civilian

Syria condemns attack in southwest as a ‘flagrant violation of sovereignty’ and a ‘blatant breach of international law’.

An Israeli drone strike in southwestern Syria has injured several people, the country’s foreign ministry says, in the latest of near-daily Israeli incursions and attacks in the area.

Syria’s official Alikhbariya channel reported on Saturday that a man was wounded when an Israeli drone hit his truck near the town of Beit Jinn in the western Damascus countryside.

The Israeli military confirmed the strike, saying in a statement that it had targeted “a terrorist who advanced terror attacks in their final stages of preparation” in southern Syria. The activity “posed an immediate threat to our forces”, the military added.

Syria’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates said in a statement that Saturday’s strike resulted in several civilian injuries.

It said it “condemns in the strongest terms” the targeting of a “civilian vehicle” by an Israeli drone.

“This attack constitutes a flagrant violation of the sovereignty of the Syrian Arab Republic and the integrity of its territory, and a blatant breach of international law, and comes in the context of repeated Israeli attacks on Syrian territory,” it added.

Israel sees southern Syria ‘as a security zone’

Saturday’s strike hit a small delivery truck on the main road between the Beit Jinn farmland and the town itself, said Al Jazeera Arabic correspondent Adham Abu al-Hussam, reporting from the area.

“Residents say [one of the victims is] a civilian who works as a driver, delivering goods and orders on this truck,” Abu al-Hussam said, adding that neighbours rushed a wounded man to hospital after hearing the explosion. He is in stable condition with an injury to his right hand, according to a medical source.

Abu al-Hussam said residents had reported Israeli reconnaissance drones flying over the area for four days. Beit Jinn, which lies near Jabal al-Sheikh and roughly 55km from Damascus, has been repeatedly targeted in the past year, including in a late November raid that killed 13 civilians, he said.

Muhsen al-Mustafa, a security and strategic researcher at the Omran Center for Strategic Studies in Damascus, told Al Jazeera that the attack could be Israel sending Syria’s government a message. “Israel currently treats Syria, particularly the south, as a security zone it is trying to fill any vacuum in.”

He said Israel had used a similar rationale days earlier when it struck Abu al-Duhur military airport in Idlib province, in northern Syria, saying the aim was to prevent a Turkish military presence there. That strike, he said, signalled that Israel’s declared security zone “isn’t limited to the south” but “extends even to Abu al-Duhur airport”, roughly in the middle of the country. “Israel’s security zone, it’s saying, extends further than that.”

Al-Mustafa suggested that Israel opted for a drone strike rather than sending in ground forces partly because of the November raid, when Israeli troops came under direct fire during the incursion into Beit Jinn, wounding six soldiers, three of them seriously. “Israel is always trying to apply pressure and ask for more in every round of negotiation,” he said.

A Syrian diplomatic source told Al Jazeera that Damascus remains committed to de-escalation and is pursuing a security arrangement with Israel through United States mediation, based on the 1974 disengagement agreement.

Palestinian politicians and analysts have warned against what they describe as an Israeli plan to illegally annex the occupied West Bank by implementing a series of decisions and actions under different pretexts.

Israel’s Defence Minister Israel Katz, on Friday, ordered the military to prepare a plan for transferring civilian law enforcement in the occupied West Bank to the Israeli police.

According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, the decision follows criticism over the army’s handling of Israeli settlers who besieged a Palestinian home in the village of Qusra.

Katz justified the shift, saying, “The army’s role is to combat Palestinian terrorism … and not chase hilltop youth.”

The Defence Ministry indicated the police would establish a dedicated force to handle these civilian matters.

However, Palestinian officials and a wide array of political experts warn this structural shift represents a dangerous acceleration of illegal annexation, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing.

Mustafa Barghouti, secretary-general of the Palestinian National Initiative, told Al Jazeera that the settlers are the “spearhead in the process of annexation and Judaisation”.

He drew direct historical parallels to the mass displacement of Palestinians, stating, “They repeat what the Zionist terror gangs did in 1948, like the Haganah and the Stern Gang.”

Barghouti warned that placing security in the hands of National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and illegal Israeli settlements under Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich amounts to “handing over the West Bank to the settlers”.

He stressed that this is an open war on the population, adding, “The actual ruler in the West Bank is the known fascist terrorist Smotrich.”

De facto annexation

Analysts argue that replacing military occupation law with domestic civilian law fundamentally alters the legal reality of the territory. Mohanad Mustafa, an academic and researcher in Israeli affairs, told Al Jazeera that the decision legally erases the borders.

“The government is dealing with the West Bank not as an occupied territory,” Mustafa said. He explained that by transferring power to a civilian police force, “this means that the government has annexed the West Bank”.

He noted this move absolves the military of its obligations under international law, placing enforcement under Ben-Gvir.

Mustafa warned that Ben-Gvir, who previously oversaw the demolition of thousands of Arab homes in Israel, will now command the police to “support the settlers more and more and push them more and more towards deepening their repression and terrorism against the Palestinians”.

Palestinian leadership strongly condemned the mandate. Hussein al-Sheikh, secretary-general of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s executive committee, described the move as a blatant violation of international agreements and an attempt to “impose Israeli law and sovereignty over the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and to entrench the illegal annexation of Palestinian land”.

The Palestinian group Hamas echoed this sentiment, releasing a statement calling the order a “dangerous step on the path to imposing de facto annexation” that provides “cover and more protection for the escalating attacks and crimes of the settlers”.

Fascist militias

The Palestinian Authority has accused the Israeli government and its military of sponsoring settlers’ violence. Even Israeli members of parliament have accused the army of being complicit.

Analysts stress that relieving the military of its duties essentially deputises settler violence, turning them into an armed extension of the state.

Nihad Abu Ghosh, an expert in Israeli affairs, told Al Jazeera that there is no contradiction between the army and the settlers. He noted that the settlers have evolved into “fascist militia formations” that perform the state’s dirty work.

“These are fascist militia formations, and there are similar precedents in many countries that were ruled by fascism, whether in Spain, Italy, Germany, or even Chile,” Abu Ghosh said.

He added that these militias carry out roles that “require evading any discipline, rules, or laws” to achieve a “creeping, gradual annexation to make it a reality”.

Apartheid and displacement

The dual legal framework resulting from this shift has drawn sharp international and local criticism. Shadi al-Shurafa, a researcher in Israeli affairs, told Al Jazeera that the situation is a textbook definition of segregation.

“We are facing an application of an overt racist apartheid system in the West Bank,” al-Shurafa said, noting it involves one regime operating with two entirely different laws based on ethnicity.

He added that the ultimate goal of the current government is carrying out complete ethnic cleansing and trapping Palestinians in “isolated cantons and isolated Bantustans”.

Other experts argue that the move completely alters the international legal status of the territory, pushing the crisis into a new, more dangerous phase.

“The subject has bypassed the issue of annexation to a post-annexation phase and creating a reality where the Palestinian finds himself forced to think about migration,” said Adel Shadid, expert in Israeli affairs.

International complicity

Analysts also pointed to the role of the international community, particularly the United States, in enabling this systemic shift.

Shadid dismissed recent US condemnations of settler violence as mere theatre to “mislead global public opinion”.

He argued that the underlying project has full US backing, noting that “all that is happening now is an American-Israeli plan and there is harmony between the two right-wing administrations in Washington and here in Israel”.

Andrew Whitley, a former United Nations official and director of the Balfour Project, stressed that the planned transfer is “completely illegal” and urged immediate global intervention.

He told Al Jazeera that the “Palestinian state is disappearing before our eyes”, demanding that the international community move beyond rhetoric.

“We have to do much more than just wring our hands and complain that governments are not doing anything about this,” Whitley said, calling for concrete sanctions to halt the rapid erasure of the Palestinian presence.

July 15 (UPI) — The United States and Iran traded attacks Tuesday night and into Wednesday morning as their war over the Strait of Hormuz continued to spiral, with President Donald Trump renewing threats to target civilian infrastructure.

The two nations have been trading nearly nightly strikes since last week, when Iran struck commercial shipping transiting the vital energy route.

While the broader war began in late February with the United States seeking to dismantle Iran’s military and nuclear programs and encourage the overthrow of its government, the current chapter is centered on control of the Strait of Hormuz. Washington is fighting to restore freedom of navigation through the chokepoint, while Tehran is fighting to preserve its ability to restrict passage as leverage.

Iranian government spokesperson Fatemeh Mohajerani said in a statement Wednesday that more than 30 civilians were killed in southern Iran in the U.S. strikes.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps early Wednesday claimed to have hit U.S. military assets in Jordan, Kuwait and Bahrain, as U.S. Central Command said late Tuesday that it had completed a seven-hour wave of strikes, hitting Iranian naval capabilities, coastal defense systems and missile and drone sites near the Strait of Hormuz and elsewhere along Iran’s coast.

CENTCOM said the strikes were intended to “degrade Iran’s ability to threaten commercial shipping and civilian crews” within the Strait of Hormuz. CENTCOM earlier said that in the last seven days, Iran attacked seven commercial ships, resulting in nearly a dozen civilian casualties. An Indian national was killed in a strike on a ship on Monday.

The IRGC said in separate statements carried by its official Sepah News that it had “destroyed” shelters housing F-15, F-16 and F-35 fighter jets at Al Azraq Air Base in Jordan; and “destroyed” a satellite communications center, missile and air defense radar, a Patriot air defense complex and logistical facilities at a U.S. base in Kuwait.

The Fars News Agency reported that at least one Iranian drone struck U.S. assets in Kuwait.

The extent of any of the damage was unknown.

The Kuwait Army said its air defenses were confronting drone attacks, and Jordan’s Armed Forces said it had intercepted and shot down three missiles launched from Iranian territory. Bahrain’s Ministry of Interior said sirens had been activated.

Trump earlier Tuesday told Fox News that the U.S. military was going to hit Iran “very hard tonight” and again on Wednesday and Thursday, with civilian targets to be struck next week, a potential violation of international humanitarian law.

“Next week comes the power plants. Next week comes the bridges,” he said. “We’re gonna knock out all their power plants. We’re going to knock out all their bridges unless they get to the table and negotiate.”

Trump has, since his first administration, tried to coerce Iran to the negotiating table on a new agreement aimed at preventing Iran from securing a nuclear weapon. Last month, a fragile cease-fire was agreed to for the purpose of implementing a memorandum that could lead to ending the war, but the Strait of Hormuz has been a sticking point.

On Tuesday, the U.S. military reimposed a blockade of Iranian ports that Trump removed after the MOU was reached.

CENTCOM said its round of strikes against Iran began at 3 p.m. EDT Tuesday, an hour before the naval blockade resumed operations.

Tehran, Iran – Several days of military attacks by the United States across Iran have marked the most intense rounds of bombardment since the two sides reached a vague memorandum of understanding last month.

US fighter jets and warships have hit hundreds of military targets and a number of civilian ones in nearly a week of strikes, with Iranian authorities reporting attacks in at least 10 provinces, mainly in southern Iran near the strategically important Strait of Hormuz.

In Tehran, life for more than 10 million people has carried on mostly as usual since the capital has not been recently attacked. But the economy is in the doldrums and the outlook is increasingly uncertain, more than four months after the US and Israel began their aerial campaign.

“Everything is too chaotic right now to guess what will happen next but it doesn’t look good,” Farshad, a 21-year-old resident of eastern Tehran, said on Sunday.

“I just really hope all-out war doesn’t start again because I don’t have the nerve for daily bombing on top of everything else,” he told Al Jazeera.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said overnight into Sunday that the Strait of Hormuz was once again considered closed due to US military intervention. Two vessels opting to transit using the Western-backed southern route near Oman, rather than Iran’s designated path to the north of the strait, had been struck, the IRGC added.

Iran said it had also attacked US interests across the region, including in Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, Qatar and Oman, in response to US strikes, as prospects for negotiations to replace military escalation remained slim.

Another Tehran citizen, Nastaran, said the overnight escalation felt more serious than previous attacks.

“I didn’t expect it would be this bad when I picked up my phone this morning to check the news,” she said. “I think there will be more attacks soon.”

Growing US aggression

The US military has been expanding its attacks over the past week.

US Central Command said more than 300 military targets were hit during three waves, including coastal surveillance, logistics, communications, as well as missile, drone and naval assets. It has not acknowledged striking civilian objectives.

As with other flare-ups over recent weeks, numerous attacks were launched on the province of Hormozgan, including the major port city of Bandar Abbas, as well as on Siri, Qeshm and Jask overlooking the strait. Port, fishing, coastal-control infrastructure and air defences were extensively bombed, reportedly killing a soldier and leaving multiple fishermen dead or wounded in separate strikes.

US projectiles have also targeted multiple areas in Bushehr province, with one attack impacting the perimeter of Iran’s only nuclear power plant without damaging it.

Provincial authorities in the southwestern province of Khuzestan said three areas were hit, but not the capital, Ahvaz. Local authorities in the provinces of Kohgiluyeh, Boyer-Ahmad and Lorestan also reported projectile attacks.

In Sistan and Baluchestan to the southeast, attacks were reported in Chabahar, Konarak and Iranshahr, where a strike on airport facilities killed a firefighter. Video recorded by a local from Chabahar and shared online showed the destruction of the city’s renowned maritime control tower.

Over the past week, the US military has launched some of its deepest strikes into Iranian territory since full-scale military operations were suspended by the “ceasefire” agreed in April.

One of them was in the northern province of Golestan, where the Aq Tekeh Khan railway bridge was struck on the Gorgan-Incheh Borun line.

Authorities said the bridge, which carries both passengers and cargo, was repaired and services resumed quickly. However, the attack showed that inland corridors could also become targets to increase pressure on Iran by limiting its trade, including imports of essential goods.

The transit route connects Iran to Turkmenistan and onwards to Kazakhstan, Russia, China as well as Eurasian rail networks. Crucially, during the US naval blockade of Iran’s southern ports, it provided an overland alternative to the Strait of Hormuz.

Last week, when assassinated Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was being buried in his hometown of Mashhad in northeastern Iran, authorities said the US struck a bridge about 55km (34 miles) from the city, disrupting passenger journeys to the funeral procession.

Iranian authorities say electricity infrastructure – which Trump has repeatedly threatened with more strikes – has also been significantly impacted since the start of the war, worsening the long-running energy crisis.

The attacks have reduced Iran’s capacity for electricity generation by about 4,200 megawatts, just as summer temperatures reached 40 degrees Celsius (104 Fahrenheit) this week, Mohammad Allahdad, head of Tavanir, the government-owned parent company for the operation of Iran’s power grid, said on Sunday.

After the conclusion of the funeral ceremonies for Ali Khamenei, a statement from new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, who has not been seen public since succeeding his father, emphasised the necessity for revenge.

Similar messages continue to be broadcast by state media and hardline religion-backed factions supporting the Islamic Republic, who on Sunday also cheered the death of US Republican Senator Lindsey Graham. State television hailed what it called the “dispatching to hell” of a pro-war hawkish politician.

For its part, Israel has effectively undermined the MoU signed between Iran and the US on June 17 by pushing deeper into southern Lebanon and signalling readiness to return to military strikes in Iran.

Speaking to an Israeli programme on Saturday night, Defence Minister Israel Katz, who has threatened to assassinate Mojtaba Khamenei, said “southern Lebanon would become Gaza” and that the Israeli army will “apply the Rafah model” of conquest there.

DEIR AL BALAH, Gaza Strip — An Israeli strike on Gaza just before the kickoff of the Egypt-Argentina World Cup match killed a top Palestinian aid official who helped organize public screenings of the game across the enclave, according to local health officials.

The blast turned what was supposed to be a moment of celebration — the live screening of a potential Argentina upset by an Arab team — into a reminder of how the near-daily Israeli strikes across Gaza are continuing to kill civilians despite a truce reached in October.

The bomb hit a car in the Sabra neighborhood of Gaza City at dusk Tuesday, killing passersby Mohamed al-Wahidi, an official at the Egyptian Committee in Gaza, 10-year-old boy Hamza al-Deri and his 8-year-old brother, Fari. Ahmed Daghmush, 33, the driver of the car, was also killed. That’s according to Dr. Mohamed Abu Selmiya, the director of Shifa Hospital, which received the four bodies.

The Israeli military said al-Wahidi, who helped organize the soccer screenings, was not a target of the strike. It said the strike was aiming for a Hamas militant, and it was checking if Daghmush was the target.

Daghmush is a taxi driver not known to be affiliated with any militant group, Abu Selmiya said.

An Israeli strike hit the same street half an hour earlier, causing no casualties.

The committee for which al-Wahidi worked is the relief arm of the Egyptian government, which provides food, shelters and other assistance to Palestinians in Gaza. The committee organized the initiative to put up screens across Gaza to watch soccer matches, it said.

Many in the Palestinian diaspora live across the border in Egypt, which was a key mediator of the Israel-Hamas ceasefire.

Team Egypt’s Gaza fanbase has only grown since the start of the tournament, as coach Hossam Hassan has spotlighted the plight of the Palestinian people in press briefings and on the pitch. He dedicated his team’s victory over Australia on Friday to both Egyptians and Palestinians and waved a Palestinian flag on the pitch.

In a Monday briefing before the match against Argentina, Hassan urged the world to do more for the Palestinian people.

“I urge you, I urge all media officers, all athletes worldwide, regardless of their identities, maybe we can convey a collective message that is as follows, let the Palestinian people be, let them exist, let them live a life of their own,” he said.

Israel’s military says its strikes target militants and it regrets harm to civilians. At least 1,084 people, including 258 children, have been killed since the truce took effect in October. Five Israeli soldiers have been killed in that time.

The Palestinian death toll from the Israel-Hamas war stands at 73,110, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, which is part of the Hamas-led government and is staffed by medical professionals who maintain detailed records viewed as generally reliable by United Nations agencies and independent experts. It does not distinguish between civilians and militants but says women and children make up around half of all fatalities.

The war began when Hamas-led militants attacked southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, killing around 1,200 people and taking 251 others hostage.

Shurafa, Magdy and Frankel write for the Associated Press. Magdy reported from Cairo and Frankel from Jerusalem.

July 5, 1811, is rightly remembered as one of the key dates in our republican history. It commemorates nothing less than the Declaration of Independence from the Spanish Monarchy, and is the central act of the political and legal process of independence that began on April 19, 1810, and led to the promulgation of Venezuela’s first Constitution on December 21, 1811.

On March 2, 1811, the General Congress of Venezuela was convened, becoming the first Parliament in our republican history. That General Congress, meeting in what was then the chapel of the Santa Rosa de Lima Seminary in Caracas, had as its fundamental mission the drafting of the 1811 Constitution. However, two months after beginning its sessions, the nascent Republic felt the need to issue a formal declaration of independence from the Spanish Crown, thus clarifying the political separation of the previous three hundred years. Once the Congress had decided to move towards a republican government—after refusing on April 1810 to obey the French regime that had invaded Spain—it was incompatible with that decision not to make an unrestricted declaration of independence from the Crown.

In the sessions of July 3, 4, and 5, the problem, which was certainly not insignificant, was openly addressed, among other reasons because it was necessary to convince those who were not entirely convinced of the legitimacy or timeliness of the process. Ultimately, the declaration of independence required to substantiate the reasons for declaring independence.

Therefore, the Act of Independence will be a very well-founded argument for the reasons why independence is being declared. The first paragraph will establish the context in which the declaration of independence will be justified:

“In the name of Almighty God, we, the representatives of the United Provinces of Caracas, Cumaná, Barinas, Margarita, Barcelona, ​​Mérida, and Trujillo, which form the American Confederation of Venezuela on the southern continent, assembled in Congress, and considering the full and absolute possession of our rights, which we justly and legitimately recovered on April 19, 1810, as a consequence of the events in Bayonne and the occupation of the Spanish throne by the conquest and succession of another new dynasty established without our consent, wish, before exercising the rights of which force had deprived us for more than three centuries, and which the political order of human events has restored to us, to make known to the world the reasons that have arisen from these same events and authorize the free exercise that we are about to make of our sovereignty.”

On July 5th, as the culmination of debates that had begun on July 3rd, independence was declared within the Congress. Later, in another session, the drafting of an Act to record the decision was decided. Therefore, although independence was declared by Congress on July 5th, the Act that justified it politically and legally was only read, approved, and signed on July 7th, having been drafted by Juan Germán Roscio and Francisco Isnardi.

The declaration of independence is a central element in our independence process, as it reflected the motivation behind the decision to sever political ties with the Monarchy under which these territories had lived for three centuries.

Indeed, the declaration of independence, from the perspective of the political and legal process that independence entailed, lies at the very heart, even temporally, of the first part of that process, which, at least in this initial and fundamental stage, was essentially civil. This stage begins with the events of April 19, 1810, and continues, among other events, with the establishment of the General Congress of Venezuela, and then proceeds, also among other events, with the Declaration of the Rights of the People of 1811 and the Constitution of 1811, of December 21.

Also from this perspective, it is worth noting that the Declaration of Independence occurred within the context of the first constituent process in our republican history. In fact, it can be pointed out that this constituent process, which began on April 19, 1810, and whose first stage culminated on December 21, 1811, is not only our first constituent process, but the only genuine constituent process that has existed in Venezuela. 

In the institutional history of Venezuela, only one truly constituent process can be identified, the constituent process of 1811. During this process, the most important political transformation of our history took place.

This paragraph from the Declaration of Independence summarizes the truly constituent decision:

“In consideration of all these solid, public, and irrefutable political reasons, which so strongly persuade us of the need to recover the natural dignity that the course of events has restored to us, and in the exercise of the imprescriptible rights that peoples possess to dissolve any pact, agreement, or association that does not fulfill the purposes for which governments were instituted, we believe that we cannot and should not maintain the ties that bound us to the government of Spain, and that, like all the peoples of the world, we are free and authorized to be independent of any authority other than our own, and to assume among the powers of the earth the equal place that the Supreme Being and nature assign to us and to which the succession of human events and our own good and utility call us.”

The Declaration of Independence is particularly clear in the final paragraph of the Act:

“We, therefore, in the name and with the will and authority vested in us by the virtuous people of Venezuela, solemnly declare to the world that its United Provinces are, and from this day forward, in fact and in law, free, sovereign, and independent States, and that they are absolved from all submission and dependence on the Crown of Spain or on those who claim or may claim to be its agents or representatives, and that as such a free and independent State, it has full power to adopt the form of government that is in accordance with the general will of its people, to declare war, to make peace, to form alliances, to arrange treaties of commerce, boundaries, and navigation, and to perform all other acts that free and independent nations perform.”

Thus, July 5th is a date to commemorate an essentially civil event, one of the few that has occurred since in our republican history: faced with the political situation resulting from the Napoleonic invasion of Spain, Venezuelans questioned the legitimacy of their submission to that Crown. The independence process was, therefore, in its origins, a question based on ideas and on the concern for the legitimate and correct path to follow as a nation.

For this reason, a military celebration on July 5th is actually a historical anachronism. The main celebration of July 5th should take place in the National Assembly, the successor to the General Congress of Venezuela, where independence was declared and the Act of Independence was signed.