Middle East Press On: US-Iran War, Palestine, Indonesia’s Decision, Israel Alliance, Khalil al-Hayya’s Election, Hamas, Spain, Arabs, New Age Islam's Selection, 21 July 2026
By New Age Islam Edit Desk
21 July 2026
Unanswered questions behind prolonged US-Iran war
The UK has a new prime minister, now it must act on Palestine
Indonesia’s decision to deport a Palestinian activist is a moral failure
Can US break the stranglehold of Israel alliance?
On the Impact of Climate Change on Indigenous in Palestine and Around the Globe
After Sinwar: What Khalil al-Hayya’s Election Means for Hamas
Hamas Elects Khalil al-Hayya as Political Bureau Chief – Who is the Veteran Leader?
Why Gaza Cheered for Spain: World Cup Victory Becomes a Symbol of Solidarity
The Subsidized Occupation: The Black Gold, Palestine and the Arabs
------
Unanswered questions behind prolonged US-Iran war
BY ORHAN SALI
JUL 21, 2026
In the autumn of 1938, Europe did not want another war.
The wounds of World War I were still fresh. Political leaders believed diplomacy could prevent another catastrophe, while public opinion embraced the idea of "peace at any cost." When the Munich Agreement was signed, many believed Europe had escaped a devastating conflict.
Not everyone shared that optimism. British statesman Winston Churchill issued a warning that would become one of history's most enduring political quotations: "You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war."
A year later, Europe was engulfed in the most destructive war in human history.
Today, the world once again stands at a critical crossroads. The escalating tensions in the Middle East, intensifying rivalry among major powers, competition over energy corridors, and growing military deployments inevitably evoke memories of the international atmosphere of the late 1930s. History never repeats itself exactly, but the strategic calculations of great powers often follow familiar patterns.
Looking at the developments surrounding Iran, one question naturally arises: Was Washington's repeated call for a cease-fire genuinely intended to stop the war? Or was it merely the opening move in preparing for a longer and far more comprehensive confrontation?
In the early days of the conflict, U.S. President Donald Trump's primary objective appeared to be ending the fighting quickly, keeping the Strait of Hormuz open, and preventing major disruptions to global energy markets.
Today, however, the picture looks very different.
Statements coming from both Washington and Tehran now share a common theme: both sides insist they are prepared for a prolonged confrontation.
So what changed?
Does the changing rhetoric indicate that the objectives of the war have changed as well? Or were the calls for a cease-fire, from the very beginning, a strategic effort to buy time?
There are no definitive answers to the questions today. Nevertheless, developments on the ground present several possibilities worth considering.
One possibility is that Washington initially expected a rapid outcome but revised its strategy after discovering that Iran proved far more resilient than anticipated. Iran has demonstrated that its military capabilities, vast geography, mountainous terrain, large population and defense infrastructure developed under decades of sanctions make it a country against which conventional military operations are unlikely to produce quick results.
The experiences of Iraq and Afghanistan have also shown that the United States has become increasingly reluctant to pursue large-scale ground invasions. Against that backdrop, it is conceivable that Washington has shifted toward a long-term strategy of attrition, combining economic, political, and military pressure over an extended period.
If that is the case, the cease-fire initiative takes on a different meaning.
Tehran may have concluded that the U.S. was not seeking peace in the first place and that the diplomatic process was designed only to create an opportunity to complete military preparations for the next phase of the conflict.
Moreover, from Iran's perspective, the issue may not simply be the U.S.'s current military strikes but the possibility of a long-term strategy aimed at weakening or even fragmenting the country.
Another striking development concerns the Strait of Hormuz.
During the opening phase of the conflict, even modest increases in oil prices generated significant concern in Washington. The Trump administration repeatedly emphasized that any prolonged disruption to shipping through Hormuz would be unacceptable for the global economy.
Today, those urgent warnings appear far less prominent, which inevitably raises new questions.
Has Washington become willing to tolerate a prolonged risk to the Strait of Hormuz? If so, what gives the U.S. that confidence?
At present, no alternative energy corridor exists that can fully replace Hormuz. A substantial share of Gulf oil exports still passes through this narrow waterway, while existing pipeline alternatives remain limited in capacity. It is therefore difficult to assume that Washington would simply rely on current alternatives.
Perhaps the strategic calculation has changed. Perhaps the objective is no longer to control Iran as a whole but instead to establish an internationally supervised security zone around the Strait of Hormuz and its surrounding areas. Such a scenario could significantly strengthen Washington's position regarding global energy security.
For Israel, however, the equation is different.
Even if the Strait of Hormuz were secured, Iran would continue to exist as a regional power. From Israel's perspective, the perceived threats posed by Iran's ballistic missile capabilities and nuclear ambitions would remain. This makes Israel's relative silence in recent weeks particularly noteworthy.
Political figures and security officials who previously advocated stronger military action against Iran have become noticeably more restrained. Does this silence suggest that Washington and Tel Aviv have reached an undisclosed understanding behind closed doors? Or is Israel simply waiting for the next phase of an American strategy already set in motion?
Another fundamental question follows.
With whom would the United States conduct such a prolonged campaign?
Financial support from the Gulf states alone would almost certainly be insufficient.
What would be required is sustained intelligence sharing, integrated air defense, logistics, naval capabilities and uninterrupted access to regional military bases. While the Gulf states possess significant resources, carrying the burden of a prolonged campaign against a country as large and capable as Iran would be an extraordinary challenge. Under such circumstances, it appears more plausible that Washington would seek a multilayered coalition involving Britain, European allies and regional security partners.
Yet, beyond all these scenarios, one fundamental reality should not be overlooked.
Iran is neither Iraq nor Afghanistan.
With a population approaching 90 million, an expansive geography, an extensive missile arsenal, and a broad network of regional partners and proxy forces, Iran is not a country where quick military victories can be expected. For that reason, the prospect of a prolonged conflict now appears considerably stronger than it did in the opening days of the war.
History also reminds us that long wars rarely inflict costs only on the battlefield. They reshape economies, diplomacy, regional stability and societies alike. This is precisely why Türkiye's position deserves particular attention.
From the outset, Ankara has opposed the opening of new fronts in the region, consistently advocated keeping diplomatic channels open, and emphasized that energy security is essential for global stability. Türkiye's central argument has been that military projects aimed at regime change have already produced devastating long-term consequences in Iraq, Libya and Syria.
What the region needs today is neither new occupations nor new geopolitical partition plans. It needs a sustainable diplomatic framework that addresses the legitimate security concerns of all regional actors.
Ultimately, one question remains.
Is the real objective merely to limit Iran's military capabilities? Or are we witnessing the opening chapter of a much broader strategy designed to reshape the political and energy landscape of the Middle East for decades to come?
https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/op-ed/unanswered-questions-behind-prolonged-us-iran-war
-----
The UK has a new prime minister, now it must act on Palestine
July 20, 2026
by Tasnim Nazeer
Britain has a new Prime Minister at a moment when history is demanding more than carefully worded statements.
As Andy Burnham enters Downing Street, he inherits a foreign policy crisis that has exposed deep divisions over Britain’s commitment to human rights, international law and the protection of civilian life: Israel’s devastating assault on Gaza.
For Palestinians, this is not an abstract diplomatic dispute. It is a humanitarian catastrophe that has claimed tens of thousands of lives, displaced entire communities and reduced much of Gaza’s civilian infrastructure to ruins.
Many human rights experts, legal scholars and international organisations have warned that Israel’s actions may amount to genocide, with the International Court of Justice currently examining allegations brought by South Africa under the Genocide Convention. The debate over the legal determination continues, but the scale of suffering is undeniable.
Thousands of people recently marched through London calling on Britain’s new leadership to take stronger action for Gaza, demanding an end to civilian suffering and greater accountability for those responsible. Their message was clear: Palestinians cannot survive on expressions of sympathy alone.
For decades, Britain has presented itself as a defender of international law and human rights.
British governments have condemned abuses committed by states around the world and called for accountability when civilian populations are harmed.
But principles lose their meaning when they are applied selectively.
The suffering of Palestinian civilians should not be treated as a diplomatic inconvenience or reduced to carefully balanced language. International law exists precisely to protect vulnerable populations, especially during moments of war and political pressure.
The UK cannot demand accountability from some governments while shielding allies from meaningful scrutiny. Human rights cannot depend on political relationships.
Palestinians Need More Than Words
Humanitarian organisations have repeatedly warned of the devastating conditions facing civilians in Gaza.
Aid agencies have highlighted widespread hunger, displacement, the destruction of medical facilities and the collapse of essential services. ActionAid has called on Britain’s new Prime Minister to take urgent action to protect Palestinians, ensure humanitarian access and uphold international humanitarian law.
Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP), which provides healthcare support to Palestinians living under occupation and conflict, has called on Britain’s new government to move beyond rhetoric and take concrete steps to protect Palestinian lives.
But humanitarian aid alone cannot address the root causes of this crisis.
The UK must use its diplomatic influence to demand an immediate end to actions that continue to devastate Palestinian civilian life.
This means supporting accountability mechanisms, ensuring British foreign policy does not contribute to violations of international law, and recognising that Palestinians have the same fundamental rights to freedom, safety and dignity as any other people.
Britain’s historical role in the Middle East gives it a particular responsibility.
The consequences of Britain’s decisions in the region continue to shape realities today, including the legacy of the British Mandate for Palestine and the events surrounding the creation of Israel in 1948.
That history does not mean Britain alone can solve the conflict. But it does mean Britain cannot claim neutrality while Palestinians continue to endure immense suffering.
A meaningful foreign policy requires more than managing diplomatic relationships. It requires moral courage.
The UK has significant influence through its diplomatic relationships, its position at the United Nations and its international standing.
That influence should be used to protect civilian lives—not simply preserve political alliances.
For many Palestinians, Muslims and human rights advocates in Britain, trust in Westminster has been severely damaged.
Many feel that Palestinian lives have been treated as less valuable and that the language of human rights has been applied inconsistently.
This is the challenge facing Andy Burnham’s government.
History often judges governments not only by the crises they inherit, but by how they respond when confronted with injustice.
Gaza represents such a moment.
The question is whether Britain’s new leadership will look away, offer cautious statements, or take the steps necessary to protect Palestinian lives and uphold international law.
Palestinians do not need another government expressing concern while the destruction continues.
They need action.
Britain has a new Prime Minister. Now it must act on Palestine.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20260720-the-uk-has-a-new-prime-minister-now-it-must-act-on-palestine/
-----
Indonesia’s decision to deport a Palestinian activist is a moral failure
July 20, 2026
by Dr. Muhammad Zulfikar Rakhmat
On July 16, Indonesian authorities arrested a Palestinian activist named Abdul Karim Raed Miqdad. By the next morning he was on a plane to Cyprus. Human rights monitors now warn he could end up in Israeli custody.
Indonesia can probably point to paperwork that justifies each step along the way. None of it amounts to a moral defense. If Mr. Miqdad ends up in Israeli hands, Jakarta will have handed over a man who spent his life protesting Israeli policy to the very state that policy serves.
Indonesia usually presents itself as the largest Muslim-majority democracy on earth, a longtime supporter of the Palestinian cause, a country whose constitution rejects colonialism “in any form whatsoever.” That image took a hit this week.
Here is how the case unfolded. Mr. Miqdad was detained at the request of Interpol’s National Central Bureau in Nicosia, based on a Cyprus-issued Red Notice citing vague “terrorism-related offenses.” He was deported the next morning, before his family could really reach him and before a lawyer had much chance to help him. The Geneva Council for Rights and Liberties, which has tracked the case, says no one has explained what he is accused of, what evidence exists, or why a Red Notice alone was treated as enough to skip a proper legal review.
A Red Notice is worth pausing on. It is a request for cooperation between countries, nothing more. Interpol’s own rules say it should not be used for cases that are political, military, religious, or racial in nature. Indonesia moved a man from an airport holding cell to an outbound flight in about a day. He had no real chance to challenge his detention, contest the deportation, or argue that this looked more like political persecution than counterterrorism.
That claim tracks with something bigger. Over the past two years, several governments aligned with Israel have used immigration systems and international watchlists to go after pro-Palestinian activists, journalists, and aid workers. A government that calls itself a defender of Palestinian rights had reason to view this request with suspicion. Instead it moved fast and asked little.
There’s a legal problem underneath the political one. The principle of non-refoulement bars countries from sending someone to a place where they face a real risk of torture or persecution. Indonesia is bound by it under treaties it has signed, including the Convention Against Torture. Sending Mr. Miqdad to Cyprus looks, on paper, like an ordinary transfer between two countries. If it ends up being a step toward Israel, it will have worked as a forced return in every way that matters, whatever it gets called on paper.
The whole episode sits awkwardly next to Indonesia’s own recent statements. Its foreign ministry has spoken forcefully on Gaza over the past 21 months. President Prabowo Subianto has personally offered to bring wounded Palestinian children to Indonesia for treatment.
Words came easily. This is what happened when something was actually asked of the government behind them.
Some things can still be done. Indonesian officials can press Cypriot and Interpol authorities to disclose the evidence behind the Red Notice. They can seek real guarantees that Mr. Miqdad won’t be sent on to Israel. They can call for an independent review of his case in Cyprus. And they owe an explanation to their own citizens, many of whom have marched for Gaza, for how a government that claims solidarity with Palestinians ended up removing one so fast.
Indonesia had a choice here. It made the wrong one. A moral failure doesn’t always look like a broken law. Sometimes it just looks like a government that decided not to look too closely.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20260720-indonesias-decision-to-deport-a-palestinian-activist-is-a-moral-failure/
------
Can US break the stranglehold of Israel alliance?
DR. RAMZY BAROUD
July 20, 2026
Two major stories regarding the US and Israel this month represent watershed moments in the history of the relationship between the two countries.
The first incident occurred on July 8, when Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna and his delegation were detained by armed Israeli settlers in the West Bank.
“These hoodlums come in with machine guns — an M4, an American-made machine gun — and they detain us,” Khanna recounted. “They block off the road. And then they call the IDF, and the IDF is on their side, not on the side of the Americans,” he added, referring to the Israeli military.
Equally shocking as the congressman’s direct encounter with the raw, lawless reality of the occupation was the response of US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee. Rather than defending an elected American lawmaker, Huckabee dismissed Khanna’s harrowing experience as a mere “stunt.”
This defiance of old taboos is not confined to progressive factions. In an unprecedented development on July 15, US Vice President J.D. Vance delivered some of the sharpest criticism of Israel ever uttered by a sitting top-tier US official.
Addressing a reported Israeli government-funded online influence campaign aimed at sabotaging the US administration’s diplomatic efforts with Iran, a furious Vance accused “certain elements of the Israeli government” of actively trying to derail peace negotiations and manipulate American public opinion. He went so far as to target the operators of the campaign, telling them directly to “go to hell.”
Yet, even as fierce criticism of Israel reaches the apex of American politics, a schizophrenic rupture divides Washington. While the American public, influential media personalities and top-tier politicians are openly turning against Israel’s unbridled violence, the traditional power structures continue to toe the line.
This is evident in Congress, where establishment politicians remain busy acting as defense contractors for Tel Aviv. Lawmakers are quietly pushing ahead with Section 219 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2027. Far from distancing the US from the ongoing regional bloodbath, this legislation aims to permanently integrate and synchronize the US and Israeli militaries under a joint “Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative.”
This institutional blind spot is why the entire alliance is beginning to look utterly ridiculous.
Traditional foreign policy theory views Israel as an American “vessel” or “unsinkable aircraft carrier” in the Middle East, policing the region on behalf of Western hegemony. Whether that was ever true is highly debatable.
Today, the ongoing genocide in Gaza, the relentless war on Iran and the escalating aggressions against Lebanon and Syria have yielded zero strategic value to the American people. Instead, the US has paid a massive financial and moral price by funding bloody regional wars that disrupt the global economy and make Washington a direct, complicit partner in the destruction of the Palestinian people.
Yet the American administration continues to offer unquestioning support, with the exception of the occasional leaking of manufactured accounts of “tense” phone calls between Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu. No matter the physical, economic or reputational damage inflicted on the US, Washington continues to march blindly toward the precipice.
Believing this subservience is a recent phenomenon is to misunderstand history. For many, the physical detention of Khanna by Israeli forces evokes the memory of Rachel Corrie, the 23-year-old American peace activist who was brutally crushed to death by an Israeli military bulldozer in Rafah in 2003 while peacefully shielding a Palestinian family home from demolition. In both cases, the message from Tel Aviv was clear: American citizenship offers no protection.
But this dependency runs deeper and is rooted in the 1967 USS Liberty incident. During the Six-Day War, Israeli forces launched a relentless attack on this unarmed US intelligence ship, killing 34 American sailors and wounding 171. Instead of demanding accountability, President Lyndon Johnson’s administration accepted Israel’s excuse that the attack was a “mistake” and covered up the truth to protect its ally. This established a decades-long precedent: Washington would act as a political and military shield for Israeli actions, even at the cost of American lives.
It is often argued that Israel’s stranglehold on American policy stems entirely from the financial power of its lobby in Washington, particularly the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Conventional wisdom holds that AIPAC’s true dominance as the ultimate kingmaker began in 1981, when it waged a historic, ferocious battle to block President Ronald Reagan’s proposed sale of early-warning surveillance aircraft to Saudi Arabia.
But the USS Liberty incident occurred long before the lobby wielded such immense power. The truth is that the US government has simply lost control of the creature it nurtured and shielded for decades. Blaming this dependency solely on campaign contributions no longer suffices; the rot is far deeper. It is driven by a deep-seated fear among American politicians who have spent their entire careers learning that political survival requires absolute obedience to Tel Aviv.
This is why Vance’s recent remarks are so important. They prove that the armor of absolute impunity is cracking and the language of genuine, systemic criticism of Israel has been officially normalized in mainstream political discourse.
There must be a profound political awakening in America. If the American public and the country’s leaders fail to reclaim their foreign policy from this destructive alliance, the only path forward will be one of perpetual conflict, economic ruin and endless war.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2651658
------
On the Impact of Climate Change on Indigenous in Palestine and Around the Globe
July 21, 2026
By Benay Blend
“The devastation in Gaza is not only genocide but also ecocide,” Hamza Hamouchene writes, an action that he defines as “the deliberate destruction of an entire social and ecological fabric.”
In this view, settler-colonial violence inevitably results in environmental harm; thus, Hamouchene argues that the movement for climate justice must be linked to the liberation of Palestine, and I would add the freedom of all Indigenous people.
“In addition to humanitarian and political crises” generated by many years of “Israel’s” siege, Gaza is also highly susceptible to climate change. More frequent and increased cold snaps in the winter, along with heavy rains and flooding, make life even more unbearable for displaced Palestinians who are now living in makeshift tents.
“Public health crises and increased vulnerability due to the worsening impacts of climate change are silent but deadly consequences of the war,” Farah Al Hattab explains.
For example, the Middle East and North Africa are warming nearly twice as fast as the global average. Gaza, already vulnerable to climate change, could face much worse conditions. Projections indicate that temperatures might rise by 4 degrees centigrade by the end of the century, aggravating already erratic rainfall, heatwaves, and drought.
Not only has the assault on Gaza been asymmetrical in terms of deaths and destruction imposed by “Israel,” it has resulted in the increased release of CO2e, an action that is partly responsible for climate change.
According to Nina Lakhani, climate justice reporter for the Guardian, Hamas bunker fuel and rockets accounted for 3000 tons of CO2e, as of May 2025, the equivalent of 0.2% of total conflict emissions. On the other hand, 50% were generated by the manufacture and use of weapons, tanks, and other artillery by the “Israeli” military (IOF), as per a previous Guardian study.
What happens in Gaza doesn’t stay in Gaza, as the research found. Almost 30% of greenhouse gases generated between October 7, 2023 and January 2025 came from the US sending 50,000 tons of weapons and other military supplies to “Israel,” mostly on cargo planes and ships originating in Europe.
Another 20% came from “Israeli” aircraft reconnaissance and bombing missions, tanks and fuel from other military lorries, along with CO2 generated by manufacturing and exploding the bombs and weapons.
Finally, more than 40% of the total emissions stemmed from an estimated 70,000 aid trucks, which the United Nations (UN) condemned as grossly inadequate for meeting the needs of 2.2 million displaced and starving Palestinians.
In Albuquerque, New Mexico, where I live, we can feel the impact of climate change on a daily basis, thus linking us to the ecocide in Gaza, a fact made clearer by New Mexico’s war economy, which is based on weapons research and testing.
My area is facing a rapidly warming and drought-ridden climate, characterized by record-breaking temperatures and the drying of the Middle Rio Grande River, forcing the city to rely solely on groundwater that could very well run out in the future.
Albuquerque also faces an additional 43 days of fire weather per year, thus putting the area increasingly at risk while also resulting in diminished air quality due to blowing dust and smoke from surrounding fires.
While nowhere near the environmental and human toll experienced by the Palestinians in Gaza, the genocide and ecocide that “Israel” is waging there has consequences for Indigenous people far beyond its borders.
In Canada, thousands of Indigenous residents have been displaced, not by deliberate genocide, as is the case in Gaza, but rather because of wildfires which have intensified partly due to climate change, caused in part by that very military campaign in Gaza.
Echoing displacement of much of the Gaza population, entire First Nations communities in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Ontario have been evacuated, homes destroyed, and nearly 1600 displaced, illustrating the disproportionate impact fast-moving fires have on remote Indigenous communities in the region.
Among the hardest-hit Native communities is Namagoosisagagun (Collins) First Nation in Northwestern Ontario. There, a fast-moving fire destroyed much of the community in less than an hour as flames jumped past a fire break, causing residents to flee by boat with very little of their belongings.
In response, Indigenous leaders have called for a more proactive approach. Specifically, they are advocating for greater investment in year-round community resilience, Indigenous-led emergency management, and the extension of “traditional stewardship practices” that have cared for the forests for millennia.
As smoke from the fires blanketed the US capital along with other neighboring states, President Trump laid blame on the Carney government for failing to remove excess timber and brush that fuels fires like northern Ontario is experiencing now.
Nevertheless, health and climate officials claim that climate change is the more likely culprit, in particular a record-breaking heat wave that is rolling across North America.
In reality, the Trump administration has proved to be no friend of the environment. In a Fact Sheet dated January 28, 2026, Amnesty International expanded on five key ways that Trump has acted to escalate environmental devastation in the coming years.
In brief, he has withdrawn the US from global climate bodies; fostered a disinformation campaign against credible climate change science; used “bullying and coercive measures” to promote policies friendly to oil corporations; weakened domestic regulations and defunded climate science; and restricted civic space, which shuts down climate activism.
In New Mexico, the Trump administration has moved to overturn a federal drilling ban near Chaco Canyon, a site widely regarded as sacred space by Indigenous tribes across the region.
According to Judith LeBlanc, executive director of the Native Organizers Alliance, the Trump administration is mandated to consult with impacted tribes “whose origin stories, traditional foods and medicine, and cultural artifacts live within Chaco Canyon.”
In much the same way that “Israel” has intentionally destroyed cultural landmarks in the Gaza Strip, the Department of the Interior is now threatening to destroy “one of the most culturally significant Indigenous landscapes in the United States.”
Abby Martin’s Earth’s Greatest Enemy (2026), a documentary co-directed with her husband Mark Prysner, sums up the links between the United States’ global empire, its dependence on a massive military/industrial complex, and consequent increased climate change that has repercussions across the globe.
The film opens with shots of tents that are housing the homeless in an unnamed American city. As city workers arrive with caterpillars to destroy the makeshift housing, that scene is juxtaposed with “Israel’s” destruction of Gaza, leaving the viewer to make connections between militarism, capitalism, and the US Empire.
As Martin moves on, it becomes clear that all three are linked to climate change, as she deems the US military to be earth’s greatest polluter. This analysis leaves little room for individual responsibility—shorter showers, switching from gas to electric stoves—all fit too neatly into an individualistic, capitalist framework rather than a communal effort to replace the current system with another.
While the film shows many scenes of destruction—Gaza, for example—its strength lies in naming the many ways that the military’s tentacles stretch across the world.
For example, there are 1000 US military bases around the globe, all relying on military vehicles and air power to fill their needs. Suppliers of these items are responsible for indirect emissions, toxic waste dumps, and so on. NATO controls a larger web of militarism, existing as a guaranteed market for US weapons and ensuring that member nations increase their military spending in the future.
As expected, Indigenous populations are the most polluted populations on the planet. To its credit, the film not only shows the devastation wreaked by the US military on these people; it also highlights how the Indigenous are using the Land Back movement to fight back against pollution of their lands.
From the fight to end US bases in Okinawa to Cop City in Atlanta to the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, there is a slender thread that is held together by the US military, whose tentacles control the world.
The film ends with shots of Gaza, a population that Martin says has experienced the most devastating ecocide of our generation, its consequences to be felt by everyone on earth.
As Martin notes, the fight against the war machine and the movement to save the planet are the same struggle. Thus, as the late revolutionary Ghassan Kanafani said: “Imperialism has laid its body over the world, the head in Eastern Asia, the heart in the Middle East, its arteries reaching Africa and Latin America. Wherever you strike it, you damage it, and you serve the world revolution.”
Through grassroots organizing and speaking the truth, concludes Abby Martin, we can halt the machine in its nebulous tracks.
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/on-the-impact-of-climate-change-on-indigenous-in-palestine-and-around-the-globe/
------
After Sinwar: What Khalil al-Hayya’s Election Means for Hamas
July 21, 2026
Hamas’ election of Khalil al-Hayya as head of its political bureau represents more than a routine leadership transition. According to Palestinian analysts, the move sends multiple political and organizational messages at a time when the movement continues to confront unprecedented military pressure following Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza.
The movement announced Monday that al-Hayya had been elected to succeed Yahya al-Sinwar, who was killed by Israeli occupation forces in October 2024.
Hamas said the election involved representatives from Gaza, the occupied West Bank, Israeli prisons and the movement’s external leadership, describing the process as a demonstration that its institutional mechanisms continue to function despite the ongoing war and the loss of several senior leaders.
Institutional Resilience
Political analyst Ahmad al-Tannani argued that the election primarily demonstrates Hamas’ ability to preserve its internal organizational structure despite the extensive losses it has suffered during the war.
Speaking to Quds News Network, al-Tannani said the movement has shown it remains capable of renewing its leadership through established institutional procedures despite the killings of former political bureau chief Ismail Haniyeh, Yahya al-Sinwar and other senior political and military figures.
He noted that the election required more than one round after al-Hayya reportedly failed to secure the necessary majority in the initial vote, describing the process as evidence that Hamas continued to follow its internal regulations rather than relying on emergency appointments imposed by wartime circumstances.
According to the analyst, completing such an election while facing continuous military pressure also sends a message that Israel’s campaign has not dismantled Hamas’ governing institutions.
Gaza Remains the Movement’s Center
Al-Tannani also argued that al-Hayya’s election reaffirms Gaza’s central role within Hamas’ leadership structure.
Despite nearly three years of war and repeated Israeli efforts to weaken the movement’s political and military institutions in the Strip, selecting another senior Gaza-based leader signals that the enclave continues to shape Hamas’ strategic decision-making, he said.
The election therefore represents not only a leadership transition but also a political statement that Gaza remains the movement’s principal center of gravity.
Observers likewise see little indication that the appointment marks a change in Hamas’ political orientation.
As al-Sinwar’s deputy and head of Hamas’ negotiating delegation during the genocide, al-Hayya became the movement’s principal political representative in ceasefire negotiations, prisoner exchange talks and contacts with regional mediators.
His election is therefore widely viewed as signaling continuity rather than a departure from Hamas’ recent political approach.
Rebuilding after Heavy Losses
Political analyst Wissam Afifa said the significance of al-Hayya’s election extends beyond filling the leadership vacancy left by al-Sinwar’s death.
Instead, he argued, it marks the beginning of a broader effort to rebuild Hamas’ leadership after the loss of numerous senior political and military figures during the war.
Afifa said Hamas’ long-established consultative, or shura, system has helped preserve organizational cohesion despite repeated assassinations.
However, he noted that the current challenge differs from previous leadership transitions because the movement must now reconstruct decision-making structures after suffering some of the heaviest losses in its history.
A Complex Agenda
According to Afifa, al-Hayya inherits one of the most demanding leadership agendas since Hamas’ founding in 1987.
His immediate responsibilities include overseeing negotiations aimed at ending the genocide, managing prisoner exchange talks, addressing the future governance of Gaza and navigating discussions surrounding post-war arrangements in the enclave.
He must also manage relations with other Palestinian factions, reorganize coordination between Hamas’ internal and external leadership, and respond to rapidly evolving regional and international dynamics.
Afifa added that Hamas’ current leadership model is likely to rely increasingly on collective decision-making among the movement’s different branches.
While that approach may broaden internal legitimacy, he said, it could also complicate rapid decision-making during moments of crisis.
Ultimately, Afifa argued, the success of Hamas’ new leadership will be measured not only by its ability to preserve the movement’s influence in the Palestinian struggle but also by whether it can rebuild its organizational structure, cultivate a new generation of leaders and adapt its long-term strategy to the political realities created by the genocide.
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/after-sinwar-what-khalil-al-hayyas-election-means-for-hamas/
----
Hamas Elects Khalil al-Hayya as Political Bureau Chief – Who is the Veteran Leader?
July 20, 2026
Who is the Veteran Leader?
The Palestinian Resistance Movement Hamas announced on Monday the election of Khalil al-Hayya as the new head of its political bureau, succeeding Yahya Sinwar, who was killed during a direct clash with Israeli occupation forces in Rafah in October 2024.
According to information released by the movement, al-Hayya was elected following a second round of voting that decided the contest between him and former political bureau chief Khaled Meshaal, in accordance with Hamas’ internal regulations.
The announcement came one day after the movement denied media reports concerning the progress and outcome of its internal leadership elections.
Al-Hayya, a veteran political leader, academic and negotiator, has occupied numerous senior positions within Hamas since the movement’s establishment in 1987. In recent years, he emerged as one of its most visible representatives abroad and played a central role in indirect ceasefire and prisoner-exchange negotiations.
His election concludes a transitional period during which Hamas was managed through a temporary five-member leadership council formed after Sinwar’s killing. The council was headed by Mohammed Darwish, who has also served as chairman of the movement’s Shura Council.
Sinwar had been unanimously selected to lead Hamas in August 2024, following the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran on July 31 of that year. Al-Hayya was subsequently named Sinwar’s deputy.
From Gaza’s Mosques to the Political Bureau
Khalil Ismail al-Hayya was born in Gaza City on November 5, 1960, into a Palestinian family closely connected to the national struggle.
His early childhood was shaped by the Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip following the 1967 war. Al-Hayya has recalled witnessing Israeli soldiers storm his family’s home and arrest relatives, including his uncle.
He attended Hattin Primary School, Hashem Bin Abdul Manaf Preparatory School and Yafa Secondary School in Gaza. He later studied at the Islamic University of Gaza, graduating from its Faculty of Fundamentals of Religion in 1983.
Al-Hayya received a scholarship to continue his studies at the University of Jordan, where he earned a master’s degree in Sunnah and Hadith studies in 1986. He later obtained a doctorate in the same field from Sudan’s University of the Holy Quran and Islamic Sciences in 1997.
His relationship with Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the founder of Hamas, began in 1980 and marked his transition from individual religious practice to organized political, social and resistance activity.
While studying at university, al-Hayya became active in the Islamic Bloc and later joined the Islamic Movement associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Other young activists involved in the movement during that period included Ismail Haniyeh and Yahya Sinwar.
He was first arrested by Israeli occupation forces in 1980 and detained for approximately six weeks. He was arrested again in 1982 and reportedly subjected to severe torture during a week-long detention.
During the mid-1980s, al-Hayya participated in popular, religious and organizational work. He served as an imam and preacher and contributed to organizational efforts aimed at confronting Israeli infiltration and protecting Palestinian society in the Gaza Strip.
He was among the activists who participated in the First Palestinian Intifada, which began in December 1987, and in the emergence of Hamas as an organized Palestinian resistance movement.
Israeli occupation forces arrested him for a third time in 1991 amid his growing involvement in student, union and political activities.
Alongside his political work, al-Hayya pursued an academic career at the Islamic University of Gaza. He returned to the institution as a teaching assistant in the Faculty of Fundamentals of Religion in 1984 and later served as assistant dean and dean of student affairs.
He was also elected vice president of the university’s workers’ union in 1998 and became its president in 2001. His academic work additionally led to his membership in the Association of Palestinian Scholars.
Al-Hayya’s national political profile expanded considerably during the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections. Running on Hamas’ Change and Reform list, he won a seat representing Gaza and was selected to head the movement’s parliamentary bloc in the Palestinian Legislative Council.
Within Hamas, he progressed through a series of senior organizational positions, including membership in the political bureau, deputy leadership of the movement in Gaza and leadership of its Arab and Islamic Relations Office.
A Central Figure in Palestinian Negotiations
Al-Hayya became increasingly prominent in Hamas’ diplomatic and political activities following Israel’s major attacks on the Gaza Strip in 2012 and 2014.
He participated in the Palestinian movement’s delegations during indirect negotiations in Cairo and was entrusted with key media, political and regional relations responsibilities.
Following the launch of the Al-Aqsa Flood operation and the beginning of Israel’s genocide in Gaza in October 2023, al-Hayya became one of Hamas’ most important political representatives outside Palestine.
He had left the Gaza Strip shortly before October 7 as part of a redistribution of leadership responsibilities, assuming responsibility for foreign relations alongside other members of the political bureau.
In November 2023, al-Hayya headed a Hamas delegation to Lebanon, where it met then-Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah after the announcement of a prisoner-exchange agreement between Hamas and Israel.
His role became even more significant following the assassinations of Haniyeh and Sinwar. Al-Hayya led Hamas’ negotiating delegation in successive rounds of indirect talks mediated by Egypt, Qatar and the United States.
These negotiations addressed a ceasefire, an end to the Israeli genocide, the withdrawal of occupation forces from Gaza, the return of displaced Palestinians, humanitarian aid and a prisoner exchange.
The indirect talks eventually resulted in the announcement of a ceasefire agreement in Sharm el-Sheikh in October 2025 under Egyptian, Qatari and US mediation.
Al-Hayya’s extensive experience in negotiations, relations with Arab and Islamic countries, and long-standing connections within Hamas’ political and military structures positioned him as one of the leading candidates to succeed Sinwar.
A Family Repeatedly Targeted
Al-Hayya’s political career has been marked by repeated Israeli attempts to assassinate him and devastating attacks against his family.
In 2007, an Israeli airstrike targeted his family residence in Gaza City’s Sheja’iyya neighborhood. Al-Hayya survived, but seven members of his extended family were killed, including two of his brothers, four nephews and a cousin.
His son Hamza, a member of the Al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas’ military wing, was killed on February 28, 2008, when an Israeli reconnaissance aircraft fired a missile at him.
On July 20, 2014, Israeli occupation aircraft targeted the home of al-Hayya’s eldest son, Osama, in eastern Gaza City. Osama, his wife and three of their children were killed in the attack.
Al-Hayya survived another Israeli assassination attempt on September 9, 2025, when an airstrike targeted a Hamas negotiating delegation during a meeting in the Qatari capital, Doha.
Hamas’ senior leadership survived the attack, but al-Hayya’s son Hammam, a member of his personal staff, and several others were killed.
On May 7, 2026, another of his sons, Azzam, succumbed to injuries sustained in an Israeli airstrike in Gaza City’s Al-Daraj neighborhood. His death brought to four the number of al-Hayya’s sons killed in Israeli attacks.
Despite these repeated losses, al-Hayya remained active in the movement’s political leadership and negotiations.
His elevation to Hamas’ highest political office places a Gaza-born founding figure at the head of the movement during one of the most consequential periods in modern Palestinian history.
As political bureau chief, al-Hayya will oversee Hamas’ internal and external political work, its relations with Palestinian factions and regional allies, and its approach to negotiations concerning Gaza and the wider Palestinian struggle.
His election also reflects a continuation of the leadership trajectory established under Haniyeh and Sinwar, both of whom were killed by Israel in 2024, while maintaining Gaza’s central role within the movement’s political and resistance structures.
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/hamas-elects-khalil-al-hayya-as-political-bureau-chief-who-is-the-veteran-leader/
-------
Why Gaza Cheered for Spain: World Cup Victory Becomes a Symbol of Solidarity
July 20, 2026
By Romana Rubeo
More Than Football
For a few hours on Sunday night, the sounds of war gave way to football. Across the Nuseirat refugee camp in central Gaza, small crowds gathered inside makeshift cafes, their attention fixed on flickering television screens broadcasting the FIFA World Cup final from MetLife Stadium in the United States.
When Spain’s Ferran Torres broke the deadlock in the 105th minute, beating Argentine goalkeeper Emiliano Martínez to secure a 1-0 victory after extra time, celebrations erupted.
For many in Gaza, however, the celebrations extended far beyond the football pitch.
People who gathered to watch the match said they supported Spain not only because of its football but because the country has increasingly come to symbolize solidarity with the Palestinian people during Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza.
Football Offers a Brief Escape
The World Cup final provided a rare moment of relief for Palestinians living under relentless bombardment, displacement and humanitarian hardship.
For several hours, football replaced the daily realities of survival, allowing families and friends to come together despite the difficult conditions.
Numan Abdullah, one of the spectators in Nuseirat, told Anadolu news agency that residents intentionally gathered to support Spain because of the country’s long-standing support for Palestinians.
“We came together to support Spain because it has stood by the Palestinian people for years,” he said.
Abdullah added that the gathering also carried a broader message of peace and solidarity with nations that have stood alongside the Palestinian cause, adding that Palestinians simply want to live in peace.
Spain’s victory secured the country’s second FIFA World Cup title, its first since winning the tournament in South Africa in 2010. The result also denied Argentina and Lionel Messi a second consecutive World Cup triumph following their victory in Qatar in 2022.
A Growing Bond between Spain and Palestine
The celebrations in Gaza reflected a broader relationship that has developed between Spanish football and expressions of solidarity with Palestine throughout the tournament and in recent months.
Following Sunday’s final, videos circulated on social media showing supporters celebrating across Spain while waving Palestinian flags and chanting in support of Palestine, according to Quds News Network.
The scenes followed similar displays after Spain’s semifinal victory over France, when members of Gaza’s Irada Team—a football team made up of Palestinian amputees—publicly thanked the Spanish national team for raising the Palestinian flag following the match.
Those gestures reinforced the sense among many Palestinians that Spain’s success had become intertwined with public expressions of support for Gaza.
Beyond the Final Whistle
The connection between Spanish football and Palestinian solidarity predates the World Cup itself.
In May, Barcelona star Lamine Yamal attracted widespread attention after waving a large Palestinian flag during the club’s open-top bus parade celebrating its La Liga title following victory over Real Madrid in El Clásico.
The gesture by one of football’s brightest young stars was widely praised by supporters and became another symbolic moment linking Spanish football with public support for Palestine.
For many Palestinians in Gaza, Sunday’s victory represented not only success on the football field but also a reminder that, even amid one of the darkest chapters in their history, gestures of solidarity from around the world continue to carry profound meaning.
Spain’s Political Support for Gaza
Since the beginning of Israel’s genocide in Gaza, Spain has emerged as one of Europe’s most outspoken supporters of Palestinian rights. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has repeatedly condemned the scale of Israel’s actions, calling for an immediate ceasefire, expanded humanitarian aid and accountability under international law.
In May 2024, Spain formally recognized the State of Palestine alongside Ireland and Norway, arguing that recognition was essential to preserving the viability of a Palestinian state. Since then, Madrid has continued to advocate for stronger international action to halt the genocide in Gaza, frequently placing it at odds with other Western governments.
Spain has also suspended new arms export licenses to Israel and has consistently urged the European Union to review its relations with Israel in light of alleged violations of international humanitarian law. Spanish officials have likewise expressed support for the work of international judicial institutions investigating alleged war crimes committed during the genocide in Gaza.
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/why-gaza-cheered-for-spain-world-cup-victory-becomes-a-symbol-of-solidarity/
----
The Subsidized Occupation: The Black Gold, Palestine and the Arabs
July 20, 2026
By Dr. M. Reza Behnam
The modern Middle East suffers from a consequentially glaring paradox: oil-rich Arab states undoubtedly possess some of the most concentrated geopolitical and economic leverage on the planet. Yet, they have, since the 1970s, declined to use their economic indispensability in defense of Palestinian statehood and to uphold their own sovereignty.
The pivot of Arab Gulf states away from historical Arab nationalism to Western alignment reflects a fundamental shift in regional priorities. Arab monarchs have traded their independence and vast regional clout for Western economic integration, advanced defense technology and foreign security assurances.
The global community has, for decades, been led to believe that the path to Palestinian self-determination is a knot too complex to untangle. The reality, however, is far more transactional.
The wealthy Gulf capitals and the wider Arab oil-producing bloc possess four critical pressure points that could be acted on to force a diplomatic breakthrough or affect meaningful regional change. None, however, have been employed: 1) oil power; 2) sovereignty over waterways; 3) petrodollars; and 4) power of the umma.
Oil Power
In 1973, Arab oil-producers demonstrated the efficacy of wielding oil as an economic weapon. It was one of those rare moments when Arab regimes exploited their leverage to challenge Western imperialism.
After the start of the October 1973 Arab-Israel War between Egypt, Syria and Israel, the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC) imposed a total oil embargo in response to US support for Israel during the war. They demanded that Israel withdraw from Palestinian lands they occupied in the 1967 War.
OAPEC’s collective action caused shortages, triggered a massive recession and led to a realignment of the global economy. The embargo generated massive revenue windfalls for producing states. The sudden influx of capital accelerated the nationalization of their oil industries, allowing them to gain control of assets previously held by US and British stakeholders.
Despite the unprecedented wealth gained by Arab producers, the geopolitical landscape remained unchanged when OAPEC lifted the embargo in March 1974. Israeli forces remained entrenched in occupied Palestine.
The weaponization of oil has, since 1973, been unilaterally retired by Gulf elites. During successive crises, including the catastrophic destruction and genocide in occupied Gaza and the West Bank, as well as the current war on non-Arab Iran, they have explicitly ruled out oil embargoes or production cuts to pressure Israel’s western enablers.
Rather than utilizing energy as a tool of opposition to US-Israeli hegemony, Arab regimes have aligned with and normalized relations with the perpetrators of occupation, apartheid and genocide.
They have, for example, prioritized maintaining market predictability and maximizing revenues to fund domestic mega-ventures and “eco-normalization” energy projects, integrating Israeli infrastructure (in a dominant position) into Arab utility grids and gas imports.
Sovereignty over Waterways
Some of the most critical maritime corridors and strategic chokepoints, indispensable to global commerce, are situated in the Middle East; most notably the Suez Canal, connecting the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea, the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf, and the Bab al-Mandab in the Red Sea.
The ongoing US-Israel war on Iran has underscored the critical importance of the region’s waterways to global commerce and how military disruptions can send shockwaves through energy and financial markets.
In the current asymmetrical war, Iran has demonstrated how to effectively use a vital waterway as a strategic tool. It has leveraged the closure and disruption of the Strait of Hormuz to establish control over the waterway and force major strategic concessions. Like Iran, Yemen’s Ansar Allah has threatened to close the Bab al-Mandab—the only entry point to the Red Sea from the Indian Ocean, which facilitates trade between Asia and Europe.
Major Arab states have not advantaged their geography to challenge US-Israel regional supremacy. Instead, they have acted as guardians of the imperial status quo, securing these indispensable passages to ensure the uninterrupted flow of global commerce to the very nations underwriting the occupation of Palestine and genocide in Gaza.
Petrodollars
The structural foundation of America’s financial dominance has been the “petrodollar”—a decades-old system in which oil is priced in dollars, with resulting surplus recycled back into US Treasury bonds and Western financial assets.
In addition to holding the “petrodollar card,” vast critical energy supplies and pivotal energy chokepoints, Arab states, particularly the Gulf Cooperation Council monarchies (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates) control approximately six trillion dollars in sovereign wealth funds in Western markets.
Any coordinated effort to price energy in alternative currencies, diversify reserve holdings away from the dollar, or liquidate US Treasuries would pose an existential threat to Western financial hegemony.
Instead of harnessing their immense economic and financial wealth to advance regional and Palestinian interests, Arab regimes continue to park petrodollars in Western institutions, effectively subsidizing the very financial systems of countries that have used their United Nations Security Council vetoes to block Palestinian statehood.
Power of the Umma
The force of the umma—the global community of Muslims—stems from the powerful concept of unity that transcends borders. It is sustained by spiritual solidarity rather than military might or economic dominance. The collective consciousness of the faith is reflected in the Prophet’s teaching that the umma is one body—when any limb aches, the whole body feels the pain.
The global Muslim community maintains a deep solidarity with Palestine, which is intrinsically woven into Islamic history and spirituality. The conscience of the community has been awakened by the ongoing atrocities and the suffering inflicted on the Palestinians and on the destruction of Palestine, revered as sacred land.
Across the artificial boundaries of the Middle East, the umma is an ocean of untapped revolutionary power willing to confront imperialism and the colonial Zionist occupation of Palestine.
Arab political classes should pay heed that geopolitical strength stems from regional integration and solidarity with the umma, not the West. Instead of understanding Palestine as a unifying force and security imperative, they have used it as a card to be traded for Washington’s favor. In so doing, they have sacrificed the moral authority of a righteous cause and converted their vast geopolitical clout into an instrument of passive complicity and regime survival, at the expense of liberation, integrity and dignity.
The liberation of Palestine will not be won by the ink of compromised treaties and flawed diplomacy. Instead, it will be driven by the unified strength, outrage and heartbeat of millions across the Arab world, who refuse to let artificial borders or foreign forces dictate the limits of their solidarity.
Following months of deadly US airstrikes on Iran, Arab states that have hosted American military bases and provided airspace for the war, are facing retaliatory strikes and severe economic disruptions.
Caught in the crossfire, they face a critical choice: submit to continued foreign subjugation or utilize the collective power and resources they possess to rectify the historical and ongoing injustice inflicted on Palestinians, rid the region of destructive foreign meddling and restore dignity to the region.
The Palestinian quest for statehood is not solely over external occupation; rather, it is about regional abandonment masked by rhetorical solidarity. By prioritizing regime survival, lucrative global trade networks and authoritarian stability over pan-Arab alignment and the Palestinian cause, Arab states have allowed themselves to become structurally subservient to the geopolitical dictates of Washington and the strategic ambitions of Tel Aviv.
The ruling elite across the Arab world have been blind to the reality that the US and Israel are wedded to subjugation, not cooperation.
In the final analysis, the black gold that once promised regional self-determination has instead financed a status quo of complicity and servitude, leaving the Palestinian cause marooned on an altar of transactional diplomacy and dynastic preservation.
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/the-subsidized-occupation-the-black-gold-palestine-and-the-arabs/
------
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism