Middle East
Behind the scenes of the Gaza bombings
The Netanyahu government, criticized for losing its deterrence due to anti-government protests and the normalization process with Iran, aims with the bombing of Gaza to improve its “image” and revive its coalition on the verge of disintegration before the critical budget vote.
Tensions are escalating following Israel’s airstrikes targeting three leaders of the Islamic Jihad Movement. Rockets are being fired from Gaza in response to Israeli attacks. Truce talks have not yet yielded a positive result. why did the Israeli government launch these attacks, which have lasted for two days and bring the risk of all-out war?
On Tuesday, Israel killed three prominent leaders of the Al-Quds Brigades, the military wing of the Islamic Jihad in the Gaza Strip, along with their families. The Israeli military attacks on the Gaza Strip under blockade killed fifteen people, including children, and wounded 22 others. Islamic Jihad has threatened to target the Jewish settlement of Dotan in the occupied West Bank as retaliation for the assault. While the Israeli army continues attacking the Gaza Strip, Palestinian groups have been reacting to these attacks with rocket fire. The number of people killed in the Israeli attacks increased to 25, while 76 people were injured. In a statement made by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), it was stated that 333 of the 469 rockets launched from Gaza crossed into Israel and 107 of them fell short in the Gaza Strip. No information was shared about the remaining 29 rockets. It was reported that the air defense system intercepted 153 rockets, while some rockets hit settlements and caused material damage.
Targeted by Israeli attacks, the Islamic Jihad announced that if Israel continues to bomb houses in the region, retaliatory attacks will be organized in Tel Aviv and the interior of Israel. For its part, Hamas said that the rockets fired from the Gaza Strip into Israel were part of the resistance forces’ unified response to the Israeli attacks. In a written statement, Hamas spokesperson Abdullatif al-Qanoo said, “The joint attacks organized by the resistance forces are part of the process of responding to the massacre carried out by the occupation forces.” Emphasizing that Israel is responsible for the repercussions of its escalating attacks against the Palestinian people, Kanoo said that Israel will pay for its actions.
Why now?
The process that led Israel to these reckless attacks was triggered in early May. Following the death of Palestinian prisoner Khader Adnan on May 2 after 87 days of hunger strike in prison, more than 30 rockets targeting Israel were fired from the Gaza Strip. Israel retaliated by bombing Gaza. One Palestinian was killed and 5 Palestinians were injured in the attacks of Israeli warplanes. Immediately after the airstrikes, a truce was reached between Israel and armed groups in the Gaza Strip on May 3. Reached in one day, the ceasefire lit the criticism that “Israel has no deterrence” already existed in the country shaken by domestic political debates.
The argument that the nationwide protests over the Netanyahu-led government’s judicial reform emboldened Israel’s “enemies” was a critique that had been voiced since the anti-government protests began.
Moreover, Israel’s “sworn enemy” Iran’s normalization process with potential allies of Tel Aviv and the progress it has made in its nuclear program have set alarm bells ringing. Having been criticized for bringing the country to the brink of civil war as the “enemy” continued its advance, Netanyahu announced a ceasefire within 24 hours of the tension in early May, prompting criticism not only from the opposition but also from within the government and even from his own Likud party.
“In order to restore deterrence, we should have woken up this morning and heard how many terrorists were eliminated tonight in attacks,” Likud MP Danny Danon said on Twitter. Almog Cohen, a member of the far-right Israeli Jewish Power party, also posted on social media, “The excuses are over. Now is the time to strike hard at those who seek to harm us.” The Jewish Power Party, led by National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, announced a boycott of the Israeli parliament sessions.
‘Israel’s deterrence capacity has eroded’
In an analysis published in early May, the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), which reflects the views of Israel’s military bureaucracy, stated that “These operations against Israel, coupled with a series of prior incidents, have combined to erode Israel’s deterrence capabilities vis-à-vis Hezbollah, which is working tirelessly to improve the rules of the game within the framework of the deterrence equation that has evolved in the aftermath of the Second Lebanon War.” The following as indicators of this erosion is listed:
- Hezbollah’s claim that over the past two years, its activities have forced Israel to reduce its operations in Lebanese airspace
- Hezbollah operatives expanding their presence at observation posts along the border with Israel
- Clashes with Israeli forces along the border
- The signing of the maritime border agreement between Israel and Lebanon in October 2022, which Nasrallah claimed was a victory for Hezbollah
The analysis noted that Hezbollah – like the other members of the axis – sees the internal Israeli dispute over the constitutional crisis and the widespread protests against the Israeli government, as an expression of Israel’s inherent weakness, and that “the false narrative that Nasrallah has spun, especially over the past 12 months and that has come to the fore in his speeches, is, it seems, the reason for the excessive daring that he has displayed during recent events.”
The analysis offered the following thoughts on what Israel should do: “In any case, recent events indicate that Israel’s deterrence vis-à-vis Hezbollah and its partners in the axis of resistance is eroding. Under these circumstances, Israel’s political leadership must launch a deep and thorough discussion with the security establishment in order to formulate a strategy for bolstering deterrence with Hezbollah, which is the vanguard of the broader axis, and which currently poses the greatest conventional threat to Israeli security. It appears that a military operation against Hezbollah is necessary to make it absolutely clear to the organization that it will be made to pay a heavy price for continued provocation and to prevent a situation in which terror attacks from Lebanon, including rocket fire by Hamas, become routine. Israel faces a complex challenge: how to bolster its deterrence against Hezbollah and Hamas, without escalating the situation and risking all-out war. Israel has the scope to operate, and it must select its preferred course of action and timing – and must ready itself for potential ramifications.”
A move to save the coalition
Criticism from the opposition about the erosion of deterrence is an important reason for these latest attacks, but more critical for Netanyahu is the intra-coalition dispute. In particular, the announcement by National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir that he will boycott parliamentary sessions due to the ceasefire is extremely significant since Netanyahu has to get the 2023-2024 budget passed by the end of this month. If the budget is not ratified by May 29, the government will automatically fall and early elections will be called. Therefore, Ben-Gvir’s announcement to boycott the parliamentary sessions is not a trump card that Netanyahu can ignore. And Ben-Gvir is not the only coalition partner using the budget vote as leverage. United Torah Judaism is pushing the government to take steps to exempt Haredis from conscription until the end of this month. The widespread attacks on Gaza have ended Ben-Gvir’s boycott of the Knesset, while also causing other far-right coalition partners to soften their demands and rally around Netanyahu against the enemy. In sum, ahead of the crucial budget vote, Netanyahu has repaired the cracks in his coalition thanks to the Gaza attacks.
Zvi Bar’el, a columnist for the left-wing Haaretz newspaper, one of Israel’s long-established publications, makes this observation in an article: “The deaths in Gaza brought Israel’s coalition back to life.”
An editorial in the same newspaper made the same observation. “The Gaza assassinations were all about Israeli politics,” the editorial reads, “…the government was severely criticized by some of the public and many politicians for its ‘weak response,’ ‘disgraceful policy of containment’ and failure to crush the ‘terrorist infrastructure’ when it had a chance. A right-wing government that tends toward extremes was suddenly seen as wretched and spineless, weaker than the “leftist” government that preceded it. The one who was the fastest to understand how serious the damage was to the government’s image was one of its most senior figures, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir. He not only demanded that he be part of the security deliberations that he has not been invited to but also that the government act with more aggression to dispense with the awful policy of ‘restraint’ and strike the leaders of terror organizations.”
“Ben-Gvir was not content with using inflammatory rhetoric. He boycotted the cabinet and Knesset, threatening the coalition’s integrity and even risking the collapse of the government altogether, just as the Knesset vote on the budget is approaching. Ben-Gvir’s threats made it clear to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the last ‘round’ of fighting was in need of a correction. Accordingly, the Israel Defense Forces and the Shin Bet security service were asked to come up with some proposals, which resulted in a decision to assassinate three top Islamic Jihad officials.”
Hamas not a direct target
The fact that Israel has refrained from directly targeting Hamas reveals that it does not want an all-out war. Indeed, in his national address today, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu underscored the intensive attacks on Islamic Jihad targets in Gaza. However, he also said that the “military campaign is not over” and that they are continuing to attack Gaza vigorously. Netanyahu said that “new technological advances, operational skills and initiative have created a new balance” and that “they will choose when and where to attack the terrorists, and they have the priority to choose.”
Talks deadlocked
On the other hand, it was stated that the truce talks between Israel and Palestinian have stalled. According to AA, a Palestinian source close to the talks between Israeli and the Palestinian groups said that the Palestinian side asked Israel to stop its “assassination policy”, which Tel Aviv rejected. The source added that ceasefire talks continue through Egypt, Qatar and the United Nations (UN).
Middle East
UNDP estimates $1.38 billion in building damage across southern Lebanon
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and Lebanon’s National Council for Scientific Research have released a rapid assessment report on building damage in southern Lebanon.
According to Lebanon’s Al-Akhbar newspaper, the study relied on satellite imagery and geospatial artificial intelligence (GeoAI) technologies to assess externally visible damage to buildings along the southern border between October 23, 2025, and April 29, 2026.
The report found that a total of 11,095 buildings had been completely destroyed in the areas surveyed. Based on an assumed average apartment size of 150 square metres, these destroyed structures are estimated to correspond theoretically to 17,891 housing units.
The volume of debris generated in the region is estimated at 3,107,756 cubic metres.
In addition to the buildings that were completely destroyed, the assessment identified partial damage to 2,242 buildings and minor damage to 9,311 others.
At the housing-unit level, the report estimates that alongside the approximately 17,891 units that were completely destroyed, around 5,219 homes sustained partial damage and 18,282 suffered minor damage.
The report stressed that these housing figures are not based on direct field surveys but on mathematical modelling using average floor-space assumptions and therefore constitute theoretical estimates.
Preliminary cost of building damage estimated at $1.38 billion
The report calculated reconstruction costs using a standard benchmark value of $450 per square metre. On that basis, the total preliminary cost of building damage was estimated at $1.384 billion.
Geographically, Nabatieh Governorate accounted for the largest share of the damage, estimated at $1.053 billion, while losses in South Governorate were assessed at $331 million.
At the district level, preliminary costs were estimated at $688 million in Bint Jbeil, $333 million in Marjayoun, $315 million in Tyre, $32 million in Nabatieh district and $16 million in Sidon.
The report emphasised that these figures cover only external physical damage to buildings and do not represent the final cost of reconstruction or the total economic losses caused by the war.
In Bint Jbeil district, the highest levels of destruction were recorded in Aitaroun, where 1,658 buildings were destroyed, followed by Bint Jbeil city with 1,076, Ayta al-Shaab with 539, Beit Lif with 371, Yaroun with 242 and Ainata with 227.
In Marjayoun district, 969 destroyed buildings were recorded in Mais al-Jabal, 824 in Taybeh, 285 in Houla, 199 in Markaba, 184 in Blida and 174 in Deir Siryan.
In Nabatieh district, 71 buildings were destroyed in Yahmar al-Shaqif, 69 in Zoutar al-Sharqiya and 37 in Kfar Sir. In Tyre district, 370 buildings were completely destroyed in Burj al-Shamali, 216 in Naqoura, 162 in Abbassiyeh, 80 in Tyre city and 65 in al-Mansouri. In Sidon district, destruction was concentrated mainly in Zirariyeh, where 65 buildings were destroyed, and Arzi, where 62 buildings were levelled.
The report also outlined significant limitations that prevent the findings from being treated as a definitive final assessment.
The study did not cover entire administrative districts but was limited to areas where clear satellite imagery was available.
As a result, the area south of the Litani River constituted the main focus, while only limited data from areas north of the river were included. Some municipalities were fully surveyed, while only selected sections of others could be examined.
For example, all cadastral zones in Bint Jbeil district were surveyed. In Tyre district, 74 of 75 cadastral areas were fully covered, while one was only partially included.
In Marjayoun, 17 of 33 areas were fully surveyed and 21 partially covered. In Nabatieh, only four of 52 areas were fully analysed, while 15 were partially examined. In Sidon, none of the 77 areas underwent a complete survey, with only five areas partially included in the assessment.
The report listed several additional limitations:
Critical infrastructure damage, including roads, bridges, electricity networks, water systems and telecommunications facilities, was not assessed.
Damage to underground shelters, basements and non-visible interior sections of buildings could not be detected.
No clear distinction could be made between residential, commercial and industrial structures.
Buildings with minor damage were excluded from debris-volume and cost calculations.
Structural density, shadows and narrow streets introduced potential margins of error in satellite analysis.
No field visits or on-site inspections were conducted to verify the findings. The assessment was carried out entirely through desk-based analysis of satellite imagery.
Given the scale of destruction and confidence in the methodology employed, no on-site verification procedures were undertaken in cooperation with the Lebanese Armed Forces or the United Nations Department of Safety and Security (UNDSS).
UNDP said the findings should be regarded as preliminary planning data and that the scope of the assessment would be expanded as additional satellite imagery and field information become available.
Officials noted that once excluded categories and infrastructure losses are taken into account, the true cost of the destruction in southern Lebanon is likely to be significantly higher than the estimates contained in the report.
Middle East
Iran makes Lebanon ceasefire prerequisite for final agreement with US
Assessments that efforts to restrain Israel in Lebanon are being shaped less in Beirut or Tel Aviv than in closed-door talks between Iranian and American negotiators resurfaced ahead of negotiations in the Swiss town of Bürgenstock.
Unlike the current approach adopted by the Lebanese government, Iran continues to pursue a strategy of leveraging its influence on the ground to secure diplomatic gains.
The Lebanese government, meanwhile, remains committed to a separate negotiating track that critics say facilitates concessions to Israel at the negotiating table in Washington that could not be achieved on the battlefield.
US Vice President JD Vance, who arrived in Switzerland to participate in the latest round of talks, confirmed that efforts to make the ceasefire in Lebanon permanent would be among the negotiations’ top priorities.
According to CNN, citing a diplomatic source familiar with the matter, the US and Iranian delegations agreed to convene an emergency session on the situation in Lebanon as the first item of discussion, placing the issue at the top of the agenda.
US says it faces difficulties over Israeli withdrawal
According to diplomatic sources cited by Al-Akhbar newspaper, US officials informed the Iranian side that Washington had made intensive efforts to persuade the Israeli government to complete a full withdrawal from Lebanon but had encountered significant difficulties in the process.
US officials requested Iranian support in facilitating Hezbollah’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon as part of efforts to enable an Israeli pullout.
The Iranian delegation responded that Hezbollah was an internal Lebanese matter. While indicating that Tehran did not oppose an agreement by the Lebanese authorities on a timetable providing for a rapid Israeli withdrawal, the delegation outlined what it viewed as its own area of responsibility.
Iranian representatives said both Tehran and Washington had committed to implementing measures aimed at ending the war across the region, including in Lebanon, and argued that the United States should exert pressure on Israel not only to uphold a ceasefire but also to withdraw quickly.
Iran reiterates Lebanon condition for final agreement
An Iranian official also told CNN that ending the conflict in Lebanon was the most important item on the Iranian delegation’s agenda.
During the talks, Vice President Vance said Washington would continue working toward peace between Lebanon and Israel and expressed hope that the temporary ceasefire could be transformed into a permanent agreement capable of delivering long-term stability.
Speaking before the session, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said Tehran would not begin negotiations on a final agreement with Washington unless the war in Lebanon was halted, as stipulated in the US-Iran memorandum of understanding.
In a post on X, Baghaei wrote: “It is not possible to move to the negotiation stage for a final agreement unless these provisions are implemented, foremost among them the first clause, which calls for ending the war on all fronts, including Lebanon.”
Military and diplomatic developments ahead of the Bürgenstock talks threatened to undermine the understanding reached between the parties. Following Israeli attacks in Lebanon and what Iran described as an escalation of military tensions in violation of the US-Iran agreement, Tehran announced that it had closed the Strait of Hormuz to traffic.
In a statement, Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya Headquarters said the closure of the strait was only the first step in a series of measures planned by Tehran. Iran’s Foreign Ministry subsequently announced the suspension of the Geneva negotiations with the United States.
Following those developments, reports indicated that Washington intervened and increased pressure on Israel, leading Israeli military commanders to issue definitive orders for a complete halt to military operations in southern Lebanon for the second time within 24 hours.
Israeli media reports said the decision was not taken solely on Tel Aviv’s own initiative and that military operations were curtailed as a result of intense US pressure following Iran’s move in the Strait of Hormuz.
Middle East
US lifts naval blockade of Iran after ceasefire memorandum signed
The United States has lifted its naval blockade of Iran on the orders of President Donald Trump, ending restrictions on vessels entering and leaving Iranian ports.
Announcing the development, the US Central Command (CENTCOM) said the US military was no longer blocking maritime traffic to Iranian ports and had halted all operations related to enforcing the naval blockade.
The statement added that US warships would remain in the region to monitor compliance with the terms of the agreement.
The decision to lift the blockade follows the memorandum of understanding signed by the United States and Iran on June 18, aimed at ending the war and reopening the Strait of Hormuz to maritime traffic.
After signing the document in France, where he was attending the G7 summit, Trump sent the agreement to Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian for approval.
In a statement, Iran’s Foreign Ministry said a formal signing ceremony between the two delegations, previously scheduled to take place in Geneva on June 19, would no longer be held.
Negotiations to continue in Switzerland
According to Axios, citing sources familiar with the matter, the signing process for the memorandum of understanding was accelerated in order to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to shipping as quickly as possible.
A planned meeting between US and Iranian representatives in Switzerland has not been cancelled. The talks are expected to focus on launching negotiations over Iran’s nuclear programme, with US Vice President James David Vance and Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf set to take part.
According to CNN, the 14-point memorandum calls for an immediate ceasefire on all fronts, the lifting of the naval blockade, the resumption of maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, the removal of oil sanctions on Iran and the withdrawal of US troops from areas surrounding Iran.
The agreement also includes the allocation of $300 billion for Iran’s economic reconstruction, the release of $24 billion in frozen Iranian assets and a 60-day negotiation process aimed at reaching a final agreement on the nuclear programme.
In return, the authorities in Tehran pledged not to develop nuclear weapons.
-
Europe2 weeks agoAfD says Ukraine should compensate Germany over Nord Stream sabotage
-
Asia2 weeks agoPentagon adds Alibaba, Baidu and BYD to list of firms with alleged Chinese military ties
-
Opinion1 week agoA voice rising from New Delhi: BRICS’s manifesto for a new world order
-
Europe2 weeks agoToyota and JLR warn EU ‘Made in Europe’ rules could threaten jobs and investment
-
America2 weeks agoWorld Cup referee from Somalia denied entry to US as immigration scrutiny intensifies
-
Middle East1 week agoMine clearing in Strait of Hormuz could delay shipping traffic for up to 50 days
-
America7 days agoData leak exposes Peter Thiel’s secret ‘Dialog’ network of politicians, regulators, and tech elites
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoTürkiye calls for Azerbaijan-Armenia peace treaty, highlights normalization steps with Yerevan
