Israeli ‘double tap’ strike hits paramedics in south Lebanon hours after renewed bombing of Beirut
The Cradle | May 7, 2026
An Israeli “double tap” strike targeted paramedics in the southern Lebanese town of Toul on 7 May, coinciding with brutal attacks across southern Lebanon and just hours after Tel Aviv’s first attack on Beirut since the start of the so-called “ceasefire.”
“An enemy drone struck the Toul area. After the attack, the Islamic Health Authority’s Civil Defense team went to inspect the site, before enemy warplanes launched another raid on the area, which resulted in the injury of two members of the rescue team and significant damage to the ambulance,” Lebanon’s National News Agency (NNA) reported.
Video footage captured the exact moment the Islamic Health Authority’s vehicle was bombed by the occupation army. Over 100 Lebanese medics have been killed by Israel since the war began.
Footage on social media also showed large explosions as a result of violent Israeli strikes on the town of Yater on Thursday. The town has been bombed 27 times over the past 24 hours.
Earlier, an Israeli attack hit the vicinity of the Evangelical School in Nabatieh, killing a delivery driver who was on duty.
Additionally, strikes hit Zefta, Qaqaait al-Jisr, Adchit, and several other Lebanese towns.
The violent attacks came as Hezbollah continues to confront Israeli troops occupying southern Lebanon.
“The Mujahideen of the Islamic Resistance targeted a D9 bulldozer belonging to the Israeli enemy army at Khalleh al-Raj in the town of Deir Siryan at 08:45 AM on Thursday, 07-05-2026, with an attack drone, and achieved a confirmed hit,” the Lebanese resistance announced.
Al-Jarmaq News, citing Hebrew sources, reported that 10 Israeli soldiers were wounded in an explosive drone attack in southern Lebanon and transferred to Rambam Hospital in Haifa on Thursday morning.
Seventeen soldiers are currently being treated at the hospital, including four in serious condition, the report added.
On Wednesday night, Israel carried out its first strikes in Beirut since Iran imposed a truce on the capital last month. The attack targeted a building in Haret Hreik.
The Israeli military claimed this was a targeted assassination of the chief of Hezbollah’s elite Radwan Unit, identifying him as Ahmad Ghaleb Ballout.
Hezbollah has yet to comment on the deadly violation, which resulted in one death and multiple injuries.
Israel’s Channel 14 said Tel Aviv will continue assassinations and “act anywhere” against Hezbollah figures if the opportunity arises.
Other Hebrew reports said Israel does not consider this a ceasefire violation but rather a “preemptive” attack aimed at “thwarting threats.”
Since Tel Aviv’s war and ground assault against Lebanon began in early March, the Israeli army has occupied dozens of Lebanese villages, establishing a Gaza-style buffer zone area which has been labeled the “Forward Defense Line.”
Hezbollah fighters remain present across this line, carrying out daily FPV drone attacks which have become a major challenge to Israeli forces.
Occupation Bulldozes Farmland, Uproots Vineyards
IMEMC | May 7, 2026
On Wednesday, Israeli occupation forces invaded the Al‑Baq’a area east of Hebron, in the occupied West Bank’s southern region, and carried out a large‑scale destruction of Palestinian agricultural land, uprooting thousands of grape vines and bulldozing more than 200 dunams of privately owned farmland over the past three days, in one of the largest agricultural demolitions reported in the district this year.
Eyewitnesses said multiple military units accompanied Israeli bulldozers as they invaded the area at dawn, sealed all access roads, and prevented Palestinian farmers from reaching their land while the machinery destroyed entire vineyards, vegetable fields, and irrigation networks.
The bulldozing and uprooting of the privately owned Palestinian land was carried out under the pretext of expanding the colonial bypass road known as “Route 60.”
According to the Hebron Directorate of Agriculture, the targeted zone is part of one of the most important agricultural areas in the governorate, known for its high‑quality grape production.
Officials confirmed that more than 200 dunams were bulldozed and that 40,000 productive grape vines—many of them decades old—were completely uprooted. The destruction remained ongoing throughout the day.
Farmers from Al‑Baq’a said the occupation is bulldozing land on both sides of the bypass road at a depth of up to 20 meters, destroying vineyards, seasonal crops, and greenhouses.
Soldiers threatened anyone who attempted to approach their land and refused to allow families to salvage tools, irrigation pipes, or agricultural equipment.
Residents stressed that the area produces over 13,000 tons of grapes annually, in addition to 1,000 tons of grape leaves, forming the primary source of income for hundreds of Palestinian families.
The Al‑Baq’a area has long been targeted by the occupation and by illegal paramilitary Israeli colonizers from nearby colonies, who have repeatedly attempted to seize agricultural land, attack farmers, and block access to fields.
Local human rights groups say the current destruction is part of a broader campaign to forcibly remove Palestinian communities from fertile agricultural zones surrounding Hebron.
‘Israel’ kills Azzam al-Hayya, son of Hamas chief Khalil al-Hayya

Al Mayadeen | May 7, 2026
Azzam al-Hayya, the son of Khalil al-Hayya, leader of the Hamas Resistance movement in Gaza, was martyred on Thursday after succumbing to wounds he sustained in an Israeli attack on Gaza City on Wednesday evening, according to Al Mayadeen’s correspondent.
The correspondent reported on Wednesday night that Hamza al-Sharbasi was killed and Azzam Khalil al-Hayya was injured in an Israeli airstrike near the Jabalia bus stop in the al-Daraj neighborhood, in central Gaza City.
PIJ condemns assassinating Resistance forces, their leaders
The Palestinian Islamic Jihad movement condemned the assault, saying, “The government of war criminals in the occupying entity continues to escalate its crimes against the Gaza Strip.”
In a statement, the movement noted that “the occupation army is carrying out ongoing assaults aimed at assassinating Resistance forces and their leaders, particularly within Islamic Jihad and Hamas.”
It further highlighted that the latest in these assassinations was “the treacherous airstrike that targeted Hamza al-Sharbasi, a leader in the al-Qassam Brigades, yesterday.”
“The attack also injured several others, including the martyr Azzam, the son of Khalil al-Hayya, the head of the Hamas movement in Gaza, who succumbed to his wounds this morning,” the movement added.
The PIJ accused “Israel” of using the strikes to impose its terms on Gaza, evade agreed-upon ceasefire commitments, block reconstruction efforts, and continue committing massacres, including by disrupting the Rafah crossing.
‘Israel’ continues its genocide amid so-called ceasefire
In a separate incident on May 6, and as part of ongoing Israeli violations, several Palestinians were wounded when an Israeli strike targeted a displacement camp in Gaza City’s al-Zaytoun neighborhood.
Further south, police colonel Naseem al-Kalzzani was killed and others were injured after an Israeli strike targeted his vehicle in the al-Mawasi area of Khan Younis.
Hamas said the escalation by the Israeli occupation forces, which continued to target civilians in Gaza, constituted a clear violation of the ceasefire agreement. The movement called on the United States administration and the guarantor states of the Sharm el-Sheikh agreement to intervene immediately to restrain Israel.
Despite the ceasefire reached in October 2025, Israeli forces have continued near-daily aggression across the Gaza Strip.
According to Gaza’s Ministry of Health, the death toll has risen to 837, with 2,381 wounded and 769 bodies of martyrs retrieved since the ceasefire took effect.
The cumulative toll since the start of the Israeli genocide on 7 October 2023 has reached 72,619 killed and 172,484 injured.
What has Guterres supported in Gaza?
By Ramona Wadi | MEMO | May 7, 2026
In March this year, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres had stated that the UN is “cooperating actively with structures created by the Board of Peace.” By the time Guterres made his statement, US Board of Peace High Representative for Gaza Nickolay Mladenov had already warned, in February this year, that Hamas bears the burden of Israel’s full resumption of genocide in Gaza if it fails to disarm.
In a letter that was quoted yesterday in Israeli media, Mladenov and senior US official Aryeh Lightstone warned the Palestinian technocratic government, “Failure by Hamas to accept the framework within a reasonable timeframe, as determined by the Board of Peace and after consultation with the parties, shall render such commitments null and void.”
Two days before Mladenov’s warning was made public, a senior military official said that it was inevitable that Israel would resume “fighting” in Gaza if Hamas refuses to disarm. Israel has in fact not stopped colonising Gaza through violence – what we are seeing now is a slower form of genocide in the aftermath of a very visible genocide which world leaders and diplomats preferred to watch rather than stop.
Mladenov is aware that Israel kept killing Palestinians in Gaza after the ceasefire came into effect, that more buildings were detonated, that the Yellow Line keeps expanding in Gaza besides already occupying more than half of its shrinking territory.
Therefore, the pretence of a before and after the ceasefire does not hold. It is merely a convenient veneer for the Board of Peace’s next rhetorical step that asserts its agreement with genocide.
Israel violated the October 2025 ceasefire multiple times, so in a way the letter is not a warning of novelty. However, the text of the October ceasefire does not stipulate that Hamas should disarm for the ceasefire to hold; that was a clause for the second phase of the ceasefire. The US Board of Peace is therefore saying that Israel is exempt from upholding its obligations stipulated in Phase One if Hamas does not agree to a clause from Phase Two.
In the entire Western narrative of Israel’s genocide in Gaza, Mladenov is not employing a new tactic when blaming Hamas for refusing to disarm. However, exploiting the ceasefire text, which was based on the resumption of humanitarian aid and the return of Israeli hostages, is insightful in terms of how institutions hold the power to manipulate the parameters of international law, accountability and impunity. The October 2025 ceasefire text, which was not dependent on Hamas disarming, can now be discarded simply because the focus is on Phase Two and diplomacy will not check the specific stipulations of Phase One.
Mladenov and Lightstone, therefore, are legitimising institutional complicity with genocide.
This is one clear admission in which a body supposedly tasked with rebuilding Gaza and its governance will not hold Israel accountable for continuing to commit genocide.
By stepping back, the spectator tactic has now been fully employed by Mladenov and the so-called Board of Peace.
When has genocide even been advocated for so smoothly among diplomats? Guterres should take note of what he and the UN have supported.
Texas has an Israel Investment Problem
By Adam Dick | Peace and Prosperity Blog | May 6, 2026
Investing is generally understood to be about seeking to preserve and grow wealth. But the Texas government seems to be making an exception to that understanding in buying the bonds of the Israel government and enabling other government entities in Texas to do so as well.
In February, Acting Comptroller Kelly Hancock touted in a press release that the state government was doubling its holdings of Israel bonds “from approximately $140 million to $280 million, marking the largest one-time investment in Israel bonds in Texas history and elevating the state from the sixth-largest to the second-largest U.S. state investor in these securities.”
That is a significant investment action. How did Hancock describe that the action was taken to best preserve and grow the wealth held by state government? He did not. Instead, Hancock provided a political justification in the press release:
‘Texas proudly stands with Israel,’ Hancock said. ‘This expanded investment reinforces our long-standing relationship and shared commitment to faith, freedom and economic opportunity. Texas and Israel have built a partnership that stretches beyond finance, and this step reflects both our solidarity and our belief in what we can accomplish together.’
This sort of reasoning does not bode well of the finances of the state. Liking a government is not a valid investment reason for buying its bonds. Is Hancock next going to “invest” in truckloads of puppies because he thinks they are adorable?
The state government, in addition to piling up Israel bonds, has also decreed that government entities in Texas can buy Israel government bonds but are forbidden from buying bonds of any other foreign government. This special permission to purchase Israel government bonds is provided in chapter 2256 of the Texas Government Code (the Public Funds Investment Act). There the listed “authorized investments” for government entities in Texas include “bonds issued, assumed, or guaranteed by the State of Israel” but no similar investments related to any other foreign government.
Is there any reason to think that the bonds of Israel are uniquely good investments when compared to the bonds of every other foreign nation? It seems the answer to that question is “no.” Consider that in May of 2025 Daniel Liberto reported at Investopedia that then “10 countries had perfect credit ratings from all three rating companies” — Fitch Ratings, Moody’s Investors Service, and S&P Global Ratings. Israel did not make the list. Yet, Israel’s bonds are determined by the Texas government to be an acceptable investment while these other bond options that have been rated safer are verboten.
It looks like the Texas government, through its preferred treatment of Israel bonds, is ensuring that politics triumphs over sound investing.
‘Project Freedom’ perishes in 48 hours as Trump retreats under the wall of Iran’s asymmetric deterrence
Press TV | May 6, 2026
In a dramatic and entirely predictable turn of events, US President Donald Trump early on Wednesday announced the immediate suspension of “Project Freedom,” the high-stakes naval offensive launched 48 hours ago with the stated goal of forcing open the Strait of Hormuz.
This is not an isolated tactical pause, as he wants the world to believe, but the third strategic retreat by the United States in less than a month – a sequence of capitulations that reveals a profound and irreversible shift in the balance of power in the Persian Gulf.
The first retreat was the ceasefire following the devastating 40-day full-scale war against Iran, in which the US-Israeli war machine failed to achieve even a single strategic objective.
The second retreat was the unilateral extension of that ceasefire after the first round of Islamabad negotiations. The third, and most telling, is the suspension of an operation whose very continuation would have inevitably reignited full-scale Iranian retaliation.
At its core, this decision exposes a singular, undeniable truth: Trump has belatedly realized that he holds no cards, no good options, no viable coalition, and no appetite for the catastrophic confrontation to challenge Iran’s legal sovereignty over the strategic waterway
The quiet abandonment of the so-called “Project Freedom” is not a strategic pivot, but a crushing defeat. It marks yet another failure for the US war machine, following closely on the heels of the 40-day war imposed on the Islamic Republic, and confirms that the era of unilateral American naval intimidation in the Persian Gulf is effectively over.
The immediate and decisive Iranian response
The suspension of the so-called “Project Freedom” was not born of American goodwill, but of raw, immediate, and overpowering Iranian military deterrence.
Within hours of its commencement 48 hours ago, Iran’s armed forces delivered a response that was as calculated as it was lethal in its messaging. Serious warning shots were directed squarely at US warships – a level of direct confrontation that Washington has historically sought to avoid.
Furthermore, the targeting of a South Korean vessel that violated the new maritime rules defined by the Islamic Republic served as an unambiguous signal: Iran will enforce its sovereign rights with kinetic action. Finally, a clear and serious ultimatum issued to the United Arab Emirates shattered any illusion that the war could be contained to international waters.
Iran showed that it will not cower under the shadow of American airpower. It is fully prepared for, and in some ways inviting, a decisive engagement. The message was unmistakable: Iran would not merely defend the Strait of Hormuz, but it would hunt aggressors within it.
The speed and severity of this response forced the war hawks in the Pentagon into a defensive crouch, demonstrating that the threshold for Iranian retaliation is far lower – and far more dangerous – than Washington had anticipated.
Perhaps the most ingenious move was the sudden, asymmetric expansion of the war’s geography. Extension of the definition of the Strait of Hormuz to encompass the entire territory of the UAE, specifically designating the port of Fujairah as lying within the Strait’s operational limits, is deemed a masterstroke of strategic redefinition.
For the US and its allies, this has come as an unexpected shock. The port of Fujairah, located on the Gulf of Oman outside the narrow choke point of the Strait of Hormuz, had long been considered a secure fallback. But the dynamics have changed now.
The impotence of American intimidation
The 48 hours of the doomed “Project Freedom” laid bare a critical strategic reality: America has completely lost its ability to intimidate Iran. The torrent of threats that emanated from Washington – warnings of “unmatched force” and “severe consequences” – landed on Tehran with the weight of a spent cartridge.
For Iran’s armed forces, American threats, regardless of their hyperbolic grandeur, no longer constitute actionable intelligence and execution. They are now understood as little more than psychological operations and media theater.
With this premature suspension, the US implicitly confessed that it still fears the risk of re-entering a war with Iran, particularly after the harrowing experience of the 40-day war.
This fear is not abstract but rooted in the traumatic memory of Iran’s deadly strikes against American forces and their allies during those 40 days, impacts whose full scale and intensity remain deliberately under-disclosed by the Pentagon.
The psychological scar tissue from those engagements is so deep that Washington has been forced to abandon all its prior claims regarding “Epic Fury.” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed that the operation had ended – without anything in hand.
That campaign is effectively over. The US has declared, through its actions, that it will not risk a conventional military exchange with an Iran that has proven willing to draw blood. The credibility of American military threats has essentially evaporated.
The Pakistani intermediary – A pretext for surrender
Perhaps the most humiliating detail of this episode is the official reason offered for the suspension of the 48-hour offensive. According to Trump’s own social media post, the decision to halt “Project Freedom” came in response to a request from the army chief of Pakistan.
Let that sink in. A self-styled “superpower,” possessing the largest and most technologically advanced navy in history, abandons a prestigious military operation – one framed as vital to global energy security – at the behest of a foreign military commander.
This transparent pretext reveals two deeper truths. First, the US is in a state of urgent, almost frantic, need for negotiations with Iran. As became evident during Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi’s recent trip to Pakistan, the Americans are not just open to talks, but they are counting the moments to re-engage.
Second, the Trump administration is willing to seize upon the smallest request from any intermediary – even one as peripheral as a Pakistani general – to manufacture an exit ramp from a disastrous escalation.
The eagerness for a diplomatic off-ramp is directly proportional to the fear of war. America is not stepping back out of generosity but out of terror at the alternative.
The lonely superpower – No coalition for war
In essence, the failure of “Project Freedom” was sealed long before the first warning shot was fired. It was sealed when America discovered that it was entirely alone and cornered.
Shipping companies, the lifeblood of global trade, ignored the American proposal. Insurance firms, the arbiters of risk, refused to underwrite vessels sailing under the American flag in the troubled zone. Key regional allies, fearful of Iranian retaliation on their own soil and economic infrastructure, distanced themselves from the American offensive.
The American Empire is no longer capable of forming a coalition to open the Strait of Hormuz. Its scenario-planning has devolved into solitary fantasizing. This isolation is not a temporary diplomatic hiccup, but a structural reality.
The world’s biggest navies and commercial fleets have observed Iran’s previous responses and concluded that the cost of aligning with Washington exceeds any conceivable benefit. Trump finds himself commanding a fleet of one.
The triple crossroads: Trump’s impossible choices
Now, after this third and latest retreat, the most humiliating one, Trump stands at a very dangerous triple crossroads. Each path is clogged with thorns. He can choose to continue the war – an effectively impossible option, given the lack of coalition support and the certainty of Iranian asymmetric retaliation.
He can choose to accept Iran’s principles for ending the war – an option that would represent a total strategic surrender. Or he can choose to continue the naval blockade and await results.
The blockade is a particularly ambiguous gamble for Trump. On one hand, he urgently needs time to stabilize global energy markets before the upcoming meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping and the November midterm congressional elections.
The volatility of oil prices is a political enemy he cannot afford. On the other hand, it is entirely unclear – and virtually impossible – that continuing the blockade will force Iran to submit. All evidence from the past two months suggests the opposite: the blockade is hardening Iran’s resolve, not breaking it. Trump is trapped in a cycle where inaction hurts his domestic timetable, and action guarantees a wider war. He has no good options because he holds no cards.
Negotiations to end the war: Iran’s non-negotiable principles
With the back-and-forth exchange of draft principles now underway, under the Pakistani mediation, it is essential to clarify the fundamental and obvious conditions Iran has laid out to end the war. These are not bargaining points but structural realities of a new Persian Gulf order.
Iran’s sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz: Iran’s management of the strategic waterway, even after the war, is permanent. This is not about temporary wartime measures. Iran must guarantee its own security in the Persian Gulf, a right that includes obtaining material compensation from vessel passage.
The recent wars have proven that the Strait has been used to equip and strengthen Iran’s enemy. Therefore, enforcing Iranian rules is a natural act of self-defense. Furthermore, effective sovereignty over the Strait can nullify the effects of sanctions.
The Strait is not a bargaining chip but an undeniable right of the Iranian nation. As the Leader of the Islamic Revolution has clarified, Iran’s new management of this strategic waterway is permanent and non-negotiable. There will be no return to the pre-war status quo.
Withdrawal of American forces: The complete withdrawal of American military forces from the Persian Gulf region is a definitive requirement. As the aggressor and perpetrator of unprovoked and devastating war against Iran, the US presence is the only remaining obstacle to peace.
As long as these forces remain in the region, the shadow of war will persist.
Reparations for damages: Iran’s damages from the third imposed war and before that the 12-day war represent an undeniable right of the Iranian nation. Every single Iranian citizen has been harmed by American aggression. Any shortfall in achieving this condition is unacceptable.
Inclusion of the Resistance Front: The terms of ending the ongoing war must include Iran’s allies on the resistance front, especially in Lebanon. This does not negate the right to legitimate resistance against occupation; rather, it codifies the reality that Iran’s security architecture is regional. Any peace that ignores Iran’s partners is no peace at all.
Negotiation from the position of victory: Iran’s post-war doctrine
The collapse of the so-called “Project Freedom” effectively closes the military chapter. What opens now is the diplomatic one – but on Iran’s terms alone. As the new doctrine makes clear, negotiation has no intrinsic value. Only its achievable objectives matter.
First, negotiation is only acceptable if it prevents the repeat of a new war of aggression, not causes it. After repeated American betrayals, Iran will not accept talks that merely delay the next war. The bar is absolute and clear – enduring peace or nothing.
Second, Iran negotiates from the position of the victorious party in the third full-scale imposed war. The goal is not to restore the pre-war status quo but to secure additional concessions not previously held, which includes full sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz, expulsion of all American forces from the region, and protection of the resistance front.
Third, reparations are not a concession but a basic and inviolable right. The aggressor must pay for the damages of the imposed war. This is non-negotiable.
Fourth, any concession in any domain is forbidden. The enemy is defeated by all accounts. To concede what the enemy failed to win on the battlefield – whether in the 40-day war or the 12-day war before that – would be to validate its aggression.
Inalienable Iranian rights, including nuclear and defense capabilities, are entirely off the table.
Fifth, concessions guarantee future war. If the US learns it can extract through talks what it could not take by force, it will launch another war. Each retreat from an Iranian right is a green light for the next catastrophe – more martyrs, more disasters like the Minab school massacre.
Sixth, the current negotiation must achieve 100 percent of its objectives. Without full realization of Iran’s goals, no further negotiation of any kind will happen. There would be no phased deals, or interim frameworks, or endless talks without result.
Israel threatens Gaza flotilla activists with death after abduction

Press TV – May 5, 2026
Israeli forces have threatened two Gaza-bound humanitarian flotilla activists, seized in international waters last week, with death or long prison terms, according to a rights group representing them.
The two pro-Palestinian activists, Saif Abu Keshek and Thiago Avila, were among dozens detained during an Israeli raid on the Gaza-bound Global Sumud Flotilla in international waters off Greece on April 30.
On Tuesday, an Israeli court extended their detention until Sunday, May 10.
The legal rights centre Adalah, which represents the pair, said they have been subjected to psychological abuse and held in solitary confinement. According to the group, Israeli officers threatened to kill them or imprison them “for 100 years.”
Both men remain in “total isolation,” subjected to 24/7 high-intensity lighting in their cells and kept blindfolded whenever they are moved, including during medical examinations. They are also being held in very low temperatures, the group added.
Adalah said the court’s decision to prolong the detention “amounts to judicial validation of the regime’s lawlessness.” No charges have been filed, but the two face accusations including affiliation with a “terrorist organisation” and contact with “foreign agents,” which the legal centre described as “baseless.”
According to the group, the activists are continuing their hunger strike, consuming only water since their abduction.
Meanwhile, the flotilla’s organisers demanded their release in a post on X, urging the international community to intervene.
They said the activists were “forcefully brought against their will to occupied Palestine, where they have been subjected to interrogations, death threats, sleep deprivation and medical neglect.”
The governments of Spain and Brazil issued a joint statement on Friday describing the detention of Avila and Abu Keshek as illegal.
During the raid on the Global Sumud Flotilla, Israeli forces attacked 22 of the 58 aid boats heading toward the besieged Gaza Strip and detained 175 activists.
Testimonies indicate that the activists were tortured while in Israeli custody following their abduction.
Met refuses to probe British nationals accused of war crimes in Gaza
Al Mayadeen | May 5, 2026
The Metropolitan Police has refused to open an investigation into ten British nationals accused of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity during the genocide in Gaza. According to Novara Media, the decision follows the submission of a 240-page dossier of evidence by the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights and the Public Interest Law Centre.
The Met stated that the material provided “did not meet the threshold required” to launch a formal investigation. This decision came despite support from more than 70 legal experts and proof of the targeted killing of civilians, attacks on hospitals, and the forced displacement of Palestinians involving the nationals between 2023 and 2024.
Human rights barrister Michael Mansfield KC condemned the Met’s refusal as a denial of accountability and a misapplication of legal standards, and legal representatives stressed that the police applied the wrong test by requiring evidence sufficient for prosecution before even opening an investigation.
Concerns over lack of accountability
Consequently, legal advocates have raised concerns about accountability for British dual nationals involved in the aggression against Gaza. The case has intensified debate over how UK authorities handle cases involving international crimes committed abroad by British citizens.
Raji Sourani of the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights accused the British establishment of politicizing international law and shielding perpetrators from accountability.
Human rights groups involved in the case say the refusal reflects a wider pattern of inaction by UK authorities regarding crimes in Gaza.
The Metropolitan Police decision comes amid concerns about the UK government’s approach to monitoring breaches of international law abroad. Reports have also pointed to the closure of a Foreign Office unit previously tasked with tracking such cases.
UK shuts down unit tracking Israeli violations of International Law
The Metropolitan Police decision comes amid concerns about the UK government’s approach to monitoring breaches of international law abroad.
Recently, the Foreign Office unit responsible for tracking potential breaches of international law by “Israel” in Gaza and, more recently, Lebanon has been closed as part of departmental spending cuts, according to The Guardian. The closure follows a review led by Olly Robbins, the permanent secretary at the Foreign Office, who was dismissed last week by the prime minister over the Peter Mandelson scandal.
The decision comes just weeks after Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper said that respect for international law would be a cornerstone of the department’s work under her leadership. The shutdown of the international humanitarian law cell appears to contradict that stated policy direction.
The closure also ends funding for the Conflict and Security Monitoring Project run by the Centre for Information Resilience, which carried out large-scale open-source monitoring of incidents in occupied Palestine and Lebanon. The programme was the only UK-based system collecting and analysing human rights and conflict data in these areas, supporting assessments on potential breaches of international humanitarian law and informing decisions on issues such as arms export licensing to “Israel”.
Hezbollah denies activity in Syria amid persistent and false claims
Al Mayadeen | May 5, 2026
Hezbollah’s Media Relations categorically denied the false accusations issued by the Syrian Interior Ministry, which claimed to have dismantled a “Hezbollah-affiliated cell” that was planning to carry out security operations inside Syrian territory.
In a statement issued on Tuesday, Hezbollah noted the repeated accusations issued by the Syrian government despite the resistance’s consistent assertions that it maintains no activity in Syria.
It further said that the repetition of such allegations “raises serious questions and confirms that there are those seeking to ignite tension and discord between the Syrian and Lebanese peoples.”
Consequently, Hezbollah said it wishes only well for Syria and its people, and that any threat to Syria’s security would also constitute a threat to Lebanon’s security. It also reiterated that it never sought and would never seek to destabilize the security of any state, stressing that its confrontation remains against the Israeli entity and its expansionist project.
“Hezbollah has been and will remain in a defensive position in confronting the Zionist enemy and its expansionist projects, an enemy of Lebanon and Syria that occupies their lands and covets their resources and the wealth of their peoples,” the statement concluded.
Hezbollah urges vigilance
Several statements have been issued by Syria’s transitional leadership accusing Hezbollah of operating inside its territories, which have been consistently rejected. This is also a trend that stretches beyond Syria, with recent fabricated allegations coming out of Bahrain and Kuwait.
Hezbollah has warned against such narratives, urging the countries to remain vigilant in the face of what appears to be a foreign plot to ignite tensions between Arab nations and the Axis of Resistance.

