标签： Asia

In a move that marks a stark shift in the union’s political priorities, the 3,000-strong Student Workers of Columbia-United Auto Workers (SWC-UAW) has voted to withdraw its landmark demand that Columbia University divest all financial ties linked to Israel, during a collective bargaining session this week. The decision to pull the controversial contract proposal, formally titled “Obligations Under International Law,” came out of a general body vote held Monday by the union, which represents both undergraduate and graduate student workers at the Ivy League institution.

The withdrawn proposal had carried far-reaching demands beyond divestment. It sought to force the university to cut financial ties with any companies and state actors the United Nations or International Criminal Court deemed to violate international law, require Columbia to publish full details of all its direct and indirect investments twice every fiscal year, and grant the union the right to submit a formal list of entities the university must divest from, complete with the union’s own documentation of alleged international law violations. The union had long justified the proposal on the grounds that its members, who generate core academic and operational value for Columbia, deserve a formal say in how the institution invests its endowment and institutional funds.

This withdrawal represents a major strategic reversal for the union, which has been a central institutional backer of Columbia’s pro-Palestinian student movement since the outbreak of the Israel-Gaza war in October 2023. The conflict, which began after Hamas carried out cross-border attacks on southern Israel that killed approximately 1,200 people and took 240 hostages, has left more than 73,000 people dead in Gaza according to Gaza’s Ministry of Health, sparking widespread protests across college campuses in the United States and around the world. For Columbia’s pro-Palestinian movement, financial divestment from Israel has remained the top policy demand, after activists set up the high-profile “Gaza Solidarity Encampment” and occupied the university’s Hamilton Hall in April 2024. Those actions drew national attention, prompting two NYPD sweeps to clear the encampment and re-take the occupied building.

In the months following the 2024 campus protests, SWC-UAW cemented its alignment with the pro-Palestinian movement: it passed a June 2024 resolution endorsing the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel, called on Columbia to end its dual degree program with Tel Aviv University, and pushed to scrap plans for a new Columbia global center in Tel Aviv. The union also passed a separate “Cops off Campus” resolution the same month, calling for a permanent ban on NYPD officers from the university’s Morningside Heights campus.

The divestment demand withdrawal comes as SWC-UAW and Columbia administration have remained deadlocked in negotiations over a new collective bargaining contract, which the union originally expected to finalize by June 2025, when its first contract was set to expire. Talks have stalled over a fundamental disagreement: what counts as a permissible “workplace issue” for collective bargaining under the existing 2018 framework that governs negotiations between the two parties.

To date, the union has put forward 34 separate contract articles covering everything from wage increases and healthcare benefits to job security protections amid growing adoption of artificial intelligence in academic work. But Columbia administration has refused to negotiate on the majority of these proposals, arguing they fall outside the bounds of the 2018 bargaining framework, which restricts negotiations to narrow workplace issues rather than academic or operational institutional policy. Under the U.S. National Labor Relations Act, both parties are only legally required to bargain over mandatory subjects such as wages and working conditions, leaving policy-focused proposals like divestment outside of mandatory bargaining requirements.

As negotiations continue, Columbia is still on track to open its long-planned Tel Aviv global center this coming summer, a milestone that pro-Palestinian activists have repeatedly sought to block.

A public discrepancy between U.S. President Donald Trump and the Board of Peace, an organization Trump himself serves as lifetime chairman of, has emerged over who will take control of weapons as Hamas implements its pledged disarmament in Gaza, injecting new uncertainty into a fragile ceasefire framework announced last week. The contradiction arose during Trump’s first on-camera press availability at the Camp David presidential retreat in Maryland, where a reporter asked who would assume custody of Hamas’ weapons as part of the disarmament plan. When asked whether the weapons would transfer to a new Palestinian governing body, Trump flatly stated the Board of Peace would oversee collection of the armaments, praising the body as an extraordinary initiative led by exceptional leaders.

What made Trump’s remarks notable is that just hours before the press conference, the Board of Peace had published a public statement on social platform X outlining a very different arrangement. The board’s framework laid out a roadmap of full demilitarization, de-radicalization, and a full transfer of all civilian and security governing authority in Gaza to the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG), a Palestinian technocratic body. It explicitly emphasized that only the NCAG would be authorized to hold, store, and control all weapons within the Gaza Strip. This wording was widely viewed as a deliberate compromise to win Hamas’ support for the plan, as the group has long insisted it will only engage with Palestinian institutions to advance Palestinian national unity.

The conflicting claims have highlighted the growing confusion surrounding the disarmament plan, which was first included in Trump’s 20-point Gaza proposal released last year. Analysts and insiders have offered conflicting assessments of whether the contradiction is a meaningful rift or simply a misstatement of process. Guy Ziv, associate director of the Meltzer Schwartzberg Center for Israel Studies at American University, framed the discrepancy as just the latest example of the chaotic and uncoordinated nature of the current proposal.

However, Bishara Bahbah, a Palestinian-American former leader of Arab Americans for Trump who served as a key backchannel between Hamas and Trump’s negotiating team ahead of the October ceasefire announcement, pushed back on the idea of a major conflict. He argued the two statements are not contradictory, explaining the Board of Peace’s reference to the NCAG means the technocratic committee will collect the weapons before transferring them to a third party, most likely Egypt, where the weapons will be permanently removed from Hamas’ access. “It’s not a contradiction. The Board of Peace would collect [the weapons], meaning the technocratic committee that would run Gaza, and they’re not going to keep them themselves. They’re probably going to hand them to some other party, most likely the Egyptians. And the Egyptians, once they have those weapons, those weapons are gone. Meaning Hamas is not going to ever see them again,” Bahbah told Middle East Eye.

Even as stakeholders work to resolve the confusion over the weapons handover, the broader plan remains far from a finalized, actionable agreement, existing more as a broad roadmap than a step-by-step implementation schedule. Hamas clarified on Friday that its commitment to full disarmament of all Palestinian factions in Gaza is conditional on both the U.S. and Israel honoring all commitments outlined in the 10 October ceasefire deal. As of Friday, Israeli drone strikes continued across Gaza, leaving at least two Palestinians dead. Ghazi Hamad, a senior Hamas representative, told Reuters that the group will retain its weapons until Israel halts all military operations, allows expanded entry of humanitarian aid and commercial goods into Gaza, and withdraws all Israeli military forces from the enclave.

When asked what assurances he had received from Israel that it would comply with its obligations under the plan, Trump told reporters he has a standing understanding with Israel, and that “Israel is very happy about it. Israel helped us, and they’ve been very good.” But Israeli officials have openly rejected the plan, creating a major hurdle to implementation. Michael Koplow, chief policy officer for the Washington-based Israeli Policy Forum think tank, wrote on X that he believes Israel’s current strategy is to publicly approve the framework to shift blame to Palestinians if talks collapse. “Israeli strategy with Trump has been [to] say yes, count on the other side saying no, and assign the blame when nothing moves forward onto the Palestinian side,” Koplow noted.

Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir went further, publicly stating that the Israeli government has not agreed to any terms of the plan. “The draft agreement published by the ‘Peace Council’ is not acceptable to Israel,” he wrote in Hebrew. “The targeted killings in Gaza must continue, encouraging emigration must happen, Israel must win.” With Israeli national elections scheduled in less than two months, incumbent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has faced strong political pressure to avoid any perceived concessions on issues related to Palestinians, making compromise on the disarmament plan unlikely in the near term.

Bahbah argued that the plan can only move forward if Trump personally intervenes to pressure Israel to comply, noting that current Secretary of State Marco Rubio is widely seen as unilaterally pro-Israel and hostile to Palestinian interests, actively working to block progress on issues such as allowing Palestinians to travel to the U.S. “Unless the president himself is convinced… into making this a priority, Israel is going to find one excuse after the other,” Bahbah said.

Beyond the immediate dispute over weapons collection, analysts have questioned the Trump administration’s long-term vision for Palestinian statehood, a core demand of nearly all Board of Peace stakeholders, particularly Arab, Muslim, and European partners. “What is the vision that the administration has? They’re not really using the two-state discourse that has been used for 25 years since Bill Clinton,” Ziv noted. “How are they going to square the circle here? Netanyahu is not going to agree… to a Palestinian state. That’s not happening.” Previous reporting from Middle East Eye has indicated the Trump administration may be willing to delay progress until after the Israeli election, waiting to see if Netanyahu is voted out of office.

While it remains uncertain how fully Hamas will implement disarmament as long as Israeli military threats persist, the current draft plan calls for Hamas to first transfer its heavy weapons, including mortars and rocket launchers, followed by small arms such as Kalashnikov rifles. Bahbah noted that Hamas’ commitment to end weapons development, smuggling, and public military displays in Gaza was a difficult concession for the group, given that Israel has continued to violate ceasefire terms on a daily basis and target Hamas leaders in Gaza.

As of Thursday, Gaza’s Ministry of Health has confirmed that at least 73,341 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since the 7 October 2023 attacks on southern Israel led by Hamas. More than 1,200 of those deaths have occurred after the 10 October ceasefire announcement, killed by Israeli sniper fire or airstrikes. Overall, more than 174,000 Palestinians have been wounded in the conflict.

Despite the domestic political hurdles in Israel and ongoing tensions, international reaction to the disarmament announcement has been largely positive, though tempered with calls for full compliance from all parties. Saudi Arabia, which has been seeking a normalization agreement with Israel that was derailed by the 7 October attacks, described the Board of Peace announcement as historic. “The Kingdom commends President Trump’s leadership and steadfast commitment, which have been instrumental in achieving this significant milestone,” the Saudi foreign ministry said in a statement. “The Kingdom also emphasizes the importance of the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip, the deployment of the International Stabilization Force, and the continued, unhindered delivery of humanitarian assistance and reconstruction support to the Palestinian people.”

Kaja Kallas, European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, called the developments constructive, while noting that significant challenges remain. “A lot needs to fall in place for this to work. Success depends on the full commitment of all parties. Verifying Hamas’ compliance will be a significant challenge. Israel would need to eventually withdraw from Gaza,” Kallas wrote on X. She added that the EU remains Gaza’s largest humanitarian donor, having pledged €900 million in aid for Gaza recovery in July.

Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who is currently involved in mediation talks between the U.S. and Iran, welcomed the disarmament plan and called for full Israeli withdrawal. “The mediating countries including the United States of America, Egypt, Qatar, and Turkiye, deserve special appreciation for their efforts in achieving this progress. Under President Trump’s courageous leadership, this represents a significant achievement for the Board of Peace,” Sharif wrote. “Pakistan also hopes that these efforts will lead to the realization of the right to self-determination of the people of Palestine.”

Canada, which was disinvited from the Board of Peace by Trump after it criticized the body’s membership structure, also called the announcement an important step forward. “As one of the largest donors to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the West Bank, Canada stands ready to contribute to this effort,” Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney wrote on X. “We remain committed to a just and lasting resolution to the Israel-Palestine conflict, based on a negotiated two-state solution in which Israeli and Palestinian people can live in peace, security and dignity.”

Last week’s mass protest in central Delhi, organized by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) to demand education reforms and the resignation of India’s education minister, descended into extreme violence on July 20. What began as a peaceful march toward the Indian parliament has sparked a national controversy after independent ballistic and forensic experts confirmed to the BBC that at least four injured protesters sustained wounds consistent with pellet gun use by security forces — a finding that directly contradicts official denials from Indian law enforcement and government officials.

Tens of thousands of demonstrators gathered for the protest, which was sparked by widespread anger over repeated leaks of high-stakes government recruitment and academic exams. Eyewitness accounts and video footage show police and paramilitary personnel responding to the crowd with baton charges, wooden stick beatings, and tear gas. Official government figures put the number of injured at 60 protesters and 118 security personnel, but CJP leaders say the actual count of injured demonstrators is far higher. In the weeks following the crackdown, senior government officials have repeatedly refused to confirm emerging media reports of pellet gun deployment against crowds.

Pellet guns, more formally 12-gauge pump-action shotguns loaded with “birdshot” cartridges, fire between 200 and 400 small toxic lead pellets that spread in a wide arc when fired, striking bystanders and protesters indiscriminately. Originally designed for bird hunting, the weapons are banned or strictly restricted for crowd control use in dozens of countries due to their potential to cause permanent, life-changing injury. Even at distances of up to 100 feet, experts note, pellet shots can cause devastating harm, with lead pellets often remaining embedded in soft tissue long after the incident.

The BBC collected photographic evidence, medical records, and firsthand testimony from four injured protesters, which was reviewed by two independent armament and forensic specialists. Philip Boyce, a UK-based ballistics forensic scientist, told the outlet the dozens of tiny round puncture wounds visible in photos are a definitive marker of birdshot injuries. “The injuries depicted are definitely from a pellet gun,” Boyce said, identifying the weapon used as a 12-gauge pump-action shotgun. He added that while the Delhi injuries appear to have been fired from a distance of at least 50 yards, they can still be life-threatening and cause long-term health complications from toxic lead exposure.

NR Jenzen-Jones, director of the UK-based Armament Research Services (ARES), confirmed Boyce’s assessment, noting that imagery from the protest shows police deploying shotguns for crowd control, and the injury patterns match those typical of birdshot use. “While shotguns are a common tool in the less-lethal arsenals of many states, Indian law enforcement agencies have a long history of employing shotgun cartridges loaded with small lead pellets… in crowd-control scenarios,” Jenzen-Jones explained. He added that the weapons are not safe for crowd management: “They can result in life-changing or, occasionally, life-threatening injuries. They also pepper the body with toxic lead, which can sometimes be difficult to remove safely.”

Multiple injured protesters have shared their firsthand accounts of the violence with the BBC. A 28-year-old journalist, who requested anonymity for security reasons, said he was walking near Connaught Place — a busy commercial hub adjacent to parliament — when he saw a security officer aim a weapon at him. He turned to run, and seconds later felt a burning pain on his right arm and back. Medical records from Delhi’s Safdarjung Hospital confirm 30 embedded pellets: 26 on his right elbow and four on his upper right back. Doctors have advised against surgery to remove the pellets, warning it could worsen his injury, leaving the journalist worried about long-term health effects and permanent scarring.

Shaikh Irshad Mansoori, a Gurugram-based private sector employee, suffered more severe injuries when a member of the Rapid Action Force (RAF), a paramilitary unit under the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), fired on his group of protesters. Scans confirm more than 40 pellets embedded across his body, including three lodged deep in his neck, left eye muscle, and under his nose. Surgeons were only able to safely remove seven pellets, leaving the pellet in his neck in place due to the high risk of surgery. More than 10 days after the incident, Mansoori says he still experiences persistent pain.

The most high-profile injured protester is 19-year-old Delhi University student Sahil Lochab, who appeared alongside opposition leader Rahul Gandhi at a press conference held by the Indian National Congress last Saturday. Lochab, who joined the protest after his police recruitment exam was canceled last year due to a paper leak, now risks permanent blindness in one eye from pellet injuries. Images show dozens of tiny pellet punctures covering one side of his face, his right arm, and his torso. “I couldn’t see who fired the pellet gun but it came from the side where the forces were,” Lochab said. “My right eye was swollen so much that it felt it had popped out of my face… I want justice. Whoever did this to me doesn’t deserve to be in power.”

Senior officials have pushed back against the allegations. Delhi Police initially called all claims of pellet gun use “completely false and misleading,” stating the force does not even possess pellet guns. Recent Indian media reports have attributed the firing to the RAF, which falls under the command of the CRPF. The BBC has reached out to CRPF chief Gyanendra Pratap Singh for comment, but has not received a response. In a parliamentary address Wednesday, Union Minister Jitendra Singh stated no bullets were fired during the protest and only tear gas was used, but he declined to directly address questions about pellet gun deployment. Gandhi has called for the dismissal of Home Minister Amit Shah, who oversees both Delhi Police and the CRPF.

Notably, pellet guns have a long controversial history of use in Indian-administered Kashmir, where security forces have deployed the weapons against protesters since 2010. Data compiled by Human Rights Watch shows pellet gun use there has injured thousands of people, killed at least 17, and left dozens permanently blind. If confirmed, the use of pellet guns on protesters in Delhi marks the first time the weapons have been deployed against citizens in India’s national capital, escalating concerns about excessive force against political demonstrators.

An unreleased 15-point Gaza disarmament framework, obtained exclusively by Middle East Eye (MEE), upends popular public narratives about the proposed agreement by outlining a fully Palestinian-led process that keeps all weapons out of Israeli and international hands, rather than requiring factions to surrender their arms.

The draft agreement came to light after former U.S. President Donald Trump claimed Thursday that the U.S.-backed Board of Peace had secured a binding deal to disarm Hamas and all other armed Palestinian groups in Gaza, framing the announcement as a breakthrough for his 20-point Middle East peace plan and the establishment of a new transitional Palestinian administration. “This is a monumental step toward lasting PEACE and SECURITY,” Trump posted on his social platform Truth Social, adding that Israeli forces would withdraw from occupied areas of Gaza as disarmament was finalized, and that a UN-mandated International Stabilization Force would partner with a new Palestinian police force.

Hamas pushed back on the announcement within 24 hours, issuing a statement that any final deal for the full disarmament of Palestinian factions is contingent on Israel and the United States fulfilling all commitments laid out in the October 2025 ceasefire agreement. Senior Hamas official Ghazi Hamad told Reuters Friday that the group will retain its arms until Israel ends all military attacks, facilitates increased entry of humanitarian aid and commercial goods into Gaza, and completes a full withdrawal of its forces from territory it currently controls, in line with the 2025 truce terms.

Despite Trump’s public framing that the deal requires Hamas to lay down its arms under external pressure, the draft text obtained by MEE paints a drastically different picture. The agreement explicitly states that no weapons will be transferred or surrendered to Israel or any non-Palestinian entity. Instead, all weapons in Gaza will be placed under the oversight of the National Committee, a transitional Palestinian governing body that will hold exclusive authority over weapons registration, licensing, storage, and enforcement by the end of the disarmament process.

The deal frames weapons collection and inventory as an entirely domestic Palestinian process, with all Palestinian factions, clans, and community groups required to cooperate with the National Committee. International actors will only monitor the process, not lead or enforce it, and armed Palestinian factions will participate directly in the work. Notably, the agreement enshrines a phased implementation structure where progress to each next stage depends on the verified completion of the previous stage’s obligations, a structure that explicitly ties all weapons-related steps to a gradual Israeli withdrawal from the areas of Gaza it still occupies.

Three critical preconditions must be met before the disarmament process can even begin: completion of all remaining obligations under the existing Sharm El-Sheikh Protocol, the entry of the National Committee into Gaza, and the full deployment of the International Stabilization Force. As of August 2026, none of these preconditions have been fulfilled. The text requires parties to finalize a full implementation timeline within 14 days of the agreement’s signing, a window that can be extended by the International Verification Committee, a body made up of international guarantor states, the Board of Peace, and the International Stabilization Force.

Contrary to public messaging that positions the International Stabilization Force as the primary security guarantor for the transition period, the draft assigns the force a far more limited mandate. The agreement explicitly bars the international force from carrying out policing duties within Palestinian society, enforcing ceasefires, or training Palestinian police. Its only authorized roles are monitoring compliance from all parties, tracking the flow of humanitarian aid and essential goods into Gaza, and completing non-policing tasks requested by the National Committee. All internal security responsibilities remain fully under the control of the transitional Palestinian body.

One of the most consequential, underreported clauses of the draft rules out the integration of former militia fighters into formal Palestinian security services or police forces, a common practice in post-conflict disarmament processes designed to stabilize demobilized combatants. The agreement states that militia weapons will be logged and stored under the National Committee’s authority, but does not guarantee fighters positions in new state security institutions. Only existing police personnel are granted protections: officers who fail required vetting will be offered alternative civilian roles matching their expertise or retired with full financial benefits per Palestinian law. For militia fighters, the text only offers a vague promise of future “reintegration and social support” that leaves their fate undecided.

Another little-noticed provision places a strict $400 million cap on the National Committee’s total financial obligations to suppliers, contractors, and other third parties, to be implemented gradually over three years per the committee’s priority setting. Any claims or liabilities exceeding that cap will be deferred to a future broader national reconciliation process. Analysts note that the modest cap underscores the severely depleted state of Gaza’s institutional finances ahead of any large-scale reconstruction funding.

Israel has not yet publicly acknowledged the existence of the draft agreement, and an unnamed Israeli political source quoted by Israeli daily Haaretz stated that Israel has no intention of withdrawing from the Yellow Line, a strategic corridor that splits the Gaza Strip in half. The divergent public positions of all key parties leave the future of the proposed framework uncertain, given Israel’s history of failing to uphold previous agreements with Palestinian groups, and Hamas’s firm refusal to move forward without Israeli compliance with existing ceasefire terms.

After months of intensive, good-faith negotiations, Hamas has formally signed off on a detailed, U.S.-mediated framework to advance further phases of a Gaza ceasefire, a move billed as a historic breakthrough toward ending nearly a year of catastrophic Israeli military operations in the blockaded Palestinian enclave. The plan, developed in coordination with U.S. President Donald Trump’s Board of Peace, aligns with Trump’s broader comprehensive peace vision and United Nations Security Council Resolution 2803, outlining a phased roadmap toward security, new governance, humanitarian relief, and long-term reconstruction in Gaza.

The announcement comes amid a staggering humanitarian crisis that has left Gaza in ruins. Since the start of Israel’s military campaign, more than 73,000 people in Gaza have been killed, with thousands more still missing and presumed dead. Roughly 90% of Gaza’s 2 million residents have been displaced from their homes, now sheltering in overcrowded, unsanitary tent camps with no access to basic services. Middle East Eye, which obtained the full Arabic draft of the agreement Hamas approved, has published the complete English translation of the text publicly.

The core framework of the agreement anchors all future progress in verified compliance from both parties, with each phase of implementation proceeding only after the International Verification Committee confirms all prior obligations have been met. That oversight body, established by the Board of Peace, includes representatives from guarantor states, the Board of Peace, and the International Stabilisation Force. Key initial obligations require both Israel and Hamas to immediately end all military operations in line with the existing Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum, with detailed timelines and mechanisms for Phase Two of the agreement set to be finalized within 14 days of the deal’s signing (a deadline that can be extended by the verification committee if needed). Once those logistics are confirmed, the newly established National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG) will enter the territory to take up its governing duties.

Under the terms of the deal, Hamas and all other Palestinian armed factions will transfer full civil and security governing authority for Gaza to the independent NCAG during the transitional period, with factions agreeing to refrain from any interference in the committee’s work. The NCAG will be tasked with maintaining continuity of public services, ensuring fair treatment for all civil servants, conducting a full administrative and financial audit of Gaza’s public resources, and addressing outstanding financial commitments capped at $400 million over a three-year implementation period.

A core security pillar of the agreement establishes the guiding principle of “one authority, one law, one weapon” for Gaza. All police personnel will undergo mandatory vetting, with unqualified officers offered alternative civilian roles or retirement benefits protected under Palestinian law, and no penalties imposed based solely on political affiliation. All police weapons will be transferred to NCAG control immediately upon the committee’s entry into Gaza. A full inventory and secured storage process for heavy weapons, military infrastructure, weapons depots, and militant tunnels will begin after the Sharm el-Sheikh obligations are met, NCAG is deployed, and the International Stabilisation Force enters the territory. No weapons will be surrendered to Israel or any non-Palestinian entity, and once the process is complete, the NCAG will be the sole body authorized to control weapons in the enclave. Personal weapons will be regulated under existing Palestinian law, with the NCAG holding exclusive authority for registration, licensing, and enforcement.

Militia personnel will not be integrated into Gaza’s new security or police forces, and all militia weapons will be collected and stored under NCAG control per the agreed timeline, with compliance verified by the International Verification Committee. The deal also requires all factions to sign a social peace agreement committing to an end to internal Palestinian violence, and banning acts of revenge, shows of force, military parades, and armed demonstrations.

To separate Israeli forces from NCAG-controlled areas, an interim International Stabilisation Force will be deployed to Gaza. The force will not carry out domestic policing, ceasefire enforcement, or police training, instead focusing on monitoring compliance with the deal and facilitating the flow of humanitarian and essential supplies into the territory, along with other non-policing tasks requested by the NCAG. Israel will complete a phased withdrawal from all of Gaza in line with the agreed timeline, with a formal commitment not to force any Gaza residents to leave the enclave. All internal security incidents will be handled exclusively by the NCAG.

Long-term reconstruction of Gaza, which has seen most of its built infrastructure destroyed, will be overseen jointly by the Board of Peace and the NCAG, which will develop a detailed implementation plan and timeline aligned with international standards and Palestinian law. The overarching goal of the entire process, the agreement notes, is to end the cycle of violence and destruction in Gaza, secure full Israeli withdrawal, restore normal life for Palestinian residents, and open a credible political path to Palestinian self-determination and the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state.

In early July, Turkish Vice President Cevdet Yilmaz traveled to Tehran to participate in the funeral of Iran’s late Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, where he was greeted warmly by senior Iranian government officials and later hosted for formal talks by newly elected Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian. Behind the public diplomatic courtesy, a critical behind-the-scenes security collaboration between the two regional powers was revealed to independent news outlet Middle East Eye by multiple anonymous sources familiar with the closed-door discussions. \n\nAccording to the sources, Pezeshkian expressed explicit gratitude to the Turkish delegation for its role in derailing a covert Israeli plan led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to incite an armed uprising by Kurdish opposition groups in western Iran. Senior Turkish officials had launched intensive diplomatic outreach to their U.S. counterparts to argue that the Israeli proposal was not only unworkable but also posed a direct threat to Turkey’s core national security interests. Multiple sources familiar with the exchanges note that former U.S. President Donald Trump had previously hinted on multiple occasions that Ankara was even prepared to take military action to stop the creation of a new Kurdish separatist entity along its southern border, a response shaped by Turkey’s past security experiences stemming from the civil war in neighboring Syria. \n\nBeyond blocking the Israeli initiative, Turkey also delivered a clear diplomatic message to Iranian leadership during the talks: avoid sustained large-scale military operations against Kurdish groups positioned in the cross-border regions of Iran and northern Iraq. Turkish policymakers warn that if Iran continues its crackdown after the failure of the Israeli-backed insurgency plot, displaced and embattled Kurdish factions will have little choice but to deepen alliances with Israel and Western powers, a outcome that runs directly counter to Ankara’s current security priorities. \n\nCrucially, Turkey is currently navigating a fragile peace process with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), a group designated as a terrorist organization by Ankara, the EU, and the United States. The Turkish government is set to introduce landmark draft legislation to parliament this coming Monday that would create a legal pathway for former PKK militants to return to Turkey within a six-month window. The proposed partial pardon would open a path to social reintegration for non-violent PKK cadres, making regional stability a non-negotiable requirement for the peace process to move forward. Any escalation of Iranian military action in northern Iraq, where the PKK maintains long-standing rear bases, risks unraveling the delicate negotiating track. \n\nTurkish diplomatic lobbying of Washington proved surprisingly effective, sources confirm, because senior Trump administration officials were already deeply skeptical of Netanyahu’s regime-change gambit, particularly the claim that Kurdish forces could successfully execute a ground incursion into central Iran. Multiple U.S. officials privately dismissed the plan as deeply flawed: the CIA director reportedly described Netanyahu’s regime-change scenarios as “farcical”, a characterization that Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed in blunter terms to aides, calling it “bullshit”. \n\nEarlier this year, when U.S. officials working with Israeli intelligence agency Mossad and the CIA approached Iraqi Kurdish leaders to invite them to join the proposed anti-Tehran uprising, the proposal left Kurdish leadership caught between competing interests. The plan called for the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan (PDKI), the Iranian affiliate of Iraq’s ruling Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), to lead the insurgency, and also demanded that Peshmerga forces from Iraq’s semi-autonomous Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) join the campaign, as U.S. officials doubted the PDKI had the military capacity to pull off the operation on its own. But Erbil rejected the proposal. \n\nThe reluctance of Iraqi Kurdish leaders to sign on stemmed from lingering distrust of Washington, after the U.S. abandoned Kurdish militias in northern Syria earlier this year in a policy shift to accommodate the new Damascus government. With no guarantee of sustained U.S. support, Kurdish leaders had little incentive to take up arms against Iran. \n\nMehmet Alaca, a leading Turkish scholar focused on Iraqi politics and security, explained that escalating Iranian military pressure on Kurdish opposition groups would backfire for all regional actors. “Increased Iranian military pressure could inadvertently push Iranian Kurdish opposition groups, such as the PDKI, Komala and the Kurdistan Freedom Party (PAK), closer to the West, particularly Israel,” Alaca told Middle East Eye. “The Kurdistan Region of Iraq, which has hosted these groups for many years, would bear the greatest cost of such a development. Besides risking the transformation of the region into a new front in the Iran-Israel rivalry, this scenario could make the balance between the KDP and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) [in Iraq], the party led by the Talabani family, even more fragile. It could also provide Tehran with a justification for further expanding its influence in the region on security grounds.” \n\nIran has launched repeated airstrikes against PDKI bases in northern Iraq since escalating operations against Kurdish opposition groups in late February. To mitigate the risk of escalating instability, Alaca notes that Turkey has actively pursued diplomatic outreach to the PUK, a traditionally Iran-aligned Iraqi Kurdish party that normalized official relations with Ankara during a high-level visit to Turkey earlier this month. Currently, both the KDP and PUK – despite their long-standing internal rivalry – have agreed on a shared position that Iranian Kurdish opposition groups should not be drawn into the broader conflict between Iran and Israel. \n\nFor Turkey, Alaca emphasized, the entire dynamic revolves around its long-term domestic and regional security goals. “For Turkey, the most critical dimension is the peace process and the new security architecture it is seeking to build for the post-PKK era. The extension of the Iran-Israel rivalry into Iraqi Kurdistan and the re-emergence of the Kurdish card at the centre of the regional power struggle would directly undermine Turkey’s long-term security calculations.”’