Global Pulse

标签： Asia

亚洲

  • UN calls on Afghanistan’s Taliban rulers to reverse crackdown on women

    UN calls on Afghanistan’s Taliban rulers to reverse crackdown on women

    NEW YORK, UNITED NATIONS — In a rare show of unified global action on the spiraling crisis in Afghanistan, the United Nations Security Council voted unanimously Monday to approve a groundbreaking resolution that presses the country’s Taliban leadership to immediately roll back its harsh restrictions on women’s rights, while also mandating action to root out militant groups operating within Afghan borders that Pakistan blames for cross-border attacks.

    Sponsored by China, the resolution marks a significant update to the U.N.’s long-running diplomatic and humanitarian engagement in Afghanistan, extending the mandate of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) — the body’s official political presence in the country — through June 17, 2027. Beyond the mandate extension, the resolution lays out clear priorities for UNAMA moving forward: supporting the delivery of life-saving humanitarian aid across the country without any form of discrimination, and advancing inclusive national and local governance that guarantees full, equal, meaningful and safe participation for women, ethnic and religious minorities, youth, and people with disabilities, regardless of gender, faith, or ethnic background.

    Monday’s vote comes on the heels of a fresh wave of repression against Afghan women that drew widespread international condemnation earlier this month. In Afghanistan’s western Herat Province, at least 30 women were taken into custody for alleged violations of the Taliban’s rigid Islamic dress code. The arrests sparked an uncommon public demonstration against the policy, which Taliban security forces violently dispersed. According to an official UNAMA statement, the crackdown left one protester dead and multiple others with injuries, including one staff member from medical humanitarian organization Doctors Without Borders (MSF) among those detained.

    The current restrictions on women and girls are the most sweeping since the Taliban retook full control of Afghanistan in 2021, following the chaotic military withdrawal of U.S.-led international coalition forces. The Islamist government has implemented a strict, hardline interpretation of Shariah law that includes draconian, unprecedented limits on female participation in public life: girls are banned from secondary and higher education, and women are barred from most formal employment sectors, with restrictions also extending to public space access. Ethnic and religious minority communities across the country have also faced growing targeted repression under Taliban rule.

    Beyond women’s rights, the resolution addresses escalating regional tensions between Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan, which has repeatedly accused the Taliban administration of harboring militant groups that carry out deadly terrorist attacks inside Pakistani territory. The Taliban has consistently denied these allegations, but the standoff between the two neighbors has erupted into open cross-border violence in recent months. Since February, when the Taliban launched retaliatory strikes against Pakistani military positions following Pakistani airstrikes on militant targets inside Afghanistan, hundreds of people on both sides have been killed in repeated clashes.

    Chinese U.N. Ambassador Fu Cong, who led the resolution drafting, emphasized after the vote that the international community’s core goal is to encourage the Taliban to shift toward more inclusive governance. “We hope that the Afghan government will take more proactive measures to protect human rights, especially the rights of women, and project an image of openness, inclusivity and responsibility,” Fu told reporters following the unanimous vote.

    U.S. Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations Jennifer Locetta echoed the call for immediate Taliban action, noting that political progress in Afghanistan depends on the regime meeting its international commitments. “For that political process to succeed, the Taliban must act,” Locetta said. “The Taliban must meet their counterterrorism commitments, respect Afghanistan’s international obligations, end hostage diplomacy, and cease their unconscionable abuses of the human rights of women and girls.”

    Pakistan’s U.N. Ambassador Asim Ahmad welcomed the resolution’s explicit recognition of the terrorist threat emanating from Afghan soil, noting that the text “expresses the council’s serious concern over the presence of terrorist groups in Afghanistan, which continue to constitute a threat to international peace and security.”

    In addition to its humanitarian and security mandates, the resolution expands UNAMA’s authority to support long-term economic stability in Afghanistan, a country grappling with one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises. The mission is now authorized to facilitate legitimate commercial and financial activity with Afghanistan, and to support international efforts to repatriate frozen Afghan Central Bank assets back to the country “for the benefit of the Afghan people.” The resolution also tasks UNAMA with facilitating dialogue between the Taliban administration, regional neighboring states, and the broader global community to advance a peaceful, inclusive political process for the country.

  • US-Iran deal’s economic dividend will flow mainly to Asia

    US-Iran deal’s economic dividend will flow mainly to Asia

    Global financial markets reacted swiftly and predictably to the newly announced US-Iran peace deal: crude oil prices plummeted, stock markets around the world rallied, and investors have already begun projecting the potential inflation relief that could follow if the Strait of Hormuz fully reopens to shipping and global energy supplies return to normal operations.

    However, deVere Group founder and CEO Nigel Green argues that the mainstream market consensus still underestimates the far-reaching implications of this diplomatic breakthrough. If the agreement is successfully sustained – a critical caveat that cannot be overlooked – the largest economic gains will not flow to Iran, the United States, or European economies. Instead, Asia will emerge as the primary beneficiary.

    This advantage extends far beyond the region’s obvious gains from lower global oil prices, though that benefit is substantial. Between 85% and 90% of all crude oil transported through the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical chokepoints for global energy trade, is ultimately delivered to Asian markets. No other region is as reliant on the unimpeded flow of energy, commerce, and capital through the Gulf region, making any resolution of tensions there disproportionately impactful for Asian economies.

    Roughly one-fifth of total global oil consumption passes through the strait, alongside a large share of the world’s liquefied natural gas (LNG) trade. When tensions disrupted shipping through the corridor earlier this year, Asian economies bore the brunt of the fallout. Data from earlier this month confirmed that increased shipments of US crude to Asia were nowhere near enough to offset the lost Gulf supplies during the peak of the crisis, while Asian LNG markets also faced major supply disruptions and price volatility as energy flows tightened.

    For this reason, the full reopening of the Strait of Hormuz represents far more than just the resumption of regular oil shipments. It restores a vital economic lifeline to the world’s most energy-dependent growth region.

    India offers a clear illustration of the scale of potential gains. As the world’s third-largest crude oil importer, with roughly 85% of its total crude demand met by overseas purchases, India is uniquely positioned to see immediate benefits from falling energy costs. Any sustained drop in oil prices eases domestic inflationary pressure, strengthens the country’s current account position, provides support for the rupee, and improves the Indian government’s fiscal balance. Few major advanced or emerging economies have such a direct, clear link between lower oil prices and accelerated economic growth, meaning India could see a significant economic boost without implementing major domestic policy reforms or transformative breakthroughs.

    These positive spillover effects reach far beyond India. Japan imports more than 90% of its total oil demand, while South Korea sources the majority of its crude from Middle Eastern producers. Lower oil and LNG costs directly improve industrial competitiveness, protect corporate profit margins, and reduce cost-of-living pressure for household consumers.

    China may actually benefit more than current market pricing suggests. As the world’s largest crude importer, bringing in roughly 11 million barrels of oil per day, China has navigated years of slowing domestic growth, soft consumer demand, and pressure on industrial profitability. A lasting reduction in energy costs would provide broad, meaningful support to manufacturing supply chains across the country. Equally important, reduced geopolitical instability in the Gulf eliminates a major source of uncertainty for one of China’s most critical trade and energy routes. For Chinese policymakers, this increased predictability may be almost as valuable as the direct savings from cheaper oil.

    Southeast Asian economies also stand to gain. Vietnam, Thailand, the Philippines, and Indonesia all stand to benefit from lower import costs and reduced inflationary pressure. A more stable energy market supports governments, consumers, and businesses alike, while also boosting the region’s appeal as a destination for multinational corporations continuing to diversify their global manufacturing operations across Asia.

    Even so, focusing solely on oil price shifts risks overlooking a bigger, underreported story. The most consequential long-term impact of a lasting US-Iran agreement may lie in its effect on regional monetary policy across Asia. During the height of the Hormuz crisis, central banks across Asia and the globe were forced to adjust their policy outlooks to account for renewed inflation risks tied to spiking energy costs. A sustained drop in oil prices rewrites this policy calculus: lower inflation creates new room for policymakers to support economic growth, loosen financial conditions, and reduce cost pressure on households.

    This shift should draw particular attention from global investors. For years, Asian equities have struggled to compete with the strong gravitational pull of US markets. Persistently higher US interest rates, a stronger US dollar, and repeated global geopolitical shocks have consistently tilted investor preference toward American assets. But a combination of lower energy prices, easing inflation, and improved growth prospects could strengthen the case for increasing exposure to Asian equities at a time when global investors are already actively searching for opportunities outside of overbought US markets.

    There are also broader strategic implications to consider. For years, investors have framed analysis of Asian economies through the persistent lens of trade disputes, supply chain disruptions, tariffs, and geopolitical rivalry. While these themes are unlikely to disappear entirely, a durable US-Iran agreement would deliver something global markets have seen very little of in recent years: a meaningful reduction in geopolitical friction. For a region that depends more heavily on cross-border trade, stable shipping lanes, and imported energy than any other, this reduction in risk carries enormous value.

    That said, caution remains the prudent approach for market participants. Investors have well-founded reasons to remain wary. Some will frame the deal as a historic diplomatic breakthrough, while others dismiss it as a temporary truce that allows all sides – particularly the White House – to claim a political win while delaying difficult negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, sanctions enforcement, and regional influence ambitions. The history of Middle Eastern diplomacy is full of agreements that sparked initial optimism before collapsing against entrenched political realities, so investors should resist the urge to treat lasting peace as a foregone conclusion.

    Even so, they should not underestimate the scale of potential economic benefits if the agreement holds, even partially. Global markets have largely focused on the immediate impact of the deal on oil prices, but Asia should be preparing for sustained, broad-based growth. If the agreement endures, the region could receive the most significant externally driven economic stimulus it has seen in years – one that simultaneously lowers energy costs, eases inflationary pressure, supports cross-border trade, and improves overall financial conditions. This confluence of positive economic shocks is a rare opportunity that does not come along often.

  • Israeli army ‘murdered father and son’ in Gaza and then dumped bodies

    Israeli army ‘murdered father and son’ in Gaza and then dumped bodies

    The Gaza Strip has been marked by ongoing civilian bloodshed even after the October 2023 ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, with a new fatal incident near the Israeli-demarcated “yellow line” buffer zone laying bare the dangers facing Palestinian civilians who tend to their land in border areas.

    On a routine Sunday afternoon trip to check farmland in Wadi al-Salqa, located just 150 meters from the yellow line that marks Israel’s military perimeter inside Gaza, 32-year-old Palestinian farmer Baha Abu al-Ajeen brought his three-year-old son Rayan and his brother-in-law Khaled Abu Gharaba from their home in Deir al-Balah, central Gaza. What began as an ordinary work outing quickly devolved into an unthinkable tragedy, the Abu al-Ajeen family says.

    When the three unexpectedly encountered Israeli soldiers hiding inside a local home, troops opened fire without any warning or provocation, according to Nawaf Abu al-Ajeen, the family’s elder and a relative of Baha, who spoke to independent outlet Middle East Eye. A bullet tore through three-year-old Rayan’s eye and exited the back of his skull, killing the child instantly as he was held in his father’s arms. A second bullet struck Baha in the leg, leaving him bleeding profusely.

    Instead of providing urgent medical care to the wounded, Israeli forces left the family bleeding on the ground before arresting all three, transporting them to the Kissufim military base. For hours, a wounded Baha remained in detention clutching his son’s lifeless body, alongside the unharmed Khaled who was also held. Nearly six hours after the shooting, soldiers dumped the injured father and his dead child on the central Gaza Salah al-Din Street before withdrawing.

    Nawaf told MEE that after receiving word of the abandoned pair from local witnesses, family members traveled to the street and confirmed the identity of Baha and Rayan. The pair were rushed to Deir al-Balah’s Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital, where medical staff officially pronounced Rayan dead. Doctors stabilized Baha’s fractured leg with surgical hardware, and he remains hospitalized in stable condition, while his brother-in-law Khaled remains in Israeli detention with no updates on his condition or whereabouts.

    The child was buried on Monday afternoon, his body returned to his mother who remains inconsolable. “An ordinary day turned into a living hell we will never forget,” Nawaf said.

    The Israeli military issued a standard claim following the incident, asserting that Sunday evening it had opened fire on what it described as members of an armed cell approaching the yellow line. Hospital spokesperson Khalil al-Daqran confirmed the details of the incident to MEE, matching the family’s account: “The bullet pierced the child’s head, and he arrived deceased hours ago. The father is in stable condition with a leg injury and is receiving treatment.”

    This deadly shooting is far from an isolated incident, according to UN and human rights data compiled since the ceasefire took effect. In a May report, the UN Human Rights Office found that roughly one-third of all Palestinians killed by Israeli forces after the ceasefire agreement were shot in areas near the border buffer line with Hamas, raising alarming allegations that Israeli troops are deliberately targeting civilians merely for approaching the restricted zone. The office concluded that “such actions would constitute unlawful killings and are therefore war crimes.”

    Ajith Sungai, director of the UN Human Rights Office in the occupied Palestinian territory, called the consistent pattern of civilian deaths “disturbing.” “Civilians don’t appear to have posed any threat to the lives of Israeli soldiers, including in some cases where they appear to have been shot while carrying out daily activities, or after approaching or crossing what is known as the Israeli ‘yellow line,’” Sungai noted in a press statement.

    As of 5 February, UN data records that 453 Palestinians have been killed in the post-ceasefire period, 152 of which occurred near the yellow line buffer zone—including 102 men, 15 women, 24 boys, and 11 girls. Official data from the Palestinian Ministry of Health published this Monday puts the total post-ceasefire Palestinian death toll at 992, with an additional 3,144 people wounded across the Gaza Strip.

    Alaa Skafi, director of the Gaza-based Al-Dameer Association for Human Rights, told MEE that Israel currently classifies 65 percent of the entire Gaza Strip as restricted “yellow” or “red” zones. Skafi explained that even when civilians pose no credible threat to Israeli forces, any person who approaches these restricted areas or the yellow line is targeted with gunfire or arrested under the ready-made pretext of threatening military positions. Civilians are targeted by sniper fire, tank shelling, and drone strikes, he added.

    Skafi also alleged that Israel intentionally manipulates the border demarcation to target civilians: even though Israel places yellow concrete blocks to mark the restricted zone near the Salah al-Din Line that splits Gaza east to west, troops regularly move the markers westward, then open fire on civilians who cross the shifted line under the claim they entered restricted territory. “Israel uses ready-made justifications to legitimise the killing of civilians near the Yellow Line and employs new methods of killing, either by soldiers or by members of its affiliated armed groups,” Skafi said.

  • Road to US-Iran deal ran through Pakistan

    Road to US-Iran deal ran through Pakistan

    On June 15, the United States and Iran announced a landmark memorandum of understanding that stands to reshape regional security dynamics across the Middle East, marking one of the most consequential diplomatic breakthroughs in the region in recent years. U.S. President Donald Trump confirmed the framework agreement had been finalized, announcing two immediate confidence-building measures: the full reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global energy chokepoint, and the lifting of the U.S. naval blockade on the waterway. Iranian officials have echoed confirmation of the deal, noting that formal negotiations over outstanding sticking points will continue over the next 60 weeks, with a formal signing scheduled to take place in Geneva on June 19.

    The agreement followed weeks of behind-the-scenes diplomacy, with Pakistan taking a central role as the lead intermediary that brought the two long-hostile parties back to the negotiating table. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, whose government led the mediation effort, announced the ceasefire ahead of the official U.S. confirmation, capping off weeks of intensive engagement with Iranian authorities, Gulf regional states, and U.S. diplomatic teams. While Qatar and other regional actors also contributed heavily to de-escalation efforts, Islamabad ultimately emerged as the primary channel for direct dialogue between Washington and Tehran.

    Pakistan’s prominent role in the deal was neither a random outcome nor an inevitable assignment. For decades, Oman has served as a quiet backchannel between the U.S. and Iran, and Qatar has built a reputation as one of the Middle East’s most active neutral mediators. However, the crisis that preceded this agreement, sparked by U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets, escalated into a multifaceted threat touching maritime security, global energy markets, and broad regional stability that directly impacted Gulf states including Qatar, creating a need for a new mediation channel.

    As tensions mounted, Pakistan’s role grew increasingly visible. Early rounds of high-stakes talks between senior American and Iranian delegates were hosted in Islamabad, and in the final push to avoid further military escalation, Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff Field Marshal Asim Munir traveled directly to Tehran to hold security-focused talks with Iranian leadership. Pakistani diplomats and security officials simultaneously maintained constant communication with other key regional stakeholders, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey, while keeping U.S. counterparts updated at every step of the process.

    While the framework agreement was the product of collaborative effort across multiple negotiating parties, Pakistan carved out a unique and central role thanks to its specific diplomatic advantages. Unlike many other potential mediators, Pakistan maintained established working relationships with both Washington and Tehran at a time when direct communication between the two principal parties had broken down almost entirely. Its geographic proximity to Iran, longstanding security ties to both sides, and broad regional diplomatic reach made it an ideal trusted intermediary when the urgency to de-escalate grew.

    Another key strength of Pakistan’s mediation effort was the unprecedented coordination between its civilian political leadership and military security institutions. Prime Minister Sharif provided public political leadership and set the overarching diplomatic framework for the talks, while General Munir leveraged his established regional security contacts to engage directly with Iranian defense and decision-making circles. In a crisis centered on military escalation, deterrence, and security risks, direct communication between security establishments proved just as critical as traditional diplomatic negotiations, allowing Islamabad to deliver clear, credible messages that addressed both political and security concerns for all parties.

    The resulting document is not a full, permanent peace treaty, but a foundational framework designed to halt immediate escalation and create space for detailed negotiations on unresolved core issues. Even so, bringing the two bitter rivals to this point represents a significant diplomatic achievement on its own.

    Beyond the immediate gains of a ceasefire and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, the agreement marks a notable shift in Pakistan’s global diplomatic profile. For years, Pakistan’s international standing has largely been defined by domestic security challenges, economic instability, and regional rivalries. This breakthrough offers a new narrative: Pakistan as a reliable, effective facilitator of high-stakes diplomacy during a major regional crisis.

    Pakistan’s role also fits into a growing global trend: as competition between major world powers intensifies, middle powers are increasingly carving out space to shape global outcomes through proactive mediation. Qatar led groundbreaking negotiations between the U.S. and the Taliban, Oman has repeatedly provided backchannels between Washington and Tehran during past periods of tension, and Turkey brokered the Black Sea Grain Initiative during the Russia-Ukraine conflict. What unites all these cases is not massive military power, but broad diplomatic access: states that maintain working relationships across competing blocs are uniquely positioned to resolve crises that larger powers cannot address directly.

    Unlike traditional mediators that only provide a venue for talks, Pakistan took a comprehensive approach, combining high-level political outreach, security-to-security engagement, and in-person hosting of negotiating sessions in Islamabad. This expanded role explains why the country became increasingly central to the process as the crisis moved from open confrontation to negotiated de-escalation. In recent years, Pakistan has deepened its diplomatic engagement with Gulf states, maintained stable ties with Tehran, and expanded its diplomatic outreach beyond South Asia, giving it greater flexibility to respond to regional crises. For a country dependent on energy imports, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz also carries direct, tangible economic benefits.

    Still, the breakthrough carries significant risks that cannot be overlooked. The current document is only a memorandum of understanding, not a comprehensive final settlement. The most contentious core issues – including U.S. sanctions relief, the long-term rules for Hormuz shipping, and the future of Iran’s nuclear program – remain unresolved. Disagreements have already emerged over the scope of the framework: Iranian officials claim the deal covers all active fronts including Lebanon, while Israeli officials have offered a far more narrow, cautious interpretation of the agreement’s terms. These differences could complicate negotiations over the coming 60 days.

    For Pakistan, the outcome of the next phase of talks will shape its new diplomatic reputation. If negotiations succeed, Islamabad’s standing as a trusted regional mediator will grow substantially. If talks collapse, as many past Middle East diplomatic agreements have done amid intractable unresolved disputes, Pakistan will face greater diplomatic challenges, having invested significant political capital in the process.

    Regardless of the final outcome, the framework agreement will be remembered for more than just its attempt to end a dangerous military confrontation. It also marks a turning point: the moment Pakistan demonstrated it can serve as an effective diplomatic bridge between competing major powers in a rapidly shifting regional and global order.

  • ‘Israel is weaker’: Israeli political class reacts angrily to the US-Iran peace deal

    ‘Israel is weaker’: Israeli political class reacts angrily to the US-Iran peace deal

    On a tense Monday morning in Israel, public and political outrage swept the nation following a Sunday evening announcement from Pakistani mediator Shehbaz Sharif that Washington and Tehran had finalized a comprehensive peace agreement to end months of open conflict.

    Sharif, who stepped in as lead negotiator after the joint Israeli-US military campaign against Iran launched in February, confirmed the breakthrough in a post on his official X account. The Pakistani prime minister outlined that the draft deal requires an immediate and permanent ceasefire across all active theaters of conflict, including neighboring Lebanon. He also publicly thanked rival of Israel Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia for their behind-the-scenes support during the months-long negotiation process, noting the formal signing ceremony would be held this coming Friday in Switzerland.

    Within hours of Sharif’s announcement, both US and Iranian officials corroborated the agreement. Former US President Donald Trump called the deal “complete,” while Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi confirmed a finalized text would be officially signed within 60 days.

    Despite repeated confirmation from Pakistan, Iran, and the US that the deal mandates a ceasefire across all fronts including Lebanon, Israeli leadership immediately rejected the ceasefire clause and made clear the country does not consider itself bound by the terms of the agreement. Even as political backlash mounted, the Israeli Defense Forces launched a new wave of airstrikes and ground operations across southern Lebanon on Monday.

    Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has not yet delivered a public address on the diplomatic breakthrough, privately told Trump that Israel would reject any Iranian terms related to Lebanon, according to Israeli news outlet Ynet. Defense Minister Israel Katz doubled down on Netanyahu’s position in a public statement Monday, asserting that Israeli military forces would maintain an indefinite presence in security zones across Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza. Katz added that Israeli forces would continue clearing civilian populations from occupied territories and destroying residential structures classified as “terror infrastructure.”

    Far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who previously called for the total destruction of residential buildings in Beirut in response to Hezbollah attacks, took to X to voice fierce opposition to the deal. “The agreement with Iran is bad for Israel and for the entire free world,” Smotrich wrote, adding that Israel would be forced to continue its military campaign against Iran independently and would retain full operational freedom for its forces in Lebanon regardless of the US-brokered deal.

    National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, another far-right member of Netanyahu’s governing coalition, echoed Smotrich’s rejection in his own X post. “Trump’s agreement does not bind us,” Ben Gvir wrote. “Israel is not a subordinate of the United States, and we are an independent and sovereign state. Israel is not a banana republic.” He added that the deal fails to safeguard Israel’s national security and “does not bind us in any way.” Multiple other sitting cabinet members also publicly pledged to continue military strikes against Iran despite the ceasefire agreement.

    Culture Minister Miki Zohar told Ynet that his government’s only core concern is Iran’s nuclear weapons program. “If Israel sees that its security is in danger, it will strike Iran with force,” Zohar said. “Iranians will not only get down on their knees, but they will bow their heads as well.”

    While most governing coalition members have avoided direct public criticism of Trump and Netanyahu, anger has spilled over across the Israeli political spectrum, with pro-Netanyahu media figures launching vitriolic attacks against US leadership. Yinon Magal, a prominent journalist with Israeli outlet Channel 14 widely viewed as a mouthpiece for Netanyahu, wrote on X that Israel had been abandoned by its closest ally amid its wars in Iran and Lebanon. Magal went on to label Trump a “loser” and Vice President JD Vance “scum,” and deployed a well-documented antisemitic slur to refer to US Middle East envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, calling them “little Jews.”

    Another Channel 14 journalist, Shimon Riklin, argued Monday that “what Israel needs more than anything right now is sovereignty,” adding that the country must remind “treacherous America” that it prioritizes its own independent national interests.

    The Israel Defense and Security Forum, a prominent right-wing Israeli think tank, issued a statement Monday arguing that “every agreement with the Iranian terrorist regime is ultimately doomed to fail, and the current agreement will be no different.” The group added that “this is the time to stand tall, prepare for what lies ahead, and not compromise on Israel’s interests in removing the threat from Lebanon and Iran.”

    Opposition political figures across the ideological spectrum have seized on the diplomatic rupture to attack Netanyahu’s leadership and his handling of the ongoing war. Yair Golan, leader of the centre-left Democrats party, described Netanyahu as “weak, ill, isolated and lacking influence.” Golan argued that the deal allows for billions of dollars in frozen Iranian assets to be unfrozen while leaving Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs fully intact, representing “years of failure” of Netanyahu’s Iran policy that has left “Israel weaker.”

    Gadi Eisenkot, a former Israeli army chief of staff and potential future prime ministerial candidate, said the agreement fails to address any of Israel’s core security concerns. He added that nearly three years of conflict following the October 7 debacle have culminated in “a grim result of a failed government.”

    Former Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett also joined the criticism of Netanyahu’s administration, saying it “is incapable of making decisive decisions and has led us into wars of attrition and stagnation.” Bennett pledged to oust Netanyahu in upcoming national elections, fix what he called the prime minister’s policy failures, and claimed he has a concrete plan to remove the current Iranian leadership from power.

  • Death toll in Gaza surpasses 73,000 as Israel continues post-ceasefire killings

    Death toll in Gaza surpasses 73,000 as Israel continues post-ceasefire killings

    More than eight months into a U.S.-brokered nominal ceasefire in Gaza, Israeli military assaults continue to unfold across the besieged enclave, with local authorities documenting more than 3,269 documented violations of the truce agreement that was supposed to halt hostilities. The Gaza Government Media Office has released grim casualty figures confirming that since the ceasefire took effect in October 2023, Israeli attacks have killed over 992 Palestinians and wounded another 3,138 people across the territory. The cumulative death toll from the Israeli offensive that launched in October 2023 now exceeds 73,000 Palestinians, with an estimated 8,000 more bodies still trapped under the rubble of destroyed buildings and roughly 3,000 people unaccounted for.

    Violence persisted across multiple areas of central Gaza on Monday this week, marking another day of bloodshed in the beleaguered territory. An Israeli airstrike carried out near a school in the Nuseirat refugee camp, located in central Gaza, left one Palestinian dead and multiple others with critical injuries. Earlier the same day, a female Palestinian was killed in an air raid targeting the area surrounding the Abdul Rahman bin Awf Mosque, west of the Al-Zuwayda district in central Gaza. In a separate deadly incident in Deir Al-Balah, Israeli troops opened fire on a father and his young son, before taking both into arbitrary detention. After the pair were eventually released from custody, 12-year-old Rayan Bahaa Abu al-Ajeen was pronounced dead shortly after arriving at al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital for emergency treatment.

    Beyond ongoing deadly attacks, Israeli forces have also carried out widespread mass detentions of Palestinian civilians in Gaza despite the ceasefire framework. Local data shows that at least 95 Palestinians have been abducted by Israeli forces since the truce came into force. In addition to military and human rights violations, Israel has failed repeatedly to meet the terms of the ceasefire agreement that laid out requirements for expanding humanitarian access to the blockaded enclave. As of this reporting, only around 52,740 aid trucks have been allowed to enter Gaza – just 36 percent of the 147,000 trucks the truce deal obligated Israel to permit into the territory. Under the agreement’s terms, Israel was required to allow up to 600 trucks daily carrying life-saving food, medical supplies, fuel, emergency shelter materials and commercial goods into Gaza to address the catastrophic humanitarian crisis.

    Restrictions on border crossings have not only blocked aid deliveries, but also stripped Palestinians of their basic right to travel in and out of the enclave. Only 6,845 travelers have been allowed to cross Gaza’s borders out of the 19,600 that the truce agreement guaranteed passage for. Gaza’s Ministry of Health has confirmed that these border restrictions have already resulted in the preventable deaths of approximately 1,500 patients with approved medical referrals who were supposed to be evacuated out of Gaza for urgent, life-saving care starting in early May 2024.

    In a formal statement, the Gaza Government Media Office issued a scathing condemnation of what it called the Israeli occupation’s systematic policy of targeting and exterminating the Palestinian people. “We hold the occupation fully responsible for the continued deterioration of the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip,” the statement read.

    Against the backdrop of intensifying Israeli attacks in recent weeks, Palestinian political factions have issued an official response to a proposal put forward to implement former U.S. President Donald Trump’s disputed peace plan for Gaza, submitted through Nikolay Mladenov, head of the Gaza Peace Council. Hamas confirmed the faction’s coordinated position in an official statement released Monday, calling on regional and international mediators to pressure Israel to abide by the full terms of the existing ceasefire agreement. “The factions announced that they will remain in continuous session to monitor field and political developments and intensify their efforts to ensure a response to the legitimate demands that will alleviate the suffering of our people in the Gaza Strip,” the Hamas statement added.

  • Pressure mounts to suspend Israeli medical association from global body

    Pressure mounts to suspend Israeli medical association from global body

    As the World Medical Association (WMA) prepares to convene its general assembly in Rotterdam, the Netherlands this October, mounting international pressure has emerged calling for the suspension of the Israeli Medical Association (IMA) from the global medical body, driven by a grassroots petition that has gathered more than 1,300 signatures from medical professionals and health organizations worldwide.

    Organized by a coalition of global health advocacy groups — including The People’s Health Movement, Dutch-based Doctors for Gaza (Artsen voor Gaza), and the health division of Jewish Voice for Peace — the petition accuses the IMA of failing to uphold fundamental medical ethical principles enshrined in the WMA’s own Geneva and Tokyo Declarations. The document further alleges that the IMA is complicit in what signatories call widespread violations of medical neutrality and international human rights carried out by the Israeli government and military.

    Beyond its core accusations regarding ethical failures, the petition outlines multiple specific grievances against the IMA. It documents that Israeli military forces have launched targeted attacks on healthcare infrastructure across Palestine, Lebanon, and Iran, resulting in the death of health workers, arbitrary detention of medical staff, and systemic obstruction of care delivery. Signatories also argue that over the past three decades, Israeli medical professionals have been complicit in inhumane treatment of Palestinian detainees held in Israeli prisons, through their consistent refusal to document or investigate documented violations of medical ethics in detention facilities. The petition adds that decades of Israeli occupation and what signatories term apartheid policies have left Palestinian populations with drastically inferior access to health services compared to Israeli citizens.

    In a particularly pointed allegation, the petition argues that the IMA has not taken any public stance against the killing and displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, nor against the near-total destruction of Gaza’s already fragile healthcare system. In fact, the petition claims that by publicly endorsing a 2023 statement signed by 80 Israeli doctors that openly called for the bombing of Gaza’s hospitals, the IMA effectively gave institutional approval to actions that constitute genocide. Signatories point to two prominent national medical bodies — the South African Medical Association and the British Medical Association — that have already cut formal ties with the IMA, and call on the WMA to follow this same path ahead of its October general assembly.

    The accusations gained broader visibility after the leading medical journal *The Lancet* published an analysis of the petition in recent days. The journal’s reporting confirmed that the IMA has failed to release any public statement that condemns Israeli attacks on Gaza’s health system, criticizes Israeli military conduct during the ongoing conflict, calls for an immediate ceasefire, or acknowledges United Nations reports warning of ongoing genocide against Palestinians.

    In its official response to *The Lancet*, the IMA rejected all accusations, asserting that its members consistently adhere to global medical ethical standards. The organization characterized the claims against it as “at worst, lies and at best, highly contested allegations presented as fact.” It further argued that the call for expulsion incorrectly conflates the actions of a sovereign government with an independent national medical association, warning that this sets a “extremely dangerous precedent” for global medical collaboration.

    For its part, the WMA has also pushed back against the suspension call, telling *The Lancet* that removing the IMA would not advance the goals of peace, improved access to healthcare, or the protection of human rights globally. Instead, the global body argued that suspension would undermine decades of cross-border scientific collaboration, weaken open international medical dialogue, and create a harmful precedent that allows political pressure campaigns to isolate health care workers solely on the basis of their nationality.

  • For Gaza’s Palestinians, Israel’s ever expanding ‘buffer zone’ means endless displacement

    For Gaza’s Palestinians, Israel’s ever expanding ‘buffer zone’ means endless displacement

    For 32-year-old Jamal Abu Sukran and his three young children, any sense of stability has remained out of reach amid the continuous cycle of upheaval that has defined their lives since the outbreak of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza in October 2023. The family’s latest forced displacement marked their 25th move, triggered by Israel’s June announcement that it would expand its so-called ‘yellow line’ zone of control, now swallowing 70 percent of the blockaded Palestinian enclave.

    Even with a formal ceasefire nominally in effect since last October, Israel has steadily tightened its stranglehold over Gaza’s 1.8 million remaining civilian residents, squeezing them into a shrinking sliver of habitable territory. Abu Sukran first lost his original home in Gaza City’s eastern Shujaiya neighborhood when an Israeli airstrike reduced the structure to rubble in the opening days of the war. He took shelter in a nearby makeshift tent, but has been forced to relocate again and again, moving from one overcrowded displacement camp to another as Israeli territorial expansion progresses.

    The yellow line was originally framed as a temporary Israeli-held buffer zone under the first phase of the October ceasefire agreement. But Israel has refused to withdraw from the area, blocking implementation of the deal’s second phase that requires a full pullback. Abu Sukran told Middle East Eye that hostilities never actually ceased even after the truce was announced. ‘Even after the ceasefire, the shooting and shelling never stopped,’ he said. ‘Life [in the displaced camps] was unbearable. We used to wait for the gunfire to stop just to go to the toilet.’

    Abu Sukran explained that gunfire breaks out as a rule each morning, coming both from Israeli military positions and from local Palestinian collaborator groups. Displaced civilian communities, he added, are often directly targeted by fire. Initially, his post-ceasefire temporary home sat outside the yellow line, but eventually Israel’s expansion pushed the new boundary, called the ‘orange line’, to include his plot of land. ‘It was terrifying,’ he recalled. ‘There were random shootings, stray dogs, rats and shells everywhere. Nothing was left but rubble.’

    The same story of repeated displacement plays out across the enclave for 68-year-old Nabil Abu Armanah and his extended family. After Israeli bombardment destroyed their first home in Rafah, they set up a makeshift tent on the ruins of their second property. They were forced to flee once again amid ongoing gunfire, routine Israeli military harassment, and the advance of Israeli tanks that came within 700 meters of the yellow line. When Abu Armanah recently returned to survey his land, he found the newly expanded yellow line cuts directly through his property.

    ‘I was hoping to return home soon, but now we are homeless. The land means everything to me,’ Abu Armanah said in an interview. ‘It’s extremely dangerous there now. Everything is gone. Nothing remains.’ He added, his voice shaking: ‘These are barbaric actions. We are innocent people. All we want is to live with dignity. I have lived through countless Israeli wars, from the 1967 war until today. They have destroyed everything I built throughout my lifetime.’

    Multiple on-the-ground and expert accounts point to a deliberate Israeli strategy of making all territory inside the yellow line permanently uninhabitable for Palestinian residents. Since the ceasefire took effect in October, Israeli bulldozers and demolition crews have worked continuously to raze standing structures to the ground, clearing entire neighborhoods. Senior Israeli government officials, including far-right Minister Bezalel Smotrich, have openly stated their goal of leveling Palestinian land to push residents to leave the enclave ‘voluntarily’.

    Political analyst Abdel Nasser Abu Aoun told Middle East Eye that Israel is leveraging the yellow line framework as a deliberate media narrative to legitimize the reoccupation of large swathes of Gaza. While framing the expansion as a security measure, the Israeli government is implementing a scorched-earth policy designed to depopulate captured areas, demolish civilian infrastructure, and commit war crimes, Abu Aoun argued.

    By incrementally expanding the yellow line and introducing the new orange line zone of control, Israel effectively annexes more Gaza territory piece by piece. Abu Aoun documented that Israeli forces have even built military observation towers on the site of ancient Palestinian cemeteries, positions that overlook the tents of displaced Palestinians who can see their destroyed ancestral lands from their makeshift shelters. ‘This is one of Israel’s methods of psychological warfare,’ he said. ‘The objective is to punish Palestinians.’

    Abu Aoun added that Israel’s end goal appears to be forcing all displaced residents into the small al-Mawasi coastal zone, even though existing infrastructure there is already severely damaged and incapable of supporting a massive influx of people. The overcrowding, he warned, creates a high risk of long-term humanitarian and environmental collapse in the enclave. ‘Israel is proving to the world that it respects neither agreements, mediators nor international law,’ he said. ‘It only understands the law of the jungle.’

    The territorial expansion has also triggered a crippling public health and infrastructure crisis across Gaza. Maher Salem, general director of planning and investment at Gaza municipality, told Middle East Eye that roughly 35 percent of Gaza City’s clean water sources have been lost after falling inside the expanded yellow line and being destroyed by Israeli forces. Israel has cut the volume of water entering Gaza from 20,000 cubic meters per day to just 12,000 cubic meters – water that is already paid for by the Palestinian Authority. The cuts have left the average Gaza resident with just 10 liters of clean water per person per day, far below the minimum international standard for basic needs.

    Salem also confirmed that Israel destroyed the main desalination plant in the Sudaniya coastal area, which previously produced 10,000 cubic meters of clean drinking water daily. Approximately 150 kilometers of water distribution networks, along with sewage pumps and critical sanitation infrastructure across Gaza City, have also been destroyed in military operations. In addition, Israel has blocked access to Gaza’s main landfill sites, which are located inside the yellow line near the border, forcing municipal authorities to store mounting volumes of waste in residential neighborhoods. To date, an estimated 400,000 cubic meters of uncollected garbage have accumulated across Gaza City, creating what Salem called a major environmental and public health catastrophe.

    United Nations data from April underscores the severity of the crisis: more than 80 percent of the 1,600 displacement camps across Gaza report frequent rodent and pest infestations, which have fueled widespread disease outbreaks and rising rates of skin infections and rashes among vulnerable displaced populations.

  • 8 people died in B-52 bomber crash at US Air Force base in Southern California, officials say

    8 people died in B-52 bomber crash at US Air Force base in Southern California, officials say

    On a Monday morning just moments after departing the runway at Edwards Air Force Base, located in Southern California’s Mojave Desert roughly 100 miles north of Los Angeles, a U.S. Air Force B-52 Stratofortress bomber crashed and ignited a large blaze, killing all eight people on board, military officials confirmed. The crash occurred at approximately 11:20 a.m. during what was scheduled to be a routine test flight.

    Aerial footage captured in the immediate aftermath of the incident shows the aircraft was almost completely destroyed in the impact and subsequent fire. Large plumes of thick black smoke rose from a wide stretch of charred desert terrain adjacent to the main runway, where dozens of emergency response vehicles gathered to contain the blaze. Among the eight victims were both uniformed U.S. military personnel and civilian government contractors working on the flight.

    Colonel James Hayes, deputy commander of the base’s 412th Test Wing, confirmed during an official press briefing that after reviewing crash site footage, investigators confirmed there were no survivors. “We lost eight great Americans,” Hayes stated, noting that military teams were in the process of notifying next-of-kin for all those killed.

    The cause of the crash remains undetermined as of the initial briefing, and Hayes confirmed that a full, thorough investigation could take as long as six months to reach a final conclusion. What is publicly confirmed is that the bomber was supporting a U.S. Air Force B-52 radar modernization initiative at the time of the flight. Back in 2025, the service announced Boeing had delivered a B-52 fitted with a new modernized Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar to Edwards for testing, replacing the bomber fleet’s decades-old outdated radar technology to improve operational efficacy. Test teams were scheduled to conduct an entire year of ground and flight assessments throughout 2026 to collect data that will inform a final production decision for the upgrade program. Military officials have not yet confirmed whether the crashed bomber was the same aircraft that received the new radar system in 2025.

    Edwards Air Force Base, a historic facility carved into the Mojave Desert, is the primary hub for the U.S. Air Force’s aircraft and weapons system test and development operations. The 412th Test Wing, which oversees base operations, is responsible for developmental testing of all Air Force aircraft, weapons platforms, software and components both before they are acquired by the service and throughout their entire operational service life. The site holds landmark aviation history: it was at Edwards that legendary test pilot Chuck Yeager first broke the sound barrier in 1947, reaching a speed of Mach 1.05.

    In the hours after the crash, the base airfield was closed to all traffic, with all inbound flights diverted to alternate facilities. By late Monday afternoon, the airfield reopened to authorized base personnel, though non-essential public visitor access remained suspended while emergency crews completed extinguishing and cleanup operations.

    Aviation safety expert Jeff Guzzetti, a former crash investigator for both the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Transportation Safety Board, offered an early preliminary assessment of the crash. The fact that the bomber went down immediately after takeoff, without gaining altitude or traveling far from the runway, leads Guzzetti to suspect a critical flight control malfunction as a potential cause.

    He outlined three plausible scenarios: controls that were improperly configured after recent maintenance, a catastrophic engine failure, or the failure of a new piece of equipment that was undergoing testing on the flight. “I think it was definitely a controllability issue. Now, whether that was tied to an engine failure, a flight control failure, or some new testing device failure, I’m not sure,” Guzzetti explained.

    He added that flight test operations always carry greater inherent risk than standard operational flights, which is why such missions rely on specially trained test personnel and strict safety protocols. Even though the B-52 has been in continuous U.S. Air Force service for more than 70 years, integrating and testing new technology on the legacy airframe can introduce unforeseen challenges.

    The report featured contributions from multiple AP journalists across the country, with Toropi reporting from Washington D.C., AP Transportation Writer Josh Funk contributing from Omaha, Nebraska, and AP reporter Hallie Golden adding reporting from Seattle.

  • Middle East Eye journalist refused entry to UK for awards ceremony

    Middle East Eye journalist refused entry to UK for awards ceremony

    An award-nominated Sudanese journalist has been blocked from entering the United Kingdom to attend a prestigious London-based journalism awards event, in a decision that has drawn widespread criticism from media leaders and highlighted deepening barriers for Sudanese travelers amid the ongoing crisis in their home country.

    Mohammed Amin, a correspondent for Middle East Eye (MEE), was shortlisted for the 2024 One World Media Journalist of the Year Award in recognition of his brave, on-the-ground reporting from Sudan, where a brutal civil war has displaced millions and left much of the country in chaos. He was scheduled to attend the upcoming awards ceremony next Wednesday, where his work would be formally recognized alongside other leading international correspondents.

    However, in a notice delivered to Amin last Thursday, the UK Home Office rejected his application for an eight-day visitor visa. Officials justified the refusal by claiming they were unconvinced Amin had a genuine purpose for his trip, and asserted there was no guarantee he would leave the UK at the end of his visit. This ruling came despite formal sponsorship for the trip from MEE and a formal invitation from the One World Media Awards organizing committee, and leaves no route for appeal or administrative review of the decision.

    For Amin, the outcome is not just a personal disappointment—it is a deeply unreasonable and contradictory policy that undermines the UK’s own stated commitments to transparency around Sudan’s crisis. A veteran reporter who has previously traveled to the UK multiple times to accept major journalism awards, most recently in 2022 when he received the Rory Peck Trust’s Martin Adler Prize without any visa issues, he expressed frustration at the Home Office’s assessment. “There’s a contradiction between British journalists, who consider what is happening in Sudan, and the UK government, which organises conferences about Sudan [in London] but denies visas for journalists,” he said.

    He added that the blanket barriers placed on Sudanese travelers reflect a profound lack of understanding of the catastrophe unfolding in his home country, where the ongoing conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces and Rapid Support Forces has left hundreds of thousands dead, millions displaced, and millions more facing acute hunger. Amin noted that Sudan’s war has already been largely overshadowed by other high-profile conflicts across the globe, and visa denials like his only push the crisis further out of global view.

    Leaders of the One World Media Awards echoed that criticism. Interim director Chinwe Kalu-Uma called the refusal deeply disappointing, noting that Amin has continued to report from inside Sudan at great personal risk specifically to draw global attention to the crisis. “His absence from our London ceremony is itself a story about the barriers Sudanese people face, not only in their own country, but in being seen and heard beyond it,” Kalu-Uma said in a statement to MEE.

    MEE editor-in-chief David Hearst also condemned the decision, arguing that the UK holds unique historic responsibility to shine a light on developments in Sudan. “That Britain of all places should deny a visa to an award-winning Sudanese journalist after a war that has devastated the country defies belief,” Hearst said. “Britain has a historic responsibility that the truth comes out about what is happening in Sudan and it is failing on all these fronts. Mohammed’s work should be encouraged and praised by the British government, and he should not be treated as an unwelcome guest.”

    The visa refusal is far from an isolated incident. Since the outbreak of Sudan’s civil war in April 2023, Sudanese applicants have faced drastically increased scrutiny and barriers to UK entry. In 2024, the UK government implemented a so-called “visa brake” that blocks all new student visa applications from nationals of Sudan, alongside Afghanistan, Cameroon and Myanmar. Even for non-student visitor applicants like Amin, the process has become prohibitively difficult.

    Because the British Embassy in Khartoum has remained temporarily closed since the war began, Amin was forced to travel across the border to the British High Commission in Uganda simply to complete his in-person interview, an added burden that displaced Sudanese journalists and citizens routinely face. He argued the entire system is structured to discriminate against Sudanese applicants who have already been displaced by the conflict.

    Amin’s record of groundbreaking reporting has already driven tangible change in Sudan. Over the past year, his work has covered the bloody siege of el-Fasher, the role of the drug captagon in funding the civil war, and the targeting of the marginalized Kanabi community by all warring parties. When he published a viral report on the al-Tekeina village’s resistance to sustained attacks by the RSF, a delegation led by Sudan’s transitional prime minister visited the village just one day later—the first official government visit to the community in more than 60 years—and pledged funds for reconstruction.

    When contacted for comment by MEE, a Home Office spokesperson stated that all visa applications are assessed on their individual merits in line with published policy, and that the department follows longstanding policy of not commenting on individual cases.