博客

A last-minute nuclear cooperation push by the outgoing Trump administration has sparked intense scrutiny over regional security and non-proliferation norms, as multiple independent outlets have confirmed that the draft deal approved for Saudi Arabia lacks the strict safeguards long required by Washington to prevent nuclear weapons development.

According to an exclusive CNN report published Friday, U.S. officials have already signed off on the draft framework that authorizes Saudi Arabia to pursue domestic uranium enrichment as part of its stated civilian nuclear program. Negotiations between Washington and Riyadh wrapped up in October, but the agreement — which includes the mandatory bilateral “123 agreement” required for major U.S. nuclear exports and associated safeguards protocols — has not yet been sent to Congress for the required legislative review. Unnamed senior officials cited by CNN suggest the hold-up is deliberate: the Trump White House fears broad bipartisan backlash from lawmakers who have long demanded strict non-proliferation terms for any Saudi nuclear deal.

The timing of the expected presidential signature remains uncertain, amid growing expectations that Congress will flip to a Democratic majority following the November general election, which would effectively kill the proposal and derail a key foreign policy priority for the administration.

Saudi leadership has openly pushed for this framework for years. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and his top advisors have prioritized securing U.S. approval for domestic enrichment, leveraging the kingdom’s extensive domestic uranium reserves to build out a civilian nuclear energy sector. Last year, Saudi Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman publicly reiterated the kingdom’s ambitions, stating “We will enrich it and we will sell it and we will do a ‘yellowcake’” — referencing the intermediate step between uranium mining and enrichment. The crown prince made the nuclear deal a top agenda item during his 2019 visit to the White House, cementing its status as a core priority for the bilateral relationship.

Geopolitical context adds further urgency to Riyadh’s push. Earlier in 2020, just days after an Israeli strike on Hamas negotiators based in Qatar, Saudi Arabia signed a wide-ranging defense pact with Pakistan — the only Muslim-majority nuclear-armed state, which holds an estimated 170 nuclear warheads. Both governments confirmed the agreement covers all forms of military cooperation, leading to widespread speculation that the deal included informal nuclear security arrangements that placed Saudi Arabia under Pakistan’s nuclear umbrella.

U.S. analysts have framed the proposed American nuclear deal as a strategic counter to that partnership. A former U.S. intelligence official previously told Middle East Eye that bringing Saudi Arabia into a U.S.-backed nuclear framework would pull the kingdom away from Pakistani influence and shore up its regional standing relative to rival Gulf states. “It would pull them out of the Pakistanis’ nuclear umbrella and make the Saudis feel better than the Qataris,” the official explained.

Critics have repeatedly pointed out that the draft agreement breaks with longstanding U.S. non-proliferation precedent. Back in February 2020, the Trump administration formally notified Congress it would pursue a civil nuclear pact that omits the strict non-proliferation safeguards that have been standard for U.S. partners for decades. Unlike the U.S.’s 2009 nuclear agreement with the United Arab Emirates — which explicitly barred the UAE from enriching uranium and reprocessing spent fuel as a condition for cooperation — the Saudi draft only calls for “additional safeguards and verification measures to the most sensitive areas of potential nuclear cooperation,” language that leaves a clear opening for the kingdom to expand enrichment activities for military purposes in the future.

Foreign policy analysts widely agree that this framework would reshape Middle Eastern security dynamics far more dramatically than the separate F-35 fighter jet sale the Trump administration is also negotiating with Riyadh. Dozens of countries — including Morocco, the UAE, and multiple European and Asian nations — have already signed 123 agreements with the U.S., which are required under U.S. law to approve significant exports of U.S.-origin nuclear materials and equipment.

For years, bipartisan groups of U.S. lawmakers have insisted that any Saudi nuclear deal require the kingdom to adopt the IAEA’s Additional Protocol, which grants United Nations nuclear inspectors expanded access to nuclear facilities, documentation, and undeclared sites to verify no clandestine weapons work is underway. The UAE, the only other Gulf state to strike a formal nuclear partnership with the U.S., signed the Additional Protocol back in 2009 as a condition of its deal.

However, a Reuters report confirmed that the Trump administration sent a required preliminary notification to congressional committee leaders in November confirming it would not require Saudi Arabia to adopt the Additional Protocol. The notification underscores how the Trump administration has prioritized expedited deal-making in its Middle East diplomacy, even when it puts it at odds with longstanding norms and priorities of the U.S. foreign policy establishment.

After a tightly contested internal leadership vote, the Palestinian militant and political movement Hamas has chosen veteran negotiator Khalil al-Hayya to lead its political bureau, placing a seasoned diplomatic figure at the helm of the organization at a moment of unprecedented crisis for Gaza and escalating regional conflict.

The election result was formally announced this Monday, following a runoff vote that capped a months-long leadership selection process. According to Walid Al Omari, Al Jazeera Arabic’s Palestine bureau chief, Hayya secured a narrow victory, earning 35 votes to beat out former Hamas political bureau chief and ex-external leader Khaled Meshaal, who collected 34 votes. The leadership contest was first launched in May, when the first round of voting failed to produce a clear winner, extending the process for months.

Hayya, who currently resides in Qatar, succeeds Yahya Sinwar, who took over the top role temporarily after Israel assassinated former Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran in July 2024. Sinwar was himself killed by Israeli forces during combat operations in Rafah just three months after assuming the position. In the intervening period, Hamas has been governed by a five-member interim council chaired by Mohammed Darwish, head of the movement’s Shura Council, which oversaw day-to-day political operations and mediated ceasefire negotiations with Israel.

Hayya’s election restores a singular, permanent leadership structure for Hamas, and stands as a testament to the movement’s resilience amid Israel’s sustained campaign to eliminate its top leadership through targeted assassinations. In September 2025, Israel attempted to assassinate Hayya alongside the entire Palestinian negotiating delegation based in Qatar, in what was widely seen as an effort to derail ongoing ceasefire talks. The brazen attack drew widespread global condemnation, with many international observers labeling it a blatant act of “gangster behaviour”.

Over the more than two years of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, Hayya has emerged as one of Hamas’s most prominent and recognizable public faces. He has led the movement’s negotiating delegation through all major rounds of talks focused on ceasefire agreements, hostage-prisoner exchanges, and the long-term political future of the Gaza Strip. This high-stakes role has placed him at the center of regional diplomatic efforts brokered by Qatar, Egypt, Turkey and other key Middle Eastern powers.

Born in Gaza City on November 5, 1960, Hayya grew up in the occupied Palestinian territories after Israel seized control of Gaza in the 1967 Six-Day War. He pursued a background in Islamic scholarship, earning a doctorate in Hadith sciences after graduating from the Faculty of Islamic Theology at Gaza’s Islamic University — an institution that has since been destroyed by Israeli bombardment. His political journey began in 1980, when he met Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, and over the subsequent four decades, he steadily rose through the movement’s ranks. He has previously served on Hamas’s political bureau, acted as deputy leader for the movement’s Gaza branch, and led the organization’s outreach efforts to Arab and Muslim nations. In 2006, Palestinian voters elected Hayya to the Palestinian Legislative Council, where he went on to lead Hamas’s parliamentary bloc following the historic first national elections.

Throughout his decades of political engagement, Hayya has repeatedly faced targeting by Israeli forces: he was detained multiple times, including a prolonged prison sentence in 1991, and has survived numerous assassination attempts. The personal cost of his leadership has been steep, with Israel killing four of his sons and multiple other members of his extended family over the years. Osama, Osama’s wife, and three of their grandchildren were killed in an Israeli bombing of their home during the 2014 Gaza war. Hamza, a member of Hamas’s armed wing, died in an Israeli missile strike east of Gaza City. Hammam was killed in the September 2025 Israeli airstrike on Hamas negotiators in Doha that targeted Hayya himself. Most recently, Azzam was killed in an Israeli attack in Gaza in May 2026, an attack that also killed one other person and wounded nine. Hayya’s only surviving son, Ezzedine, was injured in an Israeli strike on Gaza City’s Tuffah neighborhood in April 2025, and one of Hayya’s grandchildren was killed in an Israeli attack on a Gaza City school that same month. A 2007 assassination attempt on Hayya killed seven of his extended family members, including two brothers, four nephews, and a cousin.

Hayya takes control of Hamas at a defining crossroads for the movement, the people of Gaza, and the broader Palestinian national struggle. Today, Gaza lies in ruins, with over 60 percent of the enclave under Israeli military occupation, and Israeli forces carry out almost daily attacks despite a ceasefire agreement that Hamas accepted and Israel has repeatedly violated. The Israeli government has openly stated its goal to ethnically cleanse the besieged population of Gaza and expand its military operations across the occupied West Bank. For now, Palestinians across the territories and the global diaspora are watching closely to see what direction Hayya will steer the movement, and what his leadership will mean for their decades-long struggle for self-determination.

A high-stakes controversy has erupted at the International Criminal Court (ICC) after a veteran former United Nations investigations chief publicly condemned the ICC’s governing bureau for suspending Prosecutor Karim Khan over misconduct claims, calling the action a coordinated, unfair “stitch-up” that undermines fundamental principles of justice. \n\nBen Swanson, who previously served as UN Assistant Secretary-General and deputy head of the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) — and previously led OIOS’ Investigations Division — has submitted four successive expert opinions to the 21-member bureau of the ICC’s Assembly of States Parties (ASP) over the past year. All four opinions, commissioned by Khan’s legal defense team, criticize the procedural irregularities that have marred the misconduct probe and the bureau’s subsequent handling of the case. \n\nSwanson’s most recent submission, dated June 28 and obtained by Middle East Eye via independent sources, directly challenges the bureau’s June 8 decision to suspend Khan, which came after a majority of bureau members ruled he had committed \”serious misconduct.\” Critically, this ruling directly contradicts the unanimous finding of a three-judge independent panel appointed by the bureau itself, which concluded in March that the evidence collected by the UN-led investigation did not prove misconduct or breach of duty under ICC rules. \n\nAfter reviewing both the judges’ panel report and the bureau’s final decision, Swanson wrote, \”I am of the opinion that the Prosecutor is the victim of a massive ‘stitch-up’ and given what has happened since the release of the Panel’s Report I doubt whether justice will be done or seen to be done.\” \n\nSwanson accuses the bureau of adopting a \”dystopian method\” of justice and pursuing an \”activist agenda\” to remove Khan from office. After the independent judicial process the bureau established failed to deliver the outcome it sought, he argues, the bureau usurped both judicial and fact-finding roles to reach its desired conclusion. \”It is clear that an activist agenda is being pursued to remove the Prosecutor from his post, at all costs, by the weaponisation of such scant evidence that may exist, by ignoring the wealth of countervailing evidence available to the Bureau and by failing to take account of the wisdom of three international Judges,\” he added. \n\nThe 125-member ASP, which consists of diplomatic representatives from ICC member states, is set to vote on Khan’s future at UN Headquarters in New York this Friday, bringing the months-long dispute to a decisive head. \n\nThe misconduct process was launched in November 2024, when ASP President Paivi Kaukoranta authorized the probe and outsourced investigative work to OIOS, after the complainant who brought allegations against Khan refused to cooperate with the ICC’s internal investigative body. The probe centered on four allegations: a claim of \”unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature\” and abuse of authority from a female staff member in Khan’s office, plus three separate allegations of retaliation against other office employees. Khan has repeatedly denied all claims of misconduct or breach of duty. \n\nThe bureau’s ruling did not find Khan responsible for any of the three retaliation claims. Instead, the confidential decision obtained by MEE states the bureau found \”the evidence establishes beyond reasonable doubt\” that Khan had a sexual relationship with the complainant, and argued that \”in the context of that power imbalance a sexual relationship could never be appropriate.\” The bureau concluded this conduct amounted to improper use of ICC authority against the complainant. \n\nThis finding marks a significant shift from the original allegations: Khan denies any sexual relationship occurred, while the complainant’s original claim centered on non-consensual sexual conduct. In her first public interview on the case with CNN last week, the complainant reaffirmed her non-consensual conduct allegation. Swanson argues the bureau’s reframing of the claim creates a new allegation that was never part of the original investigation, and was never proven. \”What is charged reads as if the Prosecutor and [the complainant] have indulged in an inappropriate, consensual, workplace romance. That was not what was alleged and in any case has not been proven either,\” he wrote. \n\nAnother core point of criticism from Swanson is the bureau’s decision to conduct its own independent credibility assessment of witnesses and evidence, after both OIOS and the three-judge panel declined to confirm the credibility of the complainant and her evidence. Swanson notes that after the panel issued its report, the bureau had four legitimate procedural options: close the case, request OIOS conduct additional investigation to address open questions, restart the probe from scratch, or launch a formal adjudicated process that would allow for cross-examination of witnesses to properly establish credibility. \n\nKhan’s legal team formally requested an adjudicated process in a letter to the ASP president dated July 30, 2025, but the bureau rejected all such requests, including a demand for an adjudicative hearing before the judicial panel. Swanson argues that by disregarding the panel’s unanimous finding and conducting its own unilateral credibility assessment to reach a finding of serious misconduct, the bureau violated basic procedural fairness. \n\n\”The Bureau in determining credibility did not act with the same legal restraint as the Panel, declaring themselves unrestricted, and by using semantic gymnastics promptly used the same material as was available to the Judges, with the addition of more submissions from the Prosecutor and [the complainant], although they discounted the latter’s, to enable them to make credibility assessments,\” Swanson wrote. He added that the bureau also failed to assess the credibility of evidence itself, a step he says is just as or more important than assessing the credibility of the witness presenting it, and that the bureau applied a blatantly biased standard: it framed the complainant and all her testimony as credible, while dismissing every statement, evidence and testimony from Khan and other witnesses that contradicted her account. \n\nSwanson concluded that the bureau’s finding is \”unsafe and should not be relied upon as a proper basis for disciplinary action,\” and urged ICC member states to give \”decisive weight\” to the three-judge panel’s unanimous conclusion when they vote on July 24. \n\nSwanson is not alone in raising concerns about the legality and integrity of the bureau’s process. Earlier this month, MEE reported that Sir James Eadie KC, the United Kingdom’s First Treasury Counsel, had submitted a private legal opinion to the ASP president last November warning that granting the bureau authority to make a final finding of misconduct was illegal under ICC rules. Eadie argued that any proper process must be judicial in nature, requiring an oral hearing before a panel of judges to test allegations and confirm facts beyond reasonable doubt. \n\n\”It is entirely inappropriate for the determinative function to be undertaken by executive or political bodies,\” Eadie wrote. He added that the approach proposed by the ASP president — which treated OIOS’ investigative findings as fact without an adjudicated process, and only allowed the prosecutor to participate in a limited hearing before the bureau — threatens the core independence and institutional integrity of the ICC.

In a formal announcement made Monday, the Palestinian militant and political group Hamas has named veteran senior leader Khalil al-Hayya as its new chief, filling a leadership vacancy created by the battlefield death of former leader Yahya Sinwar at the hands of Israeli forces in October 2024.

Sinwar, who took over the role following the assassination of former Hamas head Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran just three months earlier in July 2024, was killed during direct combat engagements with the Israeli military in Rafah, the southernmost city in the Gaza Strip, on October 17, 2024. In the immediate aftermath of Sinwar’s killing, Hamas initially opted against naming a permanent successor, instead establishing an interim five-person leadership council headed by Muhammad Ismail Darwish, chair of the group’s top advisory Shura Council.

Hayya, a long-time senior Hamas leader based outside of Palestinian territories, has emerged as one of the group’s central figures in diplomatic and ceasefire negotiations with Israeli mediators over the past three years. The 64-year-old leader, who was born in Gaza in 1960, is one of Hamas’ earliest founding political members. He first connected with Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin in 1980, seven years before the group was formally established, and went on to hold leadership posts in Palestinian student and labor organizations before winning a seat on the Palestinian Legislative Council in the 2006 legislative elections.

Hayya has survived multiple Israeli assassination attempts spanning more than 15 years. A 2007 targeting attempt gone wrong killed multiple members of his immediate family, including his wife and three of his children. Most recently, in September 2023, an Israeli strike targeting Hayya and other senior Hamas leaders in Doha, Qatar, claimed the life of his son Hammam al-Hayya and his office director Jihad Lubbad, while leaving Hayya and other senior figures including former Hamas leader Khaled Meshal unharmed, according to multiple sources close to Hamas who spoke to Middle East Eye in the wake of the attack.

Throughout his decades-long tenure with Hamas, Hayya has built a track record as a key negotiator, leading ceasefire talks with Israel during the 2014 Israeli military campaign in Gaza and continuing in that role through the ongoing conflict that erupted in October 2023. In 2022, he also played a pivotal role in mending fractured ties between Hamas and the Syrian government, traveling to Damascus to formally reestablish relations that broke down in the wake of the Arab Spring uprisings and the subsequent Syrian civil war.

In a historic transfer of power at Downing Street on Monday, Andy Burnham was sworn in as the United Kingdom’s new prime minister, succeeding Keir Starmer and immediately setting out an ambitious agenda to reshape British politics and economics after decades of neoliberal restructuring. The former mayor of Greater Manchester, who previously served as a cabinet minister during the New Labour governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, used his first address to the nation to acknowledge the extraordinary political volatility Britain has experienced over the past eight years, noting he is the seventh prime minister to hold office since 2016.

“It requires my generation of politicians to raise our game and rise to the new challenge,” Burnham told the crowd assembled outside 10 Downing Street.

Aligning himself with progressive priorities first championed by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, Burnham revealed that his first official order of business as prime minister will be to end the national crisis of rough sleeping across the UK. He outlined that a sweeping 10-year national strategy will be introduced later this year, mapping a unified path forward for all British citizens regardless of socioeconomic background or partisan affiliation. While the full long-term plan will be unveiled in the coming months, Burnham pledged immediate targeted action to ease the strain of the ongoing cost of living crisis, with specific relief measures — including details on how the policies will be funded — set to be announced Tuesday.

On the foreign policy front, the new prime minister offered few new details, confirming only that the UK will uphold all existing defence commitments to its international allies while focusing domestic policy efforts on tackling the cost of living crisis.

The core of Burnham’s inaugural address was a sharp rebuke of the neoliberal economic framework introduced by Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government in 1979, which he said had left lasting damage to communities across the UK. He argued that Thatcher’s agenda triggered decades of centralized political power, mass privatization of public assets and deindustrialization that has never been reversed for left-behind regions.

“Political power was centralised, economic power privatised, large parts of the country deindustrialised, and they still haven’t recovered,” Burnham said. “Many feel as though they’re still in decline, and they don’t have the ability to turn things around.”

Thatcher’s administration privatized core national sectors including energy, water and social care, dismantling the post-World War II social democratic consensus that shaped British policy for nearly four decades. Notably, this neoliberal framework was largely retained by the New Labour governments Burnham served in between 1997 and 2010. The former prime minister’s vision of restructuring the economy was explicitly designed to reshape British society, with Thatcher famously stating in 1981 that “economics are the method; the object is to change the heart and soul.”

A longstanding advocate of devolving power away from Westminster and London to regional and local governments across the UK, Burnham pledged to reverse decades of deindustrialization and rebuild a national economy that puts essential public services and utilities under greater public oversight to lower costs for households. He stopped short of committing to full nationalization of key industries, however. The new prime minister also promised to accelerate construction of affordable public council housing to address the UK’s ongoing housing crisis.

Earlier in the day, outgoing prime minister Keir Starmer delivered his farewell address, framing his two years in office as a period of successful reform for the Labour Party and tangible progress for the country. Starmer took over the Labour leadership following the party’s 2019 general election defeat, and credited his internal reforms for delivering a landslide general election victory for Labour in 2024. In a notable break from his previous public comments, Starmer did not repeat his false claim that the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn had been institutionally antisemitic.

Starmer claimed that during his tenure, public services have improved, child poverty has fallen, and net immigration to the UK has dropped substantially. Describing his time in office as the greatest privilege of his life, he reaffirmed his unflinching support for Ukraine amid Russia’s ongoing invasion. He framed Burnham’s ascent to the premiership as an orderly, peaceful handover of power, offering his full backing to the new prime minister.

“I wish him every success,” Starmer said.

The 2026 FIFA World Cup final between Argentina and Spain carried far more stakes than just a global football title, turning the world’s most-watched sporting event into an unexpected public stage for the ongoing Middle East conflict, driven by sharp shifts in the two nations’ foreign policy stances toward Israel and Palestine.

Hours before kickoff at the final, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a public message of support to Argentine President Javier Milei, framing the new Argentine leader as a key ally. “Javier [Milei], you are a real friend, a great friend. We support you, we support Argentina, in so many ways,” Netanyahu said. While Spain ultimately claimed the trophy with a 1-0 victory over Argentina, the political symbolism of the match had already cemented itself in global public discourse, with social media users quickly aligning the two teams along the Israeli-Palestinian divide: Argentina was cast as Israel’s proxy side, while Spain was identified with Palestine.

This alignment did not emerge out of thin air. Since taking office in December 2023, Milei has made unwavering support for Israel the cornerstone of Argentina’s foreign policy, a dramatic reversal of the country’s longstanding position. His predecessor, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, officially recognized Palestinian statehood back in 2010. Milei, by contrast, has stood firmly with Netanyahu throughout Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, has publicly announced his intention to convert to Judaism, and has pledged to relocate Argentina’s embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem – a move that aligns Argentina closely with Israeli policy.

On the other side of the divide, the Spanish government under Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has taken the opposite approach. Sanchez has openly condemned what the original report terms Israel’s genocide in Gaza, has called for Israeli leaders responsible for civilian casualties to face international arrest, and officially recognized the State of Palestine as a sovereign nation in 2024. Even the teams’ star players became wrapped up in this political contrast: Argentina captain Lionel Messi has faced repeated scrutiny over his past ties to Israel, while young Spanish star Lamine Yamal made headlines last season when he displayed a Palestinian flag after FC Barcelona won the Spanish La Liga title.

Netanyahu was far from the only Israeli politician to publicly back Argentina ahead of the final, with the entire right-wing Israeli cabinet leaning into the political narrative. Argentina’s newly appointed ambassador to Israel, Rabbi Shimon Axel Wahnish, met with far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich ahead of the match, gifting him an Argentina national team jersey and an official 2026 World Cup match ball. Smotrich – who the ICC prosecutor has also requested an arrest warrant for over alleged war crimes against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank – echoed Netanyahu’s support, saying “Every patriotic Israeli supports Argentina. Go Argentina!”

Other senior Israeli officials quickly followed suit. National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, another controversial far-right figure, stated “We will love those who love Israel. Let’s go, Argentina.” Transport Minister Miri Regev posted public congratulations to Milei and the Argentine people, writing “Fingers crossed for you in the final!” Even Foreign Minister Gideon Saar and Israel’s UN ambassador Danny Danon publicly celebrated Argentina’s previous victories on the road to the final.

However, Israeli leaders’ enthusiastic support for Argentina is rooted in its alignment with Milei, not the Argentine people themselves – a distinction that both Netanyahu and Argentine public opinion have made clear. A February-to-May 2026 Pew Research Center survey of Argentine public opinion found that 55% of respondents held a very or somewhat unfavorable view of Israel, with just 21% holding a favorable opinion. The divide between Milei’s policy and public sentiment was captured in a viral video filmed after Argentina’s semi-final win over England, where one Argentine fan rejected the framing of the team as an Israeli proxy. “No Argentinian that is a real Argentinian supports Israel,” she said. “Don’t believe our fucking president that has been put with money there.”

Netanyahu himself has openly acknowledged that Israel’s support stems from Milei’s leadership, not broader Argentine sentiment. Speaking on the Ben Ben Baruch podcast, he noted “They have a president who’s a superstar… Milei is a huge friend of Israel.” In a meeting with Argentina’s ambassador to Israel, he added: “I don’t hide the fact that I’m an Argentina fan. Most Israelis are Argentina fans, because President Milei has revolutionised Argentina’s relations with us. We have no greater or better friend.”

The political contrast also evokes the legacy of legendary Argentine footballer Diego Maradona, who took a very different stance from Milei’s current alignment with Israel. Unlike Messi, Maradona – who died in 2020 – was an outspoken supporter of Palestinian statehood, and met with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas during the 2018 World Cup in Russia. “In my heart, I am Palestinian,” Maradona said at the time.

On a Sunday in mid-July 2026, thousands of Israeli demonstrators, headed by senior cabinet ministers and sitting lawmakers, rallied near the boundary with the Gaza Strip to push for a dramatic policy shift: the re-establishment of Israeli Jewish settlements in the Palestinian enclave, 21 years after Israel pulled all its settlers and military forces out of the territory.

The demonstration was organized by Nachala, a hardline settler advocacy movement, which adopted the rallying slogan “Returning home after 21 years” in direct reference to Israel’s 2005 disengagement from Gaza, when the state dismantled all 21 existing Israeli settlements in the enclave. Organizers confirmed that at least 28 sitting ministers and members of Israel’s parliament took part in the event, including two of the most far-right figures in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s governing coalition: Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir. Multiple legislators from Netanyahu’s own Likud party also joined the march.

Addressing the assembled crowd, Nachala’s founder and leader Daniella Weiss issued an explicit, controversial remark when responding to a common question about the future of Palestinian residents currently living in Gaza. “There will be no more Arabs in Gaza,” she declared, drawing applause from sections of the crowd.

Speaking to his supporters, Smotrich framed the push for resettlement as a correction of what he called a historic mistake. “We erased the disgrace of the expulsion in northern Samaria, and with God’s help, we will do the same here in the Gaza Strip,” he said, referencing the recent re-establishment of Israeli settlements in parts of the northern occupied West Bank that were also evacuated as part of the 2005 disengagement.

Ben Gvir doubled down on the demand for full Israeli control of Gaza, stating bluntly, “There will be Jewish settlements in all of Gaza.” He went on to echo common far-right talking points about encouraging the mass departure of Palestinians from the territory, adding, “Encourage voluntary immigration [of Palestinians to other countries], send those who need it to their countries. And we return home. Gaza is ours.”

Weiss summed up the core goal of the demonstration, telling attendees, “We are walking today to tell the government of Israel and show all the world that this land belongs to us.”

Prior to the scheduled march, the Israel Defense Forces had declared the entire area along the Gaza boundary a closed military zone in an attempt to restrict access to the border. Despite the order, hundreds of participants bypassed Israeli army roadblocks and reached locations within close proximity of the security fence that separates Israel from Gaza. As of initial reports, no demonstrators crossed into Gaza territory itself.

Many attendees brought family members, including children, to join the demonstration. Local reporting from the *Times of Israel* notes that many participants wore stickers printed with the phrase “Gaza is ours forever”, while a number of activists carried flags calling for the construction of a Third Temple on the site of Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa Mosque, a site that is the third holiest in Islam and is also the holiest site in Judaism.

In a post-rally statement, Nachala celebrated the turnout, writing, “Thank you to the tens of thousands who came as close as possible to the Gaza border with a clear call: we are settling Gaza now!”

Calls for resettling Gaza have grown dramatically louder among Israeli far-right political circles and settler organizations since Israel launched its large-scale military campaign in Gaza in October 2023, following the Hamas-led cross-border attack that killed roughly 1,200 people and took around 250 hostages. The original text of this report references the campaign as a “genocide”, and notes that resettlement advocacy has intensified significantly over the course of the conflict.

Nachala has previously stated that more than 1,000 Israeli families are already “ready to actually settle in Gaza”, and claim that a large share of the Israeli public supports the return of Jewish settlements to the enclave.

Beyond Gaza, there are currently roughly 250 Israeli settlements spread across the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, home to an estimated 700,000 Israeli settlers. Under long-standing principles of international law, all Israeli settlements built on occupied Palestinian territories are classified as illegal, a position that has been repeatedly affirmed by the United Nations and most of the international community.