner on Donald Trump’s Board of Peace. The Kremlin confirmed the Russian president had been invited to join the new body, which was formally launched last week and will be chaired by Trump himself.

Originally part of the US-brokered 20-point peace plan to end the war in Gaza, the Board of Peace will oversee the territory’s reconstruction, but recent developments suggest ambitions for the organisation go well beyond Gaza.

Who is on it?

With his characteristic effusiveness, the US president posted on Truth Social that the committee he has assembled was the “Greatest and Most Prestigious Board ever assembled at any time, any place”.

The founding executive board, headed by Trump himself, includes former UK prime minister Tony Blair, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, US special envoy Steve Witkoff, World Bank president Ajay Banga, and Trump’s son-in-law and close adviser, Jared Kushner.

The “exact structure” of the board “remains unclear and members are still being invited”, said the BBC. Invitations have also been sent to the leaders of “Argentina, Paraguay, Turkey, Egypt, Canada and Thailand”, said The Guardian. The White House and the Kremlin have both confirmed that an invitation has been extended to the Russian president, a gesture that lends “considerable weight to long-standing suspicions that Trump leans heavily in Putin’s favour in his approach to the Ukraine conflict”.

As chair, Trump will decide who is invited to join, giving him an effective veto. Member states will be limited to three-year terms on the Board of Peace, but those that contribute more than $1 billion in the first year can become permanent members, said Bloomberg.

How will it work in Gaza?

The Bulgarian former UN Middle East envoy Nickolay Mladenov will serve as the executive board’s high representative for Gaza. A 15-member Palestinian technocratic committee, the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG), has also been set up, tasked with running day-to-day affairs on the ground in the devastated enclave. Major General Jasper Jeffers, the former head of US special forces, has been appointed to lead an International Stabilization Force (ISF), a multinational peacekeeping unit that will be responsible for security across the territory.

Yet another committee, the Gaza Executive Board, will work with Mladenov, the NCAG and the ISF. The board is “designed to provide regional and international coordination”, said Middle East Eye, although it is “unclear what responsibilities the board or its members would have”.

What else could it do?

According to a draft of its charter, the board will seek to “solidify peace in the Middle East” and, at the same time, “embark on a bold new approach to resolving global conflict”, said The Guardian.

Notably, there is no mention of Gaza in the charter itself, adding to “speculation that the group may have a broader mandate to cover other conflicts and could even be aimed at creating a US-dominated alternative to the United Nations Security Council”, said The New York Times.

US officials had already “floated the idea of allowing the board to mediate in other hotspots such as Ukraine and Venezuela”, said the Financial Times, and the wording of the charter “appears to give credence to diplomats’ fears that the Trump administration is seeking ways to sideline the UN”.

“It’s just very confused as an idea,” said a senior European official. “What does ‘membership’ mean? Is it an alliance or a body for mediation between adversaries?”

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”.

‘Nursing homes are about to get a lot worse, thanks to Trump and RFK Jr.’

Sean C. Domnick at The Hill

For “years, families assumed that if a loved one lived in a nursing home, someone qualified was always watching,” says Sean C. Domnick. But “beginning Feb. 2, 2026, the federal requirement that nursing homes maintain a registered nurse on-site around the clock will no longer exist.” RNs “are the only ones with the training to identify subtle but serious declines,” and “missed diagnoses lead to preventable deaths.” This “takes us backwards at the exact moment we needed a stronger system.”

Read more

‘On reparations for Black residents, the time for action in San Francisco is now’

Amos C. Brown at the San Francisco Chronicle

Rosa Parks “refused to give up her seat on the bus in Montgomery, Alabama,” because the “time for waiting for things to change was over,” says Amos C. Brown. San Francisco wants to “address discrimination and inequities that have affected the city’s Black community for generations,” but has “allocated not a penny.” An “apology without action and a fund without an allocation are not reparations.” The “time for waiting is over. The time for action has arrived.”

Read more

‘Christmas is not a Western story — it is a Palestinian one’

Munther Isaac at Al Jazeera

Christmas traditions “have become so common that many assume, almost automatically, that Christianity is inherently a Western religion — an expression of European culture, history and identity,” but “it is not,” says Munther Isaac. Christmas has “become a performance of abundance, nostalgia and consumerism — a holiday stripped of its theological and moral core.” But the holiday is a “story of empire, injustice and the vulnerability of ordinary people caught in its path.” This “disconnect matters.”

Read more

‘Walmart worship’

Michael Massing at The Nation

Since his “announcement in mid-November that he plans to retire early next year as the chief executive of Walmart,” Doug McMillon has been “basking in tributes,” says Michael Massing. During “his 12-year reign atop the world’s largest retailer, Walmart’s annual revenue has increased by nearly $200 billion,” but “what those numbers conceal is Walmart’s contribution to the nation’s stark economic divide.” And the “press has blithely ignored it.” This is “shareholder-driven capitalism at its most grotesque.”

Read more

Police in London and Manchester will take a “more assertive” approach to protesters who call for intifada, according to a joint statement from the two forces following antisemitic attacks in Australia and in the UK. Officers have arrested two people for racially aggravated public order offences after they allegedly chanted “globalise the intifada” at a pro-Palestinian protest in London.

What is an intifada?

Intifada is an Arabic word derived from a verb meaning “to shake off”. It’s used to describe “two major uprisings” against the Israeli presence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1987-1993 and 2000-2005, said the Institute for Middle East Understanding.

Both periods of intifada saw Palestinians participate in peaceful protest and acts of civil disobedience, but were also marked by violent clashes with the Israeli security forces and deadly terrorist attacks within Israel. More than 1,000 Israelis and about 5,000 Palestinians died in such incidents between the start of the first intifada in 1987 and the 2005 Sharm El Sheikh summit that brought the second intifada to an end.

How did ‘globalise the intifada’ become a rallying cry?

“Globalise the intifada” is a slogan that has been used to advocate for international support of Palestinian resistance against Israeli military occupation of Palestinian territories.

First popularised at solidarity rallies around the world during the second intifada, it has become a common rallying cry at pro-Palestine demonstrations since Israel launched its military operations in Gaza following the 7 October attacks.

The global intifada is the “‘shaking off’ of colonial dynamics of racism, violence, dehumanisation and division”, said Chloe Skinner for the Institute of Development Studies. The violence in Gaza and the West Bank is rooted in “global systems of power”, and so the struggle against them must be “globalised”.

Why do some people consider it antisemitic? 

As the “most prominent expressions” of intifada have involved “violence”, said the American Jewish Committee, “globalising the intifada” is often understood to mean “encouraging violence” against Israelis and Jews more broadly, even if the “intent of the person saying this phrase may be different”.

It’s “helpful to possess a lexicon of what is typically intended” behind the “vocabularies” used in support of the Palestinian cause, said David Frum in The Atlantic. “Globalise the intifada means shooting or bombing people in Sydney, London, Paris, Toronto, Los Angeles and New York City”, as well as in Israel.

The BBC recently corrected an article on its website that defined intifada as “largely unarmed and popular”. After complaints, the corporation amended the article, saying that the word intifada was regarded by some as a “call for violence against Jewish people”.

But Palestine Solidarity Campaign director Ben Jamal said the Met Police and Greater Manchester Police joint statement marked “another low in the political repression of protest for Palestinian rights”. Intifada is about “uprising against injustice”, he said, and the “implication” that language used to “support the liberation of the Palestinian people” is “only open to interpretation” by pro-Israel groups is “deeply problematic”.

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”.

In the days after the ceasefire began on Friday, tens of thousands of displaced Gazans set out for their homes in the north of the Strip, many of them on foot and carrying little more than the clothes on their backs, said Nedal Hamdouna and Bel Trew in The Independent.

Flanking their route, on the coastal road, were the ashen remains of bombed-out buildings and piles of twisted metal, while “mangled skylines” loomed all around. “Your body shivers from the scale of the destruction,” said Mahmoud Al-Kafarneh, 37. Having been living for so long in a tent, he said he was looking forward to seeing familiar places; but would he find them?

Neighbourhoods levelled

Elsewhere, returning Gazans found only skeletal ruins where their homes had been – and nothing they recognised. Even if the ceasefire holds, Gazans face a very hard future, said Jim Armitage in The Times.

According to the latest UN data from satellite images, 92% of housing units in Gaza have been damaged or destroyed. As Israel stepped up its offensive in September, it levelled entire neighbourhoods in Gaza City. Gazans – 90% of whom are displaced – desperately need basic infrastructure. Work needs to start now, to provide water, sewerage, temporary shelters.

The cost of rebuilding

Next comes the task of clearing an estimated 50 million tonnes of rubble, so that makeshift clinics and schools can be set up in modular buildings. Then, once a reconstruction plan for Gaza has been agreed, the rebuilding can start. (This is expected to cost $53bn, and will require careful processes to be put in place, to stop the money being lost to corruption or funnelled to Hamas.)

But with unexploded ordnance mixed in with the rubble, human remains beneath it, and armed Hamas terrorists in their tunnels, even the first step in this process is likely to be fraught with difficulty and very slow.

Many Gazans are acutely malnourished, or sick, said The Guardian. They don’t have time on their side. Yet this week, it wasn’t clear even how much food aid was arriving. Aid agencies were told that 600 trucks a day would be allowed in, but by Wednesday, only a fraction of that number had got through.

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.”

Two years on from the deadly 7 October attacks, an end to the war in Gaza finally appears to be within reach. After endorsing the overall principles behind Donald Trump’s 20-point peace plan, delegations from Israel and Hamas have gathered separately in Egypt to discuss the details with Qatari and Egyptian mediators.

As it stands, “the ‘yes, but’ from Israel and the ‘yes, but for sure’ from Hamas to the president’s 20 points basically reflects still the impossibility right now of reconciling what the Israelis want for an end state and what Hamas does”, Aaron David Miller, a Middle East negotiator for several former US administrations, told PBS.

Here are some of the most pressing questions that need to be resolved:

What will happen to the Israeli hostages?

Under Trump’s plan, all 20 Israeli hostages still thought to be alive in Gaza will be released, along with the remains of another 28 who died in captivity. In return, Israel would release 250 Palestinian prisoners serving life sentences in Israeli jails, as well as 1,700 Gazans detained after 7 October 2023.

This exchange is meant to take place within 72 hours of agreement being reached on the first phase of the plan, effectively serving as an act of goodwill. But “trust between the two sides is virtually non-existent”, said the BBC’s Tom Bennett, and the hostages are Hamas’ “only bargaining chip” so “it’s unclear whether it would be willing to release them before other elements of the deal are finalised”.

Who will run Gaza?

Point 9 of Trump’s plan stipulates that Gaza will be run under the “temporary, transitional governance of a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee”, supervised by a “Board of Peace” chaired by the US president and involving former UK PM Tony Blair. It would eventually be handed over to a “reformed” Palestinian Authority.

This is likely to prove the biggest sticking point for both sides. Just last week, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu insisted the PA would not play a part in governing a post-war Gaza – a red line long held by the ultranationalist hardliners who could bring down his government and scupper the deal. Meanwhile, Hamas, which has run Gaza for nearly 20 years, has indicated it expects to have some future role in Gaza as part of "a unified Palestinian movement" – something both Israel and the US have explicitly ruled out.

What will happen to Hamas?

As well as relinquishing any future role in Gaza, the US plan calls for Hamas to fully disarm and “all military, terror, and offensive infrastructure, including tunnels and weapon production facilities” to be destroyed, kicking off a longer “process of demilitarisation” under the supervision of independent monitors.

These have long been “central objectives” for Netanyahu, said The Telegraph, but Hamas has previously said it would only lay down its weapons once a Palestinian state has been established. The Israeli PM said at the weekend that Hamas will be disarmed and Palestine demilitarised “either the easy way or the hard way”.

Will Israel fully withdraw from Gaza?

Point 16 explicitly says that Israel “will not occupy or annex Gaza” and states that, as a temporary International Stabilisation Force led by Arab states “establishes control and stability, the Israel Defence Forces will withdraw, based on standards, milestones, and timeframes”. But this phased withdrawal “would leave Israeli forces deeper in Gaza” than was agreed by Hamas in previous talks on ending the conflict, said The New York Times. And, with the final stage of IDF withdrawal including the establishment of a “security perimeter presence”, there is alarm among Palestinians that the Israel military will never completely leave Gaza.

What could a future Gaza look like?

The resumption of “full aid” deliveries into the Gaza Strip will begin “immediately” upon acceptance of the agreement. In the longer term, a “Trump economic development plan to rebuild and energise Gaza will be created by convening a panel of experts who have helped birth some of the thriving modern miracle cities in the Middle East”.

Only once Gaza’s re-development is advancing and the Palestine Authority’s reform programme has been “faithfully carried out” may the conditions “finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood”.

While this remains very much an aspiration contingent on the many “unresolved hurdles” in the peace plan, said The Telegraph, it is “unclear” if Netanyahu “will be able to live with a plan that may open the door to a Palestinian state”.

‘Cargo theft: an emerging national and economic security crisis’

Michael Huston at The Hill

“Cargo theft in America is not just a matter of a few stolen goods. It is a growing threat to our national and economic security,” says Michael Huston. Criminals “threaten the integrity of America’s supply chains — supply chains that serve as the foundation of our economy and which keep American families clothed, connected and fed.” To “defend and protect our economy, homeland and supply chains, we must come together to pass the Combating Organized Retail Crime Act.”

Read more

‘Black hole stars challenge our idea of the universe’

Anjana Ahuja at the Financial Times

Astronomers have observed dots that “looked like bright mature galaxies but, puzzlingly, seemed anchored in a universe too young to host them,” says Anjana Ahuja. These “are not stars in the usual sense of being powered by nuclear fusion; instead, they comprise a supermassive black hole.” This “may well challenge ideas about how the first celestial objects formed, and in what order.” It “also illustrates how studying extremes can push boundaries by forcing scientists to come up with new ideas.”

Read more

‘It’s time for the US to recognize Palestine’

Leon Hadar at The American Conservative

The “growing international momentum toward recognizing Palestine as an independent state represents a long-overdue acknowledgment of geopolitical realities that Washington has stubbornly refused to accept,” says Leon Hadar. It’s “time for U.S. policymakers to abandon their counterproductive approach and embrace pragmatic statecraft.” The “reflexive opposition to Palestinian statehood recognition serves neither American nor Israeli long-term interests, and certainly does nothing to advance regional stability.” The “focus on ‘process’ over outcomes has become a substitute for serious diplomacy.”

Read more

‘James Comey’s indictment, while without merit, is part of Comey’s own legacy’

Paul Pelletier at The Nation

James Comey “finds himself the object of a grotesque and unfounded abuse of the law as a cudgel to punish political opponents,” says Paul Pelletier. The “impact of this Mob-like model of prosecution is likely to spread far beyond Comey and other public servants.” But the “ironic twist is the active role Comey himself played in his later law enforcement career in dismantling the norms that had been considered vital to an ordered constitutional democracy.”

Read more

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.”

Has there ever been a “more delicious, predictable, pathetic” political spectacle than the unravelling of Jeremy Corbyn’s new party, asked Stephen Pollard in The Daily Telegraph. Corbyn and his Your Party co-leader, Zarah Sultana, fell out on the day that it was launched in July. They fell out again, in even more spectacular fashion, last week, when Sultana invited people to become paid-up members via an online portal.

Hours later, Corbyn sent out an “urgent” message telling prospective members to cancel their payments: the portal was unsanctioned; he was taking “legal advice”. In a fury, the Coventry South MP then claimed she was being sidelined by a “sexist boys’ club” made up of Corbyn and the party’s four other male MPs. Even by the Pythonesque standards of the far-left, it was farcical, said John Rentoul in The Independent. Before it had even properly come into existence, the party had split into factions that were ferociously denouncing each other.

Your Party ‘couldn’t organise a mailing list’

Corbyn’s opponents are delighted, said Zoë Grünewald in The i Paper, but for those of us on the Left, it’s an incredibly depressing situation. Some 600,000 people had originally registered interest in Your Party. There is a genuine appetite for a socialist movement that would make the case for reducing inequality, take a stand on Palestine, and call out the anti-migrant politics of the Right. “Yet while Tommy Robinson could summon up to 150,000 citizens onto London’s streets in defence of white nationalism, six independent MPs couldn’t organise a mailing list.”

Still ‘tripwires’ ahead

Corbyn and Sultana have now apparently made up, said Jonny Ball on UnHerd. But Your Party’s problems appear to be terminal – not least because Corbyn’s “merry band” of independent MPs remain divided over crucial issues such as trans rights and Ukraine. If they can’t even decide on a name (Your Party is provisional), then it’s hard to see how they’ll navigate those “tripwires” in the coming months. If their woes continue, Keir Starmer won’t be the only one laughing. The Your Party shambles leaves a big gap – and right now, the Green Party’s charismatic new eco-populist leader Zack Polanski is “emerging as the only viable Leftist alternative” to fill it.

“A battle is brewing over who will run the wasteland” of Gaza, as we approach the two-year anniversary of the 7 October attacks, said The Economist. “By rights, no one should want” Gaza, nor the task of running it after being reduced to a “hellscape”, where “half a million” people were forced out of Gaza City last week.

But the figure who has emerged as a serious, if controversial, candidate for post-war leadership is the 72-year-old former British prime minister Tony Blair. Under plans reportedly backed by the US, Blair would take charge of a “supervisory body” called the Gaza International Transitional Authority, to serve as the “supreme political and legal authority” for up to five years, said The Independent.

The former PM has been drafting a “plan for the days after a ceasefire in Gaza with Jared Kushner”, Donald Trump’s son-in-law. Blair met Kushner, along with the US president and his special envoy Steve Witkoff at the White House in August to discuss matters, said The Times. According to reports, this plan involved Blair heading a secretariat of up to 25 people “running the territory”.

What did the commentators say?

With years of experience in the region, acting as a Middle East peace envoy for the “Quartet” (the United Nations, European Union, United States and Russia), Blair and his plan “may be Gaza’s best hope”, said The Telegraph.

His position is unique. Critics believe his involvement in the Iraq invasion means he “may not be the obvious name to turn to”, but he is “one of the few international figures to be respected by both sides”. This could be a “fitting final chapter” for Blair, who has long been searching for a “meaningful role” since his time in office ended in 2007.

However, Blair’s impact in the region is far from untainted. His decision to commit British forces to Iraq in 2003 was “heavily criticised” in the official inquiry, revealing that he acted on “flawed intelligence”, carrying out offensives “without certainty about the production of weapons of mass destruction” in the region, said the BBC.

The plan is not without opposition and it will “face an uphill battle getting the extreme-right members of Israel’s cabinet on board”, said The Independent.

Reports suggest the “Blair plan” is “anchored on the dismantling of Hamas”. The Palestinian Authority (PA) would “have a role” in the transitional administration, “albeit a diminished one at the start”.

However, both European and Arab states are against “international trusteeship” in Gaza, fearing it could “marginalise the Palestinians and lack legitimacy in the eyes of Gazans”, said the Financial Times. Instead, Gazans seek a committee run by “Palestinian technocrats”.

What next?

Echoes of the Balfour Declaration of 1917 still ring, said The Economist. Then, British forces “conquered Gaza, quickly… and stayed there for 30 years”. Some Palestinians fear “Britain is repeating the exercise”.

With a reputation that “hardly endears” Blair in the region, gaining approval from PA President Mahmoud Abbas “will be hard”, as authorities anticipate that “another occupation beckons”.

The Blair plan is based on the presumption that there will “be no further Israeli annexations in the West Bank”, said The Guardian. To complicate matters further, “much might rest on the definition of annexation”: unless this can be achieved, we may be left with a “diplomatic mirage” instead of an international “breakthrough”.

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.

A United Nations commission of inquiry’s finding that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza has been described as a landmark moment, after at least 64,964 people have been killed in the occupied Palestinian territories in almost two years of war.

The commission cited statements by Israeli leaders, and the pattern of conduct by Israeli forces, as evidence of genocidal intent, and said its latest report on the war was “the strongest and most authoritative UN finding to date”.

Israel firmly denies accusations of genocide and insists it’s conducting the war in Gaza in self-defence and in accordance with international law.

What did the commentators say?

The findings will have a “profound impact”, said Paul Nuki in The Telegraph, because they will “make it harder” for governments to argue that sanctions are not needed when lawyers can point to the report of an independent UN commission.

The British government has previously said it hasn’t concluded that Israel is acting with genocidal intent, but that position will now “almost certainly be challenged” in the UK courts.

Although the reports are “not formally binding” for the work of international courts, they have a “strong persuasive value”, Professor Triestino Mariniello, an international law expert, told the Palestine Chronicle.

The International Court of Justice, which is currently hearing a case of genocide brought against Israel by South Africa, “cannot ignore” what the commissioners have said. And the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court “should expand the scope” of its investigations and “finally cover the crime of genocide”. This gives “unprecedented legal and political weight to the charge of genocide in Gaza”.

The findings will “feed into the growing international condemnation” of Israel’s conduct, said Jeremy Bowen on the BBC, as it also comes from Israel’s “traditional Western allies” and the “Gulf Arab monarchies which normalised relations with Israel in the Abraham Accords”.

“Legally, it is hard to prove the crime of genocide,” but as the war in Gaza is “continuing and perhaps escalating further”, the report is “going to deepen international divisions”.

Many Western countries, including the UK, have said that only a court can rule on whether genocide has been committed, said Bel Trew in The Independent, but it may “take a decade” for the International Court of Justice to rule. By then, there “won’t be much of Gaza – or its residents – left”.

What next?

As Israel launches its ground offensive in Gaza City, the report is “validation” for Palestinians, said Malak Benslama-Dabdoub, a lecturer in law at Royal Holloway University of London, on The Conversation. “For international law, it is a test.”

The verdict will either trigger “real accountability”, including sanctions, embargoes and prosecutions, “or it exposes the gap between lofty promises and political reality”.

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".

For much of the 21st century, American political support for Israel has been a bipartisan exercise, cutting across the aisle to become one of the few universally agreed-upon subjects in Washington, D.C. However, as Israel's siege of the Gaza Strip nears the two-year mark, that broad support has eroded significantly.

Not only are Democrats increasingly willing to criticize Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's ultranationalist government, but certain conservative circles are, too. While President Donald Trump had made the vociferous backing of Israel a key feature of his administration, some members of his MAGA coalition have begun publicly breaking from the party orthodoxy and speaking out against Israel's conduct in Gaza.

'Growing skepticism' over Israel from the right

While the Trump White House has been "measured" in its criticism of Israel, its "cautious approach" contrasts with the "ascendance of a loud wing of the president's base that has sharply criticized Israel," said Politico. While "plenty" of Republicans, including "MAGA loyalists," are still "backing Israel," the party's right flank is growing "increasingly frustrated" with support for a war they see as "politically noxious" and a "moral stain on the country's reputation."

Writing on X that the situation in Gaza amounted to "genocide, humanitarian crisis and starvation," Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) became the "first Republican in Congress" to describe the situation in Gaza as a "genocide" — an "indication of growing skepticism on the right about Israel's conduct of the war," said The New York Times. That Trump himself broke with Netanyahu recently by affirming mass starvation was happening across Gaza is "creating space for a GOP realignment on Israel," Axios said. While "America First" MAGA supporters have been historically skeptical of U.S. foreign aid, Trump had "carved out an exception for Israel," the consensus for which has "eroded at a stunning rate" recently.

While the majority of mainstream Republicans still support Israel's war on Gaza "virtually unconditionally," conservatives willing to speak against the Gaza war are "becoming more influential online and outside Washington," said Responsible Statecraft. That's true "particularly among conservatives under 30."

Republicans willing to speak out about Israel's wartime conduct are likely "reading the tea leaves in terms of public opinion," said Northeastern University Political Scientist Costas Panagopoulos at Newsweek. Lawmakers have been "getting pressure from constituencies about what's going on in Gaza" and are being asked to "hold Israel to account."

Violence that hits 'significantly closer to home'

MAGA's "increasing unease" about Trump's Gaza policy has both put "a spotlight on the administration's close ties with Israel" while raising "additional questions" about Trump's plans moving forward, said The Hill. Escalating violence in both Gaza and the West Bank "hits significantly closer to home" for many of Trump's more "traditionally" conservative supporters who may be "less swayed by flashy controversies" than they are by "harm to Christians" living in those communities, Haaretz said.

"My people are starting to hate Israel," Trump reportedly told a Jewish donor recently, according to a "Middle East expert who speaks regularly with the administration," said the Financial Times. Even so, it's important to avoid "overstating the impact of critics on the far right."

"I don't think" the MAGA frustrations will lead to a "blow-up with Israel and Trump," said the expert, who spoke on condition of anonymity. But "there are people in the White House who are watching this narrative develop in the right wing, in the MAGA world, that is very anti-Israel, very anti-Jewish.”

The United Kingdom took a major diplomatic step this week by announcing its intention to recognize Palestinian statehood unless Israel and Hamas reach a ceasefire. While much of the world still does not recognize Palestinian sovereignty, there are currently 147 countries that do consider Palestine an independent nation, including some major global powers. Here are a few of them.

France

French President Emmanuel Macron announced that his country will "recognize an independent state of Palestine in September at the U.N. General Assembly," said The Washington Post. This will make France perhaps the most notable nation yet on the world stage to recognize Palestine, as France will be the "largest Western power and the first member of the Group of Seven to recognize Palestinian statehood."

The "move marks a significant shift for France, whose policy has walked a diplomatic tightrope since the October 2023 Hamas-led attacks in Israel," said France24. It is part of a continual change in relations between France and Middle Eastern countries.

Norway

Norway recognized Palestinian independence in 2024, becoming the latest Scandinavian country to do so. Norway took the step because it felt Palestinians have a "fundamental, independent right to self-determination and that both Israelis and Palestinians have the right to live in peace and security in their respective states," said Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gare Store in a Politico op-ed.

Norway's "position on the Israel-Palestine conflict has been steady," said Al Jazeera. Norwegian officials have been "quick to demand a ceasefire after the latest conflict erupted."

Spain

Spain recognized Palestinian statehood at the same time Norway and Ireland did. Spain "considers the decision to be vital for peace and reflects the position of the international community and Spanish society," the Spanish government said in a press release.

Recognizing Palestine as a country is an "act of justice towards the Palestinian people, an essential measure to guarantee Israel the security it rightfully demands and the only viable path to peace in the region," the government said.

Mexico

Mexico recognized a Palestinian state in March after announcing its intention to do so last year. Mexico showed "support for a comprehensive and definitive two-state solution to the conflict," the Mexican government said. It had remained neutral during prior wars in the Middle East.

This decision for recognition was supported by Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, who is Jewish. We "condemn the aggressions that are being experienced and also consider that the state of Palestine must be recognized in its entirety," Sheinbaum said during a press conference. This has been Mexico's "position for many years."

Ireland

Ireland has long been one of the most pro-Palestinian countries due to historic similarities and recognized Palestine's independence at the same time as Norway and Spain. The country "recognizes Palestine as a sovereign and independent state and agreed to establish full diplomatic relations between Dublin and Ramallah," the Irish government said in a statement.

The "decision of Ireland is about keeping hope alive," Simon Harris, Ireland's then-Taoiseach, or head of government, said in the same statement. A "two-state solution is the only way for Israel and Palestine to live side by side in peace and security."

Brazil

Brazil has recognized a Palestinian state since 2010 during President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's first term. The country has long pushed for Palestine's advancement and also "assumed the presidency of a United Nations working group focused on advancing Palestinian statehood recognition," said Brazilian outlet The Rio Times.

By recognizing Palestine, Brazil "hopes international pressure will highlight the growing isolation of the U.S. and Israel on Palestinian recognition while advancing concrete steps toward implementing the long-sought two-state solution," said the Times.

South Africa

South Africa has recognized Palestine as a state since 1995, making it one of the first countries to do so. South Africans have often "compared the restrictions Israel placed on Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank with the treatment of Black South Africans during apartheid," said The Associated Press.

South Africa also brought a case against Israel, alleging genocide at the International Court of Justice. The case remains one of the more notable legal actions taken against Israel's government.

After nearly two years of horrific violence that has paralyzed the Middle East and captivated the world, two Israel-based human rights organizations have publicly condemned their government for committing what they deemed "genocide" against Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip. By invoking the charged term, B'Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel have not only reopened an acrimonious global debate over Israel's wartime conduct but raised the prospect that Israeli civil society may have reached a tipping point over the conflict. As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's nationalist governing coalition struggles to maintain control amid increasing global isolation, are these domestic allegations of genocide a sign that Israel's support for its war in Gaza is weakening?

What did the commentators say?

The conclusions of human-rights focused B'Tselem in its "Our Genocide" report and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel in its "A Health Analysis of the Gaza Genocide" position paper have added fuel to a "passionately fought international debate" over whether Israel's conduct in Gaza has "crossed a moral red line," said The New York Times. The joint reports are "another milestone in the human rights community's efforts" to hold Israeli officials accountable for their "crimes against Palestinians," said Amnesty International Secretary General Agnès Callamard in a statement.

"Nothing prepares you" for the realization that "you are part of a society committing genocide," said B'Tselem Executive Director Yuli Novak in a statement accompanying the report. "This is a deeply painful moment for us." While Israel's right-wing government has "angrily rejected" allegations of genocide, their "remonstrations" have not "deterred Israel's fiercest critics from using the word," said The Washington Post.

The latest allegations come as "pressure mounts" on Israel over the "catastrophic situation in Gaza," CNN said. At the same time, Netanyahu is "under pressure from all sides domestically," with anti-war protests "growing in strength and frequency" and right-wing ministers "threatening to collapse the government" if he ends the violence in Gaza.

Despite being considered on the "political fringe" domestically, B'Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel are "prominent and respected internationally," and their conclusion "shatters a taboo in a society that has been reticent to criticize" its handling of Gaza, said NPR. As one of Israel's "most prominent human rights organizations," B'Tselem's use of the term "genocide" is "bound to draw criticism of the group in Israeli society," Al Jazeera said. Many Israeli critics of the Gaza war have already faced "brutal denunciations from their compatriots."

What next?

While the groups' reports are focused primarily on conduct in the Gaza Strip, both organizations are keenly aware that their allegations of genocide may not be so geographically limited in the future. The authors of B'Tselem's assessment "link" their allegations of genocide in Gaza to the "rise in violence against Palestinians in the West Bank and even within Israel," said Haaretz, "expressing deep concern that the genocide could spread to other areas where Palestinians live."

After publishing their findings, both groups say they expect pushback from across Israeli society. Physicians for Human Rights-Israel has been "under pressure for months" and expects "stronger backlash" now that it has released its report, Reuters said. "We've looked into all of the risks that we could be facing," said B'Tselem International Director Sarit Michaeli to the outlet. "These are legal, reputation, media risks, other types of risk, societal risks and we've done work to try and mitigate these risks." Still, with international pressure mounting and domestic opposition to the war finding traction, it wouldn't be unreasonable "to expect this issue, which is so fraught and so deeply contentious within Israeli society and internationally, to lead to an even greater reaction."

What happened

Columbia University agreed to pay $200 million to the federal government as part of a landmark settlement with the Trump administration.

Following last year's pro-Palestinian protests, the administration had accused the school of violating antidiscrimination laws by "failing to protect students from antisemitic harassment," The New York Times said.

The Ivy League school will also pay $21 million to settle investigations brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In return, the administration will restore most of the $400 million in research grants it canceled in March.

Who said what

Columbia "does not admit to wrongdoing" but recognizes that "reform was and is needed," the university said in a statement. President Donald Trump hailed the agreement as "historic" on Truth Social. The pro-Palestinian group Columbia University Apartheid Divest accused the school of "selling out" its students.

What next?

Columbia has 30 days to appoint an administrator "responsible for overseeing the deal's compliance," Reuters said. Trump indicated similar agreements with other universities "that have hurt so many" would be "upcoming."

When Donald Trump announced in February that the US should take "ownership" of Gaza and develop the battered enclave into the "Riviera of the Middle East", he caused outrage across the Middle East – but not in Israel.

Standing alongside Benjamin Netanyahu, the US president suggested forcibly relocating two million Palestinian residents to a "good, fresh, beautiful piece of land" elsewhere, cheered by many far-right ministers in Netanyahu's coalition government.

Now, the Israeli prime minister is back at the White House to discuss a possible US-brokered ceasefire with Hamas (and to nominate Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize). Meanwhile, his defence minister, Israel Katz, has laid out another controversial proposal: to force Palestinians into what he termed a "humanitarian city" in Gaza.

What is the plan?

Katz told reporters yesterday that he had instructed the Israel Defense Forces to prepare to establish a new zone in southern Gaza, on the rubble where the city of Rafah once stood.

Katz said the idea was for the IDF to control the perimeter of the site, which would initially accommodate about 600,000 displaced Palestinians who have mostly been living in the coastal al-Mawasi area. They would go through "security screening" before entering – but once inside, they would not be allowed to leave.

Eventually, the whole population of Gaza will be moved there in what he called "the emigration plan", said Haaretz. But the IDF would not run the site or distribute aid, Katz added.

Work on the "humanitarian city" could start during the 60-day ceasefire currently under negotiation, Katz said, adding that Netanyahu is leading efforts to find countries willing to "take in" Palestinians.

Katz's words contradict what the IDF's chief of staff said on Monday, in response to claims that the Israeli military had commanded troops to "mobilise" and "concentrate" civilians in Gaza. Eyal Zamir's office told Israel's High Court that the army "does not impose forced population expulsions inside or outside the Gaza Strip", said Haaretz.

An official told the paper that Israel does not expect the plan to proceed, and that no countries approached by Israel had agreed to receive Palestinian refugees.

What else do we know?

Reuters reported yesterday that it had seen a proposal – bearing the name of a "controversial US-backed aid group" – describing "a plan to build large-scale camps called 'Humanitarian Transit Areas' inside – and possibly outside – Gaza".

The $2 billion proposal, created after 11 February and carrying the name of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), outlined "a vision of replacing Hamas' control over the population in Gaza". The plan describes the camps as "voluntary" places where Palestinians could "temporarily reside, deradicalise, re-integrate and prepare to relocate if they wish to do so".

The proposal said that one camp would "house 2,160 people, along with a laundry, restrooms, showers and a school". But a source said the project envisages eight camps, capable of housing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. The facilities would be used to "gain trust with the local population" and facilitate Trump's "vision for Gaza". The proposal was "submitted to the Trump administration" this year, two sources told Reuters, and "recently discussed in the White House".

The GHF denied it had submitted the proposal, adding that the presentation seen by Reuters was "not a GHF document". A senior US official said "nothing of the like is under consideration", and the US State Department declined to comment.

In May, The Washington Post also reported that the GHF was planning to build housing compounds for Palestinians.

What has the reaction been?

"There is no such thing as voluntary displacement amongst a population that has been under constant bombardment for nearly two years and has been cut off from essential aid," Jeremy Konyndyk, president of the Refugees International advocacy group and former senior US Agency for International Development official, told Reuters.

Legal experts and academics described the plan as "a blueprint for crimes against humanity", said The Guardian. It also breaks international law, said Michael Sfard, an Israeli human rights lawyer. "While the government still calls the deportation 'voluntary', people in Gaza are under so many coercive measures that no departure from the strip can be seen in legal terms as consensual."

Driving someone out of their homeland during a war is a "war crime". And "done on a massive scale", like what Katz has described, "it becomes a crime against humanity".

The defence minister has laid out plans for "a concentration camp", said Amos Goldberg, a Holocaust historian and professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. "It is neither humanitarian nor a city."

In the early hours of last Friday, two activists from Palestine Action climbed over a fence into RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire, said Dominic Adler on UnHerd. They then filmed themselves riding unimpeded on scooters across the vast airbase – "a critical part of Britain's defence infrastructure" – and vandalising two Voyager air-to-air refuelling tankers. Reportedly, they smashed the aircraft with crowbars and sprayed paint into their engines.

Their aim, they said, was to "disrupt British military support for Israel". But their main achievement was to provoke the normally "glacial" Home Office into rapid action. By Friday evening, Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, had let it be known that she planned to proscribe Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act; on Monday, she confirmed that it would be put to a vote in the Commons next week.

In a statement, Cooper said this "disgraceful" attack was just the latest in the long history of Palestine Action's "unacceptable criminal damage". And it's true that the group's tactics have become quite extreme, said Sian Bradley and Charlie Parker in The Times. It was set up in 2020 to take direct action against Elbit Systems, a weapons manufacturer it claims "profits from Israel's war crimes". Back then, its members limited themselves to scaling rooftops and vandalising factories. But since the start of Israel's offensive in Gaza, they have ramped up their actions. Last year, they were accused of assaulting two police officers at Elbit's Bristol site and causing millions of pounds worth of damage.

These extremists are not just hurling soup at paintings, said Tom Harris in The Daily Telegraph. They are sabotaging RAF aircraft and potentially undermining Britain's defence capability. If proscribing the group allows police to deal with this menace more effectively, "so much the better". It's a drastic step, though, said Karl Hansen in Tribune. It would place Palestine Action "in the same legal category as Isis, al-Qa'eda and neo-Nazi gangs", and criminalise anyone who belongs to the group, funds it, or publicly expresses support for it.

Cooper is setting a "dangerous precedent", said The Guardian. If the state can define a non-violent campaign "it disapproves of as terrorism, the boundary between civil disobedience and extremism becomes whatever a minister says it is". Palestine Action has caused a lot of damage, but its tactics do not include "threats to life". The Labour peer Shami Chakrabarti was right to ask: "When did criminal damage become terrorism?"

'The case for fixing food stamps'

The Wall Street Journal editorial board

Food stamp "enrollment doesn't shrink any longer in a strong economy as it should, and the rolls include millions of adults who can work," says The Wall Street Journal editorial board. The "program is contributing to one of America's most pressing social ailments: Prime-age men attenuated from work and its attendant disciplines and contributions to society." Congress "can crack down on the waiver offenses and make work a centerpiece of the program." But the "food stamp dysfunction runs deeper."

Read more

'Smartphones are finally getting expelled'

John Herrman at New York magazine

New York's school smartphone ban "marks a tipping point: Whatever you think of the broad, bipartisan, passionate, but also sort of disorganized and confused campaign to ban smartphones from classrooms, it's winning," says John Herrman. The "move toward full-day bans comes down to enforceability." Keeping "kids from messing around while their teachers are trying to teach is a no-brainer, and the sort of thing for which there's plenty of public support." But the "conversation has shifted away from educators' concerns."

Read more

'What my two 98-year-old patients taught me about longevity'

Dr. Eric Topol at Time

Doctors "can accurately forecast heart disease as well as the other major diseases of aging in high-risk individuals many decades earlier and achieve primary prevention, or, at the very least, a marked delay," says Dr. Eric Topol. Doctors "can't promise to reverse or halt aging itself, but we can promise that the second half of our lives can be much healthier." This is the "type of health span extension that we will be seeing far more commonly in the future."

Read more

'Harvard talks free speech but silences Palestine'

Lara Jirmanus at Al Jazeera

Harvard has "fashioned itself as a free-speech warrior on the national stage for refusing to negotiate with the Trump administration," but it has "capitulated to the demands of its billionaire donors in matters of student discipline, campus speech and academic freedom," says Lara Jirmanus. Harvard "adopted a one-sided conceptualisation of campus safety, in which speaking up against Israeli state violence towards Palestinians is considered threatening. Harvard's leaders "also routinely take action to erase Palestinian speech, scholarship, advocacy and views."

Read more

"After 18 months of slaughter, it is still possible to be shocked by events in Gaza," said The Guardian. More than 50,800 Palestinians have been killed, according to the Hamas-run health authority. Israel's offensive has intensified again, and at least 100 children have been killed or maimed each day since strikes resumed last month. Even so, the killing of 15 Palestinian paramedics and rescue workers last month is "particularly chilling".

In the early morning of 23 March, the Palestine Red Crescent sent ambulances just north of the city of Rafah to evacuate wounded civilians; there, the convoy came under fire from Israel Defence Forces (IDF). On 30 March, 15 bodies were retrieved from a mass grave; their ambulances and vehicles had also been crushed and buried in sand. Some of the bodies had their hands and legs tied. Preliminary evidence suggests they were shot from close range: executed. Killing civilians is of course a crime; in theory, medics have additional protections. But in Benjamin Netanyahu's Israel, international law is flouted every day. "In an age where impunity flourishes, crimes will multiply."

After the bodies were discovered, the IDF initially claimed that its soldiers had fired on a suspicious convoy that approached in the dark "without headlights or emergency signals", said Isabel Kershner in The New York Times. Military officials, though providing no evidence, also stated that nine (or later, six) of those killed were operatives of Hamas or Islamic Jihad. But a video recovered from the phone of one of the deceased men shows clearly that the ambulances and a fire truck had their lights on when they were ambushed by Israeli forces; and the UN insists that all the men were bona fide paramedics and rescue workers. The IDF has since "acknowledged flaws" in its initial account, and has promised to investigate.

We should be wary of declaring Israel guilty before the facts are settled, said Jonathan Sacerdoti in The Spectator. Palestinian terror groups have in the past been accused of using ambulances as "instruments of war". And the convoy was passing through a war zone, where Hamas vehicles had recently been active. That's true, said The Jerusalem Post. And no doubt whatever happened took place in "the fog of war". But that the IDF has had to correct its initial version of events in the light of "damning" evidence provided by the media is "concerning". "Fighting in a war is not a blank cheque. There are still rules, there are still protocols." We must await the findings of the official inquiry; but all this is "not a good look for the IDF or Israel".

A UN report last September stated that, since Hamas' 7 October terror attacks, there had been "a record surge in settlement activities" in the West Bank, "including the construction of outposts, roads, fences and roadblocks initiated by settlers with the endorsement or acquiescence of authorities". It also recorded 1,860 incidents of violence (resulting in 20 deaths) by settlers against Palestinians in the West Bank from 7 October 2023 to the end of 2024, as part of a campaign to drive villagers off land. Seven settlers have also been killed.

Benjamin Netanyahu has a long-standing policy of responding to Palestinian terrorism by expanding settlements: in 2011, he called it "they kill, we build". And since 2021, extremist settlers have been part of Netanyahu's hard- right coalition.

How many settlers are there?

Some 737,000 Israelis now live on land designated by the UN as Palestinian. About 500,000 of these reside in the West Bank; the rest are in East Jerusalem. This means that around 10% of Israel's Jewish population resides in settlements deemed by the UN Security Council, most recently in 2016, to have "no legal validity, constituting a flagrant violation under international law".

Palestinian residents of the West Bank – an area less than half the size of Northern Ireland on the western side of the River Jordan – now number 3.3 million. They have lived at least partly under Israeli control since 1967. Scores of settlements dot the area, from north to south; some 800 Israeli checkpoints and roadblocks limit the movement of Palestinians living there.

When did the settlers first move to these areas?

After Israel's crushing victory over Egypt, Syria and Jordan in the 1967 Six Day War, the Israeli government allowed – and encouraged – Jewish citizens to settle in some of the areas it had occupied, in part for military reasons: Jordan had shelled Israel from the hills of the West Bank.

Initially, the numbers were small. Areas of East Jerusalem ethnically cleansed of Jews by Jordan in the 1948 war were repopulated, and Jewish settlements sprang up around the eastern edge of the city in the West Bank. The process intensified when the right-wing Likud party (now led by Netanyahu) took power in Israel in 1977: Ariel Sharon, then a senior minister, oversaw a security strategy intended to crosshatch Palestinian territories with Jewish towns, schools and industrial parks. Despite decades of international criticism, the number of people setting up home in them has continued to grow.

What are their motives?

The first settlers were kibbutzniks resettling Jewish communes destroyed in the war, and religious nationalists occupying lands they believe were given to them by God. Some of the very earliest remained in Hebron after celebrating Passover there in 1968. Many of those who followed wanted to populate the biblical land of Israel with Jews, or fundamentally alter the "facts on the ground", so as to quash any chance of a Palestinian state ever being established.

Today, however, two-thirds of settlers in the West Bank say they're not motivated by religious ideology. Many are driven by practical considerations: cheaper housing; fresh mountain air; good schools; strong communities; easy commutes to Jerusalem (which is just a short drive away from many settlements, along roads that bypass Palestinian areas) or to Tel Aviv.

What is Israel's official position?

Each Israeli government since 1967 has, to varying degrees, supported their establishment and expansion. Israel officially annexed East Jerusalem in 1980 and sees the city as its indivisible capital. It deems the West Bank "disputed" rather than occupied territory.

Under Israeli law, about 147 West Bank settlements are officially authorised. Another 224 are so-called "outposts" – this is an estimate from the Israeli group Peace Now, there are no official figures – illegal under Israeli as well as international law, but in practice both tolerated and supported by Israel. Per capita, Jewish residents in West Bank settlements receive more state funding than those inside Israel's borders.

What is Israel's claim to the West Bank?

Jews have lived in the West Bank for millennia; the area is seen as the cradle of Jewish civilisation and is designated by Israel as Judea and Samaria, because it covers part of those Biblical Jewish kingdoms.

But in 1947, when the UN split the mandate of Palestine, its population was largely Arab. The UN gave 56% of the whole mandate area to the new Jewish state, and 43%, including the West Bank, for the new Palestinian state. Arab leaders rejected the plan, and Israel was attacked by its neighbours. The fighting drove some 750,000 Palestinians from their homes (known as the Nakba, "catastrophe"); large numbers of Jews were also displaced, including from the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

In 1949, an armistice line, the Green Line, was agreed: it left just 22% of the mandate under Arab, but not Palestinian, control (Jordan had seized the West Bank and East Jerusalem, Egypt the Gaza Strip). The Green Line is still, in theory, the legal boundary between Israel and Palestinian territories. Israel crossed it in the Six Day War of 1967, a pre-emptive attack, and has held the West Bank since (it left Gaza in 2005). Israel's view is that the Palestinian state did not come into existence in 1948, so Israeli rule there is not an occupation of foreign land; thus Jews have the right legally to own West Bank land.

What control do Palestinians have?

Under the Oslo Accords signed by the Palestinian Liberation Organization and Israel in 1993, the West Bank was divided into a patchwork of jurisdictions. Area A (about 18% of the West Bank, including big cities such as Hebron and Nablus, where 90% of Palestinians live) is in theory under the control of the Palestinian Authority (PA); Area B (22%, including more than 400 Palestinian villages) is governed by the PA, with Israel retaining security control; while Area C (about 60%) was meant to be gradually handed over, but has been under full Israeli control since 1993; Israel says this is for security reasons. Area C includes all Israeli settlements and most Palestinian farmland.

How will the situation develop?

The settlements look set to grow inexorably. According to Peace Now, at least 59 new outposts – often farms run by armed settlers – have been built since 7 October, and 70 outposts have been legalised. This year, 10,503 settler housing units have been approved in the West Bank. In February alone, Israel laid claim to 1,000 hectares of Palestinian land, for what it called military reasons.

In theory, international opinion is strongly opposed to the settlements, but foreign pressure has subsided. All recent US governments have seen most settlements as illegal, and in theory have supported a two-state solution. Donald Trump backs neither position; one of his first actions this year was to lift sanctions on far-right settler groups and settlers involved in violence against Palestinians.

'The targeting of Palestinian activism is merely an excuse'

Faisal Kutty at Al Jazeera

"The Trump administration's war on campus dissent" has hit Columbia hard, and the university "ultimately capitulated to the Trump administration's sweeping demands," says Faisal Kutty. "What started as speech restrictions and campus disciplinary actions has now evolved" into deportations and "outright interference in university affairs." The "endgame is not just suppressing pro-Palestinian activism but taking ideological control over higher education" in the U.S., Kutty adds. "The assault on universities is part of a broader right-wing effort to reshape academia."

Read more

What people 'really need is not DEI, but PFJ — power, freedom and justice'

Perry Bacon Jr. at The Washington Post

Although the "right's war on DEI has gone way too far, liberals shouldn't seek" to "restore it when Democrats regain power," says Perry Bacon Jr. The right's "identity-blindness is deeply flawed, but the concepts of diversity and inclusion" have "shortcomings, too." Diversity "suffers from vague and even conflicting interpretations," and "individuals who get the spoils from a focus on diversity often don't share the interests of the broader group."

Read more

'AI is a powerful and efficient tool for addressing the problem of government waste'

Jon Husted at The Wall Street Journal

Ohio has had great success "using artificial intelligence to cleanse its regulations of outdated, conflicting or redundant content," says Sen. Jon Husted (R-Ohio). The state is now "on track to reduce its regulatory code by about a third," making it "easier for people and businesses to comply with the law." Congress should "work with the Trump administration to cull inefficiencies and redundancies from the federal government" using AI tools, which "don't replace government workers but can empower them."

Read more

'Why I got the measles vaccine at age 63'

Margaret Renkl at The New York Times

While "today there is absolutely no reason to believe that the measles vaccine causes autism," vaccination rates "continue to fall," and "now a measles outbreak is raging in unvaccinated communities," says Margaret Renkl. "My own safety wasn't my chief concern," she adds. "Doing everything I can to protect my fellow human beings who cannot be vaccinated" seems to be the "only moral thing to do for anyone living in close community with other people."

Read more

Israel has launched a wave of air strikes on Gaza that have killed hundreds of people and brought the fragile ceasefire with Hamas to the brink of collapse.

The Palestinian Health Ministry in Gaza claims more than 400 people have died, including senior Hamas officials as well as women and children.

While the exact number of casualties has yet to be verified, what is certain is that the "surprise attack" has "shattered a period of relative calm" during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, said The Associated Press. It has also "raised the prospect of a full return to fighting in a 17-month war that has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians and caused widespread destruction across Gaza".

What did the commentators say?

The ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas was "already hanging in the balance", said CNN. Phase one, which was agreed in January, saw a cessation in fighting and the release of 25 Israeli hostages and the bodies of eight more in exchange for nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners. It ended more than two weeks ago with "all sides at loggerheads over a path forward that might see remaining Israeli hostages freed and a permanent peace secured".

Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he ordered the overnight attacks on Hamas targets because of the "repeated refusal to release our hostages". The US, which was consulted by Israel before the air strikes began, has also sought to blame Hamas. National Security Council spokesperson Brian Hughes said the militant group "could have released hostages to extend the ceasefire but instead chose refusal and war".

While Israel's air strikes "marked the immediate return to war", said The Spectator, the "breakdown of the ceasefire was the direct result of Hamas' own decisions".

Yet the strikes come as Netanyahu faces "mounting domestic pressure, with mass protests planned over his handling of the hostage crisis and his decision to fire the head of Israel's internal security agency", said Time. He has repeatedly been accused of escalating the war to distract from his legal problems and "his latest testimony in a long-running corruption trial was cancelled after the strikes".

While international outcry over the air strikes has been fierce, more damaging to the Israeli PM will be criticism from domestic groups, especially those representing families of the hostages still held by Hamas.

Accusing the government of backing out of the ceasefire, the Hostages and Missing Families Forum said in a statement that it was "shocked, angry and terrified by the deliberate dismantling of the process to return our loved ones from the terrible captivity of Hamas".

A resumption of fighting would allow Netanyahu to avoid the "tough trade-offs called for in the second phase of the agreement and the thorny question of who would govern Gaza", said Time. It would also "shore up his coalition, which depends on far-right politicians who want to depopulate Gaza and rebuild Jewish settlements there".

What next?

"The fact is that Hamas created this scenario by provoking Israel," said The Jerusalem Post. It has sought to "stall" talks on phase two of the ceasefire, believing it could achieve a "Ramadan ceasefire" throughout March that would allow it to "rebuild its forces".

Hamas reportedly rejected a "bridging deal to end the impasse" put forward by US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff.

Israel's defence minister, Israel Katz, has warned the "gates of hell will open in Gaza" if the remaining hostages are not released. Along with the intensity of air strikes and other official statements, this suggests this "may be the beginning of a broader and more sustained military operation" in Gaza, said The Spectator.

There have as yet been no reports of retaliatory attacks by Hamas, "indicating it still hoped to restore the truce", said Time.

It is now up to mediators in Qatar and Egypt to "continue trying to figure out a way forward", said Al Jazeera. "It is of course very, very difficult" and "you cannot take Gaza out of the wider geopolitical shifts in the region, particularly with this US administration."

The US appears to be willing to make Hamas – and the people of Gaza – pay for rejecting the proposal put forward by Witkoff. The "bigger picture is that Trump does want an end to the war" but he also "wants the credit for it".

What happened

Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested a Palestinian activist and recent Columbia University graduate student, Mahmoud Khalil, at his New York apartment Saturday night, his lawyer said Sunday. The ICE agents said they were revoking Khalil's student visa, his lawyer Amy Greer said, and when told Khalil was a legal permanent resident with a green card, "the agent said they revoked that too."

Who said what

The arrest was the "first publicly known deportation effort" under President Donald Trump's "promised crackdown on students who joined protests against the war in Gaza" last spring, The Associated Press said. Khalil was a negotiator between pro-Palestinian student protesters at Columbia and school administrators.

Homeland Security Department spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said the arrest was "in support of President Trump's executive orders prohibiting antisemitism," alleging that Khalil "led activities aligned to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization." Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on X last night, above a news article on Khalil's arrest, "We will be revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported."

The State Department "can rescind visas" in certain circumstances, The Washington Post said, but "it was unclear what legal authority the Trump administration would use to revoke green cards," which are "one step below" U.S. citizenship. Khalil's detention is a "frightening escalation of Trump's crackdown on pro-Palestine speech and an aggressive abuse of immigration law," New York Civil Liberties Union director Donna Lieberman said. It "reeks of McCarthyism."

What next?

Greer said she and Khalil's wife, an American citizen who is eight months pregnant, do not know where he is being held or the charges against him. "We will vigorously be pursuing Mahmoud's rights in court," she said.

Following months of bitter conflict in Gaza, thousands of tons of garbage remain piled in the streets, creating an even greater ecological and health dilemma for those remaining in the territory. Even before the war broke out following Hamas' Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel, Gazans were faced with a lackluster garbage disposal system.

Despite its hurdles, this system was able to keep up, even as Gazans were generating an estimated 1,700 tons of daily waste before the war. But this is no longer the case, and mountains of garbage now threaten the stability of the entire region.

How much garbage is in Gaza?

The three main landfills that collected garbage in pre-war Gaza have been closed due to the conflict, which "forced local authorities to find temporary dumpsites," said Reuters. About 225 of these sites were operating in Gaza as of May 2024, according to the outlet.

However, more waste is being generated now than during pre-war times; there is an estimated 2,000 tons of garbage being created daily. In the first eight months of the war, over 364,000 tons of solid waste are "estimated to have built up in the Palestinian territory," said the BBC. And the ongoing conflict means that Gazans are struggling to remove this garbage, with "only 600 to 700 tons of waste collected daily," said Reuters.

Why is this such a big problem?

Gazans often become embedded within these temporary dumpsites. Many "Palestinians running out of areas to shelter say they've had little choice but to pitch tents near trash piles," said The Associated Press. One informal landfall was built after Oct. 7 in Khan Younis, and a "tent city has sprung up around the landfill, with Palestinians living between piles of garbage."

Conditions are particularly bad for those who fled the shelled city of Rafah; many "have been forced to live in open areas" that had already been turned into temporary refuse sites, said the BBC. The "smell is very disturbing. I keep my tent door open so that I can get some air, but there is no air," displaced Gazan Asmahan al-Masri said to the BBC.

Diseases are running rampant, and "doctors fear cholera may be on the horizon," said the AP. The "crowded conditions, the lack of water, the heat, the poor sanitation — these are the preconditions of cholera," Joanne Perry, a doctor with Doctors Without Borders, said to the AP. Most of her patients "have illnesses or infections caused by poor sanitation." Major outbreaks of polio have also been seen throughout Gaza, thought to be linked to the garbage.

This "waste here has brought diseases. Our children are suffering from various ailments that we have never seen before," Abou Mohammed, a Palestinian who lives near a major landfill, said to Reuters. And it may not just be Gaza that suffers: other areas in the surrounding Middle East, including Israel, could be at risk from these garbage piles.

The "health and sanitary situation in Gaza is dire, with dramatic and widespread ramifications," Nadav Davidovitch, a health systems management professor at Israel's Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, said to The Times of Israel. It is "evident that the health risks will not simply stop at the Gaza border, but pose a threat to IDF soldiers serving in the Strip and to some residents of Israel," the outlet added.

Residents of the West Bank city of Jenin have witnessed something unseen in their community in more than 20 years: Israeli tanks, which rolled into the Palestinian enclave on Sunday as part of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Operation Iron Wall. Described by Israel as an offensive action against local terror cells, Operation Iron Wall has led to hundreds of Palestinians killed or arrested and left tens of thousands of civilians displaced. It has raised fears of a similar level of widespread violence and destruction as was inflicted upon the Gaza Strip during the war between Israeli forces and Hamas militants. This campaign began just days after Israel's Gaza operation officially concluded, prompting further speculation over the conspicuous timing of (and underlying intent behind) Netanyahu's latest West Bank actions.

With Israeli troops on the ground and the Palestinian death toll rising, Netanyahu has chosen a notable moment for a large-scale incursion into the West Bank. With most focus on the extraordinarily fragile ceasefire taking place in Gaza, what does Israel hope to accomplish with this latest initiative?

What did the commentators say?

While Israel has long carried out discrete incursions into the territory, the country claims this "even more aggressive military operation" is "necessary to root out Iranian-backed militants who threaten its security," CNN said. To do that, Israel's defense minister has said, it is "applying its Gaza playbook to the West Bank." Palestinians, however, describe those tactical goals as merely a "political agenda disguised and wrapped in a military and security operation," Jenin Mayor Mohammad Jarrar said to the network. "We all know the goals of this far-right government policy."

Already "around 40,000 people" have been displaced from communities in the northern part of the West Bank in what has been described as the "largest forced displacement of Palestinians" in the territory since 1967, said the BBC. Israel appears to be "laying the groundwork" for a "prolonged military presence" in and around Jenin, said The New York Times. Palestinian officials have claimed the operation sets the stage for a "new generation of displacement" and a return to "military control" in parts of the West Bank; these parts had, for the decades following the 1993 Oslo Peace accords, been largely governed by the Palestinian Authority.

To many observers, Israel's calculus seems "political rather than security-driven," said Al Jazeera, designed to "appease far-right Israeli politicians" angry over the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. As "violence has soared in the West Bank" since Hamas launched its attack on Oct. 7, 2023, "so too have calls from far-right Israeli politicians for the annexation of the territory," CBS News said.

What next?

Looming over all this is the new administration of President Donald Trump, who has hinted at potentially endorsing Israel's annexation of the contested territory in the coming weeks. Israeli hardliners have been "heartened by the large number of strongly pro-Israel figures in the new U.S. administration" including Trump himself, Reuters said. In particular, Trump's calls for the mass relocation of Palestinians out of Gaza has "emboldened Israel's far right to renew calls for annexation of the West Bank," said The Times of Israel.

"People do like the idea" of annexation, Trump said earlier this month. "But we haven't taken a position on it yet." While the world waits for this administration's decision, the facts on the ground may outpace any forthcoming announcement from the White House. Israeli troops have been instructed to "prepare for an extended presence in the cleared camps for the next year," said Defense Minister Israel Katz. They have also been ordered "not to allow the return of residents and the resurgence of terror."

What happened

President Donald Trump Tuesday said the U.S. "will take over the Gaza Strip" and rebuild it into a "world class" and "unbelievable place" for "the world's people," after the Palestinians who call it home abandon their bombed-out enclave.

Who said what

"I do see a long-term ownership position" for the U.S. in Gaza, Trump said in White House appearances with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and "everybody I've spoken to loves the idea of the United States owning that piece of land" and developing it into something "magnificent," like "the Riviera of the Middle East." Trump said he "strongly" believed Gazans would only stay "because they have no alternative," and would be "thrilled" to "get a beautiful area to resettle people, permanently, in nice homes where they can be happy."

Asked how many Palestinians should leave, Trump said, "all of them," and pressed repeatedly on whether he would force them out, he said: "I don't think they're going to tell me no." He "didn’t rule out sending U.S. forces to hold Gaza, a deployment that could launch the kind of long-term American military occupation in the Middle East that Trump has long decried," The Wall Street Journal said. Forcibly removing populations also violates the Geneva Conventions.

Trump has "completely lost it," Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said. "He wants a U.S. invasion of Gaza, which would cost thousands of American lives and set the Middle East on fire for 20 years? It's sick." Netanyahu "would not be drawn into discussing the proposal in depth other than to praise Trump for trying a new approach," Reuters said. Trump, he said, states "things others refuse to say, and after the jaws dropped, people scratch their heads and they say, 'You know, he's right.'"

What next?

Following Trump's comments, the United States' Western allies reiterated their firm support for an independent Palestinian state including Gaza, as did Saudi Arabia, adding that it will not "establish diplomatic relations with Israel" until that happens.

There were "chaotic but joyous" scenes in Ramallah yesterday as more than 100 Palestinian prisoners were freed from Israel's Ofer prison as part of the Gaza ceasefire deal.

The freed prisoners were "met by a huge crowd" in the city in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, who'd "gathered to welcome their release", said the BBC.

Who are they?

The West Bank "erupted in celebrations" earlier this month after 90 Palestinian prisoners – 69 women and 21 children – were released from Israeli jails, said Al Jazeera. Only eight of them had been arrested before 7 October 2023, the day of the Hamas attacks on Israel.

Yesterday, the released prisoners were all men, ranging in age from 15 to 69, and some of them had been convicted of serious terror offences.

Why were they jailed?

Among those released yesterday was Zakaria Zubeidi, the former leader of a Palestinian militant group who was jailed for attacks that killed several Israelis.

So was Abu Warda, who helped organise a series of suicide bombings that killed more than 40 people and wounded more than 100 others. He'd been arrested in 2002 and sentenced to 48 terms of life imprisonment, among the longest jail terms Israel has ever handed down.

Earlier this month, Khalida Jarrar, leader of the leftist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and a feminist activist, was one of the most prominent prisoners released. She'd served jail terms in Israel since 2015 for "being vocal about Palestinian prisoner rights" and being affiliated with an "outlawed" party that is considered a "terrorist" group by Israel, said Al Jazeera.

Rula Hassanein, an editor for the Ramallah-based Wattan Media Network, was also set free. The 30-year-old had been tried by an Israeli military court, charged with incitement on social media over posts that reportedly included her "expression of frustration" over the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza.

What happens to them now

"Scores" of Palestinians "thronged" the buses carrying released prisoners into Ramallah yesterday, said PBS News. Some were "offering wreaths of flowers in the colours of the Palestinian flag" and "warm jackets" for the men "hoisted on the shoulders of supporters".

Some of the prisoners convicted of particularly serious crimes are not being allowed to return to the occupied Palestinian territories by the Israelis. Instead they're being sent to Egypt and other neighbouring countries.

Why are so many Palestinian children in Israeli jails?

The release of Palestinian child prisoners brought into focus Israel's "systematic" prosecution of Palestinian children in military courts, said Al Jazeera.

It is claimed that 320 children were being held in Israeli prisons before the latest prisoner exchanges, and an estimated 10,000 Palestinian children have been held in Israeli military detention over the past 20 years, according to rights groups.

In 2016, Israel introduced a new law allowing children between the ages of 12 and 14 to be held criminally responsible, so they could be tried in court as adults and be handed prison sentences. The reform came after Ahmad Manasra was arrested in 2015 at the age of 13 and charged with attempted murder.

What happened

U.S. allies Jordan and Egypt Sunday flatly rejected President Donald Trump's suggestion that Palestinians should leave Gaza and resettle in their countries on a "temporary or long-term" basis due to the widespread destruction in the Palestinian enclave from the 15-month war between Hamas and Israel.

Who said what

Gaza is a "literally a demolition site," and "I'd rather get involved with some of the Arab nations and build housing at a different location where they can maybe live in peace for a change," Trump said Saturday on Air Force One. "You're talking about probably a million and a half people, and we just clean out that whole thing." About two million Palestinians live in Gaza.

Trump's suggestion "appeared to echo the wishes of the Israeli far right" and "goes to the heart of Palestinian fears that they will be driven from their remaining homelands," said The New York Times. "Trump enjoys being a disruptor, but this was closer to tossing a grenade," David Ignatius said at The Washington Post, especially for the "moderate Arab leaders who had been looking forward to working with him."

"Our rejection of the displacement of Palestinians is firm and will not change," said Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi. Palestinian leaders also spurned the idea, even if Trump may "appear to have good intentions under the guise of reconstruction," Hamas official Basem Naim told Reuters.

What next?

Israel began allowing Palestinians back into northern Gaza Monday morning for the first time since the early weeks of the war, after Qatar resolved a dispute over implementation of the agreed ceasefire. "Palestinians who have been sheltering in squalid tent camps" for more than a year were "eager to return to their homes," The Associated Press said, "even knowing that they have likely been damaged or destroyed."

With a ceasefire in place in Gaza, Israel has "turned its attention" to the occupied West Bank with a "large-scale crackdown" centred on the city of Jenin, which has killed at least 10 and wounded dozens, said The New York Times.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel's "extensive and significant" operation was aimed at "eradicating terrorism", and defeating an increasingly popular Hamas.

What did the commentators say?

Since Hamas' 7 October attack, the Palestinian Authority (PA) – which governs parts of the West Bank in conjunction with Israel – has been "losing support" to factions like Hamas that favour violence, said The New York Times. Hamas' backer Iran has "flooded the territory with weapons", fomenting unrest. Recently, raids and attacks by Israeli settlers on Palestinians have also "escalated", injuring more than 21.

These settlers are "enraged" by the return of Palestinian prisoners as part of the ceasefire deal, said The Economist. Their rioting was the "immediate trigger" for Israel's "clampdown", although Israel denies that the "show of force" in Jenin is intended to "assuage" the settlers. "We are determined both to fight Hamas wherever it tries to operate and to prevent violence by Israeli citizens," said one senior officer.

But this is Israel's "third major incursion" into Jenin in two years, said Al Jazeera. The city is a "longtime stronghold of resistance" to Israel's occupation, and is home to one of the original refugee camps for Palestinians displaced by war. Jenin's governor told AFP that Israeli bulldozers had destroyed roads leading to the camp and the city's hospital, blocking ambulances.

Israeli forces have also "choked off entrances and exits to Palestinian cities across the West Bank using checkpoints", said The Guardian. Israel's operation is intended to undermine the PA, to destabilise the West Bank and to continue to annex the territory, said Yagil Levy, of the Open University of Israel.

What next?

UN Secretary-General António Guterres has called for "maximum restraint" from Israeli forces in Jenin.

He told the UN Security Council he feared "an existential threat to the integrity and continuity" of Gaza and the West Bank from Israel, amid the "unabated" expansion of illegal Israeli settlements.

On January 20, 2025, President Trump placed Cuba back on the State Department's list of State Sponsors of Terrorism just one week after the Biden administration had removed the country's designation. That puts Cuba back on a short list with just three other countries: Iran, North Korea and Syria. With a major regime transition underway in Syria following the abrupt resignation of longtime dictator Bashar al-Assad in December 2024, the country's controversial inclusion on the State Department's list may eventually be scrutinized.

Only eight countries have ever received the designation, which is distinct from the State Department's much larger list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. How did Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Syria end up on the list and why are they still there?

A short history of a short list

The State Sponsors of Terrorism list was created in 1979 for countries that "have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism," said the State Department. Designation as an State Sponsor of Terrorims carries with it prohibitions on certain kinds of commerce, including the sale of weapons and potentially dual-use items like commercial airplanes and equipment, as well as a ban on U.S. economic assistance.

"Syria is the last country from this original list to remain so designated today," said The Atlantic Council. Its original designation in 1979 stems from the Syrian government's support for "U.S.-listed terrorist groups," including Palestinian guerrilla organizations and the decision to allow those terrorist groups "to maintain headquarters in Damascus," said the Council on Foreign Relations. Over the years, Syria's portfolio expanded to include a significant role in the arming, funding and hosting of the Iranian-backed Lebanese terrorist organization Hezbollah, which was founded after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982.

Hezbollah also played a major role in landing Iran on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list on January 23rd, 1984. The action followed five years of escalating tensions between the two countries that began when dozens of U.S. diplomats and embassy workers were held hostage in Tehran for 444 days during the Iranian revolution and culminated in the 1983 Hezbollah suicide bombing of a Marines barracks in Beirut that killed 241 U.S. military personnel. Today, Iran continues to back Hezbollah as well as "Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza and various terrorist and militant groups in Iraq, Syria, Bahrain and elsewhere throughout the Middle East," said the State Department.

North Korea was first designated a state sponsor of terrorism in 1988. The bombing of Korean Air Flight 858 from Baghdad to Seoul, which killed all 115 people on board, was "later linked to North Korean agents" said The Washington Post. The designation was rescinded in 2008 "in the hopes of salvaging talks on its nuclear program," only to be reimposed in 2017 by President Trump, said The Atlantic. The pretext was the shocking broad-daylight assassination of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un's half-brother at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport on February 13, 2017. Analysts at the time warned that the designation would "make diplomacy more difficult without increasing Washington's leverage," said The New York Times. Despite Trump's subsequent summits with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, the designation has not been lifted.

Cuba was initially placed on the list in 1982 for "providing advice, safe haven, communications, training and financial support to guerrilla groups and individual terrorists," said the State Department. The U.S. claimed that Cuba was aiding a number of armed insurgent groups trying to overthrow governments including in El Salvador and Guatemala, as well as providing "funding, training, arms, safe haven and advice to a wide variety of guerrilla groups, and individual terrorists" in the region, said the Congressional Research Service.

President Obama removed the designation in April 2015, only to see President Trump place Cuba back on the list with just days left in his first term. President Trump's decision to reverse the Biden administration's last-minute order to remove Cuba from the list "aligns with his administration's hardline stance on Cuba," said CBS News. But while the move was expected, the new Trump administration's "rationale for the policy reversal was not immediately explained," said Politico.

Could more places be removed?

After a country is designated as a state sponsor of terrorism, "it is hard to remove even if it does not support terrorism," said the Brookings Institution. Inclusion on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list is not permanent and can be rescinded if the country in question undergoes "a fundamental change in the leadership and policies of the government," as well as provides "assurances that it will not support acts of international terrorism in the future," said the Congressional Research Service.

Prior to President Biden's decision to remove Cuba from the list, the last time such a designation was lifted was in October 2020, when President Trump took Sudan off the list when its government agreed to "pay $335m in compensation for its alleged role in the bombing of two US embassies" in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, said The Guardian. Sudan had allowed al-Qaeda, which perpetrated the attacks, to operate out of its territory between 1991 and 1996.

The brutal war between Israeli forces and Hamas militants in Gaza appeared to be coming to an end on Wednesday. Officials have readied a ceasefire agreement that would order a cessation of the violence that has rocked not only the region, but the world at large over the past 15 months.

News of the ceasefire agreement — the details of which are still being hammered out between negotiators in Qatar — was met with celebration and trepidation on both sides of the Gaza-Israel border. For Israelis, the expected return of dozens of hostages still held in Hamas custody marks a new phase in an ongoing internal struggle that has pitted protesters and activists against the conservative government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This government has lashed out against detractors who claim the administration used their missing loved ones as a pretext for war. For Gazans, the proposed ceasefire means not only an end to the death and destruction that has dominated their lives for more than a year, but also the start of a long process of rebuilding toward, many hope, political independence.

Here is what we know about the ceasefire, and how it is being received in the region and around the world.

Hostages and humanitarian relief

The agreement reached is "broadly similar to a three-phase framework publicized by President Biden in late May," The New York Times said. The first phase would involve not only a ceasefire, but the release of "33 hostages seized from Israel during the attacks of October 7, 2023," CNN said. "In return, Israel will free hundreds of Palestinian prisoners." Those initial 33 hostages are "women, children, older adults and wounded civilians," The Associated Press said. "Soldiers and other male captives" would be released in the second phase of the agreement.

The Israeli hostages will be "released over the course of seven weeks," Haaretz said. But it is unclear the exact number of Palestinian prisoners that will be released, as "Hamas has not updated which of the Israeli hostages will be released alive." Israeli troops will meanwhile "pull back into a buffer zone" inside the Gaza Strip.

The cessation of fighting in the first phase will be accompanied by "600 trucks carrying humanitarian relief " scheduled to "enter Gaza daily," the Times said. Preparations along the Gaza-Egypt border are already underway to "open the Palestinian Rafah crossing to allow the entry of international aid," The Times of Israel said.

"Several unresolved points in the framework remain," Netanyahu said in a statement on Wednesday. "We hope these details will be finalized tonight."

'Stay committed'

The ceasefire agreement will bring about "sustainable calm," said Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani in a press conference announcing the deal. Barring last minute derailment, the agreement is expected to go into effect on Sunday, he said.

Israelis and Palestinians must "stay committed to this agreement" until it is "fully implemented and everyone has been returned," said the families of American hostages still held by Hamas in a statement to The Washington Post.

"American pressure finally seems to have pushed" Israeli negotiators "over the edge," said Rami Khouri, a professor at American University in Beirut, to Al Jazeera. But, the outlet added, whether the ceasefire will lead to a permanent end to the violence between Israel and Hamas is "yet to be seen."

The ceasefire is the product of "dogged and painstaking American diplomacy," President Joe Biden said in a statement.

As Israel's ongoing assault on the densely populated Gaza Strip intensified over the past year, so too did a nascent but quickly mobilized movement of pro-Palestinian activists. For them, the 2024 election offered a perfect forum to leverage their opposition to the war. Operating largely under the broad banner of the Uncommitted movement, activists and allies targeted predominantly Democratic lawmakers in the hopes that grassroots electoral pressure could shift the party's support for the Israeli offensive. The movement also sought to endear themselves to voters who might otherwise sit out what they saw as a zero-sum choice between Donald Trump's overt xenophobia and the Democrats' permissive stance toward Israel.

It was a gamble that seems to have failed spectacularly. Not only has the Biden administration barely shifted from its staunch pro-Israel policies, but the incoming Trump administration has wasted little time positioning itself as even more hostile to pro-Palestinian activists both at home and abroad. As a result, many of those activists who strategically withheld their votes and endorsements for Vice President Kamala Harris must now grapple with the indirect consequences of those decisions. At the same time, the crisis in Gaza which animated them in the first place has continued unabated.

Faced with the unambiguous hostility of the incoming Republican administration, and the frustration of many centrist Democrats who blame the Uncommitted movement and its allies for contributing to their electoral loss, where do pro-Palestinian activists go from here?

'The canary in the coal mine'

"Our community is about to be subjected to a lot more surveillance and violence," Uncommitted organizer Abbas Alawieh said to NPR after Trump's re-election. "Our community won't be alone in that."

In the Uncommitted movement's epicenter of Dearborn, Michigan — where Trump's decisive win marked the city's first GOP presidential victory since 2000 — there is a "complex mix of disbelief and wary curiosity," with residents "wondering what Trump will do for Palestinians," said Slate. "I think he's going to target us," Alawieh said to the outlet. "That's what he's going to do. He's going to target our families, and it's going to hurt." And with just weeks to go before Trump is inaugurated, "all his rhetoric and appointments are indicating that his campaign's vow to crack down on pro-Palestinian sentiment in America will be a defining factor of his administration's early days," said Haaretz's Ben Samuels.

Pro-Palestinian activism is "in many ways, the canary in the coal mine," said Adalah Justice Project Executive Director Sandra Tamari to Politico. "So our organizations are under more threats, because what all those authoritarian forces would love to do is to shut down any dissent in the country."

'Some self-criticism is due'

Trump's re-election is "scary," said Palestinian American policy analyst and writer Abdelhalim Abdelrahman to NBC News, but "I'm not ready to jump the gun just yet." While there will likely be "a lot of pro-Israel rhetoric," there will be a "little bit more diplomacy" as well. That's particularly true given the role of Massad Boulos, father-in-law to first daughter Tiffany Trump, and the president-elect's campaign envoy to Michigan's Arab and Muslim community, who will "have a little bit more operational freedom than people realize in this administration." Asked whether there are strategies emerging from advocates for influencing the Trump administration" away from some of its more extreme surrogates, Slate's Aymann Ismail said the "Lebanese American in Dearborn who invited Trump to a restaurant" during the campaign, allowing him to meet with community members, "will be particularly important, especially when we think about what little influence will be available to Trump to try to steer him away from continuing the ongoing onslaught that's happening in Palestine."

At the same time, "some self-criticism is due in the pro-Palestinian movement," said Arab American Institute founder and longtime Democratic National Committee operative James Zogby to Politico. By "not enabling themselves to support Harris" in the wake of their unsuccessful effort to place a Palestinian-American speaker onstage at the Democratic National Convention, activists "boxed themselves into a corner." To that end, with "less leverage in Washington" than under the Biden administration, activists will "shift to more local political tactics, including economic pressure campaigns like boycotts, supporting protests and community organizing," said Politico.

While Israeli forces and Hamas militants engage in a brutal Gaza conflict over the last year, Israel has also waged a separate war against Hezbollah, bombing suspected militant sites across Lebanon in response to months of rocket bombardments on Israel's north. The two fronts were, for a time, taken as a sign that a broader regional war was not merely possible but already underway.

However, the U.S.-France-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah has succeeded in reducing hostilities between the two adversaries. And, in turn, the fragile detente has refocused attention back on the Gaza Strip, where a diminished Hamas remains a potent force.

Is Hamas more isolated now?

Hamas is "feeling the pressure" stemming from Hezbollah's ceasefire agreement, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said on CBS' "Face the Nation." Hezbollah has been "one of [Hamas'] main partners in crime" and the truce undercuts their belief that the Lebanese militia would be "with them till the end." The Palestinian group had long hoped a "wider war in the Middle East would help deliver the organization a victory in its war with Israel," The New York Times said. But the Hezbollah ceasefire "left that strategy in tatters" and potentially removed "Hamas' most important ally from the fight."

Crucially, both organizations are participants in "what Israel has come to see as a seven-front war," in which "Iran has backed an array of groups" including Hamas, Hezbollah and others, said Foundation for the Defense of Democracies adjunct fellow Seth Frantzman at The National Interest. The ceasefire "signals a shift in the attitude of both militias' Iranian backers," said Charles Hollis, a former British diplomat to Iran, to NBC News. "The Iranians aren't going to have nearly as much ability to resupply their proxies because they're having to shore up their own domestic defense."

Could an Israel-Hamas ceasefire be next?

Hamas leadership had initially "hoped the expansion of the war into Lebanon would pressure Israel to reach a comprehensive ceasefire," Reuters said. That Israel and Hezbollah reached a ceasefire independently represents a "blow" to the Palestinian group, given Hezbollah's previous insistence that it "would not agree to a ceasefire until the war in Gaza ends." Among Palestinians, there are fears that the ceasefire means Israel will "double down on the enclave now that its forces will be freed up from the fighting against Hezbollah," Al Jazeera said.

To that end, while Hamas has expressed hopes that "any deal with Hezbollah would lead to the end of hostilities" between it and Israel, the group has "not indicated that it has shifted from previous negotiating positions" such as a permanent ceasefire and full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in exchange for any further hostage releases, NBC said.

Still, that does not mean Hamas is willing to publicly denounce the ceasefire agreement either. "Any announcement of a ceasefire is welcome," Hamas political wing member Osama Hamdan said in an interview with Hezbollah-allied broadcaster Al-Mayadeen, according to The Times of Israel. "Hezbollah has stood by our people and made significant sacrifices."

What happened

Dutch police broke up a banned protest in central Amsterdam and detained more than 50 people Sunday amid fallout from what Israeli and Dutch authorities called "antisemitic attacks" on Maccabi Tel Aviv soccer fans Thursday and Friday morning. Amsterdam's municipal government prohibited all public assembly on Friday and extended the ban through Thursday as Israel warned its citizens to "categorically avoid" sports and cultural events abroad, saying "preparations to harm Israelis have been identified in several European cities."

Who said what

Five people were treated at hospitals after last week's violence and more than 60 people were arrested on suspicion of participating in what Amsterdam's mayor called "hit and run" attacks on the Israeli soccer fans. Police said gangs of youths, many on scooters, chased Maccabi fans and pelted them with fireworks, "apparently inspired by calls on social media to target Jewish people," The Associated Press said.

Police also said "Maccabi supporters pulled a Palestinian flag from a building," burned a second Palestinian flag and "vandalized a taxi" in the 24 hours before the match, The Wall Street Journal said. "Videos circulated on social media of Maccabi fans chanting anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian slogans." People at yesterday's banned demonstration told the BBC they were gathering to protest Israel's war in Gaza and also the Israeli soccer "hooligans." Amsterdam police said anti-Jewish incidents continued through the weekend.

What next?

Paris police said Sunday that 4,000 officers and 1,600 stadium staff will be on duty Thursday to ensure security at a France-Israel match at the Stade de France stadium. President Emmanuel Macron will attend, in a show of "fraternity and solidarity following the intolerable antisemitic acts that followed the match in Amsterdam," a French government official said.

While much of the world's attention has been focused on Israel's bombardment of the Gaza strip, the recent killing of American citizen Aysenur Ezgi Eygi during protests against Israeli settlements in the West Bank may prove to be a turning point in U.S.-Israel relations. The IDF has admitted it is "highly likely" their troops killed Eygi, but Israeli officials insisted in a brief press release that she had been "hit indirectly and unintentionally by IDF fire, which was not aimed at her." Eygi's family quickly rejected the IDF's initial findings, saying they are "deeply offended by the suggestion that her killing by a trained sniper was in any way unintentional."

As details about Eygi's death continue to be uncovered, the United States government finds its commitment to protect its own citizens butting heads with its steadfast support for a longtime ally — even as growing domestic opposition to Israel's actions in Gaza intensify scrutiny over that diplomatic relationship at large.

Time for 'fundamental changes'?

After initially framing Eygi's death as an "accident" in which an IDF bullet "ricocheted off the ground," President Joe Biden took a more strident tone, demanding one day later that there be "full accountability" and that Israel "ensure that incidents like this never happen again."

Advocates have nevertheless "questioned the US government's commitment" to the safety of its citizens "particularly in the occupied Palestinian territories," said Al Jazeera. Critics point to a "string of high-profile killings by Israeli forces" which have historically gone unaccounted for. As one of America's closest allied nations, critics of Israel claim there is a "reticence towards pursuing justice in cases in which its soldiers appear to be at fault." Following the 2022 killing of Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh by Israeli forces, "no soldier was punished for her death, while the Biden administration’s promises to deliver accountability for the killing of an American journalist abroad proved hollow and halfhearted," The Washington Post said. With that in mind, and despite the president's public comments, "precedent suggests there will be little accountability" for Eygi's death either.

Although National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby lauded the IDF for taking the "unusual step" of calling for a criminal investigation into Eygi's killing, the incident has prompted the "strongest comments to date criticizing the security forces of Washington's closest Middle East ally" from Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, Reuters said. Speaking with reporters in London this week, Blinken demanded the Israeli government "make some fundamental changes in the way that they operate in the West Bank, including changes to their rules of engagement." Blinken's comments were the "toughest criticism the United States has leveled at Israel," The New York Times said.

Echoing his fellow cabinet member in a call with Israeli Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant, Austin decried Eygi's "unprovoked and unjustified death" and "urged Minister Gallant to reexamine the IDF's rules of engagement while operating in the West Bank," The Pentagon said.

An investigative monopoly?

To date, the United States has stressed that it will rely on Israel's own investigation into Eygi's killing, and it is "not clear whether there were any plans for a U.S.-led investigation," NBC News said. By not launching its own probe, "the conclusion to draw is clear," said The Nation. "The death of an American demands an immediate, forceful response — unless that American is killed by Israelis while protesting on behalf of Palestinian rights."

"For the United States government to accept the results of Israel's internal military investigations is a complete dereliction of the US government's responsibility to its own citizens," said the International Solidarity Movement, an activist group in which Eygi was a member.

A number of "high-ranking Democrats" have demanded more from both Israel and the Biden administration, Politico said. Among them are Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen, who chided the administration for its inaction, and demanded the White House "do more to hold the Netanyahu government accountable and use American influence to demand the prosecution of those responsible for harm against American citizens."

If Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu can't deliver the restitution demanded by the death of an American citizen under his watch, Van Hollen said, "the U.S. Department of Justice must."

Israel said its forces killed five Palestinian "terrorists" in the West Bank this morning, following the deaths of 10 Palestinians yesterday as the Israeli military launched raids across the occupied territory.

The violence has refocused attention on the area as fears grow that Israeli settlers are using the Gaza war as an opportunity to seize more land in the West Bank.

What did the commentators say?

The UN reported on 20 August that "on average, at least one Palestinian has been killed every day" so far this month by Israeli airstrikes on the West Bank. And since the 7 October attacks by Hamas, "20 Israeli outposts have sprung up and 18 Palestinian communities have been forced out of ancestral villages", said Christina Lamb in The Sunday Times.

By "changing facts on the ground", as they describe it, settlers "hope to move enough Israelis on to the land" and "build enough on it" to "make their presence irreversible", said Yolande Knell and Toby Luckhurst on the BBC. Their "long-term hope is that Israel formally annexes the land".

Since the start of the war in Gaza, there has been an "acceleration" in settlement growth in the West Bank and extremists in Israel's government "boast" that these changes will prevent an independent Palestinian state. It is feared that the settlers and their supporters in government want to "prolong the war in Gaza to suit their goals".

More than 700,000 Israelis live in about 130 settlements among 2.7 million Palestinians, but the "land grab has never been so open", said Lamb.

Many in the region believe that Israel has "opened a second front" in the West Bank, a territory that is a "dystopian world of razor-wire fences, signs warning Do Not Enter, armed lookouts and checkpoints, sometimes blaring music into neighbourhoods".

The settlers' mission is "becoming increasingly violent", said The Economist, and settler violence in the West Bank has "increased sharply" since Hamas’s attack on Israel on 7 October. Despite Palestinians being forced to flee a number of small villages in remote parts of the West Bank, there have only been "a handful" of arrests.

The war in Gaza has "emboldened" settlers because the fighting has "accelerated the creeping influence" of settlers over the army, and "provided a smokescreen" for "further land-grabs" in the West Bank.

Several government ministers are "hell-bent on using relentless – and often violent settler expansion to create a 'greater Israel' all the way to the Jordan river", said Donald Macintyre on the i news site.

What next?

The United States has announced new sanctions on settlers in the West Bank and urged its ally Israel to bring greater accountability. "Extremist settler violence" in the West Bank "causes intense human suffering, harms Israel's security and undermines the prospect for peace and stability in the region", said a US State Department spokesman.

So far, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has "ruled out restoring Jewish settlements in Gaza", but he "remains beholden" to far-right parties who are "working to make settlements in the West Bank irreversible", said the BBC. 

If Georgia State Rep. Ruwa Romman (D) had taken the stage during last week's Democratic National Convention, she would have used her time at the speaker's rostrum to call for her party to "commit to each other, to electing Vice President Harris and defeating Donald Trump who uses my identity as a Palestinian as a slur." Had she been allowed to address the convention floor, Romman, the first Palestinian American elected to public office in Georgia, would have become the first Palestinian to ever address the DNC — an honor she would have mentioned directly, according to a transcript of her planned remarks obtained by Mother Jones. 

Instead, after lengthy negotiations with party officials, the DNC chose not to allow Romman to address the crowds within Chicago's United Center, prompting the progressive Uncommitted movement that was pushing for her speech to stage a high-profile sit-in protest outside the convention space. 

The episode represented one of the few points of genuine tension during a national convention characterized largely by a sense of unity and enthusiasm for presidential nominee Kamala Harris. Moreover, it was a sign that the Uncommitted activists who withheld their support for Joe Biden in the Democratic primaries over American backing of Israel's war in Gaza remain vocally dissatisfied with the party establishment, even in the general election phase of the 2024 race. 

With November fast approaching, and the violence across Gaza showing little sign of slowing, what options and opportunities do the Uncommitted activists have moving toward Election Day? 

What did the commentators say? 

The fallout from the DNC's decision to sideline Uncommitted voices is "spreading beyond activists at the convention," Politico said, with the "potential to undo inroads made by the Harris campaign among voters who believed she would take a harder line against Israel if elected president."

"We'll roll with the punches, we're good organizers," Uncommitted movement co-founder Abbas Alawieh said to CNN. One of the "loudest applause lines" in Harris' DNC speech was a call for a cease-fire and the rights of Palestinians to live with "dignity" and "self-determination," said Romman to CNN. The problem is that "saying things is important," but the Uncommitted movement wants "specific policies that will create the things we are hoping for." To that end, the group has pledged on its website to move past the DNC by "keeping our anti-war voters engaged through November to save lives, fight fascism and strengthen our democracy."

That Harris used her nomination acceptance speech "with more than 26 million watching from home, to issue a forceful call for Palestinian human rights was actually remarkable," said Rolling Stone. It could be argued that "taking up the call for Palestinian freedom and self-determination is a bigger coup than a brief speaking slot of the kind the Uncommitted delegates were seeking." While the Uncommitted movement was unable to secure a speaker, group leaders "cast their work at the convention as a success," The Guardian said. Uncommitted's impact was still undeniable, as "numerous delegates, including older Black and white delegates from as far-flung as Texas, were spotted wearing keffiyehs in clear support of the pro-Palestinian movement," The Independent said. Still, there is "little sign that the Democratic Party wants to kill the vibe shift as they hope for a Harris victory." 

What next? 

Uncommitted movement leaders have "been asking for a meeting with Vice President Harris. We formally requested that that meeting happen before September 15," Alawieh said to NPR. "She and her team know how to reach us." 

Although much of Harris' rhetoric "continue[s] to be empty," Uncommitted Washington State DNC delegate Yaz Kader said at Rolling Stone, "The positive thing is when she did talk about Gaza, the roar from the delegates in support was palpable." Nevertheless, Kader said, until Harris "can make that change" from words to action, "I'm still uncommitted."

In the aftermath of the 7 October attacks in Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu declared that "every Hamas leader is a dead man".

The prime minister vowed to kill the three top members of the militant group he held responsible for the atrocities, in which 1,200 Israelis died: Qatar-based political leader Ismail Haniyeh; leader of Hamas's military wing Mohammed Deif; and Yahya Sinwar; the leader of Hamas in Gaza. 

Haniyeh was killed in a rocket strike in Tehran last week – with all fingers pointed at Israel as the culprit. Days later, Israel announced that Deif had been killed in Gaza in July. Hamas has not confirmed Deif's death, but in a show of defiance, the group has announced Sinwar, the last survivor, as its new political leader.

Who is Yahya Sinwar?

Sinwar is seen as the mastermind of the 7 October attacks and one of the militant group's "most influential leaders", said The New York Times, "wielding outsize power while remaining mostly hidden in tunnels beneath Gaza". 

He was born in a Gaza refugee camp in 1962, and has spent at least 22 years of his adult life in Israeli prisons, learning Hebrew and studying Israeli culture. He founded the Hamas security service known as al-Majd, with which he hunted down Palestinians suspected of collaborating with Israel – leading to the nickname "the Butcher of Khan Yunis". He has since built up the group's military strength, helping to establish the armed wing known as the Qassam Brigades.

In 1989, he was sentenced to life in prison for killing two Israeli soldiers and four Palestinians. But he was released in 2011, along with more than 1,000 Palestinian and Israeli Arab prisoners, in a highly controversial exchange for one captive Israeli soldier. Sinwar was designated a "global terrorist" by the US in 2015, and two years later appointed head of Hamas's political bureau in Gaza. 

Sinwar, 61, is one of several Hamas leaders whose arrest warrant has been issued by the International Criminal Court over allegations of war crimes. A top target of Israel, he has managed to evade assassination by rarely appearing in public. 

What does his selection mean for Hamas?

Despite his importance, "few would have expected Sinwar to be the group's next leader", said Hugh Lovatt at the European Council on Foreign Relations. But the death of Haniyeh, a relative moderate, has "tipped the group into a more hardline direction", he told  The Associated Press.

Hamas's selection of this "secretive figure close to Iran" is "likely to provoke Israel". It comes at a "volatile moment" with Iran vowing revenge for the rocket strike on its soil, and for the Israeli assassination of a Hezbollah commander in Lebanon hours earlier. Iran and Hezbollah have both praised Sinwar's appointment. 

It also signals that Hamas leadership in Gaza has "taken over" from overseas leadership, which the group has traditionally used to navigate relations with foreign allies. Sinwar's appointment "puts Gaza front and centre", Nour Odeh, a Palestinian political analyst, told Al Jazeera. "And it really sends a signal, as far as negotiations of a ceasefire is concerned, that Gaza calls the shots."

What does his selection mean for Gaza?

His selection, "seen as a victory for hardliners", will "further complicate" the war, said Sky News. His appointment will "likely go down badly with Qatar", where some exiled Hamas officials are based – and which is mediating the ceasefire negotiations.

Sinwar "has been and remains the primary decider when it comes to concluding the ceasefire", said US Secretary of State Antony Blinken. 

But the difference now is that there is no longer the "comparatively pragmatic voice" of Haniyeh to "balance Sinwar's uncompromising maximalist views", said CNBC. On a practical level, reaching Sinwar in Gaza has sometimes taken days. He often "stalls or cuts off communications during the talks". It is unclear how he will take on Haniyeh's diplomatic duties abroad.

The merging of the military and political wings of Hamas also complicates plans for a "day after" in Gaza, or a future Palestinian government.

But Israeli and US intelligence officers believe that Sinwar's strategy is to "keep the war in Gaza going for as long as it takes to shred Israel's international reputation", said The New York Times. Sinwar is "seen as less ready to concede ground to the Israeli negotiators". He knows he is "likely to be killed whether or not the war ends". 

In a region already balancing on a knife's edge of tension and hostilities, last week's dual assassinations of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran and senior Hezbollah commander Fuad Shukr in Beirut by Israeli forces have threatened to engulf the broader Middle East in all-out war. Carried out within hours of one another, the dual killings — one via rocket strike, the other with a bomb planted months in advance — are just the latest in a long and storied line of Israeli cross-border assassinations against high-profile targets around the world. While the full history of Israel's targeted assassination program may never become fully public, the country's various clandestine agencies have for years been feared, revered, and reviled in equal measure for their skills at striking seemingly anyone, anywhere. 

As demonstrated by last week's killings, however, the full impact of Israel's assassination operations is decidedly less certain. Although the country is clearly adept at these types of clandestine missions, the fact that it has perfected those skills for so long suggests a disconnect between its immediate tactical goals and its long-term needs. As the world waits to see how Hezbollah and Hamas will react to these latest killings, what has Israel's history of assassinations accomplished in the past? And is there any reason to think that things might be different this time around? 

'Committed to settling accounts'

"For decades" Israel's message to potential foes has been "loud and clear: Hit us, and you will die," The Times of Israel said. It's a sentiment expressed most recently by government adviser Mark Regev, who pledged vengeance, whether "it takes a year or five years, or 25 years," during a CNN interview just days after the Oct. 7 attack on southern Israel. Anyone involved in harming the hostages taken into Gaza, "Israel will find them and there will be retribution." Israel is "committed to settling accounts," David Barnea, head of the Mossad Israeli secret service said in January, comparing any subsequent assassinations to the country's response to the "Munich massacre" after which Israeli forces killed members of the Black September terrorist group involved in the murder of Israeli athletes during the 1972 Olympics. 

Those stated aims of retribution suggest goals tied as much to catharsis as they are about producing a tactical outcome. Studies have suggested that targeted killings "have no effect on insurgency violence in Palestine," said Indiana University Professor Jeff Gruenewald in 2017. Indeed, on occasion it can even be counterproductive to other national goals. Israeli efforts to assassinate Hamas figures behind the Oct. 7 attack are "likely complicating hostage and cease-fire negotiations," said David Meidan, a former top Mossad intelligence officer, to Politico earlier this year. 

'Trying to change something in the moment'

"I believe very strongly that some targeted assassinations make more sense and some make no sense at all," said Matthew Levitt, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy think tank. The rocket attack on Hezbollah's Shukr "upsets their whole operational structure, because it affects the command and might inhibit further attacks in that sense in the longer term," whereas Haniyeh's death was "just supposed to say we're holding people accountable."

For all of Israel's high-profile assassinations across the past half century, "even after initially being hailed as a game-changing victory," the end result has largely been a "killed leader being replaced by someone more determined, adept and hawkish," Al Jazeera said. The killing of Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin in 2004 resulted in the ascension of Khalid Meshal, a "more hawkish figure" who ultimately "took control of Hamas and moved the group closer to Iran." After multiple assassination attempts, Meshal "remains a senior figure in Hamas," The Washington Post said.  Accordingly, there is "little reason to believe" that Israel's most recent attacks on Hamas and Hezbollah leadership will "make these groups less formidable foes to Israel," Al Jazeera concluded. 

If none of these types of attacks will ultimately end groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, what is the point? Israel, per Levitt, is merely "trying to change something in the moment."

What happened

Palestinian factions, including Hamas and Fatah, have signed a unity agreement aimed at "ending division and strengthening Palestinian unity," China said Tuesday.

Who said what

The deal, finalized after three days of intensive talks, lays the groundwork for an "interim national reconciliation government" to rule post-war Gaza, Foreign Minister Wang Yi said. The "core outcome" is that the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) is the "sole legitimate representative of all Palestinian people."

It was "unclear from Wang's comments what role Hamas, which is not part of the PLO, would play," said CNN.

What next?

Reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah would be a "key turning point" in internal Palestinian relations, said Al Jazeera. The two main political parties in the Palestinian territory have been "bitter rivals" since a power struggle in 2006 erupted into a civil war that left Hamas in control of Gaza while Fatah retained power in the West Bank.

The Beijing-brokered accord is part of China's bid to "play a more direct role in international politics," the BBC said. Beijing continues to push a "vision of a Chinese-led world order" while criticizing what it sees as the "failures of US 'hegemonic' leadership."

This week, International Criminal Court Prosecutor Karim Khan announced his office had requested arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and three top Hamas officials, including leader Yahya Sinwar. The ICC alleged that each had perpetrated various forms of war crimes and crimes against humanity during the months-long war between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. "Those who do not comply with the law should not complain later when my Office takes action," Khan stressed in a statement accompanying his allegations. "That day has come."

Reaction to Khan's announcement was swift and predictably controversial, with both Israeli and Hamas leadership bristling at what they each deemed the implied equivalency between their respective conduct — a sentiment echoed by U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who also claimed the ICC has "no jurisdiction over this matter." Crucially, neither the United States nor Israel are signatories to the ICC's founding Rome Statute, which defines the international body's authority over member nations. 

As the Gaza conflict continues to test the limits — and limitations — of international law, the very real prospect that the ICC could issue Khan's requested warrants could have much more immediate effects on Israel, Palestine, and beyond. 

What did the commentators say?

The ICC "cannot try individuals in absentia," so if the warrants are issued, "custody of the accused is key," think tank Chatham House said. However, the ICC has "no means to enforce an arrest" and so its rules merely "oblige all 124 ICC signatory states to arrest and hand over any individual subject to an ICC arrest warrant if they set foot on their territory," Reuters said. 

Khan's request is "historic in that it is the first time the [ICC's Office of the Prosecutor] has brought charges against a head of state who is supported by Western nations," said Gissou Nia, director of the Strategic Litigation Project at the Atlantic Council. If the warrants are issued, "tricky diplomatic questions may ensue" — particularly in Europe, home to some of the ICC's most fervently supportive nations, as well as "countries to which Netanyahu and Gallant are likely to travel in the future." Ultimately, then, the "more likely outcome will be severe restrictions on the ability of Netanyahu and Gallant to travel," which, in turn, "may further isolate Israel globally and accelerate the growing push for Netanyahu to leave office." A similar situation extends to Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas' political leader, who "will have to think harder about his regular trips to meet senior Arab leaders," and will likely spend most of his time in Qatar, which is not a Rome Statute signatory, BBC said.

Although Israel isn't a signatory to the ICC's Rome Statute, that "doesn’t mean its citizens cannot be prosecuted by the court," CNN said. A previous investigation into Israeli actions launched by the court in 2021 determined the "territorial scope of this jurisdiction extends to Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem." Palestinian Authority leaders signed the Rome Statute in early 2015, rendering the whole of their territory — including that currently controlled by Hamas — under ICC jurisdiction. 

What next? 

As of right now, no arrest warrants have been issued. Khan's request must be "approved by a panel of three judges — from Romania, Benin, and Mexico — at the ICC before they can be implemented," Time said. "It is not guaranteed they will agree to issue the warrants." While there is "no set time frame" for that panel to make its decision, the "chamber has previously acted with expediency to issue decisions granting arrest warrants within about a month," said Haydee Dijkstal, a senior fellow for the Strategic Litigation Project at the Atlantic Council.

Should warrants be issued, and arrests ensue, "it usually takes years" to conduct trials for the types of crimes alleged by the ICC, Chatham House said. Parties may need to "gather and preserve reliable evidence," which is "particularly challenging amid active armed conflict situations" and which "may require the consent of states to access territory."

Accused parties could, if charged, attempt to challenge the warrants by proving there is an "independent and impartial judicial process in place" within their respective nations that is prepared to "conduct the case instead of the ICC," Dijkstal said.

America's longtime military support for Israel is suddenly in doubt. Following the deaths of World Central Kitchen aid workers in an Israeli attack in Gaza, said The Hill, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi joined 30 other Democrats in a letter asking President Biden to reconsider a recently authorized transfer of weapons to Israel. The flow of arms should be halted, the group said, "if Israel fails to sufficiently mitigate harm to innocent civilians in Gaza, including aid workers."

Military aid to Israel has become a "flashpoint for the Biden administration," said The New York Times. The United States has sent tens of thousands of weapons to the country following Hamas' Oct. 7 attack that started the war. Now, though, pressure to restrict or halt weapons transfers is coming from a "vocal minority of lawmakers in Congress." Biden, meanwhile, has been "sharply critical" of Israel's conduct of the war — but has also "resisted placing limits on U.S. military aid."

That may be changing. After the World Kitchen convoy attack, per The Associated Press, Biden warned Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu that continued American support "depends on the swift implementation of new steps to protect civilians and aid workers." Secretary of State Antony Blinken backed Biden's warning. "If we don't see the changes that we need to see," he said, "there will be changes in our policy."

What did the commentators say?

The United States backed — or, at least, didn't block — a cease-fire resolution at the United Nations last month. If that's the case, Julian Borger said at The Guardian,  "why do arms continue to flow" from the United States to Israel? Among the reasons: "Joe Biden's personal sense of commitment to Israel" has been honed over decades. So is a fear that holding back weapons might make Israel vulnerable to other enemies, like Hezbollah. But "the scale of the humanitarian catastrophe" in Gaza may be changing those calculations.

"Cutting off weapons to an ally in wartime would be the definition of betrayal," The Wall Street Journal said in an editorial. Liberals in the U.S. have left its partners in the lurch before — cutting off aid to South Vietnam in 1975, and turning against the war in Iraq when "the going got tough." The willingness to end weapons transfers "must overjoy Hamas," but it's no surprise: "Democrats have a history of abandoning friends in hard times."

The debate in Washington means Israeli leaders are "rethinking" their country's dependence on U.S. weapons, Herb Keinon said at The Jerusalem Post.  A recent Gallup poll shows support among Americans for Israel is at 51% — the lowest point in 20 years. The number is even worse among the 18-34 demographic, "America's leaders tomorrow," where that support stands at just 38%. "No surprise, then, that reports are beginning to emerge about Israeli plans to start manufacturing more of its own arms."

What next?

The U.S. is Israel's biggest backer, but not the only one. Pressure is growing on other allies to stop their weapons transfers, as well. In the United Kingdom, more than 600 legal experts wrote to Rishi Sunak last week to warn the country risks breaking international law with its sales. And Nicaragua this week asked the International Court of Justice to order a halt to Germany's weapons sales to Israel, said the BBC.

Democrats in Congress could try to pass a "joint resolution of disapproval" of arms sales, Politico said, but that would have to pass both the House and Senate, and perhaps overcome a veto by Biden. That's a "high bar" to pass. And it seems unlikely: "The Senate almost never votes on resolutions to block U.S. military aid to Israel."

In the meantime, the clock is ticking. Before the World Central Kitchen attack, CNN said, the Biden administration was set to "greenlight" the $18 billion sale of fighter jets to Israel. The question now is how long American generosity will last, said one former defense official. "Who knows how long the barn doors will be open for?"