News Desk

May 2 (UPI) — The United States has started warning allies that delivery of weapons systems are likely to be delayed because stockpiles have been drained during the war in Iran.

The Department of Defense has warned several allies in Europe — including the United Kingdom, Poland, Norway and Estonia — that there will be delivery delays for several missile systems, Breaking Defense and The Financial Times reported.

The delays, which may also spread to deliveries to Asian allies, have been linked to growing concerns about the numbers of U.S. weapons used since the war in Iran started.

Concerns have also come up as to whether lower stockpiles could affect the United States’ ability to defend itself and its allies.

The Department of Defense already has been relocating weapons from bases in other parts of the world both to the U.S. stockpile and for use in the Iran war, which President Donald Trump noted on Friday.

“All over the world, we have inventory,” he said. “And we can take that if we need it.”

Among the weapons systems that could be affected are the HIMARS and NASAMS missile systems, shortages of which were reported in Estonia and Norway in April.

The president of Finland also said in recent days that some U.S. weapons stockpiles normally stored in the country have been rerouted, which lines up with Trump’s comments yesterday.

In Asia, Japan and South Korea are reportedly bracing for delays beyond the ones it already has not received, including Patriot missile interceptors and Tomahawk cruise missiles.

Delays that have already happened, and the potential for more, could affect foreign nations’ reliance on weapons manufactured by the United States, experts have said.

“Japan already was deeply frustrated with delivery delays for systems they have paid for,” former Pentagon official Christopher Johnstone told the Financial Times.

“This reality will drive Japan, South Korea and other allies to focus more heavily on indigenous and non-American options, even in areas where U.S. equipment is clearly superior,” he said.

The reports of delays come after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Thursday told members of the Senate Arms Services Committee that he is aware of concerns about the stockpile after two months of an intense campaign in Iran.

In response to questions about the Pentagon’s request for a nearly 50% increase in its budget, Hegseth noted that some of the increase is because of weapons used during the war, and that it could take “months and years” to fully replenish the stockpile.

Trump has asked defense companies to “quadruple” their manufacturing pace, but there are limits to how much production can be sped up, according to industry experts.

Syria is receiving hundreds of Iraqi oil trucks hauling crude overland to its Baniyas port as an alternative energy corridor to Europe, creating a costly but crucial workaround while the Strait of Hormuz is largely blocked by the US-Israeli war on Iran.

“All the President’s Men” was released 50 years ago this month, an anniversary that’s been greeted with equal parts rue and reverence by the journalists, political junkies and discerning cinephiles who have worshiped the film for five decades.

As a member of all three of those constituencies, I’ve done my share of genuflecting, most recently as chief film critic at the Washington Post, whose city room was as vivid and fully realized in the movie as Robert Redford’s Bob Woodward and Dustin Hoffman’s Carl Bernstein.

Like so many Posties of my generation, I’ll never forget the so-real-it’s-surreal experience of walking into the fifth-floor newsroom for the first time in 2002. By then, standard-issue electric typewriters and six-ply carbon paper had been replaced by far less visually interesting computers. But the office’s pervading atmosphere of hard work and quiet focus felt uncannily similar to its big-screen analog.

For the last two years, I have been researching a book about the making of “All the President’s Men,” whose production involved almost as many contingencies and unresolved questions as Watergate itself. Among the film’s many mysteries, one I’ve found particularly intriguing has to do with Katharine Graham, publisher of the Washington Post and CEO of its parent company during the Watergate investigations. As the movie amply demonstrates, it took guts for Woodward and Bernstein to persevere with their reporting in the face of terrified sources and their own growing paranoia. But, unbeknownst to many observers at the time, Graham was enduring even more withering pressures, with determination that was all the more impressive for being almost entirely invisible.

I’m still in the process of discovering why she remained invisible in “All the President’s Men.” For now, it’s clear that the backstory is more nuanced than mere oversight or, as many are quick to assume, simple sexism.

In fact, William Goldman’s first script of the film featured a sequence with Graham and Woodward, a scene that appeared in every subsequent draft. Based on an actual meeting between the two, it’s a cagey game of cat-and-mouse, with the publisher taking the measure of a nervous, still-inexperienced journalist, looking for reassurance that his reporting will prove out.

Earlier this year, at a January staged reading of “All the President’s Men” at Harmony Gold Theater in Hollywood — a fundraiser for the Stella Adler Academy — it was possible for fans to conjure what might have been. Mark Ruffalo played Woodward and Ethan Hawke played Bernstein in a version of the movie assembled from different Goldman drafts.

A high point of the evening was when Ruffalo and actor Susan Traylor brought the Graham-Woodward scene to tentative, tense and teasingly playful life. After grilling Woodward about his sources and coyly asking him about Deep Throat’s identity, Traylor’s Graham asked him if the truth about Watergate would ever be revealed. “It may never come out,” Ruffalo’s Woodward replied. “Don’t tell me ‘never,’” Graham laments, before bringing the meeting to a close with a gently peremptory “Do better.”

In poring over director Alan J. Pakula and Goldman’s papers, I’ve probably read that scene dozens of times. But when I heard it play out in real time, I was ambushed by the emotions it stirred — a mixture of pride in Graham’s legacy and deep sadness at how that legacy has been so inexplicably ignored in recent years.

I was also sad that Redford, who died in September, wasn’t there. He often expressed regret that Graham wasn’t a featured character in “All the President’s Men.” Keenly aware of how her spine and steadfastness made Woodward and Bernstein’s work possible, he wanted to honor that crucial support. When I interviewed him for the first time in 2005, he insisted that fearless owners were every bit as important in preserving democracy as the reporters he and Hoffman helped glamorize.

Over the next two decades, every time I saw Redford, he bemoaned the “downward slide of this thing,” by which he meant the constellation of institutions “All the President’s Men” celebrates: not just journalism and a robust First Amendment but a Washington where investigators, prosecutors, judges, the Senate and Congress did their jobs regardless of partisan loyalties, and a Hollywood where a studio as mainstream as Warner Bros. would agree to finance a tough-minded film about a contentious and still-raw period in recent history.

Granted, that film was based on a bestselling book and anchored by two huge stars. But today, with political and corporate leaders — including media companies — falling over each other to curry favor with President Trump, “All the President’s Men” feels like an artifact from a vanished age.

Nowhere is this more distressingly true than at the Post itself, where the newsroom immortalized by the movie has been slashed by more than a third, and where Jeff Bezos, who bought the paper in 2013, seems intent on erasing Katharine Graham’s legacy until it vanishes completely. During the first Trump administration, Bezos stood up to threats against the Post and the press at large that would make Nixon blush, or at least pea-green with envy.

Now, Bezos has become a one-man meme of what author Timothy Snyder calls “obedience in advance,” quashing an endorsement of Kamala Harris, ostentatiously grinning his way through Trump’s second inauguration, vastly overpaying for a promotional film about First Lady Melania Trump and staying conspicuously mum (at least publicly) when a Post reporter’s home was raided by the FBI in January.

All of this has come at an enormous moral and material cost, with thousands of readers canceling their subscriptions and an alarming number of the Post’s finest reporters and writers leaving for other publications and platforms. As my former boss Marty Baron told my former colleague Ruth Marcus in the New Yorker in February, Bezos’ turnaround has been “sickening” to witness: “a case study in near-instant, self-inflicted brand destruction.”

Of course, that brand was built, in no small part, by “All the President’s Men,” which taught a generation how to walk, talk, dress and act like real reporters. (Hint: A good corduroy jacket and a pen in your mouth can’t hurt.)

In 1976, Pakula was interviewed about his dealings with Graham, whom he admired tremendously and with whom he would become close friends. “I could do a film about the Katharine Graham story,” he enthused. “It’s a superb story.”

Thirty years later, Steven Spielberg would bring Pakula’s idea to fruition with “The Post,” about Graham’s decision to publish the Pentagon Papers, a dress rehearsal for the even higher stakes of Watergate a year later.

“The Post,” which starred Meryl Streep in a shrewdly judged performance of aristocratic assurance and creeping insecurity, premiered in Washington less than a year into Trump’s first administration. Bezos attended that screening, which many of us saw as tacit acknowledgment that he was taking her lessons in character, comportment and competence to heart.

That was clearly wishful thinking. Graham may have finally assumed her rightful place in the newspaper-movie canon, but we’re still left to ponder her absence from the most iconic journalism movie of the 20th century.

It’s no longer the shoe-leather reporters who need a big-screen tutorial in how to do their jobs. It’s their bosses. A simple place to start would be to memorize the best two-word speech to never appear in a major motion picture: Do better.

Ann Hornaday was a film critic at the Washington Post from 2002 to 2025, when she retired. “All the President’s Men” plays at TCM Classic Film Festival Saturday at 2:45 p.m.

May 2 (UPI) — The Pentagon announced Friday that the United States would draw down 5,000 troops from Germany, and Germany responded Saturday that the move was anticipated.

The decision came after Chancellor Friederick Merz made comments criticizing the war with Iran, saying the United States has been “humiliated” by the war.

“The Secretary of War has ordered the withdrawal of approximately 5,000 troops from Germany,” Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said in a statement. “This decision follows a thorough review of the Department’s force posture in Europe and is in recognition of theater requirements and conditions on the ground. We expect the withdrawal to be completed over the next six to 12 months.”

President Donald Trump lashed out at Germany on Truth Social Thursday after Merz made the comments.

“The Chancellor of Germany should spend more time on ending the war with Russia/Ukraine (Where he has been totally ineffective!), and fixing his broken Country, especially Immigration and Energy, and less time on interfering with those that are getting rid of the Iran Nuclear threat, thereby making the World, including Germany, a safer place!” the president said.

At a visit to a school in Germany on Monday, Merz said U.S. officials had entered a war without a clear strategy, saying the “whole affair is ill-considered to say the least.”

“The Iranians are obviously very skilled at negotiating, or rather, very skillful at not negotiating, letting the Americans travel to Islamabad and then leave again without any result,” CNN reported Merz said. “An entire nation is being humiliated by the Iranian leadership, especially by these so-called Revolutionary Guards. And so I hope that this ends as quickly as possible.”

On Tuesday, Trump said that Merz “doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”

In response to the announcement of the drawdown, German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius downplayed the news and called it “foreseeable.”

He said it illustrated the need for Germany to take more responsibility for its own security and said the country is “on the right track.”

As of December 2025, there were 36,436 active-duty U.S. military personnel permanently stationed in Germany, according to the U.S. Defense Manpower Data Center.

After the removal of 5,000 troops, Germany will still host more than 30,000 U.S. personnel.

Trump also threatened to remove troops in 2020 when Angela Merkel was the chancellor.

On Friday, Trump told reporters in the White House that Italy had “not been of any help to us,” and accused Spain of being “absolutely horrible.” He said he may remove troops from those countries, too. Italy and Spain have denied any U.S. military planes that are used in the war against Iran from using their bases.

Germany has allowed limited use of its military infrastructure, though it hasn’t allowed its use as staging grounds for strikes.

Merz has said Germany will help if the war moves to a post-war stage, such as a stabilization mission, CNN reported. Berlin recently announced it was sending a naval minesweeper to the Strait of Hormuz once a lasting cease-fire deal is in place.

Lawmakers of both parties have opposed the decision to remove personnel from Europe.

Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., and Rep. Mike D. Rogers, R-Ala., chairs of the Senate and House Armed Services committees, issued a joint statement Saturday against the decision and telling the Department of Defense to work with the oversight committees. They said they were “very concerned” about the move.

“Rather than withdrawing forces from the continent altogether, it is in America’s interest to maintain a strong deterrent in Europe by moving these 5,000 U.S. forces to the east,” the statement said. “Allies there have made substantial investments to host U.S. troops, reducing costs for the U.S. taxpayer while strengthening NATO’s front line to help deter a far more costly conflict from ever beginning.

“Any significant change to the U.S. force posture in Europe warrants a deliberate review process and close coordination with Congress and our allies. We expect the Department to engage with its oversight committees in the days and weeks ahead on this decision.”

House Armed Services Committee member Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., said that pulling the troops isn’t “grounded in any coherent U.S. national security policy, strategy, or even analysis.”

“It is counter to what is needed and will embolden Russia,” Smith said in a statement Friday. “It doesn’t matter that our presence in Germany is essential to our national security. … It doesn’t matter that withdrawing a brigade combat team from Europe runs counter to the intent of the law that Congress passed overwhelmingly last year. All that matters are the hurt feelings of a president who is seeking political vengeance.”

Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, asked Trump to reverse the decision.

“Weakening our military footprint in Europe at a time when Russian forces continue to mercilessly attack Ukraine and harass our NATO allies is a priceless gift to [Russian President] Vladimir Putin and suggests American commitments to our allies are dependent on the president’s mood,” Reed said in a statement Friday.

In August 2026, Kazakhstan will hold an unusual election. The newly established unicameral parliament—the “Kurultai”—will, for the first time, be formed entirely through party lists. Independent candidates and regional representatives will no longer enter the core of state power. As a representative institution of so-called “steppe democracy,” the Kurultai has undergone multiple transformations throughout history, both in its functions and in the composition of its participants. According to recent constitutional arrangements, this mechanism has been elevated to an unprecedented level. This raises a key question: what direction does this transformation reveal in the current round of political modernization?

Historically, the Kurultai functioned as an important mechanism of consultation in steppe society, not as a system of mass participation, but as a platform composed of multiple layers of elite actors. Its participants included khans and sultans who held political authority, biys who were responsible for adjudication and governance, military leaders who organized mobilization in times of war, as well as tribal elders and influential akyns and zhyrau who shaped public discourse. In addressing critical issues such as succession, warfare, and internal conflict, the Kurultai did not rely on formalized procedures or fixed institutional rules. Instead, decisions were reached through authority, negotiation, and consensus. Although ordinary people did not possess direct institutional channels of participation, their interests and attitudes indirectly constrained decision-making through tribal structures, public opinion, and their willingness to comply with and implement decisions.

During the Soviet period and the early years of Kazakhstan’s independence, the Kurultai gradually lost its function as an operative political institution and became a symbol of historical memory and cultural identity. It was not until 2022, amid a serious crisis of political trust, that this traditional symbol was revived and institutionalized as the “National Kurultai,” reintroduced as a new format of public dialogue within the framework of state governance. Its declared purpose is to strengthen interaction between the government and society. In terms of composition, the National Kurultai formally continues the tradition of “broad participation,” including regional representatives, members of parliament, professionals from various sectors, and leaders of social organizations with a degree of public influence. However, this diversity is largely structural rather than functional. It reflects broad inclusion, but does not necessarily translate into a substantive mechanism for reconciling competing interests. The institution lacks the capacity to independently coordinate diverse social demands.

Moreover, the agenda-setting process and operational logic of the National Kurultai remain distinctly top-down. Key issues are primarily defined by the state, while participants tend to act as interpreters and endorsers of pre-established policy directions. In this sense, “consultation” often takes the form of explaining and legitimizing the state agenda. Through the participation and symbolic endorsement of elite actors, the state is able to construct an image of “broad public dialogue,” thereby reinforcing the legitimacy of its reform agenda. In this respect, the National Kurultai should not be seen as a simple continuation of a traditional consultative institution, but rather as an institutionalized platform for political communication and discursive integration. Its core function lies not in generating genuinely competitive policy alternatives, but in organizing a process of “consensus production” aimed at shaping values, mobilizing society, and reproducing the legitimacy of ongoing reforms.

In 2026, President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev announced a major reform of Kazakhstan’s parliamentary system, proposing the transition to a unicameral “Kurultai Parliament.” Its members will be elected entirely through proportional representation based on party lists. The reform abolishes both the presidential quota and the special quota previously allocated to the Assembly of the People of Kazakhstan. At the same time, quota guarantees for women, youth, and persons with disabilities will be retained, but incorporated into party list mechanisms rather than being directly allocated by the state.

From the perspective of institutional design, this reform strengthens the role of political parties as key intermediaries within the political system, positioning them as the primary channel through which social demands are transmitted to the state. In the context of electoral competition, parties are expected to secure support by more effectively representing public interests, while also integrating fragmented social demands. Compared with the previous mixed model of representation, which included multiple categories of actors, a party-centered system enhances the coherence of political positions: social demands are systematically aggregated and restructured before entering the political arena, thereby improving, to some extent, the efficiency of policy articulation and decision-making.

Building on this, if meaningful and substantive competition among political parties can be established, this model has the potential not only to integrate social interests but also to more fully reflect the diversity of social groups. Political parties could function not merely as instruments of organization and coordination, but also as a crucial link between diverse societal demands and the process of state decision-making—balancing efficiency in representation with breadth and inclusiveness.Under such conditions, the consultative model of the Kurultai may gradually evolve from an elite-driven mechanism of integration into an institutionalized system of interest articulation grounded in party competition, thereby enhancing, to a certain extent, its capacity for bottom-up representation.

The new ITV quiz show is fronted by Danny Dyer and Emily Atack

ITV has unveiled the first look at its new reality quiz show with a surprising twist.

Fronted by Danny Dyer and Emily Atack, Nobody’s Fool has been billed as a “unique reality event packed full of drama and deception.”

In this ruthless contest, participants’ survival depends not on their actual intelligence, but on how clever their rivals perceive them to be.

Throughout the series, ten competitors from across the UK will share a purpose-built “Smart House,” taking part in a game where perception, tactics and trickery matter just as much as brainpower.

With challenges completed behind closed doors, assumptions, biases and initial impressions will prove crucial, as hasty conclusions and deliberate misdirection keep both contestants and audiences second-guessing.

The show will feature daily individual quizzes testing various forms of intelligence, with correct answers contributing to a collective prize fund.

However, in a clever twist, only the participants themselves will know their actual performance – leaving them free to share as much or as little truth as they wish with their housemates.

As the series progresses, players must identify the weakest link among them and vote them out.

Discussing the programme, Danny Dyer enthused: “this is a blinder of a game show and unlike anything I’ve seen before. Emily and I had a brilliant time making it and much like the audience at home will be, we kept guessing right until the very end.”

Emily Atack added: “It’s so exciting to be part of something this new and fresh. The chance to work with Danny again was a no brainer for me. We had such a laugh. Can’t wait for everyone to watch, it’s an absolute must see.”

Sue Murphy, Director of Factual Entertainment at ITV, and Kate Teckman, Head of Development and Commissioning Editor at ITV, said: “Nobody’s Fool is an innovative reality/quiz crossover show that puts preconceptions, stereotypes and judgements to the test.”

They continued: “Danny and Emily are the perfect pairing to host this game of surprise and prejudice, that will no doubt have audiences on the edge of their seats.”

Meanwhile, Richard Cowles, MD, and Tom Gould, Director of Entertainment and Formats at Lifted Entertainment, added: “Nobody’s Fool takes a simple premise – How do you really determine how smart someone is?

He added: “Trust your preconceptions and judgement or what they tell you? – and turns that into a high stakes reality game show with up to £100k up for grabs.

“There is drama at every turn but with Danny and Emily on hosting duties, the fun and laughter is also never far away.”

Nobody’s Fool is coming to ITV soon

May 1 (UPI) — May Day demonstrations are expected Friday, as organizers call for boycotts of school, work and shopping in protest of the Trump administration’s policies.

The May Day Strong protests are to mark International Labor Day. While Labor Day in the United States is in September and is a celebration of the achievements of organized labor, May Day — May 1 — is traditionally a day of protest.

The message this year is that the United States should be “focusing on workers over billionaires,” National Education Association President Becky Pringle told NPR.

“We know there are bus drivers in New York and teachers in Idaho and nurses in Louisiana who are feeling the impact of a system that has decided … to put billionaires ahead of everyone else,” she said.

More than 500 labor unions, student groups and community organizations are expected to participate, organizers said.

A student group, Sunrise Movement, said on X that more than 100,000 students were expected to miss school in the one-day strike. The organization said it is made of “young people fighting fascism to win a Green New Deal.”

This year, rising prices and stagnant wages make this year’s protest especially important, Terrence Wise, an organizer with Missouri Workers Center in Kansas City, Mo., told USA Today.

“If you want to see real change, you’ve got to be a part of the solution. Because if you’re not out organizing and you’re not out in the streets and you’re not talking to your neighbors, you’re part of the problem,” Wise said.

May Day began in Chicago in 1886 as a protest demanding an eight-hour workday and is celebrated around the world.

“People have figured out who’s rigging the game and are taking action,” People’s Action Executive Director Sulma Arias told USA Today. “What we expect is people to come out and deliver a clear message. … They understand that they’re seeing broken promises by an administration that promised to make things more affordable. And yet none of that has happened for everyday people who are still struggling.”

White House spokesperson Kush Desai said the administration of President Donald Trump supports workers.

“The Trump administration has never wavered from standing up for American workers, from renegotiating broken trade deals to securing trillions in manufacturing investments to slashing taxes on overtime to securing our border. President Trump will always have the backs of American workers,” Desai said.

In Nigeria’s North East, the Boko Haram insurgent group once carved out territory and declared a caliphate. In the North West, terrorist groups operate as fluid, profit-driven networks, embedding themselves in local economies. In the Middle Belt, communal violence reflects deeper contests over land, identity, and survival. In the South East, separatist agitation by the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has fused with armed enforcement and criminal opportunism. Along the southern waterways, oil theft and piracy threaten economic lifelines.

Across all these theatres, one institution has remained consistently engaged: the Nigerian military, often as the default responder in the absence of effective civilian governance. Public perception often frames this engagement as a failure as attacks continue and civilians remain vulnerable. A closer, evidence-based reading tells a more complex story, however, though available data remains incomplete and, at times, contested. 

The Nigerian military appears to have adapted under pressure and recalibrated aspects of its doctrine, and, in key moments, helped reverse trajectories that once pointed toward state collapse. It has delivered tangible gains, some strategic, others tactical, many costly. Still, those gains sit on unstable ground because governance gaps, political interference, corruption, and weak institutional follow-through have repeatedly blunted them. Communities liberated from one threat find themselves exposed to another. 

The North East war: reversing a collapse

By early 2015, Nigeria was on the brink of losing control in the North East. Boko Haram had evolved from an insurgent group into a territorial force controlling large swathes of Borno State and parts of Yobe and Adamawa. It administered territory, collected taxes, and imposed its authority over local populations. Gwoza was declared the headquarters of a so-called caliphate. Entire communities were displaced, and military formations overrun.

The turning point came with a shift in military posture, in which command structures were reconfigured, and the operational headquarters was relocated to Maiduguri, the Borno State capital, bringing leadership closer to the frontline. Coordination with regional forces under the Multinational Joint Task Force (MJTF) also intensified as air and ground operations were synchronised.

The results were immediate and significant, though the durability of these gains has varied across locations. Key towns like Monguno, Bama, Dikwa, and even Gwoza, the symbolic heart of Boko Haram’s territorial claim, fell back under government control in rapid succession. Data from ACLED shows that between 2015 and 2025, the military recovered at least 259 territories. 

With this territorial success, supply routes were disrupted, and fighters were killed in large numbers. Civilians began to return to these areas, in some cases under fragile security conditions. 

It marked the collapse of Boko Haram’s experiment with territorial governance, and the battle for Sambisa Forest reinforced this shift.

For years, Sambisa had functioned as a strategic sanctuary where fighters trained, hostages were held, and leadership structures operated with relative security. It also carried psychological weight. As long as Sambisa remained intact, Boko Haram retained a sense of permanence.

The military’s assault on the forest required sustained effort involving navigating difficult terrain, dealing with improvised explosive devices, and confronting entrenched fighters. Airstrikes softened targets while ground troops advanced in phases, enabling special forces units to penetrate deeper into the forest.

The symbolic impact was significant, though not decisive in ending insurgent capacity. Boko Haram could no longer claim a fixed territorial base for as long as was once the case. Its command structure was disrupted, and its image of invincibility weakened.

And so Boko Haram fragmented into factions. The Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) emerged as a more structured and strategic actor while the Shekau-led faction became more erratic, marked by extreme violence and unpredictability.

The military adjusted again.

Operations shifted from territory holding to mobility and disruption. Intelligence-led raids targeted leadership and logistics. Airpower became central to deep strikes in difficult terrain. Operation Lafiya Dole, the codename for the counter-insurgency operation, transitioned into Operation Hadin Kai, reflecting a recalibrated effort.

Today, the insurgency remains active, particularly in remote areas and along the Lake Chad basin. But the scale and nature of the threat have changed.

The North West: fighting a war without frontlines

The North West posed a different challenge. Armed groups here are diffuse. It lacks a central command and is driven by economic incentives rather than ideology, so groups form, splinter, and realign quickly. Local grievances and criminal enterprise also intersect here.

Estimates suggest tens of thousands of terrorists operate across this region, covering multiple states including Zamfara, Katsina, Kebbi, Sokoto, and Kaduna. This fragmentation complicates the military response, as frontlines, headquarters, and leadership structures (the usual strategic targets) are not clear. The military has responded by leaning heavily on airpower and targeted ground operations. This has not gone without major problems, such as the repeated “accidental bombing” of civilian populations, which have drawn criticism from rights groups and affected communities. 

Still, airstrikes have been used to hit camps deep within forested areas that are difficult for ground troops to access. Intelligence plays a critical role in identifying targets. Data shows that the sustained air campaign has yielded at least 909 strikes and 10,237 fatalities in 10 years. ACLED data shows that about 560 of these fatalities were civilians.

Ground forces usually conduct follow-up operations to recover weapons and temporarily secure areas.

Large numbers of kidnapped victims have been rescued during coordinated operations. Livestock, often a key economic asset for communities, has been retrieved. Such attacks have also killed some high-profile terrorist leaders, but they have also led to the loss of officers. 

In some areas, these operations appear to have had a temporary stabilising effect, though violence frequently resurges. Communities report periods of reduced attacks, farming activities have resumed in limited corridors, and confidence in security presence has improved, though often temporarily. 

Still, armed violence regenerates as the effects of weak governance in the North East are the same in the North West: new leaders emerge, and fighters disperse and regroup. Economic incentives remain strong. 

The Middle Belt: stabilising a political conflict

Violence in the Middle Belt is often described as a farmer-herder conflict, but the region’s violence reflects a complex mix of land disputes, ethnic tensions, and environmental stress. Armed militias operate alongside opportunistic criminal actors, while cycles of reprisal deepen mistrust between communities. 

There are too many dynamics in play here to reduce the crisis to a “military versus any specific group” conflict. Most of the time, softer kinetic actions, such as arrest and deterrence, are used. 

In certain corridors, the presence of military forces has reduced the frequency of mass casualty events. But the limits are clear. Several parts of the region still depend on self-help vigilante groups, who are often outgunned during terror attacks. 

There is also a growing distrust between communities and security operatives, who are sometimes accused of slow response and complicity. In April, residents of Gashish, a rural community in Barkin Ladi Local Government Area of Plateau State, staged a protest over continued attacks in the community despite military presence. A checkpoint manned by troops of Operation Enduring Peace was destroyed during the demonstration. 

The military has denied such accusations, but independent verification remains limited. 

However, in other areas, the visibility of armed forces has also had a deterrent effect on opportunistic attacks. 

At its core, the conflict in the region is driven by political and environmental factors. It revolves around identity and access to land and water. While military deployments can suppress violence temporarily, they cannot resolve competing claims or rebuild trust between communities. Without political solutions, stability remains provisional.

The South East: managing a hybrid threat

The South East presents a hybrid security challenge. Separatist agitation, particularly linked to IPOB, has evolved into a mix of political mobilisation and armed enforcement. The group has enforced sit-at-home orders through violence and intimidation while the Eastern Security Network (ESN) operates in forested areas.

The military’s response has been presented as targeted and intelligence-driven. Operations focus on dismantling camps, intercepting arms, and arresting key figures. Urban centres are secured to prevent escalation into wider insurgency.

Yet the approach carries risks.

Heavy-handed operations have generated grievances. Allegations of abuses have eroded trust in some communities. This complicates intelligence gathering, which is critical in a conflict where fighters blend into civilian populations. 

The Niger Delta and maritime domain: securing economic lifelines

In the South South and along Nigeria’s maritime corridors, the military, particularly the navy, has delivered some of its most visible successes. A decade ago, the Gulf of Guinea was a global hotspot for piracy. Sustained operations, including improved surveillance, increased naval patrols, and collaboration with international partners, have changed that landscape. These have led to the destruction of illegal refining sites and to arrests that disrupt networks involved in oil theft.

These gains have helped to protect revenue streams, stabilise energy production, and reinforce Nigeria’s position in regional maritime security, although illegal activities have not been fully eradicated. 

“The Nigerian military is overstretched”

According to World Bank data collected from development indicators in 2020, Nigeria has roughly 223,000 active personnel across the army, navy, and air force. The army, which carries out most internal operations, has about 140,000 to 150,000 troops.

In the battlespace, there are simultaneous operations in at least six theatres. That constitutes multi-domain internal security warfare. Nigeria has about 0.1 per cent of its population under arms. When compared to countries facing sustained internal conflict, which often exceed 0.3 to 0.5 per cent, the country is operating below the threshold needed to dominate territory.

On the geography front, Nigeria is over 923,000 square kilometres, with vast forests, porous borders, and ungoverned rural space. It is impossible to hold ground everywhere with the limited available personnel. So troops are cycled, which then leads to fatigue because units stay deployed for long periods with limited rest.

Retired Lt. Gen. Tukur Buratai, the country’s former Chief of Army Staff, recently said, “The military is overstretched, defence budgets are diverted to routine policing duties, and the Armed Forces’ preparedness for conventional threats is reduced.”

However, there are also welfare issues and equipment gaps, especially at the tactical level in remote theatres. The result is predictable: Tactical wins, like killing terror commanders or rescuing hostages are visible, but strategic stagnation remains because you cannot sustain presence everywhere.

The structural constraint: why gains do not hold

Despite these efforts, Nigeria’s security situation remains volatile. 

In many areas, once the military has cleared armed actors, there is limited follow-through by civil authorities, as local administration is weak. So, communities do not experience the full return of the state, allowing armed groups to exploit this gap to re-enter or reorganise.

Economic conditions sustain conflict. Studies have shown that high levels of poverty and unemployment, particularly among young people, create a pool of potential recruits when armed groups offer income, however precarious.

Trust deficits also weaken intelligence because communities that distrust state actors are less likely to share information. This limits the effectiveness of intelligence-led operations and increases reliance on force.

Finally, strategy remains fragmented. Nigeria faces different types of violence that require tailored responses. Yet policy often treats them through a similar lens. Counterterrorism approaches are applied to terrorist attacks, while military solutions are prioritised in conflicts that require political negotiation.

The Nigerian military has played a significant role in preventing state collapse in multiple regions.

At the height of Boko Haram’s expansion, the possibility of sustained territorial loss was real. That threat has been largely reversed. In the North West, despite persistent violence, terrorist groups have not been allowed to consolidate into a territorial authority. In the South East, tensions have been contained below the threshold of full insurgency. In the maritime domain, economic lifelines have been secured.

However, good governance remains the only real pathway out of a cycle of violence. 

Yet the reality remains harsh. Lives are still lost daily. Families continue to sell everything they own to pay ransoms. The military has contributed to pushing back elements of the threat with measurable, though uneven, success, but it has not eliminated them.

Additional data provided by Mansir Muhammed. 

Love Island presenter and Entrepreneur Maya Jama is heading in to the Traitors castle for the new series for Celebrity Traitors but she is pleading with fans to do this one thing…

The BBC has revealed the full line-up of 21 celebrities joining series two of Celebrity Traitors – with this year’s “big dogs” appearing to be Jerry Hall and Miranda Hart, or possibly Michael Sheen and Richard E Grant.

Another huge name for the show is Love Island presenter and entrepreneur, Maya Jama, who will join the stars to work out the traitors from the faithfuls. Filming for the programme, which takes place at the stunning Ardross Castle in the Scottish Highlands, begins next week with celebrities expected to arrive today.

Maya, who is currently on a break from filming Love Island, took to Instagram to react to the news of her being a part of the iconic TV game show, which will air later this year.

Posting the announcement on her Instagram Story, she said: “Secret’s out,” before pleading with fans with a hand over the eye emoji and said: “wish me luck”.

This message suggests that the star might not be the most confident, with the presenter herself unaware just yet whether she will be a goodie or a baddie in this game.

Once filming begins this weekend, the 21 contestants will be divided into Traitors and Faithfuls, following extensive interviews with host Claudia Winkleman and production staff.

From then on, their objective will be to identify which participants are making nocturnal trips to the turret dressed in those distinctive hooded cloaks – selecting which remaining contestants will be murdered.

Also taking part is BBC presenter Amol Rajan, The Last of Us actress Bella Ramsey and comedian James Acaster – not to be mixed up with You’re Beautiful singer James Blunt, who has also signed up.

This comes after Maya recently admitted she “is ready to move on” from presenting, as she eyes up a new career in acting. Drama was actually the TV star’s first love, with Maya, 31, auditioning for Channel 4 ‘s hit teen series Skins when she was just 15.

Despite getting to the final stages, she didn’t make it into the cast, which launched the careers of the likes of Nicholas Hoult, Dev Patel and Daniel Kaluuya. And now the Bristol-born star, who is in a relationship with Man City footballer Ruben Dias, is ready to leave presenting to go back into acting.

Speaking to the BBC , Maya revealed she got “disheartened” after having to many unsuccessful auditions as a teen, leading her to give up on her dream. But now, after filming has wrapped for the upcoming release of the second season of Netflix crime thriller The Gentlemen, Maya’s love for the art has been reignited.

She told the broadcaster that her “dream role” would be to play a villain, but she “naturally fell into presenting roles” after starting out on YouTube . After a few years on social media, she made the move to TV to co-host ITV game show Cannonball, as well as MOBO Awards in 2017.

The year after she booked to host reality show The Circle and then ITV2 panel show Don’t Hate the Playaz. Of course, Jama’s big break came in 2022 when she replaced Laura Whitmore as the host for hit ITV reality dating show, Love Island.

Maya added: “I always remember when I started being like ‘how on Earth am I going to get on primetime TV as a girl from Bristol doing YouTube videos’ – it seemed like a massive reach.”

She added: “I naturally fell into presenting when I was young because I got to be myself on camera and I’m interested in humans”, adding: “Now it just feels like the doors opened up again [to get into acting]”. Maya said she is “ready to do something else after presenting for so long.”

Maya reportedly plays the glam wife of a friend of lead character Eddie Horniman, alongside the likes of Vinnie Jones and Ray Winstone. She spent time in 2025 filming at Gloucestershire’s Grade II listed building Badminton House, which is Eddie’s home.

The TV personality soft-launched her new gig with the streamer on social media at the start of last year. She teased her followers on Instagram when she posted a snap of a cast list with the Netflix logo on it.

She also shared a peek of a Netflix script, and posted a photo of her and Skins star Kaya, who plays mob boss Susie Glass in the show. Further adding to the speculation around what is next for Maya, she posted a photo of a Netflix mug, with fans then certain she was working on something big.

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads .

Ruben Rocha Moya again denies allegations he shielded cartel, says taking ‘temporary leave’ to defend self.

The governor of Mexico’s Sinaloa state has temporarily resigned days after being charged by United States authorities in a sweeping drug trafficking indictment that has further strained relations between the two countries.

In a brief video statement posted late Friday, Ruben Rocha Moya again denied any wrongdoing, but said he was taking “temporary leave” to defend himself against the US allegations.

The indictment unsealed by US prosecutors earlier this week claimed that Rocha Moya and nine other officials directly aided the Sinaloa drug cartel in its smuggling operations in exchange for political support and bribes.

That support included members of the powerful cartel kidnapping and threatening opposition candidates in the 2021 election and stealing paper ballots cast for those running against Rocha Moya, the indictment charged.

Rocha Moya is a member of President Claudia Sheinbaum’s progressive Morena party.

“My conscience is clear,” Rocha Moya said in the video message. “To my people and to my family, I can look you in the eye because I have never betrayed you, and I never will.”

Juan de Dios Gamez Mendivil, the mayor of the Sinaloa state capital Culiacan who was among the other officials charged by the US, also announced he would step down on Saturday. He has denied the allegations.

Sheinbaum has also pushed back on charges, which come at a time when she has sought to navigate tense relations with the administration of US President Donald Trump.

On Thursday, she said her government had not been provided with any concrete evidence to back up the claims, suggesting the information laid out in the indictment was insufficient.

“My position on these events is as follows: truth, justice and the defence of sovereignty,” Sheinbaum said.

She added that if “clear and irrefutable evidence” is presented, the US still must proceed “in accordance with the law under our jurisdiction”.

Sheinbaum maintained her government will not “shield anyone who has committed a crime”.

“However, if there is no clear evidence,” she added, “it is evident that the aim of these charges by the [US] Department of Justice is political.”

Tense US-Mexico relations

Since taking office in January of last year, the Trump administration has heaped pressure on Mexico to do more to address migration and drug smuggling.

The approach has included Washington imposing a host of tariffs as leverage against Mexico’s government.

The US State Department has also labelled several Latin American drug cartels as “Foreign Terrorist Organisations”, an unorthodox move in line with the administration’s more militaristic approach to Latin America.

The administration has broadly argued that the criminal groups are driven, in part, by efforts to destabilise the US, a claim rejected by many longtime experts.

Sheinbaum has walked a careful line with Trump, increasing cooperation in countering cartels while pledging to protect Mexico’s sovereignty. Notably, she has staunchly opposed the prospect of any US military action on Mexican soil.

But experts have said charging elected officials in Mexico represents a major escalation in the Trump administration’s strategy.

Speaking to Al Jazeera this week, Vanda Felbab-Brown, an expert on non-state armed groups at the Brookings Institution think tank in Washington, DC, said the approach had “long been considered a very big step, almost a ‘nuclear option’”.

She predicted more US indictments were likely to come.

We can analyze China’s current stance on the escalating Iranian conflict by understanding its true position. China does not desire a full-scale war that would destroy its oil interests, but it is not averse to the continuation of the neither-peace-nor-war situation that drains its adversaries, such as Washington. This positions China as a player that pushes for calm during critical times, while simultaneously providing Iran with the economic lifeline it needs. Here, China plays a dual and complex role in the Iranian conflict (the Iranian-American/Israeli conflict), balancing its strategic support for Tehran to safeguard its energy interests and undermine American influence with its pursuit of a ceasefire to avoid widespread economic chaos.

Based on current developments up to early May 2026 and statements by Iranian officials that war is a possibility, the regional and international landscape reveals a divide between actual military escalation and cautious diplomacy. The Chinese position and the likelihood of war can be analyzed based on several factors. China views the current conflict with Iran as a proxy war, prioritizing stability over stability. China considers Iran a strategic partner, and its stance is characterized by a delicate balance. The Chinese Foreign Ministry has repeatedly called for de-escalation and a complete ceasefire to prevent further escalation in the Middle East, while simultaneously condemning American escalation. China has stated that American and Israeli military operations against Iran violate its sovereignty and has expressed grave concern about the potential imposition of a blockade on Iranian ports and the Strait of Hormuz. While Beijing seeks to protect its investments and economic interests, China is deeply concerned about any disruption to oil and energy supplies, especially since a direct war would lead to imported inflation, negatively impacting its economy. Therefore, China’s current stance is characterized by a cautious, mediating role. China is attempting to play the part of a peace broker but is also wary of the potential damage a war could inflict on its relations with the United States, especially given the ongoing diplomatic exchanges between the two countries.

Regarding the likelihood of war (and the expected scenarios), despite the tense rhetoric, a full-scale, direct war between the United States and Iran remains a risky prospect for all parties. Current indicators suggest that a war is already underway (indirectly), particularly since the start of direct military operations (US/Israeli strikes) against Iran and its allies in February 2026. This indicates that a direct war remains a strong possibility. The option of blockade and proxies also remains a possibility. Chinese intelligence and military assessments suggest that Iran might prefer to carry out its threats through proxies in the region or by disrupting oil shipments in the Strait of Hormuz, rather than engaging in a direct war, to avoid a conventional military defeat. Despite Chinese diplomatic efforts to contain the situation, and despite the escalation, attempts are still underway, such as Pakistani mediation, to reach a ceasefire. This indicates a desire among the parties to keep the door open for political solutions.

As for my perspective on the proxy war between China and Iran against the United States and Israel, the current conflict is likely to continue as a proxy war of attrition, with limited and precise strikes, rather than a full-scale ground invasion. China will likely exert further pressure, continuing to push for diplomatic solutions because any large-scale war would threaten the stability of global energy supplies, on which it depends. It’s worth noting that the region is going through a critical moment and a dangerous phase of mutual deterrence. Iranian officials’ statements are as much messages of deterrence as they are an acknowledgment of the potential for escalation.

Regarding China’s role in the continuation of the war or its support for Iran (strategic and economic support), China considers the Iranian Strait of Hormuz and its purchases of Iranian oil as a vital economic lifeline. China is the largest buyer of Iranian oil (approximately 80-90% of exports), providing Tehran with crucial funding to sustain its activities. China also seeks to help Iran circumvent US sanctions, assisting Iran in bypassing these sanctions through an unofficial oil fleet, thus keeping the Iranian economy afloat. Furthermore, there is a strategic Chinese-Iranian partnership opposed to the West and US sanctions against Tehran. China views Iran as a partner in undermining the US-led global order through organizations such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Moreover, China is exploiting the current situation to its advantage. Chinese intelligence, military, defense, and security analyses suggest that the continuation of the Iranian war drains US resources and provides China with an opportunity to enhance its influence, absorbing the shock of the war and potentially emerging with strategic gains.

At the same time that China is playing a role in halting the Iranian war through mediation diplomacy to de-escalate tensions, with China acting as a hidden mediator to urge Tehran to cooperate and reach a ceasefire with the United States to protect its economic interests, despite China’s support for Iran, the war harms China by closing the Strait of Hormuz and threatening its energy security. This prompts Beijing to urge an end to the war and the reopening of waterways. Therefore, China is pursuing a policy of diplomatic pressure, consistently calling for restraint and believing that the best solution is an immediate ceasefire, according to statements by its permanent representative to the United Nations.

Accordingly, we conclude that a full-scale war is theoretically possible but practically unlikely as a final option due to the exorbitant cost to all parties. However, the continuation of retaliatory strikes and economic sanctions remains the most probable scenario at present.

We are living in an era of dissent, but what does that mean in 2026? According to writer Gal Beckerman, to be a dissident is as much a way of being as it is an act of resistance. In his new book “How to Be a Dissident,” Beckerman, a staff writer for the Atlantic, unpacks dissent as a kind of rough art. His book is both an instruction guide and a primer.

In nine short, potent chapters, Beckerman lays out the essential traits of an effective dissident — loyalty, recklessness and watchfulness, among them — to illustrate how communities of resistance are built from the ground up. I recently chatted with Beckerman about playwright and former president of the Czech Republic Václav Havel, President Trump and AI.

✍️ Author Chat

You have written three books that deal with dissent — political, cultural and societal. It’s clearly a big issue with you.

I don’t think of myself as an activist; I don’t approach these topics with an activist’s fervor. I’m genuinely curious about how change happens in society. All four of my grandparents survived the Holocaust, and I think the notion of a society that can change that quickly and turn on you was always very shocking and interesting to me.

In reading your book, it’s really inspiring and extraordinary to read about individuals putting their lives on the line to make change happen.

They genuinely fascinate me as these bizarre human beings who are able to act in ways that I find really mysterious. There’s a mystery as to how people’s minds actually change, and how society can change.

You write about making moral choices, and doing something bold because of some strongly held belief. This is not the same thing as joining the crowd, which can be the path of least resistance.

I had this feeling during the first few months of the current Trump term (and I share this sentiment with a lot of people) that we were just bowled over by the degree to which people in elite places were acquiescing to the exercise of executive power and being willing to bend the knee in ways that felt shocking to me. This prompted me to wonder, what would I do in that situation? Would I say “no” and not succumb to the will of executive power? Would any of us do so? It’s a question we all have to ask ourselves.

You cite Iris Murdoch’s notion of “radical humanism” as a key trait of effective dissent.

Radical humanists are attuned to the messy and wonderful ways that beings just are. They are defending those conditions for human beings to have a normal life, whether that means being able to listen to whatever music you like, or to wear your hair in a certain way, or to take care of a neighbor that is being ill-treated. Václav Havel called it the “pre-political” way of thinking and acting. And we saw this recently in Minnesota, with people standing up to ICE, regardless of what their political affiliations might be. Something pre-political was going on.

Another important factor you cite is civic mindedness, which feels like a difficult goal given how our communities have been dissolved by our screen addictions.

The communication tools that we use are dehumanizing in many ways because they don’t allow us to really see each other. Instead we preconceive each other and just scream a lot. And we know this at a gut level even as we continue to use them. That’s why I do think it takes an almost dissident sort of energy to insist on thinking in a different way and scrambling the assumptions that our modes of communication have foisted upon us.

What about AI? It feels as if there is a lot of resistance to accepting AI into our lives just because technology companies are investing billions of dollars to make it so. You are seeing communities protesting against the construction of data farms in their neighborhoods, for example.

The money behind the ideology pushing AI is about letting us feel that the only way to have an efficient life is through AI. And I feel like the 20th century taught us that there are lots of ideologies that come around to promise this sort of thing. And so we need to learn from that. I think there are a lot of overwhelming powers that try to flatten us. But we have to take that wonderful human element, that radical humanism, to say no, maybe there’s a way to do it better.

📰 The Week(s) in Books

Monica Lewinsky as a saint offering solace to the lovelorn and abandoned? Julia Langbein’s wild conceit works beautifully in her novel “Dear Monica Lewinsky,” according to Julia M. Klein, who calls the book “smart, poignant and involving.”

Among the casualties of the Vietnam War were the Appalachian communities whose male populations were decimated on the frontlines. This is the subject of Pamela Steele’s “taut, lyrical” novel “In the Fields of Fatherless Children,” a book that delves into the “poverty, racism, environmental degradation and despair suffered in the Appalachian ‘holler’ during the Vietnam era,” writes Meredith Maran.

The Times’ Deputy Entertainment and Arts Editor Nate Jackson sat down with the rapper, actor and K-Town native Jonnie Park to discuss his memoir, “Spit: A Life in Battles.”

Finally, Maddie Connors answers the question, “why are novels getting shorter?” Welcome to the age of the Adderall novel.

📖 Bookstore Faves

The inside of Mystery Pier Books

(Mystery Pier Books)

Established in 1998, Mystery Pier Books is L.A.’s prime destination for rare books and signed editions across a wide range of genres and forms, including Shakespeare folios and vintage sci-fi paperbacks. Located right alongside its Sunset Strip neighbor Book Soup, Mystery Pier was established by character actor Harvey Jason and his son Louis, who continue to run the store together. I chatted with Harvey about the treasures to be found in his store.

What is the market like for rare books right now?

Very strong, in fact. We just sold a beautiful edition of J.R.R. Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings” trilogy to a private collector for $55,000. And that is actually a reasonable price for those books. We have a long list of serious collectors all over the world that contact us for books, customers that have been coming to us for years. We also sold a first edition of “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” for $17,500.

Why should one own a rare book?

It’s a good investment. People who collect rare books are book lovers, first and foremost. And they are smart enough to know that the books they love can increase in value year by year. First editions never depreciate. They always become more valuable over time.

I’m interested in journalism books. Do you have any Tom Wolfe or Hunter Thompson in your store?

Hunter Thompson came in here years ago and signed all of his books, so, yes, we have his books signed by him.

Do you see young people looking to get into collecting books?

Yes. A lot of recent college graduates are building collections. It’s very heartening to see that. You can come into our store and find nice editions for $100. The front room of our store contains the first editions but our other rooms will have landmark titles for far less money. This is really a pursuit for everybody, not just wealthy collectors.

Social media is full of posts showing off photos and videos of fancy-looking cafes and restaurants in Gaza. Pro-Israeli accounts often use these images to claim that life is back to normal in Gaza, that people are not suffering and that no genocide ever took place.

These cafes and restaurants do exist. I have seen them myself.

In late March, I went on my first visit to Gaza City since the war started. I was shocked to see the destruction wrought on the city. There were piles of rubble at every corner. Unable to recognise the streets, I felt as if I were strolling through a maze. I soon arrived at an area nearby that shocked me even more. It was full of new cafes that did not exist before the war.

These were not makeshift or temporary places as one might expect; they were built with expensive materials, carefully painted, furnished with tables, sofas, and elegant chairs, with glass facades and shining lights. A luxury feel emanated from them. They looked so out of place amid the rubble and the half-collapsed buildings that it felt almost surreal to see them.

These new establishments do not prove that normality is coming back to Gaza. They are a testament to its continuing genocidal abnormality.

The war made some people in Gaza rich, especially those who engaged in illicit activities like smuggling, looting, and hoarding during acute shortages. This wealth is now coming out in various forms, including luxury cafes and restaurants.

In parallel, the vast majority of Gaza’s population has been thrown into abject poverty. While before the war, the average person was able to afford to sit at a cafe and have a drink and a bite to eat, today this is no longer the case.

Most people cannot even look at these new places, let alone enter them and order something. The vast majority of Gaza’s population lives in tents, has no electricity or potable water, and suffers from the loss of livelihoods. They are surviving on what little aid Israel is allowing through.

I am one of them. My family and I live in a tent pitched near the rubble of our home in the Nuseirat camp. We have lost our family livelihood. The comfortable life we used to have is now just a distant memory.

The expensive new establishments reflect the deeply unjust social order that has emerged in Gaza – one where war profiteering has elevated a new privileged class and collapsed the vast majority into misery with no access to proper education, healthcare and even food. The genocide did not just kill and maim people and destroy homes and schools; it eliminated the prospect of a normal life for most people in Gaza.

I could not afford the fancy cafes, so I continued down the street till I reached a more modest restaurant, which used to go to with friends before the war. Entering it felt like stepping back in time to the days before the war; the place was the same, with the same chairs and tables, and the familiar smells that filled the space.

I sat and observed, dwelling on fond memories of spending time there after university lectures. I ordered what I used to order: a chicken wrap, a soda and a small salad plate. The bill was 60 shekels ($20) – more than three times what I would pay before the war, when my family actually had a normal income.

The restaurant bill, together with the fare I paid for a shared ride to get to Gaza City (15 shekels or $5 one way), cost me a fortune. I felt guilty spending all this money to enjoy a glimpse of normalcy.

The few who are fortunate enough to be able to afford going to cafes and restaurants in Gaza may enjoy short moments of relief, a temporary escape from the horrors of reality. Yet these moments are limited, often accompanied by anxiety about returning to the destroyed streets, the bombed-out landscape and the trauma.

As I sat at Al-Taboon, I thought of the friends with whom I used to spend time: Rama, who was martyred and Ranan, who escaped to Belgium. I sat there alone, holding on to these memories amid the greyness of Gaza’s rubble and the lights of the generator-powered cafés.

The genocide has devasted everyone – even those who have profiteered from it. No amount of time spent in shiny cafes and restaurants will ever erase this reality.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.