East

June 10 (UPI) — Iran said it launched strikes against U.S. military bases in neighboring countries in and around the Persian Gulf early Wednesday in retaliation for American “aggression” after U.S. forces conducted strikes on targets in southern Iran.

Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters, Iran’s central command, said in a statement published by the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency that the “brave Army of the Islamic Republic and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps” carried out a “powerful assault” on U.S. military assets in the region.

“The criminal U.S. military should know that if aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran is repeated, even more severe and widespread attacks will be carried out against the designated target bank in the region, it added.

The statement was accompanied by a photo showing six ground-launched ballistic missiles blasting off from an undisclosed desert location but it was unclear if it was of Wednesday’s strikes as the image was undated and uncredited.

The IRGC claimed missiles were fired at Jordan’s Muwaffaq Salti airbase, where U.S. F-35 fighter jets and other aircraft operate out of, and that facilities in Kuwait and Bahrain were also attacked.

It said that the U.S. Fifth Fleet in Bahrain was targeted with drones.

The attacks had yet to be verified but Jordan’s armed forces said they downed five Iranian missiles targeting the country’s al-Azraq district, 60 miles east of the capital, Amman.

The Kuwaiti military, in a post on X just after 3 a.m. local time, said its air defenses were “currently intercepting hostile aerial targets.”

Bahrain’s interior ministry issued multiple alerts around the same time, advising residents that the air-raid siren had been sounded, urging them not to panic and to move to the nearest safe place to shelter immediately.

No deaths or injuries were reported.

The escalation came almost immediately after U.S. Central Command announced that it had completed “self-defense strikes” ordered by President Donald Trump in response to the downing of a U.S. Army Apache helicopter earlier Tuesday.

CENTCOM said in a statement early Wednesday that U.S. Air Force and Navy fighter jets struck Iranian air defense, ground control stations, and surveillance radar sites near the Strait of Hormuz “with precision munitions’ in an approximately four-hour-long operation.

“The operation was a proportional response to recent attacks on U.S. forces and international commercial ships transiting regional water,” said CENTCOM.

The ratcheting up of tensions prompted Beijing and Moscow to call on both sides to apply the brakes.

“China is deeply concerned over the latest developments regarding Iran. Relevant parties need to remain calm, exercise restraint, stop exacerbating confrontation and escalating tensions, take concrete actions to ease the situation, stick to political and diplomatic means for resolving disputes, and work for an early realization of a comprehensive and lasting cease-fire,” Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Lin Jian told reporters on Wednesday.

In a post on X, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova said Moscow was very worried about what she called “the new spiral of U.S.-Iran armed confrontation.”

She called on both parties to show restraint and halt military attacks immediately, adding that Russia stood ready to assist in finding and implementing “mutually acceptable negotiated solutions” to the crisis.

Taiwan has accused China of carrying out a “provocative act” after Chinese Coast Guard vessels conducted patrols in waters east of the island. The operation followed announcements by Japan and the Philippines that they would begin formal talks on maritime boundary delimitation, a move Beijing views as involving waters linked to Taiwan.

Chinese state media described the deployment as a special maritime law-enforcement operation. Taiwan responded by dispatching Coast Guard vessels, which reportedly warned the Chinese ships away from restricted waters. Defence Minister Wellington Koo characterized the patrols as both a challenge to Taiwan’s sovereignty and an example of “cognitive warfare” aimed at reshaping perceptions of territorial control.

The incident comes amid sustained Chinese military activity around Taiwan, including frequent air and naval operations. Taiwan is also monitoring the movements of the Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning, which is operating in the Western Pacific near waters east of the Philippines.

Why It Matters

The patrols represent more than a routine maritime operation. They signal China’s growing willingness to extend its presence beyond the Taiwan Strait and into areas east of Taiwan that have traditionally been viewed as strategically important for the island’s defence.

The move also demonstrates Beijing’s opposition to emerging regional cooperation among U.S. partners and allies. The maritime boundary discussions between Japan and the Philippines reflect increasing efforts among regional states to clarify maritime rights and strengthen coordination in contested waters.

For Taiwan, Chinese Coast Guard activities present a complex challenge. Unlike military operations, law-enforcement patrols operate within a legal grey zone that allows Beijing to advance territorial claims without triggering a conventional military confrontation. Such actions can gradually normalize China’s presence in disputed areas while increasing pressure on Taiwan’s security apparatus.

The incident further highlights the growing integration of maritime, legal, and information-based strategies in China’s approach to territorial disputes across the Indo-Pacific.

Stakeholders

Taiwan

• Protecting maritime sovereignty and territorial claims.
• Maintaining freedom of navigation and security in eastern waters.

China

• Expanding operational presence around Taiwan.
• Reinforcing sovereignty claims through maritime law-enforcement activities.

Japan

• Engaged in maritime boundary discussions with the Philippines.
• Monitoring Chinese activities that could affect regional security.

Philippines

• Seeking greater legal clarity over maritime boundaries.
• Increasing security cooperation with regional partners.

United States

• Maintaining stability in the Taiwan Strait and broader Indo-Pacific region.
• Supporting freedom of navigation and regional deterrence efforts.

Regional Security Partners

• Including Australia and other Indo-Pacific states concerned about changing maritime dynamics.

Strategic Implications

The patrols illustrate China’s increasing reliance on so-called “grey-zone” tactics, which fall below the threshold of open military conflict while steadily advancing strategic objectives. By deploying Coast Guard vessels rather than naval forces, Beijing can challenge Taiwan’s authority while reducing the risk of immediate military escalation.

The incident also reflects the expanding geographical scope of cross-strait competition. Traditionally concentrated in the Taiwan Strait, tensions are increasingly extending into the Western Pacific, where control of maritime approaches carries significant strategic value for both China and Taiwan.

Furthermore, the timing of the operation suggests that Beijing is seeking to influence regional maritime diplomacy. By responding directly to Japan-Philippines boundary discussions, China is signaling its opposition to initiatives that could strengthen legal and political frameworks contrary to its territorial claims.

The episode reinforces concerns among regional governments that maritime disputes are becoming increasingly interconnected, linking Taiwan, the East China Sea, and the South China Sea into a broader strategic contest.

What’s Next?

Several developments warrant close attention in the coming weeks:

• Taiwan is likely to increase coordination between its military and Coast Guard to strengthen maritime surveillance and response capabilities.
• China may continue deploying Coast Guard vessels east of Taiwan as part of a sustained effort to normalize its operational presence in the area.
• Japan and the Philippines are expected to proceed with maritime boundary discussions despite Beijing’s objections, potentially drawing further diplomatic responses from China.
• Increased activity by the Liaoning carrier group could provide additional indications of China’s broader military objectives in the Western Pacific.
• The United States and regional partners may intensify maritime monitoring and security cooperation to deter unilateral attempts to alter the status quo.

Future outcomes

The incident reflects a broader shift in regional security dynamics, where maritime law-enforcement operations are increasingly being used as instruments of strategic competition. Rather than relying solely on military pressure, China is employing a combination of legal, political, and operational tools to reinforce its territorial claims and shape the regional security environment.

For Taiwan, the challenge extends beyond the immediate presence of Chinese vessels. The longer-term concern lies in preventing the gradual normalization of Chinese activities in areas that Taipei considers vital to its sovereignty and security. As regional actors deepen cooperation on maritime governance and security, incidents of this nature are likely to become an increasingly important indicator of the evolving balance of power in the Indo-Pacific.

With information from Reuters.

Italians who took part in a humanitarian aid flotilla for Gaza said Wednesday that when the Israeli army attacked them last month in the Mediterranean in violation of international law, they abducted some activists, and subjected them to ill-treatment amounting to torture, Anadolu reports.

“This time, the Israeli army responded to the flotilla much more violently” than in past humanitarian efforts, Antonio La Piccirella, who took part in the Global Sumud Flotilla’s 2026 Spring Mission, told a press conference in Rome.

“There were two attacks, one of them off the coast of Europe. In the attack between Italy and Greece, they abducted two of our members, further violating international law. The other intervention was carried out in broad daylight and lasted for one-and-a-half days.”

La Piccirella said Israel last year allocated $180 million to anti-flotilla propaganda in order to fight them and build up a sense of “impunity,” and that this year they spent far more, some $760 million.

This propaganda was carried out through disinformation and aimed to create communities sympathetic to Israel in Europe and the US, he said.

Emphasizing that they would continue to take action in the future, La Piccirella said: “We are concerned with actions against the naval blockade of Palestine (and promoting) humanitarian aid, and international law.

“The international situation is constantly changing, and so is our strategy. So we repeat that we will definitely continue to do something,” he said.

– Forced to kneel and be humiliated

Italian journalist Alessandro Mantovani, who also took part in the spring mission, stressed that after being detained he was not even allowed to say that he was a journalist.

“From the very beginning, we were beaten and forced into humiliating positions. When we were taken to their military ships, we were pushed down face-first onto the deck, tied up, then forced to kneel and kept in the same extremely uncomfortable position for hours. When we were brought to the ship that we all called the prison ship, we were systematically beaten,” he said.

The face-down positions he described fit video footage posted online by Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, in which the activists were forced to kneel and were subjected to abusive language, mistreatment which drew fierce criticism from numerous countries.

Mantovani said he still has problems with his jaw because of the blows he received and that his jaw may have been dislocated.

The Italian journalist said the Israeli army treated Turkish activists especially badly.

“I think I can say that the Turks were treated even worse than the others; torture also has a geopolitical dimension,” he said.

Turkish leaders have been at the international forefront of condemning Israel’s genocide in Gaza as well as the famine and near-starvation of its populace due to a long-standing blockade of food, medicine, and other humanitarian supplies. The blockade was due to be relaxed in recent months, but many rights groups and international observers say the situation has improved little if at all.

Mantovani pointed out that the Global Sumud Flotilla was detained at night during its first voyage last year, while during this latest voyage it was detained in broad daylight.

He stressed that the Israeli army was not ashamed to show that it attacked unarmed people with weapons.

The Palestinian Authority condemned Israel’s decision to build 2,162 illegal settlement units in the occupied West Bank, calling for US intervention to halt the Israeli “madness.”

“All settlement activity is illegal under international law and does not confer legitimacy to anyone,” the authority said in a statement carried by the official news agency Wafa.

It said the Israeli decision constitutes a “blatant challenge to international law and UN resolutions,” particularly UN Security Council Resolution 2334, which affirms the illegality of the Israeli settlements in all occupied Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem.

It held the Israeli authorities responsible for the “serious consequences” of the settlement policies, warning that they would push the region toward “further cycles of violence and escalation.”

READ: Situation worsening in West Bank, warn Italy, UK, France, Germany

The authority called on the US administration to intervene immediately “to stop the Israeli madness if it genuinely seeks to promote security and stability in the region and globally.”

It stressed that the Palestinian people would remain “steadfast on their land and committed to their legitimate national rights,” saying the illegal settlement plans would not deter them from continuing their struggle to establish an independent Palestinian state on the June 4, 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital.

The statement came after Israel’s Higher Planning Council approved the construction of 2,162 new settlement units across several illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank.

The plans include 1,006 units in the Gevaot settlement within the Gush Etzion bloc south of Bethlehem, 922 units in the Har Brakha settlement south of Nablus, and 234 units in Kiryat Arba settlement built on land belonging to the city of Hebron.

Palestinians view the new plans as part of an accelerated Israeli policy aimed at expanding illegal settlements, confiscating Palestinian land and creating new facts on the ground.

READ: Israeli authorities issue order to seize 74 acres East of Bethlehem

A mushroom farm in Jericho, an heirloom seed library, a project to introduce Kale to the Palestinian market and a local farmers’ cooperative – these small agricultural projects are the latest weapon in the fight against the Israeli occupation. They aim to tackle the policies that make Palestine dependent on the Israeli market and offer alternatives for Palestinians who find themselves forced to buy Israeli products.

After returning to Palestine for the first time in five years, Vivien Sansour noticed changes in her homeland. “All the things I had missed, like the delicious tomatoes and cheese, the things old ladies would come and sell at the front of our house, they were gone,” says Sansour. “I thought I was coming home and I found myself coming back to a place that was foreign to me where I was buying Israeli broccoli in the supermarket and that was what was available.”

In June, she officially launched Palestine’s first heirloom seed library as a way to preserve the knowledge of generations of farmers who have cultivated varieties of organic vegetables, fruits and herbs adapted for the region’s climate and soil. Due to Israeli policies and neo-liberal farming techniques, these varieties, and traditional Palestinian farming as a whole, are facing extinction. These tiny seeds, she says, have the power to stop this from happening. Anyone can borrow a packet of the library’s seeds and grow the local varieties of produce, returning seeds from the next harvest.

“The heirloom seed gives us power to resist our dominance, though our heirlooms seeds we can truly eat what we grow and stop having to be slaves to our master,” she says.

Under the Oslo Accords, around 63 per cent of agricultural land in the West Bank was designated as “Area C”, which means it fell under the control of the Israeli military. As a result, farmers whose land fell in that 63 per cent were unable to farm their land freely, as is still the case. Meanwhile, Israeli settlements in the West Bank have mushroomed, and settlement farms are able to produce a large quantity of crops at low cost using pesticides, leaving traditional farmers unable to compete. Unequal water resources allocated to Palestinians and Jewish settlers living in the same territory makes keeping up almost impossible.

According to the Israeli occupation authorities, the value of goods produced in settlements and exported to Europe amounts to approximately $300 million a year. Israel is flooding the Palestinian market with cheap Israeli products whilst simultaneously controlling the Palestinian exports and imports. Restrictions on the importation of fertilizers has cut agricultural output in the OPT by an estimated 20-33 per cent. This pressure is forcing Palestinian farmers to leave their land, with many having to work on the settlement farms that displaced them on as little as half the Israeli minimum wage, in unsafe working conditions, and without holiday or sick pay.

“Oslo has been a disaster for agriculture in Palestine,” says Sansour. Aside from the restrictions placed on farmers as a result of the agreement, it also brought foreign donations to the agricultural section, she explains. “The aid was designed in a very neo-liberal way on the production of certain items and the elimination of people – that’s the idea of agribusiness.” This sort of funding pushed farmers away from sustainable agriculture to mono-cropping (the production of one type of crop) designed for consumer export or selling to the Israeli market, using methods relying on chemicals, she says.

Sansour highlights the Paris Protocol, an annex of the Oslo Accords, which tied the Palestinian economy with the Israeli economy. This has led to a situation, she says, where the tobacco industry is renting Palestinian land for prices small-scale producers cannot compete with. “We went from producing food to producing poison,” she poignantly adds.

The same factors motivated Lamya Hussain to implement The Kale Project – Palestine, a joint venture by organisations MAAN Development Center and Refutrees to introduce kale to the Palestinian market. Two years on and two solid harvests of three types of kale and the project is looking to expand. “There are many ways Israel controls what is produced and why and how, and we want to challenge this,” says Hussain. “We are challenging the occupation through cross diversity because one of the things the Israeli occupation has done to the agricultural sector is that it’s reduced it to a few basic crops.”

“One key issue facing small-scale Palestinian producers is the challenge to work around previously negotiated economic agreements via which Israeli goods are dumped in the local market,” she explains. “To this end, there is always the risk that Israeli producers can take advantage of the rising demand for kale and flood the market with larger quantities and cheaper prices.” Hussain continues, “It’s very difficult for people like myself or for the project, and even more difficult for smaller scale farmers who are competing against not only consumer market prices and local competition, they’re actually competing with an occupied-led system in the market.”

Fareed Taamallah was one of these small scale farmers struggling to sell his produce in this system. Tired of selling his olives and olive oil in bulk to a trader who then sells it to the consumer while taking most of the profit, he co-founded Sharaka. The organisation links Palestinian farmers and consumers directly, promoting Baladi food, a word for local, seasonal and Palestinian produce.

“In Occupied Palestine, the matter of keeping the farmer in his land cultivating and producing is more important than any other place because it is not only a matter of producing, but also a matter of food sovereignty,” says Taamallah. “Sharaka is trying to tackle part of these problems and help small-scale farmers to stay in their land by helping them to market their product at good prices, and in this way support them to remain steadfast in their groves. On the other hand, we try to help the consumer to have access to the good, healthy food and not depend on the Israeli products that are found in the local market.”

For the Palestinian farming industry, the Israeli occupation has been deadly. But these agricultural efforts are seeking to change the status quo by offering Palestinians alternatives to the Israeli products that fill up their local supermarkets. As Sansour puts it, buying the produce of the occupation is like smoking; “you pay for your own poisoning”.

Images courtesy of The Kale Project – Palestine.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

Ever since leading pro-Israel lobby financier Sheldon Adelson intervened in the 2016 election heavily in favour of Donald Trump, the now-president’s Middle East policies (if you can even call them that) have become more and more openly in favour of the Zionist state.

To call casino tycoon Adelson an “Israel first” financier is misleading, as it implies that he has second, third and fourth priorities. With a net worth of almost $34 billion at his disposal, though, his one and only cause is Israel, so “Israel only” financier would be a more accurate description.

Adelson has ploughed hundreds of millions of dollars into funding anti-Palestinian groups. He has, for example, donated a reported $410 million to Birthright Israel, a pro-Israel propaganda organisation which takes young Jews on brainwashing tours to occupied Palestine, inculcating in them the idea that the country forms part of their “birthright”.

Although nobody should delude themselves that such a huge amount of money does not have the intended effect on many impressionable young people, money isn’t everything and, thankfully, largely left-wing and liberal Jews are increasingly rejecting Israel. Last year, media outlets reported a number of walk-outs from Birthright tours, with participants reacting against the heavy-handed propaganda that always forms the basis of such trips.

READ: US comedian Roseanne, shunned since racist tweet, visits Israel

Left-wing and anti-Zionist Jews have for many years now been organising against Birthright, even putting on a “Birthwrong” tour celebrating diasporic Jewish life in ancestral Jewish homelands, such as Spain, France, Brazil, Germany, the USA and Britain.

Such efforts are now paying off. Birthright walk-outs are part of a broader trend in which Israel is haemorrhaging support from the base of the Democratic Party in the US. Once upon a time, Sheldon Adelson funded the Democrats. However, in a 2012 op-ed for the Wall Street Journal (the in-house organ of America’s billionaire business class), Adelson explained: “I didn’t leave the Democrats. They left me.” In that article it emerged that the main, if not the only, reason he switched his substantial financial support from the Democrats to the Republicans was that the Democrats’ base is now largely hostile to Israeli war crimes and apartheid.

Since then, Adelson has apparently made it his mission in life to fund the worst of the worst right-wing Republicans. As the late, lamented website Gawker reported, “In 2012 he spent $20 million supporting Newt Gingrich, nearly derailing [Mitt] Romney’s primary run.”

President Donald Trump answers questions during a meeting with military leaders in the Cabinet Room on 23 October, 2018 in Washington [Win McNamee/Getty Images]

During the course of the race for the 2016 White House, every Republican candidate did their best to net Adelson’s support and, of course, his money. Marco Rubio was reportedly calling Adelson every other week at one stage, and “when Jeb Bush hired a foreign policy advisor who was critical of Israel’s diplomatic actions, Adelson forced Bush to issue an apology.”

With President Donald Trump now leading the most anti-Palestinian White House of all time, it’s easy to forget that at one stage, his non-interventionist instincts in matters of foreign policy seemed, for a brief moment, to extend even to Palestine. That’s when Adelson started to plough cash onto the Trump bandwagon and ended up being Trump’s number-one backer. The White House is now more pro-Israel than ever, with each new advisor seemingly more fanatically Zionist than the last.

READ: Media hypocrisy puts pressure on Arabs but not Israeli activists

The Trump-appointed US Ambassador to Israel not only tolerates illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank, for example, but also actively funds them out of his own money. Trump has also followed through on a promise to Adelson to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in the face of international law, which still considers the latter to be an occupied city, the annexation of which by Israel is illegal.

While the pro-Israel lobby seems to have the White House sewn up for now, its propagandists look at the new crop of progressive and left-wing Democrats in Congress with some trepidation, for Israel no longer has the universal, bipartisan support in the House and Senate that it once had. This week, news emerged that its lobby has even had to establish a new group, aiming to shore up its floundering support among Democrats.

“Democratic Majority for Israel” is supposedly set to make the “progressive case for Israel”. The fact that such a move has had to be made now is a serious indication of how much US support for Israel has slipped. Indeed, in the secretly filmed words of Eric Gallagher, a leading “liberal” pro-Israel lobbyist when he referred to the lobby’s flagship organisation, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee: “The foundation that AIPAC sat on is rotting… There used to be actual widespread public support for Israel in the United States. So I don’t think that AIPAC is going to remain as influential as it is.”

READ: How AIPAC-Israel agenda became US priority

One establishment policy wonk conceded this week that the passage of a bill through the Senate targeting the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign, while seemingly a victory for Israel, was “actually a pretty significant loss. Because only one serious presidential candidate voted for it.”

Kamala Harris and Cory Booker, two corporate Democrats who have thrown their hats into the presidential ring for 2020, both failed to show up for the vote, despite speaking at previous AIPAC policy conferences. Even they don’t want to enrage their support base, much of which is likely to opt for Bernie Sanders should he decide to run again.

With the situation in Congress changing rapidly, the pro-Israel lobby is going for broke to take advantage of its position in the White House while it lasts.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

The first recorded use of smoke as a weapon of asphyxiation against civilians in the MENA region dates back to the mid-19th century, when French general Bugeaud adopted this “new method” against thousand of people in Algeria: “If they [Algerians] take refuge in their caves”, Bugeaud argued, “then smoke them out like foxes [renards]”.

Seventy years later, the Middle East witnessed its first recorded use of chemical weapons. This occurred during the 1917’s Third Battle of Gaza, when the troops led by General Edmund Allenby fired about 10,000 cans of asphyxiating gas. Their limited impact did not meet Allenby’s expectations. However, the use of gas attracted much attention to the point that – right after the 1920 Iraqi Revolt against the proposed British Mandate of Mesopotamia – Secretary of State for the colonies Winston Churchill noted of being “strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against the uncivilised tribes […] it would spread a lively terror”.

One century and many wars later, the UK, France and the US (whose support for Saddam Hussein’s use of chemical weapons during the Iraq-Iran War has now been ascertained), launched a “US-led humanitarian intervention to protect [Syrian] civilians” against a chemical attack allegedly carried out by the Syrian regime in East Ghouta. Yet, their humanitarian intentions raise serious questions yet to be answered.

The cost of ‘non-intervention’?

The suspected chemical attack of 7 April has been denied by a number of sources, including the doctors serving at the field hospital were the victims have been treated. Nothwithstanding the recurrent war crimes perpetrated by the Syrian regime, the latter’s interest in using chemical weapons in a phase in which Bashar Al-Assad’s forces are advancing and winning the war appears unclear.

It should also be added that conventional weapons (not chemical weapons) are responsible for over 90 per cent of the mass killing of Syrian civilians by the regime and its allies (including Iran and Russia). If anything, the “US-led humanitarian intervention” confirmed that external powers are not so much troubled by the fact that dozens of Syrians die every day. It is mainly how they do so that seems to deserve a special attention, or “reaction”.

Read: Air strikes send a message to the Russians not to Assad

And it is indeed in the alleged lack of an earlier “reaction” – the so called “non-interventionist policy” in Syria – that many observers see as a key-component to assess what Syria is currently experiencing. If there was an opportunity for Western powers to make a difference for the better, pointed out British author Andrew Rawnsley, “chance was missed many, many deaths ago”.

London and its allies had indeed plans already before 2011 to use the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood to curb a regime that has been considered by them as a thorn in their sides for decades. In 2011 strategy shifted to West’s allies funding proxies. If anything, the US, Britain and their allies intervened too much and too early, largely to the benefit of Bashar Al-Assad, but also Hezbollah and Iran.

A regional order in the making

It has been noted that in our age of “politics as reality show”, even geopolitics and military raids are often done for show. There is much truth in these words. In this sense it should be noted that a  possible chemical attack occurred already in April 2017. Then as today, the US-led strike was preceeded by an announcement made by US President Donald Trump regarding his will to withdraw from Syria and followed by the bombing of an empty Syrian airfield.

A Syrian man receives medical treatment after the Assad regime conducted a poisonous gas attack in Eastern Ghouta, in Damascus, Syria on 7 March, 2018 [Dia Al Din Samout/Anadolu Agency]

And yet, the ongoing “geopolitical show” is underpinned by two very practical aims. The first one might be linked to the 2017–18 Qatar diplomatic crisis. Both the outbreak of the Qatar crisis and the recent US-led strike are in fact meant to provide a clear sign to regional actors to show the consequences that will be faced by those unwilling to align themselves with the anti-Iran front and the tacit agreement that binds Israel to Saudi Arabia and its allies.

#WarInSyria

In recent months also a number of Saudi sources have come forward contending that Saudi-Israeli relations are “the main gateway” to understanding the “transformations in the region and the backstage deliberations over the Palestinian cause”, including the recent and upcoming developments concerning Jerusalem.

Fostering fragmentation

The second aim is rooted in the will to weaken the link between Iran, Turkey and Russia; the three guarantors of the Astana peace process. The latter, in which Russia has played a key role, is perceived by many as a key tool to overcome the fragmentation of Syria and, more generally, the division of large Arab states into small and mostly homogeneous entities incapable of posing any threat.

This political goal is actively supported, directly andor indirectly, by a number of key-figures within the Trump administration, and has been advocated by several influential think tanks in Washington, including Project for the New American Century (PNAC), since the early 2000s.

Read: US admitted only 44 Syria refugees in the last 6 months

Among the 25 political figures who signed PNAC’s founding statement of principles in 1997, ten went on to serve in the administration of former US President George W. Bush. Some of them – including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Bolton and Paul Wolfowitz – were charged with highly influential positions that had direct repercussions on key-aspects pertaining to the region. The then president expressed his support for the remodeling of the “greater Middle East” also in his State of the Union speech on 20 January 2004.

Whose humanitarism?

The image of a “civilised world” that was witnessing yet another clash in the context of an inherently fanatic “Islamic Orient” was very much present in the articles published in England and France in the early 1860s. Western observers were then describing the massacres which occurred between Christians and Muslims during the 1860 Mount Lebanon civil war.

Then, as today, external (and particularly Western) powers felt the necessity to intervene in the region justifying this through “humanitarian considerations”, and by adopting a self-imposed mission civilisatrice. They were, however, much less ready to acknowledge their own roles and responsabilities, or to ease the humanitarian burden faced by local actors.

Not much has changed in this respect. It is enough to mention that, according to the US State Department, Washington has admitted a total of 11 Syrian refugees in the all 2018. Despite playing a leading role in Syria and the broader region, Russia has granted refugee status to “only one Syrian national since 2011”. These examples represent the rule rather than the exception. Orwell’s celebrated prophecy – “War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength” – could not have found a better manifesto.

Caricature of Syrian President sending air strikes in Syria – Cartoon

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

Like the other Silicon Valley monopolies, Google habitually takes the side of Israeli occupation and war crimes in Palestine – the very term Palestine is not used by their highly influential maps app.

A new report by a Palestinian human rights group last month exposed the depths of Google’s dedication to the Israeli occupation.

With a known history documented back more than 3,200 years, the name “Palestine” is the only term continuously used for the entire territory of the country lying between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

Palestine is the most historically accurate term. But since 1948, when Zionist militias expelled the majority of the Palestinian population from the country by force, a new state, “Israel”, was established.

That state has never declared its borders.

Consequentially, when speaking about “Israel” it is unclear exactly what territory is being referred to. But Zionists of both the right and the “left” commonly claim the entire historic territory of Palestine as the “Land of Israel.”

The new report, by 7amleh (Hamleh), a Palestinian organisation advocating online rights, details how Google seems to almost go out of its way to eradicate the reality of Palestinian life.

In 2016, Google came under fire from Palestinians on social media when the terms “West Bank” and “Gaza” disappeared from Google Maps. Google said that the removal of these terms was down to a glitch and that they had never used the word Palestine in the first place.

(The West Bank and Gaza Strip are regions of Palestine that are important, since they represent the remaining Palestinian territories which Israel failed to occupy in 1948. In 1967, however, Israel took over those too.)

“Through its mapping and labelling,” the 7amleh report explains, “one can deduce that Google Maps recognises the existence of Israel, with Jerusalem as its capital, but not Palestine.”

There are further aspects of the way Google has wiped Palestinian life off the map though. As the 7amleh report maps in some detail, Palestinian villages in the Naqab (Negev desert) deemed “unrecognised” by Israel (inside of what is sometimes termed “Israel proper” – the territories of Palestine occupied in 1948) are not properly mapped by Google.

These villages are only visible in Google Maps “when zooming in very closely,” the report explains, “but otherwise appear to be non-existent. This means that when looking at Google Maps, these villages appear to be not there.”

The report details how small Israeli villages are “displayed even when zoomed-out, while unrecognised Palestinian Bedouin villages, regardless of their size are only visible when zooming in very closely.”

Israel demolishes Al-Araqeeb for 135th time, arrests residents

This is despite the fact that there “are in total 46 Bedouin villages in the Naqab, the majority of which existed before Israel’s creation in 1948. Some claim to have existed since the 7th century.”

Israel has repeatedly attempted to physically remove these villages, but has repeatedly failed, thanks to the resistance of the Palestinians who live there, and thanks also to national and international solidarity shown to those villages.

Their Israeli (lack of) status as “unrecognised” also means that the state refuses to connect the villages to basic services like water and electricity – despite the fact that nearby Israeli-Jewish settlements are given all the support possible.

As Basma Abu-Qwaider, one Palestinian Naqab villager, explains in the report:

Google Maps acts in a discriminatory manner towards the unrecognised village the same [way] as the Israeli government does. Google ignores the existence of these villages just like Israel and for me if you do not exist on the map it means that you are invisible and that’s exactly what Israel wants us to be.

This solidarity with Israeli racism expressed by Google’s helpful attitude towards Israel’s wiping of Palestinians quite literally off the map extends across the 1967 “Green Line” ceasefire boundary.

Palestinian villages even within the “West Bank” area of the Jordan Valley are not properly mapped by Google either. The report documents that while Israeli settlements “can be seen when looking at the larger area of the map” some Palestinian villages are only visible when zoomed in – and even that only as a result of pressure being put on by a human rights organisation.

Google also refuses to recognise or map the reality of Israel’s apartheid roads system for Palestinians.

Khan Al-Ahmar resident: ‘We are imprisoned here’

As part of Israel’s ongoing settler-colonisation of Palestine, large parts of the West Bank – which is ruled by Israeli military decree – are prohibited access for Palestinians. Many roads are reserved for the use of Jews only.

Despite the illegality of these practices under international law, Google’s route-planning apps do not designate Israeli settlements in the West Bank as illegal.

7amleh’s report concludes: “Google Maps, as the largest global mapping and route planning service, has the power to influence global public opinion and therefore bears the responsibility to abide by international human rights standards and to offer a service that reflects the Palestinian reality.”

Google should be compelled to end its complicity with Israeli racism and apartheid.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

Travel insurance for Turkey has jumped almost 50 per cent in just a year, according to new data

Five European and Mediterranean destinations including some hotspots much loved by British tourists have been named as having seen big rises in insurance costs, directly caused by the Middle East crisis. Travel insurance for Turkey has jumped 46% in just a year, according to new data analysing 5,000 policies across popular destinations near conflict zones.

There is no sign of the Middle East conflict calming down – today Iran fired ballistic missiles and drones towards Bahrain and Kuwait, Bahrain’s government said, adding that they were intercepted.

Bahrain’s government called on Tehran to immediately cease attacks on Gulf neighbours that it deemed a “serious escalation”. Iran’s Foreign Ministry said the US early Saturday attacked surveillance facilities on Qeshm Island and near Sirik that it said were used to protect borders and “ensure the security of navigation in international waters”.

The latest exchange of fire came as the Trump administration pressed Iran to make a deal to end the war that has strained the global economy and threatened a hunger crisis in some of the world’s most vulnerable countries.

The US military earlier said it shot down several Iranian missiles and drones launched towards the Strait of Hormuz and Gulf Arab allies, and struck some of the Islamic Republic’s coastal surveillance radar sites in response.

It has had a big impact on the region with some popular destinations seeing big rises in premiums. Quotezone travel insurance expert Helen Rolph warned travellers not to assume last year’s prices still apply and urges holidaymakers to compare policies carefully, buy cover as soon as they book, and check Foreign Office advice before travelling.

Industry experts compared 5,000 travel insurance premiums across five popular tourist destinations close to conflict zones, revealing which countries have seen the biggest price increases over the past year.

Prices in Turkey have been affected the most despite it traditionally being considered one of the most popular and cost-effective destinations for UK holidaymakers over recent years.

Standard travel insurance premiums to the country have jumped from £40.56 in early 2025 to £59.19 just a year later – a rise of 46% or almost £20 per trip – which may be due to the fact it shares a border with Iran.

Holidaymakers travelling to Bulgaria are also seeing a sharp rise with prices up 19%, possibly down to its proximity to Ukraine.

Premiums for Cyprus have increased by 6%, Egypt by 4% and Poland by 8%. To gather the data, popular holiday destinations for British tourists were cross-referenced with countries geographically close to conflict zones, namely Ukraine and Iran, creating a dataset of major holiday hotspots in relative proximity to areas of geopolitical tension.

Insurers regularly reassess risk when global tensions rise, particularly in destinations close to areas where travel complications might become more likely.

Destinations situated close to areas experiencing heightened tensions – such as Iran and Ukraine – could see premiums shift as insurers reassess the likelihood of travel disruption, delays or emergency evacuation should issues escalate.

Helen Rolph, travel insurance expert at Quotezone.co.uk said: “Travel insurance prices change constantly as insurers respond to global events, the number of claims made and healthcare costs.

“Even if a destination remains popular despite its proximity to ongoing conflict, premiums can rise when the wider region becomes more uncertain.

“Travellers and holidaymakers shouldn’t assume last year’s prices will still apply and make sure they’re comparing policies carefully rather than opting for the cheapest option, as cover can vary significantly.

“It’s also sensible to arrange insurance as soon as a trip is booked, check government travel advice before departure, and ensure any medical conditions are fully declared.

“Travel disruption insurance can also be useful as it covers a wider range of issues while travelling but it’s important to remember that travel insurance won’t provide cover if the foreign office advises against travel to that region and most travel insurance policies won’t cover war related incidents. It’s crucial for holidaymakers to check what is and isn’t covered on their policy and add any extras or specialised cover they might need.”

Travel Insurance Premiums

Country // Average 2025 // Average 2026 // Average Price Change // % Change

Turkey £40.56 £59.19 £18.63 46%

Bulgaria £32.70 £38.82 £6.11 19%

Poland £10.50 £11.32 £0.82 8%

Cyprus £43.21 £45.80 £2.59 6%

Egypt £68.52 £71.30 £2.78 4%

An acclaimed biopic about Israeli lawyer Lea Tsemel, who has dedicated her life to representing Palestinian defendants charged by Israeli authorities, has been shortlisted for an Oscar.

“Advocate” is one of 15 films shortlisted in the Documentary Feature category, out of an original 159 submissions. The final five contenders will be announced next month.

The award-winning documentary, co-directed by Rachel Leah Jones and Philippe Bellaiche, has been vociferously attacked by right-wing Israeli groups and Israel’s Culture Minister Miri Regev.

READ: Israel’s flirtation with football stars won’t stop cultural boycott

When “Advocate” won Best Picture at the DocAviv festival in Tel Aviv, Regev condemned “the choice to make a movie focusing on a lawyer who represents, supports and speaks in the name of many who undermine the State of Israel’s existence, [and] use terrorism against its soldiers and people”.

In awarding the film, DocAviv judges wrote that “Advocate” is “a thought-provoking project that addresses an important subject and demonstrates impressive cinematic skills, especially the innovative and intelligent use of animation… [It] sketches out a complex portrait of a strong and inspiring woman who believes in the justness of her path with all her heart.”

The award was greeted with outrage, and following an organised campaign, Israel’s state lottery company subsequently announced “it would be pulling its funding for future grants given to best picture winners at Tel Aviv’s documentary film festival”.

Israel’s balancing act that allowed it to reap America’s unconditional and, often, blind support, while slowly benefiting from China’s growing economic influence and political prestige, is already floundering.

Thanks to the heated cold war between the US and Chinese economic superpowers, the Israeli strategy of playing both sides is unlikely to pay dividends in the long run.

Soon enough, Tel Aviv might find itself having to make a stark choice between Washington and Beijing.  When US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, visited Israel on May 13, two items topped his agenda: Israel’s imminent illegal annexation of Palestinian land and the growing Israeli-Chinese economic ties.

Pompeo communicated his country’s stand on both issues, reflecting Washington’s long-standing policies regarding Palestine and China. In the case of Palestine, as with the rest of the Middle East, Washington seems to adhere to Tel Aviv’s agenda, often to the letter.  China is a different story.

READ: China rejects Israel’s planned annexation of West Bank

Two significant historical examples come to mind: one, is Israel’s attempt to sell China Israeli-made Phalcon airborne radar system, which relied heavily on American technology in the 1990s; a similar event transpired in 2005, this time concerning Israel’s Harpy anti-radar missile. On both occasions, Israel succumbed to American pressure and canceled both deals.

For the Chinese, Israel matters for two different reasons. One, Israel is a strategic stop in China’s Belt and Road initiative, China’s most significant economic project to date, ultimately aimed at turning Beijing into a center of global trade and financial activities. Two, China is hoping to fight the US on its own political turf in the Middle East – partly in response to the American ‘pivot to Asia’ strategy, which was initiated by the Barack Obama administration.

But the world – in terms of political and economic balances of power – after the coronavirus pandemic is likely to prove a different one when compared with previous years. China’s rise has been in the making for many years and the US political retreat and declining global outreach has been quite evident for some time. The isolationist policies of the Donald Trump Administration, coupled with Washington’s many China-related tantrums in recent years, are all indicators of the vastly changing political realities of a once-unipolar world.

“I will not miss the opportunity to annex the West Bank”- Cartoon [Sabaaneh/MiddleEastMonitor]

A few years ago, Beijing had the time, patience, and resources to play a long-drawn geopolitical game in order for it to challenge the US’s global influence, whether in South America, Africa, or Israel.

The visit by China’s Vice President, Wang Qishan, to Israel in 2018, to “boost business ties”, was part of this Chinese strategy. That visit followed the signing, one year earlier, of the China-Israel Innovative Comprehensive Partnership. As of 2018, China-Israel trade has jumped to $14 billion and has grown exponentially ever since.

China would have been happy to carry on with that strategy for many years to come. Israel, too, would have played along, considering the lucrative financial returns from its China partnership.

READ: Israel ties to China may risk our ability to work with Tel Aviv

Indeed, despite Washington’s warnings against and, at times, explicit demands on Israel to refrain from giving Chinese companies access to fifth-generation infrastructure (5G) projects in the country, Israel labored to make China feel welcomed.

However, the global response to the coronavirus pandemic is likely to change this, as it has already accelerated the cold war between the US and China, pushing the latter to adopt a more aggressive form of diplomacy and pour massive sums into other countries’ economies to help them in their desperate fight against the COVID-19 disease.

The Chinese strategy is predicated on two main pillars: fortifying existing ties and solidarity with China’s allies or potential allies anywhere in the world, while pushing back against China’s foes, especially those who are participating in Washington’s anti-Beijing campaign.

The latter phenomenon is known as ‘wolf warrior diplomacy’. The ‘wolf warriors’ are Chinese diplomats who have, for months, pushed back with unprecedented ferocity against what they perceive to be US and Western propaganda.

READ: China’s ambassador to Israel found dead in Tel Aviv home

“We never pick a fight or bully others,” China’s Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, told reporters in Beijing on May 24, while explaining China’s novel approach to diplomacy. “We will push back against any deliberate insult, resolutely defend our national honor and dignity, and we will refute all groundless slander with facts,” the top Chinese official said firmly.

China’s new aggressive diplomacy, especially if it continues to define the country’s approach to foreign policy in the coming years, is unlikely to permit Israel to maintain its balancing act for much longer.

China’s ambassador to Israel, Du Wei, who was entrusted with implementing Beijing’s soft-diplomacy with Tel Aviv, died in his home only a few days following Pompeo’s visit to the country. Although Wei’s death was not – at least publicly – perceived to be the result of foul play, his absence, especially in the age of coronavirus and ‘wolf warriors’, might signal a shift in China’s approach to its economic and political interests in Israel.

On May 26, under American pressure, the Israeli Finance Ministry denied China a massive $1.5 billion desalination plant contract, awarding it to an Israeli company, instead.

This is the first time that the US has used its political and economic sway over Israel to curb Chinese influence in the country. China must be anxiously watching events unfold,   to see if US pressure on Israel will continue to undermine Beijing’s long-term strategy.

Deal of the century, embassy relocation, and the Golan Heights – Israel surely can’t believe their luck? – Cartoon [Sabaaneh/MiddleEastMonitor]

The world’s quickly shifting balance of power and the US-Chinese unmistakable fight for dominance is likely to, eventually, force countries like Israel to make a choice, of wholly joining the American or the Chinese sphere of influence. It is all reminiscent of the American-Soviet Cold War, where much of the globe was divided into zones of influence operated by proxy from Washington or Moscow.

Balancing acts in politics only work if all parties are willing to play or, at least, tolerate the game. While this form of politics suited Israel’s interests in the past and was played, quite successfully for years by Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, the country’s balancing act is, possibly, over.

Between Washington’s precise demands to Israel to keep Beijing at bay, and the latter’s aggressive ‘wolf warrior’ diplomacy, Israel is facing a stark choice: remaining loyal to a fading superpower or diving into the uncharted waters of an emerging one.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

Shimon Peres, who passed away Wednesday aged 93 after suffering a stroke on 13 September, epitomised the disparity between Israel’s image in the West and the reality of its bloody, colonial policies in Palestine and the wider region.

Peres was born in modern day Belarus in 1923, and his family moved to Palestine in the 1930s. As a young man, Peres joined the Haganah, the militia primarily responsible for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian villages in 1947-49, during the Nakba.

Despite the violent displacement of the Palestinians being a matter of historical record, Peres has always insisted that Zionist forces “upheld the purity of arms” during the establishment of the State of Israel. Indeed, he even claimed that before Israel existed, “there was nothing here”.

Over seven decades, Peres served as prime minister (twice) and president, though he never actually won a national election outright. He was a member of 12 cabinets and had stints as defence, foreign and finance minister.

He is perhaps best known in the West for his role in the negotiations that led to the 1993 Oslo Accords which won him, along with Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat, the Nobel Peace Prize.

Yet for Palestinians and their neighbours in the Middle East, Peres’ track record is very different from his reputation in the West as a tireless “dove”. The following is by no means a comprehensive summary of Peres’ record in the service of colonialism and apartheid.

Nuclear weapons

Between 1953 and 1965, Peres served first as director general of Israel’s defence ministry and then as deputy defence minister. On account of his responsibilities at the time, Peres has been described as “an architect of Israel’s nuclear weapons programme” which, to this day, “remains outside the scrutiny of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).”

In 1975, as secret minutes have since revealed, Peres met with South African Defence Minister PW Botha and “offered to sell nuclear warheads to the apartheid regime.” In 1986, Peres authorised the Mossad operation that saw nuclear whistle-blower Mordechai Vanunu kidnapped in Rome.

Targeting Palestinian citizens

Peres had a key role in the military regime imposed on Palestinian citizens until 1966, under which authorities carried out mass land theft and displacement.

One such tool was Article 125 which allowed Palestinian land to be declared a closed military zone. Its owners denied access, the land would then be confiscated as “uncultivated”. Peres praised Article 125 as a means to “directly continue the struggle for Jewish settlement and Jewish immigration.”

Another one of Peres’ responsibilities in his capacity as director general of the defence ministry was to “Judaise” the Galilee; that is to say, to pursue policies aimed at reducing the region’s proportion of Palestinian citizens compared to Jewish ones.

In 2005, as Vice Premier in the cabinet of Ariel Sharon, Peres renewed his attack on Palestinian citizens with plans to encourage Jewish Israelis to move to the Galilee. His “development” plan covered 104 communities – 100 of them Jewish.

In secret conversations with US officials that same year, Peres claimed Israel had “lost one million dunams [1,000 square kilometres] of Negev land to the Bedouin”, adding that the “development” of the Negev and Galilee could “relieve what [he] termed a demographic threat.”

Supporting illegal settlements in the West Bank

While Israel’s settlement project in the West Bank has come to be associated primarily with Likud and other right-wing nationalist parties, it was in fact Labor which kick-started the colonisation of the newly-conquered Palestinian territory – and Peres was an enthusiastic participant.

During Peres’ tenure as defence minister, from 1974 to 1977, the Rabin government established a number of key West Bank settlements, including Ofra, large sections of which were built on confiscated privately-owned Palestinian land.

Having played a key role in the early days of the settlement enterprise, in more recent years, Peres has intervened to undermine any sort of measures, no matter how modest, at sanctioning the illegal colonies – always, of course, in the name of protecting “peace negotiations”.

The Qana massacre

As prime minister in 1996, Peres ordered and oversaw “Operation Grapes of Wrath” when Israeli armed forces killed some 154 civilians in Lebanon and injured another 351. The operation, widely believed to have been a pre-election show of strength, saw Lebanese civilians intentionally targeted.

According to the official Israeli Air Force website (in Hebrew, not English), the operation involved “massive bombing of the Shia villages in South Lebanon in order to cause a flow of civilians north, toward Beirut, thus applying pressure on Syria and Lebanon to restrain Hezbollah.”

The campaign’s most notorious incident was the Qana massacre, when Israel shelled a United Nations compound and killed 106 sheltering civilians. A UN report stated that, contrary to Israeli denials, it was “unlikely” that the shelling “was the result of technical and/or procedural errors.”

Later, Israeli gunners told Israeli television that they had no regrets over the massacre, as the dead were “just a bunch of Arabs”. As for Peres, his conscience was also clean: “Everything was done according to clear logic and in a responsible way,” he said. “I am at peace.”

Gaza – defending blockade and brutality

Peres came into his own as one of Israel’s most important global ambassadors in the last ten years, as the Gaza Strip was subjected to a devastating blockade and three major offensives. Despite global outrage at such policies, Peres has consistently backed collective punishment and military brutality.

In January 2009, for example, despite calls by “Israeli human rights organisations…for ‘Operation Cast Lead’ to be halted”, Peres described “national solidarity behind the military operation” as “Israel’s finest hour.” According to Peres, the aim of the assault “was to provide a strong blow to the people of Gaza so that they would lose their appetite for shooting at Israel.”

During “Operation Pillar of Defence” in November 2012, Peres “took on the job of helping the Israeli public relations effort, communicating the Israeli narrative to world leaders,” in the words of Ynetnews. On the eve of Israel’s offensive, “Peres warned Hamas that if it wants normal life for the people of Gaza, then it must stop firing rockets into Israel.”

In 2014, during an unprecedented bombardment of Gaza, Peres stepped up once again to whitewash war crimes. After Israeli forces killed four small children playing on a beach, Peres knew who to blame – the Palestinians: “It was an area that we warned would be bombed,” he said. “And unfortunately they didn’t take out the children.”

The choking blockade, condemned internationally as a form of prohibited collective punishment, has also been defended by Peres – precisely on the grounds that it is a form of collective punishment. As Peres put it in 2014: “If Gaza ceases fire, there will be no need for a blockade.”

Peres’ support for collective punishment also extended to Iran. Commenting in 2012 on reports that six million Iranians suffering from cancer were unable to get treatment due to sanctions, Peres said: “If they want to return to a normal life, let them become normal.”

Unapologetic to the end

Peres was always clear about the goal of a peace deal with the Palestinians. As he said in 2014: “The first priority is preserving Israel as a Jewish state. That is our central goal, that is what we are fighting for.” Last year he reiterated these sentiments in an interview with AP, saying: “Israel should implement the two-state solution for her own sake,” so as not to “lose our [Jewish] majority.”

This, recall, was what shaped Labor’s support for the Oslo Accords. Rabin, speaking to the Knesset not long before his assassination in 1995, was clear that what Israel sought from the Oslo Accords was a Palestinian “entity” that would be “less than a state”. Jerusalem would be Israel’s undivided capital, key settlements would be annexed and Israel would remain in the Jordan Valley.

A few years ago, Peres described the Palestinians as “self-victimising.” He went on: “They victimise themselves. They are a victim of their own mistakes unnecessarily.” Such cruel condescension was characteristic of a man for whom “peace” always meant colonial pacification.

The promotion of Conservative MP Alistair Burt to Minister for the Middle East within Britain’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) demonstrates that the UK’s friendship with the Saudi-aligned Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states will remain toxic.

Between May 2010 and October 2013, Burt was only an Under-Secretary of State at the FCO, with responsibility for “Counter Terrorism, Counter Proliferation, Counter Piracy, North America, Middle East and North Africa, the Maldives and Sri Lanka.” As of earlier this month, he is now a full minister of state, responsible solely for the Middle East; he also holds a second ministerial position at the Department for International Development.

As Under-Secretary, Burt had a long record of protecting the Bahrain-Britain intimate relationship. It was not just, as one activist put it, the usual “meaningless FCO shtick” in which he repeatedly claimed that progress was being made on reforms even when it patently wasn’t. It was a serious of smears, lies and fabrications which went above and beyond the call of duty. There is no reason to believe that his time as a full minister will be any different; in his time out of government office he engaged deeply with GCC lobbyists.

That the lobbyists were interested in him is unsurprising. From 2011 (“the Arab Spring”) until he left the FCO in 2013, despite repeated requests, Burt never admitted that British equipment had been used against pro-democracy demonstrators in Bahrain. He claimed there was no evidence that British-supplied shotguns, teargas and stun grenades had been used in the suppression of protests, despite ample photographic proof. When asked whether AssetCo, a private fire equipment company based in Britain, was involved in the crackdown, he twisted away from the truth; it was.

It was BAE Systems armoured cars, manufactured in Newcastle, which were used by the Saudis when they intervened to save the Al-Khalifa ruling family from wipe-out by deploying troops during the Bahrain protests. Burt claimed meekly that they were only there to “safeguard installations.” The Campaign Against The Arms Trade (CAAT) pointed out that even if this was the case, “the Saudi presence in that country increases the capacity of the Bahraini authorities to suppress protests.”

Burt then smeared a Bahraini human rights organisation for offering criticism of the regime; a group which had, coincidentally, helped to organise the 2011 protests.

In the summer of 2013, a Labour MP asked about rights allegations raised by “the Bahrain Youth Society for Human Rights”. “I have not seen the report,” Burt replied bluntly. The report in question dealt with specific cases of the abuse of prisoners, but he still seemed to know a lot about the specific society. It was almost as if he had been briefed on what to say. He told parliament that the BYSHR was merely “an unregistered non-governmental organisation… and its credibility is untested.” It was a naked attempt to discredit the group.

Mohammed Al-Maskati founded the BYSHR some six years previously. He had applied for it to be registered under Bahrain’s onerous charity regulations, but had been turned down for being too critical of the state. His father-in-law is a prominent political prisoner.

Al-Maskati is now a senior consultant for the highly credible Frontline Defenders organisation. In 2011, Amnesty International adopted his case after the regime sent out a mass text message calling for his death because his society had been a leading organisation in the Pearl Roundabout protests.

Since the mid-2000s, Al-Maskati has been subject to constant judicial and other forms of harassment, including public discrediting. Minister Alistair Burt has looked comfortable about joining in with these attacks.

Burt also displayed studied indifference to anyone facilitating the crackdown and refused to engage with the organisers of the Formula One Grand Prix who were heavily criticised for repeatedly hosting their events in Manama in subsequent years. He also refused to raise with European allies the allegations that they were shipping surveillance technologies to the regime in Bahrain, and completely ignored reports that a British social media monitoring firm, Olton, was also involved, working for the Bahrain ministry of the interior.

What Burt has done since October 2013 until his re-appointment as a senior minister is even more of a concern. He is clearly a man beholden to Saudi-aligned GCC interests. Two months after he stepped down, the Bahrain parliament paid for him to attend the Manama Dialogue, arranged by the PR firm Meade Hall & Associates.

Although he was despatched temporarily to the Department of Health for another ministerial role, when the Saudi Arabian Shura (Consultative) Council arrived on a flying visit to London in 2015, Burt sat down with its members for a cosy meeting.

The new minister’s relationship with the UAE has also remained close. This April, before he was re-appointed to the FCO, Burt took it upon himself to lead a delegation of British MPs to the country, and appeared in the de facto state-controlled media encouraging further economic co-operation. He also became chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for the UAE.

Burt has also maintained a relationship with Bell Pottinger, the PR firm enlisted to defend the State of Bahrain during the 2011 crackdown. In 2015, he was appointed as a non-executive director of the oil and gas exploration company President Energy, whose own lobbying and public relations are also handled by Bell Pottinger. The PR agency also handles secretariat functions for the APPG on Bahrain, a pressure group for Bahraini state interests; Burt is a member. There is an alternative grouping for those British politicians in favour of democratisation, known as the APPG for Democracy in Bahrain; Burt is not a member.

Even after Alistair Burt left the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the APPG Bahrain continued to court him, perhaps in the hope that, one day, he might be returned to greater office; so did the UAE and Saudi Arabia, and he has. The minister is clearly the GCC’s man at the FCO; we should be wary about who he really works for.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

Global markets are navigating two powerful and competing forces: escalating geopolitical tensions in the Middle East and continued investor enthusiasm for artificial intelligence-related stocks. While concerns over renewed conflict between the United States and Iran have boosted oil prices and supported demand for safe-haven assets, the AI-driven technology rally has continued to push stock markets higher, particularly in Asia.

What Happened

Oil prices rose for a third consecutive session on Wednesday after fresh hostilities emerged in the Gulf region. Brent crude climbed 1% to $94.74 per barrel as hopes for a quick resolution to tensions between Washington and Tehran faded.

The U.S. military reported that Iranian missile attacks targeting Bahrain, Kuwait and other regional locations were either intercepted or failed. The developments came after negotiations aimed at ending the conflict between the United States and Iran stalled despite both sides announcing a tentative agreement last week.

Meanwhile, financial markets showed mixed reactions. U.S. stock futures were largely unchanged, while European futures edged lower. In Asia, however, technology shares continued their strong advance, helping stock indexes in Japan and Taiwan reach record highs.

Why Markets Are Reacting to Middle East Risks

Investors had previously expected the United States and Iran to formalize an agreement that would reduce regional tensions and ease concerns about energy supplies. The lack of progress in negotiations has instead revived fears of a prolonged conflict that could disrupt oil shipments from the Gulf, a critical region for global energy markets.

Higher oil prices typically reflect concerns about potential supply disruptions. The latest military developments prompted traders to unwind some of their earlier bets on a diplomatic breakthrough, contributing to the rise in crude prices.

Currency markets also reflected growing caution. The U.S. dollar strengthened against the Japanese yen, briefly touching the closely watched 160 level before retreating amid concerns that Japanese authorities could intervene to support their currency.

AI Stocks Continue to Defy Market Uncertainty

Despite geopolitical concerns, enthusiasm surrounding artificial intelligence remained a major driver of equity markets. Wall Street indexes posted modest gains on Tuesday, supported by technology shares.

Chipmaker Marvell Technology surged more than 32% after Nvidia chief executive Jensen Huang described the company as a potential trillion-dollar business. Investor optimism surrounding AI also helped propel SoftBank Group above Toyota Motor Corporation as Japan’s most valuable listed company.

The AI boom has continued to attract investment even as broader markets grapple with geopolitical uncertainty and concerns about interest rates.

What Comes Next

Investors are now closely watching upcoming U.S. economic data, including services sector activity, private payroll figures and Friday’s employment report. Strong labor market data could reinforce expectations that the Federal Reserve will keep interest rates higher for longer or even consider further increases.

Bond markets remained relatively stable, while traders adjusted expectations from potential rate cuts earlier in the year to the possibility of additional rate hikes. Markets have also priced in the likelihood of monetary tightening in Europe and Japan.

At the same time, developments in the Middle East remain a key risk factor. Any further escalation between the United States and Iran could push oil prices higher and increase volatility across global financial markets, while continued strength in AI-related stocks may help support broader equity markets despite geopolitical headwinds.

With information from Reuters.

June 2 (Asia Today) — South Korea’s consumer price growth topped 3% in May for the first time in 26 months as a prolonged Middle East war drove up global oil prices, raising concerns that high inflation could continue through the second half of the year.

The consumer price index stood at 119.92 in May, with 2020 set as the base year of 100, up 3.1% from a year earlier, according to consumer price data released Tuesday by the National Data Agency. It was the first increase of 3% or more since March 2024.

Industrial products rose 4.2% from a year earlier, while service prices increased 2.8%. Petroleum prices showed the sharpest increase, jumping 24.2%, the largest gain in three years and 10 months since July 2022, when the Russia-Ukraine war was at its height.

Gasoline prices rose 23.1%, diesel prices climbed 33.3% and kerosene prices increased 21.7%.

Among services, international airfares, which are directly affected by fuel costs, rose 33.5%, while overseas group tour fees increased 26.3%.

The living price index, which tracks frequently purchased items with a high share of household spending, rose 3.3% from a year earlier, showing a worsening burden felt by consumers.

Lee Doo-won, an official in charge of economic trend statistics at the data agency, said petroleum prices rose more sharply because of higher international oil prices caused by the Middle East war.

“International airfares and prices for travel and lodging-related items rose sharply as fuel surcharges linked to global oil prices increased and the number of peak-season days, including holidays, grew,” Lee said.

The government said it will work to reduce price uncertainty by stabilizing petroleum prices.

A Finance Ministry official said the government’s petroleum price cap and fuel tax cut reduced the May consumer price increase by 0.6 percentage point.

“We will make every effort to stabilize prices felt by households through petroleum price stabilization measures and a task force on livelihood prices,” the official said.

Experts said inflation led by higher global oil prices is likely to continue in the second half.

“Although the United States and Iran have announced plans to discuss reopening the Strait of Hormuz, the high oil price trend is likely to continue in the second half even if the war ends, given the destruction of local oil facilities,” said Jeong Se-eun, an economics professor at Chungnam National University.

“For South Korea, which imports all of its oil, oil prices affect overall inflation. There is also concern that abnormal weather forecast for this summer could raise agricultural prices,” Jeong said.

“With no notable downward factor in the second half, inflation is expected to stay around 3%,” she added.

Park Jin, a professor at the Korea Development Institute School of Public Policy and Management, said prices are determined by market supply and demand.

“On the supply side, there are inflation concerns caused by unstable oil prices. On the demand side, there are price-increase factors such as a strong domestic stock market,” Park said. “Preemptive steps, including consideration of an interest rate hike, are needed.”

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260602010000704

Technology stocks led a broad market rally across China and Hong Kong on Tuesday as investors poured into artificial intelligence related companies despite continuing uncertainty surrounding developments in the Middle East.

The strongest gains came from major technology firms including Tencent and Meituan, helping push Hong Kong’s technology index to one of its biggest daily advances in months. The rally reflected growing investor confidence in China’s technology sector, particularly in artificial intelligence, even as markets monitored fragile diplomatic efforts and ceasefire discussions involving regional conflicts.

The performance highlights an increasingly important theme in global markets: investors are weighing geopolitical risks against the powerful growth narrative surrounding artificial intelligence and technology innovation.

Background

Chinese technology stocks have experienced a volatile few years marked by regulatory scrutiny, slowing economic growth, property market challenges, and shifting investor sentiment.

However, the global artificial intelligence boom has provided a fresh catalyst for the sector.

As major technology companies race to develop AI models, digital assistants, and enterprise applications, investors have increasingly focused on firms capable of benefiting from the next phase of technological transformation.

At the same time, geopolitical developments continue to influence market sentiment. Escalating tensions in the Middle East, concerns about energy prices, and broader uncertainty in global financial markets have periodically weighed on risk assets.

Against this backdrop, Tuesday’s rally suggests that technology driven growth expectations remain a dominant force in investor decision making.

What Happened?

Major Chinese and Hong Kong equity indices posted strong gains:

• Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index rose 2.5 percent.
• The Hang Seng Tech Index surged 4.7 percent.
• China’s STAR 50 Index gained 1.6 percent.
• The ChiNext Index climbed 2.7 percent.
• The CSI300 advanced 1.5 percent.
• The Shanghai Composite Index increased 0.4 percent.

Technology stocks were the primary drivers of the rally.

Tencent shares jumped more than 10 percent following reports that the company is moving closer to launching an artificial intelligence agent integrated into WeChat, China’s largest social media and messaging platform.

Meituan also gained strongly after investors reacted positively to signs that intense competition in China’s food delivery industry may be beginning to ease.

The rally extended beyond technology, with artificial intelligence related shares and non ferrous metal companies also recording significant gains.

Tencent’s AI Push Captures Investor Attention

Why Tencent’s Move Matters

The strongest market reaction centered on Tencent.

Reports suggesting that the company is nearing the launch of an AI agent for WeChat generated excitement because of the platform’s enormous user base of approximately 1.4 billion people.

If successfully deployed, such an AI assistant could become one of the largest consumer facing artificial intelligence applications in the world.

The development is significant because AI competition is increasingly shifting from standalone chatbots toward integration within existing digital ecosystems.

Companies that already possess massive user networks may have advantages in scaling AI services rapidly.

The Strategic Importance of WeChat

WeChat occupies a unique position within China’s digital economy.

The platform combines messaging, payments, shopping, business services, entertainment, and social networking into a single ecosystem.

Integrating AI directly into this environment could significantly enhance user engagement while creating new revenue opportunities through advertising, commerce, and premium services.

Investors appear to be viewing Tencent’s AI ambitions as a potentially transformative growth driver.

Why Meituan’s Gains Matter

Signs of Competitive Stabilization

Meituan’s rise may appear surprising given its latest quarterly loss.

However, investors focused less on earnings and more on indications that subsidy driven competition in China’s rapid delivery sector is beginning to moderate.

For much of the past year, food delivery companies have engaged in aggressive pricing battles designed to capture market share.

While beneficial for consumers, these strategies have pressured corporate profitability.

Evidence that the competitive environment is stabilizing could improve future earnings prospects across the sector.

Shift Toward Profitability

Investors often reward companies when they believe industry conditions are becoming more rational.

For Meituan, expectations of reduced subsidy spending may be viewed as a pathway toward stronger margins and improved financial performance.

The AI Investment Narrative Continues

Artificial Intelligence Remains a Global Theme

One of the most important lessons from Tuesday’s rally is that artificial intelligence continues to dominate market thinking.

Despite geopolitical uncertainty, investors remain eager to identify companies positioned to benefit from AI adoption.

This trend is not limited to the United States.

Chinese technology firms are increasingly being evaluated based on their ability to develop competitive AI products, infrastructure, and services.

Zhipu AI’s Listing Plans

Another development attracting attention was the announcement that Zhipu AI intends to pursue a domestic stock market listing in Shanghai.

The move highlights growing confidence among Chinese AI firms and demonstrates the sector’s increasing importance within China’s capital markets.

A successful listing could further strengthen investor interest in domestic AI development.

The Middle East Factor

Why Investors Remain Cautious

Although technology optimism drove markets higher, geopolitical developments remain a significant source of uncertainty.

Investors continue monitoring negotiations involving the United States, Iran, Israel, and regional actors.

Potential disruptions to energy markets remain a key concern because rising oil prices can increase inflation pressures and slow economic growth globally.

Markets Are Balancing Two Competing Forces

Current market behavior reflects a balancing act.

On one side are geopolitical risks, including conflict, energy market volatility, and diplomatic uncertainty.

On the other side is enthusiasm surrounding technological innovation and artificial intelligence.

Tuesday’s rally suggests that, at least for now, investors believe technology driven growth opportunities outweigh immediate geopolitical concerns.

Analysis: Why China’s Technology Sector Is Regaining Momentum

The significance of Tuesday’s rally extends beyond a single trading session.

It reflects a broader reassessment of China’s technology sector.

For several years, investors viewed Chinese technology companies primarily through the lens of regulatory risk, slowing growth, and geopolitical tensions.

Today, artificial intelligence is changing that narrative.

Investors increasingly see Chinese firms as participants in a global technological transformation rather than merely domestic internet companies.

Tencent’s gains illustrate this shift particularly well.

The market reaction was not driven by short term earnings or cost cutting measures. Instead, it was driven by expectations regarding future technological capabilities and growth potential.

Another important factor is capital flows.

China remains one of the few major emerging markets attracting investment across equities, bonds, and currencies simultaneously. This provides a supportive backdrop for asset prices even when external risks remain elevated.

At the same time, investors should not ignore underlying challenges.

China’s economy continues to face pressures from weak consumer demand, property sector difficulties, and slower growth compared with previous decades.

Artificial intelligence enthusiasm may boost valuations, but sustained market strength will ultimately require broader economic improvement.

Nevertheless, Tuesday’s performance suggests that global investors increasingly view China’s technology sector as a key participant in the AI revolution rather than merely a recovery story.

Future Scenarios

Scenario One: AI Momentum Continues

Technology companies successfully launch new AI products and attract additional investment.

This could drive further gains across China’s technology sector and strengthen market sentiment.

Scenario Two: Economic Weakness Limits Gains

Artificial intelligence enthusiasm remains strong, but broader economic challenges constrain corporate earnings and consumer spending.

Technology stocks continue rising, though at a slower pace.

Scenario Three: Geopolitical Risks Reemerge

Escalating tensions in the Middle East or worsening global economic conditions trigger risk aversion.

Investors shift away from growth assets, leading to increased market volatility.

What’s Next?

Investors will closely watch Tencent’s progress in launching AI features for WeChat and monitor adoption rates if the product is introduced.

Attention will also focus on upcoming earnings reports, AI related announcements, and developments surrounding Zhipu AI’s planned listing.

Beyond technology, markets will continue evaluating geopolitical developments in the Middle East and their potential impact on energy prices and global investor sentiment.

The interaction between technological optimism and geopolitical uncertainty is likely to remain one of the defining themes for financial markets throughout the coming months.

Conclusion

Tuesday’s rally demonstrates that artificial intelligence remains one of the most powerful forces shaping global investment decisions. Strong gains in Tencent, Meituan, and other technology companies highlight growing confidence in China’s ability to participate in the next phase of AI driven innovation.

While geopolitical risks continue to create uncertainty, investors appear increasingly willing to look beyond short term tensions and focus on long term technological opportunities. Whether this momentum can be sustained will depend not only on AI breakthroughs but also on the broader health of China’s economy and the stability of the global geopolitical environment.

With information from Reuters.

Both the US and Iran have recently signaled progress on efforts to reach a deal to end their conflict, though their accounts of its terms differ on some issues across respective media narratives, Anadolu reports.

US President Donald Trump on Saturday said an agreement with Iran to end the war was “largely negotiated” and awaited finalization.

On Sunday morning, Iran’s semi-official Tasnim news agency also published a report on the details of a potential agreement. However, certain aspects of what has been agreed seem to diverge.

Here is a comparison of the US and Iranian versions of the deal by key issues.

Strait of Hormuz

Citing a US official, Axios said the deal that Washington and Tehran are close to signing would extend a ceasefire by 60 days, during which the Strait of Hormuz would be reopened.

During the 60-day period, the Strait of Hormuz would be opened without any tolls, and Iran would remove the mines it has placed there to ensure unrestricted maritime passage.

In return, Washington would lift its blockade on Iranian ports, added the report.

The New York Times also said it was informed by three senior Iranian officials that Tehran had agreed to a memorandum of understanding to halt fighting and reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio also said on Sunday that the agreement could, if successful, result in a “completely open” Strait of Hormuz, with no tolls or restrictions on passage.

“They don’t own it. It’s an international waterway,” Rubio told reporters of the strait, in remarks that came during his visit to India.

A report by Iran’s semi-official news agency Tasnim, however, said that the Strait of Hormuz will not fully return to its pre-war status if the agreement is reached.

Instead, the number of ships allowed to pass would be restored to pre-war levels within 30 days, the outlet added.

Tehran also demands an end to the US blockade on its ports, arguing that no changes will be made in the strait if the blockade remains in place.

For its part, the US argues that the quicker Iran removes the mines and allows shipping to resume, the sooner the blockade will be lifted.

READ: Iran ready to reassure world it is not pursuing nuclear weapons, president says

Sanctions relief and release of frozen Iranian assets

Iran was seeking the immediate unfreezing of funds and a permanent lifting of sanctions, but the US position indicates these measures would only be granted after Iran made concrete concessions, according to the Axios report.

As part of the proposed 60-day agreement, the US is offering temporary sanctions waivers that would allow Iran to sell its oil freely. These waivers are explicitly linked to Iran reopening the Strait of Hormuz, removing mines, and ending restrictions on maritime traffic. Once these steps are taken, Washington would also lift its naval blockade on Iranian ports.

Tehran, however, says no agreement will be reached unless at least a portion of the frozen Iranian assets is released immediately. Iranian media confirmed the discussion of temporary oil sanctions waivers in the latest US proposal but insisted on broader and more permanent sanctions relief.

Nuclear file

The Axios report said the draft deal includes commitments from Iran not to pursue nuclear weapons, along with provisions to negotiate a suspension of uranium enrichment and the removal of its stockpile of highly enriched uranium.

The Iranian media reports, however, indicate that Tehran has not yet accepted anything on its nuclear program.

A potential deal would involve a 60-day negotiation window on Iran’s nuclear program, according to Tasnim.

Extent of ceasefire

Both US and Iranian media reports suggest that the cessation of hostilities would mean a halt to fighting on all fronts, including Lebanon.

This was also highlighted by Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei on Saturday, when he said Tehran was prioritizing an end to hostilities across all fronts, including Lebanon.

Context

Regional tensions have escalated since the US and Israel launched strikes against Iran in February. Tehran retaliated with strikes targeting Israel, as well as US allies in the Gulf, along with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

A ceasefire took effect on April 8 through Pakistani mediation and was later extended by Trump indefinitely. Washington and Tehran also held rare direct talks in the Pakistani capital Islamabad on April 11-12, but have failed to reach an agreement.

Trump’s Saturday remarks came after Pakistani army chief Asim Munir’s visit to Tehran. The visit was the second of its kind in recent weeks, as Munir is directly involved in Islamabad’s mediation efforts.

READ: Trump says Iran talks ‘constructive’ but blockade will remain until final deal is reached

Gaza will not forget

The suffocating smoke still hangs over her ruins, thick with the acrid stench of explosives powder and dust carrying the scent of betrayal and the mark of courage. Her streets, once filled with children’s laughter, became Israeli fields of slaughter. Now they echo with the names and memories of martyrs.

The mass graves, the broken concrete, and the twisted steel are not just evidence of Zionist hatred. They are witnesses to those who stood with her, and to those who failed her. Today, Gaza’s rubble holds more memories than all the nation’s libraries.

Palestine will remember

She will remember the selfless sacrifices of doctors and healthcare workers who refused to abandon their sick patients as bombs rained on their hospitals; the journalists who became the news, targeted for daring to expose the truth; the mothers who wrapped their children in the red, black, green, and white flag of a nation Israel is desperate to erase.

These are not tales of despair, but of defiance, insisting on its right to breathe life amid death.

Gaza will not forget

She will not forget the silence of Western democracies. In a tragic inversion, most European nations, shackled by the ghosts of their past, traded morality for absolution. The self-proclaimed champions of human rights offered Palestinians on the altar of yesterday’s victims to atone for Europe’s sins.

Gaza will not forget the Biden administration, which vetoed every U.N. Security Council resolution calling to end the genocide. Nor Donald Trump, who poured fuel on the fire, then demanded recognition for dousing his own flames.

This week, Arab, Muslim, and world leaders gather like moths around the American arsonist-turned-firefighter, “celebrating” the ashes of Gaza.

Palestine will remember

She will remember the people who rose for Gaza, from Yemen to Dublin, from Cape Town to London and Madrid, while Arab capitals from Cairo to Riyadh slept. Ireland and Spain led the boycott, while Arab countries from the Gulf to Jordan opened their ports and highways to provide alternative routes for Israeli goods, even as Yemen imposed a sea blockade in the Red Sea.

Gaza will not forget — nor forgive — the Arab governments that opened their ports when shipyard workers in Italy refused, delivering American weapons used to annihilate her children and destroy her hospitals.

Palestine will remember

She will remember South Africa — not an Arab or Muslim nation — that led her case before the International Court of Justice, charging Israel with genocide. A country once scarred by apartheid became the moral conscience of a world too timid to speak. In that act of solidarity, South Africa rekindled the universal truth that justice knows no borders.

Palestine will remember the Lebanese resistance that gave its leaders for Gaza’s defense; Yemen, poor in wealth but rich in dignity, whose solidarity never wavered; and Iran, steadfast against Israeli hubris. She will remember Ireland and Spain, who did not turn away when Arabs did, proving that true solidarity transcends borders, faith, and kinship, resting only on shared humanity.

She will remember the heroes of the flotillas who braved waves of hatred and siege to carry messages of compassion; the nameless volunteers who left the safety of their countries to heal the wounded and feed the hungry; the American students who turned campuses into encampments of resistance; the artists, actors, and musicians who risked careers for justice; the employees who lost their jobs protesting the complicity of Google, Microsoft, and other tech giants in Israel’s crimes.

Gaza will not forget those who betrayed her

Palestine will forever be grateful to those who dared to speak the truth when it was dangerous, who marched when it was forbidden, who grieved when it was unfashionable.

Palestine will remember. History will remember. Justice will remember.

For nearly two years, Gaza has endured a genocide so relentless it defies descriptive language. Israel’s war machine has turned hospitals into morgues, UN schools into mass graves, and refugee camps into craters. Yet Gaza refuses to die.

Each time she is bombed “back to the Stone Age,” she rises — like the phoenix — to rebuild, not only her structures but her indomitable will. In that defiance lies the occupier’s greatest fear: memory.

Israel can destroy buildings but not erase remembrance. The siege may starve Gaza’s body, but it nourishes Palestine’s collective soul.

Gaza’s children will grow up with memories no child should bear. But they will also inherit something indestructible: dignity. In every demolished home and every shattered family lives a story that refuses burial.

Gaza’s memory will not fade. For the mind, unlike stone, cannot be occupied. It is the eternal archive of a people’s resilience, passed from one generation to the next, weaving the indelible tapestry of Palestine today.

The ruins of Gaza stand not only as testimony to Israel’s genocide but to the moral collapse of those who enabled it.

Gaza will rise again, brick by brick.

But what will never be resurrected is the Israeli lie, which, for eight decades, cloaked the Zionist project in the guise of victimhood, occupying Western narratives and manufacturing consent.

Gaza will rise — and the Israeli myth will remain buried beneath her rubble, forever.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

Both the US and Iran have recently signaled progress on efforts to reach a deal to end their conflict, though their accounts of its terms differ on some issues across respective media narratives, Anadolu reports.

US President Donald Trump on Saturday said an agreement with Iran to end the war was “largely negotiated” and awaited finalization.

On Sunday morning, Iran’s semi-official Tasnim news agency also published a report on the details of a potential agreement. However, certain aspects of what has been agreed seem to diverge.

Here is a comparison of the US and Iranian versions of the deal by key issues.

Strait of Hormuz

Citing a US official, Axios said the deal that Washington and Tehran are close to signing would extend a ceasefire by 60 days, during which the Strait of Hormuz would be reopened.

During the 60-day period, the Strait of Hormuz would be opened without any tolls, and Iran would remove the mines it has placed there to ensure unrestricted maritime passage.

In return, Washington would lift its blockade on Iranian ports, added the report.

The New York Times also said it was informed by three senior Iranian officials that Tehran had agreed to a memorandum of understanding to halt fighting and reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio also said on Sunday that the agreement could, if successful, result in a “completely open” Strait of Hormuz, with no tolls or restrictions on passage.

“They don’t own it. It’s an international waterway,” Rubio told reporters of the strait, in remarks that came during his visit to India.

A report by Iran’s semi-official news agency Tasnim, however, said that the Strait of Hormuz will not fully return to its pre-war status if the agreement is reached.

Instead, the number of ships allowed to pass would be restored to pre-war levels within 30 days, the outlet added.

Tehran also demands an end to the US blockade on its ports, arguing that no changes will be made in the strait if the blockade remains in place.

For its part, the US argues that the quicker Iran removes the mines and allows shipping to resume, the sooner the blockade will be lifted.

READ: Iran ready to reassure world it is not pursuing nuclear weapons, president says

Sanctions relief and release of frozen Iranian assets

Iran was seeking the immediate unfreezing of funds and a permanent lifting of sanctions, but the US position indicates these measures would only be granted after Iran made concrete concessions, according to the Axios report.

As part of the proposed 60-day agreement, the US is offering temporary sanctions waivers that would allow Iran to sell its oil freely. These waivers are explicitly linked to Iran reopening the Strait of Hormuz, removing mines, and ending restrictions on maritime traffic. Once these steps are taken, Washington would also lift its naval blockade on Iranian ports.

Tehran, however, says no agreement will be reached unless at least a portion of the frozen Iranian assets is released immediately. Iranian media confirmed the discussion of temporary oil sanctions waivers in the latest US proposal but insisted on broader and more permanent sanctions relief.

Nuclear file

The Axios report said the draft deal includes commitments from Iran not to pursue nuclear weapons, along with provisions to negotiate a suspension of uranium enrichment and the removal of its stockpile of highly enriched uranium.

The Iranian media reports, however, indicate that Tehran has not yet accepted anything on its nuclear program.

A potential deal would involve a 60-day negotiation window on Iran’s nuclear program, according to Tasnim.

Extent of ceasefire

Both US and Iranian media reports suggest that the cessation of hostilities would mean a halt to fighting on all fronts, including Lebanon.

This was also highlighted by Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei on Saturday, when he said Tehran was prioritizing an end to hostilities across all fronts, including Lebanon.

Context

Regional tensions have escalated since the US and Israel launched strikes against Iran in February. Tehran retaliated with strikes targeting Israel, as well as US allies in the Gulf, along with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

A ceasefire took effect on April 8 through Pakistani mediation and was later extended by Trump indefinitely. Washington and Tehran also held rare direct talks in the Pakistani capital Islamabad on April 11-12, but have failed to reach an agreement.

Trump’s Saturday remarks came after Pakistani army chief Asim Munir’s visit to Tehran. The visit was the second of its kind in recent weeks, as Munir is directly involved in Islamabad’s mediation efforts.

READ: Trump says Iran talks ‘constructive’ but blockade will remain until final deal is reached

Both the US and Iran have recently signaled progress on efforts to reach a deal to end their conflict, though their accounts of its terms differ on some issues across respective media narratives, Anadolu reports.

US President Donald Trump on Saturday said an agreement with Iran to end the war was “largely negotiated” and awaited finalization.

On Sunday morning, Iran’s semi-official Tasnim news agency also published a report on the details of a potential agreement. However, certain aspects of what has been agreed seem to diverge.

Here is a comparison of the US and Iranian versions of the deal by key issues.

Strait of Hormuz

Citing a US official, Axios said the deal that Washington and Tehran are close to signing would extend a ceasefire by 60 days, during which the Strait of Hormuz would be reopened.

During the 60-day period, the Strait of Hormuz would be opened without any tolls, and Iran would remove the mines it has placed there to ensure unrestricted maritime passage.

In return, Washington would lift its blockade on Iranian ports, added the report.

The New York Times also said it was informed by three senior Iranian officials that Tehran had agreed to a memorandum of understanding to halt fighting and reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio also said on Sunday that the agreement could, if successful, result in a “completely open” Strait of Hormuz, with no tolls or restrictions on passage.

“They don’t own it. It’s an international waterway,” Rubio told reporters of the strait, in remarks that came during his visit to India.

A report by Iran’s semi-official news agency Tasnim, however, said that the Strait of Hormuz will not fully return to its pre-war status if the agreement is reached.

Instead, the number of ships allowed to pass would be restored to pre-war levels within 30 days, the outlet added.

Tehran also demands an end to the US blockade on its ports, arguing that no changes will be made in the strait if the blockade remains in place.

For its part, the US argues that the quicker Iran removes the mines and allows shipping to resume, the sooner the blockade will be lifted.

READ: Iran ready to reassure world it is not pursuing nuclear weapons, president says

Sanctions relief and release of frozen Iranian assets

Iran was seeking the immediate unfreezing of funds and a permanent lifting of sanctions, but the US position indicates these measures would only be granted after Iran made concrete concessions, according to the Axios report.

As part of the proposed 60-day agreement, the US is offering temporary sanctions waivers that would allow Iran to sell its oil freely. These waivers are explicitly linked to Iran reopening the Strait of Hormuz, removing mines, and ending restrictions on maritime traffic. Once these steps are taken, Washington would also lift its naval blockade on Iranian ports.

Tehran, however, says no agreement will be reached unless at least a portion of the frozen Iranian assets is released immediately. Iranian media confirmed the discussion of temporary oil sanctions waivers in the latest US proposal but insisted on broader and more permanent sanctions relief.

Nuclear file

The Axios report said the draft deal includes commitments from Iran not to pursue nuclear weapons, along with provisions to negotiate a suspension of uranium enrichment and the removal of its stockpile of highly enriched uranium.

The Iranian media reports, however, indicate that Tehran has not yet accepted anything on its nuclear program.

A potential deal would involve a 60-day negotiation window on Iran’s nuclear program, according to Tasnim.

Extent of ceasefire

Both US and Iranian media reports suggest that the cessation of hostilities would mean a halt to fighting on all fronts, including Lebanon.

This was also highlighted by Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei on Saturday, when he said Tehran was prioritizing an end to hostilities across all fronts, including Lebanon.

Context

Regional tensions have escalated since the US and Israel launched strikes against Iran in February. Tehran retaliated with strikes targeting Israel, as well as US allies in the Gulf, along with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

A ceasefire took effect on April 8 through Pakistani mediation and was later extended by Trump indefinitely. Washington and Tehran also held rare direct talks in the Pakistani capital Islamabad on April 11-12, but have failed to reach an agreement.

Trump’s Saturday remarks came after Pakistani army chief Asim Munir’s visit to Tehran. The visit was the second of its kind in recent weeks, as Munir is directly involved in Islamabad’s mediation efforts.

READ: Trump says Iran talks ‘constructive’ but blockade will remain until final deal is reached