As the conclave gathers, let debt justice be Pope Francis’s legacy
Pope Francis was never drawn to pomp or grandeur. He asked to be buried in a simple casket, and his burial was held not in the ornate halls of the Vatican, but in a modest neighbourhood church, true to his lifelong humility. As a conclave gathers today to choose his successor, world leaders and faith communities are reflecting on how best to carry forward his legacy. Francis would not have wanted ornate tributes or empty gestures. He would have wanted action – especially in the form of debt cancellation for developing countries and a renewed commitment to climate justice. Francis envisioned 2025, a Jubilee year for the Catholic Church, as a time to restore justice – among people, between nations, and with the Earth itself. A time to wipe the slate clean and begin again, not in words but in deeds. That vision aligns closely with another urgent global imperative: 2025 is also the year by which scientists warn that global carbon emissions must peak and begin to decline if we are to avoid catastrophic climate breakdown. Advertisement But instead of preparing for a just transition, many of the countries most affected by climate change are caught in a worsening “climate-debt doom loop.” From cyclones in Mozambique to floods in Pakistan and prolonged droughts in Malawi, climate-related disasters – caused overwhelmingly by industrialised nations – are tearing apart the infrastructure and economies of developing countries and displacing millions of people. Yet rather than receiving long-overdue funding and support, climate-vulnerable nations are being drained by record levels of debt payments – many owed to the very countries and institutions most responsible for global warming. According to calculations by 350.org, in 2023, developing nations spent roughly 40 times more on servicing foreign debt than they received in net climate assistance. This is not only unjust – it’s self-defeating. Funds that should be invested in clean energy, sustainable agriculture, reforestation, flood defences and public health are instead diverted to repay wealthy creditors. Meanwhile, the escalating impacts of climate change are driving up borrowing costs, pushing vulnerable countries even deeper into debt. For every $10 spent on debt payments, an additional dollar is effectively added as a premium for climate risk. The consequences ripple far beyond environmental damage. Debt service now consumes more government spending in many countries than healthcare and education combined. Over three billion people live in countries where more is spent on interest payments than on meeting basic human needs. This is not only economically short-sighted – it is a moral scandal. Advertisement Pope Francis named this reality with unflinching clarity. In his final New Year’s message, he wrote: “Foreign debt has become a means of control whereby governments and private financial institutions of the richer countries unscrupulously and indiscriminately exploit the human and natural resources of poorer countries, simply to satisfy the demands of their own markets.” He reminded us that the financial debt of the Global South is the mirror image of the massive ecological debt the Global North owes. Research by Oxfam and others estimates that wealthy nations – responsible for more than 75 percent of historic carbon emissions – owe developing countries around $5 trillion each year in climate-related reparations. That’s a feasible figure, especially when you consider that these same wealthy governments currently spend about $7 trillion annually subsidizing fossil fuel industries. There is precedent for bold, transformative action. In the last Jubilee year – 2000 – a global movement led by civil society and faith groups secured the cancellation of over $100bn in debt for 35 heavily indebted nations. The results were remarkable: Tanzania and Uganda eliminated primary school fees, boosting enrolment. Mozambique and others expanded access to healthcare. Several countries saw improved credit ratings and increased foreign investment. That initiative was a recognition that economies must serve people, not the other way around. But it fell short of addressing the deeper structural flaws that enable recurring debt crises. In the years since, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, indebtedness has surged again. Now, the combined pressure of climate impacts, declining aid and economic instability – including trade disruptions triggered by protectionist policies – threatens to unleash a global debt tsunami. Advertisement The poorest nations may be hit first and hardest, but this is not a crisis they face alone. A world shackled by unjust debt cannot act decisively to stop climate collapse. The debt crisis, if left unresolved, will sabotage efforts to protect people and the planet alike. Pope Francis reminded us that forgiveness, renewal and justice are not abstract ideals. They are moral and practical imperatives in an age of ecological breakdown. As the world prepares for the next chapter of papal leadership, we must act in his spirit: by resetting the rules of a broken financial system and building one rooted in equity, solidarity and care for our common home. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance. Adblock test (Why?)
President Xi: China and Russia should safeguard international justice
[unable to retrieve full-text content] President Xi Jinping called for closer bilateral relations with Russia and reaffirmed China’s support for the country.
New Shireen Abu Akleh documentary ‘identifies her killer’
[unable to retrieve full-text content] The makers of new documentary ‘Who Killed Shireen?’ say they have identified the Israeli soldier who shot her.
Bill Gates says he will give away 99 percent of his wealth by 2045
The former Microsoft CEO slams Elon Musk for his efforts to slash funding for US assistance to poor countries. Tech billionaire Bill Gates has said that he will give away 99 percent of his wealth in the next two decades, funding his philanthropy the Gates Foundation long enough for it to close in 2045. In a statement published on Thursday, Gates also firmly criticised the way his fellow centibillionaire – Elon Musk, an adviser to US President Donald Trump – is pushing to slash United States funds for essential things like food and medical assistance in poor countries. “The picture of the world’s richest man killing the world’s poorest children is not a pretty one,” Gates told the Financial Times, referring to Musk’s work with the Trump administration to dismantle the US Agency for International Development (USAID). Gates, who has a current estimated net worth of about $108bn, has long been among the most recognisable figures in the field of philanthropy, with an emphasis on medical assistance in poor countries. He has also become a symbol of the enormous influence that such wealth can have on everything from politics to global health. Advertisement Pandemic vaccine criticism During the COVID-19 pandemic, Gates was a vocal opponent of loosening patent protections around COVID-19 vaccines in order to allow poorer countries to manufacture their own versions and distribute them to their populations more quickly, arguing that doing so would harm innovation and intellectual property rights. Critics accused him of promoting a vision of “vaccine apartheid”. They have also questioned whether Gates, through his substantial funding of groups such as the vaccine group Gavi and the World Health Organization, wields disproportionate influence in the field of global health without the same oversight and accountability that a public institution would face. Over the years, Gates has stated that he is determined to give away most of his enormous fortune. While he is currently worth about $108bn, he expects the foundation to spend a total of around $200bn by 2045, depending on inflation and markets. “People will say a lot of things about me when I die, but I am determined that ‘he died rich’ will not be one of them,” the 69-year-old co-founder of Microsoft said in a post on his website. “There are too many urgent problems to solve for me to hold onto resources that could be used to help people,” he added. Gates also lamented that the US has pulled back from involvement in global health and humanitarian assistance around the world, offering a subtle rebuke of the Trump administration. “It’s unclear whether the world’s richest countries will continue to stand up for its poorest people,” he said. Advertisement Adblock test (Why?)
US-UK trade deal: How are Trump’s global tariff talks shaping up?
United States President Donald Trump is expected to announce the framework of a trade deal between the US and the United Kingdom on Thursday, according to people familiar with the plan. On Wednesday, Trump said he was preparing to announce “a major trade deal with representatives of a big and highly respected country”. In a post on Truth Social, he promised it would be the “first of many”. Investors have been waiting for Trump to ease his global trade war amid fears that prolonged uncertainty over tariffs could inflict serious damage to the world’s biggest economies. An agreement with the UK would mark Trump’s first trade deal since he imposed tariffs on dozens of countries on April 2, a move he called “liberation day”. Separately, Trump has introduced bespoke tariffs on certain US imports, including cars and steel. Trump has long accused other countries of exploiting the US on trade, casting his tariffs as necessary to bring jobs back to the US. He also wants to use tariffs to finance future tax cuts. US President Donald Trump holds a letter from Britain’s King Charles as he meets with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, DC, US, on February 27, 2025 [File: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters] What could be in a US-UK trade agreement? At the moment, most imports from the UK to the US face a blanket 10 percent tariff. The UK, like other countries, has also been hit with 25 percent tariffs on steel and aluminium exports to the US, as well as a 25 percent tariff on cars and car parts. Advertisement The broad outline of a proposed deal has been clear for some time – significant reductions in US tariffs on steel and cars, with an expectation that Trump’s 10 percent general tariff will remain in place. The UK would then be expected to reduce its own 2 percent digital services tax on US tech firms and its 10 percent tariff on car imports, and varying duties on US agricultural goods. However, Jonathan Haskel, a former member of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee, told the BBC: “Deals are limited and short-term and partial, just covering a few items. Trade agreements are broad-based and long-term.” Today’s announcement, he suggested, is more likely to be a deal and may amount to little more than a carve-out – exemptions on certain trade barriers that Trump introduced last month. On Thursday morning, however, Trump said the agreement was “a full and comprehensive one that will cement the relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom for many years to come”. While both governments will likely present any agreement announced today as a significant win, it is essentially about returning to the status quo – removing the newly imposed tariff barriers. It remains to be seen how much any agreement will contribute to both countries’ economic output. What and how much do the US and UK trade? In 2023, the UK had an overall trade surplus with the US. The UK reported a surplus of 71.4 billion pounds ($95bn) in goods and services. Most of that headroom came from services, however. Advertisement On the goods side, the UK exported 15.3 percent of its goods to the US in 2023 – amounting to roughly 60 billion pounds ($80bn). Machinery and transport equipment accounted for the largest share, at 27 billion pounds ($36bn), ahead of chemicals at 14 billion pounds ($19bn). On the flipside, the US exported $77.2bn of goods to the UK in 2023. Ten percent of all goods imported by Great Britain came from the US in that year, second only to Germany. Machinery and transport equipment accounted for the largest share, worth nearly 20 billion pounds ($27bn), followed by fuel – amounting to 18.7 billion pounds ($25bn). On the services side, the US exported $76bn in services – things like advertising and banking – to the UK in 2023, and imported $170bn in British services. These are unaffected by tariffs. Could the US deal serve as a blueprint for other US negotiations? Trump’s top negotiating officials have engaged in a flurry of meetings with trade partners since the president’s “liberation day” tariff announcement on April 2. Although Trump delayed implementing “reciprocal” tariffs for most countries by 90 days on April 9, he did raise them for China to 145 percent. Beijing, in turn, slapped a 125 percent tariff on US goods. The reciprocal tariffs, which varied from 10 percent to 39 percent, were designed to hit countries with which Washington has large trade deficits, or that impose heavy tariffs on US goods. Though Britain was not among the countries hit with these reciprocal tariffs, today’s announcement could set a precedent for other bilateral trade deals. Advertisement On Tuesday, Trump said he would review potential trade agreements over the next two weeks to decide which ones to accept. Last week, he said that “we [already] have potential trade deals” with South Korea and Japan. Following his 90-day reprieve, steep reciprocal tariffs are due to be imposed on US trade partners in early July, leaving country representatives racing to avoid a full-blown trade spat with the world’s number one economy. What stage of talks has the US reached with other countries? China According to data from the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the total goods trade between the US and China stood at an estimated $582.4bn in 2024. US exports of goods to China totalled $143.5bn while US imports from China totalled $438.9bn. The upshot is that America’s trade deficit with China was $295.4bn last year, 5.8 percent higher ($16.3bn) than in 2023. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent will meet with China’s Vice Premier He Lifeng in Switzerland this weekend for talks, which may be the first step in resolving a trade war between the world’s two largest economies. Meetings will take place in Geneva, and are expected to address reductions on broad tariffs, duties on specific products, export controls and Trump’s
Trump says he’ll decide on name of ‘Persian Gulf’ on Middle East visit
US president says he will announce decision on waterway during trip to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. United States President Donald Trump has said he will make a decision on how the US refers to the “Persian Gulf” during an upcoming visit to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Speaking to reporters at the White House on Wednesday, Trump said he expected his hosts to ask about the name the US uses for the waterway during his first trip to the Middle East since retaking the White House. “I’ll have to make a decision,” Trump said in response to a question about whether he would make an announcement on the body of water’s name. “I don’t want to hurt anybody’s feelings. I don’t know if feelings are going to be hurt.” “I’m going to be given a briefing on that and I’ll make a decision,” Trump added. Trump’s comments came after US media reported that he plans to use the May 13-16 trip to announce that the US will begin referring to the body of water as the Arabian Gulf or the Gulf of Arabia. The name of the waterway has long been a source of tensions between Arab nations and Iran. Advertisement Iran argues that the “Persian Gulf” is the appropriate name in light of historical evidence, including ancient maps, that shows it is part of its territory. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Iraq and other Arab states use the term “Arabian Gulf” or “the Gulf”. In 2023, Tehran summoned the Iraqi ambassador to protest his country’s use of the name “Arabian Gulf Cup” for the region’s flagship football tournament. In 2012, Iran threatened to sue internet giant Google for leaving the waterway nameless on its online map services. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi condemned the latest suggestions of a name change as “indicative of hostile intent toward Iran and its people”, and warned that such a move would “only bring the wrath of all Iranians from all walks of life”. “Such biased actions are an affront to all Iranians, regardless of their background or place of residence,” Araghchi said in a post on X early on Thursday. “Let’s hope that the absurd rumours about the PERSIAN Gulf that are going around are no more than a disinformation campaign by ‘forever warriors’ to anger Iranians all over the world and agitate them.” In one of his first actions as president, Trump in January signed an executive order to rename the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America”. Adblock test (Why?)
US jury acquits three Memphis police officers in Tyre Nichols beating death
A jury in the United States has acquitted three former police officers in the controversial beating death of Tyre Nichols, a 29-year-old father who was killed after a traffic stop in Memphis, Tennessee. On Wednesday, former officers Tadarrius Bean, Demetrius Haley and Justin Smith were found not guilty in a state-level case that included charges of second-degree murder, aggravated assault, aggravated kidnapping, official misconduct and official oppression. This was their second criminal trial, after facing federal charges for Nichols’s death as well. In that case, the three officers were also acquitted of the most serious charges they faced, though they were found guilty of witness tampering for allegedly attempting to cover up the beating. There were five police officers in total involved in the Nichols killing, which took place on January 7, 2023. As video of the beating spread online, Nichols’s death reignited the debate over law enforcement violence and the over-policing of Black communities. Advertisement In the wake of the verdict, Memphis District Attorney Steve Mulroy told reporters that Nichols’s family was “devastated” and “outraged”. “We can understand why they would be outraged, given the evidence,” Mulroy said. “Was I surprised that there wasn’t a single guilty verdict on any of the counts or any of the lesser-included offences, given the overwhelming evidence that we presented? Yes, I was surprised,” he added. “Do I have an explanation for it? No.” A portrait of Tyre Nichols is displayed at his memorial service on January 17, 2023, in Memphis, Tennessee [Adrian Sainz/AP Photo] All five police officers involved in the beating were members of the Memphis Police Department’s SCORPION unit, a now-defunct squad that focused on alleged crime hotspots in the city. The outcry after Nichols’s death led to it being disbanded. On the day of his killing, Nichols was pulled over for allegedly driving recklessly, though prosecutors have cast doubt on that motive, pointing out that police body cameras show no evidence of wrongdoing. Officers pulled Nichols from his car and tased him while he was on the ground. Nichols then attempted to flee. He ran into a residential neighbourhood not far from where his mother lived, where the five police officers wrestled him to the ground and proceeded to kick, punch and beat him with a baton. Cameras captured Nichols crying out to his mother for help. He died three days later in hospital. An autopsy identified his cause of death as blunt force trauma to the head. Advertisement Two of the police officers involved – Desmond Mills Jr and Emmitt Martin – had avoided trial by striking deals with federal prosecutors in exchange for guilty pleas. The two reportedly took plea deals related to the state charges as well. Wednesday’s verdict was the culmination of a nine-day-long trial for the other three officers. The defence team for the three sought to shift the blame to the other officers for the bulk of the violence. It also accused Nichols of resisting arrest and not complying with police orders, leaving the officers fearful for their safety. “This is Emmitt Martin’s and Tyre Nichols’s doing,” said Martin Zummach, a defence lawyer for Smith, one of the three officers. Zummach also alleged that credit and debit cards not belonging to Nichols were found in his car after his beating. That, he told the jury, could explain Nichols’s decision to flee the scene. RowVaughn Wells, the mother of Tyre Nichols, attends the state trial of former police officers Tadarrius Bean, Demetrius Haley and Justin Smith Jr on May 7 [Chris Day/Commercial Appeal/USA Today Network via AP, Pool] But prosecutors in the case argued that Nichols fled out of fear for his life. They also said the officers had a responsibility to stop the beating, which caused tears and bleeding in Nichols’s brain. Video of the beating was also shown to the jury from different angles, as the prosecutors tried to convey the violence of Nichols’s final moments. The trial, which saw seven days of hearings and two days of jury deliberations, took place in Hamilton County, a majority white area in Tennessee. A judge had previously ordered the court proceedings be moved away from Shelby County, where Memphis is located, for fear of that the public scrutiny could bias the jury pool. Advertisement Civil rights lawyer Ben Crump, who represented the Nichols family, released a statement after Wednesday’s decision denouncing the outcome. “Today’s verdicts are a devastating miscarriage of justice,” the statement reads. “The world watched as Tyre Nichols was beaten to death by those sworn to protect and serve.” Adblock test (Why?)
What are India and Pakistan’s military and nuclear capabilities?
On Wednesday morning, India carried out multiple missile attacks on parts of Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, in which at least 26 people were killed, including a three-year-old child. India has claimed its Operation Sindoor targeted nine sites with “terrorist infrastructure”. In response, Pakistan has claimed it has brought down five Indian planes – but India has not commented on this claim. At least 10 civilians have been killed in Indian-administered Kashmir due to Pakistani fire since Wednesday morning, according to local officials. Al Jazeera visualises what has happened so far and the military capabilities of both countries. Why did India attack Pakistan? On Wednesday morning, Pakistan’s armed forces said Indian missiles struck six locations, including four places in Punjab province – the first time that India has hit Pakistan’s most populous state since the 1971 war between the neighbours. The remaining two places targeted were Muzaffarabad and Kotli, both in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Advertisement India claims that it also struck a seventh location – Bhimber, also located in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. The attacks are India’s response to a deadly attack on tourists on April 22, in which gunmen killed 25 tourists and a local pony rider in the scenic town of Pahalgam, in Indian-administered Kashmir. According to multiple witness accounts, the attackers separated the men from the women and tried to pick non-Muslims as their targets. The gunmen subsequently escaped, and Indian security forces are yet to find them 16 days later. (Al Jazeera) India and Pakistan tensions at a glance In 1947, the British colonial rulers drew a line of partition, dividing the Indian subcontinent into Muslim-majority Pakistan and Hindu-majority India. What followed was one of the largest – and, perhaps, bloodiest – migrations in human history. Seventy-eight years on, the two nations remain bitter foes. But now they have nuclear arms. The tension between India and Pakistan has escalated sharply once again after the Pahalgam attack. The Muslim-majority Kashmir region, a former princely state, has been in dispute since the partition of India. India, Pakistan and China each control a part of Kashmir. India claims all of it, while Pakistan claims the part administered by India. The two countries have gone to war four times, and there have been numerous cross-border skirmishes and escalations, including one in 2019 after at least 40 Indian soldiers were killed in a suicide attack claimed by the Pakistan-based armed group, Jaish-e-Muhammad. Advertisement In retaliation, India launched air strikes in Balakot, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa later that month, claiming that its jets had struck “terrorist” bases, killing many fighters. Many independent analysts have questioned whether India actually struck bases of armed groups and whether it killed as many fighters as it claims it did. What are the military capabilities of India and Pakistan? According to Global Firepower’s 2025 military strength rankings, India is the fourth-strongest military power in the world, and Pakistan is ranked as the 12th strongest. India is the fifth-largest spender in the world on military. In 2024, it spent $86bn on its military, or 2.3 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP), according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), a leading defence and armaments think tank. In comparison, Pakistan spent $10.2bn, or 2.7 percent of its GDP, on the military in 2024. India’s total military strength is 5,137,550 personnel, which is almost three times larger than Pakistan’s 1,704,000. Neither country has mandatory conscription. India possesses 2,229 military aircraft, compared with Pakistan’s 1,399. India has 3,151 combat tanks, compared with Pakistan’s 1,839. Pakistan’s navy covers its 1,046 kilometre-long (650-mile) southern coastal borders in the Arabian Sea and possesses 121 naval assets, while India’s mainland coast covers nearly 6,100km (3,800 miles) with 293 naval assets. India and Pakistan’s nuclear arms race According to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICANW), a global coalition to ban nuclear weapons, in 2023, countries spent an estimated $91.4bn on nuclear weapons, with India spending $2.7bn and Pakistan $1bn. Advertisement India carried out its first nuclear test in May 1974, and in May 1998, conducted another five tests, declaring itself a nuclear weapons state. Pakistan carried out its first nuclear tests shortly after India’s in 1998, officially becoming a nuclear weapons state. Since then, the two born together, star-crossed nations have been engaged in an arms race that has cost them billions of dollars. According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ (CSIS) Missile Defence Project, New Delhi nuclear deterrents are mainly aimed at rivals Pakistan and China. India has developed longer range missiles and mobile land-based missiles. In conjunction with Russia, it is in the developing stages for ship and submarine missiles. The CSIS also states that Pakistan’s arsenal consists primarily of mobile short- and medium-range ballistic missiles, which have enough of a range to target India. China’s significant technical assistance on its nuclear and missile programmes has helped Pakistan in recent years. Who supplies arms to India and Pakistan? According to SIPRI, the cross-border tensions between the two nations fuel arms imports by both countries. India was the second-largest arms importer from 2020-2024, after Ukraine, bearing an 8.3 percent share of global imports. The majority of India’s imports come from Russia, although it has been shifting its arms sourcing to France, Israel and the United States. Across the border, Pakistan’s arms and weapons imports increased by 61 percent between 2015–19 and 2020–24 as it started to receive deliveries, including combat aircraft and warships. On a global scale, Pakistan is the fifth-largest arms importer with 4.6 percent imports in 2020–24. Advertisement Since 1990, Pakistan’s main supplier has been China. China supplied 81 percent of Pakistan’s arms imports in 2020–24; Russia supplied 36 percent of India’s arms during the same period. Adblock test (Why?)
How Israel’s ‘plan’ for Gaza could turbocharge ethnic cleansing
Israel’s far-right government has approved a “plan” to carve up and ethnically cleanse Gaza, analysts told Al Jazeera. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced the plan, couching it in claims that its goal is to dismantle Hamas and retrieve the 24 or so living captives taken from Israel on October 7, 2023. Asserting that the “powerful operation in Gaza” was necessary, he went on to emphasise that “there will be a movement of the population to protect it.” Here’s what you need to know: What is this ‘plan’? Israel will expel hundreds of thousands of hungry Palestinians from the north of Gaza and confine them in six encampments. It says food will be provided to the Palestinians in these encampments, and that it will allow aid groups and private security contractors to distribute it. Palestinians will be forced to move – or starve. Some 5,000 to 6,000 families will be pushed into each camp, according to The Washington Post. Each household will send someone to trek miles to pick up a weekly food parcel from what the Norwegian Refugee Council’s Jan Egeland called “concentration hubs”. Advertisement It is unclear how the rest of the population – possibly some 1.5 million people – will eat. Israel says it will use facial recognition to identify people picking up food parcels, to deny aid to “Hamas” – yet Israel treats every fighting-age male as a Hamas operative. The private security companies from the United States would also guard within the designated areas. Experts and UN agencies are decrying the plan as impractical and inhumane. What does this mean for the people of Gaza? Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza continues, and Palestinians will continue to suffer. Since Israel began its war on Gaza on October 7, 2023, it has cloaked its mass expulsions in what it claims are humane “advance warnings” in which families have mere hours to pack their belongings and flee to a zone Israel determines. Israel often bombs those safe zones anyway. “If you are viewing this plan through aid distribution, it makes no sense,” Diana Buttu, legal scholar and former adviser to the Palestine Liberation Organization, told Al Jazeera. A Palestinian man embraces the body of his five-year-old son, Adam Namrouti, who Israel killed in an overnight air raid on a UN school used as a shelter, at Al-Aqsa Hospital in Deir al-Balah, Gaza on May 7, 2025 [Abdel Kareem Hana/AP] “If you view it through a political project, which is ethnic cleansing and cantonisation by using food as a weapon of war, then this plan does make sense,” she said, adding that the “plan” is consistent with Israel’s aim of carrying out a genocide in Gaza. Advertisement What did the people of Gaza say? That they are afraid, and starving, after two months of Israel blocking all aid and regular shipments of food. “If there is a plan to expand the war and reoccupy Gaza and repeat the displacement, why were we allowed to return to the north again?” Noor Ayash, 31, asks. “What more does Netanyahu want? We’re dying in every way.” Mahmoud al-Nabahin, 77, who has been displaced for the past 18 months, says Netanyahu’s threats are meaningless. He has lost everything; Israel killed his wife and daughter in a raid months ago, and their home and farm are gone. “[This] means nothing but our annihilation. We’ve lost all hope. Let him do whatever he wants,” he says from his tent in Deir el-Balah. “We don’t have weapons. We’re civilians left in the wind. People will refuse displacement, but will be forced by the army.” What does Israel want? They want to finish their genocide under the guise of facilitating food aid and rescuing Israeli captives, Omar Rahman, an expert on Israel-Palestine for the Middle East Council on Global Affairs, said. “Israel has been telegraphing its real intentions from the start of this campaign: Destroy Gaza and eliminate its population both by starvation and mass killing,” he said. Israel’s “plan” signals its intent to starve Palestinians who resist being expelled from north Gaza, said Heidi Matthews, a legal scholar at York University, Canada. “It is inconceivable that the population can be adequately provided for … whilst being crowded into southern Gaza,” she said. Advertisement “This indicates the genocidal intent to inflict on the Palestinian population of Gaza conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.” Can Israel even manage this? Not clear. Israel plans to hire two US private security firms, Safe Reach Solutions and UG Solutions, to provide security and possibly help with food distribution. The first is headed by Phil Riley, a former CIA intelligence officer. The second is run by Jameson Govoni, a former member of the US Army Special Forces. These companies could give Israel plausible deniability if abuses or atrocities occur, said Mairav Zonszein, an expert on Israel-Palestine for the International Crisis Group. A morgue worker places the body of a child among the bodies of other victims killed in at least two separate Israeli army attacks, before of a burial ceremony outside al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, Monday, May 5, 2025 [AP Photo/Jehad Alshrafi] (AP) She added that Israel will also call up thousands of reservists to maintain a physical occupation over northern Gaza, despite many soldiers being fatigued by war and financial troubles. “There is definitely a lower … turnout among reservists than at the start of the war. But that doesn’t mean there is actually a manpower shortage,” Zonszein told Al Jazeera. In addition, she noted, despite Israeli society opposing expanding the war on Gaza without first retrieving the captives, Netanyahu is more concerned with appeasing far-right ministers in his coalition by fighting on. Advertisement Netanyahu risks losing power and standing trial for corruption charges if the coalition collapses. Are aid agencies on board? Not UN agencies. A UN spokesman said Secretary-General Antonio Guterres was “alarmed” by Israel’s plan and that it will “inevitably lead to countless more civilians killed and the
Eastern Europe bets on Trump – but at what cost?
OPINIONOPINION, Eastern Europe’s love affair with Trump runs deep – but economic fallout may soon cool the romance. Despite Donald Trump’s fraying popularity at home, there is a corner of the globe where his brand remains remarkably resilient: Eastern Europe. Last Sunday, the Trump-loving far-right populist George Simion topped the first round of Romania’s presidential elections, securing over 40 percent of the vote and a realistic path to the top office. Echoing Trump’s pledge to “Make America Great Again,” Simion promises to “give back to the Romanian people what was taken from them”. He is not an outlier. In neighbouring Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orban openly embraces the mantle of Trump’s European standard-bearer. Trumpworld’s influence in the region extends beyond politics. Jared Kushner is spearheading a real estate venture in downtown Belgrade, and Donald Trump Jr has recently completed his second tour in months of Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria, rubbing shoulders with politicians, business elites and crypto entrepreneurs eager to forge ties with the Trump family. Eastern Europe’s fascination with the “America First” president is fuelled by both ideological alignment and hard-nosed pragmatism. The MAGA message resonates widely across the post-communist landscape. A recent Gallup poll ahead of the 2024 United States election showed that 49 percent of respondents in Bulgaria and Hungary – and a staggering 59 percent in Serbia – preferred Trump over Kamala Harris. This is no coincidence. From the AfD supporters in former East Germany to the ruling Georgian Dream party in Tbilisi, illiberal actors across the region are rallying against the liberal democratic consensus. Their views on issues like LGBTQ rights, race, gender, multiculturalism, vaccines and Ukraine mirror those of Trump’s base. Trump’s friendliness towards Vladimir Putin has further enhanced his appeal in Russia-friendly nations like Serbia. Advertisement There is also a transnational dimension. Eastern European diasporas in the US tend to favour Trump, drawn by social conservatism or competition with other ethnic and racial groups. Their counterparts in Western Europe are similarly inclined, even as they benefit from the very open-border policies they often deride. In Romania’s recent election, 60 percent of Romanians living in the European Union and the United Kingdom voted for Simion. Many had previously backed Calin Georgescu, a far-right figure publicly defended by US Vice President JD Vance at the Munich Security Conference. At home, elites see in Trump a potential enabler. A powerful friend in Washington who overlooks corruption and democratic backsliding could prove advantageous both domestically and internationally. The prospect of US foreign policy becoming indistinguishable from the Trump Organization’s business agenda is attractive in a region rife with opaque sectors like infrastructure, energy and mining. The recent US-Ukraine critical minerals deal is seen as a blueprint for currying favour with a transactional White House. This relationship is already yielding dividends. In April, the Trump administration reversed sanctions on Antal Rogan, a close Orban ally, originally imposed under the Global Magnitsky Act by the Biden administration. The move has raised hopes elsewhere: in Bulgaria, tycoon and political heavyweight Delyan Peevski – also sanctioned under Magnitsky – is reportedly eyeing a similar reprieve. Yet Eastern Europe’s Trump infatuation may prove fragile. Ironically, Trump’s economic nationalism threatens to undercut the very economies governed by his ideological allies. Hungary and Slovakia, both heavily reliant on automotive exports, stand to suffer under US tariffs. Slovakia’s car industry alone accounts for nearly 30 percent of national exports and employs 10 percent of the workforce. Even a modest 10 percent tariff could decimate jobs in Central Europe’s industrial belt. Advertisement Such economic fallout would have political consequences. In the Czech Republic, it might boost populist Andrej Babis, a Trump-like businessman. But in Hungary, Orban already faces a serious challenge from Peter Magyar, with elections looming next year. In Slovakia, Robert Fico governs with a slim majority and increasing public dissent – his long-term survival is uncertain. Trumpism has already proven a liability for right-wing allies in Canada and Australia. While Eastern Europe remains more receptive, the region is not immune to the risks of over-identification with a movement that pits itself against the European Union, liberal values and global economic integration. The MAGA revolution may still fire up crowds in Bucharest and Belgrade – but its contradictions could just as easily burn those who embrace it. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance. Adblock test (Why?)