NEWS

China officially announced in late January 2026 its refusal to join the Board of Peace at the “International Peace Council for the Administration of the Gaza Strip.” This council, proposed by the United States under the leadership of Donald Trump, is a new international entity launched by the US president as an alternative to traditional UN mechanisms. China confirmed in January 2026 that it had received a formal invitation from the United States to join the “International Peace Council” for Gaza, launched by President “Trump” as a global initiative to resolve the conflict. China’s stance toward this council is characterized by caution and a demand for further details while adhering to its established principles.

The reasons for China’s rejection of the US-sponsored peace council for the Gaza Strip are based on several strategic and legal justifications, the most important of which is the marginalization of the UN’s role by the International Peace Council, sponsored by Washington. Beijing believes that the council seeks to replace the role of the United Nations and the Security Council, and it affirms its commitment to an international system centered on the United Nations and based on international law. Regarding China’s criticism of the lack of Palestinian representation within the International Peace Council, China criticized the Council’s charter for failing to mention the Palestinians or respect their will, asserting that any arrangements for the future of Gaza must be based on the principle of “Palestinians governing Palestine.” Furthermore, (China’s concerns about “American dominance” over the International Peace Council): Beijing warned that the Council could be a tool for Washington to impose “control” or establish military bases in the Gaza envelope area under the guise of reconstruction. Also, (China’s rejection of the financial membership criteria within the International Peace Council): The Council requires substantial financial contributions (up to one billion dollars for permanent membership), which China views as transforming peace into a “deal” driven by financial power rather than the legal rights of the Palestinians.

At the same time, China is demanding structural clarity regarding the resolution establishing the International Peace Council and its actual feasibility. China, through its Permanent Representative to the United Nations, “Fu Cong,” expressed concern that the resolution establishing the council lacks essential details, particularly concerning its structure, composition, and terms of reference, as well as the nature of the proposed “international stabilization force” in Gaza. Therefore, Beijing insisted on the UN’s authority in this matter, maintaining that any future arrangements for Gaza must be made under the auspices of UN Security Council resolutions and with broad participation including Palestinian parties and Arab states. China rejected any “closed” or “unilateral” mechanisms that could marginalize the UN’s role. Furthermore, China categorically emphasized the principle of “Palestinian governance of Gaza,” considering the Gaza Strip an integral part of Palestinian territory. China rejects any plans aimed at imposing external trusteeship or control over its administration, affirming that the principle of “Palestinians governing Palestine” is the foundation for any post-conflict governance. China has supported Arab initiatives on post-war management of the Gaza Strip, explicitly endorsing reconstruction and peace plans proposed by Egypt and other Arab states, deeming them consistent with the aspirations of the Palestinian people. China firmly adheres to the two-state solution, maintaining that any peace efforts must ultimately lead to a two-state solution and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

Therefore, the motives behind China’s rejection of the American request to join the International Peace Council on Gaza can be summarized as follows: China’s insistence on upholding the international legitimacy of the United Nations and its deep suspicions regarding the security and political objectives behind the council’s formation and Washington’s enthusiasm for it. The main reasons for China’s rejection of the International Peace Council on Gaza are China’s desire to protect the UN system. Beijing believes the proposed council seeks to replace or marginalize the role of the United Nations. The Chinese Foreign Ministry affirmed its commitment to an international system centered on the United Nations and based on its Charter and international law, rejecting any “alternative frameworks” outside of this scope. (Ambiguity in structure and tasks): The Chinese representative to the United Nations, “Fu Cong,” criticized the draft resolution concerning the council (Resolution 2803) for its lack of clear details regarding its structure, composition, and criteria for participation, describing it as “worrying.” In addition to China’s security concerns regarding the Gaza issue: Chinese intelligence reports indicate that one of the hidden objectives of the Washington-sponsored International Peace Council in Gaza is to destroy Hamas tunnels under the guise of “reconstruction,” which Beijing considers a “provocative and extremely dangerous” foreign military intervention. Furthermore, (China rejects American unilateralism in dealing with regional and global issues): China views the American International Peace Council initiative in Gaza as part of Washington’s attempts to impose “unilateralism” and exacerbate confrontation between blocs, which contradicts the “Global Governance Initiative” championed by Chinese President “Xi Jinping. ”.

Herein lies China’s alternative vision to the American initiative to form the International Peace Council: China, in its alternative to joining the Council, calls for the activation of the two-state solution as the only way to guarantee lasting peace in the Middle East and the implementation of the Beijing Declaration to support Palestinian national unity and strengthen the legitimacy of the Palestinian state. (UN Reform): Instead of creating parallel initiatives, Beijing calls for making the Security Council more responsive to the expectations of the world’s people on its 80th anniversary.

China proposes a different vision for managing the Gaza and Middle East issues, based on the following pillars: (Security Council Authority): This involves full adherence to UN Security Council resolutions as the sole basis for international legitimacy in Gaza. The Chinese call for (the principle of self-governance in the Gaza Strip): This involves China’s insistence that post-war administration of Gaza must be in the hands of the Palestinians themselves, rejecting any plans for forced displacement or external trusteeship. The Chinese call for a broad international peace conference on Gaza: Beijing calls for a more inclusive and credible international peace conference under UN auspices, with the aim of concretely implementing the two-state solution within a defined timeframe. With China prioritizing land routes over sea routes or temporary docks, as proposed by the US, China rejects maritime alternatives or “temporary docks” as substitutes for land corridors, viewing them as attempts to circumvent international obligations regarding humanitarian relief in the Gaza Strip.

From the preceding analysis, we understand that China considers itself a “positive stabilizing force” seeking to end the ongoing conflict in the Gaza Strip through comprehensive dialogue, in contrast to what it describes as the “unilateral” US approach, which it believes could deepen regional divisions. In short, while China does not reject participation in international dialogue on Gaza, it stipulates that the international peace council, sponsored by Washington, should be an instrument for strengthening international legitimacy, not a replacement for it, while preserving full Palestinian sovereignty over Gaza.

The commander of Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) has said that he would like to field F-15E Strike Eagle and F-15EX Eagle II combat aircraft to help the command meet its commitment to supporting the overall Air Force mission. AFRC commander Lt. Gen. John P. Healy was speaking at the Air & Space Forces Association’s annual Warfare Symposium, where TWZ is in attendance.

Headquartered at Robins Air Force Base, Georgia, the AFRC is responsible for three numbered air forces, 34 flying wings, 10 flying groups, a space wing, a cyber wing, and an intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance wing. It also has other subordinate units that help to accomplish its total-force missions.

Healy was addressing how AFRC is grappling with how best to contribute to the Air Force’s 10-year fighter jet plan, which calls for purchasing more F-15EXs, F-35s, and F-47s, as it aims to have nearly 1,400 combat-coded tactical aircraft in service by 2030. The commander noted that the plan is not only “pretty ambitious” but also that, while it has been submitted to Congress, it is still very much a work in progress.

Nevertheless, Healy said that, whatever happens, the Air Force’s future fighter plans will rely heavily on the AFRC. At the same time, this organization is facing upcoming combat aircraft retirements, including the A-10 attack jet, which the Air Force wants to withdraw entirely.

“As the commander of Air Force Reserve Command, I am keenly aware that some of my units are scheduled to divest without any plan of recapitalization,” Healy said. “Some could say I am loud and annoying when it comes to how we can ensure that we can maintain this fighting force,” he added, noting that in certain AFRC units, 100 percent of the airmen are combat veterans, and that he wants to ensure “that talent, that experience, doesn’t walk out the door during a normal, planned divestment.”

Healy is hopeful that the historic practice of aircraft divestment without recapitalization, something he said has existed over the last 14 years, is now on the way out.

“I think we’re finally at a point where we’re putting a stop to that,” Healy said. “We’re looking at maintaining our classic associations where we have them and recapping as the active duty can. For the remaining fighter units that we have that are divesting or scheduled for divestment, our full expectation is that we’re going to recap those with new weapons systems.”

There’s no doubt that many of the AFRC’s planned divestments are badly needed, with upward of 80 percent of the command’s fleet now being considered “legacy.” Healy continued: “You know, it’s code for old. Some of these airplanes need to be divested, but we also need to ensure that we are proportionately, concurrently fielded with new equipment.”

That’s where the F-15E and F-15EX could come into play.

“For every one of these A-10 units that are going away, I’m looking at if there’s a means by which we can get an F-15 unit behind it, whether it’s a Strike Eagle or an EX.”

Meanwhile, Healy said he’s also “pressing hard” to ensure that ARFC units divesting from the F-16 will be backfilled with F-35 stealth jets.

“We’ve got that combat capability,” Healy added. “We’ve got that combat experience. We need to leverage that.”

The AFRC boss also made the financial case for continuing to re-equip his command’s squadrons with new (or, failing that, newer) equipment.

According to the Air Force’s own factsheet, the AFRC provides around 14 percent of the total force within the service, while consuming only around four percent of the total manpower budget.

“My job is to constantly remind the programmers and remind the chief and the secretary of the value proposition, the advantage of the Reserve, because at the end of the day, we’re providing a little bit more money that we can reinvest into other things as well.”

Healy said that, when it comes to operating the F-16, an AFRC squadron does that “$12 million cheaper than the active duty can.”

The savings on F-15 units would be even more compelling, Healy argued, with an AFRC Strike Eagle squadron working out as $28 million cheaper than the active-duty equivalent, or $24 million in the case of the F-15EX.

There remains a question, however, around just how feasible it might be for the ARFC to get the F-15E or F-15EX. For all their undoubted capabilities, these types are both in short supply and high demand.

The Air Force’s planned F-15EX numbers have fluctuated repeatedly over the last few years. Under the Fiscal Year 2026 budget proposal, the Air Force’s program of record is now set to grow from 98 to 129 aircraft, with the addition of at least one more squadron, which will be converting from the A-10.

Originally, the Air Force had a minimum number of 144 F-15EX aircraft to replace the F-15C/D force. Some of the Eagle units have switched to other platforms since then, but units that fly A-10s, F-16s, and even F-15Es could end up getting F-15EX if the service chooses to go such a route. It seems quite possible that further growth of the program could occur, and that would seem to be a prerequisite if the ARFC is to get the Eagle II as well.

When it comes to the F-15E, the Air Force inventory numbers 218 aircraft, of which 119 are powered by the older F100-PW-220 turbofan engines that produce some 23,500 pounds of thrust each. The other 99 have the F100-PW-229s, each of which is rated at 29,000 pounds of thrust.

The Air Force previously aspired to retire the Dash-220-powered jets by the end of Fiscal Year 2028.

The Air Force has argued that it needs to retire its older F-15Es to help free up resources for its future modernization plans, but lawmakers have been concerned about dwindling numbers of available tactical aircraft if this were to happen.

The possibility of transferring F-15Es from active-duty units to Air National Guard (or AFRC) units is something that TWZ has discussed in depth in this previous feature.

As far as the AFRC is concerned, the best chance of getting its hands on F-15Es will almost certainly be provided by the return stateside of the two squadrons of Dash-229-powered Strike Eagles currently at RAF Lakenheath in England. These are due to be replaced by F-35s in the future. For the time being, they are the only permanently forward-deployed F-15Es, which remain the service’s first choice for a wide variety of critical missions around the globe.

Another option, and one we have explored in the past, would be to pass on the Dash-220-powered jets to the AFRC, and it is somewhat surprising the Air Force hasn’t floated this idea before when it has sought to offload the older, less-powerful Strike Eagles.

Asked by TWZ about the likelihood of F-15Es making their way to his command, the AFRC commander responded: “I am optimistic that we’ve at least got people listening to the value that we provide, the combat capability we provide, the experience that we provide. We’ve proven it over and over again. We’re efficient, we’re experienced, we’re 100 percent accessible as a reserve force, and we’re lethal in all these mission sets. I think our message is sounding in a positive way with senior leadership within the Air Force. I’m not going to cash the check yet, but I’m optimistic about our future in terms of recapitalizing some of our units.”

Many of the savings that the AFRC makes are a result of the efficiencies that are baked into its ‘business’ practices. Of the 67,000 airmen that make up the command, 14,000 are full-timers.

“Those full-timers are the ones that keep the lights on day-to-day,” Healy continued. Our business model is such that a typical unit will have 25 percent full-timers, and they run that unit for 28 days of the month. It’s only that one weekend a month that we’re at 100 percent — full strength. So those cost savings, right there, are what allow us to realize benefits. It adds up when we start putting it into big numbers like that.”

Whether examples of the F-15E Strike Eagle or F-15EX Eagle II end up on Air Force Reserve Command ramps remains to be seen, but in Lt. Gen. John P. Healy, that component has a strong advocate for making that happen.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

US judge says that rapid deportation of migrants to countries other than their own violates due process.

A United States federal judge has ruled that the administration of President Donald Trump had violated the law through the swift deportation of migrants to countries other than their own, without giving them an opportunity to appeal their removal.

US District Judge Brian Murphy declared the policy invalid on Wednesday, teeing up a possible appeal from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to the Supreme Court.

“It is not fine, nor is it legal,” Murphy wrote in his decision, adding that migrants could not be sent to an “unfamiliar and potentially dangerous country” without any legal recourse.

He added that due process – the right to receive fair legal proceedings – is an essential component of the US Constitution.

“These are our laws, and it is with profound gratitude for the unbelievable luck of being born in the United States of America that this Court affirms these and our nation’s bedrock principle: that no ‘person’ in this country may be ‘deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law’,” Murphy said.

The ruling is the latest legal setback in the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign.

Trump has long pledged to remove immigrants from the country who violate the law or are in the country without legal paperwork. But critics argue that his immigration crackdown has been marked by widespread neglect of due process rights.

They also point out that some of the deportees have been in the country legally, with their cases being processed through legal immigration pathways like asylum.

Murphy said in his ruling that the swift nature of the deportation obscures the details of each case, preventing courts from weighing whether each deportation is legal.

“The simple reality is that nobody knows the merits of any individual class member’s claim because [administration officials] are withholding the predicate fact: the country of removal,” wrote Murphy.

In the decision, Murphy also addressed some of the Trump administration’s arguments in favour of swift deportation.

He highlighted one argument, for instance, where the administration asserted it would be “fine” to deport migrants to third-party countries, so long as the Department of Homeland Security was not aware of anyone waiting to kill them upon arrival.

“It is not fine, nor is it legal,” Murphy responded in his decision.

Murphy has previously ruled against efforts to swiftly deport migrants to countries where they have no ties, and over the past year, he has seen some decisions overturned by the Supreme Court.

Noting that trend, Murphy said Wednesday’s decision would not take effect for 15 days, in order to give the administration the opportunity to appeal.

Last year, for instance, the conservative-majority Supreme Court lifted an injunction Murphy issued in April that sought to protect the due process rights of migrants being deported to third-party countries.

The injunction had come as part of a case where the Trump administration attempted to send eight men to South Sudan, despite concerns about human rights conditions there.

Wednesday’s decision, meanwhile, stemmed from a class-action lawsuit brought by immigrants similarly facing deportation to countries they had no relation to.

A lawyer for the plaintiffs, Trina Realmuto from the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, hailed Murphy’s latest ruling.

“Under the government’s policy, people have been forcibly returned to countries where US immigration judges have found they will be persecuted or tortured,” Realmuto said in a statement.

Realmuto added that the ruling was a “forceful statement” about the policy’s constitutionality.

Monterrey, Mexico – Portraits of the missing cover Guadalajara’s “Roundabout of the Disappeared”, a landmark renamed by families to highlight the state’s disappearance crisis.

On February 22, the streets surrounding the memorial and throughout the city stood empty after the Mexican army killed Ruben Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes, the longtime leader of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG).

In retaliation, cartel members set fire to buses and taxis, erecting a series of blockades that spread across 20 states.

The widespread unrest demonstrated the CJNG’s capacity for rapid coordination, fuelled by a ‘franchise’ model that allows smaller cells to operate under the cartel’s brand and vast financial network.

While the group’s economic reach extends into Europe and Asia, its power remains rooted in its paramilitary force. This structure relies on extortion, brutal violence and forced disappearances as its main tools to seize territory and control markets.

Oseguera Cervantes, known as “El Mencho”, consolidated one of Mexico’s most powerful criminal organisations in part due to a unique franchise-based structure.

According to the United States Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), the CJNG maintains a presence in every state of Mexico, with varying levels of influence, and operates in more than 40 countries across the Americas, Europe, Asia and Africa, and throughout the US. Its primary activity is the trafficking of cocaine, fentanyl and methamphetamine.

Raul Zepeda Gil, a teaching fellow in War Studies at King’s College London, notes that rather than following a “classic organisational pyramid”, the CJNG avoids a centralised financial network.

“Instead, profits can be distributed across many locations and groups simultaneously,” Zepeda told Al Jazeera.

Besides controlling key areas in western Mexico, the CJNG controls the Pacific Coast region, including the strategic ports of Manzanillo and Lazaro Cardenas, crucial for the import of synthetic precursor chemicals.

“Their most important activity is drug trafficking,” Zepeda said. “Chemical precursors that arrive from China reach Mexican ports and are then sent to the United States already in fentanyl form.”

The organisation also generates revenues through fuel theft, illegal mining, extortion, migrant smuggling and money laundering.

On February 19, the US Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctioned a timeshare fraud network led by the CJNG that targeted elderly Americans.

“Timeshare fraud in Mexico has plagued American victims for decades, costing them hundreds of millions of dollars while enriching criminal organisations such as CJNG,” the Treasury Department stated in a press release.

The CJNG’s extensive reach and rapid growth are made possible by a vast, powerful network that protects drug trafficking operations and ensures impunity, says Carlos Flores, an investigator at the Centre for Research and Higher Education in Social Anthropology (CIESAS). Flores argues that these “hegemonic power networks”, shadow networks of business leaders, politicians, and criminals, have reconfigured state institutions to serve their own interests.

“These same networks, which control and administer state institutions – including security institutions – focus their actions primarily against their competitors, while simultaneously allowing these other networks to consolidate their power,” he added.

The rise of a deadly paramilitary force

Forced disappearances and extortion are crucial for the CJNG’s control of the market, seeding fear that silences communities and facilitates forced recruitment. This ensures a steady supply of disposable labour while following the ‘no body, no crime’ logic that minimises the political and legal costs of their operations.

Homicides and forced disappearances have surged in Jalisco since the group emerged in 2010. The CJNG rose from the remnants of the Milenio Cartel, a subordinate partner of the Sinaloa Cartel based in Oseguera Cervantes’s home state of Michoacan. While across Mexico more than 130,000 people are missing, Jalisco currently ranks at the top with at least 16,000 reported cases, and collectives of families continue to uncover mass graves and what they describe as “extermination sites”.

Raul Servin, a member of the Guerreros Buscadores, a collective representing more than 400 families of the disappeared, told Al Jazeera that their searches frequently reveal human remains in varying states of decay and torture. They have found victims who were shot, hanged or killed with bladed weapons that were left inside the bodies, he said.

“It’s a sadness and helplessness we feel when we see each body these people leave behind,” said Servin, who has been searching for his son since 2018.

Beyond its financial power, the CJNG is notorious for its extensive arsenal of military-grade weaponry, including armed drones, rocket-propelled grenades, and firearms.

On February 22, more than 25 National Guard members were killed in Jalisco. In the past, the organisation has also carried out high-profile attacks against public officials.

Last year in February, US President Donald Trump designated the Jalisco New Generation Cartel as a foreign terrorist organisation. In July, US prosecutors in Virginia unsealed an indictment against Petar Dimitrov Mirchev, a Bulgarian national accused of conspiring with East African associates to equip the CJNG with military-grade weaponry. The indictment states that Mirchev brokered these deals “despite knowing that the CJNG inflicts catastrophic suffering” to protect its prolific drug trafficking operations.

The indictment also revealed that the CJNG was attempting to buy surface-to-air missiles and anti-aircraft systems (ZU-23). Overall, Mirchev allegedly created a list of weaponry worth approximately $58m.

The paramilitary profile has allowed the CJNG to expand rapidly into rival territories and monopolise the market. Flores describes this training, deployment, and weaponry as being similar to an army, making them “practically uncontestable”.

“They operate under a different kind of logic,” Flores said. “They provide a kind of licence to [local] groups that associate with them. They fight their enemies and collaborate on trafficking in exchange for using the Jalisco New Generation Cartel as a label.”

The CJNG adopted a level of brutality similar to Los Zetas, whose founders were elite Mexican special forces soldiers trained by the US and Israel. In its early days, the CJNG was known as the “Matazetas”, or Zetas Killers.

Servin and the Guerreros Buscadores have seen the results of this brutality firsthand. Locating the missing becomes more difficult as concealment tactics evolve, Servin said. Disappearances have become a powerful economic tool to control and exploit territory. Collectives often find bodies buried under layers of dirt and animal carcasses to throw off the scent, or even encased in concrete.

“They make us work harder than necessary. If they took his life, why not leave him where we can find him quickly?”

Zepeda says that the CJNG leveraged military-grade tactics to fill the void left by the government’s crackdown on other cartels carried out between 2008 and 2010. In 2009, the Beltran-Leyva Organisation – which had been at war with the Sinaloa Cartel since their 2008 split – was reeling from a series of high-profile arrests and killings.

The death of Ignacio “Nacho” Coronel, a key finance operator for the Sinaloa Cartel, at the hands of the military in 2010 further cleared the way for new criminal players. Oseguera Cervantes was working under Coronel before breaking away to form what would become the CJNG.

“If we could summarise the Jalisco New Generation Cartel, it’s a reinvention of Los Zetas, which took over all the territory that the other cartels defeated by the Mexican government had occupied,” Zepeda added.

This history serves as a warning of what may follow the death of Oseguera Cervantes. Zepeda pointed out that the drug trade is an incredibly dynamic market where “there will always be a group of people willing to take control”.

Flores warns that “decapitating the leadership” is insufficient if power networks, along with the CJNG’s criminal and operational structures, remain intact.

“Without dismantling the power networks, yesterday’s victory will become the cause of new violence tomorrow,” Flores said. “We’ve seen this approach many times before, and we know what it leads to: It solves neither the transnational drug problem nor creates conditions of greater stability for the Mexican population.”

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi defended Israel’s devastating war on Gaza, saying it stands by the country “with full conviction” – despite accusations of genocide against the Palestinian people.

Modi gave a speech to the Knesset, or parliament, on Wednesday, on the first day of his two-day visit and received a standing ovation as he stressed India’s enduring support for Israel.

It was the first time an Indian leader addressed the Knesset.

“India stands with Israel firmly, with full conviction, in this moment and beyond,” said Modi, condemning the October 7, 2023, attack by Hamas-led fighters as “barbaric”, adding “no cause can justify the murder of civilians”.

India’s leader was earlier greeted by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at Ben Gurion International Airport, where a welcoming ceremony was held.

In his own Knesset speech, Netanyahu thanked India for “standing by” Israel in the wake of October 7, and said the two nations shared “common interests”. He described Modi as “more than a friend, a brother”.

Modi said New Delhi expressed “strong support” for the Gaza peace initiative approved by the UN Security Council in November. It “offers a pathway”, he said, adding India believes “it holds the promise of a just and durable peace for all the people of the region”.

‘Trusted partners’

The Indian leader said the two countries are “trusted partners” and this “contributes to global stability and prosperity”.

He described their relations as “vital” for trade and security, and hailed “synergy” on artificial intelligence, quantum technology, and other topics.

“We are committed to further consolidating this relationship across many sectors,” he added.

Modi’s first trip to Israel was in 2017 after relations between the two countries warmed following his election in 2014. Netanyahu also visited India in 2018.

Haaretz newspaper journalist Gideon Levy told Al Jazeera that Modi’s visit cannot be underestimated.

“India is a highly important country and [Modi] showing himself … in these times when public opinion in India is very critical about Israel is a step that cannot be underestimated,” said Levy.

He pointed to similarities between Netanyahu and Modi, saying both are “nationalist, populist in a way, quite conservative, and hawkish. Both countries carry also some stains, Kashmir, Palestine, the West Bank”.

Israel’s largest arms buyer

In September 2025, India and Israel signed the Bilateral Investment Treaty to expand trade during far-right Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich’s visit to India.

India is Israel’s largest arms buyer, spending $20.5bn on Israeli weapons between 2020 and 2024. In 2024, trade between the two, largely based on defence and security, stood at $3.9bn.

Modi has received criticism for his support for Israel during its genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, which has killed at least 72,073 people and wounded 171,756. At least 615 of those deaths occurred during the “ceasefire” agreed between Israel and Hamas last October.

Last week, India was one of the more than 100 countries condemning Israel’s recent moves to expand its control of the occupied West Bank and move towards annexation.

Imran Masood, a parliamentarian for India’s Congress party, urged Modi to address Gaza during his visit, saying, “if there is any morality then he should talk about death of children in Gaza”, ANI news agency reported.

“India’s stand is clear … that it supports Palestine,” said Masood.

Marian Alexander Baby, leader of the Communist Party of India, said Modi’s embrace of Israel is “a betrayal of India’s anti-colonial legacy and our long-standing position in support of the right to self determination of the Palestinian people, reaffirmed by UN resolutions that India has co-sponsored and voted for”.

Modi continues his visit to Israel on Thursday.

A sinkhole suddenly opened at an intersection in Omaha, Nebraska, swallowing two cars stopped at a red light. Police said both drivers escaped before crews arrived and no injuries were reported. Authorities warn the street could remain closed for days amid fears the hole may expand.

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Cuba was plunged into crisis. Fuel, food and spare parts vanished almost overnight. This character-led documentary shows how common Cubans refused to give up – and instead built a new culture of radical repair. From Havana’s Malecon to small-town back yards, it follows mechanics, street vendors and a teacher-turned-inventor who live by one rule: “invent and resolve”.

A pristine US Plymouth Fury convertible of the 1950s hides a Soviet engine, Japanese gearbox and handmade parts; washing machines become coconut graters, solar dryers and tools for urban farms. Cuban historians and designer Ernesto Oroza reveal the philosophy behind this “technical disobedience”, treating every object as raw material to hack and extend. Far from nostalgia, the film offers a stark snapshot of a future in which resources are scarce and the power to repair may be our most important tool.

Daniel Dubois refused a fist bump from world champion Fabio Wardley as the pair came face-to-face at a lively news conference in London.

The world title fight between two of Britain’s biggest punchers takes place at Manchester’s Co-op Live Arena on 9 May.

After some long-winded bickering between the two camps, the fighters – relatively restrained until that point – finally sparked into life.

Wardley said he would “flatten” the challenger. “My power is proven. If there’s time left on the clock, I’m taking you out of the fight,” he added.

The 31-year-old – with 19 stoppages in 20 wins – will make the first defence of his WBO crown, having claimed the ‘interim’ title against Joseph Parker before being upgraded to full champion when Oleksandr Usyk vacated the belt.

Former IBF champion Dubois, 28, is coming off a devastating knockout loss to generational great Usyk last summer.

“If you look back, when it gets dicey, he’s not up for it,” Wardley said of Dubois, who has faced accusations of folding too easily in his three stoppage defeats.

Wednesday’s news conference took place at Dutch Hall, a converted 16th-century church tucked away in the heart of the city.

Dubois – never one for lengthy monologues – kept his answers short and matter of fact.

But the Londoner was clear in his intention. “Victory by knockout, by any means necessary,” he said.

When the fighters eventually stepped forward for the obligatory face-off, Dubois looked away first as Wardley smirked.

Moments later Wardley extended his fist in a gesture of respect, but Dubois shook his head and refused to engage.

Most businesses believe that sales and customer service reside in separate departments.

Every small interaction sends a message. The way you answer a question, explain a detail, or handle uncertainty all influence how comfortable someone feels pulling out their card. Spending money is personal. People need to feel looked after before they commit.

They want straight answers. They want things explained properly. And they want to sense that the person helping them actually knows what they’re doing.

To boost sales, follow these five customer service strategies below:

1. Avoid Scripts

A lot of training initiatives teach people what to say, not how to think – and customers feel that immediately.

The moment someone sounds like they’re reciting lines, trust slips. Real confidence comes from understanding, not memorisation. When your team knows the product inside out, they stop performing and start having proper conversations.

They can adapt, explain things in their own words, and, most importantly, respond without that awkward pause where they search for the “right” answer.

• Empower Staff To Solve Problems

Empowering your team means your staff can actually help, without having to “check with someone” every five minutes – that just irritates your customers and your staff lose confidence.

Trust your team to make the right call and let them approve replacements and offer sensible credits so they can fix the small stuff immediately.

Demonstrate the kind of leadership that makes your team better.

When someone buys from you, browses certain products, or asks specific questions, they’re giving you clues about what they actually want.

Good CRM solutions simply help you pay attention.

They keep track of preferences, past orders, and birthdays – the small details that are easy to forget but powerful when remembered. The plan isn’t to inundate them with generic promotions or info they never wanted.

It’s to be there at the right place at the right time. For example, send out a reminder when they’re likely running low or make a suggestion that genuinely complements what they already bought.

Following up shouldn’t feel weird. It’s just care in action.

Most customers don’t need a big song and dance. They just want to know you’re still there after the payment goes through. A simple message, a few days later, is powerfully reassuring.

Not to push, and not to upsell, but rather just to make sure they’re in the loop.

• Reward Loyalty and Referrals

Rewarding loyalty shouldn’t feel like a corporate points program with fine print nobody reads.

It should feel like appreciation.

Let your regulars feel like insiders. Give them a first look at new ranges before anyone else sees them. Move their order up the queue when you can.

When someone chooses your business again and again, that’s trust. They’re choosing you. They’re betting on your quality, your service, and your word.

Final Thoughts

When service feels thoughtful and reliable, hesitation and doubt drop. Questions get answered on time. That sense of being looked after doesn’t just close one sale – it builds loyalty.

Palestinian journalist Yousef Al Helou documented Gaza and its people in the summer of 2023, months before the start of Israel’s genocidal war. His film, ‘Phoenix of Gaza’, stands as a testament to Palestinian resilience and has become a tribute to people that were later killed.

The Trump administration has directed U.S. diplomats to actively oppose foreign laws that restrict how American tech companies handle citizens’ data abroad. An internal State Department cable, dated February 18 and signed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, described such measures as threats to artificial intelligence services, global data flows, and civil liberties.

Experts say the move signals a return to a more confrontational approach after previous efforts focused on building goodwill with European customers. The administration warned that data sovereignty rules could increase costs, introduce cybersecurity risks, and expand government control in ways that enable censorship.

Data Sovereignty in Focus

Data sovereignty or localization initiatives have accelerated, especially in Europe, amid ongoing tensions over U.S. trade policies and concerns about privacy and surveillance. European regulators, wary of American tech giants, have tightened rules on how data is stored and shared. The EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) remains the most prominent example, restricting cross-border data transfers and imposing stiff fines on companies that fail to comply.

The State Department cable cited GDPR as “unnecessarily burdensome” and highlighted China’s restrictive data policies as an example of how technology rules can expand geopolitical influence. Beijing, it noted, bundles infrastructure projects with policies that provide access to international data for surveillance and strategic leverage.

Diplomatic Action Plan

The cable, labeled as an “action request,” instructed diplomats to track proposals that could limit cross-border data flows and to counter regulations deemed excessive. Talking points included promotion of the Global Cross-Border Privacy Rules Forum, a multinational initiative launched in 2022 by the United States, Mexico, Canada, Australia, and Japan to support free flow of data while ensuring privacy protections.

This directive follows a pattern of U.S. opposition to European digital regulation. Last year, diplomats were ordered to challenge the EU’s Digital Services Act, aimed at making the internet safer by forcing social media firms to remove illegal content. The U.S. is also reportedly planning an online portal to help users bypass content moderation, including restrictions on material flagged as hate speech or terrorist propaganda.

Analysis: A More Assertive U.S. Digital Strategy

The cable reflects a strategic shift toward actively protecting the interests of U.S. tech companies globally. While previous administrations attempted to engage Europe diplomatically, the current approach pressures foreign governments to loosen privacy and data storage regulations that could hinder U.S. business.

By framing data sovereignty laws as a threat to AI development, cybersecurity, and civil liberties, the administration is positioning the free flow of data as a cornerstone of U.S. economic and technological influence. At the same time, rising competition from China in digital infrastructure and AI adds urgency, highlighting the geopolitical stakes of controlling international data flows.

The broader implication is a growing clash between national data policies and global digital commerce. As countries enact stricter rules to protect citizens’ data, U.S. tech firms and policymakers are increasingly asserting that global interoperability and AI innovation must take priority, signaling potential tensions in transatlantic and international digital governance for years to come.

With information from Reuters.

The most drastic option also appears the least likely.

Buttler, who signed a new two-year central contract last year, has been a mainstay of England’s white-ball teams for more than a decade. Could they really leave him out entirely for a World Cup semi-final?

That encounter may be at Mumbai’s Wankhede Stadium, where Buttler has made scores of 94 not out, 89 and 116 in the IPL.

Ben Duckett is the spare batter in England’s squad – another man struggling for form.

Duckett is averaging 18.88 across 12 matches this winter across all formats and was out for a first-ball duck in his most recent innings at the start of the month.

Leg-spinning all-rounder Rehan Ahmed would be a left-field replacement. That would be a massive call.

Perhaps Friday’s match against New Zealand, effectively a dead rubber for England given they are already through, is the perfect, pressure-free opportunity for Buttler to help make the hierarchy’s decision an easy one.

“Who is writing Jos Buttler off?,” said former England spinner Alex Hartley.

“If you are, get a grip. He is one of those players where it takes one shot crunched through the covers and he will be back.

“It would be a worry if England were not winning games. I have no doubt when push comes to shove Jos Buttler will be OK.”

Days after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu proposed forging a network of allied nations, including in the Middle East and Africa, to stand against what he called “radical” adversaries, the country’s president is on an official visit to key ally, Ethiopia.

It is not yet known which Arab and African countries will form part of Netanyahu’s hypothetical “hexagon of alliances”, which he said on Sunday will include Israel, India, Greece, Cyprus and others to stand against their enemies in the Middle East. Chief among those enemies is presumably Iran and its network of resistance groups from Hezbollah in Lebanon to the Houthis of Yemen.

Analysts doubt Israel could secure enough influence over nation-states to form a formal security pact.

However, the country is deepening its ongoing charm offensive in Africa, which it began during the genocide in Gaza, as its reputation suffered a decline on the continent, with the African Union (AU) releasing multiple statements condemning Israeli attacks on Palestinian civilians.

In a rare visit, Israeli President Isaac Herzog arrived in Ethiopia on Tuesday. The last presidential trip to the East African country took place in 2018.

“The relationship between our peoples is woven deep into the pages of history and human tradition,” Herzog said in a statement upon his arrival. “At the heart of the story of both our nations lies a clear common thread – the ability to join hands, unite resources of spirit and substance, to innovate, develop, and grow for the benefit of all.”

Herzog, on Wednesday, met with Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed who said the two leaders talked about “ways to improve collaboration in areas of mutual interest,” without revealing further details.

But beneath the surface, observers say the visit also represents a battle for influence over Addis Ababa, which has received similar high-level delegations from Turkiye and Saudi Arabia in recent days.

Shared ties and shared anger

Ethiopia and Israel are bound by several links, from shared histories of their people to shared scrutiny over recent political moves in the Horn of Africa that have angered several of the region’s influential nations.

Both countries maintain friendly ties largely due to the Beta Israel community, or Ethiopian Jews, who hail from northern Tigray and Amhara. Historically, Ethiopian Jews suffered religious persecution, and after Israel’s formation, it sought their emigration under its Law of Return policy. Between the late 1970s and mid-1990s, tens of thousands of Ethiopian Jews were covertly transported to Israel – during a time when several African countries, including Ethiopia, had cut off ties with Israel over the 1973 Yom Kippur War and its invasion of Egypt. On the cusp of a civil war in Ethiopia in 1991, Mossad, Israel’s spy agency, launched a daring operation that airlifted 14,000 Ethiopians over the course of just two days.

About 160,000 Ethiopian Jews now live in Israel. Many within the community have struggled to integrate and have complained of discrimination and racism. In 2019, tens of thousands of Ethiopian Jews flooded the streets in protest across Israeli cities after a 19-year-old of Ethiopian origin was shot dead by the police.

Ethiopia-Israel state relations have, meanwhile, remained steady. In 2016, when Netanyahu visited the country in his first prime ministerial visit – Addis Ababa became one of the first African countries to voice support for Israel’s long-sought observer status at the AU. Fierce opposition from South Africa, Algeria and other countries supporting Palestine delayed the process until 2021. Later, in 2023, the AU confirmed it had withdrawn the status.

Mashav, Israel’s aid agency, has, in the past decade, provided aid to Ethiopia in the form of agriculture and water cooperation projects, although Addis Ababa receives much more significant funding from wealthier partners like China. When Israel sponsored several African journalists on media trips to the country last year, Ethiopia was among the countries it invited journalists from.

More recently, both countries are bound by their support for Somaliland, which Somalia claims as part of its territory and which Israel sees as critical to its own national security, Hargeisa-based analyst Moustafa Ahmad told Al Jazeera.

In December, Israel recognised Somaliland’s statehood, becoming the first country to do so. Months before, there were unconfirmed talks about plans to move displaced Palestinians to Somaliland or to South Sudan, another key Israeli ally in the region. Analysts speculate that countries like South Sudan and the United Arab Emirates, another close friend of Israel, may also recognise Somaliland.

Israel’s focus on the Horn of Africa intensified after a late 2024 report from a United Nations expert panel, which found that the Somalia-based armed group, al-Shabab, was actively collaborating with Yemen’s Houthis. Where the Houthis were providing weapons and drone training, al-Shabab was, in return, granting access to a smuggling corridor stretching along the Somali coast and connecting to the Gulf of Aden, where Iranian weapons could be smuggled into Yemen.

The move to recognise Somaliland was therefore meant to disrupt that cooperation by stationing an Israeli naval base in the region, analysts note.

“It’s part of their calculations even if they haven’t said it publicly,” Ahmad said.

Several countries, as well as the AU, have pushed back on Israel’s recognition of Somaliland, calling it a violation of Somalia’s sovereignty. In Somaliland, however, many have celebrated the move.

Addis Ababa under pressure

While neither Israel nor Ethiopia has provided details of topics on the agenda during Herzog’s visit, Somaliland is likely at the top of the list.

Addis Ababa had in 2024 enraged its neighbours after it signed a controversial port deal with Hargeisa that would allow it access to the sea, reportedly in exchange for a future recognition of Somaliland. Although massive and rapidly industrialising, Ethiopia is landlocked, having lost its sea access after Eritrea seceded in 1993. Prime Minister Abiy has often said sea access is critical for his country.

The fall-out between Ethiopia and Somalia was so severe that analysts sounded the alarm over possible armed conflict between the two neighbours until Turkiye, a key development partner for Mogadishu, stepped in to smooth things over by pressuring Addis Ababa to coordinate with Mogadishu instead.

It is likely, analysts say, that Israel is now hoping to push Ethiopia further towards recognising Somaliland, which boasts a 850km (528-mile) coastline. In Hargeisa, many are disappointed after more countries failed to follow Israel’s steps, Ahmad said.

Addis Ababa, though, might not appreciate further pressure at the moment as it faces increasing regional isolation on several fronts.

One key reason is the controversial Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), which Egypt and Sudan say is blocking the water supply they need for irrigation.

A source of national pride for Ethiopians, the dam was funded almost entirely through citizens’ donations and government funds. Israeli engineers participated in the project, and Israel reportedly sold weapons to Ethiopia to protect the dam amid tensions with its neighbours, although the Israeli government denies this.

At the same time, Addis Ababa is also facing tensions with Eritrea, which has moved closer to Somalia and Egypt. Both countries have historically feuded, and recently, tensions have again risen over the 2020 Tigray War and Abiy’s repeated statements about his country needing access to the sea.

“Addis Ababa is cautious of making a decision that will cement its regional isolation at this time [because] it is clearly hedging among various actors seeking to influence the Horn of Africa and Red Sea region,” Ahmad said.

Pressure is also mounting on Addis Ababa from countries eager to keep the status quo.

On Sunday, Turkiye’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan visited Ethiopia and said in his speech: “I would like to emphasise that Israel’s recognition of Somaliland does not benefit Somaliland or the Horn of Africa.”

His statement drew a backlash from Hargeisa, which called it “unacceptable interference” aimed at wrecking relations between Somaliland and its partners.

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia, which is embroiled in an ongoing rift with the United Arab Emirates over how to deal with the conflict in Yemen, also intervened in the fray in February. Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Waleed Elkhereiji was in Addis Ababa this week to discuss “regional peace”, just two weeks after Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud arrived in the city for talks with Abiy.

So far, it is unclear if Riyadh has recorded any success in influencing Addis Ababa.

How Israel will fare in that regard is also still unclear.

As court documents tied to the late financier Jeffrey Epstein continue to surface, the scandal has become an international embarrassment, exposing how quickly powerful men can turn into reputational liabilities. That discomfort reached New Delhi, where Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates was expected to deliver the keynote address at the AI Impact Summit but ultimately did not attend amid criticism and apparent unease within the Modi government over his past meetings with Epstein. The spectacle was revealing. Public moral outrage travels swiftly when scandal threatens reputations and diplomatic optics. Yet that sensitivity to association sits uneasily beside a domestic reality in which sexual violence against women unfolds with brutal regularity, drawing neither comparable embarrassment nor consequence. The contrast is grotesque. A political culture capable of signalling discomfort towards a global scandal remains strikingly untroubled by the everyday brutality faced by women at home.

Under the Modi administration, the news cycle churns with reports of gang rapes like factory output — steady, relentless, and numbing in repetition. The rapes have become so common that they are reported like the weather. Heatwave deaths. Flash flood. Five-year-old abducted, raped, murdered. And like the weather, only God is responsible. Not the rapist. Not the court. Not the police. Definitely not the prime minister.

Between the time this piece was commissioned and published, a five-year-old was gang-raped in Meerut, a 26-year-old was gang-raped in Faridabad, and a 17-year-old was gang-raped in Odisha. A 42-year-old was gang-raped in Delhi’s suburbs. A 12-year-old girl was kidnapped and gang-raped in Bikaner. There were more gang rapes in Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, and Kanpur. I could give you statistics, but numbers could never convey the larger, all-encompassing terror of living with predators. The threat of sexual violence is as constant as gravity. The cases are gruesome — intestines pulled out, rods inserted, tongues cut out, acid thrown, decapitation, strangulation, and burning. When I look at government data about rape — an average of 86 women are raped every day — it feels as grisly as stumbling upon a mass grave in Excel sheets.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his home minister, Amit Shah, ostensibly obsessed with restoring law and order at any cost, seem entirely unconcerned that India is the gang rape capital of the world on their watch.

The most alarming instance of this was when convicted rapist and Bharatiya Janata Party politician Kuldeep Singh Sengar, found guilty of raping a minor in 2017 and a native of Makhi village in Unnao district of Uttar Pradesh, was granted bail by a high court, raising the possibility of his reintegration into the very social and political landscape that had once enabled his impunity. A high court granted him bail in December. Thankfully, it was stayed by the Supreme Court, but only after infuriated women gathered in Delhi to protest. Sengar had raped a teenager, who was also gang-raped by his associates. Her father was murdered in police custody. A case was registered only after she threatened to burn herself in front of the chief minister’s residence. Her tragic story showcases how Indian men, like the Modi administration, remain remarkably unembarrassed about the state of affairs.

Sadly, this is not an aberration; it is the system speaking in its mother tongue.

Public memory matters because each new case unfolds against the residue of the ones we were told would change everything. In 2012, I read about the “Nirbhaya” gang rape three days after the incident, on my way from the airport. I had been deliberately avoiding the news until she ended up at Safdarjung Hospital, and my editor needed a health update from me. After I learned all the details of what men had done to this young woman, I thought the world would stand still. A threshold had been crossed. Something told me the world would start anew. There were protests, and people everywhere would know her name, and something like this would never happen again.

All of my naivety was drowned in a chorus of “Not All Men”, as the gang rape was turned into something viral to hang a hashtag on. The refrain did not defend innocence so much as redirect attention away from accountability and back towards male comfort.

It is impossible for me to hear of such cases and not think: What if it were me? My body. That rod. Those men. The suffering and mutilation of women’s bodies is so reliable that there is now a market to help ease our fear. Security apps. Pepper sprays and wearable panic alarms. Every time I write about this subject, I sit with the absolute inadequacy of the written word in the face of men who film the rapes, brag about them, and get rehabilitated nevertheless.

It wouldn’t be out of place to call this moment unprecedented, but it is beyond that. It is existential. Whether it is the United States or India, women are watching the same choreography of power protecting itself, as men of consequence close ranks and wait out the storm. The similarity lies not in scale or context, but in the recurring spectacle of institutions cushioning powerful men while survivors fight alone. For a while now, both countries — allegedly the biggest and the oldest democracies — have been on a trajectory of self-destruction, with men leading the way. Under Modi as well as Trump, rape has become an extension of politics. Women are violated no longer by men alone, but by courts, hospitals, and newsrooms, too. It is the age of monsters. It did not begin with Epstein, Gates, or Sengar, of course, but they are the symbols of it.

While the middle class was busy buying into the dream of upward mobility, careerism, and two bedrooms in a gated suburb, we let thugs cultivate a wholesale misogynist empire that runs on hate for women. I do not know what to do with the rage I feel. What do you do when you are constantly told that your body, your people, your gender are disposable? I don’t know.

What I do know is that the teenager who survived Sengar is still fighting for justice. I know that the survivors of Epstein’s sex trafficking network are fighting for justice, too. These women are fighting with heart and soul and sweat and muscle. I know that I have no right to be despondent while they stand tall, looking every inch the hero they are. I also know that nobody puts up a fight like that unless you love your sisters.

At this dark hour, it feels important to place on record that as the Modi administration recoils theatrically from the shadow of the Epstein scandal at the summit stage, the satire writes itself. A government that cannot, or will not, protect its women should be far more ashamed of what is ordinary than of what is scandalous.

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

Morocco sentenced 18 Senegalese football fans last Thursday following disturbances at the Africa Cup of Nations final.

Senegal’s Prime Minister Ousmane Sonko has followed his country’s football association in denouncing Morocco’s jailing of 18 Senegalese fans following January’s Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON) final in Rabat.

The Teranga Lions supporters were arrested during the final in the Moroccan capital, which was controversially suspended as the Senegal players left the pitch in protest against the late award of a penalty to the host nation.

Fans, in response, attempted to enter the field of play during the match on January 19, leading to the arrest of 18 people who were later charged with hooliganism and violence against security officials.

Prison sentences were handed out last Thursday to them, ranging from three months to one year, along with fines of up to 5,000 dirhams ($545).

“It seems this matter goes beyond the realm of sport and that is regrettable,” Sonko told the Senegalese parliament on Tuesday.

“For two countries that call each other friends, like Morocco and Senegal, things should not have gone this far.”

The 18 fans have denied any wrongdoing but have not appealed the sentence. Senegal, however, will seek a royal pardon from Morocco’s King Mohammed VI.

“If they do not, we have agreements that bind us and allow us to request that the supporters serve their sentences in their own country,” Sonko added.

The Senegal Football Association had immediately spoken out at the time of the sentences, describing them as “incomprehensibly harsh”.

“Clashes occur in numerous stadiums around the world, including every weekend in Morocco, without resulting in such sanctions,” Bacary Cisse, the president of the FSF’s communications committee, said.

“The treatment of these supporters therefore appears disproportionate.”

Defence lawyer for the 18, Patrick Kabou, had said on February 6 that they were still “waiting to learn the charges”.

He added that some had chosen to go on hunger strike against their detention and treatment.

In response to the sentencing, Kabou echoed the “incomprehensible” sentiment, saying his clients were “victims”.

Senegal were the eventual winners of the final after the match resumed following the players’ protest, securing a 1-0 win in extra time.

In an update to our exclusive in-depth feature on Shield AI’s hugely ambitious X-BAT vertical takeoff and landing drone ‘fighter,’ the firm tells us that they will begin flight testing near Newton, Kansas, this year.

Armor Harris, Senior Vice President and General Manager of the company’s growing aircraft division, who is also the ‘father’ of X-BAT, told us on the floor of AFA’s Warfare Symposium in Denver today that the aircraft’s central differentiator, its ability to launch and recover vertically, will be a central focus of early flight testing.

Latest on X-BAT VTOL ‘fighter’ drone from Shield AI’s Armor Harris

The stakes are incredibly high for Shield AI when it comes to X-BAT. They are trying to do something nobody else is offering in the high-performance air combat drone sector. X-BAT could drastically change the flexibility and survivability of advanced uncrewed tactical airpower, but achieving stealth, a large combat radius, a relevant payload, and doing it all at a cost that doesn’t send the DoW running is no easy task, especially for a young airframer like Shield AI. Now doing all that and launching and recovering it vertically from basically anywhere, that’s a whole other level.

X-BAT: Earth Is Our Runway

With such a lofty goal comes doubters who think Shield AI is reaching outside their capabilities with the X-BAT concept. Surely these include competitors who would have a hard time arguing for their air combat solutions if X-BAT were to exist in operational form and capable of the things Shield AI claims.

We will keep you up to date as X-Bat progresses toward flight test.

Contact the author: Tyler@twz.com

Venezuela’s National Assembly says thousands of people have regained freedom under a new amnesty law.

A special commission of Venezuela’s National Assembly reports that more than 3,200 individuals have been granted full release from prison since the country’s amnesty law took effect last week.

The figures, announced on Tuesday, include former prisoners and individuals who were previously held under house arrest or subject to other restrictive judicial measures.

Lawmaker Jorge Arreaza, head of the commission overseeing implementation of the amnesty, said during a news conference that authorities had received a total of 4,203 applications for amnesty since the law was passed on February 20.

Arreaza said after evaluating these requests, 3,052 people previously under house arrest or other restrictive measures were granted full freedom. Additionally, 179 individuals who were in prison have also been released.

Last week, Venezuela’s interim President Delcy Rodriguez signed the amnesty legislation into law after it was unanimously adopted by the National Assembly, which authorities said is intended to ease political tensions, promote reconciliation and accelerate the release of political prisoners.

During its signing, Rodriguez said the law showed that the country’s political leaders were “letting go of a little intolerance and opening new avenues for politics in Venezuela”.

Opposition figures have criticised the amnesty, which appears to include carve-outs for some offences previously used by authorities to target former President Nicolas Maduro’s political opponents.

Critics say the law explicitly does not apply to those prosecuted for “promoting” or “facilitating … armed or forceful actions” by foreign actors against Venezuela’s sovereignty.

The law also excludes amnesty for members of the security forces convicted of terrorism-related charges.

Hundreds of detainees had already been granted conditional release by Rodriguez’s government since the deadly US raid that led to the abduction of Maduro last month.

United Nations human rights experts welcomed the amnesty with “caution”, stressing that it must apply to all victims of unlawful prosecution and be embedded in a comprehensive transitional justice process consistent with international standards.

Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Venezuelans have been jailed in recent years over plots, real or imagined, to overthrow the government of Maduro, who was flown to New York after his abduction by the US military.

Venezuela-based prisoners’ rights group Foro Penal said on Tuesday that it has verified only 91 “political releases” since the amnesty law took effect on February 20.

The organisation added that it has requested a review of 232 cases currently excluded from the amnesty, and that nearly 600 people remain in detention.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi will begin a two-day visit to Israel on Wednesday. Modi’s first trip to Israel was in 2017, when he was the first Indian leader to ever visit the country.

India was among the countries that opposed the creation of Israel in 1948, and for decades was one of the most forceful non-Arab critics of Israel’s policies towards Palestinians. It only established diplomatic ties with Israel in 1992, but since 2014, when Modi came to power, relations between the two countries have flourished.

Here is more about what is on the agenda for Modi’s visit, and why it is significant.

Who will Modi meet, and what will they talk about?

Modi is expected to land at the Ben Gurion international airport outside Tel Aviv at 12:45pm local time (10:45 GMT).

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to welcome Modi at the airport, as he did during the Indian premier’s 2017 visit. The two leaders are scheduled to hold talks shortly after.

Then, at 4:30pm (14:30 GMT), Modi is scheduled to address the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, in Jerusalem. He then returns to Tel Aviv for the night.

On the morning of February 26, Modi is scheduled to visit the Yad Vashem museum, a memorial to Holocaust victims, before meeting Israeli President Isaac Herzog. Modi and Netanyahu will then meet again and oversee the signing of agreements between the two countries, before Modi departs Israel in the afternoon.

Overall, Modi and Netanyahu aim to use this visit to bolster strategic economic and defence agreements between India and Israel, officials from both sides have said.

“We don’t compete, we rather complement each other,” JP Singh, India’s ambassador to Israel, told state broadcaster All India Radio on Monday, speaking of relations with Israel. “Israel is really good at innovation, science and technology. Therefore, there will be a lot of discussion on AI, cybersecurity and quantum.”

The two countries signed a new Bilateral Investment Treaty in September last year, replacing the 1996 investment treaty, to provide “certainty and protection” to investors from both countries. They are also aiming to upgrade existing bilateral security agreements at this meeting.

In a video posted on the Israeli Embassy’s social media channels on Monday, Israel’s ambassador to India, Reuven Azar, said: “Our economic partnership is gaining real momentum. We signed a bilateral investment treaty, and we are moving forward to sign a free trade agreement, hopefully this year.”

Azar said that Israel wants to encourage Indian infrastructure companies to come to Israel to build and invest in the country.

He added: “We will deepen our defence relationship by updating our security agreements.”

In an X post of his own on Sunday, Netanyahu wrote that he is looking forward to greeting Modi in Jerusalem.

“We are partners in innovation, security, and a shared strategic vision. Together, we are building an axis of nations committed to stability and progress,” he wrote.

“From AI to regional cooperation, our partnership continues to reach new heights,” Netanyahu added.

How are India-Israel relations?

Relations between India and Israel have improved exponentially over the years. While still under British rule in the 1920s and 1930s, India strongly identified with the Palestinian struggle for independence.

In 1917, the United Kingdom signed the Balfour Declaration, promising Jews who had been displaced from Europe due to Adolf Hitler’s oppression a homeland in the British Mandate in Palestine. This was opposed by many nations, including India, which was fighting British colonialism at the time.

“Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English, or France to the French,” Mahatma Gandhi, India’s most prominent freedom fighter who is revered as the father of the nation, wrote in an article in his weekly newspaper Harijan on November 26, 1938.

India was among the nations opposed to the creation of Israel in 1948. In 1949, India also voted against Israel’s UN membership. While it recognised Israel as a state in 1950, it was not until 1992 that the two formalised diplomatic relations, and economic relations gradually grew over the following two decades.

Since Modi became India’s leader in 2014, there has been a major shift in the relationship between India and Israel. Nine years ago, Modi was the first Indian prime minister ever to visit Israel.

India is currently Israel’s second-largest trading partner in Asia, after China. According to India’s Ministry of External Affairs, trade jumped from $200m in 1992 to $6.5bn in 2024.

India’s main exports to Israel include pearls, precious stones, automotive diesel, chemicals, machinery, and electrical equipment; imports include petroleum, chemical machinery and transport equipment.

Azad Essa, a senior reporter at Middle East Eye and author of the 2023 book Hostile Homelands: The New Alliance Between India and Israel, told Al Jazeera that Modi’s visit to Israel shows how far India’s relations with Israel have evolved over the past decade.

“Whereas a partnership existed, it was a lot more limited prior to Modi. [New] Delhi has now emerged as Israel’s strongest non-Western ally, so much so that it is now considered a ‘special relationship’, rooted in strategic cooperation and ideological convergence,” Essa said.

“This visit will be Netanyahu’s opportunity to offer appreciation to Modi, and will be used by him to show Israelis that he is a well-respected and popular leader in the Global South.”

Under Modi, India has become Israel’s top arms customer. And in 2024, during Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, Indian arms firms supplied Israel with rockets and explosives, according to an Al Jazeera investigation.

Modi’s Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) envisions India as a Hindu homeland, echoing Israel’s self-image as a Jewish state. Both India and Israel frame “Islamic terrorism” as a key threat, a label critics say is used to justify wider anti-Muslim policies.

“The alliance between India and Israel is not just about weapon sales or trade. It is about India’s open embrace of authoritarianism and militarism in building a supremacist state in Israel’s image,” Essa said.

“It is also a story about how security, nationalism and democratic language can be used to justify and normalise increasingly illiberal policies, and this has implications for democracies everywhere.”

Why is this visit significant?

Modi’s visit comes at a time of rising and complex geopolitical tensions in and around the Middle East.

Despite the warm relations between the two countries in recent decades, Modi’s trip comes just a week after India joined more than 100 countries in condemning Israel’s de facto expansion in the occupied West Bank. New Delhi signed the statement on February 18 – a day later than most – after initially appearing hesitant.

This week, Netanyahu claimed that he plans to form a new regional bloc of countries, which he termed a “hexagon” alliance, to stand against “radical” Sunni and Shia-majority nations.

On Sunday, Netanyahu said this alliance would include Israel, India, Greece and Cyprus, along with other unnamed Arab, African and Asian states. None of these governments has officially endorsed this plan, including India.

Analysts said Modi’s visit will be viewed by many as an endorsement of Israeli policies, however.

“The timing of the visit is notable because it comes at a time when Netanyahu has lost immense credibility around the world, and to have the leader of the world’s so-called largest democracy visiting Israel and showing affection to Netanyahu, who has a warrant in his name from the International Criminal Court, is a ringing endorsement of him and Israel’s policies,” Essa said.

Modi’s visit also comes at a time of heightened tensions between Iran and the United States.

India and Iran have long had a cooperative relationship. After Modi visited Iran in 2016, the two countries signed a major deal, allowing India to develop the strategically located port of Chabahar on Iran’s southeastern coast. However, after the US imposed additional sanctions on Iran last year and threatened to penalise all countries that do business with Tehran, India has reportedly started moving out of Chabahar.

In June 2025, India did not join the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation’s (SCO’s) condemnation of Israel’s attacks on Iran during the 12-day war between Iran and Israel. However, it did join a later condemnation by the BRICS grouping of major emerging economies of the Israeli and US attacks on Iran.

The US, which has been applying its own pressure on India over the past year in retaliation for its purchase of Russian oil, is building up a vast array of military assets in the Arabian Sea, close to Iran, as President Donald Trump increases pressure on Iran to agree to a deal over its nuclear programme and stock of ballistic missiles.

Trump said last Friday that he was considering a limited strike on Iran if Tehran does not reach a deal with the US. “I guess I can say I am considering that,” he told reporters.

Iran has said it is seeking a diplomatic solution, but will defend itself if Washington resorts to military action.

Israel will likely be a front-line participant in any escalation that might follow from US strikes or Iranian retaliation, analysts say.

In his State of the Union address, US President Trump reiterated claims the US “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear programme last year, contradicting his special envoy Steve Witkoff, who said Iran is “one week away” from a nuclear bomb.