conflict

At least 10 civilians were killed in West Kordofan and 5,500 displaced in Blue Nile as clashes widened on Tuesday.

Sudan’s military chief, Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, has promised to seize “every inch” of territory under the control of the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), rejecting negotiations to end three and a half years of war.

Al-Burhan made the comments on Tuesday while addressing a gathering in Village 5, located in the northern Sudanese locality of Merowe, according to the Sudan News Agency.

He said the “military option” would continue until the RSF was removed from Sudan.

The Sudanese army and the RSF have been fighting since April 2023 after leaders of the groups fell out over plans to integrate the paramilitary force into Sudan’s army. The conflict has killed tens of thousands of people and displaced around 13 million, according to UN and international estimates.

Al-Burhan’s pledge to continue fighting came as 10 civilians were killed and several others were wounded in an attack by the RSF in Sudan’s West Kordofan state, according to a local charity group.

In a statement, the Dar Hamar Emergency Committee accused the RSF of multiple violations against civilians in Abu Ajal village in the southeastern countryside of En Nahud.

The RSF has been massing in West Kordofan as Sudan’s army advances towards the cities of En Nahud and Al Khuway after gains in neighbouring North Kordofan.

In Sudan’s Blue Nile state, more than 5,500 people were displaced from villages over three days amid deteriorating security, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) said on Tuesday.

Meanwhile, an envoy of US President Donald Trump said Sudanese parties must take the lead in talks to end the war.

In a post on X on Monday, Massad Boulos, the US senior adviser for Arab and African affairs, said peace could be achieved “through an inclusive Sudanese-owned and Sudanese-led national dialogue, transition toward a civilian-led government”.

The US State Department said last month that neither the Sudanese Armed Forces, the RSF, nor their respective leaders “represent legitimate, constitutional governance for Sudan”.

After Israeli soldiers stormed Birzeit University near Ramallah to demolish a stone memorial dedicated to dead students, Rania Washaha, 47, felt the pain of bereavement again.

Her brother, Fadi, 34, was shot in the head by an Israeli soldier near the northern entrance to el-Bireh in the central West Bank in May 2021.

His name was among the 38 students from the university killed by Israel and listed on the stone pillar known as the Martyrs’ Monument.

Israeli soldiers raided the university campus at dawn on Monday, accompanied by 10 military vehicles. A bulldozer demolished the pillar, and soldiers took away the marble stone. In its place, the Israelis left a planter containing a fig sapling, bearing the inscription: “Water it twice.”

Targeting the University

This raid marks the fifth Israeli incursion into the campus since the beginning of 2026 and the 28th since 2002.

Birzeit University’s administration condemned the recent raid, describing the destruction of the Martyrs’ Monument as a violation of international law and an attack on education and national memory.

“Bulldozers won’t erase the memory of the martyrs, military vehicles won’t extinguish the light of knowledge, and these assaults won’t break the university’s resolve to pursue its academic and national mission,” a statement by the university pledged.

It came 10 days after another incursion by Israeli forces during the daytime, a day before the start of the new fall semester.

Nardeen al-Memi, the university’s public relations and media officer, told Al Jazeera in the brief minutes of their incursion, Israeli soldiers approached the monument for the first time and photographed it.

The Martyrs’ Monument was erected between 1994 and 1996, bearing the names of students and alumni at Birzeit killed by Israeli forces. The list starts with Sharaf al-Tayyibi, who was shot dead by Israeli forces on the campus in 1984. The names of other students and alumni were added during the years that followed.

“The last name inscribed on the monument was that of student Omar al-Naasan, whom soldiers killed in al-Mughayyir east of Ramallah on September 2 while he was confronting settler incursions,” said Nardeen. “Days after his death, his father came and personally wrote his son’s name on the monument.”

University students organised a protest at the site of the destroyed memorial on Tuesday afternoon, most viewing it as an Israeli attempt to intimidate them.

Sami Adel, a Birzeit student who wanted to use a pseudonym due to his fear of being detained, told Al Jazeera the memorial holds a place in the heart of everyone who has attended the university since the 1990s.

In recent years, Israel has tried to suppress any student activity dedicated to commemorating the martyrs, he said.

“Soldiers detained me for several hours three weeks ago and threatened that if I participated in any political student activity on campus, I would face a long and harsh detention,” he added.

Erasing memory

The removal of the memorial is part of a broader Israeli policy targeting memorials dedicated to Palestinians killed by Israel in the occupied West Bank.

The Israeli far-right has made the issue part of its campaign to erase markers of Palestinian identity.

Zvi Sukkot, a member of the Knesset from the Religious Zionism Party, destroyed one such memorial in the village of Madama, south of Nablus, with a sledgehammer in August. The Israeli military later said that it routinely removes “symbols of incitement”.

Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich submitted a list of approximately 40 Palestinian memorials, proposing their destruction, to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

There has been a wider targeting of civic and cultural symbols across the West Bank, particularly in Jenin, by Israeli authorities.

“Jenin Horse”, a monument constructed from the wreckage left behind by an Israeli incursion into the city, was removed. A memorial dedicated to Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh in Jenin was also targeted in 2023.

A cemetery containing the bodies of Iraqi soldiers killed during the 1948 war, also located in Jenin, has been raided by Israelis from illegal settlements.

Other landmarks embedded in the city’s collective memory, including the “Watermelon Roundabout”, have also been targeted.

Crushing resistance

Israel’s targeting of Palestine’s collective memory has coincided with a wider campaign of suppression in the occupied West Bank.

Palestinian universities have been a particular target in this pressure campaign, with campuses raided, students detained, and strict restrictions on activities and events within university grounds.

Israeli authorities are likely focusing on Palestinian universities because they hold a special significance for Palestinian resistance. They historically served as spaces for anti-occupation activism and have been an integral part of the Palestinian political landscape for decades.

Political analyst Mohammed al-Qeeq, who served as president of the Birzeit University Student Council between 2006 and 2007, told Al Jazeera that Israel has targeted writers, influencers, and activists, along with students, to deter any resistance to the occupation.

Universities have historically served as a “fundamental pillar” of Palestinian resilience and identity.

“Israel had also sought to weaken Palestinian political and social cohesion inside universities by deepening divisions between factions and creating chaos”, he said.

Remembering Fadi

For Rania, the memorial served to cement the names of the martyred students in the minds of the next generation of Berzeit students, including her brother’s.

“I cannot deny that I felt a pang of anguish when the memorial was demolished,” she told Al Jazeera. “I realised the goal wasn’t simply to uproot a physical object; I felt the suppressed violence Israel inflicts upon us.”

The memorial, constructed in 1996, stood on the campus when Fadi studied at Birzeit University. He had been arrested multiple times, spending a total of eight years in detention, and Israel denied Fadi the chance to wear a graduation gown.

“He didn’t even complete two years of study due to repeated arrests and injuries from soldiers’ gunfire,” Rania said. “Yet, he loved Birzeit University dearly and would stand by the memorial, contemplating the names of the student martyrs, never knowing that his own name would one day be added to theirs.”

This year, Rania’s son enrolled at Birzeit University as a first-year student. Shortly before classes started last September, an Israeli officer phoned him, threatening him if he participated in any student activities on campus. “Remember what we did to your uncle,” they warned him.

Neighbouring countries say coastal states must govern Red Sea as fighting escalates in northern Ethiopia.

Ethiopia’s Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed has insisted that his landlocked country must have access to the Red Sea, despite a conflict in the north of the country that risks escalating into a regional conflict.

Abiy made the demand as he was sworn in for another five-year term in power on Monday. His call came as Ethiopian forces were pushing back opposition forces in the northern Tigray region, which are backed by Eritrea, whose independence in 1993 blocked Addis Ababa’s access to the coast.

Repeating previous assertions, Abiy said in a speech in Parliament that the country would work to secure a port on the Red Sea, saying that access was critical to Ethiopia’s “civilisation”.

“Based on the principle of give and take, we will work diligently to ensure that Ethiopia has an outlet to the sea,” he said.

Abiy’s new term and call for Red Sea access come amid worsening relations between Ethiopia and its neighbours.

Ethiopia has accused Eritrea, Egypt and Sudan of supporting opposition forces in the northern Tigray region, following a resurgence of fighting against Abiy’s government.

Lower-level clashes between the federal military and Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) began in August, violating a three-year-old peace deal that ended a devastating two-year war between the parties.

Fighting intensified following the formation of the Ethiopian Peoples’ Forces Alliance for Survival – a coalition of seven armed movements, including the TPLF, which has committed itself to removing Abiy’s government.

In an exclusive interview with Al Jazeera, Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud said Somalia did not object to Ethiopia gaining access to the Red Sea through Somali territory but added that the two countries would need to officially negotiate.

Four of the five countries bordering the Red Sea – Egypt, Eritrea, Sudan and Somalia – met on Sunday in Egypt’s New Alamein, claiming that oversight of the coastline was reserved for bordering states.

The following day, Ethiopia’s Foreign Ministry said discussions over the Red Sea must account for the country’s “legitimate interests and enduring connection” to the body of water.

The incident is the latest suspected Russian drone incursion, as fears grow that the war in Ukraine could spill over.

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has blamed a Russian drone attack for the sinking of a ship in Romania’s section of the Black Sea.

Romania reported that two people were killed and 11 rescued when a grain ship caught fire and sank in its waters on Monday. The Ukrainian president’s claim suggests the incident is the latest in a series of suspected incursions along NATO’s eastern flank, and will fuel concerns that Moscow’s war in Ukraine could spill over.

“A horrific strike by two Russian drones on a civilian vessel in neutral waters carrying corn and owned by Turkiye,” Zelenskyy wrote on social media.

According to the Romanian Ministry of Internal Affairs, the coastguard was alerted at about 11am local time (08:00 GMT) that a fire had broken out on the ship, adding that it was in the country’s “exclusive economic zone”.

The ministry did not identify the cause of the fire.

Azerbaijani and Indian citizens were on board the ship at the time of the attack, it is reported.

Romania is among several NATO members to have reported incursions this year, as Russia and Ukraine have increasingly turned to launches of hundreds of drones and missiles.

In May, a Russian drone hit an apartment building. In June, a stray Ukrainian maritime drone exploded in the Black Sea port of Constanta. In July, Bucharest summoned Russia’s ambassador after air defences intercepted three drones within the span of one week.

Incursions by Russian drones into eastern European airspace are seen by some as a test of NATO and the European Union’s defences and response capabilities.

The Baltic states have also seen drones enter their airspace throughout the war, with airspace violations contributing to the collapse of Latvia’s government in late May after a dispute over how to respond to the incursions.

The incursions have also prompted Poland to bolster its air defence posture after accusing Moscow of violating its airspace in September. Suspected drones were shot down twice in Moldova.

Romania’s Ministry of National Defence said the Romanian Naval Forces had destroyed nine drifting sea mines in the Black Sea since the start of the war.

Last week, a British bomb disposal robot roamed the area near the Royal Air Force (RAF) base at Fairford and 85 homes were evacuated as the threat of an attack appeared imminent.

Days later, the United States speedily sent B-1 bombers stationed there, which were used to strike Iran in its ongoing war, back home. About a dozen had been stationed at the air base.

The foiled incident resulted in no charges and the release of five suspects, and subsequently a separate British-Iranian suspect. But the US cited concerns about more potential attacks for its decision to withdraw its fleet. Tehran has denied any link to the alleged plot to target the base.

RAF Fairford was a pit stop for US bombers during the war – but more importantly, it allowed Washington to rapidly unleash intensive strikes on Iran, say analysts.

They added that their withdrawal reduces Washington’s ability to rapidly generate and sustain bombing missions, but it will not prevent the US from continuing to strike Iran.

“The United States has lost a convenient launchpad, not its underlying strike capability,” Dania Thafer, executive director of the Gulf International Forum and a lecturer at Georgetown University, told Al Jazeera.

Long bombing campaigns made more demanding

The analysts were in agreement that the British base gave the US a faster and more efficient way to sustain strikes on Iran.

The bombers at the Fairford base were officially stationed there for defensive strikes – at the behest of the UK government – and likely had a modest targeting list, said Christoph Bergs, an analyst at the world’s oldest defence and security thinktank, the Royal United Services Institute.

“Their withdrawal reduces the capacity to quickly surge sorties against Iran, reducing the threat level somewhat,” Bergs told Al Jazeera.

Thafer explained that while the loss of the bombers does not remove the US’s ability to strike or escalate, “depending on where other assets are positioned, it could make a prolonged bombing campaign more demanding”.

The removal of B-1 bombers imposes a number of tactical costs, says Arun Dawson. He is a PhD candidate at King’s College London’s Freeman Air and Space Institute and a researcher with the UK Nuclear Deterrence Network.

Unlike the more modern B-2 stealth bomber designed to make enemy tracking difficult – which has also previously been stationed at RAF Fairford – “the B-1’s principal advantage is its conventional weapons payload – the largest of any aircraft in the US military”, Dawson told Al Jazeera. The B-1 carries at least 34 tonnes of ordnance, he said.

“This makes the B-1 particularly effective at delivering large volumes of precision-guided weapons against multiple targets during a prolonged air campaign,” said Dawson.

“In the Iran war, those targets may include air-defence infrastructure, ballistic missile sites and IRGC facilities,” he added, referring to the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.

With the B-1s withdrawing, the US may now have to rely more heavily on longer-range missions from the US or other distant bases, increasing flight times, crew fatigue and the need for aerial refuelling, he explained.

Still, the US may have made the withdrawal decision based on an examination of risks, said Dawson.

“Their abrupt departure suggests that specific threats may have been directed at the aircraft, their crews or the base itself,” he said.

Washington may have also calculated that temporarily withdrawing the bombers could protect it for future operations, especially if the US does not expect the Iran war to intensify any time soon, said Dawson.

For David Des Roches, a professor at the Thayer Marshall Institute and a former Pentagon official, the B-1 withdrawal suggests that the risks outweighed the benefits of keeping the jets at the UK airbase.

The security incident last week “exposed a vulnerability” as the aircraft were “out in the open” and only about 300 yards (275 metres) from where the public could see them.

“So they were very vulnerable to, say, drone attacks or other kind[s] of mortar attacks,” he told Al Jazeera.

“Just a small drone or any kind of a drone with explosives on board could conceivably cause significant damage,” said Des Roches.

The former Pentagon official acknowledged that the deployment of the US bombers means “you lose a little bit of operational ability,” but said that given the threat seen at Fairford, “we should have had overhead cover for all of our aircraft, globally, years ago”.

Can the bombers go elsewhere?

The US has two potential options if the bombers are to be redeployed: to Diego Garcia, the remote coral atoll in the central Indian Ocean hosting both a US and UK military base; or to its many US bases in the Gulf.

Thafer pointed out that Diego Garcia offers greater protection from potential Iranian attacks, but requires longer flight distances.

Rerouting the bombers to Diego Garcia will also depend on how quickly additional aircraft can be folded into the local basing infrastructure, pointed out Bergs.

Stationing them in the Gulf closer to Iran would give them the advantage of shortened transit times, reduced tanker requirements and the ability to generate sorties more rapidly, said Dawson.

But basing in the Gulf region, the analysts agreed, will require more deliberate negotiations around risk mitigation, given that these countries have taken the brunt of Iranian counterstrikes throughout the war. They also want to avoid being seen as direct participants in a US campaign against Iran.

Fairford had therefore offered a “useful” middle ground between the two options, said Thafer.

But with Fairford no longer an option, Diego Garcia would be the more obvious choice, Dawson said, offering not only greater distance from Iran but also a more secure operating environment. It has infrastructure designed to support large-scale US air operations, he said.

US capabilities in the war ahead

For now, the withdrawal appears to blunt rather than eliminate US bombing capacity against Iran.

However, the practical impact on US military options will depend largely on whether the administration sees a need for such strikes now, or whether the threat posed by similar aircraft stationed at Diego Garcia is sufficient for the time being, said Bergs.

The expected arrival of the Theodore Roosevelt carrier strike group and the Makin Island Marine Expeditionary Force to the Middle East by November, meanwhile, will add significant US carrier-based air power in the region, said Dawson.

“Aircraft for aircraft, carrier fighters cannot substitute for the B-1’s enormous payload, but there are many more of them, giving commanders additional options for shorter-range strikes,” he said.

What this episode highlights, said the researcher, is the importance – and the vulnerability – of the US’ alliances and overseas basing.

Washington has long enjoyed access to a global network of military facilities – which has been key for its ability to project power rapidly and at scale, he said.

But if those bases face attacks or political restrictions – the implications would extend beyond the Iran war, warned Dawson.

They would affect “how the US military structures its forces, distributes its assets, generates combat power and sustains operations overseas”.

The United Kingdom’s Green Party has voted to define Zionism as a form of racism, drawing condemnation from the Israeli government.

In a binding vote held at the party’s conference over the weekend, members voted to usher in the new definition as well as a series of other strongly pro-Palestine policies.

However, just as the resolution has drawn international criticism, it has also proved internally controversial with four of the party’s five members in parliament opposing it.

Israel on Monday banned party leader Zack Polanski from the country just a day before the politician faces a by-election as he runs in the London constituency that former Prime Minister Keir Starmer represented.

Zionism emerged as a political ideology in the late 19th century. It called for the creation of a Jewish homeland at a time of rising anti-Semitism and persecution of Jews in Europe. Theodore Herzl, an Austro-Hungarian journalist considered the father of political Zionism, originally proposed an independent and colonial Jewish state in either Palestine or Argentina.

Here’s what we know about what the Greens have said:

What is the resolution?

The Greens endorsed the motion to equate Zionism with racism by a vote of 1,022 to 813.

In addition, the party restated its “commitment to Palestinian liberation” and called for the “establishment of a single democratic state throughout historic Palestine”.

The party also recommitted to its support of Palestinians’ right of return as well as to the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement against Israel.

“The real, material, manifestation of Zionism has been the historic and ongoing dehumanisation, displacement, dispossession, disenfranchisement and destruction of Palestinians,” a Green Party statement said.

A  significant number of party members, including four of its five MPs, were against parts of the resolution, exposing divisions within the party.

Codeputy leader Rachel Millward said in a post on X that while the party is committed to “stop the genocide”, the term Zionism means “different things to different people, … so I personally do not think the policy helps us do the work we all want to”.

Meanwhile, Polanski, who is Jewish and was away campaigning during the vote, told journalists afterwards that if Zionism equates to the displacement of Palestinians, “that is clearly racist.”

Polanski said he, however, did not support the reference to a single Palestinian state and external entities should not decide what a future state would look like.

How has Israel responded?

Israel has accused the party of legitimising “terrorism”, and senior officials equated it to anti-Semitism.

“The Greens have adopted not only the green of Hamas, but also its ideology: the elimination of the State of Israel through armed struggle,” the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs wrote on social media.

Israeli President Isaac Herzog said it would “deliberately endanger Jews and Israelis everywhere”. Opposition leader Yair Lapid said the party was “racist”.

The Green Party has rejected equating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism and reiterated its stance against “any form of discrimination or harassment”.

“We know there is no conflict between supporting the rights of Palestinians and the rights of Jewish people,” Polanski and other senior party members said in a statement on Sunday.

Has Zionism been equated to racism before?

Yes. In 1975, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution that “determines that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination”.

The vote was sponsored by the Soviet bloc and the Arab League. It passed after 72 countries, largely from the Middle East and Africa, voted for it. Israel and 34 other countries – chiefly from the West – were against it. Thirty-two other countries abstained.

Just a year before, at the 1974 General Assembly, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat had given his “olive branch” speech at the General Assembly.

About the same time, African countries opposing the apartheid regime in South Africa, which was increasingly allying with Israel, had resolved separately that the Israeli government was “racist” and both had an “imperialist origin.”

Also, in 1975, at the first international women’s conference, held in Mexico City, attendees decided there would be no international peace outside the “elimination of foreign occupation, Zionism, apartheid” and all other forms of “racial discrimination”.

However, the General Assembly vote proved controversial. Chaim Herzog, then-Israeli ambassador to the UN and later president, told the assembly in a speech that it was “based on hatred, falsehood and arrogance” and proceeded to rip up copies of the resolution in front of the audience.

The US too accused the UN of making “anti-Semitism international law”.

In December 1991, the US, under President George HW Bush, stepped up a campaign to revoke the resolution with Bush declaring at the UN that equating Zionism with racism “is to reject Israel itself” and to “challenge its right to exist”.

Israel also insisted it would not participate in the Madrid Peace Process to continue negotiations between Israel and Palestinian leaders if the resolution was not cancelled.

After much pressure from the US, an overwhelming majority of countries voted for its revocation – 111 to 25, including European and African countries.

Who else equates Zionism with racism?

Jewish Voice for Peace, the American anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinian advocacy group, has also named Zionism as a movement that creates a “racist hierarchy with European Jews at the top”.

In a February statement, the group reiterated its stance against what it called the “colonial ideology” of Zionism’s founders.

Similarly, in the United Kingdom, an employment tribunal in 2024 backed anti-Zionist activist and professor David Miller, who was earlier sacked from his post at the University of Bristol in 2021 for his views that the movement was “inherently racist”.

WASHINGTON — Late September in the Oval Office, President Trump declared, “Iran will never have a nuclear weapon. We’re gonna win that war very soon.”

It wasn’t the first time he’s described the hostilities as “war.”

On Feb. 28, the day U.S. and Israeli began bombarding Iran, he warned that “the lives of courageous American heroes may be lost, and we may have casualties. That often happens in war, but we’re doing this not for now. We’re doing this for the future, and it is a noble mission.”

But throughout seven months of back-and-forth strikes with Iran, Trump administration officials, and sometimes Trump himself, have performed verbal acrobatics to avoid the “W” word.

President Trump, addressing the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 22, used the word “war” one time when referring to hostilities with Iran.

(Pool / Getty Images)

Senior administration officials loosely tossed around “war” during the first stages of conflict, but with polls showing the war in unpopular and congressional support waning, “war” and even “Operation Epic Fury” have become taboo among members of the Trump administration.

Trump has called attacks on Iran a “military operation,” “military decimation,” “excursion” and “skirmish.”

At a White House press briefing last month, Vice President JD Vance attempted to clear the air when a reporter asked about a potential end to what she called a “war in Iran.”

“I wouldn’t call it a war right now,” Vance said. “Major combat operations lasted for about six weeks.”

Vice President JD Vance, addressing reporters at the White House on Sept. 3, said, “I wouldn’t call it a war right now” when asked about the conflict with Iran.

(Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth tread carefully in front of the Senate Appropriations Committee in July, repeatedly referring to a “conflict” in Iran that needed additional funding to continue.

On May 5, during the first of two delicate ceasefires with Iran, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced an end to the objectives laid out in Operation Epic Fury and the beginning of “Project Freedom” — an effort to escort merchant ships through the Strait of Hormuz.

In April, Trump announced the blockade of Iranian ports. When asked about whether the blockade constituted an act of war, Rubio replied, “That’s not an act of war, that’s a defensive measure. It’s a counter to what they have decided to do.”

Senior Trump officials have maintained that the conflict can no longer be viewed as war because the intensity of strikes between the two countries has been reduced.

The “end” of Operation Epic Fury, the name Trump used when he announced hostilities on Feb. 28, was declared on May 5 — 60 days after the fighting began.

The timing was no coincidence. Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, a president must cease all hostilities abroad after 60 days if there is no congressional declaration of war.

Legal and political considerations

Under the Constitution, only Congress declares war, but past presidents have routinely circumvented this rule by exercising their authority to direct the military and initiate strikes on targeted nations.

Nearly every modern president, from Dwight D. Eisenhower to Trump, has used this justification to undertake military action without the declaratory approval of Congress.

Congress can also choose to approve an Authorization for Use of Military Force, which grants the president legal authority to conduct military operations overseas.

Unless Congress sets a time limit on the authorization, authority to use the legal justification to launch military strikes can theoretically span multiple administrations.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a former constitutional law professor at American University, said that presidents of both parties have avoided the term “war” when attempting to evade congressional approval of hostile action abroad.

“Trump has followed some of his predecessors in playing word games with the war power,” Raskin said. “What makes his case so extreme is that he proudly described it as a war and depicted it in glorified military terms.”

In March, seven days into the fighting, Trump said, “The war itself is going unbelievably. It’s as good as it can be.”

Congress has not officially declared war since World War II. The Vietnam War, the invasion of Afghanistan and both wars in Iraq were all approved by Congress under the umbrella of an Authorization for the Use of Military Force.

This year Congress has not approved such an authorization for the action with Iran. Fourteen Senate votes for a War Powers Resolution to curb Trump’s war efforts have failed in the chamber so far.

According to a CNN/SSRS poll last month, only 26% of Americans approve of the Trump administration’s handling of the Iran war.

Raskin said that he believes Trump’s terminology has shifted with the public mood, adding that he hasn’t heard any of his Republican colleagues “play along with the semantic games.”

“When things have turned south in the fortunes of this war, he has tried to pretend it’s something else,” Raskin said. “I think that has just further enraged the population.”

Past handling of congressional war power

The administration’s declaration that Operation Epic Fury had concluded echoed May 2003, when then-President George W. Bush stood in front of a banner reading “Mission Accomplished” aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, approximately six weeks after Operation Iraqi Freedom began.

“Major combat operations in Iraq have ended,” Bush said. “And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.”

President George W. Bush speaks aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln off the California coast on May 1, 2003.

(J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

Despite the victory lap, combat operations in Iraq and across the Middle East continued through the aughts. The Iraq war wouldn’t officially end until 2011, with President Obama’s signature.

Obama himself relied heavily on the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force — passed by Congress under Bush — in his military campaign against Islamic State during his presidency.

According to Council on Foreign Relations data, Obama launched 542 drone strikes and killed 3,797 people in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia without renewed approval from Congress.

A case more analogous to Trump’s comes in former President Truman’s unilateral decision to deploy U.S. troops to Korea in 1950. The Truman administration forwent congressional approval altogether and used United Nations Security Council resolutions to justify the intervention against Communist forces in the north, according to a White House news release from the time.

There were many critics of this exercise of executive war powers, most notably, Ohio Republican Sen. Robert A. Taft, who argued that Truman had usurped congressional war powers.

However, that Congress still provided monetary support, granting Truman military funds and extensions to the draft to raise additional troops for the Korean War effort. According to historical Gallup polls, 78% of Americans in 1950 approved of U.S. intervention in Korea.

Trump sticking with ‘war’

While Vance and other administration officials continue to avoid “war,” it does slip out now and then. Trump has been, perhaps, the most discordant messenger of the administration when discussing Iran.

After referring to the “war” on social media and public interviews more than a dozen times, Trump backed Vance’s comments about the Iran war no longer being active as he spoke to reporters in the Oval Office in September. He refuses to call the conflict a “war,” Trump said, because “you are supposed to get approval.”

“I call it a military conflict, because it’s small potatoes for us,” Trump said.

As Israel prepares to mark three years since the October 7 attacks and with less than a month to go to parliamentary elections, one topic is dominating the electoral agenda.

Media reports that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was warned by the United Arab Emirates before the attacks have put his alleged responsibility back in the spotlight.

“Did he know?” is the question on everyone’s lips.

Listening to the accusatory choir, one might think that Israeli society finally is acknowledging the real meaning of October 7. Yet the opposite is true.

Instead of giving a platform to a reckoning, the elections function to scapegoat Netanyahu for his alleged role in facilitating Hamas’s attack while absolving Israeli society and the Zionist movement of its collective responsibility for the preceding violence and ensuing genocidal aggression.

For example, it does not insist on investigating whether the “Hannibal Directive” was deployed as part of the Israeli military response on October 7 and whether it killed Israeli citizens and how many.

It does not scrutinise subsequent Israeli military operations or whether they put the Israeli hostages in danger or how many were killed by Israeli bombs.

There is no questioning of why key Palestinian negotiators were attacked during ceasefire and hostage negotiations, including Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas’s chief negotiator, in July 2024 in Tehran and Hamas’s negotiating delegation in September 2025 in Doha.

There is no debate about why the Israeli government repeatedly rejected ceasefire proposals that could have brought the hostages back much earlier.

There is little attention paid to the fact that Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant face arrest warrants from the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity.

None of these made the cut. Why?

The answer lies in the psychological state of Israeli society. For many Israelis, October 7 became a psychological rupture, making it difficult to reconcile their sense of humanity with their complicity in the criminal reality that followed.

The problem, then, is not that Israelis are in denial or misinformed. It is that a large portion of the society is complicit in criminality and actively avoids reckoning with it.

The absence of Gaza and Palestinians more broadly from Israeli political discourse is because of their complete dehumanisation by Israeli society.

How else could one explain the absence from the election rhetoric of questions about, and subsequent accountability for, actions against the Palestinian people?

Why has the Israeli military killed at least 74,000 Palestinians, the vast majority of them civilians? Why has it carried out mass and arbitrary detentions, torture and enforced disappearances of Palestinians?

Why has it targeted journalists, medical workers and academics? Destroyed and occupied hospitals? Wiped out ancient landmarks and irreplaceable cultural heritage sites?

Why has the sadistic and often sexually deviant celebration of destruction, subjugation, ethnic cleansing and death by Israeli soldiers been allowed?

What’s more, there is also little interrogation of the consequences of bombing and invading Lebanon, killing nearly 9,000 people since October 2023. Or bombing Syria and Yemen.

These are not isolated abuses. They are symptoms of a system of theft and domination driven by greed and sustained through psychological conditioning, segregation, fear and rewards for aggression. In line with the “Wired to Steal” model, dehumanisation helps produce consent for aggression while escalation following acts of resistance leads to normalisation of further expansion and robbery.

Thus, this election is not about a reckoning with October 7 or its horrifying aftermath. It is a lens onto a fascistic settler society engaged in denial and dehumanisation of an Indigenous “other” as a means of evading and normalising its own ongoing genocidal actions. Although Netanyahu may become the scapegoat, replacing him does not address the underlying machinery of domination and may instead serve to entrench it further.

That machinery remains firmly in place. The continuity between the violence unleashed since October 7 and the longer history of Zionist colonial expansionism is striking, with no lessons learned other than how to improve and grease the machinations of genocide. Fear, victimhood and the construction of a permanently besieged “us” against a dehumanised “them” continue to produce consent for further aggression and expansion.

October 7, therefore, has become not an occasion for genuine reckoning but another means of avoiding one. Netanyahu seeks to focus responsibility for the attacks on questions of what he knew and when while leaving the much broader record of what Israel has done since largely outside the electoral debate. His opponents, meanwhile, have their own complicity and ambitions to answer for. Thus, there is little political interest in a genuine reckoning with October 7. The fixation on Netanyahu allows the wider political establishment and Israeli society to avoid confronting the system of domination in which they remain invested.

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

Maysa Abu Daoud and her daughter Mary al-Najjar among five Palestinians killed in Gaza City attack.

The Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, has expressed his “deep sorrow and grief” over the “tragic” killing of two Christian women in an Israeli air attack on Gaza City.

Maysa Abu Daoud and her daughter Mary al-Najjar were among five Palestinians killed in the attack that hit the ground floor of a building in the Remal neighbourhood on Saturday, in the latest Israeli violation of a United States-brokered “ceasefire” agreement with the Palestinian group Hamas.

In a statement, the patriarch extended his “heartfelt condolences” to the loved ones of the two women and to the Christian community in Gaza.

Their funeral took place on Saturday at Saint Porphyrius Church in Gaza City’s Old City.

The two women were Palestinian Christians from Gaza City who devoted their time to helping parishioners and displaced people sheltering at the Holy Family Church, according to Palestine’s Higher Presidential Committee for Church Affairs.

The committee’s chairman, Ramzi Khoury, described their deaths as a “painful loss” for their families, the church and its parishioners.

Mary’s son, 14-year-old Fouad al-Najjar, told the Anadolu news agency the strike hit the building at about 1:30am (22:30 GMT).

“My grandmother and my mother died. May God have mercy on them,” he said.

Al-Najjar appealed for an end to Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, saying Palestinians were losing their loved ones every day.

“We are exhausted by this war and have endured so much,” he said. “For almost three years, we have been living through the same destruction, the same grief and the same war.”

Palestinian Lutheran pastor Munther Isaac, who serves in Ramallah and directs the Bethlehem Institute for Peace and Justice, wrote on X: “The genocide continues in Gaza.”

The Gaza Strip is home to fewer than 1,000 Christians. The community was already small before the war, and many of its members have been killed since then in attacks on their homes and churches throughout the war that began in October 2023.

On October 19, 2023, an attack on the Saint Porphyrius Church compound killed at least 18 people. Two months later, the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem said an Israeli sniper shot dead a woman and her daughter inside the Holy Family parish compound in Gaza.

An Israeli strike on the Holy Family Catholic Church compound on July 17, 2025 also killed three people and wounded others, including parish priest Father Gabriel Romanelli.

According to the Ministry of Health in Gaza, Israeli attacks have killed at least 74,228 people, including at least 1,445 since the start of the “ceasefire” in October 2025.

The emperor is a symbol of Bulgarian national identity whose repatriation stoked tensions with Greece.

More than 1,000 years after his death, the remains of medieval ruler Czar Samuel have arrived in Bulgaria.

A symbol of Bulgarian national identity, Samuel was a warrior emperor who battled the Byzantine Empire to expand his kingdom before suffering defeat and dying soon after in 1014. His supposed remains were discovered in a Greek border area in the 1960s.

The coffin and remains were flown on Saturday to the Bulgarian capital, Sofia, on board a military aircraft that was surrounded by air force fighter jets.

Thousands of people poured into a public square to honour the czar’s arrival, which capped years of fraught negotiations between Bulgaria and Greece until an accord was reached this week.

Bulgarian politicians across the spectrum paid tribute to the medieval ruler, listening to the national anthem and a 21-gun salute.

“Today, we Europeans are learning to read history with a desire to belong not only to our homeland, but also to the culture that unites us across the entire European continent,” Bulgarian Prime Minister Rumen Radev said.

“That is why Europe must not reopen old wounds but must work for peace as the supreme good,” Radev continued, referring to the centuries-old rivalry between neighbouring Greece and Bulgaria.

Crowds cheered as fighter jets performed a flypast.

Martin Nestorov, a 42-year-old software engineer, told the AFP news agency he attended the ceremony “to welcome Czar Samuel back to Bulgaria, where he belongs”.

“I am here because I am Bulgarian, and a Bulgarian is returning to his homeland,” added Tsanka Zlatkova, 65, a retired art historian.

A procession brought the remains to be laid in the Church of Saint Sofia, a sixth-century basilica that is the capital’s namesake and where church officials say Samuel was baptised.

Competing claims

The handover of Samuel’s remains is part of a broader accord between the Greek and Bulgarian culture ministers.

In exchange, Greece is slated to receive 48 objects that Bulgarian troops pillaged from churches and monasteries in Greece during World War I.

Speaking before the handover, Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis said he hoped the ceremony would boost Greece’s campaign to repatriate the Parthenon Marbles, a collection of 2,500-year-old marble sculptures taken from the Acropolis in Athens and later displayed in the British Museum.

“The global community is essentially re-evaluating its longstanding stance on protecting cultural heritage,” Mitsotakis said, adding that historical heirlooms “cannot be treated as the spoils of war”.

Bulgaria is not the only country to have claims on Samuel. A huge statue of the czar stands in the North Macedonian capital of Skopje, with Macedonians claiming him as “their” ruler.

In 2022, a bilateral commission recommended presenting Samuel as the head of a state that “most contemporary historiographers consider to be the Bulgarian Empire”, based in what is currently North Macedonia.

EXCLUSIVE

In exclusive Al Jazeera interview, President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud says attempts to pull Somalia into Middle East crises won’t succeed.

Somalia will not accept Israeli presence in the country “under any circumstances” and will resist any attempts to be pulled into the Middle East’s crises, its President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud tells Al Jazeera.

Speaking in an exclusive interview, Mohamud said that Israel was planning to establish a naval base in Berbera and use the city’s airport, adding that its real aim was to get closer to the Gulf states and Iran.

Berbera is a port city on the Gulf of Aden coast in Somaliland – the self-declared republic in northwestern Somalia that Israel recognised last year, but which is claimed by Mogadishu.

Berbera faces Yemen across the water near the strategic Bab al-Mandeb strait. The Iran-aligned Houthis have previously enforced a blockade on Israel-linked ships in the area.

“We will overcome the challenges posed to our country by Israeli moves,” Mohamud said in his wide-ranging interview.

He added that the Israeli plans fall under the “Greater Israel” project – referring to a term for various proposals, often rooted in biblical interpretations, for Israeli control over territory beyond its current borders. Some versions extend from the Nile to the Euphrates.

Israel has not adopted it as official policy, but Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in an August 2025 interview that he felt connected to the vision, prompting condemnation from Arab governments.

The Somali president described Israel as a “destabilising force” that does not abide by international law.

He also criticised Tel Aviv’s recognition of Somaliland in December.

No country other than Israel recognises Somaliland, while the region’s own residents are completely opposed to an Israeli presence, Mohamud said.

Somaliland declared independence from Somalia in 1991 and has governed itself independently for more than three decades. But it had not secured recognition from any United Nations member state until Israel’s move.

Fight against armed groups

The Somali president told Al Jazeera the United States remains his country’s strongest partner in the fight against “terrorism”, and added that al-Shabab has no presence in the major cities, leaving no possibility of the group taking control in Somalia.

Al-Shabab is a Somali armed group that emerged from the Islamic Courts Union in the mid-2000s and pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda in 2012. It has fought Somalia’s federal government for years, holds territory in parts of southern and central Somalia, and has carried out deadly attacks, including in Mogadishu and in neighbouring Kenya.

Regarding the East Africa region, Mohamud said Somalia’s relations with neighbouring Ethiopia are good, and Mogadishu does not object to Addis Ababa gaining access to the sea through Somali territory.

Ethiopia has been landlocked since Eritrea became independent in 1993 and relies largely on Djibouti’s ports for trade. In January 2024, Addis Ababa signed a memorandum of understanding with Somaliland on sea access, which Somalia condemned as a violation of its sovereignty. Somalia and Ethiopia later agreed to ease tensions.

Houthis ‘destabilising’ region

Mohamud also accused Yemen’s Houthis of “destabilising” the region and disrupting navigation in the Bab al-Mandeb strait.

His comments come as the group attempts to build on its lightning offensive that captured the country’s Red Sea coast last month.

Thus far, Yemeni government forces have been able to hold their positions on the front lines and even claimed to have inflicted heavy losses against the Houthis.

The Houthis have also intensified their attacks on Saudi Arabia, but the kingdom’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) has promised not to compromise on its security, saying the Yemeni rebels chose “chaos and destruction, threatening the Yemeni people and the region”.

The full interview with President Mohamud will be broadcast on Al Jazeera Arabic on Sunday.

The rebels are seen leaving the capital of the northern Tigray region, according to local sources.

Ethiopia’s federal army and pro-government fighters have recaptured the main airport in the capital of the northern Tigray region, with the rebels seen leaving the city, according to multiple unnamed sources.

The Ethiopian National Defence Forces regained control of Alula Aba Nega Airport in Mekelle, one source with knowledge of events in the city and a humanitarian source told Reuters news agency on Saturday.

The airport, which is about ⁠10km (6 miles) from the centre of Mekelle, was one of three airfields in the region that were seized by the rebel forces at the start of the fighting on September 23.

The fighters, as well as the leaders of the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), were seen retreating from the city, a local journalist and residents told the AFP news agency.

The journalist added that federal forces had not yet been seen inside Mekelle.

“I am concerned that government and public property could be exposed to looting because there are no security forces in the city,” a resident told AFP.

“I am worried that lawlessness could spread in the city, and I am also afraid for my life. I want us to quickly return to law and order,” added another resident.

Al Jazeera could not independently confirm these claims. Media access is currently heavily restricted in Ethiopia, and there have been significant communications blackouts.

Last month, rebels announced the formation of a seven-party rebel coalition led by the TPLF, the same armed group that fought in the 2020-2022 civil war against federal forces from Addis Ababa. The new coalition includes rebel groups of varying sizes from across the country.

Later that month, the coalition started an offensive, seizing three airports around the contested Tigray state and engaging in fighting on the borders with Amhara and Afar states.

The government is now engaged in a counteroffensive, pushing into Tigrayan territory along three axes towards Mekelle, according to the Critical Threats Project, part of the American Enterprise Institute think tank.

Fighting has so far been concentrated in Tigray. However, rebels have reportedly carried out drone attacks on Addis Ababa.

The TPLF and government have not commented on developments on the ground.

The fighting has seen drone attacks, intensified forced conscription, and attacks on civilian infrastructure, according to Amnesty International, a global rights group.

The renewed conflict has not yet reached the heights of the Tigray war, which lasted from 2020 to 2022 and saw hundreds of thousands of deaths, but it is quickly taking on an international dimension.

Risk of conflict spreading

The government of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed has accused Eritrea, Sudan and Egypt of backing the opposition coalition. Khartoum and Cairo have denied involvement.

Eritrea has severed diplomatic ties with Ethiopia over the accusations.

On Thursday, Eritrea also denied involvement in the Tigray conflict, and accused Addis Ababa of “pursuing an agenda of incessant hostility”. It also said Ethiopia, which is landlocked, was planning to invade Eritrea to secure sovereign access to the Red Sea coast.

The TPLF’s leader, Debretsion Gebremichael, said in a video published on Thursday that “the war is regional and it is a war to control the Red Sea”.

Ethiopia has previously ruled out seeking conflict with Eritrea over access to the coast.

Portadown, Northern Ireland – When the summer holidays arrived, Chris Nelson worried about his mother.

At night, he lay awake waiting for her to return. During the day, he rang family members to ask if she was safe. There were threats and letters through the door.

“I was afraid to leave the house,” he told Al Jazeera.

His mother, Rosemary Nelson, was a lawyer representing the Catholic residents opposing the Protestant Orange Order parade along Portadown’s Garvaghy Road in Northern Ireland in the late 1990s.

Every July, as marching season approached, there was a standoff.

Orangemen sought to return from Drumcree church along what they regarded as their traditional route. Residents opposed the passage of the anti-Catholic organisation through a majority Catholic street. In some years, police forced the parade through. In later years, it was blocked.

Rosemary would spend summer evenings alongside the residents on Garvaghy Road. Before leaving home each evening, she told her son that she was going to look after families and make sure their children were okay. She compared them to his friends at primary school.

“She was a big believer in helping the underdog,” said Chris, now 39. “She did a lot of work for free.”

His mother helped people from both sides of the community. When work allowed, the family went to Bundoran, across the border, and for a day the fear would pass.

But one night, during a standoff in 1997 when the state police force, the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC), used batons to clear Catholic locals from the road, “she was beaten by the police”, said Chris. “She was spat on”, bruised and bloodied.

“That was very traumatic. I was always thinking something was going to happen to my mum.”

On a Monday in March 1999, nearly a year after the Good Friday Agreement brought an end to the conflict, Rosemary drove away from her home in Lurgan.

As she braked at a nearby junction, a bomb beneath her car exploded. Her eight-year-old daughter, Sarah, was at primary school nearby and heard the blast. The family had spent the previous weekend in Bundoran together.

Chris, 11 at the time, and his older brother were away on a school ski trip when they received a phone call with the news of her death.

“That was hard”, he said, his voice tailing off.

A legacy of loss

Nearly three decades later, another standoff has recast these childhood memories into fears for the next generation, with a renewed attempt by the Protestant Orange Order to march through the Catholic neighbourhood, threatening to unravel a fragile peace.

The Troubles began in the late 1960s as protests by Catholics against discrimination were met by repression and violence. Republican paramilitaries fought for a united Ireland as loyalists and the army battled to preserve British rule, in a conflict that killed more than 3,500 people.

The 1998 Good Friday Agreement established a framework for peace and power-sharing.

Under the agreement, the people of Portadown have lived in relative peace for the past 28 years.

But this was suddenly unsettled by a last-minute decision by the High Court to allow the march. In response, Catholic residents blocked the road. Many camped out as Orange men gathered at the top of the road, awaiting police permission to pass – an image of division that never truly left.

Many of the Garvaghy Road residents are now parents, and fear what their children might inherit from a dispute they hoped had been left behind.

Paul O’Connor, of the Pat Finucane Centre human rights group in Northern Ireland, said Rosemary Nelson is among 21 people whose deaths were linked to the Drumcree dispute.

Many are still being investigated, with families continuing to seek justice and pressing for public inquiries amid concerns about collusion between the British state and loyalist paramilitaries, many of which were members of the Orange Order.

“These murders encompass LVF (Loyal Volunteer Force) killings at that time, and are all linked to the Drumcree disputes. They were responsible for many of the killings around the Mid Ulster area at that time. They were trying to destabilise the peace process, with many riots spreading around, including into Derry,” O’Connor told Al Jazeera.

He worked with Rosemary Nelson and is now seeking a public inquiry into the murder of Sean Brown, another Drumcree-linked case, he believes. The 61-year-old father of six from Bellaghy, County Derry, was abducted and murdered in May 1997.

The following year, the three Quinn brothers – Richard, 10, Mark, nine, and Jason, eight – died after loyalists petrol-bombed their home in Ballymoney, County Antrim, as they slept. Their deaths, during the unrest surrounding Drumcree, brought widespread calls for the Orange Order to end its standoff.

Fear and loathing in Mid Ulster

In Portadown town centre, a Union flag flies among plinths dedicated to the Ulster Defence Regiment, a locally recruited unit of the British army and the Ulster Covenant – a document signed when nearly 500,000 people opposed a form of self-government for Ireland in 1912.

Around the corner, in the Edgarstown housing estate, Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) flags hang from lampposts, and the kerbs are painted red, white and blue, alongside a mural of a Rangers FC badge.

The area is one of the heartlands of unionism. The Orange Order was founded in 1795 in the village of Loughgall, a few miles from Drumcree.

The Orangemen say they have marched the route through Garvaghy Road since 1807. The parade has been blocked from Garvaghy Road since 1998, but the Orangemen have continued submitting requests to march.

The latest Parades Commission decision permitted 35 men to walk without music. Since then, Orangemen have repeatedly approached the police line before returning to the church.

Irish nationalists have criticised the police assessment underpinning the decision to allow the march, while unionists have denounced police for failing to forcibly remove protesters blocking the route.

Al Jazeera contacted the three main unionist parties – the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), the Traditional Unionist Voice (TUV) and the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) – for comment but received no response.

Addressing around 200 supporters in Portadown, loyalist activist Jamie Bryson described protesters as “an unlawful snarling mob”.

He has called for the First Minister, Sinn Fein’s Michelle O’Neill, and police Chief Constable Jon Boutcher to resign, and demands that the Orange men must be allowed to walk the Garvaghy Road.

O’Neill has faced criticism for standing beside the protesters.

At Drumcree Church, the Orangemen were not marching, but sitting down drinking tea and eating crisps. Around six men, one wearing his sash, huddled under a gazebo in the cold.

“We are waiting patiently for the chief constable to apply the law of the land,” Nigel Dawson, the Portadown Orange Order district master, told Al Jazeera.

“Portadown District has never in its history stopped a parade down the road to have a confrontation with its neighbours, ever. So I don’t know where the fear and trepidation comes from.”

Another Orangeman, who requested anonymity, added: “We are determined to get home after Sunday service … We just want to go home.”

Around a mile further down the Garvaghy Road, Irish folk band the Mary Wallopers performed to hundreds of residents and supporters.

Children danced and slid down the embankment, as parents watched from above. Palestine and Ireland flags flew in the wind.

Linda O’Neill, 51, a Garvaghy Road resident, told Al Jazeera the scene would have been unimaginable 30 years ago.

“It was horrendous growing up as a teenager. We stayed in our own community. We didn’t access the town centre … This community was a ghetto. And that was deliberate.”

Another resident, Ciaran O Ferghail, remembered summers spent surrounded by British forces.

“This community was turned into a war zone. There were tanks and British Army everywhere, thousands of RUC. This community was completely under siege every summer, by the Orange Order, the British military, the RUC and loyalist paramilitaries. We were surrounded on every road and in every direction.”

O’Neill said the confrontation changed as residents began asserting their rights.

In 1995, hundreds sat down on Garvaghy Road to block the parade. The ensuing violent standoff between security forces and Orangemen and their loyalist supporters ended in a compromise allowing the march through. Residents say they understood it would be the last.

But the following summer, the parade returned. Police initially blocked it, then reversed course after five days of widespread loyalist attacks. Officers forced residents off the road and beat them, sparking riots in Catholic communities.

In 1997, security forces sealed off the Catholic neighbourhood before dawn and allowed the parade through at midday amid loyalist threats to kill Catholics if it was stopped. Nationalist protests and violence followed. From 1998, the march was banned from Garvaghy Road. But for residents, summers remained marked by the army’s steel barricades until 2000.

Lessons from the past

Chris Nelson, almost 40, is around the same age his mother was when she was killed.

The Garvaghy Road protests mark the first time he has chosen to speak publicly about his mother.

He went on to study law at university, but says his life would have followed a different trajectory if she were still here.

The public inquiry into his mother’s death found no evidence that state security agencies had “directly facilitated” her murder, but it “could not exclude the possibility” that individual members of those agencies had helped the perpetrators.

The inquiry brought the past back repeatedly as he tried to get on with his life. But seeing photographs of families linking arms on Garvaghy Road brought back unavoidable memories of his mother.

“If she were here, that’s where she would be,” he said, “standing with the people of the Garvaghy Road”.

While there has been no violence in Portadown, in Derry’s Waterside, two recent nights of disorder saw petrol bombs and masonry thrown at police. Officers described the crowd on the second night as mostly young people.

The renewed attempt to bring the Orange Order parade through Garvaghy Road risks leaving its mark on children on both sides. With some schools closed, Chris Nelson worries about parents having to explain to their kids what is happening.

“Children don’t forget things“, he said. “They absorb everything.”

He remembers how it felt waiting for his mother each night, and how that worry followed him through the summer holidays. He wants something different for the children growing up now.

“Children shouldn’t grow up knowing the difference between Catholic and Protestant.

“It isn’t something that should be brought into the mind of a child.”

Saeed Ayed* watches over his livestock herd. The animals are starving and parched due to a two-week-long Israeli siege on the Ras al-Ahmar Bedouin community in the occupied West Bank’s Jordan Valley.

Access to the community has been blocked since mid-September, as Israeli forces continue building a barrier through Palestinian land in the area, including a road for military patrols, trenches and embankments.

Since the road closures began, movement for Palestinians has been severely restricted. They are forced to move around at night, transporting water, fodder and milk via donkeys under the cover of darkness to avoid detection by Israeli soldiers and settlers.

Ayed told Al Jazeera that no water had entered the community over the past three days after Israeli forces sealed the access points residents had been using to bring in supplies.

“The situation is dire. We are completely besieged, and the livestock cannot survive without water and food for this long,” Ayed said. “We own 15,000 head of livestock, and we fear they will perish because of the siege.”

Ras al-Ahmar is a 300-person village home to around 50 families who have lived off livestock and herding since the 1970s. Ayed said that Israeli settler attacks – part of a wider pogrom against Palestinians across the West Bank – had intensified since February, accusing settlers of trying to force residents out to seize their land.

“We have faced livestock theft, attacks on our dwellings, beatings of residents and vandalism of our homes. This was happening almost daily, yet we refused to leave. Now, they are completely besieging us to force us out,” he added.

The greatest challenge facing residents is restricted access to medical care as a result of the siege, a particular concern for the elderly.

Disease is also rampant among livestock, particularly newborn animals. And with veterinary teams unable to reach the area and treat the animals, deaths have been reported.

The military barrier – which Israel calls Crimson Thread and says it is needed for security – runs for roughly 20km (12 miles) through the northern Jordan Valley, with a width of up to 50 metres (165 feet).

Construction expanded early this year, including the digging of trenches and the bulldozing of agricultural land that damaged wells, water networks and greenhouses. The Israeli military seized nearly 115 hectares, 85 percent of which is privately owned Palestinian land, according to Kerem Navot, which monitors Israeli land policies in the West Bank.

Abdullah Bisharat, head of the village council of Ras al-Ahmar and Atuf, a nearby rural area also facing the military blockade, told Al Jazeera that the Israeli blockade has stopped 51 schoolchildren from attending classes for two weeks because vehicles can no longer reach them.

Israeli forces confiscated a tractor belonging to the village council on Sunday, detaining its driver as he was delivering animal fodder and water to Ras al-Ahmar, Bisharat said.

“We reached out to human rights organisations, but unfortunately no one was able to break the siege. Hundreds of people there are suffering, the majority of whom are women and children,” Bisharat added.

Broader context

The targeting of Bedouin and herding communities in the Jordan Valley is part of a mounting pressure campaign on residents to abandon their properties by restricting access to land and pastures. The tactics include settler violence, the demolition of structures and the closure of roads and access points.

The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) has described Bedouin and herding communities as among the groups most vulnerable to displacement in the West Bank. Dozens of Palestinian communities across the West Bank have been entirely or partially displaced since 2023, when Israel began its genocide in Gaza and ramped up its attacks on the West Bank after the October 7 Hamas attack.

OCHA has reported that at least 130 Palestinian communities have experienced full or partial displacement since January 2023, with 48 communities completely displaced, including 12 from January to August.

According to OCHA, more than 2,500 Palestinians were displaced in 2026 due to settler attacks and related access restrictions, out of a total of more than 6,400 displaced since 2023.

As the Israeli elections – scheduled for October 27 – approach, Palestinian analysts and rights advocates argue that the measures being implemented on the ground are entrenching a new reality that may persist regardless of the next government.

Hassan Mleihat, chairman of the al-Baydar Organization for Defense of Bedouin Rights, told Al Jazeera that settlers appear to be rapidly intensifying measures aimed at displacing Bedouin communities in the lead-up to the elections.

Mleihat said that Israel’s objective was to expel as many Palestinians as possible and seize control of their land.

“The road being constructed near Ras al-Ahmar aims to dominate the area’s land under security pretexts and to isolate Palestinian communities into tiny geographical pockets, effectively confining their presence there,” he said.

A new reality

Observers believe the significance of these Israeli measures against Palestinian communities extends beyond their immediate impact on the population, creating demographic, geographic and security-related changes that may prove irreversible even if the Israeli political landscape shifts after the elections.

Adel Shadid, an expert on Israeli affairs, told Al Jazeera that Israel currently exercises an unprecedented degree of control over Palestinian territory in the West Bank. Palestinians, he said, live in small, fragmented and scattered enclaves with Israeli control over security, military and economic matters, as well as the minutiae of daily life.

He said the change was not only limited to geography but also entails normalising the presence of illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank so that they are viewed as an integral part of the region’s fabric, rather than a temporary presence or a reality subject to change.

“This shift is accompanied by the entrenchment of the perception that the West Bank is no longer viewed as a Palestinian area – or even a disputed one – but rather as a territory where Jews have the right to live in safety and security,” he said.

Shadid argued that this perspective also shapes how Israeli and Palestinian communities in the West Bank are perceived by the Israeli state. Israeli settlers are presented as a population requiring protection, while Palestinians are increasingly framed primarily as a security threat.

“This logic extends to how the land and the very elements of life are treated. A tree, for instance, might be viewed as a potential resource for acts targeting the Jewish community; consequently, cutting it down is seen, within this framework, as a security measure that warrants no intervention,” he said.

Shadid said this was also changing perceptions of the role of the Israeli army and police in the West Bank. He argued that the security forces’ role was increasingly seen as protecting settlers against a so-called “Palestinian threat”, rather than restraining settler aggression against Palestinians.

“This new reality is not tied to the current Israeli government. Rather, it creates a dynamic that will persist beyond the elections, regardless of the outcome,” Shadid said.

*Saeed Ayed is a pseudonym used at the individual’s request for security reasons.

Eritrea has cut off diplomatic relations with neighbouring Ethiopia, escalating a long-simmering conflict between the two states rooted in territorial disputes and mutual accusations of interference.

The move comes as fighting flares in northern Ethiopia between Ethiopian federal troops and an opposition alliance that Addis Ababa accuses Eritrea of backing.

The clashes are the most severe in Ethiopia since its 2020-2022 civil war that killed hundreds of thousands of people.

But this time, the ripple effects could go further, potentially fuelling broader unrest in a region already plagued by numerous interrelated conflicts, analysts warn.

Here’s what we know about the Ethiopia-Eritrea conflict, the latest fighting in northern Ethiopia and what it could mean for the region at large:

Why did Eritrea break off ties with Ethiopia?

Eritrea announced it was severing ties with Ethiopia on Thursday, after Addis Ababa announced it would close its embassy in Asmara and expel 10 Eritrean diplomats.

In a statement, Eritrea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said Ethiopia’s actions had left it with “no option but to reciprocate in kind and sever all diplomatic ties with Ethiopia”.

The Eritrean ministry accused Ethiopia of pursuing a years-long “agenda of incessant hostility”, including by infringing on its coastal areas and arming fighters opposed to Ethiopia’s government.

Ethiopia has likewise accused Eritrea of backing armed groups opposed to its government. Both sides have rejected the other’s accusations.

The diplomatic breakdown follows months of worsening relations, driven largely by disputes over landlocked Ethiopia’s push for access to the Red Sea and allegations that Eritrea is backing the rebel Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), which leads the Ethiopian Peoples’ Forces Alliance for Survival, a rebel alliance fighting for control of parts of northern Ethiopia.

Have Ethiopia’s ties with Egypt and Sudan been hit, too?

Yes. Ethiopia accuses Egypt and Sudan of joining Eritrea in backing Tigrayan rebel forces, worsening already strained ties with both countries.

Ethiopia has long been at odds with Egypt over the status of Ethiopia’s Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) project, which Cairo views as a risk to its water security and share of the Nile.

Ethiopia and Egypt have also expelled diplomats. Cairo ordered an Ethiopian diplomat to leave the country on Thursday, after Addis Ababa earlier kicked out an Egyptian diplomat, Egyptian state-linked media reported.

Egyptian state-linked broadcaster Al-Qahera News quoted an Egyptian official as calling Ethiopia’s move to expel the Egyptian diplomat as “regrettable and unjustified” and saying that Cairo responded in line with “the principle of reciprocity”.

The latest conflict also has implications for Sudan, whose military-backed government accuses Ethiopia of backing rebel forces it is fighting in its own civil conflict. Ethiopia rejects those allegations.

“The conflicts in Ethiopia and Sudan have become more interconnected, with the Ethiopian government and Sudanese Armed Forces accusing each other of harbouring and equipping respective opposition forces from inside their own borders,” Ahmed Soliman, senior research fellow at the Chatham House think tank’s Africa programme, told Al Jazeera.  “Egypt has also been drawn into the escalation with its long-running enmity with Ethiopia over the Nile.”

What is happening in northern Ethiopia?

Tigrayan-led rebel forces have engaged in clashes with Ethiopian government-backed forces in the country’s north since last week. Fighting is concentrated in three regions: Tigray, Amhara and Afar.

Al Jazeera’s bureau chief in Ethiopia, Mohammed Taha Tawakel, reported that forces loyal to the federal government have made significant gains in the Tigray region, taking control of several towns and closing in on the regional capital, Mekelle.

Further east in Afar, a pro-government armed group claimed on Thursday to have recaptured the town of Erebti, which rebel forces had taken control of earlier in the week. The pro-government group thanked the Ethiopian military for its “magnificent air support” and said it would pursue further advances.

Despite the pro-government advances, Tawakel reported that rebel forces still maintain what he described as a “strong rear link with Eritrea” along the countries’ border.

He also reported growing fears that fighting could move into major urban centres of Tigray, such as Adwa, Axum, Shire and Mekelle. Some people have already begun fleeing to Amhara and Afar, he added.

Outside northern Ethiopia, the conflict appeared to spill into the capital, Addis Ababa, for the first time early on Thursday, as an explosion was reported at the Ministry of Defence.

AFP quoted a diplomatic source as saying small drones were the most probable cause of the blast.

While Ethiopia’s army has a much larger arsenal of drones, rebel forces have previously used them to target airbases and airports in various parts of the country, reported conflict monitor ACLED.

What are the roots of the Ethiopia-Eritrea dispute?

Ties between the neighbours have been historically fragile. In 1962, Ethiopia annexed Eritrea. An armed independence struggle, led by Eritrea’s current President Isaias Afwerki, secured independence in 1993. The countries fought another border war from 1998 to 2000.

When Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed came to power in 2018, he moved to end the tensions and normalise diplomatic relations with Eritrea. During Ethiopia’s last civil war in 2020-2022, Eritrea even backed Ethiopia’s government against the TPLF.

But Abiy’s ambitions to seek direct sea access for landlocked Ethiopia have contributed to recent tensions, say analysts. Abiy has repeated that Ethiopia has a right to sea access, words that officials in Asmara take as a declaration of territorial conflict with Eritrea.

Could the current conflict spread in the region?

Many analysts fear it could.

Laura Hammond, professor in development studies at SOAS University of London, told Al Jazeera this scenario is already under way.

“The risks that conflict will spread to other countries, or that neighbours in the region will be brought into the present conflict are already playing out in terms of Eritrea’s support for the TPLF and the Alliance for Survival,” said Hammond.

“There is a strong possibility that Eritrea will become more involved in the conflict on the ground inside Tigray if it continues much longer,” she continued. “There is also a risk that the conflict could inflame relations with and inside Sudan.”

Martin Plaut, an analyst specialising in the Horn of Africa, also said there was a “real danger” of the conflict spreading.

“The situation is extremely tense and it would only require a spark to ignite a conflagration that could engulf [Ethiopia and Eritrea], as well as neighbouring Sudan,” he told Al Jazeera.