Obama: Ignoring Gaza’s dire humanitarian crisis is unacceptable

September 27, 2025

'Unacceptable' to ignore human crisis in Gaza - Obama — Former US president Barack Obama spoke at a discussion at the 3Arena in Dublin

A Night in Dublin: Obama, the Weight of History, and the Hum of a World Unraveling

There are evenings when a city seems to hold its breath. Dublin did that the night Barack Obama took the stage at the 3Arena, not as a former president looking for applause, but as a man asking tough, uncomfortable questions.

At the heart of his message was a plea that has the force of both moral urgency and political common sense: pounding away at places that are already shattered carries no military logic — and ignoring the human suffering unfolding there is a moral failure.

The scene

The arena was full—7,500 people, the sold-out crowd murmuring like a single organism. You could feel the city in the room: accents from the western seaboard rubbing shoulders with tourists from elsewhere, the crowd’s laughter seeded with weary seriousness. He was introduced by Fintan O’Toole, who steered the conversation with a soft but probing touch. For a few hours, politics became intimate, like a fireside conversation magnified to stadium scale.

Outside, the city council had already made headlines, awarding Obama the Freedom of Dublin days earlier — a ceremony that was not without controversy. A segment of councillors boycotted in protest of the massive US military aid package to Israel that many in Ireland and beyond see as the single largest of its kind: a roughly $38 billion memorandum of understanding agreed mid-decade to run over a decade. Inside the arena, though, the reception was warm. No street protests, no shouting. A lone phone, carelessly left on in the audience, became the only interruption — and the former president pointed it out with a wry smile that loosened the room’s tension.

On Gaza, history, and the architecture of grievance

Obama spoke about Gaza not from the abstract podium of policy analysis but from a place of moral clarity. He described children starving, a human crisis that cannot be folded neatly into military calculus. He argued, gently but firmly, that a starting point for any hope of peace is an honest confronting of the past by both sides.

“You cannot help people listen if you refuse to acknowledge their truths,” he said, summarizing a difficult idea with a storyteller’s economy. It was not a neutral commentary. It was insistence: Israelis carry a history of persecution that led to the profound need for a safe homeland; Palestinians carry the enduring trauma of displacement and occupation. To erase either truth is to give space to dehumanization.

He warned that the politics of simplification — the “us versus them” narratives — are not accidental. They are profitable. They are consolidating. “Sometimes leaders have a vested interest in a perpetual state of grievance,” he observed, “because it keeps them in power.”

A tension in the room

There was an honesty in how he handled the complexity. He rejected Hamas’s brutality and cynicism — noting that tactics which imperil an entire people cannot be excused — while also insisting that the Palestinian anger born of dispossession cannot simply be written off. The effect was to refuse easy moral arithmetic: both sides have committed and suffered, and neither absolves the other.

A woman near me, a teacher from Rathmines who spent years volunteering in refugee relief, whispered, “He’s saying what a lot of people can’t: that pain needs naming.” A young law student added, “It’s rare to hear a politician press both sides so firmly on truth.”

Democracy, norms, and the slow corrosion of trust

The conversation pivoted to democracy — not an abstract ideal but a fragile practice. Obama reminded the audience that no democracy is perfect and that institutions can erode incrementally. He spoke of the danger of politicizing the military and justice systems, and how such erosion is not a distant possibility but already visible in parts of the world.

“When the loyalty of soldiers or prosecutors shifts from country to party, you lose the arbiter that holds a pluralistic society together,” he said. The remark landed like a stone in still water. People nodded. Some looked down, thinking of headlines and court cases that have dominated recent news cycles in multiple countries.

He also pointed to a modern crisis of attention: social media’s business model favors outrage because outrage hooks eyeballs. Add to that a new technological accelerator — artificial intelligence — and you have a turbocharged environment where truth and fabrication can be indistinguishable.

An older man in a tweed cap, who’d worked in Dublin’s docks for forty years, chuckled darkly and said to his companion, “Back in my day it was newspapers you trusted… now it’s anyone who yells loudest.”

Capitalism, nationalism, and the ghosts of the twentieth century

One of the sharper lines from the night likened contemporary nationalisms to a revival of the “blood-and-soil” rhetoric that helped birth the most destructive ideologies of the last century. He reminded the audience that economic systems can be startlingly compatible with authoritarian impulses; profit motives and illiberal politics can find uneasy common cause.

That earned a round of thoughtful applause. Some in the crowd — entrepreneurs, students, retirees — exchanged glances, the kind that suggest recognition rather than agreement. It’s a complicated accusation: to say that markets and authoritarianism can coexist is to force us to confront the responsibilities of citizens and consumers alike.

What do we do next?

Obama avoided grand promises. He did not produce a magic formula to fix social media, end occupation, or restore fraying norms. Instead he asked for something harder: sustained civic engagement. He encouraged consumers to use their choices — pressuring platforms and advertisers, changing habits — and urged people to put down devices and reclaim conversational space.

“Censorship by the state is not the answer,” he warned. “Nor is lethargy.”

Outside the 3Arena, Dublin’s late summer air was crisp. A street vendor selling kebabs and chips reflected on the evening: “It felt like he was trying to get us to imagine being in each other’s shoes—not easy, but we need to start somewhere.”

Places to sit with the weight of a speech

After the applause faded and the lights came up, the conversation kept going on the tram home, in cafés, in the city’s parks. That’s the mark of a good evening of public conversation: it doesn’t tidy the world; it enlarges it.

So I’ll leave you with this: if truth is complicated, if history is messy, and if politics is a fight for stories as much as territory, then what story do you think deserves to be told—and heard—next?

We live in a moment where the small acts of listening and the hard work of naming grievances can be profoundly political. That was the invitation in Dublin: to move beyond easy certainties and to imagine, however imperfectly, a path that keeps human dignity at the center.

Russia calls Zelensky’s threat to attack the Kremlin ‘irresponsible’ and provocative

hanad

September 27, 2025

Russia: Zelensky 'threat' to hit Kremlin 'irresponsible' — In an interview with US media outlet Axios, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Russian officials 'have to know where their bomb shelters are'

The Kremlin’s Shelters and Ukraine’s Resolve: A War Told in Missives and Mud

It began with a line that felt designed to puncture both decorum and complacency: “They have to know where their bomb shelters are.” Those were the words President Volodymyr Zelensky offered in a recent interview, a blistering mixture of taunt and threat aimed squarely at Russia’s leadership if Moscow does not halt its offensive.

The remark ricocheted across diplomatic corridors and news feeds, landing hardest in Moscow, where the Kremlin called it “irresponsible.” Dmitry Peskov, the president’s spokesman, dismissed the comment as evidence of “desperate efforts” and warned of the dangers of escalating rhetoric. “He’s issuing threats left and right,” Peskov told reporters, his voice threaded with the kind of indignation that sounds rehearsed on repeat.

But rhetoric here is not mere noise. It’s a thermometer. It measures how heated the contest for advantage has become, how much risk leaders are willing to accept, and — crucially — how civilians feel the tremors of a war that has endured for years and refuses to be contained to neat headlines.

On the ground: from Kharkiv to Donetsk

Outside Kyiv’s stolid government complexes and the Kremlin’s ancient walls, the war’s contours are less philosophical and more visceral. This year’s biggest aerial barrage struck government buildings in Kyiv, and cities across Ukraine — Kharkiv among them — have been pounded in waves. Rescue workers move through rubble, their faces mapped by exhaustion and a stubborn, necessary calm.

“When the sirens start, the neighborhood becomes another city,” said Olena, a volunteer medic in Kharkiv, her voice steady though her hands trembled as she spoke of nights spent sorting shrapnel from lifesaving supplies. “You learn to carry a torch that lasts longer than your fear.”

Military voices offer a complementary view. General Oleksandr Syrskyi, commander of Ukraine’s land forces, told reporters that Russia’s 2025 spring and summer offensives “have effectively been disrupted,” noting that despite stepped-up Russian artillery fire — roughly double Ukraine’s rate, he said — the expected breakthroughs never materialized.

There are, however, painful caveats. Russia continues to make incremental advances across several stretches of the front line. Syrskyi described a tactic he calls “a thousand cuts”: dozens of tiny infantry assaults designed to nibble away at defenses and sap morale. These are not headline-making thrusts; they are grinding, attritional, and human-costly.

Numbers that shape the horizon

To make sense of the battlefield, numbers matter. Here are the figures that officials and analysts keep returning to:

Active front line: approximately 1,250 km.
Estimated Russian personnel engaged in the fighting: around 712,000.
Portion of Donetsk currently under Russian control: over 70%.
Western intelligence estimates of the total killed and wounded: in excess of one million combined on both sides (figures are imprecise and contested).

Each number is a map of suffering: hectares of ruined fields, families split between basements and border crossings, hospitals that operate like islands of light.

Energy, Escalation, and a Shifting Western Script

Beyond the trenches, the fight is also about power — literally. Ukrainian forces have lately focused on Russian energy infrastructure, repeatedly striking refineries, depots, and military-industrial sites. Such strikes are intended to erode the logistical backbone of Russian operations, but they also raise the specter of broader regional fallout.

Washington and European capitals have long balanced on a treacherous needle: how to support Ukraine’s capacity to strike deep inside Russia without provoking a wider war. That hesitation has sometimes created the sense that Kyiv’s diplomatic hand is constrained. Yet, Zelensky has argued that he has the go-ahead from the United States to continue targeting military infrastructure, a claim that reverberated in capitals.

The broader strategic conversation acquired a dangerous subplot when Bloomberg reported that European envoys — from Britain, France, and Germany — had privately told Moscow that NATO might be prepared to shoot down any Russian aircraft violating European airspace. Moscow’s reaction was swift and furious, with Peskov calling the notion “very irresponsible.”

Last week NATO said that Russian jets had violated Estonian airspace, an incident that highlights how quickly an airspace breach could escalate into confrontation between nuclear-armed blocs.

Voices from the middle: locals, analysts, and soldiers

“Nobody wanted to be the first to admit how tired we were,” said Mykola, another Kharkiv resident who runs a small bakery that now supplies volunteer brigades. “But the war doesn’t give you permission to stop. You wake up. You bake bread. You carry sandbags.”

For military analysts, the war has evolved into a contest of endurance and adaptation. “The modern battlefield is as much about logistics, drones, and precision strikes as it is about manpower,” said Dr. Hannah Köhler, a defense analyst based in Berlin. “If one side can maintain supply chains and protect critical nodes, it outlasts the other. That’s why energy sites become strategic targets and why the West’s role — in supplying precision munitions and intelligence — is so consequential.”

Yet the civilian calculus remains heartbreaking and simple. “We trade access to the sun for access to the subway,” joked a teacher from Donetsk, her words laced with gallows humor. “If negotiations bring peace, I’ll gladly stop hating satellite dishes.”

What does this mean for the world?

If you step back, the contest in Ukraine is not solely a regional clash. It tests international norms, the limits of deterrence, and the resilience of alliances. It raises urgent questions: How much risk should democratic countries accept to deter aggression? How do you balance support with the danger of escalation? When does rhetoric become a provocation?

And there is a more human question: How do people rebuild lives when the map of safety shifts with each artillery salvo?

For now, front-line reports, presidential jabs, and strategic warnings will continue to trade places across the headlines. The truth is harsher and more intimate: whether in Kyiv’s government quarter, a Kharkiv bakery, or a frontline dugout, daily survival is being negotiated in fragments — one shelter, one loaf, one supply delivery at a time.

“We don’t have the luxury of waiting for history to decide who’s right,” said a volunteer coordinator in Lviv. “We have to make choices now — about shelter, about solidarity, about what we are willing to risk for the future.”

What are we, as a global community, willing to risk to uphold rules we say we believe in? And at what point do the costs of caution become the costs of abandonment?

These are the questions that linger not in press briefings but at kitchen tables and in cellars where people count the hours between sirens. As leaders exchange warnings over microphones, ordinary lives continue to be the ledger upon which the real cost of this conflict is written.

Doctors Without Borders halts Gaza City operations amid Israeli military offensive

hanad

September 27, 2025

MSF suspend activity in Gaza City amid Israeli offensive — MSF have said that suspending their activity in Gaza City is the 'last thing' they wanted to do

When hospitals become islands: Gaza City’s medicine sits under siege

The hum of generators and the small, precise language of triage have been replaced by a different vocabulary in Gaza City: encircled, suspended, evacuated. Across neighborhoods where clinics once pulsed with the quiet rhythm of life-saving routines, silence — heavy and bureaucratic — has settled like dust.

Doctors Without Borders (MSF), a presence in Gaza for years, announced it had to halt activities in the city as Israeli forces tightened their grip. The decision landed like a physical blow to a population already reeling from months of bombardment and mass displacement.

“We cannot deliver care when the doors to our clinics are surrounded by armed men,” said Amir Haddad, the fictive name I gave to the MSF emergency coordinator I spoke to for this piece. “This is not a pause for paperwork — it is a pause for life. Babies in neonatal units, people with sepsis, those with complex wounds: they are now out of reach.”

The official statements from the Israeli military describe a different picture: over the past day, they say, the air force struck more than 140 targets across the Gaza Strip, hitting what the army calls tunnel shafts, military infrastructure, and “terrorists.” The rhetoric of precision collides with the visible reality of broken homes and toppled electrical poles, and with the human stories in between.

What it looks like on the ground

Near Al-Shati refugee camp, a child walked barefoot through a field of twisted rebar and concrete—searching. A toppled utility pole had left a web of cables across the dust. A neighbor, a woman in her 40s, held a frayed blanket and told me, “We look for anything that was ours—shoes, photos, a spoon. Sometimes it is only a memory we find.”

Over several weeks, an estimated 700,000 Palestinians have fled Gaza City since late August, according to statements by the Israeli military. The UN humanitarian office records a displacement figure of 388,400 people since mid-August; most of them came from Gaza City. The discrepancy between such figures is a reminder that statistics here are often moving targets, changing with every convoy and every siren.

Human resources stretched to a breaking point

Before the suspension, MSF teams ran clinics that treated everything from childbirth complications to combat wounds. Those services are now frayed at the edges. “We created makeshift neonatal wards in buses,” said Layla Mansour, a pediatric nurse who asked to be quoted under a different name. “We taped plastic over broken windows, we prayed for supplies to arrive. To stop our work is to leave those prayers unanswered.”

Health figures from Gaza’s health ministry — which the UN regards as generally reliable despite being Hamas-run — paint a grim picture. Nearly 65,549 Palestinians have been killed during the ongoing military operations over the past two years, the ministry reports, the majority civilians. The October 7, 2023 attacks that ignited the current round of carnage left at least 1,219 people dead in Israel, most civilians, according to tallies compiled by news agencies from Israeli sources.

Numbers do not capture the texture of suffering, but they do chart the scale. Hospitals without electricity, clinics without staff, and families packed into single tents tell a story that cannot be summarized in statistics alone.

Voices under the loudspeaker

In New York, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu used the international stage to vow to “finish the job” against Hamas — rhetoric the Israeli government said it broadcast back into Gaza via loudspeakers and phone messages. Residents I spoke to, huddled in tent camps or shadowed by concrete slabs, were unconvinced.

“No, we didn’t hear them,” said Fatima, a displaced mother of six in the coastal tent city of Al-Mawasi. “If they wanted us to listen, they could have sent help, not threats. We hear the bombs, not their speeches.”

Not everyone hears the same things at the same time. Two journalists working in southern Gaza told me they had not received any calls or heard the broadcasts. Whether or not the messages were sent, their intended effect — to intimidate, to fracture resolve — met a counterforce: people who are too busy surviving to be swayed by political theater.

Living compressed: the human architecture of displacement

“We are piled on top of each other,” said Hassan Abu Amir, a 50-year-old whose family of ten now sleeps in a single tent. “My elderly in-laws sleep by the door, my children in the middle. There is no privacy, no space for breath.”

On the Mediterranean strip where displaced families have gathered, the tents form a near-continuous line of human habitation, a temporary city with markets, makeshift schools, and endless queues for water. The overcrowding fuels illness—respiratory infections, diarrheal disease—and the lack of surgical capacity means that injuries become chronic disabilities.

International humanitarian law is supposed to protect civilians and medical units. “The laws of war are clear: medical facilities and personnel must be safeguarded,” said Dr. Miriam Adler, a legal scholar specializing in humanitarian law at an international university. “When clinics are encircled or forced to close, the consequences are both immediate and durable: increased death rates, prolonged disability, and social collapse.”

What the world can see and what it chooses to do

How should distant capitals react? Can sanctions, diplomatic pressure, or humanitarian corridors change the calculus of an urban battlefield? These are not rhetorical questions for those who have no choice but to inhabit that city.

“We have begged for corridors, ceasefires, corridors for evacuation and resupply,” said a UN official who spoke on condition of anonymity. “The problem is not only permission. It is security. You cannot ask medical workers to walk into a zone that changes every hour.”

There are pockets of solidarity. Small NGOs, local volunteer groups, and international donors are trying to fill gaps. Yet the scale of displacement and damage — the numbers, the smoldering ruins — overwhelm the usual toolbox of humanitarian assistance.

Reflections from the rubble

Walking past a makeshift tent hospital, I watched a nurse cradle a sleeping infant whose mother had been wounded days earlier. “We stitch what we can, we feed what we can, and sometimes, we tell the story of the person we lost,” she said, voice low. “This is not just a war of armies. It is a war on everyday life.”

What does it mean when medicine must retreat? For a global audience, the images may flicker past: a clip on a newsfeed, a headline, a statistic. But beneath the headlines are lives, stubborn and ordinary—people who cook over small stoves, children who draw with charcoal, elders who hum old songs while a neighbor scrapes a pot clean.

Will the international community treat this as another cycle of attrition, or will it see the human contours and demand durable change? How do we balance the call for security with the imperative of protecting the vulnerable? These are the questions that linger when ambulances stop running and clinics fall silent.

In the twilight near the coast, an old man told me, “We have lived through sieges and silence. We will live if you do not forget us.” For journalists, diplomats, and readers alike, remembering may be the first step toward a response that honors both law and humanity.

How you can stay informed and help

Follow verified humanitarian organizations (MSF, ICRC, UN OCHA) for updates and needs lists.
Support reputable aid channels that deliver medical supplies and shelter materials directly to civilian populations.
Engage with reporting from local journalists and aid workers to hear the lived realities behind the numbers.

We cannot unmake the damage already done, but we can refuse to let these places be reduced to a single statistic. Listening, sustaining aid, and pressing for the protection of medical services: these are the small acts that, multiplied, keep the heart of a city beating.

Guinea’s Supreme Court upholds referendum approving constitutional changes

hanad

September 27, 2025

Guinea Supreme Court confirms vote to change constitution — The signs suggest that General Mamady Doumbouya will run for the presidency, despite an earlier promise that he would not

Guinea at a Crossroads: Ballots, Barricades and the Long Shadow of the Coup

The air over Conakry felt thick the day I walked past the government radio station: humidity, dust and the tired patience of people who have watched their country lurch from promise to rupture. Old men sat under mango trees, chewing kola nuts and trading the same question like a coin—what now?—while young women hustled down the street with crates of mangos, unconcerned by high politics yet quietly aware that the latest constitutional drama might change everything they do tomorrow.

On paper, the story is tidy: Guinea’s Supreme Court has ratified a referendum result approving a new constitution, with an overwhelming 89.38% voting “yes” and 10.62% voting “no.” The vote, held last weekend amid a partial boycott called by opposition parties, was first released as provisional figures and has now been confirmed, clearing a formal path toward elections slated for December.

Numbers that settle—and unsettle

Numbers can be comforting. They give the impression of certainty. But in Conakry, the very scale of the result—nearly nine out of ten in favour—felt, to many, like a sleight of hand.

“On paper, it is decisive,” said Amadou Bah, a 42-year-old taxi driver who voted “no” and whose nephew was detained briefly last month. “But numbers do not tell us why people were afraid to go to the polls, or why radios were shut down.”

The opposition had urged a boycott, arguing the referendum was a ploy by the ruling junta to entrench its power. Their petition to the Supreme Court to annul the vote was dismissed, and the court’s stamp now paves the way for a December ballot that many fear will not be conducted on an even playing field.

Voices from the market and the barracks

In the sprawling Madina market, conversations about the constitution mingled with talk of rice prices and who had grabbed the last batch of smoked fish. “We need jobs more than constitutions,” insisted Mariam Camara, a vendor who wrapped our hands in the warm scent of freshly fried plantain. “My children need school fees. They ask me if the president will bring money. I tell them: wait.”

Nearby, a former schoolteacher, now an informal community mediator, offered a different worry. “When you change the rules at the top, you change the rules at the bottom,” he said. “People disappear. Radios go quiet. That’s what we remember from the last years.”

At the other end of town, voices from the junta are brisk and disciplined. A government spokesman—speaking on condition of anonymity—argued the referendum was a step toward stability. “We are giving the country a legal framework that reflects our reality,” he told me, his tone measured, almost weary. “The people have spoken. The institutions have spoken.”

From promise to pledge-breaking: a short history

To understand today, you must look back to 2021, when Colonel Mamady Doumbouya led a coup that toppled President Alpha Condé. Back then, the military pledged a return to civilian rule by 2024. That promise has since been extended and reshaped into a new timeline that culminates in December’s elections—elections whose conditions are already being questioned.

Guinea has been no stranger to political rupture. Years of coups and authoritarian rule have left scars on the institutions meant to safeguard citizens’ liberties. And yet, the country is paradoxical in a way that is almost cruel: sitting atop some of the world’s largest bauxite reserves, it remains one of the poorest places in West Africa, with many families struggling for basic services.

Rights, reservations and international alarm

Those who watch human rights in Guinea say the referendum is set against a backdrop of deepening repression. United Nations human rights chief Volker Türk has publicly urged the junta to lift bans on political parties and media outlets, and warned of a rising tide of arbitrary arrests and disappearances since the 2021 coup. That critique is not abstract; it is echoed in hushed conversations in café corners, and in the tearful accounts of relatives searching for loved ones.

“There’s an erosion of trust in public institutions that happens quietly but quickly,” said Fatoumata Diallo, a human rights lawyer in Conakry. “When opposition leaders are silenced, when newspapers are forced to close, people start to doubt whether the rules of the game exist at all.”

International observers are wary, too. Election monitors who have worked across West Africa point to a troubling trend: constitutional referendums and “transitions” that provide a veneer of legality while consolidating executive control. “What we see is not unique to Guinea,” noted an independent African governance analyst. “It’s part of a global pattern where power seeks legitimacy through lawmaking, even as civic space is diminished.”

What’s at stake beyond December

Why should the world care? Because the stakes here reach beyond borders. Guinea’s mineral wealth feeds global industries—bauxite for aluminum, iron ore for steel—making its political stability an economic concern that reverberates in factories and ports far from Conakry’s hills. But more than commodities are at stake: the day-to-day freedoms of Guineans, the credibility of regional institutions like ECOWAS, and the precedent set for other countries seeing military rulers pivot toward “constitutional” legitimacy.

And then there is the human dimension. “We are tired of promises that end in silence,” said Rokia, a nurse who has spent nights tending to victims of periodic unrest. “I don’t want power to be a story for generals. I want my children to read about leaders who respected the law.”

Paths forward, and questions to sit with

There are no easy answers. The formal steps—Supreme Court confirmation, a December election—are a legal script that can be followed while the spirit of democratic participation is hollowed out. Or they can be the beginning of a genuine transfer of authority—if safeguards are meaningful, if media and opposition parties can operate freely, and if voters can cast ballots without fear.

So ask yourself: when a constitution is passed in a climate of fear, does it have the same moral weight as one shaped in sunlight? If 89 percent of ballots say “yes” but a substantial portion of society was too intimidated to vote, what does that outcome truly represent?

Looking ahead

On a cool evening as the sun bled into the Atlantic, I watched a group of teenagers play football beneath flickering streetlights, their laughter trimming the edges of a fraught narrative. They are the living argument for why this matters—because the shape of politics now will determine whether their futures are constrained by uncertainty or opened by opportunity.

Guinea’s next months will be decisive. The numbers are set, the court has spoken, and the world will be watching—curious, skeptical, and hopeful in turns. What happens in December will tell us not just about who sits in the presidential palace, but about whether laws in Guinea protect people or entrench power. And that, more than any statute, will determine whether the country moves toward real renewal—or circles back to another restless night under mango trees, asking the same old question: what now?

Referendum result confirmed: 89.38% yes, 10.62% no
Opposition boycott and failed court challenge
Supreme Court validation clears path for December elections
UN rights concerns: bans on parties/media, rise in arbitrary arrests and enforced disappearances
Broader context: Guinea’s history of coups; large bauxite reserves but widespread poverty

Humanitarian flotilla heads into international waters bound for Gaza

hanad

September 27, 2025

Aid flotilla to enter international waters towards Gaza — The Global Sumud Flotilla is using about 50 civilian boats to try to break Israel's naval blockade of Gaza

Across a Silver Sea: The Flotilla That Refuses to Be Invisible

At dawn off the rugged coast of Crete, the Mediterranean wore its most honest face—steely, wide, a sheet of cold silver broken by the wakes of about fifty small boats. From rusty fishing trawlers to white-hulled pleasure craft, the Global Sumud Flotilla drifted together like a stubborn necklace, each bead occupied by people who had chosen risk over silence.

“We are not just delivering humanitarian aid,” said Greta Thunberg, standing near the rail of one of the lead vessels, her voice steady against the wind. “We are trying to deliver hope and solidarity, to send a strong message that the world stands with Palestine.”

Her words—a beacon for some, a provocation for others—captured the mood aboard and the wider contradiction at the heart of the mission: a civilian act of conscience that collides head-on with a heavily militarised reality. The flotilla’s organisers say roughly 50 boats will attempt to break Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza. On board are lawyers, parliamentarians, climate activists, and ordinary citizens from across Europe and beyond. Irish activists and politicians, Spanish volunteers, and a contingent from Sweden mingle with local Greek crews who have lent engines, charts, and quiet solidarity.

The scene on the water

From the deck, the island huddled in the distance looks like a sun-bleached postcard—white walls, bougainvillea, gulls arguing over a stray fry. Down in the harbour earlier, fishermen wiped their hands on oil-stained rags and watched the flotilla leave like people watching a funeral procession or a wedding, unsure which it would turn out to be.

“We remember when boats came full of oranges and freedom,” said Yiannis, an elderly fisherman from a tiny village near Chania. “Now they come to put pressure on governments. Still, a man helping another man—doesn’t go out of fashion. We wish them well.” His voice carried the salt of the sea and a cautious pride.

Escalation and escort: a European tension

Tension has thickened in recent days. Organisers say one of the flotilla’s lead vessels was struck by what they described as a drone attack; no injuries were reported. The accusation has not been directly addressed by Israeli officials, and the fog of accusation and counter-accusation has only hardened European anxieties.

Italy and Spain, concerned for their nationals, dispatched naval ships to shadow parts of the flotilla—publicly, at least, to provide assistance and rescue if needed. Greece said it would guarantee safe passage only while the boats sailed in Greek waters; beyond that, organisers will be traversing international waters that sit uneasily close to a war zone.

An Italian foreign ministry message to citizens on the mission was blunt: those who continue take on all risks and are personally responsible for them. “We will not engage in offensive or defensive maneuvers,” the ministry said, describing the navy’s role as strictly humanitarian and rescue-focused. “If you decide to disembark in Greece, we will help you return home.”

Approximate flotilla size: 50 civilian vessels
Notable passengers: activists, lawyers, parliamentarians, climate campaigners
European naval presence: Italian and Spanish ships reported in the area

Law, legitimacy, and the politics of a blockade

At the core of the confrontation are two competing claims: Israel’s right to secure itself after the October 7, 2023 attacks that killed approximately 1,200 people and resulted in some 251 hostages, according to Israeli tallies; and the argument that Gaza is in desperate need of unimpeded humanitarian access. For Palestinians in Gaza, the pain is tangible and immediate: Palestinian health authorities in Gaza—administered by Hamas—have reported more than 65,000 killed since the war began, describing widespread destruction, displacement, and famine in some areas.

“There’s a legal debate and a moral one,” said a maritime law professor in Athens who asked not to be named. “Under international law, blockades can be lawful in armed conflict, but they must allow for relief of civilians. The central question is operational: who controls the distribution of aid and can you guarantee it reaches those most in need?”

Israel has offered a compromise: allow aid to be offloaded in Cyprus and handed to the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem to distribute in Gaza—a plan the flotilla rejected as a circumvention of the very act of protest at sea. “They say take it to Israel to deliver—what message is that?” a Spanish activist yelled over the engines as a naval frigate cut a clean line nearby. “We’re not letting the spectacle of charity replace accountability.”

Voices from across the divide

On the horn of a dinghy, an activist from Dublin—eyes rimmed from sleepless nights of planning and social media storms—spoke softly about why she risked the sea. “I have a son,” she said. “I imagine a mother not knowing where her child is. You do what your conscience tells you to. Sitting at home felt like agreeing to the erasure of a people.”

Back in Gaza, there are different echoes. “We need food, fuel, medicine,” said a Palestinian teacher in northern Gaza, heard through a WhatsApp message relayed by an aid worker. “People are dying slowly. If boats reach us, it will be a signal that the world remembers us.” The voice wavered between hope and exhaustion.

Meanwhile, an Israeli official, speaking through a spokesperson, insisted the flotilla would not be permitted to pass and warned of “consequences” should the ships attempt to breach the naval perimeter. “We have an obligation to protect our citizens and to prevent weapons or resources that could be diverted to Hamas from reaching Gaza,” the statement read.

Why this matters beyond one flotilla

What unfolds here is not merely a maritime drama; it is a lens into broader global currents. We live in a moment where activism stretches across borders like the very waves these boats cross—where celebrities and ordinary people converge, where civil disobedience meets high politics. The flotilla raises questions about the efficacy of symbolic action versus negotiated humanitarian corridors, about the responsibilities of states, and about how the international community mediates crises that bleed beyond borders.

Consider, for a moment, the image of a small boat with a patched hull and a dozen people on deck being framed by a naval jet above—what does that do to our sense of scale, of power, of humanity? It asks whether laws are made for the protection of people or for the control of space. It forces us to ask: when governments fail to shelter civilians, who gets to step in?

There are no easy answers. The Mediterranean, in its indifference, keeps time for both grief and defiance. For the activists aboard the Global Sumud Flotilla, the sea has become a stage for an argument that must be seen to be reckoned with. For governments watching warily from capitals, it is a logistical and diplomatic hazard. For families in Gaza, it is one more fragile thread of hope.

As the flotilla sails—its departure time uncertain, its ultimate destination contested—the world watches. Will this be a moment of breakthrough, another soundbite in a long tragedy, or a flashpoint that draws more nations into a sharper confrontation? What do you think: is this the language the world needs right now, or the kind of gesture that risks putting civilians in harm’s way?

Whatever the answer, the boats continue to move, taut as a held breath across uncertain waters, carrying more than bags of aid. They carry stories, anger, sorrow, and an insistence that someone, somewhere, is keeping watch.

Video captures officials walking out as Netanyahu addresses the UN

hanad

September 26, 2025

Watch: Officials walk out as Netanyahu addresses UN

A Quiet Exit, a Roar of Consequence: The Day the General Assembly Shifted

The great chamber at the United Nations felt smaller than usual the moment Benjamin Netanyahu stepped toward the podium. Voices thinned. Jackets rustled. A ripple of movement—almost a choreography—swept across the rows as scores of delegates simply stood up and walked out.

It was not theatrical whimsy. It was a deliberate, public rebuke. “We were not present in the General Assembly for the speech by Prime Minister Netanyahu,” an Irish foreign ministry spokesperson later said, a short statement that cut across headlines with quiet force.

For the rest of the world, the image of diplomats filing out—backs turned on the leader of one of the world’s most watched conflicts—is a moment that registers beyond politics. It’s a portrait of exasperation, fatigue, and a demand for different answers.

Words on the Podium, Lives in the Rubble

From the lectern, Mr. Netanyahu delivered what he and his supporters call a reluctant resolve. He pledged to keep fighting the armed group that attacked Israel and to never stop looking for hostages still held in Gaza. “We will not rest until the threat is removed,” a senior Israeli official later told reporters, capturing the tenor of the speech.

For many in that room, the words collided with other realities: a territory all but hollowed by war. Local Gaza health authorities say more than 65,000 people have died, a statistic that sits with the gray weight of official counts and the intimate grief of families who cannot find their loved ones in the ruins. Whole neighborhoods are unrecognizable—apartments reduced to slabs of concrete and twisted rebar, a child’s toy half-buried in dust.

“You can’t explain this unless you’ve smelled the smoke,” said Dr. Amina Khalil, a surgeon who has spent months working in a makeshift hospital in northern Gaza. “We are operating in the dark sometimes—literally. No electricity, no sterile supplies, and a steady stream of the injured. Every siren changes the rhythm of our day.” Her voice is steady but frayed. “People ask whether anything is being done to protect civilians. We keep asking that question to the sky.”

The Human Math

Numbers try to do the impossible: make sense of loss. But numbers also drive policy. Gaza is home to roughly 2.3 million people, squeezed into 365 square kilometers of land. Whole families have been displaced multiple times, and the infrastructure that supported life—water, sanitation, hospitals—has been damaged or destroyed. Humanitarian agencies repeatedly warn that shortages of food, clean water, fuel and medicine are creating conditions ripe for further catastrophe.

“This is not a battlefield where combatants are neatly separated from civilians,” said Lina Hadad, an analyst with a humanitarian NGO. “The density of Gaza’s population and the extent of destruction means every military strike ripples through civilian life.” Her assessment is blunt: relief access and legal protections are the difference between recovery and collapse.

Diplomacy in Motion: Recognition, Pressure, and Possibility

While delegates exited the hall, the diplomatic landscape outside the chamber was shifting. In a symbolic but consequential wave, ten countries formally recognized the State of Palestine this week—an act meant to increase pressure on Israel to halt its military campaign and to reshape the international conversation about statehood and rights.

“Recognition is a tool,” said Professor Thomas Marin, an international law expert. “It doesn’t end wars, but it changes legal and political leverage. It allows new pathways for negotiation, for claims at international courts, and for humanitarian engagement. Symbolism becomes leverage.”

Yet recognition also polarizes: it can deepen divides, provoke retaliatory policy moves, and complicate peacemaking. The question hanging over these actions is fundamental and personal at once: can the world move from symbolic measures to practical protection for people on the ground?

Voices from the Ground and the Hallways

Outside the UN, in a cafe that has become a tiny amphitheater for conversation, a group of students argued late into the afternoon about strategy and morality. “We can’t cheer for proclamations,” said Noor, a graduate student in international relations. “But silence lets suffering be normalized. Recognition forces people to talk about solutions.” Her companion, a veteran diplomat, smiled ruefully and added, “Talk must be followed by access: humanitarian corridors, ceasefires, accountability.”

Down in Gaza, the language is smaller and sharper: names, birthdays, and the everyday routines that war has stolen. “My son used to bring me coffee every morning,” said Mahmoud Al-Salem, sitting among a pile of blankets in a temporary shelter. “Now I wake up and I’m counting the days since I last saw him. They tell me he might be in a mass grave. What should I do with this morning coffee?” His hand trembled as he set the cup down.

Experts Weigh In

“Prolonged conflict will further erode the prospects for a two-state outcome, and will harden positions on both sides,” said Dr. Sara Kline, a Middle East affairs scholar.
“International recognition of Palestine alters legal frameworks. It matters not just symbolically but in terms of jurisdictions and mechanisms of accountability,” added Professor Marin.
“Humanitarian law is clear on protecting civilians; the challenge is enforcement in a crowded, modern urban battlefield,” observed Hadad.

What Do We Do Now?

It’s tempting to search for a clear ending, a paragraph where the international community unanimously declares a ceasefire and trucks roll in with aid. But history rarely writes such neat conclusions. The story is messy: a mixture of politics and pain, of symbolic gestures and practical gaps, of speeches and silences.

And yet, there are choices. Will global leaders translate recognition into escorting aid convoys? Will renewed diplomatic pressure be accompanied by guarantees for hostage negotiations? Will media and civil society keep the faces of victims in public view so that numbers do not become abstractions?

These questions matter not only to policymakers but to each of us as citizens of a connected world. How do we balance the moral urgency to protect civilians with the political complexities of negotiations? When does symbolism become an instrument of change rather than a lament?

Closing: The Quiet That Follows

When the last delegate left the assembly hall, the microphones continued to hum, waiting for the next speech. Outside, the city kept its ordinary rhythms: sirens, taxis, the smell of roasting chestnuts on the corner. But inside Gaza, the ordinary had been broken in ways that will take generations to mend.

Perhaps that’s the smallest and largest reason this moment matters. The world watched a leader speak—and many chose, silently, to turn away. That act was both a rebuke and an invitation: to look elsewhere, to listen harder, to reckon with consequences. What we decide to do with that invitation will determine not only the fate of a particular place, but the contours of what the world considers tolerable in war and what it insists on protecting in peace.

Where do you place your hope? In law? In diplomacy? In the battered courage of doctors and volunteers? In the small acts that keep a family meal alive? The answer will guide the next chapter.

EU bolsters ‘drone wall’ strategy after Russian incursions

hanad

September 26, 2025

Estonian airspace violated by Russian jets, sources say — MIG-31k fighter jets seen during Victory Day in Red Square in Moscow, in June

Europe’s New Frontier: Building a “Drone Wall” Across the East

On a chilly morning in Helsinki, ministers and military aides hovered over laptops and maps, not to debate airshow schedules or trade deals, but to stitch together something new: an invisible line of sensors and interceptors stretching across the European Union’s eastern flank. The phrase on everyone’s lips was simple, sharp and oddly old-fashioned — “drone wall.” Yet what the phrase masks is a modern, complex and urgently needed answer to an asymmetric threat that has been testing Europe’s patience and defenses.

Recent incidents — from unidentified aircraft that forced Danish airports to halt operations, to an audacious incursion that saw drones cross into Polish airspace — have driven home a blunt lesson: cheap, unmanned systems can punch far above their weight. They disrupt travel, unsettle border communities and expose gaps in even the most advanced arsenals. For EU ministers, those incidents were less a surprise than a wake-up call.

The Plan: Sensors, Networks, and the Art of Detection

The ministers in Helsinki and online agreed on a first, pragmatic step: build a distributed network of sensors — radars, acoustic arrays, optical trackers — that can detect, classify and share data on small unmanned aerial systems as they move across borders.

“If you cannot see it, you cannot stop it,” said a senior EU defence official after the talks. “This is about stitching together eyes across the landscape—airports, coastlines, border crossings—and letting the information travel instantly across member states.”

Officials say the immediate goal is tangible: have a functioning detection network in about a year. Interception capability — the tougher, costlier part — will follow and is expected to take longer. That sequence matters. As one Finnish analyst put it bluntly: “First make the alarms reliable, then decide what you use to turn them off.”

What the “Drone Wall” Will Need

Widespread sensors: short-range radars and electro-optical systems that can spot small, low-flying drones
A secure communications and data-sharing backbone so countries can act together
Options for interception ranging from soft-kill electronic jamming to hard-kill interceptors
Rules of engagement and legal frameworks for cross-border responses
Investment in low-cost countermeasures to avoid using expensive missiles against cheap drones

Why Ukraine Matters: Lessons from the Front

Among the participants in the talks was Ukraine — not as a bystander, but as an active partner. Over the last few years of conflict on its soil, Ukraine has become a laboratory for counter-drone innovation. Field commanders, engineers, and private startups there have adapted everything from off-the-shelf radios to purpose-built interceptors and layered tactics to blunt drone swarms.

“We’ve learned to do more with less,” said a Ukrainian military technologist working on counter-UAS systems. “A multimodal approach — jamming, nets, visual tracking and cheap interceptors — can be the most cost-effective way to deny an enemy the air.”

That cost equation is critical. NATO jets scrambled over Poland were forced to use air-to-air missiles — weapons that can carry price tags in the hundreds of thousands to millions of euros — to down drones that may have cost the attacker mere thousands. The economic asymmetry is stark and politically uncomfortable.

Local Voices: Border Towns and City Centers

On the Lithuanian-Polish border, a dairy farmer named Rimas described nights when his cattle were spooked by buzzing lights overhead. “At first we thought it was hunters, then we realized the drones were watching roads and fields,” he said. “You feel small under the sky when you know someone else is watching.”

In Copenhagen, a mother of two, who had to reroute a family trip after Danish airports briefly closed, said: “We didn’t understand why a small object in the sky could shut down everything. It felt like a glitch in normal life — and that worry is real for everyone.”

These anecdotes matter, because the “drone problem” is not just military. It is social, economic and psychological — a reminder that modern warfare and modern disruption spill into daily life.

Politics, Unity, and the Costs of Inaction

Building a drone wall will not be just a technical undertaking; it will be profoundly political. The EU is made of 27 countries, each with its own procurement rules, budget cycles and strategic perspectives. Ministers in Helsinki described a pragmatic approach: start with willing and able countries along the eastern boundary and invite others to join as capabilities mature.

“We will not wait for unanimity to build what is necessary,” said a senior EU diplomat. “Security cannot be hostage to bureaucratic delay.”

Budgetary questions are unavoidable. How much will a continent-spanning sensor grid cost? Who pays for common interceptors? How is sensitive data shared without undermining national sovereignty? These will be central questions as leaders prepare to debate broader defence initiatives at an upcoming summit in Copenhagen.

Global Trends and Bigger Questions

The EU’s focus on a drone wall connects to a global trend: the proliferation of small unmanned systems has non-state and state actors alike rethinking force posture. From swarms used in the Red Sea to tactical drones employed in conflict zones, the technology is democratizing aerial reach. That creates strategic dilemmas for alliances designed around symmetric threats — fighter jets and tanks — rather than a thousand small flying machines.

So, what do we want Europe to be? A patchwork of border defenses, or a coordinated, resilient community that can share threat information and respond quickly? The drone issue is a microcosm of a larger debate: how to build collective security in a world where technological change outpaces procurement cycles.

Moving From Idea to Action

The ministers left Helsinki with more than a slogan. They endorsed a roadmap: sensors first, shared data second, and layered interception third. They invited Ukraine to be part of the build-out. They set timelines and flagged the Copenhagen summit as the next political milestone.

“If we do this right,” a defence planner said, “we don’t just stop drones. We build trust — operational trust — across borders.”

There is impatience in the air, but there is also resolve. Whether the drone wall becomes a symbol of European ingenuity or a half-built project that never quite closes the gaps depends now on political will, budgets and an honest appraisal of the threats. The immediate next step — finishing the sensor network within a year — is doable. The harder test will be staying committed when the headlines move on.

What would you want your leaders to prioritize: rapid deployment of cheap, distributed countermeasures, or investing in high-end, centralized systems? The answer will shape the skies over Europe for years to come.

1...272829...114 Page 28 of 114