分类： world

A new investigation from Middle East Eye has uncovered that the upcoming World Travel Market (WTM) London, one of the global travel industry’s flagship annual gatherings running from 3 to 5 November, will host an official Israeli government tourism booth that showcases entities directly linked to illegal Israeli settlement construction and Palestinian dispossession in occupied East Jerusalem. Publicly listed on WTM London’s official event directory, the shared Israeli national booth includes the iTravelJerusalem tourism promotion platform, which falls under the full operational management of the Jerusalem Development Authority (JDA) — a statutory agency jointly overseen by the Israeli national government and the Jerusalem municipal authority. Long documented by human rights groups and international governing bodies, the JDA has for years spearheaded initiatives to seize Palestinian land in occupied East Jerusalem for settlement expansion and state-backed tourism projects that displace local Palestinian communities. Back in 2020, the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement published a detailed statement outlining how the JDA illegally expropriated privately owned Palestinian land to build so-called “Biblical parks”, actions that have displaced hundreds of Palestinian residents and put hundreds more at imminent risk of forced eviction, in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions. The agency has also played a central role in expanding major illegal settlement outposts across East Jerusalem, including the large Gilo settlement complex. A 2025 official report released by the European Union’s Representative Office for the West Bank and Gaza Strip further confirms the JDA’s formal plans to evict roughly 40 Palestinian families residing in the Umm Haroun compound in the Sheikh Jarrah neighbourhood, to make space for a new 320-unit illegal settlement housing development. Additional well-documented JDA initiatives that have drawn widespread condemnation include a state-approved 2020 cable car project in Jerusalem, which will require mass uprooting of native trees and the destruction of critical local water, sewage and telecommunications infrastructure. The project has moved forward despite fierce pushback from local Palestinian communities and the withdrawal of four international partner firms. Israeli heritage rights NGO Emek Shaveh has publicly denounced the cable car scheme, noting that its core purpose is not tourism development, but to cement settler control over Jerusalem’s historic core, push remaining Palestinian residents out of the city’s Historic Basin, and erase the area’s longstanding Palestinian cultural identity. Two other controversial JDA projects are also moving ahead: a large new settlement housing development adjacent to the Palestinian neighbourhood of Beit Safafa in East Jerusalem, and the high-profile renovation of the Mamilla Pool tourist site near Jerusalem’s Old City, which critics warn will desecrate a centuries-old Palestinian Muslim cemetery. Also listed as a participant on the Israeli WTM London booth is Africa Israel Hotels, a subsidiary of the Africa Israel Group, a firm with a long track record of involvement in illegal settlement construction projects across the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The revelation of the upcoming WTM London booth comes amid a rapidly shifting UK policy landscape around illegal Israeli settlement advertising. Earlier this year, Middle East Eye exposed a London-based Israeli real estate expo that advertised properties built on illegal settlement land, prompting the British government to refer the event to the UK’s advertising regulatory body. MEE later revealed in August that the regulator had declined to open a formal investigation into the expo, a move that drew public criticism from senior UK officials. In a parliamentary address delivered in September, UK Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband explicitly condemned the 2024 settlement property expo held just outside London, vowing to implement a full ban on all advertising of illegal Israeli settlements across the UK to prevent similar events from taking place in the future. The new controversy also echoes a 2010 ruling from the UK advertising regulator, which banned a prior Israeli tourist office campaign that featured imagery of East Jerusalem, on the grounds that the ad misleadingly implied occupied East Jerusalem was an official part of the State of Israel, at a time when the final status of the territory remains the subject of unresolved international negotiation. At the time of MEE’s publication, WTM London event organisers had not responded to repeated requests for comment on the presence of JDA-linked entities at the 2024 event. The official WTM London website markets the gathering as the world’s most influential travel and tourism industry event, designed to connect global travel professionals, foster new industry ideas, and build cross-border commercial partnerships.

A recent London-based medical recruitment event hosted by Israeli state-affiliated immigration bodies has drawn scrutiny, as officials seek to recruit British physicians to relocate to Israel amid a sustained exodus of local medical professionals. Titled MedEx UK, the Sunday job fair was held at a London Jewish community centre, organized collaboratively by Nefesh B’Nefesh, a group focused on facilitating Jewish immigration to Israel, the Jewish Agency for Israel, and Israel’s Ministry of Aliyah and Integration.
The event falls under the broader umbrella of the 2020-launched International Medical Aliyah Program (IMAP), a government initiative with a stated target of bringing 2,000 foreign doctors to Israel by 2029. The program is designed to reduce critical medical staffing shortages by simplifying Israel’s medical licensing process for new arrivals. Pre-event emails shared with attendees, reviewed by Middle East Eye, advertised direct access to representatives from Israeli hospitals and national health funds, as well as on-site YAEL Hebrew proficiency testing, a mandatory step for securing an Israeli medical license.
However, on-the-ground observers from Jewish Anti-Zionist Action (Jaza), an activist group whose member gained entry to the closed event, revealed that participating medical providers distributed promotional materials highlighting healthcare facilities operating in illegal Israeli settlements across the occupied West Bank. Flyers from urgent care provider Terem, for example, listed operational centres in the settlements of Modiin, Beit Shemesh, Ma’ale Adumim, and Beitar Illit. A verified attendee list included representatives from Leumit Health Services, an organization that advertises medical centres and pharmacies across 30 West Bank settlement communities, alongside the head of obstetrics and gynaecology for the Israeli military. The Jaza activist noted that dozens of leading Israeli medical professors travelled to London specifically for the one-day event before returning to Israel the following day, and that Shivat Zion, an organization previously exposed by Declassified UK for supporting British citizens seeking to move to West Bank settlements, was also in attendance. Multiple attendees reported that representatives from major health fund Clalit repeatedly emphasized flexible placement options across all regions of Israel, with guaranteed accommodation support for relocating medical staff. Middle East Eye reached out to all event organizers and participating health providers for official comment, but received no response prior to publication.
This London recruitment drive is the latest step in a multi-year Israeli government campaign to offset a deepening physician brain drain: data from a recent Israeli Medical Association survey shows 1,369 doctors left the country for postings lasting more than one year between 2023 and 2025. To attract foreign medical talent, policymakers have rolled out a series of financial incentives and regulatory adjustments to lower barriers to Israeli licensing. In 2025, the Israeli Ministry of Health updated rules to reduce the required professional experience threshold for exemption from the national medical licensing exam from 14 years to 10 years. The following year, the government earmarked up to 240 million NIS ($76.7 million) in dedicated funding for international medical recruitment efforts.
These aggressive international hiring measures run parallel to policy changes that have systematically restricted pathways for Palestinian doctors to join Israel’s healthcare system. The 2019 Yatziv Reform revoked official recognition of medical degrees issued by non-OECD nations, including multiple Eastern European countries such as Moldova, Armenia, and Romania, where large numbers of Palestinian students pursue lower-cost medical education, as well as degrees from Palestinian universities operating in the occupied West Bank. Structural barriers and discriminatory admission policies already limit access for Palestinian citizens of Israel to Israeli medical schools, while Palestinians residing in the occupied territories are barred from enrolling entirely in these domestic programs.
Despite these restrictions, the share of Palestinian doctors working in Israel grew steadily over the past 15 years, rising from 8% of all physicians in 2010 to 25% in 2023. That same year, government data showed Arab and Druze new licensees made up nearly 45% of all newly certified medical professionals in Israel, a sharp jump from 18% in 2010. However, this trend is set to reverse dramatically in 2026, as the cohort of Palestinian students who began medical studies in 2019 at now-disqualified non-OECD institutions graduate, and their degrees will no longer be recognized by Israeli regulators. Shani Bar Tuvia, director of the health policy department at Physicians for Human Rights Israel, emphasized that the share of Palestinian students enrolled in Israeli domestic medical schools has fallen to just 9%, a figure far too low to sustain the previous 45% share of new licensees. Bar Tuvia noted that health officials are fully aware the Yatziv Reform will create a major domestic staffing shortfall, and that international recruitment efforts are explicitly designed to fill that gap. The government has also attempted to expand domestic medical training capacity by opening two new university medical programs: one at Ariel University, the only higher education institution located in a West Bank settlement, and another at Reichman University, Israel’s only private university, both of which are largely inaccessible to Palestinian students.

The recent Israeli parliamentary elections have plunged Benjamin Netanyahu’s 15-year-long premiership into unprecedented uncertainty, with fragile coalition negotiations raising tangible prospects that the long-serving leader could step down from the prime minister’s post. Contrary to assumptions that a shift in domestic political power would erase his outstanding legal liabilities, international legal frameworks confirm that all ongoing cross-border proceedings against Netanyahu would remain fully active even after he leaves public office.

The most high-profile outstanding legal action is the November 2024 International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant targeting Netanyahu and former Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, issued over verified allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in the Gaza Strip. The charges include deliberate starvation of civilian populations as a method of warfare, targeted murder of non-combatants, and systematic persecution of Palestinian communities. Separate from the ICC proceedings, Netanyahu is also subject to an in-absentia arrest warrant and ongoing criminal trial in Turkey, where prosecutors have levelled charges of torture and crimes against humanity tied to Israel’s 2025 interception of a Gaza-bound humanitarian aid flotilla. Additionally, South Africa’s landmark genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), first filed in December 2023, will continue unimpeded regardless of changes to Israel’s top leadership.

A core legal reality underpinning these cases is that Netanyahu’s potential departure from office will strip him of the temporary personal head-of-government immunity that a number of ICC member states have previously invoked to avoid executing the arrest warrant against him. This immunity, a longstanding norm in international law, applies exclusively to sitting heads of state, heads of government, and foreign ministers, shielding them from arrest and prosecution in foreign national courts for all conduct during their tenure, and expires immediately upon leaving office. While a secondary layer of functional immunity, which covers actions undertaken in an official governmental capacity, technically extends to former leaders, leading international legal scholars have repeatedly confirmed that widely accepted carve-outs for core international crimes including war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity render this protection largely unenforceable for Netanyahu’s alleged conduct.

The ICC’s own legal framework explicitly rejects any immunity claims for individuals facing prosecution under the Rome Statute, per Article 27 of the founding treaty, which states that official governmental status cannot be used to bar criminal proceedings. This rule has been consistently enforced against leaders from non-ICC member states in past precedent: in 2019, the ICC Appeals Chamber ruled that Jordan was legally obligated to arrest then-Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir despite Sudan not being a Rome Statute signatory, and in 2024 the court found Mongolia in breach of its cooperation obligations for failing to arrest Russian President Vladimir Putin during an official visit. While Israel continues to contest the ICC’s jurisdiction over its territory on the grounds that it never ratified the Rome Statute, the ICC Appeals Chamber ordered in April 2025 that the Pre-Trial Chamber review Israel’s jurisdictional challenge without suspending the active arrest warrants, and two pending Israeli appeals on the matter have not altered the warrants’ legal standing. ICC Deputy Prosecutor Nazhat Shameem Khan confirmed in September 2025 that the office has taken no steps to initiate withdrawal of the arrest warrants, which remain valid indefinitely under Article 58(4) of the Rome Statute unless explicitly terminated by a formal court order.

In recent months, a handful of ICC member states including France, Italy, and Hungary have attempted to invoke immunity provisions to avoid executing the Netanyahu arrest warrant during official visits, with Hungary even raising a formal Article 98 procedural objection during Netanyahu’s April 2025 trip, a move that later resulted in the ICC formally finding Hungary in breach of its statutory cooperation obligations. Once Netanyahu is no longer serving as prime minister, these immunity justifications will no longer hold legal weight, exposing him to arrest in all 123 ICC member states that recognise the court’s universal jurisdiction, as well as in dozens of other countries that have incorporated universal jurisdiction statutes into their national legal systems to prosecute war crimes committed anywhere in the world, even with no direct territorial or national connection to the offences.

Historical precedent reinforces this legal pathway: in 1998, former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet was arrested in London under a Spanish universal jurisdiction warrant, with the UK House of Lords ruling that he could not claim immunity for counts of systemic torture. Most recently, in July 2025, France’s highest court annulled an arrest warrant against sitting Syrian president Bashar al-Assad on immunity grounds, but explicitly ruled that a new warrant could be immediately issued as soon as he leaves office, confirming that functional immunity does not extend to former leaders accused of genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes.

Practical barriers to Netanyahu’s arrest will remain significant, however. The ICC operates no independent police force, and is fully reliant on national law enforcement agencies across member states to execute its warrants. A future Israeli government would face immense domestic political pressure to refuse to surrender Netanyahu to the ICC, and the former leader is widely expected to sharply restrict or eliminate all international travel to countries that could detain him. Even so, national courts operating under universal jurisdiction rules will retain the authority to issue additional domestic arrest warrants against him for alleged international crimes, without requiring his physical presence on their territory to open formal proceedings.

The parallel ICJ case launched by South Africa operates on a distinct legal track, focused exclusively on state responsibility for alleged genocide in Gaza rather than individual criminal liability. Even after Netanyahu leaves office, his public statements and formal government decisions during his premiership will remain central to the prosecution’s evidence of genocidal intent on the part of the Israeli state. Israel submitted its full counter-memorial raising jurisdictional objections to the case in March 2026, with the court scheduling South Africa’s final reply for 22 November 2027 and Israel’s subsequent rejoinder for 22 May 2029, meaning a final binding ruling on the genocide allegations will not be issued for several more years.

Separately, Netanyahu’s long-running domestic corruption trial in Israel, ongoing since 2020 on charges of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust across three distinct cases, will also proceed unimpeded regardless of his political status. The former prime minister, who has consistently denied all wrongdoing, submitted a formal pardon request to Israeli President Isaac Herzog in November 2025 without admitting to any of the alleged offences. Herzog’s office has since stated that the two parties will first pursue a negotiated out-of-court settlement before the president rules on the pardon application, while opposition leader Yair Lapid has publicly asserted that Herzog has no legal authority to grant a pardon unless Netanyahu formally admits guilt and permanently withdraws from political life.

In a firm diplomatic pushback, Iranian authorities have formally turned down a Qatar-mediated draft ceasefire framework designed to bring an end to the eight-month U.S.-led military campaign targeting the Islamic Republic, dismissing the proposal as entirely non-negotiable. The Gulf state of Qatar, which has long acted as a neutral intermediary in regional geopolitical disputes, shared the full text of the proposed deal with Iranian negotiating teams during a meeting held last Sunday. A high-ranking Iranian official confirmed to Reuters on Wednesday that the submitted draft contained terms Tehran could not endorse, emphasizing that the country would refuse to make any concessions on its civilian nuclear program. U.S. Vice President JD Vance had laid out a precondition earlier this month that Iran must scale down its uranium enrichment activities as a prerequisite for halting the ongoing conflict, a demand that runs counter to Tehran’s longstanding public position that its entire nuclear infrastructure is dedicated exclusively to peaceful domestic energy and medical purposes. These behind-the-scenes diplomatic efforts are unfolding against a backdrop of widespread international alarm that the United States and Israel could imminently launch a new wave of large-scale military strikes on Iranian territory. The prospect of renewed hostilities has been amplified by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has leaned into tough anti-Iran rhetoric as a central campaign plank in his bid to secure a new term in Israel’s parliamentary elections. With 77 percent of all ballots tallied, Netanyahu’s right-wing electoral bloc has emerged as the largest faction in the new Knesset, positioning him to lead incoming government coalition negotiations. On Wednesday, as formal coalition talks were set to kick off, Netanyahu publicly pledged to collaborate closely with U.S. President Donald Trump to neutralize what he describes as the “existential threat” posed by Iran. Even Netanyahu’s leading electoral rival, former military chief Gadi Eisenkot, has voiced support for coordinated targeted strikes against Iran paired with sweeping economic sanctions against the country. The ongoing U.S.-Israeli military campaign against Iran, which first broke out in February, has already triggered cascading disruptions across the global economic system, driving sharp, sustained spikes in international energy prices. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi issued a stark warning on Wednesday that any unprovoked Israeli military operation in the Persian Gulf region would trigger catastrophic ripple effects for global commodity and financial markets. In a public post on social media platform X, Araghchi stated, “The devastating impact on international markets of any Israel-instigated military misadventure in the Persian Gulf region remains a major concern for both gas suppliers and consumers across the world.” The risk of wider regional chaos is further compounded by the ongoing, intensifying armed conflict between Saudi Arabia and the Iran-aligned Houthi movement in Yemen. On Wednesday, Houthi leadership, formally known as Ansar Allah, issued an urgent public call for all personnel at Aden International Airport, the seat of the Saudi-backed internationally recognized Yemeni government in the country’s south, to evacuate the facility immediately. Houthi military spokesperson Yahya Saree announced in a post on X that the evacuation order was issued after intelligence confirmed a Saudi military cargo plane loaded with weapons destined to kill Yemeni civilians was stationed at the airport. Cross-conflict military sources confirmed to AFP that nearly 100 fighters have been killed in clashes between Houthi forces and Saudi-aligned Yemeni combatants since the start of the week, with 63 of the fatalities belonging to the Houthi movement and 34 aligned with the internationally recognized government, almost all of whom lost their lives in combat near the strategically critical Bab al-Mandab Strait.

Israel’s 2026 national general election, the first national poll held since the devastating October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attacks and the subsequent multi-front conflicts across Gaza, Lebanon and against Iran, has delivered an unprecedented hung parliamentary outcome after a record-breaking voter turnout unseen in a generation. Official partial vote tallies released early on the day following the election confirm that neither former long-serving prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing bloc nor former military chief Gadi Eisenkot’s centrist and anti-Netanyahu alliance has secured the 61 Knesset seats required to form a stable governing majority. Voter participation hit 77.7%, the highest recorded national turnout since 1999 and a full seven percentage points above the 2022 election, dispelling widespread pre-election fears of widespread public apathy. The most dramatic surge in participation came from Israel’s Arab citizen population, which makes up roughly one-fifth of the country’s total population, with reported turnout reaching approximately 80% — a historic high for the demographic that has long seen lower engagement in national elections. This unprecedented Arab voter mobilization is the defining structural factor behind the deadlocked results: exit polls had initially projected the two major blocs running nearly neck and neck, with some major public and private broadcasters showing Eisenkot’s side holding a narrow lead, but overnight vote counting trended steadily in Netanyahu’s favor to narrow the gap further. As of the 55% vote count mark, Netanyahu’s outgoing governing coalition holds 56 seats, Eisenkot’s change bloc sits at 49, and the combined Arab-led parties hold 15 seats. Netanyahu’s Likud party remains the single largest faction in the Knesset with 27 seats, though this represents a notable drop from the 32 seats it won in 2022, and the broader right-wing bloc has fallen from the 64-seat majority that allowed Netanyahu to form his previous government. Eisenkot’s newly founded Yashar party ranks second with 21 seats, followed by the joint Together list led by former prime minister Naftali Bennett and ex-premier Yair Lapid, and the Arab-majority Joint List, both tied at 11 seats. Other factions include Yair Golan’s Democrats with 9 seats, ultra-Orthodox United Torah Judaism with 9, Avigdor Liberman’s Yisrael Beytenu with 8, Shas and Itamar Ben-Gvir’s Otzma Yehudit at 7 seats each, Bezalel Smotrich’s Religious Zionist list at 6, and Ra’am at 4. Despite neither side hitting the 61-seat threshold, both Netanyahu and Eisenkot immediately laid claim to a victory on election night. Eisenkot addressed cheering supporters to declare that the long-dominant old political order had been broken, and a new era of accountable governance was set to begin. Netanyahu, by contrast, emphasized that Likud held a commanding lead over all rival parties, and that the broader right-wing camp maintained a decisive majority among Jewish and Zionist voters. Analysts note that both claims hold factual weight, as the final result is less a clear win or loss for either frontrunner than a vivid political map of a deeply divided Israeli electorate, meaning the post-election negotiation process will carry far more weight than the ballots themselves. Every plausible path to a 61-seat majority requires leading figures to break explicit campaign promises, with no easy route for any side. For Netanyahu to return to office, his current 56-seat bloc needs five additional seats, but the most obvious potential partners are largely off the table: Liberman has repeatedly pledged he will never serve under Netanyahu or in a coalition that includes ultra-Orthodox factions, while Bennett told his own supporters on election night that Netanyahu had effectively lost his mandate. The only low-effort path for Netanyahu is a late shift in remaining uncounted ballots that pushes his existing bloc over the majority line. For Eisenkot, his current 49-seat bloc is far short of a majority, and the only way to hit 61 is to bring Arab parties into the governing fold — a step that his key allies Bennett and Liberman have categorically ruled out. Eisenkot himself has previously stated that all coalition partners must accept Israel’s identity as a Jewish state and the goal of dismantling Hamas, terms that nearly all Arab Knesset lawmakers have rejected, leaving even the proposed option of a minority government backed by external Arab parliamentary support deeply unpopular among his own camp. A national unity government combining Likud and Eisenkot’s Yashar party would easily clear the 61-seat threshold, and pre-election reports from TIME indicated Netanyahu was open to such an arrangement, while Liberman has publicly accused Eisenkot of secretly pursuing a unity deal. For Eisenkot, however, entering a unity government would mean propping up the very incumbent leader he spent the entire campaign vowing to remove from office. The final remaining scenario is a snap sixth national election, a outcome that most Israeli voters would reject after five consecutive tightly contested elections between 2019 and 2022, but one that remains a very real possibility if no faction can cobble together a working majority. The election was widely framed as a de facto referendum on Netanyahu’s leadership before, during and after the October 7 attacks, with his supporters hailing him as a resolute wartime leader who projected strength against regional enemies and maintained close strategic ties with the United States, while his critics hold him responsible for the catastrophic intelligence failures that allowed the October 7 atrocities to occur, as well as the years of domestic polarization driven by his government’s controversial judicial overhaul push and bitter disputes over ultra-Orthodox military conscription. Notably, the leading anti-Netanyahu challengers did not run as a traditional left-wing bloc: Eisenkot, Bennett and Liberman are all established security hawks, meaning the campaign was fought far more heavily on questions of public trust and competent governance than on policy toward the Palestinians. Even the United States became an implicit factor in the race, as sitting US president Donald Trump issued a public explicit endorsement of Netanyahu nine days before voting day, marking the first time a sitting US president had openly backed a candidate in an Israeli national election. Most local analysts concluded the endorsement did little to shift voter sentiment, citing widespread public frustration among Israelis over the Biden administration’s handling of the conclusion of the recent Iran conflict, while Eisenkot publicly pushed back on the intervention by stating that only Israeli citizens have the right to choose their own national leader. Full final vote tallies are expected to be completed by October 30, with official certified results set to be published on November 4. Even a shift of one or two seats from factions hovering near the parliamentary entry threshold could dramatically alter the calculus of coalition negotiations, after which Israeli President Isaac Herzog will formally consult with all party leaders and task the candidate with the highest likelihood of forming a government, who will be granted up to 42 days to secure a Knesset majority. The recommendations from kingmaker figures Bennett, Liberman and the two Arab party blocs will carry far more weight than the positions of either of the two top frontrunners in determining the final shape of the next government. The overarching takeaway from the election is that the massive, record-breaking wave of Israeli voters turned out specifically to deny any single political camp a clear, unchallenged mandate. Netanyahu’s long-running era of political dominance has not formally ended, and Eisenkot’s promised new era has not yet begun, meaning the next phase of Israeli politics will be defined not by who “won” the election, but by which political actors are willing to make unprecedented compromises and negotiate cross-faction deals to form a functional government.