Middle East
On the eve of Women Int’l Day: Rural and project women, the two separate worlds
The struggle of women in Afghanistan has two different faces; one in conference halls, international media, reports by human rights organizations, and development projects, and the other in the silent back alleys of villages, behind mud walls, among dried-up fields, and houses that are not shelters for women but prisons of tradition and oppression.
On one side are women who speak at international meetings, participate in political meetings, and sign legal reports, and on the other side are women whose names are never mentioned in any report, women who do not chant slogans, but fight every day in the most difficult conditions for their most basic human rights.
One of the biggest gaps in the struggle of Afghan women is the gap between project women and rural women. Project women are often educated, familiar with foreign languages, and affiliated with international organizations. They defend women’s rights at conferences, speak about the situation of women in the media, and explain the Afghan crisis to representatives of Western governments.
But the rural woman, even if she has heard of these meetings, does not see them as part of her life. For her, the struggle means trying to escape hunger, violence, humiliation, and restrictions that have deprived her of even the opportunity to think about human rights.
They are analysis of the banality of evil, Hannah Arendt explains how oppressive systems, without the need for direct violence, can create conditions in which oppression appears normal and unobjectionable by creating bureaucratic structures and marginalizing certain groups.
Rural Afghan women are caught in precisely such a structure; they are not only victims of Taliban repression, but their neglect and deprivation are so institutionalized in the traditional system that their condition seems to be a natural part of the social order. This is what Arendt calls everyday evil; oppression that operates without being recognized as “oppression.”
On the other hand, Susan Sontag, in her book “On the Suffering of Others,” points out how human tragedies become insignificant when they are kept out of the eyes of the media and policymakers. The Afghan rural woman is in exactly this position; while the world focuses on female political activists, journalists, and intellectuals, the rural woman, who bears the heaviest burden of violence, remains hidden from view.
On the other hand, women’s rights movements in Afghanistan have been led mainly by urban, educated women affiliated with international institutions. Although these women fight for the rights of Afghan women, they represent a specific segment of society whose lives are completely different from those of indigenous Afghan women, rather than being the true voices of rural women.
These two struggles, although seemingly waged for a common goal, in practice, take two completely different paths.
The project woman knows the language of politics, has international networks, and uses power mechanisms to advance her goals. But the rural woman has no knowledge of these concepts, no one to defend her rights, and no opportunity to even participate in local meetings. She has never been included in official statements or international campaigns, but she fights every day on an unequal battlefield to preserve her most basic rights.
The problem begins when many project women, without knowing the reality of the lives of indigenous women, prescribe for them. They speak in the language of Western concepts and with enlightened views on gender equality, but the rural woman only knows the language of survival. For the project woman, reforming the laws is important, but for the rural woman, finding a way to save her daughter from forced marriage is important. These two struggles, although seemingly waged for a common goal, in practice, take two completely different paths.
It should not go unmentioned that the suffering of rural women in Afghanistan knows no boundaries of ethnicity, lineage, or province. The Hazara woman of Daikundi, the Pashtun woman of Uruzgan, the Tajik woman of Badakhshan, and the Uzbek woman of Faryab are all caught in a cycle of oppression that has been passed down from generation to generation. Their pain is not born of ethnic differences, but is the product of a tribal and patriarchal system that has relegated women to a subordinate position.
Although local structures, regional traditions, and cultural differences can exert various forms of pressure and control on women, the essence of the story does not change; rural women, wherever they are in this land, have neither ownership of land, nor access to income, nor the freedom to decide their own destiny.
She, like other women in different regions, has experienced only one thing: being forgotten. Policymakers, international institutions, and even women’s rights movements have often failed to acknowledge the fact that the pain of rural women is not a local or ethnic issue, but a national reality that requires collective understanding and action.
The historical and social roots of rural women’s deprivation
Afghanistan has long been dominated by tribal systems in which women are considered the “property” of men. This view has not only deprived women of property rights, decision-making and economic independence, but also placed them in a position where even their bodies and lives are at the disposal of the men in the family. In these societies, forced marriages, the exchange of women in tribal conflicts and the imposition of silence on women are part of a system that has persisted for generations. Many women remain dependent on the decisions of their brothers, fathers, and sons, even after marriage.
In his theory of “Gift and Exchange in Traditional Societies,” French sociologist Marcel Mauss explains how in some societies, women are not seen as individuals but as part of a system of power exchange between men. This is particularly evident in Afghanistan, especially in the villages, where women are often seen as part of family or tribal bargaining chips, and their personal autonomy is meaningless.
One of the main reasons for this situation to persist is the lack of an effective and inclusive central government that can extend laws protecting women to the countryside. Afghan governments have always been embroiled in civil wars, widespread corruption, and weak governance, and have failed to create a unified system to protect women’s rights. Even during periods when relatively more progressive governments ruled in Kabul, reforms never reached rural and remote areas.
In his discussion of “cultural hegemony,” Marxist theorist Antonio Gramsci explains how states propagate particular ideologies in society to consolidate their power. In Afghanistan, various states have failed to establish hegemony over women’s rights in the villages because each time social reforms have been initiated, tribal structures have resisted them.
The lack of a strong and supportive national state has meant that women’s rights have never become a public issue and have remained within the purview of urban elites. Many political thinkers, including Antonio Gramsci, have argued that the absence of a “sustainable cultural hegemony” prevents social reform from reaching the depths of society.
In Afghanistan, governments have not only failed to create sustainable laws, but any changes have remained limited to urban administrative structures and have never reached the reality of rural women’s lives.
What to do?
With the Taliban closing the borders, women’s rights activists are no longer able to enter Afghanistan. But that doesn’t mean the fight is over. There are many alternative ways to reach rural women with awareness and support: A large proportion of rural women have access to mobile phones. This tool should be used to raise awareness about legal rights, ways to combat violence, and economic methods. Producing content in different formats – in local languages – can help rural women.
The second is the development of clandestine schools and informal education systems. During the early days of Taliban regime, underground schools were able to educate a new generation of girls. This model needs to be revived today. Online education, although limited, is one way to transfer knowledge to rural girls.
Another possible solution is to support small businesses run by rural women, such as carpet weaving and handicrafts, and connect them to foreign markets. Franz Fanon, in his book “The Wretched of the Earth” points out that economic independence and consciousness are two key factors in the liberation of the colonized.
Rural Afghan women will also never be able to free themselves from traditional patriarchal structures without economic independence. Therefore, developing local businesses and connecting them to the labor market can be one of the real ways to empower women.
For example, creating support and educational networks between elite women and indigenous women, and documenting rural women’s narratives can lead to the transfer of experience and knowledge from one group to another; and dozens of other things.
Yes! The Taliban have closed the borders, but they cannot cage consciousness. If rural women realize that they have the right to life, choice, education, and property, the historical chains of subordination will be broken one by one.
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.
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.
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.
China’s critical mineral restrictions challenge EU defence expansion plans
UNDP estimates $1.38 billion in building damage across southern Lebanon
India’s Russian oil imports hit record high as Middle East tensions disrupt markets
Israel looks to Latin America as Isaac Accords seek to expand regional partnerships
Four European countries move to make citizenship harder to obtain
-
Asia2 weeks agoPentagon adds Alibaba, Baidu and BYD to list of firms with alleged Chinese military ties
-
Europe2 weeks agoAfD says Ukraine should compensate Germany over Nord Stream sabotage
-
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
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoTürkiye calls for Azerbaijan-Armenia peace treaty, highlights normalization steps with Yerevan
-
America6 days agoData leak exposes Peter Thiel’s secret ‘Dialog’ network of politicians, regulators, and tech elites
