conflict

When European Jewish settlers embarked on brutal ethnic cleansing to establish Israel in 1948, they thought the Palestinian population would be the least of their problems. In fact, Zionist leaders like David Ben-Gurion believed that “the refugee problem would resolve itself”.

There was deep-seated conviction among Zionists that the Palestinians lacked an identity, and they would just flee to neighbouring Arab countries and assimilate. They would not come back to claim their stolen land.

But what happened was the exact opposite.

Decade after decade, the Palestinian national cause grew stronger. Today, few survivors of the Nakba of 1948 remain, but the national commitment to Palestinian rights and historical justice is as strong as ever. That is because the older generations did not teach the younger ones to forget the trauma and move on; they taught them to remember and to keep the keys to their ancestral homes in their minds.

The “refugee problem” did not “resolve itself” not just because of Palestinian determination and resilience, but also because the Israeli policies of violence and dispossession backfired.

Israel’s theft of land and resources and violent displacement of Palestinians was the starting point for every Palestinian generation to reject and resist occupation.

As Israel succeeded in usurping more and more Palestinian land, it failed miserably in controlling the Palestinian consciousness.

Despite continuous Israeli efforts to turn refugee camps into isolated enclaves, recruit agents and collaborators to undermine unity, and introduce international bodies to redefine the refugee issue as a purely humanitarian one, it failed to dismantle the Palestinian national cause.

Those who were dispossessed and violated – the Palestinian refugees – became the most ardent carriers of the idea of resistance. Refugee camps became the centres of peaceful and armed struggle. These camps gave birth to prominent Palestinian thinkers, doctors, educators and leaders, who spread one message: the rejection of the Israeli occupation and the insistence on Palestinian rights.

Palestinian refugees were the drivers of the first Intifada of 1987 and the second Intifada of 2000. They were at the centre of any subsequent mobilisation to resist the Israeli occupation.

The colonial project saw no option but to ratchet up its brutality. Repeated massacres, mass imprisonment and relentless efforts to uproot communities did not achieve subjugation. This approach failed and the Gaza Strip – where 80 percent of the population are refugees – stands as the clearest evidence of that failure.

After the launch of its genocidal assault on Gaza in October 2023, the Israeli government repeatedly described the war as “existential”. If Israel itself acknowledges today that the fourth generation of Palestinians, the descendants of the survivors of the Nakba, represent a threat to its existence, then this is in itself an admission of the collapse of Ben-Gurion’s prediction and the strategic failure of the Israeli project to eliminate the Palestinian people.

But Israel has not just failed, it has also become trapped. It is stuck in the paradox of the futility of its own brutal power. The more violence, mass killings and displacement it carries out and the more it reproduces the Nakba, the more determined the Palestinian people become to resist. Repression is not uprooting Palestine, it is helping it take deeper root.

The Gaza genocide is perhaps the best illustration of this deadly paradox. More than 72,000 Palestinians have been massacred, more than 170,000 injured, and 1.9 million displaced. Most homes have been damaged or destroyed.

What is the result of all this? When a Palestinian child is born today in a tent and grows up without most of his family, without a school, a playground, proper healthcare, or a home, he or she won’t need a complex historical narrative to understand who is responsible for this and what needs to be done to achieve justice.

But the self-defeating impact of Israeli brutality is not limited to Palestine alone. Israel’s genocide has backfired on a global scale. It has allowed the Palestinian cause to grow beyond the confines of a marginal, left-wing issue into one that increasingly attracts attention across the political spectrum in the West but also elsewhere in the world.

Activists and ordinary citizens of different political convictions now stand in solidarity with the Palestinian cause. Many do so, despite facing retribution, arrest and prosecution for their support of Palestinian rights.

The Palestinian cause has also become an influential factor in local elections in many countries, including the United States and United Kingdom, where support for the Israeli occupation and genocide can cost candidates an electoral win.

As a result, the Palestinian issue has grown beyond a regional struggle to become a defining moral question for people across the world.

This has left the occupation locked in a permanent confrontation with what cannot be defeated: memory. The more it tries to erase the Palestinian cause, the more it is etched in the Palestinian and global consciousness.

If he had been alive today, Ben-Gurion would have been dismayed to learn that Zionism secured its own defeat the moment it embarked on the Nakba.

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

On International Conscientious Objectors’ Day, Al Jazeera’s @avawarrinerr explains what it means for people who object to fighting in wars today and what happens when they do.

Istanbul, Turkiye – When investigations by Al Jazeera and other media outlets in 2024 revealed that Israeli-linked artificial intelligence (AI) systems such as Lavender and Gospel had helped generate thousands of military targets in Gaza, critics warned that warfare was entering a new era – one driven not only by soldiers and bombs, but by algorithms, data, and surveillance technology.

Then, in September 2024, thousands of pagers and walkie-talkies used by members of Hezbollah exploded in coordinated attacks in Lebanon, widely attributed to Israeli intelligence operations that had turned ordinary communication devices into weapons.

And, last year, reporting by Al Jazeera also raised concerns about the use of cloud and data infrastructure linked to major US technology companies in Israeli surveillance operations involving Palestinians.

For a growing number of scholars, economists and political thinkers, such developments reflect more than just the changing nature of conflict. They show how power in the modern world is increasingly exercised not just through military force, but through technology, finance and control over information.

That argument has revived broader debates around decolonisation – a term historically associated with the dismantling of European empires after World War II, when countries across Asia, Africa and the Middle East gained formal independence.

But many proponents of what is termed “decolonial theory” – a school of thought arguing that colonial-era systems of power and hierarchy still shape modern politics, economics and knowledge – argue that colonial power structures never fully disappeared. Instead, they evolved, embedding themselves in global financial systems, technology platforms, media networks and even the production of knowledge itself.

Dependence of Global South countries on Western technology, digital infrastructure and global markets can create new forms of political and economic vulnerability, particularly across the Global South.

“A generation may have grown up believing they had never experienced colonialism or exploitation,” Esra Albayrak, board chair of the NUN Foundation for Education and Culture and daughter of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, told Al Jazeera during the World Decolonization Forum in Istanbul on May 11-12.

“Yet, mentally, they may still be living under colonial influence.”

The war in Gaza marked a turning point, Albayrak says, shining a spotlight on how international principles are not applied equally. Global institutions have so far failed to stop what many countries and rights groups have described as genocide against Palestinians.

“The world is sounding an alarm, and we can no longer afford to remain indifferent to it,” she said.

A techno-feudal era

Albayrak argues that a handful of technology companies are emerging as new, invisible centres of power, shaping how information is produced, circulated and consumed in the digital age.

She describes the digital sphere as the realm of what she calls “future colonialism”, warning that AI systems trained largely on Western-centric data risk reinforcing existing global inequalities.

“When AI systems are run by those tech companies and trained on Western sources, they risk carrying the hierarchies of the past into tomorrow’s digital world, as they now have personalised data, suppressing identity,” Albayrak said.

By this, she means that most major AI models are still trained largely on English-language and Western-produced data – a pattern critics say risks sidelining non-Western languages, cultures and perspectives.

On social media platforms, algorithms tend to amplify some conflicts while rendering others nearly invisible, effectively shaping what billions of users see, discuss and remember online.

Walter D Mignolo, professor at Duke University, argues that while what we historically see as “formal colonialism” may have largely ended, systems of Western dominance continue through economics, culture, technology and knowledge production.

“Coloniality is not over. It is all over the world,” Mignolo said, arguing that modern ideas of development and progress often have the effect of pressuring societies to conform to Western norms.

Rather than simply resisting those systems, he said, societies must find a way to “re-exist” by rebuilding intellectual and cultural autonomy outside dominant global frameworks.

Colonisers in the financial age

The March 2026 Global Debt Report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) reveals that 44 countries face severe debt burdens, often aggravated by global conflicts, forcing some governments to spend more on interest payments than on health or education.

This is not a new phenomenon, as developing countries have been labouring under the weight of foreign debt for decades.

But British political economist and author Ann Pettifor told Al Jazeera that modern forms of domination are now increasingly embedded not in empires or nation-states, but in financial systems operating beyond democratic oversight.

Pettifor points to the growing influence of “shadow” banking networks – financial institutions operating largely outside traditional banking regulations – and giant asset managers such as BlackRock, which manages $13 trillion in assets.

Much of the global financial architecture now functions largely outside the regulatory control of governments, she says, including that of Western states themselves.

“This is not a state colonising other states,” Pettifor said. “This is the financial system colonising the whole world, including my country and the US.”

She argues that elected governments increasingly struggle to control key economic realities – from energy prices to commodity markets – because those systems are dictated by global financial actors operating far beyond public accountability.

In Nigeria, for example, Pettifor says, efforts to expand domestic refining capacity continue to face pressure from international financial institutions and global energy markets to keep fuel prices tied to global markets and maintain reliance on imported refined oil products, despite its vast oil reserves.

Coordinated cooperation between developing nations may be necessary to challenge the dominance of Western-centred financial systems, Pettifor says, pointing to growing efforts across parts of West Africa to expand regional refining capacity and reduce dependence on imported fuel. Yet such ambitions can also leave critical sectors dependent on the decisions and influence of a small number of powerful private actors.

Global financial markets, algorithm-driven platforms, and foreign-controlled digital infrastructure increasingly define everyday life – from fuel and food prices to the information people consume online and the technologies governments and societies depend on, observers say.

A ‘mastery complex’

As wars become increasingly influenced by AI, digital infrastructure and financial dependency, debates around colonisation are focusing less on territorial control and more on who influences energy prices, lending systems, access to technology and the flow of information across borders, observers say.

Albayrak draws a parallel between today’s debates around technology and global power and Rudyard Kipling’s 1899 poem “The White Man’s Burden”, published as the US took control of the Philippines following the Spanish-American War. The poem framed colonial expansion as a moral obligation to “civilise” other societies rather than an exercise of domination.

Albayrak said such traces of “mastery complex” still survive today, though in different forms – not necessarily through military occupation, but through technological, financial and informational influence.

But what the world really needs, she argues, is a global order built not on hierarchy, but on shared responsibility.

“The burden should belong to humanity collectively.”

US sanctions imposed on UN expert Francesca Albanese by the Trump administration have been temporarily ⁠blocked by a judge.

A federal judge has temporarily ⁠blocked United States sanctions against Francesca Albanese, a United Nations expert on the occupied Palestinian territory.

UN Human Rights Council Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese was sanctioned in July 2025 after she publicly criticised Washington’s policy on Israel’s genocidal war against Palestinians in Gaza.

Albanese’s husband and daughter filed a lawsuit in February against the Trump administration over the sanctions. It argued that the sanctions were an effort to punish Albanese for bringing attention to Israel’s rights abuses against Palestinians.

In his court order on Wednesday, US ⁠District Judge Richard Leon granted a preliminary injunction against the sanctions.

He found that the Trump administration sought to regulate ‌her speech because of the “idea or message expressed”.

“Albanese has done nothing more than speak,” judge Leon wrote in his memorandum opinion. “It is undisputed that her recommendations have no binding effect on the ICC’s actions – they are nothing more than her opinion.”

Albanese, who said the US sanctions were “calculated to weaken my mission” when they were first imposed, celebrated the ruling on social media.

“Thanks to my daughter and my husband for stepping up to defend me, and everyone who has helped so far,” Albanese said in a statement on X.

“Together we are One.”

Since 2022, Albanese, a legal scholar, has served as the special rapporteur for the West Bank and Gaza, where she monitors human rights abuses against Palestinians. The UN Human Rights Council selected her for the position.

The Trump administration sanctioned her last July, calling her “unfit” for her role and accusing her of “biased and malicious activities” against the US and its ally, Israel. Albanese had also recommended that the International Criminal Court (ICC) pursue war crimes prosecutions against Israeli and US nationals.

The sanctions barred the Italian lawyer and human rights expert from entering the US, using US banks and payment systems, and prevented anyone else in the US from doing business with her.

Albanese’s husband and her daughter, a US citizen, claimed in the lawsuit that the US ⁠sanctions were “effectively debanking her and making it nearly impossible to meet the needs of her daily life”.

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans on Wednesday again blocked Democratic legislation that would halt President Trump’s war with Iran, but the number of GOP senators voting against the war grew.

Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska voted against the war for the first time since it began at the end of February. Two other Republicans, Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky, also voted against the war, as they had done previously.

The war powers legislation ultimately failed to advance 49-50, with Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania the only Democrat to oppose it, yet the close tally reflected growing unease with Trump’s war. Several other Republican senators have signaled they want Congress to weigh in on the direction of the conflict.

“There will be a day — and it might be soon, I believe — where this Senate will say to the president, ‘Stop this war,’” Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, who has spearheaded his party’s tactic of forcing repeated votes on the war, said before the vote.

Even if it passes the Senate, a war powers resolution would have a slim chance of passing the House and would also certainly be vetoed by Trump. But Democrats say the votes are about building political pressure on the president either to withdraw from the conflict or seek congressional authorization to wage the war.

Trump officials downplay role for Congress

The White House, meanwhile, has asserted that it does not need congressional authorization for the war and has circumvented legal requirements to gain approval from Congress to continue the military campaign. It claims that it has “terminated” hostilities with Iran because the U.S. has entered a ceasefire.

That posture has created tension between the Republican-controlled Congress and the White House because presidents under the War Powers Resolution of 1973 are required to obtain authorization from Congress after 60 days of engaging in a conflict.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told lawmakers this week that the U.S. could start attacking Iran again without the White House seeking congressional approval. He told Murkowski during a hearing on Tuesday that the Trump administration believes it has “all the authorities necessary.”

Murkowski voiced skepticism about that argument. She pointed to the troops and war ships deployed to the region, saying, “It doesn’t appear that hostilities have ended.”

GOP leaders back the war, but unease grows

Republican leadership has continued to back the war with Iran, arguing that the stalemate in the Strait of Hormuz that has blocked most commercial shipping puts more economic pressure on Iran than it does on the U.S.

“Iran’s economy is on life support. Its leadership is eliminated,” said Sen. John Barrasso, the No. 2 Republican in leadership, during a floor speech Wednesday.

He also argued that the Democratic effort on the war is all about undermining Trump. Forcing the issue just as he arrived in China for a summit would “pull out the rug from under him,” Barrasso said.

Still, Republicans are also growing uneasy about the high gas prices, especially as the November elections draw near.

Sen. Mike Rounds, a Republican from South Dakota, said Wednesday he’d prefer that the two branches of government work out the constitutional issues instead of a congressional war powers vote or a potential challenge in court.

The two sides should sit down together and say “we have shared constitutional responsibilities,” Rounds said.

Democrats plan to keep forcing weekly votes on war powers resolutions and are looking ahead to put limitations on Trump during the debate over annual legislation that authorizes and funds the military.

Sen. Jeff Merkley, an Oregon Democrat who sponsored Wednesday’s resolution, told reporters that he believes there is an “erosion of support, erosion of enthusiasm, an increase in skepticism” about the war from Republicans.

Groves writes for the Associated Press.

Iran’s First Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref said Tehran’s ‘right’ to the Strait of Hormuz is ‘established and the matter is closed’, state media reports.

The ongoing Iran conflict is expected to dominate discussions at the BRICS foreign ministers meeting in New Delhi, placing pressure on the expanded bloc to find common ground on one of the world’s most divisive geopolitical crises.

The two day meeting brings together foreign ministers and representatives from BRICS member states, including Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, and the United Arab Emirates.

India, which holds the BRICS chairmanship for 2026, faces the difficult task of balancing competing interests within the group while attempting to secure a joint statement.

Iran Pushes for Stronger BRICS Position

Iran has urged BRICS members to condemn the actions of the United States and Israel in the Gulf conflict through a unified statement.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi is expected to participate in the meeting as Tehran seeks diplomatic support from emerging economies and Global South nations.

The conflict has become a major test of BRICS cohesion because member states hold differing positions on the war and regional security issues.

Divisions Emerge Within the Bloc

The sharpest disagreements are reportedly between Iran and the United Arab Emirates, which are aligned on opposing sides of the regional conflict.

Tensions have increased following reports of military strikes involving Gulf states and Iran, complicating efforts to draft a consensus statement acceptable to all members.

Indian officials previously acknowledged the difficulty of forging unity within BRICS because some member states are directly involved in the conflict.

Despite the divisions, India remains hopeful that ministers can still agree on a joint declaration after negotiations during the meeting.

Russia and China Maintain Key Roles

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is expected to attend the gathering, reinforcing Moscow’s active role within BRICS diplomacy.

China, however, will not send Foreign Minister Wang Yi because of scheduling conflicts linked to U.S. President Donald Trump visiting Beijing this week.

Instead, China will be represented by Ambassador Xu Feihong.

Beijing has largely maintained a neutral public position on the Iran conflict while preserving close ties with both Iran and Gulf Arab states.

Energy Prices Add Economic Pressure

The war’s impact on global energy markets has become a major concern for BRICS economies, many of which are heavily dependent on imported oil and vulnerable to rising inflation.

Several BRICS nations, including India, have introduced emergency economic measures to shield consumers and industries from soaring fuel costs caused by the conflict.

The economic fallout is likely to strengthen calls within BRICS for diplomatic solutions and greater coordination among emerging economies.

India Attempts Diplomatic Balancing

India is seeking to use the BRICS platform to strengthen its leadership role among developing nations while avoiding direct alignment with any side in the conflict.

Analysts say New Delhi’s challenge lies in preserving BRICS unity despite deep geopolitical differences among member states.

Former Indian diplomat Manjeev Singh Puri described the participation of nearly all BRICS foreign ministers as a positive sign for dialogue and coalition building among emerging economies.

Analysis

The BRICS meeting in New Delhi highlights the growing difficulty of maintaining unity within an expanded bloc that now includes countries with competing regional interests and conflicting geopolitical priorities.

The Iran conflict has exposed the limits of BRICS as a coordinated political platform. While the group shares common interests in promoting a multipolar world order and strengthening the Global South, its members remain divided on security issues and regional conflicts.

India’s role as chair becomes especially sensitive because it must balance relations with Iran, Gulf Arab states, Russia, China, and Western powers simultaneously.

The absence of a strong unified Chinese diplomatic presence may also reduce the likelihood of a major breakthrough or coordinated BRICS response.

At the same time, the meeting demonstrates that BRICS is evolving beyond an economic grouping into a broader geopolitical forum where emerging powers increasingly debate global security and diplomatic issues.

Whether the bloc can produce a joint statement on the Iran war may become an important indicator of its future credibility and effectiveness as an alternative voice in global governance.

With information from Reuters.

US president lauds Islamabad, but his Republican ally says he does not trust Pakistan to facilitate Iran diplomacy.

Donald Trump has reasserted his support for Pakistan to serve as a mediator between Iran and the United States after Senator Lindsey Graham, a close ally of the US president, disparaged Islamabad’s diplomacy.

In remarks on Tuesday, the US president lauded Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and its army chief Asim Munir, who helped negotiate a fragile ceasefire in Iran that came into effect last month.

Trump added he is not reconsidering Pakistan as a mediator.

“They’re great. I think the Pakistanis have been great. The field marshal and the prime minister of Pakistan have been absolutely great,” Trump told reporters.

Hours earlier, Graham had pressed Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth and top US general Dan Caine about a CBS News report claiming that Pakistan is allowing Iran to park military assets on its airfields, in order to shield them from potential US and Israeli attacks.

Both officials declined to comment on the veracity of the report, citing the sensitive nature of the talks between the US and Iran.

Asked by Graham whether it would be “consistent” for Pakistan to act as a fair mediator if the CBS report is confirmed, Hegseth said, “I wouldn’t want to get into the middle of these negotiations.”

The Republican senator quickly interrupted the defence secretary.

“I do. I want to get in the middle of those negotiations,” Graham said.

“I don’t trust Pakistan as far as I can throw them. If they actually have Iranian aircraft parked in Pakistan bases to protect Iranian military assets, that tells me maybe we should be looking for somebody else to mediate. No wonder this damn thing is going nowhere.”

The senator — an outspoken foreign policy hawk who has been calling for regime change in Iran — is seen as one of the most influential figures in Trump’s circle.

Graham has also been one of the most vocal supporters of the war with Iran, repeatedly cautioning Trump against agreeing to a deal that would include concessions to Tehran.

Weeks before the war broke out on February 28, Graham met the US president in Florida, where he handed Trump a hat that says, “Make Iran Great Again.”

Pakistan has been pushing to revive the stalled diplomacy between Iran and the US, following the April 8 ceasefire agreement.

On Sunday, Trump said Tehran’s latest proposal to end the war was “unacceptable”.

In late April, the US president announced he was sending his envoys to Pakistan to meet Iranian officials, but he called off the trip after Iran pushed the US to lift the naval blockade against its ports as a condition for resuming the talks.

The Strait of Hormuz has become the central strategic battleground in the ongoing confrontation involving Iran, the United States, and regional Gulf powers. What initially appeared to be a military conflict is increasingly evolving into a struggle over maritime control, energy security, and geopolitical influence.

Since the outbreak of hostilities following the joint United States and Israeli strikes on Iran in February, Tehran’s near closure of the Strait of Hormuz and Washington’s retaliatory naval blockade have severely disrupted global energy markets. The conflict has reduced the movement of oil and liquefied natural gas through one of the world’s most critical maritime chokepoints, creating economic instability far beyond the Middle East.

Recent tanker movements coordinated through informal understandings with Tehran suggest that Iran may now be shifting from blocking Hormuz entirely to selectively controlling access. This emerging dynamic could fundamentally reshape Gulf security and international energy politics.

Hormuz Is No Longer Just a Trade Route

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the most strategically important waterways in the global economy. Before the conflict, roughly one fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas shipments passed through the narrow corridor each day.

Its disruption has exposed the vulnerability of global energy markets to geopolitical conflict. Asian economies have been particularly affected because of their heavy dependence on Gulf energy exports. Oil supply disruptions and rising transportation risks have intensified inflationary pressure, energy insecurity, and market volatility across multiple regions.

The recent passage of a limited number of oil and gas tankers with apparent Iranian approval demonstrates that Tehran may now be exercising selective authority over maritime transit rather than enforcing a complete blockade.

This distinction is critical because it suggests Iran is attempting to transform military leverage into long term political and economic influence.

Iran’s Emerging Strategy of Selective Access

The limited reopening of shipping lanes indicates that Tehran may be developing a new model of strategic control. Rather than permanently shutting down the strait, Iran appears to be determining which countries, companies, or shipments can safely transit through the waterway.

This selective access system gives Tehran several advantages.

First, it allows Iran to maintain pressure on global energy markets without fully halting trade flows that could trigger overwhelming international military intervention.

Second, it creates potential economic benefits through informal transit arrangements, leverage over energy dependent states, and indirect influence on oil pricing.

Third, it positions Iran as a gatekeeper within one of the world’s most important strategic corridors, expanding its geopolitical relevance despite sanctions and military pressure.

The reported coordination involving Pakistan and Qatar also demonstrates how regional diplomacy is becoming intertwined with energy security and conflict management.

Gulf States and the United States Face Strategic Risks

For Gulf Arab states such as Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Qatar, any arrangement that allows Iran to regulate maritime access poses a direct strategic threat.

Their economies depend heavily on uninterrupted hydrocarbon exports, and Iranian control over transit patterns would increase Tehran’s regional influence at their expense.

Asian importers are equally vulnerable because selective access introduces political uncertainty into global energy supply chains. Countries dependent on Gulf oil and gas would become increasingly exposed to Iranian political calculations.

For the United States, accepting Iranian dominance over Hormuz would undermine Washington’s broader strategic objectives in the region. The Trump administration has repeatedly emphasized restoring unrestricted freedom of navigation as a core war aim.

Allowing Iran to effectively manage maritime access would signal a major geopolitical shift and weaken perceptions of American regional dominance.

Why the Current Situation May Become More Dangerous

The most concerning aspect of the emerging situation is that temporary wartime arrangements could solidify into a long term strategic reality. Even if a ceasefire is eventually reached, Iran may resist fully restoring unrestricted navigation because Hormuz now represents its strongest source of leverage against the United States and regional rivals.

This creates the conditions for a prolonged state of instability rather than genuine conflict resolution.

A system based on selective transit rights would likely produce repeated confrontations as regional powers, Western navies, shipping companies, and energy importers challenge or negotiate the limits of Iranian control.

Such a situation would institutionalize uncertainty in global energy markets and increase the likelihood of future military escalation.

Analysis

The battle over the Strait of Hormuz reflects a broader transformation in modern geopolitical conflict where control over trade routes and economic chokepoints can become more strategically valuable than territorial conquest.

Iran appears to recognize that its greatest strength lies not in conventional military superiority but in its ability to disrupt the global economy through maritime leverage. By controlling the flow of energy through Hormuz, Tehran can influence oil prices, inflation, international diplomacy, and political stability in rival states.

This gives Iran asymmetric power against economically stronger adversaries.

The United States faces a difficult strategic dilemma. Military escalation aimed at fully reopening Hormuz could deepen regional conflict and further destabilize global markets. However, tolerating selective Iranian control risks weakening American credibility and altering the regional balance of power in Tehran’s favor.

The current situation also exposes the limits of military power in resolving structural geopolitical disputes. Even if active fighting declines, the underlying contest over maritime control, energy security, and regional influence will likely persist.

Ultimately, the future of the Gulf may increasingly depend not on battlefield victories, but on who shapes the rules governing the movement of energy through the Strait of Hormuz. If selective Iranian control becomes normalized, the region could enter a prolonged era of economic coercion, strategic competition, and recurring confrontation.

With information from Reuters.

Rights groups warn that the bill makes the death penalty easier to impose and strips fair trial protections.

Israeli legislators have approved a bill to establish a special tribunal with the power to impose the death penalty on Palestinians accused of involvement in the Hamas-led attacks of October 7, 2023.

The bill passed 93-0 in Israel’s 120-seat parliament, the Knesset, late on Monday.

The remaining 27 legislators were absent or abstained from voting.

Israeli and Palestinian rights groups warn that the bill will make the death penalty too easy to impose while also doing away with procedures safeguarding the right to a fair trial.

Muna Haddad, a lawyer with Adalah – The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, told Al Jazeera that the bill intentionally lowers the legal protections to a fair trial to secure the mass conviction of Palestinians.

“The bill explicitly permits mass trials that deviate from standard rules of evidence, including broad judicial discretion to admit evidence obtained under coercive conditions that may amount to torture or ill-treatment,” Haddad said.

“This constitutes a severe violation of fair trial guarantees that falls well short of international law requirements.”

In a departure from standard Israeli judicial practice, which typically prohibits courtroom cameras, the bill mandates the filming and public broadcasting of key moments in the trials on a dedicated website.

This includes opening hearings, verdicts and sentencing.

Haddad warned that this provision effectively “transforms proceedings into show trials at the expense of the accused’s rights”.

“The provisions governing public hearings… violate the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial, and the right to dignity,” Haddad explained. “The framework effectively treats indictment as a finding of guilt, before any judicial examination has begun.”

Israel has been holding an estimated 200-300 Palestinians, including those captured in the country during the October 7 attacks, who have not yet been charged.

The Hamas-led assault on Israeli communities along Israel’s southern fence with Gaza killed at least 1,139 people, mostly civilians, according to an Al Jazeera tally based on official Israeli statistics. About 240 others were seized as captives.

Israel’s subsequent genocidal war on Gaza has killed at least 72,628 Palestinians, including at least 846 since a United States-brokered “ceasefire” came into effect last October.

The war, which United Nations experts say could amount to genocide, has left the Palestinian territory in ruins.

Several Israeli rights groups – including Hamoked, Adalah and the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel – said on Monday that while “justice for the victims of October 7 is a legitimate and urgent imperative”, any accountability for the crimes “must be pursued through a process which includes rather than abandons the principles of justice”.

The bill is separate from a law passed in March that approved the death penalty for Palestinians convicted of murdering Israelis, a measure harshly condemned by the international community and rights groups as discriminatory and inhumane.

That law applies to future cases and is not retroactive, so it could not apply to the October 2023 suspects.

Hamas spokesperson Hazem Qassem said the new law “serves as a cover for the war crimes committed by Israel in Gaza”.

The International Criminal Court is probing Israel’s conduct of the Gaza war and has issued arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Minister of Defence Yoav Gallant, as well as ‌three ‌Hamas leaders who have all since been killed by Israel.

Israel is also fighting a genocide case at the International Court of Justice.

It rejects the allegations.

When Kevin Hart announced in January that he’d licensed his name to Authentic Brands Group, the popular comedian was silent on a key detail: the future of his namesake media company.

Hart sold some ownership and oversight of his brand in exchange for an undisclosed sum of money and a stake in Authentic, a New York-based firm that manages the likenesses of Marilyn Monroe, Muhammad Ali, Shaquille O’Neal and David Beckham.

Hart used the partnership with Authentic to reset his relationship with the people around him and his company, according to six current and former employees. Hart’s employees say they worry that this deal marks the beginning of the end of Hartbeat, the comedian’s namesake media company that produces films, owns a network of short-form video channels and handles marketing for brands.

Though the announcement made no mention of Hartbeat, the agreement gave Hart money to buy out his private equity partner in the company over time and regain control of the use of his name, image and likeness. Hart’s endorsement deals, which had been a pillar of Hartbeat business, will now be handled by Authentic.

Once valued at about $650 million, Hartbeat has shriveled over the past few years. The company enacted its latest round of job cuts in December, firing the heads of its scripted TV division, as well as employees working across marketing, social media and brand partnerships, said the people. Earlier this year it let go the leaders of its podcast division and later sued them for breach of contract.

Hart has withdrawn from the company, leaving day-to-day management in the hands of a small group of executives. Staff meetings have been canceled. The development of new film and TV projects has slowed. A slate of new podcasts was pitched but never produced.

Hartbeat’s struggles reflected the challenging environment for many Hollywood production companies as media giants merge and cut spending. The company is also a cautionary tale in this age of the celebrity media mogul. Financial firms have plowed money into media companies led by high-profile figures, believing they could use their notoriety to build valuable businesses. Yet even seemingly successful ones have had a hard time.

Hartbeat, like many of its peers, has suffered from mismanagement and grappled with the tension between the needs of the star and his company. Hart, one of the hardest-working people in Hollywood, tired of subsidizing a company that relied so much on him

Hart declined to comment for this story, which is based on conversations with several current and former employees. On Sunday night, Hart, who hosted the widely viewed roast of NFL great Tom Brady two years ago, was the subject of his own roast on Netflix.

Building a Billion-Dollar Business

One of the most successful stand-up comedians and actors of his generation, Hart, 46, has always been entrepreneurial. In 2017, he started Laugh Out Loud, an online video comedy business that later grew to include branded entertainment. He also operated his own production company, Hartbeat Productions, that made programs for streaming services like Peacock, Quibi and Netflix Inc.

With Hollywood in the midst of a production boom, Hart watched his fellow celebrities get rich from their media enterprises. Reese Witherspoon sold her media company, Hello Sunshine, in a deal that valued it at as much as $900 million. Hart’s friend LeBron James raised money for his company, SpringHill, at a valuation of $725 million. Hart believed he could be next.

In late 2022, Hart merged his business interests under the Hartbeat banner and raised money by selling a 15% stake to the private equity firm Abry Partners. The deal valued the company at about $650 million.

The new business was predicated on three pillars: film and TV, short-form video and advertising. Hartbeat had a deal to produce movies for Netflix, a slate of podcasts for SiriusXM Holdings Inc. and original audio series for Audible. Hartbeat also developed relationships with advertisers such as Lyft Inc., Procter & Gamble Co. and DraftKings Inc.

While Hart would star in Hartbeat projects, the goal of the company was to develop projects and new business that didn’t involve its namesake founder. The company could leverage Hart to sell projects and secure broad programming partnerships. Hart would ask that Hartbeat be involved in producing his movies and any advertising campaign for which he was a spokesperson. His fees as a producer and brand ambassador would help pay the bills. The hope was he’d convince other celebrities to use Hartbeat as well. Thai Randolph, who had been running Laugh Out Loud, was named chief executive officer.

Hartbeat opened offices in New York and Atlanta and took over a 40,000-square-foot West Hollywood office once occupied by Oprah Winfrey. Hart redesigned the space and installed a world-class art collection.

The upper-level lobby featured a work by Ghanaian artist Serge Attukwei Clottey, while the conference room had a sculpture by Zimbabwean artist Moffat Takadiwa made of computer keyboard keys. A portrait of Kobe Bryant by Julian Pace hung outside a podcast studio.

Hart’s own office featured a dressing room, a series of paintings by South African artist Feni Chulumanco, multiple TVs and a desk from a prominent French designer. “He really has almost a full-service apartment in his suite,” Kai Williamson, who worked with Hart on the project, told Architectural Digest. Hart was interviewed for a story and also filmed an episode of the design magazine’s “Open Door” video series.

While Hartbeat expanded, Hollywood entered a recession. Economic uncertainty, rising interest rates and growing skepticism about the profitability of streaming caused major media companies to fire staff and pull back on buying new projects. Hartbeat was a little more insulated than most because talent like Hart could usually still get a project made. Still, producing projects without Hart in a starring role became more difficult.

Randolph left the company in late 2023 and was replaced by Jay Levine, who had spent much of his career at Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. Levine brought in a couple of other senior leaders with experience at major media companies.

A contingent of executives pushed Hart to scale back some ambitions, the people said. The company couldn’t afford to be working in so many different businesses at the same time, especially as areas like free, advertising-supported online video, and podcasts got more competitive. Hart was one of the most prolific and productive creative people in the world, starring in and producing movies, TV shows, comedy, short-form videos and advertisements. The point of the company was to relieve the stress on him, not add to it.

While Hartbeat closed its New York office, Hart was reluctant to scale back his vision or replace some long-time lieutenants. Levine negotiated his exit at the end of 2024 and was followed out the door by the company’s chief financial officer and chief content officer. Days before Thanksgiving, Hartbeat laid off about 20 people, nearly one quarter of its work force.

A year of chaos and conflict

In January 2025, Hart announced he would be the new CEO of Hartbeat and pledged to outline the firm’s strategy in the coming weeks. Instead, Hart went weeks and sometimes months without visiting the office, the people said, and empowered Jeff Clanagan and CFO Eric Stoneburner to run the company day to day. (Hart was on set to shoot at least a couple movies last year, in addition to his other work.)

A former concert promoter and movie producer, Clanagan had helped make Hart a major star. He had partnered with Hart to bring his stand-up specials to the big screen, producing shows such as 2013’s Kevin Hart: Let Me Explain, which grossed $32 million at the box office. Clanagan produced some of these specials under the banner of his own company, Codeblack Films, which helps promote, market and distribute video from Black creators.

Clanagan continued to operate Codeblack while serving in a senior capacity at Hartbeat, said the people. He pushed employees at Hartbeat to post its videos to the Codeblack channels as well, saying they could use the additional reach to raise awareness. The videos generated advertising sales for Codeblack.

Clanagan had employees at Hartbeat oversee Codeblack’s social media pages and asked to get those channels loaded into Hartbeat’s content management system. That gave Codeblack’s YouTube channels advantages over others because of Hart’s prominence and his company’s designation with YouTube. Employees raised concerns with human resources and the company’s lawyer.

Clanagan also became increasingly interested in video generated by artificial intelligence. He started a new app called Blktopia, a streaming service for Black viewers programmed with content from online creators and often made by AI. He urged employees to work on it, the people said. Clanagan initially responded to a request for comment and then retracted the text message.

Meanwhile, many of Hartbeat’s main businesses languished. Sales from the company’s YouTube channels fell and investment in new film and TV projects slowed. Hartbeat, once profitable, started to bleed cash. Hartbeat had hired Eric Eddings and Lesley Gwam to produce audio shows that didn’t involve Hart. While the pair developed a slate of projects, they never got approval to make them.

In mid-December, Hartbeat fired about a dozen employees, including some of those who were supposed to develop the podcasts. Eddings and Gwam then decided to start their own company and began trying to raise money. When Clanagan found out, Hartbeat fired them and sued for alleged theft of trade secrets and breach of contract.

A court approved a temporary restraining order but then rejected a preliminary injunction, saying Hartbeat had not demonstrated Eddings and Gwam had used proprietary information or trade secrets. The court said the request was “vague, ambiguous, and overly broad.” The case is ongoing.

Hartbeat also fired the heads of its TV division, Tiffany Brown and Mike Stein, who were in the middle of producing a TV show based on the film Barbershop for Amazon.com Inc. and a second season of the animated series Lil Kev.

The company made no official announcement explaining the cuts. The following week, senior leadership arranged a Zoom meeting. Hart remained off camera until it was his time to speak. He talked for a few minutes about changes at the company and took no questions. Hart changed his phone number in the weeks following the layoffs. (Some of his advisors had suggested he do this years earlier so that he wasn’t so available.)

A few weeks later, Hart announced the deal with Authentic Brands Group. Hart used some of the proceeds to buy out Abry Partners, freeing him to steer his brand deals to Authentic and outside of Hartbeat. A few of his employees and his publicist joined him at Authentic.

“This is a turning point for Hartbeat,” the company wrote in a subsequent email to employees, explaining that the deal would free Hart up to focus on what he does best, while allowing Hartbeat to stand on its own and grow beyond him.

“I know the past few months have been tough,” Hart wrote, adding that for too long the company had been too dependent on him. The email was said to be from “Kevin AKA Boss Man.” It was sent by Hart’s assistant.

Shaw writes for Bloomberg.

Russian ⁠President Vladimir ⁠Putin has suggested that former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder could coordinate talks with the European Union to secure a ⁠peace deal in Ukraine – a proposal met with scepticism by EU officials.

European Council President Antonio Costa said recently he believed there was “potential” for ⁠the EU to negotiate with Russia and to discuss the future of Europe’s security architecture.

Asked on Saturday whom he would like to see restarting talks with Europe, Putin said he would “personally” prefer Schroeder, who led Germany from 1998 to 2005 and has remained close to the Kremlin leader since leaving office.

A day later, the Russian leader said the ⁠four-year-old war may be “coming to an end”, adding that he was ready to hold direct talks with his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, in Moscow or a neutral country.

Speaking after Saturday’s celebrations for Victory Day, which marks Russia’s victory over Nazi Germany in 1945 at the end of World War II, Putin added he would be willing to meet Zelenskyy only once the terms of a peace agreement had already been settled.

Russia had announced a unilateral two-day ceasefire on May 8-9 to mark Victory Day, while Zelenskyy countered it with his own proposed pause in fighting starting earlier, on the night of May 5-6.

As part of a broader Washington-led push for ⁠peace, United States President Donald Trump on Friday announced a three-day pause in the conflict, but both sides have since accused the other of breaking it.

As US-backed peace talks between Kyiv and Moscow stall, here is a look at who Schroeder is and whether he could be a trustworthy mediator.

Who is Gerhard Schroeder?

The 82-year-old leader of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) served as Germany’s chancellor from 1998 to 2005, focusing his political goals on European integration, reducing unemployment, liberalising German citizenship laws, curbing nuclear power and rebuilding the economy.

Disagreements over the Iraq war caused a serious rift in German-US relations in 2003, when Germany sided with France and Russia in opposing military intervention in the country over claims that the then-Iraqi president, Saddam Hussein, was producing weapons of mass destruction.

After leaving office in 2005, Schroeder ⁠almost immediately took a job as chairman of a controversial German-Russian ⁠consortium building a gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea. He held key roles in Russian energy projects, including work on the Nord Stream gas pipelines and a seat on the board of Russian oil firm Rosneft, which he gave up in 2022.

While he quit that role, the former chancellor has remained close to Putin, standing apart from most Western leaders since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022 and facing heavy ⁠criticism in Germany.

His failure to publicly condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has cost him several privileges normally granted to former chancellors, including receiving a state-funded office, making him a controversial figure at home.

What is his relationship with Putin?

Schroeder referred to Putin as “a flawless democrat” in 2004, declaring himself “thoroughly convinced that the Russian president wants to transform Russia into a democracy and that he is doing so out of a deeply held conviction”.

The then-German chancellor had little to say about Russian attempts to influence the elections in Ukraine during those years or about the Kremlin’s attacks on press freedom. On the contrary, under his leadership, Germany deepened its economic ties with Russia, grew trade and increased its dependency on Russian oil and natural gas.

In his book Klare Woerter (Straight Talk), Schroeder spoke about his relationship with the Russian leader, who worked as a KGB spy in the then-East Germany in the 1980s and is fluent in German.

“The most important thing for a friendship is a common language,” Schroeder, who has two adopted children from Russia – Viktoria and Gregor – said. “It makes everything easier.”

Their friendship reportedly continued to blossom over the years. Schroeder criticised moves to impose sanctions and eject Russia from the Group of Eight and even backed a Kremlin argument comparing the annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea region with NATO’s intervention in Serbia’s Kosovo province in 1999, which he himself helped lead as the German chancellor.

How are the Russia-Ukraine negotiations going?

The US-backed talks have faltered over the latest Russian offensive to seize the remaining parts of Ukraine’s eastern Donetsk ⁠region, which Moscow has demanded Kyiv cede before it considers ending its war. Meanwhile, the two sides continue to carry out strikes against each other, with Ukraine making significant inroads in destroying Russian energy infrastructure in recent weeks.

On Sunday, Ukrainian officials said Russian attacks had killed at least three people, and that close to 150 combat engagements had occurred on the front lines in the previous 24 hours, despite the three-day pause in fighting.

“In other words, the Russian army is not observing any silence on the front and is not even particularly trying to,” Zelenskyy said in his evening address, adding that Ukrainian troops were responding and defending their positions.

On Sunday, Russia’s Ministry of Defence accused Ukraine of violating the pause, saying it had ‌downed 57 Ukrainian drones over the past day and “responded in kind” on the battlefield.

Control of the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, Europe’s largest, has also been a point of contention.

While Putin suggested the war was “coming to an end” on Saturday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said peace in Ukraine was a “very long way” away.

On Sunday, Russia’s Interfax news agency quoted Kremlin adviser Yury Ushakov saying that US envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner would visit Moscow “soon enough” to continue talks with Russia.

Are Ukraine and the West likely to trust Schroeder?

EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas reacted with scepticism to Putin’s proposal. “If we give the right to Russia to appoint a negotiator on our behalf, you know, that would not be very wise,” she told reporters on Monday in advance of foreign ministers’ talks in Brussels.

“Gerhard Schroeder has been a high-level lobbyist for Russian state-owned companies. So it’s clear why Putin wants him to be the person so that actually, you know, he would be sitting on both sides of the table,” she added.

Germany dismissed Putin’s suggestion on Sunday. The Reuters news agency quoted a German official as saying the offer was not credible because Russia had not changed any of its conditions, stressing that any talks with the EU would need to be closely ‌coordinated ‌with member states and Ukraine.

The official, who ⁠spoke on condition ⁠of anonymity, said Putin had made a series of bogus offers aimed at dividing the Western alliance.

Bomber and several fighters detonate explosives-laden vehicle near security post in Bannu, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, near Afghanistan.

A car bombing at ⁠a police post followed by an intense firefight has killed at least three officers ⁠in northwestern Pakistan, according to police and security sources.

The attack took place in Bannu, a district in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province bordering Afghanistan, late on Saturday.

Police official Zahid Khan told The Associated Press that a suicide bomber and several fighters detonated an explosives-laden vehicle near a security post. Shortly after, multiple explosions were heard and the security post collapsed from the impact of the blast, he said.

Pakistan’s Dawn reported that nearby civilian areas also suffered severe damage due to the blasts, and two civilians were injured.

The Reuters news agency, citing security officials, reported that after the bombing, there was an ambush on police personnel rushing ⁠to the scene to provide backup.

Police official Sajjad Khan told Reuters that more casualties were feared. He added that fighting was ongoing and the extent of the damage would only be known once ‌the operation was over.

Police sources told Reuters ⁠the aggressors also used drones in the attack.

Ambulances from ⁠rescue agencies and civil hospitals were dispatched to the scene, with officials saying a state of emergency has been declared in government hospitals in Bannu.

No group immediately claimed responsibility. However, such attacks have the potential to reignite fighting along Pakistan’s border ⁠with Afghanistan.

The worst fighting in years erupted ⁠between the allies-turned-foes in February, with Pakistani air strikes inside Afghanistan that Islamabad said targeted fighters’ strongholds.

Fighting has since eased, with occasional skirmishes breaking out along the border, but no official ceasefire ‌has been brokered.

Islamabad blames Kabul for harbouring armed groups who use Afghan soil to plot attacks in Pakistan. The Taliban has denied the allegations and ‌said ‌militancy in Pakistan is an internal problem.

The Pakistan Taliban, known as Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), and allied fighter groups have carried out similar attacks in the past. The Pakistan Taliban is a separate group but is often aligned with the Afghan Taliban, who seized power in Afghanistan in 2021.

In the occupied West Bank, a marathon is a political statement. Palestinians ran alongside the separation wall today, a structure that cuts them off from their land, their families, and even the sea. Al Jazeera’s @leila.shw reports from Bethlehem.

Zawiya refinery shut down in ‘precautionary measure’ as emergency declared following explosions and gunfire nearby.

Libya’s largest operational oil refinery at Zawiya has been shut down and ‌an emergency declared following fighting between armed groups nearby.

The National Oil Corporation (NOC) and Zawiya Refining Company announced a “precautionary halt” to operations and evacuated employees from the oil complex and port.

NOC confirmed the safety of all employees and added that fuel supplies would continue as normal.

A Facebook statement said alarm sirens were activated “following armed clashes involving heavy weapons that erupted around the oil complex in the early hours of Friday”.

“These clashes resulted in several heavy weapons projectiles landing in various locations within the oil complex,” adding that no significant damage had been reported.

“However, the clashes have intensified and reached the residential area adjacent to the refinery, making the area a direct target for heavy shelling and significantly increasing the risk of further damage,” it said.

Authorities in Zawiya, west of the capital Tripoli, said they had launched a “large-scale operation” against criminal groups, as fighting and explosions were heard, the AFP news agency reported.

The operation targeted “criminal hideouts and wanted individuals” who were “involved in serious acts”, the authorities said, citing “murder and attempted murder, kidnapping and extortion, drug, arms and human trafficking and illegal migration”.

Videos verified by Al Jazeera showed explosions and gunfire, as well as damage to several cars and facilities inside the refinery. The sound of sirens was audible after shells fell inside operational sites.

The Zawiya Refining Company called on all parties to cease fire immediately and for the Libyan authorities to intervene to protect lives and key facilities.

The refinery, around 40km (25 miles) west of Tripoli, has a capacity of 120,000 barrels per day. It is connected to the 300,000 ⁠bpd Sharara oilfield.

Since Muammar Gaddafi’s downfall in 2011, Libya has been plagued by violence between the Tripoli-based Government of National Unity (GNU), led by Prime Minister Abdul Hamid Dbeibah, and the eastern-based government, led by military leader Khalifa Haftar which is not internationally recognised.

It is unclear what caused the fighting, but local media said it started following a security operation against armed groups.

Preah Vihear/Siem Reap provinces – When asked how she spends her day, 11-year-old Sokna rattled off a list of chores.

She first fetches water, then washes dishes and sweeps the leaves and dust from around the blue tarpaulin tent her family now calls home, in the grounds of a Buddhist pagoda in northwestern Cambodia.

Sokna and her sister have stopped attending school, their mother Puth Reen said, since moving to this camp for people displaced by the recent rounds of fighting between Thailand and Cambodia.

The two sisters are among more than 34,440 people who remain in displacement camps in Cambodia – 11,355 of whom are children – as of this month, according to the country’s Ministry of Interior.

“I tried to tell them to go to school, but they don’t go,” Puth Reen told Al Jazeera, explaining how precarious life had become since returning to live in Cambodia after fleeing neighbouring Thailand, where she had worked for many years, as the fighting started.

Like Puth Reen and her family, the future looks murky for the tens of thousands of Cambodians – including many schoolchildren – who are still in displacement camps, and their lives remain disrupted months after the last outbreak of fighting between Thailand and Cambodia.

Forced to flee their homes in areas where local troops are now stationed and on high alert, or in areas occupied by opposing Thai forces, Cambodia’s internally displaced say they are surviving off aid donations, while those more fortunate are transitioning from emergency tents into wooden stilted houses provided by the Cambodian government.

But with tension still evident between the leadership in Bangkok and Phnom Penh, the tenuous ceasefire along the Thai-Cambodia border means life cannot yet return to normality.

Some areas on the Cambodian border, such as the villages of Chouk Chey and Prey Chan in Banteay Meanchey province, have become rallying points for nationalists who post on social media about the Thai occupation of Cambodian territory. Their anger is directed at the large shipping containers and barbed wire that Thai forces have used to block access to villages once inhabited by Cambodians and occupied during fighting.

The Thai military-installed containers now form a sort of new frontier between the two countries.

The Cambodian military has also prevented people, such as local farmer Sun Reth, 67, from returning to their homes in front-line areas, which are still highly militarised zones, with troops ready at any moment for a new round of fighting.

“Now the Cambodian military base is just next to [my house],” Sun Reth said, adding that she was not allowed by authorities to sleep in her modest home or pick cashew nuts from her farm to sell for a little income.

Cambodian children more focused on ‘rumours’ of war

The long-held border dispute between Thailand and Cambodia erupted into two rounds of conflict last year, over five days in July and almost three weeks in December.

Dozens were reported killed on both sides, and hundreds of thousands of civilians fled their homes as both countries’ armed forces fired artillery, rockets, and, in the case of Thailand, conducted air strikes deep into Cambodian territory. Thailand has a modern air force, a military capability not possessed by its smaller neighbour.

Cambodian and Thai officials reached a ceasefire on December 27, but the situation remains tense five months on.

For families who fled the fighting, school continues for most children in the displacement camps, but parents say education is fragmented while their lives are still so unsettled.

Mothers at the Wat Bak Kam camp for the displaced in Preah Vihear province told Al Jazeera that primary school students can join classes at a local school, but high school students need to travel daily to the provincial capital, about 15km (9 miles) away.

Now the rising cost of petrol, due to the US-Israel war on Iran, has made it even harder for teenaged students, who have access to motorcycles, to make the journey to school.

Kinmai Phum, technical lead for WorldVision’s education programme, which is providing support to the camps, said school dropout rates and children skipping classes have increased substantially among students from the displaced border regions.

Kinmai Phum said the situation is a perfect storm of problems: Displaced families have been forced to move around for shelters, schools and temporary learning spaces lack facilities, and some students have psychological trauma due to the conflict.

“Local authorities [are] concerned that many children may not return to school at all if displacement and economic hardship persist,” Kinmai Phum said.

Yuon Phally, a mother of two, said she had noticed the impact of the war on her daughter and son, who are in their first and third years in primary school.

When they return from school, Yuon Phally said, they tell her about rumours they had heard about Cambodia and Thailand resuming fighting.

“Their feeling is not fully focused on school; they focus more on these rumours,” she said.

Her children’s world was more impacted by the conflict because their father is a soldier stationed in the Mom Bei area of the border.

During the fighting in December, Yuon Phally said she could not convince her children to go to school because they all waited to see if their father would call on a mobile phone from the front line.

“I couldn’t hold back my tears, and that added more pressure onto my kids,” she said.

“They would ask about their dad and how he is doing now. Then they told me to eat rice. They understood my feelings.”

She said her children’s focus on their studies only improved after their father returned from fighting to the camp where they are staying, to rest and recover from sickness and injuries sustained in battle.

‘Who doesn’t want to have peace?’

Soeum Sokhem, a deputy village chief, told Al Jazeera how his home is located in the militarised “danger zone” along the border, but he feels compelled to return every few days to check on his house, tend crops, sleep an occasional night, and check in with other neighbours doing the same.

“I can’t just stay here”, he said of camp life.

“I have to go back.”

When asked how he felt about the border war, Soeum Sokhem said he had experienced so much war in Cambodia that he did not know how to describe his “inner feeling like I really want to”.

He then listed off all the conflicts he had lived through in Cambodia since the 1960s: The spill over into Cambodia from the US war in neighbouring Vietnam; the US bombing campaign in Cambodia; the genocidal Khmer Rouge regime, and the civil war that followed after Vietnam’s intervention to topple the regime’s leader Pol Pot in 1979, and which lasted until the mid-1990s.

Then in the 2000s, sporadic border fights with Thailand began, he said.

Cambodia’s contemporary history has been anything but peaceful, a fact which might explain why the current Cambodian government so often speaks of peace. Government buildings and billboards proclaim the government’s unofficial motto: “Thanks for peace.”

“But who doesn’t want to have peace?” Soeum Sokhem said, after charting his life and the many conflicts he had lived through.

Now the 67-year-old said he once again hears gunfire occasionally when he returns to check on his home on the front line.

“Before, when I walked there, it was normal,” he said.

“But nowadays, I walk with fear when going back there.”

Israeli attacks killed at least 31 people in southern Lebanon on Friday, including a rescue worker, Lebanon’s official National News Agency said.