war

NEW YORK — The World Cup, a 48-team, 104-match behemoth kicking off this week in Los Angeles and across 15 other cities in the United States, Mexico and Canada, presents an unprecedented security challenge, with more countries, games and a larger footprint than ever before.

It also comes against the backdrop of the U.S. and Israel’s war with Iran, mounting political violence in President Trump’s orbit and growing fears of artificial intelligence-fueled disruptions, creating a complex threat environment for authorities.

Overseeing the sprawling security apparatus is a legion of federal agencies, state and local police departments and private entities. Their responsibilities range from securing stadiums and fan zones to escorting teams and protecting dignitaries.

Their tools include hunter drones that can shoot nets over objects in restricted airspace, bag-inspecting robot dogs, giant X-ray trucks and thousands of AI-powered cameras trained on public spaces soon to be thronged by fans.

In the U.S., it’s “78 Super Bowls over 39 days,” said Andrew Giuliani, executive director of Trump’s World Cup task force, which is overseeing the multiagency effort.

“There’s never been a summer like this in American history from a security angle,” said Giuliani, son of former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani. “We’re as prepared as we can be.”

Collaborative effort

The tournament has the same high-level federal security designation as the Super Bowl, just below a presidential inauguration or a national political convention, ensuring federal, state and local coordination. It coincides with other major events linked to the 250th anniversary of America’s founding.

So far, Giuliani said, there are no credible threats.

The Department of Homeland Security, focused on Trump’s immigration enforcement crackdown and with a funding lapse only recently resolved, estimates that as many as 7 million people will visit the United States for the World Cup.

The U.S. Secret Service, under scrutiny after security breaches and attempts on Trump’s life, is in charge of protecting world leaders who show up to cheer on their countries. Trump has expressed interest in attending a match.

“I feel very comfortable where we’re at, and we feel like we have a zero-fail mission,” Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin told Congress last week, noting that the Secret Service was understaffed by about 860 agents. “But it’s going to be complicated.”

Officials have indicated they are confident they can keep Trump safe because they will be integrating his usual security into the robust World Cup plan on days he may watch a match.

The FBI has spent two years developing its security plan, incorporating lessons from other major events such as the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade and New Year’s Eve ball drop in New York and testing them at smaller ones, including last weekend’s Israel Day parade in the city.

“We prepare for the worst day,” FBI Special Agent in Charge Amit Kachhia-Patel in New York told the Associated Press. “And that’s how we go into any single event.”

To help cover security costs, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has distributed $625 million to the 11 U.S. host cities. An additional $250 million is being directed toward tracking and neutralizing suspect drones.

The disbursement of those funds was held up by the department’s funding delay in Congress, which the Trump administration has argued hindered security planning.

Others involved in the planning effort said the federal government could have played a more hands-on role even before the partial shutdown.

John Cohen, a former senior Homeland Security official who has been briefing state leaders before the matches, said the government was largely absent from planning meetings last year and did not begin sharing threat intelligence with host regions until recently.

“With an event of this magnitude, one would expect the federal government would’ve played a more active role,” Cohen said. “It felt like a missed opportunity to showcase that collaboration.”

Evolving threats from drones and AI

In January, thousands of officials involved in World Cup security gathered for exercises simulating crowd surges, vehicle attacks and mass shootings.

A month later, the U.S. and Israel launched a war with Iran.

“The security picture fundamentally changed,” said Stefano Ritondale, chief intelligence officer at Artorias, a defense intelligence company not involved in the security preparations. “There’s a major difference in preparing for a lone-wolf radical who rams his car into a public place and a terrorist who is bankrolled by a foreign country we’re at war with.”

Among the greatest concerns are drones.

Since the last World Cup in Qatar in 2022, drones have become a prominent weapon in conflicts including Russia’s war in Ukraine and Hamas’ attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.

“If there is one threat that keeps me up at night, it is from drones,” said New York City Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch, whose department is partnering with the FBI on drone mitigation.

Drones are prohibited over stadiums and fan zones, and Kachhia-Patel said the FBI has a “full suite of options” to thwart incursions. They include agents monitoring the sky and a “variety of means” to safely down the devices, he said without elaborating.

Before this year’s World Cup, the growing sophistication of AI videos was a particular concern, with officials warning that state actors can harness the technology to sow misinformation and panic.

On match days, the FBI will activate joint operations centers in each host city, bringing together local, state and federal law enforcement agencies to monitor and investigate threats.

“If there’s a video that shows an explosion going off at a site, and it’s AI-generated, we have people on the ground who can validate whether or not that’s true,” Kachhia-Patel said.

Opportunity for private tech

Some AI companies have pitched themselves to police departments in host cities, promising to comb through data and surveillance on game days to prevent threats, including unruly fan behavior.

“We know sports fanaticism around here in terms of the NFL and baseball to some extent, but nothing like international soccer,” said Jake Becchina, a police spokesperson in Kansas City, Mo., which is hosting six matches.

The department has contracted with Peregrine Technologies, which promises to sift through police data and publicly available information such as team practice locations and the country affiliation of popular bars, to get ahead of possible conflict.

In Dallas, a recent $120-million tech upgrade will give local police body cameras capable of real-time translations, helping law enforcement communicate with international visitors soon to descend on the region.

Several drone detection and mitigation companies are joining efforts to help federal agencies secure the skies.

One of those companies, Fortem, has claimed to have signed a multimillion-dollar contract with the Department of Homeland Security before the World Cup for an unusual drone mitigation strategy: quadcopters that can shoot nets at encroaching drones to trap them in midair. A Homeland Security spokesman declined to discuss the contract.

Just as the teams will aim to perform their best on the pitch, Giuliani said the security planning was a unique chance to “show off American exceptionalism.”

“If we do our job right,” Giuliani added, “nobody will be talking about security at the World Cup.”

Offenhartz, Sisak and Santana write for the Associated Press. Offenhartz and Sisak reported from New York, Santana from Washington. AP writer Alanna Durkin Richer in Washington contributed to this report.

Emergency Lawyers said dozens were also wounded in the strike that came less than 24 hours after similar drone attacks.

A drone strike on a market in central Sudan has killed at least 11 people and injured dozens more, according to a local rights group, as escalating aerial attacks further increase the death toll of one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises.

The attack on Saturday targeted the main market in Abu Zaeima, a paramilitary-controlled town in North Kordofan state, according to Emergency Lawyers, which has documented abuses since fighting erupted in April 2023 between the army and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF).

The group said the casualty figures could rise, but did not specify who carried out the attack. Neither side has claimed responsibility.

Emergency Lawyers said the strike came less than 24 hours after similar drone attacks struck nearby villages and a civilian vehicle.

Condemning the attack, it said the repeated targeting of civilians, villages and public transport reflected a blatant disregard for human life and the basic principles of international humanitarian law.

The group added that the continued loss of civilian life should not be treated as routine and called for an end to such attacks, as well as accountability for those responsible.

Two witnesses told the AFP news agency that another drone hit a fuel station later on Saturday in el-Obeid, the capital of North Kordofan, which the RSF has partially encircled for months.

A medical source at a hospital there said four wounded civilians had been brought to the facility.

Drone warfare

Nearly 70 people were killed in two separate drone strikes in the West and North Kordofan states over the past week, according to Emergency Lawyers and a local leader.

Drone warfare has become increasingly more common in Sudan’s conflict.

The United Nations said in May that at least 880 civilians were killed in drone strikes nationwide between January and April.

Fighting has intensified in Kordofan and Blue Nile State near the Ethiopian border since the RSF captured el-Fasher last October, the military’s last major stronghold in western Darfur.

Since then, more than 300,000 people have fled front-line areas, including el-Fasher and parts of Kordofan and Blue Nile, according to the UN.

Kordofan, rich in oil and arable land, is strategically significant, linking RSF strongholds in the neighbouring Darfur region to the country’s army-controlled east. The region remains largely contested between the army and the RSF.

Now entering its fourth year, the war has killed tens of thousands of people and displaced nearly 13 million others, creating what the UN describes as the world’s largest displacement and hunger crises.

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.

Israeli forces kill three high-ranking Lebanese soldiers as Arab nations condemn Iran’s attacks on Bahrain and Kuwait.

Department reports raise concerns about increased espionage activity amid US-Israeli war with Iran, ceasefire talks.

The Pentagon’s intelligence arm has raised the assessed threat level on Israeli spying from “high” to “critical” in recent weeks, according to US media.

NBC News first broke news of the change on Friday, with The New York Times issuing its own report the following day.

The news outlets cited anonymous sources as saying the switch came in light of concerns over increasingly aggressive tactics related to the US-Israeli war with Iran.

They said the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) had raised the alert level amid fears that Israel is increasingly attempting to surveil top US officials. The aim is allegedly to understand internal White House deliberations about ending the war.

US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu have publicly diverged in their approach to the war, which the US and Israel started on February 28.

Trump, on one hand, has repeatedly said he wants to bring the war to a close, amid mounting political pressure at home.

Netanyahu, meanwhile, has called for war to resume, despite an April 8 ceasefire. The fighting has been mostly paused since the temporary truce was announced, but efforts to reach a lasting agreement have repeatedly stalled.

The New York Times reported that, while Israel has been known to spy on the US, the DIA cited an uptick in activities beginning in late 2024, as the administration of US President Joe Biden increased pressure on Israel over its genocidal war in Gaza.

That increase continued into 2025, as Trump returned to the presidency and began deliberating about how to approach Iran.

The newspaper added that other recent intelligence assessments have also documented evidence that there are Israeli efforts to monitor Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff as well as Elbridge Colby, a top policy official at the Pentagon, and his deputy Michael DiMino IV.

Witkoff had been the lead negotiator in nuclear talks that preceded the initial US-Israeli attack on Iran in February.

Both NBC News and The New York Times cited unnamed US officials in their reports. The US Department of Defense did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Al Jazeera.

However, an unnamed spokesperson told both news organisations that the reports were “false”.

Still, the reported concerns are likely to raise questions over the close intelligence and military coordination between Israel and the US.

Washington has, for years, provided billions in military aid and weapons sales to Israel, including throughout the genocide in Gaza.

The US Congress is also currently debating a section of a new defence bill, which would integrate the two countries’ research and development for weaponry to an unprecedented degree.

While the US and its allies are known to regularly conduct intelligence operations on each other, officials told both NBC and The New York Times that Israel’s recent vigour was unique.

The New York Times reported that the increased DIA designation surpasses all current allies, as well as a handful of countries with more fraught relations.

Recent incidents included Israel’s military intelligence trying to plant listening devices at the DIA headquarters in 2021, according to the newspaper.

In 2025, Israel’s domestic intelligence agency, Shin Bet, was found to have tried to plant a similar device in a Secret Service vehicle, the report said.

PARIS — Russian teenager Mirra Andreeva was already a tennis phenom at age 15.

At 19, she’s a Grand Slam champion.

The eighth-ranked Andreeva ended the run of 114th-ranked Polish qualifier Maja Chwalinska by 6-3, 6-2 in the French Open final on Saturday.

Andreeva became the youngest player to win the women’s singles title since Monica Seles, who was 18 when she landed her third straight French Open in 1992.

“You’re so young and talented. It’s so annoying,” Chwalinska told Andreeva during the awards ceremony.

When Andreeva executed a backhand cross-court winner on her first match point, she threw her racket into the air and dropped on her knees to the clay to celebrate.

Mirra Andreeva returns a shot against Maja Chwalinska during the French Open women’s final on Saturday.

(Thibault Camus / Associated Press)

During the trophy presentation, Andreeva took the unusual step of thanking herself “for believing in myself, always giving my 100%, even when it’s tough, trying every day to be better as a person and as a player, believing that I can do this, fighting so many demons inside of me.

“Only I know how tough it was for me,” Andreeva added. “How nervous I was throughout these two weeks.”

Chwalinska was attempting to become the first qualifier to capture the Roland Garros title.

Andreeva was born in Siberia and moved to Sochi and eventually France to develop her tennis career.

She drew loud applause from the crowd on Court Philippe-Chatrier when she spoke a few words of French during the trophy presentation.

“Thanks for your support today and over these past two marvelous weeks here in Paris,” Andreeva said. “It was very important for me.”

Alexander Zverev plays Flavio Cobolli in the men’s final on Sunday to conclude the wildest Grand Slam in recent memory.

Andreeva has been considered a Grand Slam contender since she burst onto the scene as a 15-year-old at the 2023 Madrid Open, where she became the third-youngest player to win a main draw match at a WTA 1000 tournament and made the quarterfinals.

Lately, Andreeva has had to contend with playing under neutral status and without her country’s flag due to the war with Ukraine.

When she beat Marta Kostyuk in the semifinals, Kostyuk refused to shake her hand, as has been the custom for Ukrainian players facing Russians ever since the war started in 2022.

Andreeva has gone a step further than her coach, Conchita Martinez, who lost the 2000 French Open final to Mary Pierce.

Pierce presented the winner’s trophy to Andreeva.

The final was played under mostly sunny skies but wind was a factor in the first Grand Slam final for both players.

Chwalinska double-faulted on the opening point of the match but she was the first player to hold serve in the fifth game for a 3-2 lead.

But then Andreeva won nine straight games to take control as she found a way to hit through the wind and answer Chwalinska’s array of spins and drop shots.

Andreeva produced 25 winners to Chwalinska’s 10 and also had fewer unforced errors: 26 to 29.

There was a strong Polish presence in the crowd.

When Chwalinska was introduced, fans held aloft red-and-white Polish flags and chanted her name: “Ma-ja, Ma-ja.”

Andreeva had little support from the crowd, although there was a shout of “Davai Mirra!” (“Go Mirra”) in Russian late in the match.

In men’s doubles, top-seeded Marcel Granollers and Horacio Zeballos retained their title with a 6-4, 6-2 win against Harri Heliovaara and Henry Patten.

Dampf writes for the Associated Press. Samuel Petrequin contributed to this report.

The US military released footage showing what they say are military strikes on Iranian radar sites.

CENTCOM claims its forces shot down four Iranian one-way attack drones. Interceptions of strikes were also reported over Kuwait and Bahrain Saturday morning.

French activists who took part in a Gaza-bound foreign aid flotilla accuse Israeli forces of abuse and torture.

French anti-terrorism prosecutors say they have opened a preliminary investigation into suspected “torture” and “war crimes” over Israel’s alleged mistreatment of French activists who took part in a Gaza-bound aid flotilla last month.

The probe was opened on Friday following a referral from the foreign ministry late last month, said the national counterterrorism prosecutor’s office (PNAT), after activists on the Global Sumud Flotilla accused Israeli authorities of severe mistreatment during their detention.

Israel abducted and detained some 430 activists from about 40 countries after intercepting them in international waters on May 18 as they made the latest in a string of attempts to break the blockade on Gaza, which the United Nations and human rights organisations say is illegal, describing it as a form of collective punishment.

Israeli far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir attracted widespread condemnation after he posted a video mocking the flotilla activists while they were bound.

France banned Ben-Gvir from entry and, like several other allies of Israel, summoned the Israeli ambassador over the incident.

Several French activists described what they said was a violent and humiliating ordeal when eight of them returned to France on May 22.

Two of the more than 30 French people who were on board the flotilla were still hospitalised in Turkiye, they told reporters.

One returnee described a soldier groping and slapping her in a dark container, and being terrified that she would be raped.

Another recounted detained activists being put in what she called a “stress position”, on their knees with their foreheads on the ground for several hours, while the Israeli national anthem played on repeat.

‘Most severe case of ill-treatment’ in a decade

Speaking to Al Jazeera late last month, Suhad Bishara, legal director at Adalah, the Israeli legal centre for Palestinian rights, said that without accountability, Israel will continue to use violence against activists.

“Based on accounts received, and drawing on over a decade of representing flotilla participants, this appears to be the most severe case of ill-treatment documented in the past 10 years, potentially amounting to torture,” said Bishara.

Adalah lawyers have been informed of repeated physical violence resulting in serious injuries, prolonged stress positions, and sexual humiliation and harassment.

The Global Sumud Flotilla said it has documented at least 15 cases of sexual abuse.

Lawyers for French flotilla activists have said they plan to file a separate complaint on behalf of their clients over allegations of rape, torture and humiliation.

The activists have refused to meet with the French government to discuss their experiences, accusing it of supporting Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza.

Asked by the AFP news agency to respond to the claims of mistreatment, the Israeli prison service said the accusations were “entirely without factual basis”.

Francesca Albanese, an outspoken UN expert on the Palestinian territory, has said the treatment of the flotilla activists “is a luxury compared to what is inflicted on Palestinians in Israeli prisons”.

US President Donald Trump hailed stronger-than-expected jobs growth before pivoting to Iran, saying negotiations with Tehran “seem to be going quite well”. Trump offered no further details on the talks as he arrived in Wisconsin for an agriculture event.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has turned down an offer for in-person talks with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, saying he sees no point in meeting. Zelenskyy said Russia “has again chosen war” by rejecting his open letter appealing for a face-to-face meeting.

On Wednesday, Israel and Lebanon announced yet another ceasefire – after they had seemingly already agreed to a truce on April 16.

Iran and the United States have formally had a ceasefire in place since April 8. And Israel and Hamas, the Palestinian group, have had a ceasefire in Gaza since October 10, 2025.

Yet Israel’s attacks on Lebanon continue unchecked, with strikes on the Naqoura and Nabatieh districts of southern Lebanon on Friday, resulting in at least one death. Iran and the US have continued to trade periodic attacks that have picked up in intensity in recent days. The Iranian military has also fired missiles and drones at Gulf nations such as the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Bahrain, which it accuses of enabling US attacks on Iran during the ceasefire.

And in Gaza, Israel continues to carry out bombings, including one that killed nine people in a residential building this week, despite a supposed truce aimed at ending its genocidal war on the Palestinian territory.

So what does it mean for a ceasefire to be in place when fighting continues? What does international law say? And why do violations so rarely lead to consequences?

We speak to legal experts to understand:

What is a ceasefire?

Simply put, it’s a pause in fighting designed to create space for negotiations, explained Mark Kersten, assistant professor of criminal justice and criminology at the University of the Fraser Valley.

“A ceasefire is effectively a cessation of hostilities, but typically not understood to be a permanent one,” he told Al Jazeera.

It is also often fundamentally a political agreement rather than a strongly enforceable legal instrument, said Michael Lynk, an emeritus professor at Western University in Canada.

Unlike peace treaties, which often have guarantors responsible for oversight and enforcement, ceasefires can be breached with few immediate legal consequences, Lynk told Al Jazeera.

This is especially true in Gaza and Lebanon, where the United States has acted as the principal broker and overseer. While some countries have criticised Israeli strikes in Lebanon, Lynk says there has been little pressure on Washington for allowing repeated violations.

“A number of Global North countries have criticised the continuing Israeli attacks on Lebanon despite the ceasefire, but they have not called out the US for allowing Israel to repeatedly breach the ceasefires in Gaza and Lebanon.”

So are ceasefires legally binding – or not?

Yes, they are, argues Toby Cadman, a British international human rights lawyer and cofounder of Guernica 37 Chambers.

But, like Kersten and Lynk, Cadman said that ceasefires – which he described as the “temporary, military and diplomatic suspension of military operations” – are inherently fragile. Unlike peace treaties, ceasefires do not resolve the underlying conflict or end the legal state of war.

“It suspends the fighting; it does not end the state of armed conflict,” he said.

Where there is a broader peace agreement, such as in Gaza, the ceasefire too stands – at least in theory – on a stronger footing, said Lynk. The Gaza peace plan that accompanied the ceasefire was endorsed by the UN Security Council through Resolution 2803, which calls for the agreement to be implemented “in its entirety, in good faith and without delay”.

In theory, states could ask the Security Council to sanction parties violating the Gaza agreement. In practice, Lynk explained, the US veto on the body means that neither Israel, nor the US itself, can realistically be censured.

“This is why ceasefires and peace treaties are ultimately political documents because it requires political will to enforce them,” Lynk said.

Who decides when a ceasefire has been violated?

Palestinians have repeatedly pointed to the violation of the Gaza ceasefire by Israel. The US and Iran routinely accuse each other of breaching their truce. And Israel and Lebanon do the same when it comes to their ceasefire.

So who decides whether a ceasefire has been violated – and by whom?

The answer, according to Cadman, is that “there is no neutral arbiter empowered to determine, with binding effect, who has breached.”

Monitoring mechanisms do exist, but they are largely political bodies overseen by the same states that brokered and guaranteed the agreements. In the case of Gaza and Lebanon, that is the United States. But Washington occupies the unusual position of mediator, guarantor and Israel’s closest military and diplomatic ally.

That means allegations of violations are often filtered through political calculations rather than assessed by an independent legal authority, say experts.

What about international law?

For Kersten, Gaza and Lebanon expose a fundamental contradiction within the international legal system. On paper, international law has succeeded in establishing a broad consensus about the legality of what is taking place.

“The vast majority of the world recognises that what is happening in both contexts is not just wrong, but illegal – thanks to international law.”

Yet recognition has done little to halt the violence. “Little is being done to save lives and stop the carnage,” he said.

The result is a widening gap between legal findings and political action. Courts can investigate, collect evidence and issue rulings as the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice have both done against Israel, but that does not stop bombs from falling or guarantee compliance on the ground.

For Kersten and Lynk, the problem is not a lack of legal standards; it is the persistent failure of states to enforce them, particularly when powerful actors are involved.

“The lack of effective accountability is the hole in the heart of international law and our modern international political system,” Lynk said.

But Kersten said what was clear was that international humanitarian law, human rights law and international criminal law remain fully applicable during a ceasefire.

“Ceasefire provides no legal cover to commit atrocities against civilians.”

That means allegations of war crimes can still be investigated and prosecuted even while a ceasefire is in effect.

Is ‘self-defence’ a justification for attacks during a ceasefire?

Cadman highlights the legal argument most frequently used to justify continued strikes by Israel on Gaza and Lebanon, and by the US against Iran: self-defence.

These arguments rest on Article 51 of the UN Charter, which carves out the right for states to launch unilateral military action against other nations if they are acting in self-defence.

But Cadman said the interpretation of that clause is heavily contested.

“Article 51 answers an armed attack that has happened or is genuinely imminent; it is not a standing licence for preventive strikes.”

So why do countries feel they can get away with attacks during a ceasefire?

Asked by reporters on Wednesday how he defined a ceasefire, given the continuing – though sporadic – attacks that the US and Iran have exchanged in recent weeks, US President Donald Trump said: “It’s a different part of the world, you know. I’d say in that part of a ceasefire is when you’re shooting in a more moderate manner.”

Trump’s comments underscore what legal experts say is at the heart of the persisting violence in Gaza, Lebanon and the Gulf: The lack of any meaningful enforcement mechanism.

The Security Council is constrained by veto powers. The ICJ can issue binding orders but cannot enforce them. The ICC can issue arrest warrants, but depends on states to carry them out.

“The unifying theme is an enforcement deficit,” Cadman said.

Cadman argued that the problem is not that international law lacks rules. Rather, those rules are often applied selectively. “The law is not formally different for Israel or the US; its application is selective.”

WASHINGTON — The House passed legislation Thursday that would aid Ukraine and sanction key segments of the Russian economy, overriding objections from Republican leaders who warned the bill would undermine negotiations designed to achieve a comparable but stronger result.

The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., seeks to cement U.S. assistance for Ukraine by providing more than $1 billion in security and reconstruction aid. It would make another $8 billion available for Ukraine’s defense through loans.

The 226-195 vote is a sign of impatience with President Trump’s approach to the war and represents the House’s second major foreign policy break with Trump this week. The day before, the House, for the first time, approved a war powers resolution aimed at halting U.S. military action against Iran.

Supporters were able to force action on the Ukraine bill by gathering 218 signatures on a discharge petition, a legislative tool that allows a majority of the House to effectively bypass leadership.

Once rarely successful, House members have used the petition tool this Congress to pass bills on releasing the government’s files on Jeffrey Epstein and to extend health care subsidies to many of those who get health coverage through the Affordable Care Act, though the latter measure faltered in the Senate.

Meeks said the question before the House was simple. Would it help Ukraine negotiate from a position of strength or help Russia outlast American resolve?

“We all want this war to end,” Meeks said. “The question is how. Will we abandon Ukraine and force it into a terrible deal? That is what Vladimir Putin is counting on. Or will this body live up to the commitments we’ve made since the start of this war?”

The vast majority of Republicans opposed the measure. Rep. French Hill, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said he is a steadfast supporter of Ukraine. However, the Arkansas Republican said the House was confronted with a flawed, outdated measure that actually calls for less funding for Ukraine security assistance compared to what Congress had agreed to as part of this year’s defense policy. Another section could lead to a decrease in defense spending by some NATO members, he warned.

Rep. Brian Mast, the chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, said he believed the bill was “a cudgel to fight against President Trump.”

“This bill, in my opinion, is an unserious bill that was crafted basically a year-and-a-half ago,” Mast, R-Fla., said.

Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., broke with most of his Republican colleagues in voicing support for the measure.

“Are we going to stand with good or are we going to stand with evil? That’s what this is about tonight,” he said.

In the end, 18 Republicans, 207 Democrats and one independent voted for the bill. Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar joined with 194 Republicans in voting against it.

Lawmakers want to send a message

Supporters are hopeful that the House’s passage of the Ukraine bill would put pressure on the Senate to do the same. But they also know the Senate likely won’t go along unless Trump endorses the bill.

“It’s probably not going to get 60 votes in the Senate, but it’s going to hopefully force the Senate to address the issue,” said Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., who signed the discharge petition and voted for the bill. “It’s going to send a great message to the soldiers of Ukraine.”

He said the vote would also send a message to Putin that “we do have a pulse here, that we do care about Ukraine and that we are going to utilize our authority to help them.”

As the war has dragged on, it’s gotten more difficult for supporters of Ukraine in Congress to provide additional financial support to help Ukraine defend itself.

The U.S. has approved some $195 billion for the Ukraine response, according to the latest quarterly inspector general report for Operation Atlantic Resolve, with roughly a quarter of that going to replenish weapons stockpiles for the U.S. military. The last major legislation designed to bolster the Ukraine response occurred in April 2024, though modest amounts have since been included in annual appropriations bills.

Republican leaders tried to stop the bill

Republican leaders urged their members to oppose the legislation. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., said there are good-faith negotiations between members of Congress and the White House to boost Ukraine. He described the negotiations as complicated.

“I think they are going to yield positive results, but you set that back if you pass legislation that doesn’t go as far as the negotiations are going,” Scalise said.

The war that followed Russia’s full-scale invasion of its neighbor is more than four years old, with no end in sight. In recent days, both sides have sought an edge by launching long-range missile strikes.

U.S.-led peace efforts have fizzled out as the sides made no progress on key differences and after the war in Iran grabbed Washington’s attention. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky accepted an unconditional ceasefire demanded by Trump, but Putin refused.

Action in the Senate on Ukraine has revolved around a bill that would impose sweeping tariffs and secondary sanctions on countries that purchase Russia’s oil, gas, uranium and other exports, which are crucial to financing Russia’s military. But the bill has languished.

Freking writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen warned that the maritime drone was a ‘direct consequence’ of the Russia-Ukraine war. 

A maritime drone has exploded in Romania’s Constanta port, with several other drones discovered nearby.

The Romanian Ministry of National Defence said on Friday that the drone had self-detonated at 10:30am local time (07:30 GMT). The incident is just the latest incursion along NATO’s eastern flank, raising concern over the increasing spillover from Russia’s war on Ukraine to neighbouring states that are part of the Western military alliance.

The drone exploded near an oil terminal, without causing injuries. Interior Minister Raed Arafat said the port was evacuated after the detonation, and residents along the Black Sea coast were warned to take cover as helicopters surveyed the area for other vessels.

Kyiv later said it had informed Bucharest that Friday’s incident involved a Ukrainian maritime drone that was knocked off course by Russian electronic interference.

“While carrying out missions in the Black Sea operational area, one of the Ukrainian Navy’s unmanned surface vessels came under the influence of the enemy’s electronic warfare systems, lost control, and ended up near the coast of Romania,” the Ukrainian navy said.

Romanian President Nicusor Dan noted on Facebook that this was the “second security incident this week on the Romanian seaside”.

Earlier this week, Romania’s navy detonated a Russian YaRM-type anti-landing mine that had drifted to its Black Sea shore.

Last week, a Russian drone crashed into an apartment building in Romania, increasing fears that the war started by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 increasingly risks spilling over to the region.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen warned on Friday that the maritime drone was a “direct consequence” of the Russia-Ukraine war.

“It is increasingly becoming a direct threat to countries on our Eastern border. Our solidarity with every Member State exposed to these threats is absolute,” von der Leyen wrote.

“And our response must match the urgency. Europe is investing massively in anti-drone capabilities, air defence and early warning systems,” she added.

Romania, which shares a 650km (400-mile) land border with Ukraine, has reported dozens of airspace breaches amid the four-year war, generally blaming Russia, and has asked NATO to help it bolster air defences.

The spillover of the war is also affecting non-NATO countries.

Azerbaijan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs reported on Friday that five of its citizens were killed and three injured after attacks on two cargo vessels, which did not belong to Baku, in the Sea of Azov.

Kyiv said earlier that its drones had hit five ships in the ports of Mariupol and Berdyansk – which sits between Russia and the Russian-occupied eastern regions of Ukraine.

Commander of the Ukrainian drone forces, Robert Brovdi, asserted that the vessels were involved in “stealing” Ukrainian grain and transferring military cargo.

When Iran qualified for the FIFA World Cup last March, the men’s national team didn’t expect their participation to hinge on visas being granted by hosts, the United States, only at the last moment – if at all.

Nor did Iranian fans eager to support Team Melli expect to be banned from entry by the US. President Donald Trump signed an executive order last June halting visa issuance to a handful of countries, including Iran, which the US designated a “state sponsor of terrorism”.

Perhaps most unanticipated for Iranians was that the host nation of the largest sporting event in the world would launch a war on their country just months before the tournament began.

For Amir Ghalenoei’s side, the joint US-Israel war was more than a wrench thrown into World Cup preparation plans; it was tangible and personal, as thousands across the country were killed by missile attacks.

It was the US bombing Azadi Stadium, home to several local matches and where the national team trained. It was the men’s team holding tiny backpacks in remembrance of the students massacred in a US strike on a school in Minab the day the war began.

After months of politically charged rigmarole between the US and Iran – which led to them switching basecamps to Mexico instead – the men’s national football team will find themselves playing in the shadow of war. That too, if the US grants them visas in time.

For Iranian football fans, travelling to the US was “almost impossible” even without the visa challenges or the war. There are no direct means of transport between the countries, which do not have formal diplomatic relations.

“Aside from the visa issue, you have to take two- or three-way routes from Tehran to get to the US,” said Ali, a fan who did not want to share his full name for safety reasons.

“Returning from the US to Iran is a big challenge in itself, with the possibility of being arrested by the [Iranian] government,” he added. The war has increased scrutiny of antinational sentiment within Iran, resulting in executions of people arrested on accusations of spying for Israel or the US.

Political repercussions extend to the sport sphere, too. Iran’s top footballer Sardar Azmoun was expelled from the national team in March for a perceived act of disloyalty to the government, when he posted a picture on social media of a ⁠meeting with Dubai ruler Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum. Relations between the UAE and Iran have been tense during the war, with Iran hitting the Emirates repeatedly and accusing it of allowing the US to use its territory for attacks on Iran.

The US war on Iran, now nearing its 100th day, has also deterred fans globally from attending the World Cup.

“Football is called the Beautiful Game for a reason, for its ability to unite people,” South African football fan Byron Pillay told Al Jazeera.

“But it’s hard to believe in that magic with the politics and war rhetoric off the field of play, specially when one of the tournament hosts is central to that.”

Compatriot Riaz Hamed echoed those reservations. “With the stance of America in particular, regarding the treatment of fans and immigrants in the country, I don’t believe it to be entirely safe to attend.”

Fears have been stoked by reports from organisations such as Human Rights Watch, which said an asylum seeker who attended the Club World Cup final last year in New Jersey with his children was arrested by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) department and deported to his country of origin.

Khayran Noor, an international sports lawyer based in Kenya, emphasised that sport cannot be separated from wider geopolitical dimensions.

“If participation can be shaped by geopolitical realities outside the game itself, does that ultimately undermine the inclusive ideals these tournaments claim to represent?” Noor said in an interview with Al Jazeera.

“Football is global, but global mobility is not; the World Cup sits directly at the intersection of that contradiction.”

Mounting visa rejections have also spooked fans from attempting to attend the World Cup.

The US has launched a FIFA Priority Appointment Scheduling System (PASS), which expedites visa interviews for fans who have bought tickets through FIFA. But it does not guarantee a visa.

Last month, a group of nearly 150 Ghana football fans saw their visa applications rejected.

Godwin Nii Armah, 32, scrapped his travel plans for the World Cup for personal reasons, but knew he might have shared the same fate as those compatriots. He also admitted that travelling to Toronto, Boston and Philadelphia to support the Black Stars would have been a costly logistical headache in addition to international flights and visa fees.

Ghana nationals have to pay a $185 fee with their US visa application and 100 Canadian dollars ($71) for the Canadian visa. Add the two, and the amount is comparable to the monthly per capita income in Ghana.

Noor questioned whether future FIFA host agreements should include obligations relating to accessibility and mobility before hosting rights are awarded.

“If teams and fans from particular parts of the world face structural barriers before they can even attend, then the broader spirit of inclusion that these tournaments seek to embody risks being undermined.”

She acknowledged that while states understandably retain sovereign responsibilities regarding border control and national security, global sporting events often require exceptional frameworks.

Fans from 27 of the 48 nations headed to the World Cup need a US visa to apply, costing anywhere between $185 to $435 – amounts that represent wages that an average person in many countries in the Global South would earn over several months.

Canada is marginally more visa-friendly, while Mexico remains the most accessible World Cup host nation.

That was why South Africa chose to send a small supporters group to Pachuca, Mexico, where South Africa have set up basecamp and play two group stage matches.

Sahil Ebrahim is among the “lucky few” in that delegation. After decades of supporting Bafana Bafana from a TV screen in Cape Town, Ebrahim attended the Qatar 2022 World Cup.

Now the 40-year-old is on his way to his second World Cup, where he will witness the tournament opener live in Mexico City, when South Africa play the hosts on June 11.

Contrary to the South African football team, who faced a 24-hour delay in their departure over a visa bungle by the federation, Ebrahim said the Department of Sport did an “excellent job” expediting their visas with the Mexican embassy.

The process, however, paled in comparison with the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, where Hayya cards centrally aligned all visa, ticket and transport details for each fan, Ebrahim acknowledged.

While South Africa’s friendly against Jamaica on Friday, June 5, is closed to the public, Ebrahim and the supporters’ group will watch an exhibition game on Sunday where the Bafana legends of 2010 will take on their Mexican counterparts. South Africa had hosted the World Cup in 2010, a first for an African nation.

“Ultimately, major sporting events succeed not only because people watch them, but because people participate in them,” Noor said.

“The question is not who can watch the World Cup – the question is who can truly participate in it.”

EXPLAINER

Israel strikes Lebanon despite ceasefire, while Hezbollah rejects deal as death toll tops 3,500.

Israel has continued to carry out deadly strikes across Lebanon despite the announcement of a new US-brokered ceasefire agreement reached by Lebanese and Israeli officials in Washington, DC.

The violence has pushed the number of casualties higher, with Lebanon’s Ministry of Public Health reporting that at least 3,526 people have been killed and 10,733 wounded in Israeli attacks since March 2.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem has dismissed the ceasefire as a “farce”, warning that northern Israel will remain a target as long as Israeli forces continue bombing Lebanon, raising more doubts about the prospects for a lasting truce.

Here is what we know:

In Iran

• Iran adviser flags concerns over draft deal: Mohsen Rezaei, an adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, said the draft memorandum of understanding being negotiated to end the war still contains “ambiguities” that need to be clarified. Speaking to Iranian state television, Rezaei also accused US President Donald Trump of trying to pressure Tehran into accepting Washington’s terms while keeping Iran’s own conditions “in a vague state”.

War diplomacy

• Questions over US strategy: Reporting from Washington, DC, Al Jazeera’s Kimberly Halkett said the White House is facing growing questions over why a negotiated agreement with Iran is still needed after President Donald Trump repeatedly claimed US military action had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear programme. Halkett said critics are asking: “If these military objectives have been achieved, then is there still a need for talks?” She added that “with each passing week that this war drags on” and negotiations remaining stalled, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the administration to reconcile its claims of success with the continued push for diplomacy.
• Hezbollah rejects conditional ceasefire: Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem rejected the limited truce agreed to by Lebanese and Israeli representatives in the US, demanding a complete ceasefire and a full Israeli pullout from the country. Qassem also warned of more attacks on northern Israel, highlighting the difficulties in reaching a lasting peace. Both sides have blamed each other for breaking a previous ceasefire announced in April.

The Gulf

• Oman oil terminal disruption: Reuters reported that Oman has suspended crude oil loading operations at its key Mina al-Fahal terminal after an explosion near its single-buoy mooring (SBM) berths. Citing unnamed sources, the agency said the blast occurred between SBM 1 and SBM 2 and was allegedly caused by a drone attack.

In the US

• Trump says US does not need a deal to access Iran’s uranium: The US president said Washington could access Iran’s enriched uranium without reaching an agreement with Tehran, arguing the material is effectively “entombed”. Trump also said he does not plan to meet Iran’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, but he suggested a meeting could be possible if a deal is eventually reached, adding that “if it happened … I’d be respectful”.

In Israel

• Ultra-Orthodox protest blocks major highway: Hundreds of ultra-Orthodox Israelis blocked Highway 1 in protest against the government’s enforcement of military conscription for religious students, according to Israel’s Channel 10. The demonstrations began after police stopped two ultra-Orthodox students and transferred one to military authorities. Large numbers of police and border guards were deployed to clear the highway and disperse protesters.

In Lebanon

• Hezbollah rejection raises fears of escalation: Reporting from Beirut, Al Jazeera’s Ali Hashem said Hezbollah remains the key actor on the Lebanese side when it comes to decisions about fighting and any potential halt to hostilities with Israel, “regardless of what the Lebanese government says”. Given Hezbollah’s rejection of the US-brokered ceasefire, Hashem warned that further escalation is likely from both Hezbollah and Israel. He noted that southern Lebanon and the western Bekaa Valley experienced significant Israeli air and ground attacks on Thursday, adding that Hezbollah’s position suggests “it is going to be a very difficult situation” in the days ahead.

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.

Israel’s supreme court annuls a government ban on the International Committee of the Red Cross visiting Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails.

Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces have had a long history of violations, going back to when they were known as the ‘Janjaweed’. Over the past few years, they have been trying to change their image and become influential political actors in Sudan, but will that work? Al Jazeera’s Hala Saadani looks back at the RSF’s history and where they may go from here.

Iran is heading to the World Cup while the country is at war with a host nation, a situation that is unique in the tournament’s history.

The United States-Israel war on Iran began on February 28, and there has been an uneasy ceasefire in place since April 8, but the uncertainty – and occasional flare-up in hostilities – means an end to the conflict is far from certain.

For the Iranian players and staff, the situation has thrown their World Cup preparations into chaos – all of their matches are scheduled to be played in the US.

The Iran team has spent more than two weeks in Turkiye, mostly practising at the coastal resort Antalya, and some travelled to the capital, Ankara, to submit visa applications at the US embassy.

The team’s participation in the event in the US, Canada and Mexico has long been in doubt and, with the visa situation still up in the air, nothing can yet be fully guaranteed.

“Well, to be honest, it’s not easy,” said Saeid Ezatolahi, a 29-year-old midfielder who also played for Iran in the 2018 and 2022 World Cups.

“This is going to be my third World Cup. So for me and some of the other players, it might be easier to manage these kinds of things,” he told The Associated Press news agency in English on the sidelines of a training session on Wednesday.

“But at the end … it is going to be difficult for us because, at the same time, we are following the news in our country and the political things, of course, can affect the mind of the players and the people.”

The team is set to travel to Mexico this weekend after receiving visas from the Mexican embassy in Ankara. The team said Thursday that the process of obtaining entry permits had been finalised for all members of the squad.

Problems with visa processing meant Iran’s World Cup training base was moved from Tucson, Arizona, to Tijuana, on Mexico’s border with California.

Iran will play its first two games near Los Angeles, which has a large Iranian community, many of whom oppose the current government.

“So for sure, we are expecting to have a lot of fans during our games at the stadium,” Ezatolahi said. “And this is going to be a lot of pressure for us because the expectation is going to be high. I just wish we can make them proud and show them that Iranians, they are prepared for every hard job in the world,” he said.

Mohammad Ghorbani, 24, is going to his first World Cup for Iran.

“It’s true that we are facing special circumstances right now, but we are football players, and we have to play, practise, and prepare ourselves for the competitions we have ahead,” the Abu Dhabi-based player said in Farsi.

“On the other hand, we know that our people have been going through a lot of difficulties throughout the war, and we are going there for them, to get the best results for their joy and the joy of the people of our country.”

The US and Israel killed Iran’s supreme leader and other top officials in their initial attacks. Iran responded with strikes targeting Israel, US forces and the Gulf Arab states. It also has maintained a chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow mouth of the Gulf, imperilling global energy supplies.

Despite the nominal ceasefire, Iran and the US have yet to negotiate a permanent end to the war, and attacks continue in the region.

Iran is in Group G with New Zealand, Belgium and Egypt and Iran’s team is not required to enter the US until June 14, one day before its first match against New Zealand at the Los Angeles Rams’ stadium in Inglewood.

Iran returns to Inglewood to face Belgium on June 21 and completes Group G in Seattle, against Egypt on June 26.

“I’m really proud to be part of my national team,” said Ezatolahi, whose career has taken him to play for clubs in Spain, Russia, England, Belgium, Denmark, Qatar and now Dubai in the United Arab Emirates.

“We need to clear up our minds and be fresh because our target and our duty is to fight for our people, to represent our country and to show how good we are,” he said.

Ghorbani agreed, saying the team wants to bring joy to Iranians.

“The best message I can give right now is that the Iranian team is showing what it means to be a team,” he said. “We are showing that we are one team under one flag that can bring joy to our whole country, and to show the power of Iranian players and Iranian people to the world.”

The FIFA World Cup begins on June 11. You can follow the action on Al Jazeera’s dedicated World Cup 2026 page with all the latest news, match build-up and live text commentary and keep up to date with group standings, real-time match results and schedules.

This is the moment the Republican-led US House of Representatives passed a resolution to reign in President Donald Trump’s ability to keep attacking Iran, unless Congress declares war or approves the use of military force. But it’s unlikely to become law as Trump can veto it even if it passes the Senate.