Category: World

Russia has joined the ranks of countries like China and Japan in grappling with plummeting birthrates, launching measures aimed at reversing the downward trend. Among these efforts is a new initiative in Karelia, a Russian region offering a financial incentive of 100,000 rubles (around Rs 81,000) to young women under the age of 25 who give birth to a healthy child. The Moscow Times reported that the program specifically targets full-time students enrolled in local universities or colleges and who are residents of the region.

To be eligible for the payout, applicants must meet stringent criteria. They need to be under 25 years old, studying full-time at an institution in Karelia, and give birth to a healthy child. The legislation explicitly excludes mothers whose babies are stillborn from receiving the benefit. However, ambiguity surrounds whether payments could be rescinded in the event of the child’s death due to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). Additionally, the policy leaves unanswered questions about whether mothers of children born with disabilities qualify for the incentive or if supplementary bonuses are provided to help with the associated costs of child care and recovery after childbirth.

This initiative comes as Russia grapples with its lowest birth rate in a quarter-century. Statistics reveal that only 599,600 babies were born in the first half of 2024, a drop of 16,000 compared to the same period in 2023. Dmitry Peskov, a Kremlin spokesperson, characterized this alarming trend as “catastrophic for the future of the nation” during remarks made in July 2024, according to Fortune.

The Karelia initiative is not an isolated effort. Several other regions in Russia have introduced similar programs to encourage young women to start families. In the central city of Tomsk, a comparable scheme is in place, and reports indicate that at least 11 regional governments have launched financial incentives targeting female students who give birth.

On a national level, the Russian government is also increasing its maternity payments in a bid to stem the population decline. From 2025, first-time mothers will receive a payment of 677,000 rubles (about $6,150), a significant rise from 630,400 rubles provided in 2024. Mothers welcoming their second child will benefit from even larger payouts, with the amount increasing from 833,000 rubles in 2024 to 894,000 rubles (roughly $8,130) in 2025.

Despite these financial incentives, Russia faces a multifaceted demographic crisis. Low birth rates are compounded by high adult mortality rates and widespread emigration. The war in Ukraine has further worsened the situation, leading to significant casualties and prompting large numbers of citizens to flee abroad.

The Russian government has long attempted to address the declining population through various measures, including cash bonuses and housing support programs. However, these policies have yielded limited results. Experts argue that such initiatives fail to tackle deeper societal and economic issues that deter young couples from starting families. Critics have called the government’s approach shortsighted, pointing to the need for more comprehensive strategies that address underlying factors such as economic uncertainty, lack of affordable child care, and limited career opportunities for women.

The demographic crisis is not just a statistical problem but one that holds profound implications for Russia’s future. With fewer births and a shrinking workforce, the country’s long-term economic stability and geopolitical influence could be at risk. In response, the government has emphasized the urgency of reversing these trends. However, whether the latest initiatives will be enough to overcome the challenges remains uncertain.

Russia’s situation is part of a broader trend affecting several nations, particularly developed countries, where falling birthrates pose significant demographic and economic challenges. Like Russia, China and Japan have introduced policies aimed at encouraging childbirth, though with varying levels of success. These initiatives often focus on financial incentives and social support, but experts agree that reversing birthrate declines requires addressing a complex interplay of cultural, economic, and social factors.

While financial bonuses like those in Karelia provide immediate relief, their effectiveness in fostering long-term demographic stability remains questionable. Young women may still face barriers such as insufficient support for working mothers, limited maternity leave, and societal expectations that prioritize traditional roles over professional ambitions. Additionally, concerns about the quality of education, health care, and job prospects may discourage many from taking advantage of such programs.

As Russia continues to implement these measures, the global community watches closely to see whether the country’s efforts will yield measurable improvements or if the demographic crisis will persist.

Since the dawn of Homo sapiens, the Earth’s population has grown steadily, with humans asserting dominance over the planet. However, the long-standing trend of population growth may soon become unsustainable, as recent studies suggest a global slowdown and even a potential decline in population numbers.

Historical Population Growth

By the 10th century, historians estimate that the global population numbered only a few hundred million. The Industrial Revolution, coupled with improvements in living conditions, marked a significant turning point. Humanity surpassed 1 billion by 1900, and by 2000, the number had surged past 6 billion. Most recently, in late 2022, the population crossed the 8 billion threshold. Despite this upward trajectory, emerging data indicate a slowing pace, with projections of a population decline in the foreseeable future.

Shifting Global Population Trends

A study published in The Lancet using data from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington predicts a significant shift in population dynamics. By 2050, 155 of 204 countries are expected to experience birth rates too low to sustain stable population levels. By 2100, this figure is projected to rise to 198 countries, suggesting that deaths will surpass births in most regions.

“This is our most comprehensive analysis to date,” explained Dr. Stein Emil Vollset, a professor at IHME. This analysis points to a future where many traditional patterns of population growth could reverse.

The Implications of Population Decline

The idea of a less crowded planet raises mixed reactions. On the one hand, a declining population could ease the strain on natural resources. On the other hand, falling fertility rates—already below replacement levels in many regions—pose significant challenges. Despite earlier assumptions that fertility rates would eventually rebound, recent data do not support this theory.

Fewer births today translate into smaller workforces in the coming decades. Economic systems thrive on a steady supply of workers, consumers, and taxpayers. A reduced population could lead to productivity declines, economic stagnation, and difficulty funding essential public services.

As population structures age, the workforce diminishes, and tax revenues shrink. Economists warn that aging populations could disrupt labor markets and wage structures, straining economic systems and reducing overall growth potential.

The Challenge of Aging Populations

A shrinking global population also means an increasing proportion of older individuals. While longevity is a sign of progress, it presents unique challenges, such as rising demand for medical care, assisted living, and support for age-related conditions.

Healthcare systems will need to adapt to accommodate the growing needs of older populations, requiring skilled medical personnel and long-term support infrastructure. Families and communities may face added caregiving responsibilities, exacerbated by a shortage of younger workers to fill caregiving roles. Studies highlight the rising costs of eldercare, urging countries to prepare for these demographic shifts to prevent inadequate care and extended waiting times.

Environmental Impacts of Population Decline

At first glance, a smaller population might appear beneficial for the environment, potentially reducing the strain on forests, oceans, farmland, and energy resources. Fewer humans could mean lower levels of pollution, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and improved water quality.

However, uneven population distribution could complicate resource management. If some regions become less populated while others remain densely inhabited, achieving a balance in resource allocation may prove challenging. Moreover, environmental outcomes depend as much on lifestyle choices as on population size. Research indicates that sustainable living practices will remain critical to preserving ecosystems and maintaining biodiversity, regardless of population trends.

Geopolitical and Economic Shifts

Population changes could also alter global power dynamics. Nations with shrinking populations may experience reduced political and economic influence, while others with stable or growing populations might gain prominence.

Countries that historically dominated global trade, technology, or culture could be overshadowed by nations with more youthful populations. Shifts in demographic trends might necessitate realigning geopolitical strategies, security agreements, and resource-sharing negotiations to reflect new realities.

Social and Policy Implications

Declining fertility rates often coincide with advancements in women’s rights, education, and changing societal expectations. While these developments are positive, some governments may resort to restrictive policies aimed at increasing birth rates. Such measures risk infringing on personal freedoms and reproductive rights.

Coercive pro-natalist policies, including limiting access to contraception or pressuring women to have more children, could lead to social unrest and diminished trust in leadership. Historical examples suggest that forced fertility measures often fail, highlighting the need for balanced approaches that respect individual rights while addressing demographic challenges.

A New Perspective on Progress

The prospect of a less populous planet presents complex challenges and opportunities. A world with fewer births may redefine how cities are built, how families are structured, and how resources are allocated. Policymakers and planners will need to adopt forward-thinking strategies to manage healthcare, economic systems, and environmental sustainability.

Ultimately, the end of uninterrupted population growth may mark the beginning of a new form of progress—one measured not by the number of people on Earth, but by the quality of care and opportunities available to each individual. As nations adapt to these changes, collaboration and innovation will be essential to navigating this new demographic landscape.

Switzerland has made a decisive move to revoke India’s Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), citing the Supreme Court of India’s recent ruling in the Nestle case as the reason. The Swiss decision, announced on December 11, 2023, signals a significant change in the bilateral treaty relationship between the two countries and is expected to impact Indian businesses operating in Switzerland, as well as Swiss investments in India.

In its official statement, Switzerland’s finance department explicitly pointed to the Indian Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling, which stated that an MFN clause does not automatically apply when a country joins the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). This landmark judgment set a precedent that existing tax treaties take precedence unless the MFN clause is explicitly triggered through a notification under Section 90 of India’s Income Tax Act.

The Role of the OECD and Its Framework

The OECD, established in 1961 and headquartered in Paris, is a global forum focused on promoting fair and sustainable economic policies. It works with policymakers, stakeholders, and citizens to develop evidence-based international standards to tackle global challenges, including economic, social, and environmental issues. For countries like India and Switzerland, OECD standards play a crucial role in shaping tax treaties and bilateral agreements.

Background of the Case

The dispute originated from India’s tax agreements with Lithuania and Colombia, which stipulated lower tax rates for certain income categories compared to those provided to OECD countries. Later, when Lithuania and Colombia joined the OECD, Switzerland interpreted the MFN clause to mean that the 5% tax rate for dividends applied to its tax treaty with India, instead of the 10% rate originally agreed upon.

However, the Indian Supreme Court clarified in its ruling that the MFN clause does not automatically apply to new OECD members. Instead, for the clause to take effect, it must be explicitly mentioned in a notification under Section 90 of the Income Tax Act. This interpretation invalidated Switzerland’s assumption that Lithuania and Colombia’s OECD membership would alter the India-Switzerland tax treaty’s terms.

The Nestle Case and Its Implications

Switzerland’s disappointment stems from the Supreme Court overturning a 2021 Delhi High Court judgment that had upheld Switzerland’s interpretation of the MFN clause. The High Court had ruled in favor of applying residual tax rates under the DTAA, which aligned with Switzerland’s perspective.

However, on October 19, 2023, the Supreme Court reversed this judgment, stating, “The MFN clause was not directly applicable in the absence of a ‘notification’ in accordance with Section 90 of the Income Tax Act.” This ruling directly impacted Nestle and indirectly undermined Switzerland’s stance, leading to its decision to revoke India’s MFN status.

Switzerland’s Response and Its Repercussions

As a response to the Supreme Court’s ruling, Switzerland has unilaterally withdrawn India’s MFN status under the DTAA. Starting January 1, 2025, dividends payable to Indian tax residents and entities will be subject to a 10% tax rate, doubling the current 5%. Swiss tax residents claiming foreign tax credits will also face similar implications.

In its official statement, the Swiss finance department announced, “Suspension of the application of the MFN clause of the protocol to the agreement between the Swiss Confederation and the Republic of India for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to taxes on income.” The statement specifically attributed the decision to the Indian Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling on the Nestle case.

Perspectives from Tax Experts

The decision has drawn mixed reactions from experts. While some view it as a retaliatory move, others see it as an assertion of reciprocity.

Sandeep Jhunjhunwala, M&A Tax Partner at Nangia Andersen, described Switzerland’s action as unilateral. He explained, “This suspension may lead to increased tax liabilities for Indian entities operating in Switzerland, highlighting the complexities of navigating international tax treaties in an evolving global landscape.” He emphasized the need for treaty partners to align their interpretations to ensure stability and predictability in international tax frameworks.

Amit Maheshwari, Tax Partner at AKM Global, interpreted Switzerland’s move as an effort to maintain reciprocity. He noted, “The main reason behind the decision to withdraw MFN is of reciprocity, which ensures that taxpayers in both countries are treated equally and fairly.”

Maheshwari elaborated that Switzerland had earlier announced a reduction in the tax rate on dividends from 10% to 5% under the MFN clause, effective retroactively from July 5, 2018. However, the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling contradicted this approach. “This could impact Swiss investments in India as dividends would be subject to higher withholding now,” he added, pointing out that post-2025, income accruing on dividends will likely be taxed at the higher rates specified in the original DTAA.

Kumarmanglam Vijay, Partner at JSA Advocates & Solicitors, highlighted the potential impact on Indian companies with overseas direct investment (ODI) structures involving Swiss subsidiaries. He explained, “This would especially impact Indian companies having ODI structures with subsidiaries in Switzerland and will raise the Swiss withholding tax on dividends from 5% to 10% from January 1, 2025.”

Looking Ahead

The revocation of India’s MFN status by Switzerland is a significant development in international tax relations. It underscores the challenges of interpreting and applying MFN clauses in the context of global tax treaties. For Indian companies and Swiss investors, the decision introduces new tax liabilities and complicates financial planning.

While the move has drawn criticism for its unilateral nature, it also highlights the need for clearer and more harmonized interpretations of international agreements. For now, the Indian business community and Swiss investors must navigate these changes while governments on both sides explore potential resolutions to avoid further economic disruptions.

Syrian opposition forces have claimed control of Daraa, a key city in southwestern Syria, marking a significant step toward Damascus. Concurrently, rebel factions linked to the Druze community in as-Suwayda have launched attacks against regime forces in their region.

The Syrian army acknowledged a strategic retreat from the two southern cities, describing their actions as a “redeployment” following attacks on military checkpoints by what they labeled “terrorists.” In a statement, the regime’s military declared, “Our forces operating in Daraa and as-Suwayda implemented a redeployment, repositioning and established a strong and cohesive defensive and security cordon in that direction.”

Rebels are advancing on Damascus from both the north and south, with Daraa—where the 2011 uprising began—becoming a pivotal battleground. The southern rebel groups, distinct from the northern Islamist faction Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), are united in their mission to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. HTS recently captured Aleppo and Hama in their offensive.

The Southern Operations Room, a local rebel group, announced late Friday, “Our forces have taken full control of the entire city of Daraa and have started combing through its neighborhoods and securing its institutions and government offices.” This assertion was supported by geolocated footage showing rebels outside the Daraa administrative building.

The resurgence of violence has reignited a civil war that had been relatively dormant. The conflict originated in 2011 when Assad violently suppressed pro-democracy protests during the Arab Spring. Over time, the war transformed into a complex struggle involving regional and global powers, including Saudi Arabia, the United States, Iran, and Russia, with some observers characterizing it as a “proxy war.”

The toll has been devastating. The United Nations estimates that over 300,000 civilians have died, and millions have been displaced across the region.

In another victory for the opposition, southern rebels seized the Syria-Jordan Nassib border crossing on Friday. This marks the southern terminus of the M5 highway, a strategic route that runs through Aleppo, Damascus, and into southern Syria. Footage verified by CNN showed armed fighters celebrating their control of the crossing.

Northern rebel forces, led by HTS, continue to advance southward along the M5 highway, capturing Hama and setting their sights on Homs. Kurdish-led fighters in the northeast, meanwhile, are growing apprehensive, fearing the violence could spread to their autonomous regions. While the rebels’ primary target remains the Assad regime, Kurdish forces have expressed concerns about potential spillover effects.

Hundreds of civilians fled Homs overnight as the city braced for an assault. Videos showed vehicles congesting highways as residents escaped potential clashes. The opposition aims to capture Homs, a strategically vital city that, if taken, could split regime-held territories.

HTS has urged regime soldiers to defect, with their media wing declaring, “From here we direct the last call to the regime forces, this is your chance to defect.” By late Friday, opposition fighters claimed control of the last village on the outskirts of Homs, stating they were “at the city walls.”

In an exclusive interview with CNN, HTS leader Abu Mohammad al-Jolani articulated the coalition’s ultimate goal: “When we talk about objectives, the goal of the revolution remains the overthrow of this regime. It is our right to use all available means to achieve that goal.”

Homs, with a significant Alawite population—a sect closely associated with Assad—remains tense. Many Alawites fear retribution from rebels who accuse the community of supporting Assad’s oppressive rule. The city also holds historical significance as the site of a major 1982 massacre under Assad’s father, Hafez al-Assad.

The rapid advance of opposition forces has surprised many. Within days, rebels moved from Idlib to Aleppo, capturing the city in just three days, followed by Hama in eight. Regime forces appeared unprepared for such swift offensives, raising doubts about their ability to defend Homs.

CNN reported an internet blackout in Homs on Friday, making communication difficult as rebels approached the city. In newly captured territories like Hama, residents celebrated their liberation after years under regime control. Videos showed fighters cheering in disbelief at their progress, with one exclaiming, “Guys, my country is being liberated. I swear to God, we are inside Hama city, we are inside Aleppo city,” as he filmed himself near a notable landmark in Hama.

HTS claimed they freed hundreds of detainees from Hama’s central prison, many of whom they believe were unjustly imprisoned. Jolani emphasized his group’s vision for a future government based on institutions and a council chosen by the people. Speaking of the Assad regime, he stated, “The seeds of the regime’s defeat have always been within it… the Iranians attempted to revive the regime, buying it time, and later the Russians also tried to prop it up. But the truth remains: this regime is dead.”

The regime’s weakening grip has sparked concern among regional powers. Foreign ministers from Iran, Iraq, and Syria convened in Baghdad on Friday, issuing a joint statement warning that the opposition’s advances posed “a serious danger to the three countries, threatens the security of their peoples and the region as a whole.” They labeled the opposition forces as “terrorists” and called for collective action against them.

On Saturday, representatives from Russia, Iran, and Turkey met in Doha to discuss the situation in Syria. Meanwhile, Israel has heightened its vigilance, monitoring developments closely. Israel’s defense ministry stated, “The Israeli military is prepared for any scenario and is determined to protect the citizens of Israel and protect Israel’s security interests at all times.”

The U.S. State Department urged Americans to leave Syria immediately, citing the “volatile and unpredictable” security environment. “U.S. citizens who choose not to depart Syria or are unable to depart should prepare contingency plans for emergency situations and be prepared to shelter in place for extended periods,” the statement read. The Aleppo International Airport remains closed due to ongoing hostilities.

As the rebels push toward Damascus, the civil war appears far from resolution. The swift gains of opposition forces underscore the fragility of Assad’s regime and the enduring instability that has plagued Syria for over a decade.

Nepal’s veteran communist leader, K.P. Sharma Oli, recently assumed office as the country’s prime minister for the fourth time and is now looking to enhance infrastructure collaboration with China. This development signals a shift in Nepal’s diplomatic alignment as it seeks to reduce dependence on India and strengthen ties with its northern neighbor.

Oli made his first international visit since taking office in July by traveling to China this week for a four-day tour, diverging from the tradition of prioritizing India for such trips. The decision underscores Kathmandu’s intention to recalibrate its foreign policy and explore alternatives to India, with which it shares a deep-rooted historical connection.

Despite the visit, Oli has so far received commitments of continued assistance from Beijing, but no new investments have been announced. The agreements signed during his visit — a total of nine — were reiterations of previously settled projects, rather than fresh initiatives.

During a meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping on Tuesday, Xi emphasized China’s support for Nepal’s development aspirations. “China will help Nepal transform from a landlocked country into a ‘land-linked’ one and will continue to support Nepal’s economic development to the best of its ability,” stated Xi, as reported by Chinese state media.

Nepal has been a participant in Xi’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), an ambitious plan to enhance China’s global infrastructure and trade connectivity. However, no BRI projects in Nepal have advanced since an initial agreement was signed in 2017. The country remains eager to launch key infrastructure projects, including road upgrades and the development of new transportation routes.

Oli’s agenda during the visit reflects Nepal’s strategic goal of reducing its economic reliance on India while fostering deeper economic ties with China. India currently dominates Nepal’s international trade, accounting for around two-thirds, while China’s share stands at only 14%. Nonetheless, China surpasses India as Nepal’s leading bilateral lender, having provided loans totaling more than $310 million, according to World Bank data.

Oli’s relationship with India has historically been fraught with challenges. In 2016, during his first tenure as prime minister, he secured a petroleum deal with China after India imposed a six-month blockade on oil supplies to Nepal in 2015. This move disrupted India’s monopoly as Nepal’s sole fuel supplier and paved the way for stronger cooperation with Beijing.

Challenges with Chinese Investments

One of the flagship projects under Chinese involvement in Nepal is the Pokhara International Airport, constructed with a $216 million loan from Beijing. The airport, located approximately 200 kilometers west of Kathmandu, commenced operations last year and is hailed by China as a symbol of its BRI success. However, it faces operational hurdles due to India’s refusal to allow international flights bound for Pokhara to use its airspace. As a result, the airport has struggled to attract sufficient international flights, limiting its effectiveness.

Debt-related concerns have also sparked debates within Nepal’s ruling coalition. The Nepali Congress party, a crucial ally supporting Oli’s administration, has opposed any large-scale projects financed by loans. Ahead of Oli’s China visit, the coalition, including his own Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist Leninist), reached a consensus to prioritize grants over loans for BRI projects.

The decision was influenced by cautionary tales such as Sri Lanka’s experience. Sri Lanka, a significant recipient of Chinese loans for BRI projects, defaulted on its foreign debt in May 2022. This financial crisis has served as a warning to countries like Nepal about the potential risks of unsustainable borrowing.

China’s involvement in Nepal’s infrastructure is closely watched, not just for its economic implications but also for its geopolitical significance. As Nepal balances its relationships with its two giant neighbors, Oli’s government appears to be navigating a delicate path. While seeking economic diversification and modernization, Kathmandu remains cautious about the terms of its partnerships, particularly in light of debt and operational challenges linked to Chinese-funded projects.

Oli’s visit to Beijing marks a pivotal moment in Nepal’s foreign policy direction, emphasizing the importance of collaboration with China while recalibrating ties with India. Whether this shift will translate into concrete benefits for Nepal’s economy and infrastructure remains to be seen.

Two critical undersea internet cables connecting Finland and Sweden to Central Europe were severed last week, with investigators pointing toward potential sabotage. Authorities are closely examining the involvement of the Yi Peng 3, a Chinese bulk carrier, in the incidents. The vessel, carrying fertilizer and en route from Russia to Egypt, is suspected of deliberately dropping its anchor in Swedish waters, severing the BCS East-West Interlink cable linked to Lithuania. The following day, it reportedly caused damage to the C-Lion1 cable connecting Finland and Germany. In total, investigators believe the ship dragged its anchor for over 100 miles, damaging crucial infrastructure.

“It’s extremely unlikely that the captain would not have noticed that his ship dropped and dragged its anchor, losing speed for hours and cutting cables on the way,” remarked an investigator involved in the probe. Further suspicion arose as the ship’s crew allegedly deactivated its transponder, preventing the Automatic Identification System from tracking its movements. After the second cable incident, the ship was observed zigzagging, raising its anchor, and continuing its voyage.

The ship’s location was later pinpointed using open maritime tracking sources. It was found in international waters between Denmark and Sweden, where it is currently stationary and surrounded by NATO vessels. According to sources, physical evidence such as anchor and hull damage aligns with suspicions of dragging and contact with undersea cables.

Swedish authorities are now negotiating with Ningbo Yipeng Shipping, the ship’s Chinese owner, to have the vessel return to Swedish waters for further examination. However, since the Yi Peng 3 remains anchored in international waters, NATO is restricted by international maritime law and cannot compel the ship to dock at a port for investigation.

Despite the ship’s Chinese ownership and crew, many Western officials do not believe China is directly involved. Instead, suspicions are directed at Russia. The Kremlin dismissed these allegations, describing them as “absurd and unsubstantiated.” In a statement, the Kremlin also highlighted what it perceived as Western hypocrisy, pointing to the lack of criticism when Ukraine targeted the Nord Stream gas pipeline in 2022.

Meanwhile, China’s Foreign Ministry addressed the situation, stating, “I would like to reiterate China’s consistent support working with all countries to maintain the security of international submarine cables and other infrastructure in accordance with international law.”

Adding to the complexity of the investigation, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Yi Peng 3 operated exclusively in Chinese waters from 2019 until the first quarter of 2024. Its route changed this year, with the vessel transporting cargo such as coal and fertilizer to Russian ports. While this detail is not considered conclusive evidence of Russian involvement, experts suggest it is a factor that merits further scrutiny. The timing of the incident has also raised questions, as it occurred shortly after the United States approved Ukraine’s use of long-range munitions to target locations within Russia.

This investigation into the cable damage underscores the broader vulnerabilities of critical infrastructure in times of geopolitical tension. Both Swedish and Finnish authorities are now working to address these disruptions, which have significant implications for regional connectivity and international cybersecurity. As NATO monitors the Yi Peng 3 and international discussions progress, the case continues to unfold, with no definitive conclusions yet reached regarding the responsible party.

Sri Lanka’s voters have delivered a resounding victory to President Anura Kumara Dissanayake in a snap general election, significantly expanding his leftist coalition’s presence in parliament. This outcome grants him greater authority to pursue anti-poverty and anti-corruption reforms as the country strives to recover from a severe economic crisis.

Dissanayake, a relative outsider in a political landscape historically dominated by influential family dynasties, assumed the presidency in September with limited legislative support. His Marxist-leaning coalition, the National People’s Power (NPP), previously held only three out of 225 parliamentary seats. Seeking a stronger mandate to govern effectively, he dissolved parliament and called for fresh elections.

The results of Thursday’s election marked a dramatic shift in the nation’s political landscape. The NPP secured 107 seats, capturing nearly 62% of the popular vote, or approximately 6.8 million ballots, according to data from the Election Commission of Sri Lanka. This victory not only pushes the NPP past the threshold for a parliamentary majority but also positions it close to achieving a two-thirds majority.

“This election represents a critical turning point for Sri Lanka,” Dissanayake said in a statement. Reflecting on the broader implications of the results, he added, “There is a change in Sri Lanka’s political culture that started in September, which must continue.”

Celebrations were mostly restrained, although some NPP supporters launched fireworks in areas outside Colombo, according to reports from Reuters.

Sri Lanka’s parliamentary structure includes 225 seats, with 196 directly elected across 22 constituencies via a proportional representation system. The remaining 29 seats are allocated based on each party’s nationwide vote share. More than 17 million Sri Lankans were eligible to cast their ballots, with a record 690 political parties and independent groups competing across 22 districts.

The NPP’s main opposition came from Sajith Premadasa’s Samagi Jana Balawegaya party, which secured 28 seats with roughly 18% of the vote. Meanwhile, the New Democratic Front, supported by former President Ranil Wickremesinghe, managed to claim only three seats.

This sweeping victory provides Dissanayake the mandate he needs to tackle Sri Lanka’s pressing economic challenges. While the president holds executive authority, substantial parliamentary support is required to appoint a full cabinet and deliver on key campaign promises. These include reducing taxes, fostering local industries, and alleviating poverty. One of Dissanayake’s significant proposals involves abolishing the executive presidency, a move that would necessitate the support of two-thirds of the parliament.

Sri Lanka, a nation of 22 million, is emerging from one of its most severe economic crises. A shortage of foreign currency led to a debt default in 2022, which caused the economy to shrink by 7.3% that year and a further 2.3% in 2023. A $2.9 billion International Monetary Fund (IMF) bailout programme has provided some stability, yet high living costs remain a burden for many citizens.

Dissanayake has signaled his intent to renegotiate aspects of the IMF agreement, particularly to lower income tax rates and allocate more resources to social welfare initiatives. However, these proposed adjustments have sparked concerns among investors, who fear they might delay future IMF disbursements and jeopardize Sri Lanka’s ability to achieve a primary budget surplus target of 2.3% of GDP by 2025.

“This election offers us the opportunity to address the systemic issues that have plagued our nation for decades,” Dissanayake said. Emphasizing the importance of reform, he noted, “We must act decisively to reduce inequality and build a more inclusive economy.”

The challenges ahead for Dissanayake are substantial. While the election has provided him with a stronger political foundation, the task of stabilizing Sri Lanka’s fragile economy and meeting the expectations of millions of citizens remains daunting. With poverty alleviation, economic reforms, and political restructuring at the forefront of his agenda, his administration faces the crucial test of translating electoral success into tangible progress for the country.

The election results mark not only a personal triumph for Dissanayake but also a potential turning point in Sri Lanka’s political trajectory. As the nation navigates the aftermath of its economic crisis, the path forward will require skillful governance, effective collaboration, and the fulfillment of campaign promises to ensure sustainable recovery and long-term stability.

Israel has been accused of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity by deliberately causing the mass displacement of Palestinians in Gaza, according to a report by Human Rights Watch (HRW). The report highlights severe humanitarian issues arising from Israeli military actions and raises concerns about the long-term impact on Gaza’s population.

HRW’s findings are based on extensive evidence, including interviews with displaced individuals, satellite imagery, and documentation of destruction. The organization claims that the forced displacement of nearly 1.9 million people, constituting 90% of Gaza’s population, represents “forcible transfer.” Furthermore, HRW alleges that these actions align with what it describes as “ethnic cleansing.”

The report emphasizes that about 79% of Gaza’s territory is currently under evacuation orders issued by Israeli authorities, leaving countless residents homeless and reliant on dwindling resources. HRW asserts that these measures appear systematic and are part of a broader state policy. “The destruction is so substantial that it indicates the intention to permanently displace many people,” the report warns.

The Israeli government has dismissed the allegations, describing the report as “completely false and detached from reality.” Oren Marmorstein, a spokesperson for Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, reiterated the government’s stance, stating, “Israel’s efforts are directed solely at dismantling Hamas’s terror capabilities and not at the people of Gaza.” He further emphasized that Israel operates in accordance with the law of armed conflict.

HRW also directed criticism toward Hamas, accusing the group of using civilians as human shields by conducting operations from within residential areas and civilian infrastructure.

The Impact of the Ground Offensive

The report comes amidst an intensifying ground offensive by Israeli forces in northern Gaza, which has displaced an additional 130,000 people over the past five weeks. According to the UN, 75,000 people remain under siege in areas such as Jabalia, Beit Lahia, and Beit Hanoun. These regions face critical shortages of water, food, and other essential supplies, with the Israeli military justifying the measures as necessary to prevent a resurgence of Hamas.

The international laws of war prohibit the forced displacement of civilians in occupied territories unless it is imperative for their security or a pressing military reason. Displacement is only lawful if affected individuals are moved safely, provided with adequate shelter and supplies, and allowed to return to their homes once hostilities subside.

However, HRW argues that Israel’s actions fail to meet these criteria. The report highlights the absence of a compelling military justification for the mass displacement and criticizes the inconsistent and poorly communicated evacuation orders issued to Gaza’s residents. HRW states, “Israeli evacuation orders have been inconsistent, inaccurate, and frequently not communicated to civilians with enough time.” It also notes that these orders often overlooked the needs of vulnerable groups, such as individuals with disabilities.

Adding to the concerns, HRW alleges that Israeli forces have targeted designated evacuation routes and safe zones, further endangering civilians. The report accuses Israeli authorities of severely restricting the entry of humanitarian aid, water, electricity, and fuel, exacerbating the suffering of Gaza’s residents.

Infrastructure Destruction and Long-Term Impact

Another key finding in HRW’s report is the deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure. The organization accuses Israel’s military of intentionally demolishing homes and vital facilities, such as hospitals and bakeries, to create extended buffer zones and corridors within Gaza. HRW claims these actions are aimed at permanently displacing populations from these areas.

“The organized, violent displacement of Palestinians in Gaza, who are members of another ethnic group, is likely planned to be permanent in the buffer zones and security corridors,” the report alleges, adding that this amounts to ethnic cleansing.

Statements from some Israeli government officials have further fueled concerns about the future of Gaza’s territory. HRW points to comments suggesting plans to reduce Gaza’s land area and allocate it to Israeli settlers.

In response to the allegations, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) issued a statement rejecting the report’s conclusions. “The report both selectively presents information in a manner that obscures context, as well as makes certain blatant misrepresentations,” the IDF stated. It emphasized that its warnings to civilians to evacuate areas of active conflict are in line with international legal obligations to minimize harm to non-combatants.

“The IDF only operates in areas where there is a known military presence,” the statement added. Israeli authorities have also denied plans to establish permanent buffer zones, with Foreign Minister Gideon Saar recently affirming that displaced residents would be allowed to return home after the war.

Broader Accusations and International Reactions

The UN General Assembly’s special committee also weighed in on the situation, releasing a report on Thursday that characterized Israel’s military tactics in Gaza as “consistent with the characteristics of genocide.” The report highlighted the high civilian death toll and the dire living conditions imposed on Palestinians.

Israel has strongly denied these allegations, with officials labeling the genocide accusations as baseless. US State Department spokesperson Vedant Patel supported this view, stating during a press briefing, “We think that that kind of phrasing and those kinds of accusations are certainly unfounded.”

The current conflict was triggered by Hamas’s unprecedented attack on southern Israel on October 7, 2023, which resulted in the deaths of approximately 1,200 people and the taking of 251 hostages. In response, Israel launched a large-scale campaign aimed at dismantling Hamas’s military infrastructure. According to Gaza’s Hamas-run health ministry, more than 43,700 people have been killed in the territory since the escalation began.

Legal and Humanitarian Concerns

The HRW report underscores the significant challenges facing civilians in Gaza and raises important questions about the legality of Israel’s military operations. It highlights the immense scale of displacement, the destruction of critical infrastructure, and the obstacles faced by humanitarian aid efforts.

Under international law, warring parties are obligated to protect civilians and ensure access to basic necessities. The forced displacement of Gaza’s population, coupled with the destruction of essential facilities and the severe restriction of aid, paints a bleak picture of the humanitarian crisis unfolding in the region.

HRW’s accusations against both Israel and Hamas underscore the complexity of the conflict. While Israel defends its actions as necessary to combat terrorism, HRW and other human rights organizations urge accountability for the widespread suffering of civilians.

As the war continues, international pressure is mounting on all parties to adhere to humanitarian principles and seek a resolution that prioritizes the well-being of Gaza’s population. However, with no end to the conflict in sight, the people of Gaza remain caught in a cycle of violence and displacement that shows little sign of abating.

In a bid to ensure the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) remains equipped to tackle the world’s most pressing issues, the United Kingdom has reiterated its backing for India’s bid for permanent membership. This support, voiced by UK Ambassador to the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) Archie Young, aligns with broader calls to reform the UNSC to reflect the modern global landscape more accurately.

At a UNGA plenary session in New York on Monday, Young highlighted British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s appeal made at the UNGA in September for an overhaul of the UNSC, advocating for a system that is “more representative and more responsive.” According to Young, the UK supports permanent seats not only for India but also for African nations, Brazil, Germany, and Japan. “The UK believes that a reformed Council, coupled with a collective, renewed commitment to the UN Charter, would strengthen the Council so it can continue to rise to the challenges the world is facing; that is why we remain a strong supporter of UN Security Council reform,” Young stated, emphasizing the need to expand the Council’s membership. “We want to see permanent African representation and permanent seats for Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan,” he added.

Young’s statements at the UNGA come in the context of a growing discourse on the need for reform in the UNSC, particularly as world events highlight the limitations of the current multilateral system. Reflecting on the agenda for reform of the Security Council during the 2023 UN General Assembly session, Young pointed out the increasingly volatile global environment and underscored the urgency of strengthening multilateral mechanisms. He noted, “A year later, the situation is even more acute, and the need to strengthen our multilateral system through reform, ever more pressing.” The UK Ambassador went on to highlight Prime Minister Starmer’s concerns expressed at the UNGA regarding the mounting complexities and interconnections of global challenges that strain the multilateral system.

The ongoing conflicts affecting several regions have intensified discussions about UNSC reform. “Conflict touches more countries now than at any time in the history of the United Nations,” Young said, referencing crises in Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan, and other regions worldwide. He stressed the essential role of the Security Council, noting, “The Security Council’s role – and its responsibility for international peace and security – is as important now as it has ever been.”

Acknowledging the difficulties inherent in designing a suitable reform model, Young conceded that “agreeing on a model of reform” for the Security Council will be challenging. Nevertheless, he underscored the importance of addressing this issue. “It is incumbent on all of us to work together, in the spirit of compromise, to deliver the change we know is needed. The UK is committed to doing just that,” Young stated. He expressed the UK’s commitment to engaging in “detailed and constructive discussions” in upcoming intergovernmental negotiations and expressed hope that these talks would pave the way for text-based negotiations on UNSC reform.

The UK’s call for reform coincided with a similar appeal from India. At the plenary session, India’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Parvathaneni Harish, underscored the urgent need for UNSC reform, echoing sentiments that have long been advocated by India and other nations. Harish noted that UNSC reform was designated a priority at recent global discussions but expressed frustration over the lack of progress. He stated, “As we begin this year’s deliberations, we note that the reform of the UN Security Council was once again identified as a critical and immediate priority at the summit of the future discussions by our leaders.” However, despite decades of calls for reform, Harish expressed disappointment over the lack of tangible progress since the Council’s last expansion in 1965, which only added seats in the non-permanent category.

A U.S. jury has awarded $42 million in damages to three former detainees of Iraq’s notorious Abu Ghraib prison, holding CACI, a military contractor based in Virginia, responsible for its role in their torture and mistreatment two decades ago. The ruling, delivered by an eight-person jury, came after a previous trial earlier this year failed to reach a verdict regarding CACI’s liability for the actions of its civilian interrogators, who worked alongside the U.S. Army at Abu Ghraib in 2003 and 2004.

The jury’s decision saw plaintiffs Suhail Al Shimari, Salah Al-Ejaili, and Asa’ad Al-Zubae awarded $3 million each in compensatory damages, alongside $11 million each in punitive damages. These three former detainees testified about the brutal treatment they endured at the hands of military personnel and contractors at the facility. Their accounts included allegations of beatings, sexual abuse, forced nudity, and other forms of cruel and inhumane treatment.

While the plaintiffs did not claim that CACI’s interrogators were directly responsible for the abuse, they argued that the company was complicit in the mistreatment. They contended that CACI’s interrogators worked in conjunction with military police officers to “soften up” detainees for questioning by using harsh and degrading tactics.

In response to the verdict, CACI expressed disappointment and announced plans to appeal the decision. The company issued a statement asserting that it had been wrongfully connected with the actions of military personnel at Abu Ghraib. “For nearly two decades, CACI has been wrongly subjected to long-term, negative affiliation with the unfortunate and reckless actions of a group of military police at Abu Ghraib prison from 2003 through 2004,” the company stated. It emphasized that none of its employees had been criminally, civilly, or administratively charged in connection with the events at the prison.

Baher Azmy, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represented the plaintiffs, hailed the verdict as an important step toward justice and accountability. Azmy praised the courage of the plaintiffs for their resilience and said that the $42 million awarded fully matched the amount sought by the plaintiffs. It also surpassed the $31 million CACI had reportedly been paid for providing interrogators to the U.S. military at the prison.

“Today is a big day for me and for justice,” said Al-Ejaili, a journalist who was one of the plaintiffs. “I’ve waited a long time for this day. This victory isn’t only for the three plaintiffs in this case against a corporation. This victory is a shining light for everyone who has been oppressed and a strong warning to any company or contractor practicing different forms of torture and abuse.” Al-Ejaili traveled to the U.S. for both trials, where he testified in person, while the other two plaintiffs, Al Shimari and Al-Zubae, gave their testimony remotely from Iraq.

This trial and the subsequent retrial marked the first time in two decades that a U.S. jury heard the claims of survivors of Abu Ghraib, following the release of disturbing photos in 2004 that showed U.S. soldiers abusing detainees at the facility. Although none of the three plaintiffs featured in those infamous images, their testimonies revealed disturbing similarities to the treatment depicted in the photos.

Al Shimari described severe abuse, including sexual assaults, beatings, and being subjected to electric shocks during his two months at the prison. He also recounted being dragged around by a rope tied to his neck. Al-Ejaili, for his part, testified about being forced into stress positions that caused him to vomit black liquid. He also said he was deprived of sleep, forced to wear women’s underwear, and threatened with dogs during his time at the prison.

CACI, however, defended itself, claiming that its employees were not responsible for the detainees’ abuse. The company argued that its contractors had limited involvement with the plaintiffs and questioned parts of the plaintiffs’ testimony, suggesting that some of their claims were contradicted by military records. CACI’s defense rested on the argument that any liability for the detainees’ mistreatment rested solely with the U.S. government.

Throughout the trial and retrial, the jury struggled to determine whether CACI or the U.S. Army should bear responsibility for the misconduct committed by CACI’s interrogators. In the first trial, which ended in a mistrial with a hung jury, multiple jurors indicated they favored holding CACI accountable. CACI, as part of its defense, invoked the “borrowed servants” doctrine, asserting that it should not be held liable for its employees’ actions if those employees were under the direction of the Army. In contrast, the plaintiffs’ legal team argued that CACI should be held accountable for its own employees’ actions, pointing to provisions in CACI’s contract with the Army that made the company responsible for overseeing its personnel.

The lawsuit was initially filed in 2008, but it faced numerous delays due to legal challenges from CACI. The plaintiffs’ legal team presented evidence in the form of reports from two retired Army generals, who documented the abuse at Abu Ghraib and concluded that several CACI interrogators were complicit in the mistreatment. These reports included allegations that Steven Stefanowicz, one of the interrogators, lied about his actions and likely instructed soldiers to mistreat detainees, including using dogs to intimidate them during interrogations.

Stefanowicz testified on behalf of CACI through a recorded video deposition, where he denied any wrongdoing. Meanwhile, CACI presented a separate report that claimed its contractors had complied with military procedures and had performed their duties satisfactorily.

The case has drawn significant attention, not only due to the high-profile nature of the abuse at Abu Ghraib but also because it marks a rare instance of a corporate entity being held accountable for complicity in human rights violations. As the case moves forward, CACI’s appeal will likely be closely watched, given its potential implications for future lawsuits involving private contractors working with the U.S. military.

South Africa recently submitted an extensive 5,000-page legal document to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), alleging that Israel is committing acts of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. The case, which was formally brought forward by South Africa in December 2023, accuses Israel of intentionally targeting the Palestinian population with genocidal intent. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa commented on the filing, asserting that it demonstrates Israel’s “special intent to commit genocide,” though details of the document remain undisclosed until the ICJ releases it publicly.

In response, Israel has adamantly refuted the accusations, labeling the case as “blood libel.” This legal conflict comes amid heightened violence in Gaza, with the Israeli military conducting large-scale operations in northern Gaza. Israeli forces have called for the evacuation of civilians in this region, citing military necessity, but significant numbers of residents, estimated by the U.N. to be over 400,000, remain in the area. Worsening humanitarian conditions are evident, as food scarcity has intensified and humanitarian aid deliveries have significantly reduced.

The ICJ has already intervened on multiple occasions, issuing three emergency measures aimed at curbing Israeli military actions in Gaza. These measures include calls for Israel to cease its military actions in the southern city of Rafah and to facilitate aid by opening land crossings into Gaza. According to South African officials, Israel has disregarded these orders, with Ramaphosa criticizing Israel’s actions, saying, “Israel’s continued shredding of international law has imperilled the institutions of global governance that were established to hold all states accountable.”

The case has garnered international attention, with other countries expressing a desire to join South Africa’s legal complaint. Palestine, Spain, Chile, and seven other nations have formally petitioned the ICJ to become parties to the case, signaling widespread concern over the situation. The court has set a deadline of July 2025 for Israel to submit its official response to the allegations.

The background to Israel’s military operations in Gaza stems from an attack on October 7, 2023, when militants led by Hamas launched a raid on Israeli soil, resulting in the deaths of approximately 1,200 people, most of whom were civilians, and the abduction of around 250 others.

Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, responded cautiously to recent Israeli strikes, which hit various military locations in Iran, leading to the death of at least four soldiers. Khamenei stated that the attacks should neither be “exaggerated or downplayed” and refrained from pledging immediate retaliation. He remarked, “It is up to the authorities to determine how to convey the power and will of the Iranian people to the Israeli regime and to take actions that serve the interests of this nation and country.”

In a cabinet meeting, President Masoud Pezeshkian mirrored Khamenei’s tone, asserting that Iran does not seek war yet would “give an appropriate response” while defending its citizens. He stated, “We do not seek war, but we will defend the rights of our nation and country.”

Israel initiated its attack in response to a prior Iranian strike involving nearly 200 ballistic missiles fired toward Israel on October 1. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu explained that the strike aimed at debilitating Iran’s air defenses and missile production, which he claimed had been severely compromised. “The attack was precise and powerful and achieved its goals,” Netanyahu remarked, during a ceremony for victims of last October’s attacks by Hamas. He added, “This regime must understand a simple principle: whoever hurts us, we hurt him.”

Iranian officials have publicly minimized the impact, claiming most missiles were intercepted and asserting that any damage was limited to air defense systems. This cautious tone from Khamenei marks a shift from his previously incendiary rhetoric, where he has historically threatened to “flatten Haifa and Tel Aviv” or retaliate multiple times over if Israel initiated an attack. His decision to delegate responsibility to “authorities” reflects an uncharacteristic move, given his role as commander-in-chief with longstanding authority over significant decisions in Iran. Analysts suggest this could be a strategy to deflect blame if a forceful retaliation fails to deliver a significant impact or backfires.

Israel’s attacks also came under certain limitations, as it appeared to avoid targeting Iran’s oil and nuclear facilities, likely due to U.S. intervention. The Iranian Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, confirmed that Iran had been alerted about a potential attack shortly before it occurred, stating, “We had received indications since the evening about the possibility of an attack that night.” Further, Western nations have urged both sides to exercise restraint to prevent an escalation that could spiral into a larger regional conflict.

The domestic response in Iran has included coverage by local media depicting everyday life proceeding as usual, likely to convey resilience and downplay the strike’s effects. This portrayal is interpreted by analysts as a way to reassure the Iranian public and maintain national morale in the face of mounting tensions.

Meanwhile, the broader regional conflict continues, with Israel also engaged in active clashes with Iran-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Palestinian group Hamas in Gaza. An Israeli air strike in Sidon, southern Lebanon, killed at least eight people, according to local sources. Additionally, Lebanese authorities reported that at least 21 fatalities resulted from Israeli strikes in southern Lebanon on Sunday alone.

In Gaza, the situation remains dire as well, with nine people reported dead in an Israeli strike on a school-turned-shelter in the al-Shati refugee camp. Palestinian media indicated that three of those killed were journalists, a detail confirmed by both local officials and the Reuters news agency.

The toll of violence extended into Israel, where a suspected terror attack took place, killing one and injuring over 30 individuals at a bus stop near a military base outside Tel Aviv. Authorities suspect a deliberate vehicle assault in this incident.

In a diplomatic intervention, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi proposed a two-day ceasefire in Gaza, which includes the release of four Israeli hostages in exchange for Palestinian detainees. Al-Sisi suggested that following such a temporary halt, talks aimed at a longer-lasting resolution could resume within 10 days. Yet, Sami Abu Zuhri, a senior Hamas official, reiterated Hamas’s conditions, insisting that a meaningful ceasefire would only occur with a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and an expansive prisoner exchange. “Any agreement that does not guarantee these conditions holds no value,” he asserted, reiterating Hamas’s stance.

Israel’s ongoing operations against Hamas are rooted in its response to the group’s unprecedented assault on October 7, 2023, which led to around 1,200 deaths and resulted in 251 Israeli hostages. Since then, casualties have mounted, with more than 42,924 people reported dead in Gaza, according to the health ministry operated by Hamas.

Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and its coalition partner Komeito suffered a significant blow in the latest election, losing their majority in the Japanese parliament. This result, the worst for the coalition in over a decade, left them with 215 seats, falling short of the 233 seats needed to maintain control. LDP’s new leader, Shigeru Ishiba, who assumed the position just days before the election, acknowledged the result as a “harsh verdict” from the Japanese electorate. Despite this setback, Ishiba vowed to stay in office, with no immediate plans to expand the coalition to regain the majority.

Following the election outcome, Ishiba addressed the public, stressing that the LDP would “humbly” accept the message delivered by voters. “Voters have handed us a harsh verdict, and we have to humbly accept this result,” he remarked to NHK, Japan’s national broadcaster. He went on to state that Japanese citizens “expressed their strong desire for the LDP to do some reflection and become a party that acts in line with the people’s will.” The party’s approval ratings have been on a downward trend, partly due to recent scandals and what many see as unaddressed public concerns.

Speculation arose that Ishiba, whose tenure as prime minister began amid the ongoing controversies, might resign if the LDP lost its majority. Such a resignation could make Ishiba Japan’s shortest-serving post-war prime minister. However, Ishiba has resolved to confront the issues plaguing his party rather than stepping down. This marked the first time the LDP lost its majority since 2009, a notable development for a party that has dominated Japanese politics since its founding in 1955.

The LDP’s difficulties reflect a turbulent few years, with approval ratings plummeting below 20% earlier this year amid public discontent over a political funding scandal. The scandal involved accusations that numerous LDP lawmakers received significant funds from political events, leading to legal investigations. In response, Ishiba has pledged to address the issue directly. “We need to answer to the people’s criticism. That is how I will take responsibility for the loss of the election,” Ishiba said, adding that the LDP will enact fundamental reforms regarding the relationship between money and politics.

Aside from political reform, Ishiba promised economic measures to alleviate the challenges facing rural areas and tackle inflation. Economic hardships are pressing issues for many Japanese citizens, who are increasingly concerned with high prices and stagnant wages. The recent election results revealed growing frustration over rising costs, an issue the LDP must address if it hopes to restore public confidence.

On the opposition side, the Constitutional Democratic Party (CDP), the largest rival to the LDP, won 148 seats, as confirmed by NHK around 02:00 JST. Although the CDP gained ground, opposition parties remain fragmented and have struggled to convince voters they are a viable alternative. The CDP’s approval rating sat at just 6.6% before parliament was dissolved, underscoring the public’s limited enthusiasm for the opposition’s approach. CDP leader Yoshihiko Noda expressed a desire to collaborate with other opposition groups to challenge the ruling party’s hold on power.

Miyuki Fujisaki, a long-time LDP supporter, shared her disillusionment with both the ruling and opposition parties. “It is so hard to make decisions to choose parties, I think people are losing interest,” she told the BBC before the polls opened. Fujisaki acknowledged the LDP’s corruption issues but pointed out that the opposition also lacked clarity. “They sure complain a lot, but it’s not at all clear on what they want to do,” she noted.

The stock market reacted swiftly to the election results, with the Nikkei 225 index rising by approximately 1.5% early on Monday, while the yen depreciated against the US dollar. Although there appears to be widespread voter apathy, political developments in Japan have accelerated in recent months. Ishiba rose to power after former Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, who served since 2021, abruptly announced his resignation in August. Under Ishiba’s leadership, the LDP has been eager to rebuild its image among voters, though achieving this goal appears increasingly challenging.

A sequence of scandals has tarnished the party’s standing. One of the most contentious issues involves the LDP’s alleged connections with the Unification Church, a group critics have labeled as a “cult” due to its influence over political figures. Additionally, revelations surrounding the political funding scandal have cast a long shadow over the LDP. Prosecutors have been examining claims that several LDP lawmakers misappropriated funds from political fundraisers, with amounts reaching millions of dollars. These allegations have led to the dissolution of powerful party factions, weakening the LDP’s internal cohesion.

Public sentiment reflects the mounting dissatisfaction with the LDP’s handling of economic and social issues. Michiko Hamada, a resident who attended an opposition rally at Urawa station on the outskirts of Tokyo, expressed her discontent with the ruling party. “What a wretched state the ruling party is in,” Hamada said, adding, “It is tax evasion and it’s unforgivable.” Her frustration resonates with a growing portion of the Japanese population who feel financially strained.

The economy is a pressing concern for many, as Japan faces its highest inflation rate in decades. Over the past two years, prices have increased rapidly, adding to the financial burden on households. Hamada noted how food expenses alone have increased by 10,000 to 20,000 yen ($65-$130) per month. “I’m not buying the things I used to buy. I am trying to save up but it still costs more. Things like fruit are very expensive,” she explained.

This sentiment is shared by many older citizens, including pensioners like Chie Shimizu, who now works part-time to supplement her income. “Our hourly wage has gone up a bit but it does not match the prices,” Shimizu told the BBC, highlighting the widening gap between earnings and the cost of living. She has resorted to seeking out affordable food options at local markets due to the soaring prices at regular stores.

Despite these economic grievances, the Japanese political landscape remains complex. While the LDP has lost ground, opposition parties have yet to fully capture the public’s confidence. The challenge for Ishiba and his party will be to address both the immediate concerns of rising costs and the underlying issues related to political accountability. With the CDP and other opposition factions struggling to consolidate their influence, Japan’s future leadership remains uncertain.

The latest election has signaled a clear message from the Japanese public: a call for change and a government that is more responsive to their needs. The LDP, a party steeped in history and tradition, now faces the difficult task of rebuilding trust.

In a major escalation, Israel launched a series of overnight air strikes on Iran, targeting what Israeli officials identified as “military targets.” The strikes were widely expected as a response to Iran’s recent missile attack on Israel, which marked a significant turn in the two nations’ long-standing hostilities.

Why Israel Acted Now

The decision to strike came in response to an Iranian missile assault on October 1, during which over 180 missiles were launched at Israel. Although most of these were intercepted by Israel’s air defense system with support from allied forces, a few managed to hit various sites, including air bases. Tragically, one Palestinian civilian was killed by falling missile debris. Israel had vowed retaliation for this assault, but had not specified a timeline, leaving speculation about whether their response would be immediate or involve a broader strategy.

On Saturday morning, Israel targeted specific sites related to missile production, launch facilities, and other air capabilities, though further details about the specific assets hit remain unclear.

The October 1 Attack by Iran

Iran had launched its October 1 missile strike as retaliation for what it saw as aggressive acts by Israel. This included the killings of key figures within Hezbollah and Hamas, Iranian-supported groups that oppose Israel, as well as a high-ranking Iranian military official. On September 27, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and Brigadier General Abbas Nilforoushan were killed in an Israeli airstrike in Beirut, Lebanon. Not long after, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh was killed in a compound explosion in Tehran, which Iran attributed to Israeli actions, though Israel neither confirmed nor denied involvement.

Iran’s recent attack on Israel marked only its second direct strike. Previously, Iran had launched an assault involving about 300 drones and missiles in response to an Israeli airstrike on April 1 targeting an Iranian consulate in Damascus, Syria. That earlier strike killed 13 people, including senior members of Iran’s Quds Force, part of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Iran condemned this as a breach of its sovereignty, signaling that hostilities had reached a new level.

In retaliation for this April strike, Israel struck sites in Iran’s Isfahan region three weeks later. U.S. officials confirmed that Israel’s drones had targeted radar installations associated with Iran’s Russian S-300 air defense missile system, which Israel considers a significant threat to its aircraft. This limited strike was viewed as a warning of Israel’s capacity to reach Iranian military infrastructure.

Why the Two Nations Are Enemies

Iran and Israel were once allies, but relations deteriorated after Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution. Since then, the Iranian regime has been vocal in its opposition to Israel’s existence, with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei calling Israel a “cancerous tumor” that should be “uprooted and destroyed.” Israel views this rhetoric as a threat to its security, as well as Iran’s funding and arming of militant groups opposed to Israel, such as Hezbollah and Hamas. The tension has only intensified over the years, leading to a covert “shadow war” where each side has attacked the other’s assets without acknowledging responsibility.

This underlying conflict gained further traction after October last year, when Hamas initiated an assault on Israeli communities, leading to further tensions in Gaza. Israel perceives Iran as its primary threat in the region, largely due to Tehran’s support for proxy forces like Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as Iran’s suspected ambition to develop nuclear capabilities.

Nuclear Ambitions and Military Power

Iran’s nuclear intentions have been a long-standing concern for Israel and Western nations. Though Iran denies any intent to develop nuclear weapons, Western officials remain wary, especially since Iran has significantly advanced its nuclear technology. In May, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) stated that Iran could be only weeks away from having enough enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon. However, experts point out that further steps would still be necessary for Iran to produce a usable nuclear bomb, including creating the necessary warhead.

Unlike Iran, Israel is believed to have a nuclear arsenal, though it follows a policy of ambiguity and has neither confirmed nor denied having such weapons. Furthermore, Israel has one of the world’s most advanced air forces, comprising a range of aircraft, including F-15s, F-16s, and the sophisticated F-35 stealth fighters. Israel’s military expertise extends to executing missions deep within hostile regions, and the country’s Defense Forces are prepared to navigate the challenging distances between Israel and Iran.

Iran, on the other hand, has focused on developing its missile and drone capabilities, with an extensive inventory of drones and rockets. These capabilities have also been extended to allied groups, including the Houthis in Yemen and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Iran’s air defenses have received upgrades, including Russian-made S-300 missile systems, and it has recently procured Su-35 fighter jets from Russia.

Despite its extensive conventional arsenal, Iran remains subject to monitoring under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which it signed, committing to restrict its nuclear capabilities for peaceful purposes. In 2015, a deal was reached under which Iran agreed to limitations on its nuclear activities in return for sanctions relief. However, the deal collapsed after the U.S. withdrew in 2018, and Iran subsequently resumed nuclear activities that Western nations see as a potential path toward weapons development.

Iran’s Network of Allies and Proxy Forces

Iran has established an extensive network of allies in the Middle East, which it calls the “axis of resistance.” This alliance includes Syria, where Iran and Russia have backed President Bashar al-Assad throughout the Syrian civil war. The Iran-Russia partnership has grown considerably, with both nations supporting each other through shared military and strategic resources. Iran has supplied Russia with Shahed drones, and recent reports suggest Iran may have also provided ballistic missiles, though Iran denies these allegations.

Among the various armed groups backed by Iran, Hezbollah in Lebanon remains the most formidable. Since conflict erupted between Israel and Hamas, Hezbollah has exchanged almost daily fire with Israeli forces along the Lebanon-Israel border, forcing many residents to flee. Iran’s support extends to several Shiite militias in Iraq, which have launched attacks on U.S. bases across the region. The U.S. has responded forcefully, especially following incidents where American soldiers were killed.

In Yemen, Iran has backed the Houthi movement, which controls significant portions of the country. The Houthis have also targeted Israeli assets, including commercial shipping, leading the U.S. and UK to strike Houthi targets. Additionally, Iran supports Palestinian factions, including Hamas, though it denies any direct role in the October 7 Hamas assault on Israel last year.

Continuing Conflict

As tensions between Israel and Iran reach new heights, the region remains on edge, with fears that this latest escalation may trigger broader hostilities. The interplay of alliances and military actions creates a precarious situation in the Middle East, where both sides remain firm in their respective ideologies and strategic goals. The continuing power struggle between these two adversaries underscores the enduring complexities of Middle Eastern geopolitics.

Hours after Israel confirmed the death of Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas chief responsible for orchestrating the October 7 attacks, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the people of Gaza with a pointed message. He emphasized that the war could be over swiftly if Hamas agreed to surrender and release the hostages they are holding. Netanyahu made these remarks following Sinwar’s death, which was announced by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).

In a video posted on social media platform X, Netanyahu declared, “Yahya Sinwar is dead. He was killed in Rafah by the brave soldiers of the Israeli defense forces. While this is not the end of the war in Gaza, it’s the beginning of the end.” He continued by addressing the people of Gaza, saying, “This war can end tomorrow. It can end if Hamas lays down its arms and returns our hostages.”

The IDF revealed that Sinwar had been killed alongside two other high-ranking Hamas militants in a targeted operation in Rafah. This development marks a significant blow to Hamas leadership, although Netanyahu was clear that the war itself is far from over.

Netanyahu disclosed that Hamas is currently holding 101 hostages in Gaza, including citizens from 23 different countries, as well as Israelis. “Hamas is holding 101 hostages in Gaza who are citizens of 23 countries, citizens of Israel, but citizens of many other countries. Israel is committed to doing everything in our power to bring all of them home. Israel will guarantee the safety of all those who return our hostages,” the Israeli leader stated.

In his address, Netanyahu issued a stern warning to Hamas and any others holding Israeli hostages, vowing that Israel will not stop until justice is served. “To those who would harm our hostages, I have another message—Israel will hunt you down and bring you to justice,” he warned, emphasizing the country’s commitment to protecting its citizens and those of other nations.

Netanyahu’s message also touched on broader regional dynamics, particularly the role of Iran in supporting groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. He noted the growing instability within this network of terror, stating, “The axis of terror that was built by Iran is collapsing before our eyes.” In addition to Sinwar’s death, Netanyahu mentioned the elimination of several key figures in Hezbollah, including its leader Hassan Nasrallah.

“Nasrallah is gone, his deputy Mohsen is gone, Haniyeh is gone, Deif is gone, Sinwar is gone. The reign of terror that the Iranian regime has imposed on its own people and on the peoples of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, too will come to an end,” he asserted. He reiterated that this ongoing dismantling of Iran’s influence will ultimately lead to peace and prosperity in the Middle East, adding, “All those who seek a future of prosperity and peace in the Middle East should unite to build a better future. Together, we can push back the forces of darkness and create a future of light and hope for all of us.”

The conflict in Gaza stems from a massive and brutal attack by Hamas on October 7, 2023. During the attack, around 2,500 Hamas militants infiltrated Israel from Gaza, resulting in the deaths of over 1,200 people, including citizens from more than 30 countries. Additionally, over 250 individuals were taken hostage by the militant group.

Israel’s response to the attack was swift and decisive. The IDF launched a large-scale counteroffensive aimed at eliminating Hamas entirely, a promise made by Israeli officials in the wake of the October 7 assault. The death of Sinwar, seen as one of Hamas’ top leaders and the mastermind behind the attack, is viewed as a major victory in Israel’s efforts to dismantle the group.

Despite these military achievements, the conflict has led to significant civilian casualties in Gaza, raising international concerns over the humanitarian situation in the region. Various global organizations, including the United Nations, have called for a ceasefire, urging Israel and Hamas to halt the fighting. The international community has also pressed for the immediate return of hostages and the provision of aid to the civilian population in Gaza, which has been severely impacted by the ongoing conflict.

As the war continues, the death toll and destruction in Gaza have prompted widespread debates about the conduct of both sides in the conflict. Many countries have expressed concern over Israel’s aggressive military tactics, which have resulted in the deaths of numerous civilians, while also condemning Hamas for its initial attack and the taking of hostages.

Netanyahu’s address, delivered in the context of Sinwar’s death, was both a statement of Israel’s military success and a message of hope for a possible resolution to the conflict. However, as he made clear, that resolution will only come if Hamas agrees to disarm and release the remaining hostages.

Israel has faced mounting pressure from the international community to ensure the safety of civilians in Gaza. Humanitarian organizations have repeatedly stressed the importance of protecting non-combatants and have urged both sides to allow for humanitarian corridors that would facilitate the delivery of essential supplies like food, water, and medical aid to the people of Gaza.

The elimination of Hamas leaders like Sinwar has strengthened Israel’s position, but the broader geopolitical landscape remains complex. Iran’s involvement in supporting militant groups in the region, including both Hamas and Hezbollah, continues to be a central issue in the conflict. Israel’s relationship with neighboring countries, particularly Lebanon and Syria, could also be affected by the ongoing hostilities.

For now, the future of Gaza and the broader Middle East remains uncertain. Israel’s military operations show no signs of slowing down, even as diplomatic efforts to broker a ceasefire continue. Netanyahu’s government remains steadfast in its objective to neutralize Hamas, while also navigating the delicate balance of responding to international criticism over the humanitarian impact of the conflict.

Netanyahu’s address to Gaza highlights the potential for an end to the fighting, but that outcome depends largely on whether Hamas is willing to negotiate. As of now, no such resolution appears imminent, and the war continues to exact a heavy toll on both sides.

A new report from the Indian Ministry of Home Affairs has identified the countries where many of India’s most notorious gangsters are hiding, with the United States and Canada at the top of the list. The document, obtained by Hindustan Times, lists 28 individuals, including those involved in the killing of famous Punjabi singer Sidhu Moosewala. Of these 28 criminals, five are believed to be in the United States, and nine are suspected to be hiding in Canada.

The gangster who tops the list is Satinderjit Singh, also known as Goldy Brar. Brar is accused of orchestrating the assassination of Sidhu Moosewala in collaboration with another gangster, Lawrence Bishnoi. According to the list, Brar is currently believed to be living in the United States.

Also on the list is Anmol Bishnoi, also known as Bhanu, who is charged with planning targeted killings of prominent individuals, including religious and social leaders, businesspeople, and entertainers. He is also thought to be hiding in the United States. Authorities believe Bishnoi has connections with pro-Khalistan groups and elements in Pakistan, as well as other countries.

In addition to these two high-profile criminals, the list includes other dangerous gangsters like Sachin Thapan, who is another suspect in the Sidhu Moosewala murder case. Two other men, Gurjant Singh, who is also known as Janta, and Romi Hong Kong, are similarly named. Another individual, Lucky Patyal, had his premises raided by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) last year. Patyal is linked to a broad range of criminal activities, including arms smuggling, narco-terrorism, targeted killings, extortion, and kidnapping.

Below is the complete list of the 28 gangsters and their suspected locations, as published by Hindustan Times.

Gangster and Suspected Locations:

1. Satinderjit Singh alias Goldy Brar – United States
2. Anmol Bishnoi – United States
3. Harjot Singh Gill – United States
4. Darmanjit Singh alias Darman Kahlon – United States
5. Amrit Bal – United States
6. Sukhdoot Singh alias Sukha Duneke – Canada
7. Gurpinder Singh alias Baba Dalla – Canada
8. Satveer Singh Warring alias Sam – Canada
9. Snover Dhillon – Canada
10. Lakhbir Singh alias Landa – Canada
11. Arshdeep Singh alias Arsh Dala – Canada
12. Charnjeet Singh alias Rinku Bihla – Canada
13. Ramandeep Singh alias Raman Judge – Canada
14. Gagandeep Singh alias Gagna Hathur – Canada
15. Vikramjeet Singh Brar alias Vikki – United Arab Emirates
16. Kuldeep Singh alias Deep Nawansharia – United Arab Emirates
17. Rohit Godara – Europe
18. Gaurav Patyal alias Lucky Patyal – Armenia
19. Sachin Thapan alias Sachin Bishnoi – Azerbaijan
20. Jagjeet Singh alias Gandhi – Malaysia
21. Jackpal Singh alias Lali Dhaliwal – Malaysia
22. Harwinder Singh alias Rinda – Pakistan
23. Rajesh Kumar alias Sonu Khatri – Brazil
24. Sandeep Grewal alias Billa alias Sunny Khawajke – Indonesia
25. Manpreet Singh alias Peeta – Philippines
26. Supreet Singh alias Harry Chatha – Germany
27. Gurjant Singh alias Janta – Australia
28. Ramajit Singh alias Romi Hong Kong – Hong Kong

The release of this list comes a day after Indian Foreign Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar criticized western countries for not providing adequate protection to Indian diplomatic missions abroad. In a strong statement, Jaishankar referred to an incident where the Indian flag was pulled down by Khalistani extremists at the Indian High Commission in London. He made it clear that India would not tolerate such acts of disrespect towards its symbols of sovereignty.

“We’ve seen incidents in London, Canada, San Francisco. There’s a very small minority behind that, but there are many interests involved… If they don’t provide security, then there will be a reaction from India. This is not an India that will accept its national flag being pulled down,” Jaishankar asserted.

The minister’s remarks reflect India’s growing impatience with some foreign governments that have failed to ensure the safety of Indian diplomats and facilities in their countries. His statements also come at a time when tensions are high due to actions by separatist groups, including pro-Khalistan extremists, who have been causing disturbances in several western cities.

In response to these rising concerns, Indian authorities are ramping up their international efforts to bring these criminals back to face justice. The publication of this list serves as part of the government’s broader strategy to seek cooperation from foreign governments in apprehending these fugitives and ensuring they are held accountable for their crimes.

The 28 individuals named in the list have been involved in a wide range of criminal activities, from murder and extortion to narcotics trafficking and arms smuggling. Many of them are connected to organized crime networks that operate across national borders, making it difficult for Indian authorities to track them down and bring them back for prosecution.

The case of Goldy Brar and Lawrence Bishnoi, in particular, has attracted a significant amount of attention, especially following the killing of Sidhu Moosewala, a beloved singer and cultural icon. The Indian government’s decision to release this list is seen as a crucial step toward tightening the net around these fugitives, with the hope that international cooperation will help bring them to justice.

However, the process of extradition is often complicated, particularly in cases involving individuals who have sought refuge in countries with different legal systems and varying attitudes toward extradition. Canada and the United States, for instance, have extradition treaties with India, but the actual process of extraditing individuals can be time-consuming, with legal challenges and diplomatic negotiations often delaying the process.

In recent years, India has made significant efforts to enhance its international cooperation in criminal matters, working closely with INTERPOL and other law enforcement agencies around the world. The release of this list is a continuation of these efforts, signaling India’s determination to bring back its most wanted criminals from abroad.

As India continues to press for the return of these fugitives, it remains to be seen how foreign governments will respond to these requests and whether the diplomatic pressure exerted by India will yield the desired results. In the meantime, the families of victims like Sidhu Moosewala are left waiting for justice to be served, hoping that those responsible for his death and other violent crimes will eventually face trial in India.

The Indian government’s push to locate these criminals abroad is part of a larger effort to combat organized crime and protect Indian citizens from the growing threat posed by these international gangs. Whether or not the release of this list will lead to the capture of these individuals remains to be seen, but it certainly sends a strong message that India is committed to cracking down on gangsters, no matter where they may be hiding.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has accused India of making a “massive mistake” if it is found responsible for the assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Sikh separatist leader, on Canadian soil last year. Trudeau’s statement, made during an inquiry into foreign interference in Canada, followed accusations by Canadian officials that India had been involved in criminal activities such as extortion and murder targeting Indian dissidents within the country.

The escalating tensions have led to both Canada and India expelling each other’s top diplomats, worsening already strained relations. India has flatly denied these accusations, calling them “preposterous” and accusing Trudeau of catering to Canada’s substantial Sikh population for political advantage. On Wednesday, Indian officials responded forcefully, condemning Trudeau’s accusations.

Randhir Jaiswal, a spokesperson for India’s foreign ministry, issued a strong rebuke, stating, “Canada has presented us no evidence whatsoever in support of the serious allegations that it has chosen to level against India and Indian diplomats. The responsibility for the damage caused to India-Canada relations lies with Prime Minister Trudeau alone.” India’s rejection of the allegations underscores the country’s insistence that Trudeau’s accusations are baseless.

Trudeau’s comments came in response to India’s handling of the investigation into the murder of Nijjar, a proponent of the Khalistan movement, which advocates for a separate Sikh state. Nijjar was shot in June 2023 in Surrey, British Columbia. While Trudeau revealed that Canadian intelligence indicated Indian involvement, he noted that the information did not initially amount to hard evidence or proof. Four Indian nationals have since been charged in connection with Nijjar’s murder.

Reflecting on how Canada approached the situation, Trudeau stated that his government sought to manage the sensitive matter without causing further strain on relations with India, a significant trade partner. However, he claimed that Indian authorities rebuffed Canada’s requests for assistance in the probe, choosing instead to question Canada’s motives and criticize the country’s democratic processes. “It was clear that the Indian government’s approach was to criticise us and the integrity of our democracy,” Trudeau said.

In September, Trudeau made public the “credible allegations” linking Indian government agents to Nijjar’s murder, marking a significant turning point in Canada-India relations. The situation has since drawn global attention as diplomatic fallout between the two countries continues to escalate.

This diplomatic crisis was compounded earlier in the week when the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) publicly released details about multiple ongoing investigations into threats to pro-Khalistan figures in Canada. According to the RCMP, there were over a dozen credible and imminent threats to the lives of those associated with the Khalistan movement, prompting the rare disclosure. These investigations, according to the RCMP, revealed criminal activity allegedly orchestrated by Indian government agents. Trudeau echoed these findings, explaining that the force’s decision to go public was an effort to “disrupt the chain of activities that was resulting in drive-by shootings, home invasions, violent extortion and even murder” in Canada’s South Asian community.

Despite the serious allegations, India has maintained its innocence, firmly denying all claims and asserting that Canada has not provided any evidence to substantiate its accusations. In an effort to resolve the growing tensions, RCMP officials and national security advisors traveled to Singapore last weekend to meet with Indian officials. However, these talks were unsuccessful, with the RCMP stating that the meeting yielded no productive outcomes.

The diplomatic fallout has prompted reactions from Canada’s close allies. Both the UK and the US have called on India to cooperate with Canada’s legal process to resolve the matter. The British Foreign Office released a statement saying it is closely following the developments and has full confidence in Canada’s legal and judicial systems. “The Government of India’s co-operation with Canada’s legal process is the right next step,” the statement read. Similarly, the US has expressed concerns about India’s lack of cooperation. Matthew Miller, a spokesperson for the US State Department, noted at a press briefing on Tuesday, “We have made clear that the allegations are extremely serious and they need to be taken seriously, and we want to see the government of India co-operate with Canada in its investigation. Obviously, they have not chosen that path.”

In contrast, India has shown no indication that it intends to cooperate with Canada’s legal proceedings. Officials in Delhi have maintained their stance that the accusations are politically motivated and part of Trudeau’s efforts to appeal to Canada’s large Sikh population, especially as the country heads toward future elections.

Meanwhile, Canada’s Foreign Minister, Melanie Joly, has confirmed that Ottawa remains in close communication with the Five Eyes intelligence alliance, which includes the US, UK, Australia, and New Zealand, regarding the situation. The alliance has been engaged in discussions about the allegations, although the diplomatic and legal fallout is likely to be long-term and complex.

The escalating tensions between Canada and India represent a significant breakdown in relations between two nations that had previously enjoyed relatively stable ties. Both countries share a rich history of economic and cultural exchanges, with a significant Indian diaspora residing in Canada. However, the events surrounding Nijjar’s assassination and the subsequent accusations have thrown these relations into disarray. Trade agreements, partnerships, and diplomatic engagements have been severely affected, with experts predicting that the diplomatic fallout will likely have a lasting impact.

The Canadian government, under Trudeau’s leadership, has taken a strong stance against what it sees as a violation of its sovereignty and the international rule of law. The allegations against India have drawn widespread international attention, with Canada’s allies urging cooperation and transparency. However, India’s firm denial and refusal to engage with Canada’s legal process have only deepened the rift between the two nations, creating a diplomatic impasse that may take years to resolve. The situation has also cast a spotlight on broader issues of foreign interference and the risks faced by dissident communities abroad, particularly those advocating for political movements such as the Khalistan cause. As this diplomatic crisis continues to unfold, the future of Canada-India relations remains uncertain, with the potential for further repercussions on the global stage.

On Saturday, the Israeli military’s Arabic spokesman posted a message on social media warning residents in the ‘D5’ area of northern Gaza to evacuate. D5 is part of a grid created by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), dividing Gaza into sections. This particular area consists of numerous smaller subdivisions. The message, one in a series, declared, “The IDF is operating with great force against the terrorist organisations and will continue to do so for a long time. The designated area, including the shelters located there, is considered a dangerous combat zone. The area must be evacuated immediately via Salah al-Din Road to the humanitarian area.”

A map accompanied the message, showing a yellow arrow directing people from block D5 southward through Salah al-Din Road, the main north-south route in Gaza. However, the message did not provide any indication of when or if displaced residents could return to their homes, which have been repeatedly bombed over the past year. The underlying message seemed to be that military operations would persist, with the IDF planning to use “great force… for a long time,” suggesting that residents should not expect to return anytime soon.

The designated humanitarian zone in the message refers to al-Mawasi, an area near Rafah that was once an agricultural region. Today, it is densely populated and, despite its designation, not necessarily safer than other parts of Gaza. The BBC has tracked at least 18 airstrikes on al-Mawasi, indicating that it remains under threat.

Hamas has also been sending its own messages to the roughly 400,000 residents still in northern Gaza. Before the conflict escalated, the area was a thriving urban hub with a population of 1.4 million. Hamas has instructed residents not to evacuate, arguing that the south is equally dangerous and warning that they might not be permitted to return to the north.

Despite the risks, many residents have chosen to remain in northern Gaza, undeterred by ongoing Israeli airstrikes and artillery fire. Some stay to care for vulnerable relatives, while others have familial ties to Hamas. It’s important to note that under the laws of war, being related to Hamas members does not automatically classify someone as a combatant.

In an effort to escape the violence without moving to the overcrowded and dangerous south, some civilians have tried relocating within northern Gaza, for instance, from Beit Hanoun to Gaza City. These movements tend to occur when IDF forces are near their homes, and once the army moves on, they return. However, according to BBC journalists in contact with Palestinians in Gaza, the IDF is attempting to prevent this tactic, instead directing people exclusively down Salah al-Din Road towards the south.

Journalists are largely prohibited from entering Gaza, except for brief, supervised visits coordinated by the IDF. Nonetheless, Palestinian reporters who were already in Gaza when the conflict reignited on 7 October continue their work under perilous conditions. The Committee to Protect Journalists has reported that at least 128 Palestinian media workers have been killed since the war began. Despite the danger, they continue documenting the war, capturing scenes of families, often with small children, fleeing in panic.

One reporter shared a brief interview with Manar al-Bayar, a woman fleeing Jabalia refugee camp with her toddler. “They told us we had five minutes to leave the Fallujah school. Where do we go? In southern Gaza, there are assassinations. In western Gaza, they’re shelling people. Where do we go, oh God? God is our only chance,” she said while rushing down the street.

The journey southward is perilous. According to Palestinian accounts, some civilians have been fired upon by the IDF while trying to evacuate. The IDF claims that its soldiers follow strict engagement rules, which adhere to international humanitarian law. However, Liz Allcock, head of protection for Medical Aid for Palestinians, argued that evidence from wounded civilians suggests otherwise. “When we’re receiving patients in hospitals, a large number of those women and children and people of, if you like, non-combatant age are receiving direct shots to the head, to the spine, to the limbs, very indicative of the direct targeted attack,” she said.

As the fighting escalates, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza worsens. According to reports from hospitals in northern Gaza, facilities are running dangerously low on fuel to power generators that sustain medical equipment and keep critically wounded patients alive. Some hospitals have also reported that they have been directly targeted in Israeli attacks.

There is growing suspicion among Palestinians, the United Nations, and aid organizations that the IDF is partially or fully implementing a strategy known as the “Generals’ Plan,” which was formulated by a group of retired Israeli officers, including Maj-Gen (ret) Giora Eiland. This plan aims to put increasing pressure on the population of northern Gaza in an effort to force Hamas, particularly its leader Yahya Sinwar, into surrendering.

The Generals’ Plan calls for civilians to be evacuated southward through corridors to areas beyond Wadi Gaza, a stream that has become a dividing line since Israel’s invasion in October. Eiland believes that after a year of war, Israel has not met its goals of dismantling Hamas and freeing hostages, and this new tactic could break the deadlock.

In Eiland’s view, Israel should have immediately sought a deal to secure the release of hostages, even if it meant withdrawing from Gaza. Now, he argues, stronger measures are needed. In an interview, he outlined the plan’s core components: “Since we already encircled the northern part of Gaza in the past nine or 10 months, what we should do is… tell all the 300,000 residents [the UN estimates 400,000]… that they have to leave this area… And after that time, all this area will become to be a military zone… all the Hamas people… whether some of them are fighters, some of them are civilians… will have two choices, either to surrender or to starve.”

Eiland’s plan would see the IDF sealing off areas after the evacuation period, treating anyone who remained behind as an enemy combatant and cutting off supplies of food and water. He believes such pressure would eventually cause Hamas to collapse, freeing hostages and allowing Israel to declare victory.

The United Nations’ World Food Programme has already warned that the ongoing offensive is having a “disastrous impact on food security” in Gaza. With major crossing points closed, no food aid has entered northern Gaza since 1 October. Bakeries and mobile kitchens have shut down due to airstrikes, and the only bakery supported by WFP in the north was set ablaze after being hit by an explosive. The situation in the south is similarly dire.

While it’s uncertain if the IDF has officially adopted the Generals’ Plan, many aspects of the current strategy align with its principles. When questioned by the BBC, the IDF declined to comment on the specifics of their tactics.

In Israeli political circles, there are voices, particularly among ultra-nationalist members of Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet, who support permanently settling Jewish communities in northern Gaza. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has been vocal, saying, “Our heroic fighters and soldiers are destroying the evil of Hamas, and we will occupy the Gaza Strip… to tell the truth, where there is no settlement, there is no security.”

Up to 600 people were killed in an August attack on Barsalogho, a town in Burkina Faso, by al Qaeda-linked militants, according to a French government security report. This new assessment nearly doubles previous estimates, making the attack one of the deadliest in Africa in recent years. The victims, mostly civilians, were shot as they dug trenches for defense, a strategy ordered by the military. The attackers, affiliated with Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM), an al Qaeda affiliate based in Mali, executed the assault with precision, leaving a trail of devastation.

The French assessment, shared with CNN, significantly increases the initial death toll of the massacre. The attack occurred on August 24 when JNIM militants rode motorcycles into Barsalogho and methodically shot villagers, including women and children, who were defenseless in trenches. Videos of the massacre, posted on pro-JNIM social media accounts, show victims being shot while trying to play dead, accompanied by the relentless sound of gunfire and agonized screams.

If confirmed, this new death toll would signify an exceptionally brutal incident in the Sahel region, a large area south of the Sahara that has become increasingly lawless. Security efforts, spearheaded by the U.S. and French militaries, have largely failed to curb the spread of jihadist groups. Political instability has only made the situation worse. A series of coups in Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger led to the expulsion of French and American forces. As the French report notes, Russian mercenaries brought in by the new regimes have not been able to fill the security gap. Instead, jihadist groups like JNIM have expanded their influence.

Initially, the United Nations estimated that at least 200 people had died in the attack. JNIM itself claimed responsibility for killing nearly 300 individuals, though it justified the massacre by labeling the victims as militia members connected to the army, rather than civilians. According to the French report, however, the government in Burkina Faso is struggling to maintain control in the face of escalating violence. “Large-scale deadly attacks (at least a hundred deaths) against civilian populations or defense and security forces have been occurring for several weeks at a rate that seems unsustainable for the government,” the report stated. The government, it added, no longer has a clear military strategy and seems to be running out of ideas.

A French official speaking to CNN confirmed that Burkina Faso’s security forces are overwhelmed, allowing jihadist groups greater freedom of movement and control. This same report highlighted another attack on a military convoy in Tawori, just two weeks before the Barsalogho massacre, where at least 150 soldiers were killed by jihadists. The report paints a grim picture of Burkina Faso’s security apparatus, which is struggling to maintain both its effectiveness and credibility.

Just a few weeks after the Barsalogho incident, on September 17, JNIM launched another attack in Bamako, the capital of neighboring Mali. The attack targeted several key locations, including the airport, and claimed over 70 lives.

The attack in Barsalogho happened while locals were digging defensive trenches under orders from the military. The trench network was meant to protect the town from nearby jihadist forces. However, when JNIM militants arrived, they claimed that those digging the trenches were combatants, despite the fact that they were civilians. Survivors recounted the horror of the day. One man, who wished to remain anonymous, told CNN he had been digging a trench about 4 kilometers from the town when he heard gunfire at around 11 a.m. “I started to crawl into the trench to escape,” he said. However, he quickly realized that the attackers were following the trench line. “So, I crawled out and came across the first bloodied victim. There was blood everywhere. I heard screaming all around me.”

He hid under a bush until the late afternoon. When he finally returned to the town, he saw the aftermath of the massacre. “There were few remaining men afterwards in the town. Seeing the bodies arrive on motorized carts from the massacre site was the most horrible thing I’d ever seen in my life. Neither women nor children had tears to shed. We were more than shocked. How can you cry if there are no tears to shed?”

The survivor explained that he and others helped to bury the dead. The trauma of the massacre has stayed with him. “We the survivors are no longer normal,” he said. “The problem is beyond us all. The massacre started in front of me. The very first shots were fired right in front of me. I was one of the people who picked up the bodies and buried them. I see my late friends when I’m asleep.” He also stated that the initial reports of 300 dead were too low. “Anyone who denies it, should come and see me,” he added.

Another survivor told CNN that she lost two family members in the attack. “They killed people all day long. For three days we were collecting bodies—scattered everywhere. Fear got into our hearts. At the burial time, there are so many bodies lying on the ground that burying was hard.”

The attack has sparked outrage, with protests erupting against Burkina Faso’s junta leader, Captain Ibrahim Traore. Traore, who came to power in 2022 after two successive military coups, has been criticized for endorsing the use of civilians to dig trenches without providing adequate protection. Some protesters have mockingly referred to Traore as “IB Captain Zero.” The trench-building initiative was part of a plan by the Minister of Civil Service, in which each settlement was expected to create its own defense system against attacks.

The government has not acknowledged any responsibility for ordering civilians to dig trenches in the face of a jihadist threat, nor has it responded to CNN’s requests for comment. The French report indicates that the regime is attempting to suppress survivors from speaking out about the massacre.

Burkina Faso’s military junta came to power amid widespread dissatisfaction over the government’s failure to contain jihadist violence, which had been intensifying despite years of French military support. However, under Traore’s leadership, the violence has only worsened. While France initially helped by launching military operations, anti-French sentiment grew over time. By 2014, France’s efforts had expanded, but they were still insufficient to stop the growing jihadist threat.

Since the massacre, Traore has made only one public appearance. The French assessment questions whether he is mentally fit to remain in office. “We see there all the powerlessness of the authorities to provide a serious and credible response to the terrorist threat,” the report states.

Meanwhile, Russian mercenaries, who were deployed to Burkina Faso nearly a year ago, have failed to bring stability. According to the French report, many of these mercenaries are being reassigned to Russia to assist in the war against Ukraine. There is also speculation that less capable Russian forces may replace them in Burkina Faso.

As the violence spreads, survivors of the Barsalogho attack accuse the army of abandoning them during the assault. The French report notes that the Burkina Faso military has also been embroiled in a scandal involving alleged acts of cannibalism by its soldiers. Videos circulated online seem to show soldiers from the Rapid Intervention Battalion 15 eating parts of dead jihadists. The army has condemned the actions but is struggling with internal discipline issues.

The violence in Burkina Faso has also begun to spill over into its southern neighbor, Togo, where jihadists recently launched an attack on a Togolese army camp, killing at least 12 soldiers. The French report warns that this could be the beginning of a new jihadist insurgency in Togo.

India has quietly played an instrumental role in supporting the UK’s decision to return sovereignty over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, a move seen as a step toward erasing the last remnants of colonization. Sources revealed that India consistently backed the call to eliminate the vestiges of colonial rule.

New Delhi’s contributions were recognized in the joint statement issued by the UK and Mauritius, which officially acknowledged the role played by India and the United States in reaching the political agreement. The statement read, “In reaching today’s political agreement, we have enjoyed the full support and assistance of our close partners, the United States of America and the Republic of India.”

According to informed sources, India persistently encouraged both the UK and Mauritius to engage in negotiations with an open mind, aiming for a solution that would be beneficial to both sides. They added, “The final outcome is a win for all sides involved and will reinforce long-term security in the Indian Ocean region.” This perspective suggests that the resolution of the Chagos Islands issue is not only significant for Mauritius but also for the broader security and strategic stability in the region.

India’s long-standing support for Mauritius’ claim to the Chagos Islands was reaffirmed when New Delhi officially welcomed the agreement. In a statement, India emphasized its consistent backing for Mauritius in line with its principles on decolonization and its commitment to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nations. India’s statement read, “India has consistently supported Mauritius’s claim for sovereignty over Chagos, in line with its principled stand on decolonization and support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of nations, as well as its longstanding and close partnership with Mauritius.”

The UK’s decision to return the Chagos Islands has been a long time coming, and the country has faced growing international pressure over the years. In 2019, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that the UK’s continued control of the Chagos Islands was illegal. The ICJ ruling dealt a significant blow to Britain’s position, further escalating the pressure on the UK to act. Shortly after the ICJ ruling, the United Nations General Assembly overwhelmingly supported a resolution calling on the UK to relinquish control of the islands.

Despite this, the UK had resisted, citing the importance of the Diego Garcia military base located on one of the Chagos Islands. The base has been a vital strategic asset, particularly for the United States, in conducting military operations throughout the Indian Ocean and Gulf regions. The geopolitical significance of the base had made the UK reluctant to cede control over the islands, fearing it could weaken the strategic presence of both the UK and its allies, particularly the U.S., in the region.

Nevertheless, after years of negotiations, the UK has now agreed to transfer sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. This political agreement comes after two years of talks between the two nations. Both countries have emphasized that the discussions were held respectfully, with both sides acting as equal sovereign states. While the agreement represents significant progress, it is still subject to the finalization of a treaty and related legal documents. The UK and Mauritius have expressed their commitment to completing these steps as quickly as possible.

India’s involvement in this matter reflects its growing focus on the strategic significance of the Indian Ocean region, particularly in response to China’s expanding influence. Over the past decade, New Delhi has increased its efforts to strengthen its maritime strategy in the Indian Ocean, and its relationship with Mauritius has been a key part of this strategy. Mauritius occupies a critical position in the southwestern Indian Ocean, acting as a gateway to the Atlantic Ocean, making it an essential partner in India’s efforts to secure its maritime interests.

India’s focus on the Indian Ocean is not limited to its relationship with Mauritius. The country has also been actively cultivating ties with other nations strategically located in the region. India has been working to strengthen its relationships with countries around the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Malacca, and southern Africa. These areas are crucial chokepoints in international trade routes, and India’s growing presence there allows it to counterbalance China’s increasing influence in the region.

In addition to Mauritius, India has expanded its outreach efforts to countries such as Madagascar, Mozambique, and Seychelles. By enhancing ties with these nations, India is positioning itself as a major player in the Indian Ocean region and securing its interests amid the evolving geopolitical landscape.

India’s maritime strategy and its quiet diplomacy in the case of the Chagos Islands highlight New Delhi’s broader approach to foreign policy. Rather than taking overt or aggressive stances, India often operates behind the scenes, using diplomacy and strategic partnerships to achieve its goals. Its involvement in the Chagos Islands issue demonstrates its ability to influence international matters in a way that aligns with its long-term strategic interests, particularly in the Indian Ocean.

The political agreement between the UK and Mauritius is a significant development in the region, and India’s role in encouraging dialogue and resolution will likely enhance its standing as a key player in Indian Ocean security. With its growing ties to nations throughout the region and its focus on maritime security, India is positioning itself to play a pivotal role in shaping the future of the Indian Ocean and ensuring stability and security in the area.

India’s involvement in the resolution of the Chagos Islands dispute is a clear example of its quiet but significant role in global diplomacy. Through consistent support for Mauritius’ sovereignty and a focus on strategic outcomes, India has helped to bring about a solution that benefits not only Mauritius but also enhances security in the Indian Ocean. This agreement marks a significant step forward in addressing the remnants of colonization and reinforces India’s influence in the region. As New Delhi continues to cultivate relationships with key nations in the Indian Ocean, its role as a major maritime power is becoming increasingly apparent.

Despite economic challenges such as Brexit, the coronavirus pandemic, and ongoing trade disputes, the global economy is projected to experience significant growth over the next ten years. While these obstacles may create temporary headwinds, experts believe the world will still see steady economic progress. According to projections by the United Nations, the global population will reach 8.5 billion by 2030. Concurrently, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) predicts that the global economy will grow at a rate of 3.2% in 2024 and 3.3% in 2025.

Global defence spending has also seen a considerable rise. According to data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), global military expenditure increased by 6.8% in real terms, reaching $2,443 billion compared to the previous year. This uptick in defence spending occurred across major regions, including the Americas, Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and Africa.

As a result, the distribution of global power is expected to shift from a unipolar system dominated by the United States to a multipolar framework. In this new world order, power will be spread among multiple states, corporations, and non-state actors. This shift will be driven by emerging economies, technological advancements, and evolving geopolitical dynamics. Several key factors will determine which countries emerge as the new global superpowers, including economic growth, military strength, technological innovation, and political influence.

In his “Great Powers Index 2024,” renowned investor Ray Dalio outlined the countries most likely to dominate the global stage in the coming decade. His analysis is based on various metrics, including economic output, military power, trade capabilities, and per capita strength. Dalio’s report highlights that while the United States remains the world’s dominant superpower, other nations like China and India are positioning themselves as major players in global affairs.

Top 10 Countries Expected to Emerge as Global Superpowers

The United States and China are recognized as the two most powerful nations in the world, with the U.S. likely to maintain its position as the leading superpower over the next decade. The United States continues to exert dominance in global financial markets and technological innovation. The U.S. dollar is involved in 85% to 90% of all foreign currency exchange trades, makes up 59% of the world’s foreign exchange reserves, and represents 61% of global stock market capitalization.

China, which ranks second on the list, is rapidly increasing its military strength, boasting the largest naval fleet in the world. It is also a major trading partner for many countries, contributing to its rise as a global superpower. However, China faces significant challenges, including high levels of debt and external conflict risks, which may hinder its progress.

According to Dalio’s index, the top ten countries poised to become global superpowers over the next ten years are:

1. United States – With a total strength score of 0.89 and a per capita strength score of 0.71, the U.S. leads in terms of economic size, military power, and influence in global markets.
2. China – With a total strength of 0.80 and a per capita strength of 0.30, China’s growing military and economic influence put it in second place, though it faces internal and external challenges.
3. Eurozone – The Eurozone countries collectively rank third, with a total strength score of 0.56 and a per capita strength score of 0.43, driven by their economic size and integrated trade.
4. Germany – Germany ranks fourth with a total strength of 0.38 and a per capita strength of 0.54, benefiting from its strong industrial base and influence within the European Union.
5. Japan– Japan secures the fifth spot with a total strength score of 0.33 and a per capita strength of 0.40, supported by its technological innovation and economic stability.
6. South Korea – South Korea ranks sixth with a total strength of 0.32 and a per capita strength of 0.54, leveraging its advancements in technology and manufacturing.
7. India – India ranks seventh with a total strength of 0.30 and a per capita strength of 0.07, reflecting its growing economic output and potential for future growth.
8. United Kingdom– The U.K. ranks eighth with a total strength score of 0.29 and a per capita strength of 0.46, benefiting from its financial markets and military power.
9. France – France ranks ninth with a total strength of 0.27 and a per capita strength of 0.45, supported by its military capabilities and economic influence in Europe.
10. Russia – Russia rounds out the top ten with a total strength of 0.26 and a per capita strength of 0.28, despite facing significant economic challenges and political isolation.

India’s Path to Becoming a Superpower

India, ranked seventh on Dalio’s list, is expected to experience rapid economic growth over the next decade. The country is forecasted to achieve the fastest real GDP growth globally, positioning it as a key player in the future global order. India is in a highly advantageous phase in both its economic and financial cycles, with a relatively low debt burden and strong projected growth.

According to the report, India is set to grow at an average rate of 6.3% annually over the next ten years. This growth will be driven by several factors, including a modest expansion of the workforce, competitive labor costs, high rates of investment, and a favorable cultural environment that encourages economic development. As the country continues to grow, its influence on the global stage is expected to rise significantly.

S&P Global Market Intelligence predicts that India’s nominal GDP will nearly double, reaching over $7 trillion by the fiscal year 2030-31, up from $3.6 trillion in the fiscal year 2023-24. This growth would make India the third-largest economy in the world, increasing its share of global GDP from 3.6% to 4.5%. Additionally, India’s per capita income is projected to rise to the level of upper-middle-income countries, further enhancing its global standing.

In conclusion, the global power dynamic is undergoing a significant shift, with emerging economies like China and India set to challenge the traditional dominance of the United States. While the U.S. is likely to remain the leading global superpower for the next decade, other nations are rapidly gaining strength and influence, leading to a more multipolar world order. Economic growth, military capabilities, technological advancements, and political power will determine the future superpowers in this evolving global landscape.

The Israeli military launched a significant airstrike on Hezbollah’s headquarters in Beirut on Friday, triggering a series of powerful explosions that destroyed multiple high-rise buildings in the southern suburbs of the Lebanese capital. This marked the largest attack on the city in over a year, and its repercussions are expected to push the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hezbollah closer to a full-scale war.

According to Lebanon’s Health Ministry, the attack resulted in the deaths of at least six people and injured 91 others. Rescue operations continued, and the number of casualties is expected to increase as emergency workers search through the rubble of six demolished apartment buildings.

Sources familiar with the situation, including a U.S. official, revealed that the target of the strike was Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah. However, it remains unclear whether Nasrallah was present at the site during the bombing. The Israeli military did not confirm who was being targeted, and Hezbollah has refrained from commenting on the reports.

After the blasts, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cut short his visit to the United States and immediately returned to Israel. He had earlier addressed the United Nations, where he vowed to intensify Israel’s military campaign against Hezbollah. The prime minister’s speech signaled a bleak outlook for the possibility of an internationally mediated ceasefire.

News of the strikes broke while Netanyahu was briefing reporters following his U.N. address. His briefing was abruptly ended when a military aide informed him of the situation. Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari, a spokesperson for the Israeli army, stated that the strikes targeted Hezbollah’s central headquarters, which, according to Hagari, was concealed underground beneath residential buildings.

The devastating explosions flattened several apartment towers in Haret Hreik, a densely populated Shiite district in the Dahiyeh suburbs of Beirut. The blasts sent plumes of black and orange smoke into the air, shaking buildings as far as 30 kilometers north of the capital. Footage from the scene showed rescue workers navigating through massive slabs of concrete and debris, with craters visible, one large enough to hold a toppled vehicle. As the chaos unfolded, numerous residents were seen fleeing the area, carrying whatever belongings they could salvage.

Though the Israeli military did not specify the type or number of bombs used, the sheer destruction led some experts to speculate that the attack involved 2,000-pound “Bunker Buster” bombs. Richard Weir, a crisis and weapons researcher with Human Rights Watch, noted that the explosions were consistent with this type of bomb, which is designed to penetrate deep into underground targets.

Following the initial strike, Israel launched a second round of attacks early Saturday morning, also targeting the southern suburbs of Beirut. The Israeli army issued warnings to residents of three buildings, urging them to evacuate before the bombs hit. Israel claimed these buildings were being used by Hezbollah to store weapons, including anti-ship missiles. Additional strikes were carried out in the Beqaa region of eastern Lebanon and the southern city of Tyre.

Over the past week, Israel has significantly ramped up its military campaign against Hezbollah, aiming to neutralize the group’s senior leadership. However, an attempt on Nasrallah’s life, successful or otherwise, would represent a major escalation in the conflict. The U.S. Department of Defense stated that it had no prior knowledge of the attack targeting Nasrallah.

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah has been in hiding for years, rarely making public appearances. His speeches are typically delivered via video from undisclosed locations. Although the site targeted on Friday evening was located in Hezbollah’s so-called “security quarters” in Haret Hreik, it had not been publicly identified as the group’s main headquarters.

Hours after the strikes, Hezbollah refrained from issuing any statements regarding the attack but instead claimed responsibility for launching rockets at the Israeli city of Safed. In a statement, Hezbollah declared that the rocket attacks were in “defense of Lebanon and its people” and as retaliation for Israel’s bombing of civilian areas. Israel confirmed that a house and a car in Safed were damaged by the rockets, with one 68-year-old woman suffering minor shrapnel injuries.

Israel’s recent military operations have taken a significant toll on Lebanon. The conflict has claimed the lives of more than 720 people, many of them civilians, including women and children, according to Lebanon’s Health Ministry. In a particularly tragic incident, an Israeli airstrike on Friday morning in the border town of Chebaa killed nine members of a single family.

The United Nations reports that the fighting has displaced over 211,000 people within Lebanon, with 85,000 taking refuge in public schools and other makeshift shelters. The airstrikes have forced the closure of 20 primary health care centers and disrupted clean water access for nearly 300,000 people.

As Israeli forces move closer to Lebanon’s southern border, a ground invasion remains a possibility. Thousands of Israeli troops have been stationed near the border in preparation for potential ground operations aimed at pushing Hezbollah forces further away from Israeli territory. At the United Nations, Netanyahu reiterated Israel’s determination to “degrade Hezbollah” until its objectives are met, dampening any hope for a ceasefire.

The proposed U.S.-backed ceasefire, which sought to create a 21-day pause in hostilities to allow diplomatic negotiations, now seems increasingly unlikely. Hezbollah has not formally responded to the truce proposal, and Israeli officials appear committed to their military campaign. An Israeli security official, speaking on condition of anonymity, noted that the campaign against Hezbollah might not last as long as the ongoing war in Gaza, since the military’s goals in Lebanon are more limited. “The goal here is to push Hezbollah away from the border. It’s not as high a bar as Gaza,” the official said.

Hezbollah’s involvement in the current conflict began shortly after the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel, which triggered an almost immediate exchange of fire between Hezbollah and the Israeli military. Since then, the two sides have traded rocket attacks on a near-daily basis, forcing tens of thousands of residents on both sides of the border to evacuate their homes.

Despite the intensified airstrikes, Hezbollah remains defiant. In Tyre, Lebanese civil defense workers recovered the bodies of two women from the wreckage of a building brought down by Israeli bombs. The victims were identified as 35-year-old Hiba Ataya and her mother, Sabah Olyan. “That’s Sabah, these are her clothes, my love,” a man cried out as the bodies were pulled from the rubble.

While Israel claims to have inflicted significant damage on Hezbollah’s military capabilities, the extent of the group’s remaining arsenal is unclear. Hezbollah is known to possess a vast stockpile of rockets and missiles, and their exact capabilities are difficult to assess.

In a show of defiance, Hezbollah supporters held a large funeral for three of the group’s members killed in earlier Israeli strikes, including the head of Hezbollah’s drone unit, Mohammed Surour. Thousands of mourners gathered in Beirut’s suburbs, chanting, “We will never accept humiliation,” as they marched behind the coffins. Addressing the crowd, Hussein Fadlallah, Hezbollah’s top official in Beirut, declared that the group would continue to fight until Israel ended its operations in Gaza. “We will not abandon the support of Palestine, Jerusalem, and oppressed Gaza,” Fadlallah said. “There is no place for neutrality in this battle.”

On September 22, 2024, world leaders agreed on a historic Pact for the Future that encompasses a Global Digital Compact and a Declaration on Future Generations. This landmark agreement is the culmination of a long, inclusive process designed to reshape international cooperation for today’s challenges and future demands. It is one of the most comprehensive international agreements in recent history, addressing entirely new domains while resolving issues that have lingered for decades. The primary aim of the Pact is to ensure that global institutions remain effective in a rapidly changing world. As United Nations Secretary-General noted, “we cannot create a future fit for our grandchildren with a system built by our grandparents.”

The Pact reflects a collective commitment to upholding the principles of the United Nations and international law. World leaders presented a clear vision of an international framework that not only keeps its promises but is more representative of modern realities. It draws strength from the involvement of governments, civil society, and other key partners.

“The Pact for the Future, the Global Digital Compact, and the Declaration on Future Generations open the door to new opportunities and untapped possibilities,” the Secretary-General said during his remarks at the Summit of the Future. The President of the General Assembly highlighted that this Pact would “lay the foundations for a sustainable, just, and peaceful global order – for all peoples and nations.”

The agreement spans a wide range of critical global issues, including peace and security, sustainable development, climate change, digital cooperation, human rights, gender equality, youth, future generations, and the reform of global governance. The Pact introduces several key deliverables:

Peace and Security

One of the Pact’s most significant provisions is the commitment to reforming the United Nations Security Council. This reform represents the most progressive step toward enhancing the Council’s effectiveness since the 1960s. A major focus of the reform is to correct Africa’s historical under-representation. Additionally, the Pact includes the first multilateral recommitment to nuclear disarmament in over a decade, emphasizing the goal of fully eliminating nuclear weapons.

In space-related issues, the Pact strengthens international frameworks governing outer space, with a commitment to preventing an arms race in space. It also stresses the need to ensure that all nations can benefit from safe and sustainable exploration of space. Furthermore, the agreement aims to prevent the weaponization of new technologies, including lethal autonomous weapons, and affirms that international laws of war must apply to these technologies.

Sustainable Development, Climate Change, and Financing

The Pact is structured to accelerate progress toward achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). A pivotal aspect of this is the reform of international financial systems to better serve developing countries. This reform includes:

– Providing developing nations with greater influence in decision-making at international financial institutions.

– Mobilizing more resources from multilateral development banks to help these countries meet their developmental needs.

– Restructuring sovereign debt frameworks to allow developing nations to borrow sustainably while investing in their futures, with cooperation from key entities like the IMF, UN, and G20.

– Strengthening global financial safety nets to protect vulnerable populations from economic shocks, through coordinated action by the IMF and member states.

– Speeding up climate change action by delivering more financial resources for adaptation efforts and investments in renewable energy.

The Pact also emphasizes the importance of redefining how human progress is measured. Rather than solely relying on GDP, the Pact advocates for metrics that account for human and planetary well-being and sustainability. Another significant commitment is the introduction of a global minimum tax for high-net-worth individuals. Regarding climate change, the agreement reaffirms the need to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and transition energy systems away from fossil fuels to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.

Digital Cooperation

The annexed Global Digital Compact provides the first comprehensive global framework for digital cooperation and governance of artificial intelligence (AI). Central to this Compact is the idea that technology should be designed, used, and governed to benefit everyone. The Compact outlines commitments to:

– Connect all individuals, schools, and hospitals to the internet.

– Anchor digital cooperation in human rights and international law.

– Ensure that online spaces are safe for everyone, especially children, through the joint efforts of governments, tech companies, and social media platforms.

– Govern AI through a roadmap that includes the creation of an International Scientific Panel and a Global Policy Dialogue on AI.

– Increase openness in data access, with agreements on open-source data, models, and standards.

This agreement marks the first global commitment to data governance, placing it firmly on the United Nations agenda. Countries are expected to take concrete steps by 2030 to meet these commitments.

Youth and Future Generations

The Pact includes the first-ever Declaration on Future Generations, which proposes practical measures to incorporate future generations into current decision-making. One of the proposed measures includes appointing an envoy for future generations. Additionally, there is a clear pledge to create more opportunities for young people to have meaningful involvement in decisions that impact their lives, particularly on a global scale.

Human Rights and Gender Equality

The Pact underscores the importance of advancing human rights and gender equality. It emphasizes empowering women and protecting human rights defenders. Furthermore, it highlights the need for engagement from diverse stakeholders, such as local and regional governments, civil society organizations, and the private sector, to address global governance challenges.

Implementation and Follow-up Actions

The Pact also includes detailed provisions for follow-up actions to ensure that the commitments made during the Summit are implemented effectively. This ensures that the ambitious goals set forth in the Pact lead to tangible results.

Summit Process and Participation

The Summit of the Future, which resulted in the Pact for the Future, was deeply enriched by contributions from millions of voices and thousands of stakeholders worldwide. Over 4,000 participants, including heads of state and government, observers, intergovernmental organizations, and representatives from the United Nations system, civil society, and non-governmental organizations, took part in the Summit.

Preceding the formal Summit were the Action Days held from September 20-21, 2024. These events attracted over 7,000 individuals representing all sectors of society. During the Action Days, stakeholders made strong commitments to action and pledged $1.05 billion to promote digital inclusion.

In conclusion, the Pact for the Future represents a groundbreaking agreement that not only addresses today’s global challenges but also prepares the international community for the issues of tomorrow. It is a bold, comprehensive effort to reform international systems and institutions so they can better serve the needs of all nations and peoples.

Hezbollah launched several rocket attacks into northern Israel, escalating tensions a day after Israeli airstrikes on the militant group in Lebanon resulted in the deaths of nearly 500 people and left 1,600 others wounded. The airstrikes marked the deadliest day in Lebanon in almost two decades, contributing to growing concerns of a broader regional conflict.

In response to the escalating violence, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the people of Lebanon, urging them to leave areas where Israel is conducting military operations. He emphasized that Israel’s conflict is not with the Lebanese people, but with Hezbollah, a militant group backed by Iran. Automated calls, text messages, and emergency broadcasts are being sent out to civilians, warning them to evacuate their homes and relocate to safer areas.

The ongoing exchanges between Israel and Hezbollah have escalated since the conflict in Gaza began, with both sides engaged in a series of retaliatory strikes. However, the past week has seen an increase in Israeli military actions against Hezbollah, leading to heightened fears that the situation could spiral into a broader regional war. The sustained attacks and mounting casualties have left residents of northern Israel and southern Lebanon in a state of fear, forcing many to flee their homes in search of safety.

The Israeli military, meanwhile, has announced that it is preparing for the “next phases” of its operations following the latest airstrikes. Israeli officials have not ruled out the possibility of launching a ground invasion as part of their strategy to neutralize Hezbollah’s military capabilities. In a statement, Hezbollah declared that a “battle without limits” was unfolding, signaling that the group is prepared for a prolonged and intense conflict with Israel.

The potential for the conflict to spread beyond Israel and Lebanon has drawn the attention of regional powers, particularly Iran, which provides support to Hezbollah. In the wake of the Israeli airstrikes, Iran issued a stern warning to Israel, cautioning that there would be “dangerous consequences” if the attacks continue. Iran’s involvement, coupled with Hezbollah’s declaration of an unlimited battle, adds to concerns that the hostilities could ignite a wider war in the region, potentially involving other nations and militant groups.

The violence between Israel and Hezbollah comes as the conflict in Gaza continues to rage on, further complicating an already volatile situation in the Middle East. The war in Gaza, which began several weeks ago, has claimed thousands of lives on both sides and has drawn widespread international condemnation. Despite calls for a ceasefire from the international community, both Israel and Hamas, the militant group that controls Gaza, have continued their military campaigns, showing no signs of backing down.

The ongoing Gaza conflict has fueled tensions between Israel and Hezbollah, with the latter launching sporadic rocket attacks on northern Israel in solidarity with the Palestinian cause. In retaliation, Israel has carried out targeted airstrikes against Hezbollah positions in southern Lebanon, including the deadly strike that occurred just a day before the latest rocket barrage. These actions have further strained the fragile peace along the Israel-Lebanon border and have sparked fears that the violence could escalate into a full-scale war.

Lebanese civilians, already reeling from the impact of Israel’s airstrikes, now face the additional threat of Hezbollah’s retaliatory actions against Israel. Many residents of southern Lebanon are living in a state of constant fear, unsure of when or where the next attack will occur. The Israeli military’s warning to Lebanese civilians to evacuate has added to the sense of urgency, as thousands of people are now fleeing their homes, hoping to escape the violence.

Netanyahu’s remarks, in which he emphasized that Israel is not at war with the Lebanese people but with Hezbollah, were intended to reassure civilians that Israel’s military actions are aimed at neutralizing the militant group and not targeting innocent civilians. However, the reality on the ground is that both Lebanese and Israeli civilians are being caught in the crossfire, with lives being lost and homes being destroyed on both sides of the border.

As the conflict intensifies, the possibility of a ground invasion by Israeli forces looms large. Israeli military officials have indicated that they are preparing for the next stages of their campaign, which may involve sending ground troops into southern Lebanon to combat Hezbollah fighters. Such an invasion would likely lead to a dramatic escalation in the conflict, drawing in more regional actors and increasing the likelihood of a wider war.

Hezbollah’s readiness for a “battle without limits” suggests that the group is not willing to back down, even in the face of Israel’s superior military capabilities. This determination to continue fighting, combined with Iran’s support and the growing number of casualties, makes the situation increasingly volatile. Iran’s warning to Israel about the “dangerous consequences” of continued airstrikes further underscores the risks of the conflict spreading beyond the current theater of operations.

The international community has expressed deep concern over the escalation of violence between Israel and Hezbollah, as well as the broader conflict in Gaza. Several countries have called for an immediate ceasefire and urged both sides to engage in dialogue to prevent further bloodshed. However, with both Israel and Hezbollah showing no signs of de-escalating, the prospect of a negotiated peace appears distant.

For now, the focus remains on the rapidly evolving military situation on the ground. Israel’s airstrikes, Hezbollah’s rocket attacks, and the looming threat of a ground invasion are all contributing to an increasingly dangerous and unstable environment in the Middle East. The risk of the conflict spilling over into neighboring countries, particularly Syria and Iraq, where both Hezbollah and Iran have a significant presence, is also growing.

As the world watches, the people of northern Israel and southern Lebanon are left to bear the brunt of the violence. Civilians on both sides are being forced to abandon their homes and seek refuge from the ongoing military operations. For many, the fear of what may come next is overwhelming, as the possibility of a broader regional war becomes more real with each passing day.

In the meantime, the Israeli military continues to carry out its operations, while Hezbollah shows no signs of letting up in its efforts to retaliate. The situation remains fluid, and the potential for further escalation looms large. With both sides digging in and preparing for a protracted conflict, the prospects for peace seem increasingly remote, and the risk of a wider regional war grows more imminent by the day.

World leaders have agreed on the Pact for the Future, a comprehensive global initiative that includes a Global Digital Compact and a Declaration on Future Generations. This pact is the culmination of an inclusive and multi-year effort to reshape international cooperation in response to current realities and future challenges. Described as the most wide-ranging international agreement in recent years, it addresses both new and long-standing issues where consensus has been elusive for decades. The primary goal of the pact is to ensure that global institutions can effectively respond to the modern world, a world that has drastically evolved since these institutions were first established.

As United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres emphasized, “we cannot create a future fit for our grandchildren with a system built by our grandparents.” This statement highlights the need for international systems to evolve alongside global changes.

The pact represents a firm commitment from nations to uphold the United Nations, international law, and the global system. Leaders outlined a vision for a more inclusive, representative, and effective international system. This vision relies on collaboration among governments, civil society, and other key stakeholders to ensure the system meets its commitments.

“The Pact for the Future, the Global Digital Compact, and the Declaration on Future Generations open the door to new opportunities and untapped possibilities,” Guterres remarked at the Summit of the Future. Echoing this optimism, the President of the General Assembly said the pact would “lay the foundations for a sustainable, just, and peaceful global order – for all peoples and nations.”

Key Issues Addressed in the Pact

The Pact for the Future covers a wide range of pressing global issues, including peace and security, sustainable development, climate change, digital cooperation, human rights, gender equality, youth, and the transformation of global governance.

Peace and Security

A notable highlight is the most progressive commitment to reforming the United Nations Security Council since the 1960s. These reforms aim to increase the council’s effectiveness and better reflect the contemporary global landscape. A key priority is addressing the historical under-representation of Africa within the council.

Another significant achievement is the first multilateral recommitment to nuclear disarmament in more than a decade. Nations have pledged to pursue the complete elimination of nuclear weapons.

In the domain of outer space, countries agreed to strengthen international frameworks governing space activities. The pact includes a commitment to prevent an arms race in outer space and ensure that all countries can benefit from the peaceful and sustainable exploration of space.

Moreover, world leaders agreed on measures to prevent the weaponization and misuse of new technologies, including lethal autonomous weapons. They affirmed that the laws of war should apply to many of these emerging technologies.

Sustainable Development, Climate, and Financing

The pact aims to accelerate the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It also contains the most detailed agreement ever made at the United Nations on the need for reform of the international financial architecture to better serve developing countries.

Key financial reforms include granting developing nations a greater role in decision-making at international financial institutions. The pact also calls for mobilizing more resources from multilateral development banks to help developing countries meet their goals.

Another critical reform is a review of the sovereign debt architecture to ensure that developing countries can sustainably borrow to invest in their futures. This effort will involve collaboration between the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the United Nations, the G20, and other global institutions. Additionally, the pact seeks to strengthen the global financial safety net to protect vulnerable populations during economic crises.

To address climate change, the pact outlines a commitment to increase financing for adaptation efforts and investments in renewable energy. Leaders reaffirmed the importance of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and agreed to transition energy systems away from fossil fuels to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.

The pact also introduces innovative ideas, such as the potential introduction of a global minimum level of taxation for high-net-worth individuals. This could play a pivotal role in financing future development needs.

Additionally, the pact seeks to go beyond traditional economic measures like GDP by developing new methods to assess human and planetary well-being, emphasizing sustainability.

Digital Cooperation

The Global Digital Compact, annexed to the Pact for the Future, represents the first global framework for digital cooperation and artificial intelligence (AI) governance.

A central tenet of the Compact is the commitment to design, use, and regulate technology in a way that benefits all. World leaders pledged to connect schools, hospitals, and all people to the internet. They also stressed the need to anchor digital cooperation in human rights and international law.

Another key aspect of the compact is the protection of children in the online space, with commitments from governments, technology companies, and social media platforms. The Compact also includes plans for a global policy dialogue on artificial intelligence, supported by an International Scientific Panel.

For the first time, the issue of data governance has been placed on the global agenda. Countries have committed to making data more accessible by adopting open-source data, models, and standards. These actions are expected to be fully implemented by 2030.

Youth and Future Generations

The Declaration on Future Generations, another critical component of the pact, outlines concrete steps to ensure that the needs of future generations are considered in current decision-making processes. A proposal to appoint an envoy for future generations has been included as part of this initiative.

The pact also includes a commitment to create more meaningful opportunities for young people to participate in global decision-making processes, particularly in shaping policies that will directly impact their lives.

Human Rights and Gender Equality

The pact reinforces the global commitment to human rights and gender equality. It includes provisions to protect human rights defenders, signaling a strong commitment to safeguarding those who advocate for fundamental rights.

Furthermore, the pact calls for greater engagement of diverse stakeholders in global governance. This includes local and regional governments, civil society organizations, the private sector, and other key partners.

Follow-Up and Implementation

The Pact for the Future and its annexes contain provisions to ensure that the commitments made are effectively implemented. These follow-up actions are intended to hold countries accountable for delivering on their promises.

Summit Process

The Summit of the Future and the development of the Pact for the Future were marked by extensive input from diverse stakeholders. Millions of voices and thousands of organizations from around the world contributed to the discussions.

The summit brought together over 4,000 participants, including heads of state, government officials, representatives from intergovernmental organizations, and civil society members. To broaden participation, the formal summit was preceded by Action Days on September 20-21, which attracted over 7,000 individuals from various sectors of society. During these Action Days, significant commitments were made, including pledges of $1.05 billion to advance digital inclusion globally.

With the adoption of the Pact for the Future, world leaders have set a new course for international cooperation, one that seeks to address both the challenges of today and the uncertainties of tomorrow. The pact’s broad scope and ambitious goals signal a renewed global effort to build a more just, inclusive, and sustainable world for future generations.

Israel is actively targeting Hezbollah strongholds across Lebanon, including strikes in Beirut that reportedly aim at high-ranking militants. Bombs are believed to be concealed in communication devices like walkie-talkies and pagers. In response, Hezbollah has launched rockets and drones into northern Israel, causing widespread damage to buildings and vehicles. Despite this violence, neither party is officially labeling the situation as a war.

Israeli officials insist that they are not seeking open warfare with Hezbollah, asserting that conflict can be averted if Hezbollah stops its attacks and withdraws from the border areas. Hezbollah has made similar statements, declaring it does not wish for war but will continue its assaults until there is a cease-fire in Gaza. These hostilities erupted after Hamas launched its attack on Israel on October 7. Since then, clashes between Israel and Hezbollah have escalated, reaching a peak on Monday when Israeli airstrikes reportedly killed over 490 people, making it Lebanon’s deadliest day since the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war.

“If someone had told me or most analysts in summer 2023 that Hezbollah is striking Israeli bases in Israel, and Israel is striking southern Lebanon and parts of southern Beirut, I would have said, OK, that’s an all-out war,” said Andreas Krieg, a military analyst at King’s College London.

The reason this is not being labeled a war yet, according to Krieg, is the absence of ground forces. However, he warns that focusing on that criterion alone might be misleading.

Defining War:

The term “war” is traditionally understood as a state of “open and declared armed conflict between states or nations,” according to Merriam-Webster. Scholars often expand this definition to include large-scale violence involving insurgent or militant groups, as in the case of Hezbollah. However, no single definition can capture the wide variety of modern conflicts, which range from full-scale battles involving national armies to lower-level engagements with non-state actors.

While states sometimes formally declare war, such as Israel did against Hamas, they often avoid doing so in other conflicts. For instance, despite its ongoing invasion of Ukraine, Russia officially refers to its actions as a “special military operation.” Similarly, the United States has refrained from declaring war since World War II, despite its participation in the Korean, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan conflicts.

Why Is It Not Being Called a War?

Both Israel and Hezbollah are avoiding the term “war” because each hopes to achieve its objectives without triggering a larger, more devastating conflict. Neither side wishes to be held responsible for escalating the situation further.

“Though tensions are flaring, the situation in southern Lebanon is not that of a full-scale war as both Hezbollah and Israel hope to use limited means to pressure one another,” said Lina Khatib, a Middle East expert at Chatham House.

Hezbollah’s rocket and drone attacks seem intended to push Israel toward agreeing to a cease-fire with Hamas. By continuing its strikes, Hezbollah aims to maintain pressure without appearing submissive to Israeli demands. The militant group has stated that it will cease its attacks only if a cease-fire is reached in Gaza, but that outcome seems increasingly unlikely.

On the Israeli side, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has expressed his determination to end Hezbollah’s assaults, saying he will take whatever actions are necessary to allow displaced Israelis to return to their homes. According to Krieg, the Israeli strategy may be to pressure Hezbollah into a negotiated settlement or force it into overreacting, potentially igniting the very all-out war both sides are trying to avoid. “I think the Israelis are trying to either tell Hezbollah, you come to the negotiation table and we’ll settle this through diplomacy, or we’ll push you into a corner until you overreact,” Krieg explained.

What Would an All-Out War Entail?

In the past, analysts have generally believed that any future war between Israel and Hezbollah would closely resemble their 2006 conflict but on a much larger and more destructive scale. Israeli officials have repeatedly warned that in the event of such a war, their military response would be far more devastating. They have suggested that they would not only target Hezbollah but also inflict widespread damage on Lebanon’s critical infrastructure. This concept has been dubbed the “Dahiyeh Doctrine,” named after the southern Beirut district where Hezbollah’s headquarters are located and which was heavily bombed in 2006.

Hezbollah has been building up its arsenal for years and is thought to possess about 150,000 rockets and missiles, some capable of hitting deep into Israeli territory. This massive stockpile, along with Israel’s overwhelming military capabilities, has created a state of mutual deterrence. From 2006 until October of last year, the border between Israel and Lebanon remained mostly quiet, as both sides sought to avoid a catastrophic escalation. However, the current situation is increasingly volatile, and experts warn that the conflict could spiral into full-blown war at any moment.

“We’ve gone up a step, but we haven’t yet made it to the penthouse floor,” said Uzi Rabi, director of the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies at Tel Aviv University. He expressed concern that a ground invasion by Israel might eventually become unavoidable. “At the end, I don’t see there’s going to be any alternative to a ground operation.”

Will Ground Invasion Mark the Start of War?

Should Israel send ground troops into southern Lebanon, it would undoubtedly be seen as a major escalation by many. While a ground invasion might convince most observers that the conflict has crossed into full-scale war, the reality is more nuanced. Even in Gaza, where Israel officially declared war three weeks before its ground forces moved in, the lines have been blurry. Furthermore, Israeli ground operations have been ongoing in the West Bank for decades, yet these actions are not universally considered acts of war. Recent months have also seen Israeli airstrikes on militants in the region, with no formal declaration of war.

It’s possible that even a limited ground incursion into southern Lebanon could allow both sides to step back from the brink of all-out war. However, Lebanon would almost certainly view such a move as a clear violation of its sovereignty and a direct act of war. Lebanon has long accused Israel of infringing on its airspace and occupying disputed areas near the border.

Despite these concerns, it is worth noting that Israel and Lebanon have technically been at war since 1948, a fact that underscores the complex and long-standing tensions in the region. As this latest escalation unfolds, the risk of it transforming into a full-scale conflict remains ever-present, even as both sides seek to avoid that outcome.

In a decisive vote on Wednesday, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution demanding that Israel end its occupation of Palestinian territories within a year. The resolution, which is a significant move in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, was backed by 124 countries. Among the nations opposing the resolution were the United States, Israel, Hungary, Argentina, and others, with 14 countries voting against it. Additionally, 43 nations chose to abstain from the vote.

The resolution follows a ruling from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in July, which declared Israel’s presence in the West Bank and East Jerusalem illegal. The court had urged Israel to end its decades-long occupation of these territories, which Palestinians claim for their future state. In its advisory opinion, the ICJ stated that Israel should withdraw from the occupied areas “as rapidly as possible.” The UN’s resolution now imposes a timeline, calling for an end to the occupation within 12 months.

Palestinian Ambassador to the UN, Riyad Mansour, hailed the vote as a critical moment in the Palestinian pursuit of sovereignty and justice. “This vote represents a turning point in our struggle for freedom and justice,” Mansour said, emphasizing the importance of the international community’s support in the Palestinian cause. The resolution was spearheaded by Palestine, which, though not a full UN member state, has been granted increased privileges, including the right to submit proposals to the General Assembly.

However, Israel’s representatives and allies expressed strong disapproval of the resolution. Danny Danon, Israel’s Ambassador to the UN, criticized the decision, calling it “a shameful decision that backs the Palestinian Authority’s diplomatic terrorism.” Danon argued that the vote was biased against Israel and emboldened efforts to delegitimize the Israeli state.

While the ICJ’s advisory opinion and the General Assembly’s resolution carry symbolic weight, neither is legally binding. Nonetheless, these developments are expected to put additional diplomatic pressure on Israel, especially as world leaders prepare to meet in New York for the annual UN General Assembly next week. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas are both expected to address the assembly on September 26.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) welcomed the resolution, echoing calls for Israel to comply with international law and withdraw from the occupied territories. Louis Charbonneau, HRW’s director at the UN, stated, “Israel should immediately heed the demand of an overwhelming majority of UN member states to abide by the World Court’s historic ruling on Israel’s decades-long occupation.”

Amnesty International also expressed support for the UN resolution, viewing it as a validation of longstanding demands from Palestinians and international human rights advocates. Agnes Callamard, Amnesty International’s Secretary General, commented on the significance of the resolution, saying, “This resolution vindicates long-standing calls from the Palestinian people and many countries around the world, by pursuing the implementation of the ICJ’s historic advisory opinion which confirmed Israel has a legal obligation to end its unlawful occupation of the OPT and its systemic discrimination against the occupied Palestinian population.”

The occupied territories have been a central issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since the 1967 Six-Day War. In that conflict, Israel captured the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights from neighboring Arab countries. Shortly after, Israel began establishing Jewish settlements in these territories, a move that has been internationally condemned and remains one of the most contentious issues in the conflict.

For Palestinians, the West Bank and Gaza are seen as integral parts of a future sovereign state, with East Jerusalem envisioned as their capital. Meanwhile, Israel regards Jerusalem as its undivided “eternal capital,” rejecting any division of the city. This fundamental disagreement over the status of Jerusalem remains one of the most difficult hurdles to overcome in peace negotiations.

Despite the strong international support for the resolution, Israel’s allies, most notably the United States, continue to stand firmly with the country. The U.S. has historically used its veto power in the UN Security Council to block resolutions it views as unfairly targeting Israel. In this case, though the resolution was passed by the General Assembly, where no nation has veto power, the U.S. cast one of the 14 votes against the measure, reinforcing its unwavering alliance with Israel.

As Israel prepares to face further diplomatic isolation over its occupation policies, the upcoming speeches by Netanyahu and Abbas at the UN could set the stage for the next chapter in the decades-long conflict. The international community will be closely watching to see whether the resolution and the ICJ’s advisory opinion will lead to tangible changes on the ground, or if Israel will continue its current policies in the face of increasing global pressure.

For many Palestinians, the UN resolution represents a rare victory in their pursuit of statehood and an end to the Israeli occupation. Mansour and other Palestinian leaders have long argued that the international community must play a central role in ensuring that Israel complies with international law and halts its expansion into Palestinian territories. The vote, they believe, sends a strong message that the world is not willing to tolerate the ongoing occupation any longer.

On the other hand, Israel views the resolution as yet another example of bias in international institutions. Israeli officials argue that the UN has historically been used as a platform to attack and delegitimize Israel while ignoring Palestinian violence and incitement. Danon’s remarks about “diplomatic terrorism” reflect a broader sentiment in Israeli political circles that the international community often overlooks the security concerns that drive Israel’s policies in the occupied territories.

The resolution’s passage, despite being non-binding, highlights the increasing frustration among many UN member states over the lack of progress in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Over the years, numerous peace initiatives, including the Oslo Accords and subsequent negotiations, have failed to produce a lasting solution. The UN’s latest move underscores the growing impatience with the status quo and the demand for concrete action to end the occupation.

In the coming months, the spotlight will be on Israel’s response to this renewed international pressure. Whether the Israeli government takes steps to reduce its presence in the occupied territories or continues with its current policies will be critical in determining the future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.