作者: admin

  • US leads international concern after China test-fires missile into Pacific

    US leads international concern after China test-fires missile into Pacific

    On a recent Monday, China conducted a test-firing of a long-range missile into the Pacific Ocean, a development that sparked immediate alarm from the United States and amplified global scrutiny of Beijing’s accelerating military modernization and nuclear expansion efforts. This test marks the second major Chinese intercontinental-range missile launch into international Pacific waters in two years, following a 2024 test that sent an ICBM toward waters near French Polynesia — an event that broke a 40-year lull in such over-water ICBM tests by major nuclear powers.

    Military analysts widely view the latest test as clear evidence of China’s growing capability to strike the continental United States, a dynamic that reinforces long-standing U.S. perceptions of China as its primary global strategic adversary, even amid ongoing reconciliation outreach from the Trump administration. The U.S. State Department has framed China’s nuclear buildup as directly counter to global non-proliferation efforts. “At a time when the United States is working harder than ever to prevent nuclear proliferation, China is doing the opposite,” said State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott in an official statement, adding that “Beijing’s rapid and opaque nuclear weapons buildup is of great concern to the region and the world.”

    The current friction around arms control comes months after the last major bilateral nuclear pact between the U.S. and Russia, New START, expired in February. The U.S. has refused to extend the existing agreement, insisting instead on a new treaty that formally includes China in binding arms control commitments — an overture Beijing has repeatedly rejected. While China’s nuclear arsenal remains far smaller than Russia’s, its stockpile has expanded at a far faster pace in recent years than Western intelligence initially projected. The U.S. has now called on China to enter substantive arms control negotiations and establish a formal, consistent system for notifying the international community of all intercontinental ballistic missile and space launch activities.

    Taiwan’s national security authorities identified the tested missile as a JL-2, a submarine-launched ballistic missile that U.S. defense experts assess has a minimum range of 8,000 kilometers (5,000 miles). Joseph Wu, secretary general of Taiwan’s National Security Council, said the missile traveled over the Philippines and accused Beijing of undermining regional stability. “China just proved itself again to be a bully on the block,” Wu wrote in a post on social media platform X.

    The Philippine government, which has engaged in repeated territorial standoffs with China over disputed claims in the South China Sea, issued a harsh rebuke of the test, calling it a “reckless display of military power.” In an official statement, the Philippine Department of National Defense said, “This launch serves no peaceful purpose and is a calculated act of taunting and provocation against those who reject China’s illegal expansionism and coercive conduct.”

    In response to the international criticism, a spokesperson for the Chinese Navy, Wang Xuemeng, said the test was “a routine arrangement of China’s annual military training,” and emphasized that “relevant countries were informed in advance.” New Zealand officials confirmed that China notified Pacific island nations of the planned launch two hours before it took place, though it remains unclear whether advance notice was provided to the United States. Independent defense monitors tracking the test reported that the missile, launched from a Chinese nuclear submarine, landed in waters near the Solomon Islands — a South Pacific nation that drew international attention in 2022 when it signed a controversial security pact with Beijing. A new Solomon Islands government elected last year has announced it is reviewing the agreement.

    Other regional powers have joined the U.S. in voicing concern. Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong called the test “destabilizing to the region.” Japan, which did receive advance notification of the launch, said it had issued a formal diplomatic urging for China to reconsider such activities and registered “serious concerns” over the steady increase of Chinese military activity in the Indo-Pacific.

    Only Russia, China’s key strategic ally, has defended the test, framing it as a legitimate exercise of national sovereignty. A Kremlin spokesperson stated that China’s missile test was its “sovereign right” and emphasized that China “is not threatening anyone in the world.”

    Regional security analysts say the test marks a key milestone in China’s development of its nuclear deterrent. Lyle Morris, a senior fellow at the Asia Society Policy Institute, explained that the launch demonstrates China is expanding its nuclear strike options beyond ground-based missiles. “A test of this length is a major development and would indicate that China is moving toward a significantly more survivable and longer-range sea-based nuclear deterrent capability,” Morris said. The capability also means China’s navy “is capable of targeting the continental United States from bastions close to Chinese waters.”

    Notably, the Chinese missile test coincided with the signing of a major new defense treaty between Australia and Fiji, a move that comes as Canberra — a close U.S. ally — works to rebuild its influence in the South Pacific following the 2022 China-Solomon Islands security deal. Most analysts have ruled out a direct causal link between the two events, however, noting that major military missile tests are typically scheduled months or years in advance, making a last-minute alignment unlikely.

  • NATO allies seek to win over Trump after Iran ire

    NATO allies seek to win over Trump after Iran ire

    As U.S. President Donald Trump touched down in Ankara for a critical two-day NATO summit, alliance leaders are pulling out all the stops to ease tensions with the American leader, whose recent public fury over European responses to the U.S.-Iran conflict has cast a shadow over the gathering. The summit, hosted at Turkey’s sprawling presidential palace, comes exactly one year after NATO members committed under U.S. pressure to ramp up collective defense spending to five percent of GDP, a target that forms the centerpiece of allies’ efforts to placate Trump.

    NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has pushed back against Trump’s criticism, insisting that European allies are already delivering on their spending pledges, moving to take greater ownership of continental defense in the face of Russian threats. “Just one year later, we already see transformational progress,” Rutte told reporters on the eve of the summit, framing the shift as the dawn of “NATO 3.0: A stronger Europe in a stronger NATO.”

    Trump departed Washington late Monday alongside Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, arriving in Turkey still stinging from European restrictions on U.S. forces using regional bases for strikes against Iran. In the weeks leading up to the summit, he has lashed out at allies for moving too slowly to meet his demands, writing in a Truth Social post last week: “Ridiculous for the U.S.A. to continue along this one-sided path when the relationship is not reciprocal. They were not there for us!!!”

    To demonstrate progress to the U.S. president, NATO has prepared a suite of high-profile announcements, capped by the unveiling of tens of billions of dollars in new arms deals at an industry forum opening the summit on Tuesday. Canada reinforced the alliance’s push Monday when it announced a multi-billion-dollar contract to build its new submarine fleet with Germany’s Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems, a move Ottawa framed as a deliberate step to deepen defense ties with European NATO allies. A senior anonymous European diplomat summed up the moment bluntly: “This is showtime.”

    Diplomatic efforts to keep Trump in a constructive mood are leaning on his established warm relationship with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, paired with a sustained charm offensive from Rutte. European leaders’ top priority is avoiding a public clash that would further erode NATO’s credibility, after Trump spent months casting doubt on the U.S.’s long-standing commitment to the alliance’s collective defense clause. Still, tensions remain high: Trump has had high-profile fallouts with a string of European leaders in recent months, most recently Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, leaving plenty of room for unexpected friction.

    On the Iran front, European allies led by France and Britain have attempted to meet Trump halfway by drafting a plan for a joint naval mission in the Strait of Hormuz, and have repositioned vessels closer to the region to stand by for deployment. But leaders have declined to commit fully to the mission, saying they need clearer clarity on the fragile interim U.S. deal with Tehran before moving forward. For many European capitals, the summit has also underscored a growing acceptance of a long-term shift: the U.S. is steadily drawing down its military commitment to the alliance, and Europe must take greater responsibility for its own security. Washington has already made clear it expects allies to lead conventional defense on the continent, and recently announced cuts to the military assets it makes available to NATO commanders.

    Beyond internal alliance shifts, the summit will also center on continued support for Ukraine, which European allies have taken over almost entirely after Trump rolled back U.S. military aid to Kyiv. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who will attend Tuesday’s leaders’ dinner and hold one-on-one talks with Trump, is set to secure a NATO commitment from European backers to maintain at least 70 billion euros ($80 billion) in annual military aid to Ukraine for both 2026 and 2027. Ahead of the summit, Zelensky urged NATO to take “strong decisions” to boost Ukraine’s air defenses, following a devastating Russian airstrike that killed nearly 30 civilians across the country. The Ukrainian leader will also push Trump, who held a pre-summit phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, to pressure Moscow to return to the table for substantive peace negotiations, while making the case that Kyiv is gaining ground in the war.

  • Zelensky to press Nato for air defence systems after intense Russian strikes

    Zelensky to press Nato for air defence systems after intense Russian strikes

    As a new wave of devastating Russian ballistic missile attacks has left dozens of Ukrainian civilians dead and key infrastructure damaged, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is heading to a NATO gathering in Ankara, Turkey, with a clear and urgent priority: convincing Western allies to deliver the large-scale air defense systems Kyiv desperately needs to fend off Moscow’s escalating aerial campaign.

    Zelensky’s appeal carries unprecedented urgency, coming just days after Russia launched two separate missile barrages on Kyiv that struck residential apartment blocks, claimed more than 50 civilian lives, and laid bare critical gaps in Ukraine’s current air defense network. During the most recent Monday attack, Ukrainian air defenses successfully intercepted nearly all incoming Russian drones, but failed to shoot down a single ballistic missile — a failure that exposes the dangerous shortage of U.S.-made Patriot interceptor missiles, the primary system capable of countering the high-speed weapons that travel at thousands of kilometers per hour.

    In a blunt, frustrated video address delivered on the eve of the summit, Zelensky condemned the slow pace of military production, calling it “absurd” that output has not been scaled up to meet the clear need to protect Ukrainian civilians from what he terms “ballistic terror.” He has repeatedly called on European NATO members to release their stockpiled Patriot missiles, arguing that stockpiling weapons while Ukrainian civilians die serves no strategic purpose. “Russia is placing its bets on ballistic weapons, and those who want peace must place their bets on protection against ballistic attacks,” Zelensky stated, laying out his core argument for allied leaders in Ankara.

    Beyond the urgent push for air defense, the Ankara summit will also give Zelensky a high-stakes opportunity to meet with former U.S. President Donald Trump, where he will make the case that Russia’s brutal current aerial offensive is actually a sign of weakness, not strength. Zelensky will argue that mounting Ukrainian long-range drone strikes on Russian military and energy targets have severely strained Moscow’s capabilities, opening a narrow window of opportunity to pressure Russian President Vladimir Putin into negotiations for a “dignified” peace that preserves Ukraine’s sovereignty.

    Over recent weeks, Ukraine has ramped up its deep-strike drone campaign, hitting targets hundreds of kilometers inside Russian territory with growing frequency and accuracy. Strikes have taken out key oil refineries across Russia, from western regions to as far east as Omsk in Siberia, 2,500 kilometers from the Ukrainian border, triggering widespread fuel shortages that have seen Russians queuing for hours to buy gasoline and even fighting over limited allocations. Drone strikes have also hit Moscow and St. Petersburg ahead of major Russian political events, and daily attacks on Russian-held Crimea have disrupted military logistics, energy infrastructure, and civilian supply chains, prompting local authorities to declare a state of emergency over widespread power, fuel, and food shortages. One local Crimean resident described the situation as “catastrophic,” comparing current conditions to the economic chaos that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s — a direct rebuke of Putin’s core political claim that he pulled Russia out of post-Soviet chaos and restored national stability.

    NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has already echoed Zelensky’s call, urging alliance member states to “pull their weight” and deliver the military assistance Ukraine needs to defend its sovereignty. Rutte noted that Ukraine has already shifted the battlefield dynamic, stalling Russian ground advances in eastern Ukraine and gaining a critical upper hand through its deep-strike drone campaign.

    Despite this momentum, critical challenges remain. Patriot defense systems and interceptor missiles are in short supply globally, and it remains unclear how many additional systems Ukraine can secure even after Zelensky’s push. To address long-term gaps, Zelensky has also raised the possibility of Ukraine producing its own domestic equivalent of the Patriot system with NATO support.

    Moscow has framed Ukraine’s deep strikes as “terrorist” attacks, echoing the same language Russia has used for years to justify its own strikes on Ukrainian civilian infrastructure, including widespread winter attacks on power generation facilities that left millions without heat. For Zelensky, however, the drone campaign is a deliberate “influence campaign” designed to erode Russian public and political support for the war and force Putin to the negotiating table on terms acceptable to Kyiv — terms that do not include surrendering the entire eastern Donbas region, as Moscow continues to demand.

    Trump, who spoke with Putin for 90 minutes by phone earlier this week to hear the Russian leader’s perspective on the conflict, has recently signaled cautious support for Ukraine, adding uncertainty to the outcome of the upcoming meeting. For Kyiv, the summit comes as a critical moment: Ukrainian leaders aim to end the war before another harsh winter sets in, whether through continued military pressure or diplomatic negotiations. But Zelensky will make clear that to secure that outcome, Ukraine first needs the air defense capabilities to protect its people and cities from Russia’s intensifying missile terror.

  • Virtual taekwondo is on the rise as it makes its debut at Asian Games

    Virtual taekwondo is on the rise as it makes its debut at Asian Games

    Across Southeast Asia, a fusion of traditional martial arts and cutting-edge digital technology is carving out a new niche in global competitive sports: virtual taekwondo. What began as an experimental, unfamiliar concept just a few years ago has rapidly evolved into a structured, widely embraced discipline, attracting athletes of all ages and reshaping how communities think about both martial arts and gaming.

    For Vietnamese elite athlete Nguyen Thanh Hien Linh, the journey to becoming a virtual taekwondo gold medalist started with a steep learning curve. When she competed in her first virtual tournament in Singapore in 2024, the 21-year-old traditional national champion had little understanding of how the sport worked. “I was just kicking into the air,” she recalled, struggling to adapt to the unfamiliar digital arena, with no grasp of required strategy, specialized skills, or the underlying technology. Just two years later, she stood atop the podium at a major Malaysian virtual taekwondo competition, joining a fast-expanding regional community of the gamified combat sport.

    Co-developed by global governing body World Taekwondo and Singaporean tech firm Refract Technologies, virtual taekwondo was designed to appeal to the digital-native generation of young athletes by merging immersive virtual reality with core traditional taekwondo techniques. When competitors step onto the mat, they wear VR headsets that place them in a photorealistic 3D digital arena, alongside motion-tracking sensors strapped to their spine, thighs, and shins. Every movement of the athlete controls a custom digital avatar, and matches are held entirely without physical contact: well-timed, fast strikes gradually deplete the opponent’s virtual health bar, just like in a traditional video game.

    Unlike conventional taekwondo, which separates competitors into divisions by age, weight, and gender to reduce injury risk and level the playing field, virtual taekwondo allows all athletes to compete on the same equal digital footing. The discipline made its first major global debut during Singapore’s Olympic Esports Week in 2023, hosted its first official World Championships in 2024, and is set to make its Asian Games debut in Japan this year. It is also already confirmed as an included sport for the 2027 Southeast Asian Games hosted by Malaysia, marking a major milestone in its journey toward mainstream recognition.

    One of the biggest draws of the new sport, participants and coaches say, is its combination of high physical demand and near-zero injury risk. That unique selling point has won over both athletes and families across the region. At last month’s Malaysian national competition, 46-year-old Singaporean athlete Brian Peh explained that he first entered the 2024 world championship out of curiosity, joining his teenage son for the event. Both walked away with gold medals, and Peh has now added virtual taekwondo training to the curriculum at his traditional dojang (training hall).

    “I always tell parents: your kids love games. Do you want them using their hands to play, or using their legs?” Peh said. “When they put on the headset and start to fight, wow, their energy is so high. They can play and play and they love it.”

    In Cambodia, head coach Vandy Yiv reported that local participation in virtual taekwondo has already outpaced traditional forms of the sport, driven by growing interest from parents and children attracted by the low injury risk. At a local tournament held earlier this year, Vandy said virtual taekwondo drew more competitors than traditional segments. Many first-time participants arrive assuming it is just another sedentary video game, but quickly discover it is a demanding full-body combat sport. “Your whole body is moving. There is action, but no injury,” Vandy said, adding that he hopes to see virtual taekwondo become an official Olympic medal event in the coming years.

    While some new athletes experience initial disorientation and dizziness as they adjust to the virtual environment, the gamified format resonates strongly with teen competitors. Matches are structured as fast-paced, intense one-minute bouts that require constant offensive pressure, and success depends on more than just raw kicking ability. “You have to guess first where your opponent is and move before they do,” Nguyen explained, noting that the sport requires sharp anticipatory skills that differ from traditional taekwondo.

    Coaches emphasize that athletic success in virtual taekwondo relies on just as much physical conditioning as technical ability. Athletes still execute all the core traditional techniques: front kicks, turning kicks, and spinning maneuvers. However, instead of relying on impact force to score points, victory hinges on the speed of execution. “So our training is first stamina, muscle endurance, flexibility. Then we go toward the skills, the strategies, how to fight,” said Malaysian coach Henry Lee, himself an elite traditional taekwondo athlete, during a recent club training session. “Strength … is about how fast your leg can lift and strike. Speed becomes your power.”

    Lee also scouts for a key soft skill that sets top competitors apart: strong “game sense,” or the ability to read opponents’ movements and make split-second decisions in the unseen virtual space. Twelve-year-old trainee Victoria Siow explained that the sport’s unique challenge lies in judging spatial positioning that athletes cannot physically see. “You have to work on your mind — when to kick, how far to move,” she said. “It feels like a game and like a dream at the same time.”

    For many older athletes and competitors who prefer low-contact sports, virtual taekwondo has opened new competitive opportunities that traditional sparring can no longer offer. Forty-five-year-old Raja Mardiah Idris, who trains at Lee’s club, noted that the format allows older athletes and women to compete safely and on equal footing regardless of age, size, or gender. Her young daughter has also taken up the sport, embracing it as a healthy active alternative to sedentary screen gaming. “When you wear the VR, everybody is the same,” said Raja, a member of a Malaysian state royal family. “You win through your technique, your strategy and your fitness.”

    Raja now plans to retire from full-contact traditional kyorugi sparring to focus exclusively on virtual taekwondo. She maintains a rigorous training routine of running and gym work to stay in competitive shape, and hopes to represent Malaysia at the 2027 SEA Games.

    While the sport is still in its early infancy across Southeast Asia, national governing bodies are already building out infrastructure to support growth. Malaysia has launched national development programs and official coaching certification courses, though challenges remain: high equipment costs currently limit broad access in lower-income parts of the region. Tony Lee, Malaysia’s national virtual taekwondo coach, is optimistic that growing public interest will push more clubs to invest in the required technology. “Virtual taekwondo is our future because young people like gaming,” he added.

  • What to expect from Trump’s meetings with Erdogan and Sharaa in Ankara

    What to expect from Trump’s meetings with Erdogan and Sharaa in Ankara

    As U.S. President Donald Trump prepares to depart for Turkey to attend the annual NATO summit this Tuesday, his schedule is already shaping up to be defined by high-stakes bilateral diplomacy that breaks with decades of bipartisan U.S. foreign policy. The trip will open with a one-on-one meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and conclude with a much-anticipated sit-down with new Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa on Wednesday — a pair of encounters that highlight Trump’s signature approach to foreign policy, which prioritizes personal rapport over longstanding ideological constraints.

    Trump has openly positioned this personalized diplomacy as a corrective to what he frames as missteps by his predecessor Joe Biden, and has made no secret of his public admiration for both Erdogan and Sharaa. He has described Erdogan as a “strong” leader and Sharaa as “tough”, and has even publicly credited Erdogan with facilitating Sharaa’s rise to the Syrian presidency following former leader Bashar al-Assad’s flight to Moscow in December 2024.

    This warm posture represents a sharp break from longstanding U.S. policy held by both major American political parties. For years, both Republicans and Democrats have raised sharp concerns over Erdogan’s domestic crackdown on political dissent and Turkey’s open support for Palestinian factions in the ongoing Gaza conflict. For Sharaa, the break is even more stark: he was formally designated a terrorist by the U.S. government for decades, a label the current administration has set aside in its push for closer ties.

    In contrast to his friendly overtures to Erdogan and Sharaa, Trump has adopted a sharply critical tone toward most European leaders set to attend this week’s summit, setting a tense tone for the broader alliance gathering.

    Regional analysts broadly view the burgeoning personal rapport between Trump and Erdogan as a potential strategic gain for U.S. interests in the Middle East. Alper Coskun, a former Turkish diplomat now based at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told Middle East Eye that the quiet solidarity between the two leaders is likely to work in Trump’s favor. “He will find an increasingly willing actor on the part of Turkey to pursue a more aligned policy with the United States in the broader Middle East,” Coskun noted, adding that even on the contentious issue of Gaza, Turkish officials have publicly emphasized growing alignment between Ankara and Washington. Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan already attended the inaugural meeting of Trump’s Gaza Board of Peace, though Israeli pushback blocked Ankara’s bid to deploy Turkish troops as part of a proposed international stabilization force for the enclave.

    That Israeli opposition extends far beyond the question of peacekeeping troops. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu used a Monday interview with Fox News to double down on his criticism of the U.S.-Turkey rapprochement, particularly any potential move to readmit Turkey to the U.S.-led F-35 stealth fighter program. Netanyahu argued that only Israel should hold the military advantage provided by F-35s, and attacked Erdogan’s ruling AKP as “a regime infected by the Muslim Brotherhood, an extreme movement that hates America and chants death to America from that side of the spectrum.” “I don’t think they should be given F-35 or the engines for their fighter jets, because that’ll upset the power balance in the Middle East, which is ultimately guaranteed by Israeli air superiority,” he added.

    Controversy around the F-35 program extends well beyond regional political tensions. Israel has relied heavily on F-35s for its military operations in Gaza, and manufacturing facilities producing F-35 components across NATO member states have repeatedly been targeted by anti-war protests in recent months.

    Turkey was originally removed from the F-35 program and hit with U.S. sanctions in 2019, after Ankara proceeded with a deal to acquire Russia’s S-400 air defense system. Washington has long argued that coexistence of the S-400 and F-35 puts sensitive U.S. stealth technology at risk of exposure to Russian intelligence. In a confidence-building move that stops short of full readmission to the F-35 program, the Trump administration notified Congress late last month of a planned $700 million military arms sale to Turkey, including General Electric F110 turbofan engines to power Ankara’s domestically developed Kaan fighter jet.

    While Ankara has maintained relatively warm ties with Moscow even as it remains a core NATO member, Turkish officials have sought to ease U.S. concerns by noting that the S-400 system has never been activated, leaving room for negotiated compromise. Even so, analysts caution that an immediate resolution of the sanctions dispute remains unlikely. While there is growing optimism in Ankara that the personal bond between Trump and Erdogan could lead to sanctions relief, Coskun notes that few observers are willing to bet that Trump will expend significant political capital with Congress to advance the issue. “I don’t expect an immediate solution, because of the very difficult obstacle in terms of dispossession of the S-400s, which is a requirement for Turkey,” he explained.

    Gina Abercrombie-Winstanley, a non-resident fellow at The Atlantic Council, emphasized that while Trump prioritizes personal warmth in his diplomatic engagements, U.S. officials still need to push for core strategic priorities from Ankara. “[Trump] puts a great deal of emphasis on… warmth and conviviality, but hopefully somebody at the Department of State is talking about the things that we need from Turkey, which is to help ensure NATO sticks with their increased commitments for defence spending,” she told Middle East Eye.

    One of the most striking foreign policy shifts of Trump’s second term has been his rapid embrace of Sharaa, Syria’s new leader. Previously known as Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, the former head of an al-Qaeda offshoot has rebranded as a secular statesman over the past year, backed by Turkish political support and Gulf Arab financial investment. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman first introduced Trump to Sharaa on the sidelines of the May 2025 Riyadh summit, shortly after Trump made the groundbreaking announcement that the U.S. would lift decades of sweeping economic sanctions on Syria. By November 2025, Sharaa was in the Oval Office exchanging gifts with Trump, and earlier this year he publicly thanked the U.S. president on social media for a delivery of Trump-branded fragrance.

    Analysts say this quick rapprochement has already delivered tangible benefits for Syria’s new government. Will Todman, chief of staff of the Geopolitics and Foreign Policy Department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, noted that Trump’s personal attention has already elevated Syria’s standing internationally. “That relationship has really delivered remarkable dividends, I think, for Syria, so far as it relates to the level of political attention that Trump has devoted” to the country, Todman said. “The fact that Trump has been so willing to see Syria in a new light, and to see the potential for Syria” is alone a win for the Syrians, he added.

    The next major milestone for the U.S.-Syria rapprochement is expected to be the removal of Syria from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism, a top policy priority for Damascus that is already gaining bipartisan support in Congress. Last week, a bipartisan group of lawmakers wrote to Secretary of State Marco Rubio arguing that the original legal justification for the designation no longer holds, and that the listing remains a major barrier to Syria’s political and economic recovery. “While Syria does need to make more progress in a variety of areas… the grounds for the SST designation in US law no longer apply and the listing remains a significant barrier to achieving the Administration and congressional priority of giving Syria a chance to succeed,” the lawmakers wrote.

    Even as the relationship advances, analysts have pushed back on one of Trump’s most provocative recent proposals: the idea that Sharaa’s government could take on the task of disarming the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah. Abercrombie-Winstanley called the suggestion implausible. “I couldn’t believe it when I heard it,” she said. “I do expect Sharaa to be diplomatic with it, but [it’s] very clear that this is not something that should be welcomed by anyone, Syrian, Lebanese, or otherwise.”

    Todman noted that Sharaa has no incentive to take on such a fraught mission, particularly as he works to consolidate control over a fractured Syria still reeling from decades of civil war. “Sharaa has no interest whatsoever in getting involved in Lebanon militarily — especially when his own country is still so fractured,” Todman explained. “It would immediately echo the past Syrian occupation of Lebanon, which would conjure up very negative feelings among Lebanese. In terms of capacity, he’s still struggling with the security situation in Syria. He’s not in control of all of Syrian territory.”

    Following his meeting with Sharaa, Trump is scheduled to hold a press conference in Ankara Wednesday before returning to Washington. Consistent with his past practice, observers expect the president to share unscripted details of his closed-door discussions with leaders on the summit’s sidelines.

    This report was originally published by Middle East Eye, an independent media outlet focused on coverage of the Middle East, North Africa and global affairs.

  • Australian motorists feel ‘gouged’ at the pump as fuel prices jump sharply

    Australian motorists feel ‘gouged’ at the pump as fuel prices jump sharply

    Australian drivers are already feeling significant financial strain at petrol pumps just days after the federal government halved the temporary fuel excise discount introduced to offset sky-high global fuel prices, new data and industry analysis confirms.

    Finder’s latest consumer research reveals that 79% of Australian motorists believe they are being overcharged by fuel retailers following the June 30 reduction of the total per-litre discount from 32 cents to 16 cents. Automobile advocacy group the NRMA has recorded dramatic price surges across New South Wales, with regular unleaded petrol in Sydney jumping 17 cents per litre to hit 164.4 cents in the week after the discount cut. Sydney diesel prices rose even faster, climbing 21.1 cents per litre to 182.2 cents.

    Worse price increases are on the horizon for drivers across the state, the NRMA’s fuel watch program warns. “Prices are expected to rise a further 3 cents per litre in Sydney over the next week or so,” the group said in its latest update. “Regional price increases in the order of at least 6 cents per litre will take longer to pass through to consumers, but the final size of the increase depends on when individual retailers replenish their stock.”

    The staggered rollback of the fuel excise cut is part of a policy response to geopolitical turbulence that roiled global energy markets earlier this year. The original 50% cut to fuel excise was introduced on March 30, following the outbreak of conflict between the United States and Iran that led to the temporary closure of the Strait of Hormuz — the critical global chokepoint through which 20% of the world’s daily energy supplies flow.

    The closure disrupted global oil and gas markets, pushing benchmark crude prices up to roughly $US120 per barrel before a fragile peace agreement calmed tensions. After the deal, oil prices retreated to near pre-conflict levels of around $US70 per barrel.

    The initial excise cut reduced fuel costs by 26.3% per litre, cutting the cost of filling a 50-litre tank by $16 and an 80-litre tank by $21 for Australian motorists. State governments later agreed to return excess GST revenue generated by the higher fuel prices to consumers, bringing the total combined discount to 32 cents per litre. Fuel prices briefly dropped to a five-year low nationwide as a result of the combined policy action.

    Starting July 1, the total discount was halved to 16 cents per litre as part of a planned gradual return to pre-conflict tax levels, which will be fully restored by August 2, 2026.

    Federal Treasurer Jim Chalmers defended the gradual rollback, framing the extended partial discount as responsible cost-of-living support for households still grappling with broader inflationary pressure. “This extension of the fuel tax cut recognises there’s still a lot of uncertainty in the Middle East and the global economy more broadly, and our action provides a graduated return to normal settings for the fuel excise,” Chalmers said.

    “The additional relief we’re providing means that from 1 July, we’ll have more temporary help with the cost of living with this extension to the fuel tax cut, and more permanent help with the cost of living with another round of tax cuts for every taxpayer,” he added. “We thank the states and territories for contributing to the fuel tax cut.”

    Economics analysts note that Australian fuel prices are highly sensitive to shifts in global crude markets: according to financial services firm AMP, every $10 increase in global oil prices translates to an extra 10 cents per litre paid by consumers at Australian pumps.

    As prices climb, Australia’s competition regulator has moved to crack down on potential price gouging by fuel retailers. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) sent a formal warning letter to retailers late last week, reminding businesses they must not exploit the partial excise restoration to overcharge consumers at the pump.

    “We will closely examine fuel price movements and market behaviour, both in the lead-up to and following the increase in fuel excise,” ACCC Commissioner Anna Brakey said. “We will not hesitate to take action if retailers make false or misleading statements about price movements or if there is evidence of anti-competitive behaviour.”

  • Knife pulled during Adelaide teen fight club brawl filmed for YouTube

    Knife pulled during Adelaide teen fight club brawl filmed for YouTube

    Shocking social media footage has exposed an underground, self-organized bare-knuckle fight club operating out of public recreational ovals in suburban Adelaide, drawing fierce condemnation from South Australia’s top leader and prompting a call for a crackdown on the unregulated activity.

    Dubbed the South Australian Fight Club, the informal group is run by local young people and organizes unsanctioned brawls for both male and female teens, with matches structured by weight classes ranging from 40kg to 65kg. Winners of the contests are even awarded homemade “championship” belts, much like professional combat sports. The group maintains a small set of rules to mitigate severe injury—banning hair pulling, biting, and strikes to the back of the head—before uploading full fight footage to public YouTube and Instagram accounts, complete with live time and score tracking for viewers.

    To date, the group’s YouTube channel has published eight fights across different weight categories. One 40-second clip, uploaded on May 31 from Broadmeadows Oval in Elizabeth North, has already amassed over 4,000 views. The video captures a brawl between two male teens that is suddenly interrupted by a bystander, cutting abruptly before a text overlay appears noting that “knife got pulled” at the scene. Other clips show the informal nature of the matches: one includes commentary from the cameraperson calling out rule violations, while a July 5 bout between two teen female fighters captured one competitor repeatedly apologizing to her opponent mid-fight before the pair continued exchanging blows. Spectators on the sidelines can be heard shouting encouragement and direction to the fighters, creating a chaotic, spectator-fueled atmosphere around the unsanctioned events.

    So far, South Australia Police (SAPOL) confirmed they have not received any formal complaints about the group’s activities, but Northern District officers have urged organizers to move their contests out of public green spaces. “For their safety, we would encourage them to seek out a local gym, training facility, or other more appropriate facility than a public park,” a SAPOL spokesperson said.

    However, South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas has publicly condemned the operation, saying he is “absolutely appalled” by the unregulated activity taking place on public land. “It is completely unsafe and perpetuates raw violence in a way that cannot be tolerated, particularly amongst children,” Malinauskas said. The premier added he has already directed the state’s Attorney General and Police Minister to take all necessary action to crack down on the practice, noting “Our kids should be taught how to respect one another, rather than display violence on social media.”

    The Adelaide-based operation is not an isolated case: it is part of a growing trend of informal, community-run fight clubs popping up across Australia, with the Townsville Fight Championship in Queensland also earning similar social media traction in recent months. Multiple outlets have attempted to contact South Australian Fight Club organizers for comment on the backlash, but no response has been issued as of yet.

  • How US is using cash and threats to dump migrants in Africa

    How US is using cash and threats to dump migrants in Africa

    ### Introduction
    Under the second Trump administration’s hardline immigration crackdown, a little-known and highly controversial policy has pushed hundreds of deportees from across the globe into African nations, secured through a toxic mix of U.S. visa bans, financial incentives and diplomatic coercion. Two former senior U.S. State Department officials have confirmed to Agence France-Presse (AFP) that the initiative, conceived by anti-immigration advisor Stephen Miller and the White House Homeland Security Council, strongarms African governments into accepting third-country deportees — individuals who have no connection to the nations they are sent to, and often face abuse, indefinite detention and legal limbo after arrival. The White House declined to respond to specific allegations, while the State Department confirmed that enforcing the administration’s immigration priorities remains a core commitment, focused on curbing unauthorized migration and strengthening U.S. border security.

    ### The Mechanics of Coercion: Carrots and Sticks for African Nations
    The first wave of third-country deportations under the Trump administration focused on Central and South America, but Africa quickly emerged as the second major destination. Washington uses two key levers to pressure African governments: punitive restrictions, including full or partial travel bans targeting majority-African nation lists, and financial payoffs for cooperation. According to Democratic U.S. Senators and non-governmental organizations, two-thirds of the 39 countries hit by Trump administration travel bans are African, and nearly half of all nations that have signed secret deportation deals with Washington are located on the continent.

    Human Rights Watch documentation shows Eswatini, Africa’s last absolute monarchy ruled by King Mswati III, agreed to accept 160 deportees in exchange for $5.1 million in U.S. funding. Rwanda has reportedly sealed a similar $7.5 million aid agreement to take 250 deportees. For nations that refuse to comply, consequences are swift and severe. Burkina Faso’s junta, which has adopted a hostile stance toward Western influence, rejected the U.S. push to accept expelled migrants, with Foreign Affairs Minister Karamoko Jean-Marie Traore calling the pressure “blackmail” and affirming the nation “is a place of dignity… not a place of expulsion.” Shortly after the refusal, Washington halted visa processing in Ouagadougou and imposed a full travel ban on the country. When Nigeria declined to accept Venezuelan deportees in 2023, visa restrictions were quickly implemented in response. For cooperative nations, rewards are immediate: after Ghana agreed to take West African deportees, the U.S. reversed existing visa restrictions and lifted a 15% tariff on Ghanaian cocoa and agricultural exports.

    ### The Human Cost: Deportees Trapped in a ‘Legal Black Hole’
    For the deportees caught up in the policy, the outcome is almost universally grim. Lawyers across the U.S. describe the system as creating a “legal black hole,” where detainees are transferred to nations with no ties to them, held without charge, and stripped of basic human rights. Many of those sent to Africa already held legal protections against deportation to their countries of origin under the U.N. Convention Against Torture (CAT), which bars sending individuals back to places where they face risk of torture. The Trump administration has argued these protections only bar deportation to a individual’s home country, allowing transfer to any third nation — a legal interpretation that has been widely condemned by human rights advocates.

    Pheap Rom, a 43-year-old Cambodian national who completed a 15-year U.S. prison sentence for attempted murder, told AFP he could not understand why he was expelled to Africa instead of his home country. He was detained for months in Eswatini’s most notorious maximum-security prison, a facility long known as a tool for political repression under King Mswati, where pro-democracy activists and government critics are routinely held. For two months, Rom said he and other deportees were allowed only 15 minutes of outdoor time per day and just one phone call per week. “We went through misery,” he recalled.

    The case of 23-year-old Khalid, an East African man who fled torture in his home country and was granted deportation protection by a U.S. immigration judge in 2024, illustrates the policy’s disregard for existing legal safeguards. After crossing the Mexican border, a judge welcomed him to the U.S. and granted him formal protection from forced return. But in January 2025, Khalid was deported without documentation to Equatorial Guinea, a nation routinely criticized for systemic human rights abuses. The Equatorial Guinean government refused to allow him to stay, so he was put on a flight back to his home country — but border officials there turned him away for lack of valid travel documents. Stuck back in Equatorial Guinea, he has no ability to apply for asylum, as the country does not have a formal asylum system, per the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. “They don’t know if we’re alive or not and they don’t seem to care,” Khalid said of the U.S. officials who oversaw his deportation.

    Even long-term U.S. residents with deep roots in the country have been targeted. Roberto Mosquera, a Cuban-born plumber who moved to Florida as a child and was an open supporter of Donald Trump, served time in his youth for a gang-related shooting, but rebuilt his life after release: he married, raised four daughters, and became an outspoken critic of gang violence. After he was detained for a routine check-in with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), his family was falsely told he had been deported to Cuba, which rarely accepts deported Cuban nationals. He was eventually revealed to be held without charge in the same Eswatini prison as Rom, where he has remained for a year. After a recent video call, family friends said he had lost significant weight and hair, held in harsh conditions alongside political prisoners. The Department of Homeland Security even publicly mislabeled him a “murderer” to justify his expulsion.

    Deportees sent to other African nations face similarly grim outcomes. Those sent to Ghana were held in secret at a remote military base without charge; some were dumped across the border in Togo without any documentation. A bisexual Gambian deportee was sent back to Gambia, where homosexuality is criminalized, forcing him into hiding. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, deportees are held in hotels near Kinshasa airport, where multiple people have fallen ill, and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) pressures detainees to sign up for “voluntary” repatriation to their home countries. “They’ve got us cornered because they tell us: ‘If you don’t accept the repatriation programme, you’ll be stuck in a mess here in Congo,’” said Gabriela, a 30-year-old Colombian deportee who spoke to AFP in Kinshasa. The IOM has denied any wrongdoing, saying its assistance is strictly voluntary and based on full informed consent.

    ### Secrecy and Impunity Amid Ongoing Policy Expansion
    The entire third-country deportation program is shrouded in secrecy, with no public accounting of how many people have been sent to Africa, which countries have accepted them, or what conditions they face. An investigation by Senate Democrats found that at least nine African governments have agreed to take deportees as part of 25 global agreements, while nonprofit tallies put the number at 14 out of 34 countries with confirmed or alleged deals. The Senate report does not even include Sierra Leone, which accepted its first group of deportees in May 2025, or the Central African Republic, which received Iranian and other deportees in June 2025.

    Human rights lawyers warn the policy amounts to “chain refoulement,” a violation of international law that occurs when one country transfers a person to another nation to facilitate their onward deportation to a place where they face harm. “These governments are receiving money from the U.S. for the purpose of processing individuals who are deported there, just to be deported back to their countries — it’s chain refoulement and that is illegal,” said U.S. immigration lawyer Meredyth Yoon. One former State Department official described the administration’s approach as deliberate indifference: “Once they’re out of U.S. hands, you can do with them whatever you want. Hands washed. That’s how the administration approached it.”

    Despite growing legal pushback and widespread international criticism, the Trump administration has shown no sign of rolling back the policy. Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran immigrant who became the public face of the administration’s wrongful deportation scandals after being mistakenly sent to El Salvador, remains at risk of expulsion to Uganda, Eswatini, Ghana or Liberia even after a U.S. judge dismissed all criminal charges against him in May 2025. When a judge ruled that the deportation of a woman to the DRC was illegal because the Congolese government could not provide her required medical care, U.S. officials claimed bringing her back to the U.S. was too dangerous due to the Ebola outbreak in the region, leaving her stranded. One former State Department source summed up the policy’s core ideology simply: “There was no real guiding philosophy, it was just xenophobia.”

    As recently as May 2025, a new deportation flight landed in Accra, Ghana. An AFP reporter attempted to access the heavily guarded hotel where deportees were reportedly being held, but was turned away. Staff confirmed the hotel was fully booked, but added there would be plenty of vacancies in two days — a signal that the deportees would be moved out to make room, continuing the cycle of secret transfers and forgotten people.

  • What to know about NATO’s summit in Turkey as America steps back from its defense of Europe

    What to know about NATO’s summit in Turkey as America steps back from its defense of Europe

    As leaders of the world’s largest military alliance gather in Ankara, Turkey this week for a critical two-day NATO summit, the bloc finds itself at an unprecedented crossroads, driven by a shifting U.S. security posture that has shaken long-standing trans-Atlantic trust. U.S. President Donald Trump’s opening demand for “loyalty” from alliance members has set a tense tone for the gathering, coming after several NATO partners refused to grant American forces access to their domestic military bases for strikes targeting Iran amid the ongoing regional conflict sparked by the U.S.-Israel war. Trump has publicly singled out major European powers — Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Spain — for criticism over their reluctance to back U.S. military action in the Middle East, deepening divisions ahead of formal talks.

    Ordinarily, a NATO summit serves as a highly symbolic showcase of shared commitment to collective defense, reaffirming the core Article 5 pledge that an attack on one member is an attack on all. This year, however, the trans-Atlantic bond is more fragile than it has been in decades, as the U.S. pulls back from its decades-long role as the primary security guarantor for Europe. The summit has been framed around the official theme of “a stronger Europe in a stronger NATO,” with the Trump administration pushing for a sweeping overhaul it has dubbed “NATO 3.0” — though the full details and implications of this restructuring remain unclear, with delegates hoping to hash out concrete plans over the course of the two-day meeting.

    Hosting the event is Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who has welcomed leaders to his sprawling Bestepe Presidential Compound on the outskirts of Ankara. In preparation for the summit, Turkish authorities completed a high-profile conversion of an old military airfield into a new commercial airport specifically to accommodate visiting delegations, and have implemented unprecedented security measures across the capital. Air defense systems are on high alert, tens of thousands of police officers have been deployed to duty, adjacent residential neighborhoods have been closed to civilian traffic, and some public sector workers have been granted time off to keep key transport corridors clear. All public gatherings in the area have been banned, and pre-summit security sweeps have resulted in more than a dozen detentions — including two working journalists, according to the Turkish Journalists Association.

    The summit’s official schedule brings together a wide range of global partners beyond the alliance’s 32 member states. On Tuesday evening, Erdogan will host a formal dinner in his compound’s “Winter Garden,” with top officials from Indo-Pacific partners Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand in attendance, alongside Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Parallel to the dinner, foreign ministers will convene the newly established NATO-Ukraine Council, while defense ministers will hold separate talks with their Indo-Pacific counterparts. An additional working session with officials from Gulf Arab states is also planned, and Trump is scheduled to hold a one-on-one meeting with Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa. The only closed working session for NATO heads of state alone will take place on Wednesday morning, scheduled to last just three hours, with a short public summary of outcomes expected immediately after the meeting concludes.

    Two core issues top the formal summit agenda, starting with defense spending — a long-running point of friction between the U.S. and its European allies, where Washington has consistently pressured partners to increase their military investments. Ahead of the gathering, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte highlighted that European allies and Canada increased their collective defense spending by 20% in 2025, marking one of the largest annual jumps in modern alliance history. Even so, this progress is not expected to satisfy the Trump administration, after leaders committed at the last summit to match U.S. defense spending levels as a share of gross domestic product. The 2026 U.S. military budget totals $901 billion, equal to roughly 3.3% of U.S. GDP — a target most European allies remain far from meeting.

    Beyond spending targets, NATO is aiming to showcase progress on modernizing its military capabilities, converting the billions in new public investment into cutting-edge military equipment adapted to 21st-century warfare. A dedicated defense industry forum will be held on the summit’s sidelines on Tuesday, bringing together senior alliance officials and industry leaders to accelerate weapons production and drive innovation in emerging defense technologies. The second top formal agenda item is ongoing military and humanitarian support for Ukraine, which is now entering its fifth year of full-scale war against Russian invasion. European allies and Canada currently cover the vast majority of Ukraine’s defense needs, including approximately 90% of the country’s national air defense systems.

    Despite the formal agenda, most of the behind-the-scenes debate is expected to center on two unaddressed tensions: the future of U.S. troop levels in Europe, and the escalating regional fallout from the war between Israel and Iran. European allies and Canada have been repeatedly caught off guard by Trump’s sudden announcements of troop cuts over the past 18 months, and are seeking clear reassurance about Washington’s long-term security commitment to the continent. Just ahead of the summit, the Pentagon surprised allies by announcing a six-month review of the entire U.S. military presence in Europe, which will assess both European progress toward self-defense and whether the U.S. retains full, unimpeded access to military bases and overflight rights across the alliance.

    NATO as an institution has not taken an active role in the ongoing war against Iran, and the alliance has no collective agreement with the U.S. on shared use of member bases or airspace, even though individual members have reached bilateral arrangements with Washington. At a joint public appearance with Rutte on June 24, Trump doubled down on his criticism of allied reluctance to join the U.S. campaign, telling reporters “We don’t need their money — we don’t need anything. I just want loyalty.” The demand has left many alliance members confused: NATO’s founding treaty already enshrines equal commitment to collective security through Article 5, the core mutual defense guarantee that forms the foundation of the entire organization. What additional terms of loyalty the U.S. president is seeking remains undetermined, leaving allies to navigate a summit defined more by uncertainty than shared purpose.

  • ‘We were scared to die’: The West Bank workers hiding in bins to reach Israel

    ‘We were scared to die’: The West Bank workers hiding in bins to reach Israel

    It was a sweltering April day when 70 Palestinian laborers squeezed into the back of a garbage truck, crammed between rotting waste and heavy trash bags, all clutching one desperate hope: to slip undetected across the border into Israel for a day of work that could feed their families. Thirty-seven-year-old Majd, a resident of Beit Furik just south of Nablus who asked to protect his identity, was among them. The unmarked crossing did not go undetected — Israeli forces stopped the truck at a West Bank checkpoint within minutes. For more than two hours, the men were left trapped under piles of refuse in the scorching heat, as soldiers processed their case. “At the beginning when they stopped us, we were afraid to go to jail,” Majd told independent outlet Middle East Eye. “Then when it took longer to get out, we were scared to die.” When they were finally pulled out, all were taken into custody. Majd, who had no prior convictions, was released the next morning and forced to walk home past Israeli settlements.

    Majd’s terrifying journey is far from an isolated incident. It is the direct outcome of a cascading economic collapse in the West Bank triggered by Israel’s decision to revoke roughly 150,000 Palestinian work permits in the immediate wake of the October 7, 2023 attacks. As household savings evaporated over months of closures, hundreds of thousands of Palestinian breadwinners have been left with no option but to risk arrest, injury, or death to cross into Israel for informal work.

    This current crisis did not emerge overnight. It is the end result of decades of structured economic control that has left the West Bank uniquely vulnerable to collapse, analysts say. When Israel first occupied the West Bank, initial access to Israeli labor markets pushed wages up temporarily, but the decades that followed brought a deliberate process of “de-development” that stunted the growth of local Palestinian agriculture and industry, leaving the territory almost entirely dependent on Israeli labor and revenue streams.

    A 1984 United Nations report first documented this structural dependence: restrictions on local production, rigid controls on imports and exports, and the absence of a sovereign financial system eliminated most viable employment opportunities within the West Bank, forcing a growing share of the Palestinian workforce to commute to Israel for jobs. By the 1980s, one-third of all Palestinian workers were employed in Israel. To manage this flow of labor, Israel introduced a general exit permit system in 1972 that allowed relatively free movement for workers without case-by-case approval. That system was scrapped entirely in 1991, replaced by an individualized permit regime that shifted the default from free movement to requiring specific, often denied authorization. The completion of Israel’s separation barrier in the early 2000s further tightened control over movement, labor, and trade, according to Walid Habbas, an analyst with the Palestinian Forum for Israeli Studies.

    Israel has long weaponized this permit system as a political tool, freezing thousands of permits after Palestinian attacks and during the 2000–2005 Second Intifada. Economic control was further formalized during the Oslo Accords through the Paris Protocol, which gave Israel the authority to collect tariffs, purchase taxes, and VAT on goods imported to the West Bank on behalf of the Palestinian Authority (PA). These funds, called clearance revenues, make up roughly 70 percent of the PA’s total annual income — and like the permit system, Israel has repeatedly withheld or delayed transfers as political leverage against the Palestinian leadership.

    “Treating the Palestinian economy as separate from Israel’s is misleading,” Habbas explained. “We are talking about a system in which Israel is dominating, and imposing severe restrictions in order to control and manage the Palestinians.”

    In the months before October 7, one-fifth of the West Bank’s entire labor force crossed into Israel for formal work. After the attacks, Israel pulled both of its core economic levers at once: it revoked all work permits and froze all clearance revenue transfers. The dual shock rippled through every corner of the West Bank economy, even hitting Palestinians who never worked in Israel, according to Misyef Misyef, an economist at the Palestine Economic Policy Research Institute. “The private sector is suffering and cannot sell their product because the purchasing power of the family is now very low,” Misyef told Middle East Eye.

    Majd knows this collapse firsthand. For six years before the war, he worked construction in the Tel Aviv area, waking at 3 a.m. every day to cross the border and returning home each night. The work was exhausting, but it came with benefits, and he could save roughly half of his 7,000 to 8,000 shekel monthly wage to support his two children. Those savings kept his family afloat for the first year of the permit ban. When the money ran out, Majd had no local work options to fall back on. “I looked for jobs here [in the West Bank], and I couldn’t find anything,” he said. “When there is a pressure on you to provide, you have to think of a way.”

    He twice crossed the separation wall illegally to work in Israel for weeks at a time, but unpermitted crossings have grown far deadlier since the ban. Even before the war, an estimated 50,000 Palestinians worked in Israel without permits, but current far-right Israeli policies have encouraged deadly force against undocumented laborers. Around 50 Palestinian workers have been shot and killed during attempted crossings, and Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir has publicly stated that the shootings are “starting to bring the numbers down.” For his third attempt to cross, Majd opted for the garbage truck, after being told hiding in the trash would keep him out of sight of snipers. “No one sees you, so at least you don’t get shot,” he explained.

    Nearly three years after the permit ban was implemented, there is little sign of a full reversal. Israel has restored just 7,000 permits for workers in industries it deems critical, leaving more than 140,000 formal laborers unemployed. The unemployment rate in the West Bank has skyrocketed from 15 percent pre-crisis to 30 percent today — a level Misyef says is unprecedented in modern global economies. Widespread joblessness has pushed the poverty rate to more than double its pre-war level, jumping from 12 percent to 28 percent.

    Today, Majd and his family survive on the small income his father earns from a tiny herd of sheep, a far cry from the financially stable life they once had. Unsure if he will risk another crossing, Majd spends his days worrying about his children’s future. “What’s going to happen to them in the future? I am worried I am not able to provide what they need,” he said. “I am depressed from everything that happened. I have become like a dead body.”