Global Pulse

作者： admin

  • Zelensky proposes face-to-face talks in open letter to Putin

    Zelensky proposes face-to-face talks in open letter to Putin

    More than three years into Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has made a new public push for direct negotiations with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, issuing an 1,800-word open letter calling for an immediate, full ceasefire during talks and a face-to-face meeting hosted by a neutral third country such as Switzerland or Turkey.

    In the letter, Zelensky argues that waiting for the United States to shift its foreign policy focus back to Eastern Europe — amid Washington’s current preoccupation with the Iran conflict — is a reckless mistake that costs unnecessary lives. He emphasized that a lasting peace can only be forged through direct dialogue between Kyiv and Moscow, rather than through delayed, third-party mediated talks that have repeatedly collapsed over the past months. Previous negotiation rounds hosted in Geneva, Abu Dhabi and Istanbul have ended without progress, and ceasefire talks have been stalled since the outbreak of hostilities in Iran.

    Addressing Putin directly, Zelensky acknowledged that after the widespread destruction Russia’s invasion has brought to Ukraine, he has little sympathy for the hardships facing Russian troops. But he stressed that every Ukrainian death inflicted by the ongoing conflict is a devastating loss for his country, and noted that ordinary Russian citizens are already grappling with the burdens of war: repeated Ukrainian drone and missile strikes, growing fuel shortages, and spiking domestic prices. “Do not be afraid to take the path out of this war. That is the main thing that is required of you now,” Zelensky implored.

    The letter landed on the same day that Putin was addressing international journalists on the sidelines of the major annual St. Petersburg International Economic Forum. A day before the forum, Kyiv launched a drone strike on the outskirts of St. Petersburg, which Zelensky referenced in the letter as a symbolic “visit” to the Russian leader. Separate attacks the same day in Russian-occupied Crimea left four people dead, according to Russian-backed local authorities, who blamed Kyiv for the strike. Ukraine confirmed it targeted a key fuel depot in the regional capital Simferopol.

    The Kremlin confirmed Thursday that it had received Zelensky’s letter and that Putin would receive a full briefing on its contents. Speaking to reporters before the letter’s contents were formally delivered to him, Putin said he remained “certainly prepared and willing to reach an agreement with Ukraine,” but added that any deal would require significant compromises from both sides. The Russian leader immediately cast doubt on the prospects of a meeting, however, questioning whether Zelensky qualifies as a legitimate representative of Ukraine, a matter he said required further legal analysis. Putin also reaffirmed Russia’s long-stated goal of seizing full control of the Donbas region, suggesting the European Union could pressure Kyiv to concede the territory as part of any peace deal. In his letter, Zelensky pushed back directly on this claim, telling Putin “You will not capture” the Donetsk region, a core part of the Donbas.

    The proposal quickly drew a response from former U.S. President Donald Trump, who praised the move toward talks. “I think it would be great if they met. They should. Get it done,” Trump told reporters Thursday, adding that he believed U.S. mediation had been instrumental in creating an opening for direct dialogue. When asked what compromises each side would need to make to reach a deal, Trump declined to share specifics but said he expected both parties would make the necessary concessions to end the fighting. Earlier Thursday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov attempted to frame the conflict through a U.S. political lens, claiming that “Biden’s war has become Trump’s war” and noting that Washington’s policy on Ukraine remains aligned with its European NATO allies.

    Prior to Zelensky’s proposal, Putin had already ruled out a full ceasefire during any negotiation period, creating an immediate sticking point for the new peace push. The conflict, which began with Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, has killed hundreds of thousands of people on both sides and left large swathes of eastern and southern Ukraine in ruins.

  • ‘Acts of revenge’: Israel arrests Palestinian women footballers and students

    ‘Acts of revenge’: Israel arrests Palestinian women footballers and students

    Before the first light of day filtered across the occupied West Bank, the sharp, sudden sound of pounding echoed through the entrance of Ahmed Safi’s apartment building in the town of Birzeit, north of Ramallah. When the 48-year-old Palestinian father jolted awake, he watched as Israeli soldiers streamed through the halls of his building, and assumed the incursion targeted another resident. He could never have guessed the operation would end with his own 20-year-old daughter, Sama – a psychology undergraduate at Birzeit University – in handcuffs.

    “We were stunned, completely shocked,” Safi told reporters from Middle East Eye in an interview. “We never had any indication this raid was meant for her.”

    Family accounts confirm soldiers entered the residential compound shortly after 2 a.m. on Tuesday, shouting orders in Hebrew as they cleared each floor and made their way to the Safi family’s unit. They demanded identification from Ahmed, his wife, and Sama, before presenting the 20-year-old with a sealed arrest warrant. When the family pressed for details on the allegations against her, commanding officers only offered that they would “learn the reason in court.”

    Before moving Sama out of the apartment, soldiers ransacked her personal study and bedroom, seizing her mobile phone, laptop, and multiple personal items. Among the possessions taken were framed photographs of her cousin, Ayser Safi, who was killed by Israeli forces in a separate 2024 incursion. Sama was then led down the stairs of the building, handcuffed behind her back, blindfolded, and loaded into an unmarked Israeli military vehicle.

    For the Safi family, the shock of the arrest is compounded by urgent fears over Sama’s chronic medical condition: she lives with Familial Mediterranean Fever (FMF), an inherited autoimmune inflammatory disorder that requires daily, consistent medication to prevent life-threatening complications. Ahmed Safi said he repeatedly attempted to explain his daughter’s health needs to the raiding party, but soldiers refused to let him gather her medication or discuss her condition before taking her into custody.

    “Without her daily drugs, she suffers crippling high fevers, intense body pain, and other disabling symptoms,” Safi explained. “This disease triggers spontaneous autoimmune attacks. If she goes without her medication, it can cause permanent liver and kidney damage. We are extremely worried for her right now.”

    As of this week, Sama is being held at the Al-Maskubiya interrogation facility in Jerusalem, with her first scheduled court appearance set for next Tuesday. No formal charges against her have been released to the public.

    Sama is not alone in this latest wave of detentions: she is one of five Palestinian women taken into Israeli custody in a series of overnight raids this week, three of whom are current Birzeit University students, with one a recent graduate of the institution. Among the detainees are two active players on the Palestinian women’s national football team: 20-year-old Natalie Abu Diya and 20-year-old Rand Halawani. The other two detainees are third-year public administration student Julan Abu Awad and recent graduate Laila Nael Khalil.

    Natalie Abu Diya, a second-year media studies student at Birzeit, was taken from her on-campus student housing during what witnesses described as a violent overnight incursion. Her father, Samer Abu Diya, told Middle East Eye that Natalie had represented Palestine in international youth competition as a member of the national under-18 women’s football squad. The family was on a phone call with Natalie until roughly 10:30 p.m. the night of her arrest, when she told them she had 13 class assignments to finish and planned to stay up late to complete the work. By 3:30 a.m., her roommates contacted the family to say Israeli soldiers had broken into her room and taken her into custody.

    Natalie was later transferred to Israel’s Ofer Prison, where she has already met with her legal representation. The family says they still have no information about what charges, if any, will be brought against her.

    “Natalie is my youngest daughter. She is independent, determined, and exceptionally bright,” Samer Abu Diya said. “I do not doubt her ability to withstand this ordeal, but I am deeply heartbroken by the injustice that is being done to her.”

    The second national team player, Rand Halawani, was arrested after Israeli authorities summoned her for questioning in Jerusalem. A military court has extended her detention through Friday, and no further details on charges have been released.

    The Palestinian Football Association (PFA) issued a scathing condemnation of the detentions, calling the arrests “unjust” and part of a broader pattern of systematic targeting that has gone unchecked for years.

    “Their arrest is not an isolated incident; it is part of a well-documented pattern of systematic targeting of Palestinian athletes, which continues without any form of accountability,” the PFA statement read. “The PFA calls on FIFA, our continental confederations, and the entire global sporting community to move beyond empty statements and take concrete disciplinary action within the framework of international football to address these ongoing violations. The targeting of Palestinian athletes must end. The impunity must end. The double standards must end.”

    Julan Abu Awad, the third Birzeit student detained, was arrested during a pre-dawn raid on her family’s home in the West Bank. Her sister, Jenin Abu Awad, said the entire family was left stunned by the incursion.

    “We tried to ask why they were taking her, but they just told us we would find out in court, and that she would be detained for a long time,” Jenin told Middle East Eye. “They tore her room apart, searched every inch of it, and turned everything upside down.”

    The raid that led to Julan’s arrest came just one week after Israeli forces first raided the family home, interrogating all members, seizing personal items including a bottle of perfume and a pack of cigarettes, but leaving without making any arrests. Julan is currently being held at the Al-Maskubiya interrogation center, and like Sama Safi, she has a pre-existing chronic medical condition that requires regular medication: she experiences severe recurring migraines that can leave her incapacitated for days.

    “When she has a migraine, she vomits repeatedly, cannot stand any light, and needs complete silence. She needs strong painkillers and a sedative injection to get through an attack,” Jenin explained. “We are very worried about her health right now.”

    These five detentions are part of a much broader, ongoing pattern of daily incursion and arrest across the occupied West Bank. Palestinian prisoner rights organizations estimate that roughly 9,000 Palestinians are currently held in Israeli prisons, with nearly half of that population detained without formal charges or trial.

    Abdullah Zaghari, head of the Palestinian Prisoners’ Club, a prominent advocacy group, said in an interview that Israeli forces have seen a sharp uptick in the detention of Palestinian girls and women in recent months, with a particular focus on university students and former political prisoners. Most of these arrests are carried out under the broad allegation of “incitement,” often tied to nothing more than social media posts expressing opposition to the Israeli occupation or solidarity with other Palestinian communities.

    Zaghari warned that detained Palestinian women face severe risks inside Israeli prisons, including documented abuse, systemic medical negligence, and prolonged solitary confinement. “The number of arrests of male and female university students has skyrocketed under this pretext, which has no basis in international law whatsoever,” Zaghari said. “These arrests are part of ongoing acts of revenge against the Palestinian people by the occupation.”

    Data from the Palestinian Prisoners’ Club shows that the total number of Palestinian women held in Israeli facilities has risen to 89 as of this week. That population includes three minor girls, three pregnant women, and two women living with cancer. Most are held in Israel’s Damon Prison, while dozens more are still being held in temporary interrogation and detention facilities. At least 19 of the 89 detained women are held under administrative detention, a policy that allows Israeli authorities to imprison individuals without charge or trial, with detention terms renewable indefinitely.

  • Lebanon-Israel ceasefire plans in doubt following Hezbollah’s rejection

    Lebanon-Israel ceasefire plans in doubt following Hezbollah’s rejection

    After four rounds of US-mediated direct negotiations between Israeli and Lebanese delegations in Washington, a US-backed draft plan for a ceasefire between the two nations has emerged, but its path to implementation remains deeply uncertain, with multiple Lebanese stakeholders warning critical pieces are still missing and key regional players stand opposed.

    The two days of talks concluded with a preliminary declaration that lays out a framework for a ceasefire and the establishment of pilot security zones in southern Lebanon. Under the proposed arrangement, the Lebanese Armed Forces would take sole control of these designated areas, barring all non-state armed groups from operating within their borders. The pilot zones are framed as an initial testing ground for a wider security arrangement that could be expanded across the region if successful.

    However, a senior Lebanese official close to President Joseph Aoun told Middle East Eye that the draft proposal lacks any clear, binding implementation mechanism, and its entire fate now rests on whether Hezbollah, the powerful non-state armed group that holds significant sway in southern Lebanon, will give its approval. What is more, the official confirmed that neither Hezbollah nor Nabih Berri – Lebanon’s long-serving Parliament Speaker, a key Hezbollah ally and established intermediary between the group and Washington – were privy to the full details of negotiations as they progressed. Once the draft text was finalized, President Aoun circulated it to both Hezbollah and Berri to gather feedback before communicating Lebanon’s final position to US negotiators.

    The senior official described the closed-door negotiations as grueling, noting that the Lebanese delegation threatened to walk out and suspend talks after Israeli negotiators pushed back against demands for a full, immediate ceasefire. It was this deadlock that led US mediators to put forward the pilot zone concept as a compromise middle ground to break the impasse.

    Another sticking point emerged during the talks when the US delegation insisted on including language condemning what it called “Iran’s attacks on countries in the region”. Lebanese negotiators viewed the repeated push for this language as a deliberate attempt to decouple the Israel-Lebanon peace track from ongoing US-Iran negotiations. Iran has listed a full end to Israeli strikes on Lebanon as a core condition for its own ceasefire talks with Washington, and just days prior, Tehran suspended negotiations in response to Israeli threats to bomb central Beirut.

    The situation on the ground in southern Lebanon has continued to deteriorate despite a nominal ceasefire declared on 17 April. Since that truce took effect, Israel has steadily expanded its military presence across the region, through territorial occupation, repeated air strikes, and mandatory evacuation orders for local residents. Roughly one-fifth of Lebanon’s total territory is now under direct or indirect Israeli control, a footprint that extends far beyond the initial buffer zone Israel declared when the truce was announced. Notably, the new US-backed proposal makes no mention of requiring an Israeli troop withdrawal or ending ongoing Israeli military operations in southern Lebanon, and Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz confirmed Thursday that Israeli forces would “for the time being, continue its fire and operations on the ground”. Katz added that Israel would keep working to dismantle Hezbollah’s infrastructure in the region and retained US-backed “freedom of action” to strike targets in Beirut in response to any attacks on Israeli territory.

    Hezbollah officials say they were not surprised by the outcome of the Washington talks. A source familiar with the group’s position told Middle East Eye that Hezbollah opposed direct negotiations between the Lebanese state and Israel from the start, predicting it would produce a framework that ran counter to the group’s core interests. “From the first statement issued after the first joint meeting that initiated the direct negotiations path, we knew this is where the Lebanese state intended to go,” the source said. “That is why we were against this track from the start.”

    Hezbollah secretary-general Naim Qassem has since formally rejected the outcome of the talks, calling direct negotiations with Israel “shameful” for Lebanon and dismissing any attempts to tie a ceasefire and Israeli withdrawal to the group’s disarmament. Qassem stressed that any credible ceasefire must cover all of southern Lebanon, where Israel has seized a self-declared security zone, and argued that Israeli security in northern towns would never be achieved as long as Lebanese villages remain under attack, unsafe, and destroyed. “Towns in northern Israel would not be secure as long as our villages are unsafe, bombed, destroyed, and our people are being killed,” Qassem said. For Hezbollah, any discussion of the group’s weapons must only take place after a full stop to all Israeli attacks across Lebanon and a complete withdrawal of Israeli troops from all occupied Lebanese territory – a position that directly clashes with the US framework, which centers on restricting Hezbollah’s military presence and activity south of the Litani River as a core condition for the ceasefire.

    Criticism of the proposal has also come from other Lebanese officials not affiliated with Hezbollah. One senior Lebanese official not involved in the negotiations described the proposal’s wording as deeply ambiguous, saying it remains unclear whether the ceasefire and security arrangements would take effect simultaneously or sequentially. The official also called out a section of the draft that endorses US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s claim that Hezbollah is “an enemy of Lebanon” in addition to being an enemy of Israel and the United States, calling the paragraph embarrassing for Lebanon even if it only reflects a US position.

    The dispute highlights the narrow, high-stakes path facing the Lebanese government. The presidency has framed the proposal as a last chance to secure a broad ceasefire, but Hezbollah views it as an attempt to achieve through diplomacy what Israel failed to win through military force. It also exposes a core contradiction at the heart of the US-led process: Washington is pushing for a formal state-to-state agreement between Lebanon and Israel, but the most powerful military actor on the Lebanese side – Hezbollah – has been excluded from the negotiations entirely.

    Israeli and Lebanese delegations are scheduled to reconvene later this month for further talks on political and security arrangements. Even so, Lebanese officials openly acknowledge that without Hezbollah’s backing, the proposal is at risk of remaining nothing more than a non-binding diplomatic framework with no viable path to implementation.

  • Protesters topple World Cup player statues in Mexico City

    Protesters topple World Cup player statues in Mexico City

    A growing wave of labor unrest has shaken Mexico City in recent days, as striking teachers demanding substantial wage increases have escalated their demonstrations by toppling iconic statues of World Cup-winning national soccer players. What began as a series of peaceful pickets focused on government budget negotiations quickly gained traction, with organizers now issuing explicit warnings that the upcoming soccer tournament will face widespread disruption if their long-standing financial demands are not formally addressed.

  • Ollie Robinson’s dream England comeback: 3 wickets in a maiden first over at Lord’s

    Ollie Robinson’s dream England comeback: 3 wickets in a maiden first over at Lord’s

    Twelve months ago, around the 2023 Christmas holiday, fast bowler Ollie Robinson had convinced himself his days representing England in international test cricket were over. While his national teammates were down in Australia battling for the Ashes, Robinson was on the outside, looking in, his name absent from England’s squad entirely.

    What followed was a chain of events that would set the stage for one of the most dramatic test cricket comebacks in recent memory. After England finished the Ashes with a demoralizing 4-1 series defeat, the team’s management set out to reset their core squad ahead of the 2024 home season. Head coach Brendon McCullum reached out to Robinson with a game-changing message at the opening of the domestic campaign: the talented but polarizing paceman would get a second chance to earn his place back in the national side.

    Robinson’s fall from the England setup just a year prior had not been for a lack of on-field performance. Across 20 test matches, he had already notched an impressive 76 wickets for his country. Instead, he was dropped in early 2024 over concerns about poor fitness standards and questions over his commitment to team-first values. Determined to prove his critics wrong, Robinson embraced a new leadership opportunity this year, taking over as captain of his county side Sussex. The role sparked a noticeable shift in his mindset and work ethic: through the ongoing County Championship, he has already claimed 18 wickets, putting in consistent match-winning performances that made him impossible for national selectors to ignore. When key pace options Jofra Archer and Brydon Carse were ruled out of England’s first home test against New Zealand, opening at Lord’s this Thursday, the spot opened back up for Robinson — and with it, a mountain of pressure to perform.

    What happened next exceeded even the most optimistic expectations for Robinson’s return. Tasked with delivering the new ball for England, after the hosts had been bowled out for a underwhelming first innings total of just 140, Robinson delivered the most historic opening over of his career. He removed New Zealand’s star opener Devon Conway with his third delivery, followed by captain Kane Williamson with his fifth ball, and rising star Rachin Ravindra with his sixth. The three-wicket maiden over sent the packed Lord’s crowd into a frenzy, with supporters chanting Robinson’s name before he had even finished his first six deliveries of the match.

    Speaking to reporters after the incredible over, Robinson admitted the pre-comeback nerves had left him almost unable to perform. “The first over I couldn’t feel my legs, I was so nervous,” he told the BBC. “To get the first wicket, the emotion coming was incredible.” Speaking to Sky Sports, he added: “It was so loud. I was in a bit of a daze and just trying to focus. The crowd were amazing, it’s one of the loudest I’ve heard them here.”

    Robinson was open about the full shift in attitude that allowed him to earn his way back to the national side. “I was in a place where I never thought I’d play for England again,” he said. “To get the text from Baz (McCullum) shifted my mindset. To get back in the team, I knew the date of the first day of the test and there was a lot of work. I’ve tried my best to get back in the condition for today. I know there’s a lot of hard work ahead.”

    By the close of play on day one, Robinson’s incredible form had only continued. He finished the day with unbeatable figures of 4 wickets for just 10 runs across six overs, three of which were maidens. New Zealand’s batting line-up was left reeling at 61 for 6, putting England firmly in control of the match at the end of the opening day.

    Robinson’s stellar performance overshadowed another landmark comeback on the day. New Zealand pace bowler Kyle Jamieson, who was also making his return to test cricket after a career-threatening back injury, picked up an impressive five-wicket haul for 62 runs — his first five-wicket test haul in five years — and was on track to be the day’s standout player before Robinson’s historic opening over. Jamieson’s return came after three stress fractures in three seasons forced him into a year-long rehabilitation process, mirroring Robinson’s own journey back from the sidelines.

    Giving credit to the opposing side after day one, Robinson noted: “They bowled so well, we knew we had to follow suit. Both teams hit the stumps a lot so credit to both teams. We’ve still got a job to do and mop them up in the morning.”

  • Trump announces $700 mn support for US coal projects

    Trump announces $700 mn support for US coal projects

    U.S. President Donald Trump made a sweeping policy announcement Thursday, invoking a 75-year-old Cold War-era emergency law to unlock $700 million in public funding for a nationwide slate of coal development projects, marking his most aggressive step yet to ramp up production and use of the world’s most carbon-intensive fossil fuel.

    Under the plan, the allocated funding will support operations across 10 U.S. states, extending the lifespan of more than a dozen existing coal-fired power plants and 42 active coal mines. It also paves the way for construction of two brand-new coal facilities and a large-scale coal export terminal on California’s coast, which Trump says will have annual handling capacity of 12 million tons of the fossil fuel. To redirect funds toward the new projects, the Trump administration is shifting $200 million originally earmarked for climate change initiatives—with portions going to a coal plant in Maryland, and the two new facilities in Alaska and West Virginia respectively.

    The funding drawdown is authorized through the Defense Production Act (DPA), a 1950 law that grants sitting U.S. presidents broad emergency authority over domestic industrial production. In remarks at the announcement, Trump framed the initiative as a win for working-class households, claiming it would cut energy prices and reduce cost-of-living burdens for all Americans. Echoing language he has used throughout his political career, he referred to coal as “clean, beautiful” — a characterization that directly contradicts established climate science that labels coal the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions driving global warming.

    This move is consistent with the Trump administration’s broader energy agenda, rolled out after he returned to the presidency last year. A long-time skeptic of anthropogenic climate change, Trump has repeatedly dismissed the scientific consensus that human activity causes global warming as a “hoax”, and has moved systematically to roll back decades of federal environmental regulations that restrict fossil fuel extraction and use. Thursday’s announcement is not the first pro-coal action his administration has taken in 2025: on February 11, he signed an executive order directing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to negotiate long-term coal supply contracts with domestic power plants. At that public White House event, Trump was surrounded by hard-hatted coal miners and celebrated as the “undisputed champion” of the U.S. coal industry. The very next day, he repealed the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2009 “endangerment finding”, a foundational regulatory ruling that has underpinned all federal U.S. climate policy for 16 years. That rollback is already facing legal challenge from a broad coalition of environmental and public health groups.

    Industry and climate data underscores how far the Trump administration’s policy deviates from global trends. Analysis from energy research group Global Energy Monitor shows that while the world added more coal power capacity in 2025, overall coal consumption declined across most major economies — with the United States standing alone as the only large economy to register a substantial increase in coal-fired electricity generation. As of 2025, federal U.S. Energy Information Administration data puts coal’s share of domestic power generation at 17 percent.

    The announcement comes as global climate leaders have issued renewed warnings about the risks of expanding coal use. Just last week, the United Nations warned that global average temperatures are on track to remain at or near record highs over the next five years. UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell reiterated that the primary driver of anthropogenic global warming is the continued burning of fossil fuels — with coal identified as the single largest contributor to rising temperatures. U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright defended the administration’s policy in comments on the initiative, framing coal as “a critical source of our electricity, also a critical source for our industry.”

  • Israel’s military creep killing Gaza peace plan

    Israel’s military creep killing Gaza peace plan

    In recent weeks, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has directed the Israel Defense Forces to expand its territorial control in Gaza to 70% of the enclave, marking an 11% increase from the roughly 60% the military already holds. This new expansion aligns with an updated map distributed to Gaza-based aid agencies in late March, which draws a new “orange line” marking Israel’s newly claimed restricted military zone. This boundary extends 11% beyond the “yellow line” demarcation agreed upon during the October 2024 ceasefire deal with Hamas.

    Compounding this territorial shift, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant has publicly reaffirmed the Israeli government’s plan to relocate large numbers of Palestinian residents out of Gaza “when conditions are appropriate and the process is carried out appropriately.” These unfolding moves come amid heightened domestic political upheaval in Israel: the country’s parliament, the Knesset, voted to dissolve itself on May 20, clearing the path for a snap national election to be held as early as this September.

    Experts and international observers have already flagged that Israel’s expanding push directly contradicts the 20-point Gaza peace plan brokered by the U.S.-led Board of Peace. That framework explicitly calls for a phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces from the enclave and includes explicit language guaranteeing that “No one will be forced to leave Gaza, and those who wish to leave will be free to do so and free to return. We will encourage people to stay and offer them the opportunity to build a better Gaza.” Even U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio acknowledged this mismatch during a recent congressional hearing, confirming that the peace plan “doesn’t call for” expanded Israeli military control over Gaza.

    As Israel expands its hold, the 2.1 million Palestinian residents of Gaza are increasingly squeezed into a shrinking, war-ravaged, overcrowded strip of coastal land, with little meaningful intervention from the global community to halt the territorial shift. To understand the gravity of these actions, it is necessary to examine them through the lens of established international law, which places clear limits on military occupation of foreign territory. While international law permits temporary occupation to achieve legitimate wartime objectives, two core rules are non-negotiable.

    First, an occupying force cannot assert a permanent legal claim to the territory it seizes. Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter explicitly outlaws territorial conquest as an instrument of war, a principle the global community enforced firmly in response to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, where breaches were widely recognized as the crime of aggression. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) reaffirmed this principle in its 2024 advisory opinion on Israeli actions in occupied Palestinian territories, making clear that Israel cannot claim sovereignty over any part of Gaza.

    Second, all occupying powers are bound by international humanitarian and human rights law, which requires them to protect the welfare of the civilian population under their control and preserve the existing demographic composition of the occupied territory. This means forced displacement of the local population and transfer of the occupying power’s own civilian settlers into the territory are strictly prohibited. These obligations have applied to Israel since it seized Gaza from Egypt during the 1967 Six-Day War, launching a decades-long occupation that continued in a legal sense even after Israel withdrew its ground troops and dismantled settlements in 2005.

    Despite these clear legal standards, enforcing compliance with Israel’s international obligations has proven slow, fragmented, and largely ineffective to date. After the ICJ’s 2024 ruling ordered a full Israeli withdrawal from all occupied Palestinian territories on the grounds that Israel’s presence violates the core principles of Palestinian self-determination and the ban on territorial conquest, the UN General Assembly endorsed the ruling and set a September 14, 2025 deadline for completion of the withdrawal. Israel simply ignored the deadline. Enforcement of ICJ rulings falls exclusively to the UN Security Council, where the U.S.’s permanent veto power has blocked any meaningful action to compel compliance.

    Worse still, the clear legal prohibitions on conquest, forced displacement, and settlements are being intentionally muddied by the Trump administration-brokered 20-point peace plan and the Board of Peace overseeing its implementation. In November 2025, the UN Security Council endorsed the plan, which aimed to end the conflict, disarm Hamas, and establish a transitional Palestinian government overseen by the Board of Peace and a multinational International Stabilisation Force. But from its inception, the ceasefire deal was riddled with critical gaps: it included no binding provisions defining the scope of Israel’s military presence in Gaza, no mechanism for holding actors accountable for alleged war crimes, and no clear roadmap for demilitarization.

    Unsurprisingly, the entire peace process has ground to a standstill since the ceasefire took effect. Israeli airstrikes and ground operations have continued, killing more than 900 Palestinians, aid deliveries remain drastically insufficient to meet the desperate needs of the civilian population, and Hamas has refused to disarm without concrete, binding guarantees for full Palestinian self-determination in the future.

    This stalemate works entirely in Israel’s strategic interests. Under the original ceasefire map, Israel was allowed to maintain military control of all territory behind the “yellow line”, which already gave it control of just over half the enclave, squeezing the majority of Gaza’s population into a small coastal pocket. Within the territory it already controlled, Israel has already undertaken two key projects that reveal its long-term political goals.

    First, the military has completely flattened entire residential neighborhoods and hundreds of civilian structures, turning large swathes of northern and eastern Gaza into uninhabited wasteland cleared of all civilian infrastructure and residents. On this cleared land, Israel has since built an extensive network of permanent military infrastructure, including new access roads, fortified outposts, barriers, and tall earthen berms. This creates a de facto permanent Israeli-controlled zone emptied of its Palestinian population, a status quo that amounts to unlawful forced displacement and territorial conquest under international law.

    Day by day, the area available to Palestinian residents of Gaza shrinks, as Israel reshapes the territory’s borders through bulldozers and permanent fortifications. Netanyahu has already indicated that Israel has no intention of stopping at 70% control and depopulation. The Israeli government may seek to establish a large permanent buffer zone across much of Gaza, mirroring similar permanent Israeli military presences it has built in southern Lebanon and occupied Syrian territory, or it could even revive plans to establish new Israeli settlements in the strip – a project already being aggressively expanded across the occupied West Bank.

    All of these unfolding moves violate clear international law and the text of the very “peace plan” that was supposed to resolve the conflict, while offering no viable long-term path to justice or self-determination for the Palestinian people. This analysis is by Michelle Burgis-Kasthala, Professor of International Law at La Trobe University, republished with permission under Creative Commons license.

  • Watch: Guide stranded on Everest for six days rescued

    Watch: Guide stranded on Everest for six days rescued

    A high-stakes mountain rescue operation on the world’s highest peak has concluded successfully, after a professional mountain guide spent six grueling days stranded in the deadly altitude of Mount Everest. The dramatic sequence of events that led to the guide’s entrapment and eventual safe extraction has been reconstructed through on-the-ground reporting by the BBC’s South Asia correspondent Rajini Vaidyanathan.

    Everest’s notoriously unpredictable weather and unforgiving terrain have long turned climbing expeditions into life-or-death tests, and this incident is no exception. Details of exactly what left the guide cut off from other climbers and descending teams have emerged gradually, with harsh wind chills, low visibility and sudden ice movement reported to have blocked his planned route off the mountain early last week. Left without a clear path to descend and unable to call for immediate help due to communication disruptions at extreme altitude, the guide was forced to hunker down in a exposed high-elevation campsite, surviving on limited emergency rations as rescue teams coordinated their response from base camp.

    Mountain rescue operations on Everest are among the most challenging in the world, requiring careful coordination between local Sherpa teams, expedition organizers, and air support units that can only operate in narrow windows of clear weather. Multiple days of poor visibility pushed the rescue effort back, extending the guide’s stranding to six full days, raising serious concerns among rescuers and expedition officials that he would not survive the exposure to sub-zero temperatures and oxygen deprivation at more than 8,000 meters above sea level.

    In the end, a break in the weather allowed a specialized rescue team to reach the stranded guide, pull him to safety and transport him to lower elevation for medical evaluation. As of the latest update, the guide is reported to be in stable condition, receiving care for mild frostbite and altitude sickness.

    The incident has once again drawn attention to the persistent risks mountaineers and professional guides face every climbing season on Everest, even as safety technologies and expedition protocols continue to improve. Climbing officials have noted that the successful rescue stands as a testament to the skill and courage of the Nepalese rescue teams that operate in some of the harshest conditions on Earth.

  • Ireland facing EU court case over peat extraction

    Ireland facing EU court case over peat extraction

    ### European Commission Initiates Legal Action Against Ireland at Court of Justice Over Peat Extraction Regulation Failures

    The European Commission has announced it is referring the Republic of Ireland to the European Court of Justice, the bloc’s highest judicial body, over persistent claims that Irish authorities have failed to fully enforce strict EU environmental regulations governing commercial peat extraction. This latest development comes years after Ireland implemented a national ban on the sale of peat for fuel use over widespread environmental concerns, but the practice of commercial mining for horticultural compost production remains active.

    While the EC has openly acknowledged that Ireland has taken “significant action” to curb large-scale peat cutting, most notably reining in operations by the state-owned extraction firm Bord Na Móna over the past six years, it argues that regulatory and enforcement gaps remain for smaller extraction sites covering less than 50 hectares. According to the commission, numerous active extraction operations on these smaller sites proceed without required planning permissions or mandatory environmental impact assessments (EIAs) — core requirements under EU law for projects expected to cause major ecological harm. “Despite evidence of these ongoing illegal activities, enforcement action at the local level is not being taken,” the EC said in its official statement announcing the legal referral.

    Peat extraction itself is not banned under EU legislation, but it is subject to stringent oversight due to the severe ecological damage unregulated extraction can cause. Peatlands are recognized globally as one of the most critical carbon sinks, capable of storing far more carbon per hectare than most forest ecosystems, making them a key natural defense against climate change. They also provide unique, rare habitats for a wide range of native Irish wildlife species.

    Irish environmental advocacy groups have welcomed the commission’s legal move. Tristram Whyte, policy officer for the Irish Peatland Conservation Council, a leading charity focused on protecting Ireland’s native bogs, described the long-term damage caused by unregulated commercial extraction. “They go into a bog, strip off the surface and then also drain the bog into the local rivers and lakes,” Whyte explained in an interview with BBC News NI. He added that this practice creates what he calls “brown deserts” across Ireland’s midlands, with far-reaching consequences: silt clogs waterways, and drained peat converts to ammonia, which kills aquatic life. Whyte also noted that commercial peat extraction generates large profits for the horticultural industry, with much of the harvested resource exported abroad, while Ireland is left with permanent ecological damage and degraded habitats.

    Irish government bodies have pushed back on the commission’s claims, pointing to existing regulatory frameworks and enforcement efforts already underway. Ireland’s Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment has emphasized that commercial peat extraction is a formally regulated activity in the country. Under current Irish rules, any extraction on sites larger than 50 hectares requires a pollution control license from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). For sites between 30 and 50 hectares, both local authority planning permission and an EIA are mandatory. For sites smaller than 30 hectares, planning permission and an assessment are required if the project is expected to cause significant environmental harm, the department explained.

    The department also noted that the EC has already acknowledged the “significant enforcement” carried out by the EPA against unauthorised extraction on sites larger than 50 hectares, work that has pushed some private operators to end their activities. All EPA inspection reports are published publicly on the agency’s website and shared with the European Commission, the department added. When it comes to enforcement on smaller sites, the Department of Climate stated that responsibility falls to local planning authorities and the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage.

    That claim has drawn clarification from the Department of Housing, which says it has no direct role in enforcement or penalty imposition beyond creating the underlying legislation. According to the department, city and county councils hold full responsibility for planning enforcement, including addressing violations of planning rules. If an operator fails to comply with an official enforcement notice, local planning authorities can refer the case to the national courts, where guilty findings can result in criminal convictions, fines, and even prison time.

    This latest dispute over peat extraction comes against a long backdrop of tension over peat policy in Ireland. For centuries, cutting peat (known locally as turf) for domestic heating has been a deeply rooted cultural tradition for rural Irish families, passed down through generations. More than a decade ago, the introduction of EU restrictions on turf cutting at 53 protected bog sites sparked large, defiant protests across rural communities. In 2022, the Irish national parliament, the Dáil, voted to ban the commercial sale of turf, but carved out explicit exemptions for small-scale domestic cutting for personal use.

    Whyte emphasized that the current legal action brought by the EC does not target these domestic exemptions at all, and will not change the existing rules for personal turf cutting. Instead, the case focuses exclusively on unregulated industrial-scale commercial peat extraction, which continues to operate despite its well-documented environmental harms. “Ireland must demonstrate that it takes its environmental responsibilities seriously,” Whyte added.

    The Court of Justice’s core mandate is to ensure that EU law is interpreted and applied uniformly across all 27 member states of the bloc. A ruling against Ireland could result in financial penalties and force the country to tighten enforcement across all sizes of peat extraction sites.

  • In public letter, Ukraine’s Zelenskyy calls on Putin for direct negotiations in a neutral country

    In public letter, Ukraine’s Zelenskyy calls on Putin for direct negotiations in a neutral country

    In a historic, unprecedented public move that marks the first direct outreach from Kyiv to the Kremlin since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy issued a formal invitation Thursday for direct, in-person negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin, framing the summit as a critical step to end a grinding conflict that has stretched into its third year. The public letter, addressed straight to Putin, is far more than a simple invitation for talks: it includes a sweeping rebuke of Putin’s 26-year tenure in power and lays out Ukraine’s assessment of Russia’s current strategic positioning on and off the battlefield.

    In the letter, Zelenskyy acknowledged the rapidly shifting priorities of global powers, noting that Kyiv cannot afford to idly wait for U.S. policy to refocus on the war amid Washington’s growing preoccupation with escalating tensions in Iran. “I am proposing a meeting,” Zelenskyy wrote plainly. The proposal quickly drew a response from U.S. President Donald Trump, who reacted positively to the prospect of direct talks. “It would be great” if the two leaders met, Trump told reporters. “They should get it done.” When pressed to share details of concessions he has reportedly pushed Russia to make to reach a settlement, Trump declined to elaborate but emphasized that both sides would need to meet halfway to reach a deal. “They’re going to both make compromises,” he said. “I suggested those compromises.”

    The outreach comes at a pivotal inflection point for the war, a moment when Kyiv has clawed back limited but meaningful battlefield leverage thanks to advances in its long-range strike capacity, which has disrupted Russian military advances and logistical lines across occupied and Russian territory. That small gain for Kyiv has been matched by a sharp escalation from Moscow, which has ramped up its devastating nationwide aerial campaign, capitalizing on Ukraine’s ongoing shortages of air defense systems and persistent vulnerability to Russian ballistic missile attacks.

    Zelenskyy proposed holding the summit in a neutral third-party country, ruling out venues in both Moscow and Kyiv, and named Switzerland, Turkey and various Arab states as suitable potential hosts. “It is leaders who resolve the key issues. That has always been the case, and it always will be,” he wrote. “I propose to set a clear date for such a meeting.”

    Drawing on Ukrainian intelligence assessments, Zelenskyy warned that Russia is actively planning to extend the full-scale war into 2027 and 2028, and is increasingly shifting to a strategy of sustained ballistic missile strikes to make gains that its underperforming ground campaign has been unable to secure. He also accused Moscow of moving to draw neighboring Belarus deeper into open conflict and working to destabilize the security situation around Transnistria, the Russia-backed breakaway region of Moldova.

    The Ukrainian leader argued that Russia is now feeling the mounting human and economic cost of its invasion, pointing to a steady stream of Ukrainian drone strikes deep inside Russian territory, widespread domestic economic strain, growing fuel shortages, rising consumer prices, and the repeated rounds of military mobilization the Kremlin has been forced to implement to sustain its campaign. Zelenskyy claimed Russian forces suffered more than 30,000 soldiers killed or seriously wounded in the month of May alone, noting that Kyiv holds video evidence of these battlefield losses and that these steep casualty levels have remained consistent month after month. He added that while Ukraine has a far more favorable casualty ratio than Russia, Ukrainian forces and civilians continue to endure devastating, painful losses.

    To build trust ahead of any potential peace process, Zelenskyy put forward several immediate confidence-building steps: Ukraine is prepared to implement a full, nationwide ceasefire that would remain in place for the entire duration of negotiations, and he proposed an “all-for-all” prisoner exchange as an opening confidence-building measure. He also called for the immediate return of all Ukrainian civilians and children who have been forcibly deported to Russia since the invasion began. Closing his letter, Zelenskyy pushed back on the narrative that the international community has grown weary of supporting Ukraine: “The world has not grown tired of Ukraine, as you long hoped it would. But there is growing fatigue with Russia,” he wrote.