UN Security Council denounces strikes on Qatar, stops short of naming Israel

September 12, 2025

Hamas leadership survives Israeli strikes, group says

Smoke over Doha: funerals, fury and the fragile thread of mediation

The mosque was a hush of white robes and camo, of prayer and politics braided together. Coffins — one draped in Qatar’s flag, five wrapped in Palestinian cloth — were carried through the courtyard of Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdul Wahhab Mosque under tight security. The emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, stood among the mourners, head bowed, as the city watched and the region reeled.

“We came to pray for the dead and to warn the living,” said Hamad al-Kuwari, a shopkeeper in the Souq Waqif who attended the funeral with trembling hands. “Doha has been a place for talk and truce. Today it feels like that shelter has been pierced.”

What happened and why it matters

Earlier this week, an airstrike in Doha struck a site tied to Hamas political figures, killing six people — five Palestinians connected to the group and a Qatari national identified by authorities as Lance Corporal Badr Saad Mohammed al-Humaidi al-Dosari. Hamas said its top negotiators survived, but the attack has been described by Hamas officials as an attempt to destroy ceasefire negotiations and to intimidate mediators.

The UN Security Council, in a rare unified move, condemned the strikes and called for “de-escalation,” while expressing solidarity with Qatar. That statement required the agreement of all 15 council members — including allies of Israel — and notably did not name Israel as the attacker. The omission has become another point of contention.

Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, had issued a blistering warning only days before: expel Hamas officials from Qatari soil or “bring them to justice, because if you don’t, we will.” The United Arab Emirates publicly rebuked those comments, saying any strike on a Gulf state amounts to an attack on the region’s collective security. “The Gulf’s security is a shared shield,” UAE official Afra Al Hameli said in a statement this week. “Undermining it sets a dangerous precedent.”

Funerals under guard

The funerary procession in Doha was as much a political message as a religious rite. Checkpoints ringed the roads to the Mesaimeer Cemetery, and live footage showed mourners in traditional white next to uniformed guards. A small crowd pressed forward to catch a glimpse of the coffins, their faces a mixture of grief and hard resolve.

“We buried their bodies, but the wounds are not only ours,” said Mariam Hasan, a teacher who stood among the mourners. “This was an attack on negotiations, on any chance of returning the hostages alive, on the possibility of stopping the killing.”

Diplomacy in ruins — or merely regrouping?

For years, Doha has occupied a fraught but crucial role in the Middle East’s back-channels. Since 2012, Qatar has hosted a political office linked to Hamas — a controversial but pragmatic move tacitly tolerated by Washington, which has sought to keep lines of communication open. Qatar’s capital has hosted rounds of indirect talks aimed at securing ceasefires and negotiating hostage releases.

“You can either mourn the collapse of a fragile process or try to rebuild it,” said Professor Laila Mansour, an expert in conflict mediation at the American University in Beirut. “What the strike does is reduce the space for discreet, difficult diplomacy. When hosts are no longer safe, intermediaries lose their power — and the region loses a valve for pressure release.”

Qatar’s prime minister, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, said the strike had shattered hopes for rescuing Israeli hostages and that Doha was “reevaluating everything” about its role as mediator. He also hinted at a unified regional response and an Arab-Islamic summit planned in Doha to map out next steps.

Voices from the street and the strategy room

Across the city, conversations moved from grief to wider questions about sovereignty and escalation. “We are small but sovereign,” said Saif Al-Majed, a taxi driver who brought relatives to the mosque. “If foreign powers hit us here, who’s safe? Today it was a political office. Tomorrow it could be a hospital, a school.”

An Israeli analyst, speaking on condition of anonymity, argued that the strike reflected a broader strategy to deny Hamas political leadership the freedom to maneuver. “When you cut off the head of negotiations, you pressure the other side,” the analyst said. “It’s blunt instrument politics — morally fraught, strategically risky.”

And in Washington, a senior diplomat said the US backed the Security Council statement and urged calm, while stressing that de-escalation required all parties to avoid rhetoric that could inflame tensions. “The focus needs to be on protecting civilians and preserving channels for hostage negotiations,” the diplomat said. “Destroying those channels will make matters worse, not better.”

International law and the perilous precedent

Targeted strikes on foreign soil raise thorny legal and ethical questions. “States don’t get to unilaterally extend their battlefield into the territory of other sovereign nations without grave consequences,” said Amal Sherein, a human-rights lawyer in Doha. “Such acts can be construed as violations of sovereignty and may constitute aggression under international law.”

Yet for those who have lost loved ones in Gaza or taken in the staggering human cost of the conflict, legal arguments can feel abstract. “My brother was taken hostage months ago,” said Aisha al-Qassem, a relative who has campaigned for the return of captives. “We were pinning our hopes on talks. Now everything is darker.”

What comes next?

Doha has called for an Arab-Islamic summit to chart a collective response. Whether that will produce sanctions, diplomatic pressure, or a renewed push for mediation is uncertain. What is certain is that the strike on Qatari soil has widened a fault line: the idea that Gulf sanctuaries are off-limits has been shattered.

Ask yourself: when a city built on trade, transit and talk is pierced by force, who pays the price? Diplomats, mourners and shopkeepers will all tell you the same answer — it’s the fragile architecture of negotiation, and the civilians caught beneath it.

In a region where every word, every movement, can be read as signal or provocation, the challenge now is whether pragmatists can hold fast to the difficult work of dialogue. Or whether the temptation for striking, visible action will sweep away the less glamorous, slower work that once offered a sliver of hope.

Final thoughts

The funerals in Doha were not merely an act of mourning. They were a public, defiant reminder that war can spill into places meant for diplomacy, that the zones of sanctuary are not guaranteed, and that the human stakes are immediate and intimate. For the families carrying those coffins, for the mediators recalibrating their roles, and for the diplomats trying to stitch back a fraying process, the question is urgent: can conversation survive in a landscape where conversation itself has become a target?

UK removes Mandelson as ambassador to US amid Epstein ties

hanad

September 12, 2025

UK sacks Mandelson as US ambassador over Epstein links — Jeffrey Epstein died in 2019

The End of an Embassy: How Peter Mandelson’s Ties to Jeffrey Epstein Undid a High-Profile Appointment

There are moments in politics that feel like the slow unfurling of a rope: taut, inevitable, and finally snapping. On a wet Wednesday in Westminster, Britain’s foreign ministry announced what many in the capital had been bracing for: Peter Mandelson, one of Labour’s most enduring figures, will not take up the ambassadorial post in Washington. The stated reason was stark and simple—the depth of his relationship with the late financier Jeffrey Epstein was substantially different from what was known when he was appointed.

For anyone who has followed Mandelson’s long career, the news lands with a peculiar mixture of surprise and grim recognition. A key architect of New Labour’s rise under Tony Blair, a cabinet minister who helped steer Britain through the turn of the millennium, Mandelson’s name has always carried weight. Yet it is the company he kept—words written and preserved in emails and a birthday book—that finally tilted the scales.

The documents that changed the game

The material that spurred the withdrawal included a birthday message in which Mandelson described Epstein as “my best pal.” Journalists also reported on emails in which Mandelson reassured Epstein he was “following you closely and here whenever you need,” urged him to “remember the Art of War” when dealing with prosecutors, and advised him to “fight for early release” as Epstein faced criminal sentencing.

These are not casual notes. Taken together, they paint a portrait of a relationship that extended past polite acquaintance. The foreign ministry said the emails revealed “new information,” including Mandelson’s suggestion that Epstein’s first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged—an assertion that altered the calculus of his suitability for a senior diplomatic role.

Jeffrey Epstein, a financier who cultivated relationships with the powerful, pleaded guilty in Florida in 2008 to soliciting prostitution from a minor and received an eighteen-month sentence in what many critics later decried as a lenient plea deal. He was arrested again in 2019 on federal charges alleging sex trafficking of minors and died in custody that August; his death was ruled a suicide. The Epstein case has become a wider reckoning about how wealth and connections can blur accountability for horrific crimes.

From PMQs to the firing line

Just a day before the withdrawal, Prime Minister Keir Starmer had publicly defended Mandelson at Prime Minister’s Questions, saying he retained “confidence” in him and that “due process was followed” during the vetting. But the revelation of more detailed correspondence shifted the political weather quickly.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch called the disclosures “sickening,” declaring Mandelson’s position “untenable” and accusing the prime minister of appearing weak for having backed him. “This is a weak Prime Minister, leading a Government mired in scandal,” she said, adding, “The public deserves better. Peter Mandelson needs to be fired now.”

Within Labour’s ranks, backbenchers Richard Burgon and Nadia Whittome joined the chorus demanding immediate dismissal. Whittome’s words were blunt: “We either stand with victims or we don’t.” The pressure, from cross-party critics to activists and the tabloid press, became politically untenable.

Voices in the aftermath

On the pavement outside the Foreign Office, the mood was a mixture of anger and weary resignation. “You can’t cherry-pick justice just because someone is useful,” said Emma Reid, a campaigner with a survivors’ advocacy group, who asked that her surname be used. “This isn’t just a political scandal—it’s a moral test.”

A former diplomatic staffer, speaking on condition of anonymity, told me: “The ambassador to Washington needs unquestionable standing. Once trust is eroded—especially over something as serious as this—it’s impossible to be effective.”

And then there was Mandelson himself. In an apology that was as much about tone as it was about content, he told a national tabloid he regretted “very, very deeply indeed carrying on” his association with Epstein “for far longer than I should have done.” Asked whether the relationship continued after Epstein had been charged, he said, “It was not a business relationship,” adding he had never seen wrongdoing or evidence of criminal activity.

What this means for vetting and accountability

This episode exposes a raw nerve in modern governance: how do you vet the powerful, and who decides when past relationships disqualify a person from representing a country abroad? The UK’s diplomatic service conducts rigorous checks on prospective envoys, but critics ask whether those checks adequately probe social and informal networks—particularly when the networks include people who have been accused, and later convicted, of sexually exploiting minors.

“The Epstein case was always going to be a litmus test for anyone associated with him,” said Dr. Anna Patel, a researcher in corruption and accountability at the London School of Economics. “Even if contacts were social rather than transactional, the optics are damaging. Diplomacy relies on moral authority as much as technical skill.”

Accountability is also now a brand management issue for parties. Starmer’s initial defense and the subsequent reversal underline how quickly political calculations can change. A decision that once seemed defensible can become a liability when fresh facts arrive and public patience runs thin.

Beyond Westminster: the larger reckoning

This is not just a British story. Across the globe, high-profile cases have forced institutions to confront how power protects predators and preserves reputations. From universities to corporations to political parties, the question is the same: whom do we allow back into positions of trust, and on what grounds?

The Mandelson affair forces us to ask uncomfortable questions: Do we measure people only by their past achievements, or also by whom they stood beside when it mattered? Can public service be separated from private associations?

As a society, we are gradually developing a less forgiving lens for the networks that once smoothed the way for problematic figures. That’s progress, but it is also disruptive. It disrupts careers, reputations—and in some cases—long-standing institutions that relied on the implicit immunity of elite connections.

What comes next

For now, the foreign ministry has asked the prime minister’s representative to step back. Parliamentary questions are being tabled. The Foreign Affairs Committee may request testimony. And for Mandelson, a figure who has known both power and scandal, this is another pivot point.

As readers, we should ask ourselves: should a single thread of correspondence undo a lifetime of service? Or should it prompt a harder, more honest accounting of how public roles are earned and defended? That is the debate that will continue in the coming days—less about one man’s fate and more about how democracies police the boundaries between private loyalties and public responsibility.

In the end, the Mandelson episode is a reminder that in the age of instant archives—emails, birthday books, messages preserved in print—the past is never past. It waits. And sometimes, it calls us to account.

US official: People praising the killing of Kirk unwelcome in America

hanad

September 12, 2025

Those praising Kirk killing not welcome in US - official — Charlie Kirk was shot at a speaking event in Utah Valley University on Wednesday

A Campus, a Coffin, and the Country That Fractured Around Them

On a clear Utah afternoon, where the air usually tastes of pine and possibility, a single bullet cut through a lecture hall and through the brittle peace of a nation already riven by politics. Charlie Kirk, 31, a lightning rod for conservative youth activism, collapsed on a stage at Utah Valley University. Within hours the scene—flowers, candles, and stunned students whispering his name—had become a mirror held up to America: jagged, reflective, and impossible to ignore.

Students gathered under the Rockies’ long shadow the next day, some with hands trembling, others with phones livid with feeds, grappling with grief and the surreal overlap of spectacle and blood. “It felt like one of our own,” said Dave Sanchez, a 26-year-old student. “We watch him all the time online. Seeing this happen here—on campus—made it personal. It made it real.”

Washington’s Warning: Foreign Voices Won’t Be Welcome If They Cheer Violence

In Washington, the response was swift and unequivocal. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau, writing on the social platform X, warned that foreigners who “praise, rationalize, or make light” of the assassination would face consequences when seeking entry to the United States. He said he had instructed consular officials to take “appropriate action.”

The words landed like a formal edict across the chaotic landscape of comment threads and viral clips. “We will not open our doors to those who celebrate violence against Americans,” an unnamed State Department official told reporters when pressed for details. But the official—careful and deliberately vague—declined to define what “appropriate action” would mean for an individual flagged in a reply thread of more than 2,000 messages.

What is clear is that the Biden and now Trump administrations in recent years have increasingly used visa policy as a tool of national-security signaling—revoking student visas, tightening social-media vetting, and publicly linking entry privileges to behavior online. But critics worry that the line between legitimate security concerns and political policing could become dangerously blurred.

“We’re watching what people write”

“Consular officers already review social media during visa adjudication in many cases,” said Lena Morales, an immigration attorney who has worked on cases involving online speech. “Expanding that to post-entry revocation, or to revoking visas for people expressing abhorrent views abroad, raises legal and ethical questions. Who decides the threshold? And what safeguards exist against political weaponization?”

The Manhunt and the Mechanics of a Targeted Attack

As mourners made small altars near Timpanogos Regional Hospital and a coffin was flown home to Phoenix—on an aircraft reportedly associated with Ohio Senator JD Vance—law enforcement chased threads of surveillance footage and tips that pointed to a young man on a rooftop.

The FBI released images of a potential suspect: a figure in a black baseball cap and sunglasses, a long-sleeved shirt bearing a design that included an American flag. Authorities said the gunman fired a single round from a rooftop at a distance of up to 180 meters, striking Kirk in the neck. A high-powered bolt-action rifle was recovered in a wooded area, and federal officials posted a reward of up to $100,000 for information leading to the suspect’s capture.

“This appears to have been targeted,” an FBI special agent said on the condition of anonymity, echoing the agency’s public statement. “We are following multiple leads. No arrests yet.”

Between Grief and Fury: How the Right and Left Reacted

Grief on the right quickly collided with calls for retribution and pleas for calm. President Donald Trump, addressing the nation with the ritual gravity of a president addressing a tragic wound, called the killing a “heinous assassination” and urged supporters to respond peacefully. “That’s the way I’d like to see people respond,” he said, repeating that Kirk advocated nonviolence.

But the media ecosystem that amplified Kirk’s career also amplified a different tenor—one of righteous rage. Some commentators asked bluntly what the political right would do next. “Whether we want to accept it or not, they are at war with us,” a Fox News host intoned, a line that ricocheted through partisan subchannels, sparking both hashtags and howls.

On social media, reactions ranged from solemn memorial posts to lurid conspiracy threads. Some users posted screenshots of accounts they said celebrated the killing, and Mr Landau replied that consular officials would monitor the flagged posts. Whether any of those accounts belonged to visa holders was, at last report, unclear.

At the heart of the spectacle

To many on campus, the politics felt secondary for the moment—overwhelmed by the human images that refused to be reduced to talking points. “We lit candles by the sculpture outside the lecture hall,” said Maya Ortega, a sophomore who studies political science. “Someone brought a guitar and started playing. Somebody else read a passage from a book. In that moment, politics fell away. We were just people who hurt.”

Bigger Questions: Violence, Social Media, and a Fractured Public Square

Charlie Kirk’s rise—founder of Turning Point USA at age 18, a magnetic presence on TikTok, Instagram, and campus stages—was also a textbook case of how modern politics breeds celebrities and how celebrity amplifies grievance. He built large audiences by fusing cultural swagger with blunt policy positions: pro-gun, vocal in his Christianity, anti-immigration. His supporters see him as a martyr; his critics see him as an accelerant to the polarization that produced this violence.

What does it mean when a public figure becomes both a target and a brand? How do we police praise for political violence when speech itself is increasingly theatrical—and global? How do democracies respond to acts that feel both criminal and symbolic?

Experts warn that this incident is part of a broader pattern. “We are increasingly seeing violence on a political axis: targeted attacks, assassination attempts, threats against elected officials and public figures,” said Dr. Riya Kapoor, a political violence researcher. “It’s not just crime. It’s performative, and social media accelerates the feedback loop. That creates incentives for extremism of all stripes.”

After the Coffin Leaves: What Comes Next?

For now, the body has been flown home; the investigation continues; a reward sits on a suspect’s head; a deputy secretary of state has promised that foreigners who celebrate the killing will face visa troubles. But the wider wounds—trust in institutions, the filigree of civility, the place where online vitriol meets real-world harm—are not so easily remedied.

Families will grieve. A movement will interpret loss as martyrdom. A nation will ask itself again whether the norms that undergird civic life can withstand the shock of spectacle and blood. And somewhere between the prayer vigils and the late-night pundit monologues, ordinary people will return to classrooms and kitchens, trying to make sense of a day that felt like the end of an era—or the beginning of a more dangerous one.

What would you do if the rhetoric of your feed became the reality at your doorstep? How do we hold both the need for public safety and the protections of civil liberties without sacrificing one for the other? These are the questions this country now faces—one cup of coffee and one candle at a time.

WHO’s Ryan ‘Disillusioned’ by Global Community’s Response to Gaza Crisis

hanad

September 12, 2025

WHO's Ryan 'disillusioned' with world over Gaza crisis — The World Health Organization's Deputy Director General, Dr Mike Ryan said 'children are being intentionally starved as a weapon of war'

A World That Turns Away: A Dispatch on Hunger, Children, and Our Collective Conscience

There are moments when the vocabulary of outrage fails: when the images on the screen are so intimate and the need so immediate that formal sentences feel like furniture moved around the edges of a burning room. I found myself in one of those moments listening to a senior World Health Organization official describe Gaza as “a tiny, easily accessible area” where the supplies that could keep children alive are simply not getting through.

“I am almost entirely disillusioned with the world,” he said, voice tight with a kind of grief that radiates past policy papers and press releases. When such words come from someone who has spent decades shepherding responses to epidemics, disasters and war, they land like pebbles in a still pond—small gestures that ripple outward and reveal how shallow our commitments sometimes are.

Faces Amid the Statistics

Consider the numbers that anchor this story: Gaza is home to roughly 2.3 million people crammed into an area of about 365 square kilometres. The United Nations estimates that food insecurity has reached catastrophic levels in many parts of the territory. Meanwhile, at home in Ireland, a recent Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) report found that one in five children—20 percent—are living below the poverty line once housing costs are taken into account. That statistic hangs heavy when you remember that poverty is not only about money; it is about quiet hunger, cramped rooms, stretched mental health services, and futures narrowed before a child has had a chance to spread their wings.

“You cannot measure a child’s future by the euros in their pocket,” said an Irish community worker I spoke with in Dublin. “You measure it by the playgrounds that are safe to use, by the clinics that answer the phone, by the dignity in their home.”

On the Ground in Gaza

Outside the sterile confines of a conference room, the story takes on texture: a woman markets tomatoes behind a tarpaulin, children chase one another down a rubble-strewn alley, and an exhausted aid worker counts the days since the last reliable delivery of medical supplies. “We’ve never seen logistics this politicised,” said the aid worker, hands stained with dust. “There are trucks waiting at the border while children grow thinner. That is not an accident—it’s a choice.”

Health agencies have long warned that intentional starvation as a weapon of war is not just a moral atrocity; it is a public-health emergency with long, intergenerational consequences. Severe malnutrition in early life shows up later as impaired cognitive development, greater susceptibility to disease, and lost potential that compounds across a lifetime.

What We Are Failing to Invest In

The WHO official’s frustration broadens into a critique many of us feel but rarely name: we fail to invest in children systematically. “We leave a lot of children behind,” he said, pointing to a global pattern in which education, health and social protection are trimmed when budgets are tight. It is worth pausing over the word invest. Investments yield returns. Societies that invested in universal education and public health in the mid-20th century starved out diseases, built economies, and created stronger democracies.

“I had free access to medicine and education when I was young,” he acknowledged, remembering the social ladder that service provision helped construct. “We’ve done this before. We can do it again.”

Beyond Money: The Dimensions of Poverty

Poverty, he reminds us, is not a single tally. It is a braided set of deficits—food and shelter, yes; but also enrichment, safety, mental health, and belonging. The ESRI’s child-poverty figures are a sobering prompt: how many promising lives are being written off as collateral in political calculations? How many futures will be diminished because the scaffolding of society was withdrawn at a crucial time?

“The pandemic exposed the scaffolding that was already fragile,” says a child psychologist in Cork. “When schools closed, services tightened, and families lost income, children’s emotional and developmental needs magnified. Recovery isn’t just about catching up academically; it’s about repairing trust and restoring routines that make children feel seen.”

Lockdowns, Vaccines, and the Cost of Mistrust

The conversation inevitably turns to Covid—another crucible in which public trust was tested. The WHO official clarified that the organization did not prescribe lockdowns as a universal remedy; countries generally developed and implemented those policies themselves. Yet the pandemic did another, more subtle thing: it amplified distrust.

Anti-vaccination movements are not new, but they gained momentum during Covid, buoyed by social media and misinformation. “People have a right to ask questions,” the WHO official said. “But questioning must not be weaponised to spread falsehoods. When the data shows that vaccines save lives, we must lean into that science.”

And the evidence is stark. Vaccination programmes are among the most effective public-health interventions in history—measles deaths have fallen by more than 80 percent since the introduction of widespread immunisation in many countries, and smallpox has been eliminated. Globally, vaccines have saved hundreds of millions of lives and prevented untold suffering.

Local Voices, Global Questions

Back in a small Irish town, I sat with an elderly man who had worked in public health for four decades. He folded his hands and said, “We are tested not by what we achieve in good times but by what we refuse to let happen in bad times. If the world cannot keep children alive, then what are our principles worth?”

Across the sea in Gaza, a mother whispered, “If the world can watch water trucks and medicine convoys waiting at borders and not move, then my children do not exist to them.” That is the human line you cannot argue with: the particular grief of parents, neighbours, and aid workers staring down a crisis that is preventable.

After the Front Lines: Retirement, Reflection, and the Call to Action

The WHO official spoke of his own mortality in unvarnished terms: the passing of colleagues, the shattering of illusions that even the most committed among us are invulnerable. He is retiring, he said, and the loss of colleagues—people who felt invincible—has recalibrated his sense of time. “I’m not immortal,” he admitted. “I need time to recover and then to think about what comes next.”

There is tenderness in that confession: even those who have dedicated their lives to global health are human, carrying grief and fatigue. Their moral clarity is not a superpower; it is a discipline, learned through exposure to sorrow and chosen again each morning.

What Can You Do?

Ask yourself: when images of a distant crisis flash on your screen, what do you do next? Sign a petition? Share an article? Call your representative? Donate? The answers matter. Global problems demand both empathy and strategy—supporting NGOs, urging diplomatic solutions, and insisting on the humanitarian corridors that allow life-saving aid to pass.

Advocate for ceasefires and the release of hostages where political will is required to protect civilians.
Support organisations providing food, water and medical care on the ground—logistics win lives.
Vote and lobby for policies that invest in children: universal health, quality early education, and social safety nets.

We can pretend compassion is a private emotion, or we can make it a public policy. The choice is ours. If you, like me, find the WHO official’s disenchantment hard to swallow, let it be a spur. Disillusionment is a call to action disguised as sorrow; it demands a response not from one nation, but from all of us. Will we answer?

Israeli military reports missile launched from Yemen was intercepted

hanad

September 11, 2025

Israeli army says a missile fired from Yemen intercepted — Houthi rebels have repeatedly launched missiles and drones at Israel since October 2023 (file image)

Smoke Over Sanaa: A City Caught Between Missiles, Media and Mourning

When the sirens began blaring across Israel late on a humid evening, they carried with them the faint, distant echo of a conflict that has stretched to the edges of the Arabian Peninsula. Israel’s military announced that a missile launched from Yemen had been intercepted — a terse line on Telegram that landed like a second shockwave on a region already wound tight with grief and fury.

In Yemen, the impact was immediate and visceral. Officials in Sanaa, the capital held by the Iran-backed Houthi movement, reported that airstrikes had struck the Houthi armed forces’ media offices and a complex in Jawf province, killing 35 people and wounding at least 131. “The toll includes 28 dead and 113 wounded in Sanaa, and seven dead and 18 wounded in Jawf,” Anees Alasbahi, a spokesman for the Houthi health ministry, wrote on X, warning that the numbers were not final.

Where the headlines meet people

Walk through Sanaa and you feel the layers of history and daily life: the ornate gingerbread-like facades of multi-century homes; the city’s market stalls where vendors sell silver coffee pots and qat leaves alongside stacks of rubber tires; the minarets calling the faithful to prayer. Now, the air carries another scent: burnt plastic and diesel, and the metallic tang of uncertainty.

“We lived through bombing before,” said one shopkeeper who asked to be identified only as Ahmed. “But today the school nearby is closed, and we don’t know when we can go back.” His hands trembled around a small wooden box of incense. “People are afraid to gather. Mothers worry the most.”

Across the city, funerals are happening in spare lots and mosque courtyards. Neighbors who once traded jokes and tea stand shoulder to shoulder in silence. “This is not just numbers on a screen,” said Leila, a teacher in Sanaa. “These were our teachers, our neighbors, our sons. You can see the grief in every home.”

What happened — and the murky chain of reprisals

The strikes in Sanaa and Jawf came amid a spiral of tit-for-tat actions since October 2023, when Hamas’s assault unleashed a wider confrontation involving multiple state and non-state actors. The Houthis, aligned with Iran and now a vocal—and active—ally of Gaza, have repeatedly launched missiles and drones toward Israel. Israel has responded with targeted strikes in Yemen, aiming at military infrastructure, ports, power stations and the international airport in Sanaa.

This recent wave of violence followed another deadly episode: last month, Houthi leaders say, a government cabinet meeting was struck, killing the movement’s prime minister Ahmed Ghaleb Nasser al-Rahawi, nine ministers and two cabinet officials. Those assassinations were described by Houthi sources as among the most high-profile of nearly two years of hostilities tied to the Gaza war.

Yahya Saree, the Houthi military spokesman, has pointed to casualties among journalists, saying reporters from the 26 September and al-Yaman newspapers were among those killed at what the Houthis call the “Moral Guidance Headquarters” in Sanaa. The Israeli military made its own claim: that it targeted “military camps in which operatives of the terrorist regime were identified, the Houthis’ military public relations headquarters and a fuel storage facility that was used by the terrorist regime.”

A global ripple: why this matters beyond the battlefield

At first glance, Yemen may seem remote from Tel Aviv’s streets or Jerusalem’s cafes. But the modern battlefield is threaded through trade routes, satellite signals and international law. The Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea — lifelines for global shipping — sit within eyeshot of Yemen. Attacks on ports, power grids, and airports can disrupt supply chains, raise insurance costs, and push up prices from consumer goods to fuel.

Consider this: even a short closure of a major Suez-Red Sea lane can reroute billions of dollars in commerce, adding days to delivery times and millions to costs. Add to that the human cost: hospitals with intermittent power, children missing school, economies already frayed by years of civil war, cholera outbreaks and famine-like conditions.

35 people killed and 131 wounded in recent strikes, according to Houthi health officials.
Repeated cross-border drone and missile fire since October 2023.
Infrastructure damage — ports, power stations and airports — threatens regional stability and global trade.

Voices from the ground and the world

“Every strike multiplies the number of displaced families,” said Fatima al-Kibsi, a coordinator with an international NGO working in northern Yemen. “Our teams report more children with trauma, and clinics struggling to get medicines through checkpoints and damaged roads.”

An Israeli military analyst, speaking on condition of anonymity, told me, “The calculus is harsh: allowing the Houthis to use southern Yemen as a staging ground would invite greater hostility closer to our civilian centers. But every strike increases the chance of wider escalation.”

And there are those who worry about the narratives being shaped online. “Striking media offices is not just a tactical move — it is symbolic,” said Dr. Miriam Haddad, a researcher on media in conflict zones. “Attacks on press operations can silence voices, skew reporting, and fuel cycles of propaganda and revenge.”

Questions to sit with

What responsibility do foreign powers have when interventions deepen local suffering? Can surgical military responses avoid the wider spiral of civilian harm, or do they merely change the geography of grief? And for the rest of the world: how much instability are global markets, humanitarian agencies and diplomatic channels prepared to absorb before the costs become intolerable?

There are no tidy answers. Yemen is a palimpsest of competing claims: tribal loyalties, regional power plays, a fractured state and an exhausted population. Each strike redraws those lines, and each reprisal echoes beyond national borders.

What comes next — and why you should care

For the people of Sanaa and towns in Jawf, the next days will be about tending the wounded, burying the dead, and protecting what little is left of normal life. For policymakers, the calculus is different — a mix of deterrence, diplomacy, and political pressure. For the rest of the world, there is a quieter but no less urgent task: to remember that every headline obscures a human life.

So ask yourself: when distant conflicts catch fire in markets and airports halfway across the globe, how do we measure our stake? When the smoke clears, who will be left to tell the story? And will the world listen, or simply scroll on to the next crisis?

Authorities release images of person of interest tied to Kirk shooting

hanad

September 11, 2025

Images released of 'person of interest' in Kirk shooting — FBI officials in Salt Lake City did not say the person was the suspected shooter (Images: FBI/X)

On a Bright Utah Afternoon, Politics Turned Deadly

The afternoon sun sat low and warm over Utah Valley University when the sound that would reshape lives and headlines split the air.

People came for debate, for spectacle, for an argument staged in public: a charismatic, young conservative voice—Charlie Kirk—speaking to a campus crowd of roughly 3,000 at an event billed “Prove Me Wrong.” They expected jeers, applause, maybe a shouted question or two. They did not expect a bolt of violence to turn the quad into chaos.

Surveillance video later showed a figure in a baseball cap and dark sunglasses moving through the crowd and up stairwells before mounting a nearby roof. Moments later, a single shot rang out. Students scattered; chairs toppled; phones were raised and trembling hands recorded the aftershock in streams that would circle the globe.

Who Was the Stranger on the Roof?

By the next morning, the FBI’s Salt Lake City office had published two photos of a “person of interest”—a person in casual clothing who seemed to blend in, university officials said. The bureau stopped short of naming that person a suspect, asking instead for the public’s help in identification.

“We will let the evidence speak,” said FBI Special Agent Robert Bohls at a press briefing, as he described investigators’ discovery of a high-powered bolt-action rifle in a nearby wooded area and the painstaking search for palm prints and footprints. “This weapon, recovered close to the scene, is being analyzed forensically.”

Officials believe the shooter was young—”college age,” according to Utah Public Safety Commissioner Beau Mason—and skilled at moving unnoticed through a crowded campus. From the roof, they say, the gunman fired a single round that would prove fatal.

What Happened to Charlie Kirk

Charlie Kirk, 31, a conservative activist known for founding Turning Point USA and a prominent voice to younger Republican voters, was struck and later pronounced dead at a Salt Lake area hospital. He was married and had two young children.

This was not a quiet, private act. It took place on a public stage, in front of students and cameras—during a moment when Kirk, an outspoken defender of gun rights and polarizing commentator on issues of race, gender, and immigration, was being questioned about gun violence by an audience member.

“When someone takes the life of a person because of their ideas or their ideals, that undermines the very aspiration of open debate that our universities are supposed to embody,” Utah Governor Spencer Cox said. “It is a political assassination, plain and simple.”

Scenes from the Quad: Voices from the Crowd

There are a hundred ways to describe panic; the students and residents who witnessed the shooting offer details that make the moment feel personal and immediate.

“It sounded like a firework, but then people started screaming and running,” said Anna Martinez, a sophomore who had come for the debate. “You could hear phones everywhere—someone was yelling ‘lockdown’—and you could see confusion and fear on everyone’s faces. I thought we were safe on campus.”

A resident who lives in the neighborhood adjacent to the university, who asked not to be named, described the aftermath: “We saw someone jump down from a rooftop. He ran into the trees like it was pre-planned. It felt like a movie—until you remember this is real life.”

Local chaplains and volunteers arrived as the evening turned to night, setting up a triage of blankets and quiet spaces for grieving students. A university police officer, shaken, told a reporter, “We do active-shooter drills, but living through this is something else. The sound, the faces—it’s etched in us.”

Investigations, Speculation, and the Hunt for Answers

Investigators moved quickly but cautiously. Two people were detained near the scene and questioned, then released, officials said. Authorities emphasized that those detentions were part of the inquiry, not an indication of guilt.

Meanwhile, the recovered rifle was being processed, and forensic teams were mapping an escape route into the adjoining neighborhood. “We’re running down every lead, canvassing witnesses, and combing digital evidence,” an FBI official said. “This investigation spans local, state, and federal jurisdictions.”

Across the country, the killing sparked immediate outrage from many leaders. Vice President J.D. Vance postponed a scheduled event and flew to Utah to be with the Kirk family. Former President Donald Trump called the killing “a dark day for America” and blamed incendiary rhetoric from the political left, decrying violent language and urging restraint.

Why This Resonates: The Broader Strain of Political Violence

To understand why this shooting seizes national attention, it’s useful to look at the pattern. Since the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, researchers have documented a striking number of ideologically motivated violent incidents. A Reuters tally cited more than 300 politically motivated violent acts across the ideological spectrum.

“We are witnessing a worrying normalization of political violence,” said Dr. Lena Patel, a scholar of political extremism. “When rhetoric dehumanizes opposing views and public discourse abandons restraint, violent acts can move from the margins into tragic reality.”

The U.S. has seen attempts on high-profile political figures in recent years; President Trump survived two separate assassination attempts in 2024, one of which left him with a grazed ear, illustrating an elevated and dangerous context in which political disagreement increasingly bleeds into acts of violence.

Universities as Battlegrounds

College campuses have become prime stages for this conflict. Events featuring controversial speakers draw large crowds and sometimes hostile encounters. Organizers argue such events test free speech; critics argue they deliberately provoke. Either way, the campus becomes a microcosm of national polarization.

“Universities are meant to be laboratories of ideas,” Governor Cox told reporters. “When violence invades that space, we’re not just losing one life—we’re losing faith in our ability to disagree without killing.”

Questions We Have to Ask

What responsibility do speakers, organizers, and spectators share for the climates they help foster? Do heated exchanges and confrontational formats invite escalation? And if rhetoric matters, what policy steps can meaningfully reduce the chances of such violence without choking off legitimate protest and debate?

These are hard questions, and they cut across free-speech law, campus safety protocols, gun policy, and the social media ecosystems that amplify outrage.

Small Rituals, Large Grief

In the days after the shooting, flags flew at half-mast in public places. Vigils were held; candles were lit in student centers and town squares. Some wore buttons in memory of a man whose life had a profound influence on young conservative politics—others simply sought a way to name their loss.

“This could have been any of us,” said Fatima Khan, a senior majoring in political science. “We argue and we shout, but at the end of the day, there are people tied to this person—children, a spouse. The political map doesn’t map their grief.”

Where Do We Go From Here?

Investigators continue to piece together the who, the how, and the why. The images released by the FBI are a plea not just for a name, but for closure. The nation watches and waits—grappling with questions about safety, democracy, and the costs of a politics that has become lethal for far too many.

As you read this, consider: how do communities heal after violence that is both deeply personal and unmistakably political? What changes would you want to see in public dialogue, campus security, or national politics to make such tragedies less likely?

We will update the story as investigators release more details. For now, the image of a crowd dispersing under a bright Utah sky remains a stark reminder: debate need not—and must not—end in bloodshed. If we value the marketplace of ideas, we have to protect the people who step into it.

Activists Claim Second Boat Hit in Suspected Drone Strike

hanad

September 11, 2025

No drones detected after Gaza flotilla fire - authorities — The Global Sumud Flotilla for Gaza said one of its main boats was struck by a drone in Tunisian waters

Night Fires off Sidi Bou Said: A Flotilla, a Drone, and the Weight of a Blockade

The sea off Sidi Bou Said is usually a picture of Mediterranean calm — whitewashed houses perched on cliffs, bougainvillea spilling over balconies, the smell of mint tea drifting from cafes. Last week that quiet was broken by smoke and the surreal geometry of blue flashing lights reflecting on dark water.

Here, in Tunisian waters just north of the capital, a convoy of small vessels known as the Global Sumud Flotilla — activists and aid workers bound for Gaza — says one of its boats was hit by what they suspect was a drone attack. “Second night, second drone attack,” Melanie Schweizer, one of the flotilla’s coordinators, told reporters, voice raw with fatigue and resolve. The boat, the British-flagged Alma, suffered fire damage to its top deck but, organizers said, no one was hurt.

The scene at sea

It was a strange nocturne: a small ship, a smudge of orange, and the staccato of flashlights. Journalists on the shore saw coastguard vessels ring the burning boat. Security footage shared by the flotilla shows what looks like a burning object falling from the sky and striking the vessel. Francesca Albanese, the UN special rapporteur for the occupied Palestinian territories, posted video of the Alma alight and wrote that “video evidence suggests a drone — with no light so it could not be seen — dropped a device that set the deck of the Alma boat on fire.”

Not everyone saw it the same way. Tunisia’s national guard spokesman, Houcem Eddine Jebabli, said categorically that “no drones have been detected.” Tunisian authorities suggested a discarded cigarette might have started the blaze — a suggestion that drew immediate skepticism from the flotilla and several independent observers.

Voices from the docks

“I live here, I fish these waters,” said Ali, a weathered fisherman who watched the vessels from the shoreline of Sidi Bou Said. “At first I thought it was fireworks. Then we saw smoke. The boat tried to put out the flames. It was terrifying — not just for the people on board, for all of us.”

A volunteer medic on the flotilla, who asked not to be named, described chaos that settled into grim determination. “We pulled people away, we checked burns and inhalation, we rationed water. It could have been worse. But it’s terrifying when your small boat is suddenly vulnerable in open sea.”

A maritime security analyst based in Malta, Dr. Nina Rossi, described how small unmanned aerial vehicles — some capable of carrying incendiary or explosive devices — have become an asymmetrical threat in recent years. “The technology has become more accessible. A UAV can loiter over a ship at night and be almost invisible. That raises difficult questions for coastal states and for organizations undertaking humanitarian missions.”

Why this flotilla matters

This is not merely another activist crossing; it’s a deeply symbolic — and painfully practical — effort to deliver aid amid one of the world’s most acute humanitarian emergencies. The flotilla, calling itself Sumud — an Arabic word meaning resilience — aims to break the naval blockade on Gaza, deliver supplies, and draw global attention to the crisis unfolding on the other side of the Mediterranean.

Last month, the United Nations declared famine in parts of Gaza and warned that roughly 500,000 people faced “catastrophic” conditions. More than two million people live in the territory, and aid agencies have repeatedly warned that crossing borders and seas to deliver life-saving goods has become increasingly fraught.

Among the passengers on board were well-known activists, including Greta Thunberg, whose presence has repeatedly turned such missions into international spectacles. The flotilla insists it is an independent group, unaffiliated with any government or political party, and says that its mission is peaceful.

Two nights, two fires — or a campaign to silence?

The flotilla says this was the second incident in as many nights. For organizers, the suspicious timing — occurring amid intense fighting and a wider campaign of airstrikes that has devastated Gaza — suggested a pattern. “These incidents come during intensified Israeli aggression on Palestinians in Gaza, and are an orchestrated attempt to distract and derail our mission,” the flotilla said in a statement.

Israel’s military did not immediately respond to requests for comment. For observers and analysts, the ambiguity — who did what, and why — is a reminder of how murkily modern conflict plays out across borders, in public view and in dark, technical spaces where attribution is hard.

The larger currents beneath this episode

People on the docks spoke like they were watching a larger drama unfold: humanitarian law, the rights of civilians at sea, national security, and the politics of protest. The flotilla harks back to a painful precedent — the 2010 raid on the Mavi Marmara, when Israeli forces boarded a Gaza-bound vessel and nine activists were killed. That incident reshaped international debate about blockades and humanitarian access.

So when a flotilla sets off, it carries more than boxes and duffel bags. It carries memory and the potential for escalation. It forces simple, urgent questions into the open: How do we ensure aid reaches those who need it when borders are locked? What rules govern the use of force — and increasingly, drones — in waters where neither side fully controls the narrative?

Dr. Rossi urged caution in drawing definitive conclusions from footage alone. “Images are powerful, but they can mislead. Independent verification matters. Still, whether drone or accident, the effect is chilling: crews on small boats feel exposed and vulnerable.”

Local color and human texture

Back in the cafés of Tunis, people spoke about the flotilla in overlapping languages: concern, curiosity, indifference. A tea seller in the medina, Fatma, laughed and shook her head. “They always make dramatic arrivals,” she said. “But when it comes to people on the ground, we know the suffering is real. It is close in the heart, even if far in geography.”

At the harbor, a volunteer wrapped a wet blanket around a shivering passenger and handed out sweet dates. “We play our part,” the volunteer said simply. “We can’t fix everything, but we can be there.”

Questions for readers — and for policymakers

What does it mean when humanitarian missions themselves become targets or suspects in an electronic fog of war? How should coastal states balance security with the urgent need to let aid flow? And perhaps most troubling: in an age where small, remotely controlled machines can escalate conflict at a fingertip’s distance, how do we design rules and accountability that keep civilians safe?

As the Alma was repaired and the flotilla insisted it would continue, there was a clear message in the mix of defiance and weariness: aid, attention, and protest are stubborn forces. “We will press forward with determination and resolve,” the flotilla said, a phrase heavy with the kind of hope that persists even under smoke-streaked skies.

That resolve — anchored in a small word, Sumud — asks a broader question of the international community: when famine and conflict press at the margins of our conscience, how will we act? Will we watch from safe harbors, or will we grapple with the risks, the politics, and the humane duty to keep people alive?

Former EU ambassadors urge suspension of EU-Israel pact

hanad

September 11, 2025

Ex-EU ambassadors call for suspension of EU-Israel deal — The letter also calls on the 13 member states which have not yet done so to join 147 UN members in recognising the State of Palestine (file image)

A Turning Point in Brussels: Former Diplomats Call for Sanctions as Europe Wrestles with Gaza

There are moments when the air in a city like Brussels thickens with politics—the sort of moments that smell faintly of espresso, paper, and something heavier: urgency. This week, more than 300 former European Union and national ambassadors, together with ex-EU officials, delivered one such jolt. In a joint letter addressed to EU institutions and the leaders of all 27 member states, they demanded immediate suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement and targeted sanctions on members of the Israeli government. They urged 13 holdout EU countries to join 147 United Nations members already recognising the State of Palestine. It was a rare, ringing plea from the diplomatic corps that raised the stakes of a debate otherwise confined to committee rooms and press briefings.

“We cannot stand idly by, watching Gaza reduced to rubble and its inhabitants to destitution and starvation,” said former EU Ambassador Sven Kühn von Burgsdorff on behalf of the co-signatories. “Action needs to be taken urgently to preserve life, end the military onslaught on Gaza, secure the return of all hostages and move to governance arrangements that allow for a swift return of the Palestinian Authority to Gaza.”

The letter and what it asks for

This is the fourth such intervention from a cohort of former diplomats who once wore their countries’ colors abroad. Their asks are blunt and specific: suspend the EU-Israel Association Agreement—which forms the legal backbone of trade, research and institutional cooperation between Brussels and Jerusalem—impose targeted sanctions on Israeli officials. They also call for emergency UN General Assembly and Security Council meetings to adopt measures addressing “multiple violations of international law” and encourage EU backing for a Global Alliance for the Implementation of the Two-State Solution.

The diplomats’ appeal is framed in legal and moral terms. But it’s also a practical call to action: in their view, halting parts of formal cooperation and applying financial pressure will not only be a moral statement but a tool to reopen space for diplomacy.

From Strasbourg’s hemicycle to the streets

Across the Rhine in Strasbourg, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen used her State of the Union address to push Brussels toward some of these measures. “What is happening in Gaza has shaken the conscience of the world,” she told Members of the European Parliament, invoking images of mothers clutching lifeless children and people begging for food. “Man-made famine can never be a weapon of war.” She pledged to propose sanctions on extremist settlers in the West Bank and suggested suspending the trade element of the Association Agreement—echoing the diplomats’ demands.

In the corridors of the Parliament, the mood was a mix of anger and exhaustion. “People are asking how much worse things must get before there’s unity,” von der Leyen acknowledged. In a tone both urgent and defensive, she insisted Europe must lead: not only in humanitarian aid—”our support far outweighs that of any other partner”—but in defending the principles of the post-war order.

Money on pause, but not everything

Practical steps are already being sketched. The European Commission confirmed it will put some financial support to Israel on hold—without touching funds earmarked for Israeli civil society or Yad Vashem, the World Holocaust Remembrance Center. Brussels says the funding specifically intended to foster bilateral relations amounts to roughly €6 million per year across programmes and that this stream will continue through 2025–27 before suspension. Around €14 million in ongoing projects will be paused as the Commission evaluates institutional cooperation and regional programmes.

For diplomats who have watched the EU run on incrementalism, these are meaningful moves. “It’s a calibrated pressure,” one senior EU official told me on condition of anonymity. “Not a severing—yet. But enough to indicate real consequences.” Others worry the measures may still be too little, too late.

Voices from the ground and the wider world

Letters and speeches matter, but so do people. In a Gaza neighborhood reduced to skeletons of buildings, a teacher named Amal described a classroom that once held 30 children and now shelters a single family, displaced repeatedly. “We teach children to dream,” she said softly in a phone call, “but how do you teach hope when the classroom keeps disappearing?”

Across the West Bank, an Israeli farmer whose land abuts a growing settlement spoke of fear and frustration. “We were raised on the idea of security,” he told me. “But security for some shouldn’t mean denying a people a state. This spiral hurts everyone.”

Legal experts say the diplomats’ call leans on concrete arguments. “Targeted sanctions can be legally justified under international law when there is grave breach of humanitarian norms,” said Dr. Leila Haddad, a specialist in international humanitarian law. “But they must be carefully designed to avoid collective punishment and to protect humanitarian access.” Her warning underscores the thin line between pressure and punishment in sanctions policy.

Europe’s strategic moment?

Ms von der Leyen did more than critique the conflict; she tied the debate to a broader project. “This must be Europe’s independence moment,” she said—an insistence that the EU needs to assert autonomy in technology, energy, defence and diplomacy. The message is clear: Europe cannot be the world’s moral voice if it is divided and dependent. Her speech also referenced global pressures—from Russian drone incursions into Poland to the ongoing war in Ukraine—and highlighted EU aid to Kyiv, which she put at nearly €170 billion in military and financial support so far.

“Do we have the stomach to fight?” she asked MEPs—a rhetorical dare that nods to Europe’s recent history of coming together in crisis, from the Covid recovery package to support for Ukraine. But the Gaza debate also reveals how hard unity is to achieve when member states differ on legal recognition, strategic interests and domestic politics.

What happens next — and why you should care

Policymaking is an exercise in consequences. If Brussels suspends the trade element of the Association Agreement, the move will be symbolic and practical: trade ties, research collaborations and institutional exchanges could be affected. Sanctions targeted at settlers or Israeli officials would be a political earthquake, altering Brussels’ relationship with a long-time partner and stirring transatlantic tensions with Washington.

Is that a risk worth taking? For the diplomats who signed the letter, the calculation is moral and strategic: stronger pressure might open the door to renewed governance in Gaza under the Palestinian Authority, the return of hostages, and a revival of the two-state pathway. For sceptics, the worry is that punitive steps will harden positions and deepen suffering.

So let me ask you: when international institutions hesitate in the face of human suffering, what should give way—principle or pragmatism? When collective conscience collides with complex geopolitics, which do we choose? These aren’t theoretical questions. They will shape lives, borders, and the credibility of the rules-based order for years to come.

Europe appears to be at an inflection point. Whether it acts—and how it acts—will tell us much about its ability to translate values into leverage, and about the kind of world order we all want to inhabit: one where laws and human dignity matter, or one where power alone writes the rules.

12 3...70 Page 1 of 70