US President Donald Trump said that Vice President JD Vance's outreach to Iran was about helping the country get medical supplies, after US media reported Vance had written to Tehran's top security official to revive peace talks.

Iran has received a letter from Vance but it has not responded to it yet, the country's semi-official Tasnim news agency reported on Thursday, while adding that Tehran wants the US to meet its conditions and "any position that contradicts this framework is unacceptable."

Also on Thursday, the US military's senior officer overseeing the Middle East, Admiral Brad Cooper, met Trump at the White House to outline military options in Iran, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing US officials and other people with direct knowledge of the meeting.

Reuters could not immediately independently verify this report.

Vance sent the letter to Iranian Security Council chief Mohsen Rezaei in a bid to revive peace negotiations, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times reported on Wednesday, citing US officials and people familiar with the matter. Reuters could not immediately verify the reports.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Vance sent the letter at Trump's direction. When asked by reporters later on Wednesday if he directed Vance to reach out to Iran to restart peace negotiations, Trump said: "No."

"What that is is they need help with medical supplies and various things. He (Vance) asked me what I thought. I said, if you want to do that, that's okay. Basically, it's getting supplies in to help people that are not well," Trump told reporters.

Iran's mission to the United Nations in New York did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the letter and Trump's remark. Vance's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Tehran's conditions

Iran's parliament speaker said on Thursday that Tehran's conditions had been repeatedly and clearly communicated to mediators and that progress can only be achieved if Iran's seven conditions are met.

The "carrot-and-stick approach has no effect on Iran," Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf added.

Conditions Iran says must be met before it will reopen the strategic Strait of Hormuz shipping route include, among other demands, lifting the US blockade on Iranian ports, lifting US sanctions on Iranian oil exports and ending hostilities on all regional fronts.

The United States and Israel launched a war against Iran at the end of February. The US has also since imposed a naval blockade on Iran to starve it of oil export revenue and escalated efforts to economically isolate Iran.

Iran has long blamed US sanctions for hindering civilian access to medical supplies.

In an August letter to the UN Security Council, Iran accused the US of intentionally depriving civilians "of access to food, medicines, medical equipment, energy and other necessities, with grave consequences for their rights to life, health, food and a decent standard of living."

Qatari mediators presented Iran with a new draft deal on Sunday to end the war, but a senior Iranian official said Doha had only put forward unacceptable ideas that did not amount to an offer.

The war's impact on global energy costs has also weighed on support for Republican candidates and hurt Trump's approval ratings ahead of the US midterm elections that decide control of Congress. Trump's Republican Party holds a narrow majority in both chambers of Congress.

(Reuters)

Liberal US Jewish leaders are urging Israeli opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot and his allies to work with parties representing Palestinian citizens of Israel to oust incumbent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, after Tuesday’s closely contested election left both major blocs short of a majority. 

Several Jewish-led organisations in the US, including liberal pro-Israel lobby group J Street and activist group Israelis for Peace, have called on the opposition to embrace Arab-led parties as partners in political change.  

The Joint List secured 12 seats and the United Arab List (Ra’am) seven, bringing Palestinian parties’ combined representation to a record 19 seats in the 120-member Knesset. 

The election also saw a surge in participation among Palestinian citizens of Israel, with turnout among Palestinian voters reportedly reaching a historic 80%. 

J Street president Jeremy Ben-Ami welcomed their participation, saying that “their voices and votes are a vital part of Israel’s democratic fabric”. 

“This is a moment for the Jewish opposition parties to demonstrate genuine leadership by reaching out to the Arab parties and working together to form an alternative government,” Ben-Ami said in a statement.  

“Israel cannot build a stronger, more inclusive democracy while treating the political representatives of one-fifth of its population as illegitimate governing partners.” 

New York-based Israelis for Peace also praised the high turnout among Palestinian citizens of Israel, describing it as “a victory to the anti-Netanyahu bloc” for helping dislodge the ruling coalition led by Netanyahu and the far right. 

However, the group criticised the opposition bloc for “refusing to accept this gift, out of no other reason but deep-rooted, unexamined and systemic racism”. 

The criticism comes as Eisenkot pledged to “do everything in my power to form a Zionist government” on Wednesday. 

His bloc’s projected 48 seats, compared with 53 for Netanyahu’s camp, mean the opposition may need support from Arab-led parties, including the Joint List.

Formal alliances between Jewish-led parties and Arab parties have long faced resistance in Israeli politics, including since the establishment of Israel and the Palestinian Nakba in 1948.  

Eisenkot’s own pre-election rejection of Arab backing could add to uncertainty following an inconclusive result, particularly amid Netanyahu’s repeated attacks on the opposition.  

The prime minister warned his right-wing Jewish supporters that voting for the opposition would put Arabs in power. 

Daniel Levy, political commentator and president of the US/Middle East Project (USMEP), told The New Arab that a growing minority within the Israeli diaspora, particularly in the US, as well as within Israel, was calling for a coalition that included Arab parties.  

However, he argued that the decisive test would be whether opposition parties were prepared to accept Palestinian Arab parties as political partners.  

He added that the issue could test whether liberal Zionism could translate its stated principles into meaningful political change in Israel. 

“The question is now in the courts of the Zionist opposition, and the question is as follows: You have been telling everyone that Netanyahu is an existential threat to Israel. The continuation of his government is a disaster,” Levy said. 

“Now you have the opportunity to remove it. It means partnering with the non-Zionists of the Palestinian Arab community. It means, in the words of [Democrats chairman] Yair Golan, if you like, not playing Netanyahu.” 

With the election producing no clear winner, Levy said the extent to which Arab-led parties gain greater recognition, and whether attitudes towards them are shifting, would become clearer during what could be weeks of protracted negotiations over the formation of a new government. 

“Even if Eisenkot can be convinced, can [Avigdor] Lieberman, who built his career on racist rabble-rousing against the Arab population, and [former prime minister Naftali] Bennett, who is a former settler leader, will they get on board with it?” Levy told The New Arab. 

“Maybe the opposition bloc do go for it, or at least maybe they cooperate inside the Knesset without even forming a government. Maybe they just cooperate in the Knesset to swear in a new Knesset speaker, new committees, and to make some changes there.” 

He continued: “I think many people are looking at this and saying, ‘Okay, are you going to show us all that ultimately your belief in the Jewish ethnostate and your racism towards the Palestinians is stronger than your willingness to get rid of Netanyahu?’”

The Horn of Africa is where strategic maritime corridors, fragile states, and regional ambitions converge - and it is emerging as a new front in Middle Eastern geopolitical competition.

Israel’s 26 December 2025 recognition of Somaliland’s independence added new dimensions to these tensions, intersecting with Turkey’s expanding military, economic, and diplomatic footprint in Somalia and broader partnerships across the Horn of Africa.

From Turkey’s perspective, Israel’s Somaliland move and its broader regional engagement challenge Ankara’s strategic interests. Tel Aviv, for its part, views Somaliland as a potential gateway to projecting influence near Houthi-controlled territory in Yemen and along one of the world’s most important maritime corridors.

Somaliland’s longstanding quest for international recognition risks becoming further entangled in the rivalries of Middle Eastern powers, transforming a local sovereignty dispute into a wider contest over the future of Red Sea security.

As Turkey and Israel deepen their engagement, and other external actors pursue their own agendas, the Horn of Africa might end up an increasingly crowded arena of geopolitical competition. The implications for regional stability could be serious.

Israel's Somaliland gambit and the rivalry with Turkey

Situated alongside busy maritime routes, the Horn of Africa links the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean, occupying a position of much geostrategic importance.

Egypt, Iran, Israel, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) increasingly view the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden, and the surrounding territories as a single security environment. Instability in one part of this interconnected region can disrupt commercial shipping, threaten energy security, and intensify rivalries among states far beyond its shores.

Israel’s decision to recognise Somaliland’s independence and to invest in deeper ties with the self-declared breakaway republic is very much about securing a strong position in a territory situated in close proximity to Yemen.

This land can provide Tel Aviv with the means to closely monitor Houthi activity, improve intelligence collection, and strengthen surveillance of maritime routes that have become increasingly vulnerable to disruption.

“Israel’s interest in the Horn of Africa is not new but has sped up amid regional shake-up in the aftermath of [7 October 2023],” Dr Burcu Ozcelik, Senior Research Fellow for Middle East Security at the London-based Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), told The New Arab.

“Israel sees Somaliland mainly through a defence cooperation lens, and as a possible staging ground for future offensive military activity against the Houthis. The strategic value of access near Yemen for Israel spans intelligence, surveillance, and potentially military operations,” she added.

Ankara and Tel Aviv’s rivalry and maritime security interests are “mutually reinforcing” motivations, argued Cameron Hudson, an independent analyst with expertise on African peace, security, and governance, who previously worked on Africa at the Central Intelligence Agency, State Department, and the US National Security Council.

“They are two sides of the same coin and cannot be disaggregated,” he told The New Arab.

However, Omar S. Mahmood, a Senior Analyst for Somalia and the Horn of Africa at International Crisis Group, offers a more qualified interpretation. He suggests that the immediate motivation for Tel Aviv is mostly related to security, while competition with Ankara is a secondary consequence, not necessarily the driving force.

“I don’t think Israel’s relationship with Somaliland is driven by a broader rivalry with Turkey per se. But there are local ramifications as Somaliland itself is seeking external allies as it is uncomfortable with growing Turkish military support to Somalia, viewing it as a potential future threat,” explained Mahmood in an interview with The New Arab.

“So, in this sense the middle powers can get drawn into supporting opposite sides in local rivalries, even if that was not the primary factor driving their engagement in the first place,” he added.

Turkey's foothold in Somalia

Turkey’s presence in Somalia is a product of many years of sustained investment and political commitment.

In 2011, Somalia faced a devastating famine which claimed approximately 250,000 lives (half of them children) amid an unprecedented humanitarian crisis. At that time, Mogadishu did not have many reliable partners around the world.

That was when Ankara’s engagement with the country gained momentum, beginning with humanitarian assistance and reconstruction before developing into a much wider relationship across multiple domains, from investment to military training and security cooperation to state-building.

Central to Turkey’s military partnership with Somalia has been its TURKSOM facility in Mogadishu. This training establishment has been at the heart of Turkish efforts to help build up the Somali government’s ability to fight al-Shabaab.

Ankara and Mogadishu signed a 10-year defence agreement in 2024, extending their cooperation into naval development and the protection of Somalia's coastline, alongside growing Turkish interests in maritime security and offshore oil and gas exploration, underscoring Turkey’s stakes in Somalia achieving greater stability.

Bilateral ties also strengthened when Somalia sought international support following Ethiopia's agreement with Somaliland concerning access to the sea in exchange for recognition - a deal which infuriated officials in Mogadishu.

Ankara subsequently helped mediate between Somalia and Ethiopia, illustrating how Turkey’s influence has gone beyond military and economic cooperation and entailed effective regional diplomacy.

In late 2025, Turkey joined many other countries around the world in strongly denouncing Israel’s recognition of Somaliland. Ankara feared that recognition of the breakaway republic gravely threatened Somalia’s territorial dignity.

Turkey also has concerns about the potential creation of openings for external actors to establish a presence for themselves in territories situated near maritime routes where Ankara has vested interests.

Rather than reacting with an immediate escalation of its military presence, Ankara seems to find its most effective response to be based on reinforcing its relationships and institutions that serve to underpin Turkish influence in Somalia. This measured approach appears to be aimed at protecting the investments which Turkey has made in the country without setting Ankara up for any overt confrontation with the Israelis in Somalia.

However, Ankara’s efforts to preserve its position in Somalia could have unintended consequences. Somaliland may interpret deeper Turkish-Somali security cooperation as a threat to its political ambitions, prompting Hargeisa to seek stronger external backing and, in the process, potentially deepening regional tensions.

The Emirati factor

No analysis of Turkish-Israeli competition in the Horn of Africa is complete without taking stock of the UAE’s role. Abu Dhabi’s support for Somaliland, even if short of formal recognition, places the UAE broadly on the same side of this sovereign dispute as Tel Aviv.

The UAE has vast strategic and commercial interests across the Red Sea, giving Abu Dhabi high stakes in the Horn of Africa’s evolving security order, while its normalised relationship with Israel continues to be an important feature of the Middle East’s geopolitical landscape more than six years after the Abraham Accords’ signing.

On the other side, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, and other regional actors have expressed support for Somalia’s territorial integrity, a position that connects their interests in the Horn of Africa to their wider security cooperation in the Middle East.

Hudson sees the UAE and Israel as a “powerful and mutually reinforcing duo in the Red Sea” which are both willing to challenge established power structures and intervene in disputes in the Horn of Africa to further their national interests at the region’s expense.

“They are happy to pick winners and losers, unsettle established power dynamics, and actively intervene in regional politics and conflicts in ways that benefit them even if that means unsettling regional dynamics,” he told The New Arab.

Hudson contrasts this with “Turkish or Saudi efforts to stabilise and reinforce established power dynamics as a way of limiting destabilising outside influences.”

Clearly, Abu Dhabi’s role is important not only due to Emirati ambitions but also because external backing can make local leaders less willing to compromise by reducing the perceived costs associated with confrontation.

The local stakes of a wider geopolitical contest

Despite the growing involvement of Middle Eastern states in the Horn of Africa, and the risks of this region becoming more of an arena for external competition, it is necessary to note that Somalia and Somaliland are not passive actors victimised by a giant game of geopolitical chess.

Both have agency and are actively seeking non-African partners to strengthen their positions and advance their political objectives.

For the government in Mogadishu, Turkey's military, economic, and diplomatic support is critical to strengthening state institutions, improving security, and protecting Somalia’s territorial integrity.

Meanwhile, Somaliland has long sought international recognition and has strong incentives to cultivate relationships with countries such as Israel and the UAE, which might advance that goal or at least provide greater protection against perceived threats.

In this sense, “you have a layer of local rivalries that now intersect with regional rivalries, creating a potentially dangerous situation,” explained Mahmood, who emphasised that this permits “Horn of Africa actors to take on more maximalist, aggressive and less compromising positions, knowing that [they] have…external support to fall back on.”

Houthi missile and drone attacks on Saudi Arabia, Israel, and maritime targets have done much to help explain why regional powers see the Horn of Africa as increasingly important to their foreign policy calculations.

As Houthi-Saudi hostilities escalate, Riyadh is focused on growing stronger security partnerships with regional actors, while governments in the Horn of Africa are likely to view closer cooperation with the Kingdom as a way to secure higher levels of assistance and bolster their own military capabilities. Meanwhile, the conflict in Sudan adds new layers of complication as it draws regional actors into overlapping security and political calculations.

Yet a greater military presence does not necessarily translate into greater stability. While competing powers expand their security footholds with the aim of countering one another, mistrust can deepen, territorial disputes can intensify, and local actors will probably pursue greater support from external powers.

Therefore, the Horn of Africa is increasingly likely to become exposed to conflicts in and around the Red Sea even if not directly involved in their initial escalation. Within this context, heightened insecurity means that further militarisation of the Red Sea risks undermining, rather than enhancing, security.

An evolving security arrangement around the Red Sea

On 7 August, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan signed the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement - a trilateral alliance which is defensive in nature and aimed at containing the chaotic instability unleashed by the war centred on Iran.

This security configuration has potentially significant implications for the balance of power around the Red Sea and Horn of Africa. It was hardly surprising that the leadership in Mogadishu hailed the pact in the immediate aftermath of its announcement, especially given Somalia’s close ties with the three signatories and shared threat perceptions of Israeli aggression.

For Somalia, the pact’s significance extends beyond its endorsement and raises important questions about regional realignments and Ankara’s position in the Horn of Africa within the wider context of an emerging security architecture.

Escalating Houthi-Saudi hostilities prompt a broader recalibration of regional security alignments, bringing Turkey and Pakistan closer to Saudi Arabia through the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement. For Ankara, this partnership offers an opportunity to connect its longstanding presence in Somalia with a wider strategic role in Gulf and Red Sea security.

Dr Ozcelik told The New Arab that the hostilities have “crossed red lines that were deemed unthinkable not long ago,” setting in motion a realignment among Riyadh’s allies. Ankara’s growing institutional engagement with the Kingdom therefore extends beyond diplomatic rhetoric, highlighting a more formal commitment to regional defence and security cooperation.

There are implications of this emerging Turkish-Saudi alignment for the rivalry between Ankara and Tel Aviv. As Dr Ozcelik stressed, Ankara is “institutionalising its partnership with Saudi Arabia beyond rhetoric and through defence commitments, minilateralism, and regional diplomacy.”

This closer Turkish-Saudi relationship will not escape Israeli strategists’ attention, particularly as Ankara expands its regional security role while Riyadh remains firm in its support for Palestinian statehood.

In Dr Ozcelik’s assessment, these parallel developments risk “fuelling a greater gulf between Israel and Turkey,” further complicating an already tense relationship that has significantly deteriorated since 7 October 2023.

While commentators sometimes toss Somalia around as a possible Mecca Joint Defence Agreement candidate, Hudson considers formal Somalia membership in the pact unlikely in the near term. He noted that Somalia remains a recipient of security assistance rather than a country capable of contributing meaningfully to a mutual defence arrangement.

“Given the high level of instability still emanating from Somalia, external countries would be foolish at this point to enter into a mutual security agreement with them now. Somalia can’t provide for its own security, let alone contribute to the security of others,” Hudson told The New Arab.

Similarly, Mahmood does not expect Somalia to formally join the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement. But he does think Mogadishu is likely to deepen security relations with the pact’s three signatories, noting that this is a development already underway. “Somalia prefers to align with this bloc of countries and sees them as a future source of support as it continues to build up its military capabilities,” he observed.

The risks of an expanding geopolitical contest

The internationalisation of the Horn of Africa’s political disputes and security crises entered a new chapter after Israel became the first UN member-state to officially recognise Somaliland ten months ago.

What started as a dispute over Somaliland’s recognition and Somalia’s territorial integrity has transformed into a larger contest over maritime security, military access, and regional influence.

A dangerous risk is an exacerbating security dilemma in which competing alliances deepen mistrust, undermine compromise, and expose the Horn of Africa to conflicts originating elsewhere.

Preventing further escalation will require Middle Eastern powers and their regional partners to exercise restraint while recognising that lasting stability depends on addressing the disputes that drive Somalia and Somaliland to seek competing external allies.

Giorgio Cafiero is the CEO of Gulf State Analytics

Follow him on X: @GiorgioCafiero

Edited by Charlie Hoyle

This live blog has now ended. Make sure to follow us for the latest news on Facebook, X, and Instagram.

Visit our previous live page to catch up on developments earlier today.

These were the top stories on Thursday:

•    Israel elections: Neither Prime Minister Netanyahu nor his main rival Gadi Eisenkot have won a majority in the Knesset following Tuesday's election. With almost all the votes counted, Netanyahu's bloc has 53 seats to Eisenkot's 48, setting the stage for fraught coalition negotiations and perhaps a new election.

•    Netanyahu and his far-right allies have moved to delegitimise the vote by claiming that Arab parties conducted widespread fraud, without providing evidence.

•    Qatar has rejected 'absurd' accusations that it interfered in the vote, while a senior elections official said the claims of voter fraud are baseless.

•    Iran war: Regional mediators are continuing to push for a deal between Iran and the US to prevent Trump from relaunching the war after next week's US midterm elections.

•    Strait of Hormuz: Three tankers have caught fire in the Strait of Hormuz after hitting mines.

•    Yemen war: Yemen's Houthis said 12 people were killed in Saudi strikes on residential areas in Taiz province.

At least four people, two of them children, have been killed after sustained heavy rainfall caused flash flooding in six provinces across Syria, local media and authorities reported on Thursday.

Heavy rain on Wednesday left at least three bridges out of service in the eastern province of Deir ez-Zor, while key roads have also been damaged.

The flooding has disrupted water supplies, while authorities shuttered schools in Deir ez-Zor, Raqqa, and Hasakeh on Thursday amid the storms.

Hundreds of families have been forced to leave their homes and the displacement camps where they reside in recent days.

Emergency teams have evacuated at least 375 families from three displacement camps in Raqqa province and have rescued 15 people who were trapped in their vehicles, the state-run SANA news agency reported.

Hospitals, schools, and bakeries have been affected by the flooding while disaster management teams have warned people about the risk of drowning.

Rescue teams were sent to the village of Kasrat Surour after a drainage crossing collapsed and left over 100 families surrounded by floodwater.

The flooding has caused major disruptions to traffic, including on the Aleppo-Raqqa highway.

Syrian army helicopters have been deployed across the country to help those who have been stranded.

The flooding has had far-reaching impacts, with telecommunications disrupted in Deir ez-Zor due to damage caused to fibre optic cables on the Homs-Deir ez-Zor and Aleppo- Deir ez-Zor routes.

The minister of emergencies and disaster management, Raed al-Saleh, has urged residents in eastern governorates to remain in their homes unless absolutely necessary, and to steer away from low-lying areas.

He has also called on people to refrain from trying to cross flooded roads, which comes as rescue teams grapple to deal with the situation.

Syria has been battling thunderstorms, hail, and strong winds in recent weeks, with the meteorological directorate warning that the storms and lightning are set to continue.

Syria was last hit with flooding in May, affecting scores of farmers during harvest season and destroying important wheat, barley, cotton, and vegetable crops.

The flooding in Aleppo and Idlib affected over 19,000 people and damaged over 3,400 shelters.

 

Belgium’s parliament is set to vote on controversial legislation that would allow police to enter private homes to arrest undocumented migrants facing deportation, in a move campaigners have likened to tactics used by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

The bill, due to be put to a vote on 5 November, would allow authorities to enter homes between 5am and 9pm with authorisation from an investigating judge. It would apply to foreign nationals who have received an enforceable order to leave Belgium. The measure could also include the homes of people suspected of accommodating undocumented migrants.

The proposal has faced widespread opposition from civil society organisations, lawyers, judges and local authorities, with critics warning that it threatens constitutional protections of the home, privacy and family life, while placing children and vulnerable households at risk.

They argue that the measure would allow authorities to enter private homes outside the framework of criminal investigations.

"The Belgian government may call them 'home visits', but that doesn’t change what they are: police forcibly entering private homes and traumatising families and children to arrest people who simply lack the right papers," Chiara Catelli, advocacy officer at the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM), said in a statement.

"We've all seen the devastating consequences of home raids in the US, where they fuel fear and violence and tear families apart. It’s deeply alarming that an EU member state is now moving in the same direction," she said.

The legislation was introduced by Belgium’s Asylum and Migration Minister Anneleen Van Bossuyt and Justice Minister Annelies Verlinden. It was approved by the Chamber of Representatives' Interior Committee in a second reading on 7 October and is now awaiting a vote in the full parliament.

PICUM has also raised concerns about the level of judicial oversight and the ability of those affected to challenge the legality of a raid before its consequences become irreversible.

Although an investigating judge would have to authorise entry, PICUM said the judge might not have access to the entire case file before making a decision. It also warned that people whose homes are searched could be left without an effective remedy to contest the authorisation.

Sotieta Ngo, executive director of the Coordination et Initiatives pour Réfugiés et Étrangers (CIRÉ), described the proposal as an attack on fundamental rights and solidarity.

"It's an attack against human dignity. It's an attack against solidarity. This proposal is a major violation of the constitutional principle of the inviolability of the home. From a democratic standpoint, there is nothing acceptable about this text," she said.

Under amendments approved by the parliamentary committee, an investigating judge would be able to determine how an operation is carried out and impose additional protections where children are present. However, opponents argue that these safeguards do not remove the risk of psychological harm to children and other household members.

Noor Ketels, policy officer at Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen, said the consequences could extend well beyond the households directly targeted.

"The harm of this bill goes far beyond any single raid. Fear can stop undocumented people from seeking help and make those offering shelter afraid to open their doors. People already in precarious situations could be left with nowhere safe to turn," she said.

"Everyone’s fundamental rights must be protected, regardless of their residence status. We urge the Belgian Parliament to reject this bill."

More than 60 municipalities across Belgium have reportedly adopted motions opposing the proposal, while the Brussels regional parliament also passed a resolution against it on 2 October.

Protests against the legislation are expected across the country on 4 November, a day before the parliamentary vote.

The Belgian government has rejected comparisons between the proposal and ICE, arguing that the legislation is a narrowly defined measure intended to enforce existing deportation orders rather than target undocumented migrants generally.

Van Bossuyt has said the measure would apply to people who refuse to cooperate with their return and pose a threat to public order or national security, citing convicted sex offenders and people involved in terrorism as examples.

She has also stressed that police would need authorisation from an investigating judge before entering a private residence.

In the United States, ICE has faced heavy criticism over its conduct.

A tracker by US investigative outlet The Trace identified nine people killed in shootings involving federal immigration agents since President Donald Trump began deploying agents as part of his enforcement operations in June 2025. The figures include agents from ICE and other federal immigration agencies.

Palestinian rights groups have filed an urgent petition with Israel's Supreme Court demanding the return of hundreds of families forcibly displaced from their homes in Hebron, as Israeli forces continue their military siege of the occupied West Bank city for a seventh consecutive day.

The petition calls for Palestinians expelled from the Al-Jalda, Ein Deir Bahha and Khallat Al-Maghariba neighbourhoods to be allowed to return to their homes, many of which have been seized by Israeli forces and converted into military barracks.

Lawyer Bassam Al-Qawasmi, founder of the All-Palestinian Gathering, said the court was awaiting responses from the Israeli military prosecution and army before proceeding with the case.

He explained that the legal action was launched after obtaining authorisation from Hebron Municipality and families affected by the forced displacement, with support from the city's newly established Relief and Support Committee.

The petition seeks to end the forced displacement, alleviate residents' suffering and secure their return to their homes.

Israeli forces have expelled thousands of Palestinians from neighbourhoods across Hebron since launching a major military operation last Friday after two Israeli soldiers were killed in an attack, imposing severe restrictions on movement and blocking access to residential areas.

More than 4,000 Palestinians have been displaced, while dozens of homes have been seized and converted into military outposts. The Israeli army has also demolished dozens of Palestinian buildings across the city.

Siege enters seventh day

Israeli forces continued raids and closures around Hebron's Old City on Thursday, continuing to occupy Palestinian homes in Al-Jalda and Ein Deir Bahha.

Troops also closed several iron gates surrounding the Old City, further restricting movement across the area.

The military operation has severely disrupted education, with dozens of schools suspending in-person classes and thousands of pupils forced to rely on remote learning and educational assignments.

According to Palestinian news agency Wafa, Israeli forces injured two Palestinians and detained seven others on Thursday, while settlers attacked Palestinian residents and vehicles in the Ras Al-Joura area near the city's northern entrance.

The Palestinian Prisoner's Society said on Wednesday that at least 110 Palestinians had been detained across the Hebron governorate since the operation began, including three women and seven children.

Israeli forces have also isolated 12 villages and communities in Masafer Yatta, south of Hebron, preventing residents from accessing markets, hospitals and essential services.

The offensive began after two Israeli soldiers were killed in a shooting near the illegal Israeli settlement of Telem last week. The Palestinian gunmen involved were subsequently killed by Israeli forces.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered the closure of Hebron and instructed security forces to prepare for a wider lockdown across the occupied West Bank.

Extremist Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich subsequently called for a military campaign in the territory similar to Israel's assault on Gaza.

UN warns of collective punishment

The United Nations and human rights organisations have condemned the operation, warning that mass displacement and sweeping restrictions on civilians could constitute serious violations of international law.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk said collective punishment was a grave violation of international law, warning that threats to empty entire neighbourhoods raised serious concerns about ethnic cleansing.

Israeli human rights organisation B'Tselem described the operation as an act of collective punishment rather than a security measure.

Palestinian rights group Al-Haq also accused Israel of violating international law through its military siege.

Roland Friedrich, director of UNRWA Affairs in the occupied West Bank, warned that the displacement echoed Israeli operations in the northern West Bank in early 2025, where more than 34,000 Palestinian refugees remain forcibly displaced.

On Tuesday, Israel went to the polls. By the next morning, both Benjamin Netanyahu and Gadi Eisenkot had claimed victory. Exit polls put Likud first, with 53 seats to 48 for Eisenkot’s Yashar, but left both blocs short of the 61 seats needed to govern.

The question now is who will form the next government and whether the two men may end up sharing one.

For many Palestinians, this election matters less for who wins than for what the result reveals to the world and what it conceals.

Mask off

Likud has governed Israel for most of the period since 1977. Netanyahu has held the premiership longer than anyone, outlasting even David Ben-Gurion’s roughly 13 years.

Netanyahu and the parties to his right are the most honest expression of the Israeli state: a state founded on ethnic cleansing and sustained through racism, apartheid, and genocide. Others dress this reality in the language of democracy, coexistence, and peace. Netanyahu does not bother.

In 2019, he said it plainly: “Israel is not a state of all its citizens,” but “the nation-state of the Jewish people and them alone.” That year, his campaign ran on “Bibi or Tibi,” casting Palestinian lawmaker Ahmad Tibi and the Palestinian citizens of Israel he represents as the threat voters had to defeat. His official Facebook page urged Israelis to stop a government dependent on “Arabs who want to destroy us all women, children and men.” This year, one of his central campaign slogans is “The right or Palestine.”

The 2018 Nation-State Law, passed under Netanyahu, declared that the right to national self-determination in Israel belongs exclusively to the Jewish people and enshrined Jewish settlement as a “national value.” His government did not invent this principle; it gave legal form to the principle on which the Zionist project was founded.

Since then, Israel has approved dozens of new settlements and retroactively legalised unauthorised outposts. In February 2026, it went further, reopening West Bank land registration for the first time since 1967. In Area C, land that Palestinians cannot prove they own under Israeli procedures can be registered as Israeli state land and made available for settlement.

Meanwhile, state-backed settler violence has reached record levels. And then there is Gaza.

Netanyahu’s unfiltered colonial politics have forced both the Israeli public and world leaders to confront what they have spent decades refusing to see.

A “liberal” or “centrist” government would not undo this. It would launder it. We have seen this before: settlements expanded under Labour governments, including through the Oslo years, while the world applauded a peace process.

Mask on

A friendlier face in Tel Aviv would give many in the “international community” the excuse they have been waiting for to look away.

Consider Eisenkot, Netanyahu’s main challenger and leader of the “centrist” Yashar party. He was a central decision-maker in the Israeli occupation army, rising to chief of staff and later sitting in Netanyahu’s war cabinet after 7 October. He publicly articulated the Dahiya Doctrine: the strategy of overwhelming force against civilian areas used in Lebanon and Gaza.

Eisenkot’s party promises a “Jewish and democratic” state- ethnonationalism, but made to look democratic. He rejects the two-state solution that Washington and Brussels still present as the road to peace. His objection to Ben-Gvir and Smotrich is not what they do, but how it looks abroad.

The West, the EU included, has hoped an opposition victory would whitewash Israel’s image. The election results point the other way: over 77% of Israelis voted for right-wing and far-right parties, around 15%, largely Palestinian citizens of Israel, backed the Arab parties, and just 6.51% voted for the Zionist left.

The result also exposes the limits of framing opposition to Netanyahu as an awakening to the horrors committed by the state. Given a choice, most Israeli voters did not opt for a fundamentally different agenda; they endorsed the same core project of Jewish supremacy and Palestinian dispossession, and they backed the Israeli genocide in Gaza.

Across the political spectrum, Israel has shed any pretence of democratic equality. Arab citizens are delegitimised: their parties were banned before the vote and reinstated only by the courts, and their turnout was branded an “emergency” on election day.

Their record result has been met with cries of a stolen election and demands that their leaders be interrogated and arrested, and a further crackdown on their rights now looks all but certain. Even the “centrist” opposition refuses to govern with them.

The difference between “moderate” and “extremist” Zionism lies less in its goals than in how it presents them to the outside world.

Both currents seek to preserve Israel as a state that privileges Jewish nationality and control over historic Palestine. “Moderate” Zionism speaks the language of democracy, security and a negotiated settlement while continuing settlement expansion, military occupation and the structural exclusion of Palestinians.

“Extremist” Zionism says the same things openly: annexation, transfer, Jewish supremacy, making the underlying reality harder for Western allies to ignore.

Eisenkot and figures like him do not oppose the system so much as manage its image. Their objection to Ben-Gvir and Smotrich is not that Palestinian rights are being denied, but that the denial has become too visible, too crude and too damaging to Israel’s standing abroad.

The “moderate” opposition offers a more presentable version of the same political order: one that Washington and Brussels can still call “Jewish and democratic,” even as that democratic claim becomes impossible to sustain.

Every Israeli election, regardless of the outcome, offers Palestinians, whether those eligible to vote or not, the same choice: one settler-colonial project, with or without the mask.

I would rather see it without.

It is a grim truth that we live in a world where people and leaders often wait for Palestinians to suffer visibly before they speak or act against Israel’s colonial occupation. And it is crueller still that Palestinians are expected to choose between those who kill us brutally and those who would kill us just as surely, only more slowly, and in a manner more acceptable to the international community.

Tamam Abusalama is a Palestinian-Belgian communications professional, born and raised in the Jabalia Refugee Camp. She is currently leading the strategy for the European Citizens’ Initiative Justice for Palestine, which calls for the full suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement.

Follow Tamam on X: @TamamBeitJirja

Have questions or comments? Email us at: editorial-english@newarab.com

Opinions expressed in this article remain those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The New Arab, its editorial board or staff.

Many Syrians have expressed anger at their government following its response to deadly Jordanian airstrikes in southern Syria, criticising it for its lack of action and appearing to accept Amman’s justification for an operation that killed civilians, including children.

Jordan’s military said Monday that its air force had struck what it described as terrorist sites in the southern Syrian province of Daraa, targeting groups it said were linked to a deadly shooting at a church in southern Jordan which killed nine people on 23 October, a rare incident in the kingdom. Jordanian authorities said they arrested three suspects behind the shooting.

The Islamic State (IS) group later claimed responsibility for the shooting. Jordanian officials subsequently claimed that the attack in southern Syria had killed more than 20 IS members and targeted a major weapons depot, while acknowledging unintended civilian casualties.

While Jordan has carried out repeated airstrikes in southern Syria in recent years, primarily against drug-smuggling networks operating near its border, Monday's operation has fuelled particular outrage because of the civilian toll and questions over whether Damascus had agreed to the strikes.

Amman said the operation was coordinated with the Syrian government, a claim Damascus rejected, saying the strikes were carried out without prior notification or coordination.

The Syrian Foreign Ministry condemned the attacks as a violation of the country’s sovereignty, said an investigation had been launched and called for coordination over security operations along the shared border.

However, criticism intensified after Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani and his Jordanian counterpart, Ayman al-Safadi, issued a joint statement on Wednesday following a telephone call to discuss the consequences of the strikes.

The statement said Safadi had explained that the operation was based on field intelligence and aimed at "neutralising confirmed threats and imminent terrorist operations targeting Jordan's security." He also expressed regret over civilian deaths.

The two sides agreed to establish a joint security committee to examine the circumstances and repercussions of the strikes and strengthen coordination along the border.

Although Damascus had separately condemned the operation and summoned Jordan’s ambassador to deliver a formal protest, many Syrians have viewed the joint statement as accepting Jordan’s account.

Comments online, including under the Syrian Foreign Ministry’s statement on X, have reflected widespread anger over what users described as the government’s failure to defend Syrian sovereignty and adequately respond to the civilian deaths.

"Are these the ISIS members, Minister? And are these ISIS weapons depots, Your Excellency?" one user wrote, questioning Jordan’s account while referring to images showing the aftermath of the strikes and child victims.

Others argued that accepting Jordan’s justification for the operation could provide Israel with further excuses to widen its occupation in southern Syria under the pretext of fighting extremist groups.

After Assad’s fall, Israel invaded Syria’s Quneitra and Mount Hermon regions, claiming its military presence there was needed to prevent extremist militants from reaching its border.

"You are completely unfit for this position. How can you allow the Jordanian king to use you to push this narrative, while you repeat it so blindly?" one user wrote, addressing Syrian officials.

"Do not complain when Israeli forces invade Daraa under the pretext of rooting out ISIS. You are officially acknowledging that ISIS is present there, and you have now given Israel the green light," the user added.

Another comment accused the government of accepting Jordan’s account at the expense of the victims.

"A statement full of humiliation, submission and acceptance of the Jordanian narrative. It also betrays the blood of those killed by describing the massacre as a strike against terrorists. Were the children terrorists?" the user wrote.

The criticism reflects wider sensitivities and concerns in southern Syria, where residents have faced years of conflict, repeated Israeli incursions and security operations. Many remain under threat of foreign military action in Syria, which often kills civilians.

IS controlled large swathes of Syria before its territorial defeat in 2019, but the group continues to operate clandestine cells, particularly in desert areas, and has claimed attacks against security forces and civilians.

The group's continued activity has raised concerns about the future of counterterrorism operations as the US reduces its military presence in Syria.

Palestinian families in the occupied West Bank faced renewed threats of forced displacement on Thursday, as armed Israeli settlers raided homes in the Jordan Valley and allegedly assaulted journalists and activists in Masafer Yatta, days after Israel's parliamentary election.

UK-based charity Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP) said masked, armed settlers entered the Palestinian community of Al-Shuneh, near Jiftlik, at around 2am, surrounding three homes and threatening to expel residents unless they left "voluntarily".

The settlers allegedly damaged a resident's car and stole a 1.5-cubic-metre water tank before returning to a nearby hill, where they appeared to have established an illegal outpost the previous day.

Aseel Baidoun, MAP's deputy director of advocacy and campaigns, told The New Arab that the outpost posed an immediate threat to the community's survival.

"For Palestinians in communities like Al-Shuneh, an outpost can spell the end of their community and displacement from their homes. What starts as a few caravans, tents or a settler farm can become a permanent settlement with full backing from the Israeli state," she said.

"Outposts can spread onto more land, link settlements and cut off Palestinian communities from basic services and healthcare. For families already facing attacks and threats, and unable to reach their grazing land for two years, every new development makes it harder to stay."

"That's why the speed of work on the hill overlooking Al-Shuneh is so alarming."

Around 80 families face uncertainty over whether they can remain in their homes, with residents already struggling to access basic services, according to MAP.

Settlers have reportedly spent several days clearing land and carrying out construction on the hill overlooking the community. More than three settler families have arrived at the site and begun installing what appear to be water pipes and electricity cables.

MAP also documented earlier threats against Al-Shuneh residents, including an August incident in which armed settlers allegedly assaulted a family and threatened to burn their homes and seize their livestock unless they left.

Baidoun warned that the outcome of Tuesday's Israeli election was unlikely to improve conditions for Palestinians.

"Whatever the outcome of Israel's election, there is little reason to expect a change in the policies driving settlement expansion and settler violence," she told The New Arab.

"All of Israel's major political parties support the settlement project, and Palestinian communities cannot rely on a new government to protect them from the violence and displacement it actively encourages and enables."

Journalists and activists assaulted in Masafer Yatta

In a separate incident, Russian activist Adele Shoko reported that Israeli settlers attacked her and two colleagues, US journalist Jasper Nathaniel and Israeli-Russian activist Andrey X, in the Palestinian village of Umm al-Khair, in Masafer Yatta.

Shoko said armed settlers beat the group, threatened them and stole equipment and personal belongings.

"Jasper and I were also beaten. Jasper was then pepper-sprayed and arrested," she wrote on social media, adding that Israeli forces had taken Nathaniel into custody.

"Andrey was severely beaten and lost consciousness several times in front of police. Despite this, he was denied hospital treatment. He was put in an ambulance – but instead of being taken to hospital, he was taken to a police station. He is still there, arrested and being denied medical care," she added.

Footage circulated online appeared to show several men, some armed, beating Nathaniel and Andrey X. Other footage showed Israeli authorities leading Nathaniel away as he shouted that he had been assaulted.

In later updates, Shoko said both men were "physically okay" and were "having their court hearing" following their detention.

Activists subsequently reported that Andrey X had been released after Thursday's court hearing. Nathaniel's status had not been publicly confirmed.

The attacks follow a warning on Monday from UN-mandated investigators, who accused Israel of committing "extermination" in the occupied West Bank.

Palestinians across the territory have faced escalating violence by Israeli settlers and soldiers, particularly since the start of Israel's genocidal war on Gaza in October 2023.

When Donald Trump was running for president two years ago, Americans’ television screens were filled with images of migrant chaos. There were tent camps on both sides of the border, caravans of people trudging through Central America and concerns about newcomers overwhelming social services.

That turmoil faded as President Joe Biden tightened immigration enforcement after Trump clamped down even more. Now any chaos is on American streets, where violent and even deadly clashes have defined a deportation campaign that's designed to fulfill hardliners' goals of uprooting anyone in the country illegally.

The shift helps explain why Trump's effort to fulfill his promises has turned into a backlash, undermining one of the core issues that fueled his return to the White House. While Trump maintains some support for his handling of the border, polling shows voters disapprove of his approach to immigration, a striking turnaround that could undermine Republican attempts to maintain control of Congress in the midterms.

“The American people supported strong border security,” said Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat who has become a prominent critic of the administration’s policies. “What they got instead was shredding the Constitution, mass deportations and killing American citizens on the streets of Minneapolis.”

Trump's allies say the president is the victim of his own success.

“The disaster at the border and the impunity of people just walking over and being released into the country was hard to ignore,” said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies. Trump dramatically reduced illegal border crossings, Krikorian said, “and that’s often politically bad."

Krikorian praised Trump for adopting low profile but highly effective sweeps that have achieved month after month of record arrests. U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers arrested almost 51,000 immigrants in the country illegally in August, according to the Department of Homeland Security, up from 49,000 in July and 43,000 in June. An estimated 660,000 people have been deported in the past fiscal year, according to the Migration Policy Institute, short of the administration’s goal of 1 million annually.

Biden's immigration policies remain a regular target for Republicans this year. Trump said at a recent Florida rally that Democrats let migrants “pour across our borders from all over the world.”

“If they win in the midterms, they'll do it again,” he warned.

Trump returned to White House with deportation pledge
In 2024, Trump warned repeatedly of an immigrant “invasion.” “They’re poisoning the blood of our country,” he said of people crossing the border illegally. He insisted, falsely, that immigrants were behind spikes in crime and eating household pets.

Even as Trump drew criticism for his rhetoric, his focus on the issue resonated with voters who had seen illegal immigration soar during the Biden administration, with border arrests from Mexico reaching a record 250,000 in December 2023.

Trump's victory seemed poised to reshape immigration politics. Forty-six Democrats in the House and a dozen in the Senate joined Republicans in voting for the Laken Riley Act, a bill named after a Georgia student killed by a man in the country illegally. The law requires detention without bond for noncitizens accused of murder and other violent crimes.

After Trump took office, he cranked deportations into higher gear. Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident, was one of the people caught up in that net. Despite a court order forbidding it, the administration sent him to his native El Salvador, where he was confined to that country's notorious central prison that was also used to house other Trump deportees.

The US Supreme Court directed the administration to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia's return, and Van Hollen flew to El Salvador to meet with him. Some Democrats questioned the wisdom of confronting Trump on an issue where the president was so popular, the senator recalled. Now his party is more emboldened on the issue.

“We’ve gone from some of that sniping on the sidelines to a clear vote among Democrats to defund ICE,” Van Hollen said.

Minneapolis crackdown leads to backlash

The early face of the Trump crackdown was top Border Patrol commander Gregory Bovino, who swaggered through raids in tactical gear and deployed forces to Los Angeles and Chicago, where he led a helicopter raid on an apartment building.

But Minneapolis was the turning point. More than 2,000 federal officers were sent to the city, and scenes of masked agents spilling from convoys of unmarked vehicles became commonplace. Tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets.

Two US citizens - Renee Good and Alex Pretti, both 37 - were killed during confrontations with agents. In the weeks that followed, the White House pushed aside Bovino and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

Michael Pretti, Alex's father, said this week that the family is still troubled by the bystander videos of the shooting. He had a holstered gun that he was legally allowed to carry, and none of the footage shows him brandishing the weapon or attacking federal agents in the moments before he was killed.

“I think it haunts many Americans to see a US citizen who was peaceful and in his community shot multiple times on the back, in the back, while on the ground,” he told reporters.

Arrests dropped after the killings, although they eventually returned to record numbers. But the politics became more complicated, and Republicans’ immigration message has fractured.

There are hardliners like US Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, who is vowing more deportations as she runs for governor. And there's Cuban-American Florida Rep. Maria-Elena Salazar, who criticized Trump’s migrant crackdown in a campaign advertisement filmed outside the White House.

Salazar has sponsored legislation that would allow immigrants who are in the country illegally to remain as long as they have otherwise followed the law. Among the sponsors is Republican Rep. Gabe Evans, the grandson of a Mexican immigrant, who is trying to distinguish himself from Trump while running in a Colorado swing district.

In New Hampshire, former Sen. John Sununu, running for an open Senate seat, has been critical of ICE tactics and the agency's use of masks to conceal agents' identities.

Republicans often try to connect immigration to voters' concerns about high prices. Ohio Sen. Jon Husted blasts Democratic opponent Sherrod Brown as someone who “voted to raise your taxes repeatedly and give those tax dollars to illegals.”

“Republicans are trying to turn voters against Democrats because of what Joe Biden did in failing to control the border effectively,” said Frank Sharry, a longtime immigrants' rights activist who consults with the centrist Democratic group Third Way. “So they’re trying to define Democrats as being for open borders and not serious about removing criminals.”

Democrats are changing their approach

But that comes as many Democratic candidates are shifting away from Biden-era messaging about immigration.

In Texas, Senate candidate James Talarico calls himself a “border security Democrat” who wants to hire more Border Patrol officers and increase the use of surveillance technology.

Talarico criticizes many of Trump’s immigration policies as wasteful, but doesn’t hold back when it comes to criticizing the last Democratic president.

“Joe Biden and his administration failed us on our southern border,” he said in a July press conference in a Texas county on the Mexico border.

Even some of the most liberal Democratic candidates, like Michigan’s Abdul El-Sayed, are careful to note that they want strong borders.

“I don’t know of a candidate who’s in a swing race who’s saying anything other than ‘We’ve got to secure the border’ and ‘We’ve got to remove criminals,’” Sharry said.

(The Associated Press)

The United States is increasingly using its financial power to target political organisations beyond its borders, with consequences extending far into Europe. Under the banner of counterterrorism, US sanctions can effectively cut activists and organisations off from banking services, digital infrastructure, and the financial resources needed to operate, even when European authorities have not designated them as terrorist groups.

The case of Autistici/Inventati (A/I), an Italian digital network providing services to antifascist and anticapitalist organisations, illustrates how this works.

On 26 August 2026, the Trump administration sanctioned A/I alongside the British activist group Palestine Action and the transnational Palestinian organisation Masar Badil. Washington accused them of supporting terrorism, as part of a broader campaign against what it describes as violent far-left extremism.

A/I was designated a Specially Designated Global Terrorist by the US Treasury, which accused it of providing digital infrastructure and services to violent extremist organisations. The collective rejected the accusations, insisting that its work consisted of providing secure communications and digital services to political movements.

Yet the US decision's consequences were felt almost immediately in Italy.

A/I's bank, Banca Etica, suspended operations on its account because of the potential risks associated with US sanctions. The collective also reported disruptions to its website and payment services, eventually announcing that it would dissolve and wind down its activities.

The episode raises a troubling question: how can a decision taken in Washington effectively undermine the operations of organisations based in Europe, without any equivalent decision by European authorities?

Instruments of political pressure

For the European Legal Support Centre (ELSC), an organisation providing legal assistance to individuals and groups mobilising for Palestine, A/I's experience represents a dangerous precedent "that puts the very notion of Europe at risk.”

The case's significance extends beyond A/I itself. It exposes how international financial networks, banking compliance requirements and the threat of US penalties can become instruments of political pressure across national borders.

The US government argues that its sanctions target organisations providing support for terrorism, including violent attacks and damage to property. But the expanding use of counterterrorism measures against activist networks also raises questions about where political dissent ends, and terrorism begins, and who has the power to decide.

The very label of “terrorist” carries a long history of political use - which dates back to the British Empire - and appears to be applied selectively. The legal distinctions matter. A US sanctions designation is not a criminal conviction, nor does it automatically make an organisation illegal under European law. Nevertheless, the practical consequences can be devastating.

For banks and financial institutions that depend on access to USA financial networks, the risk of maintaining relations with a sanctioned organisation may simply be considered too great. This creates a system in which European organisations can face financial and social exclusion because of decisions made by a foreign government, even without direct legal orders from their own authorities.

The case of Mohammad Hannoun, a Palestinian activist based in Italy, demonstrates another dimension of this pressure. Hannoun faced restrictions on his banking activities before the US government sanctioned him in October 2024 over allegations relating to Hamas financing. Italian authorities subsequently detained him amid criminal proceedings alleging he funded the group.

Hannoun's case involves separate criminal allegations and judicial proceedings, which should not be confused with the sanctions themselves. Nevertheless, it illustrates how financial restrictions, political accusations and legal proceedings can intersect.

These developments reflect a wider system in which state authorities, banks, media organisations, universities, cultural venues, and lawfare groups can collectively contribute to isolating individuals, groups, and networks accused of supporting terrorism.

The impact on solidarity efforts

The implications are particularly concerning for activists and organisations supporting Palestine, whose activities have faced increasing scrutiny and restrictions in several European countries. In Britain, Palestine Action was proscribed as a terrorist organisation in July 2025 following its direct-action campaign against companies connected to Israel's defence industry. The group has challenged the ban in court, with the UK Supreme Court due to hear an appeal in November 2026.

The subsequent US designation of Palestine Action illustrates how one government's measures can be reinforced by another, potentially multiplying their impact on the organisations concerned.

But the A/I case points to something further: extending such measures to organisations that provide services and infrastructure used by political movements.

The question is whether European institutions have either the tools or the political willingness to challenge this expanding extraterritorial reach.

The European Union does possess a legal mechanism intended to protect European individuals and businesses against certain foreign sanctions: the Blocking Statute, introduced under Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96. Originally adopted in 1996, the statute was designed to counter the effects of US sanctions on European economic operators. It was subsequently updated in 2018 in response to the reimposition of US sanctions against Iran.

The legislation can prohibit compliance with specified foreign sanctions and provide legal remedies to affected European operators. However, it applies only to the foreign legislation covered by its annex, which currently includes certain US measures concerning Cuba and Iran. It does not automatically protect organisations targeted under the US counterterrorism sanctions regime.

Extending or adapting such protections would require further action by European institutions, and would not necessarily eliminate the financial risks facing European banks.

Nevertheless, this legal mechanism shows that the EU has previously recognised the problem posed by the extraterritorial application of US sanctions.

As the ELSC pointed out: "We have this European law, but it has never been used on the scale required to counter the US sanctions."

The consequences of inaction are not merely financial. When an organisation loses access to its bank accounts, online services or funding channels, its ability to operate can rapidly disappear. The threat of sanctions can also discourage other organisations, financial institutions, and individuals from associating with it, even before any formal restrictions are imposed.

"The aim of the US sanctions is to isolate and fragment the European political movement for Palestine," the ELSC argued. "A sanctioned person will be concerned about how to recover funds instead of doing their work."

These chilling effects are difficult to measure, but they are central to understanding the wider implications of the sanctions regime. In the A/I case, the collective's decision to dissolve shows how legal uncertainty, financial pressure, and risk to associated individuals can make the situation unsustainable.

The European Union frequently presents itself as a defender of civil liberties, the rule of law and political freedoms. Yet these commitments face a practical test when European organisations are subjected to financial restrictions originating outside their own legal system.

The question is not whether organisations accused of terrorism should be exempt from scrutiny. Rather, the question is whether European institutions should allow foreign sanctions decisions, and the financial pressure they generate, to determine whether organisations operating within Europe can survive.

If the consequences of a US designation can effectively shut down a European organisation without an equivalent decision under European law, the boundary between US financial power and European political sovereignty becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish.

For European civil society, that boundary may be far more important than it first appears.

Matteo Chiani is a freelance journalist based in Italy who specialises in environmental reporting and investigative journalism. His academic background includes postcolonial and media studies, Mediterranean culture, and the history of Arab countries.

Follow Matteo on Instagram: @mattechiani

Have questions or comments? Email us at: editorial-english@newarab.com

Opinions expressed in this article remain those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The New Arab, its editorial board or staff.

Palestinian families and independent journalists in the occupied West Bank reported attacks by Israeli settlers on Thursday, as Israel’s high-stakes election unfolds. 

UK-based Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP) and Russian activist Adele Shoko reported separate incidents of violence as Israelis awaited the final election results. 

MAP said masked, armed settlers raided the Palestinian community of Al-Shuneh, near Jiftlik in the Jordan Valley, at around 2am on Thursday.  

The attackers surrounded three homes and threatened to force families out unless they left “voluntarily”. 

During the raid, settlers reportedly damaged one resident’s car and stole another resident’s 1.5-cubic-metre water tank.  

They later returned to a hill overlooking the community, where MAP said they appeared to have established an outpost the previous day. 

Aseel Baidoun, MAP’s Deputy Director of Advocacy and Campaigns, told The New Arab that the attack illustrates the grave risks facing Palestinian residents of Al-Shuneh if settlers continue to occupy the area overlooking the community, amid months of escalating intimidation and wider Israeli settler and military violence across the occupied West Bank.

"For Palestinians in communities like Al-Shuneh, an outpost can spell the end of their community and displacement from their homes. What starts as a few caravans, tents or a settler farm can become a permanent settlement with full backing from the Israeli state," she said.

Baidoun added: "Outposts can spread onto more land, link settlements and cut off Palestinian communities from basic services and healthcare. For families already facing attacks and threats, and unable to reach their grazing land for two years, every new development makes it harder to stay."

"That’s why the speed of work on the hill overlooking Al-Shuneh is so alarming."

MAP cited previous incidents, including reports earlier this month that settlers had repeatedly entered the community and threatened residents with expulsion following Israel’s election.  

The organisation also highlighted an attack in August, when armed settlers reportedly assaulted a family and threatened to burn their homes and seize their livestock if they refused to leave.

Around 80 families now face uncertainty over whether they will be able to remain in their homes, while residents have described difficulties accessing basic services, according to MAP. 

Settlers have reportedly spent days clearing land and carrying out construction on the hill overlooking the community.  

MAP said more than three settler families had arrived at the site and begun installing what appeared to be water pipes and electricity cables. 

Baidoun has since called for the urgent protection of Palestinian communities such as Al-Shuneh, arguing that a potential change in Israel’s leadership following Tuesday’s election will likely not change conditions for Palestinians on the ground.

“Whatever the outcome of Israel’s election, there is little reason to expect a change in the policies driving settlement expansion and settler violence," Baidoun told TNA.

"All of Israel’s major political parties support the settlement project, and Palestinian communities cannot rely on a new government to protect them from the violence and displacement it actively encourages and enables."

Activists and journalists report settler assault 

The latest reports of violence came as Russian activist Adele Shoko said she and two colleagues- US journalist Jasper Nathaniel and Israeli-Russian activist Andrey X - were attacked by Israeli settlers in the Palestinian village of Umm al-Khair, in the Masafer Yatta area of the occupied West Bank. 

In posts on social media, Shoko said the group had been beaten and threatened by armed settlers, who stole equipment and personal belongings. 

“Jasper and I were also beaten. Jasper was then pepper-sprayed and arrested,” Shoko wrote, adding that Nathaniel was taken away by Israeli forces. 

“Andrey was severely beaten and lost consciousness several times in front of police. Despite this, he was denied hospital treatment. He was put in an ambulance – but instead of being taken to hospital, he was taken to a police station. He is still there, arrested and being denied medical care,” she added. 

Video footage shared online showed several men, some of them armed, beating Nathaniel and Andrey X. Other footage appeared to show Israeli authorities leading Nathaniel away as he shouted that he had been beaten. 

In subsequent updates, Shoko said Nathaniel and Andrey X were “physically okay” and were “having their court hearing” following their detention. 

Activists have since reported that Andrey X was released from Israeli custody following Thursday’s court hearing, while Nathaniel’s status has yet to be publicly confirmed.

On Monday, United Nations-mandated investigators said Israel was committing “extermination” in the West Bank.  

Before the election, Palestinians in the West Bank were already facing record levels of violence by Israeli soldiers and settlers, which have intensified since the outbreak of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza in October 2023.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's bloc on Thursday piled pressure on Arab-Israeli leaders over unproven accusations of foreign funding, in a push to neuter parties that could hold the key to forming a government after an inconclusive election.

Israeli President Isaac Herzog, who holds a largely ceremonial role, called for an investigation into allegations but cautioned against stigmatising the entire Arab-Israeli community, who voted at unprecedented rates.

Israel was nearing the completion of ballot counting from Tuesday's election, the first since Hamas's 7 October 2023 attacks, with neither Netanyahu nor the opposition bloc led by former military chief Gadi Eisenkot appearing able to secure a majority.

The Netanyahu camp's accusations, denied by both Arab-majority lists, could bring new uncertainty into the electoral process at a time when the threat of a new Israeli and US attack on Iran looms over the region.

The election saw soaring participation by Arab-Israelis, descendants of Palestinians who stayed after the country's creation in 1948, as outrage boiled at calls by officials such as National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir to treat their community much as Israel has dealt with Palestinians in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.

Following Netanyahu's accusations, Ben-Gvir went so far as to encourage Israel to "immediately" order the arrests of Arab party leaders.

The Arab parties together have enough votes to take the opposition bloc over the finish line, but Eisenkot has baulked after relentless attacks by Netanyahu, who warned his right-wing Jewish base that voting for the opposition would put Arabs in power.

'Political earthquake'

Supreme Court Justice Noam Sohlberg, a conservative who heads the Central Elections Committee, requested an investigation by the Shin Bet security service into allegations that the Arab grouping Ra'am received money from Qatar, the energy-rich Gulf powerbroker that has channels to Hamas.

"The Ra'amgate scandal is a political earthquake. Israel's elections have been stolen!" Netanyahu's Likud party said.

Ra'am chief Mansour Abbas said his party had "no connection whatsoever to the affair", and welcomed an investigation.

The Joint List, which unites three Arab-majority parties, accused Netanyahu and his allies of a "campaign of incitement" that "exposes their fear" of Arab citizens' political strength.

Government officials did not offer evidence to back the allegations, and left-wing candidate Yair Golan accused Netanyahu of attempting to stir controversy after failing to get a majority.

"He is trying to challenge the election results," Golan said.

Netanyahu himself has long been under the cloud of allegations related to Qatar after the arrests last year of two of his aides for allegedly receiving payments from the Gulf state.

Qatari foreign ministry spokesman Majed Al Ansari called the latest accusations "ridiculous and dangerous".

Netanyahu, Israel's longest-serving prime minister, for years tacitly supported Qatar funding for Hamas-ruled Gaza, hoping to preserve stability.

That paradigm collapsed on 7 October 2023.

Kingmakers under pressure

With nearly 93% of the vote counted, Netanyahu's bloc was at 53 seats and the opposition forces led by Eisenkot on 48 - both under the 61 needed to form a government.

The two Arab formations were on track for an unprecedented 19 seats between them.

Yousef Jabareen, head of the Joint List, had told AFP that he was willing to cooperate with the opposition to bring down Netanyahu but without joining it in a government.

Eisenkot called allegations of Qatari interference "profoundly serious" and backed an investigation, but warned that Netanyahu may be trying to delay election results.

Netanyahu had tried during the voting to raise allegations of fraud, saying that Arab parties were caught with envelopes of cash, and his Likud party peddled the accusations throughout Thursday.

Police said they arrested three suspects but the election commission called it an isolated local case.

Dean Livne, acting director-general of the central elections committee, rejected a call from a right-wing lawmaker to convene a meeting on fraud, saying that any suggestion of widespread issues was "entirely groundless".

Another factor that could play into the formation of a government is an attack on Iran.

Netanyahu has repeatedly threatened to strike Iran, with President Donald Trump signalling he was ready to attack after next Tuesday's US midterm elections.

Eisenkot has warned the military that Netanyahu has no mandate and that officers must put Israel's security over the premier's "political needs".

An attack could raise pressure on Eisenkot to join an emergency unity government or keep the clock running until Israel can call new elections.

(AFP and TNA staff)

 

Americans head to the polls on 3 November for the 2026 midterm elections, with rising living costs, President Donald Trump's war on Iran and concerns over the future of US democracy dominating the political debate.

Opinion polls across the country suggest widespread dissatisfaction, particularly over the economy, as households struggle with everyday expenses.

The US-Israeli war on Iran has added to those concerns, disrupting global oil supplies and driving up petrol, diesel and home heating costs.

Healthcare, immigration, government corruption and the rapid expansion of artificial intelligence have also emerged as major election issues, exposing divisions between Republicans and Democrats over the country's future.

Here are nine key issues shaping the midterms, according to a Bloomberg analysis published on Thursday.

1. Economy and cost of living

The economy remains the biggest concern for American voters, with affordability emerging as a defining issue in the 2026 elections.

According to a Pew Research Center survey, around 84% of registered voters consider the economy extremely important when deciding how to vote.

A New York Times/Siena College poll found that 51% of voters trusted Democrats to manage the economy better, compared with 45% who favoured Republicans.

Democratic candidates have blamed Trump's tariffs and the war on Iran for rising prices, making opposition to both policies central to their campaigns.

Republicans, meanwhile, have highlighted Trump's 2025 tax legislation, which introduced tax breaks covering tips, overtime earnings and certain Social Security retirement income.

2. The war on Iran

The war on Iran has become a major electoral issue, particularly as its economic consequences affect American households.

According to Pew Research Center, 65% of Americans disapprove of Trump's handling of US military action against Iran, compared with 33% who approve.

Democratic candidates have criticised the conflict as unpopular, expensive and open-ended, warning against further military involvement.

The war has also exposed divisions within the Republican Party.

Some Republican candidates have distanced themselves from Trump, whose 2024 presidential campaign promised an "America First" foreign policy and pledged to avoid new military conflicts.

3. Government corruption

Public concern about corruption has reached record levels.

A Gallup survey conducted in September found that 89% of American adults believe government corruption is widespread.

Among Democrats, the figure reached 91%, compared with 57% in 2024, when Joe Biden was president.

Democratic candidates have raised questions about Trump's financial interests, including his cryptocurrency ventures and stock trading, alleging that he has used public office for personal financial gain.

The Justice Department's handling of files relating to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein has also drawn criticism from victims' advocates, who have accused the administration of protecting powerful individuals.

Meanwhile, candidates from both parties have called for restrictions on congressional stock trading, term limits for lawmakers and Supreme Court justices, and tighter rules governing former members of Congress who become lobbyists.

4. The future of American democracy

Concerns over the future of US democracy have become another defining issue.

A Pew survey found that 85% of Democratic voters and 69% of Republican voters consider the future of democracy extremely important when casting their ballots.

Democratic leaders have repeatedly portrayed Trump as a threat to democratic institutions, accusing him of using authoritarian tactics and inflammatory rhetoric to intimidate political opponents and minority communities.

The debate reflects wider disagreements over presidential power, government accountability and the role of democratic institutions.

5. Healthcare costs

Healthcare remains a major financial concern for American families.

According to a KFF survey, around six in ten voters are worried about healthcare costs, while nearly half consider it extremely important for midterm candidates to address the issue.

The poll found that 42% trusted Democrats more to handle healthcare costs, compared with 22% who favoured Republicans.

Progressive Democratic candidates have called for a universal, government-run healthcare system to replace private insurance.

Democrats have also opposed Republican-backed reductions in Medicaid spending, which provides healthcare coverage for low-income Americans and people with disabilities.

Republicans have focused more heavily on tackling healthcare fraud and have argued that a government-run universal system would increase taxes.

6. Immigration and border security

Immigration, a central issue in Trump's 2024 election victory, has become increasingly contentious during his second term.

His administration's expanded deportation operations and immigration enforcement measures have prompted protests and calls to abolish or reduce the powers of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Opposition has also emerged in some districts that supported Trump in 2024.

Latino voters could play an important role in closely contested races, particularly those who backed Trump in the presidential election but have since shifted towards the Democrats.

An NBC News/Telemundo poll found that 69% disapproved of Trump's handling of immigration, compared with 30% who approved.

On border security, 58% disapproved of his approach, while 39% approved.

Most Republican candidates have continued defending Trump's immigration policies, warning that Democrats would return to what they claim was the Biden administration's "open borders" approach.

7. Artificial intelligence and data centres

The rapid expansion of artificial intelligence has created an unexpected election battleground.

Large data centres, which provide the computing infrastructure needed to operate AI systems, have faced growing opposition over their consumption of electricity, water and land.

Concerns about job losses and the wider impact of AI on everyday life have also become increasingly prominent.

According to Pew Research Center, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to express concern about AI's role in society and its potential impact on employment.

Trump, however, has backed the expansion of AI infrastructure, arguing that the United States must maintain its technological advantage over China.

The issue has increasingly divided communities over the economic benefits of new technology and its potential environmental and social costs.

8. Transgender rights

Transgender rights remain a contentious issue in the 2026 elections, following their prominence during the 2024 presidential campaign.

Trump's previous campaign focused heavily on Kamala Harris's support for gender-affirming surgery for transgender prisoners.

A survey conducted by The 19th and YouGov found that 45% of American adults said they would be more likely to vote for a candidate supporting a ban on transgender athletes competing in women's and girls' sports.

By comparison, 20% said they would prefer candidates who opposed such restrictions.

The issue has become part of a wider debate over civil rights, gender identity and participation in competitive sport.

9. Social Security and retirement benefits

Social Security has emerged as a major concern, particularly among older Americans, who traditionally vote at higher rates in midterm elections.

The programme provides monthly payments to retirees, surviving family members and people with disabilities.

Current projections suggest that the main trust fund supporting retirement and survivors' benefits could exhaust its reserves by 2032.

Without congressional intervention, incoming payroll tax revenues would cover only around 78% of scheduled benefits.

Social Security is primarily financed through payroll taxes, applied to earnings up to an annual limit of $184,500 in 2026.

Polling suggests broad public support for raising or eliminating that earnings cap to strengthen the programme's finances.

The debate has placed retirement security and the long-term sustainability of federal benefits firmly on the election agenda.

Flávio Bolsonaro is now in Miami after fleeing to the US following his stunning defeat to Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in Brazil's presidential elections.

Bolsonaro has refused to concede and has positioned himself as the "leader of Brazil" while declaring that there was electoral fraud, without providing evidence. In a letter on Wednesday, the senator for Rio de Janeiro said he relocated to the US because he is the victim of political and judicial persecution.

The departure of the 45-year-old ally of US President Donald Trump from Brazil days after losing the runoff vote is sending shock waves across Brazil's right and reverberating across the region, and it may spell more trouble for relations between Washington and Brasilia.

Here's what to know about the possible impacts of Bolsonaro's exodus from Brazil.

The shake-up of Brazil's right

Bolsonaro has promised to lead the opposition to Lula from abroad. "I will say what you cannot say, and I will assume the risks you cannot take," he said in a letter on Wednesday, addressing himself to political representatives of his party.

But Bolsonaro's move to Miami complicates that vow, analysts say, leaving a power vacuum on the Brazilian right, which had united around Flávio's presidential bid. His father, former President Jair Bolsonaro, appointed him as his political heir last December. The elder Bolsonaro is serving a 27-year sentence for attempting a coup.

"Flávio's departure, along with the difficulty of directing the process from a distance and all the criticism he is likely to face for saying he wouldn’t flee and then fleeing, is likely to weaken him," said Carlos Melo, a political-science professor at Insper university.

But as a political force, the right may lose neither influence nor impact following his departure due to its gains in Congress, said Luciana Santana, a political scientist at the Federal University of Alagoas.

"The group in Congress retains instruments to block proposals, negotiate with government and dispute the public agenda," Santana said.

Impact on the global far right

A Bolsonaro win would have aligned Brazil with many of its regional neighbors, where conservatives have swept to power in seven presidential elections in 18 months.

Across much of Latin America, voters fed up with rising crime have rewarded presidential candidates promising to restore order. From Peru’s Keiko Fujimori to Colombia’s Abelardo de la Espriella, newly elected conservatives have courted Trump while taking their cues from El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele, whose sweeping gang crackdown has sharply reduced homicides at the cost of mass arrests and suspended civil liberties.

Bolsonaro's defeat is a setback for the far-right in the region and beyond, as it stops its ascension to the presidency of an economic powerhouse in the region that has significant diplomatic weight, said Santana.

But Lula's win will not necessarily translate into the overall weakening of the movement, she said. As well as the gains in Congress, Flávio received nearly 60 million votes, indicating the competitiveness of the movement in Brazil.

Beyond Brazil's borders, the international repercussions of Flávio’s flight depend on how the episode will be interpreted.

"Bolsonaro's escape can be used by international networks as a symbol of alleged persecution. This could mobilise those who most strongly identify with the movement," said Santana.

Tense relations between Washington and Brasilia

As congratulations poured in from Brazil’s allies and rivals around the world, Trump suggested Monday, without providing evidence, that Lula's reelection was "rigged."

But when asked about Bolsonaro's assertion on Wednesday that he was the "rightful president-elect of Brazil"—a term the defeated candidate later softened to "leader of Brazil"—the US president said he would not comment. Instead, Trump said he has given Bolsonaro a "pass" to come into the country.

"I won't get involved," Trump said, before repeating his claim that the election was "very strange."

Lula's win cements Latin America's most populous country and largest economy as a counterweight to Washington and limits Trump’s drive to tighten his grip on the Western Hemisphere.

Lula has championed Brazil's long tradition of nonalignment, cultivating ties with competing powers. His government deepened trade ties with China and sought greater global influence through BRICS, a group of emerging economies.

While Bolsonaro’s presence in the US adds "a new layer of problems to the already complicated bilateral relationship," it is unlikely to be decisive, said Oliver Stuenkel, a political scientist and researcher at the Carnegie Endowment think-tank.

While there will now be two Bolsonaro brothers potentially lobbying the US government on behalf of specific policies vis-a-vis Brazil, whether Washington heeds any such calls remains to be seen, Stuenkel said.

"Either Trump will pursue a pragmatic stance and basically recognise that US pressure to elect Flávio failed (…) or there will continue to be continued friction," he said.

Exactly 70 years ago, Britain, France, and Israel together launched a war on Egypt that would end with their apparent humiliation and defeat but would sow the seeds of one of the most brutal and devastating occupations in history.

In response to Egyptian President Gamal Abdul Nasser’s July 1956 nationalisation of the Suez Canal, the three countries secretly conspired to attack Egypt, with Israel invading on 29 October 1956 and quickly overrunning the Gaza Strip - then under Egyptian control - and most of the Sinai Peninsula.

After issuing an ultimatum - supposedly to both sides - to vacate the area around the canal, British and French paratroopers stormed Port Said, destroying much of the city and killing hundreds of civilians.

Egyptian forces put up a determined resistance but, in the face of three powerful enemies, were no match.

A changing balance of power and an ill-judged intervention

The war initially looked like a military defeat for Egypt, but what followed was to change the entire balance of power in the Middle East, while arguably laying the groundwork for the 1967 Arab-Israeli war and in particular the occupation of the Gaza Strip.

Anne Irfan, an associate professor at University College London and author of 'A Short History of the Gaza Strip', told The New Arab that “1956 is the first time that Israel actually imposes and carries out an occupation and a lot of what is established during that period is put to use after 1967,” when Israel once again occupied the Gaza Strip and Sinai, as well as the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights.

However, neither Israel nor Britain and France were allowed to keep their war gains at the time.

The intervention came as Britain and France were losing their status as global powers to the United States and the Soviet Union. The US saw their invasion of Egypt as dangerous adventurism that could drive Arab countries into the arms of the Soviet Union and demanded a ceasefire and withdrawal, applying severe economic pressure.

At the time, the Israeli-US alliance had yet to take shape, and the Cold War and containing the Soviet Union was far more of a priority for the US.

“Israel was less of a priority for the US in 1956. It was only eight years old as a country, and it had not yet become a regional military superpower in the way it would later on. The US did not really assess [at the time] that Israel was that important to its strategic interests. Later on, that obviously changed,” Irfan told The New Arab.

The Soviet Union, fresh from its own intervention in Hungary, also seized on the situation, threatening Britain and France with missile strikes which, in reality, it was unable to deliver at that time. The Soviet threats, however, arguably motivated the US to ramp up its own pressure on the two former colonial powers.

The UK and France withdrew their forces by December 1956, while the Israeli occupation of Sinai and Gaza lingered on until February.

Nasser's hubris

Despite Egypt’s military defeat in the war, the international pressure which forced the withdrawal of the three invading countries meant that Nasser came out of it apparently much stronger than before.

After the British and French withdrawal, he was in control of the Suez Canal and presented himself as a victor. His popularity soared in Egypt, and his proclaimed pan-Arabist ideology found receptive ears across the Arab world. Under his leadership, Egypt would go on to form the short-lived United Arab Republic with Syria and then disastrously intervened in North Yemen.

The Gaza Strip was taken over by Egypt in 1948 after the first Arab-Israeli war. Covering less than 1.5% of historic Palestine, its population swelled from around 60,000 before the Palestinian Nakba to over 200,000 afterwards as refugees came in from areas seized by Israel.

Before 1956, Egyptian rule in Gaza was authoritarian and unpopular with Palestinians. Independent political activity was suppressed, and Egyptian troops stopped Palestinians who wanted access to their former lands from crossing the border.

However, when Israel’s first occupation of Gaza ended in March 1957, Nasser was hailed as a hero and the Egyptian authorities were welcomed back by Palestinians. Part of this was due to the Egyptian leader’s perceived success in standing up to Britain and France as well as Israel, but much of it could also be explained by the brutality of Israeli rule.

A 'laboratory' for future occupation

After the 1948 Nakba, Palestinians who had been displaced by Israel to Gaza and the West Bank would regularly try to cross the armistice lines into what was now Israel. Some of them were armed fighters, known as the fedayeen, who were intent on launching attacks on Israel. Most, however, were civilians trying to access their land and their former homes and belongings.

Israel had the same policy for both armed and unarmed Palestinian “infiltrators” - to shoot them on sight.

Irfan said that Israel’s policies towards Gaza were based on transfer, depopulation, and settlement and in many ways its policies resembled those of today.

“You had Israeli politicians back then saying very explicitly that Gaza is part of Israel… [Israel’s first Prime Minister David] Ben-Gurion first wanted to annex Gaza in 1949.”

When Israel’s first occupation of Gaza began in November 1956, it was accompanied by searches for and executions of fedayeen fighters. Israel conducted “screening” operations, which meant that all males aged between 15 and 60 were subject to arrest by Israeli forces. These very often were preludes to massacres.

At least 275 people were massacred by Israel in the Khan Younis refugee camp in the first weeks of the occupation, with the Israeli army lining up men and boys and summarily executing them. Around 177 more were killed in other camps. An estimated 1,500 people in the Gaza Strip were killed throughout the four-month occupation.

In 'A Short History of the Gaza Strip', Irfan describes this brief occupation as a “laboratory” for Israel’s post-1967 occupation of the Gaza Strip.

“A lot of what they put in place in 1956 in Gaza ended very abruptly because the US intervened and forced Israel to withdraw, but when 1967 happened, its plans were resurrected quite quickly,” she told The New Arab, adding that the plans included the depopulation of Gaza, the imposition of Israeli currency, and the destruction of connections to Egypt.

“Even in 1956 there were conversations about establishing settlements there,” she added.

One of the most important pieces of infrastructure destroyed by Israel was the railway line connecting Gaza to Egypt across Sinai.

Defeat and occupation from 'victory'

Egyptian authorities returned triumphantly to Gaza and Sinai after the Israeli withdrawal in 1957, but the military and political circumstances were very different. As part of UN efforts to resolve the crisis, a United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) was established to patrol the borders of the Gaza Strip and Sinai, but only on the Egyptian side.

In May 1967, Nasser ordered UNEF’s withdrawal in order to deploy Egyptian troops along the border with Israel, after receiving false reports from the Soviet Union that Israel was preparing to launch a war against Syria.

This was taken as a casus belli by Israel and led to Egypt’s humiliating defeat in 1967 and the second occupation of the Gaza Strip and Sinai. 

This time there was no serious pressure from the US for an Israeli withdrawal. Nasser had lost influence both in the Arab world and on the world stage, and the US was increasingly seeing the value of Israel as an ally. Israel’s occupation of Arab territory in fact helped cement the alliance.

The late British historian D.R. Thorpe pointed out that the 1956 war helped Nasser to establish his position as the “leader of Arab nationalism”, but it gave him an “inflated view of his own power”.

“In his mind, he had ‘defeated’ the combined forces of Great Britain, France and Israel, whereas in fact Britain had been ‘defeated’ by America,” Thorpe wrote in The Telegraph in 2006, adding that the 1967 war would never have happened if the 1956 crisis hadn’t ended in the way it did.

Israel’s current crimes in Gaza dwarf those it committed in 1956-1957, but arguably the seeds of occupation were sown then, with present-day Israeli plans for the annexation of Gaza, the “voluntary emigration” of its population, and its settlement by Israelis closely resembling those floated at that time.

What has changed, however, is the geopolitical situation which enabled Nasser to proclaim his “victory” over Israel, Britain, and France and be recognised as a leader of the Arab world.

The world today is very different, with Arab countries unwilling or unable to provide any support to Palestinians in Gaza and the US continuing to support Israel unconditionally.

Israel is therefore able to inflict far more damage on the Gaza Strip - and the rest of the region - than it could in 1956.

Amr Salahi is a senior journalist and news editor with The New Arab

Edited by Charlie Hoyle

Qatar categorically denied allegations that it interfered in Israel's parliamentary elections or financed efforts to influence the results, saying Israeli politicians were attempting to drag Doha into their domestic political disputes following Tuesday's inconclusive vote.

Qatari Foreign Ministry spokesperson Majed Al-Ansari on Thursday rejected accusations circulated by Israeli politicians and media outlets linked to them, saying the claims were part of a new disinformation campaign targeting Qatar.

The allegations emerged after Palestinian parties secured a record 19 seats in the 120-member Knesset, prompting far-right Israeli ministers to demand investigations into alleged "foreign funding" of Arab political parties.

In a statement, Al-Ansari highlighted contradictions in the accusations, which ranged from claims that Qatar had bought Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's loyalty to allegations that it had financed the Israeli left and influenced Palestinian voters.

He said the allegations appeared to suggest that Qatar controlled the entire Israeli political landscape, describing them as both absurd and dangerous.

Al-Ansari accused sections of Israel's political and media establishment of displaying an excessive obsession with Qatar that went beyond reason.

"Qatar is not a scapegoat for the political failures of some Israeli politicians," he said, adding that they should instead respond to voters' aspirations and address the consequences of their policies in the region.

He stressed that Qatar had no interest in Israel's domestic political or electoral competition and would not accept being drawn into disputes between rival parties.

Far-right ministers demand arrests

The Qatari response follows growing accusations from Israeli officials after the Joint List and the United Arab List (Ra'am) secured a combined 19 parliamentary seats, according to near-final election results.

Far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir called on Israel's domestic intelligence agency, Shin Bet, to arrest the leaders of Palestinian political parties over suspected links to Qatari funding.

Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich also demanded that the party leaders be questioned, claiming that suspicions of electoral manipulation involving foreign Islamic funding represented a test for Israel.

Netanyahu's Likud party described the alleged scandal, which it dubbed "Ra'am-gate", as an earthquake, claiming that the elections had been stolen through foreign interference and financial incentives offered to voters in support of Palestinian parties.

Likud further alleged that the supposed interference amounted to an attack on Israeli democracy aimed at "Islamising Israel" and bringing down the government.

However, Israeli police said they had no investigative or intelligence information supporting the allegations.

Central Elections Committee chairman Judge Noam Sohlberg also said he had no evidence establishing the nature of the suspicions.

The accusations come as Netanyahu's coalition faces an uncertain political future after winning just 53 seats, eight short of the parliamentary majority required to form a government.

Opposition parties secured 48 seats, while the record gains made by Palestinian parties have placed them in a potentially decisive position in coalition negotiations.