How the Israeli press is reporting on the conflict in Gaza

August 18, 2025

Israel steps up Gaza attacks, with 123 killed in 24 hours — Israel has said it plans to take full control of Gaza City

The Invisible Frontline: How Israeli Media Portrays Gaza’s Humanitarian Crisis

In an age where global news permeates every home through the relentless buzz of screens and social media feeds, the horrors unfolding in Gaza have gripped the world’s collective conscience. The images are tragic and unforgettable: emaciated children clinging to fragile hope, bloodstained body bags laid out in morgues, survivors navigating the rubble of a fractured existence. Yet, amid this global outcry, a quieter, more complex story brews—one about silence and selective vision within Israel itself.

How does a nation that is so physically proximal to Gaza—with its families, with its sounds and pain—choose to report, or not report, this humanitarian catastrophe internally? For many in the West and beyond, the immediacy of the Gaza crisis feels omnipresent. But inside Israel, the narrative is markedly different.

A Media Wall of Silence

Orly Halpern, a seasoned freelance journalist who has navigated the Israeli media landscape for most of her life, offers a candid assessment: “For the most part, it simply isn’t being covered.” She leans back, her voice tinged with frustration as she describes the paradox confronting Israelis who tune into their domestic news.

“What they see are images of Israeli soldiers and the widespread destruction in Gaza, but almost never any direct voices or faces of Palestinians,” she explains. “You don’t see Palestinians. You don’t hear Palestinians. It’s as if they do not exist.”

Halpern’s observations resonate deeply with the wider reality of Israeli media coverage, which often skirts the humanitarian narratives from the ground in Gaza. Instead, the focus is skewed towards military operations, security concerns, and the suffering of Israeli civilians, particularly those taken hostage in recent violent incursions.

“There’s a collective reluctance,” she continues thoughtfully, “to confront the uncomfortable truths about what their own military and government actions have wrought. It’s easier, safer, emotionally less threatening to consume the narrative that places the blame squarely on Hamas.”

The Hunger Crisis: A Grim Reality Marginalized

The United Nations has issued urgent warnings about Gaza’s spiraling catastrophe—families grappling with starvation, deprivation compounded by war. The hunger crisis here is no abstract tragedy; it is a brutal daily reality. Yet, in Israeli broadcasts, stories that expose this suffering are few, and when they appear, they are frequently framed to invoke suspicion or disdain.

Halpern recalls one particularly jarring reportage moment: “When you see desperate Gazans crowding aid trucks, the narrative often suggests they are desperate ‘like animals’—stripping away their humanity instead of highlighting their dire need.”

Such framing tacitly reinforces divisive perceptions and dissolves empathy, pushing viewers to dismiss the Palestinian civilian toll as collateral consequences rather than urgent moral concerns.

The Rise of Channel 14: Echoes of Hardline Nationalism

In this media landscape dominated by caution and selective storytelling, a new player has risen—Channel 14, an ultra-nationalist TV outlet backed by political heavyweights like Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It is fast crowding out traditional channels to become Israel’s second-most-watched news source, according to Reporters Without Borders.

Channel 14’s approach is stark: aggressive rhetoric and blunt nationalist messaging that frequently overtly dehumanizes Palestinians. Host Shimon Riklin’s chilling on-air declaration, “We should supply them with neither water nor electricity. Let them drop dead in there!” exemplifies a visceral rage seeping into mainstream discourse.

While Channel 14 vehemently denies allegations of incitement or promoting violence, their fervent editorial line reveals a dimension to Israel’s internal media conversation—a channel where anger, grief, and uncompromising political stances converge.

The Voice in the Wilderness: Haaretz’s Persistent Journalistic Integrity

Against this backdrop, there is one media institution that holds a contrasting position: Haaretz, Israel’s oldest daily newspaper. Though its readership is comparatively modest, its influence—domestic and international—is profound.

Haaretz does not shy away from exposing the grim layers beneath the conflict, highlighting Palestinian suffering and scrutinizing Israeli military conduct with rare candor. Columnist Gideon Levy voices the frustration of many independent observers:

“This is not about politics; it’s about professional journalism. If you open any mainstream Israeli media, you’d believe Gaza is inhabited only by hostages—nothing else, no victims, no human cost,” Levy criticizes with palpable indignation.

His disdain for the broader media’s selective blindness echoes the urgency of a deeper reckoning. He refuses the common explanation that censorship stifles this coverage, saying instead it is a voluntary choice, a collective appeasement to a fearful or unwilling audience.

“We used to mock Russian media for their coverage of Ukraine,” he points out, “but Israeli media is worse because it is free to publish. They just choose not to.”

Silenced But Not Defeated: Intimidation Shadows Press Freedom

Freedom of the press in Israel is increasingly fraught, though the restrictions are less overt and brutal than in some countries. Dr. Ayala Panievsky, a researcher at City, University of London specializing in media censorship, describes a more insidious form of suppression.

“There’s no storming of newsrooms or imprisonment—yet—but the threat is real,” she warns. “Journalists face financial pressures, lawsuits, and an atmosphere of public hostility orchestrated through government allies. The climate fosters self-censorship.”

This observation is supported by Reporters Without Borders, which reports Israel’s decline in the 2023 World Press Freedom Index, slipping from 86th to 112th place amid rising disinformation and repression, particularly for Arab and foreign journalists operating within the country.

Between National Trauma and Social Complicity

What keeps the Israeli media from fully embracing the picture of Gaza’s suffering? Dr. Panievsky suggests that the traumatic events of October 7, when Hamas-affiliated militants murdered civilians and took hostages in brutal attacks, profoundly shape national consciousness.

“Israeli media excellently covers Jewish suffering. That’s the story they tell—a comprehensively reported tragedy that grips hearts. But the other side, the Palestinian side, recedes into shadow,” she reflects. “In war, empathy is selective. But ignoring these victims impedes truth and healing.”

Orly Halpern adds a personal dimension to this collective denial. “Most Israeli men serve reserve duties into their 40s. It’s hard to face the full implications of the war when you are personally tied to it. People want to believe they are doing right, even if deep down they sense the cost.”

She quotes a haunting Hebrew expression—“יורים ובוכים (shoot and cry)”—that captures Israel’s conflicted reality: the simultaneous infliction of harm and emotional sorrow. Yet, she mournfully confirms, “Now, mostly, we’re just shooting.”

Reflections: What Does It Mean to See, to Acknowledge, to Report?

For global observers, the Israel-Gaza conflict often unfolds as a cascade of statistics and statements—232 days since the latest flare-up, thousands dead, millions displaced. But how often do we stop to ask: what stories remain untold? What faces remain unseen? Why do even close communities sometimes choose blindness?

The Israeli media’s paradox reveals a universal tension: how do societies balance nationalism, trauma, and truth? How do they reconcile identity with accountability? How does the story of one people’s suffering overshadow or suppress others? This isn’t just a tale about Israel or Gaza—it’s a cautionary reflection on the human condition in conflict.

Perhaps understanding this media silence is an invitation to each of us—to seek the missing voices, to approach headlines with nuanced curiosity, and to remember that in every conflict, the human cost extends beyond borders and broadcast limits.

Key Takeaways

Israel’s mainstream media largely avoids humanizing Palestinians or covering the full humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
Ultra-nationalist outlets like Channel 14 amplify aggressive rhetoric, fueling polarization.
Haaretz offers critical, empathetic reporting but faces political and economic pressures threatening its independence.
Formal censorship is limited, yet political intimidation and financial threats foster self-censorship among journalists.
National trauma and military service contribute to public reluctance to confront uncomfortable truths.
Globally, this media dichotomy underlines challenges in reporting conflict with balance, empathy, and transparency.

So, as we scroll and click in the comfort of our homes far from the frontline, let us ask ourselves—what narratives do we embrace? Whose stories are we hearing? And what might be the cost of choosing not to look?

Europeans Support Zelensky-Trump Meeting in Washington

hanad

August 18, 2025

Europeans to back Zelensky-Trump meeting in Washington — The Europeans are eager to help Mr Zelensky avoid a repeat of his last Oval Office meeting in February when Mr Trump and Vice President JD Vance gave the Ukrainian leader a public dressing-down, accusing him of being ungrateful and disrespectful

In the Eye of the Storm: A High-Stakes Chess Game Over Ukraine’s Future

The historic and heartrending conflict in Ukraine, which has claimed over a million lives and reshaped the geopolitical landscape of Europe, finds itself at an electrifying and precarious juncture. On a brisk April day in Washington, a rare confluence of leaders — Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, European heavyweights, and former U.S. President Donald Trump — gathered around the Oval Office, each carrying the heavy burden of history and hope. What unfolded was more than just a diplomatic meeting; it was a dramatic tableau about survival, sovereignty, and the rewriting of borders in the 21st century.

A Meeting Laden with Urgency and Ambiguity

President Zelensky arrived in Washington not as a visitor but as a beacon for his embattled nation, hoping to solidify international backing as U.S. politics take an unpredictable turn. With European leaders such as German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, and others in tow, the stakes could not be higher. This gathering was an attempt to shield Zelensky from political crosswinds stirred by Donald Trump’s recent overtures towards Russia.

The backdrop was tense: just days before, Trump met Vladimir Putin in Alaska — a meeting charged with controversy and surprise. Trump emerged advocating for a peace deal, pressing Ukraine to negotiate swiftly to end Europe’s deadliest war in generations. His pivot towards Russia’s position — urging Ukraine to consider conceding its eastern Donbas region, which has been largely under Kremlin control — stunned many observers.

“If peace is not possible, thousands will continue to die,” warned Senator Marco Rubio in a candid conversation on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” Rubio’s words echoed with a somber practicality, underscoring the brutal calculus faced by negotiators: lives versus land, principles versus pragmatism.

The Promise and Peril of Security Guarantees

Perhaps the most significant and nuanced development from these talks revolves around proposed “security guarantees” for Ukraine. Russia’s envoy to international organizations in Vienna, Mikhail Ulyanov, publicly agreed that any peace deal should ensure Kyiv’s security — yet Moscow demands reciprocal assurances. This duality feeds into a larger question: Who protects the protector?

Steve Witkoff, Trump’s envoy, unveiled a startling proposal to CNN — the U.S. might offer Ukraine an Article 5-like defence pledge, echoing NATO’s collective defense clause. “It’s the first time we’ve heard Russia agree to something like this,” Witkoff noted, a fraught olive branch with strings attached.

But how reliable are such guarantees, given history? Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal in 1994, expecting protection that failed to prevent Crimea’s 2014 annexation and the 2022 full-scale invasion. This sobering fact injects skepticism into any promise, no matter how well-intentioned.

Voices from the Ground: The Human Face of Diplomacy

Amid polished speeches and power moves, the war’s human toll rings out brutally clear. In Kyiv’s cafés and rubble-strewn streets, Ukrainians watch global leaders debate their fate with anxiety and hope.

“We want peace, not paper promises,” said Olena, a schoolteacher whose family fled bombed-out neighborhoods. “Every day there is a risk — we need concrete action, not negotiations that drag on while we suffer.”

Meanwhile, in London, political analyst Dr. Nikhil Patel pointed out, “Europe’s involvement is a litmus test for multilateralism in crisis. The continent’s leaders know that stability on their doorstep is non-negotiable.”

Europe’s Balancing Act

Western Europe’s presence in Washington was a statement of solidarity and suffused with nuance. Leaders warned that peace could not come at the expense of Ukraine’s territorial integrity.

“No negotiations without Ukraine’s full consent,” emphasized Ursula von der Leyen, capturing the mood of many Europeans unwilling to see the country carved up without Kyiv’s consent. Yet, disagreements simmer under the surface: while the UK and France propose deploying reassurance forces post-ceasefire, countries like Germany and Italy remain cautious about military involvement.

The war has ignited varied reactions across the continent. Finnish President Alexander Stubb, famously sharing golf rounds with Trump, and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni — an admirer of Trump’s policies — brought complex dynamics into the room.

Negotiating Peace Without Ceasefire: Fantasy or Folly?

One of the most contentious ideas is pursuing peace talks before a ceasefire — a stance Trump and Putin reportedly embraced in Alaska. To many, including Poland’s Foreign Ministry, this idea is untenable. “You cannot negotiate peace under falling bombs,” their statement declared with moral clarity.

Indeed, with over one million casualties so far and millions displaced, the urgency is undeniable. Yet, what kind of peace can rise from the smoke and rubble without a pause in the violence? This paradox defines the current diplomatic efforts.

Power Plays and Political Posturing

The meeting also decoded layers of global strategy. Trump’s suggestion that Ukraine cede Donbas — a move Zelensky rejected outright — rekindled fears of realpolitik swallowing principles. “Russia is a very big power, and they’re not,” Trump commented candidly post-summit, insinuating that power dynamics should guide negotiations.

For Zelensky, standing firm while navigating unpredictable allies is a delicate dance. His social media updates reflected cautious optimism but unwavering resolve: “Borders must not be changed by force,” he declared, insisting security guarantees must cover land, air, and sea, with meaningful European involvement.

Reflecting on the Global Implications

What lessons does this high-stakes negotiation offer beyond Ukraine’s borders? It’s a vivid reminder that global conflicts today are deeply intertwined with history, national identity, and great-power politics. The war unearths uncomfortable truths about the limits of international guarantees and the human desperation lurking behind diplomatic facades.

How do we balance realpolitik with human rights? Can peace be brokered without justice? And as new powers assert themselves on the world stage, how will alliances evolve?

At its core, this story is not just about states and treaties — it’s about millions of lives hanging in the balance. As the negotiations move forward, one can’t help but ask: In a world craving stability, what price are we willing to pay for peace?

Conclusion: The Fragile Road Ahead

The Washington summit was a snapshot of a global drama in motion, brimming with hope and heartbreak, strategy and sincerity. European leaders rallying behind Zelensky signal that Ukraine will not be left alone, yet the shadow of Russia’s demands looms large. The concept of security guarantees offers fresh hope, but history warns against naïveté.

More than ever, this conflict forces a reckoning about international responsibility, the fragility of sovereignty, and the pursuit of peace amid persistent violence. As the world watches, the question remains: Can diplomacy untangle the complexities of war, or will it simply layer new uncertainties atop old grievances?

For those captivated by global affairs, the unfolding story in Washington is a call to reflect — on power, on humanity, and on the enduring quest for a just peace in an uncertain world.

250 Escape as Turkish Emergency Teams Combat Wildfire in Gallipoli

hanad

August 17, 2025

250 flee as Turkish rescuers battle wildfire in Gallipoli — The fire began yesterday in the northwestern province of Canakkale

Flames on the Historic Shores: Wildfire Ravages the Gallipoli Peninsula

As dusk fell over the ancient lands of the Gallipoli peninsula, an ominous glow lit the night sky—fiery tongues licking greedily at the hillsides, smoke billowing thick and black, swallowing the stars. This haunting scene unfolded over the night as a ferocious wildfire tore through the northwestern coast of Turkey, igniting fear and uncertainty in a region steeped in history and natural beauty.

More than 250 people were hurriedly evacuated from their homes, five villages uprooted as the blaze, fanned by fierce winds, surged dangerously close to the bustling waters of the Dardanelles Strait. This is no ordinary fire—it is a modern-day inferno challenging both nature and humanity on a storied landscape etched with the memory of thousands of soldiers who perished during World War I’s Gallipoli campaign.

The Fire’s Fury: From Canakkale to Gelibolu

The wildfire erupted late on a warm summer afternoon near Gelibolu, a small town that has witnessed centuries of passage—merchant ships, travelers, armies, all threading through the narrow strait where Europe kisses Asia. Within hours, the wind-driven flames swept through dry hills, lighting up the darkness like a wildfire cathedral, forcing residents to flee in a race against time.

“We relocated 251 residents from five villages as a precaution,” explained Omer Toraman, governor of the Canakkale province, via a message posted on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter. “Tonight, our priority is the safety of our people.”

Local footage shared across social networks captured the eerie spectacle of radiant fire-rims on the hillsides, the roar of crackling flames almost audible through the screen. Shadows danced wildly in the glow, and thick smoke clawed its way upwards to the heavens, spreading a hazy pall that settled over the historic peninsula.

Racing the Clock: A Herculean Response

Firefighters worked tirelessly through the darkness, refusing to yield to the night. By dawn, a formidable aerial fleet had taken to the skies—12 planes and 18 helicopters joined the nearly 900 ground personnel battling the blaze with every tool at their disposal. The Turkish Forestry Directorate’s relentless operation formed a human shield against destruction, dousing flames, clearing dry brush, and carving firebreaks.

“It’s a race against time,” one firefighter, Mehmet Sahin, shared as he took a brief breath during a rare pause. “These hills have been dry for months, and the wind doesn’t help. But we’ve trained for this. We won’t let this fire define our home.”

History Under Threat

The Gallipoli peninsula is no stranger to conflict or hardship. Its soil is hallowed, home to cemeteries and memorials honoring soldiers from different nations who fought and fell here a century ago. The war memorial authorities announced the closure of access to historical sites near Eceabat, keen to preserve these solemn places and keep visitors safe.

But the damage extends beyond history books. This area is beloved not only for its past but for its present—the scenic beauty, the serene landscapes, and the cultural richness that draws tourists year-round. People come from around the globe to stand in the shadow of Troy’s ruins or walk the beaches where soldiers once battled, seeking connection to stories that shaped the modern world.

“Every year, thousands of visitors come here to reflect, to learn, and to experience the spirit of Gallipoli,” said Leyla Demir, a local tour guide who grew up in the region. “The fires threaten our livelihood and our heritage. But more than that, they remind us how fragile this land has become.”

A Scorching Pattern: Wildfires and Climate Realities

The burning of Gallipoli is part of a grim pattern unfolding across Turkey and the wider Mediterranean region. This year alone, Turkish authorities have reported 192 wildfires, scorching over 110,000 hectares—an area larger than the entire city of Istanbul. Multiple fronts have erupted simultaneously, stretching firefighting resources thin and prompting repeated evacuations near the Dardanelles and elsewhere.

Just days ago, 2,000 people were displaced by another fire on the opposite side of the strait, with many hospitalized for smoke inhalation. Earlier, shipping lanes crucial for international trade through the Dardanelles were disrupted, underscoring how these natural disasters ripple far beyond local communities.

Experts overwhelmingly point to human-driven climate change as a catalyst fuelling such infernos. Prolonged droughts, heatwaves, and shifting weather patterns create tinderbox conditions primed for rapid spread. In Canakkale, Governor Toraman acknowledged the province has suffered “extremely severe drought” over the past year—a critical factor in the fire’s ferocity.

“These fires aren’t just nature’s fury—they’re a warning,” said climate scientist Dr. Aylin Kaya, based in Istanbul. “What we’re seeing is an accelerated pattern of disasters linked directly to rising global temperatures and environmental degradation. Turkey, like many countries, must urgently adapt and act.”

Reflecting on the Flames

As the smoke slowly lifts over Gallipoli, questions linger. How do communities rebuild when the land they cherish is repeatedly scorched? What does it mean for a place so deeply entwined with human history to face a new kind of battlefield—one with fire instead of bullets? And what lessons can the world draw from these shifting frontlines of climate crisis?

For the evacuated villagers, it is a matter of survival and resilience. For historians and travelers, a somber reminder of the interplay between human legacy and nature’s unpredictability. For all of us, it is an invitation to listen—really listen—to the land’s desperate call for care and change.

Next time you see a wildfire in the news, pause to think about the lives disrupted, the ecosystems altered, and the history poised on the brink. These flames are more than headlines. They are stories—urgent, raw, and human.

How will we choose to respond?

Fifth Night of Confrontations Breaks Out Across Multiple Serbian Cities

hanad

August 17, 2025

Clashes erupt in several Serbian cities for fifth night — Protesters clashed with police in the city of Valjevo

Serbia’s Streets Ignite: A Nation’s Anguish and Unrest Unfold in Fiery Protests

As the sun set over Belgrade last night, casting long shadows on the Danube’s restless waters, a different kind of turbulence simmered through Serbia’s capital and spread to its cities. For the fifth night running, the air filled not with the usual din of city life but with the roar of defiant voices and the harsh clatter of confrontations. Protesters clashed once again with riot police, their frustrations echoing beyond the cobblestone streets, shaking the very core of a nation grappling with tragedy and distrust.

From Mourning to Mobilization: The Nation’s Pain Ignites

It all began with a heartbreaking calamity. In November, the catastrophic collapse of a railway station roof claimed 16 precious lives, a devastating event that pierced the collective Serbian conscience and unearthed a pool of long-simmering frustrations. This wasn’t merely about infrastructure failure—it soon morphed into a symbol of entrenched corruption, negligence, and a political establishment many citizens felt had long abandoned their promises.

“Our sorrow turned into outrage,” remarked Jelena Petrović, a teacher from Novi Sad. “We felt like our grief was being exploited or, worse, ignored by those we entrusted to protect us. That’s when the streets called us to speak not just for the victims but for the truth.”

The initial peaceful vigils swelled into magnitudes of public outrage. At their highest, demonstrations saw hundreds of thousands march in cities across Serbia. Patriotic hues mingled with banners demanding transparency and justice. But with the swelling crowds came rising tensions.

Valjevo’s Smoke and Shouts: Symbolism in Flames

In the industrial town of Valjevo, about 100 kilometers southwest of Belgrade, the protests transformed dramatically one night. What began as a massive, peaceful gathering morphed when a faction of young men, their faces deliberately veiled, targeted the local offices of the ruling Serbian Progressive Party (SNS). In a stark act of defiance and desperation, they set fire to the empty headquarters.

“It felt like burning down more than just a building,” said Marko Ilić, a student who witnessed the scene. “It was an outcry against a system that’s suffocating us.”

The ensuing melee was brutal. Fireworks erupted, stone-throwing punctuated by the sharp crack of stun grenades. Police released clouds of tear gas into the cold night air as the crowd surged and receded like a living thing—sometimes fragile, other times fiercely unyielding.

Belgrade and Beyond: Tensions Spread North

The capital itself was far from calm. Demonstrators on their way to the party center were blocked by heavy police presence, leading to hot confrontations amid chants filled with anger and hope. Similar disturbances flared up in Novi Sad, Serbia’s second-largest city, where long histories of cultural pride merged with current grievances in a volatile mix.

“It felt like the whole country was convulsing,” said Ana Kovačević, a journalist based in Novi Sad. “This is a genuine people’s movement, born from pain but burning with a determination to change the course of history.”

Violence and Allegations: A Nation Divided

While the demonstrations started with remarkable restraint, the atmosphere darkened sharply midweek. Pro-government supporters, often masked and wielding batons, launched coordinated attacks against the protesters. The violence escalated dramatically, drawing heavy condemnation from human rights advocates.

A particularly harrowing video circulated online, showing nearly 20 police officers surrounding and beating a young man lying powerless on the ground in Valjevo. Such evidence intensified fears that state power was being wielded as a tool of intimidation rather than protection.

“This is not how a democracy behaves,” said Dr. Milena Stanković, a political analyst. “When the state turns its force onto its own people, it risks fracturing the social contract irreparably.”

Yet, amid the turmoil, police have stood firm in their defense, asserting that they are responding to aggression from unruly elements within the protests themselves.

Political Earthquake: Fallout and Defiance

In response to the nonstop unrest, the Serbian government has already collapsed, with the prime minister resigning under immense public pressure. But the political waters remain choppy. President Aleksandar Vučić, the right-wing leader at the center of controversy, remains unyielding. He dismisses the protests as orchestrated foreign interference, casting himself as a bulwark against outside destabilization.

“To him, this is about power and narrative,” noted Dr. Stanković. “But to the people, it’s about dignity, justice, and the hope for a more accountable Serbia.”

What Do These Protests Mean for Serbia—and the World?

As you read this, consider the stakes. Serbia, a country straddling the crossroads of Eastern and Western Europe, wrestles with a fundamental question: Who holds the power, and how do ordinary people reclaim their voice in the corridors of power? Across the globe, nations experience waves of protest, yet few begin with such a raw and tragic spark.

The heavy-handed response by authorities raises wider concerns about the balance between security and rights—an eternal tension in democratic societies. Meanwhile, the demands for transparency and fairness resonate universally. After all, who among us wouldn’t want justice for the fallen and reform for the living?

In the gathering smoke and tear gas, beneath the riot shields and amidst the chants, something unmistakable is stirring: a desire for change, for honesty, for Serbia’s soul to emerge from the dark and battered but unbroken.

To the reader: What’s your take?

When tragedy exposes systemic failures, how should a society respond? Are protests the necessary voices of the unheard, or do they risk fracturing fragile orders? And in places where democracy is tested in real time, how do we, as part of a global community, stand in solidarity with those demanding their rights?

Serbia’s streets may burn tonight, but beyond the smoke lies a narrative unfolding—one of courage, reckoning, and, perhaps, something profoundly hopeful.

Putin achieves win-win summit outcome with ceasefire and sanctions averted

hanad

August 17, 2025

Ceasefire, sanctions avoided in win-win summit for Putin — Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump held talks in Anchorage yesterday

A Surprising Turn in Alaska: How a Quiet Summit Shifted the Course of the Ukraine Conflict

In the frosty air of Anchorage, Alaska, an unexpected chapter in international diplomacy quietly unfolded, one that could ripple far beyond the icy backdrop where it took place. What was billed as a high-profile summit between two formidable world leaders—Russian President Vladimir Putin and former US President Donald Trump—ended not with the bombshell deals or fiery rhetoric one might anticipate, but with a subtle, yet seismic, reshaping of the global conversation about the war in Ukraine.

For Putin, this meeting was nothing short of a diplomatic victory, a chess move masterfully played on the cold global stage. Just a week before, the United States had threatened sanctions and secondary tariffs targeting Russia and its trade partners—a clear signal of rising international pressure. But today, we see those threats quietly shelved, with Moscow emerging largely unscathed and, more astoundingly, seemingly holding the reins of peace talks.

The New Peace Playbook: Skip the Ceasefire, Go Straight to Peace

Perhaps the most striking outcome was a paradigm shift in the approach to ending the war: a move away from the long-established insistence on a ceasefire as a prerequisite for peace negotiations, toward direct talks aimed at a comprehensive peace agreement.

Donald Trump’s remarks on Truth Social encapsulated this pivot: “The best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement.” This declaration upends the diplomatic orthodoxies shared by the United States, Ukraine, and the European Union, where ceasefires have been deemed essential to establish trust and reduce hostilities before tackling thorny matters like territorial disputes.

Putin, who opposed US ceasefire proposals earlier this spring, appears to have convinced Trump that a ceasefire was unnecessary—a remarkable concession that breaks ranks with months of Western diplomatic strategy.

For those watching closely, this raises profound questions: Can peace truly be forged in the absence of a ceasefire? Or does this risk dragging the conflict into deeper uncertainty? Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky is now under mounting pressure to enter talks under this new framework, with his upcoming Washington visit set to test the resilience of Ukrainian resolve amid shifting Western priorities.

Europe’s Uneasy Position: Between Past Consensus and New Realities

The European Union, steadfast in its stance last week with all members save Hungary endorsing meaningful negotiations only in the context of a ceasefire, now finds itself navigating turbulent waters. The UK shares this position, continuing to emphasize the need for a reduction of hostilities before peace talks.

But with Trump’s abrupt volte-face and the US administration’s apparent embrace of Russia’s agenda, European leaders face a diplomatic quandary. They must either accept this new trajectory or risk alienating Washington in an already fraught geopolitical landscape.

In a joint statement, leaders from France, Germany, Italy, Poland, and Finland, alongside European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa, expressed a shared commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty, insisting:

Ironclad security guarantees for Ukraine to defend its territorial integrity
No limitations on Ukraine’s armed forces or cooperation with third countries
Rejection of any Russian veto over Ukraine’s path toward EU and NATO membership

This united stance underscores Europe’s bottom line: the inviolability of borders and Ukraine’s right to self-determination, red lines that Russia vehemently opposes and that Putin reiterated in Alaska with a pointed caution to Europe against “throwing a wrench in the works.”

Security Guarantees: The New Focal Point

The elimination of the ceasefire as a condition for peace talks spotlights a critical question—what sort of security guarantees will Ukraine receive moving forward?

Here, the spotlight turns to NATO’s Article 5, which pledges collective defense to member states, but Ukraine remains a non-member. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s proposal to extend a similar guarantee to Ukraine has stirred debate, with reports suggesting that Putin might have tentatively agreed to a non-NATO Article 5 arrangement. A diplomatic source told AFP that this “supposed” agreement arose from the Trump-Putin meeting, but the mechanics and sincerity remain shrouded in uncertainty.

Why might Russia accept what seems an anathema to its stated goal of blocking Ukraine’s NATO ambitions? It is unknown—but the ambiguous diplomacy reveals the tangled web of concessions and posturing involved.

Veteran analyst Elena Markova of the European Institute for Peace weighed in: “Security guarantees without a ceasefire are a double-edged sword. They can deter further Russian advances, but without a calm on the ground, they risk entrenching divisions.”

Behind the Scenes: A Summit Focused on Business, Not War

The public air of cordiality—Putin and Trump sharing laughs on stage, a surprisingly warm atmosphere—belied the underlying stakes. Rather than tackling Ukraine head-on, much of the summit felt like a nostalgic nod to shared history, as Putin delivered a rambling reflection on Alaska’s Russian roots and wartime cooperation, leaving many wondering why Alaska was a venue at all.

Questions from the press were notably absent in the 12-minute press conference, a sign that transparency was not on the agenda. Instead, Putin reiterated his familiar narrative blaming Western powers for the conflict, while Trump’s firm promise of “very severe consequences” for Russia seemed to vanish into thin air.

The absence of talks on nuclear arms control, despite Putin’s earlier mention, sealed the sense that this gathering was more about symbolism than substantive progress—although the acceptance of direct peace talks sans ceasefire represents a notable shift.

What Does This Mean for Ukraine and the World?

For Ukraine, the implications are profound. The path to peace has abruptly shifted, and the very foundation of prior diplomatic efforts—mutual cessation of hostilities before negotiations—has been cast aside by its most powerful ally’s former leader.

Will this bolster Ukraine’s chances for a swift resolution, or does it risk further destabilizing an already fragile situation? As historian Dr. Samuel Liu observed, “Leaping ahead to peace talks without pause can be a gamble. Peace is not merely a signature; it requires conditions that allow all players to come to the table in good faith.”

Globally, this development underscores the complexity of international alliances and the precariousness of diplomatic consensus. It also highlights the often opaque influence of personalities and informal channels in shaping big geopolitical outcomes.

As citizens of a turbulent world, we might ask ourselves: How do we balance the urgent desire for peace with the realities of war? Can peace persist without trust and security? And what role do powerful nations play in safeguarding or subverting that fragile balance?

Looking Ahead

The Alaska summit didn’t end the war, nor did it produce immediate treaties. But it did shift the conversation dramatically. As Zelensky heads to Washington, European leaders recalibrate, and Putin watches closely, the world faces a renewed uncertainty—a moment that calls for vigilance, empathy, and critical reflection on the nature of peace and power in the 21st century.

One thing is clear: the story of Ukraine remains unwritten, and the summit in Alaska is a reminder that diplomacy is never just about the grand gestures, but the subtleties of influence, timing, and the relentless human longing for peace in the shadow of conflict.

Insufficient Food Supplies in Gaza Threaten Survival – Oxfam

hanad

August 17, 2025

Not enough food in Gaza to sustain life - Oxfam — Palestinians wait for food in the Al-Mawasi area of Khan Younis in Gaza earlier this week

Starvation at the Gates: The Struggle for Survival in Gaza’s Blockaded Enclave

In the narrow, densely populated strip of Gaza, life has become a daily battle against hunger, deprivation, and despair. As the blockade imposed by Israel stretches into its sixth month, the humanitarian crisis is intensifying with every day. There simply isn’t enough food to sustain the population, especially its most vulnerable—the children.

Chris McIntosh, Oxfam’s Humanitarian Response Adviser in Gaza, shares a sobering portrait from the ground. Speaking with a palpable urgency, he paints a scene that is difficult to comprehend yet impossible to ignore.

“Malnutrition in children here is severe,” he explains. “Unlike adults, children’s bodies and brains don’t have the resilience to bounce back from prolonged undernutrition. This doesn’t just affect them now—it affects their entire futures, their cognitive development, their immunity, their ability to thrive.”

Imagine a child whose formative years are shadowed not by play, learning, and growth, but by the gnawing pain of hunger. The implications ripple through every corner of Gaza society, creating a generation at risk of permanent physical and psychological harm.

The Invisible Siege: Food as a Weapon

It’s important to offer context. Since early March, Gaza has been under a stringent blockade that restricts not only the flow of goods but also vital humanitarian aid. McIntosh’s words echo warnings sounded by humanitarian groups for months: “Fundamentally, there isn’t enough food making it into the Strip.”

Over a hundred international aid organizations recently made a powerful joint statement accusing Israeli authorities of “weaponizing aid” through new legislation regulating aid groups. These laws, they argue, aren’t just bureaucratic hurdles—they are active barriers blocking aid from reaching those who need it most.

“Requests from dozens of NGOs to bring in lifesaving supplies have been routinely denied,” the letter alleges. “They cite that organizations are ‘not authorized’—but the criteria have become so restrictive and opaque that it effectively shuts out independent humanitarian work.”

Local voices within Gaza echo this frustration. Fatima Muhammed, a mother of five from Deir Al Balah, shares, “We see so many kids looking for scraps in the trash. It breaks my heart because it’s not just about hunger—it’s about humiliation. How can they grow strong when their bellies are empty?”

When a Meal Becomes a Memory

On the streets of Gaza City, the scent of cooking food is now a rarity. McIntosh poignantly notes, “To smell food being cooked is a total novelty these days.” This is the heartbreaking new norm. Where once kitchens hummed with life and laughter, now silence and hunger predominate.

The volume of aid trucks permitted entry into Gaza is a mere fraction of what’s required for survival. What’s left are symbolic gestures—aerial drops of supplies from planes parachuted into the area, which McIntosh describes bluntly as “embarrassing stunts.” These drops, he says, “lack dignity and efficiency.”

The crisis doesn’t stem from NGOs failing standards or ignoring security protocols, McIntosh insists. “The delays and denials are systematic and policy-driven,” he says, looking squarely at Israeli authorities. “It isn’t about security—it’s about control.”

Displacement and Desperation: Gaza’s Human Toll

The scale of suffering is staggering and deeply human. Hundreds of thousands have been displaced within Gaza, forced to live in tents and temporary shelters under relentless strain. The United Nations estimates that tens of thousands of people have lost their lives in Israeli attacks, and with much of the population uprooted, famine looms like a dark cloud.

Bushra Khalidi, an Oxfam aid official based in Gaza, quantifies the heartbreak. “We have over $2.5 million worth of essential goods—including water, sanitation, hygiene products, and food—that have been blocked from entering,” she reveals. “The inability to bring these essentials into Gaza only deepens the crisis.”

Adding to the complexity, recent aid regulations demand that NGOs submit to stringent controls—regulations that threaten their independence and freedom of speech. Khalidi warns, “Aid groups’ ability to operate here may come at the cost of their independence and their ability to speak out. That’s a dangerous precedent.”

A World Watching, Yet Feeling Powerless

Global humanitarian agencies have managed to resume some deliveries, but the scale is woefully inadequate. The trucks that pass through checkpoints are few and far between, and the resources they carry are but a drop in an ocean of needs.

This crisis invites us to reflect deeply. How do international politics and power dynamics impact the basic human right to food and dignity? What does it say about global accountability when aid organizations struggle so fiercely to serve populations under siege?

There is no easy answer, but the voices from Gaza, like those of McIntosh and Khalidi, tell a story that demands urgency and attention. They remind us that behind statistics and headlines are flesh-and-blood people—families, children, and communities fighting not just for survival, but for the chance to live.

Bridging the Divide: Understanding Hunger in Conflict Zones

The situation in Gaza isn’t isolated. Around the world, conflicts disrupt food systems, displacement fractures lives, and political blockades choke off essential services. According to recent data from the World Food Programme, over 45 million people worldwide face emergency levels of hunger due to conflict-induced access issues.

Gaza’s story is a stark and urgent call to action—a reminder that when political choices put food out of reach, the consequences ripple across generations and geographies.

What can the international community do? How should we think about aid that is politicized versus aid that is humanitarian? And most importantly, how do we listen to and uplift the voices of those living these realities?

In the end, the question lingers: when will Gaza’s children be able to grow without the shadow of hunger clouding their futures?

This crisis challenges us all to look beyond borders and ideologies—to see the shared humanity beneath. Because food, after all, is more than sustenance. It is dignity, hope, and the fragile heartbeat of survival.

Live Update: Trump and Putin Commend Alaska Meeting

hanad

August 17, 2025

As it happened: Trump and Putin praise Alaska summit

A Historic Meeting in the Last Frontier: When Trump and Putin Lauded the Alaska Summit

In the crisp air of Alaska’s rugged landscape, a gathering unfolded that felt as much a cinematic moment as a political turning point. It was a summit like no other—where two of the world’s most polarizing leaders stood side by side, praising a dialogue meant to thaw over a long-frozen diplomatic relationship. But beyond the headlines and the photo ops, what really happened in Alaska? And why does this meeting still send ripples across the global stage?

The Scene: Alaska, Between Ice and Ambition

Picture this: towering evergreens dusted with snow, the sprawling wilderness cutting a sharp contrast against the polished interiors of the meeting rooms where Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump came face-to-face. Known as the “Last Frontier,” Alaska has long been a symbol of raw natural power and untamed beauty—and in this summit, it became a symbolic venue for raw political power to test itself against decades-long geopolitical frost.

For locals in Anchorage, the summit was not just global spectacle but an event that stirred mixed emotions. “You wouldn’t expect two leaders with such histories to meet here,” said Maria Jenkins, a lifelong resident and community organizer. “But Alaska has always been about bridging gaps – between nature and people, between East and West.”

A Meeting That Caught the World’s Breath

The Alaska summit pulled global eyes to a moment both uneasy and hopeful. President Donald Trump, known for his unorthodox approach to diplomacy, and President Vladimir Putin, a figure often cast in shadowy geopolitical intrigue, offered mutual praise on the summit’s efforts. In a world polarized by renewed tensions reminiscent of the Cold War, their public compliments were like unexpected warmth breaking through a long winter’s chill.

“The discussions we witnessed here were nothing short of historic,” remarked Dr. Elena Kostrova, a professor of international relations at Moscow State University. “What made this meeting particularly compelling was the candid dialogue—something often missing from previous encounters between these giants.”

The summit aimed to reset a relationship beleaguered by accusations, sanctions, and conflicting ambitions in places like Ukraine and Syria. It was an attempt to lay groundwork for cooperation, a feat that seemed nearly impossible as the 21st century entered its third decade.

Human Stories Behind Diplomatic Canopies

While cameras flashed and speeches were delivered, away from the limelight, the summit brought forth quieter stories of hope and tension. Nina Erickson, a retired teacher from Anchorage, volunteered as a local liaison for the event. “I wasn’t sure what to expect,” she confessed. “But when I saw the leaders speaking openly, even acknowledging shared challenges, it felt like a sliver of peace was possible.”

Meanwhile, across the globe in Kyiv, Ukraine remains a poignant backdrop to these meetings. The conflict there has redefined international alignments. “For us, these summits are not just about grandeur; they are about our lives, our families, our futures,” said Oleksandr Petrenko, a journalist in Eastern Ukraine. “When Trump and Putin praise such efforts, we hold our breath—hoping for tangible change, not empty words.”

The Stakes: More Than Just Politics

Alaska’s summit underscores a broader theme: the interplay of diplomacy in an increasingly divided world. It raises questions about leadership, accountability, and the possibility of peace amid complex global realities.

Geopolitical chess: The summit signaled a recalibration in U.S.-Russia relations amidst sanctions and military posturing.
Energy and environment: Discussions included touches on Arctic resources and environmental stewardship, topics vital to Alaska and the planet.
Global security: The dialogue touched on nuclear arms control and cyber threats, issues that affect every nation’s security calculus.

Experts warn the summit should not be romanticized. “It is a step,” noted Ambassador Linda Chen, former U.S. envoy to Eastern Europe, “but the road to real resolution is mountainous and treacherous.” Yet, the symbolic value of Trump and Putin acknowledging progress openly cannot be overlooked.

Reflecting on a Moment, Looking Toward Tomorrow

As you read this, consider the fragility and power of diplomatic engagement. How often do worlds collide and converse—leaders with vast influence in a quiet corner of Earth? The Alaska summit invites us to imagine a world where dialogue outpaces discord and curiosity overcomes cynicism.

What does it mean when two men, often at ideological loggerheads, find something to praise together? Is it a hopeful sign or a fleeting chapter in a longer saga of rivalry?

For the people of Alaska, this summit was a moment of pride and complexity—like the state itself, a land of contrasts and resilience. For the world, it is a reminder that beneath global headlines and hardened stances, there is room for conversation, nuance, and perhaps, the faint beginnings of understanding.

In an age marked by division, the Alaska summit asks us to ponder: Can diplomacy be the bridge across our own divides? Can hope be as persistent as the northern lights that dance across the Alaskan sky? The answers are yet to be written.

1...91011...49 Page 10 of 49