Force

Islamabad, Pakistan – When the United Nations Security Council on Monday adopted a United States-authored resolution that paves the way for a transitional administration and an International Stabilisation Force (ISF) in Gaza, Pakistan – which was presiding over the council – had a seemingly contradictory response.

Asim Iftikhar Ahmed, Pakistan’s permanent representative to the UN, thanked the US for tabling the resolution and voted in its favour. But he also said Pakistan was not entirely satisfied with the outcome, and warned that “some critical suggestions” from Pakistan were not included in the final text.

Though the resolution promises a “credible pathway” to Palestinian statehood, Ahmed, in his comments to the council, said it did not spell that path out, and did not clarify the role of the UN, a proposed Board of Peace (BoP) to oversee Gaza’s governance, or the mandate of the ISF.

“Those are all crucial aspects with a bearing on the success of this endeavour. We earnestly hope that further details in coming weeks will provide the much-needed clarity on these issues,” he said.

But the country had already endorsed US President Donald Trump’s 20-point Gaza ceasefire plan in September – the basis for the UN resolution. And while several other Arab and Muslim countries have also cautiously supported the resolution, Pakistan, with the largest army among them, is widely expected to play a key role in the ISF.

The vote in favour of the resolution, coupled with the suggestions that Pakistan still has questions it needs answers to, represents a careful tightrope walk that Islamabad will need to navigate as it faces questions at home over possible military deployment in Gaza, say analysts.

“The US playbook is clear and has a pro-Israel tilt. Yet, we need to recognise that this is the best option that we have,” Salman Bashir, former Pakistani foreign secretary, told Al Jazeera. “After the sufferings inflicted on the people of Gaza, we did not have any option but to go along.”

Pakistan’s rising geopolitical value

In recent weeks, Pakistan’s top leaders have engaged in hectic diplomacy with key Middle Eastern partners.

Last weekend, Jordan’s King Abdullah II visited Islamabad and met Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Field Marshal Asim Munir, the army chief. Munir had earlier travelled to Amman in October, as well as to Cairo in Egypt.

Pakistan has traditionally had close relations with Gulf states, and those ties have tightened amid Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza. Pakistan has long called for “Palestinian self-determination and the establishment of a sovereign, independent and contiguous State of Palestine based on pre-1967 borders with al-Quds al-Sharif [Jerusalem] as its capital”.

But in recent weeks, Pakistan – the only Muslim nation with nuclear weapons – has also emerged as a key actor in the region’s security calculations, courted by both the United States and important Arab allies.

In September, Pakistan signed a Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement (SMDA) with Saudi Arabia, days after Israel had struck Doha, the Qatari capital. Then, in October, Prime Minister Sharif and Field Marshal Munir joined Trump and a bevy of other world leaders in Egypt’s Sharm el-Sheikh for the formal signing ceremony of the Gaza ceasefire agreement. Sharif lavished Trump with praise on the occasion.

By then, Trump had already described Munir as his “favourite field marshal”. Following a brief escalation with India in May, during which Pakistan said it shot down Indian jets, Munir met Trump in the Oval Office in June, an unprecedented visit for a serving Pakistani military chief who is not head of state.

In late September, Munir visited Washington again, this time with Sharif. The prime minister and army chief met Trump and promoted potential investment opportunities, including Pakistan’s rare earth minerals.

Now, Pakistan’s government is mulling its participation in the ISF. Though the government has not made any decision, senior officials have publicly commented favourably about the idea. “If Pakistan has to participate in it, then I think it will be a matter of pride for us,” Defence Minister Khawaja Asif said on October 28. “We will be proud to do it.”

That’s easier said than done, cautioned some analysts.

Palestine is an emotive issue in Pakistan, which does not recognise Israel. The national passport explicitly states it cannot be used for travel to Israel, and any suggestion of military cooperation with Israeli forces – or even de facto recognition of Israel – remains politically fraught.

That makes the prospect of troop deployment to Gaza a highly sensitive subject for politicians and the military alike.

Government keeps cards close to chest

Officially, the government has been opaque about its position on joining the ISF.

Even while describing any participation in the force as a cause for pride, Defence Minister Asif said the government would consult parliament and other institutions before making any decision.

“The government will take a decision after going through the process, and I don’t want to preempt anything,” he said.

In a weekly press briefing earlier this month, Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Tahir Andrabi said the question of Pakistan’s contribution would be decided “after consultation at the highest level”.

“The decision will be taken in due course, as and when required. Certain level of leadership has stated that the decision will be taken with the advice of the government,” he said.

Al Jazeera reached out to Asif, the defence minister, Information Minister Attaullah Tarar, and the military’s media wing, the Inter-Services Public Relations, but received no response.

Legal, operational ambiguities

Some retired senior officers say Pakistan will not decide the matter behind closed doors.

Muhammad Saeed, a three-star general who served as Chief of General Staff until his 2023 retirement, said he expects the terms of reference and rules of engagement for any ISF deployment to be debated in public forums, including Pakistan’s National Security Council and parliament.

“This is such a sensitive topic; it has to be debated publicly, and no government can possibly keep it under wraps. So once the ISF structure becomes clear, I am certain that Pakistani decision-making will be very inclusive and the public will know about the details,” he told Al Jazeera.

Kamran Bokhari, senior director at the New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy in Washington, DC, said the mutual defence agreement with Saudi Arabia meant that Pakistani troops in Gaza would likely be representing both countries. He, however, added that Pakistan would likely have participated in the ISF even without the Saudi pact.

Still, the lack of details about the ISF and Gaza’s governance in the UN resolution remains a stumbling block, say experts.

Several countries on the council said the resolution left key elements ambiguous, including the composition, structure and terms of reference for both the BoP and the ISF. China, which abstained, also described the text as “vague and unclear” on critical elements.

The resolution asks for the Gaza Strip to be “demilitarised” and for the “permanent decommissioning of weapons from non-state armed groups”, a demand that Hamas has rejected.

Hamas said the resolution failed to meet Palestinian rights and sought to impose an international trusteeship on Gaza that Palestinians and resistance factions oppose.

So far, the US has sent nearly 200 personnel, including a general, to establish a Civil-Military Coordination Center (CMCC) near Gaza on Israeli territory. The centre will monitor humanitarian aid and act as a base from which the ISF is expected to operate.

US-based media outlet Politico reported last month that Pakistan, Azerbaijan and Indonesia – all Muslim-majority states – were among the top contenders to supply troops for the ISF.

Meanwhile, the United Arab Emirates, which joined the Abraham Accords in 2020 and recognised Israel in Trump’s first tenure, has said it will not participate until there is clarity on the legal framework.

King Abdullah of Jordan also warned that without a clear mandate for the ISF, it would be difficult to make the plan succeed.

Costs, incentives and Pakistan’s historical role

Bokhari argued Pakistan has limited options, adding that many of its close allies are “deeply committed” to the initiative and have sought Islamabad’s participation.

“Pakistan’s economic and financial problems mean it will need to reciprocate militarily in order to secure” the goodwill of the US and Islamabad’s Gulf allies, he said. “We have to assume that the current civilian-military leadership is aware of the domestic political risks.”

Others point to Pakistan’s long experience with UN peacekeeping. As of September 2025, UN figures show Pakistan has contributed more than 2,600 personnel to UN missions, just below Indonesia’s 2,700, ranking Pakistan sixth overall.

Qamar Cheema, executive director of the Islamabad-based Sanober Institute, said Pakistan has emerged as a security stabiliser for the Middle East and has “extensive experience of providing support in conflict zones in the past”.

Pakistan currently faces security challenges on both its borders – with India to its east and Taliban-ruled Afghanistan to the west. But it “may not have to cut troops from its eastern or western borders, since the number of troops [needed in Gaza] may not be that big, as various countries are also sending troops,” Cheema told Al Jazeera.

Saeed, the retired general, said Pakistan’s historic position on Palestine remained intact and that its prior peacekeeping experience meant that its troops were well-equipped to help the ISF.

“Pakistan has one of the richest experiences when it comes to both peacekeeping and peace enforcement through the UN. We have a sizeable force, with a variety of experience in maintaining peace and order,” he said.

“The hope is that we can perhaps provide help that can eliminate the violence, lead to peace, bring humanitarian aid in Gaza and implement the UN resolution,” the former general said.

Domestic political risks and the Israeli factor

Despite those arguments, many in Pakistan question the feasibility – and political acceptability – of serving alongside or coordinating with Israeli forces.

Bashir, the former foreign secretary, acknowledged the risks and said the demand that Hamas deweaponise made the ISF “a difficult mission”.

Still, he said, “realism demands that we go along with a less than perfect solution”.

Bokhari of New Lines Institute said stakeholders often sort out details “on the go” in the early stages of such missions.

“Of course, there is no way Pakistan or any other participating nation can avoid coordinating with Israel,” he said.

Saeed, however, disagreed. He said ISF would likely be a coalition in which one partner coordinates any dealings with Israeli forces, meaning Pakistani troops might not have direct contact with Israel.

“There are other countries potentially part of ISF who have relations with Israel. It is likely they will take the commanding role in ISF, and thus they will be the ones to engage with them, and not Pakistan,” he said. He added Pakistan’s involvement – if it happens – would be narrowly focused on maintaining the ceasefire and protecting Palestinian lives.

But Omar Mahmood Hayat, another retired three-star general, warned that any operational tie to Israel “will ignite domestic backlash and erode public trust”.

Hayat said Pakistan has no diplomatic ties with Israel “for principled reasons” and that blurring that line, even citing humanitarian considerations, would invite domestic confusion and controversy.

“This is not just a moral dilemma, but it is also a strategic contradiction,” he said. “It weakens our diplomatic posture.”

Phillip Kusharev scored in regulation and the only goal of a shootout, and the San Jose Sharks held on for a 4-3 win over the Kings on Thursday night.

San Jose’s first player in the shootout, Kusharev skated toward his left then shifted direction toward the net before flipping the puck over the left shoulder of Kings goalie Anton Forsberg. Kusharev also had a goal in the second period.

Ty Dellandrea had a goal and an assist for San Jose. Adam Gaudette scored a goal, while Collin Graf had two assists. Yaroslav Askarov made 31 saves, two during the shootout.

Joel Armia, Anze Kopitar and Adrian Kempe had goals for the Kings.

Gaudette got the Sharks going with a goal on San Jose’s first shot of the game 2:33 into the first period. Gaudette raced in from the blue line and took a pass from Dellandrea then fired a wrist shot into the lower left corner of the net.

After the Kings tied it on Armia’s shorthanded and unassisted goal late in the period, San Jose regained the lead when Collin Graf skated around behind the net then flipped to Dellandrea in front of the net for a 2-1 lead with 9.9 seconds remaining.

The Kings responded quickly with a tying goal less than two minutes into the second period when Kopitar slid the puck through the legs of Askarov. Trevor Moore and Cody Ceci had assists.

After the Kings had a goal nullified by an offside penalty midway through the second period, Kusharev’s sixth goal of the season gave the Sharks a 3-2 lead.

Kempe forced overtime with his seventh goal of the season with 59 seconds remaining in regulation.

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Thursday said he believed Democratic lawmakers who publicly urged active service members to “refuse illegal orders” amounted to seditious behavior, which he said should be punishable by death.

“It’s called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL. Their words cannot be allowed to stand — We won’t have a Country anymore!!! An example MUST BE SET,” Trump said in a social media post.

Trump went on to amplify more than a dozen social media posts from other people, who in reaction to Trump’s post called for the Democrats to be arrested, charged and in one instance hanged. Trump then continued: “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”

The president’s remarks were in reaction to a joint video released by six Democrat lawmakers in which they urged military and intelligence personnel to “refuse illegal orders.”

The Democratic lawmakers who released the video — Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, Michigan Sen. Alyssa Slotkin, Pennsylvania Rep. Chris Deluzio, New Hampshire Rep. Maggie Goodlander, Pennsylvania Rep. Chrissy Houlahan and Colorado Rep. Jason Crow — served in the military or as intelligence officers.

They did not specify which orders they were referring to. But they said the Trump administration was “pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professional against American citizens” and that threats to the Constitution were coming “from right here at home.”

The video, which was posted on Tuesday, quickly drew criticism from Republicans, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth who characterized it as “Stage 4 [Trump Derangement Syndrome].” But Trump, who first reacted to the video on Thursday, saw the video as more than partisan speech.

“SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP???” Trump said in another post.

When asked Thursday if the president wanted to execute members of Congress, as suggested in one of his social media posts, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said “no.”

But, Leavitt said, the president does want to see them be “held accountable.”

“That is a very, very dangerous message and it is perhaps punishable by law,” Leavitt said. “I’ll leave that to the Department of justice and the Department of War to decide.”

What the law says

Under a federal law known as “seditious conspiracy,” it is a crime for two or more individuals to “conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States” or to “prevent, hinder or delay the execution of any law of the United States” by force.

A seditious conspiracy charge is punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

Federal courts and legal scholars have long emphasized that seditious conspiracy charges apply only to coordinated efforts to use force against the government, rather than political dissent.

The last time federal prosecutors pursued seditious conspiracy charges was in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers were convicted of seditious conspiracy and other charges for plotting to prevent by force the transfer of presidential power to Joe Biden.

Among the convicted individuals was former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, whose 22-year sentence was the stiffest of any of the Jan. 6 rioters. Trump pardoned him earlier this year.

Hours after the president’s posts, the six Democratic lawmakers issued a joint statement, calling on Americans to “unite and condemn the President’s calls for our murder and political violence.”

“What’s most telling is that the President considers it punishable by death for us to restate the law,” the lawmakers said in a statement posted to X. “Our service members should know that we have their backs as they fulfill their oath to the Constitution and obligation to follow only lawful orders.”

Democratic leaders in Washington and across the country denounced Trump’s post.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said in a statement with other Democratic leaders that Trump’s comments were “disgusting and dangerous death threats against members of Congress.” They added that they had been in contact with U.S. Capitol Police to ensure the safety of the Democrat lawmakers and their families.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom reacted to the posts by saying Trump “is sick in the head” for calling for the death of Democratic lawmakers.

The Yantar, a notorious Russian spy ship, directed lasers at the crews of U.K. Royal Air Force aircraft in waters off the north of Scotland, the British government said today. While the Yantar has been a worrying presence around critical undersea infrastructure for years now, this development represents a concerning new trend, and one that could be very hazardous.

The alleged incident took place after a U.K. Royal Navy Type 23 frigate and Royal Air Force aircraft, including P-8A Poseidon MRA1 maritime patrol aircraft, were sent to monitor and track the vessel. Publicly available flight-tracking data suggests that Royal Air Force Typhoon fighters, supported by Voyager tankers, may also have been involved.

It’s not clear what kind of laser was used by the Yantar, but these encompass a wide range of systems, some of which can have significant power, at least enough to be a major concern. Depending on their output, lasers have the potential to temporarily obscure optics and the vision of personnel or cause permanent damage to both. More powerful laser weapons can burn holes in craft, damaging or destroying them, but are highly unlikely to have been installed on this vessel.

It is worth noting that the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) has regularly been accused of using shipborne lasers to harass military aircraft, as you can read about here.

As for the Yantar, this vessel has been active off the coast of the United Kingdom for the last few weeks, according to the U.K. defense secretary, John Healey, who disclosed details of its activities today.

“This is a vessel designed for gathering intelligence and mapping our undersea cables,” Healey said.

Referring to the laser incident, the defense secretary described the Russian ship’s action as “deeply dangerous,” noting that this is the second time this year that the Yantar has deployed to British waters.

Healey continued: “My message to Russia and to Putin is this: we see you, we know what you’re doing, and if the Yantar travels south this week, we are ready.”

The Yantar is part of the Russian Defense Ministry fleet, being operated by the Main Directorate of Deep-Sea Research, a secretive branch that works on behalf of the Russian Navy and other agencies. The ship is around 112 feet long and, among other duties, operates as a mothership for uncrewed underwater vessels (UUVs), which can be used to investigate the seabed and potentially undertake sabotage and other activities, including manipulating objects on the seafloor.

As we have discussed in the past, the Yantar is officially classified as a Project 22010 “oceanographic research vessel,” but its specialized equipment can reportedly tap or cut submarine cables and investigate and retrieve objects from depths of up to 18,000 feet. The vessel is also likely to be able to place devices on the seabed that could cut cables long after the ship has moved on.

Russia has repeatedly claimed that the vessel is used for legitimate maritime “research” or “survey,” but it has an established pattern of operating around critical undersea infrastructure. In particular, it is assessed that the Yantar is used for surveilling the U.K.’s crucial network of undersea cables, around 60 of which branch out into the sea from the British Isles.

The U.K. Ministry of Defense has long considered the Yantar a spy ship and tracks it closely, leading to several run-ins with the vessel in the past.

In September, the U.K.’s National Security Strategy Committee stated that the government was being “too timid” in its approach to protecting British undersea cables, some of which also have a military role.

Meanwhile, another British government oversight body, the Defense Select Committee, recently concluded more broadly that the United Kingdom “must be willing to grasp the nettle and prioritize homeland defense and resilience.”

At the beginning of this year, the United Kingdom confirmed that one of its Royal Navy nuclear-powered submarines surfaced close to the Yantar, to make it clear it was being observed. The Yantar was sailing in British waters in November last year, when that incident occurred. Specifically, the Russian ship was said to be “detected loitering over U.K. critical undersea infrastructure.”

At one point, one of the Royal Navy’s Astute class attack submarines surfaced close to the Yantar “to make clear that we had been covertly monitoring its every move,” Healey said.

Tracking the Yantar is not necessarily a difficult job, since its position is typically broadcast at regular intervals using the automatic identification system (AIS), an automatic tracking system that uses transceivers on ships. This data is then also published by online ship tracking services. However, commercial tracking can be manipulated and spoofed, or it can just go dark, making the vessel harder to pinpoint.

At the same time, it should be noted that the vessel has been operating within the U.K.’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) but in international waters, which is entirely legal.

Earlier this year, the Yantar was reported in the Mediterranean. On this occasion, it was assumed to be involved in searching and potentially salvaging the wreck of the Russian cargo vessel MV Ursa Major, which sank after an apparent explosion in its engine room in late December.

🚨📸 Overview in the 🌊Alboran Sea on 16 January: the 🇷🇺Russian research vessel Yantar with the 🇺🇸American DDGH Paul Ignatius, then the 🇺🇸Ignatius with the 🇪🇸Spanish PSO Tornado.
With #NATO forces in the 🌊Mediterranean, the 🇷🇺Yantar passing Gibraltar illustrates that the… pic.twitter.com/h6fC64rKkB

— Russian Forces Spotter (@TiaFarris10) January 20, 2025

Back in 2018, the U.K. Royal Navy also escorted the Yantar through the English Channel as it headed into the North Sea. At this time, it was carrying a Saab SeaEye Tiger deep-sea robot on its deck. Russia acquired this underwater drone after the Kursk submarine disaster. It can reach depths of 3,280 feet.

A year before that, the Yantar was involved in a high-profile operation in 2017 when it sailed off the coast of Syria to recover the wreckage of two fighter jets, a Su-33 and a MiG-29KR, that crashed into the Mediterranean Sea during operations from Russia’s aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov.

While the reported use of a laser in a hostile capacity by the crew of the Yantar is a new development, its activity comes as NATO becomes increasingly concerned about apparent sabotage to undersea infrastructure carrying oil, gas, electricity, and the internet. More generally, the threat to undersea infrastructure, specifically data cables, is of growing concern internationally.

In the Baltic Sea alone, cables have been damaged on several occasions, with all of them carrying at least some of the hallmarks of sabotage. In the most notable event, on December 25 last year, an oil tanker dragging its anchor damaged a power cable running between Finland and Estonia.

The vessel responsible for that incident in the Baltic was the Russia-connected Eagle S. The oil tanker was reportedly found to be brimming with spy equipment after it was seized by authorities. Finnish authorities filed charges of aggravated sabotage and aggravated interference with telecommunications against members of its crew.

Incidents like this led to NATO launching Baltic Sentry, a mission intended to ensure the security of critical undersea infrastructure in the region. As you can read about here, the mission also involves crewed surface vessels, UUVs, and various aircraft.

The scale of the threat was apparent even before Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, after which tensions between the Kremlin and the West heightened significantly.

“We are now seeing Russian underwater activity in the vicinity of undersea cables that I don’t believe we have ever seen,” U.S. Navy Rear Adm. Andrew Lennon, then serving as NATO’s top submarine officer, told The Washington Post back in December 2017. “Russia is clearly taking an interest in NATO and NATO nations’ undersea infrastructure.”

As Russia ramps up its hybrid warfare activities, which you can read more about here, the potential risk to undersea infrastructure is put into a much sharper focus. In many cases, such activities are deniable.

While NATO has long been aware of how difficult it can be to defend this kind of infrastructure against hostile actors, the apparent use of lasers by part of Russia’s spy fleet is another serious cause for concern.

Contact the author: [email protected]

On Monday, the UN Security Council passed a US-sponsored resolution which backs US President Donald Trump’s 20-point plan for ending Israel’s war on Gaza.

Among the clauses was one that supported the creation and deployment of an international stabilisation force (ISF) to provide security and oversight of the ceasefire agreement in Gaza.

In theory, this security body will work with Israel and Egypt to “demilitarise” the Gaza Strip and will reportedly train a Palestinian police force.

Despite the passing of a resolution that “acknowledges the parties have accepted” the Trump plan, Israeli air strikes on Gaza continued, including on areas on the Palestinian side of the yellow line.

So what is the ISF, and what does it mean for Gaza? Here’s what you need to know:

What is the ISF?

The ISF is envisioned as a multinational force that would deploy to Gaza to help train police, secure the borders, maintain security by helping demilitarise Gaza, protect civilians and humanitarian operations, including securing humanitarian corridors, among “additional tasks as may be necessary in support of the Comprehensive Plan”.

Essentially, the force would take over many of the security responsibilities that have been managed by Hamas over the last 19 years.

Since 2006, Hamas has been in charge of governing the Gaza Strip, including managing its social and security services.

Trump’s Comprehensive Plan was formulated with no input from Palestinian parties.

Who makes up the force?

That is still unclear, though under the resolution, the forces will work with Israel and Egypt and a newly trained Palestinian police force that will not be under Hamas or the Palestinian Authority.

A senior adviser to Trump said Azerbaijan and Indonesia had offered to send troops.

He also said Egypt, Qatar and the UAE were in talks about contributing, though a senior Emirati official, Anwar Gargash, said his country would not participate. Reports have said Egypt could lead the force.

In October, Turkiye’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said his country was ready to provide support to Gaza.

But as tensions have heated up between Turkiye and Israel, the latter’s Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar said Israel would not agree to Turkish troops on the ground in Gaza.

And how did the vote go?

It passed with a 13-0 vote.

But Russia and China abstained, expressing concern over the lack of Palestinian participation in the force and the lack of a clear role for the UN in the future of Gaza.

Russia had earlier proposed its own resolution that was “inspired by the US draft”.

Russia’s version requests that the UN secretary-general be involved in identifying potential options to participate in the international stabilisation force for Gaza.

It did not mention Trump’s so-called “board of peace” that would act as a transitional administration in Gaza.

What was Hamas’s response?

They rejected the resolution. The group released a statement on social messaging app Telegram, saying the vote “imposes an international guardianship mechanism on the Gaza Strip”.

Under Trump’s plan, Hamas would have no role in Gaza and would be disarmed, with its personnel offered two options: either commit to coexistence or be granted safe passage out of Gaza.

Hamas has repeatedly said it would give up governance but is not willing to give up its arms.

For his part, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, recently that the war “has not ended” and that Hamas would be disarmed.

What did Israel say?

Israel focused on the disarmament of Hamas, with its UN envoy Danny Danon saying his country would “demonstrate … determination in ensuring that Hamas is disarmed”.

In Israel, the resolution led at least one opposition party to lambast Netanyahu’s government.

“What happened tonight at the UN is a result of the Israeli government’s failed conduct,” Avigdor Lieberman, an ultranationalist politician who leads the Yisrael Beytenu party, wrote on X.

“The decision led to a Palestinian state, a Saudi nuclear [programme] and F-35 planes for Turkey and Saudi Arabia.”

DEVELOPING STORYDEVELOPING STORY,

The measure mandates transitional administration for Gaza and floats ‘credible pathway’ for Palestinian statehood.

The United Nations Security Council has approved a resolution mandating a transitional administration and an international stabilisation force in Gaza, which envisions a “credible pathway” to Palestinian statehood.

The resolution, drafted by the United States as part of President Donald Trump’s 20-point peace plan, passed in a 13-0 vote on Monday, paving the way for the crucial next steps for the fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. Russia and China abstained from the vote.

Arab and other Muslim countries that expressed interest in providing troops for an international force had previously indicated that a UN mandate was essential for their participation. At their behest, the US had included more defined language about Palestinian self-determination in the draft to get it over the finish line.

The draft now says that “conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood” after the Palestinian Authority, which has limited self-governance in the occupied West Bank, carries out reforms and advances are made in the the redevelopment of Gaza.

That language angered Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who said on Sunday that Israel remained opposed to a Palestinian state and pledged to demilitarise Gaza “the easy way or the hard way”.

US ambassador to the UN Mike Waltz said after the vote that “today’s resolution represents another significant step that will enable Gaza to prosper and an environment that will allow Israel to live in security”.

Amar Bendjama, Algeria’s ambassador to the UN, said his country was grateful to Trump “whose personal engagement has been instrumental in establishing and maintaining the ceasefire in Gaza”.

“But we underline that genuine peace in the Middle East cannot be achieved without justice. Justice for the Palestinians who have waited for decades for the establishment of their independent state,” he said.

Hamas rejects resolution

The US resolution says the stabilisation troops will help secure border areas, along with a trained and vetted Palestinian police force, and they will coordinate with other countries to secure the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza. It says the force should closely consult and cooperate with neighbouring Egypt and Israel.

It also calls for the stabilisation force to ensure “the process of demilitarising the Gaza Strip” and “the permanent decommissioning of weapons from non-state armed groups”, authorising it to “use all necessary measures to carry out its mandate”.

Hamas, which has not accepted disarmament, rejected the resolution, saying that it failed to meet Palestinians’ rights and demands and sought to impose an international trusteeship on the enclave that Palestinians and resistance factions oppose.

“Assigning the international force with tasks and roles inside the Gaza Strip, including disarming the resistance, strips it of its neutrality, and turns it into a party to the conflict in favour of the occupation,” the group said.

As the international force establishes control and brings stability, the resolution says Israeli forces will withdraw from Gaza “based on standards, milestones, and timeframes linked to demilitarisation”. These would be agreed by the stabilisation force, Israeli forces, the US and the guarantors of the ceasefire, it says.

Russia’s rival resolution

Trump said on Truth Social that the Board of Peace overseeing Gaza would “include the most powerful and respected Leaders throughout the World”, thanking countries that “strongly backed the effort, including Qatar, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Turkiye, and Jordan”.

Russia had circulated a rival resolution stressing that the occupied West Bank and Gaza must be joined as a contiguous state under the Palestinian Authority and underlining the importance of a Security Council role to provide security in Gaza and for implementing the ceasefire plan.

Reporting from New York, Al Jazeera’s Gabriel Elizondo said: “There is some certain criticism of [the US] draft resolution. A lot of people are saying that it simply changes the dynamics, but it still leaves Gaza essentially occupied, just by a different entity.”

Washington and other governments had hoped Moscow would not use its veto power on the UN’ most powerful body to block the adoption of the US resolution.

A top Border Patrol commander touted dozens of arrests in North Carolina’s largest city Sunday as Charlotte residents reported encounters with federal immigration agents near churches and apartment complexes.

The Trump administration has made the Democratic city of about 950,000 people its latest target for an immigration enforcement surge it says will combat crime, despite fierce objections from local leaders and data showing declining crime rates.

Gregory Bovino, who led hundreds of U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents on a similar operation in Chicago, went on social media to document some of the arrests he said numbered more than 80 in Charlotte. He posted pictures of people the administration commonly dubs “criminal illegal aliens,” in reference to people living in the U.S. without legal permission who are alleged to have criminal records. That included one of a man with an alleged history of drunk driving convictions.

“We arrested him, taking him off the streets of Charlotte so he can’t continue to ignore our laws and drive intoxicated on the same roads you and your loved ones are on,” Bovino wrote on X.

The effort was dubbed “Operation Charlotte’s Web,” a play on the title of the beloved E.B. White children’s book, which isn’t about North Carolina — and whose story of friendship and solidarity with a seemingly doomed farm animal would appear antithetical to the federal crackdown.

The flurry of activity immediately raised questions, including where detainees would be held, how long the operation would run and what agents’ tactics that have been heavily criticized elsewhere would look like in North Carolina.

Bovino’s operations in Chicago and Los Angeles triggered a series of lawsuits and investigations over questions about use of force, including wide deployment of chemical agents. Democratic leaders in both cities said that agents’ presence inflamed community tensions and led to violence. During the Chicago area operation, federal agents fatally shot one suburban man during an attempted traffic stop.

Bovino and other Trump administration officials have called the use of force an appropriate response to growing threats on agents’ lives.

The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees Customs and Border Patrol, did not respond to inquiries about the Charlotte arrests. Bovino’s spokesman did not return a request for comment Sunday.

Elsewhere, Homeland Security has not offered many details about who it is arresting. For instance, in Chicago, the agency provided names and details on only a handful of its more than 3,000 arrests in the metro region from September to last week. In several instances U.S. citizens were handcuffed and detained during operations, and dozens of demonstrators were also charged, often in community clashes over arrests or protests.

By Sunday, reports of CBP activity were “overwhelming” and difficult to quantify, Greg Asciutto, executive director of the community development group CharlotteEast, said in an email.

“The past two hours we’ve received countless reports of CBP activity at churches, apartment complexes and a hardware store,” he said.

City Councilmember-elect JD Mazuera Arias said federal agents appeared to be focused on churches and apartment complexes.

“Houses of worship. I mean, that’s just awful,” he said. “These are sanctuaries for people who are looking for hope and faith in dark times like these and who no longer can feel safe because of the gross violation of people’s right to worship.”

Tareen, Witte and Dale write for the Associated Press. Tareen and Dale reported from Chicago, Witte from Annapolis, Md.

Trout National does not formally open until April. But, when you’re Mike Trout, you can invite your friends to play a couple rounds on the course that carries your name.

And so it was that Trout, the best player in Angels history, last week welcomed Torii Hunter, one of the most popular and respected players in Angels history. The course, designed by Tiger Woods and his team, is located in Trout’s hometown of Millville, N.J., and includes a refueling stop in “a concrete bunker tucked behind the 14th tee and styled like a classic baseball dugout.”

Said Hunter: “It’s a great course.”

Hunter could have managed his former teammate next season, had the Angels chosen him to replace Ron Washington. However, for the second time in three years, the Angels interviewed Hunter for their managerial vacancy and then hired someone else — this time, former Angels catcher Kurt Suzuki.

Hunter, speaking Monday at Pelican Hill Golf Club in Newport Coast before a fundraiser for Major League Baseball’s Urban Youth Academy in Compton, said he interviewed with Angels general manager Perry Minasian.

Hunter said he believed Suzuki would do well in the position and had no hard feelings about the process.

“It was a great interview,” Hunter said. “We had a good talk. It just didn’t work out.

“The opportunity presented itself. They were looking for a manager, and they decided to interview me for the job. They told me to.

“I still love the Angels. That’s why I did it. That’s why I wanted to do it.”

He felt the same way about his original team, the Minnesota Twins. He said he “put my name in the hat” for the Twins’ managerial vacancy and had informal discussions with the team, but no formal interview.

Hunter declined to discuss details of his interview with Minasian.

The Angels have baseball’s longest playoff drought, now at 11 years, and have finished in last place in back-to-back seasons. Hunter said prospects need to get to Anaheim and start playing with the young players already there.

“I think those guys have got a couple of years under their belts,” he said. “It’s time to go out there and really compete.”

The Angels’ minor league system is widely regarded as one of baseball’s thinnest. Hunter, who worked as a special assistant to Minasian last season, said he sees a fair amount of talent at the lower levels of the system.

“Maybe they don’t win the World Series next year,” Hunter said. “Maybe they don’t go to the playoffs.

“A shift in the team dynamic depends on the pieces that they add. But, in the next two years, you’re going to see these guys, and they’ll be a force to be reckoned with.”

Hunter said he is unsure yet whether his business interests — he owns five restaurants and two coffee shops, in addition to commercial real estate investments — will allow him to continue as an Angels special assistant. He hopes to do so.

“I love Kurt Suzuki,” Hunter said. “I played with him with the Twins in 2015, and I played against him forever. I love everything about him. I would love to be there to help him along the way if I can.”

Suzuki agreed to a one-year contract, which puts him in the uncomfortable position of being a lame duck before he manages his first game.

“I think he’ll be fine,” Hunter said. “You’ve got to give him time, and a chance to get to know the fellas. The guy is smart, he’s intelligent, he’s got great relationship skills. So, be patient.”

Nov. 7 (UPI) — A federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction barring federal authorities from using force against protesters, journalists and others in Chicago as the Trump administration conducts an immigration crackdown in the city.

U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis issued her ruling Thursday, in a case brought against the Trump administration in early October alleging that federal agents in Chicago have responded to protests and negative media coverage “with a pattern of extreme brutality in a concerted and ongoing effort to silence the press and civilians.”

The ruling explicitly states that the federal agents are prohibited from using crowd control weapons such as batons, rubber or plastic bullets, flash-bang grenades and tear gas against civilians unless there is “a threat of imminent harm to a law enforcement officer.”

In a bench ruling, reported on by The New York Times, Ellis said government officials, including Gregory Bovino, a top Border Patrol official leading the operation in Chicago, lied repeatedly about the tactics they employed against protesters.

The ruling comes amid growing criticism of the Trump administration’s deployment of federal immigration authorities executing Operation Midway Blitz, which began on Sept. 9, targeting undocumented immigrants with criminal records.

Videos circulating online, however, show masked agents hauling a woman, later identified as U.S. citizen Dayanne Figueroa, from her vehicle, which they crashed into, and forcibly detaining a teacher from a daycare in front of school children. Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Ill., said they detained the woman without a warrant, calling the actions of the immigration agents “domestic terrorism.”

Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson earlier Thursday said during a press conference the daycare employee’s arrest “shocked the conscience of every single Chicagoan.”

In her bench ruling Thursday, Ellis, a President Barack Obama appointee, rejected the government’s description of Chicago as a violent- and riot-riddled city, saying, “That simply is untrue, and the government’s own evidence in this case belies that assertion.”

With pointed remarks at Bovino, she said the federal agent “admitted that he lied” about being hit in the head with a rock in October, which was his reasoning for deploying tear gas canisters.

“Video evidence ultimately disproved this,” she said, CNN reported.

Lawyers with Lovey & Lovey who brought the case before the court described it as protecting the right to protest.

Steve Art, a partner at the firm, called Ellis’ preliminary injunction in a press conference a “powerful ruling.”

“For weeks, the Trump administration has deployed Gregory Bovino and his gang of thugs to terrorize our community. They have tear gassed dozens of residential neighborhoods, they have abused the elderly, they have abused pregnant women, they have abused young children. On our streets, they have used weapons of war,” he said.

“We want to be clear every person who is associated with or who has enabled the Trump administration’s violence in Chicago should be ashamed of themselves.”

Richard B. Cheney, the former vice president of the United States who was the architect of the nation’s longest war as he plotted President George W. Bush’s thunderous global response to the 9/11 terror attacks, has died.

Vexed by heart trouble for much of his adult life, Cheney died Monday night due to complications of pneumonia and cardiac and vascular disease, according to a statement from his family. He was 84.

“For decades, Dick Cheney served our nation, including as White House Chief of Staff, Wyoming’s Congressman, Secretary of Defense, and Vice President of the United States,” the statement said. “Dick Cheney was a great and good man who taught his children and grandchildren to love our country, and to live lives of courage, honor, love, kindness, and fly fishing. We are grateful beyond measure for all Dick Cheney did for our country. And we are blessed beyond measure to have loved and been loved by this noble giant of a man.”

To supporters and detractors alike, Cheney was widely viewed as the engine that drove the Bush White House. His two-term tenure capped a lifetime of public service, both in Congress and on behalf of four Republican presidents.

It often fell to Cheney, not President Bush, to make an assertive, unapologetic case for the American-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and for the controversial antiterrorism measures such as the Guantánamo Bay prison. And after the election of President Obama, it was once again Cheney, not Bush, who stood among the new president’s fiercest critics on national security.

In an October 2009 speech — one emblematic of the role he embraced after leaving the White House — Cheney blasted the Obama administration for opening a probe of “enhanced” interrogations of suspected terrorists conducted during the Bush years.

“We cannot protect this country by putting politics over security, and turning the guns on our own guys,” he said. The rhetoric was textbook Cheney: blunt, unvarnished, delivered with authority.

While Cheney at the time was attempting to occupy the leadership vacuum in the GOP in the age of Obama, there was little doubt that he also was motivated to preserve a legacy that appears to be as much his as former President Bush‘s. For eight years, Cheney redrew the lines that defined the vice presidency in a way no predecessor had. His office enjoyed greater autonomy than others before it, while working to keep much of his influence from plain sight. That way of operating led to a challenge before the Supreme Court as well as a criminal investigation over a leak of classified information.

Moreover, the image of a powerful backroom operator managing the Bush administration’s “war on terror,” combined with his service as Defense secretary during the Persian Gulf War and his stint as a chairman of defense contracting giant Halliburton, made Cheney a towering bête noire to liberals worldwide. To them, he embodied a dangerous fusion of politics and the military-industrial complex — and they viewed his every move with deep suspicion.

To his champions, however, he was the firm-jawed, hulking, resolute defender of American interests.

Standing with the administration was more than a duty to Cheney; it was an article of faith. The invasion of Iraq “was the right thing to do, and if we had to do it over again, we’d do exactly the same thing,” Cheney said in a 2006 interview, even as the nation slowly learned that U.S. intelligence suggesting Saddam Hussein’s regime possessed weapons of mass destruction was simply not true.

Three years earlier, Cheney had pledged that the U.S. would be greeted in Iraq as “liberators” — a comment that haunted him as insurgents in the country gained strength, killed thousands of allied troops and extended the conflict for years. The war in Afghanistan would drag on for 20 years, ending in 2021 as it had begun, with the Taliban back in control.

While Cheney will largely be remembered for his leading role in the response to the 9/11 terror attacks, he had long worked the corridors of power in Washington. He was a White House aide to President Nixon and later chief of staff to President Ford. As a member of the House from Wyoming, he rose quickly to become part of the Republican leadership during the 1980s. In the early ’90s, he ran the Pentagon during the Gulf War.

Richard Bruce “Dick” Cheney was born in Lincoln, Neb., on Jan. 30, 1941, and spent much of his teenage years in Casper, Wyo. His father worked for the U.S. Soil Conservation Service.

As a young man, he was more interested in hunting, fishing and sports than in academics, and a stint at Yale University was short-lived. He eventually obtained bachelor’s and master’s degrees from the University of Wyoming and studied toward a doctorate at the University of Wisconsin.

In 1964, he married Lynne Ann Vincent, who became a lifelong political partner while strongly influencing Cheney’s conservatism. Daughter Elizabeth, who was elected to Congress in 2017, was born in 1966 and her sister, Mary, arrived three years later. The sisters became embittered years later when Elizabeth — who preferred Liz — took a stance opposing same-sex marriage, which seemed a slap to Mary and her wife. Cheney, however, offered his support for such unions, an early GOP voice for same-sex marriage. Years later, he came to Liz’s defense when she broke with fellow Republicans and voted to impeach President Trump following the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. In addition to his wife and daughters, Cheney is survived by seven grandchildren.

A fellowship sent Cheney to Washington, where he soon began working for a politically shrewd House member who also was a lifetime influence, Donald H. Rumsfeld. When Rumsfeld joined the Nixon administration, Cheney followed.

After Ford succeeded Nixon in the wake of Watergate, Rumsfeld served as chief of staff, with Cheney at his side. Ford eventually appointed Rumsfeld secretary of Defense, and Cheney, at 34, ran the White House. Even then, his calm reserve was a hallmark.

Although nearly everyone working for him was older, “He was very self-assured,” James Cannon, a member of Ford’s White House team, said years later. “It didn’t faze him a bit to be chief of staff.”

Ford lost a narrow election to Jimmy Carter in 1976, but Cheney’s Washington career was just getting underway. He headed back to Casper and in little more than a year was running for Congress.

His health, though, already was a factor. In 1978, at age 37 and in the midst of a primary election campaign, he had a heart attack, the first of several. He would undergo multiple surgeries, including a quadruple bypass, two angioplasties, installation of a heart pump and — in 2012 — a transplant. His frequent trips to the hospital and seeming indestructibility provided fodder for late-night talk show hosts during Cheney’s vice presidency.

With the help of television ads reminding voters that Dwight D. Eisenhower and Lyndon B. Johnson had served full White House terms despite having had heart attacks, he narrowly won the Republican nomination and, in November 1978, secured election to the House of Representatives from Wyoming’s single district.

In Congress, he was known as a listener more interested in problem-solving than conservative demagoguery, even as he quietly built a voting record that left no doubt about where he stood on the political spectrum. He quickly moved into the ranks of GOP leadership.

Cheney stepped into the public spotlight after he was named Defense secretary by President George H.W. Bush in 1989. As the Berlin Wall fell and the Cold War cooled, Cheney was charged with overseeing a Pentagon that was more fractious than usual. In a test of political and managerial will, he oversaw major reductions in the Defense budget, a profound downsizing of forces and the closing of obsolete military bases. He helped implement the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1989 to oust the country’s leader, Manuel Noriega, for drug trafficking and racketeering.

But Cheney — along with his hand-picked chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell — made his mark in the American response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Cheney played a key role in persuading the Saudi royal family to allow American troops to be stationed in Saudi Arabia to defend against a looming attack from Hussein’s forces.

The Cheney-led Pentagon then shifted to offense in 1991, amassing an enormous American force that totaled more than 500,000 soldiers, nearly twice the number employed in the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. The U.S. military, with help from allied countries, overwhelmed the Iraqi forces in Kuwait in only 43 days and easily entered Iraq.

Characteristically, Cheney would defend the then-controversial decision to halt the U.S. advance toward Baghdad, which left Hussein in power. “I would guess if we had gone in there, we would still have forces in Baghdad today. We’d be running the country,” he said in a 1992 speech. “We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.”

Cheney’s efforts to station U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, considered critical to the push to repel Iraq, would have unforeseen ramifications. The military presence there helped radicalize young Islamic militants such as Osama bin Laden.

After President Clinton’s victory in 1992, Cheney left government service. Three years later, he assumed the helm of Halliburton, one of the world’s leading oil field companies and a prominent military contractor. The company thrived under Cheney’s leadership: Its relationship with the Pentagon flourished, its international operations expanded and Cheney grew wealthy.

In 2000, then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush, the Republican nominee for president, asked Cheney to head up the search for his running mate, then ultimately chose Cheney for the job instead. He brought to the ticket an element of maturity and Washington gravitas that the inexperienced Bush did not possess.

Cheney’s lack of design on the presidency, and his willingness to return to government 10 days shy of his 60th birthday, seemingly gave Bush the benefit of his experience and earned Cheney a measure of trust — and thus authority — commanded by few presidential advisors.

Once in office, Cheney, mindful of lessons learned in the Ford White House, sought to revitalize an executive office he believed had become too hemmed in by Congress and the courts. He termed it a “restoration.”

“After Watergate, President Ford said there was an imperiled president, not an imperial presidency,” said presidential historian Robert Dallek. Cheney, he said, felt “he badly needed to expand the powers of the presidency to assure the national security.”

In office barely a week, Cheney created a national energy policy task force in response to rising gasoline prices. A series of meetings with top officials from the oil, natural gas, electricity and nuclear industries were closed to the public, and Cheney refused to reveal the names of the participants. Cheney would exert similar influence over environmental policy and, with an office on Capitol Hill, forcefully advance the president’s legislative agenda.

A lawsuit seeking information about the task force made its way to the Supreme Court, which ruled in the vice president’s favor in 2004. One of the justices in the majority was Antonin Scalia, who was a friend and, it was later revealed, had recently gone duck hunting with the vice president.

Another hunting trip gone awry earned Cheney embarrassing headlines in 2006 when he accidentally shot and wounded a member of the party with a round of birdshot while quail hunting on a Texas ranch.

More troubling to Cheney was a federal criminal probe in connection with the 2003 leak of the identity of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson. The investigation resulted in the conviction four years later of Cheney aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby for perjury and obstruction of justice. Libby was later pardoned by President Trump.

Cheney, however, will be largely remembered for his unwavering belief that the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq — especially the latter — were essential, a stance he maintained even as the missions in both theaters evolved from rooting out suspected terrorists to nation-building, and even as the casualties skyrocketed and it became clear the 20-year mission was doomed.

When U.S. troops and civilians were pulled out of Afghanistan in a fraught and fatal departure in 2021, it was Cheney’s daughter who spoke up.

“We’ve now created a situation where as we get to the 20th anniversary of 9/11, we are surrendering Afghanistan to the very terrorist organization that housed al Qaeda when they plotted and planned the attacks against us,” Rep. Liz Cheney (R.-Wyo.) said.

The former vice president’s steely resolve was captured years later in “Vice,” a 2018 biographical drama in which Christian Bale portrayed Cheney as a brainy yet uncompromisingly uncharismatic leader.

It was Cheney who insisted early on that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. “There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us,” Cheney said in August 2002. The U.S. eventually determined that Iraq had no such weapons.

He argued forcefully that Hussein was linked to the 2001 terror attacks. When other administration officials fell silent, Cheney continued to make the connections even though no shred of proof was ever found. In a 2005 speech, he called the Democrats who accused the administration of manipulating intelligence to justify the war “opportunists” who peddled “cynical and pernicious falsehoods” to gain political advantage.

Cheney also frequently defended the use of so-called extreme interrogation methods, such as waterboarding, on al Qaeda operatives. He did so in the final months of the Bush administration, as both the president’s and Cheney’s public approval ratings plunged.

“It’s a good thing we had them in custody and it’s a good thing we found out what they knew,” he said in a 2008 speech to a friendly crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference.

“I’ve been proud to stand by him, the decisions he made,” Cheney said of Bush. “And would I support those same decisions today? You’re damn right I would.”

Oliphant and Gerstenzang are former Times staff writers.

Staff writer Steve Marble contributed to this story.