Toddler separated from mother deported from the US returned to Venezuela
Two-year-old Maikelys Espinoza Bernal was reunited with her mother in Venezuela following calls for her return. A Venezuelan toddler who was separated from her parents after they crossed the United States-Mexico border together has been returned to Venezuela, to where her mother was deported in April. Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro thanked the administration of United States President Donald Trump for the return on Wednesday of two-year-old Maikelys Espinoza Bernal to her mother, Yorely Bernal. “We must be thankful for all the efforts, for [Trump special envoy] Rich Grenell for his efforts … and thank Donald Trump, too,” Maduro said, calling the child’s return “an act of justice”. Both of the toddler’s parents were accused by the Trump administration of involvement with the Tren de Aragua gang, a claim for which the government has offered no evidence and is firmly denied by family members. The child’s father, 25-year-old Maiker Espinoza, was among at least 137 Venezuelans sent to a prison in El Salvador in March. Venezuelan officials had sought the return of Maikelys, and footage shown on state television showed First Lady Cilia Flores holding Maikelys after she arrived at an international airport near the capital of Caracas. Advertisement The child was reunited with her mother and grandmother in an event at the presidential palace attended by Maduro, who has voiced occasional criticism of Trump’s deportation push but reached an agreement in March to receive Venezuelans deported from the US. The Trump administration has invoked sometimes vague and unsubstantiated claims of Tren de Aragua membership to send Venezuelan migrants to CECOT, a maximum security prison in El Salvador, notorious for abusive conditions, without due process under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. The toddler’s father, 25-year-old Maiker Espinoza, has been accused by the Trump administration, without evidence, of being a “lieutenant” in Tren de Aragua who oversees “homicides, drug sales, kidnappings, extortion, sex trafficking and operates a torture house”. “At no time has my son been involved with them,” his mother, Maria Escalona, told the news agency Reuters this month, of claims that her son is a member of Tren de Aragua. “I think this is political – they are using the case of my son to cover up the horror that is being committed against all these innocents.” The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) also accused Yorely Bernal of recruiting young women for narcotics smuggling and sex work, but has not provided any evidence for those claims and deported her to Venezuela in April. The Trump administration has invoked the Alien Enemies Act, a rarely used wartime law that grants the president powers to expeditiously expel people from the country without usual protections, under the pretext that irregular migration to the US constitutes a foreign “invasion”. Advertisement A report by the US intelligence community found no evidence for public claims by the Trump administration that Tren de Aragua was coordinating activities with the Maduro government as part of a clandestine attack on the United States. On Wednesday, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard fired two top members of the intelligence body that authored that assessment. Adblock test (Why?)
Can you find these Palestinian cities?
What happened in Palestine in 1948? Every year on May 15, Palestinians around the world mark the Nakba, or catastrophe, referring to the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948. Having secured the support of the British government for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine, on May 14, 1948, as soon as the British Mandate expired, Zionist forces declared the establishment of the State of Israel, triggering the first Arab-Israeli war. Zionist military forces expelled at least 750,000 Palestinians from their homes and lands and captured 78 percent of historic Palestine. The remaining 22 percent was divided into what are now the occupied West Bank and the besieged Gaza Strip. The fighting continued until January 1949 when an armistice agreement between Israel and Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria was forged. The 1949 Armistice Line is also known as the Green Line and is the generally recognised boundary between Israel and the West Bank. The Green Line is also referred to as the (pre-) 1967 borders, before Israel occupied the rest of Palestine during the 1967 war. Israel’s military occupation of Palestine remains at the core of this decades-long conflict that continues to shape every part of Palestinians’ lives. Mapping the Palestinian villages Israel destroyed Between 1947 and 1949, Zionist military forces attacked major Palestinian cities and destroyed some 530 villages. About 15,000 Palestinians were killed in a series of mass atrocities, including dozens of massacres. On April 9, 1948, Zionist forces committed one of the most infamous massacres of the war in the village of Deir Yassin on the western outskirts of Jerusalem. More than 110 men, women and children were killed by members of the pre-Israeli state Irgun and Stern Gang Zionist paramilitary organisations. Palestinian researcher Salman Abu Sitta documented detailed records of what happened to these 530 villages in his book, The Atlas of Palestine. Where are Palestinian refugees today? Some six million registered Palestinian refugees live in at least 58 camps located throughout Palestine and neighbouring countries. The UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) provides assistance and operates hundreds of schools and health facilities for at least 2.3 million Palestinian refugees in Jordan, 1.5 million refugees in Gaza, 870,000 refugees in the occupied West Bank, 570,000 refugees in Syria and 480,000 refugees in Lebanon. The largest camps in each are Baqa’a in Jordan, Jabalia in Gaza, Jenin in the occupied West Bank, Yarmouk in Syria, and Ein el-Hilweh in Lebanon. More than 70 percent of Gaza’s residents are refugees. About 1.5 million refugees live in eight refugee camps around the Gaza Strip. According to international law, refugees have the right to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced. Many Palestinians still hope to return to Palestine. The plight of Palestinian refugees is the longest unresolved refugee problem in the world. (Al Jazeera) Adblock test (Why?)
‘We need our bananas back’: Traders left in limbo amid Malawi-Tanzania spat
Lilongwe, Malawi – Since he was young, Enock Dayton has made a living from bananas. The 30-year-old was born and raised in Molele, in the southern Malawian district of Thyolo, which was at the heart of local banana production until a plant virus devastated crops more than a decade ago. At his stall at Mchesi market, in Malawi’s capital Lilongwe, Dayton serves customers from the bunches of green bananas that he has. “I started this business when I was young, and we had farms where we were growing bananas and we would take trucks and bring them here and sell them to individuals,” he told Al Jazeera. But in 2013, the deadly banana bunchy top disease wiped out almost all the crops in the country. Farmers were asked to uproot their banana plants to avoid the spread of the virus; hundreds of thousands of people were affected. Bananas are Malawi’s fourth biggest staple crop, after maize, rice and cassava, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The United Nations body – which is working with other organisations to help revive banana farming in the country – said in 2023 that with “the right investments and strategic support, the banana sector has the potential to provide greater benefits in food and nutrition security and commercial value for growers, transporters, consumers and food processors”. Advertisement But in the meantime, to maintain their businesses in the absence of sufficient local produce, farmers and fruit-sellers like Dayton turned to neighbouring Tanzania to import the crop and complement their own meagre local supplies. In 2023 alone, for instance, Malawi imported more than $491,000 worth of bananas, with the majority of that – 5,564,180kg (12,266,920lb) – coming primarily from Tanzania. The remainder came from South Africa and Mozambique. But this year, that arrangement came to a sudden halt. In March, Malawi said it was temporarily banning the import of some farm produce, including bananas, from Tanzania and other countries. The government said this was to help support local industries and stabilise the country’s foreign exchange shortage, which has led to challenges that include the inability to import some necessities, like pharmaceuticals. But Malawi might have underestimated the effect of its bold move, observers say. In retaliation, in April, Tanzania banned the entry of all agricultural imports from Malawi, responding to what it described as restrictions on some of its exports. That ban also extended to South Africa, which for years prohibited the entry of bananas from Tanzania. This was bad news for Malawi, observers say, as it is more on the receiving end of trade between the neighbours. According to data from the Observatory of Economic Complexity (OEC), Malawi exports less than $50m worth of products to Tanzania, including soybean meal, soybeans and dried legumes, while it imports hundreds of millions of dollars in the form of mineral fuels, oil, distilled products, soaps, lubricants, cement and glassware, among other products. A Malawian trader sells maize near the capital Lilongwe [File: Mike Hutchings/Reuters] In its response, Dar es Salaam went a step further, extending its trade ban to the export of fertiliser from Tanzania to landlocked Malawi. It also threatened to stop goods en route to Malawi from passing through Tanzania. Advertisement By land, Malawi depends on Tanzania, Zambia and Mozambique for the import of goods. As it lacks direct access to the sea, Malawi utilises seaports in Tanzania and Mozambique. But the instability of the Mozambique route – due to insecurity caused by conflict, recent post-election violence and truck drivers facing harassment – made the deadlock with Tanzania a bigger challenge for industry. Businesses that rely on the import of farm produce started crying foul as their trucks of groundnuts and other produce stood in line at the Songwe border. Malawi also found itself in a tricky situation as it depends on Tanzania for its harbours to import fuel. Soon, even Kenya found itself entangled in the conflict as cargo from Malawi, which has to travel through Tanzania, was also stopped en route. The ensuing row shone a light on Malawi’s precarious geographical location, as well as regional agreements aimed at facilitating trade, the efforts by individual nations to follow the rules, and the macroeconomic imbalances in a nation designated as one of the poorest in the world. After weeks of tensions, this month, a high-level meeting between Malawi and Tanzania appeared to have brokered the differences, paving the way for the lifting of the bans between the two countries, according to a spokesperson for Malawi’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. ‘Symptom of a huge challenge’ For Ernest Thindwa, a political commentator based at the University of Malawi, the recent trade dispute does not exist in isolation – and should also be viewed from a political lens. Both countries are heading for polls this year, first Malawi in September and then Tanzania in November. Within an election environment, the dispute says something about the attempts by both countries’ leaders to display patriotism and a sense of empowerment to their citizens, the analyst said. “The current administration [in Malawi] wants to be seen to be delivering and they want to be seen to be responding to people’s concerns,” Thindwa told Al Jazeera. “And certainly they need to make sure that local producers are protected, which has become more urgent as we go towards elections.” Advertisement Thindwa said that both Malawi and Tanzania are signatories to regional and international trade agreements, the frameworks of which entitle them to take measures to protect their trade interests when they deem necessary. However, he questioned the timing of these moves, asking why the initiatives by Malawi were not implemented earlier if they were indeed to protect local industries. Answering his own question, he said, “Because then it might have not been an agent in terms of attracting votes.” “What you would call subsistence or smallholder producers … would be significant for the government in terms of trying to win votes from such social groups,” he observed. Malawi is one of
What did India and Pakistan gain – and lose – in their military standoff?
Islamabad, Pakistan – Four days after a May 10 ceasefire pulled India and Pakistan back from the brink of a full-fledged war following days of rapidly escalating military tensions, a battle of narratives has broken out, with each country claiming “victory” over the other. The conflict erupted after gunmen killed 26 civilians in Pahalgam, in Indian-administered Kashmir, on April 22. A little-known armed group, The Resistance Front (TRF), initially claimed responsibility, with India accusing Pakistan of backing it. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi promised retaliation, even though Pakistan denied any role in the attack. After a series of tit-for-tat diplomatic measures between the neighbours, tensions exploded militarily. Early on the morning of May 7, India fired missiles at what it described as “terrorist” bases not just in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, but also four sites in Pakistan’s Punjab province. In the following days, both sides launched killer drone strikes at each other’s territory and blamed one another for initiating the attacks. Advertisement Tensions peaked on Saturday when India and Pakistan fired missiles at each other’s military bases. India initially targeted three Pakistani airbases, including one in Rawalpindi, the garrison city which is home to the headquarters of the Pakistan Army, before then launching projectiles at other Pakistani bases. Pakistan’s missiles targeted military installations across the country’s frontier with India and Indian-administered Kashmir, striking at least four facilities. Then, as the world braced for total war between the nuclear-armed neighbours, US President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire, which he claimed had been mediated by the United States. Pakistan express gratitude to the US, even as India insisted the decision to halt fighting was made solely by the two neighbours without any third-party intervention. Since the announcement, both countries have held news conferences, presenting “evidence” of their “achievements”. On Monday, senior military officials in India and Pakistan spoke by phone, pledging to uphold the ceasefire in the coming days. However, analysts say neither side can truly claim to have emerged from the post-April 22 crisis with a definite upper hand. Instead, they say, both India and Pakistan can claim strategic gains even as they each also suffered losses. The debris of a drone lying on the ground after it was shot down by the Indian air defence system, on the outskirts of Amritsar, on May 10, 2025 [Narinder Nanu/AFP] Internationalising Kashmir: Pakistan’s gain The military standoff last week – like three of the four wars between India and Pakistan – had roots in the two countries’ dispute over the Kashmir region. Advertisement Pakistan and India administer different parts of Kashmir, along with China, which governs two narrow strips. India claims all of Kashmir, while Pakistan claims the part India – but not Islamabad’s ally China – administers. After the 1971 war between India and Pakistan, which led to the creation of Bangladesh, New Delhi and Islamabad inked the Simla Agreement, which, among other things, committed them to settling “their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations”. Since then, India has argued that the Kashmir dispute – and other tensions between the neighbours – can only be settled bilaterally, without third-party intervention. Pakistan, however, has cited United Nations resolutions to call for the global community to play a role in pushing for a solution. On Sunday, Trump said that the US was ready to help mediate a resolution to the Kashmir dispute. “I will work with you both to see if, after a thousand years, a solution can be arrived at, concerning Kashmir,” the US president posted on his Truth Social platform. Walter Ladwig, a senior lecturer at King’s College London, said the latest conflict gave Pakistan a chance to internationalise the Kashmir issue, which had been its longstanding strategic goal. “Islamabad welcomed mediation from a range of countries, including the US, framing the resulting ceasefire as evidence of the need for external involvement,” Ladwig told Al Jazeera. By contrast, he said, India had to accept a ceasefire brokered externally, rather than ending the conflict on its own terms. Advertisement Sudha Ramachandran, the South Asia editor for The Diplomat magazine, said that Modi’s government in India may have strengthened its nationalist support base through its military operation, though it may have also lost some domestic political points with the ceasefire. “It was able to score points among its nationalist hawkish support base. But the ceasefire has not gone down well among hardliners,” Ramachandran said. Highlighting ‘terrorism’: India’s gain However, analysts also say the spiral in tensions last week, and its trigger in the form of the Pahalgam attack, helped India too. “Diplomatically, India succeeded in refocusing international attention on Pakistan-based militant groups, renewing calls for Islamabad to take meaningful action,” Ladwig said. He referred to “the reputational cost [for Pakistan] of once again being associated with militant groups operating from its soil”. “While Islamabad denied involvement and called for neutral investigations, the burden of proof in international forums increasingly rests on Pakistan to demonstrate proactive counterterrorism efforts,” Ladwig added. India has long accused Pakistan of financing, training and sheltering armed groups that support the secession of Kashmir from India. Pakistan insists it only provides diplomatic and moral support to Kashmir’s separatist movement. Planes down may be Pakistan’s gain India claimed that its strikes on May 7 killed more than 100 “terrorists”. Pakistan said the Indian missiles had hit mosques and residential areas, killing 40 civilians, including children, apart from 11 military personnel. Advertisement Islamabad also claimed that it scrambled its fighter planes to respond and had brought down multiple Indian jets. India has neither confirmed nor denied those claims, but Pakistan’s military has publicly shared details that it says identify the planes that were shot down. French and US officials have confirmed that at least one Rafale and one Russian-made jet were lost by India. Indian officials have also confirmed to Al Jazeera that at least two planes crashed in Indian-administered territory, but did not clarify which country they belonged to. With both India and Pakistan agreeing that neither side’s jets had crossed their frontier,
India expels Pakistan diplomat as war of words simmers in place of fighting
Pakistan reiterates its commitment to the ceasefire but warns it will respond forcefully to any future Indian attacks. India has ordered a Pakistani diplomat to leave the country within 24 hours as tensions simmer in the wake of heavy military exchanges between the nuclear-armed neighbours before a ceasefire was agreed last week. The unnamed official, stationed at Pakistan’s embassy in New Delhi, was accused by India’s Ministry of External Affairs on Tuesday of “indulging in activities not in keeping with his official status”. The move comes after a brief but intense military confrontation last week that threatened to erupt into the fifth full-scale war between the two countries. While the truce brought a temporary halt to cross-border missile and drone strikes, sporadic skirmishes continue along the Line of Control (LoC), the de facto border in disputed Kashmir, a region claimed by both nations. On Tuesday, Pakistan reiterated its commitment to the ceasefire but warned it would respond forcefully to any future attacks. The statement came after Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi warned in his first national address since the truce that India would strike “terrorist hideouts” across the border if provoked again. Advertisement The ultranationalist Hindu leader added that India “only paused” its military action against Pakistan. Modi’s remarks were swiftly condemned by Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which called them “provocative and inflammatory”. “At a time when international efforts are being made for regional peace and stability, this statement represents a dangerous escalation,” it said. “Pakistan remains committed to the recent ceasefire understanding and taking necessary steps towards de-escalation and regional stability,” the statement continued, adding that any future aggression would receive a response. The conflict ignited after a deadly April 22 shooting attack in the Pahalgam area of India-administered Kashmir, where 25 Indian tourists and one Nepalese visitor were killed. India accused Pakistan’s government of links to the attacks – an accusation Islamabad strongly denied. India launched strikes on what it called “terrorist infrastructure” in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. According to Islamabad, 40 civilians and 11 Pakistani military personnel were killed in last week’s violence. India said at least 16 civilians and five Indian soldiers were killed. The fighting marked the most severe exchange between the two countries in nearly 30 years and ended only after sustained diplomatic pressure. On Monday, India said it held a rare phone call with Pakistan’s military leaders, agreeing to uphold the ceasefire and explore ways to de-escalate the conflict. Fragile ceasefire Despite the ceasefire, sporadic violence continued on Tuesday with Indian forces reporting a gun battle in southern Kashmir’s Shopian district. The army said three suspected fighters were killed in a “search and destroy” operation launched on intelligence input. Advertisement On Tuesday, Modi visited Adampur airbase near the border and reiterated India’s stance in a speech to air force personnel. “We will not differentiate between the government sponsoring terrorism and the masterminds of terrorism,” he said. “We will enter their dens and hit them without giving them an opportunity to survive.” Meanwhile, both sides have taken a series of retaliatory diplomatic and economic measures. India has suspended most visa services for Pakistani nationals, halted bilateral trade and announced its intention to unilaterally suspend the Indus Waters Treaty, a World Bank-brokered water-sharing agreement in place since 1960 that is critical for farming. In response, Pakistan banned visas for Indians, closed its airspace to Indian aircraft and imposed a reciprocal trade embargo. Adblock test (Why?)
US reality TV star Kim Kardashian testifies about Paris robbery
Reality TV star and business mogul Kim Kardashian has testified before a French courtroom about her experience getting robbed at gunpoint in a Paris hotel. Taking the witness stand on Tuesday, Kardashian confronted the suspects accused of tying her up and taping her mouth shut on October 3, 2016, while they stole more than $6m in jewellery. The case concerns a group of about a dozen suspects known in French media as “les papys braqueurs”: the grandpa robbers. The group, many in their 60s and 70s, are part of a crime ring, according to prosecutors. One has died since the robbery took place, while the charges against another have been dismissed due to health concerns. But Kardashian recounted the terror she felt as members of the group burst into her hotel room after a night at the Paris Fashion Week. “We were leaving the next morning, so I was just packing up,” Kardashian said. “It was around three in the morning. I heard stomping up the stairs when I was in bed.” She explained that she figured it was her older sister, Kourtney Kardashian, returning to the hotel room. But instead, it was a group of armed men, dressed as police officers and wearing balaclavas. Advertisement Waving a gun at her, one of the men asked her to surrender her $4m engagement ring, a gift from her then-husband Kanye West, a rapper now known as Ye. “Then I heard one of the gentlemen forcefully say ‘Ring! Ring!’ in English, with an accent, pointing,” she said. At one point, she said the robbers threw her onto the hotel bed. She was wearing a bathrobe at the time. “I was certain that was the moment that he was going to rape me,” Kardashian explained. “I absolutely did think I was going to die.” Her mind flashed to the idea of her sister coming home to find her body, she added. “I thought about my sister, thought she would walk in and see me shot dead and have that memory in her forever.” But the robbers proceeded to restrain her with zip ties and duct tape. They told her she would be safe so long as she remained quiet. “I have babies,” Kardashian, a mother of four, remembered thinking. “I have to make it home. They can take everything. I just have to make it home.” Eventually, she was locked in the hotel room’s marble bathroom while the robbers made their escape. During her testimony, she explained that the suspects did not beat her during the attack. “I was grabbed and dragged into the other room and thrown onto the floor, but wasn’t hit, no,” she said. Kim Kardashian, centre, leaves a Paris courtroom accompanied by her mother Kris Jenner on May 13 [Aurelien Morissard/AP Photo] Eventually, Kardashian said she was able to use the bathroom sink to loosen the restraints on her hands. She hobbled downstairs, where she met with her stylist Simone Harouche, who had locked herself in a bathroom one floor below to call for help during the attack. Advertisement “She was beside herself. I’ve never seen her like that before,” Harouche said of Kardashian. “She just was screaming and kept saying, ‘We need to get out of here. We need help. What are we going to do if they come back?’” The attack prompted the entertainment industry to adopt new procedures around security and social media posts, including through the delayed publication of certain images that might help robbers identify targets and locations. Some critics, however, blamed Kardashian herself for her luxurious lifestyle and lack of on-hand security. The controversial fashion designer Karl Lagerfeld, for instance, was quoted by the Reuters news agency as questioning Kardashian’s habit of posting photos of herself on social media. “You cannot display your wealth and then be surprised that some people want to share it with you,” the late designer said. That kind of commentary has sparked its own backlash, with some denouncing it as victim-blaming. Still, Judge David De Pas in Paris asked those involved if they had not made themselves targets. “Just because a woman wears jewellery, that doesn’t make her a target,” Harouche said. “That’s like saying that because a woman wears a short skirt that she deserves to be raped.” Kardashian added that she had a bodyguard in a separate hotel. “We assumed that, if we were in a hotel, it was safe, it was secure,” she said. She added that she now keeps five or six guards around her. She also blamed the Paris attack for prompting a copycat robbery at her Los Angeles house. Advertisement “I started to get this phobia of going out,” Kardashian said. “This experience really changed everything for us.” Tuesday’s appearance is expected to be the only time Kardashian testifies in the criminal case, which includes 10 defendants: nine men and one woman. Five of the men face armed robbery and kidnapping charges that could result in life imprisonment. Others face lesser charges of being accomplices or possessing unauthorised firearms. Prosecutors say the ringleader in the group was a 69-year-old man named Aomar Ait Khedache, nicknamed “Omar the Old”. He wrote a letter of apology that was read aloud in the court. “I do appreciate the letter, for sure. I forgive you,” Kardashian replied, looking at Khedache. “But it doesn’t change the feelings and the trauma and the fact that my life was forever changed, but I do appreciate the letter, thank you.” Adblock test (Why?)
Medical professionals must speak out and act on Gaza now
I had closely followed the genocidal war in Gaza for nine months when an opportunity came around to volunteer as part of a medical mission organised by the United Nations, World Health Organization and the Palestinian American Medical Association. As a trained nephrologist, a doctor who treats patients with kidney disease, I felt there was a critical need for specialised medical care amid the collapse of the healthcare system in Gaza and the high number of medical specialists who had been killed. I also felt it was my duty as a Muslim to help the people of Gaza. Islam teaches us that whoever saves one life, it is as if he had saved all of humanity; taking care of others is an act of worship, and standing up against injustice is a moral obligation. I believe my degrees are not meant to simply hang on the walls of an air-conditioned office or help me drive the nicest car or live in an expensive neighbourhood. They are a testament to the fact that I have taken an oath to dedicate my expertise to the service of humanity, to maintain the utmost respect for human life and to offer my medical knowledge and compassion to those in need. Advertisement So on July 16, I departed for Gaza with a few other medics. We entered the strip through the Karem Abu Salem crossing. We went from observing the prosperity, comfort and wealth of the Israeli side to recoiling at the destruction, devastation and misery of the Palestinian side. We basically saw what apartheid looks like. On our short trip through southern Gaza to reach our destination in Khan Younis, we saw many buildings bombed, damaged or destroyed. Homes, schools, shops, hospitals, mosques – you name it. The amount of rubble was sickening. To this day, I can’t unsee the landscapes of destruction I witnessed in Gaza. We were accommodated in Al-Nasser Hospital because it was too dangerous to stay at any other place. We were welcomed and cared for so much that I felt embarrassed. We were seen as saviours. I treated patients with kidney problems, worked as a primary care physician and sometimes helped during mass casualty events in the emergency room. The author with one of his patients at Al Nassar Hospital in Khan Younis, Gaza Strip [Courtesy of Talal Khan] Dialysis requires clean water, sterile supplies, reliable electricity, medications and equipment that must be maintained and replaced – none of which was guaranteed under the Israeli blockade. Each dialysis session was a challenge. Every delay increased the risk of my patients dying. Many of them did die – a fact I struggled to accept, knowing that under normal circumstances, many of them could have been saved and lived normal lives. Advertisement I remember the smiling face of one of my patients, Waleed, a young man who suffered from kidney failure caused by early-onset high blood pressure, a condition that, with access to proper treatment, could have been managed appropriately. Dialysis was Waleed’s lifeline, but he couldn’t get an adequate number of sessions due to the Israeli blockade causing severe shortages of medical supplies. Malnutrition and worsening living conditions only accelerated his decline. I remember how short of breath he was, his body overloaded with fluid and his blood pressure dangerously high. And yet, every time I saw him, Waleed greeted me with a warm smile, his spirit somehow intact, his mother always by his side. A few months after I left Gaza, Waleed passed away. Another patient of mine was Hussein, a gentle, kind-hearted, deeply respected man. His children cared for him with love and dignity. He suffered from severe hypokalaemia and acidosis: His body’s potassium levels were dangerously low, and acid built up to toxic levels. To address his condition, he needed basic medications: potassium supplements and sodium bicarbonate pills. These were simple, inexpensive, life-saving medicines, and yet, the Israeli blockade did not allow them in. Because he could not find these pills, Hussein was hospitalised multiple times for intravenous potassium supplementation. Despite his immense suffering, Hussein remained gracious, brave and full of faith. When speaking, he always repeated the phrase Alhamdulillah (praise be to God). He passed away a few weeks ago, I was told. Waleed and Hussein should be here – smiling, laughing, living happily with their families. Instead, they became casualties of siege and silence. These are two of so many tragic stories I know of and I witnessed. So many beautiful lives that could have been saved were lost. Despite this grim reality, my colleagues in Gaza continue to do their utmost for their patients. Advertisement These are medics who are bruised in every way. They are not only battling the daily struggles of life like all other Palestinians in Gaza but also witnessing daily horrors of headless babies, amputated limbs, fully burned human beings and sometimes the lifeless remains of their own loved ones. Imagine working with no anaesthesia, limited pain medications, very few antibiotics. Imagine surgeons scrubbing with plain water, children undergoing amputations with no sedation, full-body burns patients’ dressings being changed with no pain relief. Still these healthcare heroes just keep going. One of the nurses I worked with, Arafat, made a deep impression on me. He was living in a makeshift shelter with multiple family members. It offered no protection against the elements – the cold winter, the scorching heat or the drenching rain. He starved – like all other Palestinians in Gaza – losing 15kg (33lb) in nine months. He walked 2km to 3km (1 to 2 miles) every day to work with worn-out sandals, facing the danger of Israeli drones bombing or shooting him in the street. And yet, the smile never left his face. He took care of more than 280 dialysis patients, treating them with care, attentively listening to their anxious families and uplifting his colleagues with light humour. I felt so small next to heroes like Arafat. His and his colleagues’ resilience and persistence were
Trump says US to lift Syria sanctions, ending years of Washington’s policy
United States President Donald Trump has announced that he will lift all sanctions on Syria, declaring that it was time for the country to “move forward”, giving a nation devastated by years of ruinous civil war a crucial opening in reviving its shattered economy. Speaking at an investment forum in Saudi Arabia’s Riyadh during his Middle East tour on Tuesday, Trump said the punitive measures had achieved their “purpose” and were no longer needed. “I will be ordering the cessation of sanctions against Syria in order to give them a chance at greatness,” he said. “It’s their time to shine. We’re taking them all off”. The president ended his remarks with a direct message to Damascus: “Good luck, Syria. Show us something very special.” The announcement marks a dramatic shift in Washington’s yearslong policy towards Syria, where sanctions targeted ousted President Bashar al-Assad’s government during years of war, and the country at large over its crackdown on dissent and human rights abuses during that nearly 14-year period. Advertisement Syrians suffered hundreds of thousands of deaths, and millions were displaced during the war. “There’s a new government that will hopefully succeed in stabilising the country and keeping peace,” Trump said in Riyadh, referring to the interim government led by President Ahmed al-Sharaa. Trump noted that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio will meet Syria’s Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani in Turkiye later this week, and says his decision to end the sanctions was influenced by conversations with Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Al-Shaibani welcomed the announcement, calling it a “a pivotal turning point for the Syrian people as we move toward a future of stability, self-sufficiency, and true reconstruction after years of devastating war”, according to the state-run SANA news agency. Key obstacle removed, but others remain The sanctions relief will be welcomed by al-Sharaa’s government, which also says it wants to transition away from the corrupt system that gave al-Assad loyalists privileged access to government contracts and kept key industries in the hands of the al-Assad family and its Alawite base. Omar Rahman, a fellow at the Middle East Council on Global Affairs, says that while it is important not to overestimate the significance of Trump’s promise to lift sanctions on Syria, it is an important step in the future of a nation devastated by years of war. “It takes away a key obstacle in their ability to establish some kind of economic development, economic prosperity,” he told Al Jazeera. “But there are plenty of other obstacles and challenges the country is facing.” Advertisement Rahman said that Saudi Arabia helped push the US towards its decision to drop sanctions. “I think the United States was really dragging its feet on sanctions – they wanted to use it as leverage in order to push other policies in Syria,” he said, adding that besides Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates were also pushing for this pivotal outcome. “This wasn’t something that was too difficult for Trump to do,” Rahman added. “He didn’t need to get permission from anybody. He didn’t even need consent from Congress.” Syria’s new government has sought to rebuild the country’s diplomatic ties, including with international financial institutions. It also counts on wealthy Gulf Arab states to play a critical role in financing the reconstruction of Syria’s war-ravaged infrastructure and reviving its economy. Saudi Arabia and Qatar announced in April that they will settle Syria’s debt to the World Bank totalling roughly $15m. The United Kingdom has also removed its sanctions on 12 Syrian government entities, including the Ministries of Defence and Interior and the General Intelligence Directorate. But military attacks persist. Israel has carried out multiple air strikes in Syria since al-Assad’s removal. The country’s presidency denounced an Israeli attack near the presidential palace in Damascus as a “dangerous escalation” earlier this month. Tensions between Israel and Syria soared after the Israeli government accused the Syrian authorities of failing to protect the country’s Druze minority. Advertisement The Syrian government and Druze came to an agreement after days of violence, the latter saying they did not need Israel’s intervention or protection. Israel has previously called Syria’s interim government a “terror group from Idlib that took Damascus by force”. Decades needed to recover A February report by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) estimated that at current growth rates, Syria would need more than 50 years to return to the economic level it had before the war, and it called for massive investment to accelerate the process. The UNDP study said nine out of 10 Syrians now live in poverty, one-quarter are jobless and Syria’s gross domestic product (GDP) “has shrunk to less than half of its value” in 2011, the year the war began. Syria’s Human Development Index score, which factors in life expectancy, education and standard of living, has fallen to its worst level since it was first included in the index in 1990, meaning the war erased decades of development. The UNDP report estimated that Syria’s “lost GDP” during the 2011-2024 war to be about $800bn. Adblock test (Why?)
Will budget cuts cause the end of the UN as we know it?
The UN faces a historic crisis as aid is slashed, staff are laid off, and millions worldwide risk losing urgent support. United Nations agencies are facing an unprecedented financial crisis, with the United States abruptly pulling aid, European contributions shrinking, and global budgets shifting to defence. Deep cuts, mass layoffs and sweeping reforms are under way, jeopardising food, shelter and other aid for millions around the world. How can the UN adapt to survive? Adblock test (Why?)
Diddy’s lawyers downplay “suggestion of sex-trafficking”
Attorney Areva Martin breaks down Diddy’s first court day, analysing the proceedings and key evidence presented so far. Areva Martin, an attorney and legal affairs commentator, breaks down Diddy’s first day in court, offering insights into the proceedings and the key evidence presented against him so far. Adblock test (Why?)