作者： admin

In a significant development for activist movements and UK-Israel defense relations, three prisoners affiliated with Palestine Action have terminated their prolonged hunger strike following the British government’s decision to withhold a multi-billion-pound contract from Elbit Systems UK, the British subsidiary of the Israeli arms manufacturer. The cessation marks the conclusion of the longest hunger strike in British penal history.

Heba Muraisi and Kamran Ahmed, who had abstained from both food and water for over sixty days, alongside Lewie Chiaramello—who managed his Type 1 Diabetes while engaging in an alternating-day hunger strike for 46 days—agreed to end their protest late Wednesday. This decision coincided with urgent medical warnings that the strikers were nearing fatal organ failure.

Simultaneously, four additional protesters—Teuta Hoxha, Jon Cink, Qesser Zuhrah, and Amu Gib—who had previously suspended their strikes in late 2023, formally agreed not to resume their action. The collective resolution brings a close to a highly publicized campaign that highlighted intersections of activism, incarceration, and international arms trading.

The advocacy group Prisoners for Palestine condemned the ongoing detention of these individuals, labeling it a permanent stain on Britain’s democratic credentials. The organization asserted that Britain is effectively holding political prisoners in service of a foreign regime engaged in genocide, a statement that underscores the deeply polarized perspectives on the Gaza conflict.

Family members expressed both relief and unresolved anger. Audrey Corno, a relative of Teuta Hoxha, described the ordeal as a ‘painfully traumatic experience’ for loved ones, noting that while victory is declared, critical refeeding processes and long-term health impacts for Muraisi and Ahmed remain a serious concern.

Nida Gib, related to protester Amu Gib, sharply criticized the Labour government’s silence throughout the crisis, accusing ministers of attempting to isolate dissidents who challenge Britain’s complicity in overseas conflicts. She highlighted the harsh treatment prisoners endured, including being handcuffed to hospital beds during refeeding, and vowed that the movement built around this case would continue to demand accountability and expose perceived injustices.

A profound internal power struggle is threatening the unity of Afghanistan’s Taliban government, pitting the reclusive supreme leader against powerful cabinet ministers in a clash over the country’s future direction. The conflict, revealed through a BBC investigation based on leaked audio and over 100 interviews with Taliban insiders, exposes two competing visions for the nation.

At the center stands Supreme Leader Hibatullah Akhundzada, who rules from Kandahar with absolute religious authority. Surrounding himself with hardline ideologues, he advocates for a strictly isolated Islamic Emirate severed from modern global systems. His faction has implemented sweeping bans on girls’ education beyond primary school and women’s employment, enforcing rigid religious interpretations across Afghan society.

Opposing this vision stands the so-called ‘Kabul group’—influential ministers including Interior Minister Sirajuddin Haqqani, Defense Minister Mohammad Yaqoob, and political leader Abdul Ghani Baradar. While still conservative Islamists, these figures advocate for international engagement, economic development, and limited modernization. They particularly disagree with Akhundzada’s education bans and isolationist policies.

The tension reached its climax in September 2025 when Akhundzada ordered a nationwide internet blackout, citing anti-Islamic content concerns. In an unprecedented act of defiance, Kabul-based ministers collectively pressured Prime Minister Mullah Hassan Akhund to restore connectivity just three days later—an act described by insiders as ‘nothing short of rebellion.’

This direct challenge to Akhundzada’s authority marked a seismic shift in Taliban dynamics. While the movement has historically valued obedience to leadership, the pragmatic ministers recognized that governing a modern state requires internet access for both administration and commerce.

The power struggle reflects deeper ideological divisions. Akhundzada, a former Sharia court judge, believes himself accountable only to God and has consolidated power by moving key government functions to Kandahar. Meanwhile, the Kabul faction—many of whom negotiated with the United States and have international experience—seeks a governance model resembling Gulf states while maintaining Islamic principles.

Despite the confrontation, open rupture remains unlikely. Both factions recognize that visible division could threaten their hold on power. As 2026 begins, the question remains whether these internal tensions will translate into meaningful policy changes for the Afghan people, particularly regarding women’s rights and international relations.